Addressing Misconceptions Within the Bible Concerning LGBTQ Individuals
Understanding Biblical Context: Why Traditional Interpretations of LGBTQ Passages May Misrepresent Scripture
Debates about LGBTQ identities within Christianity often center on a small number of biblical passages that are interpreted as condemning same-sex relationships. However, many contemporary scholars argue that these interpretations frequently overlook the historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts in which the biblical texts were written. A closer examination of these contexts suggests that several commonly cited passages may not address modern same-sex relationships characterized by love and mutual commitment. Instead, these texts often refer to practices and social structures specific to the ancient world. By examining biblical scholarship and historical context, it becomes clear that some traditional interpretations of these passages may represent misconceptions about what the Bible actually addresses regarding LGBTQ people.
A common misconception is that the Bible directly condemns modern same-sex relationships. According to research published by the Human Rights Campaign, while the Bible contains six passages that reference same-sex erotic acts, there is “no evidence that these in any way speak to same-sex relationships of love and mutuality.” Instead, scholars argue that the practices referenced in these texts differ significantly from the committed same-sex partnerships seen today. The cultural and historical contexts of the ancient world reveal that what was condemned often involved exploitative or violent behaviors rather than consensual relationships (Human Rights Campaign).
Another factor contributing to misconceptions is the assumption that biblical authors had the same understanding of sexual orientation that exists today. Historical evidence suggests otherwise. According to Human Rights Campaign research, Jews and Christians in the first century likely had little or no concept of sexual orientation as a fixed identity category. Instead, sexual behavior was understood in terms of actions and social roles rather than enduring identities. Because of this difference, applying ancient texts directly to modern LGBTQ identities can lead to misunderstandings about what the biblical authors intended to address.
Old Testament
Several contemporary scholars emphasize the importance of reading biblical texts within their historical and literary context. Walter Brueggemann, one of the most influential Old Testament scholars and a widely respected biblical theologian, argues that the Bible often appears to speak “in one voice” about LGBTQ issues because readers repeatedly cite the same limited set of passages while ignoring others that might complicate the interpretation. According to Brueggemann, careful interpretation requires examining the broader biblical narrative rather than focusing narrowly on a few verses (Outreach Faith).
The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are often cited as condemnations of homosexuality. However, many scholars, including analyses by the Human Rights Campaign, interpret these narratives differently. They argue that these passages primarily address sexual violence and violations of social honor rather than consensual same-sex relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East, acts that violated male honor were strongly condemned, and these stories focus on violent sexual domination rather than expressions of love or partnership.
In Genesis 19:5, Lot welcomes the angels into his home, offering them food and hospitality. Soon after, the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that Lot bring the angels out so they can gang-rape them. This is not an example of homosexuality as understood today in consensual relationships; rather, it is about domination, control, and power. The men’s intent is not love or even lust, but aggression and humiliation. This is further emphasized when they threaten Lot, saying, “We’ll treat you worse than them,” clearly demonstrating harmful and violent intent. In the ancient world, raping another man was often used as a tactic of aggression and domination. Because men held social power, violating them in this way symbolized overpowering and humiliating them, whereas women (who were not seen as equal) were not viewed through the same lens of power when victimized (The Reformation Project).
Judges 19 presents a strikingly similar situation. A man and his concubine are welcomed into an old man’s home during their travels. Men from the town arrive and demand that the host bring out his male guest so they can “have sex with him,” again indicating an intention of gang rape rather than consensual desire. The old man responds in verses 23–24, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” Unlike in Sodom, there are no angels to intervene, and the concubine is ultimately sent out, where she is raped to death. As disturbing as this account is, it provides a clear parallel to Genesis 19. The men of Gibeah make the same demand as the men of Sodom, and their actions reveal what was meant by wanting to “have sex” with the visitors. Their intent was not consensual intimacy but violent assault and domination, confirmed by the brutal outcome. In the ancient world, rape was considered more degrading for men than for women, not because of ideas about gender complementarity, but because of patriarchy. Women were viewed as inferior in value, dignity, and honor, while men had greater social status and thus more honor to lose. Violating a man was therefore seen as a greater offense. These norms help explain why Lot and the old man in Gibeah offer their virgin daughters to the mob: women were regarded as less important than men (The Reformation Project).
Similarly, passages from Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) are often translated as prohibiting male same-sex relations. Yet biblical scholars argue that the Hebrew language and cultural context complicate this interpretation. In an analysis published through Southern Methodist University, the scholar K. Renato Lings, a biblical researcher specializing in Hebrew linguistics, argues that the verse may refer specifically to male-on-male incest rather than homosexuality in general. Lings’ interpretation builds on linguistic research suggesting that key Hebrew words in the passage are frequently mistranslated. According to the analysis, the original text uses a term for “male” that can include both young and adult males, and the phrase often translated as “as one lies with a woman” may refer to a location or relational structure rather than a sexual act (SMU Blog).
This interpretation is supported by the work of Jacob Milgrom, a highly respected biblical scholar known for his extensive research on Leviticus. Milgrom observed that the phrase translated as “as one lies with” appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in ways that do not necessarily indicate sexual activity. Instead, it can refer simply to a bed or place of lying down, suggesting that translators may have imposed assumptions about sexuality that are not explicit in the Hebrew text. As a result, some scholars propose that the passage is more accurately paraphrased as a prohibition against sexual relations with a close male relative, placing it within the broader biblical theme of prohibiting incest (SMU Blog).
New Testament
Likewise, Amy-Jill Levine, a prominent Jewish New Testament scholar and co-editor of The Jewish Annotated New Testament, emphasizes that biblical passages must be interpreted within their historical circumstances. Levine notes that modern readers live in a vastly different social and cultural context than the ancient authors of the Bible. As she explains, “Because we do not live in the early Iron Age or in the first-century Roman Empire, we must judge whether what was appropriate then is appropriate now” (Outreach Faith).
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (Greek: malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (Greek: arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).
New Testament passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are frequently interpreted as condemning homosexuality broadly. However, closer examination of the original Greek suggests a more complex picture. Both passages include the terms malakoi (μαλακοί) and arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται), which have often been translated in modern Bibles—especially since the mid-20th century—as “homosexuals” or “men who have sex with men.” Many scholars argue that these translations are historically and linguistically imprecise.
The word malakoi literally means “soft.” In ancient Greek usage, it commonly referred to moral weakness, lack of self-control, cowardice, or laziness. Because such traits were culturally (and unfairly) associated with femininity in the ancient world, the term was sometimes translated as “effeminate.” Importantly, most uses of malakoi in ancient literature are not sexual in nature. Even when used in a sexual context, it often described men perceived as lacking self-control, frequently in their relationships with women, rather than referring specifically to same-sex behavior. Earlier English Bible translations rendered malakoi as “weaklings,” “wantons,” or “debauchers,” highlighting moral weakness rather than sexual orientation. Its association with homosexuality is a relatively recent interpretive development.
The term arsenokoitai is even more ambiguous. It is a rare compound word formed from arsen (ἄρσην, meaning “male”) and koitē (κοίτη, meaning “bed” or “sexual relations”). Because it appears infrequently in ancient texts, its precise meaning is debated. Some scholars suggest that it refers not to consensual same-sex relationships but to exploitative practices common in the Greco-Roman world, such as pederasty, where adult men engaged in sexual relationships with adolescent boys, or other forms of coercive or transactional sex. In this view, arsenokoitai is better understood as condemning abusive or unequal relationships rather than mutual, loving partnerships.
Similarly, 1 Timothy 1:10 includes arsenokoitai in a vice list alongside behaviors widely recognized as exploitative or harmful, reinforcing the possibility that the term refers to injustice or abuse rather than a blanket category of sexual orientation.
Romans 1:26–27 describes people being given over to “shameful lusts,” where “women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” and “men…were inflamed with lust for one another,” committing “shameful acts.” At first glance, Paul’s use of terms like “natural” (physis, φύσις), “unnatural,” and “shameful” (atimia, ἀτιμία) seems to suggest a universal condemnation of same-sex relationships. However, Paul uses these same Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 11 to discuss hair length, where “nature” and “disgrace” clearly reflect cultural expectations of the first century rather than timeless moral laws. This is further supported by biblical examples such as the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5), where men were required to grow long hair, and the story of Samson (Judges 16:17–19), in which long hair was honorable and a source of strength rather than shameful. These examples demonstrate that what is considered “natural” or “disgraceful” can vary across cultural contexts. In the Greco-Roman world, same-sex behavior—particularly between men—was often labeled “unnatural” not because of mutual same-sex attraction, but because it was associated with imbalanced power dynamics and the cultural lowering of a passive male to a feminized status. For Christians who affirm the equal value of men and women, this cultural assumption no longer holds, suggesting that Paul’s language in Romans 1:26–27 may be addressing culturally specific notions of excess, lust, and social hierarchy rather than universally condemning all loving, committed same-sex relationships.
Taken together, these linguistic and historical considerations suggest that commonly cited New Testament passages may have been misunderstood or oversimplified in modern translations. Rather than addressing consensual same-sex relationships as they are understood today, these texts may be more accurately read as critiques of exploitation, excess, and moral disorder within their specific cultural context.
Conclusion
Other scholars point to the broader ethical themes of the Gospels. John R. Donahue, S.J., a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association and author of numerous biblical commentaries, argues that the teachings of Jesus emphasize compassion and inclusion. Donahue suggests that Christians should look to the example of Jesus, who consistently reached out to marginalized individuals, when considering how LGBTQ people should be treated within Christian communities (Outreach Faith).
Harold W. Attridge, a New Testament scholar and former dean of Yale Divinity School, argues that biblical passages concerning homosexuality must be read within their historical context. Attridge concludes that modern Christian understandings of sexual morality should not be determined solely by “generalized condemnations of undefined behavior” in ancient texts (Outreach Faith).
In conclusion, many commonly held beliefs about the Bible’s stance on LGBTQ people may be based on incomplete or context-free interpretations of a small number of passages. When historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts are considered, scholars suggest that these texts often address specific practices such as sexual violence, pederasty, or incest rather than loving same-sex relationships. The work of biblical scholars across multiple disciplines demonstrates the importance of careful interpretation and historical awareness when engaging with these texts. Rather than presenting a simple or uniform condemnation of LGBTQ people, the Bible’s teachings are more complex and require thoughtful examination within their original contexts.
