21 Myths Series: Myth 6 — Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?
Sexuality, Slavery & Moral Myths (Myths 6–10)
Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality? Addressing Hot-Button Moral Myths
Myth 6: “The Bible only condemns pederasty/exploitation, not consensual homosexuality (or ‘homosexual’ was added in 1946).”
This is one of the most widespread modern objections to biblical teaching on sexuality. Many claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 only address exploitative relationships like adult men with boys (pederasty) or ancient cult prostitution — not loving, consensual same-sex relationships between adults. Others argue the word “homosexual” was inserted into the Bible in 1946 with the Revised Standard Version, suggesting the condemnation is a recent invention rather than an ancient teaching.
Here’s why this myth doesn’t hold up under careful examination of the original languages, historical context, and consistent biblical witness.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Clear Prohibition on Male-Male Sexual Acts
Leviticus 18:22 states: “You shall not lie with a male [Hebrew: zakar] as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 repeats the command with penalties.
Hebrew zakar = adult male. Zakar means “male” (in contrast to female), not “boy” or “child.” The Hebrew word for boy or young male is na’ar.
The verse pairs “male” with the general prohibition against lying with a woman, rooting the command in the creation design of male-female complementarity (Genesis 1–2).
No contextual limit to exploitation, age, consent, or cultic practice appears — the surrounding chapters address various sexual sins including, incest, adultery, and bestiality.
Claims that older translations (like some German editions using Knaben) referred only to boys are interpretive glosses in specific languages, not the original Hebrew. The original text unambiguously says “male.”
Luther’s 1545 and later editions used terms implying males, but the Hebrew zakar is unambiguously “male.” The misconception that translators “changed ‘boy’ to ‘man’” reverses the evidence: the original text says “male,” consistently forbidding male-male sexual acts.
New Testament Confirmation: Arsenokoitai and Romans 1
The New Testament reinforces the Old Testament teaching. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, Paul uses arsenokoitai (often paired with malakoi, referring to passive partners).
Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arsen (“male”) + koitē (“bed”/sexual intercourse) — literally “men who lie with males.”
Scholars recognize this as a direct echo of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: “You shall not lie with a male [arsenos] as with a woman [koitēn].” This echoes the OT prohibition without age or exploitation qualifiers.
Wes Huff explains that Paul identifies both active (arsenokoitai) and passive (malakoi) partners in male-male acts. Specific Greek terms for pederasty (paiderastēs) existed, but Paul did not use them. The term’s connection to Leviticus shows it targets the behavior itself.
Romans 1:26–27 describes women exchanging “natural relations” and men being “consumed with passion for one another” as examples of idolatry and rebellion against God’s design — again, with no restriction to exploitation.
The 1946 “Mistranslation” Claim Examined
The English word “homosexual” (coined in the 19th century) first appeared in a Bible translation in the 1946 RSV for arsenokoitai. Earlier translations used phrases like:
“Abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV)
“Effeminate” and “abusers with mankind”
This does not mean the concept was missing. Bibles across centuries and languages consistently prohibited men lying with males. The RSV translators chose “homosexuals” based on contemporary scholarship; later revisions updated phrasing, but the meaning remained consistent. The popular “1946 documentary” narrative oversimplifies the lexical and historical evidence.
Why This Myth Persists
The reinterpretation gained popularity through works like John Boswell’s 1980 book and the 2022 film 1946. Proponents often have personal or cultural motives: reconciling same-sex attraction with faith, reducing shame, or promoting inclusion.
While these desires are understandable, they lead to a reading that strains against the text’s plain meaning, lexical links, and 2,000+ years of consistent interpretation. The myth spreads easily because:
It blames “translators” or “conservative politics” instead of the Bible itself.
It frames traditional views as bigotry rather than exegesis.
It offers a simple, conspiracy-flavored story (one “error” in 1946 fueled decades of harm) that spreads easily on social media and in progressive spaces.
Critics note that while harm to LGBTQ+ individuals is real and deserves compassionate response, the motive often prioritizes affirmation over the text’s consistent witness (Genesis creation design, Leviticus, Romans 1, etc.). The reinterpretation enables people to claim “the Bible affirms me” without addressing calls to repentance and transformation found in passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (“And such were some of you”).
The driving motives are deeply human: alleviating personal pain, reconciling identity with faith, advocating for loved ones, and advancing inclusion in a changing culture. These are understandable desires — but they have led to a reading that strains against the lexical, historical, and theological consistency of Scripture across millennia. Faithful engagement requires holding truth and grace together, not redefining one to ease the other.
God’s Positive Design for Sexuality
The Bible’s vision is clear and positive from the beginning:
Genesis 1–2: Marriage as the one-flesh union of male and female.
Matthew 19:4–6: Jesus affirms this creation design.
All sexual activity outside this covenant is presented as sin — yet the gospel offers full forgiveness and transformation (1 Corinthians 6:11 — “And such were some of you”).
The Deeper Spiritual Reality
This myth didn’t arise in isolation. It reflects the ongoing spiritual battle described in Ephesians 6:12 - not against flesh and blood, but against powers that seek to blind minds to the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:4). This myth carries a diabolical edge — a calculated deception that twists clear Scripture to soothe the conscience while undermining God’s design.
Jesus called Satan “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). The strategy here is sophisticated: take understandable human brokenness and cultural rebellion, wrap it in the language of compassion and scholarship, and use it to dismantle biblical sexual ethics from within the church. The motive — alleviating shame, preserving relationships, gaining cultural approval - is profoundly human. But when it requires rewriting the plain meaning of zakar, arsenokoitai, and the creation order in Genesis, it crosses into deception that leads people away from Christ, not toward Him.
Satan’s ancient question echoes: “Did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1). The strategy exploits real pain and wraps it in compassion and scholarship to dismantle biblical sexual ethics from within the church. Paul warned directly: “Do not be deceived” (1 Corinthians 6:9). The same passage that names the sin immediately offers hope: “But you were washed, you were sanctified…”
True love does not affirm what God calls sin. It speaks truth so people can be set free.
The church’s response must be what it has always been: unwavering fidelity to Scripture paired with radical, gospel-centered compassion for every struggler. No one is beyond the reach of Christ’s redeeming power.
Why This Matters
This issue touches biblical authority, creation order, and the gospel. If cultural pressure can reinterpret clear texts on sexuality, any moral teaching becomes negotiable. The Scriptures present sexuality as deeply tied to God’s image in humanity (male and female, Genesis 1:27), the covenant of marriage, and the metaphor of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31–32). Deviations from this design do not lead to human flourishing; they often correlate with higher rates of mental health struggles, relational instability, and physical health challenges — realities documented in multiple studies, even as society celebrates them.
Yet the Bible does not single out homosexuality. It lists it alongside greed, adultery, idolatry, and more as sins from which Christ redeems. Faithful Christianity holds both truth (God’s design is good and binding) and grace (no one is beyond forgiveness and change through the Holy Spirit).
Conclusion
In a culture that equates affirmation with love and disagreement with hate, clarity on this myth equips believers to speak truthfully with compassion and points struggling people to the hope of the gospel rather than endless self-justification. Redefining sin ultimately redefines the Savior who died to save us from it.
This is Myth 6 in my 21 Myths Series: Hot-Button Moral Myths (Myths 6–10).
Reliable Voices on This Topic
Wes Huff (Bible scholar and apologist): Detailed explanations of arsenokoitai and malakoi, directly linking to Leviticus. See his discussions with Allie Beth Stuckey and related videos.
John MacArthur / Grace to You (gty.org): Extensive sermons and resources on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, including expositions of Romans 1, Leviticus, and 1 Corinthians.
Charlie Kirk: Public defenses of biblical marriage as male-female, drawing from Genesis and the New Testament.
Josh Howerton: Sermons addressing modern claims that the Bible is silent on consensual same-sex relationships
