Understanding Biblical Texts on Sexuality and Gender Identitydraft

I often see misconceptions about how sexual and gender identity is addressed in the Bible. Many people assume Scripture speaks directly to modern LGBTQ identity, when in fact, such assumption overlooks that the modern concept of «homosexuality» as a fixed sexual orientation only emerged in the 19th century, and «gender identity» developed even later. That's far from being a trivial detail in the interpretation of ancient texts, especially biblical writings, given the extensive historical, cultural, and ethical influence of the Abrahamic traditions on global civilisation.

Ancient Jewish communities lived within a covenantal purity system with strict distinctions between the sacred and the profane. Greco-Roman society, where early Christians formed their first communities, understood sexual behaviour primarily through the lenses of social status, power, and social hierarchy rather than through fixed categories based on gender identity.

As we move deeper into The New Testament, we encounter a few passages that often surface in modern debates, typically contextualised in an erroneously manner (i.e., Romans 1:26-32¹, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11). As you see, contemporary translations often place these verses to appear as homosexuality is being directly spoken against; a bunch of translation choices layered on top of centuries of inconsistent shifting theology and cultural assumptions.

Note: Throughout this report, passages are cited from the NIV translation because it is both widely used and accessible.

Introduction

Both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy contain vice lists cataloguing behaviours considered incompatible with righteous living. Critically, in 1 Corinthians, «malakoíμαλακοὶ» and «arsenokoîtaiἀρσενοκοῖται» appear as consecutive but separate terms in the original Greek version, suggesting that Paul had two distinct categories in mind rather than a single concept, reinforced by the fact that ancient Greek had multiple words to describe different kinds of same-sex relationships, reflecting variations in roles, social status, and context (i.e. kĭ́naidosκιναιδος, păthĭkósπαθικος, and trĭbắsτρίβας).

Notice how it's also often placed between concepts of sexually immorality and slave trading, which many scholars find significant given the connection between sexual exploitation and human trafficking in the ancient world.

1 Corinthians was written by Apostle Paul around 53-57 AD to church he founded in Corinth, Ancient Greece. Corinth was famous for its temple prostitution, sexual licentiousness, and a culture in which social status and power often shaped sexual relationships. Paul addresses various sexual ethics issues throughout the letter, including a case of incest and questions about marriage, celibacy, and relations with non-believers. His concern seems focused on sexual practices entangled with the permissive culture of Corinth, pagan worship, exploitation, and power imbalances, rather than condemning all same-sex relationships as modern categories would define them.

1 Timothy was written to instruct the young pastor Timothy on proper conduct and church leadership, likely around 63–65 AD. The vice list appears in a section about the proper use of the law and identifying behaviours that exploit or harm others. The inclusion of «arsenokoîtai» in a list alongside «slave traders» and other clearly abusive or criminal behaviours suggests the concern was primarily with exploitative sexual practices, coercion, and social harm, rather than consensual same-sex relationships between adults. Contextually, this list is about maintaining order, ethics, and moral accountability in the fledgling church.

Romans 1 frames same-sex relations within a theological argument about idolatry, not as a standalone discussion of sexual ethics. The passage describes behaviours arising from excessive lust and pagan religious contexts, not relationships grounded in love, mutuality, or commitment.

These passages show that the New Testament addresses behaviours within specific cultural, social and ethical frameworks. Ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman societies viewed sexual activities through the lens of ritual purity, social roles, power and hierarchy, as opposed to the fixed identities of sexual orientation or gender as understood in modern times.

What does the New Testament actually say?

The New Testament has never directly addressed personal identities as is commonly presumed. The debate particularly centers on two Greek terms: malakoíμαλακοὶ and arsenokoîtaiἀρσενοκοῖται. Neither term refers to sexual orientation or identity as modern concepts. Both describe behaviours or roles recognizable within ancient culture, not categories of personhood.

The Key Passages

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note: NIV's «men who have sex with men» combines both «malakoíμαλακοὶ» and «arsenokoîtaiἀρσενοκοῖται» into a single phrase. Other translations render these differently:

• NRSVue: «male prostitutes» for malakoí and «sodomites» for arsenokoîtai
• KJV: «effeminate» for malakoí and «abusers of themselves with mankind» for arsenokoîtai

1 Timothy 1:9-10

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

Note: NIV has arsenokoitai translated as «those practicing homosexuality» in this passage. The placement next to «slave traders» is significant for interpretation.

Romans 1:26-32

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The etymology of...

malakoíμαλακοὶ

It literally means «soft». In ancient Greek literature, this term had diverse applications:

• Describing soft fabrics or cushions. This usage appears in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25
• Referring to luxury, self-indulgence, or lack of self-control
• Describing men perceived as effeminate or weak
• The receptive partner in pederastic relationships, the younger, socially subordinate person in age-structured same-sex relations

The semantic range of «malakoí» is so broad that translating it as «homosexuals» is unjustifiable. The word's primary meaning relates to moral weakness, self-indulgence, and lack of self-control as opposed to sexual orientation.

arsenokoitésἀρσενοκοίτης

It's a compound word formed from «arsén» (male) and «koitē» (bed/lying). It appears to be a Pauline coinage, with no clear attestation in Greek literature before or during his time. The term likely references men engaging in exploitative or coercive sexual activity, possibly echoing Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Greek Septuagint translation.

Ancient landscape

The Greco-Roman world didn't classify people by sexual orientation. The question wasn't really «who are you attracted to?» but «what role do you play?», e.g.:

• Social status (free vs. slave, citizen vs. non-citizen)
• Power dynamics (active/penetrative vs. passive/receptive roles)
• Age structure (adult men with adolescent boys)
• Economic transaction (prostitution, both male and female)

Same-sex activity was understood through hierarchy and dominance, not mutuality or orientation. Relationships between adult men of equal status existed but were not understood as identity-based partnerships. When Paul's original readers heard references to male same-sex activity, they would have thought primarily of pederasty, master-slave relations, temple prostitution, or transactional sex (which often weren't independent sex workers but enslaved or desperately poor people).

Analysing the context

While some scholars argue Paul coined the term from Leviticus 18:22/20:13 LXX (where «arsenos» and «koitēn» appear near each other), this is one prominent interpretation with unresolved problems:

• Compound words don't work through simple addition of parts, making its precise meaning elusive
• Post-Pauline usage consistently associates the term with exploitation or economic abuses (e.g. John Chrysostom's homily on 1 Corinthians links it to greed and economic exploitation, Sibylline Oracles 2:70-77 lists it as sex trafficking alongside other economic crimes, and other usages are interpreted as «pederastic abuse»), which complicates or weakens attempts to read it as a blanket reference to consensual same-sex relationship

The fact that Paul lists both terms consecutively is consistent with the perspective that he is distinguishing between different types of behaviours: «malakoí» referring to the passive or indulgent partner, and «arsenokoîtai» referring to the active or exploitative participant. However, this likely describes pederastic relationships or exploitative dynamics (i.e. master-slave, client-prostitute), not modern same-sex relationships between consenting adults, supported by the fact that the few post-Pauline uses consistently associate it with economic or sexual exploitation rather than consensual relationships.

The term «homosexual», coined in German in 1869 by the Austrian-born Hungarian writer Karl-Maria Kertbeny, entered English psychology in the 1890s, and did not appear in biblical translations until the mid-20th century. Its later inclusion reflects an anachronistic imposition of contemporary cultural and scientific conceptions of sexuality onto an ancient text.

The cultic context interpretation in the Hebrew Bible

Leviticus 18:21-23

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Verse 21 introduces a prohibition against sacrificing children to Molech, a distinctly Canaanite ritual practice, rather than a sexual act. This verse serves as a thematic anchor, framing the chapter's focus on behaviours that violate the sanctity of the covenant through participation in foreign religious rites.

Verses 22 and 23, which prohibit sexual intercourse between men and sexual relations with animals, can plausibly be understood in a similar light, particularly by those who perceive the Holiness Code as focused on boundary-marking against Canaanite cultic practices: rather than dealing with sexual morality in isolation, they are likely aimed at ritualised sexual acts associated with pagan worship, including sacred prostitution and cultic sodomy. The text suggests continuity in its concern with defilement through idolatrous practices rather than a general condemnation of sexual behaviour. This perspective underscores the literary and cultural coherence of the passage and places the prohibitions in the broader context of the sanctity of the covenant and the rejection of foreign cultic practices.

Several features of the passage fit coherently with a cultic or boundary-marking interpretation:

• The prohibition against child sacrifice in verse 21 immediately precedes verse 22, suggesting thematic connection to Canaanite religious practices
• Leviticus 17-26 (the «Holiness Code») repeatedly approaches prohibitions around distinguishing Israel from surrounding nations and their religious practices (see 18:3, 24-30; 20:23)
• The word to'eváתּוֹעֵבָה («abomination/detestable») used in 18:2 is frequently used for ritual impurity and covenant violation, and in many contexts signals practices tied to idolatry
• Some ancient sources and inscriptions mention ritualised sexual practices in Near Eastern cults, though the extent and nature of «cult prostitution» remain debated among historians. Male shrine prostitutes, or kadeshקָדֵשׁ, are mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible

The Mosaic Law question

Whether Leviticus 18:22 falls under the «Moral Law of God» is highly debated in Christian theology, given that most mainstream branches of Christianity consider large portions of the Mosaic Law (ceremonial and civil law) to be fulfilled or abrogated through Christ.

This debate is complicated further by the way modern Christianity selectively retains or discards elements of the Holiness Code; most Christians won't even consider laws from the Torah as eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, cutting the edges of your beard, eating rare meat, or getting tattoos as universally binding violations.

Debunking common scholarly fallacies

While numerous works could serve as examples of this problematic methodology, this section will use James B. De Young's 1992 article as a primary example. It merits particular attention because it has served as foundational material for subsequent conservative scholarship, being widely cited in seminary curricula, pastoral training materials, and denominational position papers.

The Circular Reasoning fallacy

De Young claims Paul drew his coinage «arsenokoîtai» from LXX specifically to condemn homosexual orientation and behaviour, despite this conclusion being what exactly he's trying to prove. He then uses this unproven assumption to interpret both the term's etymology and its context. This is textbook circular reasoning: using your conclusion as a premise. De Young presents absolute certainty where even conservative scholars acknowledge significant ambiguity.

Misinterpretation of Plato's Symposium

De Young claims Plato's Symposium proves ancient understanding of «homosexual orientation» equivalent to modern concepts. This is egregiously misleading, because:

• The Symposium discusses eros (passionate love) philosophically, not as modern sexual orientation
• The dialogue reflects philosophical idealisation, not a taxonomy of sexual identity that parallels modern categories
• Ancient Greek categories of male-male desire were grounded in social roles, age, status, and power dynamics, not enduring personal orientation

Anachronistic reading and false equivalence

The article reads modern concerns into the text rather than extracting meaning from it:

• Claims Paul clearly addresses orientation when the text only mentions acts
• Asserts Leviticus passages prove Paul's meaning without considering Paul never quotes or references Leviticus in these passages (another instance of circular reasoning)
• Ignores the fact that ancient cultures didn't have equivalent identity categories
• Forces 1st-century texts to answer 21st-century questions they weren't addressing

Cherry-picking historical evidence

The article extensively criticizes scholars like Boswell for «failing to cite all sources,» yet De Young himself:

• Dismisses alternative interpretations without adequate engagement
• Doesn't address how Post-Pauline usage contradicts his point, given that it consistently appears in contexts of economic exploitation, as seen, for example, in later patristic codes where the term is paired with economic vice
• Never meaningfully engages with the historical context essential to interpret Pauline vice list, such as the broad Greco-Roman sexual and hierarchical context

Eisegetical theological argument masked as a lexical discovery

• Conflates morphology and etymology with meaning by treating the component parts of the compound as if they mechanically determine the term's semantic range
• The article repeatedly treats traditionalist Christian sexual ethics as if they were inherent to the Greek lexicon
• Dismisses the concept of linguistic ambiguity by pushing a monolithic interpretation
• De Young treats vice lists as precise theological definitions rather than rhetorical devices