Several passages in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have been interpreted as addressing same-sex sexual activity and relationships. Traditionally understood as prohibitions against homosexuality, these texts have played a central role in shaping Jewish and Christian teachings on sexuality and have been used to reinforce heterosexual marriage as the normative ideal.
The passages about homosexual individuals and sexual relations in the Hebrew Bible are found primarily in the Torah (the first five books traditionally attributed to Moses). Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are traditionally interpreted as explicitly forbidding of male same-sex intercourse; some scholars argue these verses may instead prohibit incest or have been mistranslated. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has historically been linked to homosexuality, though Jewish prophets and later rabbinic tradition emphasized social injustice and inhospitality as the true sins of Sodom. Debates also surround the relationships of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, with some suggesting homoerotic or lesbian readings, though mainstream scholarship rejects these.
In the New Testament, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 contain disputed Greek terms (arsenokoitai, malakoi) often interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, though alternative views suggest they may reference pederasty, exploitation, or general sexual immorality rather than orientation. Jesus himself never explicitly addressed homosexuality; passages on marriage (Matthew 19, Mark 10) are taken by some to affirm heterosexuality, while others argue they were situational responses, not definitions of marriage. References to eunuchs (Matthew 19:12, Acts 8) have been interpreted by some modern commentators as early biblical recognition of homosexual or non-heteronormative identities, though this remains contested.
Hebrew Bible There are a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible that have been interpreted as involving same-sex sexual acts, desires, and relationships. The passages about homosexual individuals and sexual relations in the Hebrew Bible are found primarily in the Torah (the first five books traditionally attributed to Moses) and have been interpreted as referring primarily to male homosexual individuals and sexual practices.
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and its traditional interpretations in Judaism and Christianity have historically affirmed and endorsed a heteronormative approach towards human sexuality, favouring exclusively penetrative vaginal intercourse between men and women within the boundaries of marriage over all other forms of human sexual activity, including autoeroticism, masturbation, oral sex, non-penetrative and non-heterosexual sexual intercourse (of which the penetrative forms have been labelled as "sodomy" by some), believing and teaching that such behaviors are forbidden because they are considered to be sinful, and further compared to or derived from the behaviour of the alleged residents of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13.
It is widely argued that the things condemned in these verses are "deemed wrong not simply because pagan Canaanites indulged in them, but because God has pronounced them wrong as such."Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 50,51 (Hilborn 2002, p. 4; cf. Issues in human sexuality, para. 2.11; Amsel). This was also the interpretation taken in the rabbinic interpretations in the Mishnah and Talmud,cf. Babylonian Talmud Yoma 67b which also extended this to include female homosexual relations, although there are no explicit references in the Hebrew Bible to this.
Various counter-arguments have been suggested: Loren L. Johns writes that these texts were purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code they are no longer relevant.Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics , Loren L. Johns Mona West argues that "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender", speculating that these laws were to prevent sexual abuse.The Bible and Homosexuality , Mona West
Other Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies ceremonial and dietary laws as typological in nature and fulfilled in Christ (; ; ), and thus abrogated as to their religious observance "according to the letter," while the moral law is seen as upheld. (; )John Gill, Mt. 5:17; Col. 2:16Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July–September 1967):246Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Such theologians have said that this abrogation does not extend to homosexuality, which remains in their interpretation as one of the few sins unconditionally condemned. They believe there is no evident provision of marriage being given in the Bible to sanctify it."That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR
More recent interpretations focus on the passage's context as part of the Holiness code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of the Israelites from the polytheistic Canaanites. The Hebrew Bible only prohibits this practice for men. This is clearly seen by contrasting these verses with Lev. 18:23 and 20:15-16 respectively, where sex with animals is prohibited for both men and women. More recent interpretations focus on its context as part of the Holiness Code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behaviour of the Israelites from the Canaanites. Donald J. Wold argues that ancient Israel viewed the Canaanites as "practitioners of homosexuality, rape and incest". They also condemned homosexuality as defying the "male–female model of sexual union" and the holiness of God's sanctuary.
Analyses by Saul Olyan, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Judaic Studies Program at Brown University, K. Renato Lings, and others focus on ambiguities embedded in the original Hebrew, arguing these ambiguities may not prohibit all erotic expression between men but rather proscribe incest between male family members. They argue English translators of Leviticus added to the original text to compensate for perceived lacunae in the biblical text; but thereby altered the verse's meaning. Leviticus 18:22 reads:
Lings argues the inclusion of prepositions not in the original text and the translation of Leviticus' otherwise unattested within the context of Genesis (i.e., is found only within Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and Genesis 49:4) is crucial to illuminate the incestuous connotation of the passage, and the translation of miškevē in light of Genesis results in the text of Leviticus 18 and 20 becoming more cohesive.
Some authors suggest that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically condemn males penetrating other males, thus "emasculating" the latter (anal sex). This makes the prohibitions more akin to a sodomy law.Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a and b; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199; and Philo, Abraham 135. Some modern authors stating this view include ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and .
Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Some interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the rape of guests more than homosexuality, but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape, or have sex with, the angels who retrieved Lot.
While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent among Christian communities that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.
While the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zephaniah refer vaguely to the sin of Sodom, Ezekiel specifies that the city was destroyed because of its commission of social injustice as well as its commission of "abomination:"
The Talmudic tradition as written between also interprets the sin of Sodom as lack of charity, with the attempted rape of the angels being a manifestation of the city's violation of the social order of hospitality.
Later traditions on Sodom's sin, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered it to be an illicit form of heterosexual intercourse. In Jude 1:7–8 the Bible says of Sodom and Gomorrah:
This has been interpreted as a reference to homosexuality by some and to the sexual lust of mortals after angels by others. Jewish writers Philo ( AD 50) and Josephus (37 –) were the first reported individuals to assert unambiguously that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom. By the end of the 1st century AD, Jews commonly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexual practices.
Yada In Genesis 19:5 the Hebrew word "yada" is translated "relations" in the New American Standard Bible and most often "know" in the KJV and many other translations, occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and usually simply means to know someone or something in a non-sexual way. About a dozen times it is used as a euphemism for knowing someone sexually, as in , and . The common interpretation is that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the crowd as a means to sexually appease the crowd and protect his visitors from being raped. Most traditional commentators interpret this to refer to the homosexual nature of the people in the crowd, especially in the light of the parallel story in .Homosexuality, by James B. De YoungKeil and Delitzsch, Gn. 19:6–11John Gill, Gn. 19:8 However, others see it as referring to Sodom's inhospitable attitude in seeking to interrogate the visitors.D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50
Jewish views Most Jewish views regard the sins of Sodom to be "failing to practice hospitality", and even though same-sex activities are condemned most harshly in Leviticus, the opinion that Genesis 19 might refer to any other sexual act other than with Lot's daughters is alien to most ancient Jewish tradition. See documentation at Sodomy.
Conversely, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC – 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom in an extra-biblical account:
Additionally, the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100) used the term “Sodomites” in summarizing the Genesis narrative:
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, evidently written by a Hellenistic Jew in Egypt before the middle of the 1st century, states (10:3) that the Sodomites committed "abominable lecheries, namely one with another" and "the sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the Sodomitic fashion, magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcraft."
More obscure sources include the Testament of Benjamin, which warned, "that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom", (Concerning a Pure Mind, 9:1) and references in the Testament of Naphtal, (3.5) and the Testament of Isaac. (5.27. Ch. I.909)
Byzantine period