Does Jesus Affirm LGBT? A Biblical Response to John Pavlovitz (Part 1)
Addressing progressive christian arguments
Audio Intro
A few weeks ago, John Pavlovitz posted about his time at a PRIDE festival in NC, and explained how ‘Christians’ ruined it by showing up to street preach. Here’s what he had to say:
“As they did last year, a sullen, stone-faced cadre of almost exclusively young white men from local (and out of state) Evangelical churches descended upon the festival, wielding signs promising an afterlife in Hell, shouting cherry-picked Leviticus quotes through megaphones, accosting people upon entering with warnings of the perversion they were contributing to be attending, and rudely breaking into the path of hundreds of strangers who they had to work hard just to be there to interrupt.”
In case you don’t know, John Pavlovitz has emerged as one of the most influential voices in ‘progressive christianity’ over the past decade, with a combined social media following of nearly one million across Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram, as well as 100K+ subscribers on his Substack.
Since John is a self-professing progressive christian, his core belief here is that if you’re Christian, you should support LGBT because ‘Jesus affirms it’. In fact, in a 2017 post, he was so bold as to say this:
“Being gay is not a sin.
Neither is being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
The Bible never claims that it is.
It really doesn’t.”
In his 2017 article, John pointed his readers to this article from gaychurch.org to get a deeper dive into the subject. The article aimed to show that the Bible does not condemn consensual same-sex relationships.
John concluded with this statement:
No, being LGBTQ is not a sin.
The sin, is the hatred that refuses to let go of that notion when evidence requires it.
So John believes that the entire umbrella of LGBT is not sinful. On the contrary, he believes that:
Christians only call LGBT sin because of their internal hatred.
Christians are not following the evidence. If we just examined it, we would see an affirming Bible.
So…does Jesus affirm LGBT? Does the entire counsel of God support homosexual relationships and transgenderism? Have we been pinned down by tradition rather then God this entire time?
Today, I’m going to go through John and Justin’s arguments and see if they have any weight. But why write this?
Given that John has a large influence online, as well as in the NC area, and claims to be a progressive ‘christian’, it’s important that Christians following him understand what the Bible really says about LGBT.
The point of this series is not to call John names or hate on him as a person, I’m sure he’s a hospitable person who would have coffee with me. The reason for this series is to see if he’s correct about his beliefs, and educate his followers about what the Bible truly says about this issue.
With that out of the way, let’s get into the content.
Table of Contents
1. John’s View on the Bible
2. “The word homosexual was inserted into the bible in 1946”
3. Leviticus 18 & 20
a. “We’re not under the law”
b. “This was just a ceremonial law”
c. “Christians just cherry pick Leviticus, what about stoning teens and adulterers!”
d. “This was a patriarchy abomination, not a modern one”
e. “The text is unclear”
f. “Abomination doesn’t mean that”
g. “This is talking about exploitive relationships, not consensual same-sex relationships”
4. 1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10
a. “Arsenokoitai is a word Paul made up, we don’t have a clear definition”
b. “Malakoi just means soft!”
John Does Not Believe the Bible is Inerrant
As a Christian, my ultimate authority is God’s word (the Bible). It’s crucial to understand, however, that John himself does not hold to that standard. John will use the Bible to support his theology, however he does not believe all of it to be true. In fact, he will likely hand-waive many of my arguments below simply because I hold the Bible to be inerrant.
Here were some of his conclusions in a 2016 article:
Regardless of our best intentions, we all end up making the Scriptures yield to our biases and agendas; clinging tightly to those parts which reinforce our beliefs, discarding those which prove problematic. Some passages we decide are literal directives, while others a product of their cultural context, demanding nuance.
I’ve long ago given up the need for a Bible without error or blemish. I believe the Scriptures to be the work of the hands of a faithful, earnest, striving Humanity seeking to understand, know, and honor God in the place and time in which they lived and documented life. The writers and believers then (just as in these days), bring that flawed humanness to their endeavors no matter how greatly seeking to avoid it.
A. John’s Method for Biblical Arguments
After reading through many of John’s posts, I’ve identified 3 mechanisms he uses for interpreting the Bible.
If the reading of scripture agrees with him, he will use it to justify his position
Example: “Jesus said love your neighbor, that means no street preaching!”
If the out of context reading of scripture doesn’t agree with him, he will find a scholar that says just enough to conclude “we really don’t know what that means in context”
Example: “Paul made up that word, we’re really not sure what it means, he definitely wasn’t talking about consensual homosexual relationships”
Finally, if he cannot get any support from those 2 fronts, he’ll write it off altogether and say “That particular part of the Bible is not true and binding, it was a product of its ancient culture” Unfortunately, he will do this without letting us know what standard he uses to determine what parts of scripture are true and which ones are local to ancient culture.
Example: ”Leviticus is just an ancient cultic ceremonial law given to Israel. We’ve learned a lot since then”
B. The Danger of Half-Truths
John’s view of scripture is also full of half-truths. For example, it is true that people can misinterpret Scripture or approach it with biases.
It does not then follow that the Bible itself is unclear or flawed. The problem lies with human sinfulness and fallibility, not with the Word of God.
It is also true that the writers of the Bible had their own personalities and focus points.
It does not then follow that therefore God was not powerful enough to still inspire them to say what He wanted them to.
C. Breaking His Own Rule
John claims that interpreting scripture itself is a largely subjective discipline. Basically, we’re all doing our best to find out what truth is in the Bible. By his estimation, we all have an equal opinion and cannot necessarily hone down on a specific set of truths.
Our ability to make a decision or to have peace or to navigate the world as “proper Christians”, all becomes contingent upon us “properly understanding” the supposed clear, irreducible truth of God’s Word. And since no two of us can agree completely on what that truth is or means, this makes such a task largely subjective
It sounds reasonable, but interestingly, it is also John’s belief that bible-believing Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant are following themselves / their teachers, and not God himself. That we have made an ugly idol out of our idea of God instead of God himself. By contrast, of course, him and the progressives are the ones truly following Jesus:
These people are going to have to admit that ultimately the only authority they’re yielding to in these matters is their own (or the teachers or parents who have passed these ideas down to them.) It is their fear, their prejudice, their lack of knowledge that causes them to lash out in hurtful words, violent rhetoric, and abject cruelty.
This is inconsistent. What knowledge are we lacking? What do you mean by hurtful? Can you define prejudice? A minute ago you said this interpretation game was subjective, and now you’re saying that Christians who don’t agree with you are objectively wrong? By what standard?
Once you tell John that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, he will transform into the same person he regularly critiques; a person who has convictions that they believe to be objective standards, fighting for the glory of their god. All people operate like that, no one truly believes in subjective truth.
He also claims that our interpretations are subjective, and we find “some” truth in it. But how does John know what he’s found is actually true? What if the Bible is totally right about homosexuality being an abomination?
The truth is, John is not really a moral relativist, nor does he think truth is subjective. He thinks it’s objectively wrong to
Call homosexuality a sin
Call abortion a sin
Call transgenderism a sin
But from where does John get these unquestionable pillars of belief? Why is it absolutely wrong to not affirm LGBT or abortion? As we’ll see, this position does not come from scripture, but from the humanistic culture that John follows.
With that out of the way, let’s get into some of the arguments that John and Justin proposed.
“The word homosexual was inserted in 1946”
The article John linked (from the author ‘Justin’) begins with this:
Homosexual: The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same”, and the Latin term sexualis, meaning sex. The term “homosexual” is of modern origin, and it wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to use the word homosexual.
Modern terminology wasn’t in the original text of the Bible. The Bible explicitly describes the behavior it condemns, such as ‘a man lying with a male as with a woman’ (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) and ‘men committing shameless acts with men’ (Romans 1:27). The lack of a modern label, or the very use of a modern word to describe an action in a modern language, doesn’t change the meaning of what it’s talking about.
If someone wrote a story 1,000 years ago about their “small dog”, and then in 1946 a translation had the word translated as “puppy”, we wouldn’t rush to say “The term puppy wasn’t even used until 1946, there really is no clear meaning here, we cannot identify what the author is trying to say here.” We simply have put a word that is more contextually relevant to our audience to describe the same meaning.
Leviticus 18 & 20
The first verse that we need to deal with is Leviticus 18 & 20.
The Verses
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
Lev 18:22If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Lev 20:13
1. “This was the Ceremonial Law”
The law of God, for learning purposes, can be divided into 3 categories.
The moral law is God’s unchanging standards that guide Christian ethics (10 commandments)
The civil law was a specific application of the moral law for civil / public usage in Israel.
The ceremonial law was a pointer and shadow towards Christ who, after his death, burial and resurrection, has fulfilled the law.
The ceremonial laws concerning temple sacrifice, dietary restrictions, and ritual cleanliness were indeed fulfilled and superseded in Christ - they were typological, pointing forward to Christ’s atoning work. But the moral law, which governs human relationships and conduct, remains binding (ie. lying is still wrong, Jesus didn’t destroy that law by coming)
But here’s the problem; the civil law is an application of the moral law. These laws show how the ten commandments apply in concrete situations for ancient Israel in the civil sphere. For example:
Exodus 21:16 (kidnapping carries the death penalty) is an application of “Thou shalt not steal”
Exodus 21:12 (murder carries the death penalty) is an application of “Thou shalt not murder”
Leviticus 19:35-36 (honest weights and measures) is an application of “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and “Thou shalt not steal”
Civil laws cannot be copy-pasted into America in 2025, however the general equity behind them is a guide for our political theory. So how can we know what is ceremonial and what is moral?
Well the very fact that Leviticus 20:13 is a civil crime is already an indication it is a moral issue. Civil penalties are not given for breaking ceremonial laws.
Breaking ceremonial laws leads to people being ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 11, Numbers 19:11, etc). Civil penalties, however, are for violations of the moral law in the public or civil sphere. If we hold that burning babies on an altar is a moral offense that deserves to be a civil crime, we must hold the same for public homosexual activity, because they are in the same passage.
Even as we all agree these laws (and their penalties) are not copy-paste into America currently, just taking the general equity and idea behind them, God obviously does not affirm an activity that he calls a civil crime.
B. “It says ‘unclean’, ceremonial confirmed”
Some respondents may object that in Lev 18 verses 19-23, the word “unclean” is used, and therefore the entire passage (including the verse on same-sex intercourse) are merely ceremonial. They will also simply group Lev 17-26 as “that pesky ceremonial stuff that no one is bound to”, simply because it is considered apart of the holiness code. Here is verses 19-23 mentioning “unclean”
You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
Leviticus 18:19–23
The word “unclean” (טָמֵא) can refer to both ritual impurity and moral defilement, depending on the context. In this passage, it is used to describe the consequences of sexual sins, such as adultery (v. 20) and bestiality (v. 23). These are not ceremonial infractions, there are violations of God’s moral order. The presence of “unclean” here does not reduce these sins to mere ritual impurity.
Even worse, verse 21 explicitly prohibits giving children to Molech. These nations were burning their born babies alive on an altar while drowning out their cries with loud drums. What do you think, is this an acceptable practice today? Was this a pesky ritualistic law? Was this just exploitive child burning as opposed to that consensual burning where the baby agrees?
Our intelligent, ethical affirming responders will respond “No Joe, it is absolutely wrong to burn children because it is a moral issue” To which I respond “Then why don’t you use that standard in context with the very next verse?”
C. Applicable to Other Nations
Another thing to keep in mind is the nations surrounding Israel did not have the ceremonial statues Israel was receiving, nor is there evidence they were given a prophet. However, they were accountable to following all of God’s moral laws because of general revelation. They knew, deep down, that all of these wicked practices were detestable to God, and did them anyway.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD...
...Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
Leviticus 18:1–5, 24–28
The result? The land vomited them out. God specifically says he “punished its iniquity.” God did not hold Canaan accountable for breaking ceremonial laws that they did not have. God judges ALL people and nations because they have transgressed his eternal moral law that is written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). This is derived from what we read in Romans 1:20, where we read that all people know God exists, but suppress that truth, so they are without excuse.
2. The Meaning of Abomination
Justin moved on to try and redefine “abomination” as well as argue that this pointed to this being a ceremonial law and not a moral one.
The Old Testament was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the “version” of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as “abomination” was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:
-a foul thing, a detestable thing
-of idols and things pertaining to idolatry
This seems to point to the idea that this specific law has more to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites.
Claiming “abomination” (תּוֹעֵבָה, to’evah) is merely pertaining to idolatry or ritual impurity is a severe distortion of the biblical usage. While to’evah can sometimes refer to idolatrous practices, this is far from its only usage. The word appears throughout Scripture to describe moral abominations that God abhors:
Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that are to’evah to the Lord, including “hands that shed innocent blood,” “a lying tongue,” and “a false witness who breathes out lies” - these are clearly moral, not ceremonial matters.
Proverbs 11:1 declares “Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD” - a moral issue of justice and honesty in business dealings.
Deuteronomy 25:16 states “all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the LORD” - explicitly addressing moral behavior.
Proverbs 3:32 says “the devious person is an abomination to the LORD” - referring to moral character.
When God calls something an abomination, He is declaring His moral revulsion at the act itself, grounded in His holy character. The suggestion that this only refers to pagan ritual practice is exegetically bankrupt and ignores the broader biblical usage of the term.
3. Stoning Teens & Adulterers
John further critiqued the law in his post:
They’ll frequently refer to the book of Leviticus, claiming it says that “homosexuality” an abomination (a flawed talking point as we’ll discuss later)—and ignore the surrounding verses commanding that disrespectful teens and those having extramarital sex be stoned to death—along with hundreds of requirements and punishments, most of which they declare irrelevant to their present lives. It’s becomes a highly selective use of the text.
As discussed already, the Lev 20 verse was a civil law, which are applications of the moral law, therefore homosexual activity is a moral issue.
The civil laws John brought up about adultery and rebellious sons are exactly that; civil laws. The general equity of these laws should guide our political theory in America, but it does not copy-paste onto America. So with that said, this is not a meaningful objection to claim Christians cherry pick these verse, it is a category error.
The ironic thing about the rebellious sons law (that I’m sure John would likely reject himself given how he quoted it) is that Jesus quoted it in Matt 15 and simply took it for granted. Even crazier, he called it a commandment of God. There is no room for grouping these laws in as local, ancient laws that have no teaching power to us today.
He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!
Matthew 15:3–7
4. “Ancient Patriarchal Abomination”
Additionally, Justin did go on to say the real abomination here was a man being lowered to the status of woman based on the ancient context of Israel.
For one of the men in the sexual encounter to be treated as one would treat a woman, the man would have been taking a lower status. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered. To fully understand this law, we must consider the historical context in which it was written.
Even if we grant for the sake of argument that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is really about one man being ‘lowered to a female status,’ how does that exempt a consensual homosexual couple? Both parties are still consenting to an act that violates God’s standard. If this was God’s mechanical reason for calling it an abomination, then it is still condemned anyway.
Moving further, if abomination is being applied morally here (as we've seen above with the civil application), and God’s reason for calling it that is irrelevant (“lowered status”, “patriarchal abomination”), the only other route you can go here to make this moral law not applicable at all today, is to claim that God himself did not command this, and that all of these laws were generated from men.
Unfortunately, you would be calling Jesus a liar, since he not only held to the OT law, but in the last section we saw he actually quoted a civil law and called it a “commandment of God.” If you call Jesus a liar, the rest of the things you think he stands for could be false, so why follow him?
5. “The Text is Unclear”
Justin claims this about the passages
First of all “lay lyings” has no clear interpretation. The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more commonsense English translation
The claim that Leviticus 18:22 is unclear or ambiguous is demonstrably false. The verse plainly states: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
The argument suggests that the phrase “lay lyings of a woman” (mishkevei ishah) is unclear and that we must “insert something” to make sense of it. This represents either profound ignorance of Hebrew or willful deception. The Hebrew phrase “mishkevey ishah” (מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה) literally means “the lyings of a woman” or “as one lies with a woman.” This is a standard Hebrew idiom specifically denoting sexual intercourse.
It is used elsewhere in Scripture, such as in Genesis 49:4, where Reuben is condemned for defiling his father’s bed (mishkevei avikha). The construction is perfectly clear to anyone with basic Hebrew literacy: it prohibits a man from engaging in sexual relations with another man in the manner one would with a woman.
6. “This Was Exploitive Relationships, Not Consensual Ones”
Some other progressives online have also argued that here in Leviticus (as well as in other passages we’ll get to), this lying with a male was simply an exploitative practice (pederasty as seen in other ancient cultures). Perhaps men taking advantage of younger boys, as some of the nations did around them.
A. The Act, Without Qualification
However, in the Lev 20 passage, it specifies “If a man lies with a male as with a woman...” This phrase is critical because it clarifies the nature of the prohibited act. It refers to sexual relations that mimic the natural sexual relationship between a man and a woman. The focus is on the act itself, not the context or power dynamics involved.
The text does not include any qualifiers or conditions that would limit the prohibition to exploitative situations, such as pederasty or coercion. It also does not offer qualification for men who go against their “orientation” only. Instead, it categorically condemns any sexual act between two males that parallels the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. The absence of contextual qualifiers indicates that the prohibition is universal and applies to all forms of homosexual behavior.
Furthermore, the law does in fact offer qualifications for other things. Your penalty for murder can vary depending on your intentionality (Exodus 21:28-29). God could have said “if they both consent” or “if they usually lay with woman but then lay with a man in the same way.” Interestingly, he decided to offer no conditions here.
B. Male, Not Boy
Even more specific than that, the Hebrew word for “male” (זָכָר) used in this verse refers to a male of any age, not specifically a child. If the text intended to address pederasty or exploitative relationships, it would have used language to specify such a context (the word na’ar (נַעַר) or yeled (יֶלֶד) could have been used to indicate a younger male).
C. Both Are Accountable
Finally, you’ll notice something in the last part of the Lev 20 passage; both participants are accountable.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13
If this was God trying to shield the helpless boys from these exploitive men, the boy obviously wound’t be guilty of a crime, he would be a victim. But in this passage, it is both parties that God says “their blood is upon them.” This is mechanically a consensual same-sex act.
7. Love and Law Are Inseparable
Justin wrote this in regards to the law of ‘love’
Christian tradition has distinguished Old Testament laws that pertain to “purity” and those that pertain to “morality,” the latter of which still apply. If love is the true fulfillment of the law, then for Christians should not love be the measuring stick for determining by which laws we are to abide (i.e. which are “moral laws”)?
The author appeals to Jesus’ teaching that the greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). However, this does not mean that love is a subjective standard that overrides God’s moral law. This is dangerously circular reasoning that makes human sentiment the judge of God’s Word rather than God’s Word the judge of what love is.
Love is defined by God’s law, not the reverse. Jesus says that all the law and the prophets depend on the commandments to love God and neighbor. This means that the moral law is an expression of love. To obey God’s commands is to love Him, and to avoid harming others is to love our neighbor. When Jesus and Paul say love fulfills the law, they mean that genuine love for God and neighbor will naturally obey what God has commanded. Love does not override the commandments - love keeps the commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 5:3If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
John 14:15
A. Paul Affirms the Moral Law
Justin also cited Romans 7:4-6 and Galatians 3:23-26 to suggest that Christians are no longer bound by the law. However, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding. Paul is addressing the ceremonial and judicial aspects of the law and our justification, not our sanctification.
How do we know? Because he’s discussing justification, which we know can only be found in Christ (which the ceremonial aspects of the law pointed to). When Paul declares we are “not under law,” he is saying we are not saved by keeping the law. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But those who are saved are called to obey God’s moral law out of love and gratitude.
In Romans 13:8-10, Paul explicitly affirms the moral law:
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:8–10
Romans 6:15 & Romans 3:31 explicitly addresses and refutes this antinomian misuse of grace:
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Romans 6:15Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 3:31
B. Homosexual Behavior Is Not Loving
Rape, stealing, hating, etc. are immoral because they are not in line with the Law of Love, which Christ frames so perfectly when questioned about the law. Is a committed homosexual relationship in violation of this law? We could become like the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to pick apart this law forever, but if we look closely, Christ’s life truly reveals the Spirit of the Law
Justin suggests that a “committed homosexual relationship” is consistent with the law of love. However, this ignores the fact that homosexual behavior is a violation of God’s design for human sexuality and therefore cannot be truly loving. True love seeks the good of others, which includes encouraging them to live in obedience to God’s will.
To claim that “love” permits what God has explicitly called an abomination is to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). It is to worship an idol of our own creation. The ironic part is, that is the very idolatry Paul calls out that leads to homosexual behavior in Romans 1 (We will hash out this verse in detail later on):
...because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:25–27
True love for the homosexual person means speaking the truth: that their behavior is sinful, that it brings them under God’s judgment, and that they can repent and be saved. To affirm them in sin is not love - it is hatred, consigning them to destruction while making them comfortable.
C. Autonomous Reason vs. Biblical Authority
At its root, Justin’s entire argument rests on humanistic presuppositions rather than biblical authority. He begins not with “What does God say?” but with “How can we reinterpret this to align with modern sensibilities?” This is the essence of autonomous human reason setting itself up as judge over God’s Word.
The question is not whether we will have law, but whose law - God’s or man’s. This article advocates for man’s law, man’s definition of love, man’s determination of what is moral. It is humanism dressed in Christian language.
Justin appeals to “context” and “interpretation,” but his context is modern Western culture, not Scripture interpreting Scripture. His method would equally justify reinterpreting prohibitions against adultery, theft, or any other sin that contemporary culture finds acceptable.
Once we accept the premise that clear biblical commands can be set aside based on “love” redefined by human sentiment, there is no stopping point. If Leviticus 18:22 can be dismissed, so can Leviticus 18:23 (bestiality), Leviticus 18:6-18 (incest), or any other sexual prohibition. Indeed, we are already seeing this in contemporary culture -polyamory, “consensual” incest between adults, and other perversions are being normalized using the exact same arguments.
The logic is identical: “The Bible was written in a different cultural context,” “Love is what matters,” “We’re not under Old Testament law,” “Traditional interpretations were based on patriarchy/prejudice.” The same approach that dismisses the prohibition against homosexuality has already been used to dismiss child sacrifice in America.
The “Arsenokoitai” Verses
In the following verses, many progressives will try to dance around the greek term Arsenokoitai, and conclude “we don’t know what it means overall, so we’ll have to really dive deep.” In fact, here is a quote from Justin’s article:
Arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai) – This Greek noun is formed from the joining together of the Greek adjectival prefix for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). Literally then it would mean, “male beds.” It is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the first appearance of the word in preserved Greek literature and outside of these two verses this word does not appear in the New Testament. The Greek word arsenokoitai is mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 and its meaning is debated. Because of the obscurity of this word and the lack of outside sources to shed light on its meaning, we must derive its meaning from the text.
Justin also later concluded this
Keeping this in mind, let’s look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute, the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, “male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them…” Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself.
So, is this talking about “male prostitutes”, “slave dealers”, or any other specific exploitive practice that would exempt a modern, consensual, same sex couple? Let’s find out.
A. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9–11
In verse 9, Paul mentions that “men who practice homosexuality” are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. This does not mean they cannot be saved, Paul is just illustrating that those who practice these things currently (unregenerate people) will not enter the kingdom. He will of course clarify in the rest of the passage about how one does enter the kingdom.
Immediately, our progressive responders come to attack the greek word so that they can interpret it to include homosexual relationships. So let’s break this down.
Arsenokoitai is a compound word that means “ἄρσενο” (Male) and “κοῖται” (Lay with in bed). Paul was combining these 2 words, which are derived from the greek translation of the Leviticus 18 & 20 passages (which we already saw defines practicing homosexuality as a moral abomination).
Here it is in greek:
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
Koitai has a strong sexual connotation to it, it’s not just talking about sleeping in a bed. If you were reading your scripture in 1st century Corinth, and were familiar with the words used to translate Lev 18:22, you know what Paul was referring to; men who have sex with men, or “male-bedders”
Why wouldn’t Paul use the other potential words for homosexuality? The answer is simple; Paul is a Jew, and he knows his audience. Given the levitical translation context of the corinthians, this term was the best framed to use.
Paul also uses Malakoi (μαλακοί), which in Greek simply means “soft men”, and is actually much more broadly used in greco-roman literature. This term more descriptively means men who effeminate themselves in order to attract male sex partners. Interestingly enough, its specifically used in context for adults, not boys.
The apostle Paul, when using these 2 words, is covering both the active and passive homosexual act of 2 voluntary individuals. Wes Huff explains it well here:
By using Arsenokoitai and Malakoi together in the same sentence, the way that they’re framed in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Apostle Paul is identifying the active and passive partners in a sexual act. By the prefix arson, we have the gender and the morphine koitai, where we actually get the kind of archaic English term “coitus” from, meaning to have sex with. Those two words combined, arseno combined with koitai, and then added with Malakoi, what we’re given is a very direct meaning. You have described two participatory individuals engaged in a sexual act where one is doing the giving in the act and the other is doing the taking. There’s no hint in the terminology or the context that this is exploitative or between anything other than two consenting adults.
“Does the Bible say that?” - Wesley Huff
The bottom line is this; to try and make these 2 terms in context to mean prostitution, slave dealers, economic exploitation, sexual abuse, or to say that we “just don’t really know what it means,” is intellectually dishonest.
B. “Homosexual Lifestyle Isn’t in the Bible”
John had noted this in his post:
They’ll refer to a “homosexual lifestyle,” when the Bible is devoid of such terminology—for the simple reason that the concept itself is ludicrous and nonexistent (as proven by the fact that a “heterosexual lifestyle” makes absolutely no sense when applied to straight people.)
For obvious reasons, the Bible doesn’t contain modern terminology. However, the way language works, we can take the meaning of a text, and then use appropriate words to describe it (we covered this principle when talking about the word “homosexual” being added in the 1940s).
We just went through how this verse is indeed talking about “men who practice homosexuality”, so this is not a one time act. Although John himself likely rejects original sin based on this article, Christians who believe the bible actually uphold it, which means that we are by nature children of wrath until we are washed with the atoning blood of christ.
…among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved…
Ephesians 2:3–5
This is why after laying out these sinful lifestyles, Paul ends with “such WERE some of you.” He does not say “such are some of you.” You were once sinners, practicing a sinful lifestyle (because unregenerate hearts can only live that way). What sins are we referring to? Well, one of them was the active and passive behavior of homosexual sex.
You were like that, but you were washed; and now you’re not. Once you realize Paul is referring to any homosexual activity in principle, you have to hold the rest of the verse that those who are saved by the blood of Christ should no longer walk in that behavior.
There is no such thing as a saved Christian with the holy spirit indwelling in them, that does not recognize at some point early in their walk that homosexual behavior is a sin that must be defeated. Everyone’s sanctification is different and not a lightning bolt, but eventually it will come to the surface. It is not a hopeless biological condition God has forced you into, and even if we grant that it was biological, God commands us to fight it regardless.
C. 1 Timothy 1:10
The next verse that uses the term ἀρσενοκοίτης is 1 Tim 1:10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 1:8–11
Paul starts telling us that the law is good if one uses it lawfully and then he...walks through the law, in order, starting at verse 9:
“for those who strike their fathers and mothers” - The 5th commandment
“for murderers” - The 6th commandment
“the sexually immoral”, “men who practice homosexuality” - The 7th commandment
“enslavers” - The 8th commandment”
“liars, perjurers” - The 9th commandment
The interesting thing is when Paul gets to the 7th commandment, he actually elaborates a bit. Both “the sexually immoral” and “men who practice homosexuality” (which was rampant in Rome), are included as examples of law breaking. The word used for “men who practice homosexuality” is the same as we saw in 1 Cor 6:9-11; ἀρσενοκοίτης.
So we not only get clarification from 1 Cor that this is a consensual act, but that those acts in themselves are actually listed under the category of adultery, which is a moral issue, not a ceremonial one.
How Could John Respond?
This was only part 1 of 2, but before continuing next week, there are a few responses John might have to these arguments based on his previous writings, so I wanted to proactively cover them to give some clarity ahead of time.
A. “The Bible has errors”
John can and most likely will write off all of my arguments by saying “that’s a cool opinion on those verses Joe, but the Bible has errors, we’re all learning things.” He can always appeal to
“That’s your interpretation”
“I know a scholar who disagrees”
“That scripture was just for that culture at that time/it’s just a 6,000 year old poem”
And this is consistent with John’s current hermeneutic, because he does not hold the Bible to be inerrant. Unfortunately, like we’ve already discussed, this won’t hold up because he has not presented his standard for defining what parts of the bible are absolutely true, and which ones are not.
B. “Joe is a Hateful White Christian Spreading Hate”
I certainly hope John doesn’t respond with this, but based on a recent article he posted, it’s something I want to address.
Since I am white, and hold that the Bible defines homosexuality and transgenderism as a sin, it could be argued that I’m “just a hateful white Christian.” John himself even mentioned in a 2020 video that Christians like me (who believe what the Bible says) “need to stop saying it (calling LGBT sin) because it’s reckless and it’s irresponsible and it’s killing people.”
This of course would not hold any ground because, it is a personal attack. This would have nothing to do with the arguments I presented. I am a Christian who believes the Bible, and if the Bible clearly articulates something, being its God’s word, it is true. It is my obligation to stand up for truth, even if it isn’t popular. I can be called hateful, or discriminatory, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this ideology is true.
C. “Here’s my arguments for why I disagree”
John could also look at my post and respond back with clear and logical arguments as to why I’m wrong on all of these fronts. I would of course welcome this, and think some back and forth would be helpful for others to analyze the arguments and conclude themselves.
John, I want nothing more for you than to repent to the Jesus revealed in scripture. If you bow the knee to him, and put your faith in what he did on the cross, you will be saved. When Christ is truly Lord, and you obey him rather than what is culturally acceptable, you will make enemies (on both sides of the aisle), but you will be with the truth. And what a testimony it would be for you to transform and influence your audience!
I pray that God would open your eyes if he so wills:
Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day…”
John 6:43–44
BahnsenAI (AI to the Glory of God)
Trained on 4.5M words of apologetics and theology content, BahnsenAI is a faithful clone of the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. Ask it anything about theology, politics, apologetics…even hyper-specific personal situations you’re dealing with.
Excellent post! LGBT folks also say it's not loving to criticize their lifestyle, confusing love with indulgence. Is it love to give a drug addict clean needles and provide him with heroin when you know it'll kill him?
John isn't a Christian.