This essay summarizes several New Testament passages that have been used in arguments about homosexuality and same-sex relationships. It does not reproduce historical polemics or ask readers to adopt one interpretation. Instead, it distinguishes the wording of a passage from the questions readers bring to it.
Reading note
Terms used in older translations can carry meanings today that differ from their ancient linguistic or social context. The summaries below therefore describe major interpretive approaches rather than treating any single translation as self-explanatory.
Romans 1:26–27
Romans 1 describes people who turn from worship of God toward idols and a series of disordered practices. Two verses refer to women and men exchanging what the text calls customary or natural relations. The passage is the clearest New Testament reference to female same-sex behavior, although its exact scope remains disputed.
A traditional conservative reading treats the passage as a general condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior. Some interpreters also connect the language to a wider Christian account of creation and human sexuality.
Other readers place the verses within the passage’s setting: idolatry, excess and conduct that violates a person’s customary pattern. They argue that Paul was addressing exploitative or ritualized behavior rather than the modern category of sexual orientation or a mutual, committed relationship. These readers also note that “nature” can carry several meanings in ancient moral writing.
1 Corinthians 6:9–11
Paul lists behaviors that, in his argument, conflict with the life of the Christian community. Two Greek terms in the list have generated particular debate. Older English translations have rendered them with words associated with effeminacy or sexual relations between males; modern translations differ substantially.
Conservative interpreters commonly understand the terms as a prohibition of male same-sex conduct. Other scholars caution that the words may refer to specific forms of exploitation, commercial sex, status-based abuse or relationships involving unequal power. The precise meaning cannot be settled simply by selecting one modern English equivalent.
The wider paragraph emphasizes moral change and communal repair. Any interpretation should therefore avoid treating a disputed vocabulary item as a complete description of a person’s identity.
1 Timothy 1:9–10
First Timothy presents a list of conduct said to be contrary to sound teaching. One compound Greek term is translated in older versions as conduct involving males and in some newer versions with language about sexual exploitation or same-sex activity.
Many traditional readings connect this passage with 1 Corinthians 6 and see both as broad prohibitions. Alternative readings focus on the possibility that the term describes abusive, coercive or transactional practices rather than all same-sex relationships. Because the term is rare and its ancient usage is limited, responsible commentary should acknowledge the uncertainty.
Jude 1:7 and the story of Sodom
Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of judgment and describes a pursuit of “different” or “strange” flesh in common English translations. The allusion is usually read alongside Genesis 19, where a mob threatens sexual violence against visitors.
Some interpreters use Jude as evidence for a broad condemnation of same-sex behavior. Others argue that the underlying story centers on attempted gang rape, hostility toward strangers and the violation of hospitality, not on the existence of a same-sex orientation or a consensual partnership. The Sodom narrative is therefore not a simple substitute for careful discussion of modern relationships.
How interpretations differ
Conservative Christian readings generally see these passages as consistent warnings against same-sex sexual behavior. They may regard the language as applying across historical periods, while distinguishing conduct from a person’s worth.
Liberal and affirming Christian readings commonly stress historical setting, translation and the absence of a modern concept of sexual orientation in the ancient world. They argue that the passages address idolatry, exploitation, unequal relationships or violence, and do not directly describe faithful same-sex partnerships.
Between these positions are many intermediate approaches. Some communities retain traditional sexual ethics while rejecting hostility and discrimination. Others revise their interpretation while continuing to regard the biblical texts as authoritative. The existence of disagreement is part of the subject this essay documents.
Conclusion
The New Testament passages discussed here are brief, translated through many centuries and embedded in ancient arguments about worship, power, morality and community boundaries. They have played a major role in Christian debates about same-sex relationships, but they do not eliminate the need for historical and linguistic analysis.
A careful reader can recognize the seriousness with which different Christians approach Scripture while also recognizing the human consequences of interpretation. Discussion is most constructive when it distinguishes ancient texts, later traditions and present-day claims about equal dignity and civil rights.