“Love is love” has become a popular saying in the past few years, and yet it does not offer a true definition of love. The Bible tells us that “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and we find the truth about His love revealed in His Word. Human sexuality is just one aspect of love. God’s love is broader than we can imagine, based on unselfishness and seeking others’ good. Some say that the Bible surely would not condemn loving, exclusive same-sex relationships, and that gender identity is fluid rather than being based on the creation of human beings in the image of God as male and female. Since the Bible is our guide, let’s look at some of the key passages that address these and other important issues.
A Biblical Definition of Marriage
The Genesis account of humans being created in the image of God as male and female (Gen. 1:26-29) is foundational for human identity and relationships. Genesis 2 elaborates on this brief description, highlighting the complementary nature of the male-female relationship. The woman is depicted as a suitable partner for the man, one “who corresponds to” (Heb. kenegdo) him (Gen. 2:18, 20, NET).1 The word combines two ideas: the woman is like (ke) the man and opposite (neged) to him. Adam mentions the same principle: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh [like him in being human]; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man [opposite in sex/gender]” (Gen. 2:23). Immediately following we find a prescription for marriage: a man leaves “his father and mother” (a heterosexual, monogamous marriage) and is “joined to his wife” (forming another heterosexual, monogamous marriage). This verse looks ahead, way beyond Eden, “applying the principles of the first marriage to every marriage.”2
Jesus, in reply to a question about divorce, directs our attention to the beginning, before the entrance of sin, to underscore God’s perfect design for marriage:
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ [see Gen. 1:27], and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [see Gen. 2:24]?” (Matt. 19:4, 5).
Jesus here indicates that marriage is between only “two,” thus excluding polygamy, and that it was God Himself who defined marriage with the words of Genesis 2:24, which explains why Jesus went on to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6).3 Christian weddings entreat God’s blessing on the marriage. But how can God bless a marriage that goes directly against His divine directions for marriage in Scripture? From the beginning, marriage was designed by God to be monogamous, heterosexual, and permanent, because He joins man and woman together in marriage.
The Bible and Same-Sex Relations
LGBTQ proponents argue for a more inclusive understanding of marriage to accommodate diverse expressions of love and commitment. But the Bible outlines three main purposes for marriage:
1. Procreation (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; Ps. 127:3; Mal. 2:15).
2. To symbolize God’s relationship with His people (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-27, 32).
3. To foster companionship (Gen. 2:18; S. of Sol. 2:16; Eph. 5:33).
The Genesis account of humans being created in the image of God as male and female is foundational for human identity and relationships.
These three purposes underscore the theological significance of heterosexual marriage as envisioned in Scripture. At best, a same-sex marriage can fulfill only the need for companionship. Not only are the other two purposes not met—same-gender relationships subvert them.
Both the Old and New Testaments consistently and categorically condemn same-sex relations. Leviticus places them on the same level as other practices detestable to God, including incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21-23). Why should we exclude same-sex relations from this Mosaic list of prohibitions? They are condemned in the strongest possible terms as an “abomination,” and the severest possible penalty is applied—being “cut off” from the people of God (Lev. 18:22, 29; see also Lev. 20:13). In Christian terms it amounts to exclusion from God’s kingdom. How can a kingdom based on God’s law of love accept practices that subvert its foundational principles by redefining “love” based on unbiblical values that are ultimately destructive?
In discussing these verses in Leviticus, some appeal to the idea of restoration, that polygamy, slavery, and the legal dependence of women have nothing to do with Creation. It is true that Scripture records instances of polygamy, divorce, and slavery, which were never God’s plan and far from the Creation ideal. But the Edenic, pre-Fall roles of marriage between husband and wife are categorically different. Paul confirms the laws against incest and same-sex relations are still valid because he relies on them in condemning a man who had sexual relations with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1; cf. Lev. 18:8) and in his condemnation of homosexual practices (Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10).4 In view of the consistent, unequivocal condemnation of same-sex relations in both the Old and New Testaments, there should be no doubt about the universal nature of this biblical prohibition.
The most extensive Pauline critique of same-sex relations appears in Romans 1:18-32. It is often argued that same-sex practice is here connected with idolatry and, therefore, irrelevant to contemporary attitudes toward same-sex relations. But Paul’s argument in this passage is based on Gentile rejection of the facts of Creation that have been plainly revealed (verses 18-23), which ultimately leads to the moral breakdown of society and of healthy human relations (verses 24-32). Because they have rejected the truth, God gives them up to impurity (akatharsia) and lust (pathos), terms frequently used by Paul of sexual sin (2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:5, 7). Gentile rejection of the facts of Creation results in distorted views of sexuality (Rom. 1:26, 27). Women “exchanged” or substituted “natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (verse 26, ESV), and men did “likewise,” by abandoning “natural relations with women” (verse 28, ESV). With many Greco-Roman writers, Paul argues that same-sex sexual relationships are “against nature” (Greek para physin), because the complementary design and sexual function of the male and the female sex have fitted them biologically for each other. No hint of domination or coercion appears in Romans 1; rather the relationships appear to be mutual, consensual, and pleasurable. Such cultural rereadings of this passage result only in distorted interpretations and conclusions.5
Transgenderism
The issue of transgenderism complicates further the discussion of gender and sexuality.6 An important biblical principle against blurring gender distinctions that undermines the created order of male and female is found in the prohibition against cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5). Recent medical interventions for gender dysphoria may challenge traditional understandings of gender roles, but the Bible’s emphasis on preserving gender distinctions remains central to the Christian life and witness to cultures in desperate need of its moral compass.
The recent claim that one’s gender identity may differ from their biological sex contradicts the biblical understanding of human nature as wholistic, that mind and body are an inseparable unity. This view precludes a dualistic interpretation that separates gender identity from biological sex. The Bible should shape our understanding of gender roles and relationships.
The Jerusalem Council and LGBTQ People
The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:29) is based on the prohibitions in Leviticus 17 and 18 for the uncircumcised resident alien (Heb. gēr) and are even given in the same order.7 Some interpret the decree as dividing the early church into two groups: Jewish Christians could continue to circumcise their children and live as Jews, while Gentiles needed only to observe the four requirements the council set forth.
Similarly today, some say, cisgender people can continue to live a heterosexual lifestyle, while LGBTQ people within the church can be allowed to live and enjoy committed marriage relationships in accordance with their orientation. There are, however, several problems with this argument. First, closer scrutiny of the Jerusalem Council decree suggests it set the same standards for everyone, eliminating the requirement of circumcision for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). But even if there were separate standards for believers, one of the four requirements of the council was to “abstain from . . . sexual immorality” (Acts 15:20, 29), which would include the laws against same-sex relations (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). This standard of sexual propriety is upheld throughout the New Testament, beginning with Jesus (Matt. 15:19). In fact, the evidence is overwhelming (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). It is important to remember that God never promised marriage and sexual fulfillment to all believers. The modern idea of sex as a need is misguided.
Those who argue for LGBTQ inclusion in the church consider the implied expectation of celibacy to be unfair, that it is not a universal expectation for all believers but only for those to whom “it has been given” (Matt. 19:11)—and that is true. But this line of reasoning ignores that celibacy is not exclusively an LGBTQ issue. What about the many celibate heterosexual people, who for various reasons do not or cannot marry? And what of the many singles in the church to whom the gift of marriage has not yet “been given”? Paul says that the one who does not marry “does better” (1 Cor. 7:38) and that widows will be “happier” if they do not remarry (verse 40). One reason for this is that the church is a spiritual family with God as our heavenly Father and Jesus as our Elder Brother (Matt. 12:50). In fact, one person who formerly identified as homosexual bore this testimony: “I can assure you I have never been happier than in the last six years since becoming a Christian and leaving homosexuality behind. God is all I need, and my future is in His hands. He has given me many wonderful Christian friends and church family. I look forward to spending eternity with them.”8
Conclusion
The argument in favor of complete LGBTQ inclusion within the Christian community is based on a cultural reinterpretation of biblical passages that values personal experience and scientific claims over what Scripture actually says. Genesis 2:24 defines marriage as a covenantal commitment between one man and one woman that is monogamous, exclusive, and lifelong. Jesus Himself reiterated this interpretation in Matthew 19:4, 6. Same-sex unions not only fail to fulfill the divine intention for marriage, but undermine them.
Same-sex relations are “unnatural” because God designed biological compatibility between husband and wife to include the physical, emotional, and spiritual. Paul’s condemnation of same-sex sexual relations simply reaffirms what the Bible everywhere condemns. All sexual relationships outside of a biblically defined marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are regarded by God as sin and should be avoided by all who desire the more abundant life promised by Jesus.
The Bible offers hope for all who repent and turn from their sins, sexual or otherwise. In fact, just after condemning homosexual practices and other sins, Paul adds, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).
1 Scripture quotations credited to NET are from the New English Translation Bible, copyright © 1996-2024 by Biblical Studies Press. L.L.C. All rights reserved.
2 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), vol. 1, p. 70.
3 For a more detailed explanation of this passage, see Clinton Wahlen, “Lessons From Matthew 19,” Reflections 78 (April-June 2022): 8, 9.
4 Cf. Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 327-330.
5 Further on cultural rereadings of the Bible, see Clinton Wahlen and Wagner Kuhn, “Culture, Hermeneutics, and Scripture: Discerning What Is Universal,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel(Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2020), pp. 148-153.
6 See the Seventh-day Adventist “Statement on Transgenderism,” https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/statement-on- transgenderism/.
7 See Clinton Wahlen, “Peter’s Vision and Conflicting Definitions of Purity,” New Testament Studies 51 (2004): 517, 518.
8 Gina Wahlen, “When the Son Sets You Free: Finding Freedom From Homosexuality,” General Conference Executive Committee Newsletter, July-September 2023, p. 15, sidebar.
