When Bible verses are used against people

1. Reading the Bible means noticing context

When isolated Bible verses are used against queer people, the question is how we read the Bible at all. In my Instagram contribution “When Bible verses are used against people” of 28 July 2026, I argued for taking language, history and context seriously. Here I develop that thought in greater detail.

The biblical writings know same-sex desire and corresponding acts. What they do not presuppose is our present understanding of sexual orientation as a dimension of the person. This means neither that people then had no enduring inclinations nor that all relationships were exploitative. It means that our current concepts and questions do not correspond exactly to those of the texts.

For responsible interpretation, I therefore distinguish three questions: what does the text say? What can be said about its original context? And what ethical guidance do we gain from it today? My conclusion is that a loving, committed and equal partnership must not be hastily equated with every ancient description of same-sex acts.

2. Genesis 1:27–28 and 2:18: sex, fruitfulness and community

In Genesis 1:27, human beings are described as God’s image and as male and female. The text does not say “husband and wife”. Yet the blessing of fruitfulness that follows belongs to its context. Sexual difference and the transmission of life have an important place within it. Taking this seriously does not yet require a definitive judgement on every other form of human relationship.

The blessing in Genesis 1:28 is addressed to humanity. It cannot establish an individual duty for every person to reproduce. Childless couples and unmarried people also possess their full dignity. The biblical appreciation of celibacy — for example in 1 Corinthians 7 — already shows that a fulfilled life before God does not depend on becoming a parent.

Genesis 2:18 begins with the human person’s loneliness. The story leads to the companionship of man and woman and to their marital union in Genesis 2:24. It does indeed speak of an opposite-sex relationship. At the same time, its starting point opens a further question: how can people be companions through whom they grow, experience trust and learn responsibility?

My theological conclusion is this: the creation texts honour the union of man and woman. I do not read them as a catalogue of all permitted and forbidden partnerships. I take their affirmation of the image of God and of life in relationship seriously for people who love someone of the same sex too. Genesis 1 ↗ · Genesis 2 ↗ · 1 Corinthians 7 ↗

3. Genesis 19: Sodom tells of violence against strangers

In Sodom, a crowd surrounds Lot’s house. The men demand that his guests be handed over so they can sexually assault them. The scene concerns threatened gang rape, humiliation and power over vulnerable strangers. A consensual loving relationship is not its subject.

Lot’s offer to hand over his daughters instead is also part of the story’s disturbing violence. It is no ethical instruction. A responsible reading must keep the threatened women in view alongside the threatened guests.

Ezekiel 16:49 names Sodom’s guilt as pride, excess and failure to help the poor. This shows how much broader the biblical engagement with Sodom is. The Pontifical Biblical Commission also interprets Genesis 19 in the context of hostility to strangers and violent humiliation (2019, nos. 186–188).

My conclusion is this: using Sodom to condemn same-sex love blurs the decisive distinction between violence and consent. Respect for dignity and protection against assault are precisely what is called for here. Genesis 19 ↗ · Ezekiel 16:49 ↗

4. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: a prohibition in an ancient order

These two passages prohibit male same-sex intercourse; Leviticus 20:13 connects it with the death penalty. The wording is severe. The common claim that it demonstrably prohibits only child abuse or only cult prostitution cannot be supported from these verses.

The rules belong to the Holiness Code in Leviticus. They regulate worship, kinship, sexuality, purity and Israel’s communal life. A patriarchal society forms their historical horizon. Various explanations are given for why this particular prohibition was formulated as it was; the text itself supplies no detailed rationale.

The word “abomination” alone does not determine how a rule should be applied today. But classifying it as a purity regulation does not settle the matter either: prohibitions of violence and grave injustice occur in the same context. We need reasoned criteria for which norms we receive and how.

Christian interpretation adopts neither this penal order nor every individual rule unchanged. My question is therefore: on what theological grounds should this particular sexual prohibition be applied unchanged to present-day partnerships? The answer must prove itself in relation to love of God and neighbour, protection of the person and the reality of responsible relationships. Leviticus 18 ↗ · Leviticus 20 ↗

5. Romans 1:26–27: idolatry, desire and judgement of others

Paul places the sexual acts he describes within his critique of idolatry. In his account, people exchange worship of God for worship of creatures; descriptions of dishonourable passions and various kinds of wrongdoing follow. Verse 26 is often understood to refer to same-sex acts between women; verse 27 explicitly speaks of men.

The text cannot convincingly be restricted to rape or pederasty. Paul’s negative assessment of the acts described is broader. Yet neither does he offer a study of same-sex partnerships today. He interprets desire through his understanding of creation and within a fundamental argument about the entanglement of all people in guilt.

Reading on, we encounter in Romans 2:1 a sharp turn against the person who judges. This does not cancel the statements in the first chapter. But it prevents readers from comfortably placing themselves on the side of the morally superior.

My critical question is this: does the description of such acts as a consequence of idolatry and unrestrained desire fit the reality of a faithful same-sex couple who support one another loyally? I regard a direct equation as factually and theologically inadequate. This is a present-day evaluation of the text that requires justification, not a claim that Paul himself already held our position. Romans 1–2 ↗

6. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:10: translating means interpreting

These lists of vices contain terms whose translation requires particular care. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find malakoi and arsenokoitai; the second term appears again in 1 Timothy 1:10. The German Catholic Einheitsübersetzung renders them in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “Lustknaben” and “Knabenschänder” — roughly, boys used for sexual pleasure and those who sexually abuse boys. These German words already embody interpretive decisions.

Malakoi literally means “soft ones”. In ancient contexts the word can be used as a moral or sexual insult; in Matthew 11:8 the same adjective describes soft clothing. Which particular group is meant in 1 Corinthians 6 must be inferred from the context. Equating it with a present-day sexual identity is not a merely literal translation.

Arsenokoitai combines the words “male” and “bed”, or sexual intercourse. A connection with the Greek version of the Levitical prohibitions is plausible. Whether it refers to particular exploitative practices or more generally to male same-sex intercourse is disputed. A definite restriction to abuse can no more be asserted than an exact correspondence with today’s category of “homosexual people”.

In 1 Timothy 1:10, slave traders and liars appear alongside them, among others. But the proximity of these words does not automatically mean that arsenokoitai refers exclusively to trafficking or exploitation. Such shortcuts weaken an open interpretation.

My conclusion is this: the texts contain negative judgements on sexual practices. What they mean for responsibly lived relationships today requires an additional ethical argument. A single word chosen in a German translation cannot replace that work. 1 Corinthians 6 ↗ · 1 Timothy 1 ↗ · Matthew 11:8 ↗

7. What Jesus says — and what he does not discuss

No explicit saying of Jesus about same-sex partnerships is preserved in the Gospels. That fact alone implies neither approval nor rejection. In Matthew 19:3–9, Jesus draws on the creation texts to answer a question about divorce. He stresses the binding character of marriage; he is not explicitly debating sexual orientation there.

His twofold commandment of love (Matthew 22:34–40), and the connection between love of God and practical care, are decisive for my interpretation. Paul too identifies love as the fulfilment of the law in Romans 13:8–10. This does not mean that the word love can justify any behaviour. Love requires freedom, truthfulness, consent and responsibility.

That is precisely why I ask about these standards in every relationship: is the other person respected? Can they consent freely? Is power being abused? Do people take responsibility for one another, including in crises? For me, these questions carry more ethical significance than the genders of those involved. Matthew 19 ↗ · Matthew 22:34–40 ↗ · Romans 13:8–10 ↗

8. My position: strengthen love, overcome exclusion

Historical context alone does not decide a present-day ethical question. But it protects us from transferring ancient judgements to people today without further examination. I have reached this conviction: same-sex partnerships can be places of love, faithfulness, responsibility and an experienced closeness to God.

In 2022, the Synodal Path called for a reassessment of homosexuality, emphasising the dignity of the person and the quality of lived relationships. I support this direction. As a call for reform, it must be distinguished from the teaching of the universal Church; my reflections express my theological position.

I support the blessing of same-sex couples. People should be able to live their faith without having to hide their love. A Church that listens, values responsibly lived relationships and challenges hurtful denigration can become a source of hope.