Was Homosexuality Mistranslated in the Bible?

Introduction: Addressing the 1946 Homosexuality Translation Claim

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 has gained traction among cultural commentators and theologians. This argument, often associated with the documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, suggests that the term’s inclusion in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was a mistranslation of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi. (1) Proponents of this theory argue that these words refer specifically to exploitative relationships, such as pedophilia or temple prostitution, rather than consensual same-sex partnerships.

However, a thorough linguistic and historical analysis demonstrates that this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. Not only were monogamous homosexual relationships known in antiquity, but early Jewish and Christian writers consistently opposed both male and female same-sex relations, irrespective of whether they were exploitative or consensual. Furthermore, the assertion that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ simply because he did not explicitly condemn homosexuality relies on a flawed logical framework.

Understanding the historical, linguistic, and theological context surrounding this issue is essential for a faithful interpretation of Scripture. This article will examine the Greek terminology, historical evidence, early Jewish and Christian perspectives, and Jesus’ teachings while incorporating expanded scholarly sources for a well-rounded response.

Linguistic Analysis: Greek Words in Biblical Context

Arsenokoitai: A Closer Look at Meaning and Usage The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίτης) appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The term is a compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed), strongly indicating sexual relations between males.

While arsenokoitai is rare in Greek literature, scholars widely believe it echoes the prohibition found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The Septuagint’s rendering of Leviticus 18:22 reads:

"καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός"
(Kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gynaikos), meaning "And with a male, you shall not lie as with a woman."

The structural similarity between arsenos (male) and koitē (bed) suggests that Paul intentionally borrowed from the Old Testament Greek phrasing, reinforcing that arsenokoitai refers broadly to male same-sex relations rather than exclusively exploitative cases.

Malakoi: Effeminacy and Moral Weakness In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul also condemns malakoi (μαλακός), a word often translated as "effeminate" or "soft." While in some contexts malakoi refers to physical softness, its placement alongside arsenokoitai suggests a moral weakness related to indulgence in sexual immorality.

Historical Context: Same-Sex Relationships in Antiquity

Same-sex relationships existed in antiquity in various forms:

• The Sacred Band of Thebes – A military unit composed of male lovers, demonstrating that same-sex relationships were bonded by loyalty and commitment.

• Emperor Hadrian and Antinous – Hadrian’s mourning of Antinous after his death illustrates that same-sex romantic relationships were acknowledged at the highest levels of society.

• Greek and Roman Literature – Authors like Plato (Symposium) and Aristophanes (Thesmophoriazusae) examined same-sex attraction beyond temple prostitution or coercion.

These examples show that homosexual relationships were well-known in antiquity, countering the claim that biblical prohibitions only addressed abusive or transactional relationships. (2) Despite the presence of committed homosexual relationships, biblical authors consistently opposed all forms of same-sex relations based on divine moral principles rather than cultural ignorance.

Expanded Jewish Commentary:
Early Jewish writers also reinforced the Christain position against same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, condemned homosexuality in his writings, describing it as unnatural and contrary to divine order. Rabbinic traditions within the Talmud further illustrate how Jewish thought treated same-sex behavior as inconsistent with God’s design.

Early Christian Thought: Continuity of Biblical Teachings

Early church fathers upheld biblical prohibitions against same-sex relations:

• John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans) – Interpreted Romans 1:26-27 as condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and inherently sinful.

• Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus) – Warned against violating natural sexual roles.

• Augustine (City of God) – Viewed same-sex relations as distortions of God’s intended order.

These writings demonstrate continuity between biblical teachings and Christian doctrine.

Jesus and LGBTQ: Addressing the Logical Fallacy

A common argument suggests that Jesus was pro-LGBTQ because he never explicitly condemned homosexuality. However, this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy that assumes absence of evidence equates to endorsement.

Scriptural and Cultural Considerations

1. Jesus Affirms Male-Female Marriage –
   In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus explicitly refers to Genesis, affirming male-female marriage as God’s design.
   
   

2. Jesus Did Not Explicitly Address Every Sin –
   Jesus never directly condemned bestiality or incest, yet no one assumes he approved of such behaviors.
   
   

3. Jewish Cultural Context –
   Homosexuality was widely rejected in 1st-century Judaism, making explicit condemnation unnecessary. (3)

Theological Reflection: Balancing Truth and Grace

While Scripture speaks clearly on the issue of homosexuality, Christians must approach the conversation with both conviction and compassion. Upholding biblical truth does not require hostility toward individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Instead, believers are called to extend grace while affirming God’s moral standards, pointing to redemption and restoration through Him.

Conclusion: Preserving Biblical Integrity

The claim that "homosexuality" was an invented term first introduced into the Bible in 1946 fails to stand up to linguistic and historical scrutiny. Faithful interpretation requires engaging with Scripture honestly, considering linguistic nuances, historical context, and theological consistency.

In today’s culture, biblical integrity matters more than ever. While modern debates attempt to redefine scriptural teachings, the Christian response must remain grounded in truth while extending Christ’s love to all people.

Sex Slavery and the Bible

    Did the Old Testament Law allow for men to buy and sell young women for use as sex slaves?

    According to some skeptics, the Bible says just that in Exodus 21:7-9 which reads as follows:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." ~Exodus 21:7-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

    If one were to take this passage at face value without understanding the cultural context, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that this passage is speaking about sex slavery. However, this is simply not the case. The first and foremost reason being that both prostitution and the act of selling one's daughter into prostitution were specifically condemned by the Hebrew Law. (Leviticus 19:29, 21:9, Deuteronomy 23:17)
    
    Since prostitution was forbidden under Jewish Law we must therefore ask several questions of this passage. 

    First of all, the English translation of verse eight speaks of a broken contract. Yet no contract is mentioned in the preceding verses. This, of course, raises the question of what contract has been broken? Furthermore, why does the breaking of this unspecified contract allow for the woman to be returned to her father's house? If this woman is a sex slave, as the skeptic claims, then why can't her owner sell her to a foreigner when he is finished with her?
    The answer, while obscure in English translations of the Bible, is quite obvious in the Hebrew text. In the original langue this passage says that by purchasing the woman as a slave, the man has "betrothed her to himself."  (יְעָדָ֖הּ) This means that the woman was sold as a slave with the expressed intent of marriage. Being betrothed to a man is not the same as sex slavery. Neither is marriage to a slave woman.
    According to the very next passage (Exodus 21:10) a slave-wife (concubine) was entitled to the same rights and privileges of a free-born woman. The one exception being that the children of a slave-wife did not have an automatic share of their father's inheritance, while those children born to a free woman did.

    The case of Abraham and his many sons is a great example of this cultural practice. Issac was born of Abraham's free-born wife, Sarah, while Ishmael was the child of Abraham and Hagar—Sarah's maidservant. Abraham also had six more sons by a slave-wife named Keturah in Genesis 25:1-6. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac was his heir because he was born of a free woman. That said, if a man wanted to pass on his inheritance to the son of a slave-wife then he would have to publicly name that child as his heir. Which was not uncommon. 

    In the case of Exodus 21:7-9, if a man bought a young woman as a slave-wife but did not marry her himself,  he was then required to give her in marriage to his son or to another servant within his household within seven years. Otherwise the woman's father could buy her back at that time. (According to the the Jewish Laws recorded in Exodus 21:2-3, every seventh year all Hebrew slaves would be freed, and all of their debts would be canceled). This is why a slave woman would not be freed at the end of the six year period as the men were; because she was expected to be married to a member of the household by that time.

    In the culture of ancient Israel, it was considered a public disgrace for a woman of marrying age to remain unmarried. This is why the man was required to allow the woman to return to her father if he broke his contract to marry her. If he failed to do so and kept her as a servant in his household, he would be condemning her to a life of shame. Furthermore, he himself would be disgraced for failing to find her a suitable husband, thus breaking his pledge to her father. The original Hebrew actually accuses the man of treachery and deceit (בְּבִגְדוֹ־) if he did not marry the woman he purchased. In this way, the purchase of a young woman from her father was not unlike the practice of paying a dowry for her betrothal, and showed the serious intentions of the husband-to-be. 

    That being said, the man in this scenario also had the ability to choose to marry the woman himself or to give her in marriage to another man within his household (ie. his son) if she did not satisfy him.

    It is important to note here that the Hebrew word translated as "satisfy" or "please" in some English translations does not imply anything sexual. It simply means that the man likes the woman. Or, to phrase it another way, she is pleasing in his eyes. This does not mean that the man got to sample her sexually before deciding whether or not to marry her. Such practices were not only condemned by the Old Testament Law but would also have prevented the man from giving her to his son (or anyone else) as a wife. (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:28-30)
    Furthermore, the language used in this particular case implies the negative; that the woman is displeasing (רָעָ֞ה) in the eyes of her master rather than pleasing. That is to say, the woman is so disagreeable that marriage to her would result in nothing but misery on the part of the man who married her.

    To summarize: what this passage is really saying is that if a man found himself in a position of financial desperation and could no longer provide for the members of his family, he could sell his daughter as a servant with the understanding that the man who bought her would marry her himself. If the man found that he did not really get along with the woman, then he had seven years to find her a husband within his household. If the man failed to do so, then the girl's father reserved the right to buy her back again once his debts had been canceled. The man who paid for the woman's hand in marriage could not keep her as a servant, nor could he sell her to someone else if he failed to uphold his end of the bargain. In this way, the act of selling ones daughter as a servant was a desperate father's final attempt to insure that she would be provided for when he could no longer insure her well-being. 

    Another passage commonly referred to by skeptics seeking to support their position on sex slavery in the Bible is Numbers 31:25-50, which details the division of plunder after a battle between Israel and Midian. 
    In verse 35 we find 32,000 virgin girls listed among the spoils taken by the Israelite men. Were these women taken as sex slaves by the victorious Israelites? What about those women given to God as His share (Numbers 31:36-40)? Were these virgins brutally sacrificed to the Hebrew God as some skeptics claim?

    As with the previous case, the truth becomes apparent when we examine the context of this passage. The first question we should ask ourselves is: why did the Israelites go to war against the people of Midian in the first place? Both Israel and Midian were descendants of Abraham. (Genesis 25:1-6) Moses himself was married to a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-22) and  clearly had no quarrel with his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. (Exodus 18) Why then did Moses suddenly decide to go to war against his family's kinsmen?
    The answer can be found a few chapters earlier in Numbers 22-25, which recounts Israel's journey through Midian and the land of Moab. Numbers 22:1-7 introduces us to Balak, the king of Moab, and describes how both he and his people were filled with terror at the arrival of the Israelites in their land. In an attempt to destroy Israel, Balak and the elders of Midian sent messengers to enlist the help of the sorcerer Balaam, hoping that he would be able to place a curse on the people of Israel. However, we read in Numbers 23-24 that God prevented Balaam from cursing Israel. Instead, God caused the pagan sorcerer to pronounce blessing after blessing upon His people.
     Having failed to curse Israel,  Balaam instead persuaded the women of Midian and Moab to seduce the Israelite men in Numbers 25 so that God Himself would strike Israel for their sin. As Balaam predicted, the sexual debauchery of Israel caused the Lord's anger to "blaze against His people," resulting in a plague that killed some 24,000 Israelites. This is why Israel went to war against Midian in Numbers 31.

     Realizing this, we must ask the obvious question: would the Israelite men be willing to indulge themselves in sexual sin with Midianite captives when it was sex with the women of Midian and Moab that had caused the plague in the first place? 24,000 of their kinsman had just died as a result of God's wrath, so the possibility of this seems remote. Furthermore, we must also consider Moses's statements concerning ritual purification after the battle as recorded in Numbers 31:18-19.
    According to Leviticus 15:16-18 sexual intercourse would cause both men and women to become ceremonially unclean. This means that the men would not have been able to have sex with the captive women, since they were required to purify themselves and their captives for seven days.

    We must also realize that in most ancient near-eastern cultures women were married off as soon as they reached puberty. This meant that if a girl was prepubescent, she was in all likelihood still a virgin. Additionally, married women in the near-east also wore veils or other special headwear while unmarried women did not. The same can be said of temple prostitutes who wore distinctive clothing, jewelry and hairstyles to represent their status as holy vessels of the gods. This meant that it would have been easy for the Israelites to recognize who was a virgin and who wasn't. If a captive girl was under the age of twelve or was not wearing a veil or the attire of a temple prostitute, then it was safe to assume that she was a virgin.
    Thus it can be concluded with a high degree of certainty that most, if not all, of the virgins given to the Israelite men were children under the age of twelve, as these would have been the obvious virgins among the captives and would not have been involved in the plot to lead the men of Israel into sexual sin. (Which was the entire reason why Israel went to war against Midian in the first place.) This fact combined with the Hebrews' stringent laws on sexuality (Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 18, 20:10-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14,  22:13-30) and the fair treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:1-11, 16, 20-21, 26-27, Leviticus 26:35-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18) makes it highly unlikely that these children were ever used as sex slaves. If anything, they would be wards in the care of their master until they were old enough to work as servants in his household.

    One final point worth mentioning here is the issue of whether or not some of the captives taken from Midian were sacrificed to the Hebrew God. As mentioned earlier, some would claim that Numbers 31:36-41 says just that. However, human sacrifice—especially child sacrifice—was  condemned by the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:9-12) This means that these young girls were not sacrificed to God. Rather they were given to God as servants to the priests in the tribe of Levi. Again, this is apparent in the original Hebrew which states that the virgins set aside as the Lord's share, or "tribute" (הַמֶּ֥כֶס), were part of the "heave offering" (תְּרוּמַ֣ת); the portion of the sacrifice reserved for the priests or otherwise set apart for holy use. (see Leviticus 7:14, 31-34, Numbers 18:19)

    In closing, it is clear from the cultural, historic, and textual context of the passages in question that sex slavery, rape, and prostitution were never permissible under Old Testament Law. However, it is fair to point out that sinful man is not above misusing God's Word to justify actions that are contrary to the Scriptures' intent. The people of Israel themselves would violate God's Law time and time again throughout history, as would countless others. 
    That said, in order to violate God's Law, one must first divorce Scripture from its context. Once this is done, it is easy to twist God's Word to justify every whim of man's sinful heart. That is why it is so important to understand Scripture in its entirety; to view the Bible through the lens of the culture and history of those to whom it was originally written, and to understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally penned. To do otherwise is to resign oneself to an interpretation of Scripture limited only to a superficial understanding, rife with misinterpretation and misunderstanding. In this way, the skeptic is no better than the man who distorts the Scripture to justify immorality. Both choose to ignore those portions of Scripture that conflict with their presuppositions and as a result, both are misinformed. One uses Scripture to justify the very evil the Scriptures condemn. The other uses Scripture to accuse the Scriptures of supporting what the Scriptures actually condemn. In both cases truth is lost.
    Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to take the time to study the Scriptures for themselves so that the lies of those who misuse God's Word can be exposed and refuted.



   

See Also:

Slavery and the Bible: Is the Bible Racist?

   

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?

Celibacy and the Bible

    

     In the article, Sex and the Bible, we saw that biblical sexuality in not considered to be inherently sinful. Sex in marriage is praised, being held in high regard in both the Old and New Testaments. While sexual immorality and perversion are condemned.

     It was not until 1123 AD, at the First Council of Lateran that the doctrine of mandatory celibacy for clergy came to the forefront of Christian history. Before this time, church leaders had been allowed to marry without much thought. However, in the years following the legalization of Christianity in the 300's AD, multiple church councils had petitioned for the church to require its ministers to be celibate. These petitions had been met with mixed opposition at first, but as time went on the thought that sexuality was, by its very nature, impure began to take hold. This line of reasoning goes all the way back to the late First Century when Gnostic teachings first began to infiltrate the early church.

     The Gnostic cults held to a dualistic worldview in which all things in the material world, including sexuality, were inherently evil and only the spiritual world was pure and good. Because of this, those ascribing to the Gnostic view taught that Jesus was never physically born, but rather existed as a pure spirit who appeared to be a man. 
     Even though Gnostic teachings would ultimately be condemned as heresy, their belief in the inherent wickedness of sexuality would persist, and in 1123 AD, Canon 21 requiring mandatory clerical celibacy was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. However, many church leaders remained married and continued to marry for many centuries to come.  
   
     That being said, there is no evidence in the scriptures of celibacy being a mandatory ordnance for church leaders — or anyone else for that matter. 

     In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 the Apostle Paul instructs those who are married not to deprive each other of sexual relations, except in the event that both spouses agree to abstain for a limited time in order to devote themselves to prayer. They are then instructed to come together again so as not to be tempted by lust.
     The Apostle Paul also states that church leaders and deacons must be faithful to their wives and be self-controlled in regards to their sexuality, while raising god-fearing children and living their lives in such a way as to be above reproach. (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:6-9) And we know from 1 Corinthians 9:5 that the Apostle Peter, who is regarded by many to be the First Pope, was married as were many of Jesus' other disciples and the early church fathers.
 
     Given these examples, it is clear that the Bible makes no attempt to promote the idea of mandatory celibacy for ordained ministers. Nor does it imply that the answer to lust is to reject sexuality. Instead, the Bible teaches that we should seek sexual fulfillment in marriage so as not to be overcome with passion and sexual immorality. (1 Corinthians 7:2-3, 9, 36)

     In light of this, the Apostle Paul commended those to whom God has given the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:7. Paul then goes on to say repeatedly that marriage is not a sin, clarifying that he is not putting restrictions on people in regards to marriage, but rather trying to spare them from unnecessary hardship due to the widespread persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero in 64 AD. (1 Corinthians 7:25-40)

     Likewise, Jesus also commended those who choose to be single in order to please God. (Matthew 19:12) However, the context of the passage makes it clear that celibacy was not the issue being addressed, but rather marriage and adultery. (Matthew 19:1-12) The entire exchange between Jesus, his disciples and the Pharisees found in this passage was in regard to the First Century Jewish interpretation of the Law of Moses which stated that a man could divorce his wife as long as he gave her a written notice of divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) By the time of Christ, however, the rabbinical interpretation of this passage was being used to justify multiple divorces and remarriages, thus allowing men to marry as many times as they liked by divorcing their wives whenever another woman caught their eye.
     Jesus' response condemned this practice as adultery, which is why his disciples said that it would be better not to marry at all. Jesus was not teaching that celibacy was in some way superior to marriage, but rather that marrying someone and then divorcing them in order to marry someone else made a person guilty of adultery! (Leviticus 20:10)
    

In conclusion, while the Bible does commend those who are celibate by choice, it in no way implies that celibacy is meant to be mandatory, or even permanent, among God's people. After all, it is Jesus—our High Priest in Heaven—and not our virginity, who cleanses us from sin and makes us pure before God. (1 Corinthians 1:30, Hebrews 8-10)

     
   
   
   




     
    

Sex and the Bible

     When a typical person thinks of Christians and the Church, sexuality is probably not the first thing that comes to mind. However, many would probably be surprised to learn that the Bible not only condones sex but also encourages it. So much so that an entire book of the Old Testament is dedicated to the topic—Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs, depending on the translation.)

     Despite the ancient verse and poetic language, Song of Solomon clearly depicts sexuality between a husband and his wife in ways that would have been considered quite explicit—if not scandalous—in its day.

     Not only does God's Word contain an entire book dedicated to sexuality in the Old Testament, the Apostle Paul devoted most of 1 Corinthians 7 to the topic as well.

     "Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

     "The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.

     "Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

~ 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5 New Living Translation (NLT)

     According to God's Word, sex is good. God created sex when he created the world. It was, therefore, among those things God called "very good" in Genesis 1:31. However, sex was not meant to be used flippantly. When God created man, he created woman to be there with him because it was "not good for the man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18)
     He created them both, male and female, in his image, (The Hebrew word for "image" in Genesis 1:27 refers to a "reflection", meaning that both man and woman reflect some of the qualities of God. i.e. reason, creativity, and love, etc.) to live together with him forever in perfect love and unity.

     However, the man and the woman disobeyed God and separated themselves from him and each other when they sinned. (Genesis 3)

     From that point on, the perfect, loving relationship God intended for us was marred by sin. And sexuality was no exception. What was originally intended to be used between a man and a woman within the permanent protection and ever-deepening relationship of marriage quickly devolved into immorality and lust.

    It is this lustful, erotic passion (Eros) that is often mistaken for, and portrayed as, love (Agape) in today's society. That said, there is a difference between 'love' and 'lust,' just as there is a difference between sexuality in marriage and sexual immorality. 

     "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

~1 Corinthians 13:4-8 New Living Translation (NLT)


     Put simply, genuine, unconditional love is thinking of others before yourself and putting their needs first. Lust on the other hand does the exact opposite:

     Unrestrained lust has no patients; it demands immediate satisfaction, and is therefore unkind and inconsiderate of others. 

     Lust is jealous; it seeks control over and objectifies others. 

     Lust is boastful, proud, and rude.

     Lust always demands it's own way, and when someone who is acting out of lust does not get their way they become irritable and will often keep a record of how many times they have been "wronged." 

     In the most extreme cases of lust—i.e. rape, spousal abuse, etc.—lust scoffs at truth and rejoices in taking pleasure from injustice. 

     Lust gives up on people when it's demands are not met, leading to broken relationships, infidelity, or worse. 

     Lust causes many who have faith to abandon their faith in order to fulfill their immoral passions. 

     Lust has no hope, and because of it's self-serving nature, lust cannot endure all things. 

     In short, uncontrolled Lust will destroy everything it touches (Job 31:11-12) whereas unconditional love and sex in marriage are meant to build each other up in a lasting and meaningful way.

     This is why the Bible celebrates and encourages sexuality in marriage: because that is where sex was meant to be experienced and enjoyed to the fullest. Lust and sexual immorality will never satisfy. Giving in to erotic passion is like drinking salt water in the desert—you will only make yourself more thirsty.

     One such example of this can be found in 2 Samuel 13:1-22 where the 'love' of King David's son Amnon quickly turned to hate after he raped his half-sister, Tamar. Amnon never truly loved her, he just wanted to have sex with her. And once he had given into sexual immorality, he found that it did not satisfy. Ultimately Amnon's lustful indiscretion would lead to his death at the hands of Tamar's brother, Absalom. (2 Samuel 13:23-29)

     The Bible is filled with countless other examples of sexuality gone awry. Furthermore, both the Old and New Testaments are rife with references to sexual immorality (i.e. Romans 1:18-32) and sin. Which is why many Christians over the centuries have struggled to understand their God-given sexual needs—myself included.

     But what sin has marred, God has redeemed through his Son, Jesus Christ. Because of him, the loving relationship that was severed when Adam and Eve sinned has been restored for all those who believe!

     That said, it is a sad truth that the Church has branded sex as evil in the past, when God himself called it "very good." Sadder still is the fact that many outside the church perceive Christians as being anti-sexual or celibate, when in reality Christians should embrace their sexuality. Not by the world's standard of immoral, lustful, self-indulgence; but rather in the purest sense of sexuality. As Christians we should be champions of sexuality, living our lives in such a way as to show those around us what sex in a healthy, loving, self-sacrificial marriage looks like. We should not indulge in immorality. Instead we should live our lives to glorify God—in the bedroom and beyond—just as he has called us to do.

Related Articles:


Celibacy and the Bible

Sacred Marriage

Homosexuality and the Bible

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?