The Bible Never Said That:

Who Decided Gay People Cannot Enter Heaven?

Gays for Liberty | By Peter Boykin | Constitutionalist for Liberty

Follow @GaysForLiberty@PeterBoykin_ & @GoRightNews on X

 

A Facebook post circulating online makes an extraordinary declaration:

“YOU WILL NOT SEE A SINGLE GAY PERSON IN HEAVEN.”

The post cites 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 from the New International Version of the Bible as its authority.

But there is a serious problem.

The Bible does not actually make that blanket statement.

That does not mean the Bible contains no passages condemning same-sex sexual behavior. Several passages have historically been interpreted that way, and those interpretations deserve an accurate examination.

But there is an enormous difference between ancient religious teachings concerning sexual behavior and a modern person declaring that every gay human being is automatically excluded from heaven.

The distinction becomes clearer when we examine the original Hebrew and Greek, compare different Bible translations, investigate the history of homosexuality, and consider what Christianity teaches about salvation and judgment.

The truth is more complicated than a Facebook graphic.

And the history is far more interesting.

 

The Missing Verse Changes the Conversation

The image quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, where the Apostle Paul lists categories of conduct he considers incompatible with inheriting the kingdom of God.

The New International Version identifies sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, male same-sex activity, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling.

The Facebook post uses this passage to declare that no gay person will ever enter heaven.

But the actual passage does not say that.

First, the original text refers to people and conduct described by ancient Greek terms. It does not contain the modern English identity category “gay person.”

Second, the passage concerns several categories of wrongdoing, not homosexuality alone.

Third, and most importantly, the graphic omits the very next verse.

1 Corinthians 6:11 states that some of the Corinthian believers had previously been among the people Paul described, but had been washed, sanctified, and justified through Christ.

Traditional Christian interpretations understand this as teaching repentance, forgiveness, and a changed life.

Affirming Christian interpretations disagree about whether consensual same-sex relationships are among the behaviors Paul intended to condemn.

But both must account for the passage’s broader message about redemption.

The text is not an unconditional declaration that everyone who has ever experienced same-sex attraction is permanently excluded from salvation.

Nor does it establish that a Facebook commenter can determine the eternal destiny of millions of strangers.

There is another distinction often overlooked.

Paul uses the expression “kingdom of God.” Christians commonly connect this with ultimate salvation, but the passage is not a list identifying the inhabitants of heaven by their modern sexual orientations.

The social-media claim goes beyond what the cited verse establishes.

 

The Two Greek Words That Changed Everything

The New Testament was written in ancient Greek.

Two Greek words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 are at the center of the disagreement.

The first is malakoi, the plural of malakos.

Its basic meaning is “soft.”

Depending on context, the term could refer to softness, luxury, a lack of self-discipline, perceived effeminacy, or a sexually passive male.

In Matthew 11:8, a form of the same adjective describes soft clothing.

That does not mean Paul’s use is about clothing. It demonstrates that the word’s meaning depends on context.

Some scholars understand Paul’s usage as referring to males taking a passive role in same-sex intercourse.

Others have connected it to male prostitution or exploitation.

Still others argue that its broader historical meanings make a precise modern equivalent difficult.

The second word is arsenokoitai.

It combines Greek elements associated with “male” and “bed,” the latter often carrying a sexual meaning.

Many scholars believe the term draws from the Greek translation of Leviticus, where language about a male lying with another male appears.

Traditional interpreters consequently understand arsenokoitai as referring broadly to male same-sex intercourse.

Other scholars dispute the full scope of the term, questioning whether its original usage included particular exploitative practices or all male same-sex relationships.

It would be inaccurate to claim that scholars unanimously agree the term referred only to child abuse or prostitution.

It would also be inaccurate to claim the Greek words directly correspond to every aspect of the modern category of homosexuality.

The Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition, translates the two categories as “boy prostitutes” and “sodomites.”

Its explanatory notes discuss sexual practices involving boys and adult males.

The New International Version instead combines the two Greek terms into the phrase “men who have sex with men.”

The New English Translation distinguishes passive and active participants in male same-sex activity, while acknowledging translation difficulties in its notes.

Different translation committees have made different decisions about how to communicate these ancient words.

That does not prove every translation is wrong.

It demonstrates why modern readers should not pretend that one English phrase settles every historical and theological question.

Sources: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1 Corinthians 6; NET Bible translation notes; NIV translation notes.

 

The Word “Homosexual” Did Not Appear Until 1946

Here is one of the most important historical facts in the discussion.

The English word “homosexual” first appeared in a major English Bible translation in the Revised Standard Version’s New Testament published in 1946.

Historian Heather R. White documents this development in Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights, published by the University of North Carolina Press.

Before that translation, English Bibles used different terminology.

The 1611 King James Version rendered the relevant portion of 1 Corinthians 6:9 using two expressions:

“Effeminate”

And:

“Abusers of themselves with mankind.”

The 1946 Revised Standard Version combined the disputed Greek categories under the designation “homosexuals.”

Subsequent revisions changed the wording again.

The later RSV text available today uses “sexual perverts” instead.

The full RSV Bible was published in 1952, following the New Testament’s 1946 release.

This historical sequence matters because the words used in a Bible translation can influence how readers understand the people being described.

But it also requires an important correction.

The word “homosexual” entering an English Bible in 1946 does not mean religious objections to same-sex acts began in 1946.

Jewish and Christian writers had discussed and condemned various same-sex acts centuries earlier.

Traditional Christian interpretations existed long before modern English translations.

Historian David W. Kling, writing in The Bible in History, traces how Christian teaching generally condemned same-sex sexual activity through much of church history, while modern affirming interpretations became increasingly prominent during the twentieth century.

So two facts must be held together.

The ancient texts did not use the modern English category “homosexual.”

But ancient religious opposition to certain same-sex acts did exist.

The real question is how those ancient prohibitions relate to modern understandings of sexual orientation and committed relationships.

 

Homosexuality Existed Long Before the Word

Another common misconception is that homosexuality is a modern invention.

It is not.

The terminology is modern.

Human same-sex attraction and sexual behavior are not.

The modern term “homosexuality” emerged in nineteenth-century Europe.

Historian Manfred Herzer documents that Karl Maria Kertbeny used the German term Homosexualität in an anonymous pamphlet published in 1869.

Kertbeny was arguing against the criminal prosecution of same-sex conduct.

The terminology eventually spread through medical, psychological, legal, and political discussions.

But the absence of the word in earlier civilizations does not mean same-sex attraction was absent.

Historical evidence from ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other societies establishes that people engaged in same-sex relationships or sexual behavior long before modern identity terminology existed.

Research published by Cambridge University Press describes how ancient Greek and Roman sexual expectations were heavily influenced by citizenship, social status, gender roles, and distinctions between active and passive sexual partners.

The Austrian Academy of Sciences has also documented evidence of same-sex relationships in ancient Egypt.

Egyptologist Uroš Matić notes that ancient Egyptian society did not employ the modern categories of heterosexual and homosexual identity in the way contemporary societies do.

Yet evidence of same-sex relations exists.

The historical distinction is crucial.

Ancient people could experience same-sex attraction or engage in same-sex behavior without identifying themselves according to modern sexual-orientation categories.

That does not make their experiences imaginary.

It means historians must avoid automatically placing modern concepts into ancient societies.

The same principle applies when reading the Bible.

 

Leviticus: Ancient Law or a Universal Prohibition?

Two of the most frequently cited passages are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

Both address sexual intercourse between males.

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits a male from lying with another male in the manner described by the text.

Leviticus 20:13 repeats the prohibition and prescribes a death penalty within the ancient Israelite legal framework.

These verses cannot reasonably be dismissed as nonexistent.

They are there.

The disagreement concerns exactly what practices the ancient language prohibits and how those laws apply to Christians today.

The chapters belong to the ancient Israelite legal and religious tradition.

Nearby rules concern incest, adultery, menstruation, ritual practices, and other sexual or religious prohibitions.

Christians have historically differed over which elements of Mosaic law remain binding after the establishment of the New Covenant.

Many churches distinguish moral laws from ceremonial or civil laws, maintaining that prohibitions on same-sex intercourse remain morally binding even though ancient Israel’s civil penalties do not apply.

Other Christian scholars challenge those distinctions or argue that the ancient prohibitions must be interpreted through their historical and covenantal setting.

A 2022 survey by biblical scholar Mark Preston Stone examined more than twenty proposed historical-critical interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

That does not mean every proposal is equally convincing.

It does establish that the academic debate is considerably more complex than a single social-media declaration suggests.

There is another important observation.

The passages address particular acts between males.

They do not directly discuss a modern category encompassing gay men and lesbians as people with an enduring same-sex orientation.

And they do not themselves say that everyone who experiences same-sex attraction is excluded from heaven.

 

Romans: Paul’s Strongest Argument

Another major passage is Romans 1:26–27.

Here, Paul describes women and men engaging in sexual behavior that he characterizes as contrary to nature.

He specifically refers to men experiencing desire for other men and engaging in sexual acts with them.

This passage presents a stronger challenge to interpretations claiming the New Testament never addresses same-sex sexual conduct.

It plainly does.

Traditional Christian theologians interpret Romans as condemning same-sex sexual activity generally.

Affirming interpreters argue that Paul’s language must be considered within his discussion of idolatry, excessive desire, and the sexual practices of the ancient Mediterranean world.

They question whether the passage is addressing the same kind of mutually committed, non-exploitative relationships recognized today.

The traditional response is that Paul’s argument concerns the sexual acts themselves, not merely exploitation or idolatrous rituals.

Neither side can responsibly resolve the debate simply by pretending the other side has no textual argument.

But there is another important part of Romans that social-media commentators frequently overlook.

Romans 2:1 immediately turns toward the person who judges others.

Paul warns readers who condemn wrongdoing in others while failing to recognize their own wrongdoing.

This does not prohibit Christians from making moral distinctions.

It does challenge the assumption that condemning someone else proves one’s own righteousness.

And later in Romans, Paul develops his broader argument concerning sin, grace, and justification.

A person who quotes Romans 1 to condemn others should also be willing to confront Romans 2.

That is what reading scripture in context requires.

 

Sodom Was Not a Story About a Loving Gay Couple

The destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19 has been invoked for centuries in arguments about homosexuality.

But the actual narrative requires careful examination.

Men from the city surround Lot’s home and demand access to his visitors.

The context involves threatened sexual assault.

This is not a description of a loving, consensual relationship between two adults.

It involves coercion, violence, and an attack on vulnerable visitors.

Another biblical passage provides additional context.

In Ezekiel 16:49, the prophet identifies Sodom’s wrongdoing as involving arrogance, prosperity without compassion, and neglect of the poor and needy.

Verse 50 also refers to detestable acts.

Traditional theologians argue that those detestable acts include sexual wrongdoing.

Other interpreters emphasize violence, hostility toward outsiders, and the abuse described in Genesis.

Jude 7 also associates Sodom with sexual immorality and a pursuit of strange or different flesh, a phrase whose precise interpretation is disputed.

A complete account must acknowledge all these passages.

It is inaccurate to say Sodom’s wrongdoing involved nothing sexual.

But it is also inaccurate to treat the attempted sexual assault of visitors as evidence that all loving same-sex relationships are equivalent to the conduct in Genesis 19.

Sexual violence and consensual relationships are not interchangeable categories.

Whatever one’s religious interpretation, the distinction must be acknowledged.

 

Did the Bible Ever Describe Same-Sex Love Positively?

Two biblical relationships frequently enter this discussion.

David and Jonathan.

And Ruth and Naomi.

In 2 Samuel 1:26, David expresses extraordinary affection for Jonathan, comparing Jonathan’s love favorably with the love of women.

Some scholars have examined whether their bond included romantic or homoerotic elements.

Others interpret it as an intense but nonsexual friendship shaped by political loyalty and covenantal commitments.

The biblical account does not explicitly establish that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship.

Similarly, Ruth’s declaration of loyalty to Naomi in Ruth 1:16–17 has become meaningful to many lesbian readers.

But the narrative does not explicitly identify Ruth and Naomi as romantic partners.

Scholars may study the emotional and literary significance of these relationships.

What they should not do is present an uncertain interpretation as settled historical fact.

The Bible clearly contains accounts of profound same-sex affection.

Whether particular relationships were sexual is a separate historical question.

And the available evidence does not always resolve it.

 

What Did Jesus Actually Say?

This is another significant distinction.

The canonical Gospels do not record Jesus explicitly discussing homosexuality as a modern identity or directly addressing consensual same-sex relationships.

Jesus does discuss marriage.

In Matthew 19:4–6, he refers to the creation of male and female and the joining of husband and wife.

Traditional Christians understand that passage as affirming male-female marriage as the normative sexual union.

Affirming Christians respond that Jesus was answering a question about divorce and was not directly ruling on every possible relationship.

Both observations matter.

The recorded discussion concerns heterosexual marriage.

But the passage is not an explicit declaration that every gay person is condemned.

Nor does Jesus’ recorded silence settle whether he would have approved of same-sex relationships.

Silence alone does not establish either approval or condemnation.

What the Gospels do record repeatedly is Jesus challenging religious hypocrisy, warning against self-righteousness, emphasizing mercy, and teaching the importance of loving one’s neighbor.

In Matthew 7:1–5, Jesus warns against hypocritical judgment.

The passage does not eliminate moral accountability.

It warns people to examine their own faults before condemning others.

And Matthew 7:12 establishes the principle of treating other people as one would wish to be treated.

Those teachings also belong in any serious Christian discussion of homosexuality.

 

Can Anyone Claim to Know Who Is in Heaven?

The screenshot goes beyond a moral interpretation.

It claims knowledge of an entire group’s eternal destiny.

That creates a theological problem even for Christians who hold traditional beliefs about same-sex sexual activity.

Ephesians 2:8–9 emphasizes salvation through grace and faith rather than personal achievement.

Christian denominations disagree about the relationship between faith, repentance, good works, and salvation.

But salvation is not ordinarily understood as something a stranger can definitively determine through a Facebook graphic.

Some churches believe same-sex sexual activity is sinful while distinguishing it from involuntary same-sex attraction.

Others believe faithful same-sex relationships can be consistent with Christian teaching.

Still others maintain more restrictive positions concerning sexual orientation and identity.

These are real theological disagreements.

They should not be erased.

But none makes the person posting an internet meme omniscient.

Even under conservative Christian teaching, it is possible for a person with same-sex attraction to live faithfully according to that tradition.

That fact alone disproves the claim that being a gay person automatically determines eternal exclusion.

And under affirming Christian theology, the conclusion is rejected for additional reasons.

There is no single Christian consensus about every question involved.

The existence of disagreement does not make all interpretations equally persuasive.

It does mean that a declaration excluding every gay person from heaven cannot honestly be presented as an uncontested quotation from scripture.

 

The Translation History Cannot Be Ignored

Consider the historical sequence.

Ancient Israel: Hebrew laws addressed male same-sex intercourse within a wider religious and legal code.

First-century Christianity: Paul discussed same-sex sexual behavior in Romans and used disputed Greek terminology in 1 Corinthians.

Early and medieval Christianity: Religious writers developed prohibitions against various same-sex acts, long before modern sexual-orientation categories existed.

1611: The King James Version translated 1 Corinthians using expressions such as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.”

1869: The term Homosexualität appeared in Kertbeny’s published writing, contributing to modern sexual-orientation terminology.

1946: The Revised Standard Version’s New Testament introduced “homosexuals” into a major English Bible translation of 1 Corinthians.

1971: The later RSV revision used the broader term “sexual perverts.”

Modern translations: Bible versions continue to differ in their treatment of Paul’s Greek vocabulary.

This history disproves two competing oversimplifications.

First, same-sex attraction and behavior did not suddenly appear in the modern era.

Second, the absence of the English word “homosexual” before 1946 does not mean ancient religious writers never opposed same-sex acts.

But the history also demonstrates that biblical translation is an interpretive undertaking.

The words chosen by translators can influence how readers understand ancient writings.

And turning words that originally addressed conduct into a sweeping judgment about every person with a particular identity is a consequential interpretive step.

It deserves scrutiny.

 

Faith Should Not Become a Weapon Against Liberty

The Gays for Liberty Perspective

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe Christians have the right to read scripture, practice their faith, and maintain their religious convictions.

I also believe gay Americans have the right to live openly, establish families, participate in public life, and receive equal protection under civil law.

Those principles do not have to be enemies.

A church should be free to teach traditional sexual morality.

A pastor should be free to preach according to sincerely held religious beliefs.

A Christian should be free to disagree with homosexuality.

But that freedom does not make every claim made in God’s name historically accurate or biblically defensible.

And it does not give individuals the authority to declare that millions of people are automatically condemned.

What particularly bothers me about posts like this is that they strip away the complexity of scripture and replace it with a slogan designed to shock.

There is no effort to distinguish sexual orientation from sexual conduct.

No recognition that English translations have changed.

No acknowledgment of scholarly disagreements.

No discussion of salvation through grace.

And no attempt to engage with gay Christians who sincerely believe in God.

Instead, the message is simple.

You are gay.

Therefore, you are excluded.

That is not careful biblical scholarship.

That is someone’s interpretation being presented as an unquestionable divine verdict.

I have no problem with someone holding traditional religious beliefs.

But I do have a problem with people using religion to justify treating other Americans as inferior citizens.

Religious freedom protects your right to believe that same-sex relationships are sinful.

It also protects another person’s right to interpret scripture differently.

And constitutional equality means government should not automatically impose one religious interpretation on every citizen.

That is the separation we must preserve.

I also believe the discussion needs to remain honest.

We should not claim the Bible never addressed male same-sex conduct.

It did.

We should not pretend that modern religious objections were invented in 1946.

They were not.

But we should not pretend ancient biblical authors were directly discussing the modern social and psychological understanding of gay identity in every respect.

They were writing within a different historical world.

That context matters.

And I reject the idea that gay Americans must disappear from religious or public life simply because other people disapprove of them.

The freedom to believe is not the freedom to determine everyone else’s citizenship, legal rights, or eternal destiny.

You can believe in God and support constitutional equality.

You can defend religious liberty without endorsing religious hostility.

You can be a conservative and acknowledge gay history.

And you can challenge a misleading biblical claim without attacking Christianity itself.

In fact, insisting on accurate translations, historical context, and intellectual honesty is a form of respect for scripture.

 

The Bible Is Bigger Than a Facebook Meme

The image circulating online makes a claim it cannot establish.

It presents a modern identity-based conclusion as though it were a direct biblical quotation.

It omits an important verse about redemption.

It ignores centuries of translation history.

And it treats complex theological disagreements as though they have already been resolved by someone posting a sentence in large white letters.

The actual historical record is different.

Same-sex attraction and relationships existed long before modern terminology.

The Bible contains ancient prohibitions of particular sexual acts.

Christian interpretations have evolved and diverged over time.

Bible translations have changed.

And Christians continue to disagree about how ancient texts apply to contemporary same-sex relationships.

None of these facts gives us a complete empirical answer about heaven.

Heaven is a matter of religious belief, not something historians can verify through documentary evidence.

But we can evaluate whether a social-media claim accurately represents the religious text it cites.

And in this case, the answer is no.

A Bible verse about wrongdoing and redemption is not a license to announce that an entire category of human beings is eternally damned.

Religious believers have the right to preach.

Gay Americans have the right to disagree.

And everyone has the responsibility to distinguish their own interpretations from the actual words of scripture.

If the Bible is important enough to quote, it should be important enough to read completely.

Faith should invite serious examination, not demand surrender to an inflammatory meme.

That is Pride with Purpose.

Gays for Liberty

---

A viral Facebook post claims that no gay person will ever enter heaven, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. But what does the original Bible actually say? We examine the missing verse, disputed Greek and Hebrew translations, the arrival of the word “homosexual” in English Bibles in 1946, ancient same-sex history, Jesus’ teachings, and the difference between religious belief and declaring someone eternally condemned.

#GaysForLiberty, #PrideWithPurpose, #GayChristians, #BibleHistory, #BibleTranslation, #Christianity, #ReligiousFreedom, #LGBRights, #GayHistory, #HomosexualityAndTheBible, #FirstCorinthians, #FaithAndLiberty, #ConstitutionalRights, #EqualProtection, #FreedomOfReligion, #BibleStudy, #GayConservatives, #LGBIssues, #GoRight,

---

Sources

1. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | 1 Corinthians Chapter 6
Full passage, translator’s notes, and commentary concerning the Greek terms.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6

2. New International Version | 1 Corinthians 6:9–11
Translation used in the Facebook screenshot, including the omitted verse 11 and explanatory footnote.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-11&version=NIV

3. King James Version | 1 Corinthians 6
Earlier English wording of the disputed passage.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=KJV

4. Revised Standard Version | 1 Corinthians 6
Later RSV wording, permitting comparison with the original 1946 translation history.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=RSV

5. Oxford Academic | Heather R. White, Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights
Historical study of how modern homosexuality terminology entered English Bible translation.

https://doi.org/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469624112.003.0001

6. Oxford Academic | David W. Kling, The Bible in History
Historical research examining traditional and modern Christian interpretations of same-sex sexual behavior.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197525364.003.0011

7. Currents in Biblical Research | Mark Preston Stone, 2022
Peer-reviewed survey of historical-critical interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X221098073

8. Oxford Handbook of New Testament, Gender, and Sexuality | Same-Sex Relations
Academic examination of Romans, ancient sexual practices, and interpretive debates.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213398.013.39

9. Cambridge University Press | Discourses of Desire in Ancient Greece and Rome
Historical examination of sexuality and social norms in the ancient Mediterranean world.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108896016.006

10. Austrian Academy of Sciences | Queerness in Ancient Egypt
Egyptological research on ancient same-sex relationships and differences from modern identity categories.

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/queerness-in-ancient-egypt

11. Journal of Homosexuality | Manfred Herzer, Kertbeny and the Nameless Love
Research documenting the introduction of the term “homosexuality” in 1869.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3913702/

12. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | Leviticus 18
Ancient Israelite sexual prohibitions and accompanying translation notes.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/leviticus/18

13. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | Romans 1–2
Paul’s discussion of same-sex conduct, idolatry, judgment, and human wrongdoing.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/1

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/2

14. Bible Gateway | Ezekiel 16:49 and Genesis 19
The biblical accounts concerning Sodom and its wrongdoing.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A49-50%3BGenesis+19&version=NIV

15. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | Matthew 7
Jesus’ teachings about judgment, hypocrisy, and the Golden Rule.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/7

16. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | Ephesians 2
Christian teachings concerning grace, faith, and salvation.

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/2

---

GaysForLiberty.Substack.com

Real News. Real LGB/TQ Issues. A More Moderate Perspective.