In our cultural moment, Christians are under increasing pressure to revise or abandon biblical teaching on sexuality. But Scripture has not changed. The moral prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are part of God’s enduring design for human flourishing. They are not temporary rules, ritual taboos, or relics of a bygone culture.

One of the more surprising and far-reaching changes in American life over the past fifty years has been the rapid and widespread approval of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. In the 1970s, public support for same-sex relationships was minimal—only 12% of Americans in 1973 said they believed homosexuality was morally acceptable, according to Gallup polling. Fast forward to the 2020s, and that number has risen to over 70%, with a similar majority now supporting same-sex marriage.

This shift hasn’t just occurred among the progressive left. Many cultural conservatives have changed their views as well. Notably, the Republican Party removed all references to homosexuality from its party platform leading up to the 2024 presidential election—a symbolic but significant departure from past decades of moral opposition.

At the popular level, it’s now common to hear of celebrities, musicians, and even Christian authors who have adopted more affirming positions on homosexuality. Within academic theology, some formerly traditional voices have changed course. One of the most striking examples is Richard B. Hays, a New Testament scholar whose earlier writings strongly defended a historic Christian sexual ethic but who has since taken a more open stance.

My purpose in this article is not necessarily to shape broader cultural thinking on this issue. Rather, it is to reinforce the historic Christian sexual ethic for thoughtful Christians who are trying to remain faithful amid increasing cultural and ecclesial confusion.

To that end, what follows is a review of five of the most common arguments made by affirming Christians—those who believe same-sex relationships are morally permissible—and a response to each rooted in Scripture, theology, and moral reasoning.

Argument 1: “Leviticus Is Just About Old Ritual Laws”

Affirming Christians often argue that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are part of a larger set of ritual purity laws no longer binding under the New Covenant. Since we don’t obey laws about dietary restrictions, mixed fabrics, or mildew, they argue, we shouldn’t apply the prohibition against same-sex acts either.

It’s true that Christians are no longer bound by the ceremonial and civil laws of ancient Israel (see Acts 10:9–16; Col. 2:16–17; Heb. 10:1–14). These laws served a unique function in Israel’s redemptive history and were fulfilled in Christ. But this argument assumes something it must prove—that the prohibition of same-sex acts belongs to that category.

In reality, Leviticus 18 and 20 place the prohibition of homosexual acts squarely within a list of enduring moral offenses, including incest, adultery, and bestiality. Nearly all Christians, including affirming ones, continue to affirm those other prohibitions. Are we to assume that these sexual sins are also now morally acceptable?

The language of Leviticus 18:24–25 reinforces that these sins defile not just the individual but the land, prompting God’s judgment on nations. These are not merely ceremonial offenses. They reflect God’s moral order and are reaffirmed in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:10).

Argument 2: “The Holiness Code No Longer Applies”

Some affirming Christians argue that Leviticus 18 and 20 belong to the “Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17–26)—a collection of laws meant to preserve Israel’s ritual distinctiveness. But this is merely a reworded version of the first argument.

Being part of the Holiness Code doesn’t automatically mean a command is temporary or ceremonial. The same section contains clear moral laws, including the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18), which Jesus calls the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39).

Read More