Wesley Hill Says Unrepentant Homosexuality Does Not Endanger One’s Soul?

Wesley Hill is a celibate, self-described “gay Christian” and Episcopal priest and professor who is perhaps best known for his book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality and for writing for such publications as Christianity Today and The Living Church.

A key figure and supporter of the controversial Revoice conference, we last wrote about him after he said he feels no need to oppose a lot of what he finds in queer theology.

He recently announced that he’s taken a job at Wycliffe College in Toronto, and Christian scholar Robert Gagnon shared why this is so problematic, given Hill’s unbiblical and untenable perspectives on homosexuality. Reprinted in full with permission from a FB post:

---

𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 “𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬” 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦


Wesley Hill… 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬 in a most twisted manner in his 2025 article, “Excluded from God’s Kingdom? (1 Cor. 6:9-10),” 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 (or any other grievous self-affirmed sins, for that matter) 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Indeed, 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 “𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧 [𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞] 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 [𝐠𝐚𝐲] 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦.” 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 “𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 [𝐢𝐭𝐬] 𝐧𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲,” 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, for it has no application to them or, for that matter, any other self-professed Christian engaged in any grievous sin.

In making such a claim, 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙖 (a Greek philosophical term for “things that don’t matter” or “𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞”) 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. 𝐃𝐫. 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥’𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. (For further discussion of the 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 issue, see the addendum at the end of this post.)

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐡. 𝟓 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 “𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡” 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 serial-unrepentant, grievously 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝. (The offender list in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is of one piece with the shorter vice lists in 5:9-11; it simply adds a few specific sexual offenses to fill out the generic term “sexually immoral people” [𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘪].) 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚: 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙩 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚.

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, “𝐈𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡) 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 (i.e., put on church discipline)?” 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠: “𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧 self-professed believers who are living sexually immoral lives 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦. 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 those who are living sexually immoral lives.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬, for all intents and purposes, 𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 in any serious or practical way 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 to such an extreme departure from what Jesus regarded as the very foundation of all sexual ethics. 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐭𝐨-𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The article appears in an edited volume by Karen Keen (a lesbian author who dropped out of the NT Ph.D. program at Duke and who promotes homosexual relationships) and Ronald Pierce (Ph.D., Fuller, who has taught at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University since 1976), entitled, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘋𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘋𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦: 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘎𝘉𝘛𝘘 𝘋𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 (Baker, 2025). This propaganda book aims at rejecting homosexual practice and transgenderism as church-dividing issues and embracing those engaged in such behavior as full believers.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬:

𝐓𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟔:𝟗–𝟏𝟎 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 most important 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 of Paul’s gospel: that assurance of the horrible fate of sexual sinners is not ours to have. 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐛, rather, 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐧𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. Christ is risen. He has borne all our judgment. He lives always to intercede for us.

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐚𝐬 “𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬” who are actively engaged in serial-unrepentant homosexual practice 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 “𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝” 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 that they will not suffer the same fate. To the contrary. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎, 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬:

“For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from sexual immorality (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘢) . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to impurity (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢, the same word for homosexual practice in Rom 1:24) but in holiness. Therefore, the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us.” (𝟏 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝟒:𝟐-𝟖)

“The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘢), impurity (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢), licentiousness (𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘢)…, which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (𝐆𝐚𝐥 𝟓:𝟏𝟗-𝟐𝟏)

“Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts.” (𝐆𝐚𝐥 𝟔:𝟕-𝟗)

“I may have to mourn (as at a funeral) over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the impurity (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢), sexual immorality (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘢), and licentiousness (𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘢) that they practiced.” (𝟐 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟏𝟐:𝟐𝟏)

“No longer walk as the Gentiles walk, … who … have given themselves up to licentiousness (𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘢) for the doing of every impurity (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢)…..” (𝐄𝐩𝐡 𝟒:𝟏𝟕-𝟏𝟗)

“Sexual immorality (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘢) and impurity (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢) of any kind … must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints…. Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral person (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘰𝘴) or impure person (𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘰𝘴) … has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience.” (𝐄𝐩𝐡 𝟓:𝟑-𝟔)

Hill is contending that because Christ “has borne all our judgment” no sinful actions that self-professed Christians engage in, no matter how grievous and extreme, no matter how numerous and self-affirming, can ever put the “Christian” offender at risk of not inheriting God’s kingdom. Yet, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬, 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞-𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐞’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭’𝐬 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭 (Romans 8:12-14 and many other Pauline texts), not doing whatever one thinks is right in one’s own eyes.

Applied to the incestuous self-professed “brother” at Corinth, this would mean that 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 (𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥) 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. As I said, the exact opposite of what Paul was saying. If that were the case, there would have been no need to make the hard demand that the church at Corinth remove him from the life of the community (pending repentance), “not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:11).

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥’𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬, 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬.

Paul is clearly warning the church at Corinth that the incestuous man should be excluded from the life and fellowship of the church precisely because his serial-unrepentant, self-affirming, and egregious sexual immorality puts this extreme offender at high risk of exclusion from the kingdom of God. Only this justifies so serious an action as exclusion. His very life is at stake. He adds in 1 Cor 6:9 other severe offenses (as regards sexual immorality: adultery and man-male intercourse) that would likewise lead to temporary exclusion, pending repentance.

The other offenses mentioned in the list, in context, entail the most extreme manifestations of those behaviors. For example, “greedy people” (Gk. 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘰𝘯-𝘦𝘬𝘵𝘢𝘪) here connotes someone who exploits, defrauds, cheats, extorts, or generally takes advantage of another for personal gain, including unjust seizure of the property of others. It is not simply a desire for a little more money. A churchgoer who uses a “Ponzi scheme” to rip the elderly of the church out of their life savings would be a good modern application.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬:

(𝟏) 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐉𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 (1930–2017) who, after citing 1 Cor 10:1-13 (why Hill as a NT scholar doesn’t instead do his own exegesis of this warning I know not) says: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐭, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭.”

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬. 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐲 (through eating idol meat at the temples of idols) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭, 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝 (1 Cor 10:1-13). To say, as Hill does, that it is not Paul’s “point” with such warnings to alarm them about the dire eternal consequences of veering off into idolatry and immorality is absurd.

Paul repeatedly “proclaims” such warnings in his letters to self-professed Christians, “threatening” exclusion from God’s kingdom, and by no means implying that he proclaims them only “to obviate the threat” and to declare that the exclusion could never happen. That’s certainly the case with the incestuous man at Corinth.

Even if one wants to insist on the alleged doctrine of eternal security (“once saved, always saved” [OSAS]), 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡. Some perseverance-of-the-saints NT scholars argue that such warnings by Paul about possible loss of salvation effectively keep true believers faithful through the alarming nature of the warning; but they still acknowledge that Paul repeatedly made such warnings.

Paul also certainly believes that such extreme heresies or self-affirmed immoralities can be evidence that the self-professed believer never was a true believer. It is not limited to that view in my opinion (i.e., Paul also wanted his converts who genuinely received the Spirit to think that they could be excluded from God’s kingdom if they persisted in extreme immorality or heresy) but it certainly includes it.

To argue, as Hill does, that we shouldn’t proclaim or threaten such warnings to unrepentant, homosexually active, self-professed Christians, or to others engaged in grievous immorality, when Paul manifestly does precisely that to his Christian audiences in nearly all his letters (and not for the purpose of immediately denying their applicability), is untenable in the extreme.

(𝟐) 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧 “𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠” (5:6), where Paul charged them with being “puffed up” (inflated with pride) in their toleration of a case of egregious immorality over which they should rather have “mourned” (as at a funeral; 5:2), 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 “𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.” Hill talks about “a long, slow process of redressing that failure” for each individual who is homosexually active.

He contends that “the church community is at fault just as much as the individual sinner” (or, as he later adds, “more” so) for “its failure to catechize its members in … sexual ethics.” I agree that the church has a responsibility to teach sexual ethics and has been lacking in doing so. But we don’t see Paul taking a view that the Corinthians should take “a very long time” in putting the incestuous offender on church discipline.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥’𝐬 𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥.

The incest should have stopped yesterday. Doing nothing about it sends the signal to the whole church that foundational sexual ethics don’t matter.

Hill claims that Paul “appears to take it for granted that the Corinthians will agree with him about the heinousness of the sin in question (5:1). On the contrary, as noted above, the Corinthians are boasting in, and arrogant about, their toleration of such behavior (5:2, 6).

Paul is content with alluding to the Levitical and Deuteronomic prohibitions of man-stepmother intercourse with his reference to someone having “his father’s wife” (5:1; Lev 18:8, 11; 20:11; Deut 22:30; 27:20). In short, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐤𝐞 of the incestuous man, just as the reference in 1 Cor 6:9 to “men lying with a male” (𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘰-𝘬𝘰𝘪-𝘵𝘢𝘪) alludes to the Levitical prohibitions of men lying with a male in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. 𝐍𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐧-𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝.

I’m all for giving homosexually active, self-professed Christians instruction on why homosexual practice is wrong. The biblical witness is overwhelming and one can also make a solid case from philosophy and science. However, it doesn’t require years or even months to do so.

Paul’s remark that this instance of “sexual immorality” (𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘢; viz., of a man sleeping with his stepmother) is “of a sort that is not even among [or: condoned by] the Gentiles” is designed to shame the Corinthian believers for not recognizing what even pagans commonly recognize. It was not intended as a means of dragging out a process of correction over months, let alone years, for egregious sins that pagans often did condone (including male homosexual practice).

This whole argument by Hill is further confused by the fact that, 𝐢𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬” 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧–indeed, he categorically denies that exclusion from the kingdom of God is even a possibility–𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞. For the early church connected church discipline not with minor infractions but rather with behaviors and beliefs that could get one excluded from eternal life.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 “𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬” who might be inclined to put on church discipline those who are actively and unrepentantly involved in homosexual intercourse. 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 (or in days to come, the Canadian Anglican Church) that thoroughly endorses homosexual practice.

Moreover, 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤’𝐬 𝐜𝐨-𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫, 𝐊𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐊𝐞𝐞𝐧, a personal friend of his, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥” 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 “𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩” but rather should “walk alongside each person with reassurances of God’s unconditional love” and “hold space for one another in the church.”

It thus appears that Hill, practically speaking, isn’t interested in any kind of church discipline for those who are homosexually active or living out a “transgender” life or engaged in any other egregious unrepentant sinning.

(𝟑) 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟏𝟏 (“These things some of you were; but you had yourselves washed off…”), 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:

//Paul discourages the Corinthians from viewing themselves as among the “wrongdoers” whose same-sex sexual sin he identifies…. The point of listing the vices of the ungodly is not to make the Corinthians afraid of their own eschatological destiny but rather to reinforce their new, baptismal identity as those who are no longer part of the community of “wrongdoers.” … Threatening the Corinthian believers with exclusion seems not to be the point…. The unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom—but the point is that the Corinthians are no longer “unrighteous.”//

𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 (𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 in Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 in 1 Thess 4:2-8; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐄𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬” in Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6). He does urge them to maintain and grow into what God already made them to be in Christ. “Become what you already are.’

Should they not follow that pattern by lining up with the Spirit (Gal 5:25), being led by the Spirit (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18), and presenting their “members” no longer as slaves to sexual “impurity” (Rom 6:19), they run the risk of not inheriting the kingdom. That’s the problem that the incestuous man faces, which is why Paul urges the Corinthian church to remove him (pending repentance) from the life of the community.

It is absolutely true that Paul intends the church discipline of the incestuous man to be “restorative” rather than “punitive.” It is also true that Paul “hopes for the sinner’s ultimate salvation: ‘so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord’ (5:5b),” though no guarantee that it will achieve restoration. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞, 𝐚𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 “𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧 … 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐮𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧; some simply merit fatherly correction.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞. Homosexual practice is not merely an assault on a principle extrapolated secondarily from the foundation of sexual ethics as defined by Jesus (Mark 10:2-12 par. Matt 19:3-9, citing Genesis 1:27 [male and female he created them] and 2:24 [a man becomes joined to his woman]). It is an assault on the very foundation itself.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬. That’s why he hates my work and never cites it, including in this article despite my significant work on 1 Cor 6:9 (34 pages in just my first book) and all other texts related to homosexual practice.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 (𝟒), 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 “𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞” (𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘰-𝘬𝘰𝘪-𝘵𝘢𝘪) 𝐢𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗 𝐚𝐧 “𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬” 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 “𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 “𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 in the … discussion” of the Bible and homosexual practice.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟏 𝐓𝐢𝐦 𝟏:𝟏𝟎) 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭 “𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 to professing believers who commit sexual sin.” 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 “𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟏 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 ‘𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬’ 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥—it is … not a blueprint for how to negotiate dissension and dispute in the church.”

𝐈𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞: 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘬𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘪 𝐢𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗, 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟏 𝐓𝐢𝐦 𝟏:𝟏𝟎, 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. This is self-evident from the word’s morphology (formation), which can only be translated as “men lying with a male,” from the fact that the word clearly has the Levitical prohibitions in view (“lying with a male”), from the interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions in early Judaism and by the Church Fathers and their rejection even of same-sex “marriages,” and from Paul’s discussion of homosexual practice in Rom 1:24-27 (which clearly has in view consensual and reciprocal same-sex sexual relationships).

𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝, 𝐑𝐨𝐦 𝟏:𝟐𝟒-𝟐𝟕 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚 “𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞” 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐑𝐨𝐦 𝟏:𝟏𝟖-𝟑𝟐 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐬 (including murder). 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝟔:𝟏𝟗 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 “𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 (𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥) 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 (Gk. 𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢)” transparently 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 and other unnamed sexual sins as “impurity” in Rom 1:24. This statement in 6:19 is 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝟔:𝟏-𝟖:𝟏𝟕 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 “𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 (sinful impulses operating in) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡” rather than being “led by the Spirit” will perish (8:12-14).

𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟑:𝟏𝟑 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 “𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦, … 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 (𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥) 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 [or: sexual misbehaviors]) and licentiousness [or: sexual unrestraint] (𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘪𝘢𝘪𝘴).” What I have translated “(immoral) acts of lying down” is the Greek word 𝘬𝘰í𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘴, dative plural of 𝘬𝘰í𝘵ē. This 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝙖𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙤-𝙠𝙤𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙞, “men lying down with a male.” Certainly Paul viewed “men lying down with a male” as a key instance of “immoral acts of lying down.” The surrounding themes of the approach of salvation, “night/day,” “darkness/light,” and “making no provision for the flesh for its (sinful) desires” are all associated elsewhere in Paul with warnings of coming judgment including upon unfaithful self-professed believers.

As I have noted, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞–treated in Scripture as an even worse offense than incest because it attacks the very male-female foundation of all sexual ethics–𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭” 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟎 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞-𝐬𝐞𝐱 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 “𝐒𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐁” 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐭.

𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 “𝐟𝐢𝐱” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐭𝐨-𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 (!) 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝, 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 “𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬” 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞.

𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲-𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦. 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥.

𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦: 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝘼𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙖?

I contended at the start of this post that Hill has “effectively reduced homosexual practice to one among many 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 … that has little or no bearing on Christian fellowship.” Some may contest this statement because Hill in the article does not explicitly use the nomenclature.

𝘈𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 (Greek for “matters of indifference”) are not issues that are in all respects unimportant. In the context of Paul’s letters, they are issues that (1) do not affect a self-professed Christian’s inheritance of the kingdom of God (hence, no warning about possible exclusion from the kingdom); and (2) thus are not made a condition or test for ongoing Christian fellowship.

For example, in Romans 14, while matters of diet and calendar are not unimportant issues, Paul does not think that they rise to the level of salvation-endangering, fellowship-rupturing views and behaviors. (I would argue that there are a number of beliefs and practices that separate denominations but which should instead be viewed as 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 because they don’t define who is a faithful Christian.)

By this measure, Hill treats homosexual practice and transgenderism as 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢. Even though he says that he views such actions as sin, he does not regard them as salvation-threatening or (for all practical purposes) a test of fellowship.

I admit that in his article Hill does not theoretically rule out remedial and temporary expulsion from the church (pending repentance), but his “very long time” approach to church correction makes it practically impossible to doing anything about it. Moreover, his insistence that such behavior (or indeed 𝘢𝘯𝘺 behavior) can never put at risk a self-professed Christian’s inheritance of God’s kingdom leaves him without any Pauline grounds for church discipline.

For these reasons I believe I am accurate in saying that that Hill has “effectively reduced homosexual practice to one among many 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 … that has little or no bearing on Christian fellowship.”

I would be happy for Wesley Hill to correct me here if I have misunderstood his position.

In (the above post) I argued, based on a 2025 article by Wesley Hill that rejects the warning of 1 Cor 6:9-10 as not applicable to homosexually active “Christians,” I contended that Hill has “effectively reduced homosexual practice to one among many 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 … that has little or no bearing on Christian fellowship.”

𝘈𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 (Greek for “matters of indifference”) are not issues that are in all respects unimportant. In the context of Paul’s letters, they are issues that (1) do not affect a self-professed Christian’s inheritance of the kingdom of God (hence, no warning about possible exclusion from the kingdom); and (2) thus are not made a condition or test for ongoing Christian fellowship.

For example, in Romans 14, while matters of diet and calendar are not unimportant issues, Paul does not think that they rise to the level of salvation-endangering, fellowship-rupturing views and behaviors. (I would argue that there are a number of beliefs and practices that separate denominations but which should instead be viewed as 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 because they don’t define who is a faithful Christian.)

By this measure, Hill treats homosexual practice and transgenderism as 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢. Even though he says that he views such actions as sin, he does not regard them as salvation-threatening or (for all practical purposes) a test of fellowship.

I admit that in his article Hill does not theoretically rule out remedial and temporary expulsion from the church (pending repentance), but his “very long time” approach to church correction makes it practically impossible to doing anything about it.
Moreover, his insistence that such behavior (or indeed 𝘢𝘯𝘺 behavior) can never put at risk a self-professed Christian’s inheritance of God’s kingdom leaves him without any Pauline grounds for church discipline.

For these reasons I believe I am accurate in saying that that Hill has “effectively reduced homosexual practice to one among many 𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘢 … that has little or no bearing on Christian fellowship.”

I would be happy for Wesley Hill to correct me here if I have misunderstood his position.