Following on the previous postings, here is the next in the series on homosexuality.  Having dealt with the narratives in the Old Testament, we now turn our attention to the legal pronouncements of the Old Testament.

1          The Old Testament Law

The other two specific Old Testament references to homosexuality come from the Law (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).  The first sets out the principle, and the second repeats it and adds the penalty:

·         “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”  Lev 18:2 (NIV).

·         “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”  Lev 20:13 (NIV).

The literal translation of the command is: “With a male you shall not lie [the] lyings of a woman; it is an abomination”[1].  The strange phrasing is due to the fact that Hebrew has no technical term for homosexuality.  However, the Hebrew word for “lie with” (shakav) most often refers to sexual intercourse, so the meaning is clear.  It is a prohibition of male on male sexual activity.  Its interesting to note two things:  (1) there is no prohibition of female on female sexual activity; and (2) there are many things in this passage that are also punishable by death – homosexual sex is not singled out as a specific, heinous sin.

So, if the literal translation is clearly a prohibition on homosexual sexual acts, what about the literary and culture contexts?  In brief, the answer seems to be that we as Christians rightly ignore so many of the same types of laws from the Old Testament (and from this section of the Law in particular), that it seems impossible for us to logically and consistently apply these laws about homosexuality to the homosexual today.  Let’s look at that claim in more detail.

1.1       A Biblical Sexual Ethic?

If the Old Testament laws still apply to Christians today, then there would be some consistent approach to their application.  However, this interpretative approach “is fraught with inconsistencies when it comes to the acceptance of biblically sanctioned sexual mores, and the application of biblically sanctioned punishments for sexual deviance.”[2]  “We regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding.  Other things, we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New.  What is our principle of selection here?”[3] 

The passages in Leviticus in which the references to male homosexual acts are found also deal with many different sexual practices.  As Christians, we are actually very selective in our dealings with the Bible and its sexual ethic.  Virtually all modern Christians would agree with the Bible in prohibiting incest, rape, adultery and intercourse with animals.  But the Bible specifically prohibits sexual behaviours that most of us would allow: intercourse during menstruation (Lev 18:19, 29), celibacy (some church traditions would disallow this practice), exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites), regarding semen and menstrual blood as unclean (you may not touch it, and women have to live outside the house/community during their menstrual period), masturbation and birth control (some Christians still condemn these last two).  Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviours that we today would condemn: polygamy, levirate marriages (if a married man died childless his brother was required to marry the wife and/or simply have intercourse with her to produce an heir, see Deut 25:5-10; cf. Mark 12:18-27), sex with slaves, concubinage, very early marriage (age 13 for a girl), arranged marriages (still practised in some cultures), and treatment of women as property.  Additionally, the Old Testament never explicitly prohibits sex between two unmarried, consenting adults as long as the women's economic value (her bride price) is not compromised (i.e. if she is already not a virgin).  The Bible also refuses to use words for the genitals, preferring to refer to the “foot” and “thigh” and referring to the sexual act itself as to “know” or “lie with” (this makes a reading of Ruth's encounter with Boaz, and his immediate desire to marry her, a little more understandable!). 

“Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the male's property rights over women.  Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen 38:12-19; Josh 2:1-7).  A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner.”[4]  In Lev 19:20-21 it implies that a slave girl could be treated as sexual property – at least the sin against her was seen as a minor infraction.  To our list, we could probably also add the NT commands about how a woman should adorn herself, not braiding her hair or wearing gold, pearls or make-up (see 1 Tim 2:9-10), and keeping her hair long and wearing a veil (1 Cor 11:4-7).  In addition, the law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut 24:1-4), yet Jesus appears to categorically forbid it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt 19:9 softens his severity).  Yet many Christians, in clear violation of this command, have been divorced.  

The point is that there is a lot of room for confusion in our interpretation of the Bible's supposed sexual ethic (I would argue that the Bible, in fact, does not have a consistent sexual ethic as such).  And we are VERY selective in our application of it.  We cannot do that.  We cannot pick and choose which commands we’ll obey and which we won’t just based on tradition, culture or personal feelings.  We need to consistently apply God’s Word, and in this case, that means accepting that the commands about make homosexuality in Leviticus cannot be applied to us today.

1.2       What is an “Abomination” (“Unclean” / “Detestable”)?

In addition to the concerns raised above, we must also attempt to understand what the original readers would have understood as they read the words of Moses in Leviticus.  It is important to understand some of the context for the restrictions in these verses, and why something is labeled an “abomination to God.”[5]  Note that “abomination” is a technical term, not referring to moral or ethical purity, but rather specifically to a serious breach of ritual law.  “The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BC) translated to'ebah into Greek as bdelygma, which meant ritual impurity.  If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.”[6]  The term, “abomination” or “detestable” occurs many times in Scripture (69 times in the KJV), and is applied to many different actions, but mainly relates to foods that may not be eaten, and cultic practices of the surrounding nations.  This second usage is the primary usage of the term outside of the Torah, in the historical and prophetic books of the OT.

Probably the most important reason homosexual activity was seen as an abomination was that “the Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life.  With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space.  Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose – in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation - was considered tantamount to murder.”[7]  All of these activities “waste” the sperm.  This is why female homosexuality is not mentioned, although female bestiality is specifically mentioned.  This type of thinking about the male seed has extended to prohibitions against birth control methods (even though the Bible does not mention it), invoking the injunction to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28 ).

In addition to these considerations, it must also be acknowledged that the Bible has a strong bias towards fertility and procreation.  This was due to underpopulation, both in the world in general as well as specifically in the small nation of , surrounded as it was by larger, warring nations.  Although sex for pleasure was allowed in Jewish tradition, the purpose of sex was mainly procreation.  Of course, with no reliable birth control, it was also important to ensure that people understood that every sexual encounter had the very real potential of creating life.  It would seem that this attitude need no longer apply.  The earth has been filled and subdued, and birth control methods are now fairly reliable.  Interestingly, in many other animal species, especially (but not solely) when overpopulation occurs, the males become homosexual (possibly as a means of population control)[8].  In these species, it seems to be a built-in, natural response triggered by the size of the population and its available resources. 

But this is not just linked to “filling the earth”, it was also linked to the Covenant.  “In fact, participation in God’s covenant with the chosen people depended on having children.”[9]  Covenant Theology still asserts this today, and for those who believe this way, sterility is one of the worst curses that can afflict them.  This would be another reason for thinking that any waste of sperm would be an “abomination”.

Finally, male sexual intercourse was often used in ancient times as a means of indicating dominance, contempt or scorn[10].  It was a common means of humiliating an enemy defeated in battle, and because of its abusive nature would be detestable to God.

The final reason could be that it is “against nature”.  This phrase does not appear in these verses, and does not make sense of the other uses of the term (why would eating specifically pork, eagles, vultures, owls, storks, unjointed and nonjumping insects, camels, rabbits or shrimp be “against nature”? – see, for example, Lev 11:13ff; 14:3ff).  Regardless, we will deal with this phrase when we look at Romans 1, below.

1.2.1       Deuteronomy 23:17-18

There is one other Old Testament passage often cited in this debate:

• “There shall be no whore of the daughters of , nor a sodomite of the sons of .  Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”  (Deut. 23:17-18 ) (KJV).

These verses have sometimes been linked to homosexuality, mainly because of the use of the phrase “sodomite” in the KJV.  However, other translations and the original text, clearly indicate that the intention here is to deal with cultic temple prostitution.  The NIV translates verse 17: “No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.”  The underlying Hebrew word also appears in Gen 38:13-24, where it refers specifically to prostitution and Hos 4:14 links it to cultic temple prostitution.  See also 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7.  Even if male temple prostitutes were committing homosexual acts, this injunction is clearly aimed at the cultic nature of the prostitution, and cannot be taken as a general indictment of homosexuality.  If it is seen as an indictment of homosexuality, then the logic applied would indicate that the reference to female temple prostitutes is an indictment of heterosexuality.  So, it seems safe to say that this verse and other references to male prostitution have absolutely nothing to say about monogamous, lifelong homosexual relationships.

Some authors argue, in fact, that this verse assists us in understanding the Levitical commands.  “As the Hebrews settled Canaan, their leaders worked to keep the identity of separate from that of the Canaanites.  A principle way to do that was to emphasize the Canaanites' practice of idolatry.  [Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy] equated sacred prostitution (an important part of Canaan's worship of fertility) with idolatry. Prostitution - and any sex act not contributing to procreation - came to be equated with idolatry.  When the Old Testament mentions homosexual acts it is usually in the context of male worshipers using male prostitutes in temples.”[11]

1.3       The context of the prohibitions

Although the Old Testament does not differentiate between different types of laws, most Biblical scholars find it helpful to separate the laws into different categories.  This is mainly to help us know which still apply to us today, and which do not.  The religious laws, cultic laws, and sacrificial laws obviously do not apply.  The civil law, including the various punishments laid out for infractions of the civil law also do not apply to us today.  However, “some aspects of the Old Testament ethical law are actually restated in the New Testament as applicable to Christians.  These aspects of the old law were obviously intended by God to continue to apply to all of His people on through the New Covenant He would establish with them.  Actually such laws derive their continued applicability from the fact that they serve to support the two basic laws of the New Covenant, on which depend all the Law and the prophets (Matt 22:40)”[12].

For example, “Do not commit murder” (Deut 5:17) clearly still applies[13], but restrictions on eating pork, rabbits or shrimps (Lev 11), wearing garments made of two different types of fabric (Lev 19:19), cutting your sideburns short (Lev 19:27) or wearing tattoos (Lev 19:28 ), are no longer applicable (note that these “not applicable” restrictions come from the chapter between the two references to homosexuality).  These laws are interpreted by most scholars as being cultural to the original readers, and specifically as referring to cultic practices from the surrounding nations (or being simply related to hygiene in the hot Middle Eastern deserts).  Doing these things was therefore a sign of acceptance of the idolatrous cults. 

The Deuteronomy passage above is clearly linked to cultic practices.  And the passages in Leviticus actually start and end by making a deliberate link to these cultic practices, thus ensuring that reader makes this connection:

• “You must not do as they do in , where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.”  (Lev 18:3)  (NIV).
• “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.”  (Lev 18:24 and 20:23)  (NIV).

These verses specifically make it clear that one of the major reasons for giving these laws (including all of the sexual and non sexual ones listed above) was to help differentiate itself from the surrounding nations.  It is most likely therefore that the references to homosexuality in Leviticus are restrictions on male shrine prostitutes (see 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46), rather than a blanket restriction on sexual relations within a monogamous lifelong relationship.

In addition, there are also other commands in the immediate literary context that refer to specific practices that are no longer taken as applicable, including leaving the edges of your fields unharvested, so the poor can collect food (Lev 19:9), not paying daily wages (Lev 19:13), not eating fruit from a newly planted fruit tree for at least four years (Lev 19:23-25) or eating your meat too rare (Lev 19:26).  We ignore these commands and treat them as not applicable for our lives today.  If we do not apply these laws today, then on what basis can we apply the laws about homosexuality?

Of course, there are laws in this section of the Bible that we do still apply today.  These include prohibitions against child sacrifice, and a list of prohibitions regarding having sex with family members (including family by marriage).  We know today that there are important genetic reasons for these latter sexual commands, and thus most countries still enforce these by law.  However, the reason that most (not all) of these laws are still enforced, by civil law and by the church, is because they involve some form of manipulation or misuse of a close relationship.  This type of abuse can never be condoned (neither heterosexually, nor homosexually).  So, our Christian sexual ethic, such as it is, is derived from Jesus’ teachings, and not from these Levitical laws.  In other words, if the laws of Leviticus did not exist, we would still have these prohibitions based on what we know of God’s desires for human relationships in general.  We do no damage to our current moral milieu by saying that Leviticus is not relevant - as law - to the Christian, and we do not need to rely on these passages for any of the current laws (e.g. incest, bestiality) that we wish to continue to enforce.

Further proof that the laws of Leviticus are not directly applicable in the Christian age is our unwillingness (or inability) to take the Old Testament verses literally with regards to the penalty imposed by God: stoning to death of all homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) (Note that we would need to do the same for any children who ever cursed their parents, and for many other sins as well).  Whatever our stance on the death penalty for certain crimes, I am sure there are very few people who would seriously advocate the death penalty (and certainly not by stoning) of homosexuals.

1.4       Conclusion

Earlier, quoting Walter Wink, I asked, “What is the principle of selection here?”  On what basis do we select which commands we apply from the OT law and which we ignore?  Clearly, there is nothing inherent in the OT laws themselves which help us in this selection.  Our selection is based on external (and therefore, imposed) criteria.  At best, the laws we apply are those that are consistent with Jesus’ teachings and NT morality.  At worst, we selectively apply only those that fit our current social milieu and personal likes, dislikes and prejudices.  Whichever is true, we cannot take these texts as blanket condemnations of homosexuality.

In the Old Testament, “every text dealing with homosexual activity also refers to aggravating circumstances such as idolatry, sacred prostitution, promiscuity, violent rape, seduction of children, and violation of guests’ rights.  As a result one can never be sure to what extent the condemnation is of homosexual activities as such or only of homosexual activities under these circumstances.”[14] 

I think it is fairly clear that none of the Old Testament verses we have considered have anything to say about lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships.  We must therefore rely exclusively on the three references made in the New Testament if we are to find a Biblical witness on this issue.

Graeme,
I have been following your articles on Homosexuality for quite some time and I find them extremely thought provoking and challenging. These have caused me to reflect on what I believe and why. I’d be the first to admit that much of what I’ve held to in the past was based solely on what I had been spoon fed in my reformed conservative and sometimes fundamentalist upbringing. To my shame it had a lot less to do with my personal biblical studies and a deeper search for God’s truth. Thanks again for always challenging us to dig deeper.

However, saying that I have had a growing concern following your subsequent articles. You initially stated that yours was an honest search for truth and that “This involves detailed exegesis (what it meant to the original writer and readers) and hermeneutics (how we are to understand it today).” I interpreted this to imply an honest search and critique of the arguments presented by both sides of this debate. Now I am simply left with the impression that you had already formed your conclusions and have now found exegetical and hermeneutical arguments to substantiate your original inclinations. (Touche I hear you say.)I will admit that I cannot speak to your journey and I am quite sure that you have read the counter arguments to the views expressed, unfortunately none of these were presented in any meaningful way. As I said these are simply my impressions.

It is quite evident that you have relied heavily on the work of Robin Scroggs, Walter Wink, John McNeill and others (perhaps Sherwin Bailey and John Boswell? - all known for having a left-of-centre view). And having read these authors I am sure I could present your discussion on the New Testament texts. As with the OT texts this would probably be broken down into four main areas; (1) Linguistic Arguments (use of malakos & arsenokoitai), (2) Biblical authors limited by their social horizons (Paul only understanding pederasty), (3) Prohibitions conditioned by limited understanding (failure to understand 'natural' homosexuality) and then (4) An appeal to science and personal experience.

Unfortunately the issue is far from settled. One simply has to read the likes of Guenther Haas, Robert A.J. Gagnon, David E. Malik, David F. Wright and a number of others who all provide well researched and scholarly counter arguments. I would venture that a 'completely defensible position' is unattainable.

And I do have a problem with that phrase. Not because you used it but because of the unfairness applied to its use. How come this phrase applied to a left-of-centre view solicits hardly as much vehement rhetoric than if it were applied to a right-of-centre view? In both instances doesn't it still have a ring of 'fundamentalism' to it.

Despite all that I disagree with you on, I have found many areas of agreement, at least semi-agreement in a kind of round about way:

1. There is an overemphasis on the ‘sin’ of homosexuality while the problems of other sexual sins, greed, malice, slander, gossip etc. within the body of Christ are largely ignored.
2. Homosexuality is far more complicated and deserves rigorous examination. I for one have been far too simplistic in my approach. Sensitivity and understanding is a definite requirement.
3. God is far more inclusive than I am or will ever be. But I think I reach that conclusion via a different path of reasoning to yours. I don’t believe it’s because along our journey we will discover ever increasing concentric circles, lines in the sand, that are really ‘non issues’ with God. Instead I believe that God views us within the context of our entire journey. Within the context of His desire for us to become like Christ. Within the context of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. That is to complete the work already started in us which ultimately leads to the denial of self, or better still, the emergence of our true selves. And since He knows the final outcome, He is perfectly inclusive. We on the other hand view those around us within a specific time orientation and then form judgments and in many cases prejudices which leads to an exclusivist view.

Still Journeying
Warren

Posted by: Warren 12 Jan, 2006 - 01:30:27

Warren,

Thanks for the reply. With regards to the approach I have taken, this is from the introduction (not yet published here):

"In this paper, it is NOT my intention to present all possible arguments for and against, nor to outline the historical development of this issue. The authors I refer to (see the multiple footnotes) would be good references in this regard. It is my intention to critique my own previously held position that homosexuality in all forms is wrong. I think the traditional (conservative, evangelical, reformed and/or fundamental) position is well known and well documented. This paper is therefore NOT a comprehensive overview of all possible views. It IS a journey, which has as its starting point the current majority Christian view, and embarks from there."

I do not see this as a bias. My research has included all authors on all sides of the debate. My paper is a journey, not a statement. No-one can be unbiased, and I am not pretending to be. I had a starting point, and the reading and work I have done have changed that position. I see no problem with that.

As to a reliance on particular authors, this would only be a problem, surely, if these authors are proven to be lying or making up facts that I am then relying on. However, I am convinced mainly by these author's references to original texts and context, rather than anything they seem to have simply made up. I am happy to review this, if specific instances of bad scholarship is pointed out to me.

In particular, those who know Scroggs, Wink, McNeill et al, may notice that I have not referred to or relied on their critical scholarship with regard to Biblical authorship, Priestly and Yahwist traditions, or to their (sometime) view that Biblical authors were products of their times, trapped in contemporary culture (as if the Holy Spirit could not inspire them to transcend this). I am not convinced by that part of their arguments.

As to the "right" of center commentators (and I have read them, and do reference them in my work, especially Gagnon), I am not convinced at all, especially as related to the OT passages. But in general, I agree that underlying presuppositions will predetermine the outcome of this issue, and that there are at least two irreconcible positions. I will deal with this issue in a later post.

As to your question about why the "left" has more sway than the "right" when indefensible positions cannot be found, well, that should be obvious. In those cases, the individual arguments are overridden by the higher principle (this is a fairly established philosophical and logical principle, and, in such examples as Solomon's dealing with the two mothers and the one baby, is put forward as a Biblical ideal of wisdom). In this particular case, the principles that would apply are: inclusion, love, and grace. Some might argue that where there is doubt, we should on the side of moral conservatism, but the Bible is clear that it is God's right alone to judge who is "in" and "out". Our responsibility is to "ever increasing inclusion" (see previous post on this issue). So, no sour grapes, but all the liberal side has to do is to prove doubt, and they "win". Consequently, most of these authors do little more than negate the negatives.

However, in three post's time, I will be providing something I have not seen presented by any of the "left" of center authors in any strong fashion, and that is an 11 point positive reason for accepting lifelong homosexual relationships.

Thanks for sharing the journey.

Posted by: graemec 14 Jan, 2006 - 08:53:47

Mr. Codrington, despite your claims above, I see no evidence in your position that you have understood my work, including my work on the hermeneutical relevance of the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse. If you did, you couldn't reasonably make some of the claims that you do.

For a complete refutation of the views espoused in the entry above see my books The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, 2001), 111-46; and Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press, 2003), 62-68.

For online material go to my website at http://www.robgagnon.net, specifically http://robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htmand... scroll down to: "Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice," specifically pp. 50-54 (a direct link is at http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf...). Or scroll down to my article, "A Faithful Journey Through the Bible and Homosexuality?" specifically pp. 44-54(direct link at http://robgagnon.net/articles/homoJourneyTogetherCritique.pdf...).

Blessings,

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Assoc. Prof. of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Posted by: Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon 17 Aug, 2006 - 06:48:43

I know that the really big archive of the thesis mba just about this good post used to be at the custom thesis service. Therefore, there are no problems to run to dissertation writing service and buy thesis.

Posted by: LeliaALVARADO30 28 May, 2010 - 04:58:38

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:13:58

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it