Homosexual Sex in the Bible
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Let's take a look at two key scriptures on the subject, which we find in Leviticus:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination <Strongs 08441>.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination <Strongs 08441>: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The references quoted both use the word: <Strong’s 08441>.
hbewt tow‘ebah to-ay-baw’ or hbet to‘ebah to-ay-baw’
(The frequency with which this Hebrew word is translated in the Authorised Version is:)
AV-abomination 113, abominable thing 2, abominable 2; 117
(i.e. this means the word is used 117 times in total in the Authorised Version of which in 113 cases it is rendered abomination etc.)
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
Various writers have suggested that this word is “always linked with and meaning, temple sexual idolatry”.
What Other Things Are Translated With The Same Word in the Bible?
Reviewing the use of <08441> in scripture it is clear that this is not so. All of the following verses use the same Hebrew word used in both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 and are nothing to do with cultic male prostitution and/or temple sexual idolatory. However, they are clearly practises that God does not find acceptable.
Proverbs 20:
10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination <Strongs 08441> to the LORD.
Proverbs 17:
15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination <Strongs 08441> to the LORD.
Proverbs 16:
5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination <Strongs 08441> to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
Proverbs 12:
22 Lying lips are abomination <Strongs 08441> to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Deuteronomy 17:
1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evil favouredness: for that is an abomination <Strongs 08441> unto the LORD thy God.
Proverbs 6:
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination<Strongs 08441> unto him.
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Neither does Strong’s agree that the word is specifically to do with cultic male prostitution and/or temple sexual idolatory. His definition is much more general.
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
Strong’s view is borne out by scripture. An abomination (<Strongs 08441> - the same Hebrew word) is simply something that God detests as the following verses show.
Deuteronomy 12:
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination <Strongs 08441> to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Jeremiah 44:
4 Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable <Strongs 08441> thing that I hate.
Jeremiah 16:
18 And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable things <Strongs 08441>.
Ezekiel 11:
21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations <Strongs 08441>, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Sodom & Gommorah
Notably, Christian homosexuals argue that the sins of Sodom and Gommorah were not homosexuality. Whist there are several references to a variety of sins exhibited by the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Howard’s article below) including inhospitality. Jude :7 confirms that going after “strange flesh” was a key reason why they were subjected to God’s wrath.
Jude 7:
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before—an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering. (Young’s Literal Translation)
Some suggest that this refers to the men of Sodom wishing to “interrogate” Lot’s guests. These are dealt with, within the article shown as Appendix 1, specifically by the following:
“It is clear from Lot's response in vv. 7-8 that he understood the intentions of the town's people to be sexual.[8] If they were only wanting to meet his guests, Lot's plea for them to avoid evil and take his daughters would not make sense.”
Another argument is that this is a reference to the men of Sodom wanting to rape the angels (“strange/other flesh”). For this to have been the case the men of Sodom would have had to been able to distinguish between angels and men. Genesis 18 and 19 do not give any indication that this was possible. Indeed in both Gen 18 and 19 the angels had their feet washed, were invited to rest and eat. Arguably then, Genesis 19 would not have revealed the supernatural nature of the two visitors until the men of Sodom had been blinded.
Has the Interpretation Changed Over Time Regarding Homosexual Sex in the Bible ?
Has the interpretation of scripture changed significantly from a non-condemnatory view of homosexuality to a condemnatory view?
Although it isn’t entirely reliable, it can be worthwhile trying to understand the perspectives given by extra-biblical literature, to get an indication of how scripture was perceived historically to have regarded issues such as homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the Mishnah
In the second to third centuries AD the Mishnah codified in writing the Oral Torah, which had its origins in the repentance following the return from Babylonian captivity. The Mishnah became to the Jews what the New Testament became to Christianity and was the forerunner of the (Jerusalem and Bablylonian) Talmuds.
As such it is therefore one of the oldest sources of extra Biblical Jewish theological background and gives an important albeit non-scriptural insight into the legalistic Pharisaic culture which existed at the time of Christ.
Despite the Greco-Roman acceptance of homosexual lifestyles, in Sanhedrin 7:4 the Mishnah groups several sexual sins which are referred to in Lev 18: together; condemning
“These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connexion with:”
…”his mother,” (Lev 18:7,9)
…”his father’s wife,” (Lev 18:8)
…”his daughter-in-law,” (Lev 18:15)
…”a male,” (Lev 18:22)
…”or a beast and …” (Lev 18:23)
Arguably then the Mishah and therefore an important traditional Jewish view is that:
Leviticus 18:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
…is not a reference to temple prostitution, but to “he that has connexion with….a male”
Philo
Similarly again, despite the Greco-Roman acceptance of homosexual lifestyles, Philo’s (the Alexandrian Jew) writings condemn homosexuality as “evil”. See Appendix 2
David “Exceeding” in 1 Samuel 20:41
It is occasionally argued that the reference to David "exceeding" in 1 Samuel 20:41 is a reference to him having an erection during an embrace with Jonathan.
1 Samuel 20:
40 And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
Strong’s shows that the Hebrew word translated as “exceeded” is:
01431 ldg gadal gaw-dal’
a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 315}
(The frequency with which the word is translated in the AV:)
AV-magnify 32, great 26, grow 14, nourish up 7, grow up 6, greater 5, misc 25; 115
(Noticeably this is one of the 25 miscellaneous translations)
1) to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to grow up
1a2) to become great
1a3) to be magnified
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to cause to grow
1b2) to make great, powerful
1b3) to magnify
1c) (Pual) to be brought up
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to make great
1d2) to magnify
1d3) to do great things
1e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself
In 1 Samuel 20:41 the “Hiphil” sense of the word is used: “to make great, magnify, do great things”
This is how this passage is rendered in sixteen translations:
…“Until David exceeded”: AKJV, ASV, AV/KJV, Darby, ERV, JPS (old),
… “till David exerted himself;” (Young’s Literal Translation)
…”till…” (Moffat)
… “until David was overcome” Ferrar Fenton
… “but David cried the loudest”. (GWV)
…“Till David’s Grief Was the Greater” (BBE)
… “but David more”. (KJ21, RWebster)
… “and wept for each other, for a great while”. LXXE (English translation of Septuagint)
… “David wept the most” (NIV)
Whilst the old Jewish Publication Society translation had “exceeded”, the most recent one has:
“He flung himself face down on the ground and bowed low three times. They kissed each other and wept together. David wept the longer.” Jewish Publication Society (Tanakh)
None of the sixteen translations reviewed explicitly agrees that this passage is referring to David’s sexual arousal. In fact no instance where the Hiphil sense of the word is used does the Bible refer to male sexual arousal. At best this may be seen as an implicit reference to arousal – but only implicit. In fact Moffat translates this as “…” and so arguably may offer some support for the homoerotic interpretation.
However, apart from the translations that choose to use the expression “until David exceeded” most see the expression as relating to David’s grief – until David’s grief was magnified or made great.
Biblical Usage of the Word Translated “Exceeded” in 1 Samuel 20:
It is clear that the word translated as “exceeded” in 1 Sam 20, the “Hiphil” variant of “gadal”, means “became strong” in terms of physical strength (although it often refers to growing strength in terms of prosperity) - see Appendix 3 which is a list of all of the scriptures where the "Hiphil" variant of "gadal" is used. Perhaps then another of 1 Sam 20 could be “wept until David had grown in strength” i.e. until David composed himself ?
Equally note that the scripture does not say:
…and they wept one with another and kissed one another, until David exceeded.
…which would give some weight to the argument for homoeroticism. The scripture actually records the event the other way ‘round:
…and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
Expositor’s Bible Commentary on 1 Sam 20:
“41-42 Getting up from his hiding place near "the stone" (v.41, implied from v.19), David bowed down more than once (a not uncommon practice in ancient times; cf. Gen 33:3 and often in the Amarna letters [Youngblood, The Amarna Correspondence, pp. 15-19]) to acknowledge Jonathan's (covenant) superiority ("with his face to the ground"; cf. further 24:8; 25:23, 41; 28:14). Their mutual kissing and weeping (v.41), though in expectation of their coming farewell (v.42), is reminiscent of the poignantly emotional scene involving Joseph and his brothers (Gen 45:14-15)…
…The two friends parted after Jonathan's farewell speech. Apart from one other brief meeting (23:16-18), this was the last time they would see each other.”
Conclusion on David “Exceeding” in 1 Sam 20:41
So then, even if we assume that 1 Sam 20: was a brief homoerotic incident, (which can be done only by reading a perceived implication into the Hebrew wording), it appears that David and Jonathan didn’t perpetuate such behaviour thereafter. Furthermore, there is no explicit or even implicit endorsement of such homoerotic behaviour, even if it did occur.
Arguably, given the extraordinarily explicit wording of Leviticus 18 and 20; to warrant any consideration whatsoever, any endorsement of homosexual behaviour would have to be overwhelmingly explicit.
As with the other scriptures which are typically proposed in opposition to Leviticus 18 and 20, they all fall substantially short of achieving this objective. Arguably then, this particular scripture too lends insufficient “weight” to the argument that homosexual behaviour has some measure of Biblical endorsement.
The Stripping of Jonathan.
The following is sometimes argued as infering more of a romantic relationship between David and Jonathan.
1 Samuel 18:
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
….Upholding the traditional position is that the stripping of Jonathan has a clear Biblical precedent, that of the stripping of Aaron of his garments to put them upon Eleazar his son (Numbers 20:26) in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass. Those who assert the opposing interpretation agree that a sexual relationship is not made explicit, and for many scholars the relationship is a "classical Biblical example" (Hilborn 2002, p.2) of close non-sexual friendship…
Apostolic Scriptures On The Subject Of Homosexual Sex in the Bible
In the case of both Romans 1: and 1 Corinthians 6: Expositors Bible Commentary sees a distinctions between references to homosexual cultic/temple prostitution and to homosexuality as a more generic form of sexual immorality.
Romans 1:
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Expositors says the reference in vs 24 is to cultic / temple prostitution, but that the subsequent reference in 26 and 27 are not.
“At this point a problem must be faced. How is it that we have a reference to sexual immorality in v. 24 and again in vv. 26, 27? Is this a case of repetition? No, the immorality lies in different areas. The earlier reference is to cultic prostitution, the latter to immoral relations in ordinary life”.
Irrespective of this though, given the context it’s difficult to see how Romans 1: can be said not to be a condemnation of homosexual behaviour.
Moving on to:
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 ¶ have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God (usually translated Kingdom of God) shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. (from Youngs Literal Translation)
Expositor’s Bible Commentary explains these verses thus:
“9, 10 Paul concludes that in practicing such acts of wickedness (adikeo) toward others they must realize that the wicked (adikoi) will not inherit the kingdom of God (cf. John 3:3-5). They are in a dangerous frame of mind—they need to clear their heads and realize that if they act wickedly in this way, they are no better than the wicked idolaters and others who will not inherit heaven. To the list of sinners already mentioned in 5:10, 11 Paul points out specific kinds of sexually immoral people: the adulterers (moichoi), the male prostitutes (malakoi) and homosexuals (arsenokoitai). (In Romans 1:26 Paul also mentions lesbians.) Also added to his list here are those who are thieves (kleptai). In the light of this comparison, the Corinthians should have seen how unchristian and sinful their actions were toward one another.”
Moving on to:
1 Timothy 1:
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Expositors Bible Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:10.
“Paul goes on to say that law is made for adulterers and "perverts." The last term is arsenokoitais, which means "male homosexuals." The word occurs only once elsewhere in the NT, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where it is stated that "homosexual offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God. Despite its condonation by some church leaders today homosexuality is categorically condemned in both the OT and NT. It is the peculiar sin for which God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.”
This said, of course it is of course correct to argue that not all homosexuals are sodomites. It is however clear that the practise of anal sex in the Bible is condemned.
Deuteronomy 23:
17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
1 Kings 14:
22 And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done.
23 For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree.
24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
2 Kings 23:
4 ¶ And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Bethel.
5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.
6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.
7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
From a positive perspective scripture entirely endorses heterosexual relationships between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5 etc. Homosexual relationships are simply not portrayed in a similarly positive manner.
Appendix 1.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY by Kevin L. Howard
The homosexual movement has progressed significantly in America within the past several decades. And the progress of this movement has inspired many homosexuals to be open about their lifestyles. How should Christians respond to this lifestyle which seems to be growing in popularity every day?
What does the Old Testament (OT) say about homosexuality?[1] Can Christians rightfully use the Bible, specifically the OT, to oppose homosexuality?
It has long been accepted by most scholars that the OT addresses homosexuality. The debate, however, comes at the point of trying to assert exactly what the OT says about homosexuality. And, is it relevant today?
There are several conclusions that we can come to when examining the OT regarding homosexuality: 1) it says nothing about modern day homosexuality (sex between two consenting adults); 2) it does not condemn homosexuality itself but only its immoral aspects (rape and idolatry); 3) it supports rather than condemns homosexuality; 4) it condemns homosexuality of all types.
The following paper will seek to examine Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 to see what these texts say about homosexuality.[2] It will also interact with some of the more popular interpretations of the OT information regarding homosexuality. And finally, it will show how the OT discussion of homosexuality relates to the New Testament (NT) and to modern times.
GENESIS 19
The best place for us to begin our discussion is with Gen 19. We will start here because it comes first canonically and because it is the largest and most famous passage relating to homosexuality.
Chapter nineteen of Genesis has much to say about the doom of the city of Sodom. But it is important to note first the contents of Gen 18.[3] In chapter eighteen Abraham greets his three guests, and then God tells Abraham that Isaac will be born in one year. While his guests are leaving, a dialogue between God and Abraham ensues. Here we learn that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is exceedingly grave, and God is going to destroy them. From there, we venture into chapter nineteen where we learn immediately that two angels have just showed up in Sodom. Seeing these strangers, Lot, wanting to be hospitable, insisted that they be his guests. Some scholars suggest that Lot's hospitality showed the inhospitality of the residence.
Many events began to unfold in Lev 19:4. The men of the city, both young and old, surrounded Lot's house. Verse 5 indicates their reason for doing such. They demanded Lot's guests to come out so they "may know them" or as the NASV has it, "may have relations with them." Much of the debate over Genesis 19 rotates around the meaning of the word behind this phrase.
The word under discussion is yadha'.[4] It is used some 943 times in the OT, but only about a dozen of those usages, excluding Gen 19:5 and Judg 19:22, refer to a sexual encounter: Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Judg 11:39; 19:25; 1 Sam 1:19; 1 Kgs 1:4. Also Num 31:17, 18, 35 and Judg 21:11-12 are passages in which yadha' occurs in connection with mishkabh, derived from shakhabh. When yadha' has a sexual sense in the OT, it always refers to a heterosexual encounter, with the possible, but unlikely, exception of a homosexual reference in Num 31:17 and Judg 21:11. Can we, therefore, rightly assert that yadha' has a homosexual meaning in Gen 19? Yes, if the context supports such an assertion, because context determines meaning.
The author of Leviticus used Shakhabh regarding homosexuality and bestiality in Lev 18:22-23 and 20:13. So why is shakhabh not used in Gen 19:5 and 8 if the Sodom story is really about homosexuality? Perhaps because, shakhabh is not the only way to indicate homosexual conduct. Yadha' is used to depict sexual encounters, and it could have been used in Gen 19:5 to refer to homosexual intentions, especially when verse 8 clearly speaks of sexual activity.
The LXX translates yadha' in Gen 19:5 as synginomai and translates yadha' in v. 8 as ginosko. All the other sexual references to yadha' in the OT are rendered ginosko in the LXX. So ginosko was clearly understood to have a sexual connotation. Some scholars have contended that the translation of yadha' in Gen 19:5 as synginomai proves that the translators of the LXX did not understand v. 5 as a reference to homosexual activity, but rather to "getting acquainted with." But Gen 39:10 demonstrates that synginomai is used in the LXX to refer to sexual conduct.
Some contend that Gen 19:5 merely means that the residence of the city wanted to meet these strangers. Others say this phrase is the Bible's nice way of referring to sexual relations.
Derrick Bailey popularized the view that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not guilty of homosexuality but of inhospitality.[5] Bailey argues that v. 5 refers not to sexual relations but to a common custom in which citizens checked the credentials of their visitors. Since Lot was not a full-fledged citizen, he was not qualified to keep such sojourners unless they had first been approved by those who were citizens.[6] Tom Horner disagrees with Bailey and thinks that the men of Sodom were guilty of wanting to commit homosexual rape, but says that they were not necessarily condemned for homosexual desires, but for attempting or contemplating rape; it is just as wrong for men to rape men as it is for men to rape women.[7]
It is clear from Lot's response in vv. 7-8 that he understood the intentions of the town's people to be sexual.[8] If they were only wanting to meet his guests, Lot's plea for them to avoid evil and take his daughters would not make sense.
Although it seems like a safe assumption to interpret Lot's proposal-to give his virgin daughters to the town's men-as being evil, the text does not show moral approval or disapproval. Lance thinks that Lot's offer shows his bad attitude toward women, and therefore, posses significant difficulty for those trying to extract a sexual ethic from this passage.[9] But just because Lot's attitude toward women may have been skewed does not mean that the text could render only an immoral sexual ethic.
Could Lot have misunderstood their request? It is not likely that he misunderstood their request, because the response of the men-"now we will treat you worse"-to Lot after he offers his daughters would make little sense if he had misunderstood them. Certainly it seems, even if they were angry, that they would have clarified their intentions if all they wanted to do was get to know, or question, Lot's guests. Their response to Lot reveals their evil intent. Also, the similar story of Judg 19, which is based on Gen 19, leads us to believe that the Sodomite scenario was sexual.
Parker says that Lot's offer, of his daughters, shows three things: 1) the mob's demand was clearly sexual; 2) the mob was not what we would today call homosexuals; 3) the priority of protecting one's guest in this ancient culture.[10] Comparing Gen 19 with Judg 19, according to Parker, clarifies that the initial proposal in both stories is sexual but that the desire for homosexual rape is not homosexual identity per se-the gang would rape or violate whatever it could get its hands on.[11] He says that both stories are irrelevant for discussing sexual relationships between consenting adults.[12]
It is, nonetheless, obvious that the men of the town intended to rape Lot's guests. But why would they want to rape them? Were they hungry for homosexual activity or were they merely seeking to shame these guests by sodomy? Sodomizing others to demean them was a common practice used on prisoners of war.[13] According to Wenham, ". . . the sin of Sodom is not primarily homosexuality as such, but an assault on weak and helpless visitors. . . ."[14] White says that, ". . . the crime the Sodomites in fact intend is an act of trespass with sexual assault as a lesser included offense."[15]
Destruction came upon them because of ". . . the violence of its homosexuality."[16] There are, however, those who think that the immoral issue in focus in Gen 19 and Judg 19 is merely inhospitality even though rape may have been intended. Matthews argues that Lot, being a resident alien, had no right to show the strangers hospitality.[17]
But because Lot did, the town's people were angry with him and his guests.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because wicked people filled the cities. Their sins were undoubtedly many, but certainly their sins included same-sex intent. This does not deny that they were inhospitable, but their inhospitality must not be divorced from their sexual intentions. The text says nothing about whether these people were truly craving homosexual intercourse or merely wanting to sodomize these men to shame them. The text does not care about such things; it shows God's disapproval on such activity. Genesis 19 depicts Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction as primarily because of their evil intent to rape Lot's guests and to harm him.
The main immoral issue in focus in Gen 19 is rape. And some scholars claim this passage says nothing about same-sex encounters. But of course sexual behavior is also a part of the whole story. Some contend, nonetheless, that the real issue is rape and not same-sex intercourse. This assertion seems right, but it does not pronounce same-sex relations moral or neutral.
Lance uses the story in Gen 34-where Jacob's sons destroy Shechem for participating in the rape of Dinah, Jacob's daughter-to support his argument. According to Lance, we cannot logically argue that Gen 34 condemns all heterosexual intercourse anymore than we can use Gen 19 or Judg 19 to say that all types of homosexual intercourse are condemned.[18] But his illustration is weak at this point-Scripture tells us that heterosexual intercourse is morally acceptable under certain conditions (e.g., marriage), whereas Scripture never condones same-sex activity. Rather it condemns same-sex relations. In other words, just because the main focus of Gen 19 may not be homosexuality, we cannot extrapolate from the text that homosexuality is okay, especially when other passages dealing with same-sex intercourse warrant the opposite conclusion.
The Gen 19 story alone does not give us enough evidence to say that same-sex intercourse contradicts God's will, but neither can we conclude from Gen 19 that it is morally acceptable. Actually, the remaining verses in Scripture-that refer to either Sodom/Gomorrah or to homosexual conduct-give no reason to believe that God would ever approve of homosexual activity. In fact, they lead us to believe God disapproves.
OT REFERENCES TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Deuteronomy 29:23-This verse speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction and overthrow. Israel will face the same ruin if they forsake God's covenant to serve idols. (Note "abominations" in v. 17).
Dueteronomy 32:32-Sodom and Gomorrah are associated with metaphorically poison grape vines and bitter wine.
Isaiah 1:9-10-Sodom and Gomorrah are associated with oblivion. The people of Judah are referred to as the rulers of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah. The verses proceed to associate the people of Judah with religious hypocrisy and injustice. (Note "abomination" in v. 13).
Isaiah 3:9-Sodom, with no mention of Gomorrah, is mentioned in connection with those who are not ashamed of their sin.
Isaiah 13:19-The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is compared to what will happen to Babylon.
Jeremiah 23:14-The prophets of Jerusalem are compared with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (adultery, falsehood, etc.).
Jeremiah 49:18-Edom's coming destruction is compared to the complete ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jeremiah 50:40-Those who have taken God's people captive will be completely overthrown just as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
Lamentations 4:6-The iniquity of the daughter of God's people is greater than the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment. Gomorrah is not mentioned.
Ezekiel 16:46, 48-49, 53, 55-56-In this context, God speaks to Jerusalem and compares their unfaithfulness to adultery. Describing Jerusalem's sin, she is said to be closely related to the Hittites, the Amorites, the Samaritans, and the Sodomites. God says that Jerusalem is guilty of more sins than Sodom. Sodom was guilty of arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before God. God says that He will restore the captivity of Sodom, Samaria, and Jerusalem so that they will return to their former state. The pride of Jerusalem is emphasized over the sins of these "close relatives." Gomorrah is not mentioned in Ezekiel.
Amos 4:11-Israel's overthrow is compared to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah's.
Zephaniah 2:9 Because of Moab and Ammon's pride they are predicted to be a perpetual desolation like Sodom and Gomorrah.
From the above OT references of Sodom and Gomorrah, we note that these two cities are either connected with explicit sin or total destruction. None of these passages clearly refers to homosexuality. Usually the sins associated with Sodom and Gomorrah are sins such as pride or lack of concern for the poor. But none of these passages rule out the homosexual interpretation. Actually, some of these passages associate sexual vice and "abominations" with Sodom and Gomorrah.
We must keep in mind that these references do not clearly speak of Sodom and Gomorrah in connection with intentions of rape, but the Gen 19 passage seems clear that rape was the mob's intention. Therefore, just because these other OT references do not explicitly mention same-sex relations does not negate the same-sex element of the Gen 19 story.
Even though it must be admitted that some of the OT and NT references (Matthew 10:15; 11:23-24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Revelation 11:8) to Sodom and Gomorrah focus on inhospitality, we can still legitimately conclude that homosexuality was part of the mob's inhospitality in Genesis 19.[19]
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13[20]
Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (NASV), and Lev 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a women, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (NASV).
Note the apodictic form in chapter 18 and the casuistic form in chapter 20.[21] Parker points out that Lev 18 used the second person singular for all of its commands and that the commands in Lev 20 are in the third person singular; he concludes, therefore, that each section must have been composed by different authors.[22] But we must not assume that such a writing style indicates different authorship. Such a multi-author theory forces modern ideologies onto the ancient text.
The Levitical texts are straightforward and concise. The use of "male" rather than "man" or "youth" in reference to the passive partner, shows that God forbid all types of male-male intercourse.[23]
Few people contend that Leviticus refers to something other than same-sex relations, and of those who do, even fewer are Bible scholars. But some people have suggested that the two relevant Levitical passages are not condemning same-sex relationships per se but only those connected with idolatry. Even though idolatry is relevant to the context (18:21; 20:5), we cannot say that Leviticus merely condemns homosexual relations related to idolatry at the exclusion of "God-fearing" same-sex intercourse, because Lev 20:11-12, 14 directly relate to sexual behavior. These sins are condemned because of their immoral nature rather than merely because these practices involve idolatry.
Certain scholars might say that the OT does not address those born homosexual or those who have a loving and consenting relationship with another adult. Therefore, according to some, homosexual acts are morally acceptable. But these arguments only cloud the real issue at stake in Scripture. These Levitical verses are not concerned with whether two people of the same sex love each other while they are having sex, rather it condemns such activity without conditions.
One main difference between Lev 18:22 and 20:13 is that the second passage includes the death penalty. Some Christians think homosexuals should still be put to death for their sin, but not all Christians feel this way. We do not live under a theonomy as OT believers did. And since we do not, we must allow for the possibility that not all sins and crimes should be dealt with in our society with the same measures that they were dealt with in the OT. Suffice it to say that, in light of the changes the NT era brings, the death penalty is not necessary for all the sins that required capital punishment in the OT. (For a defense of capital punishment for murderers, see article.)
But how do we justly say that homosexuality is wrong without also saying that wearing mixed clothing, having sex with one's wife during her menstrual period, breaking the Sabbath, or cutting one's beard is wrong? This is by no means an easy question to answer. And it certainly cannot be answered adequately in the remainder of this paper.
There are at least two basic schools of thought on how the OT relates to today, and both thoughts see the NT as the key to understanding how we should live: one says the ethical system in the OT is automatically applied to us today unless the NT cancels it out. The other says none of the rituals from the OT are applied to today unless the NT indicates so. Determining which view is right is of paramount importance, but that issue will not be dealt with in this paper.
The short answer will work here. Some of the ethical codes found in the OT were specific to certain settings and other ethical regulations were trans-cultural. We believe that some things in the OT are canceled out by the NT, and other things are reinforced, or even introduced, by the NT. In short, we can assert that homosexuality is wrong even if the OT had never existed, because the NT tells us that homosexual acts are wrong.
Christians can, therefore, stand on solid biblical ground when they assert that homosexual activity is wrong. Homosexual activists are wrong to promote their lifestyles and to seek special rights because of their sexual behavior. The OT says homosexual behavior is wrong and the NT gives no reason to think otherwise.
ENDNOTES
[1] There will be no distinction made in this paper between homosexuality and homosexual acts.
[2] Other possible references in the OT to homosexual intercourse will not be dealt with in this paper: Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 31:31-32; 36:14.
[3] Note Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Word Bible Commentary, vol. 2 (Dallas: Word, 1994), pp. 43-44, where he points out the parallel language between chapters 18 and 19.
[4] Much of the following information in the next three paragraphs is based upon information taken from James De Young, "The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality," JETS 34 (1991): 158-161.
[5] In John Boswell's significant work, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 94, he supports this view.
[6] Derrick Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Hamden: Conn.: Archon, 1975 reprint from 1955), 4-5.
[7] Jonathan Loved David. Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 48.
[8] See the similarities between Genesis 19 and Judges 19. Few serious OT scholars doubt the Sodomite men's intentions of same-sex rape.
[9] "The Bible and Homosexuality," 141.
[10] Simon Parker, "The Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality," Quarterly Review 11 (1991): 6.
[11] Ibid, 8.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Gordon Wenham, "The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality," The Expository Times, Sept. 1991, vol. 102, p. 361.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Leland White, "Does the Bible Speak about Gays or Same-Sex Orientation? A Test Case in Biblical Ethics: Part I," Biblical Theological Bulletin 25 (1995): 20.
[16] David Wright, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," The Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 292.
[17] Victor Matthews, "Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19," Biblical Theological Bulletin 22 (1992): 4.
[18] "The Bible and Homosexuality," 144.
[19] See E. A. Speiser, "Genesis," The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 142, where he thinks that OT writers disputed the reason for Sodom's destruction. But such assertions are unnecessary. Also, see Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), 87-88, for several possible reasons as to why other biblical references were not explicit about same-sex acts in Sodom and Gomorrah. See pages 93-99 of Schmidt's book for treatment on NT references to Sodom and Gomorrah. Further, see H. Darrell Lance, "The Bible and Homosexuality," American Baptist Quarterly 8 (1989): 141-43, where he also briefly looks at other OT references to Sodom.
[20] Note the LXX use of arsenos koitan in Lev 20:13 and the word arsenokoitai used in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 which most likely indicates that Paul coined his word from Leviticus.
[21] R. Laird Harris, "Genesis," Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 612.
[22] "The Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality," 13.
[23] Wenham, "The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality," 362.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- De Young, James. "The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality." Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 157-77.
- Bailey, Derrick. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. Hamden: Conn.: Archon, 1975 reprint from 1955.
- Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
- Harris, R. Laird. "Genesis." Expositors Bible Commentary. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
- Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
- Lance, H. Darrell. "The Bible and Homosexuality." American Baptist Quarterly 8 (1989): 140-51.
- Matthews, Victor. "Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19." Biblical Theological Bulletin 22 (1992): 3-11.
- Parker, Simon "The Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality." Quarterly Review 11 (1991): 4-19.
- Schmidt, Thomas. Straight and Narrow? Downers Grove: IVP, 1995.
- Speiser, E. A. "Genesis." The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.
- Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 16-50. Word Bible Commentary. Vol. 2. Dallas: Word, 1994.
- ________. "The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality." The Expository Times 102 (1991): 359-63.
- White, Leland. "Does the Bible Speak about Gays or Same-Sex Orientation? A Test Case in Biblical Ethics: Part I." Biblical Theological Bulletin 25 (1995): 14-23.
- Wright, David. "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible." The Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 291-300.
Appendix 2
Homosexuality from Philo’s Perspective
Much graver than the above [non-procreative sex with women] is another evil, which has ramped its way into the cities, namely pederasty. In former days the very mention of it was a great disgrace, but now it is a matter of boasting not only to the active but to the passive partners, who habituate themselves to endure the disease of effemination, let both body and soul run to waste, and leave no ember of their male sex ? nature to smoulder. Mark how conspicuously they braid and adorn the hair of their heads, and how they scrub and paint their faces with cosmetics and pigments and the like, and smother themselves with fragrant unguents. For of all such embellishments, used by all who deck themselves out to wear a comely appearance, fragrance is the most seductive. In fact the transformation of the male nature to the female is practised by them as an art and does not raise a blush. These persons are rightly judged worthy of death by those who obey the law, which ordains that the man-woman who debases the sterling coin of nature should perish unavenged, suffered not to live for a day or even an hour, as a disgrace to himself, his house, his native land and the whole human race. And the lover of such may be assured that he is subject to the same penalty. He pursues an unnatural pleasure and does his best to render cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the means of procreation. (Loeb ed., Philo, VII, 497, 499)
Appendix 3
1 Samuel 12:
24 Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done <01431> (8689) for you.
1 Samuel 20:
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded <01431> (8689).
Psalms 38:
16 For I said, Hear me, lest otherwise they should rejoice over me: when my foot slippeth, they magnify <01431> (8689) themselves against me.
Psalms 41:
9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up <01431> (8689) his heel against me.
Psalms 55:
12 For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify <01431> (8689) himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him:
Psalms 126:
2 Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The LORD hath done great things <01431> (8689) for them.
Psalms 126:
3 The LORD hath done great things <01431> (8689) for us; whereof we are glad.
Psalms 138:
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified <01431> (8689) thy word above all thy name.
Ecclesiastes 1:
16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate <01431> (8689), and have gotten (8689) more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.
Ecclesiastes 2:
4 I made me great <01431> (8689) works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:
Isaiah 9:
3 Thou hast multiplied (8689) the nation, and not increased <01431> (8689) the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Jeremiah 48:
26 Make ye him drunken: for he magnified <01431> (8689) himself against the LORD: Moab also shall wallow in his vomit, and he also shall be in derision.
Jeremiah 48:
42 And Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath magnified <01431> (8689) himself against the LORD.
Lamentations 1:
9 Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified <01431> (8689) himself.
Daniel 8:
4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great <01431> (8689).
Daniel 8:
8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great <01431> (8689): and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
Daniel 8:
11 Yea, he magnified <01431> (8689) himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away (8689), and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Daniel 8:
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper (8689) in his hand; and he shall magnify <01431> himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
Daniel 11:
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify <01431> himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper (8689) till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Joel 2:
20 But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive (8689) him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things <01431> (8689).
21
Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things <01431> (8689).
More Judianity Articles on the the Subject of Sex in the Bible
Go back to the start of Judianity - A "Third Way" Between Judaism or Christianity?
Theologians believe that even after the crucifixion Paul kept Nazirite vows at the temple and offered sacrifices. One predictable adjustment to a written Torah law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts, caused massive turmoil in the church. If most of the other "Old Testament" laws were abolished, why wasn't a similar level of controversy recorded then? Was the Torah really "done away" in Galatians ?
Let's take a look at the subject of Sodomy and Anal Sex in the Bible .
© www.judianity.info May 2009.
