HOMOSEXUALITY: IS THE BIBLE CULTURALLY OUTDATED?
For better or worse, the Bible is a cultural text. And people are struggling today with how to read it. Magazines like Newsweek are informing the general public (and in this particular case advocating) that the Bible is culturally obsolete and outdated. Here is an excerpt from the December 2008 cover story The Religious Case for Gay Marriage by Lisa Miller:
Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?… A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
For some Christians, this is where appeals to blind faith or personal feeling come in—but these responses don’t cut it in the public square. When we only emote and don’t offer reasons for our views, this serves only to reinforce the stereotype that Christians are ignorant, dogmatic, and closed-minded.
Since homosexuality is such a prominent topic right now, given the gay marriage debate, I’ll address it below. But for now, should Christians take the Bible literally? Maybe. It really all depends on what someone means by the term literally. Notice Lisa Miller’s assumption in the article that immature people take the Bible literally.
Here’s the big idea: People can take the Bible seriously without having to read it in an overly rigid or hyperliteral way. They can still be faithful to the text. So if someone tries to dismiss you with, “Oh, you’re just one of those fundamentalists who takes the Bible literally,” the way to respond is to say, “Well, I actually try to take the Bible seriously on its own terms.” Someone may disagree with the teaching of the Bible (and they are certainly free to do so), but intellectual honesty compels us to play by the normal rules of language and to read biblical passages in light of their cultural and literary context.
To illustrate, consider one of Jesus’ favorite ways of communicating to his first-century Jewish audience—hyperbole, or exaggeration. Hyperbole is effective because it jolts people into paying attention and grasping the big idea. If you read Jesus’ statement, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters … such a person cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26) in a woodenly literal manner, you are going to miss his point. Jesus didn’t want us to hate anyone. His followers were to love their parents and even take the more radical step of loving their enemies. His point here was that a person’s most important relationship in life was to be with God; it was a matter of priorities. This is how to take the Bible seriously.
Dealing with passages that seem culturally strange or offensive
When it comes to offensive, troubling, or confusing texts, Pastor Tim Keller offers helpful advice to both practicing Christians and those exploring Christianity for the first time: “I counsel them … to slow down and try out several different perspectives on the issues that trouble them. That way they can continue to read, learn, and profit from the Bible even as they continue to wrestle with some of its concepts.” The guiding principle is that sometimes the Bible does not teach what it appears to teach at first glance. It would be a shame to punt the Bible after only an initial read. Give it some thought, read credible Christian scholars on the passage, and then, after some time, evaluate it.
A clear illustration of this principle is found in the issue of slavery and the Bible. When you come across passages that say, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear” who doesn’t cringe a little? But more context and study reveal a much different picture. Contrary to your first impression, the Bible does not teach that God views slavery as a good thing. Moreover, you will discover that slavery in ancient Israel was vastly different from what occurred during colonial America. And finally, as we grow in our understanding of the biblical text, cultural background, and the reality of life in a world messed up by sin yet into which God was and still is speaking, we see that, far from enthusiastically endorsing slavery, God’s people tolerated it with unheard-of compassion and humaneness until it could finally be abolished.
Another helpful principle to remember is that the Bible does not necessarily endorse what it accurately records. The Bible records many things that it does not endorse—though it describes those situations accurately. For example, the Bible records people lying, but it does not endorse lying. Or take the practice of polygamy in the book of Genesis. The patriarchs had multiple wives, but the narrative always highlights the painful consequences of this practice. God’s creation norm is one man with one woman for a lifetime (Genesis 2:24). Yet another example is that Israel often went to war without God’s blessing and suffered for it. You get the idea. Some things are endorsed in Scripture, while others are merely accurately described. Careful study is required to be able to tell the difference.
Specific Guidelines for Understanding the Old Testament Law Today
As the Newsweek article revealed, the Old Testament is what is usually cited to demonstrate that the Bible is culturally regressive. Unfortunately, most people, Christians included, are clearly not prepared to understand and apply the Old Testament. So here are some helpful guidelines in interpreting the Old Testament Law.
First, we need to teach and follow the interpretive journey (see chart). A lot of confusion immediately evaporates as we apply sound principles of interpretation to the passage in question. Unfortunately, most Christians have never been trained in these principles.
Next, we need to understand that seemingly arbitrary laws served an important function in ancient Israel. At first glance, laws like “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) and “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19) seem ridiculous. But as biblical scholars Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart explain:
These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in what is called sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature. They thought that boiling a kid in its mother’s milk would magically ensure the continuing fertility of the flock. Mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to “marry” them so as magically to produce “offspring,” that is, agricultural bounty in the future … Knowing the intention of such laws—to keep Israel from being led into the Canaanite religion that stood so utterly over and against God and his character—helps you see that they are not arbitrary, but crucial and graciously beneficial.
THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
It is here that our conversation about how to interpret the Old Testament merges with an issue widely discussed in our culture—homosexuality. When Christians appeal to passages like Leviticus 18:22 to argue that homosexual behavior is a sin, they are often met with the charge of “picking and choosing” random verses that support their view and leaving out others. Is this true? I don’t think so, but I’ll come back to this after I lay some groundwork. Christians are now under the New Covenant. The Law of Moses (that is, the Mosaic covenant), while important for teaching us about God’s redemptive history through Israel, is not binding on Christians unless the principle, law, or command is reaffirmed or restated in the New Testament (Romans 6:14–15; 10:4; Galatians 3; Hebrews 8–9). God made a conditional covenant with the people of Israel in the Old Testament that was specific to them and their national status with God as their king (that is, theocracy). The Law was good in the sense that it accomplished God’s design for it, and we can and should learn from it (2 Timothy 3:16–17). However, the Mosaic Law was temporary, not ideal, and not “reflective of God’s ultimate intentions for his people” (for example, the New Covenant). This does not mean that God has changed or that what pleases him has changed; rather, as Fee and Stuart observe, “God expects of his people—us—somewhat different evidences of obedience and loyalty from those he expected from the Old Testament Israelites. The loyalty itself is still expected. It is how one shows this loyalty that has been changed in certain ways.”
So, should Christians not appeal to Leviticus 18:22 because it is part of the Law? In this case, appealing to it is still legitimate because Genesis 19, a pre-Law text, and New Testament texts such as Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 restate the same moral principle expressed in the Levitical law.
Christians need to know what the Bible teaches regarding the passages that address homosexuality and the pro-gay movement’s revisionist interpretations of them. Miller, after enlisting some of these arguments, concludes: “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition.” In a matter of a few paragraphs, she dismisses traditional arguments that homosexual behavior is a sin by pointing to more progressive scholars’ revisionist interpretations. I will address the most common ones below in the chart. Christians certainly need to know the biblical view and be able to argue for it, but knowing the biblical view is not enough. As Alan Shlemon rightly states, we must know the truth and speak it with compassion. I would also add one more requirement for meaningful engagement on this issue. We must be sure that we are addressing the right questions at the right times because there are three different aspects to this cultural discussion that we need to keep straight.
First, we need a solid understanding of what the Bible actually teaches regarding homosexuality. The Bible’s uniform teaching is that homosexual behavior is condemned (see comparison chart below). Second, we need to rethink how Christians and churches respond to those who struggle with same-sex attraction (which I address in chapter 13). And finally, we need to clarify how we go about making the case for traditional marriage in the public square for the public good (which I address in chapter 16). Each sphere requires a different approach.
Revisionist Interpretations
Traditional Biblical Responses
Genesis 19:4–9: The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, attempted gang rape, or general wickedness—not homosexual behavior.
Lot’s response, offering his two virgin daughters instead of the men, and his plea to “don’t do this wicked thing” indicate that the Hebrew yada‘ (“to know”) in this passage is sexual in nature. Several other biblical passages refer to the sexual nature of Sodom’s sin (2 Peter 2:6–7; Jude 7; cf. Ezekiel 16:49; in the Apocrypha, 3 Maccabees 2:5; Jubilees 16:6). Arrogance, idolatry, and pride were certainly involved as well. God’s righteous judgment fell on the overall wickedness of Sodom.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13: Idolatrous homosexual behavior (for example, temple prostitution), not homosexual behavior per se is what is condemned as an abomination. Moreover, Christians pick and choose which parts of the Levitical law to apply.
Regarding the “pick and choose” argument, see the discussion of the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant above. Under Levitical law, homosexuality was one of many abominable practices punishable by death. This passage is addressed to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:2), not just the priests. More than idolatry and cultic regulations for ritual purity are being addressed in this passage because the surrounding context, in addition to condemning child sacrifice, also condemns other sexual sins—adultery, incest, and bestiality. Surely Moses is not saying these are OK as long as they are not associated with idolatry or temple worship, is he? Moreover, God calls other practices not associated with idolatry or pagan worship “detestable” in Proverbs 6:16–19 (haughtiness, lying, false witness, etc.).
Jesus says nothing negative about homosexuality. In fact, Jesus favorably mentions homosexuals as “eunuchs” (Matthew 19:12) and also healed a centurion’s male lover (Matthew 8:5–13).
First, Jesus was not silent; he defined the “one flesh” marriage union heterosexually as between a male and a female (Mark 10:6–9). But if his silence works in favor of homosexual behavior, then why not other behaviors that Jesus never mentioned, like incest, cannibalism, or wife beating? Does his silence legitimize them too? Also, the Gospels are limited in what they record from Jesus’ ministry (John 21:25). This line of thinking assumes that the words contained in the Gospels are more authoritative than the rest of the New Testament. Such thinking is false. Regarding eunuchs, the meaning of the word rules out any homosexual connotation. Jesus, as he does on so many occasions, shows compassion for the outcasts of society (like the eunuch). Regarding the male lover, the text clearly says that the centurion loved his servant. But nothing indicates sexual love is in view contextually. Even if it were, Jesus’ healing of him does not mean that he approves of his behavior. Jesus healed many sinful people.
Romans 1:26–27: Paul was not talking about homosexuals here, but (1) heterosexuals who abandon their “nature” (that is, sexual orientation) by practicing homosexuality; (2) homosexuality within the context of idolatrous worship; or (3) sex with boys (pederasty) or multiple-partner, risky sexual relationships (that is, noncommitted, loving homosexual relationships).
This is the clearest and most comprehensive treatment of homosexual behavior in the Bible. It’s also the only passage that specifically addresses female homosexuality. The biblical context is important when addressing various revisionist interpretations. In Romans 1–3, Paul demonstrates the universality of human sinfulness and that every person is under God’s righteous judgment. This is the main point—homosexual behavior is just one of many illustrations: (1) First, this argument, if it invokes sexual orientation, is highly anachronistic. Scientific discussions about being “born gay” began only in the late twentieth century, and the available data is highly inconclusive. Second, “natural desires” are not what Paul is discussing here. “Against nature” (para physis) in this context refers to the created order. Furthermore, Paul appeals to the natural “function” (chresis) of males and females. The vocabulary he uses for male (arsen) and female (thelys) highlights their specific genders. Paul is arguing on the basis of how males and females are biologically and anatomically designed to operate sexually. Men were designed to function sexually not with men but with women. Males and females were designed by God to “function” together in a sexually complementary way. Paul’s word choice could not have been clearer. Homosexual behavior is a clear violation of God’s creational order and complementary design of male and female, along with the command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:26–27; 2:18–24). (2) If idolatry was the only moral limitation of homosexual behavior, then what of the other twenty-three sins addressed between verses 20–31? The logic would seem to require them being morally OK as long as they’re not practiced in an idolatrous manner—which is absurd. Regarding the “doing what comes naturally” argument, these other sins come naturally to us as well; we’re all inclined toward pride, lying, envy, greed, etc. An inclination or even strong desire does not make a behavior morally right or authorize us to act on it. (3) If Paul was only concerned with condemning adult male sex with young boys (pederasty), then he would have used the Greek word commonly used for this practice. Finally, Paul’s argument leaves no room for “loving, committed, and responsible homosexual relationships” because he uniformly condemns the behavior itself, not merely what are described as risky or irresponsible expressions of certain homosexual behaviors.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (cf. 1 Timothy 1:9–10): Paul was not condemning homosexual behavior as a whole, only male prostitution and immoral behavior in general. The particular terms Paul used (arsenokoites) and (malakos) refer to specific behaviors condemned and are not a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
Paul’s clear and comprehensive teaching in Romans 1 should be recalled as the backdrop for this passage (see also 1 Timothy 1:9–10). Here Paul is contrasting the unrighteous versus those who have been made righteous because of the work of Christ. Homosexual behavior is but one of the ways that unrighteousness is manifested. Paul uses two words in verse 9 that clarify his argument: “effeminate” (malakos) and “homosexuals” (arsenokoites). In Roman society it was permissible for male Roman citizens (usually the elite) to be involved sexually with male non-Roman citizens (for example, slaves). It was not uncommon for male slaves to be purchased to be used as passive sexual partners. The word translated “effeminate” (malakos) refers to this passive sexual relationship. Regarding the second word, translated “men who have sex with men” (arsenokoites), critics argue that this means “male prostitutes.” This isn’t the case because Paul actually coined this word to clearly make his point. He uses the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT; Septuagint [LXX]) from the prohibition of homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22. He takes the two words (arsen) “male” and (koite) “bed” from Leviticus 18:22 and combines them to form this new word (arsenokoites) to describe sex between men in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Paul’s countercultural statement condemns both forms (passive and active) of homosexual behavior common in Corinth. This argument also applies to Paul’s use of arsenokoites in 1 Timothy 1:10.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RADICAL LOVE
Before this chapter concludes, two things remain to be said. First, homosexual sin, while a serious offense to God, is not worse than other sins. Heterosexual adultery is equally repugnant to God. So is lying. Second, redemption from the power and habits of sinful behavior is possible because of the work of Jesus Christ. This is true of all sin—whether heterosexual or homosexual. This is Paul’s point: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
The Bible will seem culturally out of step with our society. But as Christians we must prepare ourselves to stand our ground on the truth of Scripture while at the same time compassionately moving toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction with the radical love Christ offers to us all.
Morrow, J. (2011). Think Christianly: Looking at the Intersection of Faith and Culture (166–170). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
