What does the Old Testament say about homosexuality?
Homosexuality is mentioned eight times in the Scriptures (four in each testament), and lesbianism (homosexuality between females) one time. In no instance is it commended; instead it is always described as wrong and unnatural. The first instance, the account of Lot in Sodom, is debated as to whether or not it refers to homosexuality (Gen. 19:4–11). With the growing prominence of the homosexual movement, it is now being said that the sin was not homosexuality but inhospitality and gang rape.
The claim goes that when Lot received the two angels (who appeared as men and were strangers to the residents of Sodom), he angered the locals because no one had examined their credentials. So when the locals demanded to “know” them (v. 5), they only wanted to get acquainted with them. Lot, however, was bound to be hospitable to the strangers and to protect his guests, so he offered to sacrifice his daughters to the crowd. And had not the angels blinded the men of the city, then gang rape would have occurred. But, the argument concludes, homosexual relations were never the intent of the men of Sodom. This view gained initial prominence in 1955 and has been restated often.
Exegetically, the word know can mean “get acquainted with.” But it also means “to have intercourse with” and is used with that meaning about nineteen times in Genesis. But statistics do not decide the matter. What decides it is the use in verse 8, where it obviously means that Lot’s daughters had not had intercourse with a man. It certainly cannot mean they had never been acquainted with a man. If intercourse is the clear meaning in verse 8, then the same verb in verse 5 evidently has the same meaning (though in relation to homosexual relations in that verse). The men of Sodom lusted after the two men (angels), desiring homosexual relations with them.
It is true that hospitality was a strong requirement in that society. But so was protecting the honor of one’s daughters. Are we to understand that Lot would offer to violate his daughters to avoid being inhospitable to his guests (which may have been seen to be the greater sin)? Clearly neither sin would excuse the other.
Other passages in the Old Testament, we are told, call the sin of the men of Sodom pride, lack of concern for the poor, and so on (Ezek. 16:48–50; Isa. 1:10–17; 3:8–9; Jer. 23:12–14). Two passages condemn Sodom for “committing abominations.” The word is the same as is used in Leviticus 18:22, which calls lying with a man as with a woman an abomination. The facts are that Sodom was condemned for a number of sins, one of which was homosexuality, an abomination to the Lord.
When the law was given through Moses to the people of Israel, homosexuality was explicitly forbidden. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 19:22). “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). So the responsibility for their own death is theirs.
A third reference in the Mosaic law forbids the use of money gained from either female or male prostitution to pay for an offering. “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deut. 23:18). “Dog” was a term applied to a male prostitute. To use money gained from prostitution to express one’s thanks to God in an offering was an abomination to the Lord.
Prohomosexual writers attempt to downplay the clear prohibition of these passages by trying to distinguish between ritual commands and moral commands. They say that the laws concerned ritual purity; that is, they had to be obeyed in order to be acceptable in performing the rituals of the Mosaic worship but do not relate to moral purity. To maintain such a distinction is wishful thinking, for ritual and moral purity often overlap. Otherwise, one could conclude that sins mentioned in the same context concern only ritual purity and are therefore not immoral. Such sins include adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality (Lev. 18:20, 21, 23). Just as it would be unthinkable to consider these solely matters of ritual purity, so it would be unthinkable to conclude that homosexuality was only a ritual concern and not a sin in God’s sight.
Some prohomosexual writers attempt to nullify the force of these commands by stating that the Mosaic law has been done away. As a code of conduct for the Israelites it has been done away (2 Cor. 3:7–11). But it still has a use, and that use clearly includes the fact that homosexuality is morally wrong. “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” (1 Tim. 1:8–19).
Although it is true that the Mosaic law as a code of conduct has been done away, it is equally true that another code has replaced it for the believer, and that is the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), or the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2), and that new code under which the Christian lives does include prohibitions against homosexuality.
Ryrie, C. C. (1991). Biblical answers to tough questions (pp. 113–116). Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
The claim goes that when Lot received the two angels (who appeared as men and were strangers to the residents of Sodom), he angered the locals because no one had examined their credentials. So when the locals demanded to “know” them (v. 5), they only wanted to get acquainted with them. Lot, however, was bound to be hospitable to the strangers and to protect his guests, so he offered to sacrifice his daughters to the crowd. And had not the angels blinded the men of the city, then gang rape would have occurred. But, the argument concludes, homosexual relations were never the intent of the men of Sodom. This view gained initial prominence in 1955 and has been restated often.
Exegetically, the word know can mean “get acquainted with.” But it also means “to have intercourse with” and is used with that meaning about nineteen times in Genesis. But statistics do not decide the matter. What decides it is the use in verse 8, where it obviously means that Lot’s daughters had not had intercourse with a man. It certainly cannot mean they had never been acquainted with a man. If intercourse is the clear meaning in verse 8, then the same verb in verse 5 evidently has the same meaning (though in relation to homosexual relations in that verse). The men of Sodom lusted after the two men (angels), desiring homosexual relations with them.
It is true that hospitality was a strong requirement in that society. But so was protecting the honor of one’s daughters. Are we to understand that Lot would offer to violate his daughters to avoid being inhospitable to his guests (which may have been seen to be the greater sin)? Clearly neither sin would excuse the other.
Other passages in the Old Testament, we are told, call the sin of the men of Sodom pride, lack of concern for the poor, and so on (Ezek. 16:48–50; Isa. 1:10–17; 3:8–9; Jer. 23:12–14). Two passages condemn Sodom for “committing abominations.” The word is the same as is used in Leviticus 18:22, which calls lying with a man as with a woman an abomination. The facts are that Sodom was condemned for a number of sins, one of which was homosexuality, an abomination to the Lord.
When the law was given through Moses to the people of Israel, homosexuality was explicitly forbidden. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 19:22). “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). So the responsibility for their own death is theirs.
A third reference in the Mosaic law forbids the use of money gained from either female or male prostitution to pay for an offering. “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deut. 23:18). “Dog” was a term applied to a male prostitute. To use money gained from prostitution to express one’s thanks to God in an offering was an abomination to the Lord.
Prohomosexual writers attempt to downplay the clear prohibition of these passages by trying to distinguish between ritual commands and moral commands. They say that the laws concerned ritual purity; that is, they had to be obeyed in order to be acceptable in performing the rituals of the Mosaic worship but do not relate to moral purity. To maintain such a distinction is wishful thinking, for ritual and moral purity often overlap. Otherwise, one could conclude that sins mentioned in the same context concern only ritual purity and are therefore not immoral. Such sins include adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality (Lev. 18:20, 21, 23). Just as it would be unthinkable to consider these solely matters of ritual purity, so it would be unthinkable to conclude that homosexuality was only a ritual concern and not a sin in God’s sight.
Some prohomosexual writers attempt to nullify the force of these commands by stating that the Mosaic law has been done away. As a code of conduct for the Israelites it has been done away (2 Cor. 3:7–11). But it still has a use, and that use clearly includes the fact that homosexuality is morally wrong. “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” (1 Tim. 1:8–19).
Although it is true that the Mosaic law as a code of conduct has been done away, it is equally true that another code has replaced it for the believer, and that is the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), or the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2), and that new code under which the Christian lives does include prohibitions against homosexuality.
Ryrie, C. C. (1991). Biblical answers to tough questions (pp. 113–116). Chicago, IL: Moody Press.
