Does God consider homosexuality universally wrong?
 |
| Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments, painting by Rembrandt (1659) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The existence of toʿeba in Ezekiel 16, argues for the universality of the prohibition of sodomy. There, three terms—zōnāh, toʿeba, and zimmah—seem to be synonymous. Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to Sodom and says that she has walked according to Sodom’s abominations (vv. 46ff.). In verse 50, Ezekiel applies toʿeba to Sodom.
Paul clearly describes homosexuality as the sin to which God delivers the Gentiles because they turn to idolatry (Rom. 1:24–27). Paul’s description of the relationship between idolatry and homosexuality parallels the description in Leviticus 18 and 20. In addition, his catalog of vices in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8–10) generally parallels the sexual vices in Leviticus. Paul treats them as universal sins for which Gentiles are culpable. Similar catalogs of vices survive from writings belonging to many ancient societies, including the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese.87
In Revelation 21:8, Jesus tells John that the lake of fire, the second death, is reserved for the (cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and liars.” The “abominable” represents bdelygma. The similarity of John’s list to the list of Leviticus 18 and 20 is evidence that John refers to “homosexuality.”
Jesus confirms this point in Revelation 22:15, declaring that outside the New Jerusalem are “the dogs and sorcerers and immoral and murderers and idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.” This list is so similar to the list in Revelation 21 that we must conclude that abominable corresponds to dogs. This reminds us of the use of dogs in the discussion of Deuteronomy 23:17 (see pp. 40–42). The strong presumption is that dogs refers to males who go to male temple prostitutes, hence homosexuals.
In the Revelation there can be no limitation to temple prostitution or to Israelite ceremonial law. The future, eternal place of all humankind is under discussion. The three passages of Revelation and Deuteronomy, with Leviticus 18 and 20, together point strongly to the universal application of the ban on the practice of homosexuality.
The argument that inclusion of idolatry among the sins of Leviticus 18 and 20 shows the chapters to be circumstantial or ceremonial distorts Scripture.88 John includes idolaters and homosexuals in Revelation’s list of vices. Interpreters cannot limit these vices to violations of Jewish ceremonial law. John describes those who go to an eternal judgment, without distinction among Jews and Gentiles (cf. Gal. 4:8ff.; 1 John 5:12). Paul likewise associates idolatry with homosexuality when he condemns the sins of Gentiles in Romans 1. To treat the mention of idolatry as a criterion for deciding what is cultic and circumstantial degrades Judaism and Christianity to the level of pagan religions. Universal ethical standards are lost. In addition, this line of argumentation would make the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5) wholly circumstantial and limited, since idolatry is the focus of the second commandment and predominates the discussion in the immediately following chapters.89
Boswell also misrepresents the significance of word studies based on the translation of toʿeba in the LXX. He writes:
The distinction between intrinsic wrong and ritual impurity is even more finely drawn by the Greek translation, which distinguishes in “toevah” itself the separate categories of violations of law or justice (anomia) and infringements of ritual purity or monotheistic worship (bdelygma). Levitical proscriptions of homosexual behavior fall in the latter category.90
In a footnote, Boswell cites several references (Deut. 7:25–26, 3 Kings 14:24 [1 Kings 14:24]; 4 Kings 16:3 [2 Kings 16:3]; Isa. 44:19; Jer. 16:18; Ezek. 7:20; 8:6, 9; 16:36) to prove his point.91 He also states that the New Testament maintains this division. As support he cites Paul as using anomia for sin or injustice in general (Rom. 2:12; 4:7; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Heb. 1:9) and bdelygma or its derivatives “in reference to idolatry or violations of Jewish ritual purity in particular” (Rom. 2:22; Titus 1:16).
Uses of these two terms in the Old and New Testaments do not fall into neat categories.92 Even if categories were valid, that would not mean that the first category is universal (still valid), while the “Jewish” one is not. Idolatry is an “intrinsic wrong” for Jews and Gentiles. There must be something in the context that delimits the significance of these terms to tell us whether they are “Jewish” only or universal. The repetition of the prohibition in the New Testament argues for its transtemporal nature. It is also significant that Leviticus 18:22 refers to male and female, rather than man and woman. These terms allude to the creation of human beings as male and female in gender (Gen. 1:26–27). Use of the word men would have limited Leviticus 18:22 to adults; male includes all members of the gender, from infants on. The Hebrew zākār always refers to the male gender. Such evidence argues that the passage forbids physical sexual interrelationships among human males and that 20:13 (using man) should be interpreted in light of 18:22.93
