Is God opposed to homosexuality?
 |
| The Sacrifice of the Old Covenant (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
We have sufficient reasons to view the prohibitions of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as universal. The context of Leviticus, the nature of the form of the chapters, the terms employed, the use of the passage and the terms in the New Testament and in mishnaic tradition, and the form of punishment called for all argue for this conclusion.
In addition, there are enough references to homosexuality among other ancient peoples to contradict the view that such evidence is inadequate or moot. It occurred in Babylon (Gilgamesh Epic), Persia, India, China, and Egypt, where even the gods indulged in it. Finally, Assyrian and Hittite law codes address homosexuality (see pp. 122–25; cf. legal precedents in chap. 7).118
Although some ancient societies condemn pederasty, very few references strictly forbid homosexuality or male cultic prostitution, as does the Old Testament. Indeed, evidence is compelling that homosexual prostitution was an integral element in a few ancient religions. Worshipers were told that various gods themselves engaged in it. Israel’s religion is unique because her God is unique. Deuteronomy 4:7–8 is noteworthy: “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (NIV; cf. Ps. 147:19–20; 148:14).
If the Bible is unique in totally condemning homosexuality, then all social explanations as to the place of homosexuality in ancient societies are inadequate. Such explanations as group conflict, consensus and functionalism, cultural transmission, psychoanalytic theory, urbanization (Boswell), and even social constructionism (Greenberg) fail. In Israel’s case, the prohibition of general homosexuality comes from God, from outside culture or society. Surrounding culture lacked a prohibition of all gay and lesbian expression.
Greenberg accepts Leviticus 18 and 20 as condemning general homosexuality, but by dating the book to the sixth century B.C. exile he denies that Israel uniquely prohibited all homosexuality so early as the founding of the nation or even the monarchy. He explains the levitical prohibition as the product of a sexual asceticism in late antiquity. Such asceticism, he writes, arose from such social pressures as the growth of cities, imperialism, and class rivalry. Greenberg’s approach treats Israel as if the nation had no unique ethical structure or relation to God. However, such evidence as the covenant treaty form of the text strongly argues that Leviticus dates to the time of Moses. The treaty language is particularly strong in chapters 18 and 20. If Leviticus is authentic, then Greenberg and anyone else who debates Scripture’s relevance to the homosexuality issue must face the text’s assumption of authority over God’s people. Attempts to explain the prohibitions of general homosexuality must take into account Israel’s religion.119
Revisionist interpreters have such a disparaging attitude toward the Old Testament that their work is tantamount to a new Marcionism—a rejection of most of the Old Testament as irrelevant. But the use of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament in the area of ethics alone compels one to acknowledge that early Christians did view the Old Testament as relevant in ethics. Wright points out that Boswell’s interpretations do not agree with the standard critical and conservative commentaries on the texts at issue.120 Prohomosexual interpretations constitute nothing less than a rejection of the authority of the Old Testament—a point made at the beginning of this chapter.
Summary
It is the sin for which Sodom gains its reputation as ungodly, wicked, and deserving of divine judgment (Genesis 18–19). Terms used in the Hebrew (yādaʿ) and the Greek (synginomai) meaning “to know” (Genesis 19:5) must have a sexual connotation and are among several euphemisms for sexual intercourse used in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is the sin or crime that the Benjaminites committed at Gibeah (Judges 19–20), which so enraged the rest of Israel that they almost eradicated the Benjaminites. None of the passages will sustain the view that the sin involved at Sodom or Gibeah was merely inhospitality or violence; none of the texts cites inhospitality. Revisionist attempts to use patristic interpretations fail. The church fathers simply do not support these arguments.
The references in Deuteronomy and Kings refer mainly to male prostitutes used in religious settings. This must include homosexual unions in light of the culture of the day. All the Greek terms the LXX uses in these passages have a sexual meaning or connotation, often with religious overtones. References to homosexuality in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, discussed in detail in chapter 2, follow Old Testament usage.
In Ezekiel 16:50, the word abominations (toʿeba, Gk. anomos) refers to homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Old Testament implicitly support the homosexual nature of the sin of Sodom.
Leviticus 18 and 20, the section that most clearly describes and condemns homosexuality for Israel, is universal rather than cultic in scope. There is evidence of universality within the larger context of the book. Specific to this section is its personal rather than cultic content, its covenantal literary form, its six uses of toʿeba (Gk. bdelygma), and its prescribed punishment of death for violators. Quotations of chapters 18–20 by Christ, Paul, James, and Peter in the New Testament, are meaningless outside of a strong assumption that the texts remain normative. That necessarily includes prohibitions of homosexual behavior. In addition, Jewish tradition (the Mishnah) basically repeats or affirms the Old Testament estimation of homosexuality. Finally, the biblical teaching is in sharp contrast to the looser morality of the surrounding pagan nations. None of them prohibited all expressions of homosexual activity, including pederasty.
When one considers all of the foregoing witnesses, the inescapable conclusion is that the Old Testament teaches that homosexuality is sin and brings God’s judgment. Equally important is the conclusion that the Old Testament view is universally normative and true. It is a valid standard for all societies for all time.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 58–60). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Although some ancient societies condemn pederasty, very few references strictly forbid homosexuality or male cultic prostitution, as does the Old Testament. Indeed, evidence is compelling that homosexual prostitution was an integral element in a few ancient religions. Worshipers were told that various gods themselves engaged in it. Israel’s religion is unique because her God is unique. Deuteronomy 4:7–8 is noteworthy: “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (NIV; cf. Ps. 147:19–20; 148:14).
If the Bible is unique in totally condemning homosexuality, then all social explanations as to the place of homosexuality in ancient societies are inadequate. Such explanations as group conflict, consensus and functionalism, cultural transmission, psychoanalytic theory, urbanization (Boswell), and even social constructionism (Greenberg) fail. In Israel’s case, the prohibition of general homosexuality comes from God, from outside culture or society. Surrounding culture lacked a prohibition of all gay and lesbian expression.
Greenberg accepts Leviticus 18 and 20 as condemning general homosexuality, but by dating the book to the sixth century B.C. exile he denies that Israel uniquely prohibited all homosexuality so early as the founding of the nation or even the monarchy. He explains the levitical prohibition as the product of a sexual asceticism in late antiquity. Such asceticism, he writes, arose from such social pressures as the growth of cities, imperialism, and class rivalry. Greenberg’s approach treats Israel as if the nation had no unique ethical structure or relation to God. However, such evidence as the covenant treaty form of the text strongly argues that Leviticus dates to the time of Moses. The treaty language is particularly strong in chapters 18 and 20. If Leviticus is authentic, then Greenberg and anyone else who debates Scripture’s relevance to the homosexuality issue must face the text’s assumption of authority over God’s people. Attempts to explain the prohibitions of general homosexuality must take into account Israel’s religion.119
Revisionist interpreters have such a disparaging attitude toward the Old Testament that their work is tantamount to a new Marcionism—a rejection of most of the Old Testament as irrelevant. But the use of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament in the area of ethics alone compels one to acknowledge that early Christians did view the Old Testament as relevant in ethics. Wright points out that Boswell’s interpretations do not agree with the standard critical and conservative commentaries on the texts at issue.120 Prohomosexual interpretations constitute nothing less than a rejection of the authority of the Old Testament—a point made at the beginning of this chapter.
Summary
It is the sin for which Sodom gains its reputation as ungodly, wicked, and deserving of divine judgment (Genesis 18–19). Terms used in the Hebrew (yādaʿ) and the Greek (synginomai) meaning “to know” (Genesis 19:5) must have a sexual connotation and are among several euphemisms for sexual intercourse used in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is the sin or crime that the Benjaminites committed at Gibeah (Judges 19–20), which so enraged the rest of Israel that they almost eradicated the Benjaminites. None of the passages will sustain the view that the sin involved at Sodom or Gibeah was merely inhospitality or violence; none of the texts cites inhospitality. Revisionist attempts to use patristic interpretations fail. The church fathers simply do not support these arguments.
The references in Deuteronomy and Kings refer mainly to male prostitutes used in religious settings. This must include homosexual unions in light of the culture of the day. All the Greek terms the LXX uses in these passages have a sexual meaning or connotation, often with religious overtones. References to homosexuality in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, discussed in detail in chapter 2, follow Old Testament usage.
In Ezekiel 16:50, the word abominations (toʿeba, Gk. anomos) refers to homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Old Testament implicitly support the homosexual nature of the sin of Sodom.
Leviticus 18 and 20, the section that most clearly describes and condemns homosexuality for Israel, is universal rather than cultic in scope. There is evidence of universality within the larger context of the book. Specific to this section is its personal rather than cultic content, its covenantal literary form, its six uses of toʿeba (Gk. bdelygma), and its prescribed punishment of death for violators. Quotations of chapters 18–20 by Christ, Paul, James, and Peter in the New Testament, are meaningless outside of a strong assumption that the texts remain normative. That necessarily includes prohibitions of homosexual behavior. In addition, Jewish tradition (the Mishnah) basically repeats or affirms the Old Testament estimation of homosexuality. Finally, the biblical teaching is in sharp contrast to the looser morality of the surrounding pagan nations. None of them prohibited all expressions of homosexual activity, including pederasty.
When one considers all of the foregoing witnesses, the inescapable conclusion is that the Old Testament teaches that homosexuality is sin and brings God’s judgment. Equally important is the conclusion that the Old Testament view is universally normative and true. It is a valid standard for all societies for all time.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 58–60). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
