Questions About Homosexuality and the Bible
 |
| The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah, a painting by John Martin (painter), died 1854, thus 100 years. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Some of these questions also touch on how homosexuality is treated in traditional Jewish and Christian literature and in ancient Greek and Roman law codes. Page references accompanying each answer point to relevant passages in this volume.
Each question is answered from the two perspectives in this controversy. The revisionist answers are taken from writings of key defenders of this view. Their positions are represented as fairly as possible in this brief format.
For differentiation, the two sides are identified as The Revisionist Answer (or Claim) and The Biblical Answer. At one point the Jewish response is noted. This format is used with the awareness that some revisionists also argue that they hold the biblical position. It should be understood as well that revisionists take divergent positions at some points, as do those who hold a strongly Bible-centered position.
Old Testament Questions
Creation
1. Does the Creation account of Genesis 1 preclude homosexuality when it presents God’s design for the creation of man and woman in the “image and likeness” of God?
The Revisionist Answer
The Creation account is concerned solely with reproduction—multiplying and filling the earth. The design of the creation of human beings does not inherently oppose homosexuality as an identity for some people.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 1:26–30 testifies that man and woman were made complementarily for each other; together they were made for God and form the image of God. Only the couple, man and woman together, reflects the totality of this divine image. A homosexual couple mirrors only themselves, two males or two females who come together (pp. 31).
2. Does the account of the purpose and plan for marriage in Genesis 2 exclude a homosexual relationship?
The Revisionist Answer
The purpose of the account of the making of a woman for man is to empower the reproduction and preservation of the species. It does not inherently condemn homosexual unions, any more than it would condemn celibacy—a position the church has recognized and accepted throughout the ages.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 2 gives special attention to the making of the woman, Eve, for the man, Adam. This incident is unique in the Creation account. No comparable level of attention is given to the making of female animals for male animals. This suggests that, although reproduction is the focus of the creation design for animals, human creation looks to purposes that transcend reproduction and species survival. Reproduction is important, but human beings are more than the sum of their physical and nonphysical attributes. Spiritual, emotional, and physical aspects interplay in the definition of human being (pp. 32).
Sodom and “Cult Prostitutes”
3. What does Genesis 19 tell us about the sin of Sodom?
The Revisionist Answer
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality toward Lot’s guests. The context of Genesis 19 does not mention homosexuality. The meaning of know in 19:5 refers to identifying the visitors. The corresponding Hebrew word is used more than nine hundred times with the meaning of “to become acquainted”; relatively rarely does it have the meaning of “to know sexually.”
Even if homosexuality was involved at Sodom, it was rape, which had nothing to do with consensual, mutual same-gender behavior as it is now defined. Homosexual rape was an especially humiliating form of conquest over victims. Victors raped the vanquished.
The Biblical Answer
The words of the text describe the evil intent of the Sodomites. In light of Sodom’s reputation recorded earlier in Genesis (13:10, 13; 18:20–21, 23ff.), the behavior of the sodomites was known to be particularly despicable. However important hospitality was in that society, inhospitality does not fit this description.
The meaning of the terms in any text is defined by the context. The meaning of know in Genesis 19:5 must be considered by the use of the same word in 19:8, where it has an unmistakably sexual meaning: Lot said his daughters had not “known” a man. This use argues strongly that the same word has the same meaning within the scope of four verses, unless there is strong contrary indication. But all other evidence supports, rather than weighs against, a sexual connotation. “To have sexual intercourse” must be the preferred translation for know.
The literary form of the larger context, in which the incident describing Sodom occurs, argues strongly for a sexual nature to the sin of Sodom. The events at Sodom pose a threat to fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding a seed and a land (Genesis 12, 15). Sodom threatens the fulfillment of God’s larger promise and plan to bless the Gentiles through Abraham and to bring about a just society (pp. 32–36).
It is correct that rape, or homosexual conquest, was the intent of the men’s actions. Yet Sodom is used frequently in Scripture as an illustration of depravity or judgment in which rape or conquest does not fit or is inadequate; the full range of homosexual thought and behavior does fit. Among the thirty-nine such applications of Sodom are Deuteronomy 29:23 (cf. vv. 19–21); 32:32–35; Isaiah 1:9–10 (cf. vv. 4–5); 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40 (cf. vv. 31–32); Lamentations 4:5–8; Ezekiel 16:44–50; Amos 4:11 (cf. ch. 4); Zephaniah 2:8–10. “Sodom” takes on the broader connection with homosexuality throughout the rest of Scripture, having implications of pride, in addition to violence or inhospitality. The passages mentioning Sodom never suggest the idea of homosexual rape over conquered foes (pp. 34–47; 74–104).
4. What was the sin committed at Gibeah as recorded in Judges 19–20? In particular what is meant in 19:22?
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” (NIV)
The Revisionist Answer
The same kind of behavior that occurred at Sodom satisfies the account of the sin of the Benjaminites at Gibeah: homosexual rape.
The Biblical Answer
The incident at Gibeah is similar to that at Sodom, except that the sin occurs within Israel. The account of Judges 19 is probably consciously modeled on that of Genesis 19. However, nothing in the biblical record differentiates nonconsensual behavior or rape from consensual behavior (pp. 36–37).
5. How does the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C., understand Genesis 19, as reflected in their translation?
The Revisionist Answer
The LXX understood the Hebrew as meaning “to become acquainted.” The simple Greek word for “know” appears in Genesis 19:5, just as in the Hebrew. Neither is a sexual meaning read into Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters, who have not “known” a man, to the sodomites. At this place the translation of the LXX is in error.
The Biblical Answer
The LXX correctly translates know of the Hebrew into the corresponding Greek know in 19:8. Sexual intercourse and acquaintance are within the range of Greek definitions for the word, just as in the Hebrew. Context demands the sexual definition.
In the LXX for Genesis 19:5, translators used a word that more often means “to become acquainted with.” This was not an error, for the word has a sexual meaning in its only other occurrences in the LXX: Genesis 39:10; Judith 12:16; and Susanna 11, 39 (cf. Susanna 37). A sexual use of the word is also found in secular writers of the LXX era. This argues strongly that the LXX translators saw a sexual meaning in Genesis 19:5—where they wanted to represent more explicitly the sexual meaning of the passage than did the Hebrew (see pp. 34–36, 114–21).
6. In Deuteronomy, Kings, and Job, the Hebrew uses a form of qādēš (“cult prostitute”). The LXX uses a variety of words to translate this one term. Is this a reference to homosexual relations, as in the King James Bible and some other translations, which use the word sodomite?
The Revisionist Answer
There is no basis for reading homosexual connotations into the concept of “cult prostitute.” The word qādēš does not demand this, and historical records are silent. The word would more likely mean simply a female prostitute who serviced males. The LXX translates the references to “cult prostitute” in such passages by a variety of terms, showing that even these early Jewish scholars were confused as to the meaning of the Hebrew. None of the terms used suggests homosexuality. The LXX and English versions using sodomite are “mistranslations.”
The Biblical Answer
Context again informs the meaning of the Hebrew word. In Deuteronomy 23:17–18 the text refers explicitly to both female and male cult prostitutes servicing those who come to them, and forbids offering to the Lord the payment or hire for such services. Such offerings are an “abomination” to the Lord. References to the word dog in the Hebrew definitively show it to be a male cult prostitute. Many revisionists accept this translation. Because women were excluded from most pagan worship, the prostitution in view was almost certainly homosexual, making this the predominant form of cultic prostitution. The LXX appropriately uses Greek equivalents to the terms harlot, prostitute, and dog. Dog refers to males who debased themselves in the manner of women, often in the role of acting as agents for a deity. They were devotees of the gods and goddesses.
The LXX adds two clauses to the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 23:17, using terms that mean “sorceress,” “dedicated person,” or “initiated person.” These words refer to female and male prostitutes who were initiated to serve the mystery religions that were rampant in the ancient Near East during Hellenistic times—the era during which the LXX was translated in the third or second century B.C.
The other translations for the Hebrew qādēš include syndesmos (“binding,” “union,” in 1 Kings 14:24); teletas (“initiate,” “devotee,” in 1 Kings 15:12); endiellagmenou (“changed,” “perverted,” in Codex Alexandrinus at 1 Kings 22:47); kadesim (a Greek way to transliterate the Hebrew qādēšim in 2 Kings 23:7); and titrōskomenē (“wounded,” “crushed,” “pierced,” in Job 36:14).
All of these terms represent obvious attempts to use terms correlating to contemporary forms of male cultic prostitution in the mystery religions and elsewhere in their day. Historians of the era of the LXX (e.g., Livy, 59 B.C.–A.D. 17) speak of the homosexuality practiced in mystery religions. Contextualization in the LXX neither contradicts nor violates the meaning of the Hebrew text, because the cultic homosexual idea was there already. The LXX is a reliable translation at these points.
Historical data from all over the ancient East show that ancient peoples practiced homosexuality in various forms. Male temple prostitutes who serviced men were common. Certain forms were punished (see pp. 122–25, 127–30).
7. What do later prophets understand the sin of Sodom to be?
The Revisionist Answer
The reference to Sodom in Ezekiel proves that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality (16:49) and pride (16:50). The text refers to Sodom often, yet it never cites homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The rest of the prophets follow the example of Ezekiel.
The Biblical Answer
Sodom was guilty of arrogance, abundance, apathy, and neglect of the poor and needy, according to Ezekiel 16:49. Yet Ezekiel 16:50 goes far beyond pride or haughtiness to cite “abominations” or “detestable things” as the sins of Sodom. The language used is applied to homosexuality in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 18:23 and 20:13 call homosexuality “abomination.” The same Hebrew and Greek terms used in Leviticus for homosexuality occur in Ezekiel for Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Prophets consistently identify the sin of Sodom with such descriptive words as pride, gluttony, and arrogance. While they never say that the sin of Sodom is homosexuality, such terms as abomination take us back to Leviticus 18 and 20. If the prophets do not use the word homosexuality, neither do they say that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality (see pp. 43–47).
Passages from Leviticus 18 and 20
8. How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal?
The Revisionist Answer
The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma).
These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic.
Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance.
The Biblical Answer
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior, with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed in the two chapters, this is the only one singled out as an “abomination,” and this use occurs twice. It speaks to severity and provides a link to Ezekiel 16:50, where the prophet identifies Sodom’s sin as an “abomination” (see pp. 43–45 for an extended treatment of this term).
As a whole, Leviticus 18–20 forms a special section within Leviticus that transcends Israel’s cult or ritual. In significance the text approaches Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Ten Commandments occur. These texts are universal in scope. No mention is made of sacrifice, ritual, or ceremony, as in the rest of Leviticus. The sins of this section, commonly referred to as the “Code of Holiness,” are child sacrifice, religious prostitution, spiritism and consulting mediums, cursing parents, adultery, incest, bigamy, homosexuality, and bestiality. None of these are limited to Israel’s own purity code.
Other considerations support their universal significance. The New Testament cites Leviticus 19 as a universal code. Jesus cites Leviticus 19 as universal (Matt. 5:33, 43; 19:19; 22:37–40), as do Paul (Rom. 10:5; 13:8–10; 2 Cor. 6:14ff.; Gal. 3:12; 5:14), Peter (1 Peter 1:14–16), and James (2:8). Frequently they cite the “second commandment”: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18). Surely they saw this section as embodying universal standards of morality. The prohibitions of Leviticus 19 repeat or reflect on the Ten Commandments, including prohibitions of stealing, lying, deceiving, swearing falsely, and cursing (19:11–12).
Although some instructions and prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are limited to Israel (distinguishing clean and unclean animals and having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period), most are not. The context itself distinguishes limited, cultic prohibitions from universal prohibitions. The reader is able to discern which laws are universal. In addition, the similarity of these chapters to the Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s applications of this section warrant consideration of most of these rules as valid. Prohibitions of homosexuality elsewhere in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testament also justify the interpretation that the prohibition is universal.
Application of the death penalty in 20:13 must be a factor in our consideration. It raises homosexuality from the level of a simple social or civil concern to the category of a crime against society (see pp. 47–59, 63).
Traditional Jewish Literature
9. What is the view of the traditional literature of the Jews? How do the Mishnah and targums view Old Testament references to homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
The traditional literature of the Jews as found in the Mishnah and elsewhere does not interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. This literature is unclear in its understanding of the severity of homosexuality. More recent writings of the Jews have greater importance than does this ancient tradition.
The Traditional Jewish Answer
The Mishnah and those various targums that discuss homosexuality take the biblical passages as condemning it. The Mishnah (Sanh. 7:1–9:1) restates the penalty of death and groups homosexuality with adultery, incest, and murder. Yet it allows for atonement for the sin of homosexuality, as for adultery and murder. Later Jewish writings, such as the works of Philo and Josephus, follow the interpretation of the Mishnah and strongly condemn homosexual vice (see pp. 56–58, 244–48).
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
10. What do the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha say about homosexuality? How does this Jewish literature written between the Testaments understand the references to Sodom and homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
This body of literature does not read the Old Testament passages as condemning homosexuality in general; rather they refer to some other sin, such as pederasty. Sodom is condemned for its pride and inhospitality.
Even if homosexuality is understood to be the sin of Sodom, this interpretation is wrong and linked to the sin of the angels before the Flood. These angels committed a sin “against nature.” In turn, this interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has wrongly influenced various places in the New Testament (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6–8) so that they also link the sin with that of the fallen angels. All of these improper connections arose in the intertestamental literature because of Jewish aversion to Greek homosexual practices.
The Traditional Jewish and Biblical Answer
Various passages in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 16:8; 10:13–18; 49:2) use such terms as abomination and arrogance—terms associated with homosexuality—to describe the sin of Sodom. Wisdom of Solomon 14:23–26 cites “confusion of sex” as one result of idolatry; this phrase may be rendered, “interchange of sex roles.” Wisdom 19:13–17 and 10:6–9 describe the sin of Sodom as inhospitality, as well as “ungodly,” “wickedness,” “failure,” and “folly” (see pp. 72–84).
The Pseudepigrapha even more definitely associate homosexuality with Sodom. Second Enoch 10:4–5a and 34:1–3 use stark language to describe sodomy. Third Maccabees 2:3–6 describes the Sodomites as acting “insolently” and becoming “notorious for their crimes.” Jubilees 7:20–21, 16:5–9, and 20:5–6 describe the sin of the Sodomites as “wicked,” “sinners exceedingly,” “defiling themselves,” “committing fornication in their flesh,” “working uncleanness on the earth,” “fornication and uncleanness,” and “pollution of sin.” Fourth Ezra 2:8–9; 5:7 and 7:102–31 refer to Sodom as coming under divine judgment. Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5 and 4:1 refer to the sin of Sodom as “wickedness” and that which “changed the order of nature” in a way similar to the sin of the angels before the Flood. Testament of Asher 7:1 connects the sin of Sodom with that of the angels. Testament of Benjamin 9:1 refers to the “fornication of Sodom.” Testament of Levi 14:6 refers to “the union” of Sodom, and 17:8 refers to unmentionable “pollution.” Levi 17:11 makes the only reference to pederasty in all of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, associating pederasts with adulterers, the arrogant, and those who practice bestiality. Other Testaments refer to “revolting gentile affairs,” “the evils of the Gentiles,” or “corruption in fornication.” The Letter of Aristeas 152 indicts gentile men for, among other sins, having “intercourse with men” and “defiling their own mothers and even their daughters” (see pp. 85–104).
The intertestamental literature is frank, not only in associating homosexuality with Sodom, but also in denouncing this as an evil gentile vice. The view of Sodom and its sin flows out of a plausible interpretation of the sin of Sodom found in the Old Testament itself and of the homosexuality described in Leviticus 18 and 20 as “abomination” or “detestable.” This literature does not distort the Old Testament. If certain New Testament passages reflect the terminology of this literature, they do so because this literature accurately reflects the sin of Sodom and the homosexuality of the nations that is prohibited in Leviticus.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 277–285). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Each question is answered from the two perspectives in this controversy. The revisionist answers are taken from writings of key defenders of this view. Their positions are represented as fairly as possible in this brief format.
For differentiation, the two sides are identified as The Revisionist Answer (or Claim) and The Biblical Answer. At one point the Jewish response is noted. This format is used with the awareness that some revisionists also argue that they hold the biblical position. It should be understood as well that revisionists take divergent positions at some points, as do those who hold a strongly Bible-centered position.
Old Testament Questions
Creation
1. Does the Creation account of Genesis 1 preclude homosexuality when it presents God’s design for the creation of man and woman in the “image and likeness” of God?
The Revisionist Answer
The Creation account is concerned solely with reproduction—multiplying and filling the earth. The design of the creation of human beings does not inherently oppose homosexuality as an identity for some people.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 1:26–30 testifies that man and woman were made complementarily for each other; together they were made for God and form the image of God. Only the couple, man and woman together, reflects the totality of this divine image. A homosexual couple mirrors only themselves, two males or two females who come together (pp. 31).
2. Does the account of the purpose and plan for marriage in Genesis 2 exclude a homosexual relationship?
The Revisionist Answer
The purpose of the account of the making of a woman for man is to empower the reproduction and preservation of the species. It does not inherently condemn homosexual unions, any more than it would condemn celibacy—a position the church has recognized and accepted throughout the ages.
The Biblical Answer
Genesis 2 gives special attention to the making of the woman, Eve, for the man, Adam. This incident is unique in the Creation account. No comparable level of attention is given to the making of female animals for male animals. This suggests that, although reproduction is the focus of the creation design for animals, human creation looks to purposes that transcend reproduction and species survival. Reproduction is important, but human beings are more than the sum of their physical and nonphysical attributes. Spiritual, emotional, and physical aspects interplay in the definition of human being (pp. 32).
Sodom and “Cult Prostitutes”
3. What does Genesis 19 tell us about the sin of Sodom?
The Revisionist Answer
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality toward Lot’s guests. The context of Genesis 19 does not mention homosexuality. The meaning of know in 19:5 refers to identifying the visitors. The corresponding Hebrew word is used more than nine hundred times with the meaning of “to become acquainted”; relatively rarely does it have the meaning of “to know sexually.”
Even if homosexuality was involved at Sodom, it was rape, which had nothing to do with consensual, mutual same-gender behavior as it is now defined. Homosexual rape was an especially humiliating form of conquest over victims. Victors raped the vanquished.
The Biblical Answer
The words of the text describe the evil intent of the Sodomites. In light of Sodom’s reputation recorded earlier in Genesis (13:10, 13; 18:20–21, 23ff.), the behavior of the sodomites was known to be particularly despicable. However important hospitality was in that society, inhospitality does not fit this description.
The meaning of the terms in any text is defined by the context. The meaning of know in Genesis 19:5 must be considered by the use of the same word in 19:8, where it has an unmistakably sexual meaning: Lot said his daughters had not “known” a man. This use argues strongly that the same word has the same meaning within the scope of four verses, unless there is strong contrary indication. But all other evidence supports, rather than weighs against, a sexual connotation. “To have sexual intercourse” must be the preferred translation for know.
The literary form of the larger context, in which the incident describing Sodom occurs, argues strongly for a sexual nature to the sin of Sodom. The events at Sodom pose a threat to fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding a seed and a land (Genesis 12, 15). Sodom threatens the fulfillment of God’s larger promise and plan to bless the Gentiles through Abraham and to bring about a just society (pp. 32–36).
It is correct that rape, or homosexual conquest, was the intent of the men’s actions. Yet Sodom is used frequently in Scripture as an illustration of depravity or judgment in which rape or conquest does not fit or is inadequate; the full range of homosexual thought and behavior does fit. Among the thirty-nine such applications of Sodom are Deuteronomy 29:23 (cf. vv. 19–21); 32:32–35; Isaiah 1:9–10 (cf. vv. 4–5); 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40 (cf. vv. 31–32); Lamentations 4:5–8; Ezekiel 16:44–50; Amos 4:11 (cf. ch. 4); Zephaniah 2:8–10. “Sodom” takes on the broader connection with homosexuality throughout the rest of Scripture, having implications of pride, in addition to violence or inhospitality. The passages mentioning Sodom never suggest the idea of homosexual rape over conquered foes (pp. 34–47; 74–104).
4. What was the sin committed at Gibeah as recorded in Judges 19–20? In particular what is meant in 19:22?
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” (NIV)
The Revisionist Answer
The same kind of behavior that occurred at Sodom satisfies the account of the sin of the Benjaminites at Gibeah: homosexual rape.
The Biblical Answer
The incident at Gibeah is similar to that at Sodom, except that the sin occurs within Israel. The account of Judges 19 is probably consciously modeled on that of Genesis 19. However, nothing in the biblical record differentiates nonconsensual behavior or rape from consensual behavior (pp. 36–37).
5. How does the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C., understand Genesis 19, as reflected in their translation?
The Revisionist Answer
The LXX understood the Hebrew as meaning “to become acquainted.” The simple Greek word for “know” appears in Genesis 19:5, just as in the Hebrew. Neither is a sexual meaning read into Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters, who have not “known” a man, to the sodomites. At this place the translation of the LXX is in error.
The Biblical Answer
The LXX correctly translates know of the Hebrew into the corresponding Greek know in 19:8. Sexual intercourse and acquaintance are within the range of Greek definitions for the word, just as in the Hebrew. Context demands the sexual definition.
In the LXX for Genesis 19:5, translators used a word that more often means “to become acquainted with.” This was not an error, for the word has a sexual meaning in its only other occurrences in the LXX: Genesis 39:10; Judith 12:16; and Susanna 11, 39 (cf. Susanna 37). A sexual use of the word is also found in secular writers of the LXX era. This argues strongly that the LXX translators saw a sexual meaning in Genesis 19:5—where they wanted to represent more explicitly the sexual meaning of the passage than did the Hebrew (see pp. 34–36, 114–21).
6. In Deuteronomy, Kings, and Job, the Hebrew uses a form of qādēš (“cult prostitute”). The LXX uses a variety of words to translate this one term. Is this a reference to homosexual relations, as in the King James Bible and some other translations, which use the word sodomite?
The Revisionist Answer
There is no basis for reading homosexual connotations into the concept of “cult prostitute.” The word qādēš does not demand this, and historical records are silent. The word would more likely mean simply a female prostitute who serviced males. The LXX translates the references to “cult prostitute” in such passages by a variety of terms, showing that even these early Jewish scholars were confused as to the meaning of the Hebrew. None of the terms used suggests homosexuality. The LXX and English versions using sodomite are “mistranslations.”
The Biblical Answer
Context again informs the meaning of the Hebrew word. In Deuteronomy 23:17–18 the text refers explicitly to both female and male cult prostitutes servicing those who come to them, and forbids offering to the Lord the payment or hire for such services. Such offerings are an “abomination” to the Lord. References to the word dog in the Hebrew definitively show it to be a male cult prostitute. Many revisionists accept this translation. Because women were excluded from most pagan worship, the prostitution in view was almost certainly homosexual, making this the predominant form of cultic prostitution. The LXX appropriately uses Greek equivalents to the terms harlot, prostitute, and dog. Dog refers to males who debased themselves in the manner of women, often in the role of acting as agents for a deity. They were devotees of the gods and goddesses.
The LXX adds two clauses to the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 23:17, using terms that mean “sorceress,” “dedicated person,” or “initiated person.” These words refer to female and male prostitutes who were initiated to serve the mystery religions that were rampant in the ancient Near East during Hellenistic times—the era during which the LXX was translated in the third or second century B.C.
The other translations for the Hebrew qādēš include syndesmos (“binding,” “union,” in 1 Kings 14:24); teletas (“initiate,” “devotee,” in 1 Kings 15:12); endiellagmenou (“changed,” “perverted,” in Codex Alexandrinus at 1 Kings 22:47); kadesim (a Greek way to transliterate the Hebrew qādēšim in 2 Kings 23:7); and titrōskomenē (“wounded,” “crushed,” “pierced,” in Job 36:14).
All of these terms represent obvious attempts to use terms correlating to contemporary forms of male cultic prostitution in the mystery religions and elsewhere in their day. Historians of the era of the LXX (e.g., Livy, 59 B.C.–A.D. 17) speak of the homosexuality practiced in mystery religions. Contextualization in the LXX neither contradicts nor violates the meaning of the Hebrew text, because the cultic homosexual idea was there already. The LXX is a reliable translation at these points.
Historical data from all over the ancient East show that ancient peoples practiced homosexuality in various forms. Male temple prostitutes who serviced men were common. Certain forms were punished (see pp. 122–25, 127–30).
7. What do later prophets understand the sin of Sodom to be?
The Revisionist Answer
The reference to Sodom in Ezekiel proves that the sin of Sodom is inhospitality (16:49) and pride (16:50). The text refers to Sodom often, yet it never cites homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The rest of the prophets follow the example of Ezekiel.
The Biblical Answer
Sodom was guilty of arrogance, abundance, apathy, and neglect of the poor and needy, according to Ezekiel 16:49. Yet Ezekiel 16:50 goes far beyond pride or haughtiness to cite “abominations” or “detestable things” as the sins of Sodom. The language used is applied to homosexuality in the Pentateuch. Leviticus 18:23 and 20:13 call homosexuality “abomination.” The same Hebrew and Greek terms used in Leviticus for homosexuality occur in Ezekiel for Sodom. Other references to Sodom in the Prophets consistently identify the sin of Sodom with such descriptive words as pride, gluttony, and arrogance. While they never say that the sin of Sodom is homosexuality, such terms as abomination take us back to Leviticus 18 and 20. If the prophets do not use the word homosexuality, neither do they say that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality (see pp. 43–47).
Passages from Leviticus 18 and 20
8. How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal?
The Revisionist Answer
The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma).
These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic.
Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance.
The Biblical Answer
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior, with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed in the two chapters, this is the only one singled out as an “abomination,” and this use occurs twice. It speaks to severity and provides a link to Ezekiel 16:50, where the prophet identifies Sodom’s sin as an “abomination” (see pp. 43–45 for an extended treatment of this term).
As a whole, Leviticus 18–20 forms a special section within Leviticus that transcends Israel’s cult or ritual. In significance the text approaches Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Ten Commandments occur. These texts are universal in scope. No mention is made of sacrifice, ritual, or ceremony, as in the rest of Leviticus. The sins of this section, commonly referred to as the “Code of Holiness,” are child sacrifice, religious prostitution, spiritism and consulting mediums, cursing parents, adultery, incest, bigamy, homosexuality, and bestiality. None of these are limited to Israel’s own purity code.
Other considerations support their universal significance. The New Testament cites Leviticus 19 as a universal code. Jesus cites Leviticus 19 as universal (Matt. 5:33, 43; 19:19; 22:37–40), as do Paul (Rom. 10:5; 13:8–10; 2 Cor. 6:14ff.; Gal. 3:12; 5:14), Peter (1 Peter 1:14–16), and James (2:8). Frequently they cite the “second commandment”: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18). Surely they saw this section as embodying universal standards of morality. The prohibitions of Leviticus 19 repeat or reflect on the Ten Commandments, including prohibitions of stealing, lying, deceiving, swearing falsely, and cursing (19:11–12).
Although some instructions and prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are limited to Israel (distinguishing clean and unclean animals and having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period), most are not. The context itself distinguishes limited, cultic prohibitions from universal prohibitions. The reader is able to discern which laws are universal. In addition, the similarity of these chapters to the Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s applications of this section warrant consideration of most of these rules as valid. Prohibitions of homosexuality elsewhere in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testament also justify the interpretation that the prohibition is universal.
Application of the death penalty in 20:13 must be a factor in our consideration. It raises homosexuality from the level of a simple social or civil concern to the category of a crime against society (see pp. 47–59, 63).
Traditional Jewish Literature
9. What is the view of the traditional literature of the Jews? How do the Mishnah and targums view Old Testament references to homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
The traditional literature of the Jews as found in the Mishnah and elsewhere does not interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. This literature is unclear in its understanding of the severity of homosexuality. More recent writings of the Jews have greater importance than does this ancient tradition.
The Traditional Jewish Answer
The Mishnah and those various targums that discuss homosexuality take the biblical passages as condemning it. The Mishnah (Sanh. 7:1–9:1) restates the penalty of death and groups homosexuality with adultery, incest, and murder. Yet it allows for atonement for the sin of homosexuality, as for adultery and murder. Later Jewish writings, such as the works of Philo and Josephus, follow the interpretation of the Mishnah and strongly condemn homosexual vice (see pp. 56–58, 244–48).
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
10. What do the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha say about homosexuality? How does this Jewish literature written between the Testaments understand the references to Sodom and homosexuality?
The Revisionist Answer
This body of literature does not read the Old Testament passages as condemning homosexuality in general; rather they refer to some other sin, such as pederasty. Sodom is condemned for its pride and inhospitality.
Even if homosexuality is understood to be the sin of Sodom, this interpretation is wrong and linked to the sin of the angels before the Flood. These angels committed a sin “against nature.” In turn, this interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has wrongly influenced various places in the New Testament (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6–8) so that they also link the sin with that of the fallen angels. All of these improper connections arose in the intertestamental literature because of Jewish aversion to Greek homosexual practices.
The Traditional Jewish and Biblical Answer
Various passages in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 16:8; 10:13–18; 49:2) use such terms as abomination and arrogance—terms associated with homosexuality—to describe the sin of Sodom. Wisdom of Solomon 14:23–26 cites “confusion of sex” as one result of idolatry; this phrase may be rendered, “interchange of sex roles.” Wisdom 19:13–17 and 10:6–9 describe the sin of Sodom as inhospitality, as well as “ungodly,” “wickedness,” “failure,” and “folly” (see pp. 72–84).
The Pseudepigrapha even more definitely associate homosexuality with Sodom. Second Enoch 10:4–5a and 34:1–3 use stark language to describe sodomy. Third Maccabees 2:3–6 describes the Sodomites as acting “insolently” and becoming “notorious for their crimes.” Jubilees 7:20–21, 16:5–9, and 20:5–6 describe the sin of the Sodomites as “wicked,” “sinners exceedingly,” “defiling themselves,” “committing fornication in their flesh,” “working uncleanness on the earth,” “fornication and uncleanness,” and “pollution of sin.” Fourth Ezra 2:8–9; 5:7 and 7:102–31 refer to Sodom as coming under divine judgment. Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5 and 4:1 refer to the sin of Sodom as “wickedness” and that which “changed the order of nature” in a way similar to the sin of the angels before the Flood. Testament of Asher 7:1 connects the sin of Sodom with that of the angels. Testament of Benjamin 9:1 refers to the “fornication of Sodom.” Testament of Levi 14:6 refers to “the union” of Sodom, and 17:8 refers to unmentionable “pollution.” Levi 17:11 makes the only reference to pederasty in all of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, associating pederasts with adulterers, the arrogant, and those who practice bestiality. Other Testaments refer to “revolting gentile affairs,” “the evils of the Gentiles,” or “corruption in fornication.” The Letter of Aristeas 152 indicts gentile men for, among other sins, having “intercourse with men” and “defiling their own mothers and even their daughters” (see pp. 85–104).
The intertestamental literature is frank, not only in associating homosexuality with Sodom, but also in denouncing this as an evil gentile vice. The view of Sodom and its sin flows out of a plausible interpretation of the sin of Sodom found in the Old Testament itself and of the homosexuality described in Leviticus 18 and 20 as “abomination” or “detestable.” This literature does not distort the Old Testament. If certain New Testament passages reflect the terminology of this literature, they do so because this literature accurately reflects the sin of Sodom and the homosexuality of the nations that is prohibited in Leviticus.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 277–285). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
