Slaves, Women and Homosexuals

This article will show that an acceptance of an egalitarian view does not logically move one toward acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. 

Six biblical and theological reasons will serve to illustrate the point: the core value of gender boundaries, the direction of redemptive movement, the vice/virtue and penal-code lists, the lack of canonical variance, biblical purpose statements, and pragmatic clues. A seventh, nontheological reason will highlight egalitarians who are producing major scholarly works against accepting homosexuality.

Besides the transcultural core value of gender boundaries, there are a number of other reasons that acceptance of egalitarianism does not logically lead to accepting homosexuality. 

One of the clearest hermeneutical reasons for rejecting this logical-acceptance thesis is the dramatic difference in “movement” within biblical homosexuality texts compared to women texts. At this point we need to return to the idea that “movement provides meaning”, developed in chapter twenty-two as part of an egalitarian hermeneutic. Some familiarity with this concept will assist in the discussion here.

The meaning of a biblical text should be understood not just through the isolated words on the page but also in light of the text’s underlying spirit or movement. 

For instance, biblical texts placing limits on women and slaves within the broader social context of the ancient world generally show redemptive movement in a less restrictive direction, granting higher status to and improved treatment of women and slaves (and a corresponding reduction of patriarchal and slave-owner power). 

In many texts having to do with women’s relationships to men (usually husbands), and in many slavery texts, the isolated words on the page do not reflect an ultimate social ethic; yet the redemptive movement within the text is certainly headed in a liberating direction.

On the other hand, when the texts prohibiting homosexual behavior are read against the backdrop of the ancient world, we discover a biblical spirit that creates movement in a more restrictive direction. 

The biblical text moves restrictively compared to the openness toward and acceptance of homosexuality in the social realm and in pagan worship of the day. In other words, we encounter a freeing or less restrictive movement with respect to slavery and patriarchy but a more restrictive movement with respect to homosexuality.

A commitment to biblical authority means that our modern application honors the direction and meaning of the redemptive spirit within the Bible. Although this is not a popular answer to the homosexuality question in our society, only a sexual ethic that excludes homosexual behavior retains the spirit and redemptive movement found in Scripture, as its words are understood in light of the ancient world context.


Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy (pp. 407–408). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.