The homosexual vices of Leviticus 18 and 20 are violations of love, truth, and holiness—the character of God.
A response to Brad Chilcott. Homosexual sin - the Law and the Old Testament
Biblical support for legislation respecting homosexuality is not without importance, even for those who disregard the authority of the Bible. The Old Testament was the most important force in shaping the ethics and legislation of Western Europe and especially the United States and Canada.2
The Old Testament law’s position on homosexuality. Yet, this legislation takes its foundational principles from an ethic that derives from religious truth. The ethical system of the Bible rests on a creation ethic, which affirms that God created humankind as male and female in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26–27).
Created humanity bears the divine image as a rational, moral, and spiritual being. Human life is sacred. Society from the beginning has used legislation to punish murder because it destroys something sacred. From the Flood onward, God has ordained capital punishment for murder to preserve the divine image that human beings bear (Gen. 9:6).
The narrative of Genesis 18–19 recounts the destruction of Sodom from the perspective that the divine image was being defaced there by homosexuality.
The narrative of Genesis 18–19 recounts the destruction of Sodom from the perspective that the divine image was being defaced there by homosexuality.
The account shows that sodomy is sin from the perspective of God (Gen. 13:10–13; 18:20–21). One can assume that Lot and his family viewed it as sin but that the other inhabitants did not see it as immoral or criminal. Probably no law proscribed sodomy (note Gen. 19:4, 9). The Sodomites viewed Lot’s attempt to stop their homosexual advances as contrary to existing standards, perhaps even laws.
In the similar account of the outrage at Gibeah in Judges 19 and 20, the sodomite advance did violate accepted moral standards that had been in place at least since the Exodus (Judg. 19:30). The regulations of the Mosaic Law were in effect. The narrative assumes existence of moral standards: “act wickedly” (19:23); “act of folly” (19:23, 24); “lewd and disgraceful act” (20:6; cf. v. 10); and “wickedness” (20:12).
Leviticus 18 and 20 spell out provisions of the Mosaic Law respecting sodomy or homosexuality. The sexual and other vices proscribed in these chapters violate “judgments” and “statutes” (18:4–5, 26; cf. 20:8, 22) and “ordinances” (20:22). Canaanite statutes apparently took a relaxed view or even approved of these vices (18:30; 20:23).4
The first law regarding homosexuality occurs in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” The NIV renders the verse, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
The second statement occurs in 20:13, where the sin/crime calls for the penalty of death.
In the similar account of the outrage at Gibeah in Judges 19 and 20, the sodomite advance did violate accepted moral standards that had been in place at least since the Exodus (Judg. 19:30). The regulations of the Mosaic Law were in effect. The narrative assumes existence of moral standards: “act wickedly” (19:23); “act of folly” (19:23, 24); “lewd and disgraceful act” (20:6; cf. v. 10); and “wickedness” (20:12).
Leviticus 18 and 20 spell out provisions of the Mosaic Law respecting sodomy or homosexuality. The sexual and other vices proscribed in these chapters violate “judgments” and “statutes” (18:4–5, 26; cf. 20:8, 22) and “ordinances” (20:22). Canaanite statutes apparently took a relaxed view or even approved of these vices (18:30; 20:23).4
The first law regarding homosexuality occurs in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” The NIV renders the verse, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
The second statement occurs in 20:13, where the sin/crime calls for the penalty of death.
The NASB text, which is translated nearly like the NIV at this point, reads, “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.” Although no single term identifies homosexuality, the description of the forbidden behavior is clear and unequivocal. How significant are these statutory prohibitions? The context supports the view that they are very weighty.
The chapters themselves place special emphasis on the law regarding homosexuality. It alone, in distinction to all of the other sins/crimes, is designated “abomination” twice. Although the designation of “abomination” occurs six times (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13), both chapters specifically apply it to only one vice—homosexuality (18:22; 20:13). Otherwise, these chapters use the term generally to refer to the other vices as a group or to the customs of the heathen. Ezekiel 16:50 applies this same term (“abomination” from toʿeba) to the sin of Sodom.
The chapters themselves place special emphasis on the law regarding homosexuality. It alone, in distinction to all of the other sins/crimes, is designated “abomination” twice. Although the designation of “abomination” occurs six times (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13), both chapters specifically apply it to only one vice—homosexuality (18:22; 20:13). Otherwise, these chapters use the term generally to refer to the other vices as a group or to the customs of the heathen. Ezekiel 16:50 applies this same term (“abomination” from toʿeba) to the sin of Sodom.
Such revisionists as John Boswell and L. William Countryman cannot argue from the presence of toʿeba that only ritual or impurity rules are involved.
While toʿevah can signal a distinction between ritual rules that are limited to Israel and universal laws or justice, such a distinction does not always hold, so one must consider other evidence.
For example, anomia is the Greek LXX translation of toʿeba in Jeremiah 16:18, where it is linked with the universally condemned sin of worshiping idols. This is no insignificant point. The text does not limit legislation about homosexuality to Israel. The wider context of Leviticus supports the view that the injunctions of chapters 18–20 have universal significance.
Most of Leviticus deals with laws that are ceremonial and ritual, dealing with sacrifices, purification rites, special observances, and priesthood. A change occurs in chapters 18 and 20, which lack any mention of sacrifice, ceremonies, or even prostitution as a religious observance. Minus evidence to the contrary, the laws in this section of Leviticus, including those against homosexuality, are transtemporal and transcultural. Its standards remain for cultures of the twenty-first century.
Other facts show the universality of these chapters. The prohibition of homosexuality lacks the traits of a ceremonial law. The covenant-treaty form of chapter 18 is like the form of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Decalogue is presented.
Other facts show the universality of these chapters. The prohibition of homosexuality lacks the traits of a ceremonial law. The covenant-treaty form of chapter 18 is like the form of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Decalogue is presented.
Leviticus 18–20 corresponds to the laws of the Decalogue with a distinctive form known as the Holiness Code. The New Testament and the Mishnah frequently cite these chapters. Chapter 18 has a strong polemical thrust, and the order of laws in these chapters gives first place to marriage. The universal significance of these chapters reinforces their importance as an enduring standard for legislation.
Israel is to be holy for two reasons: (1) God is holy, and (2) God has set Israel apart (20:26; cf. 19:2). Whereas one may limit the latter reason to Israel’s purity code, the former is a universal pertaining to the nature of God. The vices of Leviticus 18 and 20 are violations of love, truth, and holiness—the character of God. Love for God (Deut. 6:4ff.) and also love for one’s neighbor (Levit. 19:18) are involved.
Chapter 20 differs from chapters 18–19 in that 18 and 19 are apodictic, like the Decalogue. Practices are forbidden, but no consequences are given for disobeying the rules. In chapter 20, on the other hand, the laws are casuistic; they assess penalties for breaking an apodictic rule.
That death is the penalty for the crime of homosexuality in 20:13 argues for the universality of this prohibition.
Israel is to be holy for two reasons: (1) God is holy, and (2) God has set Israel apart (20:26; cf. 19:2). Whereas one may limit the latter reason to Israel’s purity code, the former is a universal pertaining to the nature of God. The vices of Leviticus 18 and 20 are violations of love, truth, and holiness—the character of God. Love for God (Deut. 6:4ff.) and also love for one’s neighbor (Levit. 19:18) are involved.
Chapter 20 differs from chapters 18–19 in that 18 and 19 are apodictic, like the Decalogue. Practices are forbidden, but no consequences are given for disobeying the rules. In chapter 20, on the other hand, the laws are casuistic; they assess penalties for breaking an apodictic rule.
That death is the penalty for the crime of homosexuality in 20:13 argues for the universality of this prohibition.
Although Boswell argues that the death penalty does not indicate its seriousness, one must consider again the context. The issue at stake in each of these crimes is the sacred character of the family. Walter C. Kaiser remarks that “every assault against an individual here is simultaneously an attack on the very existence of the family.” Where homosexuality exists, one may say that the family is murdered. “What murder is to the individual, that precisely, are crimes of this class to the family,” Stanley Kellogg comments.
The use of damages rather than fines emphasizes that the biblical legal system is basically a system of civil law, to which criminal law has been added. Many offenses are torts, wrongs against individuals for which the injured party seeks redress through the courts.11
In general, the type of penalty imposed provides a criterion between civil and criminal law, although all of life is lived under God and, hence, all wrongdoing is sin. Monetary compensation suggests a civil offense, whereas corporal punishment suggests a crime.
The use of damages rather than fines emphasizes that the biblical legal system is basically a system of civil law, to which criminal law has been added. Many offenses are torts, wrongs against individuals for which the injured party seeks redress through the courts.11
In general, the type of penalty imposed provides a criterion between civil and criminal law, although all of life is lived under God and, hence, all wrongdoing is sin. Monetary compensation suggests a civil offense, whereas corporal punishment suggests a crime.
Crimes are acts forbidden by the state and controlled by punishment. Use of the death penalty suggests that Leviticus 20 has universal, rather than circumstantial, application as law.
Finally, one should note how strongly Leviticus 18–20 expresses the enmity of God. Those who transgress these laws will have God’s punishment visited upon the defiled land (18:25); they will be cut off (experience premature death) from among their people (18:29; cf. 20:3–5); and God will abhor them (20:23). Even Canaanites and Egyptians are held accountable to live by God’s laws (18:3, 24–30; 20:22–24).
Taken together, this evidence is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the legal proscription of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is universal and perpetual.
Finally, one should note how strongly Leviticus 18–20 expresses the enmity of God. Those who transgress these laws will have God’s punishment visited upon the defiled land (18:25); they will be cut off (experience premature death) from among their people (18:29; cf. 20:3–5); and God will abhor them (20:23). Even Canaanites and Egyptians are held accountable to live by God’s laws (18:3, 24–30; 20:22–24).
Taken together, this evidence is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the legal proscription of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is universal and perpetual.
This proscription of sodomy sets God’s people in sharp contrast to the loose morality of the pagan nations. None of them prohibited all expressions of homosexual activity, including pederasty. Evidently, Israel’s law code is unique in this regard. As the text specifically claims, Israel has a unique God and a unique law code derived from Him. The two go together.14
This prohibition of homosexuality in Torah held the force of civil law through Israelite history. In Deuteronomy 23:17–18, God reiterated to the second generation out of Egypt the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. No Israelite was to be a prostitute, either female or male (as shown in forms of qādēš; see pp. 40–43).
This prohibition of homosexuality in Torah held the force of civil law through Israelite history. In Deuteronomy 23:17–18, God reiterated to the second generation out of Egypt the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. No Israelite was to be a prostitute, either female or male (as shown in forms of qādēš; see pp. 40–43).
Verse 18 describes these people as a “harlot” and a “dog,” respectively. The assumption is that men would go either to a female or a male prostitute, the latter union being homosexual. Both Jewish and pagan sources support this identification of dog as a homosexual.15 In addition, the prohibition of interchanging garments (Deut. 22:5) addresses simulated changes of gender, such as occurred in Canaanite paganism.16
Later, during the monarchy, the laws of Torah were still in effect. Indeed, 1 Kings 14:24 may be a conscious reflection on the laws of Leviticus 18 and 20, as the author observed male cult prostitutes in the land under King Rehoboam. He wrote, “And there were also [in addition to female cultic prostitutes? See the presence of ašerim, historically connected with fertility rites, in v. 23.] male cult prostitutes [qĕdēšim] in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel.”
King Asa began to remove the qĕdēšim (1 Kings 15:12) from the land, and his son Jehoshaphat completed his work (1 Kings 22:46). During the declining years of Judah, only King Josiah put a stop to “male cult prostitutes,” which had again flourished (2 Kings 23:7). Hosea (4:14) condemned their existence during the reigns of Uzziah and Hezekiah.
In Ezekiel, the manifold mention of Sodom and the identification of her sin as “abomination” (16:50), among other things, link Jerusalem’s decline to violations of the Mosaic Law regarding harlotry and cultic prostitution, including homosexuality. Although the sins are “abominations” (toʿeba), the LXX translates them by “lawless deeds” (anomia) (16:1, 36, 43, 47, 50, 51 [2x], 58), thereby stressing the concept of law. This translation comes almost a thousand years after the giving of the Levitical legislation under Moses. The laws of Leviticus were still the standard of God for Israel.
The Old Testament principle might be summarized, “Homosexuality constitutes both a sin and a crime and brings the judgment that God has established.” The Old Testament sets forth the prohibition of homosexuality as a universal standard.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 239–243). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Later, during the monarchy, the laws of Torah were still in effect. Indeed, 1 Kings 14:24 may be a conscious reflection on the laws of Leviticus 18 and 20, as the author observed male cult prostitutes in the land under King Rehoboam. He wrote, “And there were also [in addition to female cultic prostitutes? See the presence of ašerim, historically connected with fertility rites, in v. 23.] male cult prostitutes [qĕdēšim] in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel.”
King Asa began to remove the qĕdēšim (1 Kings 15:12) from the land, and his son Jehoshaphat completed his work (1 Kings 22:46). During the declining years of Judah, only King Josiah put a stop to “male cult prostitutes,” which had again flourished (2 Kings 23:7). Hosea (4:14) condemned their existence during the reigns of Uzziah and Hezekiah.
In Ezekiel, the manifold mention of Sodom and the identification of her sin as “abomination” (16:50), among other things, link Jerusalem’s decline to violations of the Mosaic Law regarding harlotry and cultic prostitution, including homosexuality. Although the sins are “abominations” (toʿeba), the LXX translates them by “lawless deeds” (anomia) (16:1, 36, 43, 47, 50, 51 [2x], 58), thereby stressing the concept of law. This translation comes almost a thousand years after the giving of the Levitical legislation under Moses. The laws of Leviticus were still the standard of God for Israel.
The Old Testament principle might be summarized, “Homosexuality constitutes both a sin and a crime and brings the judgment that God has established.” The Old Testament sets forth the prohibition of homosexuality as a universal standard.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 239–243). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
