What does the Bible say about Homosexuality

A page from Leviticus, in the Samaritan bible (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is here that our conversation about how to interpret the Old Testament merges with an issue widely discussed in our culture—homosexuality. When Christians appeal to passages like Leviticus 18:22 to argue that homosexual behavior is a sin, they are often met with the charge of “picking and choosing” random verses that support their view and leaving out others. Is this true? I don’t think so, but I’ll come back to this after I lay some groundwork. Christians are now under the New Covenant. The Law of Moses (that is, the Mosaic covenant), while important for teaching us about God’s redemptive history through Israel, is not binding on Christians unless the principle, law, or command is reaffirmed or restated in the New Testament (Romans 6:14–15; 10:4; Galatians 3; Hebrews 8–9). God made a conditional covenant with the people of Israel in the Old Testament that was specific to them and their national status with God as their king (that is, theocracy). The Law was good in the sense that it accomplished God’s design for it, and we can and should learn from it (2 Timothy 3:16–17). However, the Mosaic Law was temporary, not ideal, and not “reflective of God’s ultimate intentions for his people” (for example, the New Covenant). This does not mean that God has changed or that what pleases him has changed; rather, as Fee and Stuart observe, “God expects of his people—us—somewhat different evidences of obedience and loyalty from those he expected from the Old Testament Israelites. The loyalty itself is still expected. It is how one shows this loyalty that has been changed in certain ways.”
So, should Christians not appeal to Leviticus 18:22 because it is part of the Law? In this case, appealing to it is still legitimate because Genesis 19, a pre-Law text, and New Testament texts such as Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 restate the same moral principle expressed in the Levitical law.
Christians need to know what the Bible teaches regarding the passages that address homosexuality and the pro-gay movement’s revisionist int

The Sacrifice of the Old Covenant (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

erpretations of them. Miller, after enlisting some of these arguments, concludes: “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition.” In a matter of a few paragraphs, she dismisses traditional arguments that homosexual behavior is a sin by pointing to more progressive scholars’ revisionist interpretations. I will address the most common ones below in the chart. Christians certainly need to know the biblical view and be able to argue for it, but knowing the biblical view is not enough. As Alan Shlemon rightly states, we must know the truth and speak it with compassion. I would also add one more requirement for meaningful engagement on this issue. We must be sure that we are addressing the right questions at the right times because there are three different aspects to this cultural discussion that we need to keep straight.
First, we need a solid understanding of what the Bible actually teaches regarding homosexuality. The Bible’s uniform teaching is that homosexual behavior is condemned (see comparison chart below). Second, we need to rethink how Christians and churches respond to those who struggle with same-sex attraction (which I address in chapter 13). And finally, we need to clarify how we go about making the case for traditional marriage in the public square for the public good (which I address in chapter 16). Each sp

British Library Add. MS 59874 Ethiopian Bible - Matthew's Gospel (Ge'ez script) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

here requires a different approach.
Revisionist Interpretations
Traditional Biblical Responses
Genesis 19:4–9: The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, attempted gang rape, or general wickedness—not homosexual behavior.
Lot’s response, offering his two virgin daughters instead of the men, and his plea to “don’t do this wicked thing” indicate that the Hebrew yada‘ (“to know”) in this passage is sexual in nature. Several other biblical passages refer to the sexual nature of Sodom’s sin (2 Peter 2:6–7; Jude 7; cf. Ezekiel 16:49; in the Apocrypha, 3 Maccabees 2:5; Jubilees 16:6). Arrogance, idolatry, and pride were certainly involved as well. God’s righteous judgment fell on the overall wickedness of Sodom.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13: Idolatrous homosexual behavior (for example, temple prostitution), not homosexual behavior per se is what is condemned as an abomination. Moreover, Christians pick and choose which parts of the Levitical law to apply.
Regarding the “pick and choose” argument, see the discussion of the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant above. Under Levitical law, homosexuality was one of many abominable practices punishable by death. This passage is addressed to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:2), not just the priests. More than idolatry and cultic regulations for ritual purity are being addressed in this passage because the surrounding context, in addition to condemning child sacrifice, also condemns other sexual sins—adultery, incest, and bestiality. Surely Moses is not saying these are OK as long as they are not associated with idolatry or temple worship, is he? Moreover, God calls other practices not associated with idolatry or pagan worship “detestable” in Proverbs 6:16–19 (haughtiness, lying, false witness, etc.).
Jesus says nothing negative about homosexuality. In fact, J

Matthew Evangelist. The text also says - Abraham and David (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

esus favorably mentions homosexuals as “eunuchs” (Matthew 19:12) and also healed a centurion’s male lover (Matthew 8:5–13).
First, Jesus was not silent; he defined the “one flesh” marriage union heterosexually as between a male and a female (Mark 10:6–9). But if his silence works in favor of homosexual behavior, then why not other behaviors that Jesus never mentioned, like incest, cannibalism, or wife beating? Does his silence legitimize them too? Also, the Gospels are limited in what they record from Jesus’ ministry (John 21:25). This line of thinking assumes that the words contained in the Gospels are more authoritative than the rest of the New Testament. Such thinking is false. Regarding eunuchs, the meaning of the word rules out any homosexual connotation. Jesus, as he does on so many occasions, shows compassion for the outcasts of society (like the eunuch). Regarding the male lover, the text clearly says that the centurion loved his servant. But nothing indicates sexual love is in view contextually. Even if it were, Jesus’ healing of him does not mean that he approves of his behavior. Jesus healed many sinful people.
Romans 1:26–27: Paul was not talking about homosexuals here, but (1) heterosexuals who abandon their “nature” (that is, sexual orientation) by practicing homosexuality; (2) homosexuality within the context of idolatrous worship; or (3) sex with boys (pederasty) or multiple-partner, risky sexual relationships (that is, noncommitted, loving homosexual relationships).
This is the clearest and most comprehensive treatment of homosexual behavior in the Bible. It’s also the only passage that specifically addresses female homosexuality. The biblical context is important when addressing various revisionist interpretations. In Romans 1–3, Paul demon

English: Moses speaks to the children of Israel, as in Deuteronomy 31:1, illustration from "The Boys of the Bible" by Hartwell James, published by Henry Altemus Company, 1905 and 1916. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

strates the universality of human sinfulness and that every person is under God’s righteous judgment. This is the main point—homosexual behavior is just one of many illustrations: (1) First, this argument, if it invokes sexual orientation, is highly anachronistic. Scientific discussions about being “born gay” began only in the late twentieth century, and the available data is highly inconclusive. Second, “natural desires” are not what Paul is discussing here. “Against nature” (para physis) in this context refers to the created order. Furthermore, Paul appeals to the natural “function” (chresis) of males and females. The vocabulary he uses for male (arsen) and female (thelys) highlights their specific genders. Paul is arguing on the basis of how males and females are biologically and anatomically designed to operate sexually. Men were designed to function sexually not with men but with women. Males and females were designed by God to “function” together in a sexually complementary way. Paul’s word choice could not have been clearer. Homosexual behavior is a clear violation of God’s creational order and complementary design of male and female, along with the command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:26–27; 2:18–24). (2) If idolatry was the only moral limitation of homosexual behavior, then what of the other twenty-three sins addressed between verses 20–31? The logic would seem to require them being morally OK as long as they’re not practiced in an idolatrous manner—which is absurd. Regarding the “doing what comes naturally” argument, these other sins come naturally to us as well; we’re all inclined toward pride, lying, envy, greed, etc. An inclination or even strong desire does not make a behavior morally right or authorize us to act on it. (3) If Paul was only concerned with condemning adult male sex with young boys (pederasty), then he would have used the Greek word commonly used for this practice. Finally, Paul’s argument leaves no room for “loving, committed, and responsible homosexual relationships” because he uniformly condemns the behavior itself, not merely what are described as risky or irresponsible expressions of certain homosexual behaviors.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (cf. 1 Timothy 1:9–10): Paul was not condemning homosexual behavior as a whole, only male prostitution and immoral behavior in general. The particular terms Paul used (arsenokoites) and (malakos) refer to specific behaviors condemned and are not a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
Paul’s clear and comprehensive teaching in Romans 1 should be recalled as the backdrop for this passage (see also 1 Timothy 1:9–10). Here Paul is contrasting the unrighteous versus those who have been made right

Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments, painting by Rembrandt (1659) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

eous because of the work of Christ. Homosexual behavior is but one of the ways that unrighteousness is manifested. Paul uses two words in verse 9 that clarify his argument: “effeminate” (malakos) and “homosexuals” (arsenokoites). In Roman society it was permissible for male Roman citizens (usually the elite) to be involved sexually with male non-Roman citizens (for example, slaves). It was not uncommon for male slaves to be purchased to be used as passive sexual partners. The word translated “effeminate” (malakos) refers to this passive sexual relationship. Regarding the second word, translated “men who have sex with men” (arsenokoites), critics argue that this means “male prostitutes.” This isn’t the case because Paul actually coined this word to clearly make his point. He uses the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT; Septuagint [LXX]) from the prohibition of homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22. He takes the two words (arsen) “male” and (koite) “bed” from Leviticus 18:22 and combines them to form this new word (arsenokoites) to describe sex between men in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Paul’s countercultural statement condemns both forms (passive and active) of homosexual behavior common in Corinth. This argument also applies to Paul’s use of arsenokoites in 1 Timothy 1:10.




AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RADICAL LOVE


Before this chapter concludes, two things remain to be said. First, homosexual sin, while a serious offense to God, is not worse than other sins. Heterosexual adultery is equally repugnant to God. So is lying. Second, redemption from the power and habits of sinful behavior is possible because of the work of Jesus Christ. This is true of all sin—whether heterosexual or homosexual. This is Paul’s point: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
The Bible will seem culturally out of step with our society. But as Christians we must prepare ourselves to stand our ground on the truth of Scripture while at the same time compassionately moving toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction with the radical love Christ offers to us all.

Related articles

• Why is the Church anti-gay, if the Bible isn't? (wellthisiswhatithink.wordpress.com)
• My Take: The Bible condemns a lot, but here's why we focus on homosexuality (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Confession: I love Jesus and "The Gays" (browneyedamazon.com)
• How should followers of Christ respond to the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriage? (rodneyhunt.wordpress.com)
• Testaments Old & New (slog.thestranger.com)
• O They Will Know We Are Christians... (slog.thestranger.com)
• My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Dr. Joel Hoffman: An Open Letter To Piers Morgan (huffingtonpost.com)
• Does the Old Testament Condemn Homosexuality? (2 of 2) (crossexaminedblog.com)
• Gay for God? A Primer on How to Talk to Christians About the Gay Debate (theparish.typepad.com)
• The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments (restart.typepad.com)
• Kan. pastor: Government should kill gays (kshb.com)