Does the New Testament condemn Homosexuality?
Confirmation of the absolute or universal character of these laws comes from use of these chapters in the New Testament. When our Lord stated the two commandments upon which the whole Law and the Prophets depend, He cited Deuteronomy 6:5 (“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”) and Leviticus 19:18 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” cf. Matt. 5:43; 19:19; 22:37–40; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27). The first commandment regarding love for God (Deut. 6:5) follows the universals of the Decalogue (Deuteronomy 5), as here the second commandment regarding love for man (Levit. 19:18) follows the universals of chapter 18 and summarizes them. This is a telling argument for the universality of Leviticus 18.
In addition, Paul uses Leviticus 19:19 to illustrate the need for separation of Christians (2 Cor. 6:14ff.).102 Peter cites 19:2 (cf. 11:44–45; 20:7) as a standard of holiness, calling Christians away from “former lusts” (1 Peter 1:14–16). Paul cites 18:5 (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) and Christ cites 19:12 (Matt. 5:33). Finally, James (2:8) and Paul (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:14) both quote the law of love (Levit. 19:18). The character of God is the basis for the “golden rule.”
The earliest Christians, following the lead of Christ Himself, saw the universal nature and authority of this portion of Scripture. Indeed, Paul coins a term to describe homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:10) by drawing upon two Greek terms in the LXX for Leviticus 20:13 (see pp. 195–99). In addition, the Jews devoted an entire section (Kilaim, “diverse kinds”) of the Mishnah (the codification of the oral tradition of the Jews) to a discussion of the meaning of Leviticus 19:19 (Deut. 22:9–11).103 Thus, both Christians and Jews considered this passage to have special importance.
On the warrant of New Testament Scripture, Christians no longer obey the sacrificial system and its ordinances. Christ has brought an end to circumcision and the sacrifices (Acts 15:5–21; Heb. 10:1–18). However, Christ has not brought an end to the prohibition of homosexuality, for it is not a ceremonial law. As Kaiser notes, “Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.”104 God detests homosexuality. It is something “degrading and offensive to the moral sense.”105 It is not just a purity rule.
The Penalty Prescribed
What about the matter of the death penalty prescribed in 20:13? Some interpreters, such as Boswell, suggest that the death penalty assigned to homosexuality does not indicate its seriousness, and others, such as Countryman, discount it.106 However, one again must consider the context. The issue at stake in each of these crimes is the holy character of the family. “Every assault against an individual here is simultaneously an attack on the very existence of the family.”107 Where homosexuality exists, one may say that the murder of the family is under way. “What murder is to the individual, that precisely, are crimes of this class to the family.”108
The form of punishment, namely death, called for in chapter 20 is significant in arguing for universality. The use of damages rather than fines emphasizes that the biblical legal system is basically a system of civil law upon which various criminal law features have been added. Many offenses, according to Wenham, “are regarded as torts: wrongs against individual private citizens for which the injured party has to seek redress on his own initiative through the courts.”109
In general, the type of penalty imposed provides a criterion between civil and criminal law, although Scripture views all of life as under God, so all wrongdoing is sin. Monetary compensation suggests a civil offense, whereas corporal punishment suggests a crime (actions that the state forbids and seeks to stop by punishment).110 This distinction at least suggests that Leviticus 20 has universal, rather than circumstantial, application.
The only way that homosexuality, a deliberate sin, could be forgiven was by confession and repentance and the sacrifices of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. On this day, the sanctuary was cleansed, as were all the people and the land. The homosexual offender could not offer a personal sin offering, since he had sinned deliberately, “with a high hand.”
In addition to the death penalty, homosexual offenders suffered a second penalty. They were to be “cut off” (kārat) in light of 18:29. Ancient Near Eastern usage suggests that the karet penalty was a conditional divine curse of extinction, obliterating the sinner and the sinner’s progeny from any place in Israel. The means for carrying out this curse are not explicit in Scripture. A person might die prematurely, remain childless, or even be killed. Donald Wold sides with the rabbinic view that the karet was a divine, not a human, punishment, involving the sinner’s place in the afterlife. Such offenses as homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are offenses outside human jurisdiction. They are against God and are punishable only by Him. The sinner might be acquitted by God pending his atonement for repentance, confession of sin, and faith in the efficacy of the atonement for sin made on the Day of Atonement once a year. Only when the sanctuary was cleansed was release from guilt and full forgiveness available.111
The karet penalty argues for the severity and universal immorality of homosexuality. We shall see that the penalty carries over into the New Testament.
Even the possible euphemistic allusions to homosexuality in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 support the contention that homosexual prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are universal. The phrase “uncovering his father’s skirt” corresponds to “it is your father’s nakedness” in Leviticus 18:7 and 20:11. The language is reminiscent of Genesis 9:21ff., where Ham, the son of Noah, committed sin, perhaps homosexual rape, against his father.112 God pronounces judgment on Ham’s son, Canaan, and it is the land of Canaan that God judges for homosexuality and other vices in Leviticus 18 and 20. The tie of incest with homosexuality in Genesis 9 sets the model for Leviticus 18 and 20, where these two vices predominate. If these are allusions to homosexuality, then the universal setting of Genesis 9 with its negativity associated with the sin of Ham reinforces the universality of the later denunciation of homosexuality in Israel.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 54–56). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
In addition, Paul uses Leviticus 19:19 to illustrate the need for separation of Christians (2 Cor. 6:14ff.).102 Peter cites 19:2 (cf. 11:44–45; 20:7) as a standard of holiness, calling Christians away from “former lusts” (1 Peter 1:14–16). Paul cites 18:5 (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) and Christ cites 19:12 (Matt. 5:33). Finally, James (2:8) and Paul (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:14) both quote the law of love (Levit. 19:18). The character of God is the basis for the “golden rule.”
The earliest Christians, following the lead of Christ Himself, saw the universal nature and authority of this portion of Scripture. Indeed, Paul coins a term to describe homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:10) by drawing upon two Greek terms in the LXX for Leviticus 20:13 (see pp. 195–99). In addition, the Jews devoted an entire section (Kilaim, “diverse kinds”) of the Mishnah (the codification of the oral tradition of the Jews) to a discussion of the meaning of Leviticus 19:19 (Deut. 22:9–11).103 Thus, both Christians and Jews considered this passage to have special importance.
On the warrant of New Testament Scripture, Christians no longer obey the sacrificial system and its ordinances. Christ has brought an end to circumcision and the sacrifices (Acts 15:5–21; Heb. 10:1–18). However, Christ has not brought an end to the prohibition of homosexuality, for it is not a ceremonial law. As Kaiser notes, “Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.”104 God detests homosexuality. It is something “degrading and offensive to the moral sense.”105 It is not just a purity rule.
The Penalty Prescribed
What about the matter of the death penalty prescribed in 20:13? Some interpreters, such as Boswell, suggest that the death penalty assigned to homosexuality does not indicate its seriousness, and others, such as Countryman, discount it.106 However, one again must consider the context. The issue at stake in each of these crimes is the holy character of the family. “Every assault against an individual here is simultaneously an attack on the very existence of the family.”107 Where homosexuality exists, one may say that the murder of the family is under way. “What murder is to the individual, that precisely, are crimes of this class to the family.”108
The form of punishment, namely death, called for in chapter 20 is significant in arguing for universality. The use of damages rather than fines emphasizes that the biblical legal system is basically a system of civil law upon which various criminal law features have been added. Many offenses, according to Wenham, “are regarded as torts: wrongs against individual private citizens for which the injured party has to seek redress on his own initiative through the courts.”109
In general, the type of penalty imposed provides a criterion between civil and criminal law, although Scripture views all of life as under God, so all wrongdoing is sin. Monetary compensation suggests a civil offense, whereas corporal punishment suggests a crime (actions that the state forbids and seeks to stop by punishment).110 This distinction at least suggests that Leviticus 20 has universal, rather than circumstantial, application.
The only way that homosexuality, a deliberate sin, could be forgiven was by confession and repentance and the sacrifices of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. On this day, the sanctuary was cleansed, as were all the people and the land. The homosexual offender could not offer a personal sin offering, since he had sinned deliberately, “with a high hand.”
In addition to the death penalty, homosexual offenders suffered a second penalty. They were to be “cut off” (kārat) in light of 18:29. Ancient Near Eastern usage suggests that the karet penalty was a conditional divine curse of extinction, obliterating the sinner and the sinner’s progeny from any place in Israel. The means for carrying out this curse are not explicit in Scripture. A person might die prematurely, remain childless, or even be killed. Donald Wold sides with the rabbinic view that the karet was a divine, not a human, punishment, involving the sinner’s place in the afterlife. Such offenses as homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are offenses outside human jurisdiction. They are against God and are punishable only by Him. The sinner might be acquitted by God pending his atonement for repentance, confession of sin, and faith in the efficacy of the atonement for sin made on the Day of Atonement once a year. Only when the sanctuary was cleansed was release from guilt and full forgiveness available.111
The karet penalty argues for the severity and universal immorality of homosexuality. We shall see that the penalty carries over into the New Testament.
Even the possible euphemistic allusions to homosexuality in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 support the contention that homosexual prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are universal. The phrase “uncovering his father’s skirt” corresponds to “it is your father’s nakedness” in Leviticus 18:7 and 20:11. The language is reminiscent of Genesis 9:21ff., where Ham, the son of Noah, committed sin, perhaps homosexual rape, against his father.112 God pronounces judgment on Ham’s son, Canaan, and it is the land of Canaan that God judges for homosexuality and other vices in Leviticus 18 and 20. The tie of incest with homosexuality in Genesis 9 sets the model for Leviticus 18 and 20, where these two vices predominate. If these are allusions to homosexuality, then the universal setting of Genesis 9 with its negativity associated with the sin of Ham reinforces the universality of the later denunciation of homosexuality in Israel.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 54–56). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
