Lesbianism and Leviticus
Scanzoni and Mollenkott remark, “It should be noticed that female homosexuality is not mentioned in the Holiness Code, even though women were certainly not ignored in the other sexual behaviors mentioned therein.”7
While we cannot answer every objection that is brought up by those who claim that the Bible supports their homosexual practices (or at least does not forbid them), this one we must answer as it is gaining in popularity in the absence of biblical thinking in our day.
First of all, absence of a direct comment in Holy Scripture does not render a behavior morally acceptable. Similarly, a distinct prohibition in the pages of Holy Scripture is not needed to render some behavior morally reprehensible.
While we cannot answer every objection that is brought up by those who claim that the Bible supports their homosexual practices (or at least does not forbid them), this one we must answer as it is gaining in popularity in the absence of biblical thinking in our day.
First of all, absence of a direct comment in Holy Scripture does not render a behavior morally acceptable. Similarly, a distinct prohibition in the pages of Holy Scripture is not needed to render some behavior morally reprehensible.
For example, the Bible nowhere condemns necrophilia, and yet this fact does not make the practice morally acceptable. We have already noted that the Bible nowhere with one specific Bible verse condemns pedophilia with those who are outside of one’s own family. Absence of such a verse surely does not make the practice right.
Take, for example, Leviticus 18, where we read of the prohibition of “uncovering the nakedness” of any blood relative. These are holy prohibitions with regard to incest. Striking in its absence is any specific reference to a man’s flesh-and-blood daughter. Now, we would grant that incest with one’s own daughter is prohibited in verse 6: “None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover his nakedness; I am the LORD.”
Take, for example, Leviticus 18, where we read of the prohibition of “uncovering the nakedness” of any blood relative. These are holy prohibitions with regard to incest. Striking in its absence is any specific reference to a man’s flesh-and-blood daughter. Now, we would grant that incest with one’s own daughter is prohibited in verse 6: “None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover his nakedness; I am the LORD.”
In this section of Scripture, Moses makes no specific reference to one’s own daughter, even though he goes on to list various other relationships that could be in view. Also absent is any reference to uncovering the nakedness of an adopted child. If the case is going to be made that lesbianism is an acceptable practice because it is not specifically referenced, then a whole host of other problems will also come to the surface of this immoral well.
Second, with those who bring up this “no reference to lesbianism” objection, we often hear the Bible being decried as sexist because it is predominately male-oriented. Now, this view is fascinating in that the very persons who claim that the Bible has nothing to say about female-female homosexuality also recognize that the Bible is speaking in a patriarchal manner. They seem oblivious to the fact that this realization supports the view that the prohibition against male-male sexual intimacy is also a prohibition against female-female sexual intimacy.
So the prohibition against same-sex intimacy found in Leviticus, while referring to men, would also include women under its ban, and this understanding is wholly consistent with other passages in the Bible. Since the entire Bible is authoritative from cover to cover, we are not surprised to find the Leviticus prohibitions upheld in the New Testament. The apostle Paul in the book of Romans refers to the practice of lesbianism as that which evidences a life that has been “given over” by God in judgment (Romans 1:26–27).
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 105–107). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
Second, with those who bring up this “no reference to lesbianism” objection, we often hear the Bible being decried as sexist because it is predominately male-oriented. Now, this view is fascinating in that the very persons who claim that the Bible has nothing to say about female-female homosexuality also recognize that the Bible is speaking in a patriarchal manner. They seem oblivious to the fact that this realization supports the view that the prohibition against male-male sexual intimacy is also a prohibition against female-female sexual intimacy.
So the prohibition against same-sex intimacy found in Leviticus, while referring to men, would also include women under its ban, and this understanding is wholly consistent with other passages in the Bible. Since the entire Bible is authoritative from cover to cover, we are not surprised to find the Leviticus prohibitions upheld in the New Testament. The apostle Paul in the book of Romans refers to the practice of lesbianism as that which evidences a life that has been “given over” by God in judgment (Romans 1:26–27).
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 105–107). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
