Is There a Biblical Case Against Homosexuality?
By Rev. Michael Philliber
What can a pastor do if someone ‘comes out of the closet’ and is struggling to defend their active homosexuality? Especially when those ‘coming out’ have friends who will support them, and other pastors who will affirm them. The Reverend Elder Donald Eastman is an example of this affirming position in his paper, Is Homosexuality a Sin? Therefore, I will be writing as if I am dealing with a young man who has come out of the closet and has given his parents a copy of the paper Is Homosexuality a Sin? I will address just two major items within these pages; the assumptions of the author (and by implication, those who would stand with him), and what the Scriptures say on the subject of active, practiced homosexuality.
Assumptions
In the section of Is Homosexuality a Sin? titled, “New Information Refutes Old Ideas” the author asks the following question and makes a statement; “What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific information, social changes, and personal experience are perhaps the greatest forces for change in the way we interpret the Bible and develop our beliefs. Scientific awareness of homosexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century […] But fortunately, recent scholarship refutes many previous assumptions and conclusions.”
This statement seems to get to the major assumption behind the defense: for the author, Praxis determines and defines doctrine. The assumption is that we need new ways of understanding the Scripture, new scientific information, new social changes, and new personal experiences to become the lens through which we come back and read and hear the Scriptures. Because we think we have now advanced and progressed so much so that our modern experience should become the assumed lens to see all of Scripture. In other words, Eastman has fallen into the trap of the primacy of the modern moment. This turns the Bible into a wax nose which can be twisted to mean whatever the reader wants. It is to come at the Bible with “popular attitudes” from “other sources,” and then to read them back “into the biblical statements.” (2) The very thing that Eastman purports to not want. He is doing exactly what he condemns in others.
One support of this critique, is that for over 1900 years the Church has been officially opposed to active homosexuality. This consistent opposition should cause one to begin to pause and think. If Rome and Greece, the environment in which the New Testament was written, thought nothing evil of homosexuality, even honoring it at specific points in history (i.e. Nero marrying his castrated lover, et al), it is rather peculiar that the Church was opposed to it, if the Church was supposedly conditioned by the prejudices of the age. Homosexuality was even the personal experience of some Christians (1 Corinthians 6.9-10; 1 Timothy 1.9-10), yet the Church continued to love them, but opposed actual homosexuality. This ought to set up warning flags. Instead of generating the charge that the Church was ‘Homophobic,’ or some such accusation, it should evoke thoughtful responses like: “Why would the Church stand consistently opposed to the sexual practice of that day?” And, “Who are we to think that 1900 years of Church thinking is trash?”
Hopefully this line of reasoning might help to soften up the ground, exposing some of the underlying presumptions of the pro-homosexual ecclesiastical community. One current practice (here, homosexual practice) is shaping doctrine in opposition to the consistent position of the Church catholic. Yet, as valuable as the Church’s traditional position is, it must conform to the mind of God to be truly and vitally correct. Therefore, what do the Scriptures say about active homosexuality?
Scripture
I will focus on five pertinent passages in regard to the above question: Leviticus 18.22, 20.13, 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, 1 Timothy 1.9-11, Romans 1.24-32. The Old Testament passages will show ground that other passages in Scripture are built on. Then the New Testament passages will show the abiding counter-cultural validity of God’s commands for the New Covenant people of God.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (New King James Version, Leviticus 18.22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20.13)
Taking the time to see these passages in their context will reveal some very important points, which are in contradistinction to Eastman’s arguments.
hÙfb"(OT (to’ebah) is attached to the act in 18.22 and 20.13. To’ebah is no light distaste, but rather a serious revulsion toward the action which violates the boundaries God has established. In both Leviticus 18 and 20, to’ebah is specifically attached to the homosexual act. None of the other actions are specifically singled out as abominable. That places a heavy load on the prohibition against homosexual action that cannot be lightly dismissed. [b] But then again, to’ebah is also the conclusive description of all the actions as a whole. In 18.24-30 it is used four times to describe God’s revulsion for all these actions of disloyalty. This point is significant because God classes all of these actions together with homosexual action, making the homosexual conduct the epitome of abomination.1. Both passages occur within a broader framework that outlaws incest (18.6-18; 20.11-12, 14, 17, 19-21), adultery (18.20; 20.10), child sacrifice (18.21; 20.2-5), bestiality (18.23; 20.15-16), using mediums (20.6, 27), sexual contact with a woman menstruating (18.19; 20.18), and cursing parents (20.9). To relegate the prohibition of 18.22 and 20.13 to cultic male prostitution, outside the scope of ‘loving, responsible homosexual relationships’ (Eastman 3) is to yank these passages right out of their context, and immediate interpretive framework. Adultery, and sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman are often from within contexts of loving heterosexual relationships. It might even be said that ‘love’ is involved in some cases of bestiality. Therefore, to make 18.22 and 20.13 refer only to cultic business, without loving intimacy, is to read into the text. Both passages are contextually broad enough to include cultic and non-cultic homosexual relationships and passing sexual contacts.
2. Also, the prohibition in 18.22 and 20.13 is given as part of an abiding absolute for “any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you” (18.26b). In other words, it is not a tribal-specific, but covenant-specific prohibitive command. Those who are in covenant with Yahveh exhibit a specific lifestyle, as is described in this Holiness Code. Living the alternative lifestyle is exhibition of living outside of covenant with Yahveh!
3. The level of abhorrence associated with homosexual action is shown in two specific ways: [a] The Hebrew word
Also notice that to’ebah is not primarily referring to idolatry, as Eastman would have us to believe (3), but here in the immediate context of the Holiness Code (the only place the word is used in Leviticus) it has everything to do with praxis or conduct.
4. The seriousness of homosexual praxis is also seen in the penalty to be applied, which is death (20.13). To be fair, it is not the only activity God places under the penalty of death. Adultery, bestiality, consulting with mediums, and child sacrifice are all condemned under the penalty of death. The fact that there are several actions that are under the penalty of death doesn’t lessen the magnitude of the offense. If anything, it shows how abhorrent all of these activities are in the eyes of God - and homosexual practice is under the same serious condemnation. Thankfully Christ has taken the penalty onto Himself for the repentant adulterer, homosexual, and even child-sacrificer, so that we may be free from the Law’s damnation (Galatians 3.13-14). As we come to God’s remedy (Christ) for our cursedness, we can also be cleansed from the vileness (1 John 1.9). And this drawing near to God in Christ means new life and new lifestyle have been born into us, so that we no longer are enslaved to these passionate crimes (Romans 6.1-11; 1 Thessalonians 4.1-8). God-created wholeness spawns God-shaped holiness, which leads to the next point.
5. The Holiness Code is definitive for the people of God, “You shall be holy, for I, Yahveh your God, am holy” (19.2 and 20.7). The whole notion of holiness carries over into the New Testament. For example Peter makes reference to this section with a sweeping statement (notice the importance of praxis conforming to doctrine, not the other way round):
[…] as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1.14-16).
The Holiness Code has abiding validity, then, with regard to conforming lifestyles to God’s standard of loyalty. “The commands of God, and not the consensus of the surrounding culture, must shape the behavior of God’s people. The relation of church/synagogue to culture is, at least in part, supposed to be reforming rather than conforming” (Gagnon 117).
The Holiness Code in other New Testament contexts as well, such as in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Church. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul is disgusted with the news that one of their men has his father’s wife, and the Church is proud of their non-judgmental attitude toward this sexual liberation. What is of interest here is the fact that this very conduct Paul speaks against, is specifically mentioned in Leviticus 18.8 and 20.11. Paul unashamedly applies the Holiness Code to a Gentile Church. He refuses to allow the surrounding sexual climate to shape the Corinthian Church’s mores. Paul also applies the ‘death penalty’ to the offender, by means of a greater death, the death of excommunication (5.4-5). The implications are loud and clear for the one who has ears to hear: The Holiness Code’s prohibition of certain sexual conduct was not a temporary ethnic circumstance, nor a cultural peculiarity. It was an abiding code of holy living growing out of lives made whole by God (1 Corinthians 6.9-11).
Two more examples are seen in 1 Timothy 1.9-10 and Romans 1.24-32. In 1 Timothy 1.9-10 Paul is rehearsing the Ten Commandments (Douma 285-6). When he comes to the seventh commandment, he mentions two classes of persons, fornicators and sodomites. Both classes are clearly seen in Leviticus 18 and 20.
po/rnoj (pornos) is masculine, and specifically targets the male who is involved in sexual immorality (which is fitting, because in almost every prohibited sexual action in Leviticus 18 and 20, the male is the dominant enactor). The other word translated in the New King James Version as sodomite is a)rsenokoi¿thj (arsenokoitas). It literally means male coitus or intercourse. In the context of this verse, the male intercourse would then be referring to lying with a male as with a woman (Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13).
In Romans 1.24-32 Paul is describing what God’s judgment looks like on a Pagan culture that has turned its back on God and worships humanity and creation (1.18-23). The description of God’s judgment which he gives is in three layers. Each of these layers mentions God’s action of removing normal restraints and allowing the culture to disintegrate through some means of perversion. The Judgment-decline begins with the increasing prolificacy of general moral filth: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (v. 24-25).
The next level of decline is found in chaotic sexuality. On the one hand, womanhood, as womanhood, is abandoned (either by lesbian conduct, or women being treated in a homosexual manner by their men), “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature” (v. 26). And on the other hand the males enter into homoerotic relations and actions; “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (v. 27).
The final level of decline is the dissolution of society through the profligate negation of virtue, civility, and justice:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (v.28-32).
Homosexual practice is seen by Paul, not as the cause of God’s judgment, but as one aspect of God’s judgment falling on a culture. If the culture will not acknowledge the Creator, but wants to surrender to the creature (following Adam’s pattern in the garden), then the only answer is to allow de-creation (the curse) to ensue. De-creation, chaos, and disintegration in sexuality spills over into society, and together home and homeland fall apart.
What does this have to do with the Holiness Code of Leviticus? Some of these actions which Paul has mentioned in Romans 1.24-32 (i.e., sexual immorality, homosexuality, disobedient to parents, etc), are the reasons God says He brought judgment on the Canaanites, and the reasons why He would bring judgment on His covenant people. In other words, the cause also becomes the curse, and the other way round.
What does this all mean, then, for someone living in open homosexuality? It means that, like everyone else, he needs to turn to Christ and there find his true humanity restored. This is what Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 6.9-11:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Homosexuality, whether the active or passive side of the relationship, is just one of the sins that Christ has come to set us free from. It is not singled out as The Sin. It is part of our destructive fallenness, and it is remedial. Christ’s death on the cross, His active obedience for His people, as well as His passive surrender to the judgment of God on our behalf, sets us free. The homosexual, the idolater, the adulterer, the thief, the covetous one, the drunk, the extortioner, etc, can be washed clean, made holy and pure, and be made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit. He has hope, and that hope is in Jesus Christ! Those who are united to Him are being recreated (2 Corinthians 5.17), and are being presented to God as pure and undefiled (Colossians 1.28, Jude 24-25).
To summarize this paper, I have quickly dealt with some of the underlying assumptions Eastman has made in his paper affirming that homosexual activity is okay according to the Bible. I have also shown that the prohibitions to homosexual practice in Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 are not cult specific. Instead, they are part of the broader fabric of social praxis (conduct). Homosexual action was specifically targeted as abominable in God’s eyes, and one class of disloyal actions which were condemned under the death penalty. Then I pointed out that this standard of holiness is the underlying foundation to the holiness language in select New Testament passages. This Biblical holiness, and not the surrounding cultural mores, is to shape the behavior and practice of God’s people. And, finally, I have shown that there is hope in Jesus Christ.
Works Cited
Douma, Jochem. The Ten Commandments. Trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1996.
Eastman, Donald. “Is Homosexuality A Sin?” TESM. 4 Jan. 2004. Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. 4 Jan. 2004. <http://www.tesm.edu/dmin/documents/archives/2004jan/DMin_Syllabus_BI400_Jan_04.doc.
Gagnon, Robert, A. J. The Bible And Homosexual Practice. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001
The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.