WHAT DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

In my last post, I introduced this series on Christianity and the LGBTQ Movement. If you haven’t read it, I’d encourage you to before going any further. As I stated then, I hold to the historic Christian position that God ordained marriage exclusively for one male and one female. Why I believe this is the subject of the next five blog posts.

But before jumping into the arguments, I feel like it must be said, given our current cultural climate, that this is not meant to be a “slam” or a “zinger” against the LGBTQ affirming community. Unfortunately, we live in a culture of sound bites and hot takes rather than sound, reasoned argumentation. If you disagree with me in the end, my hope is that you do so because you find other exegetical and logical arguments more convincing. While stories, feelings, and relationships are important, my hope is that Scripture will be your guiding light.

IN THE BEGINNING…

We start at the beginning of the Bible. Even though the creation narrative doesn’t mention homosexual relationships specifically, Genesis 1-2 provides the very framework and foundation for biblical marriage as it presents God’s original, pre-fall intent for sexuality. The relevant texts are as follows:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:27-28).

“Then the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. . . . So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:18-25)

At the outset, I think we must say that Genesis 1-2 indicates that God established marital and sexual relationships for members of the opposite sex who complement one another and possess procreative capabilities. And because these texts are rooted in the creation narrative and not addressed to a specific culture (e.g., head coverings in 1 Cor. 11), they are universally normative. 

From these accounts, we see that God designed woman to complement the man. She’s like the man, in that she came from his side. And she’s a suitable companion for him unlike the animals. This is why Adam declares she is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” But she is different from the man. Same on the one hand, but different on the other, for she came out of man.

Additionally, we read that their coming together constitutes a “one-flesh” union. We know the phrase “one flesh” refers to a sexual union because the text immediately refers to their nakedness in the following verse (Gen. 2:25). This position is further supported by the fact that Paul uses the phrase “one flesh” when describing men joining themselves with prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6. In short, a “one-flesh” union is only possible for partners who have the capacity for sexual intercourse. 

It’s no secret that the sexual organs for a male and female perfectly complement one another. The female vagina, unlike the anal cavity was designed for intercourse. According to the Journal of the Medical Association, the risk of anal cancer increases by 4000% for those participating in anal intercourse. This along with other long term physical effects strongly indicates that anal intercourse goes against God’s design for sexual activity. 

We should also point out that only persons of the opposite sex can fulfill the procreative purposes of marriage. Male and female are exhorted to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). While childbearing isn’t the only purpose of marriage, Scripture indicates that it’s certainly a big part of it. So much so that Malachi 2:15 states that “godly offspring” is a divine purpose for marriage. 

Of course, after the fall, Genesis 3:16 indicates that problems would arise with respect to childbearing. In fact, Scripture gives us several examples of barren women. And we’re all aware of similar situations. This is no way undermines their marriages. But it’s a giant leap in logic to suggest that infertility removes childbearing as one of God’s purposes for marriage in an attempt to legitimize same-sex unions.

LEVITICAL LAWS

Two texts from Leviticus address homosexual activity:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13).

As I’ve read much of the revisionist literature, the common view put forth is that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as we think of it today. Rather, it condemns excesses or abuses of homosexuality like pedophilia, rape, prostitution, or pagan worship. It doesn’t speak to committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships.

Yet, when we examine both of these texts from the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26), we don’t find any qualifiers with respect to homosexual sex. The text condemns the act in a general sense. In fact, as we read the larger context of all the types of forbidden sexual activity found in Leviticus 18 and 20, never does the text qualify any of it. Never does it say that it’s only talking about certain types of adultery, incest, bestiality, or homosexuality. It condemns these practices in general. It never hints that incest, homosexuality, adultery, or bestiality would be fine provided it involved consenting partners who were committed to one another.

We should also point out that Leviticus 20:13 states that both partners involved “committed an abomination.” Therefore, this text can’t be describing man-boy sexual relations or rape because both are held morally responsible. Elsewhere in the Law of Moses, if a man raped a woman, he was to receive the death penalty, not the woman (Deut. 22:25-26). This passage clearly condemns two partners who consented to have sexual relations. The excesses and abuses argument doesn’t work here.

A QUICK WORD ABOUT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION

It’s important to note that these Levitical texts do not condemn same-sex attraction, but the willful choice of two individuals who engage sexually. It’s crucial to delineate between the two. We must acknowledge that in a vast majority of cases, people didn’t choose which gender they are attracted to. For this reason, we must be sympathetic towards their unique challenges. 

I plan to say more about this in a future post. But for now, I want to say to anyone who experiences same-sex attraction that I’m a sinner like you. And Jesus says the same thing to both of us. He states, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Lk 9:23). This doesn’t mean you will never struggle or fail. Admittedly, I fail all the time. This is reality in a fallen world. But Jesus says that we must repent of our sins daily and pursue a life of obedience to him. 

WHAT ABOUT SODOM?

In many respects, I don’t believe the text describing the sinful acts and destruction of Sodom (Gen 19) is as relevant to this discussion. But I want to be careful to avoid the two extremes. On the one hand, revisionists argue that Sodom’s destruction had nothing to do with their homosexual activity. On the other hand, many traditionalists say it had everything to do with their destruction.

If you’re unfamiliar with the story, three angels disguised as men went to visit Lot in Sodom. A large crowd of men saw this as an opportunity to rape the visiting men. In verse 5, the men cry out to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” The word “know” is euphemistic for sex all throughout the Bible. We know this is true because only a few verses later, Lot offers his daughters instead “who have not known any man.” Thankfully, the angels intervened. But obviously, this is talking about more than just a casual encounter.

Immediately after this episode, God rained down fire on Sodom. But what compelled God to act so strongly? Revisionists argue that Sodom’s sin was inhospitality. One cursory reading of the story sees that gang rape was the real issue. In fact, if the men had done the same thing to Lot’s daughters, it would have been equally as sinful. On this, I agree.

Additionally, revisionists point to Ezekiel 16:49 which says Sodom’s guilt was in its “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” Certainly, inhospitality sounds like a plausible explanation. But verse 50 continues, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them.” When you break down the structure of the sentence in Hebrew, you see that an abomination is not a summary of the litany of sins found in verse 49. It’s something different altogether. Furthermore, we read that God removed them on the heels of this abomination. What exactly was the abomination? Given this is the exact word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, homosexual activity seems like a plausible explanation.

Jude 7 also gives us additional insight. It states, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” 

But what exactly was Sodom’s sexual immorality and pursuit of unnatural desire? Revisionists argue that it was the desire for angels. But this seems like an unreasonable interpretation for two reasons. First, I’m not sure how the men of Sodom could have known the visitors were angels. When we read Genesis 19:5, the Sodomites asked Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?” We find no hint that they knew these men were actually angels. 

Secondly, Jude says that Sodom as well as the surrounding cities engaged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire. Now, unless angels were appearing to all the surrounding cities, and they, likewise, had sexual desires for the angels, we have no reason to think that Jude is referring to Sodom’s unnatural desire toward angels. Based on the text in Genesis 19, it seems reasonable to suggest that the men of Sodom pursued homosexual desires.

In the end, however, I think we have to say that God judged Sodom for a bunch of things, not just homosexuality. But it’s false to say that homosexuality had nothing to do with it. 

A FINAL WORD

Based on the above evidence, I believe we must affirm that God designed sex exclusively for a marital union between one man and one woman. The Old Testament condemns any kind of sexual activity outside this prescribed relationship. 

In the next post, I will answer the question of how Christians can condemn homosexuality but ignore other Old Testament Laws.