The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption One

Assumption One ¹

Leviticus’ texts are not applicable to modern same sex relationships.

Both early and later affirming authors contend the Leviticus texts have no application to modern same sex relationships. Consider the following statements from affirming writers:

John Boswell writes:

Almost no early Christian writer appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. A few patristic sources involved Leviticus precedents about eating certain animals in relation to homosexuality, but they did so incorrectly…It would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new; the Levitical regulations had no hold on Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality. ²

Justin Lee maintains the traditional view that same sex relationships are sinful because they are “based on a misinterpretation of Scripture” and none of the Bible is “applied to modern-day monogamous, Christ-centered gay relationships.”³

He interprets Leviticus and Romans in the following way:

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.⁴

Karen Keen writes:

Progressives argue that the prohibition is applicable only to the Israelites and their cultural context. The mandate is no more binding on Christians than the law against eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12).⁵

Later in responding to a review of her book by Preston Sprinkle, she states:

The Levitical law doesn’t prohibit female-female relations…Notably, women are singled out for bestiality laws, making the lack of female same-sex laws even more curious.⁶

James Brownson writes:

In such a context, Leviticus’s concerns about idolatry, violations of male honor, and the like seem distinctly out of place… In short, the religious, purity, procreative, and honor-shame contexts that form the underlying moral logic of the Levitical prohibitions, understandable and coherent as they may be in their own context, simply do not apply to contemporary committed Christian gay and lesbian relationships.

Finally, it is also worth noting that this analysis applies quite apart from the more general problem that Christians no longer regard much of the Levitical law as applying to the church today… It is simply inadequate, from a Christian perspective, to attempt to build an ethic based on the prohibitions of Leviticus alone. This is important material to reflect on, but it cannot stand at the center of a responsible Christian moral position on committed gay or lesbian relationships.⁷

As support for their claims, some revisionists maintain other things prohibited in the Leviticus texts are not applicable today. For example:

(1) Cutting a beard a certain way (Leviticus 19:27)

(2) Making a garment out of two different materials (Leviticus 19:19)

(3) Abstaining from sexual activity during menstruation (Leviticus 18:19)⁸

Because these laws are grouped with homosexual activity (that is connected to pagan worship practices), revisionists believe Leviticus has nothing to say about consensual, committed, and monogamous relationships.

The Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26)

After the Israelites exited Egypt, God’s intent was that they trust and follow him. This was to differentiate them from the Egyptians and other nationalities.

You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. (Leviticus 18:3)

To that end and to keep them pure, God provided his people with boundary markers — part of which is the Holiness Code found in Leviticus 17-26. The code’s foundation consists of four divisions and is found in Leviticus 19:2 and Leviticus 20:7-8:

(1) Leviticus chapter 17: Aaron and his sons

(2) Leviticus chapters 18-20: the people

(3) Leviticus chapters 21-24: the priests

(4) Leviticus chapters 25-26: agriculture, covenant blessings, and curses

Six times throughout the code the phrase “keep the decrees” is repeated (Leviticus 18:5,26; 19:19,37; 20:8,22). Woven throughout the Holiness Code is the constant reminder, “I am the LORD your God.”⁹

Consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD who makes you holy. (Leviticus 20:7) You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. (Leviticus 20:26)¹⁰

Foreigners¹¹ who lived among them were expected to keep the same laws the Israelites followed (Leviticus 18:26; 20:2). If the code was not kept, they would be “vomited” or removed from the country (Leviticus 18:25,28; 20:22).

Holiness means “separate.” Israel was to refrain from serving foreign gods and to separate themselves from the people who worshiped those gods: “Do not follow their practices” (Leviticus 18:3; 1 Corinthians 10:6-8). Note: Maintaining these differences also explains the rationale for maintaining a beard (Leviticus 19:27), refusing to be tattooed (Leviticus 19:28), or mixing materials in a garment (Leviticus 19:19).

Another part of this code maintains the integrity of the family¹² and includes specific, unclean, and forbidden relationships:

(1) Sex with relatives (Leviticus 18:6-18) NOTE: Extended families often lived closely together—perhaps even in the same house. This might explain the significance of the length of this section.

(2) Sex with a menstruating female (Leviticus 18:19)

(3) Sex with a neighbor’s wife (Leviticus 18:20)

(4) No intercourse for man with man (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13)

(5) No intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23)

(6) No intercourse with a sister, father’s wife, daughter in law, brother’s wife, uncle’s wife (Leviticus 20:10-21)

Leviticus clearly opposes same sex activity between two men:

And with a male you shall not lie as with a woman¹³ (Leviticus 18:22)

And whoever will lie with a male as with a woman¹⁴ (Leviticus 20:13)

Finally, the Holiness Code as a unit resembles the ten commandments. Robert Gagnon states:

Indeed, most of Leviticus 18-20 can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one’s parents, keep the sabbath, and to “love one’s neighbor as oneself” (Lev 19:18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in Leviticus 17-26. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code. The same God who gave the laws of Mosaic dispensation continues to regulate conduct through the Spirit in believers.¹⁵

Response to the Leviticus Texts not being Applicable Today

Consider the following observations:

Some Laws in Leviticus Still Apply

Some statements in Leviticus pertain to the culture of the day, but many of its prohibitions are still applicable to the modern world. These prohibitions include:

(1) Stealing (Leviticus 19:11a)

(2) Lying (Leviticus 19:11b)

(3) Deceiving another (Leviticus 19:11c)

(4) Swearing falsely (Leviticus 19:12)

(5) Defrauding or robbing a neighbor (Leviticus 19:13)

(6) Cursing the deaf (Leviticus 19:14)

(7) Showing favoritism for the great (Leviticus 19:15)

(8) Slandering (Leviticus 19:16a)

(9) Endangering one’s neighbor (Leviticus 19:16b)

(10) Hating (Leviticus 19:17)

(11) Seeking revenge or bear grudge (Leviticus 19:18a)

(12) Making one’s daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29)

(13) Turning to mediums or wizards (Leviticus 19:31)¹⁶

It is significant that Romans 1:18-23 reflects the Leviticus text. Bernadette Brooten writes:

Even though Romans 1 does not explicitly cite Leviticus 18 and 20, they overlap at three points: (1) Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20 use similar terminology. (2) both Romans 1 and Leviticus contain a general condemnation of sexual relations between men, and (3) both describe those engaging in such relations as worthy of death.¹⁷

These hearers who had studied Leviticus and its detailed teachings concerning holiness, purity, impurity, and abomination, would have been attuned to the overlap in content and terminology between Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20.¹⁸

The passage echoes—perhaps surprisingly—concepts and commandments of the book of Leviticus, and also contains significant overlap with postbiblical Jewish legal thinking.¹⁹

Revisionists’ Presuppositions Regarding the Leviticus Texts

The first presupposition shared by some revisionists is that the Leviticus texts do not include consensual, committed, monogamous same sex relationships. Affirming writer William Loader disagrees:²⁰

In addition, nothing in the text suggests that Paul is making such a distinction and it is inconceivable that he would approve of any same-sex acts, if, as we assume, he affirmed the prohibitions of Lev 18:22; 20:13 as fellow Jews of his time understood them.²¹

Wesley Hill (a celibate, gay, Episcopal priest) explains Leviticus 18:22:

The structure against same-sex sexual intercourse here in Leviticus 18:22 would appear to be rooted in creation, applicable in multiple situations…There is no clear reason to believe it does not prohibit any and all forms of same-sex intercourse.²²

The canonical primacy of the Genesis narratives, coupled with the lack of situational specificity in the prohibition of Lev 18:22…makes it likely that the latter is best heard as an echo of the Genesis creation stories…And, positively, the text also appears to allude to or echo the foundational narratives of Genesis. This suggests that what Lev 18:22 prohibits has wide application and is rooted in the divine act of creation.²³

William Loader agrees with Wesley Hill on Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13:

I find myself in broad agreement with Wesley in his interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. He reads them canonically suggesting they are influenced by the creation stories in Genesis.²⁴

Importantly the Leviticus texts include both abusive and consensual same sex relationships. Leviticus 20:13 describes a consensual and not abusive same sex relationship in which case both persons are to be put to death:

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The use of “both” in Leviticus 20:10-12 prior to Leviticus 20:13 supports the consensual nature of Leviticus 20:13.

In case of adultery: “both the adulterer and adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10).

In case of sex with father’s wife: “both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:11).

In case of sex with a daughter-in-law: “both are to put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their heads” (Leviticus 20:12).

In contrast Torah is clear when only one was to be punished. In Deuteronomy 22:25-26, only the perpetrator was punished and NOT the non-consensual partner.

“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her ONLY the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.”

Death was not the penalty for a rape victim or a prostitute.

Upon further examination perhaps a “committed relationship” is not the only issue here. The implications are far reaching. If revisionists use the same reasoning with an incestual relationship, would such a relationship be acceptable? If the teachings of Leviticus are not applicable today because they were directed to the pagan world, then the teachings about incest and bestiality²⁵ would also be void—they all stand together.

The second presupposition shared by some revisionists emphasizes the Leviticus texts do not mention women.

Karen Keen writes:

Does Leviticus describe loving, peer same-sex relationships? Is the prohibition based on complementarity? Possibly, but that remains speculative. The Levitical law doesn’t prohibit female-female relations, suggesting something besides complementarity might be the concern–probably patriarchal gender norms (“do not lie with a man as with a woman”). Notably, women are singled out for bestiality laws, making the lack of female same-sex laws even more curious.²⁶

Conversely, Bernadette Brooten disagrees with Keen and states:

We might view Paul as the only ancient Jew to extend Lev 20:13 to include women.²⁷

When she hears his words about males becoming enflamed with passion for one another, she thinks of Leviticus, a text she has heard read aloud in the synagogue so many times since she was a child.²⁸

Since, however, Paul was trained as a Pharisee and continued to view himself as “a member of the people of Israel,” we need to consider at least briefly his condemnation of female and male homoerotism in the context of Judaism.²⁹

In limiting the same sex relationships of Leviticus 18:22 to only men the following questions are raised:

(1) Does having sex with a neighbor’s wife apply equally for a woman and her neighbor’s husband (Leviticus 18:20)?

(2) Does sacrificing a child apply only to men and not to women (Leviticus 18:21)?

(3) Does Leviticus 18:23 prohibit bestiality for both men and women?

Eliminating women from the Leviticus texts is problematic for two reasons:

(1) IfLeviticus 17-26 is read in connection with creation, lesbian behavior violates the command to procreate given in Genesis.

(2) Leviticus was written in a male dominated, hierarchal world. As such the Jewish people would have understood the inclusive nature (for both men and women) of the prohibitions of Leviticus even though they are directed at men.

Even though women are not emphasized in the Leviticus texts that does not mean they were excluded from its teaching. ³⁰

(3) Leviticus does not support any kind of deviant sexual activity³¹

Incest and bestially are included in the list of forbidden activities in Leviticus 18:6-23. The same sex activity mentioned in Leviticus 20:13 is sandwiched between adultery/incest in Leviticus 20:10-12 and between incest/bestially in Leviticus 20:14-16.³²

In Leviticus 18:23 bestiality is called a “perversion.” The Hebrew root form for “perversion” means “mingle or mix.” In this context, it carries the idea of mixing or confusing humans and animals.³³

God’s displeasure with the activity cannot be denied.³⁴

By the time the New Testament was written, incest and bestiality were firmly rejected by Judaism. The silence of the New Testament does not infer something was acceptable when there was already a mandate in place.³⁵

The same sex relationships of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were “detestable” (abomination) for two reasons:³⁶

(1) The honor of both was violated. The penetrated male was violated because he played the part of the woman, and the penetrator was violated because he dominated the male.³⁷

This was the ultimate act of disrespect.

(2) This union reversed the proper sexual relationship and was not natural (“against nature”).³⁸

The union of a male and female is a natural fit. This is not the case with a male/male sexual relationship or a female/female sexual relationship.

The sins of Leviticus 18:20-23 were to be avoided because they were ungodly.

(1) Adultery destroyed the stability of the family.

(2) Sacrificing children to a pagan god destroyed the fruit of the couple.

(3) The law against bestiality was mixing one made in the image of God and one not made in the image of God.

(4) The law against same sex relationships lacked “fitness” and thus became “against nature.”

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13³⁹ teach similar concepts about same sex relationships but both are separated by seemingly unrelated commandments. Between the two injunctions is a well-known text: “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Immediately following are commandments about livestock, farming, and garments (Leviticus 19:19). Because of this some revisionists believe the prohibition against same sex relationships belongs to the ceremonial law. In contrast, Richard Hays makes the following observation:

The Old Testament, however, makes no systematic distinction between ritual law and moral law. The same section of the holiness code also contains, for instance, the prohibition of incest (Lev 18:6-8). Is that a purity law or a moral law? Leviticus makes no distinction in principle. In each case, the church is faced with the task of discerning whether Israel’s traditional norms remain in force for the new community of Jesus’ followers. In order to see what decisions the early church made about this matter, we must turn to the New Testament.⁴⁰

As the centuries passed some of the laws of the Holiness Code were carried over into the New Testament era and others were not. Apparently, the laws connected to morality have a continuing element because they are connected to the character of God and not ceremonial laws. For example, Jesus, Peter, and Paul are clear about the application of dietary laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:14-15; Romans 14:1-4). Most probably each command of Leviticus 18-20 should be examined on an individual basis.

(4) Leviticus Opposes Mixing Two Different Kinds

The Holiness Code places great emphasis on keeping everything as it was in the beginning (not mixing materials⁴¹ or species). This includes mixing two kinds of animals (cross breeding), two kinds of seed, and two kinds of material in the same piece of clothing (Lev 19:19). When Genesis records the creation of the sea, sky, and land, the phrase “according to their kind” is repeated (Genesis 1:11, 16, 23, 24, 25). Decrees against incestuous relationships and same sex relationships were a further extension for the concern about mixing of “kinds.”

Summary of Assumption One

Torah was used to bring about the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7), consequently the moral teaching of Torah is still foundational in the New Testament and for those who are part of the new covenant.⁴²

It was not unusual for Paul to use Torah⁴³ as a basis for teaching ethics because⁴⁴ he believed Torah was “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16); could make one “wise for salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15; Acts 17:11); and was the basis for reasoning with unbelievers (Acts 17:2).

The nature of the prohibition against same sex relationships is related to and connected to the nature of the Decalogue. James DeYoung describes Leviticus 18 in the following way:

The covenant-treaty form of chapter 18 is like the form of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 where the Decalogue is presented…Leviticus 18-20 corresponds to the laws of the Decalogue with a distinctive form known as the Holiness Code.⁴⁵

These prohibitions applied to both the Israelites and the foreigners (pagans) who lived among them.⁴⁶

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 make no exceptions concerning the nature of sexual relationships between two men or possibility a man and a boy/slave/prostitute. The Holiness Code was opposed to both exploitative or abusive same sex relationships and mutual or consensual same sex relationships. The continued significance of the opposition to same sex relationships from Leviticus is summarized in the following:

Many of the prohibitions of Leviticus are still applicable.
The wording indicates Paul was opposed to both non-consensual and consensual same sex relationships.
The wording does not indicate pagan same sex relationships were the only focus.
The Leviticus texts are referenced in the New Testament (Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 quote Leviticus 18:5, and Romans 13:9 quotes Leviticus 19:18.) ⁴⁷

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 provide the background for the Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Translated it means “men who have sex with men” in the NIV.⁴⁸

There are no regulations or modifications given to the prohibitions for men and women regarding same sex relationships, incest, and bestiality in Leviticus. This is not the case with other prohibitions. In ancient Israel slavery was regulated (Exodus 21:2f; 1 Timothy 1:10). Divorce was structured to give a woman a “fresh start” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)⁴⁹

and a permanent second marriage. Vengeance was controlled with the “eye for an eye” teaching⁵⁰ so it would not exceed the crime. The cities of refuge were established to protect people (Numbers 35:6). It seems that if some types of same sex relationships were exceptional, they would have been mentioned.

William Loader also believes the texts in Leviticus and the use of arensokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be connected to Paul’s words in Romans 1:18-32.

Thus it is better to take the word as closely cohering with what Paul condemns in Romans 1 and reflecting the prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 on which it appears to be built.⁵¹

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner agree:

Paul’s opposition to all homosexual behavior (clearly targeting those who engaged in it freely and willingly; Rom 1:18-32) seems to derive from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which represent absolute bans.⁵²

The LGBTQ+ Conversation: Assumption One

Assumption One ¹

Leviticus’ texts are not applicable to modern same sex relationships.

The Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26)

Response to the Leviticus Texts not being Applicable Today

Summary of Assumption One

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Conference Goals