Assumption One ¹ (JJ) Karen Keen attempts to trace the origin Torah’s law codes to pre-existing laws: “the biblical writers were influenced by these pre-existing laws” Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 46. (JJ) This is an old argument from classic liberalism which states there could not be a detailed law code as found in the Torah at this time in civilization. When the code of Hammurabi was discovered in 1901, classic liberalism changed and claimed it was the source Moses used. The legal texts are dated 1750 B.C.E. and can be found in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.

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:

1. 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 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 104-105.

1. 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 Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (New York: Jericho, 2012), 168.

He interprets Leviticus and Romans in the following way: 

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.⁴ Lee, Torn, 186.

1. 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 Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 44.

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 2^nd response to Sprinkle’s review December 30, 2018.

1. 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 James V. Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 273.

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 There is no potential for procreation.

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 In Leviticus 18-20, the phrase “I am the LORD your God” or “I am the LORD” is found 24 times.

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 Lev 21:6-8

Foreigners¹¹ NRSV (aliens); ESV (strangers) 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 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 59-63. 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 “lying with a male” in Hebrew is mishkav zakar. The phrase is very wooden:  “with a man you shall not lie the lying of a woman” (וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא).  The LXX: Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikeian (Leviticus 18:22) 

And whoever will lie with a male as with a woman¹⁴ Kai hos an koimethe meta aresenos koiten gynaikos (LXX) (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 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice,121.

Response to the Leviticus Texts not being Applicable Today

Consider the following observations: 

1. 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 Preston Sprinkle and Jeff Cook. A Debate About Homosexuality: Part 5 “The Sin ‘of’ Homosexuality.” Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 50. 

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 Brooten, Love Between Women, 282-283.

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 Brooten, Love Between Women, 219.

The passage echoes—perhaps surprisingly—concepts and commandments of the book of Leviticus, and also contains significant overlap with postbiblical Jewish legal thinking.¹⁹ Brooten, Love Between Women, 217.

1. 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 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill,152. “I see no substantial grounds for upholding the Leviticus prohibitions in our day, but in saying that I do so with respect for why they are there and for the assumptions they reflect about the heterosexuality of all human beings. Changing that assumption (that all human beings are heterosexual) has, in my mind, to have implications for how we read both Leviticus and Paul.”

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 William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 322.

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 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship,134.

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 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.  Wesley Hill, Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship, 133.

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 Sprinkle, (ed.), Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.  William Loader, Response to Wesley Hill, 148.

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 Men and women were to be put to death along with the animal (Lev 20:15-16). 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 2^nd response to Sprinkle’s review Dec 30, 2018.

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 Brooten, Love Between Women, 64-65.

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 Brooten, Love Between Women, 300.

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 Brooten, Love Between Women, 64.

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 David Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 215. “On the other hand, lesbianism was known in Rome and Paul might have wanted to comment on it in a letter to believers living there.”  Greenberg went on to observe that “Brooten (1983) cities a number of references to lesbianism in the Greco-Roman world, all derogatory.”

(3) Leviticus does not support any kind of deviant sexual activity³¹ Even though bestiality has been a part of humanity for centuries, it is difficult to determine the attitude toward towards it in every civilization because that varies from culture to culture and dispensation to dispensation. Cave dwellers depicted it on cave walls in ancient times. In ancient Babylon the Code of Hammurabi (1955-1913 BCE) condemned the practice.  Bestiality was practiced by the residents of Canaan; hence the warning was given to the Hebrews in Leviticus.  Both the ancient Egyptians and Greeks show evidence of the practice of bestiality.  In Arab countries, it was believed a man’s penis could be enlarged by sex with an animal.  Even among native Americans and Eskimos it was practiced in some tribes and was largely acceptable. To what degree bestiality was practiced in the days of Jesus cannot be totally determined.

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 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 129-130 “Few today, give this argument much credence and for good reason.  The repetition for the prohibition against homosexual intercourse in 20:13 does not follow immediately upon the reference to child sacrifice in 20:2-5. But rather is sandwiched in between prohibition of adultery and incest (20:10-12) and prohibitions of incest and bestiality. The link with child sacrifice in Lev18:21 probably involves nothing more to threats to the sanctity of the Israelite family.”

  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 Lev 18:17 “wickedness;” 18:22 “detestable;” 18:23 “perversion.”

  God’s displeasure with the activity cannot be denied.³⁴ Other words were used to show God’s displeasure with certain activities: dishonor 20:11; wickedness 20:14; disgrace 20:17.

  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 condemnation of same sex relationships applied to both the Israelites and pagans (Lev 18:26; 20:2).

The same sex relationships of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were “detestable” (abomination) for two reasons:³⁶ Both men and women were forbidden to engage in bestiality (Lev 20:15-16). Captured people were sodomized as a form of punishment. Being dominated was an expression of scorn and contempt. It is highly possibly the Jews were subjected to this in Babylon.

(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 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 62-63.

  This was the ultimate act of disrespect.

(2)  This union reversed the proper sexual relationship and was not natural (“against nature”).³⁸ Jim Reynolds, The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church (www.Xulon Press.com, 2007), 145. Derrick Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955, 68. “Such acts are regarded as ‘abomination’…because, as a reversal of what is sexually natural, they exemplify the spirit of idolatry which is itself the fundamental subversion of true order.”

  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 20:13³⁹Lev 18:21; 20:2, 3, 4, 5; 1 Kings 11:5, 7; 11:33; 2 Kings Leviticus 18 and 20 are not essays against same sex relationships, but rather provide a framework for to maintain family values and to keep God’s people from following the worship and conduct associated with pagan gods. Leviticus 18 agrees with Leviticus 20 with its opposition to incest (Lev 18:6f), bestiality (Lev 18:23), and child sacrifice (Lev 18:11).23:10, 13; 2 Chron 28:3; Isa 57:5, 9; Jer 7:30-31; 19:5; 32:35; 49:1, 3; Zeph 1:5; see also Acts 7:43 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 Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), 382.

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 Lev 19:19 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 If modern same sex relationships are no longer forbidden because they are found in the context of other ritual and pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, could it not also be true of the child sacrifice and other obvious sinful acts? Israel did not need a law to know child sacrifice was forbidden.  Same sex relationships and child sacrifice were understood normally without involving the other nations. The early church did not consider opposition to bestiality, adultery, and incest also found in Leviticus as obsolete as evidenced in 1 Cor 5:1-6:20.  David Wright, “Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible,” Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 293.

  It was not unusual for Paul to use Torah⁴³ Paul’s training in the Torah provided the foundation for his ministry. (1) In 1 Cor 5:13 the language of Deut 22:22 (“purge the evil from Israel”)  was applied to the situation where Paul suggests excommunication (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and not execution. (2) In 1 Cor 5:1-2, Lev 18:8 (“Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife,” repeated in Lev 20:11) was used to condemn the man who was “sleeping with his father’s wife.” Note: Lev 18:8 and 20:13 condemn same sex relationships. (3) In 1 Cor 10:1-11, Paul uses an event in the lives of the Israelites to direct the church.  “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” (Exod 32:6; 1 Cor 10:6). He uses the word “example” again in 1 Cor 10:11. (4) In 1 Cor 9:4 and 1 Cor 9:11-12, Paul establishes the right to receive financial support by using Deut 25:4. Paul cites a “command” as a “principle” that applies to a situation other than the historical situation in which it was found. (5) When dealing with the use of tongues in the assembly (1 Cor 14:20-28), he quotes Isa 28:11-12 which has an historical context unlike a Christian assembly. as a basis for teaching ethics because⁴⁴ Rom 3:20; 7:7, 12; 15:4; 1 Tim 1:7; 2 Tim 3:16-17 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 DeYoung, Homosexuality, 241.

These prohibitions applied to both the Israelites and the foreigners (pagans) who lived among them.⁴⁶ Lev 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 18:26; 19:33; 20:2

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:

1. Many of the prohibitions of Leviticus are still applicable.
2. The wording indicates Paul was opposed to both non-consensual and consensual same sex relationships.
3. The wording does not indicate pagan same sex relationships were the only focus.
4. 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 Lev 18:5 is 17 verses from Lev 18:22.

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 The meaning of arsenokoitai and its connection to Leviticus will be discussed in detail in Assumption Four.

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 Deut 24:1-4 was designed to discourage the first divorce and if necessary, protect the second marriage. 

and a permanent second marriage. Vengeance was controlled with the “eye for an eye” teaching⁵⁰ Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21 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 Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, 331.

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 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 242.

Preface 

As I began studying the texts and other issues surrounding the Christian LGBTQ+ community¹The word “queer” is an umbrella term including all gender identities or someone who is not “straight.”  The word carries the same meaning as LGBTQ+. (2) A transsexual identifies as something other than they were at birth.  At times they may resort to hormone or surgical treatment. (3) Transgender individuals feel they are not the gender they were born with. (4) An asexual individual is not attracted to either sex or lacks interest in sex. (5) Bisexual people are those who are emotionally or sexually attracted to their own gender and to another gender. This manuscript addresses the Christian LGBTQ+ community and NOT LGBTQ+ community which has no desire to be pleasing to God.. I was reminded of a story told by a scholar regarding his understanding of a certain subject and how he had changed his views.  When asked why he had supported his previously held interpretation, he answered, “That was where I wanted to go!”  There will always be the temptation to go to the Scriptures and find support for “where we want to go.”  

I have diligently tried to counter that tendency in this study.  Certainly, I do not consider my thoughts to be the “final word,” but hopefully this information will equip others to have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this conversation and will serve as a foundation for the research and writing of those who will come after me.   

The following are the definitions of words and phrases used in this discussion and those that follow.

1. The phrase “modern same sex relationships” refers to relationships that are monogamous, committed, consensual, and covenantal.
2. Revisionists, progressives, and the affirming community describe those who affirm  modern same sex relationships are acceptable to God.
3. Traditionalists and the non-affirming community are those who reject all same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
4. Homosexual refers to both gay men and lesbian women²Victor Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues. 3^rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 57. Sometimes homosexuals are called “Κίναιδος”(Kinaidos).  The word is a compound word formed by κινώ”(move) and “αιδώς”(shame). The Latinized form is cinaedus. It is a condemning and insulting word. The word “homosexual” did not appear in the literature of the first century.  The first time the word appeared was in German in 1868 in a letter from a Hungarian-German physician named Karoly M. Benkert to Karl Heinrch Ulrichws.  The word first appeared in an English translation of the Bible in 1946.. 

As part of this study, I have extensively quoted revisionist writers for two reasons:

    (1)  Readers can better understand the revisionists’ diverse perspectives concerning the teachings of the Scriptures on this topic. 

    (2)  Unless by choice, readers will not have to purchase and read the books quoted on the subject.  Before the church (or individuals) make decisions about LGBTQ+ relationships, a solid biblical foundation is needed.  Because this presentation deals with “people” (unlike some doctrinal issues that can be more impersonal), emotions can play a part in how the principles are understood and applied.

After researching, reading, and listening to the affirming community, I became aware that ancient writers (Roman, Greek, Jewish, and New Testament) did not use the terminology and expressions used today (e.g., consensual/committed/monogamous) to describe ancient homosexual relationships.  Because the modern terminology is different, some in the LGBTQ+ community have decided the Scriptures dealing with modern same sex relationships are not relevant today.  Granted, “interpretive issues” will arise when going back some 2000 years as will difficulties in translating passages and terms into English.  This will necessitate “reading between the lines” in trying to determine the intent and relevance of any given author or biblical text.  If this were not the case, the opposing positions that exist today between affirming and non-affirming scholars would not exist.  It must be noted that a single quotation from one writer will not explain all the issues surrounding modern same sex relationships.  Close examination of several sources will provide a cumulative effect and hopefully clarify the concerns.   

Contemporary scholarship is involved in a theological contest between those who believe the condemnation of same sex relationships is based on God’s intent at creation and those who believe the condemnation is based on the limited exposure of the biblical writers in several areas.  These areas include:          

               (1)  The biblical writers did not know about the genetic roots of some same sex relationships.

               (2)  The biblical writers were not aware of the nature of modern same sex relationships.

               (3)  The biblical writers limited their condemnation to abusive, pagan, same sex relationships.

Introduction

 Scripture is the nearest thing to the breath of God (2 Timothy 3:16: 2 Peter 1:21).  It is important to acknowledge the inspired Scriptures must take precedent over uninspired writings³The inspired Scriptures provide for us “everything we need for a godly life” (2 Pet 1:3) and equip us “for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17)..   At the same time the problems of manuscripts, textual criticism, hermeneutics, and interpretation of history and translations must be taken into consideration.  All these factors filter into the reading of the various texts, but the main issues center on the meaning of the texts in the first century and how should they be understood in 21st century. 

This study will begin with an introductory study of Romans 1:18-32 because this section of scripture⁴Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (New York: Convergent Books, 2014). 96. “There’s no question that Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical text passage in this debate.” Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 230. “Rom 1:24-27 is also the most difficult text for proponents of homosexual behavior to overturn.” is longer in its discussion of same sex relationships than any other New Testament text, and historically it has been referred to as the “go to” or “linchpin” text in understanding the topic⁵Mark D. Smith, “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of American Academy of Religion IXIV/2, 224..  As such it has often been problematic for revisionists.  Consequently, some effort has been made to eliminate it from the current discussion⁶Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 302. “I hope that churches today, being apprised of the history that I have presented, will no longer teach Rom 1:26f as authoritative.” Dale Martin, “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences,” Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley (Louisville: John Knox Press,1996), 117. “The New Testament provides little ammunition to those wishing to condemn modern homosexuality.” Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 101, 127. “Not only is the New Testament church uninterested in the topic, it has nothing to say about it….Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant in today’s debate.” and make it non-applicable to the modern same sex Christian community.  Because of this it is important to have a contextual understanding of it and other related biblical texts.

Contextual Understanding and Background of Romans 1:18-32⁷When the edict of Claudius was recanted at his death in 54 CE, the Jewish Christians returned to Rome after six years of absence (Acts 18:1-2).  The uniting of the Jewish and gentile Christians in house churches had not gone well and it was to this issue Paul addressed his letter.  As the gentile Christians were receiving the Jewish Christians back into their house churches, there were divisions about eating certain foods and observing certain days (Rom 14:2-5).  Almost immediately Paul stresses the importance of the gospel (Rom 1:14-16) to establish the unity that was needed to resolve these issues.  By emphasizing the gospel, Paul’s goal was for them to be filled with “joy and peace” as they accepted “one another” (Rom 15:7,13).  Although Paul was willing to compromise on matters of opinion, this was not the case with sexual ethics.  In Rom 13:12 – 13, Paul clarifies how they should deal with ungodly conduct (Rom 13:12b) and offers an alternative in Rom 13:14.

Although Paul wrote most of his letters to churches with which he had some connection, there are two exceptions—Colossians (Colossians 2:1) and Romans (Romans 1:14; Romans 15:24).  Romans is Paul’s monumental book describing redemption and how it affects the Christian life.  His concerns for the church⁸ Rom 1:13 “brothers and sisters” (adelphoi). (See Rom 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 36; 16:14, 17). See article: The Meaning of “Brothers” in the New Testament by Jerry Jones on www.marriagematters.ws. in Rome center on three areas:

(1) He had known many people living in Rome from other places (Rom 16:3-15), and he wanted the whole church (Jews and gentiles) to be united (Romans 14:1,19; Romans 15:7; Romans 16:17).

(2) He envisioned Rome as a launching pad for his plans to go to Spain (Romans 15:28).⁹ He had planned to go to Rome many times to have “a harvest” among them but had “been prevented from doing so” (Rom 1:13).

(3) Even though he had not been connected to the church in a personal way, he maintained a concern for it just as he did for other churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

Romans 1:18-32 serves as the theological basis for establishing both Jews and gentiles as sinful, separated from God, and in need of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.¹⁰ The term “sin” was is as a noun (ἁμαρτίαν) for the first time in Rom 3:9 and then as a verb (ἥμαρτον) in Rom 3:23.  The condemnation of the gentiles (who were without excuse Romans 1:20) continues with the condemnation of the Jews who were also without excuse (Romans 2:1).  Both gentiles and Jews were sinners (Romans 3:10,23; Galatians 2:15) and both needed the good news presented in Romans 3:21- 8:29.  

After the introductory remarks of Romans 1:1-17,¹¹ The theme of Romans is taken from Hab 2:4.  Romans 1:18-3:20 answers the need for righteousness (defined as a right relationship with God). Paul begins his condemnation of the gentile world.¹² Both gentiles and Jews were under the wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 2:5; 3:5). Instead of thanking, glorifying, and worshipping God who created them, they resorted to worshipping the idols they had made.¹³ Idols were off limits for the Jewish nation (Exod 20:3-5; Acts 7:43). Idolaters were “fools”¹⁴ Ps 14:1 with darkened hearts (Rom 1:21b-22a) and being fools they lacked wisdom.  Paul then accuses the gentiles of suppressing the truth and exchanging it for “the lie”¹⁵ The Greek: “for the lie” (ἐν τῷ ψεύδει). (Romans 1:25).¹⁶ As Paul moves into the condemnation of the Jewish world, he accuses the Jews of doing the “same things” twice (Rom 2:1b-2).  The Jews knew the law but did not obey it (Rom 2:23).   As he had done with the gentiles, Paul declares God’s judgment on the Jews was “based on truth” (Rom 2:2). “Wrath and anger” will come upon all “who reject the truth” (Rom 2:8)—both gentiles and Jews.  The condemnation of the gentile and Jewish worlds supports Paul’s conclusion that ALL are “under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9, 23) and there was “no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1; Lev 19:14).  God provided Jesus as an atoning sacrifice (Rom 3:25) so through him man could be “saved from God’s wrath” (Rom 5:9).  

Because the gentiles had rejected the revelation (Romans 1:21) God’s wrath was revealed (Romans 1:19-20).  Paul follows with three examples of their rejection (Romans 1:24-31) which are also illustrations of reversals of the creational intent of God. The three illustrations are prefaced with the phrase “God gave them over” (Romans 1:24,26,28):¹⁷ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς (Rom 1:24)

1. to idolatry¹⁸ “But God turned away from them (ὁ θεὸς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) over to the worship of the sun, moon, and stars” (Acts 7:42). “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” ( Acts 15:19).  (Romans 1:24-25)¹⁹
2.  Exod 20:23: “Do not make any gods for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” 1 Sam12:21: “Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless.”
3.  “They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf” (Exod 32:8).   “…led them into such great sin” (Exod 32:2).
4.  “You have committed a great sin” (Exod 32:30). “They made themselves gods of gold” (Exod 32:31).
5.  “…so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman or like any animal on the earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below” (Deut 4:16-18).
6. to sexual perversion (Romans 1:26-27). 
7. to ungodly behavior (Romans 1:28-31).

Paul is explicit when he states they had been given over to their own lusts (Romans 1:24), because “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” (Romans 1:25).  This rejection of God and the reversal that resulted by turning to idols was nothing new and is easily traced to the garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve sought to reverse the wisdom of God for their own wisdom “you will be like God knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).  In truth they became their own idols by attempting to place themselves on par or perhaps even above God.  From that point forward, the scriptures make a strong connection between mankind’s rejection of God for idols and the behavior which followed the rejection. Torah considered idol worship “corrupt (Deuteronomy 4:16) and a great sin” (Exodus 32:21,30).  Israel turned from worshipping god to worshipping idols made by “themselves” (Exodus 20:23; Exodus 32:8,31; Leviticus 19:4).²⁰ Paul warns the Corinthians not to be idolaters as were the people of Israel who committed sexual immorality along with their idol worship (1 Cor 10:7-8). Paul (Galatians 5:20), Peter (1 Peter 4:3), and John (Revelation 2:14,20) connect idolatry and immorality in their warning to Christians. 

After declaring idolatry a reversal of God’s purpose for mankind, Paul follows with a second example of reversal—same sex relationships (Romans 1:26-27). This was not God’s original intent for males and females (Genesis 1-2). 

With the two reversals firmly established Paul returns to the theme of “wickedness”²¹ ἀδικία: adikia (introduced in Romans 1:18) which came from a “lack of knowledge of God” (Romans 1:28a).²² The creation story in Genesis 1-2 provides information about “the knowledge of God” (Isa 1:3; Ps 51:4; Gen 39:9; Hos 4:6). Instead of being “lovers of God,” they were “God-haters” (Romans 1:30).  Contrasted to righteousness, the twenty-one sins of Romans 1:29-31 serve as examples of the ungodly behavior “God gave them over to” (Romans 1:28).  They serve as poignant reminders of how far mankind—made in his “likeness” and his “image” (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:1)—had come from what God had intended.  As Paul ends the condemnation of the gentiles, he mentions “no fidelity,²³ 1 Cor 10:13 no love,²⁴ 1 John 4:16 and no mercy.”²⁵ Eph 2:4  These are all reversals of who God is and what God-like people should be (Romans 1:28-31;²⁶ The word transgression (parabasis) is a combination of two words: para meaning contrary and baino meaning to go. It carries the idea of “overstepping” and purposely “stepping over the line.” Transgression is a synonym for ἁμαρτία. Hamartia means “missing the mark” or “breaks the law” (1 John 3:4 “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (Romans 4:15; Romans 5:14; Galatians 3:19; Psalm 65:3). Matt 22:37).  Note: Other examples  include:

1. Selfishness²⁷ “Egocentric” describes selfishness. is a reversal of the attitude of Jesus (Philippians 2:3-5).
2. Seeking greatness instead of servanthood is a reversal of the nature of Jesus who “did not come to be served but to serve…”(Mark 10:41-45). 
3. Refusal to “love God” and “deny self” is a reversal (Matthew 16:24; 22:37). 

The condemnation of same sex relationships occupies only two verses (Romans 1:26-27 with the possible inclusion of Romans 1:24) because it was not the focus of Paul’s condemnation of the gentiles—living a reversed life was!²⁸ The Jews were not guilty of idolatry or same sex relationships, but of some of the “same things” (Rom 2:2-3) listed in Rom 1:29-31. Paul was not implying that all gentiles were involved in same sex relationships, but its prominence among gentiles was evidence of the degenerative nature of the gentile (pagan) world (1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 12:2; Ephesians 4:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:5).

Considering Romans 1:18-32, two questions beg a response:            

1. Are there any circumstances or conditions under which idolatry would be acceptable?  

The answer is no.  Idolatry is a reversal from worshipping God to worshipping something else.²⁹ Question: Is the need for man to worship something considered a “human need”?

2. Are there any circumstances or conditions under which the sins of Romans 1:29-32 (greed, murder, strife, envy, God haters, insolent, boastful, arrogant, no love, no mercy) would be acceptable?  

The answer is no. All conduct should be avoided that does not reflect God, is not in harmony with the character of God,³⁰ Without God as the center of their lives the gentiles were destined to become involved in all kinds of behavior that was “ungodly.”  Because idolatry is mentioned in various letters to gentile churches (Corinth (1 Cor 1:2; 10:7-8; 12:2; 2 Cor 1:2; 6:16), Pontus, Galatia (Gal 1:2; 4:20), Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1; 4:3), Pergamum (Rev 2:12, 14), Thyatira (Rev 2:18,20), the writers saw it as a “clear and present danger” for gentile believers. Modeling the life of Jesus by serving God  and not idols provides the proper direction for all believers (1 Cor 2:16; 11:1; Phil 2:5; 1 Pet 2:21). or is a reversal of who God is.³¹ “Be holy as I am holy” (Lev 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pet 1:15). “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3-4; 20:22). “Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold” (Deut 4:15-20).

Sexual immorality is just another reversal and example of rejecting godliness.  Without a moral compass rooted in God, the “sin living” in mankind (Romans 7:17,20) makes us prone to serve ourselves or anything of our choosing. 

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).

According to the latest Gallup poll, those identifying as LGBTQ+ in the United States continues to increase.  Millennials (those born between 1981-1996) identifying as LGBTQ+ increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2021.  Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) identifying as LGBTQ+increased from 10.5 % in 2017 to 20.8% in 2021.  Currently approximately 7.1% of Americans consider themselves to have an LGBTQ+ identity.  Conversations surrounding this issue are ever present, and often the agenda supported by this community is promoted in the media, society, and politics.  

During the past 20 months I have devoted hundreds of hours to the current conversation concerning gender and sexual identity.  I have approached this venture with much prayer and with a determination to actually “listen” to the biblical texts in an honest manner.  To understand both sides of this dialogue, I have amassed a current library of over forty books and many theological articles, and have listened to hours of presentations.  Undoubtedly this study has caused me to be challenged by the questions and research done by the revisionists—ideas that for the most part I was unfamiliar with previously.  What you are reading now are my findings that have allowed me to better understand my brothers and sisters in the Lord who are in a real struggle to understand their own feelings and identities.  My purpose is not to debate nor pronounce judgements on anyone, but to help all of us understand these issues from the Scriptures.  Certainly, my thoughts are not the final word on this or any matter.  My prayer is only that what I have discovered will serve as a springboard to encourage you toward your own study and reflection. 

A large part of my study has centered on the writings and information of the affirming community itself.   The following Twelve Assumptions of the Affirming Community are a summation of their own observations.  Significantly, my writings focus on the Christian affirming community and NOT the LGBTQ+ community at large which has no desire to be pleasing to God.  

In this post I will simply list the twelve assumptions and in weeks to come I will attempt to unpack each of them.  The following definitions will prove helpful:

1. Revisionists, progressives, and affirming community describe those who affirm modern same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
2. Traditionalists are those who reject all same sex relationships as acceptable to God.
3. The phrase “modern same sex relationships” means same sex relationships must be monogamous, committed, consensual, and covenantal.

Twelve Assumptions of the Affirming Community

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

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 (Lev 11:9-12). ¹Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 44.

Justin Lee writes:

The Leviticus and Romans passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.² Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (New York: Jericho, 2012), 186. 

2. The background for Rom 1:18-32 is the Wisdom of Solomon.

Keen writes:

The point is that Genesis is not the backdrop for Paul; the Wisdom of Solomon is the text he is engaging. That has crucial implications for understanding the meaning of Romans 1.³Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 38. 

Martin writes:

There is compelling reason to believe that these fifteen verses were not written by, or at least original to, Paul.  This composition, word choice, and overall flow of the Greek are notably un-Pauline in comparison to the rest of his body of work.⁴Colby Martin, UnClobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible on Homosexuality (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2016),118.

3. Paul was only opposing pederasty (sexual behavior between an adult male and adolescent boy) including prostitution, sex with slaves, and rape and does not address modern same sex relationships.

Robin Scroggs writes: 

I know of no suggestions in texts that homosexual relationships existed between same-age adults…Thus what the New Testament was against was the image of homosexuality as pederasty…⁵Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 35, 126.

Matthew Vines writes:

Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco- Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and same sex between masters and their slaves…That isn’t to say that no one pursued only same- sex relationships, or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love.⁶Matthews Vines, God and the Gay Christian, The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 104. 

…he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can’t reasonably be called the same issue.⁷Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 106.

Keen writes: 

To put it simply, to say that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted relationships.  That would be comparing apples and oranges.⁸Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 20.

In essence Paul does not address the question of gay people who love God and want to share their life with someone in a caring, monogamous relationship.⁹Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 39.[/mfnj]

In this they are correct: the Bible doesn’t address covenanted same-sex relationships as we know them today.⁹Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 58.

Jack Rogers writes:

Most Christians have been told at one time or another that the Bible condemns all homosexual relationships. That view is simply incorrect.¹⁰Jack Rogers. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville: Westminster Knox Press, 2009), 66.

4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refer to only abusive relationships and does not include modern same sex relationships.   

Vines writes:             

So even the sexual use of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same sex behavior…as we’ve seen malakos doesn’t refer to merely a single act.  It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderations.¹¹Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 122. 

So even if the compound word arsenokoitai did originate from Leviticus, that still wouldn’t tell us what it means in 1 Corinthians 6.¹²Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 124. 

One of the most prominent forms of sexual exploitation in the ancient world was the practice of pederasty.  If arsenokoitai does refer to male same sex behavior, it’s likely that it refers to pederasty.¹³Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 125. 

Keen writes:

The apostle Paul likely had in mind (referring to 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10 JJ) what he saw around him namely, pederasty or sex with male slaves and prostitutes.¹⁴Keen, Scriptures, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex relationships, 18.  

5. The words “against nature” (unnatural) refer to heterosexuals acting like homosexuals or rather engaging in non-coital sexual relations.¹⁵Lee, Torn, 183. ”Even so, Paul’s view toward the same-sex aspect of those rites didn’t seem very positive at all and he did call the sex acts (as the NIV put it) “shameful” and “unnatural.” Perhaps he would have condemned the gay sex even if were not in the context of idolatry” (Emphasis mine JJ).

Brownson writes: 

…Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity but to dishonorable forms of heterosexual intercourse.¹⁶James V. Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 222.

…Romans 1:26…was understood to refer, not to lesbian sexual activity, but to nonproductive forms of heterosexual intercourse.¹⁷Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 244.

6. Paul had no knowledge of the modern concept of sexual orientation.

James Brownson writes:  

Writers in the first century, including Paul, did not look at same-sex eroticism with the understanding of sexual orientation that is commonplace today.¹⁸Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 166.

7. Same sex relationships were condemned only in the context of pagan idol worship.

Lee writes: 

The Leviticus and Roman passages had a clear context of idolatry, not committed relationships.¹⁹Lee, Torn, 186. 

If gay sex was being condemned for its connection to idolatry and cult prostitution, that would explain the harsh punishment and the description of it as “abomination,” it wouldn’t apply to modern-day relationships at all.²⁰Lee, Torn, 178. “But if gay sex was being condemned because gay sex is inherently sinful in all situations, then that condemnation would apply today, even in a committed relationship (Emphasis mine JJ). I wasn’t going to be able to solve this by looking at Leviticus in isolation.  I had to consider it in light of the New Testament.”

If this is about sex rites during idol worship, that didn’t seem to have anything to do with committed gay relationships.²¹Lee, Torn, 183.

8. Paul was opposed to same sex relationships in the context of excessive passion and lusts.

Brownson writes:

It is not desire itself that Paul opposes, but excessive desire, which directs itself toward what is not rightly ours, overcoming self-control and obedience to God.²²Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 164.

The essence of lust (epithumia) lies in its intense passion (thumos). To the extent to which Paul’s rejection of same-sex eroticism is based on his assumption that which behavior is inherently lustful, marked by passions that are out of control.²³Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 169.

9. Covenant fidelity, not sexual union or procreation is the foundation (or cornerstone) of Biblical marriage.

Keen writes:

Progressives agree that male and female are part of God’s good creation, but they believe loyal, covenantal love, not sexual differentiation is the foundation of biblical marriage… Progressives argue that the cornerstone of biblical marriage is covenant fidelity, not sexual differentiation….²⁴Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 30, 43.

10.   Genesis 2:24 stresses sameness and not difference between males and females.

   Keen writes:

When Adam marvels that Eve is “flesh of my flesh” he announces a kinship bond.  This kinship language appears elsewhere in the Bible. Laban tells Jacob, “Surely you are my bone and flesh?” (Gen 29:14). The story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that marriage is, first of all, a union founded on commonality and not differentiation.²⁵Keen, Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, 30-31. 

11. Paul objects to same sex relationships because they do not lead to procreation, and it requires one male partner to act in a submissive role—something that Paul thought was shameful.  

Brownson believes Paul objected to same-sex activity for two reasons: 

(1) Paul felt same sex activity was “selfish and socially irresponsible” because it did not allow for the possibility of procreation. 

(2) A man treated like a woman (passive) was “shameful” and “violated the understood gender roles in the conventions of the ancient world.”²⁶Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality, 267.

12. Historical evidence does not indicate early Christians held a negative attitude toward same sex relationships.

         John Boswell writes:

Not only does there appear to have no general prejudice against gay people among early Christians; there does not seem to have been any reason for Christianity to adopt a hostile attitude toward homosexual behavior.²⁷John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 135.

The early Christian church does not to appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se. The most influential Christian literature was moot on the issue; no prominent writers seem to have considered homosexual attraction “unnatural,” and those who objected to physical expression of homosexual feelings generally did so on the basis considerations unrelated to the teachings of Jesus or his early church followers.²⁸Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 333.

Conclusion

Not every revisionist²⁹Revisionists would be the same as “progressives” or the “LGBTQ+ community.” would necessarily embrace all twelve assumptions,  but all the assumptions are shared by some revisionists.  Certainly, revisionists do not represent a united front in their understanding of the teachings of Scripture related to same sex relationships.  Even some affirming writers are not sure gays or lesbians have the right to act upon their perceived orientations.                                                       

Just because an attraction or drive is biological doesn’t mean it’s okay to act on, (Emphasis mine JJ)…³⁰Lee, Torn, 62.  

Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed.³¹Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 131.