BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 140 (1983):
259-66
Copyright © 1983 Dallas
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
Homosexuality and the
Old Testament
P. Michael Ukleja
Only towering cynicism can pretend that there is
any doubt
about what the Scriptures say about homosexuality.
The Bible
has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about
what is per-
mitted or forbidden in this
aspect of sexual conduct.
God loves people and wants them to come to the
wholeness
and joy for which they were made. His prohibitions
are not the
house rules of a sadistic and capricious Deity who
mocks man-
kind by tormenting him with desires and then
forbidding him
from doing anything about them.
Biblical prohibitions are bright signposts that
point people
straight toward fullness and joy. They warn
people away from
spiritual and emotional detours, mires, quicksand,
and cliffs. All
sexual sins represent some failure on society's part
to stick to
God's path. Fornication fails to honor the image of
God in the
other person, for it sees the other only as a
commodity. Adultery
violates the shrine of marital fidelity which
houses and keeps
sacred the sexual expression. Incest is the effort to
achieve union
with an image too close to oneself. The relationship
is not suffi-
ciently "other" to
make the transaction valid. Beastiality is the
effort to achieve union with an image too different
from oneself.
Masturbation,
while not explicitly cited in Scripture as sin, in-
volves a failure to appreciate
fully the use of sex which is surely
more than a matter of mere orgasm. And homosexuality
is a
confusion, since it involves the effort of
achieving union with a
"mirror" image of oneself. This "other" is not
sufficiently differ-
259
260
Bibliotheca Sacra
-July-September 1983
ent to permit the union for
which mankind was so remarkably
formed.
Homosexuality and the
Sin of
Two angels who came to
mob (Gen. 19:4-11). What were the men of
they called on
(19:5, KJV)? Some conclude that the
story has no reference to
homosexual acts at all. Bailey seeks to justify
homosexuality from
the Old Testament in his work Homosexuality and the Western
Christian Tradition.1 Others
(for example, Boswell2) use Bailey's
arguments concerning this passage. Bailey was an
Anglican
scholar whose work influenced the change in
British law regard-
ing this issue. This work
is fast becoming a standard reference
work for the prohomosexual
viewpoint.
Bailey believes that much of Christian prejudice
against
homosexuality is the result of
misunderstanding the story of
anxious to interrogate the strangers to find out
if they were spies.
Therefore,
he argues, the story does not refer to homosexuality at
all. The sin involved was not homosexuality, but gang
rape.
had angered these residents by receiving foreigners
whose
credentials had not been examined. The men were
angered by
this omission, and were showing extreme discourtesy
to these
visitors by demanding to know their credentials.3
Bailey argues
that the demand of the men of
quainted with" them. The
problem, argues Bailey, was nothing
more than inhospitality. Others, including Blair,
have expanded
on this argument.
The Biblical story demonstrates the seriousness
with which these
early Eastern people took the
important customs of Oriental hospi-
tality. It appears that, if
necessary, they would even allow their own
daughters to undergo abuse in order
to protect guests. The sexual
aspect of the story is simply
the vehicle in which the subject of
demanded hospitality is conveyed.
It is clearly interpreted in Ezekiel
daughters had pride, surfeit of
food, and prosperous ease, but did
not aid the poor and
needy."4
The Hebrew word for "know" (fdayA), Bailey points out, can be
translated "to get acquainted with" or
"to have knowledge of" or
Homosexuality and the Old Testament 261
"to have intercourse with." The word fdayA appears over 943 times
in the Old Testament and only 12 times does it
mean "to have
intercourse with." He also states that
intercourse, as a means to
personal knowledge, depends on more than
copulation. There-
fore, he argues, the circumstances in
sexual connotation of the word "know." He
concludes by reason-
ing from the fact that
Lot
had exceeded his rights by receiving two foreigners whose
credentials had not been examined.5
The first problem with this argument is the fact
that the
meaning of a word in a given passage is not
determined solely on
the basis of the number of times it is translated
that way in the
Bible. The context determines how it is to be
translated. Of the 12
times the word fdayA occurs in Genesis, 10
times it means "to have
intercourse with." Kidner
offers the following rebuttal to Bailey's
arguments.
To this we may reply: (a) Statistics are no
substitute for contextual
evidence (otherwise the rarer
sense of the word would never seem
probable), and in both these
passages the demand to "know" is used
in its sexual sense (Gn. 19:8; Jdg.
verbal conjunction it would be
grotesquely inconsequent that
should reply to a demand for
credentials by an offer of daughters. (b)
Psychology can suggest how "to know"
acquired its secondary
sense; but in fact the use of
the word is completely flexible. No one
suggests that in Judges 19:25
the men of Gibeah were gaining
"knowledge"
of their victim in the sense of personal relationship, yet
"know" is the
word used of them. (c) Conjecture here has the marks
of special pleading for it
substitutes a trivial reason ("commotion
. . . inhospitality")
for a serious one for the angels' decision. Apart
from this, it is silenced by
Jude 7, a pronouncement which Dr.
Bailey has to discount as belonging to a late
stage of interpretation.6
The whole scene in Genesis 19 takes on
near-comic propor-
tions if
to "get acquainted with" the men in his
house, said, "Please, my
brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have
two daughters
who have not known a man; please let me bring them
out to you
and do to them as is good in your sight, only do
nothing to these
men. . ." (author's
translation). In verse 8 the same verb, fdayA,
with the negative particle is used to describe
having "not known" a man. The verb here
obviously means "have
intercourse with." It could hardly mean simply
"be acquainted
with." In narrative literature of this sort it
would be very unlikely
to use one verb with two different meanings so
close together
262
Bibliotheca Sacra
-July-September 1983
unless the author made the difference quite obvious.
In both
verses 5 and 8 fdayA should be translated
"to have sexual inter-
course with." The context does not lend itself to
any other credi-
ble interpretation.
Jude 7 gives a commentary on this passage. It
clearly states
that the sin of
strange or different flesh (sarxo<j e!teraj). It is no accident
that
Jude
describes their actions by using e]kporneu<sasai. The verb
porneu<w definitely refers to sexual immorality
and the preposi-
tion e]k explains that it means
that "they gave themselves up
fully, without reserve, thoroughly, out and out,
utterly."7 The
term "strange flesh" could imply unnatural
acts between men or
even of human beings with animals. The inhabitants
of Canaan
were guilty of both of these sins (Lev.
includes the cities of
archaeology confirm these same conditions. Josephus,
who
wrote around A.D. 99-100, said that the Sodomites
"hated stran-
gers and abused themselves
with sodomitical practices."8
Boswell says that
his daughters to appease the angry mob. "No
doubt the surren-
der of his daughters was
simply the most tempting bribe
could offer on the spur of the moment to appease the
hostile
crowd. . . . This action, almost unthinkable in
modern Westem
society, was consonant with the very low status
of female chil-
dren at the time. . . ."9
But what
because
local customs does not mean that his action was
morally accept-
able in God's sight. It is much more probable that
motivated by the thought that however wrong rape
is, homosex-
ual rape was even worse.
to be the lesser of two evils.
Homosexuality and the
Mosaic Law
THE
INJUNCTIONS IN THE LAW
God's command concerning homosexuality is clear:
"You
shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;
it is an
abomination (Lev.
"If
there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
woman, both of them have committed a detestable act. .
. ." These
passages are set in the context of God's judgment
on sexual
crimes and are an expansion of the seventh
commandment.
Homosexuality and 1he Old Testament 263
Moses
was not trying to establish an exhaustive code on the
subject of sexuality; rather he was dealing with
certain gross
offenses of the seventh commandment that were
common in the
nations surrounding
Prohomosexual advocates usually
dismiss these passages by
relegating them to simple religious prohibitions rather
than tak-
ing them as moral
prohibitions. Blair exhibits this line of
reasoning.
That the very pronounced Old Testament judgment
against a man's
having sexual relations with
another man is included in the priestly
Holiness Code of Leviticus (
the concern of the priests
was one of ritual purity. It was not the
moral preaching of the
prophets. From this priestly point of view, it
is clear that above all
else,
pagan neighbors. In all
things, she was to remain a separate "pure
vessel unto the Lord." At
this time, male prostitutes in the temples
of the Canaanites,
Babylonians, and other neighboring peoples,
were common features of the
pagan rites. There, it is understand-
able that this
"homosexuality" connected with the worship of false
gods would certainly color
homosexual activity.10
Blair, and those who follow his line of
thinking, assume that
ritual purity and moral preaching are always distinct.
Therefore
the passages in Leviticus, they argue, are not
really speaking
against homosexuality as such, but only against
identifying with
the practice of alien religions. The issue was
religious identity,
not the righteousness of God.
But this type of reasoning begs the question on
several
counts. The first major fault is in assuming that ritual
purity and
moral purity are always distinct. Those who make this
dichot-
omy argue that Leviticus 18
and 20 cannot be of an ethical or
moral nature. Blair states this when he divides the
priests with
their ritual purity and the prophets with their moral
teaching
into two groups that were not to transgress each
other's territory.
But
the prophets preached to the needs of their day. Anything
not included in their teaching is more logically
explained by that
particular sin's absence among the sins of that
generation,
rather than by a rigid distinction between ceremonial
and moral
purity. To hold to such a distinction one would have
to conclude
that adultery was not morally wrong (
no moral implications (
with bestiality (
moral purity often coincide.
264
Bibliotheca Sacra
-July-September 1983
These passages, again, are consistent with God's
purpose for
human sexuality, as presented in Genesis 1-3. When
these pas-
sages are studied, it becomes obvious that God's
purpose is to
preserve the sanctity of marriage and the home.
THE
RELEVANCE OF THE LAW
Prohomosexual advocates spend much
effort and time trying
to show the irrelevance of the Law to Christians
today. Scanzoni
and Mollenkott are an
example of this. “Consistency and fairness
would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness
Code is to be
invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals,
it should like-
wise be invoked against such common practices as
eating rare
steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital
intercourse
during the menstrual period."11 Blair
follows Scanzoni and Mol-
lenkott in arguing that the Old
Testament Law must be thrown
out when seeking a guide to the issue of
homosexuality.
It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have
taken other proscrip-
tions found in the same Old
Testament Code, e.g.: rules against the
eating of rabbit (Lev.
(Lev. 11:10ff), and rare
steaks (Lev.
picket or try to close down
seafood restaurants nor do we keep
kosher kitchens. We do not
always order steaks "well-done." We eat
pork and ham. The wearing of
clothes made from interwoven linen
and wool (Deut.
cals do not say, in
accordance with these same laws of cultic puri-
fication (Lev.
should be executed as
prescribed. Evangelicals do not demand the
death penalty for the Jeane Dixons of this world (Lev.
we "cut off"
from among the people, as is demanded by this same
Code, those who have intercourse with women during
menstrua-
tion (Lev.
divorced (Lev.
those who are visually
handicapped or lame or those "with a limb
too long" (Lev. 21:18ff).12
These statements expose a great ignorance of how
the Law
fits into the total scheme of the Scriptures. When
taken to their
logical conclusion these assertions make it possible
to say that
having sex with animals or engaging in incest is okay
for today
simply because homosexuality is sandwiched between
these two
prohibitions. These writers pay a
great price in trying to justify
their position. It would have been easier for them to
say that
Christ
brought an end to the entire Law (
Commandments
are also included in this termination (2 Cor.
3:7-11).
Christ is now the Christian's High Priest, which shows
Homosexuality and the Old Testament 265
that a radical change in the Law has come about
(Heb.
Law
has been superseded (Heb.
When the statement is made that the Law had
ended, this
does not mean that God no longer has any laws or
codes for His
people. This does not mean that there are no moral
precepts to be
followed. The New Testament speaks of the
"law of the Spirit"
(Rom.
8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2), and the "royal law"
(James
2:8). This "law" includes numerous commands, both
positive and negative, which form a distinct code
of ethics for
today.13 It is here that the prohomosexual exegetes have made
their mistake. As a unit the New Testament code is
new, but not
all the commands in the New Testament are new.
There is over-
lap, deletion, and addition. Some of the commands
in the Mosaic
code have been reincorporated into the New Testament
code.
But if the Law was done away, how can parts of
it be repeated
in the New Testament? The answer lies in the
distinction be-
tween the Old Testament code
and the commandments which
were contained in that code.
The Mosaic law has been
done away in its entirety as a code. God is
no longer guiding the life
of man by this particular code. In its place
He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the
individual com-
mands within that law are
new, but some are not. Some of the ones
which are old were also found
in the Mosaic law and they are now
incorporated completely and [are]
forever done away. As part of the
law of Christ they are
binding on the believer today.14
This throws much light on the statements made by
those
who would justify homosexuality from a biblical
standpoint. It
serves to bring their emotional rhetoric into proper
focus. The
laws concerning diet, punishment by stoning, or
wearing mixed
fabrics have been abrogated. However, the
proscriptions against
homosexual behavior have been repeated in the New
Testament
code (Rom.
a major concern of prohomosexual
advocates simply because it
totally destroys the point they attempt to make
with regard to the
Old Testament law. It is false to say that
something which was sin
under the Law is no longer sin under grace.
What this all means is that the commands dealing
with
homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23 and
vant because they have been
reincorporated into the New Testa-
ment code. A moral unity
exists between the Old and New Testa-
ments. It has always been
wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have
sexual relations with animals, and to have sexual
relations with
266
Bibliotheca Sacra
-July-September 1983
persons of the same sex. God has dealt with
people in different
ways at different times, but His standard for
righteousness has
never changed. If morality has changed then the
character of God
has changed, because the basis of morality is in
the charac-
ter of God who is immutable
(Mal. 3:6).
Notes
1
D. Sherwin Bailey. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition
(
1975).
2
John Boswell., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (
3
Bailey,
Homosexuality. p.
5.
4 Ibid.,
p. 4.
5
Ibid., pp. 3-5.
6
Derek Kidner,
Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary.
Tyndale Old
Testament
Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p.
137.
7 Richard Wolff, A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude (
van Publishing House, 1960), p. 75.
8
Josephus, quoted in Wolff, ibid., pp. 76-77.
9
Boswell. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality. p. 95.
10 Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (
1963),
p. 3.
11 Letha Scanzoni
and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Is the Homosexual My
Neighbor? (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1978), pp. 60-61.
12 Blair. An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, p. 3.
13 Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God (Chicago: Moody Press,
1963), pp.
105-13.
14 Charles C. Ryrie, "The End
of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra
124 (July-
September
1967):246.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
www.dts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu