Christian Ethics and Homosexuality: The Teachings of the Old Testament

Before examining what Jesus and the apostles have to say about the topic of homosexuality, we should first examine the teachings of the Old Testament on the topic, since this provides the background for understanding what the New Testament authors have to say about it. There are two Old Testament texts which explicitly forbid homosexual behavior, but before examining those texts, we should first consider the broader teachings of the Old Testament about marriage. 

Marriage in the Old Testament

The foundational text for a biblical theology of marriage is Genesis 2. God creates the man, Adam, and there is no helper suitable for him among the animals. So, God creates a woman from Adam’s side and brings her to him. “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:23-24). 

According to Genesis 2, marriage is grounded in the ontological fact that man and woman are two complementary halves of one whole, who are reunited as “one flesh” in marriage. Throughout the Old Testament (and the New), this understanding of marriage as the complementary union of a man and a woman is consistently assumed and reinforced. While, by itself, this is not an absolute prohibition of same-sex marriage, it certainly points in that direction. The biblical texts that explicitly forbid homosexual behavior, then, are not isolated “proof texts,” but commands that fit naturally and seamlessly within the broader teachings of Scripture about marriage. 

The Holiness Code

The two Old Testament texts which explicitly forbid homosexual behavior are both found in the book of Leviticus. The first is Leviticus 18:22: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” The second is Leviticus 20:13: “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.” 

Both of these biblical prohibitions of homosexual sex are part of the Holiness Code of Leviticus (Lev 18-26). This Code contains instructions for how the ancient Israelites were to live as God’s holy people; it contains a mixture of various moral commands, as well as rules about ceremonial cleanliness, instructions for priests, and the observing of Sabbaths and holy days. Some have argued that, because these prohibitions of homosexuality are contained within the Holiness Code for ancient Israel, they should be dismissed as irrelevant for issues of Christian ethics today, since the Holiness Code was just about maintaining cultural boundary markers between Israel and its pagan neighbors. However, that is an illegitimate hermeneutical move. The Holiness Code is not first of all about cultural boundary markers between Israel and its pagan neighbors. It is first of all about the Israelites being holy because God’s Holy presence dwelled in their midst. Holiness is just as central to New Testament ethics as it is to Old Testament ethics, albeit with a significant shift: Jesus, and His body, the Church, replace the temple building as the sacred space where God’s holy presence dwells. This means that the ceremonial aspects of the Holiness Code are no longer relevant to God’s holy covenant people in the New Testament period, but its non-ceremonial teachings are still very much relevant as a guide for Christian ethics. The Holiness Code contains many moral teachings which clearly directly apply to Christians today, such as its prohibitions of incest and bestiality, its teachings about social and economic justice, its demands to care for the poor and for immigrants, and so on. Jesus even quoted from the Holiness Code when asked what the greatest commandment was: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 18:18; Matt 22:39). Clearly, it is illegitimate to arbitrarily dismiss a moral teaching of Scripture just because it is part of the Holiness Code. The relevance of each part of the Holiness Code for Christian ethics must be assessed on a case by case basis. In order to claim that a moral teaching contained in the Holiness Code is no longer relevant for Christians, one must first provide a good reason for why this would be the case.

Many have tried to make a case that the Holiness Code’s prohibition of homosexual behavior was merely ceremonial and so is no longer relevant for Christians by focusing on the word toevah (“detestable, abomination”) used in the prohibitions. They point out that this same word is used to refer to ceremonially unclean things such as the “unclean” animals the Israelites were forbidden to eat (Deut 14:3). Therefore, they argue, toevah only refers to ceremonial uncleanliness, not immorality. However, Leviticus 18:24-27 clearly labels all of the behaviors forbidden earlier in the chapter (incest, sex with a woman during her period, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and child sacrifice) as toevah. The prohibition of sex with a woman during her period is no longer binding on Christians, since the text is clear that this prohibition had to do with exposing “the source of her flow” of menstrual blood (Lev 20:18), which was a source of ceremonial “uncleanliness” (Lev 18:19). However, the prohibitions of incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice are obviously still binding on Christians. If incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice should still be considered morally “detestable” by Christians today, then so should homosexual behavior. Toevah is not a technical term for ceremonially uncleanliness; it is simply a general term for “detestable.” Elsewhere in the Old Testament, it is used to refer to many sins which are clearly non-ceremonial and still to be condemned by Christians today: witchcraft, idolatry, oppressing the poor, murder, theft, perjury, pride, and stirring up conflict (Deut 18:9-14, 27:15, Jer 7:1-10, Prov 6:16-17, Ezek 16:47-51). Clearly, it is simply not true that the Holiness Code labelling homosexual behavior toevah means that it was only forbidden for reasons of ceremonial cleanliness. 

While some have tried to argue that the Holiness Code only forbids particular expressions of homosexual behavior, such as rape,^[1]Megan K. DeFranza, “Journeying from the Bible to Christian Ethics in Search of Common Ground,” in Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 73-75. this is clearly not true. Leviticus 20:13 commands the death penalty for both participants in an act of homosexual sex, so it is clear that a consensual sex act is in mind here (Compare Deuteronomy 22:25-27, which commands the death penalty for a rapist, but considers the victim of a rape to be innocent). Others have argued that the context of these texts are various laws that reflect ancient concerns about “wasted seed,” and so they should be considered irrelevant for Christians today.^[2]Ted Grismund, “Toward a Theology of Welcome: Developing a Perspective on the ‘Homosexuality’ Issue,” in Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homsexaulity, by Ted Grismud and Mark Thiessen … Continue reading However, this argument fails, since there are many laws in the surrounding context that cannot be explained in terms of concerns about “wasted seed”: prohibitions of incest (18:6-18; 20:12, 17-21), adultery (18:20; 20:10-11), women committing bestiality with male animals (18:23), consulting mediums and spiritists (20:6-8), and dishonoring one’s parents (20:9). Even the prohibition of a man having sex with a woman during her period did not at all have to do with concerns about “wasted seed,” but with exposing “the source of her flow” of menstrual blood (Lev 20:18), which was a source of ceremonial “uncleanliness” (Lev 18:19). Furthermore, the most obvious and common causes of “wasted seed,” masturbation and coitus interruptus, are not mentioned and condemned here or anywhere else in the laws of the Torah, providing strong evidence that this passage is not at all concerned with this matter. Some have seized upon the fact that the Holiness Code only forbids male-male sex, not female-female sex as “proving” that the reason for the prohibition must have been “wasted seed.” However, this line of thinking is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern law codes. Ancient Near Eastern law codes were not intended to be an exhaustive code of legislation which was enforced. Rather, they were a kind of wisdom literature which, through a multitude of examples, gave guidance to judges for making just decisions in each particular case, even in cases where the law code did not explicitly address the situation. The Holiness Code forbids a man from having sexual relations with his aunt, and never forbids a woman from having sexual relations with her uncle. But the latter prohibition is implied by the former. The Holiness Code forbids male-male sex, and never forbids female-female sex. But the latter prohibition is implied by the former. 

The Holiness Code contains some odd ceremonial commands, such as “Do not mate two different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread” (Lev 19:19). Why has the Church from the very beginning regarded these commands as ceremonial and no longer relevant for Christians, but always regarded the prohibition of homosexual behavior as still relevant and binding? First, because such commands are disconnected from any broader moral teachings of Scripture. In contrast, the Bible has an enormous amount to say about sexual ethics, and the Torah’s prohibition of homsexual behavior is an integral part of that broader teaching. Second, unlike these ceremonial commands, the Torah’s prohibition of homosexual behavior is reiterated and reinforced in multiple passages of the New Testament. Third, there is no penalty at all mentioned for failing to abide by these ceremonial commands, while homosexual behavior is considered such a serious breach of covenant faithfulness that it merited the death penalty. There is no reason to think that the Torah’s prohibition of homosexual behavior has anything to do with ceremonial cleanliness or any other symbolic concern unique to the Old Testament context. Rather, it is a moral prohibition grounded in the fact that homosexual behavior, like bestiality and incest, is contrary to God’s created order and His intentions for how human sexuality should be expressed.

Conclusion

Christians are no longer “under the Torah”; it is no longer directly binding on us. However, it does have enduring ethical value for Christians in giving us guidance for how to live as God’s holy people. “All Scripture is God-breathed as is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). The Torah’s clear prohibition of homosexual behavior, therefore, should be seriously considered as relevant for the Church’s moral debate about homosexuality today. 

Series Navigation

<< Christian Ethics and Homosexuality: Clarifying the IssueChristian Ethics and Homosexuality: The Teachings of Jesus >>