Homosexuality in Scripture

Barry G. Webb, "Homosexuality in Scripture." Pages 65-104 in Theological and

Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality, edited by B. G. Webb. Explorations 8.
Adelaide: Openbook, 1994.

The following document differs from the published version.

Please cite only the published version.
-

The brief I have been given for this paper is to set homosexuality in the context
of God's purposes for us as men and women. The source material I am to draw
on is Scripture (the Old and New Testaments, and the approach is to be that of
Biblical Theology. This may seem straightforward enough, but there are a
number of things that need clarification at the outset if we are not to end in
frustrated expectations or outright confusion.

In the previous paper Andrew Shead has noted that in recent theological
discussion the term 'homosexuality' is generally taken to refer to an orientation
towards members of the same sex, whether or not this is expressed in erotic
sexual behavior. This presents us with something of a dilemma for the present
study, because it is now widely accepted that the biblical writers say nothing at
all about homosexuality in this sense. They refer to homosexuals acts, but show
no awareness of a distinct homosexual condition or orientation. So how shall
we proceed? What I have choses to do is to leave the question of orientation
open and to approach this study with the question, 'What does Scripture say
about erotic sexual activity between members of the same sex?' I'm prepared to
go wherever the scriptural data leads me, but this is my starting point.

But this brings us at once to another issue. To expect Scripture to 'say'

something assumes that in some sense it is a coherent whole; that either it
speaks with one voice or that its various voices are, in the last analysis,
complementary rather than contradictory. This paper assumes that Scripture
does indeed have such coherence and that the key to its coherence is Jesus
Christ. I take seriously the claim of the Gospel writers that Jesus quoted the
Old Testament as the Word of God and maintained that it found its fulfillment
in him (Mt. 22:31; Lk. 24:25-27, 44-45). I also take seriously the claim that the
apostles (including Paul) were directly commissioned by Christ and that their
teaching is therefore fundamentally one with his (Jn. 16:12-15; Gal 1:1, 11-24).
The coherence of Scripture is grounded ultimately in the speaking activity of
God: 'In many and various ways God has spoke of old to our fathers through the
prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son ...' (Heb. 1:1-2).
And finally, God's speaking in Jesus cannot be divorced from his speaking in
 2

Scripture. Unless we are prepared to invent our own Christ we must have the
one that Scripture delivers to us. And note carefully his words in Matthew
22:31: 'Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?' (citing Ex. 3:6).
Jesus is our key to Scripture as he is to everything else. The implication of this
is that in engaging with Scripture we engage with the mind of God, the God
who has revealed himself finally in Jesus Christ. To ask what Scripture says
about a topic is to ask what God has said about it. And if this is true, it follows
that what Scripture says about a topic must control all subsequent deliberations
about it by the believing community.

So our aim is to engage with the mind of God in Scripture. But Scripture as it
has come to us has a definite shape to it. It moves from creation, through Fall
and redemption, to new creation. There is beginning and end; there is promise
and fulfillment; there is inauguration and completion; there is complication and
resolution, and movement towards a goal. And again, Jesus is key to this whole
dynamic structure. He is the link between the Old and New Testaments
because in him the Old Covenant is fulfilled and the New inaugurated. And the
end towards which everything moves is the unveiling, the revelation of the full
effects of what God has achieved in Christ (Rev. 1:4-8). The approach of this
paper is that of 'biblical theology' in that it takes this shape of the Bible's
theology as given and works with it. The aim is to see in what contexts
homosexuality first appears in the progressive unfolding of the biblical
revelation, what perspectives are developed on it, how these are nuanced by the
fulfillment that comes in Christ, and by the vision of the new heavens and the
new earth to which the whole biblical revelation finally moves.

This means, among other things, that we will need to be attentive to the Bible's
own internal hermeneutic. Options which may seem equally valid from
reading, say, the Genesis material, will be subject to review and sifting in the
light of what we find in the Psalms or the prophets, and further still by what we
find in the Gospels and the Epistles. The teaching of Jesus, in particular, will
have a privileged status because of his key significance within the total
structure. And we will expect the eschaton, as Jesus and the apostles teach
about it and as the book of Revelation describes it, to provide us with the final
perspective that should inform our present behavior. Because of its recognition
of the key significance of Jesus Christ for the Bible's total message, biblical
theology ideally yields a thoroughly Christian appropriation of Scripture,
including the Old Testament.

It is clear from all this where we must start, namely, with the foundational
material of Genesis 1-3, and in particular with the treatment of human sexuality
in these chapters. This is so for several reasons. First, biblical theology, to be
truly such, must begin where the Bible itself begins. For us this will not be an
 3

absolute beginning because we have already read the rest of the Bible and know
where it is going. We already know the plot, so to speak, at least in outline,
before we start. But our interest here is not in the main plot as such, but in how
a particular issue, homosexuality, is related to the main plot. And we will
surely not have a sufficiently clear idea of this unless we have read from the
beginning with this particular issue in mind. We also have to begin at the
beginning because our chosen method is essentially exegetical. As we have
seen in the previous paper there are a limited number of texts which, most
agree, explicitly refer to homosexuality. But our aim here is not to use these as
proof-texts. Our method demands, instead, that we read up to them and beyond
them, noting how they contribute to the broader flow of the biblical message at
the points where they occur. That again means that we must begin where the
canon begins. And finally, we must begin here because although Genesis 1-3
does not speak of homosexuality as such it lays the groundwork for what will
be said about it later.

In the beginning: human sexuality in God's creative purposes

Genesis begins with two complementary accounts of creation. The first (1:1-
2:3) describes creation in seven successive days. The creation of man (human
beings) in the image of God, is the crowning act of creation, after which comes
the rest of the seventh day. In the second (2:4-25) the focus is on the man
Adam, and his relationship to the earth and to his environment. Particular stress
is placed on his loneliness, and his need of a suitable companion. This account
climaxes with the creation of Eve and the union of Adam and Eve in marriage.

Clearly each account has its own distinctive character. Even the order in which
things happens differs in the two accounts. In the first, vegetation (grass, trees,
and so on) are created before the creation of man. In the second they are
created afterwards. But this apparently was no problem to the author of
Genesis, nor to the those who transmitted it to us as Holy Scripture. They
apparently regarded both these ancient stories as true in their own way, and as
complementing rather than contradicting each other. That's why they are
simply placed side-by-side at the beginning of the Bible. We need both of them
to get the full message about creation that the writer wants to give us.

So let's leave the chronology to one side for a moment and try to understand the
messages the two accounts deliver about God and man, and how they are
related to one another and to the world. In the first account God simply speaks
and the world (including man) comes into existence. He is above and beyond
the world, and his word has absolute power. This account focuses on his
transcendence. In the second account God is like a gardener and like a potter.
He plants a garden, fashions man out of the soil and breathes life into him. God
 4

is still in control here, but he is down to earth, deeply and intimately involved
with his world. This account stresses his immanence. The two accounts
together tell us that God is both transcendent and immanent; he is both above
and beyond his creation, and deeply involved with it. He is both in heaven and
down to earth.

Two accounts deliver a similar message about man and his relationship to the
world. In chapter 1 he is made in the image of God, and appointed ruler of the
world by God. But in chapter 2 he is a frail creature, made from the dust,
intimately connected with the land and the animals. Man is both lord of his
environment and deeply dependent on it. He is related both to God, who is
above him, and the animals, who are below him. He is a creature of great
dignity and frailty.

The point is that we need both the accounts to give us the full picture of both
God and man and their relationship to one another and to the world. At the
level of theme or message, the two stories clearly complement rather than
contradict one another. The fact that we cannot construct an exact chronology
of creation from them is beside the point; it was not the writer's purpose to give
us that kind of information.

And now, if we focus particularly on the way human sexuality is portrayed in

the two accounts we will notice a similar complementarity. In the first account
man (humankind) is made in the image of God and given the mandate to rule
the earth. But this general statement is immediately followed by the more
particular statements of vv.27b-28: 'male and female he created them ... and
said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it'. Human
beings will be able to rule the earth only if, like the other animals, they can
reproduce themselves and establish their presence everywhere. In this account,
then, the purpose of the male/female distinction within the human race is
reproduction.

The situation in the second account is quite different. Here the man, created
first, is given a far more limited task. He is placed in the garden to till it and
keep it (v.15). There is no suggestion that the task was beyond him, or
unpleasant in itself. It is only after the Fall that such work becomes arduous.
The problem is the aloneness of the man, and it is this to which our attention is
pointedly drawn by the 'not good' of v.18 (contrast the divine pronouncements
of chapter 1). The woman is then created precisely to remedy this condition of
aloneness. She will be a helper to the man by sharing his work in the garden,
but far more importantly, by sharing his life, by being a companion who will
remedy his aloneness. The climax is reached, to be sure, in the one flesh union
of the happy pair (v.24), but, if the passage as a whole is taken into account, this
 5

is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The purpose of the man/woman

complementarity here is companionship, the sharing of life and work, the
removal of aloneness, rather than reproduction as such. That is at best
incidental to the main purpose of their relationship.

Taken together the two accounts deliver the message that the divine purpose of
the male-female polarity within the human race is both reproduction and
companionship. And antecedent to both of these is the dignity inherent in being
made in the image of God, a dignity shared by all human beings irrespective of
their sex.

Of course, a host of difficult questions emerge at this point, many of them with
particular relevance for our topic. The first relates to genre. Clearly what we
are dealing with at one level is etiologies, stories a about origins. But are they
more than this? Does the fact that God commanded the first pair to reproduce
mean that all couples are bound to do so? And is 2:24 purely descriptive
('Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife') or is
there an implied command ('.. will leave ...')?

And more fundamentally, what is the relationship between the world of Genesis
1-2 and our world, and between the teaching of these chapters and Christian
obligation today? Genesis 1-2 envisages an ideal world in which every man
has his female companion. But what happens when, for whatever reason, this is
not possible? Are there other remedies for the loneliness of a man which are
not envisaged here but are legitimate in the changed situation brought about by
the Fall? And what about the loneliness of a woman?

None of these questions can be resolved decisively by subjecting these chapters

to more intense scrutiny, although this may help. The fundamental solution to
all of them is to read on. Certainly Genesis 1-2 envisages development beyond
what is actually realized there. The command to 'fill the earth and subdue it'
places the whole progress of civilization with its arts and sciences potentially
under the rubric of divine blessing. And the command to reproduce entails the
development of ever more varied and complex human relationships as human
society expands. The question before us in this paper is whether the emergence
of homosexual relationships may be seen as a natural or necessary development
of the given situation which we have at the beginning.

The Fall: relationships distorted

The fundamental move from the ideal world of Genesis 1-2 to the world as we
now experience it is made with the biblical account of the Fall in Genesis 3.
After the teaching about the original created order comes an analysis, in chapter
 6

3, of what has gone wrong with it. Again the message is delivered in story
form. And what it boils down to is that man has allowed his own desires to rule
his life instead of God. He has used the power to choose, which God gave him,
to rebel against his maker - to make a god of himself. And he has been
encouraged in this course by a being who has already chosen that path before
him, represented in the story by the serpent. The chapter ends by telling how,
as a result of this choice, man began to experience something new in his
relationship with God - judgment. But notice, not only judgment. God thrusts
the human pair out of the garden, but confirms his continued care for them by
clothing them (v.21). Now, however, they will now have to make their way in a
world where struggle, pain and suffering will be a daily reminder of the fact that
all is not well between them and their maker.

Again, there are many questions this story does not answer. If the world
created by God was good, how is an evil creature (the serpent) within it? How
can a serpent talk? Are we meant to take the serpent literally, or is it a symbol
for something? If so, what? And what precisely is signified by the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil? The story answers none of these questions,
intriguing though they are. It really answers only one: What has gone wrong
with the world? And the answer is crystal clear: the human race has rebelled
against God. And it traces that rebellion to its root: pride ('You will be as gods
...'). Everything else is irrelevant to the writer. That is the message he wants to
deliver, and the account he has given delivers it with devastating clarity.

Chapters 4-11 unfold the full impact of that original act of rebellion. Now that
the most fundamental relationship of all has been fractured (man's relationship
with God) all other relationships begin to fall apart as well. Even religion
becomes a source of human rivalry and murderous jealousy. Brother kills
brother, violence and immorality fill the earth, and finally, in the account of the
tower of Babel of chapter 11, a humanistic civilization emerges whose very first
principle is defiance of God.

It now becomes clear that the Fall, too, points beyond itself to much else. The
original act of rebellion was singular and uncomplicated: the host of evils that
follow it are complex and various. But they all grow from the original act as
from a single seed, and they all receive the same basic response from God:
judgment - tempered with mercy. A protective mark is placed on Cain, Noah is
told to build a boat. Only in the last episode, the tower of Babel, is no mercy
evident. Human society is thrown into utter confusion and scattered over the
face of the earth. A terrible silence hangs over the scene. It seems like the end.
The human race has reaped the full reward of its rebellion. God has withdrawn;
judgment has been his final word. But no, a new movement begins in ch.12, as
grace breaks through again in the call of Abraham: 'in you all families of the
 7

earth shall be blessed' (12:3).

It's now quite clear that not everything that follows after the original created
order of Genesis 1-2 can be seen as legitimate or approved developments from
it. The act of rebellion in chapter 3 gives rise to a whole new category of
human activities which come under the general rubric of rebellion against God.
And a consistent pattern of divine response to such acts is beginning to emerge:
judgment, tempered with mercy. Homosexuality has not yet appeared, but there
are now two potential categories into which it could fall.

But before going further we must pause to reflect more closely on the impact of
the Fall on the relationship between the original human pair. In the
pronouncement of judgment following their disobedience their relationship is
described in terms of desire (hq;WvT]) on her part, and rule (lvm) on his. The
terminology itself does not have any necessarily negative connotations. lvm,
for example, has been used in chapter 1 of the beneficent and life-giving rule of
the sun and moon (1:16). But the context here in chapter 3 strongly suggests
that something less positive is on view. The desire and rule language comes in
a judgment speech, immediately preceded by pain and followed by thorns and
thistles. At the very least something less seems to be on view here then the
rapturous oneness of the pair at the end of chapter 2. More ominously still what
is said here anticipates the recurrence of the same terminology in 4:7, where
Yahweh is warning Cain about the consequences of his anger:

If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; its desire (hq;WvT]) is
for you, but you must master it (lvm).

We know the result. Instead of mastering his sinful desire he was mastered by
it, and the result was a total breakdown in his relationship with Abel, leading to
death. It's clear from this that Genesis draws a sharp distinction between pre-
Fall and post-Fall relationships. The former are part of the good, created order
of things. The latter are part of the disordered state of affairs resulting from
human disobedience and divine judgment. Disorder in relationships, including
sexual relationships, results from the refusal of human beings to live according
to the limits and permissions given by God.

The Fall produces disorder in sexual relationships. Neither the desiring of the
woman nor the ruling of the man is wholly good; their companionship is now
marred by conflict. The woman still knows herself to be a woman and the man
knows himself to be a man. They are conscious of their nakedness (3:7). The
man and the woman each retain their sexuality identity as God created it. But
the way they express it is no longer wholly good, as it had been before the Fall.
 8

Sodom: all boundaries crossed

It is not until Genesis 19 (the rescue of Lot from Sodom) that we first encounter
homosexual behavior directly. This must, or course, be understood against the
backdrop of the earlier chapters. But first to the details of the passage itself,
and since they are so similar to those of Judges 19 (the Levite and his concubine
in Gibeah) we will deal with both passages at this point.

In the first, Lot entertains two angels in Sodom. From the way they are greeted
and referred to we must assume that they have the form of adult males. At
night the men of Sodom gather outside Lot's house and noisily demand that he
bring his guests out to them so that they may 'know them'. Lot is shocked at
this affront to his guests. He offers to give them his two virgin daughters
instead, but the offer is refused. The men of Sodom are angered by this attempt
by Lot, a mere sojourner, to 'play the judge' by meddling in their affairs. They
attempt to force their way into the house but are prevented from doing so by
Lot's guests, who strike them with blindness.

In Judges 19 a Levite and his concubine, who are staying overnight in Gibeah,
are entertained by an old man who is himself a temporary resident. When
confronted with the same demand as Lot, this host offers the men outside his
own virgin daughter and his guest's concubine. They refuse the offer, but when
the Levite thrusts his concubine out anyway, they 'know her' and abuse her all
night, leaving her all but dead.

In his influential book published 1955, D. Sherwin Bailey denied that the verb
'know' in the initial demand in these narratives had any sexual connotation. He
found only fifteen examples of 'know' in this sense in the Old Testament,
against more than nine hundred in its primary, non-sexual sense, and argued
that the context in both passages fully justified the normal, common meaning of
the word. The host in both narratives is a foreigner (ger ) who has just
received other foreigners without consulting the local inhabitants. They are
demanding to know who these strangers are, and the host is protesting against
the discourtesy to his guests which such a demand involves. The sin of the men
in the street is boorish hostility to foreigners rather than sexual perversion. In
the incident recorded in Judges they do later engage in perverted sex, but it is
heterosexual rather than homosexual.

In reply, Derek Kidner has rightly pointed out that the statistical argument
carries little weight. If matters such as this could be settled by statistics the
rarer sense of a word would never seem probable. It is the context which must
decide the issue. And the disputed word 'know', certainly is subsequently used
 9

in its sexual sense both stories. In Genesis 19:8 the host has two daughters who
have not 'known' man, and in Judges 19:25 the men in the street 'know' the
Levite's concubine. This does not require that 'know' have the same meaning at
every point; there could be a deliberate play on it. But it certainly calls Bailey's
argument into serious question. The host, in both stories, apparently
understands the demand to be for sexual gratification. But, against Kidner, it is
strange that the homosexuals in the second narrative (if that is what they are)
behave like heterosexuals when given the opportunity to do so. The fact of the
matter is that there are problems with both the proposed readings.

For Kidner, the matter is clinched by the reference to Genesis 19 in Jude 7:

'Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities ... acted immorally and
indulged in unnatural lust'. In terms of the general approach of this paper
appeal to a relevant New Testament passage in these circumstances is quite
legitimate. But the precise meaning of the verse in question is not clear enough
to be decisive. The previous verse, which refers to 'the angels that did not keep
their proper position' is almost certainly an allusion to the passage in Genesis
6:1-4 about illicit relationships between the sons of God and the daughters of
men. That passage, too, is a thorny one. But Codex Alexandrinus has 'angels
of God', and early Jewish and Christian commentators agree that what is on
view is a transgression of the boundary between the divine and human realms,
angels consorting with human beings. It is this traditional interpretation which
is reflected in Jude 6 (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4-6; 1 Pet. 3:19-20). This being so, the
'unnatural lust' of verse 7 (literally 'going after strange flesh') probably refers,
not to homosexuality as such, but to the fact that 'the sin of the men of Sodom
... reached its peak when they sought intercourse with the angels sent to Lot'.
The issue is not homosexuality as such, but a general state of immorality, both
homosexual and heterosexual, which reached such extremes that it threatened to
transgress the boundary between the human and the divine, as in the days
before the Flood. In short, there can be no simple equation drawn between
'unnatural lust' of Jude 7 and homosexuality, and consequently appeal to this
verse does not settle the issue in the way Kidner thinks it does. Homosexuality
per se is not the primary issue in either of the two Old Testament narratives in
question. On the traditional and most probable reading of them, the demand to
'know' the visitors in both cases is a demand for sex. But the general
atmosphere of violence suggests that, if we are to narrow our focus to the
sexual-behavior aspect of each narrative, the perversion involved is rape rather
than homosexuality as such. And if homosexual rape is condemned in the first
passage, heterosexual rape is far more clearly condemned in the second. In
short there is an allusion to homosexuality in these two passages, and it occurs
in a context of judgment on human sin. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was
'very grave' according to 18:20. But exegesis does not indicate that
homosexuality as such is the issue. What is condemned is demanding to 'know'
 10

people, actually 'knowing' them, or handing them over to others to be so

'known', without their consent. It is the sin of using people sexually without
regard for their dignity as human beings.

But now that we have grasped the exegetical nettle it is time for some more
general observations.

First, the sexual sin of the Sodomites is part of a more general state of disorder,
including inhospitality, xenophobia, and violence. 2 Peter 2:7-8 sums it up as
licentiousness and lawlessness (RSV). We have focused on the sexual aspect
only because of the terms of reference of our study.

Second, in its canonical context the sin of Sodom falls against the backdrop of
Genesis 3. It is a further outworking of the disorder in human relationships that
results from human rebellion against God. It has its root in the Fall and in its
most extreme form is an assault on God himself, represented in the story by his
two messengers.

Third, it is not the sin of pagans only, but also of the people of God, as the
parallel in Judges 19 makes very clear. For the place involved there is 'Gibeah
of Benjamin', an Israelite town. The same point is made more subtly in
Genesis. Lot may be better than the Sodomites (2 Pet. 2:8 calls him a 'righteous
man'), but he is not untainted by their sin, especially in the final stages of his
stay there. If we read the account carefully we will see that not only is Lot in
Sodom but Sodom is in Lot. Under pressure, he offers his own virgin daughters
to the men of Sodom, and he himself is eventually sexually abused by those
same daughters (19:8, 30-38). He leaves Sodom, but takes its sin with him.
The fact is (to use New Testament terminology) that the sin of Sodom is in the
church as well as in the world.

Fourth, the sin of Sodom meets with the same response from God here as we
have seen earlier in Genesis: judgment (the overthrow of the city) tempered
with mercy (the rescue of Lot). But the judgment here is so catastrophic that,
along with the Flood, it becomes a paradigm of divine retribution for
generations to come (see Is. 1:9-10; Hg. 2:21-22). And in in the longer
perspective of the Bible's theology it is an anticipation of the final judgment
(Jude 7). God has served notice on the world (both pagans and his own people)
that such behavior will not go unpunished. In Judges 19-20 it is punished by a
civil war in which the whole of Israel suffers, and the Benjaminites in particular
are 'handed over' by Yahweh to be virtually wiped out by the other tribes
(20:28-48).

Finally, if homosexuality as such is not the issue in these passages it does not
 11

follow that they approve of it, still less that Scripture as a whole does. Our
inquiry is far from over yet. What it does mean is that we should not use these
passages as proof-texts against homosexuals and fail to see their relevance to
heterosexuals.

Sexual taboos: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

With Leviticus we move from narrative to material that is directly prescriptive.

We now find ourselves in the world of command and prohibition. The 'statutes'
of the pagan nations (18:3) are set in stark contrast to the 'statutes and
ordinances' of Yahweh (18:4-5), which are collectively his 'charge' to Israel
(18:30). The same terminology is used in chapter 20 (vv. 8,22,23). To fail to
keep Yahweh's charge is to 'defile' both oneself and the land (18:20,28), and to
'profane' Yahweh's name (18:21), by committing 'abomination' (18:22),
'perversion' (18:23) and 'wickedness' (20:14). The penalty is to be put to death
(by stoning or burning), and to be cut off from the community by Yahweh
(20:2-3,5,6,9-16). It is in this context that we find the two prohibitions of 18:22
and 20:13

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed
an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Although it is disputed, there can be little doubt that this is a general

proscription of homosexual intercourse. The only serious objection to this, as
indicated in the previous paper, maintains that the term 'abomination' (hb;[e/T)
is a cultic term, and therefore it is cult prostitution rather than homosexual
intercourse of the common kind that is on view. But while 'abomination' is
commonly used of cultic offences, especially in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, is
also used on non-cultic offences, as frequently in Proverbs. And in Leviticus
itself it is not used at all outside chapters 18 and 20 - the very passages in
question. So there is no established cultic usage in Leviticus to constrain our
reading. The matter must be settled contextually, and on that basis the ordinary,
non-cultic sense is strongly indicated. The single, blanket prohibition against
homosexual intercourse in 18:22 is the counterpart to the whole string of
heterosexual taboos which have preceded it, none of which suggests a cultic
context (not with your mother, not with your sister, not with your grand-
daughter, and so on). The fact that no such specifics are given for homosexual
relationships makes it clear that it is homosexuality as a whole that is being
proscribed. Specification is superfluous. The situation is the same in chapter
20. The only clearly cultic prohibition is against offering children to Molech
(v.21; cf. 20:1-5). But this is probably included here precisely because of the
 12

moral outrage that it involved; the children were almost certainly burnt. The
language of defilement in verses 27-28 too has cultic connotations. The land is
Yahweh's sanctuary; if it is defiled it will no longer be a fit place for him to
dwell with his people. But the previous use of the same language in connection
with adultery in the same passage (v.22) makes it clear that it is moral rather
than cultic defilement that is primarily on view. The defilement of the land here
results from the moral defilement of its inhabitants.

Homosexuality, then is a moral issue in Leviticus, along with incest and

adultery. In this respect chapters 18-20 in general contrast sharply with
chapters 11-15 where the commands and prohibitions relate entirely to matters
of ceremonial purity: clean and unclean foods, the ceremonial purification of
women after childbirth, the cleansing of lepers, and instructions regarding
bodily emissions. Cultic and ceremonial matters come to the fore again in
chapters 21 and following, but in chapters 18-20 the focus lies elsewhere.

The reason given for the prohibitions of chapter 18 is simply that the specified
acts are abhorrent to Yahweh ('abominations' is his word for them). It is
because the former inhabitants of Canaan practised such things that Yahweh
punished them by driving them out (v.24). To explain the prohibition against
homosexuality in terms of a state of paranoia on the part of the author regarding
all things Canaanite is to simply ignore (or still worse dismiss out of hand) the
theology of the text. The biblical writers in fact suggest that Israelites in
general were strongly attracted to Canaanite ways; the divine prohibition cut
across their natural inclinations. The positive motivation for the prohibition is
given in the opening and closing words of the larger unit in which they occur: 'I
am Yahweh your God' (18:2); 'You shall be holy ... for I Yahweh am holy'
(20:26). Israel is in covenant with Yahweh, and must reflect his character in
her relationships. Abstinence from things which are abhorrent to Yahweh is a
necessary expression of her relationship with him.

This already points us to a much larger theological context. But in order to

appreciate it fully we need to pause at this point to note the special contribution
of chapter 20. Here basically the same catalogue of prohibitions occurs as in
chapter 18, but this time with the penalty specified, which in most cases,
including homosexual intercourse, is death (20:1-16,18). Chapter 20 forces us
to grapple with the theology of retribution in Leviticus, and especially the
theology behind the death penalty.

The broad concern of Leviticus is how the covenant relationship between

Yahweh and Israel which has been given formal expression in the Sinai
Covenant (Ex 19-24) is to be maintained, given the frailty and sinfulness of
Israel. The answer is fundamentally by the mercy of God expressed in the
 13

sacrificial system: 'the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I [Yahweh] have
given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls' (17:11). The
general principle is that all sin deserves death. The one who sins against
Yahweh forfeits his life. But Yahweh in his mercy will accept the life of a
sacrificial animal in place of the life of the sinner. So in Yahweh's dealings
with his people the accent falls on mercy rather than judgment. Unwitting sins
are provided for in the sacrificial system (4:2,13). But deliberate sin places the
offender beyond the reach of this provision, and therefore subject to the death
sentence. This is implicit in Leviticus, as the language of 4:2,13 ('sins
unwittingly') makes clear. It is spelled out quite explicitly in Numbers 15:27-
30. Against this background it appears that the offences listed in Leviticus 18
and 20 were deemed to be deliberate by their very nature and therefore required
the death penalty. But as the test case given in 19:21-22 makes clear, care was
taken to protect the innocent in cases involving special circumstances.

But the ultimate ground for the death penalty lies in the Creation/Fall material
of Genesis. Death is first threatened (2:17) and then imposed (3:19) by God as
the ultimate sanction against human rebellion. The general principle is the
same as in Leviticus: those who rebel against God forfeit their lives. The
sentence is universal and put into effect by God himself. But after the Flood,
for the first time, this is brought into the arena of human judicial responsibility:
'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God
made man in his own image' (Gn. 9:6). Murder is a capital offence because it is
a direct assault on the created order established by God, in which man, made in
his image, functions as his representative. In their canonical context the
prohibitions and penalties of Leviticus 18 and 20 move against this background
as their raison d'etre. And so once again we are driven back to the foundational
material of Genesis 1-3. The Sinai Covenant must be seen as a particular
expression of the relationship between God and the world implicit in creation
itself, and incest, adultery and homosexuality as violations of the created order.

And with this we have virtually exhausted the relevant Old Testament material.
Given the acknowledged fertility orientation of Canaanite religious rites, the
'male cult prostitutes' (RSV, Heb. vdEq;') of 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12,22:46, and 2
Kings 23:7 (cf. Dt. 23:17) were probably used by women rather than men, and
in any case, there is nothing in these passages to offset in any way the general
strictures of Leviticus.

The Gospels: the dawn of a new era

The Gospels form the bridge between the Old and New Testaments. Because of
this they are crucial to our topic, even though, paradoxically, they contain no
direct reference to homosexuality. It is in the Gospels that the new, Christian
 14

era is inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What we
have here is fundamental to the way we are to both appropriate what has gone
before and approach what is to come. In particular, what we are to do with the
Leviticus material depends foundationally on what the Gospels have to say
concerning Jesus and his attitude to the Mosaic law.

An obvious starting point is Matthew 5:17: Jesus did not come to abolish the
law and the prophets but to fulfill them. The key word, 'fulfill' (plhrovw), may
mean, among other things, to accomplish, to obey, to bring out the full
meaning, to complete by bringing to a goal. In Matthew it is most commonly
used of bringing to realization something that was promised. This sense is
reinforced here by reference to the prophets. But 'the law and the prophets' is a
regular Jewish expression for the OT as a whole (cf. 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14;
28:23; Ro. 3:21). So the whole of the OT, the law as well as the prophets,
pointed forward to what Jesus now brings into being. To see precisely how he
does this we have to read on.

Jesus fulfills the law in his teaching. He not only upholds the commandments
relating to murder, adultery, divorce, false witness, retribution, and love of
neighbor, but insists that they may be broken as much by wrong attitudes as by
wrong acts (Mt. 5:21-47). The food laws he effectively abrogates, only to
expose the deeper issues of cleanness and defilement of which the ceremonial
prescriptions were but shadows (Mt. 15:15-20; Mk. 7:14-23; cf. Mt. 5:8). He
treats the Sabbath with a freedom that shocks the rigorists of his day (Mt. 12:1-
14), but only after he has invited them to find in him their true rest (11:28-30).
In short, Jesus intensifies the moral dimension of the law. As for its ceremonial
aspects, he exposes the moral and spiritual realities to which they point and
demands response to these as the true form of obedience. And he summarizes
his teaching about the law with an absolute demand ('Be perfect, as your
heavenly Father is perfect, Mt. 5:48) and a concise summary (Love God and
love your neighbor; 'on these two commandments depend all the law and the
prophets', Mt. 22:36-40).

Second, Jesus fulfills the law in his living. He himself embodies the perfection
which mirrors that of the Father. And as for love of neighbor, he regards all
people, regardless of their sinfulness or social standing, as potential candidates
for inclusion in the kingdom of heaven. He is the friend of publicans and
sinners. There are no untouchables for him. In fact his most stringent
criticisms are of the self-righteous and hypocritical who withhold love from
such people. At the same time, however, he calls for repentance. This call is
fundamental to his preaching and is directed to all alike (Mk. 1:15). Even those
he refuses to condemn he urges not to sin again (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14).
 15

Finally, Jesus fulfills the law by his death. As 'the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world' (Jn 1:29) he is the final and perfect sacrifice which
makes further atonement unnecessary. By taking the death penalty himself he
ransoms others (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). By his death he inaugurates the new
covenant (Lk. 22:20; cf. Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24) which makes permanent,
universal forgiveness possible (Lk. 24:47). The only sin which now places the
one who commits its beyond the reach of forgiveness is the refusal to accept
what is offered (Jn. 3:16-36). In Jesus both the mercy and judgment aspects of
the law reach their goal. He is God's full provision and his final offer.

With this framework we may now give our attention to some aspects of Jesus'
teaching which have more particular relevance to our topic.

Given that, in general, Jesus' teaching on sexual matters is more stringent than
that of the Mosaic law, the lack of any explicit mention of homosexuality can
hardly be taken as an implicit endorsement of it. The prohibition against it in
the law belongs to the same category of commandments (moral) that he
repeated and intensified rather than those (the ceremonial) which he abrogated.
It stands in close proximity to the prohibition against adultery in both chapter
18 and chapter 20 of Leviticus (18:20,22; 20:10,13).

Further, in his teaching on divorce Jesus points to Genesis 2 as normative. The

Mosaic law made concessions because of hardness of heart, 'but from the
beginning it was not so' (Mt. 19:8). This confirms that the Mosaic legislation
was intended, in general, to reflect the created order as represented in Genesis 2
and prevent violations of it. Jesus teaching gives fresh expression to this.

There is an intriguing reference in Matthew 19:12 to eunuchs 'who have been so

from birth'. The context is Jesus' quotation of Genesis 2:24: 'For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife' (v.5). The
disciples object that if divorce is to be ruled out in the new order of things
which Jesus is bringing in, then it is better not to marry (v.10). Jesus responds
that, in general, marriage is God's intention for people, but that there are
exceptions: this 'word' concerning marriage cannot be received by all, 'but only
those to whom it is given' (v.12). He then proceeds to list those to whom it is
not given. In general, it is not given to eunuchs, but these are of three kinds:
those who have been eunuchs from birth, those who have been made so by men,
and those (like Jesus himself) who have, so to speak, made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of then kingdom of God. The first two groups are incapable of
marriage; the third group have voluntarily renounced it.

Several things need to be noted here. 'Eunuchs from birth' refers to a condition
for which the person concerned is not responsible. Comparison with 'eunuchs
 16

who have been made so by men' suggests that it is essentially a physical

condition which is on view, though it would inevitably have secondary
psychological aspects. And it would appear to involve an incapacity for sexual
intercourse as such rather than an orientation towards same-sex intercourse. It
is unlikely, therefore, that there is any reference here to homosexuality as a
congenital condition. Finally, although the tone of the passage is clearly
sympathetic to the plight of the eunuch, the only alternatives entertained are
heterosexual marriage or sexual abstinence, by either necessity or choice.

But what hope, then, does Jesus offer to those to whom the satisfactions of
marriage are not given? The first is that, provided they have made themselves
ready by believing the gospel, they will be included in the final marriage
between Christ and his people (Mt. 25:1-3; cf. 9:14-15). And second, that in
the entirely new order of things that will then come into existence, they will
experience a quality of relationships that will utterly transcend what they have
missed out on in this life; for 'those who are accounted worthy to attain that age
and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage ... for
they are equal to the angels and are the sons of God' (Lk. 20:35-36).
Paradoxically, the final marriage will totally obliterate the distinctions that have
previously existed between participants and abstainers, the married and the
unmarried. In terms of biblical theology, we begin with a marriage between a
man and a woman, and we end with the marriage between Christ and his
church. The end is not a return to the beginning, but a movement to something
which transcends it (Rev. 9:6-10).

In the Gospels, then, we catch a glimpse of the end to which the biblical
revelation is moving, but we are not quite there. The epistles have yet to spell
out the full implications of the gospel for Christian living.

The epistles: life in the last days

In Romans 1 Paul is laying the foundations for his generalizations in chapter 3:

'all men ... are under the power of sin', and 'all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God' (vv.9,23). He is establishing the guilt of all only that, having
done so, he may then go on to speak of the justification that is available to all as
a gift 'through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (3:24). More particularly,
from 1:18 onwards, Paul is intent on showing how 'the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men', that is, how God,
even now, displays his anger by judging sinners in observable ways. The
fundamental way is by giving them up to dishonorable passions (v.26). The
past tense of verses 24, 26 and 28 ('gave them up') is best understood in relation
to the individuals concerned ('those who do such things', v.32). Such people
show by the very extent of their depravity that the restraining hand of God has
 17

been removed from them. Paradoxically he has judged them by giving them
over into the grip of the things they themselves have chosen - things which are
destructive by their very nature. Hence they receive 'in their own persons the
due penalty of their deeds' (v.27). It is in this context that reference is made to
homosexuality:

Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ...
(vv.26-27).

Erotic sexual activity is being referred to. The acts are same-sex and
passionate, and for the first time we have female as well as male homosexuality
on view. This much is clear. But certain expression require comment before
we move out again to the wider issues of the passage.

The activities involved are said to be 'unnatural' (paraŸ fuvsin, v.26). These
are contrasted in this verse and the next with opposite gender sexual relations,
which are said to be 'natural' (fusikh). And the whole discussion moves against
the references to creation in verse 20 ('the creation of the world ... the things
that have been made'). So fuvsi", 'nature', in this context clearly denotes the
world as God has made it, the created order. Paul has something more in mind
than custom, the mores of a particular society. He is appealing to what, in
terms of the Bible's own theology, is prior to all culture; the will of God for
human relationships expressed in the way he made us 'from the beginning' (Mt.
19:4). Again we are back at Genesis 1-2.

But what of the verbs 'exchanged' (metallavssw, v.26) and 'gave up' (ajfihmi,
v.27)? Certainly they indicate willfulness, a theme which is strongly reinforced
by the context. Those who do such things 'know God's decree', but deliberately
choose to violate it (v.32). Further, the verb 'exchanged' in verse 26 recalls the
use of the same verb in the previous verse: 'they exchanged the truth about God
for a lie'. And this in turn harks back to v.23: 'they exchanged (ajllavssw) the
glory of the immortal God for images'. So the choices of verse 26 are
manifestations of a more fundamental choice. What the persons concerned
have 'exchanged' or 'given up' is God and his order for human relationships, in
favor of their own alternative pattern of relating. It is homosexual behavior as
such which is condemned, not merely conversion to it by people who were
formerly heterosexuals.

And finally, 'consumed with passion' (v.27). This expression emphasizes the
completeness with which those who engage in the acts described are in the grip
 18

of their own desires , And they are so because they have been 'given up' to
those desires by God. The desires themselves are 'dishonorable' and the acts to
which they give rise are 'shameless'. The verb 'consumed' (ejkkaivomai), with
its connotations of self-immolation, anticipates the explicit reference to self-
inflicted judgment which follows (v.27b). Further, in view of the wider
framework of thought, it is not possible to limit the reference to only one
category of homosexual activity: acts which are lustful and irresponsible rather
then committed and loving. In terms of Paul's own thought the passions and
acts he speaks of are dishonorable, not because they are they are unloving but
because they are unnatural. They represent sexual desire indulged outside the
framework of the created order. Again, it is homosexuality in general which is
condemned here, just as it is idolatry in general which is condemned in verses
20-25.

With these particulars in mind we are now ready to widen our focus again.
How do these references to homosexuality relate to the broader framework of
Paul's thought in the opening chapters of Romans?

It should be noted, first of all, that homosexuality as such is relatively incidental

to the argument of Romans 1 as a whole. The principal sin here, the root from
which all else flows, is idolatry, the refusal to acknowledge God as creator and
to give him the honor which is his due (vv.18-25). The movement is from the
description of idolatry, to a general statement about sexual immorality (v.24), to
homosexuality in particular (vv.26-27), and then to a catalogue of other moral
offences (vv.28-31). So Paul does sees a close connection between idolatry and
sexual license in particular; other kinds of moral evil are a less direct
consequence of it. In this his thought is closely aligned with the Wisdom of
Solomon, especially 14:12: 'The invention of idols is the root of immorality'.
But it would be unnecessarily restrictive to limit his reference to simply to the
immorality practised in the name of religion in the various pagan cults. Like
the author of Wisdom, Paul sees idolatry as a source of moral corruption that
blights the whole of human life. Sexual immorality is mentioned first as the
link between the cultic and non-cultic spheres, not to limit its reference to the
former. The fact remains, however, that homosexuality is one of a long list of
evils here, and there is no suggestion that it is worse than the others.

The more fundamental affinity, however, is with the Law, and specifically with
Leviticus 18 and 20. There, as we have seen, homosexuality, like adultery and
incest, is part of what it means to be 'like the nations'. Here it is part of what it
means to be pagan, an idolater. And in both places, if our analysis has been
correct, the theological basis of what is being said lies in the foundational
creation material of Genesis 1 and 2. Although the rhetorical purpose is
different, the basic stance towards homosexuality is identical. Fundamentally,
 19

the biblical view about the legitimacy or otherwise of homosexual behavior

does not change from the Old Testament to the New.

There is a recognition in verse 26 that homosexual acts arise from an underlying

condition: 'dishonorable passions'. But in the overall logic of the passage this
condition arises from rejection of God. There are larger issues here. There are
already hints, in the reference to creation, that Paul has the long view in mind:
the fall of the entire human race in Adam, not just the rejection of God by
individuals. He will spell this out explicitly in 5:12-14. And if this is so there
must be a sense in which the state of mind which gives rise to the acts is
inherited. There is a sense in which the individual is predisposed to such acts
by birth into a race that has already rejected God. But such predisposition, in
Paul's mind, does not excuse the acts themselves. Each individual must choose
between the lusts of their heart and God's decree which prohibits their
indulgence (v.32). Furthermore, if there are specific 'passions' that give rise to
homosexual acts, there are also 'lusts' that give rise to sexual immorality in
general (v.24), and 'a base mind' which gives rise to murder, slander and the
other evils listed in verses 28-31. In other words, in Paul's thought, a
predisposition towards homosexual behavior does not make it any more
excusable than a predisposition to adultery or murder.

Finally, all of this must be set in the context of Paul's rhetorical purpose. His
aim is not to single out one particular group as worse sinners than others, but to
establish that all alike are guilty. He clearly sees humanity as consisting of two
groups: Jews and Gentiles (2:9-10; 3:9) and he does not underestimate the
differences between them. The Jews have the law and the Gentiles don't. But
his point is that at the most fundamental level they are both the same. He
begins with a generalization ('all ungodliness and wickedness of men', 1:18) and
ends the same way ('all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin
... all have sinned', 3:9,23). In chapter one the focus is on the Gentile world, in
which idolatry is the cardinal sin. But then in chapter two he turns his attention
to the Jewish world, where the cardinal sin is self-righteousness. Paul's
argument in Romans 2 is that the Jews, who have the law, have not in fact kept
it, and are therefore just as guilty as the Gentiles they condemn. Indeed, they
are more so because of the greater privileges they have had (2:24; 3:1). It is his
hard and impenitent heart that condemns the Jew (2:5). His condemnation of
others is a cover for his refusal to face up to his own sinfulness.

Paul, of course, was well qualified to speak on this subject because of his own
impeccable past record in Judaism (Gal. 1:13-14). Like Jesus, he saw sins of
the spirit (especially pride and hypocrisy) as just as damning, or more so, than
sins of the flesh. If he is hard on homosexuals in chapter 1, he is even harder on
those who self-righteously condemn them in chapter two. But his ultimate
 20

purpose is not to induce hopelessness or self-loathing in either. Quite the

contrary. In the longer perspective of Romans his purpose is to establish the
guilt of all only in order to show the relevance of the gospel for all (3:23). His
argument revolves around two principles: God's wrath (his just judgment on
sin) and his righteousness (his activity of putting people right with him). The
latter is put into effect objectively by the saving sacrifice of Christ, and
subjectively by a response of faith. Paul insists that we acknowledge sin as sin,
our own as well as others'. We have all sinned; that is the judgment we must
accept if we are to know the joy of forgiveness. So paradoxically, the
denunciation of homosexual behavior in 1:26-27 is part of a general indictment
which opens out into a message of hope. And the hope perspective which is
developed doctrinally here is sustained in the more directly pastoral material of
the letters which follow Romans in the canon.

Although it has been denied, can be little doubt that Paul refers specifically to
homosexual behavior in his list of vices 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral (povrnai) nor idolaters

nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi;) nor homosexual offenders
(ajrsenokoi'tai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers
nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (NIV)

Of the two relevant terms, malakoiv and ajrsenokoi'tai, the latter is

particularly transparent, reflecting closely the LXX of Leviticus 20:18 (cf.
18:22): 'Whoever lies with a male [meta ajrsenoı koithn] as with a woman,
they have both committed an abomination '. The order, two, is the same as in
Leviticus: first prohibited heterosexual acts (adultery) then homosexual
behavior (Lv. 18:19,22; 20:10,13). The other term, malakoiv (singular
malako‰ı) raises more complex questions. Its literal meaning is 'soft', and in
the LXX and the NT (apart from here) it is used only of things - a soft tongue
(Pr. 25:15), soft words (Pr. 26:22), soft garments (Mt. 11:8; Lk. 7:25). But in
classical authors of the first century BC to the third century AD it is also used
as technical term for boy prostitutes. Philo is particularly harsh on youths who
dress themselves as women for such purposes, and describes such degeneracy
as malakia. It could be, therefore, that Paul has this particular practice in mind
in his use of the term here. But there are a number of considerations against
this. The first is the fact that it is linked here with ajrsenokoi'tai, for which no
such technical usage is attested. The second is the general nature of the other
vices in the list: idolatry, adultery, drunkenness and so on. Each indicates a
broad area of misconduct rather than a specific subcategory. And finally, there
is the connection with Leviticus, with its proscription of homosexuality in
general. Apart from the specific connection via ajrsenokoi'tai, there is the
 21

broader connection via the Judaism in which Paul was raised.

In view of all this it seems best to follow C. K. Barrett in taking malakoiv and
ajrsenokoi'tai as complementary terms, intended to cover the full range of
homosexual behavior. malakoiv, via its classical usage, has connotations of
passivity; receptivity to homosexual advance. ajrsenokoi'tai, via Leviticus, has
more active connotations (‘lie with a man as with a woman’). They are
therefore lend themselves very well to the kind of complementary use which I
am suggesting. If this is so, Paul takes the same basic stance towards
homosexuality here as in Romans 1, and there is a similar association of
homosexuality with idolatry, and with sexual immorality in general (v.15; cf.
Ro. 1:24-27). But the form and direction of his argument is quite different.

In Romans 1-3 Paul was working with the fixed categories of Jew and Gentile.
Here in 1 Corinthians 6 he is operating with the fluid categories of the
unrighteous and the saints (v.1). As the opening verse of the chapter makes
clear, ‘the unrighteous’ is not fundamentally a moral term, but a technical term
for unbelievers (v.6), those who still belong to the old, fallen order of things,
which Paul calls ‘the world’ (v.2). The moral evils of verses 9-10 are
characteristic of the unrighteous, but they are symptoms of their condition
rather than the essence of it. The list is not an exhaustive one, and the items in
it do not amount to a definition. What ultimately defines the unrighteous is
their unbelief, their solidarity with the world rather than the kingdom of God.
In contrast to them are ‘the saints’, those who have been washed, sanctified and
justified in the name of Christ and the in the Spirit of God (vv.1,11). ‘Saints’ is
not fundamentally a moral term either, but a technical term for believers, people
who have been transferred into the new order of things by the gracious work of
God for them and in them rather than by their own moral effort. The good news
is that it’s possible to pass from one category to the other: ‘such were some of
you, but you were washed ...’. The warning is that, in the last analysis, one's
standing in Christ is inseparable from behavior. The Corinthians must take care
not to be deceived (v.9); those who behave like the unrighteous will not
inherent the kingdom of God. Saints must behave like saints, and it is their
behavior, in the long term, that will reveal those who are truly saints and those
who are not. In Romans 1-2 Paul was concerned to show that Jew and Gentile
are fundamentally the same, and how all alike need to be justified by faith in
Christ. Here he is concerned to show that the saints and the unrighteous, those
who have been justified and those who have not, are fundamentally different,
and to challenge the Corinthians to exhibit that difference in their behavior.

With that broad picture in mind, there are several things to be said about the
significance of the reference to homosexuality in this passage.
 22

First, it occurs within a framework of eschatology. Romans 1 moved against

the background of the first things, creation and fall. 1 Corinthians 6 moves
against the backdrop of the last things, the coming kingdom of God, and this
raises the stakes very high. Some will inherit the kingdom of God; others will
not. In this context the issue of homosexual behavior takes on a new urgency.
The choice to persist or not to persist in it has eternal consequences.

Second, it is mentioned in close association with 'washing', 'sanctification' and

'justification', 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God'.
Verse 11 is full of terms which, in one way or another, refer to the process of
renewal which has now entered its final phase through the work of Christ and
the outpouring of the Spirit. Homosexual activity is mentioned in a context
where change is on the agenda. And not not simply moral reform, but change
of a far more radical kind, effected by God himself.

Third, homosexual behavior is mentioned as characteristic of 'the unrighteous'

(v.9), that is, those who are not yet regenerate. It is an aspect of solidarity with
'the world' (v.2), or in terms of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, part of what it
means to be pagan. At once, however, we must remind ourselves that it is only
one of many such characteristics. Greed, drunkenness, and many other things
are equally symptomatic of the same condition (vv.9-10).

Fourth, homosexuals, no less than other sinners, are potential candidates for
regeneration. 'And such were some of you' (v.11) makes it clear that 'the
unrighteous' is not a closed category; exit from it is possible, and the
Corinthians themselves are living proof of this. They have been washed,
sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Finally, regeneration necessarily entails forsaking the kinds of behavior listed in

verses 9 and 10, including homosexual behavior. The whole rhetorical thrust of
the passage is aimed at establishing this point, as we have seen.

One last passage remains to be considered before we draw this study to a close.
We have already concluded that the expression 'unnatural lust' in Jude 7 does
not refer to homosexuality as such but to men consorting with angels. This
leaves us with 1 Timothy 1:8-10 as the last apparent reference to homosexuality
as such in the canon:

the law is not laid down for the just but for ... immoral persons,
sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to
sound doctrine.
 23

'Sodomites' here translates the same term, ajrsenokoivtaiı, that we have just
met in 1 Corinthians 6, and the same strong connection with the Law is evident
both from the word itself and from the context in which it occurs. The
reference to 'genealogies' and 'teachers of the law' in verses 4 and 7 make it all
but certain that 'the law' which Paul has in mind is the Law of Moses. The list
of vices in these verses is a catalogue of acts which were understood in rabbinic
thought to be either directly or indirectly proscribed by the Law. Paul not only
recognizes that the Law prohibits homosexuality, but endorses this Law as
'good' (v.8). In this Paul is in complete agreement with the 'teachers of the law'
he has just mentioned.

He does have a serious disagreement with them, however, and this brings us to
the heart of what this passage is about. The men Paul is in dispute with do not
use the law 'lawfully', that is, in accordance with its true nature and purpose
(v.8). This is then explained in verse 9: the law is not laid down for 'the just',
but for 'the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy
and profane'. And it is the term 'sinner' which is picked up in what follows:
'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of
sinners, but I obtained mercy ...'. 'Sinner' is what Paul was; 'just' is what he has
become. We must conclude therefore, that in Paul's thought here, the 'just'
person is not so much a morally upright, respectable person as a pardoned
sinner. This pardon is made available through the work of Christ (v.15) and is
received by faith in him (v.16). The message that announces this is 'the
glorious gospel of the blessed God' with which Paul has been entrusted (v.11).
In Paul's thought, the law is not in conflict with this gospel. Indeed, the types
of behavior which the law categorizes as wrong are contrary to the 'sound
doctrine' to which Paul himself is committed, doctrine which is 'in accordance
with' the gospel, not contrary to it. How then do Paul's opponents misuse the
law? They do so by directing believers to it as the resource (indeed the only
resource) they need for a godly life. In so doing they deflect attention from the
gospel of grace with its transforming power. For Paul the law is the handmaid
of the gospel. For his opponents the law is everything.

Paul agrees with his opponents, then, that homosexuality is wrong. The law of
Moses stands as an uncompromising witness to this fact. But this is something
that Paul affirms almost in passing. The main thrust of what he is saying lies
elsewhere. 1 Timothy begins and ends with grace (1:2; 6:21). The aim of
Paul's charge is 'love' (1:5), and there is a strong note of 'hope' that runs through
the whole letter: 'Christ Jesus our hope' (1:1), 'our hope is set on the living God
(4:10), 'eternal life' (1:16; 6:12), 'the life to come' (4:8), 'the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ (6:14-16), and 'the future ... life that is life indeed' (6:19). It
is worth pausing to mark carefully this strong note of eschatological hope, since
it is so often overlooked in discussion of the Pastoral Epistles. The gospel is a
 24

message of hope for sinners, and Paul knew that if it had so transformed his
own life, there was no sinner beyond its reach. The bedrock on which it rests is
the faithful saying if 1:15, 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners', and
the goal towards which it points is 'the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ' when
hope will be consummated in the 'the life to come' (6:14; 4:8).

It is on this note of hope that the Bible makes its last reference to
homosexuality.

The book of Revelation: the final triumph of God's purposes

At the end of the Bible, as its beginning, there is no explicit reference to

homosexuality. There is a strong affirmation, however, of God's sovereignty as
creator. The last three chapters of Revelation are replete with many references
to the opening three chapters of Genesis: the final destruction of 'that ancient
serpent, who is the Devil and Satan', the tree of life, the river of life, the
abolition of death and the lifting of the curse. The message is plain, God's
original purposes in creation will be achieved. The created order will not only
be maintained, but perfected, and every challenge to it finally be put down. The
key to this outcome is Jesus Christ, who is both redeemer and judge. The
dominant note is one of celebration, but it is judgment as well as salvation that
is celebrated, for both alike express the truth that God reigns. The question for
his creatures is whether or not they will acknowledge this fact. The chilling list
of 'outsiders' in 21:8 and 22:15 is a sad reminder that some will defy God to the
end and reap the terrible, and eternal consequences of their choice. But even
here the Bible maintains its balance. Settled opposition to God can be
evidenced as much by faithlessness and lying as by sexual misconduct, and
even this is referred to only by general term pornoı ('sexually immoral person').
The final warnings of Scripture apply as much to heterosexual sinners as to
homosexual ones.

Final reflections on Genesis 1-3

The consistent position of Scripture is that homosexual acts are morally wrong
because they are contrary to the revealed will of God. His will is revealed
explicitly in the Law of Moses, and the sexual ethics enshrined there are
unequivocally endorsed by Jesus and the apostles. But whenever this explicit
command of God is referred to, there is nearly always an underlying allusion to
creation. That is, the Law simply makes explicit what is implicit in creation
itself. What the biblical writers do not do, however, is unpack this basic
theological datum. They do not reflect on how the biblical accounts of creation
embody the will of God for human sexuality. It may be legitimate and even
necessary for us to do this, but we must recognize that we are engaging in a
 25

form of argument which is our own, and not that of the Bible itself, and
therefore any conclusions we come to must be tentative. With this caveat in
mind I offer the following theological reflections.

What is it to be human?

The fundamental relationship in Genesis 1 is the relationship between God and

man (humankind), not the relationship between man and woman. To be human
is to be made in the image of God, and in terms of the data which Genesis 1
provides, this means to be a creature addressed by God and therefore
responsible to God. The male-female polarity is introduced to enable
humankind to fulfill the mandate to fill the earth and subdue it, but it is not the
essence of what it is to be human. That's why our identity as human beings can
never be found in our sexuality, and why sex can never be redemptive. Our
identity lies in our relationship with God, and redemption consists of restoring
that relationship. It also explains the strangely 'sexless' view of heaven which
we find in the New Testament. The end of redemption is not sexual fulfillment
but something that transcends it.

What is it to be man and woman?

The division of humanity into man and woman has important consequences for
our self-awareness and potential for development as human beings. Given that
we derive our identity as human beings ultimately from God, nevertheless a
man knows himself to be man only in relation to woman, and a woman knows
herself to be woman only in relation to man. Man cannot fully develop his
proper identity and potential as man unless he recognizes his complementary
dependence on woman, and woman cannot develop her proper identity and
potential as woman unless she recognizes her complementary dependence on
man. Man cannot be fully man by relating only to men, and woman cannot be
fully woman by relating only to women. Complementarity and mutual need
must be fully accepted if we are to be men and women as God intended us to
be. The 'one flesh' union between a man and woman in marriage is the most
intimate and perfect expression of our 'man-ness' and 'woman-ness' that is
possible. To make any other form of sexual expression ultimate is to deny our
true identity as men and women.

Can the procreative and unitive functions of human sexuality be separated?

Much depends on this. If the two functions can be separated, or if sex itself can
be separated from either or both of them, then all kinds of activities become
legitimate. Reflection must surely begin with the fact that we have two
complementary creation accounts in Genesis and that human sexuality is only
 26

part of the total picture that they present. They deliver their message about
human sexuality in exactly the same way that they deliver their message about
God (transcendent and immanent) and man (made in the image of God, made
from the dust of the ground). The complementary ideas that they present are
separable conceptually, but not practically. They are two aspects of the one
indivisible entity. The same is true of ours sexuality. Its procreative and
unitive functions can be separated conceptually, but they cannot be divorced in
practice without doing violence to the God-given character of human sexuality
itself.

It should be remembered, however, that Genesis 1-2 is much more about

relationships than sex as such. The main requirement is that sex take place
within a relationship in which both the procreative and unitive aspects of human
sexuality are accepted as God-given and the responsibilities that they bring are
accepted. Homosexual behavior divorces sex from procreation; casual sex of
whatever kind divorces it from its unitive function.

Which is primary: the procreative or unitive function?

This is a difficult issue to resolve, mainly because the primary biblical data is
ambiguous. One could argue that procreation is primary because this is what is
highlighted in the first account of creation. Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets the basic
framework for the discussion of human sexuality; the unitive aspect of sex, a
second order issue, is then explored in 2:4-25. On the other hand, one could
argue that the account of the 'one flesh' union of the man and the woman is the
climax of the total presentation of God's creative activity which spans Genesis 1
and 2 as a whole, and therefore the unitive aspect of sex is primary.

Dogmatism is entirely out of order here, but there are several considerations
which make the second option the more likely one in my judgment. The
marriage of 2:18-25 is the highpoint of human wellbeing as willed and brought
about by God, from the which the fall of chapter 3 then takes place. Further,
the procreative aspect of sex is something that human beings have in common
with the animals. This is self-evident of course, but particular attention is
drawn to it in Genesis 1 by the double occurrence of 'Be fruitful and multiply' in
verses 22 and 28 (with reference to animals and human beings respectively). In
contrast to this, the one flesh union of man and woman in Genesis 2 is
presented as something conferred by God on the human pair alone, and
something which sets them apart from the animals. And finally, it is the unitive
aspect of human sexuality which receives special emphasis in the teaching of
Jesus. Note, for example, Matthew 19:4-5, where 'he ... made them male and
female' (Gn 1:27) is followed immediately by 'For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother' (Gn 2:25). That is, the primary purpose of the male-
 27

female distinction is the one flesh relationship of marriage. Procreation is

normally possible only in the first half of such a relationship, but the
relationship itself is intended to be life-long, and the unitive function of the
relationship, rightly understood, is not in the least diminished by the loss of
procreative capacity.

We may reasonably conclude, then, that the unitive function is primary. It does
not follow from this, however, that homosexual marriage is a legitimate option,
because the 'one flesh' unity of Genesis 2 is predicated upon the male-female
difference between the partners, and even in the post-Fall situation, no other
kind of marriage is ever countenanced by Scripture.

Is homosexuality natural?

In biblical terms, the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' has to be

understood in terms of the effects of the Fall on the created order. The Fall
does not render everything unnatural. Much that happens after it, including the
proliferation of the human race and the emergence of arts and crafts, is entirely
in keeping with what was anticipated in creation itself. Such things are
'natural'. But the Fall introduces another category of things which stem from
human rebellion against God and are contrary to his will for human life as
expressed in the created order. These are 'unnatural'. The Law of Moses
specifies many of them and indicates clearly that they are to be rejected as
unacceptable patterns of behavior. The contexts in which homosexuality
appears in the Scriptures places it firmly in this category. It is an expression of
our fallenness rather than our createdness. This rules out in principle any talk
of a homosexual condition as 'the way God made me'. It may be part of the way
I am, even part of the way I was born, but it is not how God intends me to be. It
is something to resisted with God's help.

Isn't love the ultimate moral criterion?

In Genesis 1 God's word orders the physical realm. He speaks and gives the
world its shape, separating waters from waters, sea from land and light from
darkness. In chapter 2 he speaks again and orders the moral realm. He tells
Adam what he may and may not do. He separates right from wrong. It's within
this context of God's authoritative and powerful speaking that human sexuality
comes into existence and finds its proper character and role. It's goodness (and
the text is very insistent that is is good) arises from the blessing and command
of God which brings it into existence and orders it according to his will. It is
not love which is ultimate, but the word of God. And this same principle is
maintained throughout the Bible. Love is never divorced from obedience.
 28

In emphasizing love for God and neighbor as the two great

commandments, Jesus and his apostles did not discard all other
commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said 'if you love me you will
keep my commandments', and Paul wrote, 'Love is the fulfilling (not
abrogating) of the law'. Love needs law to guide it. ... Love is concerned
with the highest welfare of the beloved. And our highest human welfare
is found in obedience to God's law and purpose, not in revolt against
them.

Creation, Redemption, and community

The creation accounts point strongly to the fact that God wills us to live in
community rather than isolation. The procreative aspect of sex leads naturally
to all the complex human relationships which comprise human community and
belongingness: parents and children, brothers and sisters, friends and comrades.
The man who is 'alone' is in a condition that is 'not good' (Gn 2:18), and one of
great need. This need is recognized by God and met by the provision of a wife,
and ultimately of family, clan, people and nation. Human beings cannot realize
the good that God intends for them alone. Wholeness is possible only in
community, of which marriage is the basic institution.

We, of course live in a world that is sadly changed from that of Genesis 1-2.
For many people marriage is not possible, and a strong homosexual tendency,
whatever its cause, is undoubtedly a significant factor in some cases. The love
which God commands us to have for him and our neighbor demands that we
recognize the needs of such people and actively seek their good. And this can
finally be achieved only by being loved and incorporated into Christ and his
people. Where homosexual behavior is involved, repentance will be required,
as it is for all sinners, but love precedes repentance rather than being a condition
for it: 'God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us'. The final outcome of the redemptive process which God puts into effect
after the Fall is a community of loving obedience in which all may find
acceptance by grace. The truth is that we are all sinners, and our true identity is
not 'homosexuals' or 'heterosexuals', but human beings, made in the image of
God, fallen, but still loved by God, and (if we will have it so) his sons and
daughters through Christ..