Probably the most bizarre title so far – and two pictures, but all will become clear eventually! This is the fourth blog in the series where I am revisiting the themes I addressed in my original essay, but in a shortened format. Last time we looked at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah – a story of attempted gang-rape, and this time, I want to hopefully cover the only other Old Testament verses that are frequently used to condemn the LGB part of the acronym LGBTQ+.
The full list of passages commonly used to condemn those who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community are: Genesis 1 & 2 (Creation – which I dealt with in the October Blog); Genesis 19 (Sodom/Gomorrah – dealt with in my November Blog); Leviticus 18:19-22 & 20:1-18 (todays passage); Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Jude 1: 7.
Dealing with contradictory Biblical teachings
This time we are dealing with the two passages from Leviticus. I find these verses troubling when I compare them with teachings of Jesus, so again, I want to remind you that when we read Scripture and we seem to be faced with this problem, we must look much more deeply into the background of the texts, and what recognised Bible scholars and commentators have said about each situation. To use a contemporary illustration, when the American Supreme Court looks at a constitutional issue, they (theoretically – and that word might sometimes be doing some heavy lifting!) ask themselves what the original “Founding Fathers” meant when they wrote … ‑ whatever the issue is, under discussion. This also is what we must do with scripture.
I want to give an illustration, but I don’t want to get too sidetracked, because what I need to concentrate on is how we apply theology within the area of sexuality. So, I need you to do the hard work yourself! I want to draw your attention to two examples of the same story, where two different root causes are given. One passage is found in 2 Samuel 24 and the other in 1 Chronicles 21 and both tell the story about how King David counted his army.
In the Samuel passage it says: 1 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
However, in the Chronicles passage, the text reads: 1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”
Who’s to blame – God or Satan?
So, who incited David? Was it God or Satan? If you are curious, maybe do some digging and see what you can find, but also be wary of online forums, where very few correspondents have any professional expertise but just voice their own feelings, opinions, and prejudices. Look for online Bible commentaries; perhaps read three or four and get a flavour for how they regard the issue. Here’s a starter!
There’s a second interesting discrepancy at the end of each story where David buys the threshing floor and oxen from Araunah. In Samuel he paid fifty shekels of silver but Chronicles records it as six hundred shekels of gold. For those who insist on taking the Bible at face value, this is an issue. Maybe the cost of one was purely the building and oxen, and the other was for the whole of Araunah’s estate. But the text doesn’t really support that. So, while you are digging, see what the commentaries say about that one as well. Again, I’ll give you a starter. You’ll see there is a fair degree of uncertainty. Some writers attribute the problem to a translation or copyist error, others to different perspectives or traditions and still others think there is some sort of symbolic numbers where the numbers may be symbolic rather than literal. For example, fifty shekels of silver may symbolize humility and dependence on God, while six hundred shekels of gold may symbolize the magnificence and glory of the offering.
Why take that detour? It’s because I wanted to illustrate the different ways people handle Scripture. The non‑affirming part of the faith community will dig into general issues like the passages above and find explanations that in some way resolve the contradiction, but when faced with questions around sexuality they tend to say: “The Bible is absolutely clear. It says: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”” (This is part of one of the verses we are looking at today.) The prejudice they hold, stops them from digging into it any further than they are comfortable, but I would argue that even texts that seem clear, need just as much checking as the more difficult texts.
Inherent prejudice
In a sense that non‑affirming part of the faith community put the cart before the horse. They start with a dislike of male‑to‑male sex, so their built-in prejudice means that when they come across a scripture that seems to justify and reinforce their thinking, they cling to it like a lifebelt. Then, logically by necessity, they must adhere to the notion that people choose their orientation. If people who identified as gay were recognised as being naturally gay (having no choice), and thus part of God’s rich creation plan, God would then be unjust to condemn them for something they cannot do anything about – and the Bible makes clear that God cannot be unjust, and that reinforces the notion they must have chosen their orientation – a feedback loop. As we’ve said before, a thief can stop stealing, and an adulterer can repent of their adultery, but someone who identifies as LGBTQ+ cannot be any different – their situation is permanently fixed. It’s like expecting a fish to become a badger – that change just can’t happen (outside of the fantasy literature of “shapeshifters”)! Where did that example come from – no idea! (Yes, titles and pictures come once the piece is written!) As a Christian you might pray that God changes a fish to a badger, and God certainly has the power, but why would he? It just doesn’t happen. You are praying for the wrong thing and wasting your time – and giving God a bad name!
If we look at the character of God and think that his behaviour contradicts what He claims, we have a real problem. To me it seems that if God creates someone and then tells me He has made it impossible for them to change, it calls into question for me the following aspects of His character – God’s: Compassion, Deliverance, Encouragement, Faithfulness, Forgiveness, Gentleness, Goodness, Grace, Justice, Love, Loyalty, Mercy, Patience, Rationality, Respect, Righteousness… oh, you can debate some or add others, but I’m making a point. You would also need to ask why God created that person in the first place – it is devastatingly cruel to make someone, solely to throw them in the bin, knowing they can’t do anything about it. If God seems to condemn people for whom it is impossible to change, you MUST go back and question your application and understanding of theology – even if it is just one element of God’s character that is called into question – and I’ve just listed 16!
Instead, we have an imperative to say that if God has allowed homosexuality to be part of the natural outworking of Creation, the verse quoted earlier, must have a different meaning, and must be referring to something totally different. Alternatively, you are forced to rationalise it differently: maybe that some passages lack a divine spark (that the writer was expressing his own human ideas rather than God’s) – but I’m not willing to remove God from the narrative. Before we dig more deeply into the Leviticus passages, I want to explore one more issue, this time raised by Jesus about how we respond to each other.
The greatest commandment
Once upon a time a man came to Jesus and asked:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:36-40
I mention this because as I was beginning to write the opening paragraphs yesterday, I read an article where these verses were alluded to, and then, less than an hour later, when I went for a walk, a podcast I was listening to, directly quoted these verses. Jesus didn’t quote from the Ten Commandments, but picked two verses, from two different books, and joined them together. They come from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18. It seems clear that it is an anathema to God when we shout at, disparage, mentally abuse (etc.) those we do not like, or disagree with. God wants us to have a godly sense of our own worth, but also to value others in exactly the same way. If we personally apply this teaching of Jesus, it can be used as a hermeneutic tool to help us make sense of some of the more difficult Old Testament passages. So today we ask the question, what harm is the verse we are focussed on, minimising, and what good was the verse trying to promote?
Sadly, this application of “loving our neighbour as ourselves” doesn’t happen very often, but this is God’s call on all of us, whichever side of the debate we are on. In the last of the Doctor Who 60th Anniversary episodes, shown on 9 December 2023 , the story (“The Giggle”) depicts societal breakdown where everyone spontaneously believes they’re 100% right about everything ‑ and others are wrong, to the point of violence. No Daleks, no Cybermen, no Master to blame – just everyone now believing they were right and everyone else was wrong. It was a thinly veiled supposal of what could happen if our current popularist societies continue unchallenged.
These verses (loving the Lord your God completely, and your neighbour as yourself) should also be the glasses through which we read and understand everything from the Bible.
In my original essay I quoted the following paragraphs which I think are also worth inserting here:
One never arrives at truth by asking of the Bible, “What does this passage mean?” The reason is that’s the wrong starting point. You’re really asking, what does it mean to us today, individually?” And that’s why we end up with thousands of different answers. Exegesis always asks, “What DID this passage mean?” There’s a vast difference in those questions as a starting point. Unless we have some idea of what the text meant THEN, we’re left to only guess at what it might mean for us NOW.
Exegesis requires that if we wish to interpret the Bible responsibly, we must seek to draw out FROM the text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, without reading INTO it the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it. The reader today must somehow try to enter the world of the biblical writer and seek to understand what the writer was saying. In contrast to this, what far too many do instead is what some theologians refer to as “frontloading”, that is to say, they read their own personal, political and prejudicial beliefs back into the Bible, instead of reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. This process of reading one’s own ideas into interpretation of the Bible is called “eisegesis”. Exegesis and eisegesis are conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. Exegesis is about reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. Eisegesis is about reading one’s own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible. But exegesis does not allow us to tear a passage from its context to replace it in another age for convenience.
Alex Haiken (Master’s degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. Lecturer, teacher, blogger and conference speaker)
The Holiness Code
Please read the whole of that blog when you get a moment, and also read the responses below it. With that in mind let’s now turn to the two passages we are focussing on. That link displays the whole of both chapters for context, but we are primarily interested in:
Leviticus 18: 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” and
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.”
Just as a quick note Leviticus 17 to 26 are regarded as part of the holiness code. The holiness code covers various aspects of life, including moral conduct, interpersonal relationships, dietary laws, ritual purity, and religious observances as they prepared to enter the Promised Land. It includes instructions on how to treat one’s neighbours, laws regarding sexual conduct, guidelines for ethical business practices, and regulations for rituals and sacrifices. Overall, the holiness code provided a comprehensive framework for the Israelites to live a life that was pleasing to God and in harmony with His laws. It served as a moral and religious guide for the ancient Israelite community, shaping their beliefs, practices, and social interactions.
This was NOT part of the religious or moral laws, though some punishments were similar. The holiness code primarily focuses on the specific religious and ritual practices of the ancient Israelites, while the religious or moral code encompasses broader ethical and religious teachings applicable to a wider audience – indeed one that in some ways still applies today. Hence, the holiness code does not apply today, and certainly not with Christians who are living under the grace of Christ. Don’t forget the illustration I have used before where the disciples were accused by the Pharisees of “working” on the Sabbath, by grinding corn in their hands to eat. The pharisees didn’t regard grinding corn as wrong, it was just deemed wrong in that context (on the Sabbath), but Jesus told the Pharisees not to be so silly in how they interpreted the Law.
What did Leviticus 18: 22 mean to the author and his target audience?
So, the first question is what did it mean to the original author and his target audience?
Alex Haiken, in the rest of that earlier piece, from which the above is an extract, goes on to explain that the context for chapter 18 is that the Israelites were moving into territory that belonged to the Canaanites. As part of their fertility worship, they would have sex with the temple prostitute (whether male or female) to encourage the god to be equally enthusiastic to make their fields fertile and productive. Baal was the God of water and dew that nourished the crops. Moses was saying that this was not an option for them, because they must be different to the people that surrounded them.
At that period of history, it was common for conquering peoples to adopt the god’s of the area they invaded, and there is some evidence to think that some of the “Children of Israel” were concerned that Jehovah might be the God of the valleys and plains, but not necessarily, the God of the mountains where they were heading, so they needed to appease Baal who was already the god there. They didn’t understand Yahweh was a God of everything and had promised to help them conquer the Promised Land, so was therefore much stronger than the god of the area.
The first twenty verses of Leviticus 18 are dealing with prohibited relationships within the family and the local community. Verse 21 then turns to how the worship of Molek (also thought to be the same deity as the one we know as Baal) was utterly abhorrent because he required child sacrifices. So, since the practices described in verses 22 and 23 were also associated with the worship of Molek/Baal, it seems entirely reasonable to think that Leviticus 18: 22 is addressing cultic practices, rather than being a prohibition of universal same-sex relationships. If you aren’t convinced, ask yourself what good is served by having a universal prohibition against same-sex relationships, when the people concerned, can’t change?
What harm is the verse minimising, and what good was the verse trying to promote.
So, let’s look deeper at that, why do I see the Leviticus passages as contradicting other passages? This is similar to that earlier question: What harm is the verse seeking to minimise, and what good is it promoting? There are two angles here: if the verse is about cultic fertility rites, then the writer is trying to stop people from participating in these pagan rites and religious practices that were contrary to the moral and religious laws of the Israelite community, presumably hoping they would turn back to the true God.
However, if it’s truly about God saying any and all homosexual relationships are wrong, this is incredibly damaging for people who have no hope of being different, because you take away any hope, joy, love, contentment, etc. and put nothing in its place. You can’t say “well you can be heterosexual”, because, as we’ve said times without number, if you have no attraction, it’s a dead-end with no hope of being able to give and receive love. Imagine: If you are straight, how easy would it be for you to live convincingly as a gay person? Now reverse that for the gay person. I must therefore discount this understanding of the verse.
Leviticus 20
Then, what is the point of very similar verses being repeated in chapter 20? In its review of chapter 20, the Oxford Bible Commentary (John Barten and John Muddleman – Oxford University Press) writes:
“The section finally ends in a prohibition against necromancy. This probably forms an inclusio with 20: 1-6 (i.e. the chapter begins and ends with the same subject), suggesting that chapter 20 was composed as an independent unit. This implies that the repetition between chs. 18 and 20 is probably due to their being originally separate collections. If so, the final editor included both, despite the parallel material, rather than choosing between them or attempting the difficult task of editing them together. Gerstenberger (1993: to 262-6), however, argues that one of the chapters must be dependent on the other. Most likely the editor of ch. 20 was dependent on ch. 18. The intention of this revision is to give new perspectives relating to the community.”
One clear difference is that in chapter 20, punishments are listed against the “crimes”, though some seem to be more like curses, and, in these scientific days, we might raise our eyebrows quizzically. One example: 21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonoured his brother. They will be childless.” Hmmm. Scientifically, how does that work?
Rationalisation or Grace
The problem as I see it is that those who insist on taking the Bible literally must also explain how they rationalise the punishment of supposed homosexuals in 20:13: “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Only the wackiest, off‑the‑wall preachers demand the death penalty today, so, do other Christians think the Bible is wrong here? How do they rationalise choosing to set aside the death penalty, whilst keeping the offence as a “live” issue?
Personally, as I said earlier, as we are now under the Grace of God, and we are not living during the “wilderness wandering” period, these laws no longer apply.
“The New Testament teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled the law, which is why its many rules and regulations have never applied to Christians. Romans 10:4 says, “Christ is the end of the law.” Colossians 2:13-14 says that God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” –Hebrews 8:13”
An extract from The Reformation Project – https://reformationproject.org/case/levitical-prohibitions/ Please take the time to read all the resources on that site.
I do not believe the author is addressing what we regard as homosexuality, but the expression of idolatry. Even if he is, because of the harm these verses do, and that they conflict with so much of the spirit of the Beatitudes, Jesus would set them aside, and dismiss them, just as those passages confirm.
I must also come back to that earlier question I raised: How can God create people knowing that under His own rules, salvation would be impossible? It contradicts God’s core character and nature.
Finally, in both chapters, where’s the condemnation of lesbians? It isn’t there, is it? I have heard many people argue that when God condemns male homosexuals, we can infer that lesbians would also be included. But that is wholly wrong – you are not allowed to add something to the Bible that isn’t there. And you can’t appeal to Romans 1 (which we’ll take next time) as the context and teaching in that passage is very different. It can be argued that women living in the patriarchal society didn’t matter – they were simply regarded as property. However, that line doesn’t really work, because when you read the two Levitical passages, although the primary focus is on the man, there are references to “no-one” and “anyone” which are words that are inclusive of both men and women. In addition, 18:23 makes a distinction when talking about prohibiting sex with animals. For men it is “defiling”, but for a woman it is a “perversion”.
If lesbianism isn’t included, that again should throw up a question about whether we have correctly understood the author’s intended message. How can it be okay for one, but not the other?
So, in conclusion I do not see how theses verses have any relevance today when we ditch so many other verses from Leviticus as being irrelevant.
Next month I plan to cover Romans 1 (primarily verses 26-27, but we need the whole chapter for context) so it would be worth reading ahead by following that link. Hopefully, we get through more than that but don’t hold your breath!
In the meantime, let me wish you a Happy New Year.
If you have further questions, please contact me, or check some of the resources I have listed on my General and Trans specific resource pages. Also go back and read in full the Reformation Project and Alex Haiken pages.
As a final commendation, view the Kathy Baldock video “Untangling the Mess” on YouTube where she unrolls an 18-foot timeline and helps us make sense of political, religious, and social milestones from the Old Testament through 2016 (And if you aren’t sure whether you have the time, read the comments people have written below the video!)
Changing Minds 