A Culture in Chaos: A Bibical Response to Gender & Sexuality-Session 6

Before we actually jump into the biblical passages we are going to examine tonight. I want to say a word about how we have conversations around topics like these. Becsue of teh type of ministry I am involved in. I spend a lot of my time thinking about the “how” of our conversations and use of our communication. Most of the time we spend more time talking about the “what” than the why or how of our language. But I think it is good that we ask a very important question. Up to this point we have been talking a lot about the claims being made by the LGBTQ community and those aligning themselves with the homosexual lifestyle. But I want to ask you a question. When someone makes a claim. Who bears the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone in the conversation has to give reasons or evidence for a view. Now there’s a rule here that is applied to the burden of proof. And the rule is, the one who makes the claim bears the burden. If somebody says, “the Bible has been changed,” or “God doesn’t exist,” or “Jesus didn’t exist,” or “there are no miracles,” , or the Bible doesn not see homosexuality as sinful. It’s not your job as a follower of Christ to jump in and show where the other person is wrong. It is rather that person’s job first to show why he or she is right. After we ask some questions to get more clarification, “What do you mean by that?” now we have a clear picture of what they believe.

Form that point then we want to know why they believe it. This is where some form of the question, “How did you come to that conclusion?” comes in. What are your reasons for saying that? How do you know that’s the way it really happened? Do you have any evidence for that view?

They have to do the explaining.

And truly this could be applied to any conversation really about any topic. Even in Christian circles. If you make any type of claim. About any subject or person. You are the one who bears the burden of proof. So a word of advise. Any claim you make. You need to have reasonable grounds for doing so! And good evidence to back up your claim.

So with that let’s look at some Scripture!!

Sodom and Gomorrah: A Traditional Reading

Introduction

When the topic of homosexuality comes up, one of the first passages that people typically turn to or raise is in Gen 19:1–11, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, let’s look there, not because this is necessarily the key argument that this issue rests upon, but as we work through the Scriptures this is a passage that comes up.

Genesis 19:1–11 ESV

1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

Key Points

Now let’s draw just some key points that maybe stand out from this passage.

Group of Men

Number one, it was a group of men only. It’s described multiple times, “young and old.” Genesis 19:4–5 makes this clear.

The Men Were Wicked

Second, the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked. Genesis 13:13 tells us that they were already wicked before this incident.

Their Wickedness Warranted the Death Penalty

Third, the wickedness must be sufficiently egregious to warrant the death penalty, because God wipes out Sodom and Gomorrah. So whatever sin they did must have warranted the death penalty.

Yada' Refers to the Sexual Act

Fourth, male-to male behavior is involved. Now, the key question is what the term “know” (yada') means.

A derivative of this occurs at least 1,058 times and only has sexual connotations 15 times. So if we determined our exegesis by numbers, it would probably be against “know” referring to something sexual. Revisionists argue that “know” in this sense in Gen 19:5 means “to get acquainted with.” This is what Bailey classically argued in his book Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition.

But I’m not sure that this works for few reasons. Number one, Lot offers his daughters, who “have not known any man.” This would be an absurd request if they simply wanted a handshake and moments of chitchat. Lot also tells the men not to act so wickedly, which makes no sense if they just wanted to meet them. But there is biblical precedent for “know” referring to sexual intimacy—Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she gave birth, which is also in the book of Genesis. We see this in Gen 4.

Sodom Judged before Angels’ Arrival

The fifth point about this passage is that the judgment against Sodom could not have resulted from the gang rape, since God had judged this city prior to sending the angels there and almost getting raped. This is clear when we look at Gen 18:20. So there had already been a judgment against them being wicked. Now, maybe the attempted gang rape pushed it over the top, but the judgment against them had already been committed. That’s why we see Abraham trying to defend the people of Sodom in chapter 18, where they whittle down the number of righteous people.

Homosexual act a Capital Offense

Now, it is true that the sins of Sodom included haughtiness, inhospitality etc., but none of these are capital crimes under the Mosaic law. Other passages that talk about Sodom often refer to their haughtiness, their arrogance, and their inhospitality, but this is not enough for the death penalty, at least according to the Mosaic law. Homosexual sex, though, was a capital offense.

New Testament Interpretations

In fact, we actually see some biblical passages that weigh into this.

2 Peter 2:4–10 ESV

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

This carries connotations of sexual behavior.

Jude 7 weighs in with this as well. It says,

“… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

So we see in 2 Peter and in Jude that this idea of sexual impropriety at least is a part of the judgment that was brought on Sodom.

Now, Brownson pushed back and says “unnatural desire” or “strange flesh” is a reference to angelic flesh. But this can’t be, because God had already judged Sodom before the angels arrived; so there was some kind of unnatural sexual behavior taking place before the angels even got there. So let me ask you a question: What perverse sensual conduct included going after strange flesh such that it warranted the greatest capital judgment outside the flood or the book of Revelation?

Conclusion

Now, I don’t think we can show definitively that homosexual behavior was here, but I don’t think we have enough evidence to completely dismiss it and say that it wasn’t least likely one piece of what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Revisionist Objections

Introduction

In talking about the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s a number of objections that come up. Let’s look at just a few of the more prominent ones.

What about Rape?

Justin Lee, in his book Torn, pushes back on this and he says, “Clearly, in some cultures and contexts—whether in ancient … or modern-day prisons—male to male rape had been used or threatened as a method of violent humiliation and domination. The perpetrators in these cases were usually not gay men, and their interest wasn’t sexual; it was to do harm.”

Now, he’s right that this happens often, probably in prison, and in other societies. He is right about that. The question is, is that what’s going on in Gen 19?

Hebrew Yada' Never Means “Rape”

Well, we do know that the interest of the people approaching the angels in the town was sexual. We know this. Nowhere in the ot does yada' mean specifically “abuse” or “violate.” The language that is used does not say, “We want to abuse them,” “We want to violate them,” “We want to rape them.” That’s not what it was; it was simply, “We want to have sexual relations with them.” That’s the most straightforward clear interpretation of this passage.

The ot does actually use unmistakable language to indicate rape when this is what’s in view. For example, Dinah was “seized” in Gen 34:2, Tamar was “violated” in 2 Sam 13:14. And when the men are approaching Lot’s home to have sex with the strangers, we don’t see that kind of language used.

Accusation of Wickedness Angers Men

What’s also interesting is—this is pointed out by James White in his book The Same Sex Controversy—the men do not get angry until their actions are described as wicked.

So maybe they were not coming with the intentions that Lee says that they were; they were coming simply to have sex with these men. That seems to be a straightforward understanding of this passage.

Sin of Inhospitality

The second pushback is that the rest of the Bible recognizes the sin of Sodom as inhospitality; it doesn’t recognize that this is a sin related to homosexuality or some kind of sexual immorality.

Well, if we read Ezek 16:49–50, it makes an interesting point that shows maybe a little bit more is going on here. So here is the passage in Ezekiel: “

Ezekiel 16:49–50 ESV

49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

“Abomination” May Refer to Homosexual Practice

Clearly, not helping the poor and being arrogant was a part of it, but if you look at the entire context, it’s very interesting. There are some verses that indicate the term “abomination” may in fact be a reference back to Lev 18:22 and 20:13. When you go to Lev 18, there’s multiple sins that are described as abominations, but only one is described singularly as “an abomination,” and that’s homosexual practice. So when Ezekiel says they committed an abomination, there is reason to believe he may have been referring to homosexual practice.

Inhospitality Not the Only Sin

But second, inhospitality was part of the sin, but not all of it. Genesis 13:13 says, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.” Clearly, inhospitality was a piece of that, but is somebody being inhospitable able to be described as a great sinner against the Lord? In fact, as we saw earlier, Jude 7 and 2 Pet 2 refer to sexual conduct [as] at least being part of the sin of Sodom.

Glenn Stanton, in his book Loving My (LGBT) Neighbor, I think raises a great point. He said,

“If inhospitality itself is such a grave sin in God’s eyes, then why did Bethlehem get a pass? The whole town turned [its] back on God’s own Son on His birthday. Radical inhospitality to be sure.”

So yes, they were inhospitable, but I think much more is going on than simply inhospitality. We even see this with Jesus when He returns back to Nazareth—“a prophet is not welcome in his own country.”

Conclusion

So let me conclude some thoughts about Sodom and Gomorrah. This is not the first passage that I would turn to. It’s not a clear-cut case against homosexual behavior. Clearly, some things are taking place with angels, things about gang rape, that don’t fit perfectly in any sense the kind of homosexuality we tend to see today. But I’m also not willing to completely dismiss this, because it fits the larger narrative about God designing sex between one man and one woman for life.

Let me conclude with some thoughts by Richard Lovelace. He says,

“The Hebrew reader would recognize homosexual practice as one aspect of this depravity, one which is highlighted here because the action which Genesis 19 presents as an epitome of the city’s abandonment is a violation of the law of hospitality to strangers; this violation is also an attempt at homosexual rape.”

And I think he is right.[3]

Levitical Passages: All Male to Male Sexual Activity Prohibited

Leviticus 18:22

Another important passage that comes up when we discuss the biblical view of homosexuality is in Lev 18:22 , and really also in 20:13. Here’s what it says:

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

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

Now, notice it doesn’t say the person who does this is abomination; it says the act itself is an abomination.

Hebrew Zakhar: Male Gender

Now, according to Near Eastern studies professor Donald J. Wold, in his book Out of Order, he says,

“There is no ambiguity in the term zākār; it always refers to the male gender.” So when it says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman,” “male” is a reference to the male gender as a whole; zakhar is a general term that encompasses in all males. All male-male sexual relations are rejected in totality by this reference—that would refer to pederasty, that would refer to male and slave, that would refer to consensual. You see, there is no need to list the various forms of homosexuality [as] in the case of incest.

If you read the earlier verses in Lev 18, it prohibits incest and then has verse after verse after verse listing what this means.

Why?

Think about it. If somebody says incest is wrong, the next question is obvious. The question is, well, what qualifies as incest? My sister? Pretty obvious. My grandma? Obviously so. What about a sister-in-law? What about a cousin? What about a second cousin? What about …? You see, the questions begin to go out, and that’s why there [are] multiple verses describing incest.

But when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, there is only one verse. The term zakhar refers to all male-male sexual relations as violating the designed pattern that God has set up in Genesis.

Consensual Homosexual Sex

Leviticus 20:13 ESV

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

In the book Flame of Yahweh, Davidson argues that Lev 20:13 penalizes both men.

Why does this matter?

This implies that this act of homosexual behavior is not coercive—it’s not master and slave, it’s not pederasty. They are both punished for this, which says it’s some form of consensual sex. So we see in Leviticus right away that this passage is dealing with consensual sex acts, and it involves all kinds of male-male sexual relationships.

Holiness Code

Now, to start to understand the meaning of this and its applicability, let’s look at the context for a minute, of Lev 18. You see, Leviticus 18 is part of what’s called the Holiness Code, so chapters 17–26 [are] kind of a unit that’s broken, a distinct part. It’s part of the book of Leviticus, but a distinct section called the Holiness Code, and it’s concerned with laws, sacrifices, and purity regulations for the Hebrew people to be separate from the surrounding ungodly nations.

Structure of Leviticus 18

Now, as we get closer down into Lev 18 we see a specific pattern that’s very important in this chapter. Leviticus 18 has the following structure:

• Verse 1–5 is a commandment to follow God rather than the patterns in Egypt and Canaan.

• Verses 6–18 is the prohibition of incest.

• Verse 19 is the prohibition of sex with a menstruating woman.

• Verse 20 prohibits adultery.

• [Verse] 21 prohibits sacrificing children to Molech.

• [Verse] 22 prohibits male-male sex.

• [Verse] 23 prohibits bestiality.

• [Verses] 24–30 is a warning not to commit these same “abominations” as those in the land who God is driving out on behalf of their sins.

Leviticus 18 a Distinct Unit

So I think what this tells us is that Lev 18 is a distinct unit within 17–26, which is a distinct unit out of the rest of the book of Leviticus. Now, how do we know this? Well, the chapter begins and ends with a very similar warning. Leviticus 18:3–5 says,

Leviticus 18:3–5 ESV

3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. 4 You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. 5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.

And the chapter ends with a similar enunciation:

“So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord.”

So this chapter seems to be a distinct unit, but Professor Wold provides actually four specific supporting reasons, seeing why chapter 18 is distinct within the larger Holiness Code.

• For one, the sexual nature of all the crimes that are listed. Now, child sacrifice isn’t directly sexual, but it was likely that some kind of sexual behavior was involved in that.

• The position of the curse at the end of the chapter so as to encompass the entire series; it’s the beginning and the end.

• Also the position of the statement “I am the Lord your God” at the beginning and the end of the chapter.

• And fourth, the rationale of impurity for all the crimes.

Conclusion

So we see that this claim in Leviticus—”Do not lie with the male as with a woman”—encompasses consensual sexual relationships, it was referring to all of the male gender, but then we see out of the book of Leviticus, the Holiness Code is 17–26, but then chapter 18 stands alone and it seems to be a distinct unit with a command at the beginning not to be like the people outside, and then a command at the end not to be like them.

So arguably, you can make the case that this is a standalone passage with unique application as we will see even for today.

Levitical Passages: Parts of Holiness Code Superseded by the New Testament

Lesbianism Not Mentioned

Let’s consider some objections against the applicability of the Leviticus passage for today. One pushback is that it doesn’t mention lesbianism.

Why, if this was condemning all kinds of same-sex sexual behavior, would lesbianism not be mentioned?

I think a few things can be said.

Patriarchal Culture

First off, Leviticus is written to a patriarchal culture. It was addressed to men. It doesn’t mean it didn’t have application to women, but the audience as a whole was written to men. So God is working with the patriarchal culture in the way things were communicated and understood at that time and giving certain prescriptions for how we’re supposed to live.

Not Prevalent

But second, lesbianism may not have been as significant of an issue. It might not have been, given where people worked, given where they traveled, given other structures of the society, especially Judaism at that time. It might not have been as significant of an issue as it seems to be today.

Lack of Mention Not an Endorsement

But third, lack of mention does not imply endorsement. This is very, very important. In the ot, sometimes the Bible mentions something and it’s clearly not endorsing it; but also we have to keep in mind, the mere fact that the Bible doesn’t mention lesbianism doesn’t imply that it’s an endorsement for it.

I often find it interesting that critics often blame the Bible for being patriarchal, then they turn around and use the lack of reference to lesbianism as endorsement. In other words, critics want to trash the Bible as patriarchal, then turn around and use the lack of reference to lesbianism as indirect support for its moral acceptability. You can’t have it both ways.

Degradation of Men Treated Like Women

Another objection that comes up: Matthew Vines argues that the prohibition of male intercourse with other men found in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 was not grounded in violating the natural complementarity that God created between men and women. Instead, such actions degraded men by treating them in a way that only women should be treated.

But here’s what’s interesting: if the sin of Lev 20:13 is merely a matter of men adopting the women’s sexual role, then only the man in the receptive role should be condemned. However, the verse states that both of them have committed an abomination. So clearly, something more is going on than a man just being treated as a woman.

Why Applicable Today?

Now, an important question is, how do we know these laws even apply today? I mean, there [are] a lot of laws, after all, in the ot—especially the book of Leviticus—that we don’t apply today. Well, let me give you a few reasons.

Sin for All Nations

First, if the law applies to other nations besides Israel. So you see, God never judged the Canaanites for failing to keep the Sabbath. Dr. Michael Brown says, “And if it was a sin for idol-worshiping Egyptians and Canaanites back then, you’d better believe it is a sin for God’s holy and chosen people today.”

So Leviticus 18—there is a frame at the beginning [and] at the end that tells Israel not to commit the sins in Canaan and in Egypt, and then it lists some in Lev 18, telling us that these were sins that God had judged other nations for. So if He judged other nations for these, then it wasn’t just meant for Israel.

Prohibition Repeated in New Testament

Now, the third reason why this passage may still apply is that the nt also repeats the prohibition against homosexual behavior. One way we know that an otcommand is still applicable is if it’s repeated in the New. So we see [this] in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–11; and 1 Tim 1:8–10.

Conclusion

So, friends, there are good reasons to think that at least the commands as a whole in Lev 18, which outlaw things like incest, outlaw things like divorce, and also things like homosexual behavior still, in fact, do apply today.[6]

Levitical Passages: Cult Prostitution

Why Not Apply Entire Holiness Code?

Let’s briefly look at a few more objections that come up to the applicability of Levitical passages for today. Scanzoni and Mollenkott, two authors, in their influential book Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, they write this:

“Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the … Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period.”

He raised a fair challenge. Shouldn’t we be fair about this, and shouldn’t Christians be consistent? Well, let me make a few responses to this.

Failure to Obey Does Not Void Prohibition

The first one is, even if Christians act inconsistently that wouldn’t make the prohibition void. I’d be the first to admit that I have been hypocrite at times, and many Christians are hypocrites, but does that void the truth of what I believe? Of course not. In fact, it would simply mean that Christians are hypocritical.

So if we are going to be consistent, then maybe we should outlaw and begin to practice all of these behaviors! Now, I’m not saying we should do that, but that is at least what would follow from his objection.

Many Laws Overturned in New Testament

But second, we actually see that dietary restrictions specifically from the Levitical code have been overturned, they’ve been removed. We see this in Mark 7:19, we see it in Rom 14:14, that certain rules and regulations about what we would eat and how we would practice were actually overturned. Now, these laws were meant to separate Israel, but we never read of other nations being judged for failing to keep them.

Cultic Practices Superseded by Christ

Now third, the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood are no longer binding because Jesus is our perfect high priest. We’re not bound to follow these laws, and our salvation doesn’t [depend] upon the sacrifices and practices the same way that it did under the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant. This is made clear in the book of Hebrews in a host of passages, such as Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–16; 5:5; 6:20; 7:1–8:4; 9:24–28; and 10:11–14.

Portions of Holiness Code Still Binding

The fourth point is, that some portions of Leviticus are no longer binding hardly proves that all parts are nonbinding. He makes the point very fairly that some of the ot might not apply anymore. You don’t see too many Christians upset about wearing tattoos. Well, some [are], but not because they’re referring to Leviticus, at least in a proper way. So the mere fact that some parts of the ot, Leviticus, are not binding doesn’t mean that we throw out all of it.

Levitical Prohibitions Dealt with Cult Prostitution

Let’s look at second objection. This comes up from Justin Lee in his book Torn. He says this: “So scholars on both sides of the argument agreed that this probably had something to do with cult prostitution. That made sense to me.”

So he’s basically saying that these prohibitions in Leviticus do not apply to the same-sex relationships of today; they only outlawed cult prostitution.

Cult Prostitution Represented Whole Phenomenon

Well, in response, Robert Gagnon writes something I think is very pointed. He says, “When the biblical [writers] rejected homosexual cult prostitutes … they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context.” So because in certain circles homosexual prostitution was palatable, by rejecting that, what Gagnon saying is they were rejecting all male-male sexual behavior.

Inconsistent Logic

But let’s look a little bit more closely at this Leviticus passage. Is incest wrong if it’s a part of cult prostitution? The answer is yes. Is it wrong if it’s not a part of cult prostitution? The answer is yes. Is sacrificing children wrong if it’s part of cult prostitution? Yes. Is sacrificing children wrong if it’s not a part of cult prostitution? Yes. Is bestiality wrong if it’s part of cult prostitution? Yes. Is it wrong if it’s not a part of cult prostitution? Yes. Is homosexual behavior wrong as a part of cult prostitution? Yes. By the same logic, is it wrong if it’s not a part of the cult prostitution? And the answer is yes.

Now, please don’t hear me saying I’m putting all those on the same moral level. I’m not. But logically speaking, they’re lumped together in Leviticus, and to respond to the claim that Moses is just talking about cult prostitution, it’s important to show the line of reasoning that I just pointed out. You see, moral prohibitions are usually connected with some kind of idolatry, and clearly it’s not okay if we remove the religious and idolatrous worship; that’s still a wrong behavior.

Hebrew Term qadesh Not Used

Now, the term for “male prostitute,” qadesh, is not used in Leviticus. So if the author wanted us to be referring specifically to a male prostitute, why didn’t he use the term that meant that? We actually see male prostitution directly condemned in Deut 23:17. It says, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.”

Conclusion

Friends, the Levitical passage raises a lot of difficult questions. I realize that. But there is good reason to believe that this passage continues the narrative of God designing sex to be between one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life and that this passage in Leviticus is a reference back to the creation account. It’s within the book, the Holiness Code, and specifically chapter 18, which had application even outside of the nation of Israel, and then we see it repeated in the nt.It seems to me that this prohibition of same-sex behavior in Lev 18 has powerful application even for today.[8]

[1]McDowell, S. (2017). AP371 A Biblical Response to Homosexuality. Lexham Press.