WARNING: Sexual topics are discussed.


Is there a verse in the Bible that deals directly with homosexuality?

There are a number of stories, like Sodom and Gomorrah that many assume are indirectly referring to it, but the only one that seems to speak directly and unambiguously is Leviticus 18:22 which reads:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (NRSV)

For many Christians the debate starts and stops right there. If you take that verse in isolation it seems to be a straightforward and authoritative statement against homosexuality.

But it’s never a good idea to take a single verse in isolation. That’s not how the Bible is written and it’s not a useful way of trying to understand it. When you look at where this passage falls, and try to understand the cultural context, problems crop up.

The book of Leviticus is mostly a long list of rules. These cover many aspects of life from marriage, to inheritance, to property disputes, to ritual purity. A brief read through of the book reveals that it was written in a culture that was wildly different from our own. Poligamy was a common form of marriage and slavery was common. Parents had a right to kill their children (though it they were not allowed to use them as human sacrifices). As a result, many of the laws in this book make little sense to modern people.

To judge how a rule from Leviticus applies in the modern world, the first thing a Christian has to do is to decide how the laws should be regarded as a whole. There are three options:

a) All of the Laws in Leviticus are binding on believers forever and ever.

I won’t get into the arguments on this except to note that only a small minority of modern Christians and Jews try to honor all of the Levitical laws. Even those do so with a lot of interpretation. Most Christians would call this approach “legalism” and reject it.

b) None of the laws of Leviticus are binding on modern believers.

I won’t go into this in much depth either. While the vast majority of Christians have difficulty with some (or most) of the ancient laws they find studying them useful. The technical term for those who want to ignore or throw out all rules is “antinomianism” and it is rejected by most Christians.

c) Some of the laws of Leviticus are binding and others are not.

Most Christians see great value in some laws, like the prohibitions on killing and theft but regard laws about wearing blended fabrics and trimming beards and so on as having no significance in the modern world. Christian groups differ on which laws are universal and which are cultural.

There isn’t much contention about most of the laws in Leviticus. Most Christians believe that it is wrong to practice child sacrifice (forbidden in Leviticus 18:21) and most agree that nearsighted men can still serve as clergy (forbidden in Leviticus 21:20).

There isn’t much controversy (at least not that I am aware of) about how to look at any of the Levitical laws, except this verse about homosexuality. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants and Traditionalist Catholics generally see it as one of the immutable moral laws. Mainline Protestants and Liberal Catholics often question this and believe that this is a cultural law that only no longer applies.

Socially conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is a moral evil, therefore they regard Leviticus 18:22 as something that applies to modern Americans as much as it did to ancient Israelites. They tend to extend the rule to apply to lesbians as well, though women are not mentioned. While they take this passage very seriously, they do not give the same authority to Leviticus 20:13, which makes this a capital offense.

“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.” (NRSV)

I’ve never been clear on the reasoning that gives Leviticus 18:22 such force while so many of the surrounding passages are treated as irrelevant to modern life. The logic I’ve heard most frequently is circular. It seems to run something like this.

Q: “How do we know that homosexuality is wrong?”
A: “Because Leviticus says so.”
Q: “How do we know that that scripture is not just a reflection of the culture?”
A: “Because it is says something that we know is true.”
Q: “What is that?”
A: “That homosexuality is wrong.”

If you read a passage with your mind already made up, you will find that your assumptions are confirmed. On the other hand, if you study the passage with an open mind, paying attention to the context, you will discover some surprising things.
When you read Leviticus 18 you find that it is full of laws concerning forbidden sexual unions.

A man is forbidden to sleep with his close female relatives, and the list of female relatives he is to avoid is exhaustive (18:6-18). He is also forbidden to sleep with any woman during menstruation or with the wife of a neighbor (18:19-20).

There is an unexpected departure from sexual taboos in 18:21 when we are told it is forbidden to use one of your children as a human sacrifice to Moloch, one of the gods worshipped by the Canaanites.

Resuming the topic of forbidden sex, in 18:22 a man is prohibited from having sex with another man, and in 18:23 he is forbidden to have sex with an animal.

There are several oddities in the list. One is that these rules are all directed against men (except for 18:23 which forbids a woman from bestiality.) That is easy to understand for the verses about incest. In that culture women had far less power to choose or to resist a sexual partner than men did. The responsibility is laid where the power is. But why is there no prohibition against a woman having sex with another woman?

Perhaps more perplexing is the question of 18:21. If this chapter is all about sexual purity, what is a prohibition against child sacrifice doing here?

There are several theories to explain this. Verses 24-28 suggest that the Israelites are to avoid these things specifically because foreigners do them. It is likely that the references to a man sleeping with another man, with an animal and offering child sacrifice to Moloch are prohibited because they were practices of the Canaanite religion.

The fertility cults of the Canaanites practiced ‘sacred prostitution.’ Boys and girls could be given to the temples as sexual slaves. Men visiting the temples could have sex with them as a part of the sacred fertility rites. Sex with animals as a religious or magical practice was also known. In this case, what is forbidden is not a loving relationship but a form of prostitution in which boys and men were among those victimized.

A new idea which adds to our understanding is the so-called “theory of wasted sperm.” In ancient Israel men were thought to produce life, women merely nurtured it in their wombs. A man who “wasted his seed” rather than planting it in a woman’s womb was throwing away life.

This understanding was keenly felt during the resettlement period of Israel, when the book of Leviticus was compiled. The people had to repopulate the land and anything that failed to produce children was a crime against Israel. Sex with men, sex with animals, masturbation, or offering children as human sacrifices all threw away lives the nation needed. Women were thought to be infertile during menses, so sex with a woman in her period was also condemned. Sex with close female relatives or with foreign women could only produce children who were considered “impure.” This was as bad as no children at all in the mindset of the time.

On the other hand, sexual contact between women did not waste a man’s seed. As long as women continued to bear children for their husbands their sexual preferences were not at issue.

While there is no way of proving these theories for certain, they are the most plausible ideas to date. What is banned are most likely practices honoring the Canaanite gods, and hampering the repopulation of Israel. There is nothing here that suggests that the thing banned is anything like a loving and committed relationship between men.