Is Heterosexuality—the biological norm for reproduction—also the ethical norm for human sexual relations? My proposal does not provide answers, but gives a basis for discussion in terms of biblical theology.
A front page article in a recent issue of The Christian Science Monitora predicts that homosexual rights will likely be the social issue of the 1990s. Since the controversy is often waged by citing biblical texts, I would like to propose a way to discuss the issue if one turns to the Bible for guidance. To avoid misunderstanding, I hasten to say that this proposal does not provide answers, but only a basis for discussion in terms of biblical theology.
On the blackboard of your imagination draw two circles, a large one representing all creation and a smaller one representing the covenant community of ancient Israel. The large circle is universal and includes the whole realm of public morality. The smaller circle represents the boundaries of the covenant community of ancient Israel.
Turn to the creation story in the opening chapters of Genesis. One of the great themes is “male and female,” that is, heterosexuality. God first created male and female biological life (nefesh hayya, “living beings”)—fish and birds—and commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply” in their own medium, water and sky (Genesis 1:20–22). Later God created the highest form of “living being,” human-kind (‘adam), constituting them “male and female” and commanding them to “be fruitful and multiply” on the earth (Genesis 1:27–28).
In this context, the reason for emphasizing “male and female” is clear: Procreation is the way into the future for both animals and humans. Heterosexuality is the biological norm if there are to be future generations of living beings, animal and human.
As Genesis moves from creation to the new beginning after the Flood, nothing is said about homosexuality. To be sure, an argument from silence is notoriously fragile. Yet perhaps there are aspects of God’s creation that do not serve the purpose of procreation. In the Book of Job, the voice from the whirlwind (Job 38–41) reminds Job that there are puzzling things in God’s creation that elude human comprehension, such as the cruelty of the ostrich to her young “because God has made it forget wisdom” (Job 39:13–18). In any case, the creation theology of Genesis affirms the Creator’s wisdom in creating heterosexual beings and emphasizes the divine blessing that enables animals and humans to reproduce and multiply. Accordingly, the story unfolds in a series of genealogies extending from Adam to Noah, the famous “begats” of Genesis 5. Then the narrator portrays the animals coming “male and female,” to be preserved in the Ark (Genesis 7:15–16). After the Flood, God gives a command that echoes the imperatives of creation: “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, 7).
Within the theological circle of creation, the question for discussion is: Is the biological norm for reproduction also an ethical norm for human sexual relations?
Turn now from the circle of creation, with its universal horizon, to the covenant circle that includes the particular “people of God” known as Israel in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. In this covenantal context we find explicit laws against homosexuality, but only in one place, the Holiness Code of the book of Leviticus (Leviticus 17–26).1
In the final form of the Pentateuch (Torah) given to us by priestly editors, the Holiness Code belongs in a history of God’s covenants, extending from the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9) to the covenant with Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 17) to the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 19 to Numbers 10). In the priestly view, the goal of the whole history, from creation on, is the formation of Israel as a believing and worshiping community.2 The purpose of the Holiness Code is to establish Israel as a people separated from other nations and living in special relation to God. “You shall be holy, even as I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2) is the recurring note.
Accordingly, Leviticus 18 begins by drawing a distinction between the lifestyle of Israel and that of surrounding peoples, especially the Egyptians and the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:1–5). The laws draw a boundary between Israel, the holy people, and other peoples, between “us” and “them.”3 The people are told to keep the covenant statutes and ordinances and not commit the “abominations” practiced by other nations (Leviticus 18:24–29). “Abomination” is a very strong term; it is not just a sin, it is something horrible, disgusting and polluting.
Note some of the activities regarded as abomination. There are various laws against incestuous relations: “None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). Anthropologists observe that almost every culture has taboos against incest to protect the identity and vitality of the social group. 052Coming closer to the law against homosexuality there is also a law against having intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period (Leviticus 18:19)—a taboo based on revulsion at a flow of blood. And finally we reach the statement in Leviticus 18:22 (paralleled in 20:13): “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.” There is no explicit prohibition against homosexual relations between women.
Several things should be observed about the Levitical law. First, the law is not grounded in creation but in the special covenant between God and the people Israel. Second, homosexuality is not just a sin—a deliberate and voluntary act of rebellion against God—but an abomination rooted in deep feelings and social taboo. Finally, the purpose of this and other prohibitions, is to define the boundaries between this people and the nations and to ensure that Israel will be a holy people, bound in special relationship with God (see Leviticus 20:26).
Within this covenant circle the question for discussion is: Do these Levitical laws properly describe the boundaries of the covenant community? And do they set forth laws that are also binding on the public at large? Thus the whole subject of “male” and “female” raises issues related on the one hand to creation and on the other hand to the covenant community.
Having defined the issues, where does the discussion go from the starting point of the Hebrew Bible? In the Jewish community these questions will be explored by consulting what may be broadly called rabbinic traditions. In the Christian community the questions will be explored by considering the New Testament (notably Paul’s views in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 and 10 and Romans 1:26–27) and the ethical teachings of the church.
This proposal comes out of a workshop on biblical ethics held at Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church in California.
A front page article in a recent issue of The Christian Science Monitora predicts that homosexual rights will likely be the social issue of the 1990s. Since the controversy is often waged by citing biblical texts, I would like to propose a way to discuss the issue if one turns to the Bible for guidance. To avoid misunderstanding, I hasten to say that this proposal does not provide answers, but only a basis for discussion in terms of biblical theology. On the blackboard of your imagination draw two circles, a large one representing all creation and a smaller one […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
The story in Genesis 19 (from which our word “sodomy” is derived) and the similar gruesome story in Judges 19 do not apply since they deal not with consensual homosexuality but with the violation, of the ancient law of hospitality and the gang rape, intended or actual, of two “men” in one case, and of a woman in the other.
2.
For further discussion of the priestly outlook, see my Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, 1986) pp. 454–466, especially the diagram “the priestly periodization of history.” p. 464.
3.
See the essay by Simon B. Parker, “The Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality,” Quarterly Review 11/3 (1991) pp. 4–19, who stresses that, in a sociological sense, the laws in Leviticus 18 and 20—exemplify a priestly scheme for distinguishing insiders from outsiders, the people of God from other peoples.” I am indebted to Parker’s illuminating essay.
