Historical Deconstruction of Homosexuality and Old Testament Texts
Between Fear and Truth
In today’s churches and Chinese Christian communities, "homosexuality" is often treated as a "monstrous beast." Many believers hold a firm intuition that the Bible's stance on this issue is extremely clear, certain, and consistently oppositional. We are told that homosexual acts are "sin," "abominable" to God, and that the destruction of Sodom is the clearest evidence of God’s judgment against it.
However, this firm intuition is often accompanied by an "irrational fear." As Professor Archie Chi Chung Lee points out, when we hold a set of inherent views on a problem, we must honestly explore whether the foundation upon which those views rest is solid. If we claim these foundations come from the Bible, then we must adopt an academically rigorous and honest approach, crossing the millennial chasm of time to step into the cultural psychology and linguistic context of ancient texts.
Renowned biblical scholar J. Harold Ellens, in his book Sex in the Bible, reminds us that the Bible was not written in a vacuum; it was born amidst the interplay of ancient Israelite, Canaanite, Babylonian, and Greek cultures. To truly understand these ancient words, we cannot rely solely on modern translations but must return to the original Hebrew intent. This article integrates the academic insights of Ellens and Professor Lee to re-examine the core texts often cited from the Old Testament, uncovering truths obscured by translational bias and dogmatism.
(I) The Power of Language: Misleading Translations and Conceptual Misplacement
Before diving into specific scriptural analysis, we must address a fundamental question: Does the biblical translation we read already presuppose a certain stance? Language is not just a tool; it is an exercise of power.
1. The Distance Between "Lying Down" and "Promiscuity"
In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the Chinese Union Version (CUV) uses the highly derogatory term "苟合" (promiscuous/illicit union). However, Professor Lee points out that in the original Hebrew Bible, the word "苟合" simply does not exist. The verb used is shakav, which literally means "to lie down" or "to sleep with"—a very simple and neutral term.
More importantly, this verb is also used in the Hebrew Bible for sexual union between heterosexuals (e.g., in Numbers 31:17-18, "married/unmarried" is literally "has/has not lain with a man"). English versions like the NRSV accurately translate it as "lie down with." When translators deliberately render "lying down" between two men as a term implying evil or sneakiness, the translation itself becomes an "interpretation" rather than a mere transmission. This bias forcibly implants the translator's preferences into the text, stripping Chinese readers of the space for objective reflection from the very beginning.
2. Sexual Orientation vs. Specific Acts: A Cross-Temporal Misplacement
Ellens emphasizes that modern discussions about homosexuality focus on "Sexual Orientation"—an essential part of an individual's internal personality, emotions, and physical attraction, which is innate and involves the development of the whole person. However, ancient biblical authors knew nothing of the modern scientific and psychological concept of "sexual orientation."
In the context of the Ancient Near East, people only saw "acts." They presupposed that everyone was essentially "heterosexual" (though the term did not exist then). Therefore, any act between members of the same sex was understood as a "deliberate choice of deviation" or a betrayal of one's own masculinity.
To impose the modern concept of "identity" onto ancient "prohibitions of acts" is irresponsible both theologically and historically. If we forcibly equate ancient bans on specific deviant acts with God’s rejection of modern, stable, committed, and loving same-sex partnerships, it is a logical leap and an exegetical arbitrariness.
(II) The Myth of Sodom: Hospitality Law and the Sin of Violence
When discussing Old Testament views on homosexual acts, the story of "Sodom and Gomorrah" in Genesis 19 is undoubtedly central. For a long time, this story has been used to prove God's wrath against homosexuals, and the word "Sodom" even evolved into "Sodomy" in Western languages. However, a careful reading of the text reveals that the focus has been entirely misplaced.
1. Receiving Strangers: The Sacred Law of the Ancient Near East
Both Professor Lee and Ellens point out that Genesis 19 is a story about "Hospitality." In the Ancient Near East, travelers were extremely vulnerable in the wilderness. Welcoming and protecting strangers was not just a virtue but a sacred and inviolable social legal obligation. Lot greeting the two angels (appearing in human form) at the city gate and insisting they stay in his house was an activation of this sacred protection mechanism.
When the men of the entire city of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and shouted, "Bring them out to us that we may know (yada) them," while the Hebrew verb yada (to know) here indeed carries a sexual connotation, its essence was not seeking a lasting or loving relationship, but "Gang Rape." This was an extreme display of power intended to humiliate strangers through sexual violence, destroy their dignity, and declare the residents' absolute control over outsiders.
2. Lot’s Extreme Response and Cultural Irony
Lot even offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd to "do as you please." While this seems extremely cruel and irresponsible to modern eyes, under ancient patriarchal society and the extreme laws of hospitality, Lot would rather sacrifice his family members than break the legal bottom line that "those who have come under the shadow of my roof must be safe."
Ellens offers a profound academic insight: the mob’s dismissal of Lot’s daughters proves their true goal was not to satisfy physiological lust but to challenge Lot’s authority by violating his guests ("This fellow came to sojourn, and he would be a judge!"). The crimes here are "violence" and "arrogance," not "sexual orientation."
3. Biblical "Self-Correction": Who Defined Sodom?
If Sodom was destroyed because of "homosexuality," later biblical authors should have consistently emphasized this point. But the reality is quite different. Both Professor Lee and Ellens emphasize that to understand the sin of Sodom, one must look at how the Bible interprets itself:
- Ezekiel 16:49 gives the most direct verdict: "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." The "abominable things" mentioned in Ezekiel refer to this neglect of the poor, arrogance, and injustice within the context.
- Jeremiah 23:14 links Sodom with adultery, lies, and lack of repentance, emphasizing a total moral collapse.
- Jesus’ Perspective (Luke 10:10-12): When sending out his disciples, Jesus explicitly stated that if a city "does not receive" them, the punishment for that city on the day of judgment would be more tolerable for Sodom.
Clearly, from the prophets to Jesus, the Bible’s understanding of Sodom’s sin has always been consistent: it is about the lack of social justice, arrogance, injustice, and the rejection of vulnerable travelers. To narrow it down to a judgment on "homosexuality" is a historical misunderstanding that completely departs from the Bible’s own interpretive system.
(III) Leviticus' "Holiness Code" and Cultural Boundaries
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the most frequently cited legal bases for opposition: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Toevah)."
1. Toevah (Abomination): A Priestly Technical Term
Professor Lee provides a deep analysis of the word Toevah. In the Hebrew Bible, this word does not refer to universal moral evils (like murder or lying) but is a specific priestly term referring to "ritual impurity" or "violation of categorical norms."
In the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus, things called Toevah also include:
- Eating sea creatures without fins or scales (like shrimp or crab).
- Eating pork, camel, or rabbit.
- Wearing clothes made of two different types of fiber.
- Sowing a field with mixed seeds.
The fundamental purpose of these bans was not to establish a universal ethical system but to draw a clear "cultural and religious boundary" between the Israelites and the surrounding Canaanites. Holiness in the ancient Hebrew context meant "Separation" and "Boundaries."
2. Pagan Rituals and the Crossing of Boundaries
Ellens points out that ancient Canaanite religion included a significant amount of sympathetic magic and ritualistic sexual acts, often involving cultic prostitution. When Leviticus forbids men from lying together, it immediately follows with "You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech." This strongly suggests that these sexual prohibitions were originally intended to prevent Israelites from imitating Canaanite religious worship practices.
For the priestly authors, the world created by God had "order" and "typical categories." Just as animals in the water should have fins and scales, men should play the role of men. In the cultural imagination of the time, the man was the "active penetrator" and the woman was the "passive penetrated." When a man was "penetrated like a woman," it was seen as a "confusion of categories," stripping that man of his dignity and degrading him to a subordinate female status.
Therefore, the core of the prohibition lies in maintaining male social status and patriarchal order, rather than targeting individual love. This also explains why Leviticus never mentions lesbianism—because women did not hold a "status of dignity" that needed maintaining in the power structure of the time; acts between women did not constitute a "degradation of status."
3. The Challenge of Interpretive Consistency
Professor Lee poses a sharp question: If the church insists that the prohibition in Leviticus against male-male acts is an eternally unchanging moral law, why do we no longer insist on "not eating pork," "not eating seafood," or "not wearing mixed-fiber clothing"?
The vast majority of Christians believe that Christ has fulfilled the law and that we are no longer bound by these ritualistic, boundary-marking regulations. Yet, uniquely on the issue of homosexuality, many selectively pull out this rule—which originally belonged to "priestly boundaries"—and grant it the absolute authority of universal morality. This "proof-texting" lacks theological consistency and is even used to use the Bible to mask our own cultural biases.
(IV) The Parallel Story of Gibeah: Violence as the True Culprit
To further prove that "gender" was not the focus of the Old Testament, we can observe the story of Gibeah in Judges 19. This story is almost perfectly parallel in structure to the Sodom story but ends even more bloodily.
When the ruffians of Gibeah surrounded the house demanding to "know" the visiting Levite, the old man, to protect his guest, was even willing to offer his virgin daughter. Ultimately, the Levite handed over his concubine, resulting in the woman being gang-raped to death and dismembered.
Both Professor Lee and Ellens point out:
- Interchangeability of Victims: The mob initially wanted the male guest but ultimately inflicted fatal violence on a woman. This shows that for the biblical author, the true evil lay not in the "gender of the sexual object" but in "violence, coercion, and the violation of the right to guest protection."
- Consistency of Condemnation: The Bible’s condemnation of these two incidents is perfectly consistent—both are violations of social justice, mercy, and basic human rights. If we only fixate on the gender in the Sodom story while ignoring the same logic of violence in the Gibeah story, we completely miss the true moral core of the Bible: opposition to oppression and power.
(V) Reflections on Contemporary Theology: From Dogma to Compassion
Once we have restored the textual truth, how do we apply these ancient words today? We cannot simply transplant priestly regulations from three thousand years ago directly into today’s diverse social context.
1. Respecting the Revelation of Science and Truth
Ellens argues that we must respect the revelations of science and reason. God speaks not only through the Bible but also through nature, science, and human reason. Ancient authors viewed all non-mainstream behavior as malicious choices, limited by the knowledge levels of their time. When we possess richer biological and psychological knowledge today, clinging to ancient dogmas born of cultural fear is actually "suppressing the truth."
2. The Substance of Holiness: Separated for What?
"Holiness" means "separation." In ancient times, this was expressed by not eating certain foods or not wearing certain clothes to distinguish oneself from pagans. In modern times, where should a Christian’s "separation" be manifested?
Professor Lee reminds us that if we use scripture as a weapon to humiliate and exclude those born with different sexual orientations, are we practicing "holiness" or repeating the "arrogance of Sodom"? Shouldn’t a Christian’s "separation" be manifested in being more loving than the rest of the world, being more accepting of marginalized groups, and practicing social justice?
3. Jesus as the Key to Exegesis
During his time on earth, Jesus repeatedly challenged the Pharisees who valued the letter of the law over "mercy and justice." He reminded us: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Similarly, the law exists to serve the great themes of "loving God" and "loving your neighbor."
If the rare discussions of homosexual acts in the Old Testament are centrally focused on opposing "idolatry," "sexual violence," and "maintaining unequal gender power structures," then applying them today to stable, committed, and loving same-sex couples is a serious "misuse of scripture."
Conclusion: Reshaping Faith in Radical Love
In summarizing the Old Testament discussions on homosexual issues, we can draw three key conclusions:
- Linguistically: The Bible does not refer to the modern concept of "sexual orientation," and derogatory terms in Chinese translations (like "苟合") have severely misled believers, implanting preconceived biases.
- Narratively: The true sins of the Sodom and Gibeah stories are "rejection of guests," "collective violence," and "pride," rather than consensual love between members of the same sex.
- Legally: The prohibitions in Leviticus belong to "cultural boundary" regulations of a specific era, aimed at distinguishing pagan rituals and maintaining the status order of ancient males.
The Bible is not a mono-tonal speaker; it uses multiple voices to tell us about faith and life. As Professor Lee states, we cannot turn a blind eye to the new experiences of love that God manifests in people today.
When we set aside the glasses of prejudice, we will see a broader, more inclusive God whose love is not limited to the mainstream but also shines upon those who once danced on the margins. This is a Bible that can truly bring "good news" to human sexuality.
Next Episode Preview: Who exactly was Paul criticizing with "Arsenokoitai"?
Having deconstructed Old Testament laws and narratives, many believers turn to the New Testament, believing Paul’s statements in Romans and 1 Corinthians are the unshakeable final verdict. What did Paul mean by arsenokoitai and malakoi? Was he accusing modern same-sex couples, or was he critiquing the corrupt system of sexual exploitation in the Roman Empire? In the next article, we will turn to the New Testament and continue this millennial revolution of interpretation.
Bibliography
Chinese Literature
Lee, Chi Chung Archie. "From Biblical Interpretation to the Discussion of Homosexuality." In Crossing the Walls, Accepting Differences: The Challenge of Sexual Orientation Discrimination Legislation to Christians. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute, 2006.
English Literature
Ellens, J. Harold. Sex in the Bible: A New Consideration. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006.