2. What the Old Testament tells us

The Old Testament contains extensive instructions regarding all forms of purity. While not all of these instructions are in effect today, it is widely accepted that we are still expected to follow those relating to sexual purity. At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), apostles Peter, James, and John declared that gentiles should avoid sexual immorality, and so indicating that laws relating to sexual immorality remain in force.

Let's look at what the Old Testament says about sexual immorality, particularly about homosexuality—sex between people of the same sex.

Leviticus 18 and 20

In the Old Testament, same-sex acts are explicitly prohibited on two occasions:

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

—Leviticus 18: 22

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.

—Leviticus 20: 13

These prohibitions occur among numerous other laws regarding improper sexual relations within families, such as between a man and his mother (v. 7), stepmother (v. 8), sister (v. 9), grand-daughter (v. 10), step-sister (v. 11), paternal aunt (v. 12), maternal aunt (v. 13), sister-in-law (v. 14), daughter-in-law (v. 15), sister-in-law (v. 16), and other family relations.

Genesis 19

In Genesis 19, we learn that Lot was approached in Sodom by “men both young and old” who wanted to have sex with the two angels that had visited him (v. 4-5). The two angels instructed Lot and his family to flee the city as quickly as possible because God was about to destroy it because of the evil practiced there (v. 12-13). In the morning, after Lot and his wife and daughters had fled, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with burning sulfur from heaven (v. 23-25). While the story in Genesis does not state that same-sex activity was the specific reason for God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, in the New Testament, Jude informs us that the guilt of these cities was “sexual immorality and perversion” broadly:

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

—Jude 5-7

Misconceptions about David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi

Despite these clear condemnations, some modern Christian theologians claim to have identified a same-sex romantic or sexual relationship in the story of David and Jonathan, and in the story of Ruth and Naomi.

After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

—1 Samuel 18: 1-4

“Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.” But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.

—Ruth 1: 15-18

A modern reader might feel that Jonathan could not possibly have “loved” David “as himself” unless his love was romantic or sexual, but that is only because we live in a society that tends to sexualize any strong bond between two people. Strong heterosexual love between two men or between two women may seem odd in the 21st century, because in today's society we expect that love and commitment between same-sex peers must be sexual in nature.

The idea of loving a person “as yourself” is, however, a very biblical one. Loving someone in this way has nothing to do with romantic love or sexual longing. In the Book of Leviticus, the Israelites were instructed by God to love their neighbor in this way:

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.

—Leviticus 19: 18

It makes much more sense to view Jonathan’s love for David as obedient love in fulfillment of God’s command. It is a love that is beautiful and, above all, holy. Ruth’s love for and commitment to Naomi is beautiful and holy in the same way.

What about the claim that Jonathan and David “became one in spirit?” Could this indicate a same-sex marriage of some kind? Definitely not. The phrase “one in spirit” (and its associated concept) is found elsewhere in the Bible, but never as a reference to marriage. In marriage, a man and woman become “one flesh” (Genesis 2: 21; Matthew 19: 5; Mark 10: 8; Ephesians 5: 31), not “one spirit.” The idea of being “of one spirit” or “one in spirit” is heralded in the Book of Philippians as a characteristic of unity in Christ, something all believers—not just husbands and wives—are to have with each other:

Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.

—Philippians 2: 1-2

There is no basis to interpret Jonathan’s commitment to David as anything but strong, upright brotherly affection. To interpret it as romantic love or sexual longing cheapens the significance and beauty of their friendship.

Is the Old Testament purity code still in effect?

Some Christians have claimed that the verses in Leviticus 18 and 20 have been “cherry picked” to pressure same-sex attracted people unfairly, while letting other perhaps more mainstream groups of people off the hook. It is true that many—perhaps most—laws in Leviticus are no longer considered morally binding. For example, other laws commanded men not to shave their beards (19: 27), not to build a parapet around their roof (Deuteronomy 22: 8), and to always wear tassels on the corners of their garments (Numbers 15: 38). When is the last time anyone pushed for these laws to be upheld? If these laws are no longer considered binding, why do so many still insist that men having sex with men is a sin?

The Council of Jerusalem

The answer requires us to peek ahead at the New Testament. In the Book of Acts, the Apostle Paul wonders about such things, specifically about which of the 613 Old Testament laws (if any) gentile converts should be expected to follow. The question was crucial to his ministry—it needed an answer. Paul went to Jerusalem to ask Peter, James, and John for their opinion. The Jerusalem patriarchs came back with a ruling in the form of a letter for Paul to take to the church in Antioch with Barnabas, Judas (called Barsabbas), and Silas. They wrote:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

—Acts 15: 29

What is interesting here is the inclusion of sexual immorality as one of just three things that gentiles should avoid. The definition of sexual immorality (Greek: porneia), defined as any sexual act outside the bond of male-female marriage, was therefore never changed. Although gentiles are now released from laws against beard-shaving, tassel-wearing, and so on, they are still be held to laws relating to sexual immorality, and this includes the laws against same-sex activity outlined in Leviticus 18 and 20.

For discussion:

1. What does it say about modern culture that the stories of David & Jonathan and of Naomi & Ruth, are so readily seen as stories of romantic and sexual attraction?

2. Why do you think the apostles in Jerusalem chose sexual immorality as one of the sins that gentile believers should avoid? Why might sexual sin have been more grievous than, say, eating shellfish or shaving one's beard? (Hint: take a look at 1 Corinthians 6: 18)

3. How would you answer the claim that the modern Church has "cherry picked" Old Testament laws to "oppress gay people"?