Is the Bible Homophobic?
By: Kevin Anthony Velez
Tags: LGBTQ, Bible, Christianity, Justice, Church

The person you love is the reason you’re going to hell. That phrasing sums up the evangelical Church’s attitude towards anyone non-heterosexual. The destructive messaging has alienated the LGBTQ+ community, with over 70% feeling unwelcome in a church service . Queer folks have reason to be weary of manicured church grounds, as only about half of Christians are accepting of non-heterosexuality — with evangelical support under 40%. The inhospitable posture pours gasoline on cultural homophobia and creates hell on earth for our queer family.

The immediate impacts of homophobia are not always visible — especially if yourself or no one around you is LGBTQ+. Nevertheless, the victims exist. According to a recent report by the Trevor Project, 40% of queer young adults have seriously considered suicide in the past year, 1 in 3 have been threatened or harmed because of their identity, and 29% have experienced houselessness. These are sobering statistics and represent the very real effects of homophobia.

Meanwhile, 100 of America’s largest churches — including some of your favorite mega-pastors — were either non-affirming or would not disclose their beliefs regarding the LGBTQ+ community. At the other end of the spectrum exists radical-fringe Christians who go viral for potent hate speech. The common thread these groups share is (mis)interpretations of ‘clobber’ verses that demonize non-heterosexuality.

The American Church’s embrace of lazy theology reinforces the homophobic status-quo. But by turning to history and looking closer at the verses commonly used to justify anti-LGBTQ+ stances, a different picture emerges. The result is a theology every bit as radical and loving as that which Christ preached.

The verses that Built Homophobic Christians

You’ve probably heard these Bible verses used in sermons (and you’re lucky if you haven’t) to condemn the LGBTQ+ community as sinful:

· “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Lev. 18:22).

· “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men” (1 Cor. 6:9).

Misguided interpretations of these scriptures result in the belief that the Kingdom of Heaven, and the pews of American Churches, are places where LGBTQ+ folks do not belong. But these verses don’t actually say that. By considering the cultural and social contexts from which they were written, we come to a sobering understanding.

Incest and Anal Sex

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Lev. 18:22).

I have personally heard this verse weaponized against queer folk dozens of times. Never mind that the purity codes later in the book denounce mating different animal species (sorry, Ligers) and trimming your sideburns. Why those directives could be ignored, while same-sex restrictions enforced, was never the point of sermons.

Although the verse seems like a full stop condemnation of homosexuality, it is actually something else entirely. Please read ahead at your own risk, the follow discussion becomes graphic (if you were raised in purity culture).

The first crack in the homophobic interpretation comes simply by considering the previous passages. The entirety of chapter 18 prior to this verse is a line-by-line rebuke of every possible way a man could engage in incest.

Verse 6 specifies that “you must never have sexual relations with a close relative,” and to be sure that everyone knew what a close relative was, the following 14 verses detailed who exactly that included. Arguments have been made that the real sin of the verse is incest with any male relative, not homosexual sex.

Another take considers the redundant wording, which pokes holes in a homophobic reading. If the writer intended to denounce homosexual acts, the text could easily be written, “do not have sexual relations with a man.” Instead, the author chooses to say that a man shouldn’t have sex with a man as he would a woman. Which sounds like the author is just trying to reach a word count.

To be clear, a cis-man cannot have sex with another cis-man as he would a woman. The absence of a vagina ensures this. The closest recreation would be penetrative anal sex. Some have taken this to mean that homosexual acts are sin because anal sex is non-procreative. And everyone knows the best part of sex is procreation.

Besides leaving out lesbian sex (lesbian women and femmes rejoice), this interpretation has a glaring blind spot. If homosexuality is a sin because anal sex is non-procreative, then there should be numerous sex acts listed among verse 22. The long list would include both same-sex and heterosexual activity, as everyone can (should?) engage in non-procreative sex. This argument is illogical for singling out homosexuality as inherently sinful.

So, what is it about? Sex, Community, and War

The key to unlocking this text lies in understanding ancient Israelites’ views regarding sex. Our ideas of sex revolve around consent and pleasure — rightfully so. But the ancient folks of Leviticus did not think about sex this way. They saw sex as a one-sided matter of power or reproduction. Sex was something done to someone else for the purpose of domination or birthing children.

The penetrated/bottom person often had little say in the act of sex. The top/penetrator was dominant and would literally assert himself through the act of sex. Sex between two men of similar social status would be humiliating for the man being penetrated, as it would essentially render him ‘unmanned’ or subservient. This would prevent the penetrated man from assuming his predetermined role in society.

Like I said, it was a different time (at least they didn’t have to deal with Ben Shapiro).

Along with ancient attitudes regarding sex, understanding how Israelites thought about community is important to interpreting this verse. Whereas 21st century Americans are steeped in rugged individualism, the same was not true for ancient Israelites, who were collectivist. For the most part, American culture encourages us to think of ourselves as individuals first and foremost. Israelites, on the other hand, considered themselves first (and almost exclusively) as members of a group. Their belonging to the whole nation framed how they saw life. Due to this collectivist frame, anything that happened to an individual had consequences for the whole society.

Connecting the ancient ideas about sex and community, a fuller picture emerges for what Leviticus 18:22 was warning against.

A typical ancient Israelite man — from a period of regular warfare — allowing himself to be sexually penetrated would essentially be an invitation for invasion by a superior nation. The reason is because ancient Israelites saw sexual penetration as domination, which regularly happened to men who were conquered by other nations and taken as prisoners. Thus, consensual homosexual sex was an omen of conquest and not something the ancient Israelites were keen to solicit.

This realization changes the meaning of the verse, as we can understand the ‘sin’ of homosexual sex to be its connections with the domination and conquest of the nation of Israel.

What should this all mean for me?

Honestly, not much. Not if you are someone with only a passing interest in hermeneutics (interpreting the Bible), and definitely not if you are just someone looking to love like Christ. If you happen to be a 3,000 year old ancient Israelite though, I would pay attention to the verse.

It’s important to remember that the Bible is a collection of written records of people and societies trying their best to live out faithfulness to God. The context these verses were written in matters, like alot. And while it is up for debate whether the ancient Israelites read Leviticus 18:22 and understood it as a condemnation on incest, or an overall censure on homosexual relations, there is no debate that the verse is only applicable for a reality that no longer exists.

People do not need to be warned about incest (spare some unnamed states), and two men having sex doesn’t make the Pentagon shake in fear of impending invasion. Thousands of years and miles of cultural separation makes this verse largely irrelevant to how the Church should treat Queer folks today.

Another thing to consider is that ancient Israelite society, much like ours, was broken. It was a patriarchal society that valued men above women, and tightly controlled expressions of masculinity and sexuality. The necessity of the verse can be debated for ancient people, but there is simply no reason to hold onto it for modern contexts.

What should a Christian serious about loving our neighbors do with this one Leviticus verse? The best thing would be to understand the rich social contexts from when it was written, and then rejoice that we are not bound by the same limitations.

The wrong approach is taking a verse that loosely seems to condemn homosexuality and stretch it to fit our modern lives. This does the Bible and Queer folks a disservice. The logical gymnastics required to weaponize Leviticus 18:22 and prop up homophobia in the 21st century ignores the vast differences in social realities.

It is worth noting that scripture is often complicated and if it ever too easily fits our current reality, it’s probably being read wrong.

In part two, I will look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 and dispel homophobic interpretations surrounding it.