Denver Seminary

2022-2023 Student Handbook 67 castrated. Thus, as found at Sodom (and Hivite influence at Gibeah), homosexuality may well have been practiced in the land of Canaan. Sociologically, early Israel was a patrilineal, kinship-based, agrarian society, generally surviving at a subsistence level and valuing large families for economic survival. This is demonstrated by the narratives of Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel. These place Israel in the hill country in small villages. There extended families live together around the oldest male and female. Married couples and young families tend to live with or near the husband's side of the family and the identity of both men and women tends to be defined by the patronym (X son/daughter of Y, where Y is the father) and the male line. This description also concurs with the archaeological excavations of Israelite villages with clusters of the so-called four-room (or pillared) houses, ideal for an extended family. This explains the particular prohibited incest relations, which fit in a patrilineal extended family. Generally, they identify relations a male would encounter in his household (e.g., a sister, mother, daughter, daughter-in-law, etc.). The default masculine gender in Hebrew grammar is part of the patrilineal culture and found in other laws such as the Ten Commandments (e.g., don't covet your neighbor's wife). However, as the Ten Commandments apply to women as well as men, it can be assumed that the corresponding incest prohibitions would exist for the women of the household. The same is true of the homosexual prohibitions. They should be assumed to apply to both men and women. Further, the value placed on large families in this society would reinforce prohibition of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage, especially the sort that would not provide for children. This would explain the inclusion of the prohibition of sacrificing children to Molech, as well. Besides committing murder and worshipping a false god, the practice destroyed the lives of potentially productive family members. The literary context of the homosexual laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 considers three elements: the nature of the ban as "detestable," its position in chapter 18 next to the law against child sacrifice, and its double appearance. While Leviticus 18:26 characterizes all the practices in this chapter as "detestable," only homosexuality is specifically flagged as detestable in 18:22 and 20:13. This suggests a special warning against the practice. It may be related to other warnings against improper mixtures (cf. Deuteronomy 22:11) and the crossing of boundaries (e.g., Leviticus 11) that God has set. As for the law against sacrificing children to Molech in the previous verse (Leviticus 18:21), it is possible that homosexuality played a role in the religious cult (cf. the following paragraph on cultic functionaries). However, this connection does not appear in Leviticus 20:13 and thus it cannot be limited to homosexuality as practiced in the religious cult. Finally, the fact that the law, along with the other sexual prohibitions, appears twice suggests a rhetorical emphasis designed to stress its importance. The question of cultic functionaries raises the matter of the identity of what the NIV refers to as "male shrine prostitutes." These appear in Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7 (Hebrew qadesh, plural qedeshim). Other than their association with the "detestable" practices of the Canaanite religions, there is little that can be stated with certainty. Nevertheless, they may be associated with cultic homosexual activity. A feminine form occurs in Genesis 38:15, 21-22; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; and Hosea 4:14. The OT contexts for homosexual practice are sometimes associated with either gang rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19) or with Canaanite (and other) religious practices (as in the cultic functionaries). Thus condemnation of these figures may involve other considerations than consensual homosexual activity. However, this is not the case for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Taking into consideration the grammar and the variety of contexts (cultural, social, religious, and literary), the conclusion is that homosexual practice was contrary to God's covenant with Israel. 4 Although the opening clause of the verse is usually translated, "A woman must not wear men's clothing," the Hebrew word translated as "clothing," keli, can refer to items used in a variety of settings, including the Tabernacle. Some scholars have noted that the term may also have military connotations. 5 Other NT uses of porneia ([πορνεία] e.g., Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 7:2-3; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5) point to violations of God's intentions for how the sexual relationship honors God the creator and humans made in his image. 6 See particularly Romans 1:21-32. Whereas Paul identifies the idolatry of rejecting God for other gods as the core issue in all human sinfulness, he specifically denounces the shameful and degrading sexual sins that resulted from humanity's rejection of male/female complementarity as the created design of human sexuality. When

• Cover