A Retrospective Analysis of the Homosexuality Debate in JETS

A Retrospective Analysis of the Homosexuality Debate in JETS* By David A. Sterchi Abstract: Four decades ago Linda Mercadante began the discussion about homosexuality in JETS with a book review. Her review closed with the hope that the ensuing discussion would be characterized by more compassion, more study and re-examination rather than the hardening of long-held beliefs. This study surveys the published record of discussion in JETS about homosexuality and evaluates it first quantitatively and then qualitatively against the criteria set forth by Mercadante. Evidence is presented to substantiate that the discussion has indeed included more compassion, more study and re-examination. The most abundant form of evidence is more study and re-examination, with occasional corrective reflection but virtually no articles are sequenced in a point-counterpoint format which is an important element of many other discussions in JETS. This study strives to redress this deficiency in the discussion by responding to several recent articles published in JETS, with an irenic spirit that encourages constructive dialogue and corrective reflection in the historic tradition of the ETS. Key words: Genesis 2, Genesis 9, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Ezekiel 16, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, creation, Sodom, detestable practices, Canaanite practices. I. INTRODUCTION Since the inauguration of the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society in the winter of 1958 and its expansion into the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1969, 12 fulllength journal articles and 7 book reviews have been published on homosexuality.1 The first to be published was Linda Mercadante’s review of Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott. Mercadante makes an insightful and constructive statement at the end of her review: Those who feel confident in God's ability to speak to the pressing issues of our day through the Biblical accounts should be unafraid to look further at the whole sexuality issue, including homosexuality. Scanzoni and Mollenkott have exhibited that willingness to inquire, and it is hoped that their work would encourage both more compassion and more study rather than provoking the hardening of long-held but unexamined beliefs.2 During the four decades that have passed since this review, her hopes for more compassion, more study on human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular and re-examination of long-held beliefs has been fulfilled. The contributions made by the community of scholars publishing in JETS are quantified by the bar graph below in Figure 1. *This paper was presented at the 2019 Meeting of the ETS Midwest Region hosted at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL. 1 See the appendix for a chronological listing of the articles and book reviews. Linda Mercadante, a book review of Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), JETS 22:2 (1979) 175. 2 Discussion Rate v. Time Discussion Rate (works/year) 1.5 1 0.5 0 Time (5 year intervals) Figure 1: Annual Discussion Rates in JETS about Homosexuality As the bar graph shows, the discussion rate for homosexuality in JETS has accelerated over time with the last several years being the most productive in its history. Clearly there has been more study and re-examination in response to claims made by Christians that argue for affirming same-sex relationships and marriage. Beyond the quantity of engagement is the nature of its qualities. Compassion makes a number of appearances in spite of the academic aspect of the discussion. Peterson makes the welcoming of persons struggling with same-sex attraction into the local church an ideal to which all local churches should aspire.3 Denny Burk issues a lengthy and formal exhortation for the church to become a safe and supportive place for Christians who experience same-sex attraction.4 Wesley Hill dedicates an entire article to identifying and meeting the ministerial needs of gay and lesbian Christians desiring “to live lives, over the long term, that are marked by the graces of chastity, hope, and devoted service to others.”5 The healthy re-examination homosexuality for which Mercadante hoped has several indicators and one is corrective reflection. For example, M. Daniel Carroll Rodas in his review of Donald Wold’s Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East states “At certain points the discussion seems a bit stretched” when Wold asserts that Molech worship by definition entailed a sexual component and argued from silence regarding what Jesus and Paul said about homosexuality in Mk 7:21-23 and 1 Cor 5 respectively.6 This kind of irenic intramural dialogue among scholars refines and improves the overall theological progress. Corrective reflection also occurred when Guenther Haas reviewed Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Brian N. Peterson, “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage? An Evangelical Response,” JETS 60:4 (2017) 682. 4 Denny Burk, “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?” JETS 58:1 (2015) 115. 5 Wesley Hill, “Washed and Still Waiting—An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality,” JETS 59:2 (2016) 337. 6 M. Daniel Carroll Rodas reviewing Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Donald Wold, Baker, 1998. JETS 43:3 3 Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000) by James DeYoung.7 Haas indicated DeYoung goes “further than the biblical evidence allows” in his analysis of NT passages—like when DeYoung used Jesus’ reference to Sodom and Gomorrah as an implicit condemnation of homosexuality and also when DeYoung equated porneia with homosexuality in NT vice lists. A second indication of healthy re-examination is the point-counterpoint sequencing of articles JETS uses to facilitate irenic intramural dialogue. One of the twelve articles mentioned above that touch on homosexuality—Wayne Grudem’s article analyzing William Webb’s “Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic”—initiated a pointcounterpoint sequence of articles.8 A few issues after Grudem’s article appeared in JETS, William Webb wrote an article that responded to the general concerns Grudem raised in addition to a number of other concerns raised by others in various print media.9 However, the sequence of articles by Grudem and Webb focused chiefly on theological method and addressed the topic of homosexuality much less directly.10 This study seeks to redress this deficiency in the discussion of homosexuality by responding to three recent articles published in JETS. My intention is to respond with an irenic spirit toward encouraging constructive dialogue and corrective reflection in the historic tradition of the ETS. Brian Neil Peterson first captured my attention with his article “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?—An Evangelical Response.” That scholarship in that article prompted me re-read his earlier article “The Sin of Sodom Revisited: Reading Genesis 19 in light of Torah,” and then to read his book Genesis as Torah: Reading Narrative as Legal Instruction. Peterson’s analysis of the Genesis narratives as commentary on the Law brilliantly delivers example after example of reading narrative as Torah. Peterson’s trio of articles, “ Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage” together with “The Sin of Sodom Revisited” and “Identifying the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50,” amass the intertextual connections between the Adam narratives, the Noah narratives, the Abraham narratives, the Holiness Code and Ezekiel 16 on a macrotextual level. His analysis provides many substantial and convincing observations that support these connections. However, some of the specific conclusions he draws may benefit from some corrective reflection and intramural dialogue so the traditional view of same-sex relationships can be represented in its most biblical form.11 II. PROCREATION AND MARRIAGE Guenther Haas, “Perspectives on Homosexuality: A Review Article,” JETS 45:3 (2002) 508. Wayne Grudem, “Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An Analysis of William Webb’s SWH: EHCA.” JETS 47:2 (2004). 9 William Webb, “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Encouraging Dialogue among Four Evangelical Views,” JETS 48:2 (2005). 10 Webb elected to use a less volatile topic than homosexuality (slavery) to illustrate aspects of his hermeneutic and therefore his article did not make the list compiled in my appendix. 11 I am on record stating that even though “the witness of Scripture does not condemn same-sex marriage with the absolute moral certainty claimed by most traditionalists” and that “Paul’s model for discerning the moral will of God makes a positive case for affirming same-sex marriage,” I still believe that “A viable (though less dogmatic) case for the traditional view can still be made.” Therefore, despite my affirming view, my stated goal of helping represent the traditional view in its most biblical form is genuine. See , “My Journey Toward a Text-Centered Affirmation of Same-Sex Marriage,” p. 27 available at https://forestviewpress.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/anevangelical-journey-part-i-ii1.pdf . 7 8 In his article, “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage?—An Evangelical Response,” Peterson begins his analysis by synthesizing the work of leading scholars concerning the two creation accounts in Genesis, their interpretation within Jewish tradition and the cultural context of other creation accounts from the ANE. He does this in order to describe the nature of the relationship between the two creation accounts in Genesis. His initial characterization of this relationship is that the second account in Genesis 2 elaborates on the first account in Genesis 1. 12 One of the more salient examples of this relationship is how the second account “paints a fuller picture” of the call from chapter 1 for the male and female couple to procreate. But Peterson develops this even further. He later states, “Indeed marriage offered the institutional parameters for family to emerge.”13 Quoting Kline for corroboration he cites, “It was within this marital relationship … that the procreation function … was to be fulfilled.”14 To his credit, Peterson has provided an excellent example of reading narrative as Torah, specifically that divinely sanctioned procreation is confined to marriage. But after making the effort to elucidate the relationship between the creation accounts and how procreation in the creation accounts is delimited by marriage, Peterson never explores how this restriction of procreation to marriage applies to same-sex procreation. In fairness to Peterson, he never considered this line of inquiry because he assumed that same-sex couples cannot procreate within the confines of sexual fidelity.15 However, either or both partners in a lesbian relationship constrained by sexual fidelity can become a biological parent through IUI (intra-uterine insemination) with sperm from a donor. Either or both of the two men in a gay relationship constrained by sexual fidelity, can become a biological parent by impregnating a surrogate mother via IUI or in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Given that sexually fidelitous same-sex relationships can and do procreate, it is worth considering how Peterson’s reading of narrative as Torah would apply. If divinely sanctioned procreation is restricted to marriage, does it not follow that procreation by same-sex partners should be restricted to marriage? What Peterson has clarified with his understanding of procreation and marriage vis-à-vis Genesis chapters 1 and 2, are the circumstances under which a same-sex marriage becomes a necessary condition for divinely sanctioned procreation by same-sex couples. Of course, Peterson would vehemently object to such a facile analysis and application of the moral necessity of marriage for procreation on two fronts: One, “Procreation and heterosexual coupling is the only paradigm set forth in the Bible to which we can appeal” (italics his);16 and two, “the Bible is clear—despite affirming scholars’ attempts to say otherwise—that all forms of same-sex acts are wrong.”17 Peterson’s characterization of the biblical witness by a positive command for procreation via opposite-sex coupling and a negative prohibition against same-sex coupling makes it appear there is little room for logical dispute. However, a careful examination of how he excludes same-sex coupling and the way he refutes arguments for the inclusion of Peterson, “Does Genesis 2,” 685-686. Ibid., 690. 14 Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Oakland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000), 71. 15 Peterson, “Does Genesis 2,” 691, 692. In his own words, “In the same way a husband and wife marry and procreate and bring forth a new generation, so, too, the love between Christ and his ‘bride’ was to produce ‘children’ in a metaphorical sense … Same-sex unions can never reflect this important aspect of the marriage metaphor … Modern heterosexual couples who are infertile may seek God’s intervention … Of course, this could never be true for same-sex couples.” 16 Ibid., 693. 17 Ibid., 692. 12 13 same-sex coupling exposes a logical error on the first front. Peterson argues that same-sex relationships are excluded from marriage because the only paradigm endorsed by the Bible is based on opposite-sex coupling. He reiterates this more fully when he says, “we do not have the right to adjust, add to, reimagine, or revise marriage.”18 His refutation of inclusion is stated this way, “To suggest that we can include other paradigms is an argument from silence.”19 For the purpose of analytical clarity, the silence to which Peterson refers, is the silence of Genesis 1 and 2 in particular and the Bible in general, on the inclusion of any alternative paradigms for human sexual coupling. When Peterson invokes silence to refute the inclusion of alternative sexual pairings, he ignores the nature of arguments from silence, and how it impacts his exclusion of same-sex coupling. Peterson’s invocation of the “argument from silence” becomes a doubleedged sword because Genesis chapters 1 and 2, where this opposite-sex paradigm first appears, are just as silent on the exclusion of any alternative paradigms as they are on their inclusion. It is in this sense his invocation of the “argument from silence” cuts both ways. For Peterson’s exclusion of same-sex coupling on the basis of the two creation accounts is also an argument from silence. It is just as invalid logically as the argument for inclusion. Therefore, his argument that uses specific criteria derived from the creation accounts which define the various elements of biblical marriage that exclude same-sex marriage, are logically speaking, made in vain. All of following criteria (1) social and psychological complementarity, (2) anatomical complementarity, (3) procreation, (4) sexual pleasure, and (5) self-giving love are each subsumed under his strategy to exclude of same-sex marriage using an argument from silence.20 Other “ancillary arguments” are also logically flawed. Consider this unusual appeal to Israel’s likely rejection of a same-sex paradigm metaphor: God chose the heterosexual relationship … as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people. To suggest that Israel would have accepted a samesex paradigm for their metaphorical relationship with God is illogical (italics his).21 When a biblical author employs a particular metaphor in Scripture, it is to convey meaning to the reader/listener. That meaning is entirely independent of the reader’s willingness to accept the metaphor. Therefore, whether Israel as a reader/listener would accept or reject any particular metaphor for their relationship with God has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the metaphor’s meaning. For example, consider how the contempt Israel showed God is portrayed as a wife and mother despising her husband and children (Ezek 16:44, 45). The divine revelation imparted by the metaphor is the utter rejection by Israel of her husband and children. Whether or not Israel accepts the wife/mother/husband/children metaphor is irrelevant to this meaning. Consider next, Peterson’s argument about human marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and his church. This line of reasoning relies heavily on “natural” and “wellordered” metaphors being used for Christ’s relationship to his church and the comparison of human procreation to the spiritual multiplication of the church. 18 Ibid., 695. Ibid., 693. 20 Ibid., 688, 689 lists social/psychological, anatomical complementarity, procreation and sexual pleasure; Ibid., 691 lists self-giving love. 21 Ibid., 691. 19 Affirming scholars [claim] that the ubiquitous marriage metaphor between Yahweh and Israel, and Christ and the church (cf. Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1–3; Colossians 3; Ephesians 5) does not ipso facto exclude same-sex coupling. If self-giving love is the main criterion for allowing same-sex marriage to represent Christ’s love for his bride, then why not allow any form of self-giving relationship to reflect God’s relationship with his people (father-son; motherdaughter; sister-sister; brother-brother, friend-friend, person-pet, etc.)? The fact remains that God chose what was natural to his well-ordered creation as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people… the heterosexual marriage paradigm was employed … [because] heterosexual marriages produced “fruit”/children … In the same way a husband and wife marry and procreate and bring forth a new generation, so, too, the love between Christ and his “bride” was to produce “children” in a metaphorical sense (italics his).22 Contrary to Peterson’s characterization above, some biblical authors have chosen un-natural relationships as metaphors for the relationship between God and his people such as king-subject (Ps 145:1), shepherd-sheep (Ps 23) and slave-master (Matt 6:24 and Rom 14:18 use δουλεύω not λατρεύω). Each of these un-natural relationships is a construct of fallen human culture, not God’s well-ordered creation. And yet, these humanly created relationships were chosen to illuminate the relationship between God and his people. When the broad witness of Scripture is consulted, an entire array of human relationships is employed to represent God’s relationship to his people. Some relationships are creations of fallen human culture and others are creations from divine order. This evidence from the broad witness of Scripture suggests Peterson is pressing too hard on the “natural” and “well-ordered” nature of metaphors depicting our relationship with God. But there are other more serious errors. Peterson cites Colossians 3 as an exemplar of a relationship metaphor when no metaphor is present. Ephesians 5 expressly states the self-giving love of Christ for his church is what husbands should imitate in marriage. Paul explicitly says the church’s submission to Christ is what wives should imitate in marriage. Paul quotes Gen 2:24 in Ephesians 5 and calls it a “mystery” to emphasize the mystical nature of the spiritual oneness in marriage, not the banal, self-evident truth of opposite-sex genital complementarity observed in all of the animal kingdom, not just humans. Furthermore, Ephesians 5 never even mentions the spiritual multiplication of the church let alone sexual procreation in marriage. To suggest sexual multiplication in marriage somehow informs the spiritual multiplication of the church goes well beyond the text of Ephesians 5. Finally, Ephesians 5 uses Christ’s relationship to his church as an example to illuminate relationships in human marriage, not the reverse. In actuality, Peterson does not offer a single example from Scripture of human marriage being used to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church let alone comparisons of physical procreation through marriage to spiritual multiplication in the church. This entire line of reasoning in its present form is specious. The last item to address from this article is Peterson’s third thesis that “the phrase ‘one flesh’ in Gen 2:24 is not isolated to kinship ties alone, but also has procreation in view.”23 If for the sake of argument this thesis is true, how does that impact affirming arguments that acknowledge this fact? Peterson is aware of at least one affirming argument by Achtemeier that acknowledges sexual reproduction and kinship are present in the text, but never addresses how his 22 23 Ibid., 691. Ibid., 684. understanding refutes such an argument.24 James Brownson openly acknowledges the physical dimension of one flesh, yet Peterson claims he limits one flesh solely to kinship.25 For Peterson to counter these arguments, he needs to go further. He hints at what needs to be done when he concludes “affirming scholars who limit chapter 2 to kinship ties only have in fact misread and misunderstood the heart of the narrative.”26 This conclusion implicitly assumes that the physical and spiritual meanings of becoming one flesh are both “the heart of the narrative” and carry equal importance. However, Peterson never explicitly claims that physical oneness and spiritual oneness are, in fact, equally important nor does he adduce evidence that could be construed to support such a claim. This omission renders Peterson’s argument ineffective against affirming arguments that acknowledge a secondary place for the physical meaning of becoming one flesh. Furthermore, for Peterson to make a case that physical meaning of oneness is just as important as the spiritual meaning flies in the face of a plethora of biblical examples to the contrary.27 To illustrate this point, here is one example from Scripture that involves human genitalia and its physical and spiritual importance. Paul writes in Romans 2:17-18, 28-29a; Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law … A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Clearly, spiritual circumcision is of greater importance than physical circumcision. Indeed, discerning this distinction between the lesser significance of what is physical and the greater significance of what is spiritual is a hallmark of Paul’s model for discerning God’s will from Torah as Christians.28 In light of this, it is difficult to conceive how Peterson could validate making physical oneness as significant as spiritually oneness. Ibid., 690, n. 53 acknowledges Mark Achtemeier’s argument. The argument made by David Gushee is not negated by Peterson’s concept of one flesh in Changing Our Minds, (Canton: Crumm, 2014). For another example, see the following paper presented at the 2018 Meeting for the Midwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society: , “My Journey,” p. 22 available at https://forestviewpress.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/an-evangelicaljourney-part-i-ii1.pdf . 25 Peterson, “Does Genesis 2,” 683, n. 12. But James Brownson leaves room for the physical dimension of sexual intimacy as part of one flesh unions. He states, “Kinship is part of Scripture’s one flesh union, but it is not the totality of what it means when Scripture speaks of ‘one flesh’ … [1 Cor 6] makes a clear and explicit connection between sexual union and becoming one flesh.” See Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, endnote ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 86. 26 Peterson, “Does Genesis 2,” 691. 27 Consider the following examples: (1) External physical purity of dishware vs. internal spiritual purity of the heart, Matt 23:24-26 (2) External physical worship vs. internal spiritual worship Jn 4:19-24 (3) Physical ritual righteousness vs. spiritual righteousness by faith Rom 3:20-22 & 4:11, Rom 9:13-10:21 (4) Physical identification with Adam vs. spiritual identification with Christ Rom 5:12 & 6:2 (5) Physically living by the flesh vs. spiritually living by the Spirit Rom 8:5-6 (6) Physical descent from Abraham vs. spiritual identification with Abraham by faith Rom 9:1-13 (7) Physical ritual holiness of a natural but faithless olive branch vs. Spiritual holiness of a grafted wild olive branch made holy by faith Rom 11:16-24 (8) God’s reason for selecting David as king (1 Sam 16:7). 28 For a general overview of discernment’s prominent role in Romans, see , “Discerning the Coherence of Romans,” Journal of Grace Theology 3:1 (2016) 3-17. For a more specific description of Paul’s model for discernment, see , “My Journey,” pp.16-22 available at https://forestviewpress.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/an-evangelical-journey-part-i-ii1.pdf . 24 III. THE JUDGEMENT OF SODOM The second front of Peterson’s objection to same-sex marriage (The bible is clear—all forms of same-sex acts are wrong), is impacted by the other two articles he recently published in JETS. In “The Sin of Sodom Revisited: Reading Genesis in Light of Torah,” Peterson does a masterful job of demonstrating how to read yet another narrative as Torah; the account of Sodom’s destruction and Lot’s “rape” by his daughters. Peterson draws a straight line through the judgment of the land/sexual impropriety (Gen 6/Gen 9), the judgment of Sodom/sexual impropriety (Gen 19a/Gen 19b), and Leviticus 18.29 The connections he makes between these texts are substantial and compelling. In “Identifying the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50,” Peterson adds one more piece of evidence that connects Sodom with Canaanite culture. Ezekiel attributes the origin of Jerusalem and her metaphorical sisters Sodom and Samaria to a Hittite mother and an Amorite father (Ezek 16:47) which Peterson identifies has Canaanite origins.30 The Canaanite origins of the Hittites and Amorites are part of the Table of Nations in Gen 10:1516. Moreover, consider what Gen 10:18b-19 says about the geographic reach of Canaanite culture: Later the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha. The southwestern/western frontier of Canaanite culture extended southward from Sidon toward Gerar and then extended westward to Gaza. Sodom is characterized as the outer reaches where Canaanite peoples scattered on the southeastern/eastern frontier. This geographic description of the Canaanite territory associates the city of Sodom with Canaanite culture. The fact that the Pentateuch indeed connects Sodom with Canaanite culture is exactly what Ezekiel draws upon when he creates his sisters metaphor in chapter 16. And following the connections made in the Pentateuch, Ezekiel also draws upon Genesis and Leviticus, as Peterson so deftly demonstrates.31 Once Peterson establishes the important connections between the narratives of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Sodom and the book of Leviticus, what important conclusions does he draw from them? In reference to the judgment of God in the Noah narrative Peterson states, The greater importance of these parallels is that sexual deviance/marital impropriety is at the heart of the judgment [sic] on both the world in Noah’s day and Sodom during Abraham’s era.32 This conclusion is surprising for two reasons. First, Genesis 6 directly addresses why God judged the world in Noah’s day and no sinful acts are mentioned specifically, let alone any sexual sins. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually … The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land … Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had Brian Peterson, “The Sin of Sodom Revisited: Reading Genesis in Light of Torah,” JETS 59:1 (2016) 26. Brian Peterson, “Identifying the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50,” 61:2 (2018) 313-314. 31 Ibid., 309, 311-319. 32 Peterson, “The Sin of Sodom,” 26. 29 30 corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Genesis 6:5, 7, 11-13 Second, when specific sins are ultimately identified later in Gen 9, they occur after the judgment. Those sins are (1) murder, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” in Gen 9:6 and (2) whatever Ham did to his father Noah, when he “saw his father’s nakedness and told his brothers” in Gen 9:22. Ham’s sin may well have been a sexual act, but it occurred after the flood, so it could not have been a basis for God’s judgment. Therefore, Peterson’s conclusion goes well beyond the testimony of Scripture when he claims above “sexual deviance/marital impropriety was at the heart of the judgment in Noah’s day.” In reference to the judgment of Sodom, Peterson concludes: Sodom’s sin in Genesis 19 was indeed sexual deviance [sic]. In fact, in chapter 19 homosexual acts, adultery, and incest all highlight the different forms by which this sexual deviance was expressed.33 When Sodom’s sin is viewed within both the immediate and larger contexts, sexual depravity best defines the reason for their destruction [sic].34 Sodom’s sins were many but it was the sexually deviant component that brought about judgment upon the city [sic]. Ezekiel notes this in the last clause of verse 50 [sic]; the Sodom account itself testifies to the fact that deviant sexuality brought down God’s judgment on Sodom [sic] (Gen 19:12–13; cf. Judges 19).35 Sodom’s sin is described only in general terms in the immediate context; “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave,” (Gen 18:20). The commission of these sins preceded the angelic visit. It is these pre-visit sins that incurred the judgment Abraham described as being swept away (Gen 18:23), destroying the whole city (Gen 18:28) and ultimately described by the LORD himself as destroying the whole city (18:28, 31, 32). This same verbal description of sin and impending destruction is repeated by the angelic visitors (Gen 19:13) just before the judgment begins. The sinful intentions of the heart described in Gen 19:5-9 are not the reason Sodom was sentenced to destruction.36 The sinful intentions of Gen 19:5-9 only served to demonstrate that out of “all the people from every quarter” (‫—צם עמ צ ִָּּ־כ ה צ ִָּקמ‬note the use of “people” ‫צ־כ‬, not “men” ‫ י ש נ ַ ְא‬in Gen 19:4), not even ten righteous people could be found in the city. Thus, the one condition of Abraham’s petition before the LORD was not met, and the city of Sodom was destroyed as declared in advance of the angelic visit. When Ezekiel describes the sins of Sodom in Ezek 16:49-50, the immediate context cites pride, hoarding their bounty to the exclusion of the poor and needy, haughtiness and “committing toevah” (‫נ־ צ ִָּּעמ‬ ‫ִָּ֖ה‬ ‫—) ֵׁ֤ ֵׁ֤נ־ ק עשא צ מ‬sexual immorality according to Peterson.37 Even if committing toevah refers to 33 Ibid., 27. Ibid., 31. 35 Peterson, “Identifying the Sin,” 317. 36 Peterson acknowledges that the sexual immorality of Gen 19 was only sinful intention, not actualized sinful acts, when he states “the men of Sodom failed in their attempted sexual deviancy against Lot’s guests” in “The Sin of Sodom,” 30-31. 37 Peterson, “Identifying the Sin,” 316-319. 34 sexually immoral acts in this instance as Peterson claims, (and that claim is suspect38), the immediate context cites other categories of sinful acts broad enough to include much more than just sexual immorality. Sodom’s destruction was the result of multiple categories of sinful acts, not just sexual immorality. And no one category is ever singled out as being more responsible for the judgment than others. Once again, a claim made by Peterson goes beyond what is written in Scripture. The larger context of Sodom’s judgment that Peterson identifies, includes Leviticus 18 and 20. Various practices of the Canaanites are catalogued and prohibited in these two chapters of Leviticus. Except for the reference to Molech, the regulations in Lev 18 all pertain to sexual behavior. In the introduction and conclusion to the list of sexual practices, they are all identified with Canaanite culture, and are therefore associated with Sodom. You must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices … Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled … The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came … Leviticus 18:3b, 24b-30 When Lev 20 recapitulates the material from chapter 18, it adds some new Canaanite customs to the list; consulting a medium (20:6), cursing parents (20:9), marrying a sister (20:17), marrying a sister-in-law (20:21), eating unclean food (20:25). In the conclusion (Lev 20:22b-26), these customs are again identified with the nations that inhabited the land (i.e. Canaanites), and are therefore associated with Sodom. Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them … I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations … Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own. Leviticus 20:22b-26 Evidence suggests “committing toevah” in this instance does not mean sexual deviance. In Ezek 16, the sexual metaphor of a wife turned prostitute stops at verse 43. In verse 44, Ezekiel transitions from the husband/wife metaphor to the new metaphor of mothers, daughters and sisters. Note first that sexuality is not part of the mothers/daughters/sisters metaphor. Note second that non-sexual categories of sin are enumerated in verses 47-52 of the non-sexual daughters/sisters metaphor. And within this non-sexual metaphor, amidst a series of categories for classifying Sodom’s sins, Ezekiel uses the singular form of toevah ( ‫) ִָּ֖ה נ־ צ ִָּּעמ‬. Peterson’s claim that “Ezekiel only uses the singular form when sexual sins are in view” (Ibid., 318) is simply not correct. Similarly, in Ezek 18:12, the sin immediately preceding the singular form of toevah is idolatry (compare Deut 13:14 & 17:4) and usury immediately follows it. The nearest reference to sexuality is in a prior verse, three sins away and part of an entirely separate wawconsecutive clause. This is a second example that demonstrates that Ezekiel does not always have sexual deviance in view when he uses the singular form of toevah. 38 The way chapters 18 and 20 form an inclusio of common material around chapter 19, it makes the careful reader want to investigate whether chapter 19 also lists practices associated with Canaanite culture. Given the dependence of Ezekiel on Leviticus demonstrated by Peterson, Ezekiel can be mined for evidence of material from Lev 19 being included with material from Lev 18 and 20. In point of fact, this is precisely what is observed in Ezekiel.39 Here are some of the practices from Lev 19 that are included together with practices from Lev 18 and 20: Idolatry (Lev 19:3/Ezek 22:3), contempt for parents (Lev 19:3/Ezek 22:7), judging the poor unfairly (Lev 19:15/Ezek 22:7), profaning Sabbaths (Lev 19:3/Ezek 22:8), slandering you neighbor (Lev 19:16/Ezek 22:9), oppressing foreigners (Lev 19:33/Ezek 22:29) and failing to revere the Temple (Lev 19:30/Ezek 44:7). By drawing that straight line from the narratives in Genesis about Adam, Noah, Abraham and Sodom all the way through Leviticus as Peterson has suggested, here is what can be concluded about the culture of Canaan and by association the culture of Sodom. First and foremost, the constellation of cultural practices enumerated in Lev 18, 19, 20 and also cited by Ezekiel, are not limited to sexual behavior. To be sure, sexual practices were among them, but the non-sexual practices outnumber the sexual practices. Furthermore, neither the sexual nor the non-sexual practices are singled out as a primary cause for Sodom’s destruction. So far as the Sodom narrative is concerned, neither the immediate context nor the larger context make the sexual practices of Canaanite culture exhibited in Sodom the primary reason for Sodom’s destruction.40 The Genesis narratives and Leviticus 18 harbor other intertextual connections that bear directly on one final claim made by Peterson that must be addressed. He states in his conclusion: Throughout this paper I have demonstrated that the central problem for the men of Sodom and Lot’s family was their failure to abide by God’s divine decrees, especially those related to God’s moral standards. Nowhere are these decrees clearer than the presentation of Leviticus 18.41 This claim that Leviticus 18 presents divine decrees related to God’s moral standards is worth investigating further. Because moral standards transcend time and culture, whatever was immoral ante legem, remained immoral sub lege and continues to be immoral post legem. Let’s evaluate how Lev 18 holds up as a list of moral standards in light of its connections to the Adam and Abraham narratives. Lev 18:6 says, “None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse. I am the LORD.” The phrase “close relative” (‫ ) שֹ ו ְּשב ְׁיש‬describes a special ‫ְנ‬ ‫ש‬ kind of close relative kinship. Sometimes that close familial relationship is identified only by a ְ ) instead of the entire phrase (e.g. Lev 18:12, 13; part of the phrase, such as “relative” (‫ש ניש‬ compare Lev 20:19, 21:2, Num 27:11). Other verses in the Pentateuch identify this close family relationship by collocating “flesh” (‫ ) צֹושש‬with other words. For example, it is combined with “bone” (‫ש עהא י שע ִָּּשא‬ ִָּּ ‫ ) ֵׁ֤־‬in Gen 29:14 and “brother” in Gen 37:27 ‫) צי עיא י‬. Within this context of ‫ש‬ (‫עש נ ִָּּש י‬ kinship vocabulary, consider these two examples involving Adam and Abraham. God made a 39 The primary way material from Lev 19 is identified as being included together with material from Lev 18 and 20 is their joint classification under “detestable things,” the plural form (‫)הב נ־ ְׁעבה‬. 40 It should also be noted that the reason the Canaanites were expelled from the land cannot be limited to sexual practices either, contrary to Peterson’s claim “the author of Leviticus notes that it was sexual sins that caused the Canaanites to be spewed from the land [sic] (18:3, 24–30; 20:22–24),” Ibid., 317. In light of the inclusion of Lev 19 in the list of Canaanite practices presented in Leviticus and Ezekiel’s corroboration of that inclusion, the sexual sins of Canaanites were not singled out as the reason for their expulsion from the land. 41 Peterson, “The Sin of Sodom,” 31. promise to Abraham that he would have an heir in Gen 12:7. Later, God repeated his promise and clarified the promise by saying, “I … will surely give you a son by her,” meaning Sarah not Hagar or any other woman (Gen 17:16a). That clarification presents a serious problem, because Abraham later reveals Sarah is his half-sister through his father (Gen 20:12). Sarah is Abraham’s “close relative” (‫) שֹ ו ְּשבש ְׁי‬. The specific close relative law against Sarah and Abraham having ‫ְ נ‬intercourse states: ‫ש‬ You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere. Leviticus 18:9 Sarah and Abraham’s conception of Isaac violate this specific law. If this law is a moral standard, then what are we to make of God’s role in this illicit conception? When God promised to give Abraham an heir through Sarah, he was implicitly instructing Abraham to continue having intercourse with Sarah until she conceived a son. God cajoling Abraham into breaking a moral standard and then blessing that transgression, creates a moral contradiction that makes no rational sense. It compels us to acknowledge that this specific prohibition of half-sibling intercourse cannot be a moral standard or we make God complicit in an immoral act. ְ ‫) נ ִָּּ־ ֖ק ֵש ק‬, he breaks a previous When God creates Eve to be a “corresponding help” ( ִָּ֖ ‫ש‬ ‫שם‬The plants and animals were all created “after their kind” pattern. plus ‫ ע האמ‬plus various (‫ע‬ pronomial suffixes). But Eve is created from one of Adam’s bones. When Adam describes his relatedness to Eve as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23), he uses the collocation of “flesh” (‫ ) צֹושש‬and “bone” (‫) ק־ ִָּּקכ‬. Recall, this collocation is used in Genesis to define close relative kinship in Gen 29:14.42 Because of the way God chose to create Eve, she is Adam’s “close relative” (‫ְ נ ְׁיש‬ ‫) ְּשב שֹ וש‬. Intercourse for Adam and Eve violates the close relative sex ban. Now God could have created Eve from “the dust of the ground” (‫ )המע צמ י ִָּ֔צ ְּ צהמ ־ צהש‬for Adam after “his own own kind” (‫) ש הא ְּ ב‬. And if God had created Eve from the dust of the ground after Adam’s own kind, he would have avoided violating the close relative ban. But instead, God chose to go out of his way to create Eve with this special close relative kinship with Adam. And God did not passively tolerate their close relative kinship for sexual intercourse. He actively commanded them to consummate their relationship sexually and to reproduce (Gen 1:28). Furthermore, the narrator uses the occasion of Eve’s creation as an illicit sexual partner as an etiological explanation for the institution of marriage (Gen 2:21-24). God’s special creation of Eve, its connection to the etiology of marriage and his command for the two prototypical humans to sexually multiply in violation of the close relative sex ban, collectively compel us to acknowledge that this close relative kinship criterion cannot be a moral standard or we make God complicit in the immoral intercourse between Adam and Eve. These two proscriptions from Leviticus 18 with their divinely sanctioned exceptions demonstrate that the close relative kinship criterion in and of itself is not a moral standard that transcends time and culture. Therefore, all the laws subsumed under this criterion are defined by a criterion that is not a moral standard. This impacts twelve of the sixteen sex laws in Lev 18. Moreover, there are implications for the ban against same-sex intercourse. The ban against sameThis collocation of “bone and flesh” (‫שִָּ עהא יע צש ִָּּשא‬ ּ ‫ ) ֵׁ֤־‬is used to define Jacob’s relationship to his uncle Laban. The aunt/nephew relationship between Jacob and Laban’s unnamed wife is one of the banned sexual relationships (Lev 18:14) subsumed under the general close relative ban in Lev 18:6). 42 sex intercourse is contextually connected to the other proscriptions in Lev 18. Recall that Peterson observes the connection between the same-sex ban and the close relative ban in Genesis 19.43 Robert Jewett has observed a connection between the close relative bans in Lev 18 and Paul’s paraphrase of the same-sex ban in Rom 1:27.44 The close relative bans often employ the phrase “Do not uncover the nakedness of” (LXX, οὐκ ἀποκαλύψεις· ἀσχημοσύνη). However, the same-sex ban does not employ this nakedness phrase. Nevertheless, when Paul paraphrases this same-sex ban from the LXX in Rom 1:27 he writes, “men in men committing nakedness” (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι). Paul connects the same-sex ban with nakedness much like Peterson connects Ham’s nakedness violation with a same-sex act.45 Now if the close relative criterion that governs twelve sexual bans in Leviticus 18 has divinely sanctioned exceptions and the same-sex ban has multiple connections to the same twelve sexual bans, then how can we be absolutely certain the same-sex ban is without exception? Although Peterson claims the connections between the Genesis narratives and Leviticus 18 reveal a moral clarity to sexual boundaries, this fuller examination of these narratives and their connection to Leviticus 18 exposes a complexity that firmly resists facile analysis and application. Therefore the second front of Peterson’s objection to the sanctification of same-sex procreation through marriage, his claim, “the Bible is clear … that all forms of same-sex acts are wrong,” requires qualification. First, any regulation against Canaanite practices derived from the Pentateuch has to be subjected to some rigorous theological analysis before it becomes a Christian obligation. The same Levitical code that regulated male-male intercourse in Leviticus 20:13 also regulated clean and unclean food in Lev 20:25. How we theologically decide to abide by one and discard the other is not simple. This kind of theological analysis cannot be reduced to phrases like “the Bible is clear.” Second, defining the scope of a statement is also a complicated theological task. When Paul says, “In Christ all men are made alive” or “The grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared” we do not simply assume that Paul subscribed to Universal Reconciliationism because “the Bible is clear.” No, we do our due diligence to exegetically and theologically understand the scope of all in these statements. But Peterson never addresses the scope of the same-sex prohibition in Lev 18:22 vis-à-vis Genesis 19 and/or Ezekiel 16.46 His claim that “all forms of same-sex coupling are wrong” is based solely on his argument from silence on the exclusion of same-sex coupling in the creation accounts.47 His failure to address the scope of the exclusion of same-sex coupling based on a passage that actually speaks to the issue is a major omission since he is aware of “affirming scholars’ attempts to say otherwise.”48 43 Ibid., 24-25. Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 179. 45 Ibid., 26. 46 Peterson, “The Sin of Sodom,” 28. Peterson claims the sexual laws of Lev 18 were binding on “all peoples” but that application is to “all peoples” living sub lege, not post legem, nor does it really address the scope of “all forms” of same-sex coupling. He also appears unaware that the “toevoth” from Lev 18-20 include Sabbath keeping from Lev 19:3 according to Ezekiel’s reading of Lev 18-20 in Ezekiel 22. This begs the question, Are “all” post legem peoples including Christians to observe Sabbaths today because “all” sub lege peoples in the land were subject to it? 47 Peterson, “Does Genesis 2,” 692. 48 Ibid., 692. 44 IV. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing discussion, here is what Peterson accomplished in his three articles. The article “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage? An Evangelical Response” demonstrated that (1) Genesis 2 does paint a fuller picture of Gen 1; (2) the “complementary helper” of Gen 2:18 and 20 does point toward physical gender and its purpose for procreation, not just spiritual and social companionship; and (3) the concept of becoming “one flesh” is not limited to kinship ties alone but also includes physical intercourse for biological procreation. However, same-sex marriages can and have biologically procreated and multiple affirming arguments by evangelical authors are compatible with the above three points.49 This article does not address the import of same-sex couples procreating within the confines of marriage nor does it engage the evangelical arguments that are compatible with the above three points. The other two articles “The Sin of Sodom Revisited: Reading Genesis in Light of Torah” and “Identifying the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50” demonstrate that homosexuality was indeed one of the many sins of Sodom, but the judgment was based on more than just the sexual sins of Sodom. But again, multiple affirming arguments by evangelical authors are compatible with this fact. So despite the fact that these three articles include splendid textual analysis at both the micro and macro levels, little progress is made advancing the traditional view of homosexuality against recent affirming arguments by evangelical authors. In order to make genuine progress demonstrating how the traditional view best represents the broad witness of Scripture regarding same-sex relationships and marriage, traditional evangelical authors need to engage affirming evangelical authors on the chief point of contention between them—the scope of what is and what is not prohibited by Lev 18:22 and condemned by Rom 1:24-27. 49 See n. 24 and 25 above. Appendix A Chronological Listing of Book Reviews and Journal Articles Featured in JETS Linda Mercadante. Book Review. Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View. By Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott. Harper, 1978. JETS 22:2 (1979). Dennis Hollinger. Book Review. Homosexuality and the Church. By Richard Lovelance. Revell, 1978. JETS 23:1 (1980). James DeYoung. “The Meaning of ‘Nature’ in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual Behavior.” JETS 31:4 (1988). James DeYoung. “The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality.” JETS 34:2 (1991). Keith Pavlischek. Book Review. Against Nature: Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality. By Pim Pronk. Eerdmans, 1993. JETS 38:4 (1995). James Beck. “Evangelicals, Homosexuals and Social Science.” JETS 40:1 (1997). M. Daniel Carroll Rodas. Book Review. Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. By Donald Wold. Baker, 1998. JETS 43:3 (2000). Peter Jones. “Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal.” JETS 43:3 (2000). Guenther Haas. Perspectives on Homosexuality: A Review Article. JETS 45:3 (2002). Al Hiebert. Book Review. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. By William Webb. InterVarsity, 2001. JETS 45:4 (2002). Jeanine Graham. Book Review. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. By William Webb. InterVarsity, 2001. JETS 45:4 (2002). Wayne Grudem. “Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An Analysis of William Webb’s SWH: EHCA.” JETS 47:2 (2004). Edwin Yamauchi. “Scripture as Talisman, Specimen or Dragoman.” JETS 50:1 (2007). Denny Burk. “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?” JETS 58:1 (2015). Brian Peterson. “The Sin of Sodom Revisited: Reading Genesis 19 in Light of Torah.” JETS 59:1 (2016). Wesley Hill. “Washed and Still Waiting: An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality.” JETS 59:2 (2016). Brian Peterson. Book Review. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church. By William Loader, Megan DeFranza, Wesley Hill, and Stephen R. Holmes. Edited by Preston Sprinkle. Counter-points Series, Zondervan, 2016. JETS 60:3 (2017). Brian Peterson. “Does Genesis 2 Support Same-Sex Marriage? An Evangelical Response.” JETS 60:4 (2017). Brian Peterson. “Identifying the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50.” JETS 61:2 (2017).