Responding to claims about homosexuality & the Bible

Summary

Dan McClellan responds to Robert Gagnon’s argument that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 express universal moral rules against same-sex intercourse.

McClellan says the laws are addressed to Israelites and to foreigners living in Israel. He argues that they apply to male Israelites wherever they live, as well as to anyone living in the land. In his reading, the chapters connect prohibited acts with contamination of the land and the risk that its inhabitants will be expelled. He also stresses that these passages specifically address male same-sex intercourse, not female same-sex relations.

A central dispute concerns Leviticus scholar Jacob Milgrom. Gagnon cites Milgrom’s statement that compliance with the law is required for residing in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere. McClellan argues that Gagnon removes the remark from context: Milgrom also says the prohibition applies to male Jews living outside Israel, as well as to inhabitants of the Holy Land. McClellan says this supports his distinction between the law’s relevance to Israelites and its relevance to people living in Israel.

Gagnon argues that land-based penalties do not mean the underlying acts are morally acceptable elsewhere. He also appeals to biblical passages that depict Yahweh as judging or governing the wider world. McClellan counters that the Hebrew Bible does not explicitly show God punishing other nations for these sexual acts within their own territories. He points to passages in Deuteronomy that distinguish Israel’s obligations from practices permitted to other nations, and argues that Gagnon assumes a universal moral framework the texts themselves do not establish.

The two also dispute how to interpret biblical references to Yahweh’s authority over the world. McClellan distinguishes cosmic sovereignty from direct political rule over each nation and argues that some passages Gagnon cites reflect later, exilic or post-exilic developments. He further notes that Leviticus 18 and 20 prescribe different penalties and should be understood as distinct textual layers.

McClellan concludes that Gagnon misrepresents his position and Milgrom’s scholarship, and relies on arguments McClellan considers unrepresentative of critical scholarship. He says later Jewish and Christian interpretations are not the focus of his analysis, which concerns what the authors of Leviticus intended. He also condemns Gagnon’s rhetoric about LGBTQ people as harmful and says he will not respond to him further.

Presenters and Contributors

• Dan McClellan — presenter and respondent.
• Robert Gagnon — contributor whose arguments and remarks are discussed and excerpted.
• Jacob Milgrom — scholar cited in the discussion; not a presenter in the video.