Leviticus
18:22
"'Do not lie with a man as one
lies with a woman; that is
destestable."
Leviticus
20:13
"'If a
man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both
of them have done what is destestable. They must be
put to death; their blood will be on their own
heads.
I always find it interesting when people refer
to Leviticus to condemn homosexuality. Especially
considering how much of the book they, themselves,
ignore. But that is not a valid argument for
ignoring Scripture. The explanations of the
Levitical references are fourfold:
1.) The purpose for which they were
written.
2.) Lack of other coraborating Scriptural evidence.
3.) The original terms used.
4.) The New Testament views on Levitical
law.
One argument I will not use is one I've often
heard used from the gay camp... It says, "When you
live up to all the laws in Leviticus then you can
tell me to do so." If I were to use that position I
would be saying, "I know Levitical Law is still
binding today, but, because you choose not to obey
it, I have license to disobey it also." That just
doesn't make sense to me. It removes my own personal
responsibility toward Scripture and, more
importantly, toward God. I will only have to
answer to Him concerning my life. Whether or not
someone else obeyed Him will never be discussed at
the judgment seat.
I will generally treat these two references as one for the purpose of this study. Where there are differences in the arguments used I will point them out, but, since these two verses are in the same book, since they are located so closely together within that book, and since they use nearly identical words, I will treat them essentially as one.
1.) I want to draw your attention to the beginning and the ending of chapter 18. Verses 1—5 sets the context in which the chapter is to be interpretted. Verses 24—30 drive the context home. Any interpretations outside of the Scripture given context are man-made. They fall into the catagory of tradition.
Here is the context in which chapter 18 is set:
(3)You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
The following 20 laws are put in here specifically because these are the kinds of things that Israel had been exposed to in Egypt or that they were about to be exposed to in Canaan. There seem to be 14 laws concerning family sexual realtionships (verses 6—18), two laws about general sexual relationships (verses 19 & 20), and four laws concerning religious sexual relationships. Each seems to have it's own section. The chapter seems to be grouped in this way.
I say the last section is religious because of verse 21: "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." From what I understand, the term "sacrifice" could be more than the ritual killing of children. It could also be the giving over of children to the temple for sexual worship of Molech. Considering the context of the whole chapter, I think this makes sense especially in the light of chapter 20 verses 1—5. Verses 22 and 23 in chapter 18 were also common worship practices for various religions in the region at the time.
Then, in the closing comments on chapter 18, we read again, "(24)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;..." and, "(27)...for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled."
Chapter 20 repeats many of the same laws found in 18. The biggest difference is that chapter 20 adds the death penalty for many of them. And they don't seem to be so nicely grouped together. But the thrust of the chapter itself is identical to chapter 18. In 20:23 we see the same warning against following the traditions and practices of the surrounding nations. While the repetition adds emphasis to their importance (as well as increases the penalties), it does not change either the intent or the reasonings behind the laws themselves.
We see here a condemnation of homosexual religious practices, but not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality per se.
2.) Another reason I make this claim has more to do with what Scripture doesn't say than with what it does say. I realize making an argument from a position of silence is a rather risky business. Indeed, I often rail against such arguments myself. But in this case I think the argument has some validity.
Scripture — especially Old Testament Scripture — has quite a reputation for making lists. It lists geneologies, geographies, war statisics, possessions and, of course, laws. In all the other lists of laws, why is the law against homosexuality not mentioned? Especially in Deuteronomy 27 we have a great number of the same laws we find in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. But not 'that' law. Why?
If this law is so important, why is it never mentioned in all the other lists of laws in the Old Testament?
The reason is that God detests the use of sexual relations within the context of religious worship. As homosexual behavior was used for religious practices it stands condemned — there is no question. Heterosexual behavior used for worship also stands condemned. But homosexuality is not condemned across the board any more than heterosexuality is so condemned. In fact, homosexuality (a monogomous, loving, committed same-sex relationship) is simply never mentioned.
3.) The word "detestable" here in the NIV (KJV uses the more familiar "abomination") is translated from the Hebrew word "Toebhah". Toebhah is always connected with idol worship.
Baily has said, "On the other hand, immoral sexual conduct itself (including, as we have seen, homosexual acts between males) is also designated toebhah: but this does not mean that there is anything peculiarly "abominable" in such behavior; it is placed in the category of "abominations" because it is typical of the idolater, with his lax moral standards and ethical irresponsibility."
†
A thing is Toebhah as it or its use is connected with idolaltry. The word is used very consistently throughout the Old Testament and I have yet to find a single Hebrew scholar that hasn't substantiated this fact.
There is still the question, however, as to whether homosexual behavior is detestable because it can lead to idol worship, because it comes from idol worship, because it is idol worship, or as it is used within idol worship?
Since I know many gay people, both Christian and non-Christian, and since I know several people, both gay and straight, who do indeed worship idols, and since I have yet to find any normal, detectable or consistent connection between homosexuality and idol worship, I have to reject the ideas that being gay comes from, leads to, or is idol worship. The Scripture itself does not go into those details. However, Scripture does make it clear that many things which, by themselves, are not wrong, become wrong when practiced within idol worship (compare Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 with Deuteronomy 25:5 & 6), I have to place homosexuality in the same catagory (See the study of the Romans passage).
Again, within the language of the passage itself, Leviticus in no way condemns homosexuality. Rather it condemns any sexual activity connected directly with the worship of idols.
†Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Ph.D.: Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, ©1955 by LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO., Ltd, London; reprinted in 1975 by Archon Books
This is a most interesting work. Dr. Bailey spends 152 pages knocking holes in and disproving the arguments against homosexuality, and then spends another 24 pages telling us he still thinks it is an abomination (he is severely hampered in this effort by the fact that he has already rendered all the arguments as useless).
|
Genesis •
Judges •
Romans •
Corinthians •
Timothy
Home •
Pantheism •
Scriptural Essays •
My Thoughts •
Site Updates •
Theater Resume •
Email Me
4.)We must now, for a moment, turn our attention to the New Testament to see how the Law is looked at after Christ, the Messiah, has come. We know a lot of specific things have changed in the New Testament. For instance, Christians are not required to follow the sacrificial laws or the celebration laws. Foods that were unclean to Israel are now acceptable. But how does the New Testament look at the law in general?
Rather than rambling on about it, I will simply give you Scripture that shows how the Law was handled after Christ.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ('Fulfill' according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is to complete or finish.)
Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
Romans 13:8—10 "(8)Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. (9)The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (10)Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Galatians 3:10—14 "(10)All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the Law.' (11)Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.' (12)The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.' (13)Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree." (14)He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." It stands to reason that if we cannot be justified by observing the law, we will not be declared unjustified by lack of that observance.
1 Timothy 1:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."
I encourage you to take each of these Scriptures and put them into their own broader context. And, for a more detailed study of the Mosaic Law, read the whole of Galatians.
To wrap this up, I find absolutely no evidence for a blanket condemnation on homosexuality based on Leviticus. The purpose of the passage is not to condemn being gay, but condemn sexual activity in idol worship. If homosexuality were condemned here it would not have been left out of the other lists of laws in the Old Testament. The language of the text does not condemn homosexuality, but rather, the behavior when used for idol worship. And lastly, the New Testament makes it quite clear we are no longer obligated to the Mosaic Law to begin with, but are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).
Genesis •
Judges •
Romans •
Corinthians •
Timothy
Home •
Pantheism •
Scriptural Essays •
My Thoughts •
Site Updates •
Theater Resume •
Email Me
