Homosexuality in Leviticus, and Deuteronomy,
Posted: Saturday, November 15, 2008
by Tex Norman
Warning: This essay could be a stumbling block for new or weak Christians.
If you are trying to find Biblical backing to support an opposition to homosexuality you have to look hard, because the Bible doesn't say all that much about it. One of the few passages that might support it would be Deuteronomy 23:17 and then it is found only if you are using the King James translation.
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel , nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel "
Some might suggest that a more accurate translation would read:
"No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."(NIV) Deut 23:17
It is temple prostitution that is being condemned in this passage, NOT homosexuality. I am not opposed to sexual activity, but I do understand why some would think it should be an expression of love between two people and part of pair-bonding. Using sexual activities to obtain money, or in a way for a powerful person to dominate or exploit a weaker person, or as some sort of ritual practice is not something I like, but as an expression of love in a committed relationship, well, that is something of which do tend to approve. What I think the Deuteronomy passage is condemning is this exploitive, ritual use of sexual activity separate, and apart from a loving committed relationship.
I believe the scriptures condemn rape, sexual violation, sadistic sexual acts, sexual exploitation, incest, and ritual sex acts. Gang rape of males against a male, or males against a female are both sinful and criminal acts.
Perhaps the best verse in the Old Testament to use as a condemnation of homosexuality is found in Lev 20:13:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)
There is absolutely no doubt here that it is the homosexual act that is being condemned. So does the Bible condemn homosexual acts? Yes. It might be important to note that this passage, condemning gay sex, is found in a list of purification laws. These purification laws are designed to keep the Chosen People of God to be as pure and clean and worthy as possible before they attempted to worship God. Back in the 1950s we use to have our weekly baths Saturday night, so when we got up Sunday morning we could put on our Sunday clothes, and our Sunday shoes and go to church clean and wearing our best.
Under this Hebraic purity system some things were considered pure and other things are impure, and while we may agree with some of their impure stuff, we definitely do not agree with them on all of the stuff they considered impure. Se how many of these you would agree with: The Chosen People of God were not allowed to worship for the following reasons:
- childbirth
- menstruation.
- Being blind,
- being lame,
- being a dwarfed
- being hunchbacked
- having gay sex
- eating or even touching pork
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that most fundamentalist Christians agree that gay sex is dirty and unclean, but almost none of that same group would forbid someone from coming into the church building if they were blind, or on their period, or lame, or suffering from any other sort of physical disability.
Now I am going to take another guess and say that while most fundamentalist Christians would say that all the Bible is God's word and we have to follow all of it, and that it would be wrong to pick one rule and ignore another, that is exactly what is happening with this list of purity laws. If we seek to use the Old Testament purity laws to support our condemnation of homosexuality then we also have to condemn:
- eating ham and eggs
- playing football (the ball is made of pig skin remember), oh, yeah, and
- all males will have to be circumcised
You can't have it both ways. You cannot choose to apply one of these purity laws and bind it on us if you are not going to bind all of them on us.
OK, you can do so, but it would be an inconsistent thing to do, it wouldn't make sense to me, and it would seem fair. This inconsistent application of some laws and ignoring other laws is exactly what the Apostle Paul's argument in Galatians. The Apostle Paul said that if you are going to require gentiles be circumcised, then you are going to have to insist that they keep everything else in the Law as well. You can't pick and choose among the rules in God's Word.
See also:
http://searchwarp.com/swa398159.htm
http://searchwarp.com/swa398331.htm
This Article has been viewed 2,609 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)Hi Tex, great layout of your article, it is very clear and easy to follow. However, there are a lot more places in the Bible that teach Homosexuality as sin. It crosses over into the New Testament. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Corinthians and Revelation. As far as the other laws you list of impurity, they are all covered as well by the New Covenant. As the Gospel of John tells us that the Law came by Moses but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. We as Christians have to use the entire word of God, you are right about that.Interestingly enough, none of the purification laws are mentioned as sin in the new testament accept homosexuality, but then there are a whole lot others mentioned, like adultery, sex outside of marriage, thinking lustful thoughts, gossip..No we cannot pick and choose, but are to take the entire Bible in context and teaching. As Timothy tells us to rightly divide the word of truth.Finally, I guess I am confused at your bottom line. Are you saying you don't think homesexuality is sin because you are okay with eathing ham and eggs?Thanks for listening, not trying to argue, just felt it important to add my little two-cents :-)Peace,Teresa
Hi Tex.
I think that our culture has predisposed us to read things into the Bible that are not there. This is technically known as eisegesis. Now, if we leave the Mosaic laws aside for the time being, the New Testament does clearly condemn homosexuality (as Teresa pointed out). Please read the following verses: Romans 1: 18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 22:15.
I believe God loves all people. But I also believe He is holy and calls us to holiness and homosexuality is something that the Bible does not regard as holy.
Joel
Hi Tex, I agree with most – but not all – that you wrote. I can’t afford to throw the first stone as even St. Paul, who says in Romans 1 that homosexuality is sin, says in 1 Timothy 1:15 that he is the worst of sinners. But I do feel that even accidental sins are sins before a holy God. Yes, we are often quick to excuse our sins and point our finger at the sins of others. We all need His mercy.
God bless.
Joel
Peace be with you Joel. I honor you commitment to your God.
I think it unnecessary to give warning to new or what you call weak Christians. A true Christian -one who has been born again - would not waver in their thoughts, and there really is no such thing as a weak Christian because being saved is a gift from God. Maybe I'm wrong, and there are times when a Christian can become vulnerable.However, when you ask "Do you believe there are some sins worse in God's sight than other sins. Some say there is no degree of sin that sin is sin and God hates any sin and all sin."I would think that there would be. I mean, obviously murder is worse than a little white lie every now and then. At the same time, when you say you think homosexuality is not mentioned very often - I believe it is actually mentioned as a sin more often than murder.I'm not sure exactly why. Nevertheless, there certainly is a great deal of emphasis on it. But I'm not saying that I support any hatred towards them and I am strongly against violent acts against anyone.
When does the next revision of God's law occur? I mean if it changed before, why can't it change again? How can someone say "The law has changed, however, you may not change it again"?Jacob
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.