Levitical Law and Homosexuality

Current mood: peaceful

I have noticed a lot within the secular Gay-Pride movement, the “Gay Christian” Movement, and within liberalism in general, the trend of believing that Old Testament Levitical laws are no longer useful to us Christians in the 20th century and should be ignored all together.

I am going to “pick on” two verses in Leviticus that explicitly spell out that homosexuality is indeed sinful behavior before a Holy God.

Lev 18:22 (ESV): You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 (ESV): If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I just read a friend’s blog concerning Levitical Laws… she seemed to be snidely implying that laws against homosexuality in Leviticus are along the same lines of offense to us today as wearing a shirt that is a cotton-polyester mix (Lev 19:19), for whatever value that may be of today.

This is a common error unfortunately, and many Christians do not know of how to respond to this assertion. However, just today I was reading in Joe Dallas’ The Gay Gospel? about this VERY SUBJECT! I’m convinced it was a “God thing” that I read today the portion that I would need to address Steph’s assertions with. Anyway… I’m borrowing HEAVILY from the book, pgs 184-186:

———————————-

Those opposed to the biblical view of gay behavior (identifying it as sin) claim that those of us who pick out these particular verses in the OT and use it to oppose “gay marriage” (or whatever) are picking and choosing what OT law we want to hang on to. This, however, is not the case. It isn’t a matter of picking and choosing, but rather looking at scripture as a whole. Christians must recognize three things about the OT Law:

1) The Law is good. We as believers are not under the Law, and in fact, cannot keep it no matter how hard we may try. Nonetheless, the Law itself is good, and the New Testament in no way nullifies it. Check out Romans 7:12, Galatians 3:24, and Matthew 5:17… the NT clearly agrees that the Law is perfect, just, and good.

2) The New Testament clarifies portions of the Law that are no longer binding to the Christian. When portions of the Law are specifically mentioned in the NT as no longer binding, then we are no longer obligated to keep them. Again, this is not “picking and choosing,” but looking at the Holy Word of God as a whole. So for example, when Hebrews 12 tells us that we are not bound to sacrifice animals to atone for sin, because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sufficient, we are NOT ignoring the Law’s earlier commandments to make sacrifice. We’re simply recognizing that the final sacrifice has been made–so the verses commanding the sacrifice are no longer binding. The same can be said of dietary and ceremonial laws, which were binding to Israel but are not to modern Christian believers, according to Galatians 3:10-13

3) Some commandments are contained in the Law; some also transcend the Law. In Lev 18 and 20, incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexuality are all prohibited. And these prohibitions are repeated in the NT as well, making them not only a part of the Law, but the broader biblical ethic as well. In fact, according to Leviticus 18:27, all the abominations practiced and prohibited in this chapter (adultery, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality) defiled the land when they were committed by the land’s inhabitants. God also stated He “detested” (NIV and KJV both say “abhorred”) the people who inhabited the land before Israel did because they practiced these behaviors (Leviticus 20:23). Clearly these practices offended God no matter WHO practiced them, or in what context. In other words, there are some commandments contained in the Law that are not binding to believers; others are both contained in the Law and also transcend the Law.

The commandment to love God, for example, is spelled out in the Law, but it is repeated throughout both Testaments as well. The same is true of the commandments to love one’s neighbor, speak the truth, and deal justly with all people. Although these rules are contained in the Law, they’re also stressed in the Gospels, the epistles, and the books of wisdom and poetry.

If the commandment to abstain from any form of homosexual behavior was a minor technicality only applicable to Israel during a specified point in history [such as, Steph, your "discovery" that wearing a cotton/polyester mixed tee-shirt is a sin, etc], then it would hardly be worth our attention today. But when a commandment is contained within the Law, then repeated and reiterated throughout Scripture, then it is binding not only today, it is also binding to all.

———————————-

There is a huge difference between stoning someone (referring to “Let him who is without sin, throw the first stone” in John 8:7) and pointing out sin and calling the individual to repentance (1 Cor 5). If not, I guess Paul would be guilty of stone-throwing, eh? I mean shoot… he commanded the church to disassociate themselves with a member of their church (someone claiming to be a Christian) who was proudly and openly engaging in sex with his step mother… to not even eat with the man, in hopes that he would turn from his sin and turn back to God.

And let’s remember that in John 8, those who were to stone were setting the girl up. The Law called for the girl AND the man active in adultery to be stoned. The entire thing was staged as a way to get Jesus to screw up. But Jesus knew what was going on (After all, he IS God!) and was many steps ahead. … but i digress.

It is not wrong to point out to someone that he/she is a sinner. What kind of gospel is there if this is not the case? If someone is not informed of their sin, be it homosexuality, bestiality, idolatry, lust, etc, how can he/she repent of that sin? What reason would that person have for turning from the. old sinful nature and beginning a new life (2 Cor 5:17)? Speak the truth–the gospel, in love.

<

Currently listening : Portable Sounds By Tobymac Release date: By 20 February, 2007