First Exegesis, Then Application
The standard Biblical case against homosexuality is not as air-tight as many people seem to think. People bring up many points routinely, and it’s amazing how the attacks don’t hold up–if you look at their Biblical “evidence” carefully.
In this post we will be looking at two verses in Leviticus used as Clobber Passages, proof texts used to condemn gays and lesbians.
The apostle Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law. Period.
The verses are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. First, Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination. Second, If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There is, however, a big problem with quoting Leviticus. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. It is not something fabricated to win an argument, or made up in the twentieth century, or manufactured to get around something somebody doesn’t like. It is clearly stated in the Greek scriptures. The Apostle Paul wrote it in Galatians:
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.” (Galatians 3:10)
If we rely on following the Law (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse. The passage above, Galatians 3:10, contains a quote from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26. According to Paul’s statement below, things have changed.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. (Galatians 3:13)
It was Jesus’ death on the cross that rescued us from the curse of the Law. If we insist on following the Law and imposing the Law on others, we negate the cross of Christ, and repudiate Christ’s death on the cross.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
If we measure ourselves as Christians by how well we follow the Law, we have returned to our slavery to sin. We are then measuring ourselves, “justifying” ourselves, by evaluating our behavior by the Law. For us religious folks, this is precisely what is meant by “a dog returning to its own vomit” (Proverbs 26:11; II Peter 2:22). And if we put other Christians under the Law, we are subjecting them to the very yoke of slavery Paul warned them about. We force them to return to their own vomit as well.
If you insist that other people observe the Law, then you are burdening people “again by a yoke of slavery,” which makes you a slave master. When people resist your attempt to place them under the Law, they are acting in accordance with the urging of Paul, “Do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
Stop burdening people with a yoke of slavery.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. (Galatians 5:18).
A mature Christian cannot be led by the Spirit and follow the Law simultaneously. This is an example of “serving two masters,” which Christ said was impossible. In the Greek scriptures Paul urges us to walk in the Spirit, to be filled with the Spirit, to keep in step with the Spirit, and warn us against the bondage to the Law. We can’t live life in the Spirit if the Law has us in chains.
The people who would return you to slavery to the Law, slavery to sin, will say, “Paul was talking about the ceremonial law, not the moral law. He abolished the ceremonial law, but we are still under the moral law.”
Sorry. That distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law is a man-made excuse to keep themselves and others under bondage to the Law. An argument can be made to support the alleged distinction between a ceremonial law and a moral law, but it is not a Biblical distinction. None other than conservative Bible scholar F.F. Bruce says this in his book, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, in chapter 18, “What the Law Could Not Do.”
Paul never makes a distinction between a so-called ceremonial law and a so-called moral law. The Bible makes no such distinction. The Law is the Law, according to James the brother of Jesus.
For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)
(Not only is no distinction made between a ceremonial law and a moral law in the scriptures, the actual emphasis of the scriptures is the unity of the law. That phrase, “the whole law,” is used in at least half a dozen places–Deuteronomy 4:8; 33:10; Galatians 5:3,14; 6:13; James 2:10; and elsewhere).
James never makes a distinction between the so-called ceremonial law and the so-called moral law, either. There is no discussion in James of dividing up the Law into different kinds.
So just remember this: anyone who tries to use the Law in Leviticus to prove that God condemns homosexuality is abusing scripture — totally misusing Leviticus. God ruled that piece of evidence “inadmissible.”
In the book of Romans Paul describes the death-dealing destructiveness of the Law, and he also describes what has taken the place of the Torah for Christians in various letters: 1) the Image of God, 2) the Law of Love, 3) the Holy Spirit, 4) our Conscience, and 5) Human Government.
If someone uses Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 to prove that God hates homosexuality, challenge them on it. Tell them, “Don’t quote Leviticus to me. In Galatians Paul says we are no longer under the Law. Paul said Leviticus is the yoke of slavery, Galatians 5:1.”
If they say, “God was talking about the ceremonial Law, not the moral Law,” ask them, “Where in the Bible does it say there’s a difference between moral law and ceremonial law? That distinction was made up by men (literally true). Show me in the Bible where those phrases even appear, moral law and ceremonial law.” that.” The word ceremonial only appears in the New International Version; no other translation even uses the word.
They won’t be able to show you any Biblical reference distintuishing between the so-called ceremonial and moral laws. If they refer to the book of Acts and the sheet being lowered from heaven, simply say, “That was just one concrete example of the cancellation of the entire Law.”
Simple truth: You cannot quote Leviticus to prove God hates homosexuality. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.
Please note: I did not say that the Old Testament is irrelevant to us. And I did not say that the Law is irrelevant to us.
The WHOLE Bible is relevant.
All I said is that you cannot legitimately quote Leviticus to prove that God hates homosexuality. If you make people accountable to obey the Law, you bring them under a curse. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.
About the verses in Leviticus. To put it simply, if a judge rules a piece of evidence inadmissible, it cannot be introduced as evidence. If one of the parties mentions the evidence anyway, the judge declares a mistrial. When people say, “The Bible condemns homosexuality throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments,” God the Righteous Judge would throw the case of the accusers out of court.
[edited for content 3/5/12]
For more posts on the Cessation of the Law, go here.
If you want to Demolish the Strongholds of shallow anti-gay slogans, click here.
If you want to respond to the Clobber Passages, click here.
Nice essay!
Gay seminary grad here and professor of NT. I have my students wrestle with such passages as those you mention. Always interesting.
I travel with a one-man show about being a gay person of faith and use Leviticus in the show–though in a different way than you do.
Peace,
RDS
You’re right that Christians are not condemned by the Law. The Law was given to Israel as a specific means of regulating human behaviour at the time of the Exodus. The death of Jesus provided a new and direct means for people to relate to God without the intervention of law. Because (as Paul points out in Galations) the law is no longer condemning us, does this mean that people no longer need to follow the law? Can we now commit murder, theft, adultery (none of which receives a renewed prohibition in the New Testament)? No, because as Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5, 17-18). What Paul is saying is that salvation does not come by keeping the law – salvation is given free. So sorry – but Jesus does not rule ‘that piece of evidence “inadmissible”‘ – far from it: he says that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”.
Thomas, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I believe that Jesus did fulfill the Law, in its entirety. And you’re right–Jesus said not one jot or tittle would disappear from the Law until everything was accomplished, which Jesus announced, from the cross, had happened. “It is finished!” (John 19:30). I know this won’t be satisfactory for everyone, but that is my understanding of the matter at this point.
I will be discussing the personal and spiritual implications of the cancellation of the Law in subsequent posts. All I would add right now is that there has always been a diversity of interpretations of the Scripture, and for good reason.
Thank you. You make an interesting point, which I hadn’t thought of before, in equating Jesus’ “it is finished” on the cross with “everything is accomplished” in Matthew 5. I’m not entirely convinced, though, because immediately after Jesus says that “not one jot or tittle would disappear from the Law until everything was accomplished” he continues by refining aspects of the Law (“You have heard that it was said … but I tell you that …”). He doesn’t give any indication that this is purely a temporary arrangement (“just for the next couple of years, after which we’re scrapping the whole law thing anyway”) – this is basic moral teaching for evermore, founded on the Law. What Jesus is doing is to say that the Law is not a textbook or numbered list in which we can search for exceptions and loopholes to justify our behaviour: it is “case law” that shows us how God regards our moral behaviour in a broad sense. It’s not a matter of “score more than 7 out of 10 and you’ll be saved” but of “this is how God’s people live”. And that, I think, is also precisely what Paul is getting at — I don’t see any contradiction there. In other words, there is no shift in what is morally right and acceptable between the OT and the NT – merely in the relationship between law and salvation. The “yoke of the law” to which Paul was referring is the idea that salvation depends on how well we keep the law. It doesn’t – it depends on Jesus Christ. But Jesus still tells us – just like he told the rich young man – to live according to the Law (capital “L”, singular, rather than small “l” plural).
I hate to disagree with you but you’re wrong. It is an abomnation and we still have to abide by the Torah. Yeshua said “if you love me he you will keep my commandments” and John says if we love Him then we should walk as He walked. I’m quoting from the NT but we can quote Psalms and Prophets or anywhere else and we get the same message. So what am I saying that I’m going to quote a scripture from Leviticus to a homosexual and tell them they should be stoned to death? Of course not, then I would be breaking the “equally [most] important Law” to love my neighbor as I do myself. If you notice there is no: love your neighbor unless they’re homosexual or muslim or black or whatever proceeding this commandment. I don’t struggle with this particular sin but there are plenty on my resume that are at least as bad as this. I have homosexual friends and some of the truly don’t like the opposite sex, sexually speaking. So what happened? Did Yahweh make a mistake in designing them or did He do it just like He planned to? I would hold the latter to be true. I believe they don’t like the opposite sex because they have a higher calling, as Paul describes about himself in 1 Corinthians or the 144,000 described in Revalation.
The problem as I see it is that this whole “obey the law” argument completely ignores Romans 8 (as Paul himself often did in some of his other writings). Paul writes that it is only when the law of sin and death is abrogated as the law that the spirit of life takes over in our hearts and minds, affirming to us that we are Children of God. Only then do we even have the capacity to “obey the law,” because it is the Law of Love we are “obeying,” not the law of letters and rules. Oddly enough – and this is a mark of the “wisdom of God” that is “foolishness to those who are perishing” – when the Law of Love is obeyed, obedience to the moral law is what results; whereas our attempts to obey the moral law alone without the aid of the spirit of life who infuses God’s love into our hearts are doomed to failure.
At the end of chapter 8 Paul writes that “[nothing] in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord,” to which I would add the caveat, “except when our alleged ‘fellow Christians’ keep throwing up the law of letters while they themselves lack the humility that comes from the fact that they are no closer to obeying that law than are ware” (as Paul remarks in Romans 2 and following). So if we keep focusing on the “moral law,” we reveal that we are not yet truly “in Christ,” since to be “in Christ” is to live in love, which “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and never fails.” (1 Cor. 13.7)
That about says it, Douglas. Thanks!
In regards to your Romans 8 quote, what Paul was trying to say is that if you yourself try to keep the Law you are condemned. Yet if we abide by the Spirit then we will keep the Law because the “Law is good” according to Paul. However we “don’t do what we want to and do what we don’t want to do because we are wretched.”
I mean think about it, you know that it’s wrong to steal, murder, beat someone up etc but me by myself can’t keep from wanting to do these things with out the Spirit. These are naturally engrained laws and we can’t even keep them on our own. Why do you think this is? Because “man is evil from the days of his youth.” -Gen 8
In regards to the Matt 5, heaven and earth have not passed away and they don’t until Rev 21 right at the end of the book and age. This Law is no different from the laws of gravity, motion, electromagnetism etc; Yeshua also fullfilled these laws yet they are still at work because ALL isn’t accomplished. He thought outside of the box and for the future.
You say that we don’t have to abide by the Torah because Yeshua fullfilled it. You’re absolutely right we don’t have to abide by the Torah but not because He fullfilled it. Moses didn’t have to, Joshua, David, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc didn’t have to either. But they understood that the Law is good and if we keep it we get the blessings instead of the curses as described in Deut 28. I know that Paul says we’ve already got all the blessings we need, which is true because salvation is it. This is found at the end of the OT: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.”-Malachi 4:4
The NT doesn’t tell us anything new except for the life of Yeshua. It is simply a re-itteration of the OT. The point that you are implying is that Yahweh made a mistake when giving His commandments but if that is so then why should we trust a God that makes mistakes? Or could it be as stated in Isaiah 55 “I don’t think the way you think or work the way you work” or when he says “mens glory fades like flowers in the fields but the word of Yahweh stands forever.” Could it be that Malachi got it right in 3:6, “For I am Yahweh, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”
I agree that the Law was superseded by Jesus’ sacrifice, as you’ve clearly laid out.. But a problem I still have is that it still suggests that at one time, God was not okay with it. Which gives ammo to the dissenters. Consider Marcus Borg’s contention that the Bible is not a set of literal truths written by God, but instead a written account inspired by God. In other words, the men who wrote these passage were inspired by God to write a historical account of how THEY saw God in relation to the events that happened. Not God’s version of history, but theirs. So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah turns the phenomenon of unexplainable (at that time) meteorites falling from the sky becomes God sending his wrath on a depraved city. Then when you look at the passages you cited within the context of the time it was written, it is clear that those were laws of man and not intended by God to be applied to us- today or at any time.
Brilliant.
While this means well, I find it not helpful and, because it falls in the purview of one of my personal quirks, somewhat repulsive. I’ll be repeating this in a post over to FB as I’d rather get in a discussion there than here. I’ve been too often burned by mobs of strangers at someone’s blog to want to go through it again. But here is my personal (personal, subjective) critique:
(1) The premise is that the quotes in question are irrelevant because the OT Scriptures are argued as irrelevant. It does not take advantage of any of the scholarship that has been done to contextualize the quotes and show that they do not, in fact, condemn homosexuals as God created them — these quotes do have a specific context and it is not homosexuality. (I believe one has to do with temple prostitutes and I can’t recall about the other.)
(2) Anything that puts Paul as the Authority, over and above Jesus (who you may recall was a practicing Jew) is obnoxious.
Thanks anyway and keep ‘em coming.
Lizzie, I’ve been mobbed in discussions, too, and I’ll do my best to prevent any cyber lynchings here!
Diversity in the Body of Christ includes diverse solutions to problems. While I understand and appreciate the contextualizing scholarship you mention, I think a lot of people’s eyes begin to glaze over when they read it. Either that or, especially among evangelicals, they see a lot of theological double-talk that simply obfuscates the “plain meaning of scripture.” I’m not saying it’s theological double-talk, this is how conservative Christians see it.
I also find the typical elevation of Paul above Jesus obnoxious, I really do. But this particular context, I start with this: “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” (II Corinthians 10:4)
In the last three paragraphs I actually disavowed saying that the verses in Leviticus were “irrelevant.” All scripture is relevant.
“Keep ‘em coming”? You bet!
Ron,
Thank you for your insightful, thoughtful, and theological words on this difficult topic.
I am an Associate Pastor in the PCUSA, and last week our denomination voted to remove our constitutional language barring LGBT peoples from ordination. This morning, I am composing a response to an inflammatory email sent out by my head of staff that railed against the decision. I, and many other folks in my congregation, were very hurt by this and by the way it was presented. I sat down this morning to compose a well thought out biblical response based on the interplay of Leviticus and Paul. To read your blog was encouraging and has provided more insight into my thoughts. Many blessings upon you and your ministry.
Eliza, I know a lot of people were encouraged and excited by the PCUSA’s decision. About the inflammatory email–when we’re in the middle of our wrath, it”s not common for us to think about the personal effect of our words. It’s similar to the effect of our votes. I’m reminded of the comment made by a lesbian in the midwest after the Prop 8 vote here in California: “They really do hate us.”
@RDS, You must be very interesting company! I clicked through to your website but don’t have time to look today. I hope to return later.
@Ron, thank you for your thoughtful discussion and space here. I guess part of my problem is that I really can’t get my head around a lot of the evangelical mindset. From the concept that the Bible As Printed Today In English is the Infallible Word of God (never edited, never politicized, never disrupted from Speaker to reader), to the practice of what in D&D we called “rules lawyering” bein more important than what online we call “IRL”… it’s just such a bizarre world. Likewise I am sure that my apparently “wacko liberal elitist” POV is ridiculous to most evangelicals. How can anyone claim to be serious about studying Scripture when they aren’t interested in any sort of in depth actual study? You know, languages, historical context, that sort of thing. While we’re on the “different worlds” topic, do a lot of them really think that the Rapture is going to happen this weekend?
I agree, rank and file evangelicals and fundamentalists do have a–simplistic?–understanding of the Bible. And their educated leaders actually know better, they live in fear of disabusing them of their simplistic notions.
Harold Camping’s Rapture? No. Only Camping’s band of radio listeners believe it. Everyone else is shaking their heads in disgust, pity, or mockery. William Miller made the same prediction in 1843/1844, which resulted in what is called “The Great Disappointment.” Camping made two previous announcements, neither of which requires anything empirical, verifiable, or observable to be “true.” They can both be spiritualized. The Great Tribulation “probably” began in 1988, and the Church Age ended in 1994.
well done and thanks ….
On a purely physical level, since these references are supposedly directed at Gay men, how do we know how to “lie with a man as with a woman” since I theoretically have no such experience with women? And how exactly would a theoretical bisexual man duplicate their experiences with both genders?
In their agrarian society the Israelites learned the facts of life from the time toddlers could make their way across the barnyard. “What are they doing, Daddy?” Talk about a sex-saturated society–they actually saw sex every day! I think pretty much everyone knew the facts of life in those days.
I think this is about as far as we should take this discussion.
I guess since I am okay your conclusions, I should be quiet, but I can’t. This is some very misleading Biblical scholarship. There is only one reason the Hebrew Scripture Law should no longer apply: it’s because it’s a bunch of well meaning foolishness. Every last bit of it. Any other reasoning that tries to reconcile or remove the Law is just bad theology. Be honest: would you ever make such an argument in the case of incest or bestiality? By your reading, love of neighbor isn’t valid because it is, indeed, a law of the Torah. But no liberal ever makes such a case. They all do what you have done. Or, worse, come up with unproven justifications about temple priestesses or pedophilia. The problem with this is you ignore parts of Leviticus (and subsequently, stories in Exodus and Numbers) that attest to the seriousness of the Law. Leviticus is not the book against homosexuality. It says a lot of things we still follow today. The “Holiness Code,” which is a popular name of part of Leviticus, is an anachronism that seeks to hide the harsh reality of what is written in this book. Leviticus 24:10-23 is not written as if the Law is some minor thing. God isn’t like “Oh, be holy if you can! If not, don’t stress it.” THEY KILL A GUY BECAUSE GOD TOLD THEM TO! The Hebrew Scriptures is filled with these isolated episodes. It would stand to reason that if the text tells us they, indeed, put people to death under direction of The Lord, then it is highly unlikely that Leviticus 20:13 was to be taken lightly. The reality is, none of our after the fact, misleading scholarship has any base within the text and reading the Bible should let us know that, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, the reason for an act is immaterial – it is the act itself that supposedly angers God and angering God is BAD and has DEADLY consequences. So if you’re being true to the Bible – and not an agenda intent on approving of a certain kind of homosexuality – you know God doesn’t want to hear sob stories about monogamy, I was born this way, the text was really about little boys, or it was about profaning the temple, and so on, and so on. God doesn’t want men having sex with men. Period. But as I said earlier, I think the Hebrew text is an exaggeration that God was never a part of, so that’s why I feel the “Law” no longer applies. I think it never applied.
You also didn’t explain the context of Galatians. Paul is not writing general commentary on the Law and Christ. He has an angle for writing. The Galatians are worried that they must get circumcised to be true people of God. This would be a valid concern, per Genesis 17:9-14 and Exodus 4:24-26, but Paul wants to discourage this because he feels it negates the work of Christ (Gal 5:2-6). This is, shall we say odd, in light of the account of Paul in Acts 16:3. Nevertheless, Paul is arguing against circumcision (or following the Law) being a requirement of being a child of God – not that the Law no longer matters in ANY context and thus, all the other 613 laws should not be followed.
Hi Hill,
I just wanted to write and say that I liked your argument. You have some good points and you make and illustrate them well. This whole kettle gets a bit over my head sometimes… or rather, it “does Scripture” in ways that I find tedious, maybe. I like where we are trying to go with this, but I have trouble with the details of how we are doing it.
It’s mind-boggling how many different ways people process the Bible. If nothing else, trying to follow these arguments is really opening my eyes to that.
Thanks.
You suggest that I believe that “the Law no longer matters in ANY context and thus, all the other 613 laws should not be followed.” I think I made it pretty clear that this is not what I believe. Let me repeat the last paragraphs of the post here:
“Please note: I did not say that the Old Testament is irrelevant to us. And I did not say that the Law is irrelevant to us.
The WHOLE Bible is relevant.
All I said is that you cannot legitimately quote Leviticus to prove that God hates homosexuality. If you make people accountable to obey the Law, you bring them under a curse. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.”
As I’ve said elsewhere, there’s only so much you can write in a single, 600-1200 word blog post! I will be writing more about Paul’s cancellation of the Law later. There are important implications for Christian spirituality based on our relationship to the written code.
Ron,
I have some disorganized thoughts about counter-arguments someone who stands on the other side of this debate might make.
How do you resolve this argument with Paul’s frequent condemnation of many actions condemned by the OT law?
Isn’t a lot of the distinction between ceremonial and moral law drawn from NT discussions about food served to idols and other parts of the law that are deemed no longer applicable, even as others aspects of the law are affirmed? I think of Acts 15 here.
Jesus certainly quoted the law. The two great commandments, after all, come straight from the Torah.
Finally, and this may not be relevant from your point of view, the United Methodist Articles of Faith specifically endorse the following of the moral law of the Old Testament.
I’m just curious how you would respond to these arguments.
John, these questions are all valid elements in a complete discussion of the Christian’s relationship to the Law, and I plan to discuss all or most of them. In this particular post I’m establishing Paul’s overwhelming rejection of the Law in the life of the believer. Let me know if it seems like I’ve forgotten about any of the issues you’ve raised, eh?
Jesus defines ALL sin as lack of love (Mt.22:36-40). So what is unloving about a homosexual/Gay relationship? Who is unloved, hurt and ready to file suit? No one. But the Leviticus references could be condemning prison rape and other “homosexual” encounters that have unloved victims.
Fred, I’m as big a fan of the two great commandments as anyone, but I’m not following the connection you make.
An advocate of the traditional reading of Scripture would say that to ignore or reject a command of God is not loving God (1 John 5:2 would be the most explicit reference).
I have to commend everyone on their comments thus far! It has been fascinating to read and very educational and brought back memories of some of the debates I witnessed as a PK (pastor’s kid).
Please understand that I am NOT a biblical scholar, I just like to think that I have a good understanding of the bible.
I love these discussions because (as a Christian who is a firm believer in the separation of church and state) it gratifies my love of debates about the bible & politics.
What came to my mind as I was reading these comments was the many, many times that Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for their excessive “rules lawyering” (Lizzie, this old AD&Der was ROFLMAO when I read that). I recall a story that highlights the excessive rules lawyering of Jesus’s day. As I recall, in order to travel anywhere on the Sabbath, one had to repeatedly throw their sandal down the road, retrieve it and throw it again. Jesus said that “Man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man.”
I think that a great deal of focus on the rules stated in the Bible distracts us from God and the divine love that is there for us. The last time I checked the New testament, we Christians are explicitly told to LOVE and RESPECT and care for ALL people. Especially those that society deems to be “disreputable”.
I also believe that if the Almighty really found homosexuality so offensive, it simply would not exist in either the animal OR human kingdom. If we study the bible, do our best to live in the Holy Spirit, and remember that God is Love (not hate as the conservatives would have you believe) things are gonna work out a whole lot better for us all.
Aaron, I think you’re right. And what Jesus said about the whole Law being contained in the two commands to love–does not require being a biblical scholar to understand. And to live it out in your life, it helps if you’re not a biblical scholar!
@Ron – There may be only so much you can write, but I am focused on what you did write. The title of this is “You Can’t Quote Leviticus to Prove God Hates Homosexuality.” I’m sorry, but for anyone who believes the Bible is either inerrant or at least inspired by God, they absolutely can. There is nothing in Galatians to suggest God stops hating sin. As Leviticus states homosexual acts are a sin, I think plenty of Christians make a very reasonable step to assume God hates homosexuality. And, as a side note, all of the stuff about prison rape or temple priests and all the other attempts to “clarify” the homosexual acts of which the Bible speaks is flimsy at best. You either assume those explanations are true or not. They are not a facts. At any rate, your specific explanation of why Leviticus is unable to be used can only accurately suggest that people who want to be children of God under the Law must keep the whole Law, or they are cursed. You write: “If you make people accountable to obey the Law, you bring them under a curse. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.” This is grossly misleading at best, and flat out wrong at worst. A more accurate statement according to proper exposition of everything Paul wrote would be “If you make people accountable to obey the Law IN ORDER TO BE A CHILD OF GOD, OR “SAVED,” you bring them under a curse. The Apostle Paul said so in Galatians.” And the curse would be metaphorical anyway. Humans have no power to put other humans under a real curse. Again, I am with your purpose, but I find many problems with the argument itself. You are proof texting (i.e. taking random verses out of random books with little regard to context of the verse, the book in which its found, or its place in the overall Biblical narrative) and that leads both liberals and conservatives to make poorly researched conclusions that can easily be unraveled by adequate scholarship, or worse yet, even more proof texting. Some conclusions, like yours, are “acceptable” to me. But some are not, so I find it best to eliminate as much proof texting as possible.
I AGREE WITH HILL SHE’S RIGHT. GOD AND HIS SEEDLINGS HATE SIN WE ARE ALL SIN BIGOTS PERIOD. YAHSHUA DIED FOR THE ELECT OF GOD FOR GOD LOVED HIMSELF SO MUCH HE POURED DOWN UPON US ALL HIS SPIRIT THE PARACLETES. TO REMIND US CHIDE WITH US KEEP US MOST HOLY AND NO OTHER. YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT TO BE CLEAN. STOP TRYING TO APPEAR HOLY AND USE TERMS GODLY TERMS TO JUSTIFY YOUR DOINGS LOL. YOUR INSIDES AS YAHSHUA SPOKE ABOUT TO THE PHARISEES SAYING THEY DO THE WORKS OF THEIR FATHER THE “EVIL” THEREFORE ARE THEY EVIL. THEY TO SET THEMSELVES APART LIKE YOU. CLAIMING TO NOT BE BORN OUT OF FORNICATION. SAYING WE ARE THE SEEDS OF ABRAHAM AND HE SAID I KNOW YOU ARE BUT YOU DO NOT HIS WORKS. AND ALSO SAYING HE SEEN ABRAHAM AND THEY POINTED OUT HIS SUPPOSED NATURAL AGE OF THIS WORLD IN ALL WAYS THEY OFFENDED GOD AS YOU WHO DO SUCH WICKEDNESS. IF THE LAW CEASED WHY DO POLICE AND CONGRESSMEN AND JUDGES AND EVERYTHING LAW RELATED EXIST TODAY? MORE IMPORTANTLY WHY DOES THIS SUPPOSE SECOND VERSION CONTINUE TO POP UP?
LOOK EVERYTHING ORIGINATES WITH GOD HE IS “HOLY” FIRST. THEN AFTER HE EXPRESSES HIS SELF THEN HE EXPLAINS SECOND. YOU SCRIBES EVEN MESS UP SECOND. IT MEANS THE GENERAL CONGREGATION. IN THE BEGINNING GOD SPOKE AND IT WAS ALL GOOD. THEN HE SETUP SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH AND SO ON. HE IS THE ONLY CREATOR. HE DIDN’T CREATE SECULARISM AS IT IS PUBLISHED BY YOU FALSE gods. EVERYTHING IS STILL SET IN STONE SINCE CREATION AND THE FALL OF MAN. AND MAN IS NO LONGER HE WAS CREATED LAST OF ALL THAT GOD CREATED JUST AS THE EARTH WAS LAST TO BE CREATED NOT FIRST. MAN BECAME SEVERAL DAYS LATER. SO IDENTITY WAS NEVER UPON HIM. HIS NAME ADAM MEANS HYPOCRITE. SOURCE ONLINEBIBLE.ORG STARTER PACK STUDY TO SHOW YOURSELVES APPROVED UNTO GOD AND NO OTHER.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE ENGLISH AS THE CHIEF PROBLEM. IT PROVIDES THE ANARCHY. IT’S EASIER TO SUBMIT THAN TO DISOBEY FOR BY IT WOULD WE ALL FALL DOWN AND PRAISE GOD AND NO OTHER.
You can say that God does not hate homosexuals. God does not hate anyone. He hates the sin and the lifestyles in which true unbelievers choose to live. This is free will. We are able to do whatever we want to, whether that is legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. If a person chooses to live in a life of sin and living in a sinful lifestyle keeps us apart from God’s true love. He knows our hearts and our every thought. Yes Christ grants salvation to us, but just accepting the fact that he did in fact die for our sins and then saying the words does not get you into heaven. You must live a lifestyle in which you truly try not to sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle makes a mockery of God. The author of Roman’s writes that a homosexuality lifestyle is WRONG in the eyes and mind of God. Problem is, to many people today look to their friends to justify their sinful lifestyle so that they make themselves feel better. This is why this man created this blog. He is aware that he is living a lifestyle outside of what God wants, yet he looks to his friends instead of God to make himself feel better concerning how he thinks. This man’s blog is just another example of how a justifying world wants to make everything right in their own eyes so that they all can disobey what God truly says because they do not want to give up what they are doing It is easier to have your friends say its right then to actually listen to what God says is right and wrong. Homosexuality is wrong according to God’s word. If God wanted men to be sexual with other men and women to be sexual with other women, then it would clearly be said that such acts would not be forgiven. If I had to choose between sexuality and salvation, I would choose salvation. Never would I allow my salvation to come between me and my salvation. Homosexuality is a continuous sinful lifestyle. Believe it or not, I would not bet my salvation on my sexuality any day of the week.
When you write: “This is why this man created this blog. He is aware that he is living a lifestyle outside of what God wants,” you show not only your ignorance but your unwillingness to learn. If you simply click on “A Little About Me,” above, you would discover that this man is a married heterosexual man who simply sees the Truth of God in scripture rather than the lies of humans through the centuries that the Church has tended to propagate to its own advantage and the disadvantage of many whom God loves and affirms.
Evidence of your ignorance is compounded by your use–and implicit affirmation–of the concept of the “homosexual lifestyle.” Is there a “heterosexual lifestyle” that is common to all straight people? Of course not! How, then, can there be a “homosexual lifestyle” that is common to all gay people? Obviously, there can’t be.
I, for example, am a celibate, out, gay, United Methodist minister who is working to change the position of my denomination on homosexuality because it is based on the same lies about the Bible and the “homosexual lifestyle” as is your position, as well as the same type of ignorance that won’t look more deeply into reality.
I am sad for you and people like you, that you have some hidden fear that you can’t confront, and so, as psychologist Carl Jung indicated decades ago, you project that fearsome thing out onto others and try to eliminate it by eliminating them. This corresponds to failing to take the log out of your own eye so you can see clearly to take the mote out of another’s eye.
a.bom.i.na.tion 1. a thing that causes disgust or hatred. 2. a feeling of hatred. Ibelive this is what God had in mind when he destroyed sodom & gom orrah. lets not over complicate this please..those who forget the past tend to repeat it….
The definition of abomination has changed since the Bible was conceived. The modern definition you have quoted does not apply, because we are not talking about something modern, we are talking about something written during the late Neolithic and early Bronze Ages. The definition of abomination was, at the time the Bible was written, something not done during worship. Furthermore, when the line in Leviticus says “natural” it means natural to the individual. Therefore, THAT line ACTUALLY means, “You shouldn’t sleep with whichever gender you aren’t oriented towards, because having sex with that gender isn’t natural to you.” This means that if someone is oriented towards men, regardless of their own gender, then they should sleep with a man who is also oriented towards men. If a person is oriented towards someone of the opposite gender, they need to sleep with someone of the opposite gender. In conclusion, a man who is homosexual should sleep with homosexual men, because that is natural to them. A man who is heterosexual should sleep with a heterosexual woman, because that is what is natural to THEM. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Why did God destroy S&G ? Read Ezekiel 16:49.
Yup, I’m with you on that Fred.
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
The sin of Sodom. Thanks for the suggestion!
I like what Christ said about Sodom, in that his reference in terms of inhospitable treatment of visitors. .
Wow. It’s become rare to read something I have to re-read to understand entirely. Kudos for that alone. And the point you make is brilliant. May I also add, not only do I recall there being a passage in the Bible where God quite explicitly told man not to take Leviticus seriously (though unfortunately, I’ve forgotten which passage that was), I am pretty sure the meaning of ‘abomination’ has swung pretty far the other way since the time the Bible was conceived. Originally, ‘abomination’ was not something you associated with hideous monsters and a horrid fate with the Devil (who, after taking classes on Greek Mythology and the transition of Southern Europe to Christianity, really seems to be a very nice old man. Hades went around closing up holes in the ground because the dead were afraid of the light after being underground so long, and he seemed rather shy. But I digress.), it was very simply something you didn’t do during worship.
And quite frankly, another thing to point out, I myself see no reason to single out homosexuality. There are PLENTY of things Leviticus claims you shouldn’t do that people (even Catholic conservatives!) do on a daily basis. They say “No, it’s not that big of a deal.” But they don’t seem to realize that makes basing any other arguments out of Leviticus very hard to take seriously.
[Edited for Content]
H L A:
[Edited for Content]
It is enjoyable reading bright, intelligent discussion amongst theologians. However, in the end, all of it is specious because, by definition, none of us can know the mind and heart of God. We only conject and propose and explain our own limited understandings in such discussions; and to what end? Is it so that we can convince people of our rightness or even our righteousness? I understand that we are exhort one another to holy lives, but one only has to read Micah or the words of Christ to understand what that really means. And I am not being exclusive about context here, only citing those two examples as the clearest, most direct language about the law and what God truly seeks from humanity. The law comes down to nurturing relationships of a loving nature between God and oneself and between oneself and others.
If anyone truly concentrates on his or her own relationships to God, then that person can trust God to work in the lives of others as God sees fit. What we can do is to be loving to others; encourage them, looking to meet their needs for food shelter and physical well being, and assuring them of God’s unfailing love towards them.
For those of you hung up on whether to honor the Old Testament or apply the Levitical law in your lives or to the lives of others, I have news for you: The rest of this tired, old hurting world needs you to get off your collective asses and quit arguing and start with the basics of loving EVERY person. Otherwise, your faith and theology mean nothing. (And don’t give me any crap about trying to save souls here. The hungry in Africa, the ill in Haiti, the suicidal gay teen, the depressed Lesbian, the poor Fundamentalist preacher living a lie – they all need some real and daily expressions of love from you. You can start with basic charity and work your way up to civil rights for all, but please get started.
I am in agreement with you, James. Although I enjoy articulating and discussing theology, I have found that what REALL MATTERS MOST, I believe, to God is that we love our neighbor. It seems that it is the Law issued by Jesus. The one and only Law that is above all others. That’s because it sums all other laws. Have you ever read Romans 2:13 and then Romans 3:20 and found the contradictory? I have. Come to find out, Romans 2:13 refers to the Royal Law: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 3:20 refers to the Law Of Moses. I recently discovered that the Law Of Moses was divided into two subset: the Jobs Of The Torah and the Justices Of The Torah. The Jobs were considered works. Command between mand and God. The Justices were the commands between man and his neighbor. Jesus discarded the Jobs, works, or deeds of the Law Of Moses and made the Justice (commands between man and his neighbor) to be what the Law only consists of. So, when you say we should be helping others in need more so than discussing theologies, I’d say Jesus would likely agree with you as well. Although, it seems a bit impossible to help others 24/7, it should be a part of one’s lifestyle, Christian or not. As I have also found that God does not care if someone is a Christian by label or not. Not only Chrisitans are capable of beind “doers of the Law” (Romans 2:13).
Thanks for the great post Ron. I am intrigued by another question about Lev 20:13. Does it even say what we are told it says? If you look at the text in Hebrew, it says “(men), do not lie with a male in the lyings (mishkevei) of a woman.” Mishkevei is a gerund and means lyings; often but not always the m- on gerunds in Hebrew means a place, so in this case beds, bedrooms, couches etc. Besides the two occurrences in Leviticus, that exact word “mishekevei” occurs only one other time in the Old Testament, and in that verse (Gen 49:4 ) it definitely means “bed.”
Other forms related to mishkevei occur 43 times in the Old Testament, and EVERY SINGLE OCCURRENCE means bed – the place. Not “sexual intercourse.” There are 5 occurrences in Numbers where the word is *part* of an idiom that refers to sex – yada’u mishkab, to know (someone) in bed – but even there the word still means “bed.” The verbal euphemism that refers to sex is “yada,” (to know) not “miskhab” (in bed).
So we really have to go out of our way to claim that it means “sexual intercourse” in this case. If it means “bed,” then what Leviticus 20:13 says is “(Men), do not lie with a man IN A WOMAN’S BED.”
That is a very different message than “Kill all sexually active gay men,” which is what we are told the verse says.
http://biblos.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
One important phrase missing from that article: If you are a Christian. And that article shows the Christian Privileged to assume that everyone who reads it is Christian. While I am a Christian, I do not believe that everyone else in the USA is a Christian. If you are an Orthodox Jew living by the Holiness Code, we can discuss it, and how it may actually pertain to combat rape.
Are you saying none of the laws of leviticus apply? Is it ok to have sex with animals or incest?
Ellis, would the Spirit of God lead you to commit incest or have sex with an animal? Paul said we are to be led by the Holy Spirit in all things, and to walk in love.
Paul said that the Law is powerless to prevent us from sinning. Anyone who is determined to commit incest or have sex with an animal will not be restrained by verses in the Bible.
“The law is powerless because it is weakened by the flesh.” (Romans 8:3)