_{Handout 28}

Leviticus 18–20 and the Question of Homosexual Behavior

I. Definitions & Clarifications: The Specific Issue in View

This handout does not address the issue of whether there can be strong affection between members of the same sex; history and experience (if not Scripture itself) affirm that there can be. Nor does this handout address the current political or legal situation; that is a separate topic.

Also, there is a difference between knowing what the Bible teaches, vs. knowing how to minister to homosexuals, or to people struggling with same-sex attraction. This handout addresses what the Bible teaches.

The purpose of the present handout is to examine one of the biblical passages which the church has traditionally argued prohibit homosexual acts. We do so because there are now evangelical churches which call themselves “Bible-believing,” but which argue that the Bible does not in fact prohibit homosexual acts. [Their websites can be found on the internet.]

The five key passages are: Gen 19 Lev 18 & 20 Rom 1:26-27 1 Cor 6:9-11 1 Tim 1:10.

This handout addresses one of those passages, Leviticus 18–20.

II. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13

Here is how the two key verses read:

18:22 “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

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.”

The meaning of these verses seems to be very straight-forward. But the Christian homosexual community disagrees. They argue that the church has either misunderstood them, or that they do not apply to Christians. We will examine two ways in which they attempt to dismiss these verses. And then we will reply to each.

A. “The Law of Moses doesn’t Apply to Christians.”

One main way that they try to dismiss Lev 18 & 20 is by arguing: Those verses are in the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses doesn’t apply to Christians. They appeal to verses like these:

• Rom 7:6

  But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

• Gal 3:25

  Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

• Gal 5:18

  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

They also point to verses in the New Testament that apparently state that if a person seeks to be under one point in the law, he is required to obey it all. And similarly, a person who breaks the law at one point has broken the whole law.

• Gal 5:3 (re: circumcision)

  Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.

• James 2:10

  For whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

In light of such verses, they go on to argue as follows:

“The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.”

So their position is that → Scripture presents Christians with an “all-or-nothing” choice when it comes to being guided by the laws in the Old Testament. They argue that the church’s actual practice of applying OT laws to Christians is not consistent. Rather, it is selective and inconsistent. They often say that the church “cherry picks” which laws it does apply and which ones it doesn’t.

For example: The church no longer abides by “levirate marriage” (Deut 25:5). And the church has discarded the “holiness” requirements of Leviticus such as: Do not breed two different kinds of cattle together; do not plant two different kinds of seed in the same field; do not wear clothing woven from two different materials (Lev 19:19).

Therefore, they argue, the church’s actual practice shows that there is a very real problem with trying to apply OT laws to Christians today. Many of them would argue that the Law of Moses simply doesn’t apply to Christians at all. But if the church is going to use the law of Moses, then it should be all or-nothing, they argue. The church is wrong when it “cherry picks” some laws from the Old Testament, but ignores others.

Reply:

Their arguments overlook two very important things from the New Testament:

1. There is generous biblical evidence that the authority of the Old Testament, in a general sense, continues, even in the New Testament age.

2. There is clear evidence from the New Testament that the church is not(!) faced with an “all-or-nothing” option when it comes to using laws from the Old Testament.

We now elaborate on these two points.

1. There is generous biblical evidence that the authority of the Old Testament, in a general sense, continues, even in the New Testament age. Some examples:

   • Matt 5:17–18 (See similarly Luke 16:17)

     17 “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. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

   • Romans 2:17–20

     17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; [. . . ], 20. . . having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth . . . .

   • Romans 7:12 (See similarly 1 Tim 1:8–10)

     12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. [ . . . ] 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. It is clear that the NT does not set aside the OT, but rather, in a general sense, it affirms the OT’s ongoing authority as Scripture.

2. There is clear evidence from the New Testament that the church is not(!) faced with an “all-ornothing” option when it comes to using laws from the Old Testament.

   We have just seen that the NT affirms the goodness of the law, and affirms that, in a general sense, validity of the Old Testament continues. Nonetheless, the NT itself announces that some of the requirements of the law are no longer binding on us. Some examples:

   • Mark 7:18–19 This passage announces the end of the food restrictions. Jesus declares that all foods are clean. Hebrews 10:1–18 This passage explains why it is no longer necessary to offer the sacrifices that were required under the Law = the Sinai covenant.

   • Mark 12:17 “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s . . .“.

   • Romans 13:1–6 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities.”

   • 1 Peter 2:13–17

     “13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

     “In the Old Testament, Israel had been its own country with its own civil and criminal laws. But for Christians in the church age, the church is not to function as a country with its own government. Rather, Christians are (in general) to abide by the laws of whatever country they are in; they are to respect whatever civil government they are under.

   So the New Testament itself teaches us that some OT laws are no longer binding on Christians.

   But the New Testament also clearly affirms the ongoing authority of other laws from the Old Testament. Some examples:

• Mark 10:17–21 In this passage, Jesus clearly affirms the ongoing authority of several of the 10 Commandments:

  “Jesus answered, 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother’.”

• Romans 13:9–10 Paul lists many of these same commandments, and then points out that they are summed up in one rule: Love your neighbor. 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.

Similarly, there are multiple calls in the NT to refrain from idolatry (Acts 15:20, 29, & 21:25; 1 Cor ch. 8, & 10:19–22; 2 Cor 6:16), from sexuality immorality (Acts 15:20, 29; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor ch. 5; & 10:8; 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Thess 4:3), from drunkenness (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:1; 1 Pet 4:3),

When we examine what the NT actually does, we see that while it does set some of the OT’s laws aside, it clearly reaffirms many others. When one sorts through the all NT’s verses on this issue, this is the pattern that emerges:

• The New Testament sets aside the OT’s civil laws and its ceremonial & sacrificial laws, but it clearly reaffirms the foundational moral laws that were set forth in the Old Testament, in the Law.

  [In specific, the NT specifically reaffirms nine of the Ten Commandments. Q: Which one does it not reaffirm? See Rom 14:1–8, esp. v. 5.]

Conclusions: Jesus and the apostles do not set the Old Testament aside. Some aspects of it are no longer binding on us, but in general, it remains authoritative. Further, Christians are not faced with an “all or nothing” option when it comes to the laws in the Old Testament. The New Testament itself does not treat the Old Testament that way.

B. Leviticus chs. 18–20 are part of the “Holiness Code” in Leviticus.

We have just argued that the New Testament continues the moral laws of the Old Testament, but that it sets aside the civil and the ceremonial & sacrificial laws.

Some Christian(?) homosexual writers argue that Lev 18–20 does not apply any longer precisely because it is part of the ceremonial / ritual laws in Leviticus. That is, it is a ritual / ceremonial law, not a moral law.

They argue that Lev 18–20 is part of the “Holiness Code” (mentioned in H/O #27). The Holiness Code, they say, was intended to keep Israel distinct from its pagan neighbors. So for them, passages in the Holiness Code simply do not address moral issues, and cannot be used in an argument about moral right & wrong.

Reply:

This argument is mistaken at multiple points; we will mention three of them.

1. They seem to have overlooked Leviticus 19, which falls right between(!) Lev 18 & Lev 20.

   Leviticus 19 is filled with commands that are clearly moral and ethical in nature.

   3 “‘Each of you must respect his mother and father . . . [ . . . ]

   9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

   11 “‘Do not steal. “‘Do not lie. “‘Do not deceive one another. 12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 13 “‘Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him. “‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. 14 “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

   15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. “‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

   17 “‘Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. 18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

   So their argument that Lev 18–20 does not address moral issues because they are part of the Holiness Code is simply wrong. Leviticus 19 clearly addresses several moral and ethical issues.

2. Further, they have overlooked a crucial distinction within the Holiness Code itself. They overlook the following:

   • The set of rules governing what is “clean” vs. “unclean” reaches a clear conclusion at the end of ch. 15 (see vv. 31-33). The opening verses of ch. 16 begin a new section with different concerns.

     This is why many scholars end the Holiness Code at the end of ch. 15.

   • The consequences listed for uncleanness in chs. 11-15 involve a waiting-period (so many days), and then a prescribed offering/sacrifice. No one gets put to death for simply being “unclean” in chs. 11-15.

     There is one item to explain: If person approaches God's tabernacle while he is unclean, he defiles God’s tabernacle. The potential penalty for this is death (Lev 15:31). To approach God’s tabernacle—where He makes his presence known— when you are unclean, is to show profound disrespect for God. That is a bad idea when you are under the Sinai covenant. // But the consequence for uncleanness, in & of itself, is a waiting-period and a modest sacrificial offering, not death.

   • As of ch. 18, the text begins to list offenses which are much more serious, for which some will receive the death-penalty in ch. 20. The death-penalty is not prescribed for any offense until ch. 20.

   So the offenses within Leviticus 11–20 are not all treated the same. Some are merely a matter of being ceremonially unclean (chs. 11-15). The consequence for being unclean is a waiting period followed by a small sacrifice or a cleansing ritual. But other offenses listed in these chapters are far more serious, and have more serious consequences (chs. 17-20). The argument from the Christian(?) homosexual community misses this crucial distinction. The penalties prescribed for homosexual conduct in Lev 20 are severe, because it is a profound moral offence against God.

3. There is a pattern in Leviticus 18 which the Christian homosexual movement seems to overlook. In vv. 6-20 we are given roughly a dozen examples of forbidden heterosexual relationships; they list women whom a man cannot marry (his own mother, his sisters, his aunts, etc.).

   But when it comes to the question of a man having a comparable physical relationship with another man, there is only one verse. Why so? Because the entire category is prohibited.

   Men are not instructed not to be intimate with their sons, their brothers, or their uncles, etc.

   They are told not to have a sexual relationship with another man, at all.

Conclusion:

Their assertion in the second argument we have examined, that Lev 18–20 do not address moral issues because they are part of the Holiness Code, is completely mistaken.

• Leviticus 19 clearly(!) addresses several moral and ethical issues.
• Within the Holiness Code, there is a clear distinction between things which render a person ceremonially unclean (for which the consequence is a waiting period, and then a small sacrifice), versus things which are a profound moral offense against God (for which the penalty can be death).
• The pattern in Leviticus 18 makes a clear distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. When it comes to men and women, God prohibits approximately ten specific types of relationships (do not marry your own mother, your own sister, etc.). But when it comes to sexual relationships between a man and a man, there is only one verse (v. 22), and it rules out that entire category.

III. Overall Conclusions, and a Practical Ministry Question:

Conclusions:

More examples could be given, but these are enough to illustrate that the arguments made by the Christian(?) homosexual community do not stand up to close examination. The traditional position of the church, that homosexual conduct is clearly and consistently condemned in the Scriptures, remains true.

A Practical Ministry Question: The question of how to minister to homosexuals is a different issue, and calls for wisdom on the part of the church. The professor has much sympathy with the following basic idea: “Welcoming, but not affirming.” I can definitely believe that if a person has a homosexual lifestyle, it would be very difficult to leave it. But God calls all manner of sinful people to repent and turn away from their sin.

But before we can consider how to minister to homosexuals, we need to first of all establish what the Scriptures teach about how God views homosexual conduct. That has been the purpose of this handout.

• Mark 12:24
• Psalm 12:8