How can one invoke only the commandment against homosexuality in Leviticus?

Great Debates
1

In the Pit thread about Bush’s “we’re all sinners” comment, I was finally introduced to the Biblical justification for prohibition of homosexuality by some helpful posters. The most unequivocal condemnation of homosexual behavior was the following (as translated by my New Oxford Annotated Bible):

Leviticus 18.22:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

If anybody else has other verses prohibiting homosexual behavior from either the Old or New Testaments, I would like to see them as well. (I am trying to read the whole Bible but it’s a bit of an undertaking.)

My question is this – and I am genuinely curious, with no intentions of attacking anyone – how do people who use this verse from Leviticus to explain their condemnation of homosexuality reconcile their lack of obedience to the other commandments in the book?

For example:

“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.” – 18.19

“… nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” – 19.19

“When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall regard their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten.” – 19.23

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” – 20.10

“For no one who has a blemish shall draw near [the Lord], one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken food or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.” – 21.18-20

“Six days shall work be done; but the seventh day is a sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation; you shall do no work; it is a sabbath to the Lord throughout your settlements.” – 23.3

I can understand exempting a congregation from killing any parishioner with a wandering eye, because Leviticus was not written with a comprehensive legal system in mind. However, are the other commandments considered outdated? Interpreted rather than taken literally? Ignored completely?

Are there congregations that will not allow a disabled priest and orchards that promise Levitican-approved produce?

I understand also that many Christians consider the arrival of Jesus to be fulfillment of all the commandments, and that the Old Testament commandments no longer apply, but rather the rules laid down by Jesus must be followed exclusively. In that case, is Jesus quoted anywhere canonically as prohibiting homosexuality?

Thank you all in advance for your sharing of information and experience. With all the hullabaloo about gay marriage going on right now, I’d like to get a better sense of what the Biblical stance (rather than the stance of any specific church) on homosexuality really is.

2

People who invoke Leviticus’s rule as a way to justify their homophobia are doing so hypocritically, and retroactively. To answer your question.

In other words, the thought process is not, “Oh, see here, it says in the bible that I must condemn homosexuals. Oh darn, and I’ve always been so accepting of them. Oh well, must be a good Christian.”

The thought process is rather: "Ick. I hate homosexuals because I don’t understand them and I fear the questioning of my whole moral mythology engendered by their existence. I fear it so much that I refuse to examine it.

[ex post facto rationalization] “And besides, it says in the bible it’s OK for me to condemn them. So I’m covered; I don’t have to examine my prejudices. Cuz that would be hard.” [/ex post facto rationalization]

3

While I tend to fall into the same category as Lissener, there are a handful of other hurdles to cross, most of which are as dubious as this one.

The first is Genesis 19:4-13, known more famously as the story of Sodom and Gommorah. It doesn’t specifically mention homosexuality, but there are those who read that as the underlying cause.

The second is I Timothy 1:8-10, Levitucus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13, which can be grouped as essentially saying the same thing. These can largely be written off by modern Christians, as the act of eating lobster while wearing wool and cotton is the Mosiac equivalent of eating penis while wearing Liberace(If you’re a male, of course.) IOW, they break down to the same thing.

I Corynthians 6:9-10

Romans 1:26-28

Judges 19

Each of these repeats the sentiment, as does Paul in a chapter of something, but to be honest I can’t remember. My brain’s totally fried right now, but I had two threads about this along with refutations and in depth explanations of the text in the past few months.

4

Corinthians 7:1.

If one assumes that homosexuality, or other activities is unclean to the spirit, and believes in the Bible, then this verse is used to stop all arguments.

5

For those following along at home, Corinthians 7:1 is, “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.”

I very much appreciate the quote, but I do not see any contextual evidence that homosexuality can be assumed to be unclean to the spirit. Clarification?

6

It comes from the designation in Mosaic laws of homosexuality as Tow Ebah, abomination, or evil/ unclean act.

7

hmmm… doesnt that mean we cant have a threesome…??

or does that mean we cant be bisexual? If I hve never laid with woman, does it still count?

Is there a Rabbi in the forum?!!

8

Sounds to me like you can’t do things to a man that you would to a woman sexually.

9

Yes, because **everyone who uses Leviticus is homophobic.

[/quote]
In other words, the thought process is not, “Oh, see here, it says in the bible that I must condemn homosexuals. Oh darn, and I’ve always been so accepting of them. Oh well, must be a good Christian.”
[/quote]

Actually it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible you must condemn homosexuality.

This is the only line of reasoning I think is bs. Can I not like speeding, yet not hate someone who speeds? Because I don’t like a lot of speeding in my neighbourhood, but to say I fear those speeders or hate them is a bit of a reach.

Cite please.

10

Some of the Levitical commands are ceremonial or symbolic in nature, intended specifically for the Israelites of the time. Others (e.g. “Thou shall not murder”) are more severe in nature. For example, when a passage mentions something as “an abomination,” that’s a pretty good clue that it’s not merely referring to a ceremonial requirement. (Some argue that toevah, the word which is translated as “abomination,” merely refers to ritual uncleanliness. The context of Leviticus 18, however, shows that it is about matters more severe than mere ritual adherence.)

11

OK. No vaginal sex with a man. Got it.

12

The general thesis adopted by the folks who argue from the Leviticus quote is that Christians (and everybody else) are relieved of the ceremonial law (what to sacrifice when) and the dietary law (do not eat pork or shellfish; avoid meat and milk in the same meal, etc.) but not of the moral law.

This is based on Paul’s statement that we are free from the strictures of the Law, but not so that we can sin, but so that we can live righteous lives pleasing to the God who saved us.

The problem is, nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that threefold division of the Law.

On the other hand, the new affirmative commands of the New Testament militate against judging someone else on the basis of what their sexuality may or may not be. To be sure, Paul has some definite remarks on who will not inherit the kingdom of God, but the idea that one or two of those terms specifically identify homosexuals is the opinion of the translators, and is not borne out by any other Greek use of those terms. (And the Greeks were, to be sure, quite aware of homosexual activity, and had a healthy vocabulary for describing it – which Paul does not use, except in one reference to boy-prostitution.) Diogenes can discuss Paul’s language and its possible meanings in significantly more detail than I; he’s studied the original Greek in more depth and more recently.

The business in Romans chapter 1 would give more pause – addressing as it does the inward motivations and not just the physical acts – but it’s my firm belief that the only way in which one can read it in context is in reference to people, formerly straight, devoted to a life of worldly pleasure, and turning to gay sex as a means of getting new kicks. (First Century Rome, where the recipients of this letter lived, was notorious for this, and there was an tend towards “gay chic” among the Jet Set a few years back. This, not the sexual orientation (about which Paul probably knew no more than he did of Tibetan Lamaism), was most likely what he was addressing in that passage.

13

Thank you for bringing your perspective, Svt4Him. I wonder if you could clear up your analogy a little for me… how does this go back to acceptance or rejection of homosexuality? Is this a “not in my backyard” sort of deal? Would you characterize your emotion toward the speeders in your example as dislike or frustration or something else?

I think that you are sort of restating the “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing but without the harsh connotations of “sin,” am I right? But lissener wasn’t saying that disliking a behavior leads to hating the behaver - I believe that s/he was saying that deliberate ignorance leads to misunderstanding and misplaced hatred. (Does that sound correct, lissener? I don’t think that your rebuttal is addressing the thrust of lissener’s comment.

14

Actually, I’m told - and I don’t speak Hebrew myself, so this is hearsay - that the most literal possible, word-for-word translation doesn’t even say that. What it says is actually “Do not lie with a man in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.”

Now Jewish scholars, of course, have always traditionally treated the Leviticus verse as a prohibition against men having gay sex, not a rule about where men can have gay sex; but then Christian fundies are typically not terribly concerned with traditional Jewish interpretations of scripture - after all, if you go by the Jewish interpretation none of the Law in Leviticus was ever intended for Gentiles at all.* And when you consider that Leviticus also contains a rule against wearing clothing made of two different materials, the idea of a rule against two men getting into a woman’s bed doesn’t seem all that out of place.

*In Jewish thought there are exactly seven laws that apply to Gentiles - the laws that were given to Adam and Noah and therefore apply to all of Adam and Noah’s descendants. One of these is “Do not commit sexual immortality,” and there’s some dispute among Jewish scholars over what exactly consititutes sexual immorality for Gentiles.

15

B-b-but I want sexual immortality!

Pretty please?

Julie

16

Okay, that’s officially the most surreal typo I’ve ever made.

17

Isn’t “sexual immorality” kind of a subjective term?

18

There’s a very simple answer to this question. Only the leviticus “gay is bad” quote means what it says. All the other quotes don’t really mean what they say. They really mean jesus is love. Ask any christian…

19

I recently posted some commentary about Paul’s use of the term arsenokoitai in the Bush/homophobia pit thread and to summarize, it seems to be a word that was coined by Paul and nobody is exactly sure what it meant. It literally translates to “male bed” (or “male bedder”) but the precise implication of the word is unknown. It is not found in Greek usage before Paul and subsequent uses are usually found in lists of vices (as it is used by Paul) that don’t help us infer anything from context. There is at least one use that identifies it specifically with pederasty and a couple of other uses associate it with male prostitution (whether it designates the prostitute or the “John” is unclear, however). One other use associates it with male prostitutes who service women. So it’s pretty confusing to figure it out. It can be stated that the word is never used categorically to refer to homosexuals. As I said in the other thread I think that Paul was referring to pederasty and alluding to the use of boy prostitutes, especially as it pertained to married men. This was a common practice in the Greek world and was looked at with great distaste by Jews. Given the cultural and social context of the audience Paul was addressing, I think that this is a practice he would have been very likely to single out for condemnation.

It should also be noted that the understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation did not exist in ancient times. There was no word or concept for “gay” the way we think of it. It was just seen as sexual behaviour. There was no linguistic category of “homosexuals” as such that Paul could have been singling out.
While it can’t be said with absolute certainty that Paul was not condemning all homosexual behavour it is not at all clear that he definitely was.

We should also remember that Paul was rather curmudgeonly even about marital sex saying in 1 Corinthians 7:1 that “It is good for a man not to marry…” He later says that married people should not “deprive each other” but qualifies it by adding, “I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am.” [meaning sexually chaste] (1 Corinthians 7:6,7).

20

It’s not a question of “meaning what they say,” they simply don’t say anything definitive about homosexuality at all.