And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing. – Leviticus 18:22
And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. – Leviticus 20:13
(Excerpts from: Homosexianity by R. D. Weekly – For the sake of familiarity, scripture quotations appearing in the book were replaced with the New World Translation)
_______________________________________________________
Among the passages quoted to condemn homosexuality, these verses are used most often. It’s not as though the passages aren’t straightforward in their condemnation. They expressly state that it is an abomination for men to have sex with men. After examining these passages more closely, however, a couple of interesting things stand out.
A vital clue to the proper interpretation of these passages is found in the preceding verses. Moses laid out the purposes of these prohibitions in the first verses of each respective chapter.
And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, and you must say to them, ‘I am Jehovah YOUR God. 3 The way the land of Egypt does, in which YOU dwelt, YOU must not do; and the way the land of Canaan does, into which I am bringing YOU, YOU must not do; and in their statutes YOU must not walk. – Leviticus 18:1-3
And Jehovah went on speaking to Moses, saying: 2 “You are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Any man of the sons of Israel, and any alien resident who resides as an alien in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, should be put to death without fail. The people of the land should pelt him to death with stones. 3 And as for me, I shall set my face against that man, and I will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech for the purpose of defiling my holy place and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land should deliberately hide their eyes from that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech by not putting him to death, 5 then I, for my part, shall certainly fix my face against that man and his family, and I shall indeed cut him and all those who have immoral intercourse along with him in having immoral intercourse with Molech off from among their people.
6 “‘As for the soul who turns himself to the spirit mediums and the professional foretellers of events so as to have immoral intercourse with them, I shall certainly set my face against that soul and cut him off from among his people.
7 “‘And YOU must sanctify yourselves and prove yourselves holy, because I am Jehovah YOUR God. 8 And YOU must keep my statutes and do them. I am Jehovah who is sanctifying YOU. – Leviticus 1:7
In the second passage, God is dealing with the idolatry of the Canaanites, many of whom worshipped the false fire-god named Molech. Child sacrifice was one of the forms of Molech worship, and Moses began this list of proscriptions by dealing with this savage act. It would be a serious theological mistake to disconnect verse 13, which deals with male-male sexual activity, from the preamble of Molech worship.
The male worshipers of Molech often engaged in same-sex anal sex as an act of worship. Connecting this to the prohibition in verse 13 reinforces the fact that God absolutely did not want the Israelites to engage in the idolatrous activities of the Canaanites. In verse 7, God expressed His desire for the Israelites, commanding that they sanctify themselves (set themselves apart from the false worship of the Canaanites) and be holy. Considering the cultural context of this proscription, it makes sense why female-female sex acts were not condemned along with male-male sex acts. God was not condemning same-sex sexual activity in general, but the ancient idolatry that was taking place in the lands of Egypt and Canaan at the time, which involved male worshipers and the male temple priests, but not females.
Leviticus 18:22, taken in light of its own preamble (18:1-3), can likewise be understood as God’s demand that the Israelites do not take with them the acts of worship they were exposed to while in Egypt. Both of these preambles are clearly prohibiting the idolatrous Egypt and heading into idolatrous Canaan. As they go, God wants them to remain holy – to leave behind the idolatrous baggage they carried with them from Egypt, and to take care to remain completely separated from the idolatrous cultures that will soon surround them in Canaan. The fact that the Israelites created a calf at the base of Mt. Sinai is no coincidence. They were exporting Egyptian idolatry, and God intended to prevent this.
It could be argued that although idolatry was in mind in the giving of these commandments – as evidenced by the context of both verses – it was not the sole purpose for them. After all, incest wouldn’t necessarily be idolatrous in every case; yet, it’s sinful even in contexts in which idolatry is not present. So then, while idolatry may be a component of these proscriptions, it was only a part, and not the whole. This argument would make the proscription against male-male sex acts applicable even when idolatry isn’t involved, as would be the case with incest or bestiality (both of which are also mentioned in these chapters).
We cannot forget that an expressly stated reason was given as to why these activities were condemned in these particular chapters. The purpose of Leviticus was to teach the Israelites how to worship God. Moses went into great detail in describing the vessels and forms of worship that God desired from Israel, even down to the garments the priests were to wear. Dietary restrictions and many other codes were established to provide the Israelites with a framework for worshipping the God who is like no other, and whose worship, therefore, had to be like the worship of no other. These proscriptions, then, were resultant from the contrast between the idolatrous cultures of Egypt and Canaan, and the distinct (set apart, or sanctified) worship God desired of Israel.
It’s exceedingly important that we interpret and apply these passages carefully. It would be a mistake to conclude that everything proscribed in Leviticus was condemned because it was morally repugnant to God, even (and especially) if the term “abomination” was used. In many of the cases, the only thing that made the proscribed acts abominable was their association with the idolatrous cultures of Egypt and Canaan. There was nothing morally wrong about eating various types of meat (Leviticus 11), mixing various types of seed in the same field, crossbreeding animals, or wearing mixed-fabric clothing. (Leviticus 19:19). These commandments were intended to culturally and ritually isolate Israel from the idolatrous peoples around them, not to serve as everlasting moral pronouncements. It was what these things represented that was repugnant to God – the way of life (culture) of idolatrous people.
But why was it so important for the Israelites to remain separated from idolatrous cultures? Why restrict them from activities that were not necessarily immoral in and of themselves?
The answer is found in Paul’s epistle to the Christians in Galatia. He stated that the purpose of the Law was to sanctify the Israelites until the Seed – to whom God’s original promise was made – arrived (Galations 3:19). The various activities proscribed were not necessarily sinful in and of themselves. They were representative, however, of the idolatrous cultures that God needed the Israelites to remain free and clear of during this sensitive time prior to the Messiah’s arrival. He needed them to maintain spiritual purity because they would be the field through which Christ would spring up. If they fell into idolatry, His plan to reconcile the world to Himself could have been thwarted.
In light of this, it becomes clear why many of those old proscriptions were not reaffirmed under our new covenant. Not many modern Christians abstain from eating pork products. We don’t teach followers of Christ that wearing a shirt comprised of a 50% cotton/50% linen blend is a sin. We recognize that the blood of Jesus rescinded the proscriptions of the Mosaic Law – that even though they were applicable to a specific people, for a specific purpose, in a specific time, they simply do not apply any longer.
Consider a modern day example – tattoos, body piercings, and the black motif, and other things that often characterize the gothic subculture in America and Europe. Because of its romanticism with death and ideologies that are often atheistic or Satanistic in nature, a pastor may teach his congregation the it’s not very wise to get involved in things related to the gothic subculture; and he would be right in doing so. It doesn’t mean that wearing black clothing and makeup, having heavy body piercings or tattoos, or even listening to certain styles of music is inherently sinful. It’s what those things represent that provides legitimate cause to separate oneself not only from the subculture itself, but also from the things so heavily associated with it.
This principle applies to the Leviticus proscriptions. We cannot glean from them a universal moral pronouncement. All we can discern is that the things proscribed were associated with idolatrous cultures that God wanted the Israelites to have nothing to do with, lest their chances of ultimately falling into idolatry increase. Unfortunately, we discover in 2 Kings that from time to time they became idolatrous anyway. But, it could have been a lot worse had god not established these sundry restrictions.
This is not to say the some of the activities condemned in Leviticus were not inherently sinful. However, we cannot view their inclusion in these particular passages as evidence, unless we’re also willing to consider the other things proscribed in Leviticus equally immoral – things few Christians actually feel are sinful in the 21 st century, e.g. eating pork or shellfish.
But, didn’t God call same-sex sexual acts an abomination?
He did not such thing. He only referred to male-male sex as an abomination. No mention was made of female-female sex in any of these contexts. Women were mentioned in both chapters, but not in relation to same-sex sexual activity. This actually helps us derive the proper interpretation of these passages, as well as the implication of the designation “abomination”.
But, before we can consider the implications of this designation, we have to understand what an abomination actually is. The vast majority of Christians who throw around this word have absolutely no clue what it means. If the subject matter weren’t so serious, the look on people’s faces when you ask them what exactly an abomination is would actually be humorous. But, this is a serious issue, and we shouldn’t just throw around words with no real understanding of meaning or intent.
The Hebrew word translated “abomination" in these verses is toebah (to-ay-baw' - Strong’s H8441). It means “detestable”, and refers to God’s view of something culturally or ritually associated with idolatry.
This is exactly why pork and shellfish, among a plethora of other food products, were considered abominations – not because they were inherently immoral animals, but because they were associated with idolatrous cultures. That’s what made these things detestable to God. Consider that the Hebrew word translated “abomination” in Leviticus 11 is sheqets (sheh'-kets – Strong’s H8263), which means “filth”, or “an idolatrous object”. It’s because these things (pork, shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, male-male sex, etc.) were culturally or ritually associated with idolatry that they were considered abominable - filthy and detestable to God. They were not inherently filthy. They were made so through their association with idolatrous cultures.
The use of the term “abomination" in these texts reinforces the point. The abominable objects and acts proscribed in Leviticus were not necessarily sinful in and of themselves. Their perception as abominable hinged upon the religious culture of the societies with which they were associated. It’s very important that we understand this distinction between inherently immoral objects or acts, and those that are only perceived as detestable because of their association with idolatrous culture and ritual.
Christians no longer feel obliged to condemn mules (a mixed-breed animal), the wearing of mixed fabrics, or other things associated with ancient idolatrous cultures. We recognize that these things, which were once considered abominations, are obviously not inherently sinful. We understand that the idolatrous association of these objects within the ancient world is now obsolete. Consistency of interpretation requires us to also perceive same-sex sexual activity in the same light – as homosexuality is associated with idolatry within our modern culture about as much as eating bacon and eggs for breakfast is; and how many Christians do we know who commit that “abomination”?
When interpreted in light of the cultural and religious contexts within which the text was written, it’s clear that the Leviticus passages are not pronouncing male-male sexual activity inherently immoral. Indeed, it was only because of the activity’s association with the worship of idols that it was condemned within the Levitical code, as the text itself expressly states.
That being said, even if Leviticus was condemning male-male sexual activity, irrespective of the activity’s association with idolatry (and the context clearly establishes the contrary), we’d have to ask ourselves why female-female sex was not also condemned. It’s not as though the author did not take the time to distinguish condemnations of male and female behavior in verses immediately surrounding these particular verses.
All of these points considered, the simple fact is that the commands of the Levitical Code do not apply to Christians, anyway.
(These excepts from R. D. Weekly's book focuses only on the Leviticus passages. I'll type up excepts from his discussion of Romans 1:26,27 and start a new thread in a couple days.)