Gospel Prism

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination…If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”

This passage from Leviticus would seem to display an outright prohibition of homosexuality. Those scholars who favor a homosexual reading of these texts refer to these two passages as being part of the “Holiness Code” of Israel. The code consisted of a list untouchables, from meat with blood to certain seeds. In the midst of this code is the warning against homosexuality. Scanzoni notes that these prohibitions were to prevent ethnic pollution, idolatry, and uncleanness. (Scanzoni, 60) She argues that these two texts do not apply to the gay community today because “consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period.” (Scanzoni, 60-61) Another theologian, Bruce Williams, also contends that the Leviticus text cannot be used to prohibit homosexuality in the church. He writes:

Pro-gay reinterpreters have sought to refer the Levitical proscription to the Mosaic cultic ordinances superceded by the New Testament, or to the religious belief and practices of Israel’s pagan neighbors, or to the use of homosexual contact as a means of degrading a male adversary (i.e., by treating him as a woman), or to the infertility of homosexual relations in light of Israel’s need to increase its population. It is also claimed that the condemnations assume deliberate perversion by men whose inclinations are ordinarily homosexual. (Bruce A. Williams, American Protestantism and Homosexuality: Recent Neo-Traditional Approaches, (New YorK: Bruce Williams, 1981), 67.)

Thus, many pro-homosexual interpreters believe Leviticus to have no relevance for the church today. They argue that the text was wrapped in the pagan fertility cults of the time and remains an anachronism of Jewish culture which was often considered taboo. Also, homosexuality was not condemned by Jewish priests because of the nature of homosexuality itself. Rather, its close relationship to pagan idolatry made it objectionable; and it was never rejected, in and of itself. Lastly, as many of the Levitical laws have been “done away with” by the early church, so too have these laws. (Lovelace, 88)

In essence when one examines the cultural and temporal context of these passages, there are too many discrepancies for their argument to be valid. The premise of these arguments lies with one single presupposition; Leviticus does not speak to the church of today. Such a message is a mere circumvention against the stark reality that the book of Leviticus is a part of the canon, and therefore, must not be ignored on the basis of hermeneutical expedience. While it is true that there was a holiness code that was required of the people, it must be remembered that that code was established to protect God’s covenant people from the evil of idolatrous worship. The isolation of homosexuality as simply a part of idol worship without having any implications today is erroneous. Richard Lovelace asserts:

The practice listed in these chapters include incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, spiritism, and cursing one’s parents. One act is mentioned which from our perspective has only a cultic or symbolic significance—intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period—but homosexuality is mentioned in the immediate context of adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice. Unless modern readers are prepared to say that most of the acts on this list are wrong only in the Canaanite and Egyptian context and could be right today, their argument for the exemption for homosexuality is weak. (Lovelace, 89)

Sadly this has actually taken place. An Episcopal biblical scholar named William Countryman has gone to the extreme of following Lovelace’s logic:

In his book Dirt, Greed, and Sex, [he] adopts a biblical theology that allows homosexual practice. Fortunately, he has the courage to admit that his method of interpretation also makes prostitution and sex with animals legitimate options for Christians (as long as such acts are done in love). (Stanton L. Jones, “The Loving Opposition: Speaking the Truth in a Climate of Hate,” Christianity Today, July 19, 1993, 24.)

Clearly there is a limitation to what one can say is excluded from church doctrine. The Pentateuch contains many ethical and social laws that are still held valid today. Gordon Wenham agrees:

For most Christians it [Leviticus 18] is self-evident that the moral rules enunciated in this chapter still apply today. The NT writers assume that the laws on incest (vv. 6-18; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1ff.), adultery (v. 20, e.g., Rom. 13:9), idolatry (v. 21; cf. 1 Cor. 10:7ff.; Rev. 2:14), and homosexuality (v. 22; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9) still bind the Christian conscience. (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus The New International Commentary on the OT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 260.)

It is quite clear that the New Testament prohibits adultery, homosexuality, and other forms of sexual perversion (such as bestiality). The relevance of Leviticus stands on its own accord and its cogent condemnation of homosexuality is surely binding not just on the Israelites of the biblical era, but Christ’s church today.