The Holiness Code
Leviticus 18:22 (Leviticus 20:13)
Old Testament Passages
Traditional viewpoint: In these two passages, the law tells us that a man lying with a man “as with a woman” (KJV) is an abomination. Therefore, this shows us God’s (extreme) negative attitude toward homosexuals // homosexual activity. The passage is regularly quoted as a blanket condemnation of male homosexual activity. (Lesbians get a pass on this one!)
Unfortunately, while it might be easy to quote this verse to defend a preconception (it certainly makes bigotry easy and requires less thoughtful examination), the way this passage is typically used by the church is…well abominable.
Here are some reasons why this understanding needs to be questioned:
- The definition and applications of “abomination” (Hebrew: “Toebah”) and the obvious context of the passage is idolatry and cultic worship (v. 2-3)
- Greater weight is given to select passages by assigning an arbitrary categorization. In other words, some will say there are three “types” of law in the Old Testament:
Civil/Judicial law which was limited to the Jewish nation
Ceremonial law (e.g., burnt offerings, dietary restrictions) was done away with by Christ’s sacrifice
Moral codes (e.g., Ten Commandments) are universal and eternal, and according to those who assign these categories, this passage would fit in the realm of morality and therefore, applicable for us today.
This approach (it cannot be called interpretation!) creates several of its own problems:
- The determination of categories. In other words, since the Bible does not delineate, who gets to decide if it’s a moral, sacrificial or ceremonial law?
- The absence of such distinctions in the teachings of Jesus, who merely referred to “the law” and asserted that He came to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17)
- No such distinctions are taught in the New Testament, especially the Apostle Paul, who said if you choose to live under “the law,” you must keep all the law. (cf: Galatians 3:10) In other words, if Christians insist on enforcing this passage on my relationship, then they must be willing to accept and abide by all the other injunctions of the law.
- Even within this imposed structure, there is a clear selectivity on which of the (so called) moral laws to apply and emphasize. For example, coveting is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, but is never as big an issue as homosexuality. Likewise, keeping the Sabbath Day is substituted for Sunday worship, based on the example of the first-century church.
- Inconsistency with applying passages within the same chapter (Leviticus 20). Those who are so adamant about the “sin” of male homosexuality are silent about the other commands:
ü Children who curse their parents should be put to death (v.9)
ü Those who commit adultery should be put to death (v20
ü Having sex during a woman’s menstrual cycle results in being cast out of the faith community (v.18)
ü Psychic practitioners must be put to death (v.27)
- Ignores other Scriptures which includes the word “abomination” (and therefore elevates this issue to a level of weightier importance without merit or reason):
ü Eating shellfish cf: Leviticus 11:10
ü Eating certain birds (e.g., eagle, buzzard) cf: Leviticus 11:13
ü Woman wearing “men’s clothing” cf: Deuteronomy 22:5
ü Remarrying an ex-wife cf: Deuteronomy 24:4
ü Proverbs 6:16 lists “seven [things] which are an abomination” to God and they include pride, lying and murder
ü Unjust business activities (“false balance”) cf: Proverbs 11:1; 20:23
• It’s impossible to associate this passage with loving, committed, healthy homosexual relationships. On a few occasions, there’s a clear sexual context with the use of the word “abomination” (apart from the cultic sexual activities), but those are always connected to heterosexual activities, such as adultery, re-marriage, etc. cf: Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (v.18); 24:1-4
- Using the Bible (especially the Old Covenant Law) as a “manual” for sexuality, sexual ethics, sexual behavior or sexual expression presents inherent obstacles, since the Bible allows many practices which are condemned today:
ü Prostitution ü Polygamy
ü Sex with slaves ü Concubines
ü Treatment of women as property ü Very early marriage (girls, age 11-13)
ü Levirate marriage (Marrying brother’s widow)
Moreover, the Bible condemned some behaviors/attitudes which today (with enlightened understanding of human sexuality), we allow:
ü Intercourse during menstruation ü Marriage outside of faith
ü Nudity ü Impotency
ü Masturbation ü Birth Control
ü Uncleanness of blood and semen
Possible Alternative Explanations:
- The over-riding purpose of Leviticus was to build a nation different (i.e., “holy” or “separate”) from those in the surrounding regions. The key concept in the book is “holiness” and the resulting penalties for violating even a fraction of the laws. It was only and exclusively for the nation of Israel.
- Primarily (especially in the “Holiness Code”), the word abomination connotes a “religious” meaning—an absolute prohibition against idolatry and associated cultic practices, espceically those of a sexual nature. cf: Genesis 43:32; Leviticus 19:5-8 (v.7); Deuteronomy 7:25,26; 18:19; I Samuel 13:4; I Kings 11:5, 14:24; II Kings 21:2, 11; II Kings 23:13; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:2; Ezra 9:1, 11, 14; Jeremiah 6:13-15 (v.15)
- In the book of Proverbs, the word is used to describe unacceptable ethical and social issues (e.g., lying, gossip, cheating, extortion, etc.) which God (and society) find strongly unacceptable. cf: Proverbs 6:16-19; 11:1; 16:5 (Note however, that we never see the same passion from fundamentalists seeking to apply/legislate these vices!)
- The male-dominated/ patriarchal society of the Hebrew nation would consider it offensive and degrading for a man to assume the receptive “position” of a woman.
- The same could probably have been said for heterosexual intercourse that did not involve the man as initiator and dominator of the sex act. In the mind of the ancient Hebrew, “woman on top” would probably be considered an abomination!
- In the culture of that day, the male “seed” was viewed as the essence of life. The man was the life-giver, and to “waste” that essence was unthinkable. Therefore, masturbation and sex without the goal of procreation would be seen as wrong. (cf: Genesis 38:1-11 for an example of death being the result of masturbation)
- Given the intent of God’s people to dominate the world, any attempt to limit the population of the race would be viewed as “un-patriotic.”
Conclusion:
Even if it did mean exactly what the strict fundamentalists tell us it means (and I do not believe it does!), the Gay Christian is no more subject to the Levitical/Old Covenant law than we are to the dietary proscriptions or the sacrificial system. We are under grace, not under law! The attempt to apply this passage ignores the purpose of the Levitical/Old Covenant Law for New Covenant Christians (cf: Romans 7:7; Galatians 3:21-25) and negates the concept of Jesus’ atonement work of salvation (cf: Galatians 2:21; 3:13; Colossians 2:14)
NOTE: The fact that the Old Covenant law is not valid for God’s people today does not lead to the practice of “lawlessness,” as some alarmists might suggest The purpose is to grant liberty, freedom to live and obey those things the Spirit within is prompting us to do. It does not mean there are no moral standards; it’s a call to live the higher standard…“in the Spirit.”
