Failed homosexual arguments about shellfish, diets, pork and Leviticus
ANSWERING THE EVASIONS AND REVISIONS
Even professing Christians encounter difficulties when they consider the book of Leviticus. Few people understand this third book of the Bible. Discussions become bogged down due to a lack of Bible reading and knowledge. Some people will make grandiose claims and bold assertions about the Law of God, about the book of Leviticus, and about “Holiness Codes” despite the fact that they are woefully misrepresenting the truth of God’s Word (1 Timothy 1:7). A great deal of confusion could be avoided if those who bear the name of the Lord would spend more time reading the Bible. Often, this is enough to refute the revisionists’ contentions.
Leviticus Only for the Jews? A Case of Geographical Morality
Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has taught that the laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament were exclusively Jewish in scope and application. He has attempted to prove his point by going to the text of Leviticus and making reference to the land. He wrote,
The biblical prohibition is addressed only to Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24–30). Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.7
The rabbi argues that making any universal application of these prohibitions is incorrect since they applied to the Jews and only to non-Jews if they resided in the Holy Land. This line of argumentation is an extreme case of “geographical morality.” Essentially, Milgrom is arguing that homosexuality was wrong for an Egyptian if he resided in Judah, but it was not wrong if he lived in Egypt or Macedonia. Further questioning is required of this “geographical morality” position: Is it acceptable for a Jew to be a homosexual in New York, Denver, or Uganda, but not in Bethlehem? Although shocking with its situation ethic, this position is the argument of Rabbi Milgrom.
The misinformed rabbi cites Leviticus 18:24–30 and focuses on the defilement that will come upon the land due to the practice of homosexuality and from there draws his geographical conclusions. The passage in question reads as follows:
24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29 For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.
The refutation of Milgrom’s position is obvious upon reading the text of Leviticus. The very first thing that he misses is the fact that divine judgment had come upon the nations who previously dwelled in the land (see verses 25 and 27). Furthermore, these were nations that did not have the Law of God given to them on tablets of stone, yet God still held them responsible for their immoral behavior. Unquestionably, God’s prohibition of homosexuality wasn’t only a Jewish matter—it was something that transcended ethnic boundaries.8
Recognized as an authority on Leviticus, Milgrom reveals an odd selectivity with Leviticus and an apparent lack of thoroughness. Would he say that it would be acceptable (for anyone, Jew or Gentile) to sell one’s daughter into harlotry while residing in Los Angeles? Or, would God’s favor be upon the one who practiced incest while living in Argentina? We would hope that Milgrom would declare—in no uncertain terms—that such practices are immoral and reprehensible wherever they may occur, whatever the address or the locale. Furthermore, we would like to think that Milgrom’s opposition to such practices stems from the fact that they are sinful—that God declares them so.
These are interesting questions, because the very same Law, the book of Leviticus, which Milgrom refers to, also teaches us that the selling of one’s daughter into harlotry and the horrid practice of incest also defiles the land (Leviticus 19:29; 20:19–22). Will Rabbi Milgrom retain his geographical morality position? To teach that homosexuality is prohibited because it defiles the land, he must also conclude the same thing with regard to prostitution and incest. Will he strive to maintain some level of consistency? The clear reading of the Bible is refutation enough. The Leviticus prohibitions are not restricted to the Jews or to those who lived in the land.
Daniel Helminiak is wrong as well. Recall what he wrote concerning this passage in Leviticus 18: “The concern is to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with Gentile identity. It departs from the Jewish understanding of how things should be.”9 Rather, Helminiak departs from God’s understanding of how things should be. Elsewhere he wrote,
Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era did not understand Leviticus to forbid male-male intercourse as something wrong in itself. They understood Leviticus to forbid male-male intercourse as an offense against Jewish religion: it violated their understanding of the ideal order of creation, so it was Gentile-like, it was unjewish, it was dirty.10
On the contrary, the text of Leviticus 18:24–30 clearly reveals that God judged the non-Jewish nations who previously lived in the land because they violated His judgments and engaged in the type of sexual immorality that is listed in Leviticus 18:6–23.
After listing such practices as incest, intercourse during menstruation, adultery, offering one’s children to Molech, homosexuality, and bestiality, Leviticus is abundantly clear: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” God, according to the clear teaching of the book of Leviticus, does not view “these things” (of which homosexuality is included) as something restricted to Jews so that they may demonstrate their Jewishness before other nations. Also, this passage states “for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations.” Clearly, these men “who have been before you” were not Jewish, and they had committed these deeds, these “abominations” (the very same word used to describe homosexuality in verse 22). The men who had lived in the land prior to the Hebrews had engaged in homosexual practices, and God judged them for it. God’s disapprobation of homosexuality does not have ethical restrictions. As we have already seen, God judged the city of Sodom, in part, for their engagement in homosexuality, and the residents of Sodom were not Jewish. If God’s prohibitions against homosexuality were restricted to the children of Israel, He would not have judged the surrounding nations for such sinfulness.
Leviticus and the Law—Failing to Observe Biblical Distinctions
The most common attempt to reduce the Leviticus prohibitions of homosexuality to irrelevancy and view them as an exclusively Jewish matter is seen in the approach that conflates, confuses, and blurs various aspects of the Levitical law. Frequently, those who advocate the Bible’s acceptance of homosexuality will argue their position by pointing out things that are contained in the book of Leviticus that are no longer practiced, or simply ignored, by those who profess to follow the God of the Bible. From this, it is often deduced that the book of Leviticus is no longer applicable to our contemporary situation. Those who advocate the compatibility of homosexuality and Christianity readily go to Leviticus and then challenge their challengers with a “What about this passage?” approach to obedience.
A few examples of this approach would be illustrative at this point. Scanzoni and Mollenkott have accused those who oppose their pro-homosexual position with scriptural inconsistency:
Consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the 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.11
In a pamphlet titled “But Leviticus Says!” written by now retired homosexual pastor Fred L. Pattison, we find these words:
As we consider what is stated in Leviticus we need to observe that this Old Testament book has rules regarding what was to be eaten, type of clothing that was to be worn as well as a number of other areas of one’s life including sexual restrictions. These were to be followed by the children of Israel. Nearly every area of Jewish life was spelled out in Leviticus. It should also be noted that Leviticus is a priestly book. It must be remembered that this book was addressed to the Jew living under the Old Covenant regulating their worship and living practices, both private and public. It must also be noted here that the regulations in eating, worship, wearing apparel, etc. are not literally binding upon we who live under Grace. We read in Romans 6:14 “For we are not under law but under grace.” This does not mean that we are lawless. It simply means that the Law is complete and fulfilled in Christ (emphasis in the original).12
Later in this same pamphlet, Pattison continues his attempted “that was then and for them” evasion of the Leviticus passages:
Have you ever noticed how many people wear glasses? Some people wear contact lenses, nevertheless they still are wearing correctives for a needed correction in their eyesight. Ever noticed how many preachers wear glasses? Why don’t we bar such people from attending our public gatherings? To do so would be scriptural. According to Leviticus 21:16–23, “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to Aaron: For the generations to come NONE OF YOUR DESCENDANTS WHO HAS A DEFECT MAY COME NEAR TO OFFER THE FOOD OF HIS GOD. NO PERSON WHO HAS ANY DEFECT MAY COME NEAR: NO ONE WHO IS BLIND OR LAME, DISFIGURED OR DEFORMED; NO ONE WITH A CRIPPLED FOOD [SIC] OR HAND, OR WHO IS HUNCHBACKED OR DWARFED, OR WHO HAS ANY EYE DEFECT [GLASS WEARERS] OR WHO HAS FESTERING OR RUNNING SORES OR DAMAGED TESTICLES” (emphasis in the original).
Contrary to his verse citation, Pattison did not quote through verse 23, but stopped after verse 20. It is interesting to see the conclusions he draws from such questions and Leviticus citations:
According to this passage there should be a screening out of who may and who may not come into the presence of the Lord in our public gatherings. This is scripture. “But that’s not for today?”Who says? If it is not to be applied to today’s assembling why are the passages dealing with homosexuality said to apply?
If the Levitical code is to be taken literally and applied today then the attendance at our public worship services would be cut drastically. Modern day churches do not carry out the prohibitions of Leviticus. How is it possible for Christians to apply to small passages from Leviticus to homosexuals while at the same time dismissing other portions of the book as not being applicable for our day (emphasis in the original)?
HERE IS THE HOMOSEXUAL ARGUMENT
The argument essentially is, “If you do not obey all of the book of Leviticus, then you cannot condemn me for my disregard of 18:22 and 20:13.”
First of all, let it be noted that a person’s, or a nation’s, obedience to God’s Word does not make a particular commandment valid or binding. Those who are Christian strive to obey the Bible where and when and how the Bible prescribes obedience, regardless of popularity or opinion polls.
Additionally, ignorance of God’s commands or redefinition of His commands does not give one a “not guilty” status before God. Furthermore, those who argue from the book of Leviticus as Pattison does reveal their ignorance of God’s Word and posture themselves as judges over God’s own Word.
In their judgment over God’s Word, they are adept at declaring when it is obligatory, when it is relevant, and when it is applicable. Since they have confined the entire book of Leviticus to an irrelevant, non-binding status, it can be disregarded in the present day.
BIBLICAL RESPONSE
To refer to the dietary laws of Leviticus 11, observing that they are no longer practiced by Christians, does not justify the disregard for God’s Word concerning homosexuality in Leviticus. We must ask ourselves, “Why do we not observe the dietary laws that God articulated in Leviticus?” The answer is simple. We do not observe the dietary laws of Leviticus because God, in His own Word, has repealed them, and we know this from other passages in the Bible, not from our own preferences. The restrictions of eating shellfish, rock badger, or pork are no longer binding because Jesus removed them and declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19).
The dietary laws were in place as a requirement upon the Jews as the covenant people of God. These dietary laws, not those concerning homosexuality, did serve, in part, to evidence the distinction between the Jews and other nations.
In no place in the Bible do we read of God judging the surrounding nations for their failure to observe the dietary regulations—they were not required to do so. This function and these laws are no longer operable in the New Covenant era since such distinctions between Jew and Gentile are utterly abolished (see Acts 10; Ephesians 2:11–22; Galatians 3:28–29).
Where in the Bible has God abolished the prohibition against homosexuality? Nowhere!
Answer: Though God has changed His Law with respect to the dietary regulations, and other matters that distinguished between the Jews and other nations (laws concerning the separation of fabrics and seed), He has not done so with homosexuality. We must not allow sexual preferences to interpret the Bible; the Bible is to interpret the Bible. Again, the pivotal concern is the authority of God’s Word.
Pattison’s quotation above, which selectively includes a portion of Leviticus 21 and refers to eyeglasses, physical handicaps, and deformities, does little to support his contention that the Bible and his homosexual lifestyle are compatible.
The passage to which he refers is one that speaks solely of the Levitical high priest who must, by God’s command, come from the lineage of Aaron (Leviticus 21:17, 21). The Levites who served in the sanctuary came from three families, all of the tribe of Levi: Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Numbers 4; Exodus 6:16–19; 1 Chronicles 23:6). Aaron was a Kohathite, which provided some distinction between the role of high priest and the rest of the Levites (see Numbers 8, especially verse 19).
What is the significance of all of this? First, the passage clearly does nothing to support Pattison’s strained points about Leviticus as a whole no longer being applicable. Once we allow the Bible to interpret the Bible, we see that the high priesthood is no longer operative because Jesus is our final and perfect High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–16; 5:5; 6:20; 7:1–8:4; 9:24–28; 10:11–14).
The Aaronic and Levitical priesthood is no longer. The high priests of the Older Testament were temporary, pointing forward to the one final and perfect High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:14–28). The High Priesthood of Jesus has done away with the previous priesthood, and the book of Hebrews unquestioningly demonstrates this point.
Even more, this fact reveals the rationale behind the requirement that the Aaronic high priest be without defect (not sinless), since he was prefiguring the perfect High Priest who was to come.
Simply stated, the restrictions that pertain to physical deformities and handicaps had nothing to do with moral or immoral behavior. Persons with such conditions were still allowed to worship; they simply could not function as the high priest. Such restrictions did not apply to every person; they applied only to the high priest who had to be a descendent of Aaron and whose office pointed forward to the coming Redeemer.
So, a certain portion of the book of Leviticus (legislation regarding the high priest) is no longer binding, because God, in His Word and according to His purpose, has rendered the Levitical high priesthood inoperative. This realization, however, is quite a different matter than determining, on the basis of one’s own presumed authority, that the entirety of the book of Leviticus is irrelevant today.
Many portions of the book of Leviticus are perpetually obligatory. Leviticus 18:20 forbids adultery and 19:4 prohibits idolatry. We are still required to love one another (Leviticus 19:9–18), and Jesus himself quoted Leviticus 19:18 in Matthew 19:19 and 22:39. Today it is commonly asked, “What would Jesus do?” Clearly, one of the things that Jesus would do is quote Leviticus.
Again the question looms before us, “Where or when has God changed in His moral disapprobation of homosexuality?” Are there portions of the book of Leviticus that no longer apply to us today? Yes. But these are to be determined by God’s Word, not lustful passions or sexual experimentation. God’s Word is binding—all of it. It is obligatory at every point in which it declares itself to be. Since God is the One who gave His Word (in this case, the Law), He is the only One who has the right to annul or repeal it.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 59–75). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
