Alright, finally done with an Old Testament perspective on the law. I wanted to make a case separately from an NT perspective, because I know the obvious response to an NT-focused position here is “that’s the same God you worship now, you still believe in a God that set this law for thousands of years”.
In the New Testament, Jesus takes a really interesting stance on the law. First of all, he breaks it, as the Pharisees understand it, constantly. However, he always has a Biblical argument for doing so, and consistently leaves the Pharisees befuddled and frustrated when they accuse him of this.
Additionally, as a Gentile, the NT is clear that we are not beholden to the OT law. This is a surprisingly well-discussed issue, as it seems the early church was often followed by a group of Jewish Christians that would persuade new churches that they were beholden to the law, and had to be circumcised, etc. So Paul’s letters frequently have to correct this stance, when he contacts the churches he’s planted. Even for Jews, Paul himself has a vision where he’s told to eat unclean animals, and soon after participates in a feast that sees more people brought into the church.
There’s also a really interesting moment with Jesus, when a woman is set to be stoned because she was found cheating on her husband, and is brought to Jesus. And Jesus tells the crowd gathered to stone her, “let he who is without sin, throw the first stone”. Slowly, the whole crowd leaves, and he tells the woman “If no one will condemn you, then I won’t either. Go, and sin no more.” So there’s this forgiveness and grace brought into the equation, that seems contrary to the harsh punishments described in the original Law, and made more important than that.
So so far this suggests that, hey, as Christians today we can basically ignore the Law. But Jesus actually tells us something more interesting, that he’s not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. In other words, Jesus believes his radical, loving philosophy is what the Law was meant to lead us to all along.
So basically, as a modern Christian, I don’t at all have to obey the Law. I can get tattoos, wear mixed fabrics, and work on Sundays all I like. But the Law is relevant. I try to study it as Jesus did, and understand it as he did, with his radically loving and gracious and kind philosophy. And I don’t always succeed, I’m not going to tell you I have a perfect understanding of every Law and its purpose, but I understand enough that I have faith that there is good explanation for the things I haven’t understood yet, and try to put the work in to understand the things in the OT that do bother me.
Also, I feel like I should add, as a modern Christian with the whole Bible before me, the Law is almost like… a failed experiment. Not that God isn’t omniscient and would be “experimenting”, but the Law clearly doesn’t work. Israel fails to follow it constantly, until the kingdom is split and both halves continue to fail until their exiles. In fact, there are some practices laid out in the laws, such as the Year of Jubilee, that we apparently don’t have historical evidence of ever having happened. The Law needed fulfilling through Christ, because we couldn’t possibly make it work, and that was always the plan for it. So no, I don’t look at modern Israel and see some platonic ideal society because they still try to follow the Law, or anything like that.
So, finally, the verse in question. First thing, I’m looking at the word “abomination” and I’m curious what that is in the original Hebrew, as that’s a loaded word. Here’s the list of everywhere that word appears in the Hebrew. The word is used here, but also in contexts such as “it would be an abomination to an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrew”, unclean animals are described as “abominations”, a sacrifice or prayer offered by a wicked person is an abomination to God, etc. There are some stronger uses of the word, such as using it for adultery or idol worship, but I’m seeing this word originates with the KJV, and I suspect its definition has drifted over time. Other translations, like the NIV choose words like “detestable” or “loathsome” for this. So definitely still not positive words, but that doesn’t read to me in the ultra-harsh way “abomination” does, and it’s also notable that unclean animals, something Paul is later encouraged to eat, is described with the same word.
Looking at this verse, I basically see 3 possible explanations for its inclusion in the Law. I’ll list them:
A) The obvious one, that homosexuality is just plainly frowned upon, and was always meant to be interpreted as wrong. Not an unreasonable reading, although point B from my previous comment still applies, protests and harassment are unjustifiable.
B) That this may be a health thing, similar to unclean animals. After all, we saw with the AIDS epidemic a health issue that swept through gay men most of all, largely because of a lack of healthcare resources that certainly wouldn’t have been around in B.C.
C) The one I personally find most likely, is that this had to do with God’s desire to see Israel and humanity grow in population. Abraham was promised descendants “as numerous in the stars in the sky”, and this is fairly close to the Genesis commission to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the whole earth and subdue it”.
These days, I consider the earth to be pretty well filled, so I don’t believe those commands apply too much to us now. The Christian sects that always try to have 10+ kids strike me as weird too, I don’t feel any obligation to procreate like that.
Alright, let me wrap up here. My feelings on Biblical law are clearly complex, but to be clear, this is a good part of the case to be made that homosexuality isn’t godly, and you’re right to point it out, but still doesn’t sway me, for all the reasons I explained in my first comment on it. This is still part of what I’d described as the Bible’s “remarkable silence” on the topic of homosexuality.
A law in Leviticus is not nearly as persuasive as it would be if Jesus had spoken on the topic, for example. Or simply, more instances of the topic being directly addressed in scripture. This also still doesn’t bring much clarity about modern homosexuals in marriage, etc. There’s a lot of clear biblical disdain for casual sex, so a lot of gay culture like Grindr isn’t ever going to get a Biblical thumbs up, just like Tinder hookups don’t. So forbidding that kind of sexual activity is expected, but there are explicit examples of forbidden marriages in this list of laws about sex, such as marrying your sister, but a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman isn’t mentioned.
But ultimately, my entire rant from the previous comment still stands. Even if Jesus had outright and directly said “any form of homosexuality, no matter how monogamous and loving, is tantamount to murder” 20+ times, the way much of the church has behaved would still be biblically unacceptable. In the sermon on the mount, the most detailed example of Jesus’s direct teaching we have, he tells us that all sins are equal. That to even look at a woman with lust, to think an angry thought about someone, is a crime worthy of death. And so we’re all equal. I’m just as sinful and “bad” as you, as any murderer, as anyone who’s done any sin you can name. So any church that picks a “pet sin” to focus on like this, whether it be sex and drugs, dungeons and dragons, rock music, or homosexuality and gender diversity, it’s done in direct contradiction to Jesus’s direct and plain teaching, in his most important and repeated message. It can be correct to call out sin in love, but this isn’t what that looks like.
Alright, finally done with an Old Testament perspective on the law. I wanted to make a case separately from an NT perspective, because I know the obvious response to an NT-focused position here is “that’s the same God you worship now, you still believe in a God that set this law for thousands of years”.
In the New Testament, Jesus takes a really interesting stance on the law. First of all, he breaks it, as the Pharisees understand it, constantly. However, he always has a Biblical argument for doing so, and consistently leaves the Pharisees befuddled and frustrated when they accuse him of this.
Additionally, as a Gentile, the NT is clear that we are not beholden to the OT law. This is a surprisingly well-discussed issue, as it seems the early church was often followed by a group of Jewish Christians that would persuade new churches that they were beholden to the law, and had to be circumcised, etc. So Paul’s letters frequently have to correct this stance, when he contacts the churches he’s planted. Even for Jews, Paul himself has a vision where he’s told to eat unclean animals, and soon after participates in a feast that sees more people brought into the church.
There’s also a really interesting moment with Jesus, when a woman is set to be stoned because she was found cheating on her husband, and is brought to Jesus. And Jesus tells the crowd gathered to stone her, “let he who is without sin, throw the first stone”. Slowly, the whole crowd leaves, and he tells the woman “If no one will condemn you, then I won’t either. Go, and sin no more.” So there’s this forgiveness and grace brought into the equation, that seems contrary to the harsh punishments described in the original Law, and made more important than that.
So so far this suggests that, hey, as Christians today we can basically ignore the Law. But Jesus actually tells us something more interesting, that he’s not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. In other words, Jesus believes his radical, loving philosophy is what the Law was meant to lead us to all along.
So basically, as a modern Christian, I don’t at all have to obey the Law. I can get tattoos, wear mixed fabrics, and work on Sundays all I like. But the Law is relevant. I try to study it as Jesus did, and understand it as he did, with his radically loving and gracious and kind philosophy. And I don’t always succeed, I’m not going to tell you I have a perfect understanding of every Law and its purpose, but I understand enough that I have faith that there is good explanation for the things I haven’t understood yet, and try to put the work in to understand the things in the OT that do bother me.
Also, I feel like I should add, as a modern Christian with the whole Bible before me, the Law is almost like… a failed experiment. Not that God isn’t omniscient and would be “experimenting”, but the Law clearly doesn’t work. Israel fails to follow it constantly, until the kingdom is split and both halves continue to fail until their exiles. In fact, there are some practices laid out in the laws, such as the Year of Jubilee, that we apparently don’t have historical evidence of ever having happened. The Law needed fulfilling through Christ, because we couldn’t possibly make it work, and that was always the plan for it. So no, I don’t look at modern Israel and see some platonic ideal society because they still try to follow the Law, or anything like that.
So, finally, the verse in question. First thing, I’m looking at the word “abomination” and I’m curious what that is in the original Hebrew, as that’s a loaded word. Here’s the list of everywhere that word appears in the Hebrew. The word is used here, but also in contexts such as “it would be an abomination to an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrew”, unclean animals are described as “abominations”, a sacrifice or prayer offered by a wicked person is an abomination to God, etc. There are some stronger uses of the word, such as using it for adultery or idol worship, but I’m seeing this word originates with the KJV, and I suspect its definition has drifted over time. Other translations, like the NIV choose words like “detestable” or “loathsome” for this. So definitely still not positive words, but that doesn’t read to me in the ultra-harsh way “abomination” does, and it’s also notable that unclean animals, something Paul is later encouraged to eat, is described with the same word.
Looking at this verse, I basically see 3 possible explanations for its inclusion in the Law. I’ll list them:
A) The obvious one, that homosexuality is just plainly frowned upon, and was always meant to be interpreted as wrong. Not an unreasonable reading, although point B from my previous comment still applies, protests and harassment are unjustifiable.
B) That this may be a health thing, similar to unclean animals. After all, we saw with the AIDS epidemic a health issue that swept through gay men most of all, largely because of a lack of healthcare resources that certainly wouldn’t have been around in B.C.
C) The one I personally find most likely, is that this had to do with God’s desire to see Israel and humanity grow in population. Abraham was promised descendants “as numerous in the stars in the sky”, and this is fairly close to the Genesis commission to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the whole earth and subdue it”.
These days, I consider the earth to be pretty well filled, so I don’t believe those commands apply too much to us now. The Christian sects that always try to have 10+ kids strike me as weird too, I don’t feel any obligation to procreate like that.
Alright, let me wrap up here. My feelings on Biblical law are clearly complex, but to be clear, this is a good part of the case to be made that homosexuality isn’t godly, and you’re right to point it out, but still doesn’t sway me, for all the reasons I explained in my first comment on it. This is still part of what I’d described as the Bible’s “remarkable silence” on the topic of homosexuality.
A law in Leviticus is not nearly as persuasive as it would be if Jesus had spoken on the topic, for example. Or simply, more instances of the topic being directly addressed in scripture. This also still doesn’t bring much clarity about modern homosexuals in marriage, etc. There’s a lot of clear biblical disdain for casual sex, so a lot of gay culture like Grindr isn’t ever going to get a Biblical thumbs up, just like Tinder hookups don’t. So forbidding that kind of sexual activity is expected, but there are explicit examples of forbidden marriages in this list of laws about sex, such as marrying your sister, but a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman isn’t mentioned.
But ultimately, my entire rant from the previous comment still stands. Even if Jesus had outright and directly said “any form of homosexuality, no matter how monogamous and loving, is tantamount to murder” 20+ times, the way much of the church has behaved would still be biblically unacceptable. In the sermon on the mount, the most detailed example of Jesus’s direct teaching we have, he tells us that all sins are equal. That to even look at a woman with lust, to think an angry thought about someone, is a crime worthy of death. And so we’re all equal. I’m just as sinful and “bad” as you, as any murderer, as anyone who’s done any sin you can name. So any church that picks a “pet sin” to focus on like this, whether it be sex and drugs, dungeons and dragons, rock music, or homosexuality and gender diversity, it’s done in direct contradiction to Jesus’s direct and plain teaching, in his most important and repeated message. It can be correct to call out sin in love, but this isn’t what that looks like.