Leviticus and Homosexuality

[Jimmygill88]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

 

[Jimmygill88]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

It’s actually a fascinating read. The punishment for adultery is death. If we are playing on a level playing field here, in addition to condemning homosexuality we should be calling for the immediate execution of married person who has been unfaithful

 

[Jimmygill88]

It’s actually a fascinating read. The punishment for adultery is death. If we are playing on a level playing field here, in addition to condemning homosexuality we should be calling for the immediate execution of married person who has been unfaithful

Or eat rabbit, shellfish or pork. Who decided on the hierarchy of these rules. Why the homosexual one and not the others

 

[edwest2]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jimmygill88]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

I’m not sure that addresses my question really. I recognise that the church teaches that homosexuality is morally disordered. And as Jesus didn’t mention it directly I am looking at the other passages of scripture that support this position. Looking at Leviticus it seems that out of dozens of rules this one is singled out as one that must be obeyed while the majority of the other rules are ignored. And I don’t understand that

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

A real Catholic would never use Leviticus as their primary justification for anything.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

Old testament laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which ended their requirements - Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15. Homosexuality is still forbidden in the New Testament

Jesus said

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for he will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that he Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you - John 16:12-15

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles in truth. Verse 14 says The Apostles would speak with the authority of Christ

Apostle Paul said about about practising homosexuality

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error Romans 1:26-27

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

[Elizium23]

This is the difference between doctrine and discipline which still exists today. Mosaic Law was the Canon Law of its time. Its statutes were partly based in the unchanging precepts of moral law and divine law, and partly based in discipline appropriate for the time and place they applied.

Canon Law gives us discipline when it says we must abstain from meat on Fridays. This discipline can be changed or dispensed entirely by the competent authority. The Church has the authority to bind and loose such matters on the faithful. Canon Law gives us doctrine when it says that only wheat bread and grape wine are valid matter for the Eucharist. The authority of the Church and divine revelation were needed to find out what constitutes valid matter. The Church has no authority to change this, as it derives from divine law.

In the same way, when Leviticus says that homosexual relations are an abomination, it derives from the moral law given by God. This law is universal and everlasting. God will not change it, so the Church has no authority to change or dispense it, only to determine that it applies to us still. The mixing of various fibers was a disciplinary law given to the Jews for practical reasons. When Jesus gave us a new covenant, He freed us from the Old Law because He is its fulfillment. Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophets and of Scripture. When He gave the Church the power to bind and loose on Earth, He gave Peter the power as supreme lawgiver for the faithful, similar to Moses for the Jews.

 

[Richard320]

I’m not sure that addresses my question really. I recognise that the church teaches that homosexuality is morally disordered. And as Jesus didn’t mention it directly I am looking at the other passages of scripture that support this position. Looking at Leviticus it seems that out of dozens of rules this one is singled out as one that must be obeyed while the majority of the other rules are ignored. And I don’t understand that

Well, as it says in the New Testament Gospel of John[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB] so not *everything *Jesus said or did is recorded.

However, He did specify that we should keep the Commandments[BIBLEDRB]Matt 19:17[/BIBLEDRB]One of those Commandments is that one shall not commit adultery. Adultery is sex with other than your spouse. Homosexual behavior fits the description.

 

[Crumpy]

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

On the smaller question about the mixed fiber: If your Bible has cross references, there is probably one pointing to some verse in Exodus, about the fabrication of the veil which covered the Holy of Holies. The mixture which was forbidden in profane use was the one which was used for the veil. So, that mixture was reserved for that use only. I didn’t figure this out myself, I read it in some commentary.

On your main question, see ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM.

This lengthy document explains, in an introductory way, how some OT things were retained in the NT, some were replaced, etc.

There is a Jewish commentary on the New Testament called The Annotated New Testament. There’s a lot of helpful information in here, on questions such as this – helpful perhaps not always on a specific question, but in general.

Jesus seems to underscore your position, see Mt 5:17 up to maybe verse 24 or so. But, the key here, is the issue of if, when, how, and where the old law may have been fulfilled by Jesus, which it was. So, taking all of this together, one may loosely say that as Jesus fulfilled the righteousness requirements of the law, the ceremonial or cultic requirements such as sacrificing animals, were abandoned. But, the righteousness is never superceded as the cultic requirements were.

Your specific questions about homosexual relations have been addressed by others, above. There are still people who, like yourself, question whether the prohibitions were mendable disciplines or more rigid and unchanging in nature.

There is no central authority (or “magisterium”) in Judaism, comparable to the Catholic Church. As such, there is support for homosexuals in Judaism, without the harsh restrictions at the “law” otherwise imposes. As I understand it, Reformed Jews don’t even accept the inspiration of the Torah (including Leviticus). So, if it is already not a fact, there is certainly discussion about whether homosexually oriented persons may be a rabbi.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jimmygill88,

That is an interesting question - and, honestly one I had not considered before. So, let’s see if an answer can be developed from what we already know.

The beginning 21 verses of Chapter 18 of Leviticus veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Leviticus_18 is primarily a condemnation of incest. With verses 22 the author addresses homosexual behavior and then beastiality. So, I think it fair to say that Ch 18 address how marriage is to be properly practiced - the consequences were significant for impurity - and the penalty is repeatedly severe for those who break the Law. People who debase their bodies and show contempt for each other and act like animals are not acting within the Humanity God has created us. Even in our current language, to go to excess is to act like we picture animals acting (drinks like a fish, eats like a pig, angry as a bear, etc.)

We must move on to the next chapter to find the reference to mixing different threads. veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Leviticus_19 As you can read from the commentary, it was also taken in a non-literal manner. The reference is to 2Cor 4 where the Christian is yoked with the infidel as this would cause difficulties for all parties. But, note, while death is the standard punishment in Chapter 18, this is not the case in 19. So, at the outset, a distinction is made in the punishments for different offenses - and I do not think this was lost on the readers of the text. Unchastity is more serious then mixing different materials as we see.

But, really now - why troll the OT to wonder about disparities in dealing with homosexual behavior and thread mixing - the NT is really quite clear… and, thereads are not mentioned at all! I think this is the focus for those seriously focused on the Will of God. Now, if you are truly interested in knowing that purity is expected of all and sex is only between husband and wife in marriage - here is an interesting link that looks at several different points of view: cceerpp.webs.com/Does_Bible_Condemn_Homosexuality.html

Remember, it is not homosexuals that are condemned today by the Church - it is homosexual behavior. St. Paul was given a ‘thorn for the flesh’ (2Cor 12) and while we do not know exactly what it was - it was a real issue with Paul and he prayed that it would be removed. God’s response is very instructive - and, I would recommend you read it. Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/2_Corinthians_12 We are not to despair of God’s Grace - and it is this that gives us strength.

All of us are required to live chaste lives - in whatever state we are: single or married. The requirements are the same for each of us. And, each of us is an individual and unique creation - one that is very special because each of us was created in God’s Own Image. God allows each of us to be tested in unique ways, too. This is where having Faith in God and total Trust in Christ makes all the difference. The Sacraments offered by the Church are direct avenues for God’s Grace - and, this reality should never be forgotten.

God bless

I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre. While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Crumpy,

Thanks for sharing that idea on different threads being used in the veil - I did not know that. And thanks for the link!

God bless

On the smaller question about the mixed fiber: If your Bible has cross references, there is probably one pointing to some verse in Exodus, about the fabrication of the veil which covered the Holy of Holies. The mixture which was forbidden in profane use was the one which was used for the veil. So, that mixture was reserved for that use only. I didn’t figure this out myself, I read it in some commentary.

On your main question, see ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM.

This lengthy document explains, in an introductory way, how some OT things were retained in the NT, some were replaced, etc.

There is a Jewish commentary on the New Testament called The Annotated New Testament. There’s a lot of helpful information in here, on questions such as this – helpful perhaps not always on a specific question, but in general.

Jesus seems to underscore your position, see Mt 5:17 up to maybe verse 24 or so. But, the key here, is the issue of if, when, how, and where the old law may have been fulfilled by Jesus, which it was. So, taking all of this together, one may loosely say that as Jesus fulfilled the righteousness requirements of the law, the ceremonial or cultic requirements such as sacrificing animals, were abandoned. But, the righteousness is never superceded as the cultic requirements were.

Your specific questions about homosexual relations have been addressed by others, above. There are still people who, like yourself, question whether the prohibitions were mendable disciplines or more rigid and unchanging in nature.

There is no central authority (or “magisterium”) in Judaism, comparable to the Catholic Church. As such, there is support for homosexuals in Judaism, without the harsh restrictions at the “law” otherwise imposes. As I understand it, Reformed Jews don’t even accept the inspiration of the Torah (including Leviticus). So, if it is already not a fact, there is certainly discussion about whether homosexually oriented persons may be a rabbi.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s actually a fascinating read. The punishment for adultery is death. If we are playing on a level playing field here, in addition to condemning homosexuality we should be calling for the immediate execution of married person who has been unfaithful

You forget that we as Christians also have the New Testament where we are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

[Jimmygill88]

Old testament laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which ended their requirements - Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15. Homosexuality is still forbidden in the New Testament

Jesus said

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles in truth. Verse 14 says The Apostles would speak with the authority of Christ

Apostle Paul said about about practising homosexuality

I’m assuming the Ten Commandments don’t fall into that category

 

[Jimmygill88]

Hi, Jimmygill88,

That is an interesting question - and, honestly one I had not considered before. So, let’s see if an answer can be developed from what we already know.

The beginning 21 verses of Chapter 18 of Leviticus veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Leviticus_18 is primarily a condemnation of incest. With verses 22 the author addresses homosexual behavior and then beastiality. So, I think it fair to say that Ch 18 address how marriage is to be properly practiced - the consequences were significant for impurity - and the penalty is repeatedly severe for those who break the Law. People who debase their bodies and show contempt for each other and act like animals are not acting within the Humanity God has created us. Even in our current language, to go to excess is to act like we picture animals acting (drinks like a fish, eats like a pig, angry as a bear, etc.)

We must move on to the next chapter to find the reference to mixing different threads. veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Leviticus_19 As you can read from the commentary, it was also taken in a non-literal manner. The reference is to 2Cor 4 where the Christian is yoked with the infidel as this would cause difficulties for all parties. But, note, while death is the standard punishment in Chapter 18, this is not the case in 19. So, at the outset, a distinction is made in the punishments for different offenses - and I do not think this was lost on the readers of the text. Unchastity is more serious then mixing different materials as we see.

But, really now - why troll the OT to wonder about disparities in dealing with homosexual behavior and thread mixing - the NT is really quite clear… and, thereads are not mentioned at all! I think this is the focus for those seriously focused on the Will of God. Now, if you are truly interested in knowing that purity is expected of all and sex is only between husband and wife in marriage - here is an interesting link that looks at several different points of view: cceerpp.webs.com/Does_Bible_Condemn_Homosexuality.html

Remember, it is not homosexuals that are condemned today by the Church - it is homosexual behavior. St. Paul was given a ‘thorn for the flesh’ (2Cor 12) and while we do not know exactly what it was - it was a real issue with Paul and he prayed that it would be removed. God’s response is very instructive - and, I would recommend you read it. Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/2_Corinthians_12 We are not to despair of God’s Grace - and it is this that gives us strength.

All of us are required to live chaste lives - in whatever state we are: single or married. The requirements are the same for each of us. And, each of us is an individual and unique creation - one that is very special because each of us was created in God’s Own Image. God allows each of us to be tested in unique ways, too. This is where having Faith in God and total Trust in Christ makes all the difference. The Sacraments offered by the Church are direct avenues for God’s Grace - and, this reality should never be forgotten.

God bless

I’m really grateful for a thoughtful reply. My understanding is that being homosexual isn’t in itself sinful (although ‘disordered’), but I saw quote from Paul in which he condemns 'the ‘effeminate’ which seems to require us to regard the person as sinful even before they engage in forbidden sexual practices. I have to say I have really confused myself

 

[po18guy]

Jesus proclaimed the Father’s intended relationship between men and women, quoting Genesis:

Genesis 2:24
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” He repeated this, bearing witness to it in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

Paul addressed sexual matters specifically in:

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 7:2
But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

Ephesians 5:31
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

All mention of same sex relations in scripture is within the context of being an abomination unto the Lord.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jimmygill88,

This one is a little more complicated … but, let’s set to work on it and see what we can come up with.

Your understanding is correct. Items 2357-9 are especially relevant, but, I would recommend you start at the top of this link and just read the entire section: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

Your Pauline reference is 1Cor 6 - here is the link, and I would recommened you read this from the top so as to get the best sense of context in what the Apostle to the Gentiles is saying: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_Corinthians_6. I think at this juncture, we need to get a good idea of what 1st Century Corinth was like - and the term ‘Sin City’ is probably one the City Fathers would not complain about too much! And, Paul has some new Catholics in this hot cauldren of sin - and he wants to make sure that they are able to give witness to following Christ. Unfortunately, these guys seem to be blending in very well with the environment - and this is not helping their salvation. Paul takes them on and forcefully spells out where it is they are going wrong.

Now, your concern about the effeminate is something that I think - and this is just an opinion - needs to be seen both in the context of !st Century Corinth and 21st Century Global Community. When I was in school (majored in Sociology) I learned that almost all conscious behavior is learned (babies know how to cry from birth … but once we get a bit older, we are taught various behaviors.) Men and women are essentially ‘hard-wired’ differently. Men really are hunters - and jot just with firearms duing duck season - but, when they go shopping for anything - they hunt. Contrast this with the women go shopping - they socialize, gather, share informaiton and only at the end is something purchased. Shopping is a mission for a man, but a social activity for a woman. Neither are taugh how to respond - they just do.

Little boys are usually guided into ‘little hunter’ type activities and little girls are steered into more socializing activiteis. Yes, I know this is considered ‘sexist’ but until we have neutered humans (and that will only be for 1 generation) males and females appealing to one another for the qualities that they have inately (hard-wired) and have devleoped (socializing/educating/health and future prospects) is here to stay. Males must learn to be effeminate and females must learn to be masculine. And, this takes some effort because many of society’s markers pose barriers.

Learned behaviors (like smoking) quickly become habits and that means you can not simplhy extinguish them - you must replace them with something else. If you know someone who is really concerned about being effeminate that this is serious matter and requires professional intervention by someone thoroughly grounded in the teachings of the Catholic Church. The usual best source of information in this area will be from the local parish priest.

This condition did not develop over-night and has been fostered for years - it will require much effort for any change to take place - but, seriously, this is something with God’s Grace that can be accomplished.

God bless

I’m really grateful for a thoughtful reply. My understanding is that being homosexual isn’t in itself sinful (although ‘disordered’), but I saw quote from Paul in which he condemns 'the ‘effeminate’ which seems to require us to regard the person as sinful even before they engage in forbidden sexual practices. I have to say I have really confused myself

 

[Crumpy]

In the largest frame of reference, I accept the teaching of the Church that homosexuality is a disorder. exactly!

On one level, the Bible (and faith) are a “cure” to turn the afflicted person away from the conduct that is forbidden. After all, the OT lists lots of sins. In the vicinity of Gen 4:6, there is a short discussion of the principle that sin is all around us, tempting us. As it is stated there “master it.” That is the statement of free will in the Bible and how we are to handle sin, in general, all of it, including homosexuality.

On the physical level, I believe that there is a biological reason for homosexual inclination. Most probably it is some some broadly genetic problem – which medical science is only beginning to explore. The epigenome are the millions of chemicals that control the switches for turning genes on and off. Make a point of living a long life, and I believe a cure for homosexuality will be found, as for other genetic-related disorders, and you will see it. Pray for this medical cure for homosexuality.

The real question for the future is, when we have the medical cure, will people take it and apply the spiritual cure, as well.

 

[Elizium23]

He is asking where the reasoning came from for the doctrine to be created, since it is not clear in the text we have from Jesus.

Doctrine is not created. It is never made up out of thin air. It is revealed by God and determined by the Church, by interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, which are God’s inspired Word.

 

[stevekehl]

I’m not sure that addresses my question really. I recognise that the church teaches that homosexuality is morally disordered. And as Jesus didn’t mention it directly I am looking at the other passages of scripture that support this position. Looking at Leviticus it seems that out of dozens of rules this one is singled out as one that must be obeyed while the majority of the other rules are ignored. And I don’t understand that

Sorry Jimmy, Jesus did address it directly.
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
The Greek word for fornications is porneia which means sexual sins. This included all sex outside of married a man and woman. Personally I don’t use Leviticus when discussing homosexuality. I stick with the above verses and Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 6.