We continue this week responding to material which can be found in an article by the title of "What About The Bible and Homosexuality?", which can be found at the Resources page of CHRISTIANGAYS.COM. The writer of the article has responded to what are called among gays the six "clobber verses" of homosexuality. The thought expressed by "Anita" is that these Bible texts have been misunderstood or poorly translated, and speak evil of homosexuality only because of these errors. Let us continue in our study.

LEVITICUS 18:22; 20:13 - THE "HOLINESS CODE"
The defense is proposed that these verses are not part of a moral law, but rather a religious law, and that it was specifically for the Levitical tribe. As proof, Leviticus 18:1-3, 30 is cited, "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances ... Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.’"

Are we thus to conclude that homosexuality was permitted among all the tribes of Israel, with the exception of the Levites? Certainly, some things recorded in Leviticus are specific to the priestly service, however, is that the case with these admonitions? The very verses which are quoted as proof deny what the writer is claiming. Notice, "...Speak to the children of Israel..." These things were not only for the Levites, but for all the children of Israel. One chapter earlier, we read, "...Speak to Aaron, to his sons, and to all the children of Israel..." (Leviticus 17:2). Whatever "Anita" thought was in the context to limit these commands to the Levites is simply not there.

Now, to the idea that this is a "religious law" and not a "moral law". Certainly, all the law of Moses was a religious law, as Israel was under a theocracy. If the law is established by God, one would conclude that there is a religious nature to the law, however, does that exclude it from being a moral law? Notice what else is mentioned in the context of these two verses:

• Incestual conduct (18:6-18; 20:11-12, 17, 19);

• A woman's menstrual cycle (18:19; 20:18);

• Adultery (18:20; 20:10, 20-21);

• Idol sacrifice of children (18:21; 20:2-5);

• Homosexual intercourse (18:22; 20:12);

• Bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16);

• Using mediums and spiritism (20:6, 27);

• Honouring father and mother (20:9)

• Marrying a mother and daughter (20:14);

• Clean and unclean animals (20:25)

As stated above, there is no doubt that the things mentioned in the context are a religious law from God, but does that negate them from being moral in nature? Look at some of the words used to describe these acts, "...wickedness...", "...abomination...", and "...perversion..." If these are merely ordinances of a religious law, the law of Moses which has been done away with (Hebrews 8:7-13; 9:15-17), and that is the basis upon which homosexuality does not stand condemned by Scriptures (thought there are New Testament Scriptures which clearly condemn it), consider the flood gate of wickedness that is likewise justified by this reasoning. Many forms of incestual relations are made right; adulterous relationships are just and good; it is acceptable for parents to sacrifice their children to idols; men and women can mate with an animal without moral defilement; etc.. Will the homosexual freely open this flood gate of abominations? Surely it can be seen that God's law as revealed through Moses was not merely a religious law, but a moral standard established by the Almighty.

Next week, we will continue in this discussion, looking at the words of the apostle Paul as recorded in Romans 1. Until then, stand uncompromisingly for the truth of God's word.

Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Matthew reports of two demon possessed men (Matthew 8:28), but Mark says there was only one (Mark 5:1-2). Is there a contradiction?