Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 speak against homosexuality. There are three kinds of laws in these passages: dietary laws, laws about offerings and sacrifices, and laws about marriage. The last is closest to the issue of homosexuality, since marriage is clearly about sexuality. When the Jerusalem Council wrestled with the same question, it retained the laws against sex outside of marriage and some dietary laws. We look at Peter's experience in Acts 10 to see why the dietary laws are not in effect. We look at Jesus' view of marriage to see why fornication -- sex outside of marriage -- is still in effect.

The ceremonial law merely made someone unclean; the civil law only required that a fine be paid; only the moral law included the death penalty. Jewish commentator Dennis Prager argues exactly the opposite: "abomination" is reserved for those things with a moral dimension. (Prager)

The reasoning behind this question really seems to be scientific rather than strictly biblical. If God prohibited eating pork because it carried trichinosis, does modern refrigeration changes that situation? We don't really ask whether there were other reasons about which we are ignorant. I have a vegetarian son, who like Daniel is healthier than the rest of the family. (Daniel 1:12-16) If God prohibited homosexuality to assure a large population and provide an otherwise-arbitrary distinction between the Hebrews and surrounding nations, does our overpopulated world change that situation? (Setting aside the question of whether the world is overpopulated,) We don't really ask whether there were other reasons about which we are ignorant.

21 August 1996. Copyright information is available.