Leviticus 18:22

Have the laws against homosexuality been abolished along with laws against eating pork?

PROBLEM: The law against homosexuality is found in the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22) along with laws against eating pork and shrimp (Leviticus 11:2-3; Leviticus 11:10). But these ceremonial laws have been done away with (Acts 10:15). This being the case, some insist that the laws prohibiting homosexual activity are no longer binding either.

SOLUTION: The laws against homosexual practices are not merely ceremonial. Simply because the Mosaic prohibition against homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus does not mean that it was part of the ceremonial law that has passed away.

First of all, if laws against homosexuality were merely ceremonial (and therefore abolished), then rape, incest, and beastiality would not be morally wrong either, since they are condemned in the same chapter with homosexual sins (Leviticus 18:6-14; Leviticus 18:18-22).

Second, homosexual sins among Gentiles were also condemned by God (Romans 1:26), and they did not have the ceremonial law (Romans 2:12-15). It was for this very reason that God brought judgment on the Canaanites (Genesis 18:1-3; Genesis 18:25).

Third, even in the Jewish levitical law there was a difference in punishment for violating the ceremonial law of eating pork or shrimp (which was a few days isolation) and that for homosexuality which was capital punishment (Leviticus 18:29).

Fourth, Jesus changed the dietary laws of the OT (Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15), but the moral prohibitions against homosexuality are still enjoined on believers in the NT (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

Leviticus 18:22-24 — Is the curse of barrenness the reason God condemned homosexuality?

PROBLEM: According to Jewish belief, barrenness was a curse (Genesis 16:1; 1 Samuel 1:3-7). Children were considered a blessing from the Lord (Psalms 127:3). The blessing of God in the land was dependent on having children (Genesis 15:5). In view of the stress laid on having children, some have argued that it is not surprising that the OT Law would frown on homosexual activity from which no children come. Thus, they conclude that the Bible is not condemning homosexual activity as such, but only the refusal to have children.

SOLUTION: There is no indication in Scripture that homosexuality was considered sinful because no children resulted from it. First of all, at no place in the Bible is any such connection stated.

Third, the prohibition against homosexuality was not only for Jews, but for Gentiles (Leviticus 18:24). But Gentile blessings were not dependent on having heirs to inherit the land of Israel.

Finally, if barrenness was a divine curse, then singleness would be sinful. But both our Lord (Matthew 19:11-12) and the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8) sanctioned singlehood by both precept and practice.