The next text typically cited on our subject is Leviticus 18:22, and it is far less ambiguous: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."  The Hebrew is as clear as the English translation

The obvious sense of the command seems to be: homosexual sexual relations are forbidden by Scripture.  This is the way the text has typically been understood by Jewish and Christian interpreters across the centuries.  It is the way most read the text still today.

But those who advocate homosexuality as an acceptable biblical lifestyle have found ways to dissent.  Dr. Walter Wink admits that this text "unequivocally condemn[s] same-sex sexual behavior."  But he theorizes that the ancient Hebrews saw any sexual activity which could not lead to the creation of life as a form of abortion or murder.  He adds that the Jews would have seen homosexuality as "alien behavior, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life."

He then cites the penalty for homosexual behavior: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (Lev 20:13).  In his reasoning, if we see this punishment for homosexuality as obsolete today, we should see its prohibition of this behavior as equally outdated.  He concludes his argument against making Lev 18:22 normative for sexual ethics today by citing a list of other biblical ethics he considers to be obsolete, or in need of reinterpretation: intercourse during menstruation, polygamy, concubinage, and slavery among them.

And that's not all.  Other critics see the Levitical laws as expressive of worship codes, not universal moral standards.  And they argue that all such laws were intended only for their day and time, such as kosher dietary laws and harvest regulations.

Is there an objective way to respond to these assertions?

First, let's consider the claim that this Old Testament law has no relevance for New Testament believers, but should be classified with kosher laws and such.  A basic rule of biblical interpretation is that any Old Testament teaching which is repeated in the New Testament carries the weight of command to the Christian church and faith.  And the prohibition against homosexual activity is most certainly present there (see Romans 1:26-27, a passage we will consider in due time).  Even those Old Testament statements which are not repeated in the New Testament carry the force of principle; for instance, kosher laws tell us at the least that God cares about our bodies and health.

Second, it is claimed that the Leviticus passage expresses worship code, not moral standard.  The logic is that Leviticus is written with regard to the levitical priests and their duties of worship preparation and leadership, and does not apply as such to the larger family of faith.  However, the chapter in question begins, "The Lord said to Moses, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them . . .'" (18:1).  Nothing in the chapter limits its application or significance to the Levites.  Rather, the chapter exhorts all Israel to "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them" (v. 4).  It proceeds to forbid incestuous relationships, child sacrifice, and bestiality--standards I presume critics of Lev. 18:22 would consider universal.

Third, it has been argued that the Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality is to be classed with other biblical statements which can be considered obsolete, such as the apparent biblical endorsement of slavery.  This claim is cited frequently, so much so that we need to consider it next.