Communications Officer Ben John analyses the claim that Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally in order to condemn homosexuality
Christians are sometimes accused of being hypocrites for endorsing what the Bible says about homosexuality, because they do not advocate what the Bible says about not eating shrimp and shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12), not wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:11), and not cutting the hair at the sides of our heads (Leviticus 19:27).[1]
Perhaps it is most famously expressed in a scene of the American political drama The West Wing. The fictional President Jed Bartlett detours from a speech when he notices a radio host there. He proceeds to embarrass her for the perceived inconsistency of her calling homosexuality an abomination and yet not advocating for the execution of those who mix fabrics. He even sarcastically asks how much he could sell his daughter into slavery for. He justifies all this by quoting Bible verses.
You can watch the speech here (note the title of the YouTube clip – ‘Bashing Bible bashers’):
It is presented as a mic drop moment, exposing the inconsistency and hypocrisy of orthodox Christian positions on homosexuality. If we really believed the Bible, we would be consistent, the accusation goes. Instead – allegedly because of our homophobia – we pick and choose which laws we apply based on our prejudices.
Is this true?
In short, no.
The “shellfish” objection is weak when held up to any scrutiny and Christians do not need to be embarrassed or threatened by the argument.
Simply put, the food laws – as well as the laws about mixing fabrics and others – are ceremonial laws which were given uniquely to the covenant people of Israel as part of their unique calling. This is fulfilled in Christ.
By contrast, laws about sexual morality are part of God’s unchanging moral law. This is still the standard by which we ought to live.
There are different types of Old Testament laws
Christians have long recognised that the Old Testament law – specifically the law given to Moses after the Exodus – contains different types of laws, with different purposes.
For centuries, theologians have typically divided ‘the Law’ into three parts: the Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law and the Civil Law.
The Moral Law reflects the unchanging moral character of God; for example, “do not covet.”
The Ceremonial Law is associated with the Old Testament worship of Israel, in particular the sacrificial system. And, as discussed below, the Ceremonial Law is a sign of Israel’s separation from the surrounding nations.
The Civil Law is the laws given to govern the nation of Israel. They had a particular historic context in which they were given, and it would be simplistic to say either that they no longer apply in any way, or that we should apply them literally.
These distinctions have been used since Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century – long before the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality was controversial. Although there are cases where the boundaries between these categories are less clear or where there is overlap (for example ‘do not murder’ is both moral and civil), it remains a very helpful model for understanding the Bible’s teaching.
Ceremonial laws point to Israel’s Priestly separation
God’s covenant people, Israel, were given a unique calling to be set apart from the nations around them.
The word ‘holy’, literally means ‘to be set apart’. God gave Israel a unique calling to be distinct from the gentiles: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 7:6 ESV)
The ceremonial laws, including many dietary laws, were symbolic expressions of this set-apartness.
As Peter Leithart notes:
“Israel is called to be a separate people. They exist to serve the Gentiles, to bring Yahweh’s blessing to the world, and to light the nations. But to be light, they need to avoid communion with darkness. They keep the food laws to maintain the God-given wall between Jews and Gentiles.”[2]
Therefore, not to mix fabrics pointed towards the call to Israel not to mix with the gentiles. The same was true of the dietary laws. The separation of clean and unclean foods signalled the distinction of Israel from the nations around them.[3]
We see this quite explicitly again in the section on the food laws in Leviticus 11:2-47. The purpose of these laws is given in v44a: “For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.” (11:44a ESV)
Mary Douglas writes:
“the dietary laws would have been like signs which at every turn inspired meditation on the oneness, purity and completeness of God. By rules of avoidance holiness was given a physical expression in every encounter with the animal kingdom and at every meal. Observance of the dietary rules would thus have been a meaningful part of the great liturgical act of recognition and worship which culminated in the sacrifice in the Temple.”[4]
All commentators agree that the restrictions on shellfish and mixed fabrics were part of the ceremonial category. They pointed towards the call to ceremonial cleanliness, or, rather, holiness.
The holiness and character of God was such that the Old Testament sacrificial system was needed. It was given as a means of atonement: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” (Leviticus 17:11 ESV)
The sacrificial system was needed to atone for sin and be in God’s presence. Without atonement, who could approach the infinitely holy and powerful God? It was only the ceremonially clean. Or in the words of Psalm 24: Who can ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart. (Psalm 24:3-4a ESV)
Jesus is our High Priest, ending this separation
So why don’t we follow the Ceremonial Law today? Why is there no longer a sacrificial system?
Because Jesus is the perfect man who, being ritually pure, offered himself as the perfect sacrifice. As the writer to the Hebrews says:
Every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV)
Jesus is the one who breaks down the wall between Jew and Gentile. The Gentile world no longer needs to go through Israel (spiritually and geographically) to worship God. We are one new man in Christ. As Paul writes in Ephesians:
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:14-16 ESV)
This is why we no longer need to obey those laws even though Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
We obey the ceremonial law perfectly by being believing and trusting in Christ, being united to him by the Holy Spirit, and his righteousness and perfect fulfilment of the ceremonial law becoming our righteousness and perfect fulfilment.
We no longer need the Old Testament sacrificial system, we no longer need priests. We have a great high priest in Jesus (Hebrews 4:14) and we are now a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6).[5]
Therefore, in the gospel, Jew and Gentile can approach God through Jesus equally. The food laws, which pointed towards the separation of Jew and Gentile, are ended.
In the New Testament, these dietary laws are explicitly finished
This is in fact the whole message of Acts 10, where Peter has a vision of unclean animals and God commands him to eat and “not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15).
The vision is given as a metaphor to Peter that the gospel is now extended to the Gentiles, leading him to preach the gospel to Cornelius, a Gentile. That is why Jesus himself can explicitly declare that all food is clean (Mark 7:19).
For the Christian, this should excite us. It gives us a greater picture of what Jesus has done for us in the gospel, and it also should give us a greater interest in the purpose of the Old Testament law. Since “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 ESV) that includes the Old Testament food laws – so long as we understand their purpose.
Is homosexuality part of the ceremonial law?
Some have argued that the prohibition of homosexuality is actually included in the argument above. Vicky Beeching in her book Undivided tells of how it was reading the story of Peter and Cornelius referred to above that made her embrace her lesbianism. She took “Do not call unclean what God calls clean” to refer also to homosexuality.
As I read about Peter’s vision, I felt as though I were there myself, looking at the sheet falling from the sky. For me, the “unclean things” on that sheet represented my gay orientation… And what God had said to Peter, I felt he said to me too: “Do not call unclean what I have made clean.”[6]
This is not tenable, because homosexuality in the law is clearly shown to relate to morality and not just ceremony. The laws about food and fabrics are ceremonial as we have seen. But laws about sexual morality are both ceremonial and moral. They are ceremonial in that they point to holiness, but they are moral in that they are holiness. We worship an unchanging and eternal God and the moral law flows from his eternal and unchanging character.
This is seen when God condemns surrounding nations for their evil and wickedness. Are they condemned for their failure to keep the ceremonial law? No. They are condemned for their immorality.
Leviticus 18 lists many different sins, nearly all of which are sexual in nature. It is abundantly clear that these are not mere ceremonial rules that apply only to Israel, but also to the nations. This is explicitly explained after this list:
Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things [that is, the list of forbidden sexual practices], for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. (Leviticus 18:24-28)
The Canaanites were ‘vomited out’ by the land because of their sexual sin. These sexual sins were not only wrong for Israel – they were wrong for everybody. We are to hold all cultures in all times and places to the same sexual standard.
Another problem with Vicky Beeching’s argument is that, if it were true, it would go much too far. It would suggest that all the sexual acts listed in Leviticus 18 are now clean; for example, sexual relations with family members (v6), adultery (v20) and bestiality (v23). Would we now say that these are acceptable practices and were only ceremonial in the Old Testament?
We are still called to holiness. Peter writes: “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”” (1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV) The holiness is to be set apart morally from the world. As the ceremonial law is fulfilled, we are no longer set apart ceremonially (or ethnically) but we are still called to be set apart morally (or ethically).
Homosexual practice is consistently called sinful
This condemnation of homosexual practice is consistent throughout the Bible.
Unlike with shellfish, New Testament passages consistently mark out homosexuality as sinful (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). There is no equivalent to Acts 10, where standards of sexuality for Christians are relaxed.
Some Christians believe that no longer being under the Law (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:25 etc.) means that none of the Old Testament commands apply. Although I do not hold this position, they still need to reckon with the New Testament passages which are clear. We do not need to appeal to the Old Testament verses on homosexuality to make the case that homosexual practice is sinful.
We have also written about how Jesus counter-culturally condemned sexual immorality, which implicitly included homosexuality, and actually raised the bar of what was to be expected. In fact, if we take only Jesus’s words, we have him declaring all foods clean before immediately condemning sexual immorality (Mark 7:19-23).
Why do we eat shellfish but not practice homosexuality? Because Jesus says so.
Don’t be afraid of the shellfish argument
In conclusion, we can say with integrity that it is acceptable to eat shellfish and at the same time say homosexual practice is unacceptable.
Israel had a unique priestly calling to separate from the Gentile nations around them and were given laws (including the dietary laws, mixed fabric, circumcision) which pointed to this. These are fulfilled in Christ. We are still called to be holy as God is holy, and we are separated from the world now by our conduct. We are still called to moral holiness.
None of this is a new construction, attempting to explain away our ‘bigotry’. It is a distinction found consistently in the New Testament and has been the Church’s teaching throughout her history.
Finally, if we take Jesus’s words himself, who is our great High Priest, we see he reaffirms the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality and at the same time declares all foods clean.
Many in today’s Western culture dislike this teaching or find it offensive. But there is no validity at all in claiming that Christians who uphold the Bible’s sexual ethics are twisting the Bible to defend their prejudices.
Endnotes
[1] There are some Christians who do observe some or all of these points – although I do not believe this is required, they are obviously immune from this criticism.
[2] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-are-animal-eat-bible-dietary-laws/
[3] Interestingly, a case can be made that the animals that were forbidden were ones that crossed the normal boundaries of creation. The creation narrative in Genesis 1 separated the Creation into the land, sea and sky. Animals that blurred these boundaries were generally considered unclean. The animal world is structured in order to visualise that we should not cross the boundaries. For example, Shellfish were animals of the sea and yet they behaved like dust animals walking along the surface of the sea. Similarly, Pigs “because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud” were unclean (Leviticus 11:7 ESV) because parted-hoof animals were usually herbivores. Pigs were not, this pointed to the crossing of boundaries.
[4] Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, 58
[5] It is unfortunate that, certainly in England, we have adopted the use of “priest” to what should really be “presbyter.” Ministers, at least in the Church of England, do not take on a priestly (or sacerdotal) role in the sense of mediating between God and man.
[6] Vicky Beeching, Undivided, p171
