Skip to main content

What does Leviticus REALLY say about homosexuality?


Two verses in the Bible's Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13, have been used time and time again by people insisting that God abhors homosexuality, and either being gay or certain gay sex acts (depending on who you talk to) are expressly forbidden among observant Christians and Jews. But is that really the case, or is that selective interpretation/translation? This article will make the very solid case that these Levitical commandments have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it today, but are rather prohibitions against male temple cult prostitution. Read on to see why.

Please note that I am not addressing whether we should be using the Bible as a moral code, whether it is historically accurate, whether its prohibitions are binding on Christians, Jews, or anyone else. I am simply addressing whether Leviticus does, in fact, prohibit gay/lesbian relations. That's it.

Let's start with the text

The King James Version of the Bible, translated in 1611, or more than 2,000 years after Leviticus was penned (the documentary hypothesis guesses at around 500 BCE), is what's usually used by those claiming the Bible condemns homosexuality. Let's look at their translations:

18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Things aren't quite so clear when we use the Intralinear Hebrew-English translation. It captures the ambiguities without the biases of the translator:

18:22 - And with male you shall not lie down beds of woman, it (is) abhorrence

20:13 - And man who is lying down with male beds of woman, the two of them they did abhorrence, they shall be put to death, the bloods of them in them

Certainly a bit more ambiguous, but that's to be expected when you're translating from ancient Biblical Hebrew. And, besides, Biblical scholars, both religious and secular, have long acknowledged that many parts of the Bible are ambiguous and where interpretation isn't necessarily clear. This might very well be a good example, but given the emphasis they're given to justify hatred towards gay people, it's worth the effort to analyze them more deeply.

click to see full-sized version

click to see full-sized version

Idolatrous sin vs wicked/unjust sin - different terminology

Both Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are concerned with the ritual practices of the neighboring Canaanite people, principally the cult of Molekh and Ashtoreth. The prohibitions against "lying with men in beds-of-woman" is encapsulated in these sections for a reason, which will be clearer soon.

Keep in mind the use of the word toebah is used to describe all of the pagan practices that the Lord was prohibiting; toebah is often translated as abhorrence or abomination in English, for the lack of a better word, but it is more accurately translated as bdelygmia in Greek, in early translations. Both toebah (Hebrew) and bdelygmia (Greek) carry connotations of idolatrous or ritually impure forms of detestable practices. In contrast, zimah (Hebrew) and anomia (Greek) are used to describe something that's wrong in itself, a wicked injustice, like murder and rape (in fact, this term is used for these crimes in the Bible).

Repetition in Deuteronomy - why is it missing?

According to the traditional understanding of the Bible, the third book, the Book of Leviticus, was delivered to Moses at Sinai, and then (primarily) transmitted to the Levites, or priestly class (hence its name). The law is then retransmitted by Moses to the Israelites in the form of speeches before entering the Promised Land in Deuteronomy, the fifth book.

Leviticus 18 describes many forbidden practices; Leviticus 20 repeats them, and details which deserve capital punishment. Deuteronomy repeats most of the laws of Leviticus, repeating that several are severe enough to merit capital punishment. What's interesting is that the prohibition, under penalty of death, for "lying with men in beds-of-women" is not repeated in Deuteronomy. Or is it?

Crimes punishable by death in Lev 20, repeated in Deuteronomy

Leviticus 20DeuteronomyCrime



Sacrifices to Molekh



Familiar spirits, divinations and wizards



Cursing your parents


5:18 & 22:22




Relations with your father's wife



Relations with your parents in law



"lying with men in beds-of-women"



Being a male temple prostitute (kadesh)



Incestuous relations




Well, isn't that odd...

Only one capital crime—20:13, supposedly against homosexuality—isn't mentioned at all in Deuteronomy.

But there is a prohibition that is probably related. It's Deuteronomy 23:17. Let's start with the KJV translation:

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

And then the Interlinear translation from the original Biblical Hebrew:

Scroll to Continue

She shall not become a hallowed prostitute (kedeshah) from daughters of Israel and he shall not become hallowed male prostitute (kadesh) from sons of Israel.

click to see full-sized version

click to see full-sized version

Despite the fact that the Hebrew word makes clear that these are female and male forms of the exact same word, King James chooses "sodomite" for the male version, something modern Christians most often translate to homosexual.

Those who know a little Hebrew will recognize the k-d-sh root to the words kadesh and kedeshah in kadosh, kiddush, and kaddish. The root means "holy" or "sanctified".

So it seems pretty clear that Deuteronomy is, in fact, repeating all of the capital prohibitions in Leviticus 20, but Leviticus 20:13, repeating Leviticus 18:22, is prohibiting male temple prostitution, not any sort of same-sex relations.


If someone is willing to delve into the original language, and understand the pattern of repetition of the Bible, instead of accepting without question the translation of modern English interpreters, you are drawn to a very different conclusions:

  1. Leviticus does not prohibit—or even address—homosexuality.
  2. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 prohibit male temple prostitution, as is clear from examining the pattern of repetition in Deuteronomy.
  3. The death penalty for Leviticus 20:13 is for a crime of idolatry, not a crime of injustice or wickedness.

Of course, there will be those who will close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, shake their heads, and insist that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. Send them to this page to learn how wrong they've been.


jonnycomelately on June 20, 2018:

Agreed, Cynthia.

My biggest gripe is that people choose to concentrate on sketchy information on the lifes of distant cultures, 1000s of years ago, in languages that need lots of study to understand. Then use imaginative concepts to judge fellow humans in this modern world.

All with the presumption that each of us is a filthy, evil, dyed-in-the-wool rotter, that "God" made and has regretted ever since.

Wonderful logic, eh?

Cynthia Zirkwitz from Vancouver Island, Canada on June 18, 2018:

A good study of this topic, well presented with references to the original languages and pagan culture of that time. These so-called "clobber texts" are generally used to the exclusion of texts that follow, citing the seriousness of neglecting to care for the poor and oppressed... the Westboro Baptist Translation.

Bob on February 21, 2013:

What a thought provoking article. For me personally, I have struggled with how a loving God could condemn people for an aspect of their life that is so inherently entrenched (despite many people's best efforts to change.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on February 19, 2013:

Thank you, Weswiki!

Wes from USA on February 18, 2013:

Excellent artcile. So few people are aware that the Torah was written in a time when paganism was the norm -- and this included temple prostitution. In fact there was an old saying among ancient greeks wives to not let their husbands travel to Corinth alone (as there was a rather robust cult there dedicated to Aphrodite). Any anthropologist worth his salt will tell you that languages and meanings don't exist in a vacuum, and I think you've contextualized them well.

jonnycomelately on February 16, 2013:

MasterWooten, in this statement of yours, "Of course the word appear somewhat different in the direct translation but that is the same between any two languages where the meaning of the phrases are the same.".....are you trying to say that the word "homosexual" has the same connotation in "any language?" I am not sure I follow you.

The word was not known at all until very recent times. Where it has been used to judge us as a minority, it brings cruelty and tragedy to many people across the world. Do you consider yourself as taking part in that judgment?

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on February 15, 2013:

That wasn't what I was arguing at all, but no matter. It seems you really want to continue to believe Leviticus condemns homosexuality; go ahead and do so. If facts and science won't sway the beliefs of "true believers," then my series of arguments surely won't.

MasterWooten on February 14, 2013:

Sorry but the author here does NOT conclusively demonstrate that Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 are not condemning homosexuality. All it does is attempt to say that the Hebrew translation is unclear. Reading those verses in the direct Hebrew translation as he puts forth one can still see a prohibition against homosexuality. Of course the word appear somewhat different in the direct translation but that is the same between any two languages where the meaning of the phrases are the same.

That the two verses are absent in Deuteronomyis NO EVIDENCE that they are not prsent with that meaning in Leviticus, and if you're going to keep pounding the argument that the bible is flawed and lost in translation then trying to rest a case on perfection at this stage is a nonstarter.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 11, 2012:

Eliora: If you did indeed read the hub, then why would you make the point that "lying with" has a sexual connotation, or that many parts of Leviticus apply to all of Israel, not just the kohenim? I did not dispute either in this hub.

You seem unwilling or unable to deal with the argument of this hub itself: i.e. that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 forbid male temple prostitution, not homosexuality in general.

jonnycomelately on December 11, 2012:

Thank you Arthur Bundy. These two verses struck it with me:

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The "wide" gate is the easy way, broadcasting one's judgment upon others whilst ignoring one's own personal, inner assessment

The "narrow way" leads into Life. It is a deep individual assessment of "my" self; honest; no holds barred. It also needs a lot more courage because there are dark, frightening unexplored areas there which will confront us, rather like the Harry Potter quests. This way is also totally private and totally unsharable. It's something you have to deal with yourself, alone. Hence "...few there be that find it."

jonnycomelately on December 11, 2012:

Eliora, I am not a person of Israel, living 3-4000 years ago, being addressed by a historical person, in whatever language, about whatever god, in whatever circumstances you like to imagine.

I am living in this modern age, trying to lead as good a life as I can, trying not to hurt others in the process, without the need to believe in a judgmental "god" when there are enough humans around trying to do the job of such a god.

The laws of my country do not discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation. You are not allowed to either.


Yes I have read it.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 10, 2012:

Eliora - Did you read the Hub? I'm guessing from your comment that you haven't.


The Hebrew is:

תִשְׁכַּ֖ב to lie down – sexual connotation

זָכָ֔ר – male

תִשְׁכַּ֖ב to lie down – sexual connotation

אִשָּׁ֑ה – female

תֹּועֵבָ֖ה – abomination

The translation does concern homosexuality.

Leviticus 18 starts off with Moses addressing the Israelite people and not just the priesthood. This was for all the people. And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them etc. (Leviticus 18/2)

Druid Dude from West Coast on July 27, 2012:

Good hub. Actually comprehending what you are reading is key. The times, they are a-changin'. Many have turned their backs on God, thinking that he had turned his on them. Nice work.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on May 13, 2012:

I haven't commented lately. It fascinates me how many people ignore why and how the Age of Enlightenment came to exist. There was the need of the human spirit to express itself beyond the abuses being perpetrated by the various extremes and excesses of the Church. Respect for for the individual and the capacity of the individual to the think and reason for himself, was what I see as the primary goal of enlightenment.

As long as the religions of today, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, insist on crossing boundaries to meet their goals, and demand the right to think and legislate for the rest of us, they will always fall short of the the point Jesus was trying to make about judgement in Matthew Chapter 7.

Aaron on May 11, 2012:

Problem with religion is, there's a lot of faith. No proof. And yet many would blindly follow suit. Why don't we just stop hurting each other? that seems to be the only thing that is consistent in every "widely accepted" religions? They all teach us to love and understand. To learn and evolve. But yet some would molest its true meanings and use it as a form of weapon. True religion is peace in your mind and soul, devoted love to he/she you worship, but doesn't mean having to sacrifice people or animals to prove it. My question to every religion? if God(whatever god) is all powerful, don't you think they'd know the truth if you were bad or good? or at least know what to expect from you? I'm pretty sure a being of that power, would be able to know our thoughts, our feelings, and base it all on our actions. However, if we were "controlled", it'd be no fun to watch, therefore we have choice. If you truly feared whatever God you worshiped, your heart would be enough, and your conscience would follow through to make the right choices.

And for those who love gay bashing, maybe you just need a hug from another guy... that will make ya smile. =]]

here ya go... don't worry I'm straight, your friends wont laugh. =D

"WE ALL BLEED RED". Get over the differences.

Thanks for the post livelonger, love your work =]

jonnycomelately on May 10, 2012:

For kreatis20: One-liners are all very well to bolster your own confidence, but they are also like a horse with blinkers - they have very little, or no lateral vision.

I am not going to get embroiled in the old argument found in other Hubs. It's not warranted here. All I ask of you is to read what Livelonger has written above and view it without the usual presumptions which you will have gained through bible studies and what your pastor has told you. View it with a fresh openness. Draw into yourself an open, loving kindness, before making any assessment or judgment. Please.

wellness5 from Fondi, Italy on May 10, 2012:

For Kreatis20. That's fine about living a life. So long as they do not stop others from living a life (who just might happen to have a different sexual orientation) for example.

kreatis20 from Slovenia on May 08, 2012:

The word of God is true! Who lives by It lives a life!

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on April 23, 2012:

Thank you, Eric. Sometimes the ambiguity is intentional; it's odd to see people rush to a definite conclusion based on a very specific read, while ignoring other far clearer, more explicit, and repeated commandments in the Bible. I chalk it up to a cheap path towards a sense of piety. :) At any rate, I agree with your final statement.

Eric Newland from Dayton, Ohio on April 20, 2012:

This is a very good hub, by far the most compelling argument I've seen on the subject of these passages. And you're right: Deuteronomy is supposed to be a repeat of Leviticus, and it's more than a little strange that each would contain one commandment that the other doesn't, yet that the mismatched passages would be so strangely related.

I've been meditating on this and will continue to do so. Fact is, there's not going to be much difference in my behavior and attitude toward homosexuals whether I embrace this or continue to sit on the fence as I am now. Love comes first, and freedom is the best way to show love in this age when it's become such a precious commodity.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on April 08, 2012:

Disappearinghead: Thank you for your comment. It is a little odd that many evangelicals actually prefer Paul to Jesus, but I suppose that's their theology. Interestingly, Paul didn't necessarily speak about homosexuality, either, but that's the way it was translated into the KJV.

Disappearinghead from Wales, UK on April 07, 2012:

What an excellent hub livelonger. Thank you for writing it.

My views of homosexuality have changed over the years. I now know gay colleagues in work. Ive come to understand that some people are wired up differently fundamnetally. I've come to understand that Paul's letters are not scripture and as a Pharisee he would consider it tantamount to blasphemy for them to be considered so, and thus we cannot form doctrine from them. But most importantly for me, Yashua spoke extensively on all manner of society's issues, but never once on homosexuality.

I unfriended on old friend from Facebook who through many years ago I becme a Christian, but I just couldn't stay associated with such a self righteous bigot who got all upset because I came out publicly against his petition to the UK Prime Minister to repeal some laws that gave equal rights to homosexual couples.

EtherealElements from USA on March 17, 2012:

Thanks. It's nice to read works written from the standpoint of literal translation. It is not often you find someone, particularly in regards to this subject, that doesn't just take one verse and runs with it, but goes in depth to see what was going on, who was being address and what subjects were being talked about before and after the verse was written. Great hub.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on March 15, 2012:

jonny: You're absolutely right. "Acting straight" is not natural for gay people, and does a disservice to the way they were made. Contrived relationships also harm both parties involved.

jonnycomelately on March 15, 2012:

I have only just come in to read your Hub, so a bit late in the day giving comment. It's great to read through all the comments, and I have not managed to do it completely yet.

Some time back you said this: "You're absolutely right that this was a prohibition for heterosexual men, as gay sex is clearly not a natural act for straight men."

I can add to that: "Straight sex is not a natural act for gay men."

Years ago, I "tried" to be straight. I was messing with another (female) human's life, just trying to justify my own existence and appear "normal." If we had ever got married, it would have ruined her life, her family's, my life, my family's, etc.

I could never bring my self to have sex with her!

Now I am fully comfortable with my orientation. Yet even now, I would not entertain any sexual relationship with a person I did not at least feel a "kinship" with.

For me, the "relationship" of friendship and mutual concern is paramount, before any suggestion of a sexual act. Yet the latter is fine, if it fits with the needs and acceptance of both parties. Isn't this called Love?

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on March 15, 2012:

jonny: Thank you. Christianists (as opposed to Christians) are not very nice people, and I agree most of them are committed to defending their bigotries, no matter what type of argument (scriptural, scientific, common decency) you provide against them.

jonnycomelately on March 15, 2012:

Livelonger, thank you for taking the time and energy to research this and put it into print. Really well written, so it's easy to read, too.

We have seen so much ranting and raving in recent hubs, where the so-called christian right (I would prefer to say christist wrongs!) twist and turn to justify their points of view. It really is like talking to a brick wall - you can't move or change it and it's so rigid and constricting of one's freedom.

marshacanada from Vancouver BC on January 18, 2012:

Thanks LiveLonger for this extremely well written Hub and for your responses in the lively discussion. I especially enjoyed your clear presentation of the linear analysis of the original Hebrew.

Brainy Bunny from Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania on January 13, 2012:

I see I'm coming late to the party, but I just wanted to thank you, livelonger, for using the tools of textual criticism and accurate translation in your interpretation. There isn't enough of that in our world!

Wesman Todd Shaw from Kaufman, Texas on January 11, 2012:

I came back to re read. I'm impressed with LiveLonger's deft ability to refute the obvious biases of the common...what I call "pseudoChristian" notions.

Not claiming to be anything like all wonderful and such all the time myself, just admiring the pawning of the arguments.

I would personally enjoy seeing the author do this type of thing again in other areas. Such hubs might exist, but I'm new to this subdomain so far as being a reader.

Anyway, I've enjoyed it.

McQueen3486 from Washington/District of Columbia on January 10, 2012:

Very true.

Bill on January 10, 2012:

It's always interesting for interpreters of the bible to use english to prove their case when english didn't exist at the time that the original source language was used in writing it.

McQueen3486 from Washington/District of Columbia on January 10, 2012:

In hoping to not sound like an idiot, I am not entirely familiar with Leviticus.

In regards to Christians, I do think many abuse their stances a bit.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 07, 2012:

That's completely true; there are good Christians and bad Christians, just like there are good and bad in any grouping.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:

Hey I totally agree. I just feel like it is unfair to generalize all Christians are oppressors.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 07, 2012:

No, some Christians (and others) were dragging forward most of the other Christians who wanted to keep slavery, women from voting, and the colonial system. I guess they were interpreting scripture differently. Some Christians read scripture as a means to end oppression of women, slaves and the colonized, while others said G-d condoned it. There are a lot of right-wing Christians who are sure that the Bible approves of all sorts of oppression.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:

I can give several instances where a Christian ethic or Judeo-Christian world view led to 'human progress.'

William Wilberforce was a Christian who was a prominent leader in UK abolition.

MLK Jr in the civil rights movement.

The driving force behind women's suffrage.

Though more passive, do you think Gandhi could have led a peaceful revolt in against any other nation other than one ideologically dominated by a Judeo-Christian ethic?

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 07, 2012:

Millercl: I suppose you're right. Paul could have tacked on a condemnation of homosexuality even though the Hebrew Bible and Jesus Christ did not. It seems to be more than an afterthought, given how much importance Christians place on it (esp compared to all of those other things that Christ was 100% clear on, repeated often, and that are routinely ignored by "believers.") But I suppose it's easy to elevate "the sin of homosexuality" to utmost importance if there's no risk of you ever being guilty of it (note I'm using the grammatical 'impersonal you').

Chefsref: I agree with you. For us Jews, the Bible was just the starting point, and we have a procedure to update Jewish law that goes with the times and continuing revelation (nowadays through science). That's probably why about 78% of American Jews think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I agree that Christians will eventually come around, too. They usually do. A pity they tend to lag human progress far more often than they lead it.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:

@livelonger: I just noticed I put "Livestrong" as your name earlier. My mistake. I didn't mean anything mean by it.

You know, I agree with you concerning Christians swallowing some interpretations without really studying them. A blind adherence to authority can be both good and bad. The bad stuff seems to really stick out more.

Now, if I just take a few steps and remain within the realms of what I presented, I believe there is a consistent way to understand Paul is talking about sexual relations between people of the same sex, not just temple prostitutes and such. Considering Paul clearly penned the word 'arsenokoitai' form Lev 18:22 or 20:13, referencing cult prostitution in a different book doesn't really tie them together. I see your lists and while I admire the effort and organization, the same objections are still valid. I don't feel I am going to change your mind, but I do feel like what you have presented isn't as rock solid as you claimed.

@chefsref: Biblical scripture has been used to justify the things you have mentioned, but I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate that such justifications are unsustainable with full context of the Bible. People say what you stated all the time, but it simply isn't true.

Lee Raynor from Citra Florida on January 07, 2012:

Hey Livelonger

This has been a fascinating discussion but I think it avoids an important point. Translation of the Bible is not the problem because the Bible is and always has been the rationalization justifying our bigotries. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, mysogyny, racism, white supremacism and an Aryan super race as well as gay bashing.

Eventually, I think most Christianity will accept homosexuality as natural but the bigots will simply find another excuse to hate them.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 07, 2012:

Well, obviously there's some ambiguity, otherwise everyone would be clear about what it said. I'm saying that Christians have, for a hundreds of years, accepted it unquestioned that the Bible condemns homosexuality, while most have not peered past King James's version to see that there is either a lot of ambiguity, or it points to something else entirely.

In Leviticus, there are positive and negative commandments. It doesn't refer to nouns, but rather verbs. It doesn't say "don't be an adulterer" but rather "don't commit adultery." That's the language Leviticus uses; very verb-oriented. Deuteronomy, penned hundreds of years later, but still, strictly speaking, the words of Moses, uses nouns occasionally. There, there is no reference to "man lying in woman beds" but refers to being a "kadesh" as forbidden. As far as I'm concerned, speculation not grounded in scripture itself is making another argument entirely.

As for Paul and "arsenokoitai": if kadesh is porneuo, and arsenokoitai, a word Greeks never used, means homosexual, then why didn't Paul use the word paiderasste, the commonly understood Greek word in ancient times for homosexual?

That's something for Christians who believe Paul was a vessel for a holy message to grapple with. Christ himself said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, except to say that gays are not required to get married (in Matthew 19:12).

Millercl on January 07, 2012:


I am sorry you have been subject to such an abase and brash understanding of grace. (in reference to Christians who are of the 'fire and brimstone' sort.)

Now would you be willing to admit the bible is accurate in what Paul said and then make such a mean judgment? I also think you would want to refer to Paul as ignorant if anything. To say he wasn't intelligent in light of what this man was able to accomplish as a Pharisee would be silly. He learned several languages and was able to teach pretty well. Not a very stupid thing.

Also, you really don't offend me. You just reveal hypocrisy by condemning ostracizing and then do so yourself.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:


Like fictional parallels? I think you do what everyone should do by trying to get a consistent grasp on the texts, but I am just wanting to point out it isn't the definite, bold outcome you display it as.

First, if "Temple Prostitute" is what is meant in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, then why describe it as the author did? The act, of a male lying with a male as with a woman is described here, not temple prostitution. Otherwise the word temple prostitution would be used. Or am I crazy?

Every instance of 'prostitute' I have come across in the new testament translates from the word, porne. In the LXX, kadesh is translated porne and porneuo. Even in 1 Cor 6, when Paul warns against joining with a prostitute, the term 'porne' is used, right after the infamous verse 9. (Often used in a wrong context. Should be used in the celebration of conquering sin, but generally used by most to condemn gays. I am not a gay basher!) I feel if temple prostitute were meant in using arsenokoitai, then arsenokoitai would not be used.

If there were a better word, then that would could be a combination of 'naos' and 'porne'. (Temple and prostitute.) But there is no reference to a 'temple prostitute' in the new testament.

Tony Lawrence from SE MA on January 07, 2012:

@millerci: Yeah, I know - I get attacked regularly for speaking truth.

The fact is that you can admire anyone you want, but if he thought homosexuality is "sinful", he was a crazy old coot or just horribly unintelligent. That's fact and if it offends you, so be it. I might well think he's a bit nuts anyway, but we could probably have reasonable arguments in some of those other areas. Here, there is no room for argument.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 07, 2012:

Millercl: What would that word be, then? If you want to continue to believe homosexuality is a sin, go ahead and do so. Sometimes we tell ourselves a bit of fiction in order to not stick our neck out.

Pcunix: You hit the nail right on its head.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:

Well if you want us to get along better, you probably don't want to call someone we hold important as a 'Crazy old coot.'

; )

Tony Lawrence from SE MA on January 07, 2012:

There will always be controversy about this. I think that the important thing to remember is not what some crazy old coot might have said or not said, but rather where the issue comes from. It originates with the fear of being different, fear of being an outcast from the group. Most of the group is heterosexual, so that creates pressure not only to be "not gay" but to actively shun those who are not part of the group.

The same thing happens to people who are not physically attractive, who are overweight, underweight, atheists, Jews, whatever: if you aren't part of the group, you are going to experience some degree of exclusion and some hatred.

Humans trust people who think as they do - or people who pretend to think as they do. What most don't understand is that they have much more to fear from the wolf in sheep's clothing than the off colored sheep. So they ostracize the black sheep, sometimes drive it from the herd and welcome the wolf gladly and later wonder why some sheep keep disappearing overnight :-)

I dislike prejudice and group-think. I dislike seeing religion used as an excuse for hate.

Millercl on January 07, 2012:

Sorry for the delayed response. I do not always have an internet source readily available! So if there is a lag, that is probably why.

You might be contemporary Jewish, but I don't feel like you can really say it is the same way Paul was Jewish. I mean, I am Oglala Sioux, but being raised by a parent who grew up on an Indian Reservation doesn't give me some innate understanding of tribal things from when Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were running around.

I believe there is a better word to describe 'prostitutes' and an even better way to create a word to describe a 'male temple prostitute' than arsenokoitai.

I think there can be a consistent case from the Hebrew that it simply refers to 'Man lying with man as a with a woman.'

All I really want to say in my reply is that your interpretation, which is pretty consistent and well made, is not quite the slam-dunk you make it out to be.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 06, 2012:

Millercl: I'm Jewish myself, but let's have a look. "Arsenokoitai" is a word that Paul created in Greek, and it literally means "man beds." It's curious that, fluent in Greek, Paul did not use the well-known and often-used Greek word for homosexual man, paideraste, instead. This was a very well-known concept in the ancient Greek world; there would have been absolutely no reason to coin a new word for it.

That points that arsenokoitai is talking about something different from paideraste, specifically "male temple prostitute." That makes more sense given the meaning of the compound-word neologism: temple prostitutes spend most of their time in beds.

Millercl on January 06, 2012:

Livelong, it is a good article!

You write well and if that is all there is to consider then I think you would have a strong case.

But please consider some things such as Paul's understanding of the word arsenokoites, in 1 Cor 6:9. He gets that word from the Lev 18:22 verses, not from the Hebrew but from the LXX, which was the primary source for Jews at the time. Paul's use of arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 would make it difficult to say it simply refers to cult prostitution.

It is also a stretch to bring Deut. 23:17 along because it is "probably related" when you demonstrated that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 use the same wording and such.

Also, the list you mention, in the table you created, spans 22 chapters. I don't think that is a strong parallel to the list in Lev 20.

Let me know what you think about the arsenokoites thing. You seem bright!

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 06, 2012:

Arthur: The really scary ones really haven't commented here (yet). There are a few that disagree with me, but, interestingly, they aren't able to do so by referring to scripture. G-d's supposed hatred of homosexuality is something that's so ingrained in their viewpoint, that they're not really willing to have that viewpoint challenged, especially since it applies to people other than themselves. I'm heartened by the fact that the vast majority are older, sclerotic in their thinking, and among a dying breed.

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on January 06, 2012:

May this comment find you well and your heart at peace.

Some of the comments here reminded me of those religious extremists that are out there invading funeral services for service individuals killed in the line of duty. Doing it in the name of God in protest of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wonder how many of our recent war dead, fought for their country even though they were forced to hide their true sexual nature?

I think the ease with which sensibilities are offended come as the result of worrying more about what others will think of them than in taking the risk to think for one's self. And, the older I get the more prone I am to being real indifferent to what others think of me.

I figure if I account for myself, and expect a certain measure of accountability from others without crossing boundaries or allowing my boundaries to be crossed. The happier I am, and the happier they usually are.

Thank you for these insights.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 06, 2012:

Thank you, Sen. It's a social stigma within certain ethnocultural groups here in the US, too; it really has nothing to do with religious beliefs, but they tell themselves that to make themselves feel better about being bigots. The very same group of people were arguing that their religion forbids interracial marriages 50 years ago.

Sushmita from Kolkata, India on January 06, 2012:

I read your article, and was applauding the precise way you explained your point. Period. But then the thread of comment made it really interesting and made me realize why you at all chose this topic. I am not ever faced with this in my own society, because the only reaction to Homosexuality/Lesbianism is a kind of social stigma - nothing to do with ones spiritual or religious believes. Interesting.

TheUsedCarGuy from Melbourne Australia on January 05, 2012:

Wow, pretty powerful and eye opening article. And I agree with a lot of the above comments. You can't judge someone based on a biological occurrence. It's just as bad as racism.

Leah Lefler from Western New York on January 05, 2012:

I agree - I don't understand how anyone can condemn a person for a biological trait. Bigotry and other forms of prejudice are signs of low character, in my opinion. Those who harbor hate in their hearts use religion as a weapon.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 05, 2012:

Leah: You're right. Their homophobia is a bigotry looking for justification, and they contort the Bible to fit with it.

I agree there is some biological mechanism (even if we haven't determined exactly what that is yet) for homosexuality, but studies are pointing to a hormonal influence, possibly with epigenetic roots. If you are a religious person, I'm not sure how you reconcile views that condemn people who were born that way, especially when it's becoming clear that scripture doesn't support that form of bigotry anyway.

Leah Lefler from Western New York on January 05, 2012:

This is an excellent, excellent article. There are far too many bigots who use the English translation to support their hateful world view.

Dredging from my memories of psychoneuroendocrinology (say that three times fast), there was an interesting study on hormones in the womb and the expression of gender. For animals that carried litters, there was an effect on gender behavior dependent on the nearest sibling. A female pup surrounded by male pups expressed more masculine traits, etc. While human beings are obviously not born in litters, the study does show the effect of hormonal influence in the womb.

I love the direct translation from the original Hebrew - and the clarification on the history behind the ancient laws against prostitution cults!

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 05, 2012:

Thank you so much, rLcasaLme!

Rael Casalme from Dubai, United Arab Emirates on January 05, 2012:

You've made a good point here liveleonger. I really have to study further what my bible really says. Thank you for providing us the link. It would really be of great help studying the scripture.

Kudos to you brother!

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 04, 2012:

If only more people had your attitude, chelseacharleston! Thank you for your comment.

chelseacharleston on January 04, 2012:

What a fabulously detailed analysis. I say it says that common sense dictates that people are people, you can't control them, and if you don't like to be judged, you're better off not judging others. It also says leave them alone, mean people lol.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on January 01, 2012:

Wesman: Thank you for your perspective. For non-Jews, eating shellfish is not a sin, according to Jewish law. For Jews, it is; shellfish are not 'kosher' so therefore Jews are not allowed to eat it.

SirDent: I'd refer to the Intralinear Hebrew-English Bible link I provided above. As you will see if you take the time to read it, the words used in 18:22 and 18:23, and 20:13 and 20:15-16 are not the same; they are not talking about the same activity. This will require you to put down the King James Version translation into English, and read a word-by-word translation of the original Masoretic Hebrew.

Patty: You're very welcome!

Patty Inglish MS from USA and Asgardia, the First Space Nation on January 01, 2012:

Thanks for the additional link, livelonger - exactly what I needed!

SirDent on January 01, 2012:

Before I make an actual comment on the validity of this hub, I need to ask a question and get it clarified first. You mention the verse about lying with a man as with a woman and gave your interpretation of it according to your studies. What about the very next verse, Does the same apply about lying with beasts?

Wesman Todd Shaw from Kaufman, Texas on January 01, 2012:

Well thanks for the very interesting presentation!

After I read this a few times and think about it some more I might then be able to accept it as totally on the money - but the thing is that I've never accepted that Christianity was incoherent with homosexuality so much as it is with just...gratuitous and...wonton sex.

I do have to admit that I've thought of the Torah in quite a different way - but it's a very deep subject...and I've not yet met a Christian minister who I thought knew much about Torah Judaism.

Over time and a bazillion debates I'd basically decided that Leviticus does condemn homosexuality...but I rationalized that as valid due to the facts of the matter concerning the Hebrew tribes and their situation at that other words, when you're twelve tribes of Hebrews on the run from the Egyptian army and in the hostility of the Sinai's the survival of the GROUP that is what most matters, and the survival of the GROUP seemed to have been dependent upon newborn children, and you just don't get fresh warm bodies from homosexuality.

That little nugget there gets far deeper when you realize that it basically suggests that Judaic or Christian morality is something that is not finite...but evolves due to times and circumstances.

I ran further with it, of course - and incorporated shellfish.

Is eating shellfish a sin? If so, then why? - I used the same answer - it was a sin because the survival of the GROUP was more important then than was ...eating shellfish that may well kill you from bacteria.

Sharon Smith from Northeast Ohio USA on December 29, 2011:

Hi livelonger,

Wow, this is an awesome, well researched, well written article. I shared it on my Facebook page. Not sure what my "real" comments are at this time. I must read it again. Thank you for the follow, I look forward to reading more of your work.


Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 29, 2011:

Thank you so much, Patty. Here is a link to the Greek-English interlinear NT that Christians might find useful. There are many mistranslations in the KJV that are dispelled here:

Patty Inglish MS from USA and Asgardia, the First Space Nation on December 28, 2011:

Thanks for using original languages and best translations! Now I have the link to the Intralinear Hebrew-English translation, which I had not been able to find - nor to find it in hard copy in my area. Great resources.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 23, 2011:

Jimmy: Thank you, and I agree with you completely. If you believe in G-d and believe that he created us in his own image (and that's fine if you don't!), then it's odd to suggest he created something he detested in his own image only to condemn it. We can't control which skin we're born into, only how decent our behavior is once we're in it. :)

Jimmy the jock from Scotland on December 23, 2011:

Livelonger, what a well thought out and researched article, you have done your homework and came out with interesting results.

The "Bible" is without doubt open to different interpritation depending on who is reading it at the time and of course their own personal feelings and discriminations are all a part of how they read the words.

I personally feel that if g-d exists he/she would not give a jot about who is in a relationship with who male male, female female, or male female, If G-d is love than how can he/she object to two human beings loving each other.....jimmy

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 23, 2011:

Simone: The rule only applies to Jews, only to those living in the Holy Land (i.e. Vegas...I mean, Israel), and, importantly, only to those participating in a fertility ritual. Women hiring johns just for fun is still totally kosher! ;)

Simone Haruko Smith from San Francisco on December 22, 2011:

Dude. Livelonger. You may have busted one myth used to keep a group of people down only to RUIN THE (until NOW) TOTALLY INNOCENT PRACTICES OF ANOTHER GROUP, namely, poor, single ladies like myself looking for pay perfectly legitimate money for male prostitutes. Way to go. Now I have to feel GUILTY about my extracurricular activities!

Really great Hub though. Just goes to show that it pays to actually READ stuff (which is something the human race is, for the most part, unwilling to do).

Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on December 21, 2011:

May this comment find you well and your heart at peace.

livelonger: Thank you for your comments. I think the reason people search the Bible for evidence of flaws they can focus on other people's behavior, is to feed the lies they tell themselves about who and what they are. Lying to myself was the primary step in a long series of self-denials that allowed me to trash my life, and hurt all the people close to me. I thought that if I could seek flaws in others, then I could more easily justify to myself my flaws. Religion is for some, a perfect avenue of self-justification. When the real deal is, it's about accounting to self. Focus on an after-life is fine, but it is living this life, that is the real challenge.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 21, 2011:

wellness5: You're right, and these people, who flout the most basic, clear, and often-repeated commandments have the temerity to call themselves fundamentalists! It would be amusing if we didn't consider how much trouble they cause in the world. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

wellness5 from Fondi, Italy on December 21, 2011:

Thank you so much for explaining this so clearly. It helps to stem the tide of evangelical homophobia. The second commandment 'Love your neighbour as yourself' has been distorted by all of us to suit our own particular world view and to fit in nicely with our own little clique. We can exclude, gays, blacks, disabled people, mentally ill etc. and even back it up with a quotation from the Bible!

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 20, 2011:

Arthur: Thank you for your comment, and I agree with you completely. The more a heterosexual person obsesses about what gays are doing, the more I wonder what they're hiding about themselves.

K9keystrokes: Always a pleasure to get a comment from you! I am deeply honored by it, but I am just sharing what I've researched. Fortunately, more and more true scholars of Torah and scripture are keeping an open mind, not letting contemporary mores color their interpretation, and are drawing a different conclusion. And about time!

Huge HubHugs, Happy Hanukkah (4 Hs in a row!), and Shalom! And thank you for your comment.

PlanksandNails: Unfortunately, you haven't shared much in terms of proof at all that "To sanction homosexuality negates the divine authority of Scripture". Are we to accept that just because you say so? As a Jew, I'm not personally interested in what Christian scripture has to say, but I will say this: Jesus Christ never once mentioned homosexuality, except to say that gay men are not required to get married, and what Paul said about arsenokoitai in Greek could very well be referring to kadesh in Hebrew.

PlanksandNails on December 20, 2011:


The use of to??e?bah in the original language text reveals that it is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things that are abominable for Israel. To??e?bah is the word most often used for an abomination in reference to a grave moral sin, including those which are unmistakably *universally* sinful. Collectively, it is used *universally* for all the sins referenced in Leviticus 18 and 20 ( Leviticus 18:27, 29).

Idolatry is the begetter of all sins. To??e?bah is usedin Deuteronomy 32:16

(“If someone is willing to delve into the original language, and understand the pattern of repetition of the Bible, instead of accepting without question the translation of modern English interpreters, you are drawn to a very different conclusions:”)

There are inconsistencies with more extensive research into 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 relating to this theme that portrays evidence that the Levitical injunctions were not just the target of temple sex, but general homosexual relations.

The Bible confirms that only opposite genders are to be joined in a sexual nature.

Anomia is a word that describes a violation of the law. Twenty-four Hebrew words are rendered from this, which describes violations of law in a general sense. In contrast, the Hebrew word ?âvôn is rarely used to specify a particular sin, where to??e?bah is. Furthermore, anomia is used in many verses where to??e?bah later occurs in Hebrew in a moral context, such as having illicit sex.

To sanction homosexuality negates the divine authority of Scripture. Of course, some will use a linguistic argument that certain words cannot be used in which they do indeed declare.

Scripture is the final authority pertaining to matters of same-sex relations. To try to justify otherwise is simply based on one’s own relative opinion or feeling that is in direct rebellion against God.

When it comes to matters of willful sin, a Biblical perspective is to warn those who are dishonouring the God of the Bible, not to affirm them. It is out of love, not hate, to compassionately encourage those to seek repentance through Jesus Christ. We all have the free will to accept or deny Him. Personal feeling or preference will try to denature Scripture for a particular agenda, but the origin comes right back to idolatry (a matter of the heart), which simply gives glory to man over God.

Deceit supposes liberty for sin.

But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. -- Hebrews 3:13

India Arnold from Northern, California on December 20, 2011:

"I think hateful, ignorant people will find any sort of justification - religion, patriotism, tradition, tribe, etc. - to validate their beliefs."

Live longer, you are a true warrior for the LGBTQ community and I for one find your Leviticus definition and true translation to be spot-on. My own research on the topic has resulted in a very similar outcome, and one that supports your very clear and easy to follow (if one really reads it with an open mind and heart) understanding of what the verses are meant to teach us. Well done and with class I might add.

HUGE HubHugs and Shalom~


Arthur Bundy from Colorado Springs on December 20, 2011:

May this comment find you well and your heart at peace.

I very much like you thought process. It is my belief that that intolerance, on any level, is a fundamental danger to us all. Matthew Chapter 7, the first few verses talks about "Judge not, for as ye judge, ye shall be judged again..." To me, my job is to account for myself first and foremost. I can't think of a better way for people to handle their business. My flaws take up everyday of my life. I don't have time to manage the flaws of others. If more people focused on their own flaws, they might be less critical of the flaws of others.

Romano Arnesto from Philippines on December 20, 2011:

Thanks for this very interpretive discussion regarding homosexuality. Sins of flesh never end.

If someone felt guilty after indulging in homosexual relations, then, his/her conscience will say that it is wrong.

It's hard to admit homosexuality in public, although some nations, including USA (some states), already accepted their existence (amid public rallies and legislation).

The question that's left with us is whether to rely on the ambiguity of Bible words regarding the interpretation of homosexuality.

If we have faith in the Words of God that were written by trusted men (apostles of Jesus), then who are we to doubt it?

Tony Lawrence from SE MA on December 19, 2011:

Well, I had to help raise my nephews anyway :-)

But yeah, that sounds reasonable. and I do remember reading that.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 19, 2011:

The only thing I've read is that the more sons a woman has, the more likely her next son will be gay. So there might be something there. The scientists examining the study speculated that gay children could help raise their own nieces and nephews (before the modern era, people died left and right through disease and violence), thereby carrying on the genes.

Tony Lawrence from SE MA on December 19, 2011:

I remember reading a theory that homosexuality could be a response to over population, but even if there is no reason for it, so what? My brother-in-law was born with two fingers on an arm that ends at his elbow. Albinos are born without pigmentation. Some people have red hair and so on. No "reason" for those things, and whether any of that is "normal" is a matter of interpretation and prejudice. We should just accept people for what they are.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 18, 2011:

becauseilive: Thank you for your comment. I've seen that show up as a suggestion in Netflix many times. I'll have to watch it, now that I have an actual human endorsement!

ReuVera: Thank you so much, and especially for adding so many important details to this discussion. You're absolutely right that this was a prohibition for heterosexual men, as gay sex is clearly not a natural act for straight men. I had read something by an ancient Hebrew linguist years ago that said that there was something unusual about the phrasing (maybe this is what you're saying) that suggested that it was clearly directed at someone who would normally "lying in a bed-of-woman." And thank you for the added dimension on toebah - it is clear from its use in Torah and beyond that it has to do with ritual matters.

I also agree that just because we can not explain why something is (whether you think that something is done by G-d, or evolutionary processes) does not mean it shouldn't be. The vast majority of bees and ants in a hive/colony are sterile females, for example; this was deemed to be better than having all of them reproduce. The ~5% of humans (and over 1500+ observed species) that are gay are fulfilling some purpose, we just don't know what.

ReuVera from USA on December 18, 2011:

Wow, what a bomb you gave for those religious hypocrites! Good for you! Respect! I think that people bash homosexuality and use Bible as their shield because they mix homosexuality and pedophilia. I should say they have enough of the latter in the churches, hah?

I was reading Hebrew text and though I had difficulty to capture the whole meaning (after all Hebrew is not my native language), but I struggled through the Hebrew phrase and I agree that the King James translation is a manipulation (nothing strange here, as there are so many mistranslations/ manipulations in KJV)

The Leviticus text is obviously directed to heterosexual men. He was warning heterosexuals against sexual intercourse with same sex, because it would be unnatural for them. It would be funny to suppose that homosexuals were warned NOT to lay with man as he would do with a woman? Homosexual man would not lay with a woman on the first place.

Also, at that time many people in Israel continued to worship Moloch and Baal and other gods and goddesses of earlier pagan traditions. Priests of Moloch, who were definitely heterosexuals used to practice rituals were they got dressed as women and had sex with men during those rituals. It was a part of their religious worship, not as an act of natural homosexuality.

Obviously, Leviticus verses were directed not to natural homosexuals, but rather to prohibition of pagan rituals, to male prostitutes in temples, as you correctly put it.

Hebrew word “toebah” does not necessarily mean something radically evil, but rather something which would be considered unclean for Jews. Examples might include eating pork, shellfish, lobster, trimming beards, and also having sex during a women's menstrual period. All these would be considered the same “abomination".

So, though I never gave much thought to “homosexual problem” as it is presented in Bible, I have to agree with you with your research.

As for the fact that God created us male and female, let us remember that at first God created one creature, male and female in one. But after considering something (who knows what He was considering) he separated them into two creations.

Jaclyn Popola from Florida on December 18, 2011:

Excellent hub! In case anyone's interested, a really great documentary that addresses this same topic is "For the Bible Tells Me So". I came across it on Netflix Watch Instantly and was beyond moved.

Deborah Brooks Langford from Brownsville,TX on December 18, 2011:

God Loves us all.. No matter what.. a sin is a sin is a sin. that's why he sent Jesus.. to help us...people love to add and take away from the bible for their own benefit.. Love is the answer.. Jesus says Love your neighbor as your self..

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 18, 2011:

robie2: I've been surprised so far; I haven't had to delete one comment yet! I'm hoping that some people are open to reason. You can't do anything about the hypocrites, but you can expose them for not being nearly "to the Word" as they claim to be.

I agree completely. Living a completely Biblical lifestyle means throwing yourself back several thousands of years in terms of human development. I had not read the "Why Can't I Own a Canadian?" thing but I love it. I think it addresses the absurdity of literalism beautifully.

Tony Lawrence from SE MA on December 18, 2011:

I love that Canadian thing. I had seen it before but not in some time :-)

Roberta Kyle from Central New Jersey on December 18, 2011:

You are quite the biblical scholar, livelonger-- kudos on this very interesting examination of the pitfalls of translation and the resulting danger of taking the Bible literally. I long ago learned my lesson about discussing religion or politics on Hubpages either in hubs or forums. Takes up a lot of time, feeds the trolls, and does nothing to change anybody's mind. But I do want to comment and say that your interpretation of Leviticus makes a lot of sense and totally puts the whole thing in an excellent historical context.

That said, I personally don't see what the problem is with same sex relationships-- but then I live in a very gay friendly area where the gay community simply adds to a very rich fabric of life.

The bible has been used to justify all sorts of things including slavery-- so lets get a grip. Do we all know that " Why Can't I Own A Canadian" thing that has been circulating online forever? JUst in case-- here's a link and of course I am voting this up and awesome.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 17, 2011:

Cardisa: Yup!

Angela: My pleasure!

Angela Blair from Central Texas on December 17, 2011:

Thanks so much for answering my question. Best, Sis

Carolee Samuda from Jamaica on December 17, 2011:

It's a little clearer now. I did see the terms but didn't quite understand that they actually meant a real temple and men. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I understand the point. It wasn't about male on male relationship but rather defiling the temple with paganistic rituals.

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 17, 2011:

Cardisa: Kadesh means "holy prostitute" or a man who has sex with other men in the temple as part of a pagan fertility ritual (female prostitutes had sex with men for the same reason; the term is "kedeshah"). The book of Leviticus sets a code of behavior, primarily for the Israelite priests but also other Israelites, to avoid the pagan practices and not have their theology and culture "contaminated."

I refer to the 'golden rule' (propounded by Hillel in Judaism, Christ in Christianity, and many others) as one we can all agree on. :) Thanks for your comment!

Carolee Samuda from Jamaica on December 17, 2011:

Livelonger, I am still trying to understand what "male temple" is and what "lying with men in beds of women" mean. I am never one to quote scriptures about sex or sexual preferences, so maybe I am just a little dense

Jason Menayan (author) from San Francisco on December 17, 2011:

Angela - I'm not an expert on Christian doctrine (I'm Jewish), but I would say you either live by grace or by law, not by-grace for some things, and by-law for other things. There are way too many Christians who sadly want grace applied to their own sins and those of people they love, but want to bring down the full force of the law for sins they will never commit.

Many of the Christians who hate homosexuality refer to Leviticus (Jewish Biblical law), but happily wave off any other condemnation, even those that Jesus stated himself, saying they are living under grace. It seems that is applying double standards.

Thank you for your comment!

Angela Blair from Central Texas on December 17, 2011:

Livelonger -- this is an honest question, as I've read your HUB and am impressed with your research and presentation -- as a Christian and admittedly a poor bible student: It is my understanding that we are living by grace and not by law after the cross -- am I mistaken in my understanding of this? Thank you. Best, Sis

Related Articles