A Marginal Christian looks at Leviticus on Sexual Sin Generally*; Matthew on adultery specifically; and what we can learn from Christ's encounters with two adulteresses.
* CAVEAT: I have only a rough idea of how the text is construed by modern-day Jews. This posting is an answer to Christians who use Leviticus as the ground for excluding homosexuals from the community or for denying them civil rights.
One of the most annoying aspects of "The Church of God Without Christ" is ignorance. Yes, ignorance. Most Christians---including or rather especially the leaders of the various sects----don't know and don't WANT to know the history of the church or really anything about its evolution.
Though they can quote scripture, and have a propensity to do so, they can only quote the bits that resonate for them (i.e., that confirm something they already want to believe). I've got family members who can bring the (apparently) apt quote, but if you start questioning them about the source, they have NO IDEA of the context or of how the quoted piece fits within the whole.
The chapters in the Bible that address the ancient laws provide a fascinating picture of life among the Israelites. You have to assume that if at least some of the people weren't engaged in the forbidden conduct, it wouldn't be necessary for God to forbid it.
Now there are Jews who keep to the ancient laws as well as they can; these people have the virtue of consistency and can be said to take the Old Testament literally.
But modern-day Protestant Christians like to go through and cherry-pick the ones that suit them and that they believe 'apply' to the current day. Then they will tell you that they take the Bible literally because it is the authentic word of God and that they take it literally. Oh really? Let's talk about what it would mean to apply Leviticus literally.
1. Sexual sin in Leviticus.
Time for some close reading. I'm going with the New English Bible because those who know better than me say it's more true to the original text. I'm going to take the word of the scholar who assured me that the New English Bible is more accurate, even though I recently saw a bumper stick that said---and this is so delightful---in golden letters upon a black background, "The King James Bible is the True Word of God." Heh.
According to the introduction to the New English Bible, the translation of the New Testament "was undertaken with the object of providing English readers...with a faithful rendering of the best available Greek text into the current speech of our own time, and a rendering which would harvest the recent gains of new scholarship." New English Bible (1971 ed.) Introduction to New Testament at v.
FYI, the New English Bible doesn't use the conventional verse numbers ("which in the New Testament date only from 1551 and have no basis in the manuscripts.") I've done the best I can to identify them correctly for those wedded to the KJB, but I can't warrant my citations.
Before I start, I am going to adopt the assumption of Christians everywhere that Christ's death was a sacrifice that somehow cancelled out the obligation of his followers to make ritual sacrifice as spelled out in Leviticus. I am going to focus on some of the other requirements of Leviticus.
Let's start with the much-touted and much-disputed passage from Leviticus banning homosexuality (between man and man) as an "abomination." Here is the translation set forth in the New English Bible. It is unequivocal. I cannot deny it. It comes from the chapter called 'the law of holiness' and it says: