Why Christians eat pork, or A discussion of the misuse of Leviticus in discussions of homosexuality.

In the current debate over sexual mores, I have all too often seen people accusing Christians of hypocrisy for not keeping the Old Testament Laws. This accusation directly results from the use of a verse in Leviticus directly forbidding sexual relations between males. Now, I believe it is foolish for Christians to use this verse in public and political debates over human sexuality. Christians’ relationship to the Old Testament laws is a complicated topic, not one suited for the shallow, if-it-doesn’t-fit-on-a-sign-it’s-too-long atmosphere of the political debate environment. 

Despite the complexity of the topic, I will venture to explain the role of the Old Testament law for Christians. Please remember that the topic is not simple, so bear with me and have patience. Also, I understand that the view I will put forth here is strictly Reformed, not the same view as that held by certain other groups. However, my explanation should help clear the charge of hypocrisy. First, a general overview of Christian history.

The general narrative on which Christians base their faith divides history into the time before Christ and the time after Him. This first period is further divided by several vital events. Perhaps the most formative of these is the Fall, Adam and Eve’s eating the Forbidden Fruit. The Fall is credited with casing all (or most of) the problems people encounter. Because of the Fall, people could no longer live in harmony with God or with each other. God did not want to leave us to this predicament, and determined to rescue us, even though we had caused the difficulty. 

The Flood is another event of importance, although it merely serves to show how bad humanity can get. Some time after the Flood, God chose Abraham and his family to be a chosen nation, the nation of Israel. It was to this nation, after they were freed from slavery in Egypt, that God gave the law, of which Leviticus is a part. The law was pretty extensive, including laws and rules for most activities. Even the fabrics people could wear was regulated, as well as the food they could eat, and the way they would deal with such problems as mildew or sickness. 

Some time after the nation of Israel arrived in their land, they set up a king, but only after they had attempted to live without one and experienced anarchy and difficulty.  Already, though, they had begun compromising their religion by syncretism. Even under their kings, they would worship God along with the deities of the surrounding peoples, a practice which had been forbidden. Finally, as punishment, they were conquered and deported. 

Although some Israelites did manage to return to their land and rebuild their temple, the glory days of Israel were pretty much over. Except for some brief periods, Israel was the subject of one empire after another, finally coming under Rome. In such circumstances, the civil laws God laws God had given them could not be enforced as they had been when Israel had been free. The Romans were the law, and they did not always care about violations of Jewish mores. 

It was at this time that Jesus was born, lived, died, and came back to life. He did not establish a government or rid Israel of Roman authority. Instead, the story ends with both Jews and non-Jews, man of them Romans, following Jesus. The New Testament ends with a rather cryptic account of visions and dreams, many of them revealing the future. 

The crux (no pun intended) of the matter is the issue of fulfillment. Reformed Christians believe that the Old Testament laws were a representation of something which did not yet exist when the laws were given. The whole Old Testament speaks of what would one day come to pass with the coming of Jesus. Thus, new symbols have been given to the church, most of them looking backwards, not forwards, symbols replacing the old ones laid down. Israel pretty much always struggled to keep the law, never fully succeeding. Thus, they were shown the inability of humanity to keep God’s law and the need for atonement. 

The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Christian no longer is bound by certain Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:14-19 Jesus sets aside the rigorous purity laws. In Acts 10:10-16, the apostle Peter has a vision in which God practically tells him to eat unclean food. After this vision, Peter goes to the house of a Gentile, something devout Jews at that time believed to be wrong. Further, the elders of the early church soon determine that Gentile believers need not keep the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (Act 15:1-35). Thus, many Christians eat pork, wear clothes of blended fabrics, and do not consider themselves unclean during menstruation. 

Why then, one may well ask, do Christians consider homosexual behavior to be wrong? Certain New Testament passages, such as Romans 1: 26-27 seem to indicate that homosexual behavior is not natural. For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I expect the Church’s long tradition of disapproval of homosexual behavior probably stands as a strong reason to still consider it wrong. Also, the sexual acts which the Old Testament laws forbid are mostly taboo among modern Christians. One notable exception is the prohibition against having sexual relations with a woman while she is on her period. However the New Testament passages should be understood or applied, it would be best not to use Old Testament passages to condemn homosexual behavior, as doing so has caused confusion for those unfamiliar with the more complicated points of Christian doctrine and has brought undeserved ridicule to the Church.