The Leviticus verses
Regardless of your position on The Law, The Law doesn't condemn Homosexuality.
I actually want to start by saying I don't really approve of how the Leviticus verses are commonly written off by other
Pro-Gay Christians. Not all of Leviticus is purely ceremonial law. So mocking the idea of Christians citing Leviticus 18 as if it's
comparable to "don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" or eating shellfish is just setting
yourself up to look Biblically illiterate. The main Leviticus verse cited
on this subject isn't in the same section as the dietary laws, it's
sandwiched between verses on child sacrifice and bestiality. Both
things no Liberal would view absurd to consider a Sin, but the latter we
would have no direct Biblical basis for condemning if we went only by the New Testament. Same with the earlier Incest laws.
Don't misunderstand me, I have a position on the issue of where Christians should follow the Law that is not popular in the Hebrew Roots movement. But it is irrelevant here, because the Law was not condemning all Same-Sex affection in the first place. I believe you can be a practicing Homosexual and still keep Kosher or be a Torah Observant Christian.
So what's condemned
in Leviticus 18 I do view as a sin, and as much a sin now as it ever
was. But I don't view it as a blanket condemnation of all Homosexual,
Homoerotic or Homo-romantic affection. Thing is I feel the New Testament references I'll need to discus latter are drawing on this Leviticus law, so
Leviticus needs to be understood here.
"As with a Woman" is a qualifying statement. So the broadest possible application is that it condemns male on male penetration.
Rashi (1040-1105)...
in his commentary on Leviticus 20:13 explains that “as one would with a
woman” means “if he inserts [sc: his membrum] like a stick into a tube”
(a quote from the Talmud, Baba Metzia. 91a) which refers to an
applicator inserted into a tube of kohl.
The other Leviticus
chapter in question is 20, which is clearly Israel's Civil Law. I also
believe that on this side of the Cross
capital punishment is no longer
permitted.
Most
people don’t see it as significant that the wording of the alleged
condemnations of same sex intercourse are all clearly male gender
specific. But I believe what The Bible doesn't say can be important. Leviticus
18:23, the verse on bestiality that immediately follows the verse
commonly cited as condemning homosexuality, does risk sounding redundant
to make it absolutely clear that both men and women are forbidden to
lay with animals. Yet verse 22 only appears to refer to "men lying with
males", no female equivalent. So logically in my view we have two
options, either women are allowed to do something men aren't, or the
common modern understanding of the verse is incorrect. While there
could be good reasons to argue for the first option (and I'm surprised
more people haven't), I feel the second is the correct one as I shall
explain.
There are two sections to Leviticus 18. The first
section is sexual sins, mainly incest but a few others are addressed.
Then the focus shifts to Idolatry. Here is the thing, verse 21 is where
the change of subject occurs. So while the first two verses after that
do have a sexual element to them, it’s not as sexual sins they're being
addressed but as idolatrous sins. And that is key to understanding them.
The KJV rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is
“Thou shalt not
lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Before I get
into studying the text, I want to point out that even in this English
rendering, "as with Womankind" is clearly at most specifically only
referring to one specific kind of sex act, penetrative intercourse of some
form. ( "lying" alone in Biblical terminology would be enough to imply we
were dealing with something sexual.) It means the one thing men can do
together that can be seen as an imitation of the unique sex act only a
man and woman can do.
Now bare with me because I’m going to have to break down pretty much every word here.
The
first word I’ll address is actually the last, "Abomination".
Abomination has become a very loaded word in modern English, being
commonly used in Frankenstein type Sci-Fi stories to basically mean a
raping of nature itself. And this connotation is what’s meant by how
the word is commonly emphasized when certain people quote
this verse. A number of Hebrew words are translated abomination, none
of them mean unnatural or anything like that, they're all about idolatry.
The “Abomination of Desolation” uses a noun that is clearly a Hebrew
derogatory term for an Idol itself, but the word translated
"Abomination" here is more about the acts affiliated with Canaanite pagan customs and how God
views them very negatively.
While I rejected above writing off
this entire command by comparing it to the dietary and other ceremonial
laws. I do think it's valid to address the
over emphasis on the word Abomination here by pointing to how it is also
used of those kinds of restrictions in the Torah. Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever
hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination
unto you." Technically that one is a different word in the Hebrew, but
to the most absolute of KJV onliers that is irrelevant. Deuteronomy
14:3 does use the same Hebrew word as Leviticus 18 talking about dietary
restrictions, there it is translated "abominable thing". It's also used in Ezekiel 43-44 to refer to Uncircumcised gentiles entering The Temple.
I actually think a more accurate translation of the word would be "taboo".
The word
rendered "lie" is translated perfectly.
The word rendered "mankind" is
Zakar (Strong # 2145), technically accurate, but based on the first
time Zakar is used (Genesis 1) I personally
would translate it male or masculine. The word translated "womankind" is ishshah
(Strong # 802), again technically accurate but I’d just render it woman,
it is also the word for wife. Both are gender identifying words, as
you’d expect, but the thing is they're not their main counterparts to each
other. Zakar is usually paired with Naqebah (Strong # 5347) including
when it‘s first used in Genesis 1:27. Which I would always translate
female. And ishshah is the feminine form of iysh (Strong # 376) which
is translated both man and husband. Technically none of that makes a
drastic difference in the meanings of the words used, but I feel if the
gender distinction was all God was concerned with here, he would have
been more consistent in what terms he used.
The word translated
"with" is Mishkab (Strong # 4904), in the verse in chapter 20 this is
rendered "lieth". And both those renderings are off, they're not even the
right kind of word, it’s a noun not a verb. Of the 46 times the word
appears in the Masorectic Hebrew text, 34 of them the KJV accurately
translates it bed, 4 times it’s rendered bedchamber and once it’s
rendered couch. The two Leviticus verses supposedly about Homosexuality
are simply two of 7 verses where the KJV translated it as a
verb.
I’m not of course the first person
to question the common interpretation of this verse, but my approach is
different from many. Some have suggested the real intent here is to
condemn a husband making love to a male in his wife’s bed. Because in the
ancient world the bed in which a married couple made love was
considered the wife’s bed, her property or domain. Such concepts do
carry over into medieval and renaissance times, you see it on The Tudors
in fact. I don’t believe that’s the main concern here, but it is
possibly relevant. And Hebrew 13:4 does refer to keeping the marriage Bed undefiled.
According to some super-literal interlinear bibles (
like this one), the Hebrew uses a feminine pronoun before Tovah. So that could support the idea that it's a sin against the woman who's bed is being refereed to.
Now I refer everyone back to the last section
of t
he Sodom and Gomorrah post. What I and many scholars believe is
that what’s in mind here is the same practice being performed by the
Qadesh male temple prostitutes. The context of idolatry to these verses
already established makes that likely, but here is the thing. Specific
details of the ceremony often involved the prostitute dressing in
female clothing like it was her wedding night, and engaging in the
sexual act in a sacred bed said to be the bed of Astarte.
Now for Leviticus 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.”
The part I put in italics is different in how the KJV renders it, but in
the Hebrew is basically identical to 18:22, so just copy and paste
everything I said about that. I also already addressed the death
penalty aspect.
The word at the beginning rendered "man" is iysh. That word is sometimes translated Husband. I've heard some suggest you have to be married for it to apply but I don't feel quite convinced of that. I know one website online dedicating to arguing this is only about Adultery, I don't feel that works with my understanding of how The Bible defines Adultery.
So
while homosexual intercourse is relevant, It’s more specific then that.
The context is describing a Pagan ritual. To some being involved in a
Pagan ritual is enough to condemn it altogether. In my view that's
flawed logic, Pagan rituals did many things, including many things very
much the same as the Israelites did in worshiping YHWH. Skeptics of the
Bible like to point those things out to say the Israelites just grew out of
the Canaanite culture. That claim doesn't hold up of course.
The
Law does condemn many things specifically citing usage in Canaanite
rituals as the reason. Most notably that the Israelites were NOT to
build altars to the LORD on High Places (mountain tops or hill tops).
But in Ezekiel 40-48, when Paganism no longer even exists (and clearly
the very geography of Israel has changed) God's Temple is on a High
Place. But this command doesn't make doing anything on a High Place a
Sin, acts of Worship even of the True God are advised against there.
But it's not a Sin to build a house on a hill top, or to even walk on
one. It's just about how to properly worship.
Leviticus 18:24
and to the end of the Chapter clearly defines the earlier commands in
those same terms. "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for
in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And
the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it,
and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."
But you may be
thinking, "in that case isn't beastiality in the same position"? An
animal can't consent to sexual relations with a human, beastality is
therefore inherently an act of Rape. So even if there never was a
single Bible verse specifically on it, Christians should consider
it wrong for the same reasons any other act that is abusive to animals
is wrong.
At the most, you might
might be able to
convince me it's condemning Anal sex. It is only that form of male on
male sex that is viewed as imitating the unique act only a man and a
woman can perform. Society has a tendency to view anal sex and male
homosexuality as synonymous. But this stereotype is in fact a very
flawed assumption, and some studies have shown that only a minority of
Gay or Bi men engage in it or like it at all.
Example, Magnus
Hirschfeld, in his 1914 work, The Homosexuality of Men and Women,
reported the rate of anal sex among homosexual men surveyed
to be 8%, the least favored of all the practices documented. (William
A. Percy and John Lauritsen, Review in The Gay & Lesbian Review,
November–December 2002) Likewise, some scholars state that oral sex and
mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men
in long-term relationships, and that, in general, anal intercourse is
more popular among homosexual male couples than among heterosexual
couples, but that "it ranks behind oral sex and mutual masturbation"
among both sexual orientations in prevalence. By the 1950s in the
United Kingdom, it was thought that about fifteen percent of male
homosexuals had anal sex. Other studies very, some about 50/50 and some
more recent ones do imply a majority do it, (as if it's popularity has
been increasing, perhaps simply from society telling them they're supposed
to do it). But all clearly have a large number who do not.
Many
Christians view how the risk of HIV and other STDs are higher with Gay
men is itself proof that something is wrong with it. Of course they
ignore that those same statistics have Lesbian intercourse as far less
risky then Heterosexual. At any rate those statistics are flawed, being
in part skewed by gay men being more likely to get tested because they
believe they're at a greater risk. And the degree to which it is the case is only because of the Anal sex as I discussed above, which does have other health risks too.
But
that is a big maybe. I stick to my argument that it is the Pagan
ritual sex being condemned here. Which contrary to what you might
assume does still go on today, in different ways but it does.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts.
Among them was the alleged cult "Children of God", also known as "The
Family", who called this practice "Flirty Fishing". They later abolished
the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic. (Williams, Miriam
(1998). Heaven's Harlots. New York: William Morrow/ Harper Collins. p.
320.) In Ventura County, California, Wilbur and Mary Ellen Tracy
established their own temple, "the Church Of The Most High Goddess", in
the wake of what they described as a divine revelation. Sexual acts
played a fundamental role in the church's sacred rites, which were
performed by Mary Ellen Tracy herself in her assumed role of High
Priestess. Local newspaper articles about the Neopagan church quickly
aroused the attention of local law enforcement officials, and in April
1989, the Tracys' house was searched and the couple arrested on charges
of pimping, pandering and prostitution. They were subsequently convicted
in a trial in state court and sentenced to jail terms: Wilbur Tracy for
180 days plus a $1,000.00 fine; Mary Ellen Tracy for 90 days plus
mandatory screening for STDs.
"Hieros gamos" (holy marriage) and
"Sex Magik" also exist in modern Neo-Pagan and occult movements, just search for those two terms on Wikipedia. As a
Libertarian I disagree with such activity being criminalized, on among
other things First Amendment grounds. But to a Jew or a Christian it is
sinful, being a violation of the first two commandments, and something we should not do.
And interesting Hermetic Sex Magick is often a plot point in Eroge Visual Novels where Magick is a theme. Like ones from Type Moon. So the idea is far from dead.
