MORE DETAILS |
Summary of this page
Overview
Some people use 2 verses in the Biblical book of
Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) to say that
homosexuality is sinful and homosexuals are bad.
But the verses do not say or imply this. They do not refer
to homosexuality as an orientation, or to homosexuals, or
to any sex between men except for penetration. In fact,
each verse only says that a man must not have sex with a
male as a woman would, i.e. he must not allow himself to
be anally penetrated.
However, this prohibition on male-male penetration does
not apply to straight, bisexual and gay men today
because:
(a) it was a cultural prohibition of that time, and
(b) no harm is done if the persons act with love and care.
How do we know that Leviticus 18:22 and
Leviticus 20:13 prohibit only penetrative
(anal) intercourse between males and not all
male-male sex?
- The main reason that the Leviticus verses refer only
to men penetrating men has been fully set out in
papers* by Saul Olyan and Jerome Walsh. In brief,
the verses only prohibit a male having sex (lying)
with another male when the sex is (literally) the
lyings of a woman.
- The phrase the lyings of a woman is the opposite
of the lying of a male, which in the Old Testament
(e.g. Numbers 31:17–18, 35, and Judges 21:11–
12) means a male doing vaginal penetration. The
opposite of this is female vaginal receptivity – the
meaning of the lyings of a woman. The male
equivalent of vaginal receptivity is anal receptivity.
Therefore the Leviticus verses prohibit a male from
being anally penetrated by another male.
- The death penalty for contravening the prohibition
implies that the intercourse is anal penetration. It is
unlikely that the death penalty would have been
prescribed for anything less than penetration.
- Note that the use of lying refers to the act of lying
down on a couch, bier, or bed for sexual contact.
This horizontal position would imply penetrative
contact more than non-penetrative contact.
- The references are to sex between males. There is
no similar reference to sex between females. This
implies that the type of sexual intercourse is one
which can be done by males but not by females
(unless the females use an instrument). That is,
penetration is implied.
- Also note the context. All the other sexual offences
(incest, adultery and bestiality) in Leviticus 18 and
20 involve full penetrative intercourse. To be
consistent, male-male intercourse would also
involve full penetrative intercourse.
- The restriction of these verses to anal intercourse is
the traditional Jewish Talmud interpretation.
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a refers to a man
lying with a male as with a woman and there being
only one kind of (sexual) connection between
males. The Talmud rabbis said that sexual
practices between males, other than anal
intercourse, were not prohibited by the Torah
(Leviticus, etc) and only came under the category of
masturbation, whether solo or involving more than
one man.**
- Traditional Christian and Jewish belief is that God
dictated Leviticus to Moses with every word being
included for a reason. It can therefore be argued
that had God wanted to prohibit all sex between
men, the verses would have simply stated that a
man shall not lie (have sex) with a male. Instead,
the addition of the words as a woman would lie with
a man restricts the prohibited form of sex to the
male equivalent (anal intercourse) of how a woman
usually has sex with a man (vaginal intercourse).
These Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 verses forbid only male-
male penetration. One cannot assume that other forms of
male-male sexual activity are also forbidden.
* Olyan, Saul M “'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying
Down of a Woman': On the Meaning and Significance of
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13," in Que(e)rying Religion: A Critical
Anthology, ed. G. D. Comstock and S. E. Henking, 398-414,
513-24.
Walsh, Jerome T. “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who Is Doing
What To Whom?” Journal of Biblical Literature 120/2 (2001),
201–209. Can also see the article here (pdf)
** Daniel Boyarin “Are there any Jews in ‘The History of
Sexuality’?”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol 5 no. 3
(1995) 339.
What were the reasons for this prohibition on
male-male penetrative sex?
The only certain reason for this prohibition on one man
sexually penetrating another man (anal sex) is given in
Leviticus 18:3 and 24, where God tells the Israelites that
they must not follow the practices (presumably bad) of the
people of Egypt or Canaan and are not to defile
themselves in any of the ways referred to in the Chapter,
which would include one man sexually penetrating another
man. It would appear that complying with the prohibition
would help maintain a pure, holy and stable community,
separate from its neighbors.
Other reasons which have been speculated for this
prohibition are:
- In Mediterranean countries in Old Testament times,
the male sexual role was seen as that of active
penetrator and the female role was seen as that of
passively being penetrated. Therefore one man
sexually penetrating another man was thought to
reduce the penetrated man from the high status of a
man (penetrator) to the lower status of a woman
(penetrated). This brought shame, humiliation and
dishonor on the penetrated man.
- One man sexually penetrating another man was
believed to be an abomination because it violated
the God–given order of things in society and
confused or ignored the boundaries of clearly
assigned male and female sexual roles. The man
being penetrated was thought to be crossing from
the God-given category of male (and how a male
should act) to the God-given category of female
(and how a female should act) thus confusing the
categories and he no longer being seen as wholly
male. In other words, his masculine identity was
undermined. The penetrator was also acting
wrongly by helping the penetrated man to cross the
gender (sex role) boundaries.
- A similar gender differentiation argument stresses
that males and females (and their sexual organs)
were created to complement each other. (These
God-given categories are part of the Creation story
but note that Leviticus 18 and 20 do not directly
refer to the Creation).
A good explanation of mixing and purity and male
honor is given in this article.
- The placing of the prohibition on one man sexually
penetrating another man (verse 22) between the
prohibition on offering one’s seed (children or
semen) to Molech (verse 21) and the prohibition on
bestiality (verse 23) indicates that the compiler of
these laws, and probably the Israelite community
generally, saw sex between men as a non-standard
way of sexual intercourse. The standard way was
sex between a man and a woman as explained in
Genesis 1:28 and 2:24.
- Men penetrating men reminded people of the
practice of strong or unruly men sometimes raping
weaker men, by forced anal sex, to show their
power and to degrade, shame or humiliate the
weaker men as it was treating them like women.
This was attempted at Sodom (Genesis 19:4–9)
and Gibeah (Judges 19:22–25).
- One man sexually penetrating another man was
wasting semen instead of its being used in its
divinely intended purpose of procreation in
marriage. It was important that the Israelite tribes
increase their population in order to survive.
However Leviticus contains no prohibition on male
masturbation, coitus interruptus, male-female anal
intercourse or other non-vaginal ejaculatory sexual
acts. So wasting semen was apparently not a
major concern.
- One man sexually penetrating another man would
result in the mixing of defiling emissions (excrement
and semen) in the receptive body, thus violating the
Israelite purity code. However it seems unlikely that
this was considered as a major reason because
there would be the same type of mixing in male-
female anal intercourse, which was not prohibited.
- One man sexually penetrating another man was an
improper use of semen. In fact all sexual acts
prohibited in Chapters 18 and 20 involve an
improper use of semen. This explains why female-
female sex is not prohibited, why giving one’s seed
(semen) to Molech is prohibited and why instances
of sexual crime are ignored where no improper use
of semen is made, e.g. seduction. For further
details of this point see Martin Cohen, "The Biblical
Prohibition of Homosexual Intercourse," Journal of
Homosexuality, 1990, Vol 19(4), p 3-20.
- The Leviticus prohibition on one man sexually
penetrating another man covered both men. This
was a wider prohibition than in nearby cultures,
where usually only being penetrated was prohibited
or despised. Doing the penetrating was okay in
these cultures. This difference was one of the ways
in which the ancient Israelites tried to keep
themselves separate from other peoples.
Literal translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:
13
(Leviticus 18:22)
And .. male .. no lie down with .. lyings of woman ..
abomination it.
or
And .. with a male .. do not lie down .. the lyings of a
woman .. abomination it.
(Leviticus 20:13)
And .. man .. who lies down with .. male .. lyings of woman
.. abomination .. committed .. both of two .. put to death ..
guilt .. exists.
or
And a man who lies down .. the lyings of a woman .. with a
male .. abomination .. both of them .. have done .. put to
death .. their blood on them.
Stages in the translation of Leviticus 18:22
And .. male .. no lie down with .. lyings of woman ..
abhorrent it.
And .. with male .. no lie down lyings of woman ..
abhorrent it.
And .. with male no lie down as woman lies .. abhorrent it.
And .. with male have no sex as woman has sex (i.e. by
being penetrated) .. disgusting it.
And with a male you (a male) must not have passive anal
sex– it is disgusting.
And don’t let a man penetrate you (a male) – it is
disgusting.
Notes on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
- The above interpretation of the prohibition (a man
should not let another man penetrate him) varies
slightly from the traditional interpretation (a man
should not have sex with a man as one does with a
woman). The first interpretation directs the
prohibition at the man who might be penetrated.
The traditional interpretation directs the prohibition
at the man who might do the penetrating. However
even if one sticks with the traditional interpretation,
the basic conclusion is still the same, i.e. men
should not have penetrative sex with men.
- As expressed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the
prohibition only applied to penetrative (anal) sex
between males – straight, bisexual or gay. It did not
apply to any other forms of male sex, e.g. oral sex,
mutual masturbation, foreplay, intercrural sex
(between the thighs), deep kissing, fondling or
sexual touching.
- Also, the prohibition did not apply to sex between
females.
- Note that Leviticus 20:13 implies that both men
willingly contravene the prohibition.
- The death penalty for male-male penetration in
Leviticus 20:13 also applied to 8 other offences in
that chapter, including cursing one’s parents.
However the Bible has no record of the death
penalty being applied for male-male penetration. In
fact, the Bible records no instances of male-male
penetration even occurring.
False views or misconceptions about this
prohibition on male-male penetrative sex
Most of the following views (in italics) are those of people
who wish to minimize the significance of this prohibition
on male-male penetrative sex.
Leviticus 18 and 20 only prohibit sex between men as
part of idol worshipping ceremonies. (this is false)
There is a widespread view that Leviticus 18 and 20
prohibit male-male sex only when used during idol
worshipping ceremonies (ritual prostitution). The main
arguments supporting this view are:
- The word abomination is mostly used in the early
books of the Bible to describe worship of idols.
Therefore Leviticus 18:22 calling sex between men
abomination means that it is restricted to sex
between men and sacred male prostitutes during
pagan idol worship.
- The prohibition on sex between men in chapter 18
comes immediately after the prohibition on parents
dedicating their children to the pagan god Molech.
Such dedication would involve the children
becoming sacred male prostitutes who would have
male-male sex. This ties in with the subsequent
prohibition on sex between men.
- Many of the death penalty offences in Leviticus 20
are repeated in Deuteronomy. The offence of sex
between men is repeated in the form of a command
that no Israelite man or woman is to become a
sacred prostitute. Sacred male prostitutes would
have male-male sex.
Why this view is mistaken:
- The prohibition on sex between men is not explicitly
stated as applying only in idol worshipping
ceremonies. Therefore it applies whether or not
idolatry is involved. Also, the expanded version of
the prohibition in Leviticus 20:13 is placed in the
middle of the sex laws, well away from the
prohibition in that chapter on parents dedicating
their children to the god Molech.
- The prohibition in Leviticus 18 is on men not letting
themselves be anally penetrated by other men. This
rules out the prohibition meaning that men
customers are not to anally penetrate sacred male
prostitutes. While it could apply to sacred male
prostitutes being penetrated while taking the female
goddess or priestess role, the prohibition would
also apply outside these ceremonies.
- Abomination (very disgusting, horrible) is used to
describe penetrative sex between men because the
ancient Israelites thought it disgusting that the
penetrated man was acting sexually like a woman
(by being penetrated) instead of like a man. It was
disgusting because, in their culture, a man was
thought superior to a woman and the penetrated
man was lowering his status or rejecting his
manhood.* This reason for the use of abomination
makes it unnecessary to invent another reason
involving sex between men and sacred male
prostitutes during pagan idol worship.
* Another example of prohibiting a man from acting like a
woman is in Deuteronomy 22:5, which states it is an
abomination for a man to wear woman's clothing (and vice-
versa).
People should either comply with all the laws in
Leviticus (including the prohibitions on male-male
penetrative sex, the eating of certain foods and wearing
blended fabrics) or comply with none of the laws.
Alternatively, these laws have to be kept only by the
Israelites to whom they were given. (this is false)
The “comply with all laws or comply with no laws” option
and the “Israelites only” option were ruled out by the early
church in about 50 CE. That church decided that non-
Jews who became Christians would have to follow some,
but not all, of the Old Testament (Jewish) laws. They
could not eat food offered to idols or food from strangled
animals or containing blood and they should not be
sexually immoral. This last requirement meant that they
should follow the Old Testament laws on sexual conduct.
See Acts 15:13-30
While the early church prohibited male-male penetrative
sex, this prohibition does not apply today.
Leviticus 18 and 20 only prohibit a heterosexual man
from penetrating another man for pleasure. (this is false)
There is nothing in these chapters to support this view.
Leviticus 18 and 20 are unfair because they condemn a
man who is forced to take part in penetrative sex, i.e he
is raped. (this is false)
Such a man is not condemned because the prohibition in
Chapter 18 says you must not let another man penetrate
you (literally, with male no lie down as woman lies).
Similarly the prohibition in Chapter 20 literally starts a
man who lies down as woman lies .. with a male .. . In
both cases the command is given to the passive man and
it is implied that he is able to consent to be penetrated.
Mutual consent is implied by the words their blood on
them or their blood is on their own heads i.e. they did it
while knowing the consequences of their actions.
Therefore if a man does not consent to be penetrated, he
is not condemned.
Leviticus 18 and 20 condemn sex between men only
when the men are close relatives. (this is false)
The prohibition on sex between men is not explicitly
stated as applying only when the men are close relatives.
Therefore it applies to all men.
Leviticus 18 and 20 are a general condemnation of
homosexuality and all homosexual sex acts and
desires (this is false)
As shown above, these verses prohibit only penetrative
sex between males and not all male-male sex. The
verses do not refer to homosexual orientation or desires.
Therefore the prohibition is not a general condemnation
of homosexuality or homosexual orientation or affection.
It is also not a condemnation of other forms of sex
between males, or of sex between females. This totally
contrasts to other cases in the Bible where desires lead
to sin, such as coveting of your neighbour’s possessions
can lead to theft and lusting after your neighbour’s wife
can lead to adultery.
Other interpretations
The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance give
excellent background accounts and various
interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.
Author: Colin Smith
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
