MORE DETAILS |
Summary of this page
Overview
Some people use 2 verses in the Biblical book of Leviticus
(chapter 18, verse 22 and chapter 20, verse 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 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 verses forbid only male-male penetration. One
can’t 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.
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 similar to the way a woman was penetrated
was thought to reduce the penetrated man from the high
status of a man to the lower status of a woman. This
brought shame 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 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 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 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 only
sex between men as part of 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.
- Calling sex between men abomination simply means that
such sex is disgusting with idolatrous overtones. It does
not mean that the prohibition is therefore limited to sex
between men and sacred male prostitutes during pagan
idol worship. This is confirmed by abomination again being
used 4 verses later (verse 26) where it refers to all the
prohibited actions in the Chapter.
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. (this is false)
This “comply with all laws or comply with no laws” option was 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
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 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. 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.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |