MORE DETAILS |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Summary of this page
Overview
The Bible does not criticize or prohibit any form of sex
between men (including oral sex, deep kissing, fondling
and mutual masturbation) except for male-male
penetration (anal intercourse). This criticism or
prohibition applies whether the men involved are gay,
straight or bisexual.
Biblical references to sex between men are:
- The men of Sodom called to Lot, “Where are the
men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us
so that we may know them (have sex with them)."
(Genesis 19:5)
- Men of the city (Gibeah) …. said to the old man, the
master of the house, "Bring out the man who came
to your house so that we may know him (have sex
with him)." (Judges 19:22)
- Do not lie (have sex) with a male as a woman
would. (Or Don’t let another man penetrate you.) It
is disgusting. (Leviticus 18:22)
- If a man lies (has sex) with a male as a woman
would, both of them have done a disgusting thing.
They shall certainly be put to death and their blood
shall be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
- …… the males also abandoning natural sexual
intercourse with females, were inflamed with lust for
one another. Males acted shamefully with males
and received in themselves the appropriate
payback for their error. (Romans 1:27)
- …… wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God
… males who have sex with males …. will not
inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)
- …. law is made …. for …. males who have sex with
males ….(1 Timothy 1:9–10)
Note that the Leviticus verses prohibit male-male sex, the
Sodom and Gibeah stories express a strong dislike of
male-male rape, and the verses in Romans, 1
Corinthians and 1 Timothy criticize (but do not prohibit)
male-male sex.
How do we know that these verses refer to
males penetrating males and not to other
forms of sex between males?
Genesis and Judges
- The men of Sodom called to Lot, “Where are the
men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to
us so that we may know them (have sex with
them)." (Genesis 19:5)
Men of the city …. said to the old man, the master
of the house, "Bring out the man who came to your
house so that we may know him (have sex with
him)." (Judges 19:22)
In the Sodom story (Genesis) and the story in Judges,
men say that they wish to know another man or men. In
each case, a woman or women are offered to the men to
have sex with instead of the man or men they asked for.
It is therefore clear that know here means to have sex with
someone. In certain other places in the early books of
the Bible (Genesis 19:8, 24:16 and 38:26 and Judges 19:
25) know means that a man has penetrative vaginal
intercourse with a woman. Similarly, a man would know
another man in a sexual way by having penetrative anal
intercourse with him.
Leviticus
- Do not lie (have sex) with a male as a woman
would. (Or Don’t let another man penetrate you.)
It is disgusting. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies (has sex) with a male as a woman
would, both of them have done a disgusting thing.
They shall certainly be put to death and their
blood shall be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:
13)
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 seems unlikely
that the death penalty would have been prescribed for
anything less than penetration.
Note that the use of lying (Strong’s Number 4904) 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
Romans
- …… the males also abandoning natural sexual
intercourse with females, were inflamed with lust
for one another. Males acted shamefully with
males and received in themselves the appropriate
payback for their error. (Romans 1:27)
sexual intercourse with women. Their subsequent activity
is described in euphemistic terms such as inflamed with
lust for one another and males acted shamefully with
males (literally males in males working out the shameful
act).
While not explicitly stated, it is most likely that the male
sex act criticized is the male equivalent of their former
vaginal intercourse with women, i.e. males having anal
intercourse with males. Other forms of sex between
males would not be covered.
The reference to males acted shamefully with males
implies penetration because it reflects the ancient Greco-
Roman concept that the passive man was being
penetrated like a woman and this was a shameful thing
for a man to allow or experience. It also repeats the
criticism of males having sex with males in 1 Corinthians
and 1 Timothy and the prohibition on men penetrating
men in Leviticus.
1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
- …… wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
God … males who have sex with males …. will not
inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)
…. law is made … for … males who have sex with
males …(1 Timothy 1:9–10)
Both verses criticize males who have sex with males.
One Greek word (arsenokoitai) used for such people
literally means males-bed or male-bedders, i.e. males
who go to bed with males for sex. The word comes from
the Leviticus verses prohibiting men penetrating men and
therefore has a similar meaning here. Note that the King
James Version translates the word as abusers of
themselves with mankind. A second Greek word
(malakoi), used in 1 Corinthians only, literally means soft
men and, in this context, means men who are anally
penetrated by other men.
Therefore the 2 words used in 1 Corinthians cover both
the man who does the anal penetration and the man who
is penetrated. In 1 Timothy only the man who penetrates
is criticized.
What were the reasons for the prohibition on
men penetrating men in Leviticus?
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 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 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.
Why did people dislike the practice of men
penetrating men in Bible times and why do
they often still do so today?
The Bible does not say, and other sources do not reveal
any predominant special reason. Reasons for disliking
such intercourse could include the following:
- There is a view that men should act like they are
supposed to act, especially when having sex. In
other words, a man should penetrate and a woman
should be penetrated. Therefore if a man is
penetrated by another man, he is thought to be
acting like a woman. (This is emphasized in the
Leviticus prohibitions). This is interpreted by some
people as crossing sex-role boundaries (breaching
gender differentiation) and by other people as
bringing shame to male honor (breaching gender
stratification). This concept of men acting like men
and not like women, seems to be common across
cultures and throughout history.
- Some people claim that men and women were
created by God to complement one another,
anatomically and in other ways. They state that
anatomical complementarity (where one body part
fits into another) can only be achieved by men
having vaginal sex with women, not by men having
anal sex with men. These people also point to God’
s instruction that men and women should form
family units and have sex to produce children. This
would rule out men having sex with men.
- 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). This practice was also
expressed by soldiers sometimes raping defeated
enemy soldiers.
- The gut–feeling that it is unnatural for men to
penetrate men, especially as it is done by a
minority and is felt by many to be dirty and unclean.
Men who do this are often disliked (as “others") as
they are thought to be different from the majority.
They can cause fear or anxiety when viewed as non-
conformists acting outside the boundaries or
expectations set by society. This is reinforced by
the fact that men penetrating men is against the
cultural mores and attitudes of many societies,
including their individuals and institutions.
- One man penetrating another man is wasting
semen instead of its being used in its divinely
intended purpose of procreation in marriage.
Alternatively, one man penetrating another man
results in the mixing of defiling emissions
(excrement and semen) in the receptive body, thus
violating the Israelite purity code.
- Men penetrating men reminded people of the
practice of men having sex with sacred male
prostitutes during pagan idol worship.
Responses to these reasons for disliking the
practice of men penetrating men
- First are the views that men should act like men, a
penetrated man is thought to be acting like a
woman, strong men or soldiers sometimes rape
weaker men or defeated enemy soldiers, and it is
unnatural for men to penetrate men. Although these
views about male sex roles are common across
cultures, they are still just cultural views, not eternal
truths. These views and attitudes are formed by the
views of families, ancestors, friends, and cultural
and religious institutions. It is recognized that these
views are still important in many cultures today.
- The claim that men and women were created by
God to complement one another, anatomically and
in other ways, is only part of the story. In fact, the
first woman was created to help and be a
companion to the first man, with the emphasis
being on the fact that both are the same species,
i.e. humans. Anatomical complementarity (the
sexual parts fitting) was obviously important or else
they could not have had children. Nevertheless the
creation story does not state or imply that male-
female complementarity is the only type there is.
- While male-female complementarity is important,
there is also male-male and female-female
complementarity, although they are not so strong
anatomically. Nevertheless the parts still fit when
men penetrate men. But same-sex
complementarity can be just as strong as opposite-
sex complementarity in non-sexual areas, e.g. in
interests and tastes. This follows from opposites
attracting each other, even if they are both male or
both female.
- While the Creation story in Genesis explains the
origin of marriage between men and women and its
primary purpose of having children, it does not refer
to any other forms of sexual intercourse. Therefore
one can’t use this story to say that other forms of
sexual intercourse, including men penetrating men,
are wrong.
- The argument that men penetrating each other
wastes semen instead of its being used for
procreation, is undermined by the Bible containing
no similar prohibition on semen being wasted by
male masturbation, coitus interruptus, male-female
anal intercourse or other non-vaginal ejaculatory
sexual acts. Also, as most men in Bible times were
married, they could still procreate children with their
wives as well as penetrating other men. Similarly,
the concept that men penetrating each other results
in the mixing of defiling emissions (excrement and
semen) in the receptive body, is also undermined
by there being no Biblical prohibition on male-
female anal intercourse, which would have the
same type of mixing.
- In regard to the practice of men having sex with
sacred male prostitutes, Leviticus prohibits men
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.
Is there any practical reason for the Biblical
prohibition on men penetrating men?
There appears to be no major practical reason to prohibit
male-male penetration other than to encourage having
children through male-female penetration. Most Biblical
prohibitions of specific sex practices can be seen to
have practical bases, e.g. the prohibition on incest aims
to stop the spread of certain congenital defects or avoid
father/son or sibling rivalry over sex partners. Similarly,
prohibiting adultery aims to stop one man from stealing
another man’s wife.
However, the only obvious practical reason for the
Biblical prohibition of male-male penetration is that its
practice could lower the birth rate of the community. All
the other reasons appear to be either religious (violation
of the God-given boundaries of male and female sexual
roles or males having sex with male cult prostitutes) or
ones of perception (men seeming to act like women
when having sex or anal sex being seen as dirty and
unhygienic).
In the following books or articles, the authors
agree that the Bible, especially Leviticus,
condemns only men penetrating men (anal
sex) and not other forms of sexual
intercourse between males
The page numbers (p) are those on which the authors
refer to men penetrating men.
Alter, Robert, The five books of Moses: a translation with
commentary, 2004, p 623, 632
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a and b
Boyarin, Daniel, “Are there any Jews in ‘The History of
Sexuality’?”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 5 no.
3 (1995) p 339, 343
Brooten, Bernadette, Love Between Women: Early
Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 1996,
p 61
Cohen, Martin, "The Biblical Prohibition of Homosexual
Intercourse," Journal of Homosexuality (1990) Vol 19(4)
p 6
Daube, David, "The Old Testament Prohibitions of
Homosexuality." Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur
Rechtsgeschichte Romantische Abteilung 103 (1986) p
447
Goss, Robert, Queering Christ: Beyond Jesus Acted
Up, 2002, p 190
Helminiak, Daniel, What the Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality, 2000, p 59
Josephus, Against Apion 2.199
Levine, Baruch, Leviticus, 1989, p 123
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 17-22, 2000, p 1568
Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A
Historical Perspective, 1998, p 44
Olyan, Saul, "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", Journal of the History of
Sexuality, vol. 5, no. 2, (1994) p 185
Philo, Abraham 135
Roughgarden, Joan, Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity,
Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People, 2003, p
373
Satlow, Michael, "'They Abused Him Like a Woman':
Homoeroticism, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis in Late
Antiquity." Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5.1 (1994)
p 5 note 12, 10.
Thurston, Thomas, "Leviticus 18:22 and the Prohibition of
Homosexual Acts," in Homophobia and the Judaeo-
Christian Tradition, ed. by Michael L. Stemmeler & J.
Michael Clark, 1990, p 16
Walsh, Jerome, “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who Is
Doing What To Whom?” Journal of Biblical Literature,
Volume 120, No. 2 (2001) p 208
On the other hand, it might be noted that very few authors
specifically say that the Bible condemns all forms of
sexual intercourse between males.
Although many authors say that the Bible condemns
homosexuality, they don’t say whether homosexuality
means same-sex orientation or same-sex activity or
both. This means that they don’t state what same-sex
activity means. Their attitude seems to reflect
uncertainty, intellectual laziness or anachronistic thinking.
Online sites which state that the Bible,
especially Leviticus, condemns only men
penetrating men (anal sex) and not other
forms of sexual intercourse between males
The abovementioned article by Jerome Walsh (pdf)
Interesting facts
There is no specific recorded case of same-sex
intercourse in early Judaism (from the Second Temple
period to c 300 CE). Regarding the possibility of Jews
engaging in this behavior, a text from the rabbinic Tosefta
comments simply: “Israel is not suspected” (Qiddushin 5:
10). Robert Gagnon
Nowhere in the historical Hebrew literature (Old
Testament) is homosexual behavior among consenting
males mentioned. More importantly, prophetic
denunciations of Israel's sins do not include homosexual
behavior. Charles D. Myers, Jr
Joke
I read an article that said one man in ten men is gay.
I thought, No, one man in one man is gay; one man in ten
men is a show off.
Sam Morril, June 2009
