MORE DETAILS |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Summary of this page
Overview
The Bible does not criticize or condemn 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 condemnation 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)
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
acts criticized are 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 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 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.
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 stops the spread
of certain congenital defects or avoids father/son or sibling
rivalry over sex partners. Similarly, prohibiting adultery stops
one man 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
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 fact
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