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
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
