Did Leviticus prohibit homosexuality?
Introduction
Leviticus contains a prohibition against some sort of sexual activity between males. Does this justify the claim that it prohibited homosexuality?
The text
The prohibition appears in two places, the second with a penalty. Quoting the NIV:
“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (1822)
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (2013)
For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the NIV translation is more or less accurate. As a literature search will reveal, this is not guaranteed, but it is the best we have.
It is instructive to compare this with the prohibition against sex with animals:
“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” (1823)
“If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (2015–16)
Discussion
1. Sexual orientation vs sexual behaviour
Firstly, to ask whether the text “prohibited homosexuality” is meaningless. I deliberately posed the question that way to point this out and because I have come across claims of that nature. Homosexuality at the time of writing is understood as a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation “refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes” [1]. Since people cannot control who they are attracted to, it is futile to “prohibit” attraction, let alone one’s capacity for emotion or romance.
What the text prohibited was certain behaviour. It is important to realize that while same-sex behaviour most commonly occurs in modern times between people who are mutually sexually or romantically attracted, this has not consistently been the case. There have been cases such as Athenian pederasty where most commonly only one partner was attracted to the other, and cases such as seen among the Romans where very often sexual attraction was not even the reason for the act. Although this may seem like a technicality, to be on safe ground we should focus on the behaviour itself, not on the reasons for it. Leviticus as translated appears to neither excuse nor prohibit the act for any particular reason.
2. Scope of the prohibition
Secondly, if we hypothesize that the Israelites had a ban on all same-sex acts, then we would have expected a prohibition of the form “men, don’t lie with men; women, don’t lie with women”. In the prohibition on sex with animals, that it precisely what we see. Both men and women were prohibited from doing it.
Instead, not only is the prohibition on same-sex acts limited to men, but the wording has a further limitation. It does not say “Do not have sexual relations with a man”, it says “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman”. Again, comparing to the ban on animals, we do not see “If a man has sexual relations with an animal as one does with a woman” but simply “If a man has sexual relations with an animal” without further limitation. That means that if in principle two men did it differently to how a man did it with a woman, they would have avoided the prohibition.
In patriarchal societies, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman was seen as having a masculine penetrator role and a feminine penetrated role. If a man sexuality penetrated another man, the latter was seen as taking a female role. What this rule appears to ban is a male penetrating another male. It may well have only been understood as a ban on anal intercourse.
What would have this prohibition meant for two Israelite men who were sexually attracted? If and until archaeological evidence one day sheds some light, we do not know. At least on the basis of the wording of the text as translated above, it is obvious that sexual intercourse involving penetration was prohibited. But there is no evidence that it banned non-penetrative methods of satisfying each other. And there is no evidence that two sexually attracted women had any limitation imposed on them at all.
A literature search will reveal that others have understood the prohibition in this way … along with a dozen other possible ways. Regardless of which interpretation is correct, the fact that we do not see what we would have expected under our hypothesis indicates that our hypothesis is wrong: there was no blanket ban on all same-sex acts.
3. Is it relevant today?
Finally, is any of this even relevant? Since the Law of Moses as a body of binding rules has been annulled (Eph 215, Rom 76) and replaced by Christ’s new commandment (John 1334), it makes no difference what Leviticus does or doesn’t say. Right and wrong is not to be seen as based on rules (Rom 76) but on personal character (Gal 522–23) that seeks to do good and not to harm (Rom 138–10). Indeed it was always this way (Mat 2240, 1 John 27), and it will be how Jesus will distinguish his followers (Mat 2534–36). The early church perceived imposing Levitical rules on believers as angering God (Acts 1510). Thus whether any translation of a command in Leviticus is accurate or not or whether any interpretation is right or wrong is irrelevant. “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 56, RSV).
Conclusion
There is no evidence that Leviticus prohibited all same-sex acts, let alone same-sex attraction. The wording of the text as commonly translated suggests a ban on something more specific involving males only, probably anal intercourse. How people with minority sexual orientations should live their lives is a question the church needs to address, but the issue should not be decided on the basis of an obsolete law code. It should be explored on the basis of love and compassion alone.
References
[1] American Psychological Association. Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality. 2008. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
Comments
Post a Comment