Part 4
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.The second is Leviticus 20.13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.To some Christians, though, it seems odd to quote Leviticus as adequate evidence against homosexuality (or anything for that matter). But why is that?
Leviticus is part of the Torah, which translates as "law" or "instruction." The Torah is made up of the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In the Torah, we find extensive lists of laws that are believed to have been given to the Israelites directly from God. However, not all of the Torah is law. As we have seen, it also contains many narratives, such as the stories of creation as well as Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. The lengthy legal sections of the Torah can be found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy (although other laws can be found scattered throughout the Torah, such as the law of circumcision in Genesis). These laws are often not followed by Christians today, such as the prohibition of tattoos or trimming your beard. Many Christians view the laws in the Torah as outdated, and therefore see no reason to take its verses against homosexual intercourse seriously.
However, many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin believe that while many parts of the law are outdated, the Leviticus verses against homosexual intercourse are still relevant because they describe such acts as "abominations." To them, an abomination against God is just as relevant to Christians today as it was to the ancient Israelites.
But why would God consider homosexual intercourse an abomination for all peoples at all times? Generally speaking, Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin argue that marriage is a sacred institution established by God between one man and one woman. In other words, they think that the Torah labels homosexual intercourse as an abomination because it violates God's sacred rules for marriage.
Since we are trying to understand the historical context behind Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, we will explore three things. First, we will look at the Hebrew word for "abomination" and see how it is used in the Torah. Second, we will look at the Torah's laws regarding marriage to see if most Christians today do actually consider them sacred. And finally, we will explore why these verses against homosexuality would have been included in the Torah.
"Abominations"
In both Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, the term used for "abomination" is tow'ebah in Hebrew (sometimes spelled toevah). "Abomination" is not a bad translation: it means something disgusting or offensive. But like any word, it can mean different things in different contexts.Tow'ebah is used 112 times in the Bible, and 25 times in the Torah alone. Let's look at how the Torah uses the term "abomination" outside of the two Leviticus passages about homosexual intercourse (that's 23 uses of tow'ebah total).
Of these 23 instances, it is used 3 times to refer to cultural taboos for non-Israelite societies. For example, in Exodus Pharaoh tries to persuade Moses to sacrifice to God within Egypt rather than have the Israelites leave (which would mean Pharaoh losing his slaves). Moses refuses, saying that sacrificing to God was "offensive" (or a tow'ebah) to the Egyptians, and could result in hostility towards the Israelites.
Tow'ebah is used in the Torah 12 times to describe actions pertaining to ritualistic worship of God. These include laws prohibiting idol-making, the worship of other gods, adopting foreign worship customs, and the use of defected animals as sacrifices to God.
Tow'ebah is used 4 times in the Torah in specific laws that are unrelated to the ritualistic worship of God. According to the Torah, tow'ebah is used to describe "unclean" animals which were not to be eaten (including pigs and shellfish),[1] cross-dressing, a man remarrying a wife he has previously divorced after she has been "defiled" by another man, and using dishonest business practices.
In addition, tow'ebah is used 4 times in the Torah as a general term for actions that go against God's laws and commandments listed in Leviticus 18. These laws include prohibitions against incest, sexual intercourse with a woman on her period, child sacrifices to Molech (a Canaanite god), sexual intercourse between a man and a man (18.22, as quoted above), and sexual intercourse between humans and animals.
To review, Tow'ebah refers to something that is disgusting or offensive to a particular group or individual. While it can simply mean a cultural taboo, in the context of the laws in the Torah, tow'ebah is usually referring to rules regarding ritualistic worship practices. Sometimes, however, it applies to miscellaneous ethical rules, some of which most modern Christians either view as irrelevant today (such as not sacrificing animals with imperfections), or completely ignore (such as not eating pigs or shellfish). It can also sometimes serve as a general term for breaking God's laws listed in Leviticus 18, which was mostly concerned with sexual laws, but also with child sacrifices to another god.
It seems the Torah's list of "abominations" is not as straightforward as many modern Christians think. While many of the actions that are considered abominable by the Torah are still considered so today (such as incest or child sacrifices), many are not (such as eating bacon or having sex with a woman on her period).[2]
It doesn't seem so. When we read the Torah, marriage is never represented as the sacred institution like we think of it. What we do see in the Torah are rules treating marriage as a business agreement between a father and another man. For instance, according to the Torah if a man rapes a virgin who is not promised to another man, he must pay the girl's father 50 shekels and marry her without the option for divorce. While this was intended to be a law of mercy towards the woman (who would not likely have future prospects for a husband once she was no longer a virgin), it's hard for the modern reader to not feel uncomfortable by the you-break-it-you-buy-it policy applied to women and their virginity. Indeed, we also find in the Torah that if a man marries a woman and finds that she is not really a virgin, he can hold a public trial. If he is found to be lying, he must pay her father 100 shekels and will never be able to divorce her. If he is not, the woman must be put to death.
We also find laws in the Torah that allow for marriage practices that are considered ungodly by most Christians today, such as polygamy[3] and divorce. For instance, in Exodus we see that if a man decides to sell his daughter as a slave (which apparently was also okay by the Torah) to a man who intended to marry her, he must not treat her unfairly if he decides to buy another wife later. Likewise, we have already seen that the Torah allows for divorce except in special cases, such as if a man lies about his new wife's virginity in court, or when a man rapes a virgin and is forced to marry her.
Marriage
[[Okay, so not everything that the Bible labels as an "abomination" is still considered relevant today. But aren't Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 really prohibiting homosexual intercourse because it goes against the Torah's rules of marriage that are still relevant today?]]It doesn't seem so. When we read the Torah, marriage is never represented as the sacred institution like we think of it. What we do see in the Torah are rules treating marriage as a business agreement between a father and another man. For instance, according to the Torah if a man rapes a virgin who is not promised to another man, he must pay the girl's father 50 shekels and marry her without the option for divorce. While this was intended to be a law of mercy towards the woman (who would not likely have future prospects for a husband once she was no longer a virgin), it's hard for the modern reader to not feel uncomfortable by the you-break-it-you-buy-it policy applied to women and their virginity. Indeed, we also find in the Torah that if a man marries a woman and finds that she is not really a virgin, he can hold a public trial. If he is found to be lying, he must pay her father 100 shekels and will never be able to divorce her. If he is not, the woman must be put to death.
We also find laws in the Torah that allow for marriage practices that are considered ungodly by most Christians today, such as polygamy[3] and divorce. For instance, in Exodus we see that if a man decides to sell his daughter as a slave (which apparently was also okay by the Torah) to a man who intended to marry her, he must not treat her unfairly if he decides to buy another wife later. Likewise, we have already seen that the Torah allows for divorce except in special cases, such as if a man lies about his new wife's virginity in court, or when a man rapes a virgin and is forced to marry her.
It's pretty clear that to the ancient Israelites marriage was a business deal between men, and the women to be married were the goods—goods which happened to be much more valuable if they were in mint condition (i.e. were virgins). We have also seen that the Torah's laws allow for divorce as well as polygamy, which most Christians today view as sinful. It seems that the Torah's rules towards women and marriage are NOT taken seriously by most Christians today, regardless of their stance on gay marriage.
Homosexuality
[[Okay, so modern Christians generally don't take the Torah's laws about marriage all that seriously either. But that still leaves us wondering why these two laws forbidding homosexual intercourse were included in the Torah.]]Given that homosexuality is not frequently mentioned in the Bible, it is difficult to answer this question precisely. However, from reading the Old Testament as a whole we can find three factors that likely contributed to laws forbidding homosexual intercourse.
First, for the Israelites (as well as many other ancient cultures), legitimate sex was that which worked towards your familial lineage. Having descendants was a HUGE deal back then, as can be easily seen in the Bible (such as God's covenant with Abraham).[4] Indeed, the Torah promises both in Exodus and Deuteronomy that if Israel worships God and follows his laws that infertility and miscarriages would cease among them. Offspring was considered the primary purpose for sex, and homosexual intercourse would obviously not produce any lineage. As such, it would not have been considered a legitimate sexual practice in ancient Israel.
Second, there were rigid gender roles in Israelite society, and men were seen as far superior to women. As we have already seen, women were often thought of as property of their father/husband, and a man or woman mixing their gender roles by cross-dressing was considered an abomination. It's also worth pointing out that both Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 prohibit men from having sex with other men, not women from having sex with women. For a man to lower himself by taking the submissive role of a woman in sexual intercourse would have been seen as disgraceful in Israelite society.
Third, it's very possible that these verses were included to combat temple prostitution. Temple prostitutes were priests/priestesses of pagan gods that used sexual intercourse in their religious rituals. They appear many times in the Bible, and seem to have been a big problem in Israel. In Deuteronomy, we find this commandment:
None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God. (23.17-18, emphasis is my own)The word "abhorrent" here is also tow'ebah, the same word used to describe men sleeping with men in Leviticus. We also see 1 Kings describe the rituals performed by male temple prostitutes as tow'ebah. Furthermore, we have seen that tow'ebah in the Torah tends to refer to taboo ritualistic worship practices, which temple prostitution certainly qualifies as.
Many Christians who believe homosexuality is not a sin believe that Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 are solely referring to male temple prostitutes, not homosexuality in general. While this makes some sense given the evidence we have, the fact remains that these Leviticus laws don't mention temple prostitution, nor is tow'ebah exclusively used to describe ritualistic worship practices. The truth is, it is unclear exactly what the laws were meant to be referring to, and they likely reflect all three factors listed above to some degree.
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 do call male homosexual intercourse an abomination, but this label is also found within laws that most Christians disregard today. While some Christians claim that these specific laws are still relevant since they uphold God's laws regarding marriage, we have seen that such laws in the Torah reflect a quite different understanding of marriage than modern Christians hold, and as such are no longer followed either. These laws forbidding male homosexual intercourse do indicate that the Israelites viewed homosexual intercourse as sinful, but they were not written in response to gay marriage. Instead, they reflect the ancient Israelite values of procreation and male dominance, as well as a negative attitude towards rivaling religious practices such as temple prostitution.
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 could very well be used by Christians as biblical evidence that gay marriage is wrong, provided that they uphold all the other laws that prohibit abominations or all the laws on marriage in the Torah. But for the rest of us, it seems like Leviticus should have little authority on what is sinful, especially within marriage.
Notes
[1] It's worth pointing out that it is the unclean animals that are described as tow'ebah, not specifically the act of eating them (although it is implied that eating them is abominable). This raises the question of why God would create animals that he saw as abominations. It's also worth noting that in the New Testament, Peter (a disciple of Jesus) has a vision of a blanket with all animals in it, including abominable animals (see Acts 10.9-16). A heavenly voice tells Peter to eat, and Peter refuses, stating that he has never eaten any animals that are "profane and unclean." The voice responds "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." In other words, this vision is saying all those animals called an "abomination" in the Torah are now "clean," or acceptable to eat. Many Christians have argued that there is a conceptual difference between things in the Torah described as an "abomination" and as "unclean." However, this distinction does not appear to be held by the author of Acts.
[2] It was pointed out to me that many people don't eat some of the abominable foods in the Torah such as pork because of health reasons. In a similar vein, many husbands probably don't have sex with their wives when she is on her period because they think it is gross (although there are no health reasons for not doing it). Regardless, few Christians would say eating pork or having sex with a woman on her period is an abomination to God, despite the fact that both are called abominations in the Torah.
[3] There is a law in Deut. 17.17 which states that a future king of Israel should not "acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away [from God]." It's unclear how many constitutes as "many." This law was written not to say that the act of polygamy was wrong, only that the king of Israel should not have many wives (which they did, King Solomon was said to have 300 wives). Among royalty, marriage was often used as a contract between two nations; foreign wives would bring foreign religion, which would turn the king's heart away from God's commands.
[4] Even in the New Testament, we see barrenness of women being described as a disgrace. In Luke, Elizabeth (John the baptizer's mother) becomes pregnant at an old age after being barren for years. In response to becoming pregnant, she says: "This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people” (Luke 1.25).
Does this mean that incest and beastality are now ok, since they too are mentioned in Leviticus?
ReplyDeleteNope. Leviticus is not a book to either be accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety. Christians have various rules for interpreting it to argue that some laws are relevant and others are not. This article is pointing out the folly of some of these proposed rules, like saying that laws about "abominations" must be relevant for all times, or that only the Torah's rules regarding marriage must always be observed.
DeleteHow do we know which OT laws still apply?
ReplyDelete1) Is it repeated in the NT?
The laws on homosexual behavior are repeated several times in the New Testament. The law against a male “laying with a male as one does with a female” is repeated twice Lev. 18 and 20 and is the reason for Paul to add it to his lists on “those who will not inherit the kingdom of God”. To try to wrest the Greek out of the context of this OT moral law is casuistry in my opinion.
2) Is the law about food? Mark 7:18-19
Food laws were intended to keep Israel separate from the nations. “What God has cleansed no longer consider unclean.” Acts 10
3) Is it a law about ceremony or sacrifice? Col. 2:16-17 Many of the these types of laws were to govern temple worship. As God now abides in the temple “not made by hands” (the church) these no longer apply. This includes the law about have sex with one’s wife during monthly period. These OT laws were a shadow of things to come in Christ.
The moral code of Lev. 18 and 20 still applies. Of course as mentioned above included in the code was the law against have sex with a menstruating woman. Menstruating women or women in puerperium (healing from childbirth) were considered unclean and forbidden to enter the court of women in the temple. Men were not to defile themselves by an emission of semen or by touching a menstruating women. During the 2nd temple times, many Jews traveled from far away and did not bring wives along to worship in Jerusalem. A city full of men away from their wives would have been a boon for prostitution but the command against semen emission would have restrained the demand for hired sex.
4) Is it a civil law for the nation of Israel? Many of the civil consequences or penalties for law violations such as stoning or beatings no longer apply. The moral commands are for the church which never had the right of the government to take human life. It only has the power to ostracize. See 1 Cor. 5 where Paul charges one in the congregation with the moral sin of having his father’s wife. The law called for death but the church never had that authority. It only has the authority to put out of fellowship.
The above principles come partly from Justin Martyr of the second century, partly from Bruce Malina, and partly from David Whiting.
So despite the fact that a man having sex with a woman on her period is among a list of abominations in Leviticus 18 (a list which contains prohibitions against incest, male homosexual intercourse, bestiality, and child sacrifices, all of which you would say fall under moral sins), this one law about heterosexual menstrual sex must be a mere ceremonial law? It looks like you are ignoring the context of Leviticus and supplying your own reasoning to justify menstrual sex.
DeleteThere is no attempt to justify it. I think following it is a good idea. But as the command involves temple worship, this removes it from the universal category.
Delete