This section from an article by Paul Marston of the University of Central Lancashire addresses issues that commonly crop up on SDMB, including homosexuality, masturbation, and diet (especially shellfish). A link is given to the article for those with an interest in the subject.
Lev 18:22 & 20:13: The OT Law
There is no technical term for homosexual acts in Hebrew, so Lev 18:22 reads: “With a male you shall not lie (shakav) the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination (toevah).” The word shakav literally means to lie, but like the English “sleep with” to “lie with” means to have sex. A woman can “lie with” a man (Gen 19:32, 33, 35) or a man “lie with” a woman (Gen 30:16, 34:2). No particular form or kind of sexual intercourse (eg anal intercourse) is implied, no implication of active or passive roles in sexual terms; it is the most general term for “have sex” one could imagine. Rabbinic scholars made “lie with a male” into a noun. In the Greek OT (LXX) it is faithfully translated in Lev 18 and 20 as “bed a male” by the Greek words arsen (male) and koite (bed), so in 20:13 it reads as: arsenoskoiton. In Numbers 31:18 and Judges 21:11-12 women who have not known lying with men (koiton arsenos) just means “virgins”, not the non-promiscuous or those who have avoided some particular form of sex.
One gay approach has been to suggest that it refers only to certain kinds of homosexual practice, perhaps anal intercourse or the forcible rape of the vanquished by their conqueror. This is not plausible because shakav is so general a term, and the Greek LXX is just as general.
The pro-gay Scroggs suggests that the original context may have been “cultic heterosexual prostitution”, but he later admits: “…the laws in Leviticus are unequivocally opposed to male homosexual activity.” [Scroggs (1983) p.99] The pro-gay Wink likewise accepts that the Leviticus verses “unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior” [Wink (1999) p. 34]. This is really undeniable. The word is the most general one could imagine for gay-sex, and attempts to restrict it to special types are unrealistic.
But Scroggs rightly points out that we now ignore many Levitical laws, so why keep this one? Granted that homosexual acts of all kinds are forbidden, is this for moral or ritualistic reasons or can we indeed distinguish these in Leviticus?
The word “abomination” does often refer to idolatrous practice, but also to incest and sex with the neighbour’s wife (in Lev 18:26), and swindling (Deut 25:16). Lev 18:27 says “for these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled…” The inhabitants of the land were never condemned, eg, for not following the Jewish dietary laws, and in places it indicates clearly that these were not thought to apply to them. Thus throughout Deut 14 God says of dietary laws “… is unclean for you”(14:7, 14:10). Then in 14:21 they are forbidden to eat anything which dies of itself but “you may give it to the foreigner within your gates that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God…” The writer is surely here signalling that this is something specific to Israel – God has made these foods an “abomination” to them as some kind of lesson. Clearly, had the diet concerned any genuine moral issue the writer would hardly have suggested that it was fine to pass such food on – as though God said “You mustn’t commit adultery, incest or idolatry, but it is fine for the foreigners to do so…”
The previous inhabitants of the Land were nowhere condemned for failure to perform rituals, but they were condemned for the list of things in Lev 18. Homosexual acts were regarded as sins for Gentiles as well as Jews. They were not, of course, regarded as particularly “special” or heinous sins as homophobics make out – but they were considered sinful.
One gay Christian approach is to admit that the anti-same-sex-act laws were general, but suggest that they were linked to scientifically mistaken ideas of procreation; thus eg Wink (1999) p. 34:
The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubation space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose – in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11).
No evidence is produced for such amazing allegations, he does not explain why (if it were true) masturbation is never forbidden in the law (Gen 38 concerns a specific case of deceit and disobedience), nor how the “seed of the woman” (Gen 3:15) could crush the serpent if only males produce seed. This illustrates the kinds of odd argument found, but we cannot pursue them all.
The Leviticus 18 and 20 verses, then, occur in a list of the sins of the Canaanites, some of which concern their cultic worship but some of which concern personal sexual morality. The ban on a “male lying with a male as with a female” is the most general description that could be given on any and all male gay-sex acts. If we reject this as relevant to us today, it is hard to see how any OT statements about sexuality at all could be relevant.
‘Christians, Gays and Gay Christians’: An Examination by Dr. Paul Marston
