1 The Bible and Homosexuality Some notes on the biblical references and how they have been interpreted June 2002, revised 2018 Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 Summary: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe male to male anal intercourse and condemn it as abhorrent to Yahweh and therefore not to be practiced. It was rejected by the Hebrews simply because it was rejected by Yahweh. Social factors for the prohibition are not easy to discern. There is no reference in the laws to differences or changes in social status; the concept of pollution is not directly related in the context; and various ideas concerning semen do not seem to be relevant. The terminology of the commands implies that receptivity was appropriate to women, not men, but it is not clear that this was the reason for the prohibitions. Context: These two statements are found in the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17- 26). A key concept is ‘separateness’. The laws are presented in the context of not doing what other nations do (18:3, 20:24). The people of Israel are given a choice: to obey Yahweh, or not to obey Yahweh (26:3 ff, cf. 26:14 ff), simply because they are Yahweh’s people (26:11-13). No other justification is deemed necessary, and therefore no other justification is given. Leviticus 18:22 we'et zakar lo tishkab mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba hi' You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 we'ish 'aser yishkab 'et zakar mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba 'asu shenehem mot yumatu demehem bam 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. Context: Chapter 20 is arranged in an ABCBA form: A vv 1-6 Warning against giving children to Molech, and the use of mediums. B vv 7-8 Call to holiness C vv9-21 Sins against family (mostly sexual) B vv 22-26 Call to holiness reiterated, with the warning that they should not live by the customs of the nations of the lands they are going to enter. A v27 Warning against mediums and spiritists Terminology: zakar—male 2 mishkebe ishsha—literally ‘to li.e. (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman’—penetration of the male, by analogy with mishkebe zakar, ‘male vaginal penetration’, i.e. penetration of the vagina by a male (receptive intercourse). Numbers 31 uses mishkebe zakar to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non-virgins (v17); cf. Judges 21:11-12.1 Support for this interpretation may be found in the Talmud. The phrase ‘to li.e. the lying down of a woman’ in y.Qidd. 1:1, 58c and b.Yebam. 546 indicates that anal penetration was the act which defined homosexual intercourse. to’eba—translated ‘abomination’ A ‘transgression of a divinely sanctioned boundary’;2 a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention.3 Cultic and idolatrous practice The use of to’eba is important. Elsewhere in the OT (e.g. Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; Ezekiel 6:9, 11; 7:20; 8:4-18; 14:6; 16:36, 43, 44-58; 18:12-13; 20:7; 22:2) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples. The use of to’eba gives the homoerotic activity a cultic or idolatrous significance; the references to child sacrifice in 18:21 and the giving of children to Molech in 20:1-5 indicate a concern with cultic practices in these passages. Both the verses share similar terminology and so will be examined together. 1. Who? The word zakar is used to refer to the passive partner in the act. The word means ‘male’ rather than ‘man’ or ‘youth’; by using the word for ‘male’ the author has covered all potential participants in the act. There is no mention in either of the verses of the relative status of the offenders. It would appear that this law, like the rest of the Hebrew laws, apply to all residents of Israel without regard to social status. 2. What? The phrase mishkebe 'ishsha literally means ‘to li.e. (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman’.Olyan argues that, by analogy with mishkab zakar, it refers to receptive intercourse only.4 Mishkab zakar means ‘male vaginal penetration’, i.e. the penetration of the vagina by a male. Both Olyan and Wold hold that mishkebe 'ishsha is the female corollary of this.5 Numbers 31 uses mishkebe 'ishsha to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non- virgins (v17). Judges 21:11-12 uses the phrase for the same purpose. It likely refers to the occurrence or non-occurrence of vaginal penetration. Olyan goes further to say that if the range of meaning of mishkebe 'ishsha is as limited as that of mishkab zakar, then in Leviticus mishkebe 'ishsha must refer 1 Saul M. Olyan, ‘‘And With A Male You Shall Not Li.e. the Lying Down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/2 (1994), pp. 185- 6. 2 Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 39. 3 Olyan, op.cit., p. 180 n. 3; Daniel Boyarin, ‘Are There Any Jews in ‘The History of Sexuality’’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5/3 (1995), p. 334 n. 3. 4 Olyan, op. cit., pp. 194-6. 5 Ibid., p. 185; Donald J. Wold, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 107. 3 to penetration of the male.6 This is then a prohibition merely of male penetration of the male, that is, anal intercourse. 3. Why? a. to'eba Each of the offences in Leviticus 18 are to'eba, or abomination (18:29), a word which is used six times in Leviticus (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). What constitutes to'eba? There appears to be general agreement that to'eba refers to a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention.7 In this context and others (e.g. Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; and throughout Ezekiel) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples. But why are these particular deeds labelled as to'eba? What characteristics of these deeds are so reprehensible that they are prohibited? b. Penalties/sanctions It is possible that some light may be shed through looking at the penalties decreed for these deeds. Two different penalties are designated in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the death penalty and the kereth or ‘cutting off’. i. Death penalty The death penalty is prescribed in the words mot yumatu ‘they shall certainly be put to death’. There appear to be three categories of transgression in the Holiness Code for which death is the punishment: crimes which usurp the place of God (20:2, 27; 24:16); crimes against family (20:9); and sexual crimes (20:10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16). Elsewhere it is applied to the crime of killing a human being (14:17). ii. kereth The word kereth means ‘to be cut off’ (Leviticus 18:29). kereth is applied to crimes against God (17:3- 4, 8-9, 10; 19:5-8, 20:2-5, 6; 21:3; 23:29), including sexual transgressions (18:29, 20:17, 18), rather than against neighbours. It is probable that kereth involved a response by God. In Leviticus 23:29 kereth is prescribed for not humbling oneself on the Day of Atonement; in v. 30 a related offence, working on the Day of Atonement, incurs destruction by God from among his people. This seems to relate to the person’s place in the community of Israel, with its history and destiny, as well as personal annihilation. Based on a study of synonymous and antithetical terms, Wold describes kereth as ‘a conditional divine curse of extinction, obliterating the sinner (and progeny) from any role in the drama of Israel’s history’.8 kereth and the death penalty are different punishments. In some instances both sanctions are prescribed for the same or similar offences. In Leviticus 20:2 the death penalty is declared for the man who gives up his children to Molech; the next verse indicates that he will also be kereth from among his people. Consultation of a medium or spiritist (20:6) incurs kereth; but in 20:27 death is prescribed for a similar offence. The two sanctions are clearly not the same. kereth is a divine sanction, carried out by God. The death penalty is a community sanction. Wold suggests that kereth is an action of divine justice, to deal with cases of impurity when the community 6 Olyan, op.cit., pp. 185-6. 7 Ibid., p. 180 n. 3; Boyarin, op.cit., p. 334 n. 3. 8 Wold, op.cit., p. 147. 4 is either unaware of the offence or unable to find a sufficient number of witnesses to the offence to effect community justice.9 This implies that on occasion the community would be able to do nothing (e.g. 20:4-5) and leave the matter to God.