Lev 18:22 – “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.”

Lev 20:13 – “If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.”

What do these texts mean, and what is their relevance to homosexual practice today?

(a) One argument is that the texts refer to acts performed in the name of religion, and therefore not relevant to the general question about same-sex relationships today.

John Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century) says that these are the only texts in the OT that explicitly mention homosexual practices.  He claims that the word translated ‘abomination’ does not refer to something that is intrinsically evil, but rather to something that is ritually unclean.  Boswell continues:

‘Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest (and stated: 20:3-4) purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual “cleanliness” whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. Although both chapters also contain prohibitions (e.g., against incest and adultery) which might seem to stem from moral absolutes, their function in the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 seems to be as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness. This was certainly the interpretation given them by later Jewish commentaries, for example, that of Maimonides.’

According to Walter Barnett (cited by Kostenberger),

‘the whole context of these injunctions [in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13] is a polemic against the Israelites imitating the defiling practices of the Canaanites whom they displaced in Palestine. Thus again, the prohibition is probably directed against the practice of ritual homosexual prostitution as found in the Canaanite fertility cult. In any event the intent cannot be to condemn all homosexuality and homosexual behavior.’

This argument turns on the meaning of the word translated ‘abomination’.  According to proponents of this view, the word usually refers to ritual impurity associated with idol worship.  The prohibition, here and in Lev 20:13, is not against homosexual activity per se, but rather against homosexual acts performed as part of the idolatrous Canaanite religion.

The Queen James Bible, which claims to be the world’s first gay Bible translation, renders this verse:-

‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womenkind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination.’

This ‘clarification’ has, however, been achieved at the expense of changing the text of Scripture itself, by conflating the present verse with the previous one.  As Greg Downes remarks,

‘this flagrant distortion and twisting of scripture in an attempt to make the text say what it patently does not will fail to convince anyone committed to the authority of the Bible.’ (Christianity, Feb 2013, p31)

Sam Alberry writes:

‘“An abomination” is often used to describe idolatry, and so some suggest these verses are not prohibiting homosexual behaviour in general, but only the cultic prostitution associated with pagan temples. But the language used is not that specific; the passages refer in general to a man lying with a man “as with a woman”, without specifying a particular context for that act. Moreover, the surrounding verses in both Leviticus 18 and 20 forbid other forms of sexual sin that are general in nature, such as incest, adultery and bestiality.’ (Is God Anti-Gay?, p29)

Ian Paul notes:

‘The prohibition on same-sex activity is set alongside prohibitions on incest, bestiality and the sacrifice of children. The whole list of prohibited activities is called ‘detestable’ (Hebrew toevah, translated ‘abomination’ in the AV) in the summary comment in 18.30, but in 18.22 same-sex activity is singled out with this term, and in the following verse bestiality is similarly highlighted as a ‘perversion’ (NIV). As with other regulations, these are not narrowly cultic but form part of a shared, national life for all who reside in the land (Lev 18.26), including ‘resident aliens’ who do not participate in cultic activity.’

Ian Paul adds that the term translated ‘detestable’ is by no means limited to cultic prohibitions:

‘The strong term toevah is used in a cultic sense of unacceptable sacrifices, or idolatry, both of which are ‘detestable.’ But its use is not limited to that. It is applied to distinct eating habits (Gen 43.32), more general racial antipathy (Gen 46.34), prohibited foods (Deut 14.3), magic and spiritism (Deut 18.12), remarrying someone you have divorced (Deut 24.4) and the use of dishonest weights and measures (Deut 25.16). It is quite striking in Lev 18 and 20 that the term qadesh, meaning male shrine prostitute (as in Deut 23.17–18), is absent. The context in Leviticus is everyday and particularly family life as the holy people of God. If there are hints of cultic language this is not because the prohibitions are located in cult but because the whole of life is to reflect the purity and holiness of Israel’s God.’

Ian Paul quotes Steve Schuh:

‘The homosexual acts prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20 are described in the immediate context of idolatry and therefore very likely refer to ritual acts of male homosexual prostitution.’

But, responds Ian Paul: these prohibitions are not focused on the cult, but on the family.  Moreover, it is illogical to claim that because cult prostitution was a notable instance of ‘detestable’ practice (see 1 Kings 14:24, for example), it was the only form of homosexual activity.  The text here does not use the language of cult prostitution: rather, it draws on the language of Genesis 1-2.

John and Paul Feinberg reject the notion that homosexuxal acts were prohibited because of their association with pagan worship.  They state:

‘Nothing in Leviticus explicitly states why the prohibited practices are condemned. The Leviticus texts just naturally assume the practices are condemned because they are inherently wrong, not because they were part of the idolatrous worship of the Egyptians and Canaanites. In the Leviticus Code incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality, spiritism and the cursing of one’s parents are all prohibited. Only one act condemned in the Code has cultic or symbolic significance—child sacrifice, and it is condemned whether associated with religious worship or not. Child sacrifice was practiced in pagan religious rites, but it was wrong on two counts—in itself and because of its association with idolatry. As a matter of fact, that the surrounding nations practiced both child sacrifice and the other prohibited acts only serves to confirm the corruption of these cultures in the mind of the Israelite. Moreover, homosexuality is condemned in the context of adultery, bestiality, and incest. Clearly, those practices were not prohibited simply because of their association with idolatry or Egyptian and Canaanite cultures.’ (Ethics for a Brave new World)

Looking at the context, we see that the passage lists three categories that involve heterosexual intercourse (incest, menstruation, adultery) and two involving nonheterosexual intercourse (homosexuality, bestiality).  Between these, comes the reference to sacrificing children to Molech.  It is likely that this is placed here because it involves the sacrificing of the product of heterosexual intercourse (and not because the reference to Molech has anything to do with the other prohbitions).  (So William J. Webb, in Discovering Biblical Equality, ch. 23).

(b) A further argument is that these prohibitions reflect the assumptions of a patriarchal society, in which a man taking the submissive (female) role in sexual activity was considered shameful and demeaning.

But, as Ian Paul observes,

‘The prohibition in Lev 18.22 is not on acting as a woman with a man, but on acting with another man who is taking the role of the woman. To put it crudely, the prohibition is not on being penetrated (by another man) but on penetrating. In other words, the verse gives no suggestion that the act is seen as a breach of manliness or the man’s honour; rather, the issue appears to be the failure of this act to match the divinely given creation order from Genesis’

(c) Another argument is that the prohibitions belong to that part of the OT law that has not binding on Christians.  Like the prohibition against sex with a menstruating woman in Lev 18:19, or that against wearing clothing made of two types of material in Lev 19:19, this prohibition is ceremonial, rather than moral, in nature.

For Matthew Vines, therefore, these laws are no more binding on believers today than the law of circumcision.  The debate was settled long ago by the apostles (Acts 15; Gal 6; Col 2; Rom 10:4; Heb 8:13, etc.).  Leviticus prohibits many things that we no longer avoid, and, claims Vines, homosexual relations belong in the same category:

‘Christians have always regarded the Book of Leviticus, in particular, as being inapplicable to them in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the law. So while it is true that Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, it also prohibits a vast array of other behaviors, activities, and foods that Christians have never regarded as being prohibited for them. For example, chapter 11 of Leviticus forbids the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster, which the church does not consider to be a sin. Chapter 19 forbids planting two kinds of seed in the same field; wearing clothing woven of two types of material; and cutting the hair at the sides of one’s head. Christians have never regarded any of these things to be sinful behaviors, because Christ’s death on the cross liberated Christians from what Paul called the “yoke of slavery.” We are not subject to the Old Law.’

I should note that Vines recognises that there are some OT laws that are still binding on Christians – the Ten Commandments, for example.  But he does not, in my view, provide an adequate explanation of why homosexual behaviour does not belong in this category (along with laws about adultery, incest and bestiality), but belongs rather  in the category of laws that were limited to a certain people at a certain times (along with laws about eating shellfish and so on).

Vines concludes:

‘The default Christian approach for nearly two millennia now has been to view the particular hundreds of rules and prohibitions in the Old Law as having been fulfilled by Christ’s death, and there is no good reason why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 should be exceptions to that rule.’

But if valid, this argument would also undermine other laws relating to sexual practices in the same chapter.  Moreover, ceremonial laws were binding on Israel but not on the nations, and yet Lev 18:27 and Lev 20:23 demonstrate God’s moral repugnance of incest and homosexuality.  Then again, Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 6:9 echoes the LXX of Lev 20:13, suggesting that Paul presupposes and reaffirms the earlier text’s condemnation of homosexual acts.

‘As Lev 20:13 makes clear, it is consensual sex that is in view. In short, sexual relations are meant to occur between a man and a woman, not between two men (and not, by implication, between two women). This was in keeping with the theological backdrop against which Israelites would have read this law: namely, the Lord’s design that sexuality be expressed in marital, heterosexual relationship (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:22–24; cf. Matt. 19:4–5).’ (Sklar)

According to Livingout,

‘“an abomination” is often used to describe idolatry, and some suggest these verses are not condemning homosexual behaviour in general, but only the cultic prostitution connected to pagan temples. It is also often claimed that the fact that these prohibitions appear in a book full of other laws which no Christians think they are expected to follow today suggests that they should not be taken as having abiding moral relevance. But to take the first objection, the language used is not that specific; it refers to lying with a man “as with a woman,” – that is, in very general terms. Secondly, the surrounding verses in each instance describe other forms of sexual sin (such as incest, adultery and bestiality), none of which is anything to do with pagan temples or idolatry, and which we would take as being applicable to Christians today. It is moral, rather than just pagan religious behaviour that’s in view. Furthermore, Leviticus 20:13 highlights both male parties equally, again suggesting general, consensual homosexual activity (as opposed to gay rape or a forced relationship).’

Living in Love and Faith notes that:

‘these verses [Lev 18:22; 20:13] are generally agreed to be the source of comments on same- sex activity in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, which indicates that they were seen as scripturally authoritative for Christian ethical discipleship.’

Robert Plummer comments on the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament with regard to moral commands:

‘The Bible is not a policy book, with each page giving equally timeless instruction. Yes, “Every word of God is flawless” (Prov. 30:5). Nevertheless, the Bible is more like a multivolume narrative, in which the later chapters clarify the ultimate meaning and sometimes the temporary, accommodating nature of earlier regulations and events (e.g., Matt. 19:8). Old Testament commands that are repeated in the New Testament (for example, moral commands, such as the prohibition of homosexuality [Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9]) or not explicitly repealed (as are the civil and ceremonial laws [Mark 7:19; Heb. 10:1–10]) have abiding significance in the expression of God’s Spirit-led people.’ (40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible)

A variation on this theme is the suggestion that these texts (and many others like them) are concerned not with issues of sin and holiness, but with matters of ‘cleanness’ and ‘defilement’.  This would mean (comments Ian Paul)

‘that same-sex relations belong to a pattern of cleanness versus defilement to which we no longer subscribe, rather than the pattern of holiness versus sin which we do.’

But, as Ian Paul remarks, there is, in biblical thinking, considerable overlap between the two sets of category:

‘To be impure might not imply sin, but to sin does make one impure—so these terms can, in fact, overlap. And that is precisely the case in Leviticus 18 and 20. Although ‘be defiled’ (tame‘) is the most common term in Leviticus 18, at 18.25 this is identified with sin, and being the reason for the land ‘vomiting out’ its inhabitants as a sign of God’s judgment. This forms part of the wider concern of the whole of the ‘holiness code’; it places the whole question of ethics under the question of purity, so that wrong action is seen as an offense against God’s holiness, not just against his justice. Purity is concerned with moral action, not ritual action alone.’

John and Paul Feinberg agree that there are differences between the ceremonial and the moral elements of the law.  But,

‘The problem is that the distinction is irrelevant to the question of homosexuality. While there are ceremonial elements in the law that we may safely disregard today, most Christians as well as Jews have always recognized that there are commands within the law that are of continuing ethical significance. Exodus 20–40 and Leviticus contain much of that material. Even Boswell admits that these prohibitions are in chapters that seem to stem from moral absolutes, not ceremonial concerns.’ (Ethics for a Brave New World)

(d) A further strategem for distancing the modern reader from the ancient text is to assert that the ancients understood homosexual behaviour as an aberrant or coercive behaviour freely chosen, whereas the modern understanding is of homosexuality as a permanent sexual orientation.

David Instone-Brewer has tentatively suggested that this prohibition pertains to a man sleeping with a heteroerotically inclined man, and that it therefore does not prohibit all homosexual activity.  Instone-Brewer’s argument is technical, and I am not competent to assess its linguistic merits.  Michael Messenger, however, has subjected the article to detailed analysis, and concludes that it:

‘provides no grounds for suggesting that the author of Leviticus might have been amenable to the inclusion of same-sex partners into the fellowship of God’s people.’

Living and Love and Faith cites a Reform Jewish rabbi, Jeff Goldwasser, who reads the description of homosexual intercourse as an ‘abhorrence’ as

‘not…applying to loving, committed homosexual relationships today. He points out that there is no word in the Hebrew Bible for ‘homosexual’ (just as there was no word in English for it until the late nineteenth century). Instead, he argues, sexual activity between people of the same gender in the Hebrew Bible is either a form of violence designed to humiliate, or a form of sexual excess so unbridled that it doesn’t discriminate between male and female. He also explains that the word translated, ‘abhorrence’ is the one used of ‘bad table manners’ in the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis, explaining why Egyptians won’t eat with Hebrews.’

Living in Love and Faith notes that:

‘Some have argued that some form of coercion or violence must lie behind the prohibition but this is not immediately apparent in the text. The context of both chapters looks at a range of prohibited relationships, which are more likely to be consensual. Laws governing rape and prostitution are found elsewhere (Deuteronomy 22.25-29 and Deuteronomy 23.17,18), but do not seem to form part of the context here.’

See here.

(e) A further suggestion is that these texts refer to a man having sex with his male relatives:

‘At first sight these passages appear to be straightforward prohibitions of same-gender sex between men. However, the actual Hebrew is odd, and its meaning is unclear. Both verses prohibit a man from “the lying downs of a woman with a man.” But what does the “lying downs of a woman” mean? This odd construction does not occur elsewhere. The closest parallel is Genesis 49:4, where Reuben is chastised because of “the lying downs of your father.” The context of this one is pretty clear. Reuben has had sexual intercourse with one of Jacob’s wives. Thus, the “lying downs of your father” has the sense of “incest with the (step)mother.” Leviticus 20:13 is situated among several other prohibitions of incestuous acts. This suggests to some scholars that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are prohibitions of sex with one’s male relatives. In other words, the prohibition is not against “homosexuality,” but against sex with one’s male relatives.’ (Source)

I cannot see any reason why this interpretation should be considered as anything more than conjectural.

(e) We come, then, to consider the view that these texts prohibit homosexual intercourse of every kind.

Living in Love and Faith cites Orthodox Jewish rabbi Norman Lamm:

‘Commenting on Leviticus 18.22 in the light of Genesis 2.18 in which God says, “It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make the human a help meet / partner”, Rabbi Lamm writes, “Homosexuality imposes on one an intolerable burden of differentness, of absurdity and of loneliness, but the biblical commandment cannot be put aside solely on the basis of sympathy for the victim of these feelings.”‘

(We should add, however, that no good command of God places ‘intolerable’ burdens on any person.)

John Stott comments:

‘As William J. Webb points out in his recent work on hermeneutics, the issue here is primarily one of sexual boundaries. The incest laws protect the boundary between parent and child; the bestiality laws protect the boundary between human and animal. Similarly, the homosexual boundaries prohibit intercourse between members of the same sex. These boundaries are not cultural in that they change as Scripture develops, but transcultural, prohibiting such activities in any place at any time.’ (Issues Facing Christians Today)

Sklar:

‘As Lev 20:13 makes clear, it is consensual sex that is in view. In short, sexual relations are meant to occur between a man and a woman, not between two men (and not, by implication, between two women). This was in keeping with the theological backdrop against which Israelites would have read this law: namely, the Lord’s design that sexuality be expressed in marital, heterosexual relationship (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:22–24; cf. Matt. 19:4–5.’ (TOTC)

Sprinkle, art. ‘Sexuality, sexual ethics’ in DOT:P).

Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today 4th Edition (Kindle)

Kostenberger, Andreas J. God, Marriage, and Family (Second Edition). Crossway. Kindle Edition.