Two passages that are far more significant than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah occur in what Isaac Asimov called ‘the dullest book in the Bible’ – Leviticus. This third book of what Christians call the Old Testament is basically a set of things that, unlike their Canaanite neighbors, Israelites and Judeans were forbidden from doing. It accounts for the bulk of the 636 Biblical laws and regulations designed to make the Jewish nation distinct from those among whom they lived.
These are of two types, rules that are concerned with moral sin and rules related to ritual cleanliness. Moral sin involves rebellion against God and is the more serious of the two. Uncleanliness for Hebrews was caused by touching something forbidden or doing something forbidden (such as eating pork); though generally less important, some of these were also major enough to involve the death penalty (such as idolatry). That the two passages below from Leviticus were not dealing with a moral sin is clearly indicated by the use of the Hebrew word ‘zimah’ where the English often uses ‘abomination;’ if the behavior had been inherently, morally wrong, the necessary term would have been ‘toevah.’ They clearly dealt only with ritual taboos, not sexual ethics.
If translated word for word, Leviticus 18:22 is roughly ‘You shall not lie with (adult) man beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun).’ This final two-noun phrase is unclear in the original Hebrew; it is shared with Leviticus 20:13 (yet sometimes translated differently in the two verses), and it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the Bible. ‘Beds of a woman’ is generally how the phrase is translated into English — although anyone even loosely familiar with the culture of the time is aware that women owned nothing, could own nothing (see the story of widows Ruth and Naomi). Grammatically the relationship in Hebrew is quite different. ‘Woman/wife’ here have the relationship to ‘beds’ as in the phrase ‘the bedding of a woman/wife,’ i.e., the woman is the object of ‘beds,’ not the possessor of them. This still leaves the phrase fairly obscure, but in spite of its meaning in Hebrew, out of tradition a single basic line of thought nevertheless characterizes English translations.
This is a clever scheme except for the basic meaning of the phrase in Hebrew, which is described in text below.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term ‘abomination’ was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible, all of which are tallied here.
The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word ‘homosexuality’ (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew times) add two further errors. First, they add lesbians to the condemned group with utterly no justification for doing so. Second, since ‘homosexuality’ includes not just homosexual acts but also the mere fact of being oriented toward the same sex, the translations condemn both. These two translations say that it is a sin to be the way God created gays.
Continuing the unfortunate misuse of (English) grammar, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘You shall not lie with a male [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse. Martin Luther translated it as ‘Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel,’ which is roughly ‘You shall not lie with a youth (or boy) as with a woman/wife; for it is an abomination.’ At the very least, a wide range of translations is possible.
Both this verse and the other from Leviticus (see below) appear in a holiness code that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace. Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a man’s head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship). At the time, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so whatever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (there are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a context where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible where the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could these two verses not apply to temple prostitution?
John Baker adds “I see seed-mixing as a huge concern, avoiding marriage and sex with outsiders, gentiles. The shrine sex ‘worked’ by sympathetic magic; you plant your field, then go have sex at the shrine with the shrine prostitute to insure that your seed germinates. But Leviticus warns against this. And it also warns against anything that might have a similar sympathetic magic effect. So, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, that is classic seed-mixing. And weaving a garment with two kinds of thread — do that and next thing you know, your son is going to be marrying a gentile girl.
[Avoiding] seed-mixing was important because the divine promise to Abraham was the gift of the land to be given ‘through his seed,’ i.e., passed down through the generations to Hebrew children and grandchildren. If your seed winds up in a Canaanite household, next thing you know some of the land will follow through inheritance outside the Hebrew community and the promise will be corrupted.” In Father Helminiak’s analysis, the code also distinguished a God-given pattern for maleness and femaleness — one was naturally the penetrator and the other the penetrated. Thus penetrative same sex behavior was prohibited, but non-penetrative behaviors were disregarded (thus a male-male friendship of profound intimacy such as between David and Jonathan was extolled for its depth rather than chastised for its possible homosexuality. B. A Robinson analyzes that subject on the Religious Tolerance site, and Jeramy Townsley also looks at the possibility here.)
The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is underlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literally the word means ’holy one’; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man that engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars interpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activities in a pagan temple ritual.
In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as ‘sodomite,’ a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in ‘unnatural’ sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James translations inaccurately retain the word ‘sodomite’ even though today it refers specifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most other Bibles more accurately translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.
The exact meaning of the original passage in Leviticus therefore looks unclear. Translators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:
- homosexual behavior by either sex
- sexual behavior between two men
- sexual behavior between a man and a (married?) (gentile?) woman
- just anal sex between two men
- just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
- sexual activity between two men in a woman’s bed
First, I do take all of the non-incest sexual taboos in that chapter to refer to shrine prostitution (sympathetic magic through ritualized sex), and I take “abomination” to mean idolatry.
Note that three times in the chapter it is stated that the Gentiles do all of these things. If v. 22 does refer to homosexual sex, then (all) non-Jews are being called homosexuals! Oops.
The Hebrew is: w-eth zakar lo’ tishkav mishkevey isshah.
The verb shakav implies penetration. If it meant “Don’t lie with a man” it would simply read w-eth zakar lo’ tishkav. Full stop. The problem then is what to do with mishkevey issah, the lyings of a wife/woman, as these words render that impossible. (I take iššah to be the object of miškevey, the wife is the one laid.)
mishkevey isshah is a special intensifying construction in which the root of the main verb is used to make an object (so, to lie in the lyings…). isshah – “of” a wife or woman, but the sense of “of” is called objective genitive, so it means “by repeatedly lying with the lyings of (his) wife” — a proverb-like statement: “Do not lie with a man (get mixed up with a man) by lying with his wife.”
If she is a foreign woman and a shrine prostitute, and you are having sex with her, then you and her husband are mixing seed. And worst of all — you are possibly contributing Hebrew seed (children) to a foreigner’s household. This is really what Lev. 18 is all about: seed-mixing. Avoid foreign entanglements!
My interpretation is that the man is (proverbially) prohibited from having sex with a shrine prostitute because that involves him through his seed (sperm, children) with a foreigner’s household (not literally three-way sex).
As we might say in Texas, “Be careful parking your pickup in another man’s garage, he may just keep your truck!”Note that the earliest English translation, the Wycliffe Bible of 1325, took the Vulgate to mean the same as I do: ‘Thou schalt not be medlid [meddled, mixed] with a man bi letcherie of woman, for it is abhomynacioun.’”
Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate message won’t sell, which means it won’t get published. Deviating from traditional interpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporarily boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the use of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles. We’re stuck with this, guys.
Leviticus 20:13 is very similar to Leviticus 18:22 in its use of the same unclear phrase as mentioned. Otherwise it is different from the first citation only because it appears to add the death penalty – though the phrase that does this could as accurately be translated ‘they shall be cast out of society.’
Bible scholars believe that Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, which deal with similar material (mostly a prohibition of sex with any close relative – though the most frequent form of incest, sex of a father with his own daughter, is not specifically mentioned) came from different sources , and both are included in the Bible even though they cover similar ground in order to get the ritualized punishments Leviticus 20 contains.
Is the death penalty supposedly assigned to practicing homosexual males – though not among the Ten Commandments – somehow more important than the proscription in the Commandments against working on the Sabbath? Or perhaps more important than the death penalty assigned to someone who curses his/her parent (Leviticus 20:9) or who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10)?
This passage could fairly well be translated ‘If a man has sexual intercourse with another man in the bed of a woman (or as part of a cult-like ritual), the two shall be cast out of society.’ You can see how this would not appeal to rabid fundamentalists.
Literalist fundamentalists also overlook the fact that, though there are many laws in Leviticus that limit female sexual behavior, female same-sex behavior is ignored here and everywhere else in Hebrew scripture (unless the text is mis-translated, as the LB and NLT do – possibly having concluded that God just forgot to put his objections in the infallible Bible; infallibility does not preclude mistranslation).
In spite of the fact that the mistranslation of to’evah into English obscures the fact that these verses do not apply to a moral sin, at first glance (especially given the general unanimity of translations in basic meaning), the passages really seem to condemn gay behavior in the strongest possible terms. That a similar condemnation to death applies to disrespectful children is beside the point; the target audience is the people of Israel, and the subject is pagan shrine rituals, and the passages are simply irrelevant either to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior in an age of grace under Christ.
The next logical passage to look at is Romans 1:26-27.