Some people believe that the Bible has something to say about homosexuality. And depending on the definitions, it does, to some extent. Christians generally interpreted these passages as being against the practice of same-sex intercourse. I already touched on two of them in the previous posts. You can read the posts on Sodom and Gomorrah, part 1 and part 2, and Romans 1. That leaves two more pairs of passages, one pair in Leviticus and the other pair in the writings of Paul. This post will focus on Leviticus, specifically these verses:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22, NKJV.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13, NKJV.
Two Opposing Perspectives
In this article, we will refer to the two overarching perspectives as the traditional view and the progressive view. These terms are not perfect, but I chose them for clarity. In a nutshell, the traditional view says that the Bible unequivocally prohibits same-sex intercourse, with no exceptions. It relies on a plain reading of the verses in question. It supports a view that has nearly all Christians have held for centuries. There is no room for nuance. The Bible says that a man should not lie with a man. The end.
By contrast, the progressive view is that these verses do apply to certain situations, but not to a committed, covenant, monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex. There are various ways that Bible scholars arrive at this conclusion, but no one can prove any view conclusively. This post will examine several of the perspectives on the verses in Leviticus. The goal is to educate the reader about the various possibilities.
Still Applicable Today?
Some Christians will argue that Leviticus does not apply to Christians today at all. If you are in this camp, then Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are irrelevant to you. They applied to the Jews back in Old Testament times, but today we don’t have to follow those old laws. There is a grain of truth in this statement. There are absolutely Levitical precepts that every modern-day Christian would consider irrelevant today. Whether it’s about the proper procedures for sacrificial offerings or wearing clothing with mixed fabrics, there are things that Christians believe are not binding now. Some were were part of the ceremonial law that became obsolete at Jesus’ death. Others were strictly cultural and thus irrelevant.
Many pastors divide the Levitical laws into two or more categories. Some make the division between ceremonial and moral laws. Others add a third category of civil laws that applied to the nation-state of Israel. Some even add a fourth category of health laws that may or may not still be relevant. However, these distinctions are absolutely arbitrary; they were unknown to the Hebrews to whom they were given. To them, all the laws were important.
Christians arbitrarily divide them up into various categories in order to justify ignoring some of them. They conveniently accept only those laws that they believe are still relevant. Who determined that the law against wearing garments of mixed fabric (Leviticus 19:19) is not relevant today? Christians do not agree about which laws are still relevant.
Possibly Irrelevant Laws
Not only do Christians disagree on how many categories of laws there are, but they also disagree on what laws belong in which categories. For example, most Christians today believe that the laws against eating unclean meat no longer apply. Some churches, such as Seventh-day Adventists and Latter-day Saints, teach that these laws are still binding (with the possible exception made in case of emergency). SDAs also believe that the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) is still binding as a day of rest. By contrast, most Christians believe Sunday is an acceptable day for worship.
Some Christians believe that if a house has mold (their interpretation of the Biblical leprosy in a building) growing in it, they must tear it down (Leviticus 14:43–45). Others are fine with taking appropriate measures to kill the mold, such as replacing the affected boards. Some point out that the laws around contaminated vessels make sense. A stone vessel could be sterilized by boiling or burning; a clay pot, being porous, is best destroyed. In an age when the world had no concept of germs and disease, these rules would have helped to keep the community healthier.
Discussing mold and unclean meats and sabbath-keeping makes for interesting topics of conversation around a meal after church, but at the end of the day, I don’t think anyone would argue that none of these are moral issues. Most people can agree to disagree on them without sacrificing friendship.
Laws About Sexuality
However, some Christians believe that there were moral laws God gave in Leviticus and other books of the Pentateuch that are still binding today. Laws around sexual behavior, for example, are still considered binding by many Christians today. The question is, are they?
This is a good question. If you already believe they are not, then for you these verses are not relevant today. You can save your time and skip the rest of this blog. But if you believe that these chapters still have something to say to Christians today, then read on.
Broad Overview
Whenever we study a Bible passage, we should always start with the immediate context of the verse(s) in question. That could include the verses just before and after, the whole chapter, the section of the book, or even the whole book.
Let’s take a broad overview of Leviticus 18. I would encourage you to read the entire chapter for yourself and take careful note of the points. It starts with a warning that the children of Israel “must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and they must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you” (verse 3, NIV). It repeats this idea in verse 24 (NIV):
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.”
So, based on the context, everything between verse 3 and verse 24 is a description of things that the heathen did that God did not want His people to do.
Starting in verse 6, God tells the Israelite men what they are not allowed to do with their bodies. The context is very clear that men are the intended audience. Women had no autonomy and were basically property, only a step above a slave. God tells men not to undress or sleep with close relatives and forbids relationships that could become complicated, such as a man marrying his wife’s sister while his wife is still alive. He doesn’t mention unmarried women who were not related to him either by blood or marriage. This fact hints that this list was contextual and was therefore not exhaustive.
Idolatry
After spending about 16 verses discussing whom a man can’t sleep with, suddenly verse 21 (NIV) takes a different turn. “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.” Here we have a pagan worship rite that any serious Bible student will recognize. Kings Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6) engaged in this pagan worship ritual as part of their descent into idolatry.
Verse 22 seems to talk about men sleeping together. “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV). We’ll come back to this verse.
Verse 23 talks about bestiality. Interestingly, this is the only verse in the whole chapter that tells women what they are not allowed to do sexually. Women had a higher status and agency than animals did. And again, bestiality was a pagan worship rite. The video below from The Chosen, highlights this fact.
Why would God tell a man about all the people he is not allowed to sleep with, then switch to pagan worship rites in verses 21 and 23, while including men as forbidden sexual partners in verse 22? That makes no contextual sense. But if verse 22 is also a pagan worship rite, the placement of that prohibition makes perfect sense.
In Deuteronomy, the term “sodomite” in the King James refers to male temple prostitutes. I prefer how the NIV renders the verse: “No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.” Deuteronomy 23:17. Both men and women participated in pagan worship rites, which included child sacrifice, cult prostitution, and even bestiality. God clearly prohibited these cultish practices .
Man vs. Male
So far, we have just looked at the context of chapter 18. We have seen that God is forbidding sexual and worship practices that were common in the pagan nations in those days.
The other related passage appears two chapters later. Leviticus 20 begins by repeating some of the prohibitions in chapter 18, but now with penalties (usually stoning to death). Verse 13 (NIV) is the relevant one to our study. “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” The King James Version words it differently. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Different Hebrew Words
In this case, the KJV reflects what is happening in the Hebrew. The words translated man and mankind are basically man and male. Young’s Literal Translation brings this out. “And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done.” In Hebrew, the word “man” comes from the Hebrew word ish. This is the same word Adam used in Genesis 2:23 to refer to himself. The second Hebrew word is zakar, translated as male, and occasionally used to mean child. These are clearly both referring to the male gender, but why use two different words?
Some scholars believe that the use of different words implies a lack of equality. A man and a male prostitute, perhaps. Or a man and his slave. Or a man and a boy. I cannot prove that the use of two different Hebrew words for the same gender is significant. But neither can anyone else prove it is not. It does not constitute a solid argument for or against the affirmation of gay marriage. It is clear that whatever the original audience would have understood when they read these words, we cannot be sure today exactly what they meant. We can only guess at best. We should be very hesitant to create a doctrine out of best guesses.
Hebrew Holiness Codes
The laws given in Leviticus 17–26 are sometimes collectively referred to as the Holiness Code. God gave these laws to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. Many of them are not considered binding on anyone today, not even by conservative Jews. The question is, are any of them still binding?
Leviticus 20 repeats some of the prohibitions given before, while adding others. It lists many kinds of sins, sexual and otherwise, and calls for the death penalty for most of them.
(I almost said no one is advocating for the death penalty for same-sex sexual relations. Unfortunately, that is not true.)
There are isolated cases of pastors or extreme fundamentalist Christians advocating for the death penalty for gay people. But the vast majority of Christians would never say they deserve to die. We would not put a rebellious teenager to death (see Leviticus 20:9). Nor would we burn a man and his wives if he marries both a mother and her daughter (verse 14).
Heathen Practices Are the Issue
It bears repeating that Leviticus 18 made it clear that its prohibitions were things that the heathen around them did. Leviticus 20 is part of the Israelite civil code. Its laws applied specifically to the nation of Israel and were part of its government. Christians may read chapter 18 and apply it broadly as a warning not to love the world or the things in the world (see 1 John 2:15). Almost no one today would ever imagine imposing the penalties from the civil code established in chapter 20.
Leviticus 19 covers various and sundry laws, only some of which could be applied to today. Some are clearly part of the ceremonial laws pertaining to sacrifices in the Israelite tabernacle. No Christian would say that we need to keep them all today just as God gave them.
For example, verse 30, “Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord” (NIV) is one that most Christians today do not follow. Even Seventh-day Adventists only keep the seventh-day Sabbath, not the other ceremonial sabbaths that verse implies.
Christians who eat meat eat blood, which is forbidden in verse 26.
Many Christians ignore verses 33–34 (NIV): “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”
As you can see, Christians generally pick and choose. It seems arrogant to me to pick one law arbitrarily because it fits what we think, and reject the next one.
Other Perspectives
So far, we have looked at several perspectives on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. One is that they refer to cult prostitution or some pagan worship rite. This view is well supported by scholarship. Another perspective is that these verses do not apply to Christians today. They were part of the civil and moral code given to the Israelites. God gave them for the civil government, and they do not apply now. We also noticed the Hebrew words for man and male could imply unequal status between the two.
Another view is that these verses have a context rooted in the narrative of Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This view says these verses prohibit sexual exploitation, such as rape. Genesis 19 and the parallel passage in Judges 19 both show a picture of dominance and humiliation. Male dominance over other males through rape is repeated every day in modern prisons.
Yet More Perspectives
Yet another perspective is that the wording of Leviticus 18:22 indicates something entirely different. The phrase translated “as with womankind” in the King James Version is not well translated. A more literal translation of the phrase “mishkevei ishah” would be, “With a male you shall not lie [the] lyings of a woman.” These Hebrew words literally mean “beds of a woman.” Some scholars think this means the text prohibits a man from having sexual relations with another married man, specifically in the bed belonging to that man’s wife. This would be consistent with all the forbidden heterosexual relationships spelled out earlier in the chapter.
Some scholars believe that these verses refer to exploitative acts such as rape or pederasty. If I told you, “You must not rape a woman,” you would not imagine that I am telling you to never have sex with the woman you married. This view has problems, because exploitation is not explicit in the verses. Philo was a Jewish writer who was a contemporary of Jesus. He believed that the verses in Deuteronomy that mention prostitution (which may be what the verses we are discussing are talking about) applied to exploitation and even pederasty. So this view is not without some support
Abomination
Some Christians point to the fact that the Bible says a man lying with another man is an abomination in both verses. That is true. But abomination is usually related to idolatry in some way. Even when it is not, it is nearly always about something unjust or wicked. This document has an exhaustive list of all the verses that use the Hebrew word toʿēvah, translated abomination. A quick scan reveals that most of the verses are somehow tied to idolatry or a rejection of the true God in some way. It is interesting to note that some abominations back then are not taboo today. Most Christians have no issue with someone remarrying a former wife after divorcing her (Deuteronomy 24:4). Most also have no problem eating unclean meats (Deuteronomy 14:3). It would seem that God wanted to keep Israel loyal to Himself and distinct from the nations around them.
Bringing It All Together
Some people do not consider anything in Leviticus to be binding on Christians today. Others believe that we can extract principles from those laws given to Israel. Some believe that some of the laws are still binding, while others are not. And not everyone agrees about which laws to keep and which to ignore.
Two views appear to hold considerable weight (that is, they have the most support in the scholarly literature). First, these verses are referencing cultic worship practices common in the nations around Israel. And second, the prohibition against same-sex intercourse was just one of several rules designed to keep Israel separate and distinct from the other nations around her.
God wanted Israel to stand out, to be unique, a city on a hill, if you will. God set Israel in the midst of the nations (Ezekiel 5:5). She was to be a positive influence on the world (Deuteronomy 4:6). To do that, she had to be different, distinct, unique. Temple prostitution was something that everyone else did, and God didn’t want His people engaged in it.
What these verses are not doing is speaking of same-sex marriage. Such a thing did not exist back then. Having children was paramount. Homosexuality as an orientation was unknown back then; heterosexuality was assumed. Someone engaging in male-on-male sex was not unlike someone exploring hardcore pornography today—looking for something more scintillating, more exotic. And the fact that the commands were directed at men, not at women, is telling as well. Women are only told what they cannot do when animals are involved.
The Crux of the Matter
Some might argue that we should extract the principle of being different from the world as Christians. This is true. But how do we define what is worldly and therefore something we should shun, versus something secular but harmless? That could be a whole other blog post. Simply put, I believe that Jesus’ summary of the law (the Torah—which included Leviticus) is key:
“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37–40, NIV. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35, NIV.
The important thing is love. Loving others is how we are supposed to distinguish ourselves from the world.
In future posts, we will continue to discuss this topic. We will look at the other relevant verses from Paul. We will also discuss the topic of Biblical marriage and whether one-man/one-woman is prescriptive or not. Follow on social media to be notified when the next blog post drops.
Resources for further study:
Traditional view summary: https://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html
Man > Male: https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
Holiness Code: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/lgbtq-writing-liberating-scripture-2/
Abomination: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X3jAvabuSJph4xBxDpiTiDhq8RjhK3aTMDoDNJEc_Ms/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Other suggested reading: https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/08/18/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-6-leviticus-the-holiness-code-ancient-sex-ethics-and-abominations/
