Leviticus 18:22: The Most Pro-Gay Verse in the Bible?
I make the case for an alternative reading of the most notoriously anti-gay verse in the Torah.
Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.
Share This
Share This
An Internet hub for centrists, independents and moderates with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting and popular features from the left, center and right.
Share This
Good argument… good luck getting Christian Fundamentalists to see it that way.
Wow… you’ve managed to be even more convoluted than the gay Levitican Jews who insist on avoiding missionary position.
Okay, here’s my issues with your logic, as far as I can understand your viewpoints.
First, nearly all aspects of the religious texts refer to men. Biblical figures had very little interest in gender-neutrality. People don’t suggest that a woman should covet her neighbor’s husband, for example.
Primary homosexuality is a relatively new concept – until the rise of Christianity, both heterosexuality and homosexuality were rare, instead with society primarily consisting of individuals who screwed whatever they wanted but were expected to procreate and pass on the family line. Records from Japan, Greek lands, and to a significantly more normative stance, many parts of Africa. It is unclear if this is due to cultural norms today, situational sexuality then, or even evolutionary forces.
As a result, an originalist might conclude instead that the writers believed every male (including the ones our culture today would consider gay) would at one point or the other ‘lay with a woman’, making the rule apply even to those who substantially preferred those of the same sex.
If your point is that gay men wouldn’t want to lay with women and as a result the original reading of the rule is unfair, why not just point out the portions of the Levitican laws which state anyone that eats at Red Lobster has committed abomination?
There’s a reason even fairly steadfast religious folk don’t follow all of those rules – they were designed for a significantly different era.
Regarding Gays, I would like to remind the neo-cons fundies of Matthew 18:10-14
“And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.”
Not particularly relevant. It’s an interesting parable, sure – it doesn’t show up in any other accepted gospels for some reason, for starters – and it’s certainly an atypical viewpoint compared to the Old Testament “Blow them to Bits” God, but it doesn’t really mean much for Jewish individuals (which seems to be the focus of Mr. Schaub’s arguments, given that he references Rabbis and frames events in terms of jewish individuals, and that Christians aren’t bound by many of the Old Testament laws).
Even more problematically, it’s as much an argument for reparative therapy than for acceptance of gay individuals – the texts doesn’t really advocate either bringing them back into the flock or what. While reparative therapy has its proponents, it’s also be linked to suicide and are certainly ethically debatable even in the ‘best’ cases.
gattsuru
Excuse me, I should have said “Christian neo-con Fundamentalists”.
Are you saying Jews do not eat at Red Lobster? That is my point! Forgiving people and accepting them into the group, or “fold” to be fancy. Not judging them. What difference is it if I plow my neighbor’s wife during the week while he is at work or gay people do whatever it is that they do? We BOTH sin. Think I’m going to tell the paster about it? Uhhh no. This point being that most of our sins are committed in private and we ALL sin. By driving away the gay you drive them away from God. So let God judge instead of man. Thats the way God wants it anyway.
Damn! I still can’t believe otherwise intelligent modern humans can possibly think that book is a righteous guide to a spiritual and moral life!
That’s the first quote from gatts I can agree with to date.
The Bible says we can own slaves, stone women to death for sex out of wedlock, or anyone for eating shellfish or pork, swearing or working on Sunday (or is it Saturday? I could be killed for not knowing on which day I can’t push the elevator button.) Besides, after watching a good football game, I guess I have to stone all the players for touching pigskin too. COME ON PEOPLE!
Krous,
you’re actually making the Orthodox case
The Orthodox Jewish approach is that there’s no such thing as a homosexual person, there are homosexual acts. The same way that eating a cheeseburger is a violation of Jewish law, a homosexual act is a violation of Jewish law.
Whether or not a person is able to follow Jewish law 100% is between them and God.
(Personally, I don’t want to know very much about anyone else’s sexual habits, no matter what they’re into).
-David
I still can’t believe otherwise intelligent modern humans can possibly think that book is a righteous guide to a spiritual and moral life!
It’s not the worst way to go. The ten commandments themselves, for example, are fairly good. The New Testament isn’t bad although a bit over-representative of other texts on morality from the same era, if you assume it to be true (otherwise the main character is a hippy who leads himself and his twelve friends to horrible deaths).
The issue is that humanity is like every other animal on its own code of morality, and in many ways worse (animals and rare humans do not feel empathy or sadism, so there’s a distinct difference in moral judgment and capability for evil). Without being taught some functional morality, humans are evil, sadistic, and counterproductive bastages.
Sadly, most individuals who attempt to teach morality around their own code… well, it’s like eugenics – the people most likely to try it are usually the ones least qualified to judge. John Dewey, anyone? At least with a religious textbook, by adulthood you have the capability to reject it for various reasons (when cult of the personality morality can only be confronted as a whole).
I’m more of a fan of game theory as a base, but it’s a distinctly soulless method, and probably not very effective for multiple scenarios.
Personally, I don’t want to know very much about anyone else’s sexual habits, no matter what they’re into.
Now there’s something I can agree with.
David B
No I’m not. What you are saying, (what the orthodox Jews point is)…is an irrelevant point to me.
My view: Everyone sitting in a house of God is a sinner. Its impossible not to be. Blasphemy being the only sin unforgivable, all the other sins are equal! (hard to believe but that’s the teaching).
So why should I care if the body beside me is racked with homosexual sin, or heterosexual sin, or lawn mower sin while the soul is praying to God? I’m no better. Who am I to judge?
I think the orthodox Jew’s, (fundamental Christian as well), real desire is to be able to somehow Punish the gay person if that person does not stop being gay. But for a Christian, we struggle with sin, we never defeat it because only God can defeat it and we must constantly beg God to do so. Therefore we have not right to judge, because only God can judge. (However you will play hell finding a church without judgment these days, but they are out there).
Krous,
You are mistaken in your characterization of Orthodox Jewish beliefs. Punishing sinners isn’t very high on our list of things to do – that’s really God’s job.
And what exactly do you mean “stop being gay”? I don’t believe one can totally control one’s thoughts and desires – only actions. If you mean “stop having homosexual sex,” then that’s certainly what shows up in the Bible.
I don’t think the fundy Christians recognize individuals as gay or not, either. They categorically refuse to believe that homosexuality is an inherent part of an individual. This is why, for example, reparative therapists consider those individuals who end up celibate as a ‘success’, even if they continue to like those of the same sex.
I don’t quite agree with that, but at least it’s intellectually coherent.
David S, you do realize of course that a major problem with your interepretation is that it presumes that we have just the text with no context? That is, you are pretending that it is sensible to take a bunch of words and pour whatever meaning you want into them – and then claim that your interpretation has the authority of the original text. It would be as though you took Edwin’s second line in “Trial by Jury” (“Be firm, be firm, my pecker!”) as a desire for sexual reponse and claimed that was was the author intended.
The fact is, Jewish tradition preserves the meaning of the verses – a meaning which even the Dorff, et al Interpretation accepts. That somebody else can come along and invent a completely different meaning of words does not make that meaning sensible.
An old tradition says that a candidate for the Sanhedrin had to be able to make a cogent argument for why a sheretz (explicitly defined as non-kosher by the Torah) is, in fact, kosher. That men were able to make such an argument does not make them valid – just creative use of logic.
You’re mistaking history and intent with context.
The context of that passage deals with various forms of sexual immorality. My reading does not extricate from that context–it is still speaking as to how one can and cannot behave sexually. But more than that, I think accusing me of ignoring the context is a bit of an odd charge, since my reading is definitely of the deconstructionist “there is no text, only context” school. An acontextual reading wouldn’t perspectivize the injunction as I do, and wouldn’t engage in the historical analysis which links the traditionalist reading to a heteronormative position rather than its claimed textualist mantle. Rather, I read the verse in the context of biblical themes about human dignity and partnership and in the context of contemporary knowledge sbout homosexuality, and come to the conclusion that I do.
The history of the text has been interpreted a different way–but that to some extent begs the question, because I’m arguing that the historical interpretation is wrong and/or based off faulty assumptions. As Rabbi Tucker cogently notes, if precedent is all that matters, then it would be impossible to change anything at all!
As for the intent, well, I’m not entirely sure how well humans can ascertain divine intent, or even if that is supposed to be my project. My project is simply to make the verse intelligible from the standpoint of its purported target–an endeavor that requires a non-heteronormative reading so that the argument becomes intelligible.
David -
Your post is eloquent testimony to the hermeneutical gymnastics that one must deploy to escape the plain meaning of a text!
Keil and Delitzsch in the 19th century wrote what is still considered by scholars as one of the finest commentaries on what Christians call the “Old Testament,” identical to the Hebrew Bible. Devoid of the political correctness that we must practice today, the heading of the section treating Leviticus 18:19-23 is entitled: “Prohibition of other kinds of unchastity and unnatural crimes.”
Commenting on v.22, Keil and Delitzsch see the issue as being paederastia, or the “sin of Sodom” (Gen. 19:5). They connect this prohibition with the story of the young male traveler in Judges 19 who stays overnight in Gibeah and narrowly averts being raped by the men of the town.
Modern translations of the Bible support this traditional interpretation, rendering Lev. 18:22 as follows:
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV);
“Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin” (NLT);
“It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man” (CEV).
This of course does not address the question of the application of capital punishment to offenders not only on this issue, but a half dozen or so other offenses mentioned in Leviticus, including rebellious children. No Christians that I’m aware of apply this punishment today for any of these offenses, though parents pray for the return of wayward and rebellious children, and yes, sons and daughters caught up in a homosexual/lesbian lifestyle. From a New Testament perspective, this is the admirable response and one pleasing to Christ, yet even this genuine compassion is scorned by those committed to advancing another agenda. That’s O.K. We’ll keep the conversation going.