Homosexuality and Leviticus
 |
| The Tabernacle, Camp, & c. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Boswell, Edwards, Countryman, Nissinen, and others admit that, in Boswell’s words, “homosexual acts per se are mentioned.”75 Yet, they conclude that this passage is irrelevant for anyone except Old Testament Jews. Even Jesus and Paul considered the Levitical laws to be irrelevant under the new dispensation, such authors maintain. The laws concern ceremonial uncleanness rather than inherent evil; they concern ritual uncleanness, ethnic contamination, ancient societal taboos, or idolatry. The point is Jewish distinctiveness and ritual purity, not intrinsic wrong. The prohibitions are in the same category as prohibitions against eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which these chapters prohibit.76 Boswell concludes that “the Levitical regulations had no hold on Christians and are manifestly irrelevant in explaining Christian hostility to gay sexuality”; the law code was “largely discarded.”77 Countryman takes a similar view.78 Nissinen concludes that the laws are a postexilic attempt to protect Israel’s identity by strengthening ancient taboos. The laws reflect no knowledge of homosexual desire or orientation.79
The Significance of Toʿēbah
Boswell supports his position by appealing to the vocabulary, the context, and the cultural setting. He argues that the Hebrew toʿeba is the key. The term is translated “abomination” by the KJV and NRSV, “detestable” by the NIV, and “abomination” … “detestable” by the NASB. Throughout the Old Testament, writers reserve the Hebrew word and the Greek translation (bdelygma) for ethnic contamination, idolatry, or temple prostitution, whereas they use a different word, zimmah, for example, to express prostitution in general (e.g., Levit. 19:29). Boswell claims that the specific design of the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 is to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living (Egyptians) or would be living (Canaanites). Boswell would put homosexuality in the same category as the act of boiling a goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 23:19).
Does the revisionist view hold up? An investigation of these words reveals several problems with such an interpretation. The term toʿeba occurs 117 times, and its cognate taʿab occurs about twenty-two times. The latter term, the verb, occurs in Job four times (9:31; 19:19; 30:10, where it refers to clothes and people “detesting” Job, and 15:16, where vile designates people in general), and hardly has an ethnic or ceremonial sense. Approximately two-thirds of the occurrences of this verb appear to be general, not ritualistic or ceremonial. That is, it has an ethical sense (“detest, or exclude”; cf. Ps. 5:6; 14:1; 119:163; Amos 5:10; Micah 3:9) and a physical sense (“abhor, or loathe”; cf. references in Job; Ps. 107:18) in addition to the ritual (for example, Isa. 14:19; Ps. 106:40; Deut. 7:26; Ezek. 16:52). Often the meanings coalesce (Amos 5:10; Micah 3:9).80
The noun toʿeba occurs most frequently in Ezekiel (forty-two times), Proverbs (twenty-one times), and Deuteronomy (seventeen times). Most occurrences in Proverbs (for example, Prov. 6:16–19) have a general ethical sense, rather than an ethnic or ceremonial referent. Many references pertain to idolatry, but this hardly restricts the concern to Old Testament ritual purity. The New Testament also prohibits idolatry (Gal. 4:8; Col. 3:5–6; 1 John 5:21; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). In addition, the anchors of such a prohibition are the self-revelation of God (e.g., Isa. 45:22) and the Great Commandment (Matt. 22:35–40). The abominable thing may be abhorred by God or man (cf. Ps. 88:8). The term occurs occasionally as a synonym for “idol” (2 Kings 23:13; Isa. 44:19). Even prayer can be an abomination (Prov. 28:9). This term includes that which is “aesthetically and morally repulsive,” but its synonym šeqeṣ denotes that which is “cultically unclean, especially idolatry.”81 Boswell seems to err when he restricts the word to Israel’s cultus. Note that šeqeṣ is used predominately of unclean animals (Levit. 11:10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41, 42, 43; including 20:25). In 20:23 the term refers to general customs of the nations. Toʿeba is connected with unclean animals only in Deuteronomy 14:3–8.
In Leviticus, toʿeba occurs six times. In chapter 18 it refers to all the preceding “abominations” mentioned in the chapter (vv. 26, 27, 29, 30), including homosexuality (v. 22). The other sins and impurities of the chapter82 are incest among blood relatives (vv. 6–18),83 sex during menstruation (v. 19),84 adultery (v. 20), child sacrifice to idols (v. 21), homosexuality (v. 22), and bestiality (v. 23). Specifically, toʿeba refers only to sexual sins in Leviticus, including the sexual nature of idolatry.
In chapter 20 the term occurs once (v. 13), in reference to homosexuality. The sins or impurities of this chapter are the sacrifice of children to idols (vv. 2–5); spiritism and harlotry (vv. 6, 27); cursing father or mother (v. 9); adultery (v. 10); incest (vv. 11–12, 14, 17, 19–21); homosexuality (v. 13); bestiality (vv. 15–16); sex during menstruation (v. 18); and defilement from unclean animals (v. 25). It is significant that in these two chapters the only specific sin singled out as toʿeba is homosexuality. Also significant is the fact that toʿeba is not used to designate Jewish distinctions regarding unclean animals. See the chart of these vices on page 63.
It is apparent from this survey of usage that interpreters cannot limit the term toʿeba to Israel’s distinctive ritual purity, as one considers the word’s application to such universal sins as incest, adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, and idolatry. The Ten Commandments prohibit these sins, directly or indirectly. The New Testament repeats the prohibitions (for example, Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). The task is to decide whether a sound interpretation should include homosexuality among sins with universal application.
All of the sins of chapter 18 seem to be wrong for all people everywhere at all times.85 All fall under the designation toʿeba. In addition, the one sin designated toʿeba in chapter 20, homosexuality, is also universal in application, as well as those common to both chapters. That is to say, some of the sins of chapter 20 are not universal in their application by this test. Note that toʿeba does not occur in reference to unclean animals (20:25) nor for spiritism and harlotry (v. 6), nor for cursing parents (v. 9). The one sin designated toʿeba in the two chapters is homosexuality. The writer is placing emphasis here. It is not circumstantial, incidental, or limited to Israel.
Boswell and others fail to note that the text designates these practices as “abominations” (toʿeba) that defiled the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and others (18:3, 24–30) and even the land. God abhorred the previous inhabitants of Canaan because they did these things (20:23). Also, He held them accountable for these practices. The sin of the Amorite had become full (cf. Gen. 15:16). Their practices, excepting unclean animals, are abhorrent to God, whether in Israel or among pagans (18:1–20:23). The Canaanites were not judged to be ritually unclean, for God never held them accountable for the dietary laws. While the defilement of the land might refer to ritual, the text speaks of the nations defiling both themselves and the land. Israel is warned not to defile herself and the land (18:24–28). The text does not limit the warning to defilement of the land.
Those who limit these chapters to Israel’s ritual ignore the moral components. Scripture’s conception is that sin generates impurity, which in turn pollutes God’s sanctuary. In Leviticus 18, impurity affects the person, the community, the land, and the sanctuary in which God dwells. Ultimately, homosexuality violates order, and the final order is that of Creation (Levit. 11:44: “Be holy for I am holy.”). Sexual misconduct can be dealt with only by sanctions and the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.86
To determine whether God considers homosexuality a universal wrong, one should consider other references to the practice. The defense of the thesis that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and Gibeah provides support identifying its universality. Interpretation cannot relegate Sodom and Gibeah to Jewish ritual or ceremonial law. Most revisionist interpreters admit that Sodom was destroyed centuries before God gave the Law.
The existence of toʿeba in Ezekiel 16, as discussed above, argues for the universality of the prohibition of sodomy. There, three terms—zōnāh, toʿeba, and zimmah—seem to be synonymous. Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to Sodom and says that she has walked according to Sodom’s abominations (vv. 46ff.). In verse 50, Ezekiel applies toʿeba to Sodom.
Paul clearly describes homosexuality as the sin to which God delivers the Gentiles because they turn to idolatry (Rom. 1:24–27). Paul’s description of the relationship between idolatry and homosexuality parallels the description in Leviticus 18 and 20. In addition, his catalog of vices in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8–10) generally parallels the sexual vices in Leviticus. Paul treats them as universal sins for which Gentiles are culpable. Similar catalogs of vices survive from writings belonging to many ancient societies, including the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese.87
In Revelation 21:8, Jesus tells John that the lake of fire, the second death, is reserved for the (cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and liars.” The “abominable” represents bdelygma. The similarity of John’s list to the list of Leviticus 18 and 20 is evidence that John refers to “homosexuality.”
Jesus confirms this point in Revelation 22:15, declaring that outside the New Jerusalem are “the dogs and sorcerers and immoral and murderers and idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.” This list is so similar to the list in Revelation 21 that we must conclude that abominable corresponds to dogs. This reminds us of the use of dogs in the discussion of Deuteronomy 23:17 (see pp. 40–42). The strong presumption is that dogs refers to males who go to male temple prostitutes, hence homosexuals. In the Revelation there can be no limitation to temple prostitution or to Israelite ceremonial law. The future, eternal place of all humankind is under discussion. The three passages of Revelation and Deuteronomy, with Leviticus 18 and 20, together point strongly to the universal application of the ban on the practice of homosexuality.
The argument that inclusion of idolatry among the sins of Leviticus 18 and 20 shows the chapters to be circumstantial or ceremonial distorts Scripture.88 John includes idolaters and homosexuals in Revelation’s list of vices. Interpreters cannot limit these vices to violations of Jewish ceremonial law. John describes those who go to an eternal judgment, without distinction among Jews and Gentiles (cf. Gal. 4:8ff.; 1 John 5:12). Paul likewise associates idolatry with homosexuality when he condemns the sins of Gentiles in Romans 1. To treat the mention of idolatry as a criterion for deciding what is cultic and circumstantial degrades Judaism and Christianity to the level of pagan religions. Universal ethical standards are lost. In addition, this line of argumentation would make the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5) wholly circumstantial and limited, since idolatry is the focus of the second commandment and predominates the discussion in the immediately following chapters.89
Boswell also misrepresents the significance of word studies based on the translation of toʿeba in the LXX. He writes:
The distinction between intrinsic wrong and ritual impurity is even more finely drawn by the Greek translation, which distinguishes in “toevah” itself the separate categories of violations of law or justice (anomia) and infringements of ritual purity or monotheistic worship (bdelygma). Levitical proscriptions of homosexual behavior fall in the latter category.90
In a footnote, Boswell cites several references (Deut. 7:25–26, 3 Kings 14:24 [1 Kings 14:24]; 4 Kings 16:3 [2 Kings 16:3]; Isa. 44:19; Jer. 16:18; Ezek. 7:20; 8:6, 9; 16:36) to prove his point.91 He also states that the New Testament maintains this division. As support he cites Paul as using anomia for sin or injustice in general (Rom. 2:12; 4:7; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Heb. 1:9) and bdelygma or its derivatives “in reference to idolatry or violations of Jewish ritual purity in particular” (Rom. 2:22; Titus 1:16).
Uses of these two terms in the Old and New Testaments do not fall into neat categories.92 Even if categories were valid, that would not mean that the first category is universal (still valid), while the “Jewish” one is not. Idolatry is an “intrinsic wrong” for Jews and Gentiles. There must be something in the context that delimits the significance of these terms to tell us whether they are “Jewish” only or universal. The repetition of the prohibition in the New Testament argues for its transtemporal nature. It is also significant that Leviticus 18:22 refers to male and female, rather than man and woman. These terms allude to the creation of human beings as male and female in gender (Gen. 1:26–27). Use of the word men would have limited Leviticus 18:22 to adults; male includes all members of the gender, from infants on. The Hebrew zākār always refers to the male gender. Such evidence argues that the passage forbids physical sexual interrelationships among human males and that 20:13 (using man) should be interpreted in light of 18:22.93
The Context and Cultural Setting
The reader also should consider the larger context of the book of Leviticus. Leviticus 18–20 is remarkably universal in comparison with the rest of the book. Leviticus 1–17 clearly relates to ceremony and ritual. The ordinances deal with sacrifices (1–7), consecration and abuse of the priesthood (8–10), clean and unclean food (11), purification of women (12), cleansing from leprosy (13–14), cleansing from bodily discharges (15), the Day of Atonement (16), and the place of sacrifice and the shedding of blood (17).
Chapter 18 speaks of none of these ceremonial issues; it pertains to moral standards. Sacrifice, cult, and ritual are not mentioned. Several statements refer to heathen practices, not as customs but as detestable moral defilement (vv. 3, 21, 26–28). The attempt to link homosexual practices to temple prostitution and thereby dissipate the universality of the passage runs aground on the fact that the text does not mention the cult or such prostitutes. The act itself is defined as an abomination.
Chapter 19 returns to ceremonial practices of Israel and to practices that are tangentially ceremonial, with moral implications. This chapter includes certain universal absolutes, notably verse 18b: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The New Testament cites this verse and the chapter as a whole with universal intent.
Chapter 20 assesses the penalties for the sins of chapter 18. Then Leviticus returns to regulations for Israel’s priests (21–22), festivals (23), sanctuary (24), and the sabbatical year and year of Jubilee (25). There are blessings for obedience, penalties for disobedience (26), and laws on vows (27).
Indeed, Leviticus 18 and 20 clearly correspond to the laws of the Decalogue of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.94 These are the chapters in Leviticus that have universal significance, unless Scripture elsewhere explicitly teaches that they are for Israel alone. The rules regarding clean and unclean food may be abrogated, at least in part, by Acts 15:20, 28–29; Romans 14; and Colossians 2:16. In chapter 19, seven laws correspond to the Decalogue. Indeed, the sexual offenses of Leviticus 18 and 20 elaborate on the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery.”
The Literary Form
The section of Leviticus 18–20 has a special character. These chapters form “a distinct section with a formal introduction in 18:1–5 and a formal closing in 20:22–26.”95 Interpreters call this section the “Law of Holiness.” Moral precepts prevail in chapters 18–19 and penal sanctions in chapter 20.
Special phrases mark this section. The introductory formula (18:2), “I am the LORD your God,” is almost identical to the formula that introduces the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). The formula, “Be holy, for I the LORD your God, am holy,” occurs four times (19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:8), as well as twice in 11:44–45. Israel is told, “I am the LORD your God” nearly fifty times in this section.96
The literary form of Leviticus 20 differs from 18–19 in that the latter are apodictic in form, like the Decalogue. Certain practices are forbidden, with little said about consequences. In chapter 20, the laws are casuistic; they state what one must do if an apodictic rule is broken.97 It is an issue beyond the scope of this study to discern whether the penalties of chapter 20 apply only to Israel, but the standards themselves, as given in Leviticus 18, are universal.
The form of Leviticus 18 in itself argues that we should view it as sharing the significance of the Decalogue. The order of the material in chapter 18 “loosely resembles the covenant-treaty form” of the second millennium B.C., which also is present in the universal texts in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy (esp. Deuteronomy 5).98 There is a preamble (v. 2), a historical retrospect (v. 3), a basic stipulation (v. 4), blessing (v. 5), detailed stipulations (vv. 6–23), and curses (vv. 24–30).
Chapter 17 acts as a hinge between the two halves of Leviticus. Leviticus 1–16 covers ritual and ceremony, while chapters 18–25 deals with private religion and morality.99 Chapter 18 sets forth the fundamental standard that distinguishes Israel as God’s chosen people. The polemic thrust is strong. Seven times God reminds Israel not to behave as the Canaanites (vv. 3 [twice], 24, 26, 27, 29, 30). Six times God says, “I am the LORD your God” (vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30).100 A curse for noncompliance in verse 29 closes the chapter.
The order of laws in 18–20 seems significant. Gordon Wenham observes that the text gives first place in these “foundational principles of social morality” to marriage, “the cornerstone of all human society.”101 Any violation of marriage calls for God’s punishment upon the offender and the society that condones it.
These literary features of the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 provide significant, if not compelling, support for the universal nature of these texts. Complementing the seventh commandment with its general prohibition of adultery, these chapters provide the details of appropriate sexual behavior in various relationships.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 47–54). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
