Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – Part 5: Questions and Conclusions

      In this final instalment, I raise some questions and draw some conclusions about what the laws in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 actually prohibit. Both verses contain a phrase that is ambiguous as to its meaning in its original language and thus quite difficult to know how to translate. The English translations we have in most modern versions are not literal but interpretive. Also, both verses are found within a broader context of prohibitions against incest, which is especially clear in the re-contextualizing of  the law as stated in 20:13. It is my conclusion that using Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 as a proof text for the traditionalist view ignores both the ambiguity found in both verses and dismisses the reality of the contexts in which both verses are found. In other words, Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 cannot justifiably be used to establish a biblical prohibition against all same-gender sexual relations for all peoples and for all times.

*********************

4.     Questions that arise

The first two questions have to do with the idiom מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה.  How should it be translated? Given the awkwardness of a literal translation, what words should be inserted to make it understandable in English without being overly interpretive? Another question relates to the gender differences. Why does the author say, “You will not lie with a זָכָר” (18:22) and “A אִ֗ישׁ who lies with a זָכָר” (20:13), especially since אִשָּׁה (woman), not נְקֵבָה (female) follows? Then, having to do with the various prescribed punishments: Why is it stated in 18:29  that, “For whoever commits any of these abominations…shall be cut off from their people,” whereas the punishment in 20:13 for both participants is that “they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them”? Along with that, one might ask: Based on Lev 20:2–3, is being “cut off from their people” somehow equivalent to “shall be put to death”? The next two questions have to do with context. Why does the redactor of the Holiness Code embed these two texts in the immediate midst of different laws? How, then, do the immediate contexts of each verse impact how we understand what act is prohibited? And finally, why, if Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit all same-sex relations, is this law not found in any law context other than in Leviticus 18 and 20, where the majority focus is on proscribing incest?

            Lings notes, “All hermeneutical approaches to Leviticus 18.22 [and 20:13] have one thing in common … that the lawgiver expresses condemnation.”[1] Whatever interpretation an exegete determines is best, that person should acknowledge that these questions are justified and therefore provide some reasonable answers. There are some scholars who do not acknowledge that exegetical challenges exist and thus feel no need to provide answers. For these scholars, the texts simply “mean what they say,” because these laws are “concise and precise” and “clear.”[2] Others dig deeply into the Hebrew text, which they do not find to be clear or precise and thus strive to answer the questions that arise from their thoughtful analysis. At the very least, the unusual details mentioned above should cause one to pay close attention and perhaps consider the possibility that the authors/redactors of the Holiness Code knew exactly what they were doing. Keeping all this in mind, some conclusions are possible.

5.     Conclusions        

I do agree with Wold when he writes, “The debate within the church [re: “the practice of same-gender sexual relations”] reflects diametrically opposed views of Scripture and the role that the Bible plays in determining sexual ethics.”[3] How an exegete views Scripture determines one’s hermeneutic and thus the method of interpretation he/she employs. However, there is a continuum of differing “views of Scripture;” not just two diametrically opposed views. I find that those who set up a dichotomy of views, tend to treat “the Bible as divine oracle or law, abstracting its words from their literary and social contexts and absolutizing them as statements of timeless rules or principles that stand over against changing social practices and values.”[4] To be clear, my view of Scripture is that it is a human-divine product and as such it is pluriform, multivocal and therefore, at times, its meanings are diverse and/or ambiguous. I also regard the biblical texts as the ancient texts of a patriarchal and hierarchical culture and thus these cultural realities must be taken into account.[5]

It seems clear to me that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are neither precise or clear in prohibiting all same-gender sexual relations.[6] First, there is no mention of a woman lying with a female. This law, like so many others in these two chapters (and throughout the biblical law codes) have men as their subject. In places where a law applies to women as well, the female gender is often referenced specifically. Second, the numerous questions that arise from the close reading and various analyses of each verse are not insignificant and should give any interpreter reason to pause and thoughtfully try to provide reasonable answers. Those who insist that these laws clearly and unambiguously prohibit all same-gender sexuality for all people for all time, ignore or minimize the complexities/difficulties of the Hebrew text, misunderstand/misrepresent the meaning of תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה, and/or refuse to take the immediate context into consideration.[7]   

I agree with Friedman and Dolansky who write, “Above all, from this discussion we learn, at minimum, that understanding these passages is difficult. It is complicated. It is more difficult and more complicated than one might think when one first reads the verses.”[8] As Lings notes, “One thing remains clear: the original Hebrew is opaque. There is no satisfactory method for converting the unusual phrase “with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman” to good, idiomatic English,”[9] even though “[m]ost modern translations present this text as self-explanatory.”[10]

Of all the ways scholars have tried to explain why this prohibition exists, and thus what is being prohibited, one makes more sense to me than the others. Given that this is the only context in which a law regarding man-male sexual relations is stated, these laws are prohibiting incest between males who are related by blood or marriage.[11] For sure, there are a several other laws also found within the confines of Leviticus 18 and 20 that are not about incest but the majority of laws in these two chapters have to do with prohibiting incest.[12] Also, in the reorganizing of the laws from Leviticus 18 to 20, 20:13 is found in the midst of other laws prohibiting incest.[13] I realize other explanations have been offered and are possible for why man-to-male sexual relationships are prohibited, but in my opinion, not one of these addresses the immediate context well.[14]
However, of this I am convinced: a close reading and various analyses of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 raise serious questions, concerns and issues regarding the traditionalist view (i.e., that these passages prohibit all same-gender sexual relations for all people and for all times). Thus, whatever position one takes position one takes on what kind of same-gender sexual relations Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit and why, these texts cannot be used as proof-texts for the traditionalist view. For Christians, at least, coming to a "biblical" conclusion (i.e., as to whether the Bible supports a non-affirming or affirming position regarding those who identify as LGBTQ and Christian), may best lie with the results of an exegetical analysis of Romans 1:26–27 within the context of the New Testament's overall teachings.[15]

---

[1] Renato K. Lings, Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible (Bloomington, IN: Trafford Publishing, 2013), Kindle edition, “Unresolved Issues,” loc. 5151.

[2] Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and a Christian: Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2014), 127; Wold, Out of Order, 102.

[3] Wold, Out of Order, 7.

[4] Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation,” 143.

[5] Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation,” 146. An academic discussion of this hermeneutic can be found in Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) and a more popularly written approach in Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).

[6] Wold states, “Written in the language of law, both verses are concise and precise…” (Out of Order, 101) and “Contrary to the opinions presented by many contemporary scholars, the language of the two biblical laws on homosexuality is clear” (Out of Order, 102).

[7] Brown (Can You Be Gay and a Christian? 127) writes, “Either way, it turns out that Leviticus 18:22 means exactly what it says, and it applies to all peoples for all times. Will we accept the words of our God?”

[8] Friedman and Dolansky, The Bible Now, 39.

[9] Lings, “The ‘Lyings’ of a Woman,” 248.

[10] Lings, “The ‘Lyings” of a Woman,”  231.

[11] Lings notes, “The argument of James Miller (2010: 49) that Leviticus 18.22 is ‘non-incest’ because of its position between 18.21 (sacrifice to Molekh) and 18.23 (bestiality) loses its force if the parallel prohibition in Leviticus 20.13 is brought into the picture. The context of this verse differs from Leviticus 18.22 in significant ways. Most remarkably, the two preceding verses clearly speak of incest, i.e. Leviticus 20.11 and 20.12 announce the death penalty for incestuous acts. According to 20.13, the same punishment applies to males who engage in mishkevey ishshah (Lings 2009: 245). Therefore, while it is impossible to speak with absolute certainty at this stage,136 various factors seem to point in the direction of a possible location for mishkevey ishshah within the biblical vocabulary pertaining to incestuous relationships (Lings 2009: 245).” [Love Lost in Translation, “Incest, Part One,” loc. 5233]. This is also the position taken by Jacob Milgrom and David T. Stewart, as well as a growing number of scholars.

[12] Of the 17 specific laws listed in chapter 18 (not including 18:22), 14 are prohibiting various incestuous relationships. The other 3 laws have to do with: not uncovering the nakedness of a woman who is menstruating; not sacrificing offspring to Molech; not have sex with an animal. Of the 14 specific laws listed in chapter 20 (not including 20:13 and the laws re: unclean food), 7 are prohibiting various incestuous relationships. The other 7 laws have to do with: not sacrificing offspring to Molech; not turning to wizards and mediums; not cursing one’s parents; not committing adultery; not having sex with an animal; not being a medium or wizard. However, in chapter 20, v. 13 is found in the midst of the 7 laws prohibiting incest.  

[13] See Appendix C for a visual representation of the embedding of 18:22 and especially of 20:13 in chapter 20. Lings (“The Lyings of a Woman,” 245) summarizes it as follows: “The amplified equivalent of Lev. 18.22 is found in 20.13. From a literary point of view, the most remarkable detail is the fact that the two preceding verses clearly speak of incest. Thus Lev. 20.11 and 12 announce the death penalty for incestuous acts. According to 20.13, the same punishment applies to all males who engage in מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה.  Following a brief parenthesis, which presents the penal framework for other sexual crimes, the incest theme is resumed in v. 17 and vv. 19-21.”

[14] Bird (“The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberations,” 157) concludes, “It appears most likely in the patriarchal ethos of ancient Israel that homosexual activity carried a sense of male shame for the partner “forced” to assume the “female” role (or shamelessness for the male who assumed it voluntarily), a judgment corroborated by Mesopotamian evidence…In the final analysis it is a matter of gender identity and roles, not sexuality—which must conform to the socially approved gender patterns.” Olyan (“And with a Male You Shall Not Lie,” 197–198), summarizes the various attempts by scholars to find unity in these laws as follows: “Some scholars have been inclined to explore how the laws of Lev 18 and 20 function as a group and to suggest what if anything unites them … One way of understanding these prohibitions emphasizes alleged connections with so-called idolatry. Another approach utilizes Mary Douglas’s arguments…with regard to prohibited animals, arguing that male-male anal intercourse is forbidden because the receptive male does not conform to his class (male). A third view sees the wasting of male seed in nonprocreative acts as the central concern in the sexual laws of Lev 18 and 20, including 18:22 and 20:13. Finally, it has been argued that the mixing of otherwise defiling emissions is at issue in several of these sexual proscriptions.”

[15] I look forward to engaging in this exegetical study in the not-too-distant future.