I and probably most Christians believe that Leviticus is not relevant to or at least is not very significant with regard to the Christian faith. There are a lot of rules and commandments in the book that simply do not make much sense to modern Christians, and the punishments prescribed or determined for violation of these laws seem barbaric and cruel. The book is (perhaps) far more useful to our Jewish brothers and sisters. After all, it IS their book. And, they have the Talmud and other tools to help them to interpret the book and make some sense of it in a modern society.
From Gay Christian 101:
Leviticus is written specifically for the children of Israel, containing laws and rules for Israel to obey as they prepare to occupy the land of Canaan.
“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, [the Jewish nation] who are all of us here alive this day.” Deu 5:3.
The Holiness Code was not given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They lived hundreds of years before Moses.
The Holiness Code was not made with everyone living on earth. It was a specific covenant with a specific people, the Jews, at a specific time in history, for specific purposes related to the specific situation in Palestine at that time.
So, while I'd prefer not to worry about Leviticus, our Christian fundamentalist friends who insist on quoting a couple of passages in the book (or, at least trying to) while ignoring the rest of the book prevent me from ignoring its meaning or interpretation. I think they insist on quoting the two referenced verses because the English translations of these verses sound so condemning and clear (to them) about homosexuality. But, clarity is not something a modern day Christian actually finds in Leviticus. Even Rabbi and Professor Jacob Milgrom spent his whole life studying Leviticus and its meaning. He is/was a modern day scholar of the Leviticus text and has authored a three volume commentary on the book.
To my Jewish friends: If I make a mistake in the diary, it is not done with malicious intent. It is not my intent to offend or to denigrate Judaism or Jewish people. And, by all means, make corrections in the comments. Knowledge is power and it will help us to combat the ignorance of Christian fundamentalists. Having said that, much of my interpretation of these passages comes from a Jewish friend in Southern California who was in Rabbinical school (last year of it) until his passing.
Let's proceed below the fold for my interpretation of these passages.
First, let's discuss some of the historical context and/or considerations. The time/era discussed in Leviticus was after the Exodus of the ancient Hebrews from Egyptian captivity. They were creating a new nation, and it was a theocracy. The new ancient Hebrew nation was to worship the One true G-d as opposed to the tribes/nations that surrounded them which were polytheistic. Their religious rituals were not to be like (or to copy) those of the other nations. This is what much of Leviticus is about. This commandment is repeated again in verses 1 through 3 of Leviticus 18.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Population was a problem (unlike in our current world). The Hebrew nation needed to grow (the more Hebrew males the better). It was a matter of survival. So, no "spilling of one's seed" please.
They had somewhat of a caste system. Hebrew men were at the top, and Hebrew women were inferior (in terms of social order). Making a Hebrew man "like a woman" sexually or otherwise was considered degrading. It reduced his social status and was a no no.
Many of the nations and tribes surrounding the ancient Hebrews seemed to constantly be at war with each other. When one nation conquered or defeated another in battle, it was common practice for the winning warriors to anally rape the males of the other nation as a sign of humiliation and degradation and dominance.
Some of the surrounding tribes/nations practiced cult or shrine prostitution within the fertility cults as a worship ritual to the fertility gods and goddesses (especially the Canaanites). From GayChristian101:
When Israel left Egypt and entered Palestine, Jehovah warned them against worshiping Molech, Leviticus 18:3, 21-22, 26ff; 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 23, and by extension, his consort, Ashtoreth, the Canaanite fertility goddess, because God hates the worship of false gods.
Let's move on to the language context of the passages. Leviticus was originally written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. However, we notice some very interesting things just by looking at the English translation of Leviticus 18:22 via the KJV. The KJV of Leviticus 18:22 follows:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
This commandment (or mitzvah) seems to deal only with men or male/male sex. There is no mention of lesbian sex in this verse or elsewhere in the Torah (to my knowledge). So, this raises the question, "how can this verse be a universal prohibition of gay sex"?
And, what do we make of the "as with womankind" part? It probably refers to male on male anal sex. The male being penetrated would be reduced to the female role as they probably saw happening in these warring foreign nations and in the fertility cults.
On the other hand, some folks believe that the verse has to do with a prohibited activity in a woman's bed. A woman's bed was considered sacred. From Religious Tolerance dot org.:
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.
In Hebrew, it looks like this:
וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.
I have on a number of occasions stated that the verse is not really translated very well into English. I have two major issues with the translation. The first "with" is not there in the original Hebrew. And, to'evah is translated as an "abomination." That Hebrew word is somewhat difficult for us to translate, but I don't think "abomination" gets us close enough. I would probably translate it as "taboo." And, most of the time that it is used (but, perhaps not every time), it's within the context of idolatry.
From religioustolerance.org:
One key to the proper interpretation may be the Hebrew word "to'ebah," translated as "abomination" in the King James Version and "detestable" in the New International Version. Both English words seem to imply moral sin. However, this word was translated in the Septuagint -- the Bible used by Jesus' disciples and the early Christians -- into the Greek word "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, he/they probably would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
I asked my Jewish (almost Rabbi) friend about the translation and its meaning, and this was his response:
As for Leviticus, I do not trust Strong, as his work is based on the KJV in English, and has all its errors built in. Specifically in our case, there is no Hebrew word corresponding to the English "with" as in LIE WITH A MALE. Rather the Hebrew has "et," the direct object marker, which does not exist in English.
Thus, the verse is better rendered, "do not LAY a male." There is no consent on ther part of the second male, and the verse therefore has more to do with rape than with a mutually desired, let alone committed, relationship.
This form, "shakhav et" is used in two other places, both having to do with heterosexual rape. The first is the rape of Dinah by Shkhem in Genesis, the second is the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon in 2 Samuel. This latter case is particularly illustrative, since when Amnon is still trying to woo Tamar, he uses "shakhav 'im," "lie with," but when he forces her, the narrator uses "shakhav et," "lay." So the text is quite aware of the difference between consensual sex and rape, and there is no reason not to see the same distinction in Leviticus.
And, what does Professor Milgrom say about the meaning and interpretation of this specific text in Leviticus?
Rabbi Jacob Milgrom (scholar of the Leviticus texts) has said that these Leviticus texts are in reality, referring to foreign religious, cultic, ritual and promiscuous sexual practices, as practiced by the idolatrous religions of Egypt and Canaan, which featured the substitution of others, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex for cultic ritual fertility purposes.
So, it makes sense to me that Leviticus 18:22 is condemning the male on male rape that the ancient Hebrews saw occurring with the surrounding warring tribes along with the male on male temple prostitution that they also saw going on in Canaan. Leviticus 20:13 is simply the punishment for such crimes or violations. The Talmud describes the enormous difficulty it would be to prove such a violation and that the punishment is warranted. I don't believe that I've ever read of a case of that occurring in all of the OT.
From jewishvirtuallibrary.org:
The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.
So, much like what I wrote concerning the
Romans 1 passage in the NT, Leviticus 18:22 is a prohibition related to shrine prostitution. I would also add that the prohibition encompasses male on male rape as discussed above. Does it have anything to do with the loving and committed same-sex relationships that we see today? No, I strongly doubt it.