Homosexuality: Leviticus 18
The following interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 was endorsed by the late scholar Dr Michael Heiser. Although, it should be pointed out that the man himself was a Bible-believing Christian who supported the biblical stance on homosexuality. He does not draw the same conclusion I do about the Bible being irrelevant to God's views on gay sex, but he still holds Leviticus 18:19-23 is founded in ancient, pre-scientific thought. In the video below, Dr Heiser begins talking about Leviticus 18 v21-23 at around 48:45 minutes, sharing his view on the pre-scientific thinking of these verses at around 55:00 minutes (you can follow the rest of this chapter without viewing though):
Leviticus 18:22 is a clear prohibition of all homosexual sex under the Mosaic Law. While the neighbouring countries to Israel sanctioned some forms of homosexual sex, Israel is unique in that it places a outright ban on all forms of same-sex activity within its law. The reason for this prohibition may be seen directly from its grouping in Leviticus 18 itself: It appears in a long list of sexual prohibitions, where there is suddenly an apparent break in the topic, and child sacrifice in idol worship is prohibited. The proscription of homosexuality then immediately follows, and then, by a verse forbidding bestiality:
18“ ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19“ ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
Leviticus 18:22 is a clear prohibition of all homosexual sex under the Mosaic Law. While the neighbouring countries to Israel sanctioned some forms of homosexual sex, Israel is unique in that it places a outright ban on all forms of same-sex activity within its law. The reason for this prohibition may be seen directly from its grouping in Leviticus 18 itself: It appears in a long list of sexual prohibitions, where there is suddenly an apparent break in the topic, and child sacrifice in idol worship is prohibited. The proscription of homosexuality then immediately follows, and then, by a verse forbidding bestiality:
19“ ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
[*break in topic now*]
21“ ‘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.
22“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
The break in topic after verse 20 seems out of place in the chapter on sexual taboos. However, these three verses are all linked by a common theme: this kind of behaviour would be thought of to result in the death of offspring (bear with me here..). So these three verses relate to the procreative aspect that results from sex, and the preservation of the offspring that follow copulation.
The Molek verse obviously forbids the killing of offspring, but the infamous homosexual prohibition in v22 is of the same nature, because in the eyes of the writers, homosexual sex could not result in conception, and so the child that would have been would be lost.
In the Ancient Near East and the wider ancient world, there was the belief that a man's semen or "seed" was the critical reproductive material that had to be "planted" or "take root" in the womb for a baby to be born. The "seed" was viewed as a literal seed, which was a tiny human life, which had to be planted in the womb to grow. So if it was not planted in the fertile soil of the woman's womb, it would die.
This view can be seen expressed by the Greek philosopher Plato (born ~428 B.C.E):
The same sentiment is hinted at by Plato again here:
This view can be seen by Jewish writers close to Paul. Here is a quote from the Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (born ~15 B.C.E):
Thus, homosexual sex would be thought of to result in the death of offspring, since the seed could not take root in the natural place of the female womb, and so would perish. Similarly, sex with an animal would result in the death of the offspring by the same token. This appears to be the thinking employed in Leviticus 18, by the obvious break in topic in a list of sexual prohibitions that suddenly mentions child sacrifice, then immediately returning back to the topic of sex by forbidding homosexuality in v22. Verses 21, 22 and 23 then, are categorised by the common theme of killing offspring, as would be apparent to the ancient Hebrew reader, familiar with this view of reproduction.
Although it seems evident in other ancient literature that people in the Ancient Near East were aware of the female role in reproduction, there seems to be something of special emphasis placed on the male sperm or "seed". This idea is still prominent in some sects of modern Judaism, where they hold that non-procreative release of semen or "wasting seed" is an especially egregious sin, since it is literally seen as the killing off millions of offspring in a single act. It appears that the writers of Leviticus did indeed have this view of reproduction in mind- that the male sperm was crucial, and should never be wasted outside the womb, or it was tantamount to murder.
Similarly, this principle is demonstrated in the famous biblical story of Onan, who was struck dead when he spilt his seed, despite being legally obliged to conceive a child with his late brother's wife Tamar (Genesis 38:2-10). Thus, he did not only break an important tradition, but he willingly killed the child he was supposed to beget.
Therefore, if the reasoning behind this ban on homosexuality was because it was seen as the killing of offspring, it is based on a lack of scientific insight: We know today that the sperm must join with an ovum before it forms a fetus. Male homosexuality therefore, is not to kill a nascent child, as the ancient Hebrews thought. It is merely to discharge half of the genetic material required for conception. Nothing dies apart from sperm cells.
This would mean that Leviticus 18:22 does not represent God's sentiments on homosexual sex, since God, being the architect of reproduction, knows that the wasting of semen is not the killing of offspring. Sperm is not alive in a human sense: it is only half of the genetic material required for human life to begin. God would not agree with this pre-scientific reasoning in Leviticus 18:21-23, so the famous verse 22 unlikely reflects God's views on the matter. God would more likely hold that homosexuality is a natural, involuntary sexual inclination and not a malicious act (as that seems evident from observation, apart from biblical prejudice). In addition, the same act is met with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13, which adds fierceness to the Bible's anti-gay stance, and sadly may influence radicals still today. Considering though what we have looked at here, these verses are more likely the work of ancient Jews than the God of the universe.
21“ ‘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.
22“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
~ Leviticus 18:18-23 NIV
The break in topic after verse 20 seems out of place in the chapter on sexual taboos. However, these three verses are all linked by a common theme: this kind of behaviour would be thought of to result in the death of offspring (bear with me here..). So these three verses relate to the procreative aspect that results from sex, and the preservation of the offspring that follow copulation.
The Molek verse obviously forbids the killing of offspring, but the infamous homosexual prohibition in v22 is of the same nature, because in the eyes of the writers, homosexual sex could not result in conception, and so the child that would have been would be lost.
In the Ancient Near East and the wider ancient world, there was the belief that a man's semen or "seed" was the critical reproductive material that had to be "planted" or "take root" in the womb for a baby to be born. The "seed" was viewed as a literal seed, which was a tiny human life, which had to be planted in the womb to grow. So if it was not planted in the fertile soil of the woman's womb, it would die.
This view can be seen expressed by the Greek philosopher Plato (born ~428 B.C.E):
"that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn't wish your sperm to grow.
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p50)
The same sentiment is hinted at by Plato again here:
"But maybe, if a god would be willing, we could enforce one of two ordinances regarding erotic matters: Either no one is to dare to touch any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife, and no one is to sow unhallowed, bastard sperm in concubines or go against nature and sow sterile seed in males; or we should abolish erotic activity between males altogether."
(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p51)
This view can be seen by Jewish writers close to Paul. Here is a quote from the Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (born ~15 B.C.E):
"And let the pederast know that he is subject to the same penalty, since he pursues a form of pleasure contrary to nature, and since, as far as he is concerned, he does his best to make cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the creative seed. And, moreover, he does not shrink from being a guide and teacher of those greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy, adulterating young men when in their prime, and making them effeminate in the flower of their youth, which ought to have been trained for strength and might of body."
(Philo On The Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p291) (Márquez Pursuing The Origins of "Sex Against Nature".., 2011, p90)
Thus, homosexual sex would be thought of to result in the death of offspring, since the seed could not take root in the natural place of the female womb, and so would perish. Similarly, sex with an animal would result in the death of the offspring by the same token. This appears to be the thinking employed in Leviticus 18, by the obvious break in topic in a list of sexual prohibitions that suddenly mentions child sacrifice, then immediately returning back to the topic of sex by forbidding homosexuality in v22. Verses 21, 22 and 23 then, are categorised by the common theme of killing offspring, as would be apparent to the ancient Hebrew reader, familiar with this view of reproduction.
Although it seems evident in other ancient literature that people in the Ancient Near East were aware of the female role in reproduction, there seems to be something of special emphasis placed on the male sperm or "seed". This idea is still prominent in some sects of modern Judaism, where they hold that non-procreative release of semen or "wasting seed" is an especially egregious sin, since it is literally seen as the killing off millions of offspring in a single act. It appears that the writers of Leviticus did indeed have this view of reproduction in mind- that the male sperm was crucial, and should never be wasted outside the womb, or it was tantamount to murder.
Similarly, this principle is demonstrated in the famous biblical story of Onan, who was struck dead when he spilt his seed, despite being legally obliged to conceive a child with his late brother's wife Tamar (Genesis 38:2-10). Thus, he did not only break an important tradition, but he willingly killed the child he was supposed to beget.
Therefore, if the reasoning behind this ban on homosexuality was because it was seen as the killing of offspring, it is based on a lack of scientific insight: We know today that the sperm must join with an ovum before it forms a fetus. Male homosexuality therefore, is not to kill a nascent child, as the ancient Hebrews thought. It is merely to discharge half of the genetic material required for conception. Nothing dies apart from sperm cells.
This would mean that Leviticus 18:22 does not represent God's sentiments on homosexual sex, since God, being the architect of reproduction, knows that the wasting of semen is not the killing of offspring. Sperm is not alive in a human sense: it is only half of the genetic material required for human life to begin. God would not agree with this pre-scientific reasoning in Leviticus 18:21-23, so the famous verse 22 unlikely reflects God's views on the matter. God would more likely hold that homosexuality is a natural, involuntary sexual inclination and not a malicious act (as that seems evident from observation, apart from biblical prejudice). In addition, the same act is met with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13, which adds fierceness to the Bible's anti-gay stance, and sadly may influence radicals still today. Considering though what we have looked at here, these verses are more likely the work of ancient Jews than the God of the universe.
References:
Dr Michael Heiser on Leviticus 18:21-23:
YouTube: Naked Bible Podcast 079 - Leviticus 17-18
Quotes on wasting seed:
Hugo Marquez Soljancic Pursuing The Origins Of "Sex Against Nature": A Genealogical Study Of The Development of Graeco-Roman And Christian Thinking Concerning Male Same-Sex Sexuality, 2011
Comments
Post a Comment