|
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
Summary: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe male to male anal intercourse and condemn it as abhorrent to Yahweh and therefore not to be practiced. It was rejected by the Hebrews simply because it was rejected by Yahweh.
Social factors for the prohibition are not easy to discern. There is no reference in the laws to differences or changes in social status; the concept of pollution is not directly related in the context; and various ideas concerning semen do not seem to be relevant.The terminology of the commands implies that receptivity was appropriate to women, not men; however it is not clear that this was the reason for the prohibitions.
Context: These two statements are found in the section of Leviticus known as the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26). A key concept is “separateness”. The laws are presented in the context of not doing what other nations do (18:3, 20:24). The people of Israel are given a choice: to obey Yahweh, or not to obey Yahweh (26:3ff, cf 26:14ff) simply because they are Yahweh’s people (26:11-13). No other justification is deemed necessary, and therefore no other justification is given.
Leviticus 18:22
Text: we'et zakar lo tishkab mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba hi' You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
Text: we'ish 'aser yishkab 'et zakar mishkebe 'ishsha to'eba 'asu shenehem mot yumatu demehem bam
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Context: Chapter 20 is arranged in an ABCBA form:
A vv1-6 Warning against giving children to Molech, and the use of mediums. B vv 7-8 Call to holiness C vv9-21 Sins against family (mostly sexual) B vv22-26 Call to holiness reiterated, with the warning that they should not live by the customs of the nations of the lands they are going to enter. A v27 Warning against mediums and spiritists
Terminology: zakar - male mishkebe ishsha - literally “to lie (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman” - penetration of the male, by analogy with mishkebe zakar, "male vaginal penetration", ie penetration of the vagina by a male (receptive intercourse). Numbers 31 uses "mishkebe zakar" to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non-virgins (v17); cf Judges 21:11-12. (Olyan 1994:185-6) Support for this interpretation may be found in the Talmud. The phrase "to lie the lying down of a woman" in y.Qidd. 1:1, 58c and b.Yebam. 546 indicates that anal penetration was the act which defined homosexual intercourse.
to’eba - translated "abomination" Nissinen 1998:39 - "transgression of a divinely sanctioned boundary" (Nissinen 1998:39); a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention (Olyan 1994:180 n3; Boyarin 1995:334 n3).
Cultic and idolatrous practice The use of to’eba is important. Elsewhere in the OT (eg Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; Ezekiel 6:9, 11; 7:20; 8:4-18; 14:6; 16:36, 43, 44-58; 18:12-13; 20:7; 22:2) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples. Thus the use of to’eba gives the homoerotic activity a cultic/idolatrous significance; the references to child sacrifice in 18:21 and the giving of children to Molech in 20:1-5 indicate a concern with cultic practices in these passages.
Both the verses share similar terminology and so will be examined together.
1. Who? The word zakar is used to refer to the passive partner in the act. The word means “male” rather than “man” or “youth”; by using the word for “male” the author has covered all potential participants in the act.
There is no mention in either of the verses of the relative status of the offenders. It would appear that this law, like the rest of the Hebrew laws, apply to all residents of Israel without regard to social status.
2. What? The phrase mishkebe 'ishsha literally means “to lie (or sleep) the lying-down (or sleeping) of a woman”. Olyan argues that, by analogy with mishkab zakar, it refers to receptive intercourse only (Olyan 1994:194-6). Mishkab zakar means “male vaginal penetration”, ie the penetration of the vagina by a male. Both Olyan and Wold hold that mishkebe 'ishsha is the female corollary of this (Olyan 1994:185; Wold 1998:107). Numbers 31 uses mishkebe 'ishsha to distinguish between women who are virgins (vv18, 35) and women who are non-virgins (v17) Judges 21:11-12 uses the phrase for the same purpose. It likely refers to the occurrence or non-occurrence of vaginal penetration. Olyan goes further to say that if the range of meaning of mishkebe 'ishsha is as limited as that of mishkab zakar, then in Leviticus mishkebe 'ishsha must refer to penetration of the male (Olyan 1994:185-6). This is then a prohibition merely of male penetration of the male, that is, anal intercourse.
3. Why? a. to'eba Each of the offences in Leviticus 18 are to'eba, or abomination (18:29), a word which is used six times in Leviticus (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). What constitutes to'eba?
There appears to be general agreement that to'eba refers to a violation of or attack on a social or religious convention (Olyan 1994:180 n3; Budd 1996:261; Boyarin 1995:334 n3). In this context and others (eg Gen 43:32, 46:34; Ex 8:26; Deut 7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; and throughout Ezekiel) it is used to condemn the religious practices of other peoples.
But why are these particular deeds labelled as to'eba? What characteristics of these deeds are so reprehensible that they are prohibited?
b. Penalties/sanctions It is possible that some light may be shed through looking at the penalties decreed for these deeds. Two different penalties are designated in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the death penalty and the kereth or “cutting off”.
i. Death penalty The death penalty is prescribed in the words mot yumatu “they shall certainly be put to death”.
There appear to be three categories of transgression for which death is the punishment within the Holiness Code: crimes which usurp the place of God (20:2, 27; 24:16); crimes against family (20:9); sexual crimes (20:10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16). Elsewhere it is applied to the crime of killing a human being (14:17).
ii. kereth The word kereth means “to be cut off” (Leviticus 18:29). The kereth is applied to crimes against God (17:3-4, 8-9, 10; 19:5-8, 20:2-5, 6; 21:3; 23:29), including sexual transgressions (18:29, 20:17, 18), rather than against neighbours. It is probable that kereth involved a response by God. In Leviticus 23:29 kereth is prescribed for not humbling oneself on the Day of Atonement; in v. 30 a related offence, working on the Day of Atonement, incurs destruction by God from among his people. This seems to relate to the person’s place in the community of Israel, with its history and destiny, as well as personal annihilation. Based on a study of synonymous and antithetical terms, Wold describes kereth as “a conditional divine curse of extinction, obliterating the sinner (and progeny) from any role in the drama of Israel’s history” (Wold 1998:147).
kereth and the death penalty are different punishments. In some instances both sanctions are prescribed for the same or similar offences. In Leviticus 20:2 the death penalty is declared for the man who gives up his children to Molech; the next verse indicates that he will also be kereth from among his people. Consultation of a medium or spiritist (20:6) incurs kereth; but in 20:27 death is prescribed for a similar offence. The two sanctions are clearly not the same.
kereth is a divine sanction, carried out by God and that the death penalty is a community sanction. Wold suggests that kereth is an action of divine justice, to deal with cases of impurity when the community is either unaware of the offence or unable to find a sufficient number of witnesses to the offence to effect community justice (Wold 1998:144). This implies that on occasion the community would be able to do nothing (eg 20:4-5) and leave the matter to God.
The implications for sexual offences, and homosexual behaviour in particular, are significant. By their nature these acts are difficult to detect, let alone prove. Although it was applicable, there is no record of the death penalty (or any penalty) being applied to homosexual offenders. The community may have suspected an offence had occurred, but in the absence of proof could merely have waited for God to apply kereth in his own time, the impurity caused by the offence being dealt with at the next Day of Atonement(Wold 1998:144).
c. Other possible reasons i. Feminization of the male Olyan notes that the terminology suggests that receptivity is appropriate only for females - a male must experience mishkebe 'ishsha with women only (Olyan 1994:188). It could therefore be argued that, in a male-dominated society like that of the Hebrews, the problem is that a male is being acted upon as a female. This does not take into account that 18:22 addresses only the inserter; and that the verses surrounding both of these commands address a variety of sexual acts which are not related to the “feminization” of a male, or a similar change in status. The focus of the prohibitions in Leviticus is the behaviour itself, not the implications of being penetrated.
ii. Male cultic prostitution Are these commands references to male cultic prostitution? Boswell claims that the laws in Leviticus are aimed at temple prostitution rather than homosexual behaviour in general (Boswell 1980:101 n 34). This is possible if we read Leviticus 18:21 and 20:1-5 as references to cultic practices. But elsewhere in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26) there are no references to sexual practices for cultic purposes; and references to other kinds of alien cultic customs are implied rather than explicit (19:4, 26; 20:6, 23; 26:1). There is nothing to indicate that cultic prostitution is an issue in these sections.
iii. The misuse of semen a. Pollution The concept of “pollution” serves as a “shorthand” term for the mystical danger from any event, attitude or action which threatened social order (Bigger 1979:195). Events such as childbirth and marriage are potentially catastrophic or life-changing, and there is “pollution” inherent in the events and things associated with them, such as body fluids and discharges.
This might serve as a blanket explanation for the sexual laws; an examination of the references to semen in Leviticus (15:16, 17, 18, 32; 22:4) indicates that it is in fact regarded as polluting. But the chapters 18 and 22 do not mention semen; pollution/defiling is a theme of Leviticus 18 (eg vv 24-28) but semen is not directly implicated. It remains only a possible solution, not certain.
b. Mixture Olyan sees “mixing” as important, possibly a primary, organising element (Olyan 1994:202). This may be the intention behind the prohibition on sex with a menstrual woman (18:19), and the potential for mixing semen with that of other men during intercourse with various female relatives may have motivated the prohibitions in 18:7, 8, 14-16.
Applied to the homosexuality texts, the intention may have been to prevent mixing of excrement and semen, two defiling substances (Olyan 1994:203). But as Olyan notes there is no reciprocal ban on anal intercourse with a woman (Olyan 1994:203 n81), which would be essential if mixing was the guiding theme.
c. Wastage A third factor is that of the wastage of seed. Semen expended in extramarital sexual activities would not be available for procreation.
However there is no reference in the Holiness Code to the notion that male and female only should couple and procreate. Masturbation and fellatio to orgasm would have been condemned on this principal, however the status of those activities is unknown.
Given that the Bible nowhere addresses semen as a theme in itself (Onan’s offence in Genesis 38:9, 10 was not that he wasted his seed, but that he refused to give his brother an heir), and accords it no particular mystical significance (such as being the “seat of life”), it is unlikely that wastage of semen was the motivation for any of the sexual laws.
LXX
18:22 kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynikeian, bdelygma gar esti
20:13 kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos, bdelygma epoieso amphoteroi
Reflects the Hebrew usage: 18:22 - ou koimethese koiten ("do not sleep the sleep of a woman") 20:13 - hos an koimethe ….. koiten ("neither sleep the sleep of a woman")
Terminology: arsenos = zakar bdelygma = to’eba, with an increased emphasis on the notion of impurity. (LXX Exekiel 5:7, 9,11; 6:9,11; 7:3-4, 8-9, 20; 36:31; 33:26-29 refers to pollution generated by sin - Wold 1998:112. This suggests that by the time of the LXX the concept of abomination had become explicitly linked to impurity.)
An examination of the LXX versions of the references indicates how the concepts were interpreted closer to Paul’s time, ie c. mid 3rd century BCE.
Both verses reflect the Hebrew original in the use of arsenos to represent zakar. Most uses of arsen (of which arsenos is the sg. gen. form) in LXX refer to “male” rather than “man”. It is usually opposed to phelys or “female” (eg Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:19f; 7:2f; 9:15f; Lev 3:1, 6; 12:7), and thus refers to gender. The alternative would have been anthropos, which is used by the LXX to refer to humanity, man and woman (eg Genesis 1:26).
The use of ou koimethese koiten (“do not sleep the sleep of a woman”) in 18:22, and the similar expression in 20:13 (hos an koimethe ….. koiten “neither sleep the sleep of a woman”) also reflects Hebrew usage. The verb in both verses takes passive forms, which in 18:22 would imply that the receiver is condemned rather than the perpetrator; however the verb koimao (“sleep”) has the same forms in the passive voice as the middle, making it more than likely that it is a deponent verb, that is, takes an active meaning. This grammatical anomaly is of course irrelevant in 20:13, in which both parties are condemned.
bdelygma is literally “abomination” or “detestable thing”, as in the Hebrew however the LXX emphasises the notion of impurity which is only hinted at in the original (BAGD 137-8). Each of the twelve occurrences in Ezekiel (5:7, 9,11; 6:9,11; 7:3-4, 8-9, 20; 36:31; 33:26-29) refers to pollution generated by sin (Wold 1998:112). This suggests that by the time of the LXX the concept of abomination had become explicitly linked to impurity.
|