HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE TORAH

Anchor 1

We are all aware of the (erroneously) perceived Biblical prohibition on homosexuality, which often relies on the prohibition in Leviticus 18, the context in which this prohibition was promulgated. Let us dig deeper. Priestly male sacred prostitutes were common in biblical Israel, as in other Semitic cultures. Sacred prostitutes were active even in the Great Temple in Jerusalem as we learn from scripture… Book of D’varim/Deuteronomy 23:18, “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel”… where the Jewish Publication Society translation (and others) uses the term “sodomite” for the word “qadesh”, the feminine form of which, “qdesha”, meaning a holy prostitute. (It is from the German translations which use of a cognate for “whore” which aided in the rise of the currently debated word play dilemma.)

Only in the period of Josiah’s reform, when the cults of foreign gods were uprooted, was sacred male prostitution prohibited. Since the cult was so popular among the people, it was necessary to make the prohibition in a particularly stringent way, inducing a presentation of the concept of an abomination. However, Deuteronomy relates to a pagan cult of this sort, not to sexual acts themselves. The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 20:13 may have been initiated to address the threat of a specific ancient Greek pederastic practice and therefore was not originally intended as an outright ban on male homosexuality. That interpretation may have come later, in response to the harsh anti-homosexual laws enacted in 324 C.E. by Emperor Constantine, and rabbis may actually have chosen a necessary politically motivated shift in the former interpretation to protect Hebrew homosexuals from being put to death.

“You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” – {Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 18:22} and “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” – {Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 20:13)....

Looking at the precise Hebrew verbiage used in The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually read and what ‘may be inferred’ via politically motivated theological concepts. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (“ish” {mighty man} in Hebrew) and a male (“zachar” {manchild} in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.” This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man with woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man with young male” rather than “man with man,” which is how we have been erroneously taught to comprehend the text.

So why is this particular word “manchild” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty? Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males… in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.

These specific words used in Greek translations, “[ἀρσενοκοῖται or arsenokoitēs = [The stem ἀρσενο of arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίται) means “male” and κοίτος means “resting place, bed” , so together the meaning seems to be “male-bedder.” ] In Hebrew “ish” or “man” and “[μαλακοὶ] [soft men]; the best that can be said is that arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίται) means some sort of sexual act with a male person. It is not nearly so precise as androgamos (ἀνδρόγαμος), which seems to imply a relationship with a man like a marriage. (in Hebrew, “zachar” or “manchild”), were used precisely in descriptions of ancient Greek custom as at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “young males” under Greek law.

It must be noted that arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης) occurs in what appears to be citations of the Book of Qorinti'im I/1 Corinthians 6:9. Of most interest among these quotations is Polycarp (AD 69–155/160) in Book of Pilip'im/Philippians 5.4–5 because it is the closest citation in time to Paul: Likewise also let the younger men (νεώτεροι) be blameless in all things; caring above all for purity (ἁγνείας), and curbing themselves from all evil; for it is good to be cut off from the lust of the things (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν) in the world, because “every lust (πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία) warreth against the Spirit, and neither fornicators (πόρνοι) nor the effeminate (μαλακοὶ) nor sodomites (ἀρσενοκοῖται) shall inherit the Kingdom of God,” nor they who do iniquitous things. Wherefore it is necessary to refrain from all these things, and to be subject to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The virgins must walk with a blameless and pure conscience. - {Book of Pilip'im/Philippians 5.4–5}

The term “men with males” is often a misunderstood phrase… perhaps even being idiomatic and axiomatic at the time. If man with manchild is a specific term referring to Greek pederasty, then its use in The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 20:13 would make that verse a prohibition of the practice of pedophilia and not of homosexuality in general. Let us not be deceived by the words of man in some English translations of Scripture. The word homosexuality was devised by German psychologist in the mid-19th Century. The word homosexual did not exist in any language before hand. The word homosexual would not appear in any scripture until 1946. That would also mean that there is no such condemnation anywhere else in the Torah, The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 18:22 also uses the word zachar, rather than ish). The use of “man” and “manchild” here so precisely mirrors the Greek terminology that another inference can be drawn, as well-that pederasty was an abhorrent alien practice not common to Israel. If it had been a common Israelite custom, a distinctly Hebrew word for “young boy,” such as bachur or yeled (child), would have been used in the text, rather than “zachar” (“manchild”).

Similarly, if the verse was meant to refer to adult homosexual behavior, the style of usage in both The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 20 and the earlier The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 18 would require that ish upon ish be used, not ish upon zachar. The fact that “isha” (woman) is used in both Leviticus verses adds to this. “An ish should not lie with a zachar as he would with an isha” makes less contextual sense than “an ish should not lie with an ish as he would with an isha.” Only if zachar has a specific meaning does its use here make sense. Absent such a specific meaning in Hebrew usage (other than to mean “male” in general), the specific meaning we do find is its Greek meaning … that is, that “man upon young male” signifies a pederasty relationship and it is this that the The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus verses outlaw.

Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East; so far as ancient texts discussed it had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion.

Domination: This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the point, as in war.

Recreational: This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. To lie with a man “as with a woman” pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons… no one was safe.

Religious Devotion: The Ancient Near Eastpresented agricultural challenges. Fertility gods were common during ancient times, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous—that is, both male and female. Devotees believed that by planting one’s seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year.

None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act was acting in the very heterosexual role of male. A man could dominate another man by raping him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of female. That was why it was permitted to rape one’s enemies at the end of a battle, but not to one’s slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. Secondly, you’re just taking advantage of your dominate position. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (aggressor) is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another,

A great many theological scholars believe the comdenation is focused on the religious devotion aspect. This is due to the word used to condemn it: abomination, in Hebrew to’evah. This word is often used in contexts where religious offense is involved. This section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, “Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.”

We know this verse was reinterpreted in response to Constantine’s harsh legislation. Suffice it to say that when homosexual behavior is made subject to the death penalty, it would make perfect sense for rabbinic authorities to seek Torah-based ways of discouraging such behavior in order to discourage Jewish men from incurring such a final penalty. Does this mean that the Torah does not object to homosexual behavior per se? No, it does mean however, that there is no verse in the Torah (original Hebrew) to directly support such an objection.

This scripture had been scribed far before our Y’shua’s (Jesus) sacrifice has been to allow us to repent our sins and be granted the mercy of forgiveness. This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn all sexual behavior between two men. Although all references to same-gender sexual behavior in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) refers to two males, these passages are occasionally used to condemn lesbian activity as well.

This is how you may be forgiven of your sins; by allowing Y’shua into your heart and accepting Him as your personal Rock and Redeemer. Moreover, many people act with surprising hatred not only towards the Gay community.... but those who they misunderstand and whose thoughts and opinions do not match their own .... these are not His words or His way. His teachings are of respect and love towards all mankind, regardless of gender, skin, sexuality, religion, or even their political beliefs. Y’shua IS love

The question of male homosexual congress may be another example of a dispute between the law collections. The Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 18 and 20 prohibit male homosexual congress in the strongest of terms, but both of these texts are part of one legal corpus, the Holiness Collection. No other law collection in the Torah (or passage in Tanach!) says anything explicit about homosexual relations.

The collection of curses to be recited on Mt. Ebal {Book of D’varim/Deuteronomy 27:9-26} is particularly instructive since it contains the only list outside of the Holiness Collection of sexual prohibitions in the Torah. Scholars have recognized that this text, again, reflects a version of the covenant demands made upon Israel in the wilderness, that originally stood on its own, independent of Deuteronomy as a whole, that placed special emphasis on sins that are hidden from the public eye. Like the Decalogue, it mentions idolatry and the honoring of parents, but then goes on to address different matters, among them matters of sexual conduct. While bestiality and various forms of incest – all represented as well in Leviticus 18 and 20 – are mentioned, homosexuality is not. It must be admitted that the significance of the omission should not be overstated. After all, the list of curses-prohibitions is hardly extensive and several severe prohibitions, such as adultery, are equally left unmentioned.

Perhaps we may say that the Covenant Collection and the Deuteronomic Curses on Mount Ebal recognize that bestiality and homosexuality cannot be classed together. The Bible identifies Mount Ebal as “near the great trees of Moreh, in the territory of those Canaanites living in the Arabah in the vicinity of Gilgal” {D'varim 27:30}.While bestiality is a form of sexual release that degrades human dignity, a homosexual relationship between two human beings created in the divine image can be founded on mutual love and respect, and enhance human dignity. As many scholars have cogently argued, this approach, quite possibly, is reflected in David’s public lament for Jonathan; “I grieve for you, My brother Jonathan, You were most dear to me. Your love was wonderful to me more than that of women.” – {Book of Shmuel II/2 Samuel 1:26}

Of course, we cannot assume that all the authors of the texts of the Torah that fail to prohibit homosexual sex would necessarily have approved of homosexual relations or relationships. But none of them deemed this matter relevant or worthy of mention within the context of the foundational covenant made between G-d and Israel. Indeed, if we recall the Book of D’varim/Deuteronomy’s prohibition on adding or subtracting from its own list of covenant stipulations, we may conclude that Deuteronomy would see in the prohibition of homosexuality of Leviticus an illegitimate addition! If Deuteronomy can present Levirate marriage, characterized by Priestly law an “abomination,” as a mitzvah (see above), it can surely conceive of other alleged “abominations” in at least neutral terms. We have, then, a difference of opinion in the Torah on homosexuality. While in the Book of Vayikra/Leviticus 18 and 20 severely prohibit it, the other law-codes of the Torah do not deem it relevant to the covenant.