Two of the most prominent passages of Scripture used to condemn ALL homosexual behavior in humans are found in the book of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). Unfortunately, the traditional interpretation of these passages ignores the context of the times and circumstances which they were meant to address.
Moreover, it is my contention that the absence of this context makes these passages vulnerable to misunderstanding and abuse. Indeed, I am suggesting that this context is essential to a proper understanding of the commandments contained in these chapters (18-20).
First, we must not forget that everything in Torah was meant to underscore that the children of Israel were God's people. Indeed, it is asserted repeatedly throughout these writings that God intended to make a distinction between the Israelites and the pagan folks who surrounded them.
In fact, in the opening to the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, we read: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. (Verses 1-4, ESV) Clearly, God did NOT want his people to imitate the idolatrous people of the land they were leaving (Egypt), or the land which God was leading them across the wilderness to inherit one day (Canaan).
Hence, we are forced to conclude that everything which follows was related to the behaviors and practices of these ancient pagans. In the article The Torah's Prohibitions of Incest Distinguished the Israelites from Their Neighbors (written for Mosaic), we read: The prohibitions of various sexual relationships, enumerated in the book of Leviticus and included in the most recent Sabbath Torah reading, are prefaced by a command not to imitate the ways of the Egyptians or the Canaanites, and are followed by another admonition not to imitate Canaanite practices. The text thereby seems to suggest that such relationships, most of which involve forms of incest, were commonplace among both peoples.
Even so, some will ask if history and archaeology actually support such a conclusion. In other words, were these ancient pagans in Egypt and Canaan actually engaging in the behaviors/practices which were forbidden in the passages which follow?
In verses 6-18 of this same chapter of Leviticus, we find a number of commandments prohibiting various incestuous relationships. In that same article referenced above from Mosaic, we read: Although Egypt certainly forbade adultery, incest does not seem to have been an Egyptian taboo. As early as the 14th century BCE and through at least the Ptolemaic period [the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE], some Pharaohs married their half or full sisters. There are also documented cases of non-royal marriages between children of the same father from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1975-1640 BCE) and the Twenty-Second Dynasty (ca. 945-715 BCE), including some that appear to involve full siblings, as well as one marriage between a father and daughter. This assertion has also been supported in an article titled Study Presents Evidence of Extensive Inbreeding Among Ancient Egyptian Royalty. As for the Canaanites, the available evidence suggests that they also were not as averse to incest as God appeared to be in Torah.
After condemning sexual relations with a menstruating woman and adultery (verses 19-20), a pagan god is mentioned - further reinforcing the fact that God didn't want his people to adopt the ways of the idolatrous nations which surrounded them. In the Brittanica article on Moloch, we read: "In the Hebrew Bible, Moloch is presented as a foreign deity who was at times illegitimately given a place in Israel’s worship as a result of the syncretistic policies of certain apostate kings. The laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Jews to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21). Yet kings such as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6), having been influenced by the Assyrians, are reported to have worshipped Moloch at the hilled site of Topheth, outside the walls of Jerusalem. This site flourished under Manasseh’s son King Amon but was destroyed during the reign of Josiah, the reformer. “And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Moloch” (2 Kings 23:10)."
Likewise, in terms of context, it is very important to understand the concept of "sacred prostitution" which existed in ancient pagan cultures of the time. In the World History Encyclopedia article titled Prostitution in the Ancient Mediterranean, we read: The dominating religious theme of all ancient societies was that of fertility; of crops, herds, and people. The divine powers who ruled the universe occurred in male and female pairs, and so could be approached for the benefits of fertility for humans. This was particularly relevant to the creation and worship of the various mother goddesses in the region: Inanna (Sumer), Ishtar (Mesopotamia), Hathor and Isis (Egypt), Cybele (Anatolia), Astarte (Canaan), Demeter (Greece), Aphrodite (Greece), and Venus (Rome). All these goddesses ruled human sexuality, the erotic uses of the body, birth, and children. Continuing, we read: Scholars debate the ways in which worship of these fertility deities was instituted, in a concept known as sacred prostitution or temple prostitution. There are references to this in the ancient cultures of Sumer and Mesopotamia, and the ideas spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin. The term 'temple prostitution' is a modern one (post-Enlightenment) and is a misnomer. Scholars equated temple servants (both men and women) in these fertility cults with prostitution per se, which was not the same thing.
This brings us at long last to one of our "clobber scriptures," Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. How does this relate to the behaviors of the pagan nations surrounding Israel? Did these pagan nations engage in homosexual relationships? How does this relate to sacred prostitution?
First, in an article for Garstang Museum of Archaeology at the University of Liverpool titled Homosexuality in the Ancient World, we read: The modern conception of sexuality relies on a strict categorisation of sexual appetites and personal desires – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. In the ancient world, however, these words did not exist and the concepts they represent were not necessarily analogous to our modern understanding of sexuality. Continuing, we read: Attitudes towards homosexuality in recent history have coloured the perspective through which we view the nature of sexuality in the ancient world. Early historians, archaeologists and antiquarians viewed notions of alternate sexual identity through the lens of their own social mores, and their discussion of these sexual identities was often stilted and couched in euphemism (when it wasn’t downright ignored).
Likewise, in yet another article for World History Encyclopedia titled LGBTQ+ in the Ancient World, we read: There are not even words in the ancient languages which translate to the modern-day "homosexual" and "heterosexual" which were only coined in 1869 CE. The Greek term arsenokoites, translated as "homosexual" in the Bible for the first time in 1946 CE, never existed until it was coined by St. Paul in his epistles I Timothy 1:10 and I Corinthians 6:9. The actual translation is "male beds" and seems to refer to men who slept with men in non-Christian traditions, not to same-sex relationships.
The consensus of both of the last two articles mentioned is that ancient cultures often condoned a kind of pederasty (sexual activity between an adult man and a boy or youth). Also, as has already been mentioned, many of these cultures also condoned some form of sacred prostitution (where both females and males were made available for sexual intercourse with worshippers). Finally, we know that male slaves were often subject to the sexual whims of their masters. Even so, among these acceptable sexual relations between members of the same gender, there was an almost universal stigma attached to a man playing the passive/receiving role in the above-described relationships (this extended to the Israelites). Hence, we can see that the concept of two adult same-gender people in a committed relationship was NOT one with which these ancient peoples were familiar. Indeed, the whole notion of a sexual orientation was foreign to those folks!
Nevertheless, how do we know for certain that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.) are not condemning all homosexual behaviors? Well, if the context of the actual experiences of these folks is not enough to persuade you, maybe another passage from Torah will!
In the book of Deuteronomy, we read: None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, ESV) This passage clearly ties this sexual prohibition to the pagan practice of sacred prostitution. Notice that the same language identifying the practice as an "abomination" is used in all three passages!
Finally, before we close this post. It should be noted that these same considerations apply to the world of Christ and his apostles. In other words, the Greek/Roman world of the First Century of the Common Era had similar attitudes to things sexual as did the Egyptians and Canaanites. But don't take my word for it, check out the links in this article and read about them (the Greeks and Romans). Moreover, it is easy to discern the moral failure within the context of loving each other as we love ourselves relative to sacred prostitution, pederasty, slavery, or gang rape (as in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah). The conclusion of the matter, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were never intended to be blanket condemnations of all homosexual behavior!
No comments:
Post a Comment