Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes. (See the discussion of Deuteronomy)
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:
permits polygamy
prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
bans tattoos
prohibits eating rare meat
bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
prohibits cross-breeding livestock
bans sowing a field with mixed seed
prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath
Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.
Source: OCRT: Bible and Homosexuality
It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:
Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN.
If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.
Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew scriptures often called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the Christian church.
In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil, ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and this is ceremonial..."?
Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.
Source: Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures
This paper is provided as a service of the Metropolitan Community Church of Topeka, authors Rev. Jonathan Loppnow and Rev. Paul C. Evans. It may be reproduced freely as long as the entire text is reproduced and unaltered, all attributions are left intact and it is not sold for profit or included in a for-profit publication. Copyright © Jan. 7, 1998
Copyright © by the author All Rights Reserved