Leviticus and Homosexaulity
Leviticus 18:22 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 13 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.
These words seem about as black and white as it gets. My question: Is there anything in Leviticus 18 through 20 that militates against a continued literal interpretation and implementation of these two lines? As I examine the evidence, I believe these chapters present little evidence for a movement away from a stringent prohibition against homosexual sex. However, in obvious ways our society changes or ignores the laws in this section. How we apply “translate” these laws seems informed well-beyond the text in Leviticus. After pondering the issue, I think the Leviticus offers little insight into this issue on its own, but can only be used within .
The text’s language does not militate against a strict interpretation. On the contrary, the word “abomination” indicates that this action is a serious offense. The word abomination is only used twice in Leviticus and only three other times in the entire Pentateuch (note: My professor corrected me on this; the particular form of the word here is only used twice in Leviticus). The uniqueness of this word in this book points to the singular disgust the text has toward homosexual sex.
The placement of these verses within in their respective chapters does not provide a basis for a less strict interpretation. Chapter 20 adds punishments to the sins of chapter 18 and reorganizes them by their magnitude. Three things point toward such a reorganization. First, those sins punishable by death come before those that do not. Second, the first sins listed in chapter 20 relate directly to the Ten Commandments: idolatry (20.2-6), cursing mother and father (20.9), adultery (20.10). Finally, the types of incest listed move from most intimate and genetically linked family members (mother, v. 11) to distant relatives (brother’s wife, v. 21). Thus, homosexual sex’s position can be understood to reflect its relative “sinfulness.” Homosexual sex is included among the sins punishable by death and is considered worse than sleeping with your aunt, your sister, or an animal.
The placement of the laws after chapter 19 does not give grounds for reducing the seriousness of the prohibition in chapter 20. Chapter 19 lays out many guidelines in society that are clearly impossible to uphold. For example, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself (19.18)” and “with justice you shall judge your neighbor (19.15).” Thus, one could perhaps argue that chapter 20 should be viewed similarly, as a list of “good” but not necessary or even possible commands. However, chapter 20 serves a different purpose than chapter 19. Chapter 19 presents broad laws, almost principles, and ascribe punishments. Chapter 20 carefully delineates sexual boundaries and then lays out punishments. Chapter 20 is not helpful instruction, but crime and punishment.
Furthermore, the text suggests that these laws are not subject to the standard or even hope of external reasonableness. Deuteronomy offers that the law has an outside reasonableness: “for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people.’(4.6)” However, these chapters argue against such an understanding of themselves. They end with, “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. (18.24) and “You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them (20.23).” The text cries out against an appeal to objective, or external reasonableness, to evaluate these particular laws.
There seems nothing in the text that suggests it is permissible to move away from a strict interpretation of such a text. However, in obvious ways, we do not follow the laws in chapter 20 anymore. Depending on the law, we have altered the specifics of the sin, altered the punishment, and even discarded the sin entirely.
At least once we have altered the specifics of the law, but kept the underlying principle of the law. Chapter 20, verses 2 through 5, addresses worshipping Molech by offering child sacrifices. While no one talks about Molech anymore, Christians are still concerned with infanticide as well as idolatry. The culture changed and Christians implicitly updated the law to reflect their culture.
With most of the laws in chapter 20, we have kept the sin, but modified the punishment. No one any longer kills those who commit adultery. For both rational (pervasiveness of the sin, concerns about effectiveness and extent of governmental authority) and theological (woman at the well, e.g.) reasons this move has been made. We must realize this move has its genesis outside of the text.
Third, at least one of the laws we have disregarded entirely. We ignore the command concerning menstrual cycle. In Israel society, women in menstruation were considered unclean. No longer do we consider such behavior unclean. I would agree with Nelson that our society still has clean/unclean boxes, but what goes in those boxes is very different from Israeli society 400 BC. We implicitly acknowledge this as we ignore this command.
So, can we keep some sort of underlying concern in the homosexual prohibition (lust, perhaps) and change the specifics of the law? Can we keep the sin, but not the punishment (I think we do already.)? Can we ignore it altogether like the command to not have sex during menstruation? These questions demand more than the text in Leviticus 18 and 20 provides. At some level, I do think they require an understanding of the culture at the time. I think moreover, it comes down to an understanding of the role of sex in relationships since the sexual revolution and women’s rights. I think scripture can inform this, but I see very little help that Leviticus can provide. However, as we consider “translating” Leviticus 20.13 into modern culture, we cannot forget the seriousness of the offense. A strong argument must be made as to what the underlying concern was that offended God so greatly beyond simply two men having sex.
Leviticus 20:13 13 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.
These words seem about as black and white as it gets. My question: Is there anything in Leviticus 18 through 20 that militates against a continued literal interpretation and implementation of these two lines? As I examine the evidence, I believe these chapters present little evidence for a movement away from a stringent prohibition against homosexual sex. However, in obvious ways our society changes or ignores the laws in this section. How we apply “translate” these laws seems informed well-beyond the text in Leviticus. After pondering the issue, I think the Leviticus offers little insight into this issue on its own, but can only be used within .
The text’s language does not militate against a strict interpretation. On the contrary, the word “abomination” indicates that this action is a serious offense. The word abomination is only used twice in Leviticus and only three other times in the entire Pentateuch (note: My professor corrected me on this; the particular form of the word here is only used twice in Leviticus). The uniqueness of this word in this book points to the singular disgust the text has toward homosexual sex.
The placement of these verses within in their respective chapters does not provide a basis for a less strict interpretation. Chapter 20 adds punishments to the sins of chapter 18 and reorganizes them by their magnitude. Three things point toward such a reorganization. First, those sins punishable by death come before those that do not. Second, the first sins listed in chapter 20 relate directly to the Ten Commandments: idolatry (20.2-6), cursing mother and father (20.9), adultery (20.10). Finally, the types of incest listed move from most intimate and genetically linked family members (mother, v. 11) to distant relatives (brother’s wife, v. 21). Thus, homosexual sex’s position can be understood to reflect its relative “sinfulness.” Homosexual sex is included among the sins punishable by death and is considered worse than sleeping with your aunt, your sister, or an animal.
The placement of the laws after chapter 19 does not give grounds for reducing the seriousness of the prohibition in chapter 20. Chapter 19 lays out many guidelines in society that are clearly impossible to uphold. For example, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself (19.18)” and “with justice you shall judge your neighbor (19.15).” Thus, one could perhaps argue that chapter 20 should be viewed similarly, as a list of “good” but not necessary or even possible commands. However, chapter 20 serves a different purpose than chapter 19. Chapter 19 presents broad laws, almost principles, and ascribe punishments. Chapter 20 carefully delineates sexual boundaries and then lays out punishments. Chapter 20 is not helpful instruction, but crime and punishment.
Furthermore, the text suggests that these laws are not subject to the standard or even hope of external reasonableness. Deuteronomy offers that the law has an outside reasonableness: “for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people.’(4.6)” However, these chapters argue against such an understanding of themselves. They end with, “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. (18.24) and “You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them (20.23).” The text cries out against an appeal to objective, or external reasonableness, to evaluate these particular laws.
There seems nothing in the text that suggests it is permissible to move away from a strict interpretation of such a text. However, in obvious ways, we do not follow the laws in chapter 20 anymore. Depending on the law, we have altered the specifics of the sin, altered the punishment, and even discarded the sin entirely.
At least once we have altered the specifics of the law, but kept the underlying principle of the law. Chapter 20, verses 2 through 5, addresses worshipping Molech by offering child sacrifices. While no one talks about Molech anymore, Christians are still concerned with infanticide as well as idolatry. The culture changed and Christians implicitly updated the law to reflect their culture.
With most of the laws in chapter 20, we have kept the sin, but modified the punishment. No one any longer kills those who commit adultery. For both rational (pervasiveness of the sin, concerns about effectiveness and extent of governmental authority) and theological (woman at the well, e.g.) reasons this move has been made. We must realize this move has its genesis outside of the text.
Third, at least one of the laws we have disregarded entirely. We ignore the command concerning menstrual cycle. In Israel society, women in menstruation were considered unclean. No longer do we consider such behavior unclean. I would agree with Nelson that our society still has clean/unclean boxes, but what goes in those boxes is very different from Israeli society 400 BC. We implicitly acknowledge this as we ignore this command.
So, can we keep some sort of underlying concern in the homosexual prohibition (lust, perhaps) and change the specifics of the law? Can we keep the sin, but not the punishment (I think we do already.)? Can we ignore it altogether like the command to not have sex during menstruation? These questions demand more than the text in Leviticus 18 and 20 provides. At some level, I do think they require an understanding of the culture at the time. I think moreover, it comes down to an understanding of the role of sex in relationships since the sexual revolution and women’s rights. I think scripture can inform this, but I see very little help that Leviticus can provide. However, as we consider “translating” Leviticus 20.13 into modern culture, we cannot forget the seriousness of the offense. A strong argument must be made as to what the underlying concern was that offended God so greatly beyond simply two men having sex.
posted by RJM at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home