For the majority of my life I've believed that if you were gay you were condemned to hell. This toxic thought was nurtured in my mind by the evangelical church I attended in my small hometown. They weren't bad people but I believe their literal take and belief of an inerrant scripture lent them a restricted perspective on life. Due to the small size of my town I was never exposed to the bigger, multicultural world that lay outside and, being a churchgoer since I can remember, I let myself be spoon-fed these ideas. Sure, I read the Bible but I never properly studied it.
When I was older I started to properly read the bible by reading a wider range of interpretations, placing each passage in its historical context and weighing the author’s bias. It started as an honest attempt to be better follower but it ended up completely revolutionising my view of Christianity. What scares me the most is that it took so long to have this epiphany.
The Christian/Gay debate has been raging for years, and by no means have I finished developing my understanding. Here I attempt to address the issue passage by passage, summarising my understanding in a bitesize post. Of course these debates are not limited to Christianity, but the majority of my research has been focused on the Bible. All quotes below are from the English Standard Version.
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Although on the surface it seems like an outright condemnation of homosexuality the passage is solely focused on penetrative sex; commentary on any other form of sexual contact, or even love, is absent.
If you look at the passage in its historical context this assumption becomes more murky, something which is down to the translation of the text. “Abomination" was translated from the word ‘to'eivah’. In fact the meaning of the word ‘to’eivah’ is debateable; the translation varies between the many versions of the Bible and is more likely to be accurately translated as ‘taboo’. Within the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, to’eivah is usually used to refer to idols or idolatry, indicating a form of homosexuality that is idolatrous. The usage of this word is more likely to be a reference to Canaanite temple prostitution; as part of worship followers would have sex with the priestess, however this would often be a man.
The passage itself is also often seen as a blanket condemnation of Canaanite and Egyptian practices; for example the previous verse condemns offering children to the Canaanite deity Molech. Taking this context it seems viable that the passage is more of a direct reference to Canaanite practices, which were often viewed with aversion by the Israelites, rather than prohibiting homosexuality.
Later on within the book a death penalty is demanded:
Leviticus 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.”
Like Lev 18:22 this passage solely focuses on penetrative sex. The vocabulary used in both passages refers to a man who “lies with a male as with a woman” where ‘to lie’ is synonymous with ‘to experience’. Thus a man lying with a male in a similar fashion to a woman, i.e. experiencing penetrative sex, is prohibited. As such both passages can be seen to address the receptive partner.
Sodomy was prevalent in many ancient cultures, such as the Greeks and Romans, where the receiver was usually someone of a lower standing e.g. someone’s who’s younger/ of a lower class/ a slave. A hierarchical system was also present in Israelite society; Lev 25:44-46 condones slavery, whilst the laws themselves appear to address the free male Israelites rather than including all other social classes. This is shown by Lev 18:26; “either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you” suggests an exclusivity, not surprising as the Israelite culture was very patriarchal. If Leviticus was addressing primarily the free male Israelite then the passages themselves appear to condemn a free male Israelite from acting as a receiver; such flouting of established social structures would definitely bring shame and dishonour.
It must also be considered whether or not these teachings have a place in Christianity. Indeed many of the teachings within Leviticus aren’t applicable in a modern context; Lev 14: 33-57 states that to treat the severe advancement of mildew within a house the building must be deconstructed, and once cleansed must be sprinkled with fresh water and the blood of a newly killed bird; Lev 19: 23-25 declares that it is forbidden to eat any fruit off a plant until it’s at least five years old; whilst Lev 21:16-21 states that people with a disability aren't allowed to approach the alter of God.
The majority of these laws in Leviticus have already been abandoned by Christianity and many, such as the ones above, certainly don’t apply to modern life. Most of the laws set out in Leviticus appear to have been intended to support the continued survival of the Israelites; pork would have been a dangerous, “unclean” meat to eat at a time without fridges (Lev 11: 7-8). With the Israelites being such a small group compared to the other established nations its possible that sodomy may have been condemned in order to encourage procreation and thus aid their survival. Though this judgement appears to ignore the finer context of the passages discussed above.
Ultimately all the laws set out within the Old Testament were meant for Judaism; a religion which that stresses the importance of deeds and commandments whilst awaiting the coming of a Messiah. Whilst the definition is crude it does put into question why Christians, who follow the teachings of a Messiah who has already come, would still adhere to such laws.
It is important to note that with deeper research the passages do not appear to condemn homosexuality, or even sodomy, but a specific practice; whether condemning the customs of the Israelites pagan neighbours or the defiance of established social structure. However which one is the true interpretation is still up for debate.
Good commentary! I have always believed that Leviticus was referring to the temple practices of the Gentiles that the Israelite's settled amoungst with. The progression of Leviticus leading up to 18:22 suggested it. Temple orgies that worshiped a different G-d then the Jews, it would stand to reason the Rabbi's took exception that if a Jew was lead astray into these temple practices he found himself under the death sentence. It is a no brainer here!
ReplyDelete