Dr. John Boswell of Yale University, in his book CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, AND HOMOSEXUALITY makes a number of interesting points about Leviticus 18:22.
To summarize: Leviticus is the ONLY place in the old testament that mentions homosexuality. If God were as serious about it as some scholars claim, surely the sanctions would be repeated in more than one place.
That the sanction occurs in Leviticus is interesting because Leviticus is the source of the laws of kashrut -- how to keep kosher, how to keep ritually clean. The Hebrew word "toevah" is translated as
"abomination." It does not mean sin, which is a crime against God or something intrinsically evil like rape or theft. It means something which is *ritually unclean* like eating pork or shellfish or engaging
in intercourse during menstruation. The word "toevah" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate Jewish acts which involve ethnic contamination. It is often used in the phrase "toevah ha-Goyim" which means the uncleanliness of gentiles.
In short, Leviticus is a list of cultural instructions to the Hebrews to keep them from acting like gentiles -- to specifically prevent assimilation and keep the "chosen people" separate from their
neighbors. The opening remarks of Leviticus make this clear: "After the doings of land of Egypt wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I shall bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances."
The prohibition of homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality. Boswell specifically points out that "toevah" also means "idol" and is used throughout the bible in
sanctions against idol-worship. Its connection with idolatry is apparent even within the context of passages regarding homosexual acts. The point is that the Old Testament regards homosexuality as ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil. This was further emphasized by Jesus and Paul that under the new dispensation, it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted "abomination" but the interior infidelity of the soul.
This is a remarkable break in religious thinking, demonstrating that Jesus was something of a radical to the Jews of the time. Boswell also points out that most converts to Christianity were not Jews, and therefore their attitude toward Jewish law was ambivalent. While most of these Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation, at the time, few regarded it morally binding in its details. Romans and Greeks, for instance, found Jewish dietary
customs distasteful and squalid. And they had a profound aversion to circumcision.
Boswell says that the Old Testament strictures against same-sex behavior would have seemed to most Roman citizens as arbitrary as the prohibition of cutting the beard and they would have had little or no reason to assume that it should receive any more attention than the latter.
The issue of Jewish law was bitterly debated at the Council of Jerusalem, AD 49. It was finally decided that pagan converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of Mosaic law, including circumcision -- with four exceptions: they were to abstain from idolatry, from blood, from things strangled, and from forniciation. An apostolic letter was sent to gentile Christians informing them of this decision and specifically censuring efforts of Jewish Christians to impose Jewish law.
The word used for fornication is not the same word used for homosexuality in Leviticus. Essentially, Paul set aside Leviticus for gentile converts to Christianity. It does not apply to Christians. There's more, but this should be sufficient to make the point that Leviticus 18:22 is not only often misinterpreted, but simply not an issue for followers of Christ.
Copyright January 2, 2001, by dg All rights reserved, except that free distribution via any medium is permitted as long as author's credit is given and no profit is involved.
