A Short Support for Same-sex Marriage

Leviticus contains two significant passages that, in English translations, seem to address same-sex eroticism with a prohibition of some sort in both 18:22 and 20:13. The question arises, what do these verses condemn? Do these verses condemn homosexual eroticism, or do they make room for monogamous, same-sex love? A close view of the Hebrew text shows an important error in the translation of Leviticus 18:22 in our major English versions. The NIV renders it, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” The suggestion of homosexuality misses the mark. K. Renato Lings’ literal translation from Hebrew reads, “With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that.” The words in parenthesis were supplied in an attempt to capture the sense in English. Eliminating the supplied words shown in parentheses leaves the command, “You shall not lie woman lyings.” Robin Scroggs’ translation agrees, “With a male, you shall not lie the lyings of a woman" (au. trans.) Lev. 18:22, or "A man who lies with a male the lyings of a woman" (au. trans.) Lev. 20:13.” What are these lyings? Lyings, mishkevey, is a biblically rare word also used by Jacob in Genesis 49:4 to describe the heterosexual incest of Jacob’s son, Reuben, with Jacob’s concubine. It is used only in Genesis 49:4, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13. It is a plural-looking form of mishkav, but rather than indicating a multiple, mishkevey adjusts the meaning of mishkav slightly; to wit, Genesis 49:4 reveals that lyings describe a bed, a couch, and metaphorically sexual intercourse. The meaning of the plural-like form differs significantly from the meaning of the singular form. In English, such a switch in meaning may occur in a plural-like form as well. Manner, the way things happen, differs from manners, the way polite society wishes behavior to happen. We again see such a meaning change in the word air. Air indicates atmosphere. Airs denote a show of false grandeur. The word good becomes goods in the plural-like form and changes its sense. By saying mishkevey, Jacob specifies incestuous behavior. But how does the word woman find its way into Jacob’s condemnation of Rueben? The word condemns Rueben’s character as womanly because of his incestuous violation of his father’s wife. The social order of Jacob’s day did not highly value womanhood. Jacob was a part of that society. He uses the terms common in his culture. Incest rather than same-sex intercourse is the direct literary link to the act forbidden by Leviticus 18:22. The Levitical writer uses the same word for incest that Jacob used and like Jacob, he calls it by the same lowly descriptor, womanly. The topic of Leviticus 18 is incest and related acts that damage the family unit. Leviticus 18 deals with the prohibition of incestuous sin. In Leviticus 18:6, it is the “close relative” (ESV) who comes into view and remains the focus, at least through verse 18. Most of the chapter forbids incestuous transgressions against a female. The place of 18:22 is to make incest with a male equally wrong. The placement of same-sex incest near the end of the prohibitions provides the discourse with a balanced conclusion by extending protection to both female and male family members. Lings’ translation makes sense as a general summary of the prohibitions in the Leviticus 18 sin list, “You shall not lie woman[ly] lyings.” Lings’ translation makes sense of the chapter’s organization. Lings’ insights unify Chapter 18 around threats to the family by a focus on incest. The entire pericope of verses 6-23 track with the theme of the sanctity of home life. Avoiding incest is a vital part of a happy home. The surrounding chapters in Leviticus, chapters 17-27, address the path of goodness, the way for Israel to follow God. The chapters advocate “regulating sexual behavior [to the intent of] ... the safeguarding and preservation of the marital context in which sexual acts are to occur.” Home life needs protecting. This safeguarding can be seen to extend through verse 23. Verse 19, for instance, anticipates that most women will not travel from home during menstruation. In that menstruating time, when the neighbor’s wife is free from fear of impregnation, a male neighbor must not approach her with sexual intent The next verse prohibits coitus with a neighbor’s wife in near proximity to family doings, “just over the back fence,” as it were. Clearly, the giving of a child to burn in the arms of Molech (18:22) violates the nurturing family, as well. God wants a joyful home. The prohibitions speak of maintaining a safe space in the home. Incest with a partner of either sex would mutilate the refuge of the home in opposition to God’s intent of joy (18:5). Gordon Wenham translates verse five, “You must keep my rules and my laws. If a man does them, he will enjoy life through them: I am the Lord.” God created humans to enjoy his way. The proscriptions of Leviticus 18 and 20 follow the Lord’s appeal that Israel must not follow the damaging ways of the nation of Egypt or Canaan. Apparently, the ways of Canaan were unfavorable to the joyful life. The writer lists family-related offenses that damage the home. The remainder of the chapter urges Israel’s compliance to God’s way as opposed to the ways of the lands he would drive out before them so that their experience in the land is not bitter. Leviticus 18 and 20 respond to the need of women, in particular for protection. In ancient historical context, the term woman was derisive. Biblical history offers evidence of common abuse of women. Many worldviews of the time permitted and even encouraged neglect of women. Women as a group were not considered valuable in the ancient Middle East. For example, Lot offered his daughters for mob rape rather than suffer the indignity upon his male visitors (Gen. 19:8), and Abraham chanced his wife to Abimelech to protect his own neck (Gen 20:2). These aggressions opposed God’s will. Such is the power of a culturally acquired worldview.