Leviticus 18:22

The translations of this verse found in most English

Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)
Correct translation:
And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in
a woman's bed; it is an abomination.
Below, we have given a word by word translation of thisverse:

Vet-zachar lo tishkav mishkvei ishah toevah hu.
(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)
Vet - This is two words. First, V, which means and. This word cannot exist by itse
lf, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This
word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.
zachar - This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so whe
n the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article
is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far read
s And with a male.
lo - This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in th
is case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicat
ed verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to transl
ate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those wor
ds, so we won t add this word to our translation yet.
tishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know abou
t tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tens
e markers are needed. The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, an
d it means lie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root,
but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into Engli
sh will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gend
er of the pronoun. The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previo
us Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) sh
alt not lie down.
mishkvei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be s
een that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters
of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns hav
e more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many noun
s also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with it
s own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows i
t. In English it often translates by placing the English word of between the two n
ouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem(Bethlehem), which in English tra
nslates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the const
ruct state.Mishkvei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would b
e a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions: Hebrew has prepos
itions that correspond to ours, but doesn t always use them the same way. For ex
ample, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew,
the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. T
he same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when
Hebrew doesn t. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will somet
imes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the Engl

ish word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in
English. The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds
of.
ishah - This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (
the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down i
n beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to "in a woman s be
d."And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman s bed.
(Note: The word mishk vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev.
18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means "
thy father," and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as "to thy
father s bed." As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)
Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew
Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon :, and serves o
nly to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence).
English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them
as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a pe
riod, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but
simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie d
own in a woman s bed;
toevah - This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite articl
e, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, an
d this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in
the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have
finished with the next word.
hu - This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebr
ew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew te
xt. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well scho
oled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own
people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like s
o many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the sam
e, but the grammar was wrong. We want to repeat that: His meaning remained the s
ame, only the grammar was wrong. The word hu means both he and it. It means itwhen
applied to masculine nouns. But toevah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have
used the word hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine no
uns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gend
er. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do wit
h men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in
the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of t
he table; it's simply grammatical.)
So what does Moses' error do for us? It doesn't change the meaning, as we mentio
ned above. It still means it. But the significant thing is that the error has ne
ver been corrected. Why? Didn't anyone notice it? Of course they did. But the Je
wish people consider the text of the Hebrew Bible so sacred, that they will not
alter even simple grammatical errors. The Jewish people considered even the shap
es of the letters of the alphabet to be holy. The most they could do about the e
rror was point it out, without correcting it. They did this by using the vowel p
oints for the correct word on top of the incorrect word: The resulting word is more
or less unpronounceable, but serves to alert the reader to the error. (The Hebr
ew alphabet itself has no vowels, only consonants. The reader was expected to be
able to supply the vowel sounds from context, etc. By the early Middle Ages, He
brew was developing dialects, primarily due to the fact that there were no vowel
s to tell people how to pronounce it. The Rabbis and scholars devised a system o
f dots and dashes to represent vowel sounds. These vowel points are placed inside,
above, below and next to letters, but may not touch the letters. They are not c

onsidered part of the text. Today they are used in Bibles, prayer books, song an
d poetry books and children's books, but are rarely used in newspapers, novels,
etc.) And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it
Our next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In
English these forms are am, art, isand are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost n
ever uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for con
text. The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God's name in H
ebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that do
n't use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so
used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russi
an equivalent of am can't even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more
. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can't, so we h
ave to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt
not lie down in a woman's bed; it is
Finally, we put in the words an abomination: And with a male thou shalt not lie
down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.
This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather
than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a
womans bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman s bed was her own. Other th
an the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were
even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed woul
d have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the
acceptable use of the woman s bed (Lev. 15).

================================================================================
======
Is Homosexuality a Sin?
As many who read the things I post may note, I am not one to shy away from to
ugh subjects. Many people call themselves Christians, yet are fearful of touchin
g on things that can be politically incorrect or make someone feel bad about the
mselves. This is why the topics of homosexuality, adultery, divorce, hell, and J
esus being the only way are often side-stepped. When you preach a Gospel that is
not in line with the essence of who God is....then you don t preach a true Gosp
el. Now, questioning came as this subject has seemed to be untouched on my websi
te, regardless of what I say in public. So the question then becomes, will I sta
nd for what I say and believe. And you will now see a resounding, YES, from me.
I want the reader to first understand, this is in no wise bashing anyone, but
it is presenting God s truth on a subject many stray from because they do not w
ant to offend someone. The offense comes not from being wrong in the view, but r
ather, the offense comes from the fact that we are shown where we are wrong in G
od s eyes. Since we have a tendency to be rebellious towards God, it does not si
t well. This truth is not limited to homosexuality, but all sin. We can be shown
plain truth from Scripture, and people will pick and choose things that make th
em want to feel good, regardless of what God has said. In this I will address 5
specific objections supporters of homosexuality have.
1. Homosexuality as a sin was only given to the Jews because it is in the Old Te
stament.
2. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, and a passage
in Ezekiel proves it.

3. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

4. Being homosexual is a preference, and humans can t control it.
5. God will forgive me.
FIRST
Now, let us first address the question of whether or not God ever thought that
this was a sin for all. There are two very specific passages on this subject....
.
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have comm
itted an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be up
on them.
The first thing that people normally do is say this is the Old Testament, and
applied to Jews. They will say we are under grace, and not the laws of the Jews
. While that may be true, that we are under grace, there is a big mistake made i
n thinking this way. Certainly we are not under the punishment portion of those
laws anymore; however, to say that it is no longer a sin is ludicrous! You then
make God changeable and say that He now winks at sin and makes it okay. That jus
t cannot be true. Understand, the word abomination means detestable, and althoug
h sin is sin in God s eyes, these were acts specifically called out that are rep
ulsive to God. What does God say about Him changing? One description is found he
re...
Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not;
This is God speaking....so since He changes not, if it were ever a sin, it is
still a sin. If it were ever an abomination, it is still an abomination. He doe
s not change, and if He did, He would not be God. To maintain it is only for the
Jews, again goes against God s words.
Leviticus 18:26-27
26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit an
y of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that s
ojourneth among you:
27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before
you, and the land is defiled;)
Now, we see this decree is to strangers in the land as well. It is for everyb
ody in the land. The outside nations did as they would but were not to do so her
e, because it defiles the land. How does this point to us? When God allowed the
Gospel and Salvation to be available even to those outside of Israel (the Jews),
we are told that we would be grafted in. To what? To His chosen ones, the Bride
of Christ. We do not become Jews, we become part of His chosen ones. So, in ess
ence, we become part of the "land" so to speak. As such, we can t bring those ab
ominations before him, as He clearly spoke....it will defile us. That s how thos
e tie into us today, as children of God, we are not to defile ourselves with the

abominations, just as we should not worship false gods, and so forth.

Now, besides this, how do we know how strongly God felt about this subject? T
he destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is evidence. He destroyed them both for the
ir wickedness and their homosexuality. You can read the story for yourself in Ge
nesis starting towards the end of chapter 18. Basically God told Abraham that if
He could find 10 righteous people in Sodom, He would not destroy it. Two angels
went into the city to see Lot, Abraham s nephew. In doing so, the Bible tells u
s ALL the men of the city, young and old came to Lot s house demanding to "know"
the two men. The Hebrew word used for "know" is the same used in the Old Testam
ent anytime a man and woman had sexual relations, such as in the stories of Adam
& Eve, etc. These men, all of them, wanted to have sex with the angels who appe
ared as men. Lot went out and told them he had two virgin daughters he would let
them have if they would leave the men alone, yet the men of the city refused an
d said they wanted nothing to do with them, they wanted the men. The angels blin
ded them all, Lot and his family left, and the city was destroyed by God. Now, t
he city was wicked, and had many sins, surely, but the most abundant, the one ca
lled out, is homosexuality.

SECOND
Next, proponents for excusing homosexuality have used a passage in Ezekiel to
try and defend what they are doing. However, in doing this, they put Ezekiel an
d Moses (the writer of Genesis) at odds. They try to say that the sin of Sodom w
as in-hospitability, pride, the attempted rape, as well as being haughty. Let s
look at the passage first.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, a
nd abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she streng
then the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took
them away as I saw good.
At first glance, one might tend to agree. Yes, they were guilty of all these
things. But this passage simply names the things that they had been doing wrong.
Notice that the very last thing listed in these verses is that they committed a
bomination. We know from what we talked of before, exactly what that abomination
was. The sin could not be because the men tried to rape the angels, because God
had already passed judgment on the city before the angels were there. So that p
oint is invalid. To then say it is because they were inhospitable, haughty, or b
ecause of pride is off the mark as well. We have that right now everywhere, as d
id the world then. It doesn t fit what God shows deserves His wrath such as idol
worship, lawlessness, A quick look at a verse in the new Testament...
2nd Peter 2:6-8
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an
overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his
righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
We see here, even more of a rebuttal to the rape being the reason as some att
est. Some say it was because the men tried to know them, and that was both rape
and being inhospitable. Peter tells us that this happened day after day, and Lot

saw it. If rape were the case here, that happened day after day in plain view,
eventually the city would have crumbled because nobody would come visiting the c
ity and economically it would become worthless, and that was not the case with S
odom. So it can be neither of the arguments outside of homosexuality being the o
ngoing, day after day, wickedness that was in the city that God judged them in w
rath on. Further, these views go completely against another scripture as well.
Jude 7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving the
mselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
There should be no question of what going after strange flesh means. Any argu
ment trying to say that the abomination that was taking place in those cities wa
s not homosexuality, is futile, and has no basis. It is just people trying to ma
ke excuses.

THIRD
The third point to address is that Jesus never said anything about homosexual
ity. First, let me point out, Jesus is God in the flesh. John 1:1 and 1:14 clear
ly show us this. If you deny this, please look at my two articles on "Explaining
the Trinity", as I won t address that here. I will put in short order, two vers
es that absolutely declare this.
John 1:1
1n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It is quite clear that the "Word" is God. You cannot deny that. So who is the
Word?
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the g
lory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
There should be no doubt that this is Jesus. He was God, who became flesh. Ju
st in this, and knowing what we already said on how God views homosexuality as a
n abomination, it is quite clear how Jesus viewed it, regardless of whether or n
ot He said anything specific to this. For one to think because Jesus said to lov
e one another, that this allows homosexuality, would be to put God at odds with
Himself. It s just not possible. Did Jesus say the words, "Homosexuality is a si
n"? No. There are many things Jesus did not pointedly say a specific word for, y
et still taught on it. We do that ourselves, why should He not be able to? Jesus
did in fact teach against it and quite clearly.
Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joine
d together, let not man put asunder.

The teaching here is quite to the point. From the beginning of time, humans w
ere made as male and female. The man (this is definitive as the male human being
) is to leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (which is a definiti
ve of the female human being). Besides the facts that homosexuals cannot reprodu
ce together (without the aid of in-vitro science), they can absolutely, positive
ly, never stack up to fitting what Jesus, God in the flesh, teaches here. Some t
hen argue, that it only pertains to being married, so it is okay for them as lon
g as they do not marry. WRONG! Fornication (sex outside of marriage) is a sin. T
o take that view would again put God at odds with Himself and have Him saying si
n is okay. Quite clearly we now see, that Jesus DID teach against homosexuality.

FOURTH
The fourth thing supporters of being homosexual, or gay, have is that it is
a preference not an act. The claim is that abominations are those things which a
re acts, but this is their choice or preference. This is one of the most ridicul
ous forms of circular logic I have seen. Since the pedophile has a preference to
wards children, should God excuse it? Since the adulterous husband has a prefere
nce to lie with many women instead of just his wife, should God excuse it? What
about those who have a preference to murder? Hitler had a preference that there
should be no Jews and had a preference to kill and torture them. Should this als
o be an excuse? The list goes on, but how ludicrous each case is, is a common fa
ctor in them all. The argument that people are just born that way can be shown t
o be just a circular in the same way too. Each and every scenario, and nobody in
their right mind would ever say that it was okay because they were born that wa
y. So you cannot use that argument here either. You, might try to tell me, but y
ou can t tell God, that you can t change. The fact is you can! There are countl
ess stories of people who were once homosexual, who came to God, saw this sin, a
nd stopped the act. Some became celibate rather than take part in the abominatio
n, some have moved into heterosexual relationships. The fact is, it s all about
how much control you have in your life, versus how much control you let God have
in your life. You can t do it on your own. It s not easy, but life as a Christi
an is not easy because the world is against you with its prince being Satan.

FIFTH
The final point is whether or not God will forgive you. Will He? Yes, without
a doubt, if you truly want forgiveness. It requires repenting, which is truly b
eing sorry, and a willingness to turn away. If I stole money from you, and then
asked to be forgiven, you might be inclined to forgive me because you truly beli
eve I am sorry. But what if I stole again from you? You may be inclined again. B
ut how about after the 10th time? I think your patience will have run out. The r
eason is because you would see that I was never truly sorry for hurting you. If
I had been, I would have never done it again. But I did, so I was never truly so
rry in the first place. In fact, I probably already knew I was going to do it ag
ain and just ask you to forgive me since I knew what a nice person you are. You
finally realize my intention and no longer forgive me. Further, your acts of for
giveness don t really count from before because they were only good for somebody
who was truly sorry. The difference with God is the fact that He knows your hea
rt from the very beginning when you come to Him. If you repent, and ask to be fo
rgiven, you can t continue on in the lifestyle. If you do, you can ask all you w
ant, but you will not be forgiven. If you do, then you can t truly be a child of
God and be saved, because you are not truly repentant and trying to turn away f
rom sin. It s not that you won t sin in your life, you will, but you can t conti
nue in the same sin and expect to be forgiven. You don t show that change or con
version in your life that the New Testament is filled with showing who true foll

owers of Christ are. You will remain unforgiven...and this is true of any sin...
not just homosexuality. God is not to be put on a shelf for you to sin all week
and ask forgiveness on Sunday. Go to the Catholic church for that since they don
t follow the God of the Bible either. What happens if you are unforgiven,? You
remain a homosexual. You have not changed. You did not repent.
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, no
r abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, sha
ll inherit the kingdom of God.
Sadly, even with all the Biblical evidence, many will not change, and many wi
ll still choose to try and justify their sin. Many will fail to see the problem
with it and think that they can be forgiven. It will truly be a sad day for them
when they stand before the Lord, and that is my concern. They are blinded by th
eir own lusts and will not allow God s words into their hearts. Why would they d
o this?
Romans 1:24-32
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creatu
re more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women di
d change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in th
eir lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and re
ceiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil thi
ngs, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacabl
e, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worth
y of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
None of what I have said here is out of hatred. Quite the contrary, because t
here are people I know who are caught up in this. I write this out of love. Is i
t uncomfortable for many to hear? Yes. Is it hard for people to change this? Yes
. Is it convicting people of sin that is in their lives that they try to cover u
p? Yes. As I have said many times before, the Bible is not a feel good book. It
is not meant for you to use to pat yourself on the back or look for loop-holes t
o justify sin. No, it is there to help you walk in God s Light, just as scriptur
e testifies.
Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

In His Grace,
Mike Harris
================================================================================
======
Is Homosexuality a Sin? Part-2 Answering the Critics

This is a follow-up article that I am doing for Is Homosexuality a Sin? that I

posted on my site some time back. You can view it by going here
http://www.mikeschristiancorner.com/homosexuality.html
Interestingly, on Face-book, I got into a discussion with some people about
a link that was posted. The woman who posted has a husband who pretended to be a
Greek scholar and failed miserably, and there were a host of others who all sup
ported the article. I was the lone Christian who stood on Gods word and did not t
wist it to make people feel better, but I felt like Custer at his last stand. Th
is is normal though when the Truth of God is presented to a wicked world. I am g
oing to address many of the so-called points made in the link.
Before I get to the actually replies, let me discuss the article. It was a li
nk posted to a blog for a so-called pastor flaunting their new book they wanted
everyone to get. In the blog, he stated that Acts chapter 8 affirms that homosex
ual behavior is okay, and that homosexuals will go to Heaven. He did this basica
lly by saying that because the eunuch was accepted, the homosexual is on the gro
unds that the Jews looked at eunuchs and homosexuals the same since they cannot
reproduce. What a stretch! What a perversion of the Gospel! Isnt it strange first
of all, that of all the walks of life of people in the bible that we are shown
that are saved, not once, NEVER, is a homosexual ever shown to be saved. But lets
put to rest this argument very quickly. First, some eunuchs are born that way,
some eunuchs are made that way by others, and still some eunuchs make the choice
to be that way. Never, anywhere in the Bible, is being a eunuch called an abomi
nation as is homosexuality. Where do I get this information? Straight from the m
outh of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother s womb: and the
re are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven s sake. He that is able
to receive it, let him receive it.

Jesus had just been talking about the grounds for divorce and how many people

will stand before God in judgment as adulterers (who also do not inherit the ki
ngdom of God) because they do not meet the only grounds for it. He then talks ab
out how men have become eunuchs and did so that they might not be caught up in s
exual immorality in this life and lose their soul. The eunuch was widely accepte
d in Jewish history, the homosexual was not. There is no comparison, the writer
just made up fables to sell books and make homosexuals feel good about themselve
s when they should not. Now, lets move on to some comments.

The ancient manuscripts have no word or phrase, when properly translated and used
in context, that means what you think it does. This is both Old and New Testame
nts.
In the NT, there is a debate over whether "sexual immorality" vs. "wickedness" i
s correct because of confusion over the ancient Greek. The word(s) are pornos an
d porneia, which have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Pornos - is related to the Greek words for sale of a prostitute; while porneia m
eans "to engage in lust (either sex) or to engage in fornication.
I gotta say, it must be a tough living a sin-less life so you can afford to sit
behind your monitor and cast stones. For Mat 7 says "Judge not, lest ye be judge
d." Remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the speck in others.

Addressing his first point where he says the Old Testament has no word or phr
ase, this is nothing more than a person hiding their head in the sand. Lets look
at two word-for-word translations from the Hebrew Torah.
Leviticus 18:22

Transliterated it becomes: V'aTh-ZKUr L'a ThShKB MShKBY 'aShH ThV'yBH HV'a.

And the word for word translation is: and with male not-you-shall-lie-down beds-o
f woman abhorrence she
Which was properly rendered in English to read, Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

Transliterated it becomes: V'aYSh 'aShUr YShKB 'aTh-ZKUr MShKBY 'aShH ThV'yBH 'y
ShV ShNYHM MVTh YVMThV DMYHM BM.
And the word for word translation is: and man who he is lying down with beds-of w
oman abhorrence they-did two-of-them to-be-put-to-death they-shall-be-put-to-dea
th bloods-of-them in-them.
Which was properly rendered to English to read: If a man also lie with mankind, a

s he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Without a doubt, the Old Testament is QUITE clear on Gods stance on homosexua
lity. Since God does not change nor wink at sin, it is still an abomination. Now
, as far as the New Testament is concerned the first major mistake our greek scho
lar made was that the word pornos or porneia was used to describe a homosexual. It
in fact is descriptive of a fornicator, of which is properly rendered, even in 1
Corinthians 6:9-10, which we will address in a minute. First, lets look at one v
ery clear verbiage in the New Testament against homosexuality besides that verse
.
Romans 1:26-28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women di
d change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in th
eir lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and re
ceiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Thats huge! With no room for anyone to question, yet with pipe-dreams, so man
y do. So since this person was clearly wrong in their first attempt at Greek, I
pointed them towards two other verses.
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, no
r abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, sha
ll inherit the kingdom of God.
In these verses, I point out that the Greek word arsenokoitai is used, just as
in 1 Timothy 1:10. It means men who sleep with men or in some instances it is abuse
rs of themselves with mankind. This in and of itself is a devastating blow to hom
osexuals because Paul follows it up by saying they will not inherit the kingdom
of God. That only leaves one place in case you were wondering. On their final po
int about judging, our scholar simply needed to read Matthew 7:1-5 to see Christ w
as telling us to not be guilty of what we talk to others about, then commands us
to judge! More on that here..
http://www.mikeschristiancorner.com/judge.html

You said: "The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means men
who sleep with men. ... Read More
Uhhh...no. Nobody really knows what that word means, as it s a combination of ar
sen (meaning man) and koitai (meaning bed). If Paul truly wanted to talk about m
en sleeping with men, he would have used the word "paiderasste".
It is more likely that arsenokoitai means something similar to prostitute.
Here s a clue. Alot of Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived and the w
ord "arsenokoitai" does NOT appear in any of it. If it meant what you say it mea

nt, that word would be prevalent in literature. Fact is... it s not.

The scholar was at it again, and in his own interpretation, condemned homosexua
ls without even realizing it. He said it is a combination of man and bed. Given the
fact that Paul would not have been speaking about a man sleeping in a bed (as wo
uld be preposterous to think), his own definition leads one to the only logical
conclusion of the word. Paul would not have used some unknown term to the Greeks
of the day. The word was widely used and known to the Greeks contrary to the li
e this person made. In fact, at no time prior to the 9th century AD was the word
ever associated with heterosexual intercourse, it was always homosexual, as wel
l as it was not subject to homosexual prostitutes either, but all homosexuals. S
ome associate the word malakos here, but even it does the homosexual no good. Its d
efinition is effeminate, soft to the touch, male prostitute, a boy kept for homo
sexual relations with a man. ALL of these point to it meaning a homosexual, plai
n and simple, and quite clearly. This is a straw-man argument by someone clearly
being spoon-fed information without knowing the truth.

If homosexuals make a choice , then why is the number about the same in the res
t of the Entire animal kingdom (that God created?)? There are some animals that
don t need the other sex to procreate.

The first thing that astonishes me here is this persons willingness to compare
them self to an animal which has no soul, conscience, etc. Next, yes, there are
some animals that dont need a partner to procreate.but they are made that way. Ma
n is not made that way, nor to be homosexual as some claimed there is a gay-gene.
That was debunked and admitted to be wrong by the medical and science fields, ye
t the story did not get much air time due to people not wanting to step on toes.
Lastly, there are animals that eat their young as well as their own feces. I su
ppose this person will now fight for the rights for humans to do the same thing
since it happens in the animal world!

Mike, you said,"Homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is a choice
."
So, Mike... please tell us when you made the "choice" to be heterosexual

There was no choice to become heterosexual,

Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joine
d together, let not man put asunder.
It goes against God s natural order to not be heterosexual. Further, since J
esus is describing a male and female that are married, it negates any union of m
ale-male or female-female. Jesus actually condemns homosexuality in this verse!

I am truly sorry if you have nothing better to do with your time than to try for
cing your particular brand of Christianity down their throats of complete strang
ers. With all due respect, it s not your place to determine whether I or other g
ays and lesbians are saved or not. The idea that we are condemned to hell unless
they repent or change has driven so many of us away from the church. It s time
for us reclaim God s blessing on our lives and families.

Don t feel sorry for me, I don t need it when I stand on God s truth as written
in the Bible & don t try to water it down for my own wants and needs. It is my p
lace to make that judgment call so that I can let them, or anyone else following
down the broad way versus narrow, of their impending doom so that when they sta
nd before God, they can t say they did not know. The reason you are turned away
from the Body of Christ that preaches truth on this subject versus it giving in
to itching ears and preaching false doctrines, is because the Truth often hurts
in our core.

That s right, Mike, truth hurts.

It hurts you to hear that there are Christians who do not hate gays and lesbians
as you do. It also hurts to hear them say that neither does the God you assume
agrees with your personal prejudices. And it certainly hurts to see that Christi
anity might not be an exclusive club for right-wing conservative heterosexual Re
publicans you assumed it to be.

You call it hate because it goes against what you want God to change His mind on
and allow you to do. I never said I hated you or any homosexual. I hate no-one.
There are people I know who are in that lifestyle, and I tell them the same exa
ct thing. I have every right to spread the Gospel and truth, and those that foll
ow the world have no Light in them. They are given over to reprobate minds. If I
spoke out against someone who murders, you would not call it hate, if I spoke o
ut about someone who has sex with animals you would not call it hate. Because I
profess the true words of God, you take it as hate because there is no Truth (Je
sus Christ) in your lifestyle. Yes, God loves homosexuals, God loves murderers,
and the list goes on. He is not willing that any should perish, but He is righte
ous too and will judge accordingly. He is a God of wrath as well and when Jesus
returns, it will be with fire. Those living falsely for Christ making a God that
allows sin will be cast in the fire. If I walked by your house and saw it was b
urning, and knew you were in there sleeping yet did nothing to let you know to g
et out, then would I be viewed by you and your family or friends? As someone wit
h hatred in my heart. Yet, since I preach the truth in the bible, for that same
reason, you call it hate. It just is not so.

God has blessed my partner and me with the kind of love, commitment and happiness
we could only dream of. No matter what Mike says, I claim God s love and blessi
ng on my family. Amen.
Wow, this is the first time in my life that I ve been equated with a murderer an
d a zoophile. Poor Mike, I m sorry you won t get to see my reprobate body being
cast in the lake of fire. Great job for making your arguments irrestistibly ridi
culous -- we ve entered Monty Python territory here.

As many have done, they believe because they have received some blessings in
this world that they are righteous, saved, and children of God. That is not so
Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on th
e unjust.
He is gracious and will give blessings to all, but if you lead this lifestyl
e, go back and read the verses posted above. The fact that you are unsaved is no
t a question at all, it is affirmed. My beliefs are Bible based not based on the
wants of my own heart. Blessings are not a sign of Salvation, it is the convers
ion and the fruit you bear based on God s Holy laws. And yes, where I equated it
is where it stands. Mind you, this is not just for homosexuality the adulterer
who goes on in that sin is unrepentant, the liar who goes on in that sin is unre
pentant...it goes for all, we just happen to be talking about this. In closing,
it is absolutely positive that homosexuality is an abomination, and while one ca
n achieve salvation, they cannot achieve salvation while continuing in the lifes
tyle. Repent! Turn away! And run to Jesus.
In His Grace,
Mike Harris
================================================================================
======
HOMOSEXUALITY & THE HEBREW BIBLE

"You shall be holy for I, the LORD (YHVH), your God am holy. You shall not insul
t the deaf, or put a stumbling block before the blind. You shall not render an u
njust decision; do not be partial to the poor or show deference to the rich; jud
ge your neighbor fairly. Do not stand by doing nothing while your neighbor is be
ing injured. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. Love your neighbor s
o you can love yourself; I AM the LORD (YHVH)!
-Leviticus 19, passim, from the prayerbook, Siddur Sim Shalom, Daily Morning Ser
vice.
)( :

I am taking upon myself the command of the Creator to "Love your neighbor as you
love yourself."
A HETEROSEXUAL JEWISH RABBI LOOKS AT THE BIBLE'S VIEWPOINT ON HOMOSEXUALITY
HEALING THE SO-CALLED "TEXTS OF TERROR" - A REINTERPRETATION OF THE SUPPOSED PRO
HIBITION ON HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
AS THERE IS NO REASON, BIBLICAL, ETHICAL NOR MORAL, TO CONTINUE TO DENY ANY CIVI
L RIGHTS TO GAYS AND LESBIANS, ESPECIALLY IN TODAY'S WORLD. ALL HONORABLE PEOPLE
SHOULD STAND IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING EQUALITY OF ALL LEGAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO G
AYS AND LESBIANS.
As a result of his early teaching to continually wrestle with the Sacred texts a
nd to seek to bring the texts into relevence in the modern world, since 1994, Ra
bbi Steinberg-Caudill has been seriously involved in a compassionate study of th
e so-called "anti-homosexual" verses found in the Book of Leviticus. He has sear
ched extensively in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in both the
Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and in other Jewish historical writings.
With the help of not only his own Jewish sources, but also those of Roman Catho
lic, Greek Orthodox and Latin Rite linguists and scholars, plus an LDS (Mormon)
Biblical Languages student at Emory University, Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill
has also been able to study original translations of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin
texts.
This serious study has also involved reviewing the various Biblical manuscripts
and translations, Talmudic responsa texts and other materials of a collateral na
ture to the subject matter being studied; i. e. history, anthropology, archaeolo
gy, philology, etymology, etc. It has required, often times, an attempt to recon
struct the ancient mindset of the pre-Babylonian conquest (586 BCE) Israelite pe
ople.
As a result of this serious research, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill is completely conv
inced that THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash - the Five
Books of Moses) HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE UN
DERSTAND THE TERM "HOMOSEXUALITY" TO MEAN IN TODAYS WORLD!
Sadly, the reality of our human history is that the texts of Leviticus (and Deut
eronomy) which were utilized by the teachers and rabbis of the Jewish tradition
to condemn homosexuality, were so employed under a direct and constant danger an
d THREAT from the dominant and controlling Christian governmental and ecclesiast
ical authorities who needed to have the "perceived" Jewish interpretation of the
texts, as taught by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, to be in accordance with
their own Christian commentaries and teachings on homosexuality and what they b
elieved (falsely) to be sexual perversion. Thus, they kept a close watch on what
the Jewish rabbis wrote about subjects sensitive to Church dogma.
This period of the condemnation of homosexuals, coincides with similar condemnat
ion edicts against witches, healers, and heretics which began mostly in the 4th
to 6th centuries of the common era (CE), which was at least 1500 years after the
original texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was codified into the Hebrew Torah.
This condemnation was largely misplaced and did not represent the actual views
of the writers and compilers of either Leviticus or Deuteronomy.
The Torah, itself, is a document designed to (metaphorically) teach us the progr
ession of mankind from its creation in the Garden of Eden and, full circle, back
again to the Garden of Eden (when we die) when we have hopefully learned what i
t means to "... become as one of us, knowing the good inclination; (the yetzer h

atov; succumbing to our godly nature) and the bad inclination; (the yetzer hara;
succumbing to our animal nature) ..." (Genesis 3: 22). Knowing the Good and the
Bad (evil) required us to be cast out of the wombplace of the Garden so as to e
xperience both Good and Bad, Life and Death, and to learn how to apply both in t
he course of our lives.
One of the evidences on this Eternal Path of progression towards becoming more "
godlike" in our actions will be realized when we "cease to hate your brother in
your heart" (Leviticus 19: 17) and "Do not render an unfair decision ... judge y
our brother fairly" (Leviticus 19: 15). Denying equality of civil and legal righ
ts to gays and lesbians constitutes rendering unfair decisions and hating our br
other in our heart, just exactly as it did when we denied equality of marriage a
nd other civil rights to people of color and also to those who sought to create
interracial marriages and social connections.
In the discussion below, we begin with a statement on homosexuality written by t
he foremost modern authority on the Book of Leviticus, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom. Foll
owing that very interesting statement, will be added the opinions and viewpoints
of Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill, followed by the opinion of his teacher and Rav, Rab
bi Gershon Winkler. That opinion is then followed with an article by Rabbi Micha
el Lerner.
That we may disagree on minor issues related to this very important subject is t
o be expected. In fact, Judaism encourages sincere dispute and amicable dialogue
. It is our obligation as Jews to question and wrestle with the use of these Tor
ah texts in the continued discrimination of gays and lesbians. And, it is most i
mportant to see where we agree, not so much where we disagree.
The four Bible scholars and teachers quoted below have each come to a slightly d
ifferent conclusion about whether homosexuality is actually prohibited in the te
xt and time period of the Torah.
* Rabbi Jacob Milgrom says that, YES, the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior.
However, only in the land of Israel and only for males, and, possibly, only in c
ertain interfamily relationships.
* Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill believes that the so-called "homosexual" act
in the Bible that is prohibited is actually an act of HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION
of a male in place of a female by a heterosexual male, and, possibly, may even n
eed to be done in an idolatrous worship scenario.
Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill posits that even if Moses taught that God did command ag
ainst homosexuality in the Torah (which Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill does not believe
that God did), that command, like other commandments that Moses claimed as God
given Torah commands, such as the command to kill the "stubborn and rebellious"
son (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21), the rabbis negated totally a century after the begi
nning of the Christian era. The Talmudic rabbis declared that God did not say su
ch a command through Moses. Similarly, any vestige of a supposed Torah prohibiti
on against homosexuality also would need to be negated for this new day and age.
Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill believes that the Hebrew word that orginally conveyed th
e concept of what we today refer to as "homosexual" is the word ( saris), commonly t
ranslated "eunuch".
Simply put, homosexuality is defined as a man desiring another man for his sexua
l partner. In ancient times, a eunuch was chosen to guard the king's harem. The
eunuch could be trusted to guard a king's harem, often because he had been castr
ated and could not produce offspring.
But, the question is raised, did the king just not want other men producing offs
pring with his wives, or did he really want a guard that did not desire to have

sex with the king's wives? It is my contention that what the English translators
thought of as a EUNUCH, in many cases, was what the ancient Israelites thought
of as equal to what we today would call a homosexual. Who better to guard the ha
rem than a man who has no sexual desire for a woman?
A castrated man (the traditional eunuch) would still be capable of having the de
sire to have sex with the kings wives. A eunuch for the sake of heaven is a man w
ho believes that the Kingdom of God is coming soon and therefore if he punishes
himself by vowing to refrain from all sexual contact, an act that he sees as qui
te pleasurable, he will help hasten the coming of the Kingdom.
* Rabbi Gershon Winkler states in his article (found in the middle of the page)
his belief that the only "homosexual" act that is prohibited by the Torah is an
al sex, and that female homosexuality; lesbianism, is permitted by the Torah.
* Rabbi Michael Lerner s article is found towards the bottom of the page.
ARTICLE 1
DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, Professor Emeritu
s of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley
Of course it does (Leviticus) 18: 22; 20: 13), but the prohibition is severely l
imited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, com
pliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrel
evant outside it (see the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited
to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibi
tion on a universal scale.

Moreover, as pointed out by my erstwhile student, Dr. David Stewart, both occurr
ences of the prohibition (18: 22; 20: 13) contain the phrase "as one lies with a
woman" (lit. "lyings a woman"), an idiom used only for illicit heterosexual uni
ons. Thus one could argue that carnal relations are forbidden only if their corr
elated heterosexual unions would be in these lists. For example, the Bible lists
the following prohibited relations: nephew-aunt, grandfather-granddaughter, and
stepmother-stepson. Thus, according to this theory, nephew-uncle, grandfather-g
randson, and stepfather-stepson are also forbidden. This implies that the homose
xual prohibition does not cover all male-male liaisons, but only those within th
e limited circle of family. However, homosexual relations with unrelated males a
re neither prohibited nor penalized. Admittedly, more than two occurrences of th
e phrase "as one lies with a woman" (Gen. 49: 4; Lev. 20: 13) [mishkevey eeshah -]
needed before accepting this argument as definitive.
As I mentioned above, in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, there is no
prohibition against lesbianism. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in anci
ent times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbianism existed and
flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite) Babylonian omen text (Texts f
rom Cuneiform Sources 4, 194: XXIV 33') and in the work of the lesbian poet Sapp
ho (born c. 612 BCE, during the time of the First Temple), who came from the isl
and of Lesbos (hence "lesbian"). But, in the eyes of the Bible, there is a funda
mental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women: in lesbianism th
ere is no spilling of seed. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and it is for th
at reason, in my opinion, that lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
Thus, from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's
homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of
the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small n
umber of Jewish gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the
Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source text offers a fund
amentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither

does it prohibit most people from engaging in it.

(LEVITICUS, pgs. 196-197, by Jacob Milgrom, 2004)
* Jacob Milgrom is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of C
alifornia, Berkeley. The author of five scholarly books, including "Studies in L
evitical Terminology" (1970), "Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly D
octrine of Repentence" (1976), "Numbers" (JPS Torah Commentary- 1990), and "Levi
ticus (Anchor Bible, 3 vols.,-1991-2001), and more than two hundred articles. He
was named a fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, a fellow of the Institute for
Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, and a senior fellow of the Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research. Now retired, he and his wife, Jo, live in Jerusalem (as
of August 2001).
Article 2
HOW DID THE EARLY TALMUDIC SAGES DEAL WITH OUTDATED OR IRRELEVANT BIBLICAL LAW?
(And how does that relate that to the question of modern day homosexuality)? by
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill.
If the question of modern committed homosexual relationships, wherein two men or
women enter into a committed relationship with each other, had been put before
Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (135-220 C.E.), the editor of the Mishnah portion of the Ta
lmud, in Tiberias, Israel, or Rabbi Ashi (c.352-427 C.E.), one of the compilers
of the Gemara in Babylon, it is my belief that the Talmud would have had similar
stories to the ones depicting Rabbis Shimon and Eliezer and Elazar, son of Rabb
i Eleizer as having handled the so-called proof texts of Leviticus in a similar
manner as they handled the questions of "A Stubborn and Rebellious Son," "An Ido
latrous City," and a "House Contaminated with Blight (Nuga)" in the Babylonian T
almud, Tractate Sanhedrin, chapter eight.
The Hebrew Bible, in Deuteronomy 21: 18 - 21 records the Word of God when it sta
tes that God told Moses on Mt. Sinai: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious s
on, who does not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and w
hen they have chastened him, will still not hearken to them....they shall bring
him out to the elders of his city...And all the men of his city shall stone him
to death: so shall you put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear a
nd fear."
Even though the Torah EXPLICITLY has God stating that a stubborn and rebellious
son should be stoned to death, these rabbis of the Talmudic period strongly disa
greed. They knew that the way that the Law of the Torah of Moses' day (the 14th
century BCE) was practiced, was not the way that the Law was to be practiced as
LAW in the Talmudic Period, almost 1500 years later, in the 4th or 5th centuries
CE.
The text of the Babylonian Talmud that discusses the killing of the Stubborn and
Rebellious son, tractate Sanhedrin 68B starts out the Mishnah with the statemen
t; "A stubborn and rebellious son - from when does he become a stubborn and rebe
llious son?"
It ends the intricate discussion on just what constitutes a "Stubborn and Rebell
ious Son" five pages later on page 71A by resolving the halakha (the Way the Law
is practiced) according to the decision of Rabbi Yehudah, who states: "THERE NE
VER WAS A REBELLIOUS SON, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE."
Thus, the rabbis of the Talmud put fences around the Torah "Voice of God" to neg
ate the Capital punishment that the Torah requires.
However, the anonymous redactor of this Mishnah in the Talmud asks: "Then why wa

s it written?"
The Talmud responds: "So that people might study it (wrestle with it), and recei
ve reward for their efforts."
However, the Talmud also records both sides of the discussion for the Talmud now
records the objection of Rabbi Yonatan, who states: "This is not so, for I once
witnessed a rebellious son being tried, and I sat on his grave."
This same series of discussions continues as to whether there can exist an "Idol
atrous and Condemned City" as per God's Word in Deuteronomy 12: 3-4.
The result is again that the halakha is that "THERE NEVER WAS A CONDEMNED CITY,
NOR WILL THERE EVER BE" based upon the argument of Rabbi Eliezer.
Again, Rabbi Yonatan objects with: "I once saw a city declared a condemned city,
and I sat upon its rubble after it had been destroyed."
Now, the Sages turn to the question of a house infected with nega (erroneously t
ranslated as leprosy) which the Torah demands that it be torn down (Leviticus 14
: 37).
Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon, renders the halakha as: "THERE NEVER WAS
A LEPROUS HOUSE, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE."
However, the Talmud records the objections of Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Tza
ddok and Rabbi Shimon of Kefar Akko, that they personally visited a place where
the stones of a Leprous House had been desposed of. This is a strong argument as
it has two witnesses (Deut. 17: 6).
Yet, in all three of these cases, the established halakha (the Way the Law is pr
acticed) is that "THERE NEVER WAS..., NOR WILL THERE EVER BE" followed by: "WHY
WAS IT WRITTEN IN THE TORAH?" This was answered by: "So that people might study
it, and receive reward for their efforts."
In other words, in Rabbinic methodology, they were saying: "EVEN IF THERE WAS SU
CH A THING AS A REBELLIOUS SON, A CONDEMNED CITY, OR A LEPROUS HOUSE, IN A PAST
TIME, WE STATE THAT WE WILL NOT OBSERVE THESE HARSH COMMANDS OF GOD IN THIS AGE
AND TIME OR FROM THIS TIME ON." (Perhaps they were also inferring that Moses mig
ht have misheard what God really said). In any case, they did not accept that th
e death of a stubborn and rebellious son was what God desired in their own time
period and going forward.
The Sages of the Talmud looked at the Written Torah in much the same way as mode
rn American jurisprudence looks at the American Constitution, which some people
hold to also be a sacred document.
The Sages of the Talmud operated in much the same manner as do the American Supr
eme Court Justices. They determined, based upon the needs of their own time peri
od, the Rules of Ancient Law that are still mandatory upon the Jewish people in
their own time period, and their rulings operate in the same manner as do Amendm
ents to the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.
When this is resolved in a Responsa, with both a majority opinion and a minority
opinion, it becomes halakha, Law. Thus, halakha is synonymous with continuing r
evelation.
The purpose of revelation is to bring ancient law into modern practice, or, in o
ther words, to bring the people into balance with the Will of God. If this means
reinterpreting a text, or even doing as the rabbis of the Talmud did and puttin

g the text as to being no longer relevant, and thus, in the place of "THERE NEVE
R WAS ............, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE"
This does not mean that they ignore or negate the original text. They still cont
inue to argue the issues using the text in later baraitot as examples, but they
do not use the text to carry out a sentence of judgement.
Within the weekly Hebrew Torah readings of Parashat Achare Mot (Leviticus 16: 118: 30) and Parashat Kedosheem (Leviticus 19: 1-20: 27) are found the particular
verses utilized for the past sixteen centuries, by both Jewish and Christian fu
ndamentalist teachers to erroneously (and purposefully) persecute, torture and p
unish a small portion of the human population.
These specific verses read:

(1) Leviticus 18: 22; which states: " Do not lie (sexually
n, since this is an idolatrous perversion ( TOEYVAH)".
And:
(2) Leviticus 20: 13, which states:
ve both committed a TOEYVAH (a idolatrous perversion). Their death is their own fault
".
These verses were written in the Book of Leviticus originally sometime about 135
0 BCE. This was a full millennium prior to Jews being in contact with a hedonist
ic, militant non-Semitic culture that had a Syrian-Greek-Hellenistic AND A missi
onizing Hellenizing religious premis that was openly promiscuous and a bi-sexual
modality. This public display of what Jews held as sacred and private behavior
was why the very first Talmudic references are to PUBLIC DISPLAYS of homosexual
like, sexual activity, mostly by non-Jews, which was spoken of as an idolatrous
perversion ( TOYEVAH) of JEWISH mores and religious practice (Sanhedrin 54a) if prac
ticed by Jews.
Again, according to the rabbi and Bible scholar, Professor Jacob Milgrom, the pr
estigious translator and commentator of the scholarly Anchor Bible Series Transl
ation of the Book of Leviticus, and the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on
the Book of Numbers; the ORIGINAL Hebrew Bible Leviticus texts are referring to
NON-ISRAELITE, RELIGIOUS cultic ritual sexual and sexual abuse practices that I
sraelites were not to imitate when they entered into the Land of Israel. It has
nothing at all to do with what we today term as being homosexuality per se, but
with cultic religious fertility rituals.
The ORIGINAL LEVITICUS documents of the biblical texts that are today used by th
e uninformed to deny a spiritual connection to God for homosexuals were not writ
ten to address either homosexuals or homosexuality. These documents are actually
referring to a prohibition against imitating non-Israelite, foreign CULTIC sexu
al substitution fertility rituals, and do not condemn anyone who does not use su
bstitutional and/or incestuous sex as a method of gaining Divine favor.

In fact, the text of the Book of Leviticus was originally written as an instruct
ion manual for the priestly tribe, and referred to PRIESTLY prohibitions only. T
he original name of the Book of Leviticus (which name comes from the Greek Septu
agint) was in Hebrew " SEFER TORAT HAKOHANIM" (The Instructions of the Priestl
.
Among the Israelites the Priestly class was required to be " Kadosh" (Holy; see Lev
. 22: 8; Ezek. 44: 31), "set apart" from the rest of the people, just as the Sab
bath and Festivals are set apart as " Holy" from the rest of weekly time.

During Ezra's time period (5th century BCE) this same text of Leviticus was then
edited, added to, and made to apply to all the returning Jews, who were now to
be a "nation of kings and priests." "You shall be Holy ( set apart), for I, ADONAI,
your God, am Holy"(Lev. 19: 2).
NOTE:
The Hebrew word for a Eunuch, , is the generic word that
were homosexual, a term unknown to Jews of the 1st century.
to those who would not produce offspring, not just castrated
I am NOT a Christian in any way or form. AND I believe that
, Jesus, the son of Joseph, was not a Christian either. Thus
ng quotation:

"For there are some who are
impregnation: and there are
by men: and there be those
eunuchs for the kingdom of
1st century CE; Matthew 19:

probably included those who

It simply referred
individuals. Though
the Nazarener Rebbe
I offer the followi

- -
homosexuals, which were born so from their mother's
some who are castrated ones, which were made eunuchs
who are celibates by vow, which have made themselves
heaven's sake" (Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth,
12)

See also Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter 8 (folio 79b-80a)

as a synonym for "homosexual"

There is a question as to whether the ancient sages who wrote the Torah would ha
ve seen ( sarisim - eunuchs) as equivalent to what we would call today homosexuals, a
ell as others who did not propagate. Did the word ( saris) connote more than one mea
ning to the ancient Israelite? Did they lump in their own minds those who they s
aw as either physically, mentally, or in any other way, unable (or unwilling) to
create offspring as eunuchs? And, did they give this class of their fellow tribes
men negative connotations?

They certainly did not call them by the English word, homosexuals. Karl-Maria Ke
rtbeny first coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet when arguing again
st a Prussian anti-sodomy law. The Hebrew speaking people who wrote the original
text of Leviticus did not see homosexual actions as a sexual orientation of any
consequence. In fact, they viewed homosexuality as something that was of little
or no real concern to the normal operation of the tribal group, thus it was not
singled out as a single class identity as were Priests , Levites , and Nazarites
Mr. Faris Malik's article, The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural E
unuchs, convincingly shows that the ancient Hebrews did indeed refer to what we t
oday call homosexuals by the term -eunuch. What is the effect of this? The effect is
to show most definitely that the so-called anti-homosexual passages in Leviticu
s and Deuteronomy COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO HOMOSEXUALITY, just as Rabbi Steinb
erg-Caudill has long contended. Rather, these passages refer to sexual substitut
ion by HETEROSEXUAL men as symbolic acts performed originally in idolatrous cere
monies.
It makes sense that the ancient sages of the Jewish people knew what homosexuali
ty was. After all homosexuality is a natural human condition that has been on th
e earth as long as the species itself. The only question is by what terminology
was it known to them? As the text of the Hebrew Torah (from which comes Jewish L
aw) is as much as 3500 years old, many of the words used then to describe people
, acts, and actions are not clearly understood today. It is easier for religious
fundamentalists as they take the King James English most literally as the inerr
ant text of the Bible "just as it was given to Moses on Mt Sinai." The scholar a
nd Truth seeker, however, knows better. One need only take a look at the latest
Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah (from Hebrew into English),

and see the number of times the notation "Hebrew meaning unknown" is beside a wo
rd, to get the drift that sometimes the true meaning of a specific word in the a
ncient language has been lost over time. This loss of the original meaning has h
appened in all languages as words go out of favor or usage, or change in the way
they are used.
The New Testament records Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth as saying: "For the
re are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb (homosexual?), and
some eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men (castrated), and some eunuchs who make
themselves become eunuchs (celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens
. Let him who is able to receive it, receive it" (Matthew 19:12). It is evident
that in his day he (or the writer of his words) saw several different classes of
non-procreating men as part of a group that he lumped together under the generi
c term eunuchs sarisim (pl) .
It has also long been known that "The God Fearers," who were Gentiles that worsh
ipped at Jewish synagogues and kept the Jewish Laws, and from whom the earliest
"Christian" Church was formed, failed in becoming "completed Jews" by conversion
to the tribal religion due to their fear of circumcision, which they thought ma
de them less competent in bed. This equation of circumcision with castration and
with loss of sexual potency left a void in the spiritual beliefs of these "God
Fearers" that Paul of Tarsus took advantage of
For a well written argument by Mr. Faris Malik in favor of the Hebrew term "Sari
s" as referring to homosexual persons as well as to castrated persons, click her
e:
It is thought that the Dead Sea community of Zadokites (Zadukeem - Sadducees), w
ho are considered by most scholars to have written and hidden most, if not all,
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, evidently thought that the Book of Leviticus was ESPECI
ALLY important for their community. Sixteen separate manuscripts (none totally c
omplete) of the Scroll of Leviticus have been discovered in the Qumron caves.
Of these sixteen manuscripts, three manuscripts show no deviation from what we r
ead in the Masoritic text of the Book of Leviticus today. Interestingly, however
, four manuscripts were written in the Paleo-Hebraic script in use prior to the
exile of the Judeans into Babylon. Although both chapters 18 and 20 are present
in these manuscripts, our particular verses do not seem to have survived.
It is the opinion of Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill that, like all other indige
nous tribal societies of people, including Native American Indians, the Jewish p
eople were not overly concerned about homosexuality as a sexual modality within
the community, where-in two married or widowed men might come together in a lovi
ng, companionship that well may have included a sexual relationship. As a rule,
it did not get any notice. Why? Because, just as long as these men had also fulf
illed the command to take a wife and be fruitful and multiply and replenesh the
earth (to have at least one child of each sex), their "other sexual activity" di
d not make a difference. No condemnation of King David's relationship with Jonat
hon, nor of Judah's tryst with Tamar is recorded in the Hebrew Bible.
IN THE TIME OF THE TORAH, ALL MALES WERE COMMANDED TO MARRY
The first commandment in the Torah is considered to be fruitful and multiply [Se
fer HaHinnuch Vol. 1, pg. 7] and one who fails to marry is considered to have ne
glected one of the most fundamental of Jewish laws. In fact, the Sages tell us,
when a person comes up for judgment after his death, he will be asked: "Did you
get married?" "Did you raise a family?"..Thus we are told, " A man who does not
have a wife is not a proper man," and "A man who has no wife lives without joy,
without blessing and without goodness" [Yebamot 62b].
King Hezekiah was told by the Prophet Isaiah that he would die and his soul woul

d perish because he had failed to observe the first commandment, the command to
marry and preserve the species (Talmud, Berachot 10A). It was because of this fa
ilure that, though he was destined to be the Messiah and bring peace to the worl
d, that it did not occure in his day (ibid).
In ancient traditional Jewish society, ALL males were viewed as under the comman
d of Heaven to marry and to have children. No provision was made for a completel
y celibate or a completely homosexual orientation. A man could, but was not requ
ired to, obtain a divorce from a woman who was unable to produce him children. H
e could also take a second wife (polygamy) or even a "common-law" wife (a pelege
sh - a concubine). A person who failed to keep a commandment that applied to him
(i.e. to marry and have children) was seen as a danger to the welfare of the en
tire community; because of his disobedience of a positive commandment, the rains
would fail to come and the herds would abort their young. Only after a man had
fulfilled the command to marry and bring forth children could he dedicate his li
fe to a vow of celibacy, if he so chose.
According to the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Ketubot, Rabbi Chisda (3rd-4th cen
tury Babylonian Amora) said; "I am better than my colleagues because I was marri
ed when I was but sixteen years old. Yet, if I had married at age thirteen, I wo
uld not have had (a single wasted seminal emission) and would have spit in the A
dversary's (HaSatan) eye." In other words, a young married man will not spill se
men in vain.
The Sages further taught that the commandment to marry and to have children is m
ore important than the commandment to build the Temple. It is considered as the
VERY FIRST COMMANDMENT (Genesis 1: 28 & 2: 24). A Jew who willfully did not marr
y was considered a sinner and needed to offer a sin sacrifice. He could even be
FORCED by his community to take a wife if he was still unmarried by the age of 2
0 (Rokeach 12, as quoted in the 18th century Sephardic Commentary on the Bible,
MeAm Lo'ez, Vol. 1, page 124).
The Sages taught that a boy should be under the obligation to marry at an early
age, he should have already signed the prenuptial document by his thirteenth bir
thday. This was the origin of today's Bar Mitzvah ceremony. If he had not marrie
d by his twentieth birthday, the court could compel him to marry (ibid.)
THE COMMUNITY OF "ESSENES" WAS NOT A STRICTLY CELIBATE COMMUNITY
According to Josephus, there existed a group of Jews (during the pre-Roman war o
f 64-70 CE, that culminated with the destruction of the Temple, called the "Esse
nes." He refers to celibacy as one of the practices of this community. Recent ex
cavation at the cemetary of Qumron has turned up graves of not only men, but als
o of women and children. It is an error based upon a superimposing of the monast
ic tradition of the early archaeologist, Fr. Roland De Vaux upon the community w
ho inhabited Qumron.
Some of that community, AFTER they had fulfilled their proceative duties, and th
eir children had grown up, took upon themselves celibate vows similar to the vow
s a Nazarite takes. They believed that by denying themselves this "pleasure," th
ey would hasten the coming of the Kingdom of God.
In the Dead Sea Scroll, "The Messianic Rule," (1QSa,I, 9-11); "At the age of twe
nty years old, a youth shall be enrolled (in the Community) to enter upon his al
lotted duty to raise a family and to be joined to the Holy Congregation. He shal
l not lay with a woman before then for he does not yet know the difference betwe
en good and evil." Thus, you see that a youth of 20 years of age had to marry an
d assume the duty to raise a family in order to be "joined to the Holy Congregat
ion." Being married and a father of children was viewed by the Essenes as a REQU

IREMENT, just as in normative Pharisaic Judaism.

From the above texts we see that within both the Pharisaic-Sadducean Judaism, an
d Essene Judaism, as represented by the Talmud and the Dead Sea Scroll texts, EV
ERY Jewish young man was to be married to a Jewish young woman by the time they
were sexually active, no matter what their true sexual orientation was. In fact,
the signing of the prenuptial documents, the ketubah, was part of a child's com
ing of age (B'nai Mitzvah) ceremony.
Although both the Essene community and the Priestly element of Sadducean Judaism
were obsessed with sexual purity and seminal emissions, one cannot find specifi
c references to male homosexuality as having been a prohibited activity for Jews
in any of their sectarian writings. It seems that the married Essenes lived in
the cities, near the walls, while, possibly, those who had already raised their
families, or were widowed, or were no longer married may have lived at the commu
nity at Qumron.
In a closely knit religious community of this kind, true homosexuality, wherein
two persons of the same sex live together in a committed, sexually active relati
onship, is usually accepted without fanfare or public notice. Snide remarks migh
t be made but the relationship is usually just ignored.
THE TORAH IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE PRACTICE OF "HOMOSEXUALIT
Y"
Almost all Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the specific texts
of the Five Books of the Written Torah does the Torah prohibit homosexual acts b
y WOMEN (see the writing on this by Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Chief Rabbi of Baghdad
, 1834-1909), in The Halachot of the Ben Ish Hai, Chapter "Shoftim," on lesbiani
sm). This fact proves that, to these later rabbis, homosexuality itself as a sex
ual orientation is not the intent of the subject verses in the Book of Leviticus
.
The intent of the verses in question was to prohibit male upon male sexual idola
try in the imitation of the practices of Canaanite and Egyptian cultic fertility
rites by Israelite heterosexual men (see Leviticus 18: 1).
In the 3rd century CE, the Babylonian Talmud records that Rabbi Huna (the miracl
e working rain making-sacred circle drawing rabbi) tried to get the Sanhedrin to
legislate against female homosexuals (lesbians) being able to marry a High Prie
st, a Cohen, but his colleagues ruled against him (BT Yebamot 76a). The Sanhedri
n said that it was not permissible to prohibit what the Torah permits.
It logically follows that if the Torah was referring to homosexuality in general
, as a sexual preference or as an sexual orientation, why would it just address
only the MALE homosexual activity and not also the female homosexual activity?
JEWISH EXEGESIS METHODOLOGY
On the basis of the exegesis of Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael in the Sifra, on Leviti
cus, written in the mid-second century of the Common Era, Rabbi Ishmael says:
"The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules.... When a generalization i
s followed by a specification, only what specifies applies (Miklal u'frat)."

In our texts of Leviticus the generalization is the text; "A man shall not lay w
ith a man," and the specification is the text; "as you would lay with a woman
Based upon Rabbi Ishmael's method of Jewish Torah exegesis, we can clearly see t
hat the biblical passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13 can n

ot refer to true homosexual activity at all, as at least one of the males is a h

eterosexual or perhaps a bisexual male. Otherwise the text need not supply the w
ords, "as (you would) lay with a woman."
Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has said that these Leviticus texts are in reality, referrin
g to foreign religious, cultic, ritual and promiscuous sexual practices, as prac
ticed by the idolatrous religions of Egypt and Canaan, which featured the substi
tution of others, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex for
cultic ritual fertility purposes.
It should also be noted that it is not the normal homosexual practice for a man
to lay with another man as though he were laying with a (preferred) woman. This
is HETEROSEXUAL SUBSTITUTION for sexual gratification. The norman homosexual man
has no desire for sex with a woman.
Thus, if a man were thinking of using his sexual partner as
were a woman, and not the man that he is, it would not be a
tionship, as one of the parties involved is PRETENDING that
ing with is a preferred woman. Why should he lay with a man
any willing women that would lay with him?

though that partner

true homosexual rela
the person he is lay
when he could find m

SUBSTITUTIONAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR NOT PERMITTED

There is a second possible explanation that the situation described in our Levit
icus texts are actually a permissive sexual situation in which the first man doe
s not have control over his sexual emotions, but uses others to satisfy his sexu
al desires. If we read the Torah this way, it is warning this kind of person tha
t certain types of substitutional sexual behavior are not permitted. The way tha
t the text is written also provides us with a clue that sexual substitution is w
hat is being referred to when it says: .The writing of the
elled so that it is to be pronounced as HEE, , which means SHE, instead of the corr
ect HU, for the masculine tense, shows that the male is substituting as a female
instead of the male that he is.
In the Greek texts reference to Lev. 18:22 from the Septuagint (translated in 3r
d century BCE), the words are: "koimithisi koitin gynaikos" (you may not lie as
with a woman).
This is the way it is usually rendered. The above translates into Greek the Hebr
ew words mishkevey, (to lay sexually with - The Hebrew consonants are: ---- )and eesh
ah, (woman : ---).
This translation is attested in three of the earliest papyri, A, B, and F, which
support the word "gynaikos" -- (as with a woman). It implies a substitution of
some sort. Later Christian Greek renditions have used "arsenos" (young male) ins
tead of gynaikos, which shows a decided anti-Hellenistic or a pro-Gentile Christ
ian, anti-Jewish Christian bias.
The Torah itself tells us it is not referring to homosexuality but to idolatry b
y its opening statement in chapter 18 of Leviticus wherin YHVH God states; "I am
is YHVH your Creator Force! You are not to follow the practices of Egypt where
you lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of the
ir customs."
If we wish to determine what kind of customs the author of Leviticus is referrin
g to as being prohibited, we must ask ourselves: What were the supposed homosexu
al practices of the religions in Egypt and in Canaan in the 14th century-10th ce
ntury BCE (the time represented by Leviticus)?
According to the Alexandria, Egypt Jewish philosopher Philo (1st century CE); "T

hey [the pagan TEMPLE PRIESTS] would apply themselves to deep drinking of strong
liquor and dainty foods and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their m
ad lust for WOMEN [these were heterosexual men] did they violate the marriages o
f their neighbors, but also these men mounted males [they were promiscuous men].
... Then, little by little they accustomed those who were BY NATURE MEN to submi
t to play the part of women.... (On Abraham, Chapter 26, pages 134-136.)
This Egyptian cultic religious practice is a SUBSTITUTION of the male body for a
female body in male to male promiscuous sexual activity. It is not homosexualit
y! The practices being referred to are those of CULTIC ritual promiscuous sexual
behavior.
SODOMY
Genesis 19: 4-5: 4 They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the MEN of
Sodom, young and oldall the people to the last MANgathered about the house. 5 And
they shouted to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.
This text in Genesis 19: 4-5, used to erroneously give the nomenclature of sodomy
to homosexual sex is from the 17th or 18th century BCE biblical account. This te
xt actually does not refer to an act of consensual sex, or to homosexual sex at
all. It refers to an act of sexual violence, degradation, and male rape, as also
does the passage in Judges 19: 22. These sexual acts committed by the men of So
dom are acts of VIOLENCE and sexual brutality, used to show the hatred and FEAR
of the men of Sodom for those they consider as strangers, who they are thereby d
egrading and humiliating. This act of forced sex is not an act of love, nor is i
t one of caring, nor is it based upon either parties sexual orientation. There a
re religious ministers and rabbis who view this degradation and humiliation as a
n act of homosexuality. They could not be further from the truth. That they do s
o speaks more to their own bias and lack of understanding than to their desire t
o be true to the meaning of the original text.
The Hebrew Prophet, Ezekiel, who wrote his writings much closer to the writing d
own of this Torah story, actually addresses directly the question of what the si
n of the people of Sodom was.
He writes in his chapter 16:
48 As I livedeclares the Lord GODyour sister Sodom and her daughters did not do wh
at you and your daughters did. 49 Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: ar
rogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity;
yet she did not support the poor and the needy.
In chapter 13 of Genesis, we are told that the land of the Jordan Plains upon wh
ich the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah stood was like Gods own Garden. Now, the peopl
e of Sodom were wicked and given to sin; towards Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh especially (th
ey practiced idolatry). The Hebrew word Sodom ( )is etymologically related to the Hebr
ew word (), fertile field. The implication is that Sodom was a fertile farming area,
good for grazing animals. The Hebrew word Gomorrah ( )derives etymologically from the
ord ( )meaning sheaf of grain. By using these names for these cities, the writer is im
plying that the area of Sodom and Gomorrah was good for the growing of grains li
ke, wheat, barley, oats, rye, etc. This is also why the Prophet Ezekiel states: S
he and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility. So, what the
n were the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah?
The sins of Sodom were - social injustice, waste, over-indulgence, and insolence
. These were the crimes of Sodom, not homosexuality!
In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pirke Abot, chapter 5, section 9, it states At
four periods pestilence increases: in the fourth year and in the seventh year,

and in the year after the seventh year, and at the end of Sukkot every year. In
the fourth year because of [neglect of] the Tithe for the Poor in the third year
; in the seventh year because of [neglect of] the Tithe for the Poor in the sixt
h year; and in the year after the seventh year because of [transgressing the law
s of] Shemitah produce; and at the end of Sukkot every year because of stealing
the gifts due to the poor.
The Rabbis are telling us that if we neglect the gifts due to the poor, we will
incur pestilence because of it. The gifts due the poor are not considered as belon
ging to us, so if we keep them, we are stealing from the poor. A part of the obl
igation of being able to make a living from raising animals and growing crops wa
s the responsibility to see that the Poormans Tithe was properly done every third
and sixth year, and that the fields were allowed to not be harvested in the sev
enth year (Shemitah Year), with the crops that grew on their own being harvested
by the poor.
Pirke Abot, chapter 5, section 10, states: There are four attitudes among men: He
that says, What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours this is the average at
titude; but some [Sages] say that this is the attitude of the Sodomites.
A Sodomite is described here as being a person who accepts no responsibility for
the poor in his community. He owes them nothing.
Thus we see that the sins of Sodom were the failure to provide for the homeless,
the hungry, and the poor - AGAIN, "social injustice, waste, over-indulgence, an
d insolence." These were the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah, not homosexuality! I
t is THESE sins that should rightly be labeled as SODOMY.
THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO SODOM AND TO GOMORRAH BEGINING WITH CHAPTER 13
OF GENESIS UNTIL THEIR DESTRUCTION IN CHAPTER 19 IS TO CONTRAST THE HOSPITALITY
OF AVRAM AND SARAI WITH THE SELFISH AND GREEDY NATURE OF THOSE WEALTHY CITIES O
F THE JORDAN PLAIN, SODOM AND GOMORRAH. A NATURE THAT CAUSED GOD TO PUNISH THEM
BECAUSE OF ARROGANCE, BECAUSE OF GREED, AND NOT BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
OTHER BIBLICAL REFERENCES THOUGHT TO REFER TO HOMOSEXUALITY
The male prostitutes mentioned in the English translation of I Kings 14: 24, 15: 12,
and II Kings 23:7 (proscribed in Deuteronomy 23: 18) are described in the Talmud
(BT Sanhedrin 54b) as providing homosexual sex, but other early Bible translato
rs were of a different opinion.
The translator of the 2nd century CE Babylonian Aramaic Jewish translation of th
e Hebrew texts, theTargum Onkelos, read the quoted Book of Kings text to show th
at the male prostitutes provided sex to the FEMALE visitors to the idolatrous te
mples. If this is the case, there is some question whether these male prostitute
s were providing male on male sex or if they were also, or only, providing heter
osexual sex to women.
In any case, the male rapes of Genesis 19 and Judges 19: 22, and the promiscuous
male sexual activity of I & 2 Kings does not describe monogamous, loving and ca
ring homosexual relationships anymore than the case of Lot and his daughter's ac
t of incest in Genesis 19: 31-38, describes monogamous, loving and caring hetero
sexual relationships.
-TOEYVAH IS A CATEGORY RELATED TO IDOLATROUS PRACTICES
Now let us examine the meanings of the Hebrew word - -TOEYVAH (abomination, detestab
le, idolatrously unfit, a horrible deed, a shameful vice, idolatry, idols- relat
ed to the Phoenician , derived from Old Hebrew ).

A look at the internal evidence shows that the words (toeyvah hee ) , which are trans
ed as "an abomination" or "a disgusting perversion," means much more than that.

The Hebrew word TOEYVAH is used in the Torah to describe three CATEGORIES of actions
in the Torah that are considered abominations or disgusting perversions.
These are (1) laws around IDOLATRY; as in Deuteronomy 17: 4; (2) laws around the
eating of forbidden animal species or bodily fluids (blood, semen), as in Deute
ronomy 14: 3; and (3) laws around the male cultic sexual prohibitions, as in Lev
iticus 18 & 20, which include incestuous relationships, bestiality, and same sex
substitution.
It is the opinion of Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill that the three catagories around th
e word TOEYVAH are, in reality, but ONE category, that of things prohibited because
of their association with idolatrous worship. Thus, the word TOEYVAH ( or a form of t
he word), is a CATEGORY of IDOLATROUS forbidden action, and is used in that mann
er over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
The word TOEYVAH is used only 26 times in the Torah; 2 times in Genesis; 1 time in E
xodus; 6 times in Leviticus; 0 times in Numbers; and 17 times in Deuteronomy. In
all these cases it refers to a form of (idolatrous) substitution. The one time is u
sed in Exodus (8: 22), it refers to the concept that what Israelites sacrifice a
re considered to be by the Egyptians; an ABOMINATION, a .
We thus learn that the Hebrew word TOEYVAH refers to a concept akin to adultery
against God, by substituting the idolatrous sexual behavior of another religion'
s fertility practice as a method of worshipping the Israelite concept of God.
The word TOEYVAH is in the Major Prophets 57 times. 5 times in 1 & 11 Kings, 3 times
in Isaiah, 8 times in Jeremiah, 1 time in Malachi and 41 times in Ezekiel. It i
s not found AT ALL in the Minor Twelve Prophets.
In the Writings, TOEYVAH is found once in Psalms and 25 times in Proverbs. In every
case that is found, it is referring to a prohibitted activity centered around some c
oncept of IDOLATRY.
In today's world, most traditional rabbinical halakhists would not see the Chris
tian concept of Trinity as a toeyvah form of idolatrous belief (as the Torah saw
Egyptian and Canaanite beliefs), but rather they would accept that Judaism, Chr
istianity and Islam all worship the SAME GOD even if by different Names and conc
epts of understanding the nature of that same One God.
There are certainly no authorities within mainline, traditional Judaism that wou
ld consider any of the variants of Christian or Moslem faiths as "a disgusting p
erversion or abomination," with the possible exception of those groups that advo
cate violence or hatred based upon race, religious differences, ethnicity, or se
xual orientation (and ALL religions have their zealots).
Even the eating of a forbidden animal, bird and fish species, as well as eating
a kid cooked in it's mother's milk is considered toeyvah in Deuteronomy 14: 4, a
s well as the eating of blood (forbidden even in the early Jewish-Christian comm
unity, see Acts 15: 20 & 29), yet we do not hold non-Jews guilty of being idolat
ors because they eat these Torah forbidden substances.

According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), the founder of Modern Orth
odox Judaism, in his extensive five volume work Translation and Commentary to th
e Torah, states (page 44)... in commenting on Genesis 1: 28; "The four sections
of man's mission - , , , , embody his whole free-willed moral developme
to the family; refers to society; and refers to the aquisition of property."
ALL of these thing are obtainable by gays and lesbians as well as by straights.
The WORD "MARRIAGE" is just that - a word. It does not, by itself, mean just a m
an and a woman unless that is how we define it. I choose to define it as two lov

ing people who have come together to create a bond between themselves that allow
s them to be able to trust that the other partner will be faithful to the Covena
nt of Marriage that is between them.
Anthropological studies and modern genetic and social science has shown that hom
osexuality is a natural state of being for some human beings and other animal sp
ecies.
If that is truly the case, and it is Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill's belief that it is
, then it is the God who created the human species who is responsible for the co
ndition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition
of heterosexuality.

To say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistak
e when God created the , the singular Earth Creature, ( both male and female). "H
reated him; to be male and female, He created them. And God blessed them.... An
d God saw all that He had made, and He found it to be VERY GOOD ( ! Genesis 1: 27 - 31
).
Rabbi Ted Alexander (A Conservative rabbi) of the San Francisco, California's Je
wish community has stated that; "This is the way God has created them (as homose
xuals), and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them the bless
ings (of marriage). Furthermore, anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings
to same-sex people should not say the Sabbath Psalm, 'How great are Your works,
oh God,' because that includes everybody." Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill is i
n agreement with this statement.
In March 2000, the 111th Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis
, representing The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, (Reform), passed a Re
solution On Same Gender Officiation whereby they resolved to support a Reform Ra
bbi that would perform same gender marriage rituals. They also supported the rig
ht of Rabbis to choose not to perform same gender marriage rituals.
As a totally Jewish Rabbi who considers himself "Flexodox", Rabbi Gershon commen
ds the Reform Rabbis for taking this important step towards full Jewish religiou
s equality in our communities. He prays for the day when the other communities o
f Jewish thought; Conservative, and Orthodox, also follow suit.
In the San Francisco Bay area, as well as other areas of intellectual progressiv
e thinking, some Rabbis belonging to the Conservative movement have begun perfor
ming same-sex marriages. Rabbis of the Renewal, Reconstructionist, and Flexodox
areas of Jewish thought are also performing same-sex unions.
It is of utmost importance for those who are students of the Torah to reclaim th
e texts that have been kidnapped by the fundamentalist, Taliban types among the
Jews, the Moslems, and the Christians and then twisted them, and used these text
s to hurt the innocent and to make them afraid.
We must follow the example of our blessed Rabbis of Talmudic times and retransla
te the Torah in EVERY generation so that we might live in it and not die by it.
The Torah is our life and length of days. It is Eternal! It is TRUE!
The Hebrew Torah is the CONSTITUTION of the Jewish people, but it is the Rabbis
who, like the Supreme Court, tell us how the Torah directs us in our current gen
eration. The INTERPRETATION of the Torah is a New and Everlasting Continuing Rev
elation (kabbalah).
In fact, Rabbi Hayyim Palachi writes that: "...the Torah gave permission to each
person to express his opinion according to his understanding.... It is not good
for a sage to withhold his words out of deference to the sages who preceded him

if he finds in their words a clear contradiction.... A sage who wishes to write

his proofs against the kings and giants of Torah should not withhold his words
nor suppress his prophecy, but should give his analysis as he has been guided by
Heaven."
Rabbi Palachi notes that "even though Rambam wrote with Divine inspiration, many
great sages of his generation criticized his work. There are numerous examples
of students refuting their teachers: Rabbi Yehudah haNassi disagreed with his fa
ther; Rashba disagreed with Ramban; The Tosafists disagreed with Rashi. Respect
for the authorities of the past does not mean that one cannot arrive at an oppos
ing opinion." (See Hikekei Lev, vol. 1, O. H. 6 and Y. D. 42.)
Rabbi Marc Angel (an New York Orthodox Sephardi Rabbi, and past President of the
Union of Sephardi Congregations, and past President of the Modern Orthodox Rabb
inical Council of America) writes: "Diversity of opinion is a reality well recog
nized in Jewish tradition. The Talmud (Berakhot 58a) records the ruling that one
is required to make a blessing upon seeing a huge crowd of Jews, praising God w
ho understands the root and inner thoughts of each individual. Their thoughts ar
e not alike and their appearances are not alike. God created each individual to
be unique; He expected and wanted diversity of thought." (Seeking Good, Speaking
Peace.)
Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden both gave their opinions that;
a student should question their rabbis teachings as best they can. In this way,
truth is clarified. (See Aseh Lekha Rav, 2: 61 and Shehlot Yavetz, 1: 5)
Rabbi Halevi further quotes Rambam (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 23: 9), who states the pri
nciple that "En le-dayan ella mah she-enav ro'ot" (A judge has only what his ey
es see). In other words, a judge must base his opinion solely on his own underst
anding of the case he is considering. No legal precedent obligates him, even if
it is a decision of courts greater than he, even of his own teachers.
In Judaism, we teach that ALL the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and t
hat even the most future Responsa of a future Rabbi was included in that Revelat
ion.
We do not change the past teachings arbitrarily, but examine the present needs,
look at all the past teachings on the subject, closely inspect the inner meaning
s of any textual materials that are relevant to determine if we can deduce a new
and the true meaning of the texts, and with a prayer towards the concept of uni
fying the Jewish people so that they last on into the coming generations, we do
what needs to be done.
Rabbi Gershon Winkler, who was ordained as an Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi in Jerusalem,
has written that: "Asked the Sages of France (11th century), how can the ruling
of both parties be the Word of God when this one permits and this one forbids?
And they answered with the following midrash (sermon): When Mosheh ascended the
mountain to receive the Torah, the Holy Blessed One demonstrated to him concerni
ng every commandment 49 different angles (literally "faces") from which a matter
might be declared forbidden and 49 angles from which a matter might be declared
permitted. And he asked the Holy Blessed One about this, and God said: "This kn
owledge shall be transmitted to the spiritual teachers in every generation so th
at the decision on any matter shall be theirs" (13th-century Rabbi Yom Tov ben A
vraham Isbili (Ritva) on the Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b).
Had the Torah been given already sliced (Rashi: with its laws already set and ab
solutized and void of any process of learning to one side of an issue or the oth
er), no leg would have anything to stand on (Rashi: the world could not survive,
because the Torah requires us to interpret her many faces this way and that, an
d both these and those are the Words of the Living God)... Said Moses to the Hol

y Blessed One: "Teacher of the Universe! Show me how the halachah is determined
(Rashi: so that there will be no question about the application of any of the la
ws." But God then said to him: "That is impossible, because the Torah requires u
s to interpret her many faces this way and that, and if I disclose to you the fi
nal halachah the Torah would then never be interpreted based on her many faces),
for there are 49 ways of interpreting the Torah so that a thing is rendered imp
ure, and 49 ways of interpreting the Torah so that a thing is rendered pure" (2n
d-century Rabbi Yannai, in Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4: 2)."
From the preceeding we see that the Jewish rabbis and sages of the Talmud, our J
ewish Supreme redactors on what the Torah means to convey to us in our own gener
ation, as a living document for a living community, did not believe that how the
y, or a generation 1000 or 2000 years down the road saw the Torah to mean, would
be how the Torah SHOULD mean at some still future date in time.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER TO ME, RABBI GERSHON STEINBERG-CAUDILL, A HETEROSEXUAL RABB
I?
THE REBBE'S DREAM.
In the early 1990s, the legislature of the State of Idaho was presented with a b
ill that would deny civil rights to gays and lesbians. A lesbian member of my co
ngregation asked me to represent the Jewish community by being present in a marc
h against that oppresive legislation.
As rabbi of Boise's single unified Jewish community, I was presented with a conf
licting internal wrestling match. On the one hand, no segment of any population
ought to be denied their civil rights based solely upon their sexual orientation
, and on the other hand, I had been taught that homosexual acts were expressly p
rohibited by the teachings of the Torah as being not just sinful acts but acts t
hat were abhorrent to God.
I resolved my own inner conflict by deciding to follow the Torah dictate of "tza
dakah v'chesed" (justice tempered with mercy), and support the gay-lesbian desir
e to obtain and keep the civil rights that were rightfully theirs as citizens of
the United States of America and of the State of Idaho.
The Torah stipulates 32 times that one shall not oppress the "stranger" that dwe
lls among you. To deny any person, or group of persons, their civil rights was d
efinitely a form of oppressive behavior.
Having resolved my immidiate quandary, I then began to actively support in publi
c the gay-lesbian rights movement as a friend of the gay-lesbian community and a
s a representative of Boise's Jewish community.
This public action on my part led to a speaking engagement at a retreat that was
being held by one of Boise's more gay-friendly churches. It was my intention to
address the Torah concept of the oppressive nature that any legislation passed
by the State against any segment of its population represented. I did not intend
to address the issue of my own personal beliefs as to the rightness or wrongnes
s of homosexuality within Judaism.
However, evidently God had other ideas. That evening I retired to my room to stu
dy and sleep. I recited my evening and bedtime prayers and began to read a new b
ook that I had received just that day (Paradigm Shift, by Rabbi Zalman Schachter
-Shalomi) while I lay on my bed.
In the course of the night, I began to dream about the Kabbalistic Tree of Jacob
's Ladder and how EVERY person possessed within themselves the energies of this
Tree, which is an inner psychological Tree. This Tree was represented in my drea

m by a visual "Shiviti" ( a mandala) that was pictured in "Paradigm Shift."

I dreamed that in bringing the individual's inner energies through the various e
nergy centers within this inner Tree; through the masculine oriented places and
through the feminine oriented places; to the central balancing places, from the
"Heavenly realm" to the "Earthly realm," one unified the Sacred Name of God; Yod
, Heh with the Vav, Heh.
Suffice it to say that along with the visual representation seen in the dream, I
also received audio explanation. This "Voice" told me that it was God who deter
mined the sexual orientation of every person on earth who is created in the Divi
ne Image as a physical-spiritual representative of the Divine on earth, as repre
sented by their head being associated with the Yod of God's Sacred Name, their s
houlders and arms with the Heh, their spine and torso with the Vav, and their hi
ps and legs with the final Heh.
So impactful was this dream on my consciousness that upon awakening I jumped out
of my bed and ran to the Art Cabin where I drew the representation of the dream
on the back of the sweat shirt that I was using as a pajama top due to the extr
eme cold night Fall temperatures of 4:00 A.M. in McCall, Idaho.
That morning, at my lecture, I threw away my notes and instead I used the pajama
top as a visual aid representation to describe the dream of the previous night
and its meaning for me. That dream had taught me to be totally accepting of homo
sexuality as a God based and God ordained sexuality and not as an "abomination."
Several of those who attended my lecture told me that my explanation cleared up
for them why they knew that homosexual orientation was the way that they had be
en born and not a learned behavior.
Kol brakhot tobot (May you receive all good blessings)
Copyright 2000 by Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill, (the EcoRebbe) Updated March
2009.
IT IS TIME FOR THE GLBT COMMUNITY TO SEE ITSELF AS "THE CHOSEN PEOPLE"
After approximately 1600 years of being degraded, persecuted, put down, murdered
, encloseted, and in many other ways caused to be thought of as depraved and dev
iant, it is high time that Gays and Lesbians recognize that they are just as muc
h loved by God as ANY other member of the human specie.
The whole idea of God singling out a group of people, and in It's covenant with
that group of people, referring to them as "My Chosen People," is to cause that
previously hated group of people to gain confidence in themselves as human being
s capable of loving and being loved, and through that confidence, lifting themse
lves up as spiritual people who care about other human beings and sentient creat
ures. One can only show love for others if one feels that one is worthy of being
loved him or herself. The term "Chosen People" is one way that God used to caus
e the Jewish ex-slaves to raise their feelings of self worth up so that they cou
ld see themselves as valuable and worthy of being a FREE people. It is time for
the homosexual community to lift up it's feelings of self-worth and value.
Article 3
On the Chosen People Syndrome
By Rabbi Gershon Winkler
Regarding the question about the Jews claiming to be the chosen people, and how
that has led to antisemitism: my feeling is that we never claimed to the world t
o be the chosen people. We claimed it to ourselves, no less and no more than did
the Celts claim that they were the chosen ones, or the Hopi Indians, or the Lak

ota Sioux or the Egyptians, or the Greeks. It is not our fault that Christianity
TOOK our personal diary from us and published it all over the world. It is the
early Church in its claim to be the only true religion that used our scriptures
to prove this by quoting about how we were chosen by God, so that by replacing u
s, they became automatically the NEWLY chosen ones.
But we Jews never publicized to the world that God had chosen us over any other.
On the contrary, throughout the Tenakh we were reminded again and again that we
are not THE chosen people, but A chosen people, meaning a people chosen amongst
many others.
Here are a few examples from the Tenakh, the private diary of the Jewish people:
"In that day shall Israel be third alongside Egypt and Assyria, as a blessing on
earth; for God will bless them, saying: 'Blessed be my people Egypt, my handiwo
rk Assyria, and my inheritance Israel'" (Isaiah 19:24).
"Are you not just like the Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O Children of Isr
ael? Did I not bring out Israel from the Land of Egypt, and the Philistines from
Caf'tor, and Aram from Kir?" (Amos 9:7).
From the Talmud:
"It is written, 'There never again arose among the Israelites a prophet as great
as Moses' (Deuteronomy 34:10) --among the Israelites there never again arose a
prophet as great as Moses, but amongst other peoples, it is certainly probable!"
(Midrash Bamid'bar Rabbah 14:19).
Martin Buber put it this way: "As a historical people, Israel enjoys no preceden
ce over any other. Like Israel, the other peoples were all wanderers and settler
s; they came 'up' from a land of want and servitude into their present homeland.
The one God, the Redeemer and Leader of the peoples, strode before all of them
upon their way -- even the hostile neighboring peoples -- protecting them by His
might. He guided their steps, gave them power, let them 'inherit' the soil of a
people that had been ruined by its sins and abandoned by history." (From "Marti
n Buber On the Bible", edited by N. Glatzer [Schocken Books, 1982], p. 80).
I believe that we believe that God does not discriminate between one people and
another. That God loves the Palestinians as much as [God loves] the Israelis. So
rt of like a mother who writes six letters to her six children, and in each lett
er she writes "You are my favorite. I love you more than anything in the world!"
This is why we never went out missionizing to people. We believed every-one had
their own divine revelation and each their path is sacred as long as they don't
use it to destroy others. A tzadik (righteous person), the Talmud teaches, is n
ot someone who is a holy Jew, but someone of ANY faith or [ANY] people who is ri
ghteous by their actions. A tzadik is not determined by belief or religious affi
liation but by how they live their life.
So, no we are not any more chosen than the aboriginals of Australia. We are equa
lly chosen. And when we say "asher bachar ba'nu mee'kol ha'ameem" (who chose in
us from all the nations) we mean that we thank God for choosing us, too, from am
ong all the other nations, meaning from among all those other peoples who were c
hosen long before we were.
Of course the average traditional Jew will think about this differently. I belie
ve that is because we have as a people been persecuted for so long that our reli
gious teachers kept impressing upon us how precious we were to God in order to l
ift up our downtrodden spirits. A people oppressed for close to two thousand yea
rs needs to hear that they are important, chosen, the highest of the high. But t
heologically it is totally incorrect. We are different than most, yes. But we ar
e not more important to God than most. God likes us because we are funny. We gav

e the world more comedians than anyone else.

We are not hated because we claim to be chosen. We are hated because of the veno
m spread against us by the New Testament story of the Jews calling for the cruci
fixion of Jesus, which has been proven again and again as historically and theol
ogically fictitious, but it is already a poison well-entrenched in every-one inf
luenced by the Church, whether Christian or not, which is practically the entire
world today.
I think another factor of this chosen people problem is not anything we say or s
aid to the world as much as what the world assumes we say about ourselves or thi
nk about ourselves, because the world sees us as uncompromising, tenaciously cli
nging to our peculiar and often politically-incorrect ways, even when those ways
clash with the rest of the world. We have always been different, and always ref
used to conform to the religious and cultural ways of those who have conquered u
s, whether Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Christian, etc. which led them to assume th
at we thought ourselves special. Why don't the Jews give in? They couldn't under
stand it. Everyone else who was conquered adopted the conqueror's ways. Everyone
but the Jews. Which may naturally lead people to think that we think we are too
special, chosen by God or the gods. Our crime was our stubborn refusal to compr
omise our beliefs and our ways, and so we chose death more often than any other
conquered people, rather than conform or convert.
Our crime was not our claim to be chosen. Our crime was our claim to the right t
o believe as we wished.
And for that we have paid dearly.
San Francisco Gay-Lesbian Synagogue Congregation Shaar Zahav (link) click here
Gay-Lesbian friendly BEYT TIKKUN SYNAGOGUE (link) click here
Conservative Congregation B'nai Emunah (link) click here

Rabbi Gershon Winkler has written (in the Bible Review, June 2001):
The Jewish scriptural prohibition against homosexuality appears in the context o
f laws concerning cultic rites performed by seven specifically named nations who
se religious worship rites we were being instructed not to emulate in our worshi
p of God (Leviticus 18: 3, 22, 20: 13, 23; Deuteronomy 23: 18).
Therefore the wording is; to lay with a man as with a woman, something a true ho
mosexual man does not do. The sin is about a horny heterosexual man using anothe
r man for sex, which occurred in ancient religious worship among some of those v
ery same nations that our ancestors were warned against emulating.
To translate that prohibition, therefore, as applying to any homosexual relation
ship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and enter instead the realm of su
bjective, mortal homophobia.
The ancient rabbis must have had some sense of this problem when they ruled two
thousand years ago that any homosexual sexual activity short of anal intercourse
is not included in the biblical prohibition (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 54a-56a
; Sotah 26b; Niddah 13a; Maimonides, Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a).

Why did they bother to offer that qualification if it was so clear to them that
homosexuality was forbidden?
Also, lesbianism, according to Jewish law, was never prohibited; Maimonides, who
personally abhorred such behavior, ruled that; it is neither a biblical nor a r
abbinic prohibition. (Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a.)
In fact, the rabbis in the Gemara (BT, Tractate Yevamot) specifically say that t
he passages in Leviticus refers to an androgynous being and not to male-male sex
.
Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of halakhah, anyone claiming tha
t Judaism is against homosexual orientation based upon that passage is simply in
correct. (See also the book "SACRED SECRETS" by Rabbi Gershon Winkler).
Article 4
Rabbi Michael Lerner states:
From the time I became a rabbi, I've been performing homosexual marriages in my
synagogue, though with changes in the liturgy and ketuvah (they are not ke'dat m
oshe ve yisrael, but they are holy kiddushin and treated as such). For Torah li
teralists and fundamentalists, I argue in my book Jewish Renewal that what the f
undamentalists fail to do is to read the actual literal words: that a man should
not lie with a man the way that they lie with a woman. The words are striking b
ecause in the context all the other sexual commands do not qualify by saying "th
e way that x does y" but are simply categorical. But here there is no categorica
l prohibition, but only a prohibition on a certain way of being with a man. So I
agree with Torah: men should lie with men in a different way than they lie with
women, recognizing and honoring the uniqueness of that relationship. Jesus says
nothing against homosexual acts. But Paul goes off against them, probably meani
ng the way homosexuality was being abused in Rome at the time. Nothing in the He
brew bible prohibits gay marriage. And none of the religious texts prohibits les
bian marriages or affairs.
So why the fuss? I've tried to analyze this in Tikkun and in my books,
I mean the source of homophobia. The Left Hand of God gives part of the account
, as does Spirit Matters and also my The Politics of Meaning. There is, in my vi
ew, no legitimate reason why states should prohibit gay marriage. All the allege
dly rational reasons are transparently phony--evidence that gay families do not
do as good a job at raising children as heterosexual couples is scant, except fo
r gay couples living in societal contexts where homophobia plays a shaping role
in the lives of gay parents and their children. Most of the evidence I've seen s
hows the opposite--that homosexual families range from healthy to neurotic in pr
ecisely the same distribution as heterosexual families, usually facing the same
severe problems that everyone has sustaining loving relationships in a society t
hat privileges selfishness and materialism.
There is no legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the same rights gi
ven to heterosexuals in any sphere, and that includes marriage.

================================================================================
=========================
Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals
Front Page
Introduction

Goals
Bibles and Translation
Translation Challenges
The Enemy
Know Your Enemy
Abomination
KJV Uses of Abomination
Why Abomination Was Used
Theology
Dire Consequences
Dominionism
Real Sources of Hatred
Biblical References
Overview
Genesis/Jude
Leviticus
Paul
Romans
Corinthians & Timothy
Arsenokoites
Malakos
Affirming References
Matthew 15
Matthew 19
Matthew & Luke
Conclusions
Leviticus
Two passages that are far more significant than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
occur in what Isaac Asimov called the dullest book in the Bible Leviticus. This th
ird book of what Christians call the Old Testament is basically a set of things
that, unlike their Canaanite neighbors, Israelites and Judeans were forbidden fr
om doing. It accounts for the bulk of the 636 Biblical laws and regulations desi
gned to make the Jewish nation distinct from those among whom they lived.
These are of two types, rules that are concerned with moral sin and rules relate
d to ritual cleanliness. Moral sin involves rebellion against God and is the mor
e serious of the two. Uncleanliness for Hebrews was caused by touching something
forbidden or doing something forbidden (such as eating pork); though generally
less important, some of these were also major enough to involve the death penalt
y.
If translated word for word, Leviticus 18:22 is roughly And with mankind you shal
l not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun). This final two-noun ph
rase is unclear in the original Hebrew; it is shared with Leviticus 20:13 (yet s
ometimes translated differently in the two verses), and it doesnt occur anywhere
else in the Bible. Although beds of a woman seems to be the consensus for its mean
ing, other prepositions and relationships are also possible. The obscurity of th
is phrase opens the way for a wealth of different translations among which, out
of tradition, a single basic line of thought characterizes English translations.
Leviticus 18:22
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womanki
nd: it is abomination.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an en
ormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include les

bians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)
NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a
woman; that is detestable.
MSG (The Message, 1993): Dont have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That
is abhorrent.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a dete
stable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbi
ans.)
NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a
male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term abomination was an intentionally
bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebre
w. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible, all of
which are tallied here.
The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word
homosexuality (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew
times) add two further errors. First, they add lesbians to the condemned group
with utterly no justification for doing so. Second, since homosexuality includes n
ot just homosexual acts but also the mere fact of being oriented toward the same
sex, the translations condemn both. These two translations say that it is a sin
to be the way God created gays.
Depiction of Moloch
Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce And with a male you shal
l not lie [in the] beds of a woman, which is to say that if two men are going to
have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserv
ed only for heterosexual intercourse.
Both this verse and the other from Leviticus (see below) appear in a holiness co
de that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace.
Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fert
ility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from
allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits
intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a m
ans head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship). At the time
, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so wh
atever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (ther
e are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the San
hedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a c
ontext where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible wher
e the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could th
ese two verses not apply to temple prostitution?
The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is u
nderlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in
Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literal
ly the word means holy one; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man t
hat engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(
s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars in
terpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activit
ies in a pagan temple ritual.

In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as so
domite, a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in
unnatural sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James
translations inaccurately retain the word sodomite even though today it refers sp
ecifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most other Bibles more accurate
ly translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.
The exact meaning of the original passage in Leviticus is therefore unclear. Tra
nslators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:
homosexual behavior by either sex
sexual behavior between two men
sexual behavior between a man and a married man (or perhaps three people, includ
ing at least one man and one woman)
just anal sex between two men
just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
sexual activity between two men in a womans bed
Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had
a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate me
ssage wont sell, which means it wont get published. Deviating from traditional int
erpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporari
ly boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the u
se of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles.
Were stuck with this, guys.
Leviticus 20:13 is very similar to Leviticus 18:22 in its use of the same unclea
r phrase as mentioned. Otherwise it is different from the first citation only be
cause it appears to add the death penalty though the phrase that does this could
as accurately be translated they shall be cast out of society.
Bible scholars believe that Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, which deal with simil
ar material (mostly a prohibition of sex with any close relative though the most
frequent form of incest, sex of a father with his own daughter, is not specific
ally mentioned) came from different sources , and both are included in the Bible
even though they cover similar ground in order to get the ritualized punishment
s Leviticus 20 contains.
Leviticus 20:13
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth wit
h a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put
to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parti
es. They have brought it upon themselves.
NIV: (New International Version, 1984): If a man lies with a man as one lies wit
h a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death;
their blood will be on their own heads.
MSG (The Message, 1993): If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, b
oth of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are res
ponsible for their own deaths.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): The penalty for homosexual acts is death to
both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital
offense.
NET: (New English Translation, 2005): If a man has sexual intercourse with a mal
e as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an

abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Is the death penalty supposedly assigned to practicing homosexual males though n
ot among the Ten Commandments somehow more important than the proscription in th
e Commandments against working on the Sabbath? Or perhaps more important than th
e death penalty assigned to someone who curses his/her parent (Leviticus 20:9) o
r who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10)?
This passage could fairly well be translated If a man has sexual intercourse with
another man in the bed of a woman (or as part of a cult-like ritual), the two s
hall be cast out of society. You can see how this would not appeal to rabid funda
mentalists.
Literalist fundamentalists also overlook the fact that, though there are many la
ws in Leviticus that limit female sexual behavior, female same-sex behavior is i
gnored here and everywhere else in Hebrew scripture (unless the text is mis-tran
slated, as the LB and NLT do possibly having concluded that God just forgot to p
ut his objections in the infallible Bible; infallibility does not preclude mistr
anslation).
In spite of the fact that the mistranslation of toevah into English obscures the
fact that these verses do not apply to a moral sin, at first glance (especially
given the general unanimity of translations in basic meaning), the passages real
ly seem to condemn gay behavior in the strongest possible terms. That a similar
condemnation to death applies to disrespectful children is beside the point; the
target audience is the people of Israel, and the subject is pagan shrine ritual
s, and the passages are simply irrelevant either to homosexual orientation or ho
mosexual behavior in an age of grace under Christ.
The next logical passage to look at is Romans 1:26-27.