Leviticus 18:22
20. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”(Leviticus 18:22 NKJV). The Hebrew literally says: “You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding (or bed) of a woman (or wife), it is an abhorrence (a despicable act).” The Bible doesn’t always tell us why something is “despised (abhorred, despicable),” and hence we have to use reason. Maybe one of the men was married and was committing adultery (see Lev. 20:10-13). There it follows two verses against adultery. Also, the other participant would be guilty of sin too. Compare (Deut. 22:22). - (Jer. 7:9-10) lists "adultery" among the abominations (abhorrences)." "Adultery" is in fact "something abhorred" because it can bring disease into a relationship or "illegitimate children and their financial upbringing, property transfer outside of the family or tribe, etc." Separately, maybe the two men were also having sex on the bed of the woman to despise her and rub it in her face that she wasn’t woman enough. Reuben slept with his father’s wife on his dad’s bed to despise his father Jacob. The act could have also been done to defile the bedding, and hence make it unclean. Otherwise, according to the book “How the People Lived in the Bible [HPLB], on pg. 117, it states: “The women’s portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men’s half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman’s quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael’s tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21).” The plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The “bedding” or “bed” in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out. [HPLB, pg. 139]. The Bible seems to support this definition. In the book of Judith, it states: : “and her maid entered and spread for her [Judith] on the ground lambskins before Elparna (Holofernes) that she took from Boga to lie down on them…” (Jud. 12:15). Nevertheless, another reference says the Jewish bed consisted of the mattress (i.e. mat), or one or more quilts (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 79 under “bed”). Or according to the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible (pg. 236); “the bed” consisted of blankets spread out on the floor of the tent.” The following verse shows that collectively, “the bedding” was considered a "bed or spread.” Jacob said this to Reuḅen “... you ascended [onto] the bedding (plural) of your father, then you defiled [it]. He ascended [onto] my bed (singular).” (Gen. 49:4). - (Ps. 132:3) speaks of: “the bed [singular] of my spreads (bedding) [plural].”
The statement "to lie on the bed" can be worded three different ways in Hebrew like it is in Aramaic. That's not counting any word order difference or if a noun doesn't have a definite article due to it being in the construct state [i.e. “of” follows the noun meaning]. Even though the definite article isn’t written for “nouns in the construct state,” it is part of the meaning. We have to add the word "the" in the English translation for those words throughout the English Bible. Also, many verb-noun combinations don't need to use a small word such as "on, in, with, etc." between them. Those words have to be added in a translation. So, the statement "to lie on the bed," can use the Hebrew word al "on" between the verb and noun. Or the preposition le can be added to the noun instead of using the separate Hebrew word al (on). That's a common variant for other same statements. Finally, the word "on" doesn't have to be used at all between the verb and noun for this same statement and others. Biblically speaking, when the word mish-cav (bedding, mattress, bed) is in the plural construct form, pronounced mish-che-ve, the word “on,” as well as the word “the,” are left out every time, and need to be inserted in the English translation. An example of this is at Gen. 49:4, which says: "Being insolent (po-khez: reckless, wanton, uncontrolled, unrestrained) like the waters, you [Reuḅen] will not abound (have an abundance [a surplus, excess]), for you ascended [onto] the bedding (bed) of your father; then you defiled [it]. He ascended [onto] my spread (bed)." (Gen. 49:4). The word “onto (on)” is also added in the Greek LXX and other English translations (Gen. 49:4 NIV; etc.) because it is needed to convey the thought given. I also interpreted the first word as the active verb like the LXX translation. I think that makes the most sense. -- The verb "to lie down" also precedes the noun "bosom." It is put in the feminine active participle state, forming a verbal noun, in the statement: "the woman lying [on] your bosom" (Mic. 7:5). The KJV and NKJV added the word "in" for that statement. The Hebrew word mish-cav literally means “something laid upon.” This noun is made from the verb shacav “to lie upon.” In the Bible, the word mish-cav (bed) was often the” ground” (Isa. 57:7). A person’s outer garment was his layer over the ground and himself (Ex. 22:26-27; Deut. 24:12-13); and hence his covering. That is why God says to return any “cloak” as a pledge “before the sun goes down…What will he sleep in?...” The bed was also made up of spread out material. According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under the listing “bed” (pg. 79), it reads: “the Jewish bed consisted of the mattress, a mere mat, or one or more quilts; the covering, a finer quilt, or sometimes the outer garment worn by day.” Linen was also used as a covering on the bed (Proverbs 7:16). Other "beds" back then were similar to our modern bed with a bed-frame and mattress or bedding inside (Ps. 6:6 [7]; Est. 1:6). At 1 Chronicles 5:1, the writer uses a synonym for mish-che-ve, which is ye-tzu-e “spreads, bedding.” The Aramaic translation translated this Hebrew word here collectively in the singular as tish-wi-tha “the mattress, bedding, bed, rug, and / or carpet.” So we see that mish-cav does carry the meaning of “bedding;” as it also does at 2nd Samuel 17:28 (NIV). At Gen. 49:4, Jacob curses Reuben for sleeping with his wife (or specifically concubine – See also: Gen. 35:22) on his bed. That is why I’m thinking that the phrase “bedding of a woman” may be saying “bedding of a wife.” Ish-shah is translated as both woman and wife in our English Bible.
The Hebrew word to-e-vah is translated as abomination in Bible versions. To-e-vah comes from the root word ta-av, which James Strong defines as meaning: “to abhor.” Webster’s New World Hebrew Dictionary defines ta-av as: “to despise.” To-e-vah means an “abhorrence, abhorrent thing” (Deut. 7:25-26), “something despised” (LXX), and / or a despicable act or deed.
The Aramaic text collectively translates the Hebrew word “bedding” (pl.) as “bed” (sing.). It closely matches the literal Hebrew translation, saying: “You shall not lie with a male [on] the bed of a woman, it is an abhorrence (ta-ma).” The Aramaic text doesn’t need to use the word “on” when the verb “to lie down” precedes the noun “bed;” as in this example and in the following example. The following is an example of the Aramaic language not using the word “on” in conjunction with “bed;” when it is needed to express the meaning into English. 2 Samuel 4:5 literally says this in the Aramaic: “…and they came about the heat of the day to the house of Esh-Bashol * (Heb. - Ish-Bosheth). And he was lying [on] the bed at noon.” As you can see, the Aramaic didn’t use the word “on” in the text. But “on” was needed to convey the meaning into English. (* See details about the name Esh-Bashol near bottom of page) The Aramaic word ta-ma literally means “unclean” or "unclean thing" (Isa. 52:11, 2 Cor. 6:17). I gave two meanings because when an Aramaic adjective stands alone, it has a noun meaning. Ta-ma can also mean “an abhorrence (despised thing) and abomination” like how Dr. Lamsa and A Compendious Syriac Dictionary define it. The word “unclean” got the meaning of “an abhorrence” because anything unclean was despised. It should be noted that the Hebrew word to-e-vah, which means “something despised” also means “unclean.” This is evident in that to-e-vah was translated as “unclean” in some places in both the Aramaic and Greek Old Testament. The defining of to-e-vah as “unclean” would make sense at Deuteronomy 14:3, which would then say: “You shall not eat any unclean thing.”
PROBLEMS WITH THE TRADITIONAL TRANSLATION & HENCE INTERPRETATION:
The traditional antigay translation and its interpretation have a significant problem alone. For that reason I reject that interpretation. The disputed rendering of the verse can be divided into two parts. Those two parts are actual Hebrew statements that have the literal meaning of the words elsewhere in the Bible or there is reason to believe that they would have the literal meaning instead of some metaphorical or euphemistical meaning. The literal meaning also forms a cognitive meaning and makes sense. So I would think that if the literal statement doesn't make sense, or if it is in a supporting context, then the words would have a different meaning. That isn't the case. Thus the Hebrew doesn't look or mean like how it is being translated into English. We know that the following is an actual Hebrew statement: i.e. "lie on (al) the bed." Statements that use the word al "on" can substitute le "to, for, on, etc." for it or not use al at all for the same statement. So if the statement: "lie on the bed" supposedly also means: "[as] the lying with of" or "as with," then I would expect something significantly different to indicate that meaning. If the statement REALLY had the word "as;" then that would be a good indicator. So the traditional translation isn't the most obvious meaning or interpretation. It's reasonable to believe that: "the bed of a woman (wife)" is an actual statement with a literal meaning. If there was such a statement, then we would think there would be such a statement as: "the bed of a man (husband)." We do see that at (Num. 31:17-18, 35; Judg. 21:11-12). Those verses are of course not translated correctly. The translators want to translate both the words "know" and "bed" as "lying with" or "intimately" when it is totally unnecessary and the word "know" also means: "lying with." So (Num. 31:17) literally says this: "And therefore, kill ye every male among the little ones, and kill ye every woman who was knowing (lying with) a husband (ish) on the bed of [any] male (za-car)." The words: "on the bed" appear to be a quantifier statement. It lets the reader know that the woman was in fact "sexually knowing" or "lying with" a man. - The other verses are similar.
ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE INTERPRETATION:
If the Bible wanted to forbid male homosexuality, it didn't need to include the last part of the statement: "on the bedding (bed) of a woman (wife)" which is: "as with a woman" (NKJV). The verse could have said: "You shall not lie with a man. It is an abhorrence." So it seems like "on the bedding (bed) of a woman (wife)" is an important quantifier in the message of this verse. Also, it's not plausible that there would be a prohibition because there is no verse prohibiting lesbianism. There are also godly LGBTI persons in the Bible and verses affirming LGBTI marriages (unions) within its pages.
LEVITICUS 20:13 SAYS SOMETHING SIMILAR & ALONG THE SAME LINES. IT IS ITS PARALLEL VERSE.
The Hebrew literally says: “And [also] a man who shall lie with a male [on] the bedding (or bed) of a woman (or wife), they have committed an abhorrence (a despicable act). Both of them shall surely be put to death. Their [shed] blood [shall be] ON THEM (their fault).”
REFERENCES FROM STRONG’S CONCORDANCE:4904 mish-cab a bed8581 ta-ab ; a prim. Root; to loathe, i.e. (mor.) detest:- (make to be) abhor (-red), etc. 8441 to-e-bah ; fem. act. part. of 8581; prop. something disgusting (mor.), i.e. (asnoun) an abhorrence; espec. idolatry or (concr.) an idol: - abomination [113x], abominablething [2x], abominable [2x](THE NEW STRONGS EXPANDED EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THEBIBLE WITH THE BEST OF VINE’S)[NOTE: The 2nd Hebrew letter, Beth, has a “b” and a “v” sound. James Strong pronounces mish-cav as mish-cab, to-e-vah as to-e-bah and ta-av as ta-ab.] * Saul’s fourth son Ish-Bosheth (“man of shame”) was originally given the name Esh-Baal (1 Chr. 8:33; 9:39), or alternately pronounced Ish-Baal (Ισβααλ / Ισαβααλ), which both mean “man of Baal.” Though the Hebrew word Baal means “lord, owner,” it is also the name of a Canaanite god. Because of the Hebrew peoples’ aversion to Baal, the word bosheth was used as its substitute; as it is at (Jeremiah 11:13; Hos. 9:10). So we see how Esh-Baal got the name Ish-Bosheth. The Hebrew names Esh-Baal and Ish-Bosheth were both transliterated as “Esh-Bashol” in the Aramaic Old Testament. Esh-Bashol is mainly from the Hebrew name Esh-Baal but the vowel (“o”) and the letter sound (“sh”) are from the word bosheth, which were reversed and put into the name. This reversing of the vowel (“o”) plus a consonant also occurs in some other names which were transliterated from the Hebrew. Note: It wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that the Aramaic Old Testament translation supports the opinion that the name Esh-Baal was sometimes changed to read Ish-Bosheth, or possibly that only the word "Baal" was changed to read "Bosheth" in the Hebrew Old Testament. Because of this opinion, the New American Bible translates Ish-Bosheth as Ish-Baal. However, many people in the Bible are referenced by more than one name or have an abbreviated (or contracted) spelling for their name. The translator(s) of the Aramaic Old Testament sometimes choose one of the names of a person and use that same name in other places where that person is mentioned in the Bible regardless of what the original Hebrew text says. There are many examples of this but I will give one example. The following is how the Hebrew and Aramaic text reads regarding Shaul's sons:
"... and Shaul fathered Yehonathan and Malchi-Shua and Avinadav (Aḅinadaḅ) and Esh-Baal." (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39 Hebrew Text).
"... and Shaul fathered Yonathan and Malchi-Shua and Yishwi (Ishui) and Esh-Bashol." (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39 Aramaic Text).
You will notice that the name of Shaul's (Saul's) third son is different and unrecognizable phonetically and in writing in the Aramaic text versus the Hebrew text. So why would a translator translate Avinadav as Yishwi? The reason is because Avinadav is also called Yishwi (Ishui - KJV) at 1 Samuel 14:49 and the Aramaic translator wanted to continue translating Shaul's third son by this name irrespective of what the Hebrew text says. This translation tradition is what Paul may have had in mind when he said to "... avoid a foolish dispute (debate) and narrations of genealogies ..." (Titus 3:9).
Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © (Ɔ) 2016. All rights reserved.
"... and Shaul fathered Yonathan and Malchi-Shua and Yishwi (Ishui) and Esh-Bashol." (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39 Aramaic Text).
You will notice that the name of Shaul's (Saul's) third son is different and unrecognizable phonetically and in writing in the Aramaic text versus the Hebrew text. So why would a translator translate Avinadav as Yishwi? The reason is because Avinadav is also called Yishwi (Ishui - KJV) at 1 Samuel 14:49 and the Aramaic translator wanted to continue translating Shaul's third son by this name irrespective of what the Hebrew text says. This translation tradition is what Paul may have had in mind when he said to "... avoid a foolish dispute (debate) and narrations of genealogies ..." (Titus 3:9).
Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © (Ɔ) 2016. All rights reserved.
Help financially support this Website so it will continue for future generations. The "Donate" allows you to give a one time or monthly donation.
FREE-WEBSITE-TRANSLATION, if you need it, initially translates the home page when the website address is copied & pasted into the box. It will translate the other pages also but you will need to paste in the full address of the other pages (i.e. /folder name/sub-page name).