To everyone saying this is probably about pedophilia anyway: Yes and no? I think the verse means any homoerotic behavior between men AND I don't think that's a threat to queer affirming faith.
At the time of the Septuagint, it could refer to what we would call pedophilia, primarily because the only acceptable form of homoerotic activity was between an adult man and an adolescent. The Greek word for man used here is “ἄρσενος” (arsenos), which is a non-age specific form of the word “male.” In first-century Jewish writing against homoerotic behavior (which is 200-300 years later than the Septuagint and only possibly relevant) it was sometimes used as code for adolescents, but it was also used to emphasize the sameness between men. But it’s also just….the most accurate translation of the Hebrew word, זָכָר (za’khar), which is a non-age specific word for male.
So it may have meant pedophilia, since that was what was being practiced, but it may also have meant any and all homoerotic behavior. And even if it primarily meant pedophilia, there’s no evidence that they would have thought it pertained exclusively to pedophilia. In fact, there’s no evidence of acceptance of homoerotic behavior between adult males of the same social status anywhere in the ancient world, although we know it occurred.
I think one of the most important ways for Christians to read Leviticus is to ask what it points to, not in the sense of “ooh how does it predict Jesus,” but in the sense of, what sort of society does it seek to build? And the answer to that is very consistently that it seeks to reduce and eliminate exploitation of others, of animals, and of the land. I think that's what the spirit of Lev 18:22 is about. One thing about ancient sexuality that’s really widespread is that sex was something that a partner with higher status did to someone of lower status, and a lot of the rules across different societies at different times regulate that sex across status. I think more than being about age and consent, Lev. 18:22 is about not lowering the status of someone equal to you and not exploiting someone of lower status than you.
No one has ever made a convincing argument to me that consensual homoerotic behavior or loving gay relationships are exploitative or harmful. We live in a society where sex is related to love, not status. Continuing to read Lev 18:22 as determinative for our modern sexuality ignores the vast chasm of time and understanding between us and the ancient Israelite, and as Amy-Jill Levine says, suggests “that G-d has nothing else to say” and puts “the Holy Spirit out of business.” Insofar as this verse means "don't use sex to degrade someone else and don't exploit people of lower status," I think its relevant. The exact mechanism of that law will change in different times and places.
I also don’t feel the need to attempt to translate Lev 18:22 in a way that gets me to affirming Christianity mostly because I don’t think that’s convincing to people who disagree with me! By far the most convincing argument I have made in my life for queer inclusion in the church has been to simply live faithfully and freely, both queer and Christian, and to let that speak for itself. That is what I will continue to do.
Amy-Jill Levine, "How to read the Bible’s “clobber passages” on homosexuality" (x)
Ellen Davis, Opening Israel's Scriptures.
H. L. Bosman, "Discerning the So-called Abomination in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in Relation to Holiness, Honour and Shame" in Old Testament Essays vol 36, 2023, accessed in the ATLA religion database.
James E. Miller, "Pederasty and Romans 1:27: A Response To Mark Smith," in Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Wint 1997 accessed in the ATLA religion database.
Matheus Treuk Madeiros de Araujo, "Male Homoerotic Practices in Achaemenid Persia: An Overview" (x)
