Male Homosexuality in the Tanakh

In my recent article ‘Male Homosexuality in the Torah’ I argued that the key to understanding jewish attitudes and that of the (Written) Torah itself towards male homosexuality was the Israel/non-Israel distinction that is seen throughout the given text. I further pointed out that universalist interpretations of the statements and decrees of Yahweh (or rather those made on his behalf by self-proclaimed prophets) are rooted in the Christian idea of the supersession of Christians to the position of Israel in place of the jews (i.e., the original Israelites).

This I pointed out allowed us to make sense of such puzzling events as the destruction of Sodom (which I have covered in a separate detailed article): for which the later Tanakh gives many reasons for, but yet the original text in the book of Genesis suggests that it was the homosexual proclivities of the inhabitants of Sodom combined with their capture of an Israelite named Lot that caused Yahweh to destroy their city. It was this performing of an abomination on Israel by non-Israel that angered Yahweh so and caused the episode described in the story to occur.

I also suggested that this strident and oft-repeated prohibition on male homosexuality necessarily inferred that jews have historically been strongly-inclined towards such behaviour among their own. Further I pointed out that this strong inclination (evinced in the story of Ham’s curse as well as the ideas about modesty and the link with the ‘evil urge’ found throughout Judaism) towards among the jews and the special prohibitions around homosexuality among jews decreed by Yahweh suggested a rationale for why jews so openly promote homosexuality among non-jews, but seek to suppress it among their own.

After all in Judaism it is believed that the ‘evil urge’ are temptations that non-jews find almost impossible to resist, while they are alien to jews and are only transmitted to jews from contact with non-jews.

This differentiation can be seen in the first book of Kings in the Tanakh when we read:

‘For they also built themselves high places, and pillars, and Ashe’rim on every high hill and under every green tree; and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did all the abominations of the nations which the Lord drove out before the sons of Israel.’ (2)

And:

‘Now the rest of the acts of Jehosh’aphat, and his might that he showed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? And the remnant of the male cult prostitutes who remained in the days of his father Asa, he exterminated from the land.’ (3)

As well as in the second book of Kings when it is stated that:

‘He broke down the houses of male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for Ashe’rah.’ (4)

Now in all three of these passages from the books of the Kings: we can see that they focus on the presence and doings of cults that were not that of Yahweh. In fact the focus is on the Canaanite goddess of Asherah (who represented fertility and the worship of whom may be related to the first jewish ritual murder recorded in history by the ancient Greeks) (5) who was regarded as a foreign goddess by the Israelites and as such the worship of her was an abomination much like homosexuality in that it was brought on through contact with non-jews.

We can see this in the references to the need to ‘exterminate’ the cult of Asherah from the land of Israelites as well as the fact that the male worshipers of Asherah are referred to as ‘male cult prostitutes’. Now clearly the first two passages do not refer to homosexuality per se, but rather tell us that the jews associated the worship of foreign gods (which is an abomination unto Yahweh) with homosexual practices among jewish men (hence the reference to male cult prostitution).

The third passage deals more with the actual practice of the religion of Asherah and the concept of ritual prostitution, (6) but yet it also demonstrates - by the reference to the men who worshipped an abomination (i.e., Asherah) as being like homosexual prostitutes (i.e., an abomination) - that male homosexuality was believed by the jews to be a disease caught from non-jews.

This is also nicely demonstrated by the book of Jeremiah, which states:

‘But in the Prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomor’rah.’ (7)

In the above we can see once again the tracing of the origin of ‘evil urges’ (‘adultery’ and ‘walking in lies’) to the presence of non-jewish influences and ideas among the jews: hence the reference by Jeremiah to the example of Sodom and Gomor’rah, which were gentile cities that caused jews to break their covenant with Yahweh as well as commit ‘abominations’.

Thus they were extirpated by Yahweh.

Oddly enough we can also read this kind of thinking in a passage in the second book of Kings relating to the relationship between Je’hu and Jehon’abad.

To wit:

‘And when he departed from there, he met Jehon’adab the son of Re’chab coming to meet him; and he greeted him, and said to him, “Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to yours?” And Jehon’adab answered, “It is.” Je’hu said, “If it is, give me your hand.” So he gave him his hand. And Je’hu took him up with him into the chariot. And he said, “Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.” So he had him ride in his chariot. And when he came to Samar’ia, he shall war on that which remained to A’hab in Samar’ia, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke to Eli’jah.’ (8)

The background to this particular Biblical story is that Je’hu is declaring the jewish version of a fatwa against the pagan inhabitants of Samaria: so that the armies of self-righteous jews can engage in a bit of holy terrorism against the locals.

However when we read this story it seems odd since Je’hu’s question to Jehon’adab - ‘Is your heart true to my heart as mine is yours?’ - is a decidedly odd formulation if the intention of Je’hu was to ask whether Jehon’adab was loyal to him. Even when one looks at the original text and other translations of it that have been offered: it is clear that Je’hu asking whether or not his subject was loyal to him as he is loyal to his subject is an uncharacteristic way of asking someone’s loyalty. The reason for this is because at the time this passage was written monarchs were still strongly believed to have a divine mandate for their rule and as such the subject owed them loyalty as opposed to the monarch owing their subjects loyalty.

To ask for reciprocity from a subject like Jehon’adab is decidedly odd and more resembles a declaration of love than a question relating to the allegiance of a subject. After all: if you read what Je’hu says as ‘Do you love me as much as I love you?’ as opposed to ‘Are you loyal to me as I am to you?’ then it makes a lot more sense of Je’hu’s reaction to offer Jehon’adab his hand and have him in his chariot.

Being in the King’s chariot was no small honour at the time I might add. It was an honour usually reserved for victorious generals or royal spouses/children. It was not the sort of honour you would give to any old person you met and wanted to talk to, but it is the kind of thing that one homosexual might do for someone they might desired in order to woo them.

This makes even more sense when we realise that this particular text needs to read as two separate sequences of events not one. Thus it should actually be read thus:

‘And when he departed from there, he met Jehon’adab the son of Re’chab coming to meet him; and he greeted him, and said to him, “Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to yours?” And Jehon’adab answered, “It is.” Je’hu said, “If it is, give me your hand.” So he gave him his hand. And Je’hu took him up with him into the chariot. And he said, “Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.” So he had him ride in his chariot.’

And then:

‘And when he came to Samar’ia, he shall war on that which remained to A’hab in Samar’ia, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke to Eli’jah.’

Correctly reading the text like this allows us to realise that Jehon’adab’s meeting of Je’hu and his ride in Je’hu’s chariot are separate episodes in the story: one is not simply the continuation of the other. Clearly something occurred in-between the arrival of Je’hu in Samaria and his taking up of Jehon’adab in his chariot.

The clue to what it was can be found firstly in the odd wording that sounds like a declaration of love by Je’hu - with it being confirmed by Jehon’adab’s immediate affirmation - as well as Je’hu giving Jehon’adab a clear mark of distinction in allowing him to ride with him in his chariot like a royal spouse as well as the holding of hands.

In addition to these the last words of Je’hu to Jehon’adab in this context: ‘Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.’ Immediately suggest that they are a rather poor attempt at a euphemism: as they have no particular context in relation to the subsequent attempted extermination in Samaria, but rather relate to Je’hu and Jehon’adab’s relationship. When reading these words it is difficult not to read this final declaration of Je’hu as actually saying something akin to: ‘Come with me, and see my love for you.’

This is because there is no sense of reality or logic to the story of Je’hu and Jehon’adab’s meeting unless one looks at the odd wording used and realises that the veneer of religious fanaticism and pledging of loyalty is just that: a veneer. Je’hu and Jehon’abad are here behaving and acting as homosexuals, but as this cannot be talked about (much as the act that caused the curse of Ham could not be talked of for fear of lessening the manliness of Noah) so instead the gloss of religious fanaticism is applied to an already extended story line to make Je’hu and Jehon’abad religious zealots as opposed to jewish homosexuals and thus an abomination unto Yahweh.

After all a zealot king seeking to exterminate the Samaritans committing abominations in the north could not be known to be committing other abominations with his subjects: now could he?

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/male-homosexuality-in-the-written

(2) 1 Kings 14:24 (RSV)

(3) Ibid. 22:45-46 (RSV)

(4) 2 Kings 23:7 (RSV)

(5) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/reconstructing-the-first-jewish-ritual

(6) See my article: https://karlradl14.substa ck.com/p/jews-and-sacred-prostitution-in-ancient

(7) Jer. 23:14 (RSV)

(8) 2 Kings 10:15-17 (RSV)