“Man thou shalt not lie with a man” is an abomination
Text extracted from Claude Besson, Homosexuels et catholiques escape from the impasse, Editions de l'Atelier, 2012, pp.72-75, free translation by Marco Galvagno
In two passages of Leviticus a man lying with a man is presented as an abomination in chapter 18 verse 22. “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is abominable.” In the same chapter book in chapter 20 verse 13 “If a man lies with another man as one does with a woman they have committed an abominable thing, their blood be on them”.
These verses seem serious and without possibility of appeal. In what context are they located? They are part of a literary set called laws of holiness which lists a list of punishments and precepts, so that the people of Israel remain holy by detaching themselves from the pagan behaviors of those who lived on that land before them. (Leviticus 18-27). They had to retain their singularity and preserve their religious identity.
“Staying apart from the Gentiles is what sanctity, singularity, difference, election, consecration consisted of. They had to be like God, imposing, different, apart. Maintaining one's difference and singularity was the very essence of holiness for the ancient Jews.”[1]
Analyzing the set of sexual practices prohibited by the laws of sanctity, Daniel Helminiak goes on to show that sexual relations between men are prohibited for non-sexual religious reasons. They are alien to the world order as conceived by the Jews.
To try to make us understand, the author draws a parallel with the ban on eating meat on Fridays, valid for Catholics. “At a certain time this law was so important that its transgression was considered a mortal sin that would lead to hell. And yet no one believed that eating meat was bad in itself. The sin concerned a question of religious commitment: one had to behave like Catholics. [2]
Likewise sexual relations between men are forbidden in Leviticus, because they signify the transgression of Judaism. Nothing allows us to say that these acts are morally bad according to Leviticus. Nothing can be found that allows us to place the sexual act itself on the side of good or evil. The objection is the perpetuation of a strong Jewish identity. The issue at stake is that of purity. [3]
The word purity in the biblical texts does not have the meaning we give it today. Here it means conforming to rituals. In other texts it will be linked to idolatry.
Xavier Thevenot underlines that the prohibitions of Leviticus are immersed in a climate of ritual purity, holiness and fight against idolatry. Returning to the term abomination (to Ebot) used 142 times in the Bible, note that this term wants to express God's repulsion for everything that is foreign to him, for what turns out to be incompatible with the fundamental laws of the Covenant. It is used in a particular way in connection with the cult of false Gods (Deuteronomy 7, 25, 12-31). Idols or false deities are called To Ebot.
Homosexual conduct is treated as the translation of idolatrous behavior, because such behavior is assumed to be that of neighboring nations. The condemnation of homosexual acts in Leviticus is therefore based on idolatry. [4]
Idolatry, impurity and transgression of belonging to a people, these verses of Leviticus have a very precise context and therefore cannot be used to give a moral judgment on homosexual acts.
_________________
[1] Daniel Helminak, What the Bible actually says about homosexuality, Paris les empecheurs de penser en ronde, 2005, p.75
[2] ibid, p.78.
[3] ibid, p 77
[4] Xavier Thévenot, homosexualité masculine et morale chretienne, p 221-222, 1985
.
Original text: The abomination
