Leviticus 18:22 · Bible study
Leviticus 18:22 Commentary: of “Abomination” in Context
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine Leviticus 18:22 in its covenant context: the meaning of 'abomination,' the prohibition of male same-sex intercourse, and how this verse fits Israel's call
Research Summary
- Meaning: A clear prohibition of sexual relations between males, framed as an “abomination” within Israel’s covenant with God.
- Key words: zākār (male); lō’ tiškav (you shall not lie); tōʿēvāh (abomination, a term for acts that violate God’s character).
- Main debate: Whether this law is a universal moral command or a cultic restriction specific to ancient Israel’s setting; Christians differ on its application today.
- Theological theme: Holiness as separation, Israel’s sexual ethics reflect God’s created order and covenant requirements.
- Best use: Studying the verse in its covenant context, then honestly exploring how the church has applied it across history.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“‘You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. That is detestable.
KJV King James Version 1769
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is .
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
No te echarás con varón como con mujer: es abominación.
Não te deitarás com homem como com mulher: é abominação.
Tu ne coucheras point avec un homme comme on couche avec une femme. C’ est une abomination.
Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.
Bij een manspersoon zult gij niet liggen met vrouwelijke bijligging; dit is een gruwel.
Non avrai con un uomo relazioni carnali come si hanno con una donna: è cosa abominevole.
Z mężczyną nie będziesz obcował, jako z niewiastą; obrzydliwością to jest.
Не ложись с мужчиною, как с женщиною: это мерзость.
不可 與 男人 苟合，像與 女人一樣；這本是 可憎惡的。
You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 18:22
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across the supplied sources agree that Leviticus 18:22 prohibits sexual relations between males. Gill’s Exposition names this “the sin commonly called sodomy” and notes that the term “abomination” (Hebrew tōʿēvāh) signals something morally and ritually repugnant to God, especially in light of the destruction of Sodom. Calvin adds that the prohibition covers “unnatural lust” that violates the order of creation, while Matthew Henry ties it to the broader Holiness Code that sets Israel apart from the Canaanites. The grammar underscores the force: the verb tiškav (“you shall lie”) is negated by lō’, an absolute prohibition. The phrase miškᵊvē ʾiššāh (“as with a woman”) specifies the act, male sex that mimics the marital bed. Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on the surrounding passage, note that this command stands among other sexual offenses and idolatry (Molech), all of which defile the land. The universal conclusion is that the text forbids male same-sex intercourse within the covenant community of ancient Israel.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Traditional moral law view: The prohibition is grounded in creation (male and female), reinforced in the New Testament (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9), and the term 'abomination' signals enduring moral significance.
- Ceremonial/contextual view: The law is part of Israel’s unique national covenant, tied to Canaanite practices and ceremonial purity; Christians are not bound by the civil or ritual laws of the Old Testament.
- Limited scope view: Some argue the prohibition targets only specific acts such as male cultic prostitution or pederasty, not all same-sex relationships, though the supplied commentators do not adopt this position.
What is clear: The text unambiguously prohibits sexual relations between males within the covenant community of ancient Israel, and it labels such acts an 'abomination' in that context.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “abomination” (tōʿēvāh) | All supplied commentators agree that the term indicates something deeply offensive to God, both ritually and morally, and is linked to the practices of the Canaanites that defiled the land. | Some Christians emphasize the ritual/cultic dimension, noting the term is used elsewhere for unclean foods and idols; others stress the moral dimension, pointing to Romans 1 and the created order. |
| The phrase “as with a woman” | All understand this to specify male homosexual intercourse, that is, a man having sex with a man in the way a man has sex with a woman. | A minority of modern interpreters suggest this may refer only to particular forms (temple prostitution, pederasty), but the supplied commentators do not support that distinction. |
| Penalty of death (Leviticus 20:13) | The Old Testament law prescribes capital punishment for this act within the theocratic nation of Israel. | Christians universally agree that the civil penalties of the Mosaic law are not binding on governments today, but disagree on whether the moral prohibition itself continues. |
| Applicability for Christians today | The text directly addresses ancient Israel; no supplied commentator denies that it is part of God’s Word with authority. | Some Christians view this as a ceremonial/civil law fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, while others see it as a moral law rooted in creation and reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). |
Historical & Cultural Context
Leviticus 18:22 appears in the Holiness Code (chapters 17, 26), a section of laws that call Israel to be holy because Yahweh is holy. The immediate context (vv. 24, 30) warns that the nations whom God is driving out of Canaan “defiled themselves” by such practices, and the land “vomited out her inhabitants.” The term tōʿēvāh (“abomination”) is used throughout the Old Testament for idolatry, unclean foods, and unjust practices, anything incompatible with God’s covenant character.
Canaanite religion, as known from extra-biblical sources, involved cultic prostitution and possibly child sacrifice. The prohibition of male same-sex acts in this setting likely counters practices associated with pagan worship, though the text does not explicitly tie it to ritual. Gill and Calvin both argue that the act is “contrary to nature itself,” pointing to the created order of male and female.
The cross-references show that this law was not isolated. Leviticus 20:13 repeats the prohibition and prescribes the death penalty. Genesis 19 describes the men of Sodom demanding sex with Lot’s visitors, and Judges 19 recounts a similar outrage at Gibeah. These narratives illustrate the violence and social breakdown linked to same-sex aggression in the ancient world. Matthew Henry places the verse in a series of laws protecting the marriage bed and family integrity. The audience includes both “the native-born” and “the stranger who lives as a foreigner” (v. 26), making this a community standard for all within Israel’s borders.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Leviticus 18:22. The Hebrew text is stable across ancient manuscripts, including the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls (where Leviticus is extant). The wording appears identically in the parallel passage at Leviticus 20:13, confirming the tradition. The Septuagint renders the verse closely: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Reception History
The early church consistently read Leviticus 18:22 as a prohibition of same-sex acts, often citing it alongside Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. Church fathers such as John Chrysostom and Augustine used the verse to argue that such behavior violates natural law established at creation. In the medieval period, theologians like Thomas Aquinas integrated it into a framework of natural virtue. Reformation commentators (Calvin, Luther, Matthew Henry) upheld the traditional interpretation, seeing it as part of God’s unchanging moral will. In the modern era, some Christian traditions have reexamined the verse in its historical and cultural context, asking whether it targets only cultic or exploitative acts, while others maintain the historic reading. The verse remains a point of serious discussion across denominations, reflecting different hermeneutical approaches to Old Testament law.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- Holiness as Distinctiveness: Israel is called to be different from the surrounding nations, and sexual boundaries are a key part of that separation (Lev 18:24, 30).
- The weight of “abomination”: Tōʿēvāh links this act to idolatry and covenant unfaithfulness, showing that sexual sin is not private but affects the whole community and the land.
- Creation and covenant: The prohibition points back to the male-female order of creation (Genesis 1, 2) and forward to the faithfulness God expects from His people.
Five-Point Outline
- Context: The Holiness Code and Israel’s call to be separate from Canaanite practices.
- The prohibition: Clear language forbidding male same-sex intercourse (“as with a woman”).
- The penalty: Leviticus 20:13 shows the severity in ancient Israel’s theocratic system.
- New Testament connection: Romans 1:26, 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 reaffirm that such acts are contrary to God’s design.
- Pastoral response: Uphold the biblical standard while extending grace, recognizing that all sin is forgiven in Christ.
Illustration Hooks
- A sports team chooses a uniform that sets them apart from every other team; the rules of the uniform aren’t arbitrary, they define the team’s identity. Israel’s sexual boundaries similarly defined their covenant identity.
- Think of a garden: some plants thrive together, others choke each other. God’s design for sexual complementarity is like planting corn and beans together, a pattern that yields life. When that pattern is ignored, the garden suffers.
- Consider a community that agrees to protect water quality by stricter waste rules than the law requires. That extra care is like Israel’s Holiness Code, going beyond what’s normal to reflect the character of their God.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- Does Leviticus 18:22 apply to Christians today, or was it only for ancient Israel?
- If this verse condemns same-sex acts, how do we love and welcome LGBTQ people in the church?
- Why is this sin called an “abomination” while other sins are not? Does that mean it’s worse?
Leading a Discussion
The Holiness Code calls Israel to reflect God’s character in every area of life, including sexuality. Leviticus 18:22 is part of that call, set against the practices of Canaan. As you discuss this verse, consider both its original meaning and how Christians apply it today.
Discussion Questions
- Observation: What does the text literally say? Who is commanded, and what action is forbidden?
- Observation: What words in the surrounding passage (vv. 24, 30) describe how God views these practices? What do they tell you about His concern?
- Interpretation: Why do you think this command is placed alongside laws against adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality? What does that suggest about its purpose?
- Interpretation: The Hebrew word tōʿēvāh (“abomination”) is also used for idolatry. How does that connection shape your understanding of this prohibition?
- Application: How does this verse challenge or affirm the way your church talks about sexuality? What does it mean to hold to this teaching with grace?
- Application: In light of the New Testament (Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 11), how do Christians today understand the continuing relevance of this Old Testament law?
- Prayer: Ask God to help your group love both His truth and the people around you, even when those two feel hard to hold together.
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 19:5 | They called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.” |
| Leviticus 20:13 | “‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon themselves. |
| Deuteronomy 23:18 | You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the wages of a male prostitute, into the house of Yahweh your God for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to Yahweh your God. |
| Judges 19:22 | As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain wicked fellows, surrounded the house, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we can have sex with him!” |
| I Kings 14:24 | There were also sodomites in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel. |
| Romans 1:26 | For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. |
| Romans 1:27 | Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. |
| I Corinthians 6:9 | Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
With mankind - This abominable crime, frequent among the Greeks and Romans as well as the Canaanites, may be punished with death in this country.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that the command against adultery extends to every form of impurity that violates nature itself. Humans, blessed with reason and judgment, should show more self-restraint than animals, yet lust has driven them to invent monstrous vices that defile God's image. Even bestiality is a shameful wickedness forbidden by this law.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Bible's note labels this act with the strongest possible term in its moral vocabulary, calling it an abomination. The word leaves no room for ambiguity or mitigation: the action is not merely forbidden but fundamentally detestable in God's sight.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill explicitly names this prohibition as the sin of sodomy, linking it directly to the inhabitants of Sodom whose destruction by fire was God's visible judgment. He notes the practice is not only against divine law but also contrary to nature itself, being unknown even among brute animals.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch draws a careful distinction: the phrase “passing through the fire to Molech” does not necessarily mean slaughtering and burning children. They argue it originally described a rite of purification or fire-baptism, a consecration without sacrifice, citing ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that the forbidden degrees are designed to prevent family egoism and create new bonds of love. He sees the law as building a holy web of relationships that refreshes love and establishes marriage on new conditions, combating the selfishness that would undermine the Theocracy.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry sees these laws as falling into two groups: those protecting the honor of the marriage bed from misuse or invasion by adultery, and the command against the most unnatural idolatry of sacrificing children to Molech. Such sins defile the land and provoke God's judgment.