תּוֹעֵבָה to'evah — abomination, abhorrence, something ritually or morally detestable

Editorial note

This entry presents what biblical scholars say about the Hebrew word to’evah and its range of meaning across the Hebrew Bible. It documents the major scholarly positions on what the word signals in Leviticus 18:22 specifically. It does not advocate for any of those positions, take a theological stance on what these passages mean for contemporary ethics, or tell readers what they should conclude about their own faith or practice. Those questions belong to the reader — see our About page for the four-way sensitivity test and the editorial standard.

The word

To’evah (תּוֹעֵבָה) is a Hebrew noun derived from the verb taav (to abhor, detest). It appears approximately 116 times in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV and BSB (both public domain) render it as abomination. Modern copyrighted translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB) variously preserve abomination or substitute compound English phrases that foreground detestability or abhorrence.

The lexicons (HALOT, BDB) define the word as abomination, abhorrence, something ritually or morally detestable — covering both cultic impurity and ethical violation. The boundary between these categories in biblical Hebrew is not always sharp.

Semantic range — what else the word covers

This is the critical point almost never included in popular discussions of the word. To’evah is used in the Hebrew Bible for:

• Dietary violations — Deuteronomy 14:3: You shall not eat any abominable thing [to’evah] — introducing the kosher food laws (the related noun sheqets is more common for unclean creatures specifically; to’evah covers the broader category)
• Remarrying a divorced wife after she has married another man — Deuteronomy 24:4: her former husband, who divorced her, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination [to’evah] before the LORD
• Dishonest weights and measures — Proverbs 11:1: Dishonest scales are an abomination [to’evah] to the LORD, but an accurate weight is His delight. Proverbs 20:10: Differing weights and unequal measures — both are detestable [to’evah] to the LORD.
• The sacrifices of the wicked — Proverbs 15:8: The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable [to’evah] to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is His delight
• Pride — Proverbs 16:5: Everyone who is proud in heart is detestable [to’evah] to the LORD
• Lying lips — Proverbs 12:22: Lying lips are an abomination [to’evah] to the LORD, but those who deal faithfully are His delight
• Defective sacrifices — Deuteronomy 17:1: Do not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep with any defect or flaw, for that is detestable [to’evah] to the LORD your God
• Idolatry and Canaanite religious practices — Deuteronomy 7:25-26, 12:31, 18:9-12 (including child sacrifice, divination, sorcery)
• Various sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20

The word is not reserved for sexual prohibitions. It is not reserved for moral violations. It is not reserved for ritual impurity. It covers all of these categories across different law codes (Priestly, Deuteronomic, Holiness Code) and wisdom literature (Proverbs).

Leviticus 18:22 — the disputed passage

“You are not to lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination [to’evah].” (Leviticus 18:22, BSB)

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, KJV)

The verse appears within Leviticus 17–26, the section scholars call the Holiness Code — a body of law concerned with Israel’s distinctiveness from the surrounding nations. Leviticus 18 specifically lists prohibited sexual relationships, opening (18:3) with: You must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt, where you used to live, or of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.

Scholarly positions on what to’evah signals here

Two broad scholarly positions exist. This entry documents both. It does not resolve the dispute.

Position 1 — Universal moral prohibition

Scholars in this tradition (e.g. Gordon Wenham, Robert Gagnon) argue that the use of to’evah in Leviticus 18:22 signals a serious moral violation rather than merely a ritual or cultural impurity. Supporting points typically cited:

• To’evah is used elsewhere for things that are morally wrong in any context — dishonest weights (Proverbs 11:1), lying lips (Proverbs 12:22), pride (Proverbs 16:5). These are not understood as ritual or cultural violations specific to Israel; they are general ethical wrongs.
• The structure of Leviticus 18 lists prohibitions presented as having universal force — incest, adultery, child sacrifice — alongside the verse in question. The grouping suggests, on this reading, that all the prohibitions belong to a single moral category.
• Leviticus 20:13 doubles down on the same prohibition with the death penalty attached, placing the act in the most serious moral category in the law code.
• The New Testament Pauline material (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) is read by some scholars as continuing the Levitical prohibition, suggesting it was not understood as merely a Mosaic-covenant regulation that lapsed with the new covenant.

Position 2 — Holiness Code / cultural distinctiveness

Other scholars (e.g. Jacob Milgrom, Saul Olyan, Phyllis Trible) argue that the to’evah designation in the Holiness Code is specifically about Israel’s cultic distinctiveness from surrounding cultures — particularly from practices associated with Canaanite religion. Supporting points typically cited:

• Leviticus 18 explicitly frames the prohibitions as setting Israel apart from Egypt and Canaan (18:3, 18:24-30). The prohibitions are bounded to Israel’s covenant identity in the chapter’s own framing.
• Many to’evah prohibitions are not applied to Gentiles. The dietary laws (Deuteronomy 14:3) are to’evah for Israel but were never claimed as binding on non-Israelites. The same logic, on this reading, applies to other Holiness Code regulations.
• Leviticus 20:13’s death penalty is part of a covenantal legal code that included death penalties for many other behaviours (rebellious children, Sabbath-breaking, adultery) — most of which Christian and Jewish traditions have long since ceased to apply, even when the underlying moral evaluation was retained.
• The specific ancient context of the prohibition — in particular, the association of male-male sexual practices with Canaanite cultic activity in some scholarly reconstructions — is a relevant framing question that the word to’evah on its own does not settle.

What the word does not, on its own, resolve

The semantic range of to’evah across the Hebrew Bible does not, on its own, determine whether Leviticus 18:22 is a universal moral law or a context-specific cultic prohibition. The word is used across both categories elsewhere. Both scholarly positions above have credible defenders. The lexicons themselves (HALOT, BDB) document the word’s breadth without taking a position on the contemporary ethical question.

Cross-Testament connection

The New Testament does not use to’evah (Hebrew). The Greek bdelygma (βδέλυγμα) is the standard Septuagint translation of to’evah and is the closest NT equivalent — used in Luke 16:15 (what is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight) and Revelation (e.g. 17:4-5, 21:27). However, the Pauline passages that address male-male sexual activity specifically — 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:26-27 — do not use bdelygma. They use different Greek terms (arsenokoitai, malakoi, para physin) which carry their own translation and interpretive histories.

See /word/arsenokoitai/ and /word/malakoi/ for those NT terms specifically.

Read in other translations

The passages above use the BSB and KJV — both public domain. To read Leviticus 18:22 in copyrighted modern translations, follow the links to BibleGateway:

• Leviticus 18:22 — NIV →
• Leviticus 18:22 — ESV →
• Leviticus 18:22 — NLT →
• Leviticus 18:22 — NASB →
• Leviticus 18:22 — CSB →

Reading the word in context

What this entry does establish:

1. To’evah in the Hebrew Bible covers a wide range of ritual, dietary, ethical, and sexual prohibitions.
2. The word does not, by itself, signal a single category of violation.
3. The use of to’evah in Leviticus 18:22 is a real and serious designation, but its precise scope is interpretive — read by some scholars as universal moral prohibition, by others as cultic-cultural distinction.
4. The contemporary ethical question of what these passages mean today depends on a long chain of interpretive judgements that go beyond the meaning of the single Hebrew word.

This site does not make those interpretive judgements. The reader makes them.