A close reading of Leviticus

I must say it is rather disquieting to come down to breakfast, innocently open the paper, and find in it a photograph of a sign put together by a fellow who proposes I should be put to death because of my marriage.

I mean dang!

However, I found that as I studied the gentleman’s sign more closely, I realized that perhaps I might be safe from this gentleman’s sentence of capital punishment after all. 

As I read the text, so helpfully quoted from the book of Leviticus, I see that it says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed…", etc.

As a strict constructionist, as one who takes the Bible to be the very exact and not-to-be-re-interpreted-by-all-you-liberals true spoken Word of God, I found myself drawn to observe certain key words in this verse 13 of Leviticus chapter 20.  I mean to say, this is a verse that so many, from the Pope to the humblest cross-bearing believer, have judged to be one of the most important verses in all of scripture.  After all, it is from these 33 words, that they have fashioned a sweeping condemnation of a sizeable chunk of humanity. 

So I want to be sure that we are all reading it exactly right.

I cannot help but call your attention to certain words in this verse.  First, I notice the word “also” as in “if a man also lie with mankind..”  Then I look at this phrase “as he lieth with a woman.”  Two things strike me. 

First, it seems to me that in order to fall under the scope of this very strict pronouncement of judgment—a person must be a person of the male persuasion.  Reading it quite closely and exactly, I see that it does not prohibit the liething of a woman with a woman.

So I am certain, that Mr. Adams, the maker of the sign, would not dream of reinterpreting or second guessing God’s clear dictum in this verse by supposing that there is anything at all contained within it that objects to a woman liething with a woman.  That would be reading between the lines—that would be interpreting—that would be activist rewriting of God’s word—and that is something only wrongo liberals do.

Second, with this word “also” I find myself obliged to ask, why is that word “also” in there?  After all, God didn’t put anything in the Bible by accident!  I think that it is quite clear that in order to fall under the scope of this very strict pronouncement of judgment—a person must first be man, and second he must lie with another man, but, and this is the important part, he must “also” lieth with a woman.  Because being very strict and literal about it, if a man lie with a man and he never in his born days has layeth with a woman, than it cannot be said that he “also” lie with a man as he lieth with a woman.  I think that if he never did layeth with a woman, then he’s OK.

I mean if the word of God in the holy Bible had said, “If a man lie with mankind, as mankind lieth with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination,” that would be different.  If God had dropped the “also” and changed “as he lieth” to “as mankind lieth,” then I fear that even the poor sixes on the Kinsey scale—that is those men who only ever lie with mankind, and would never dream of also laying with a woman, would be in trouble. 

But that isn’t what God says.  As I read it—in my very strict and not at all loose way—what this verse says is that bisexual men should be put to death.

Everyone else, the lesbians, and those poor male sixes on the Kinsey scale who have never gotten it on with a woman, and even those brave male fours and fives on the Kinsey scale who have righteously resisted their occasional impulse to get it on with a woman—they’re all OK!

The only ones condemned by God, are bisexual men!  I tell you, it is those lousy bisexual men.  They are the ones, after all, who ALSO lie with mankind as they lie with a woman.  Tch. Tch.  Their blood shall be upon them.  So there.

But even as I am reassuring myself of this correct, proper and strictly strict interpretation of God’s word, I suddenly recall that back in ‘75—there was that one night when I was feeling really frisky.  My friend Dolores and I were having such a good time, and she was looking fine and then before either of us knew what was happening, we ….  Oh my God, I’m doomed! 

The truth of me, on fine Italian paper

Recently I went into Barnes and Noble.  I went to all the sections of books that normally interest me to see if anything caught my eye.  Not only did nothing catch my eye, I felt bored by all the topics I'm usually interested in. 

Then I came to the blank book section.  That caught my eye.  There were dozens of blank books:  journals, sketchbooks, notebooks – some with lined paper, some with blank pages.  The differences among the books were in the binding, the cover, the size, the quality of the paper.

The more expensive ones were bound in leather:  “Made in Italy for Cavallini and Company, San Francisco,” said one.  There were luxurious blank books. Some were artificially aged, made to look like journals that had already been on an expedition, journals that came out of the box redolent with adventure.

I felt at once both the attraction and the terror of owning one of these beautiful leather-bound journals.  Across from the blank book section was a display of fine writing instruments:  calligraphy pens and well bred bottles of ink.  I began to fantasize about writing with such a pen. 

I would sit with my leather-bound journal and my pen and nib and ink—and I would write.  I would draft a sublime little essay about my day, with the fine penmanship of Jefferson—dipping my pen into the ink bottle, like taking breaths—and exhaling exquisite calligraphic writing.  I would write and write into the beautiful leather-bound journal until all the wisdom I possessed was dispensed. 

And there would be the truth of me, nicely worn, elegant, and inscribed on fine Italian paper:  words that would move hardened cynics to tears, words that would cause the downcast to smile, words that would be utterly fascinating, even to bored readers like me.

If only I knew I could write faultlessly.  There was the terror:  the specter of a beautiful, finely bound leather journal desecrated by ink that could not be erased.  Or worse: a blank book so pristine that I could not begin to write in it. 

So I elected a less ambitious course.  I chose a mid-priced journal—more expensive than a pad of paper, mind you—but not so fine or costly that I would be filled with remorse if I messed it up.  The journal I selected is intended as a travel journal.  It has an aged photograph of the Eiffel Tower on the cover.  The colors are faded and there is a trompe l’oil  postage stamp “Le Republique Francais – 10 ¢” in the upper right corner. 

The journal I chose has a convenient black elastic band, bound so that I can insert it snugly at any spot to keep my place—as I will only write, presumably, in between adventures.  After I bought this book, I realized that that was exactly what I wanted:  an adventure, but I would not travel to Paris.  No, I am to travel in the incubator of my imagination, the uncomfortable, breath-taking space where all things are possible.  I am traveling toward the unfolding me, toward the moment the flower blooms.

Everything you know is wrong!

Once upon a time, I had a plant sitting in the window, which had been left for several months to grow toward the light.  Then one day I decided that I wished the plant would exhibit more symmetry in its form – so I turned it 180 degrees around.

Observing this, a friend said, “You can’t do that.  It’s like telling the plant, ‘Everything you know is wrong!’  You have to turn it gradually, a little bit each day.  Let it get used to the change slowly.”

Some days I feel like I've been turned 180 degrees.  And I wonder if everything I know is wrong.

Which leads me to the question: “What do I know?” 

Looking back, I see that the knowing I had as a child, the knowing I had as a teenager, the knowing I had as a young adult – have all changed.  I have to admit, it seems likely that such knowing as I have now will change too.

When I consider the history of the world, I notice a similar pattern.  Each era had its beliefs.  Many concepts that were widely accepted as true, later came to be recognized as wrong.  The world is not flat.  Bleeding does not cure disease. Negroes are not inferior to whites.  Margarine is not healthier than butter.  A woman’s place is not invariably in the home. 

It follows then that many of the facts the world knows today will likewise be replaced by an even more advanced understanding of things.  It seems that both in my life and in the history of the world, the older I get and the older the world gets, the closer we each get to certain truths. 

But  the closer I get to the truth the more I feel like I’m coming closer to something familiar.  It is as if in my old age I will see the flower of the seed that was me as a child.  The flower has always been in the seed.  The truth, it seems, unfolds.

Right at the moment, I can’t quite make out that flower of the older me.  I can merely sense it.  I imagine that older me will be ideal (of course!).  I will be the embodiment of love, serenity, joy, peace—and most especially, wisdom.  What I can’t imagine is sustaining those ideal qualities.  For, thus far, every perfect moment in my life has been, like a flower—ephemeral.

So how then will I achieve a lasting wisdom?  I guess that I will not.  I guess that the older and wiser I get, the more aware I will be of how much more I have to learn.

So I wonder, is this growth of a single soul – is this evolution of the world – infinite?  I can’t conceive of an infinite journey.  Because the journey, I am told, is toward oneness – toward that end where everything that knows itself as separate also knows itself as one.  And that seems like a final and finite destination.  Can it be reached?

Why not?  After all, it says so right on our money: E. pluribus Unum.

 Painting: Gift for Romney - 2003 - 11 3/8  x 7 ½  - Watercolor and Gouache - By James Stephens  (Available for purchase at the Lemberg Gallery)