Original Meaning

MOVING FROM RITUAL MATTERS (Lev. 17) to a focus on moral holiness (see the introduction), Leviticus 18 begins with an exhortation to obey the Lord’s laws rather than to follow the practices of Egypt or Canaan (18:1–5). The Lord contrasts his approach to sexuality with that of Egypt, where incest was common, and Canaan, which was a hotbed of promiscuity.

Incest. The main area of legislation in chapter 18 is incest. At first glance verse 6 appears to be simply a heading for the following list of cases. However, S. Rattray has shown that subsequent verses specify additional forbidden sexual relationships, which verse 6 does not directly cover:

The key lies in the opening verse to the incest prohibitions (Lev 18:6): one may not marry close kin (šeʾēr běśārô). Who are they? In Lev 21:2 we have the expression šeʾēr haqqārōb ʾēlāyw which is spelled out as follows: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and maiden sister (sister who has never married). Hence mother, sister and daughter, as close kin, are automatically forbidden by Lev 18:6. The purpose of the list of Leviticus 18 is to indicate who else is forbidden by extension from these basic relationships.1

Rattray has solved a major problem: The daughter and full sister, whom we would expect in any treatment of incest, do not appear in the remainder of Leviticus 18 or in chapter 20.2 Notice that although Rattray refers to marrying relatives, the forbidden sexual unions in chapter 18 are not restricted to those that are formalized by marriage.

Verse 6 reads: “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations [lit., to uncover nakedness]. I am the LORD.” Elsewhere the verb “approach” (qrb) by itself can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Isa. 8:3). In Leviticus 18 the combination of “approach” with “to uncover nakedness” unambiguously refers to sexual activity. This is not the same as Genesis 9:22, where “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness.” Ham “saw” rather than “approached” Noah. In Leviticus 20:17, seeing nakedness does occur in the context of sexual relations, but this context is indicated by the verb lqḥ (“take,” i.e., marry), which does not apply to Ham and Noah.

Although Genesis does not indicate that Ham indulged in homosexual activity with his father, his disrespect led Noah to curse Canaan, Ham’s son (Gen. 9:25).3 So this story appears to have a thematic connection with Leviticus 18:3, where the Lord commands his people: “You must not do as they do in the land of Canaan.”

In Leviticus 18:7–18 each case occupies only one verse in apodictic (“You shall not” = “Do not”) formulation, expressing an absolute principle. The end of the chapter states penalties that apply to all the cases. In a comment on 18:22, which concerns homosexual activity, Milgrom formulates an overarching rationale behind the cases in this chapter:

The common denominator of all the prohibitions, I submit, is that they involve the emission of semen for the purpose of copulation, resulting in either incest and illicit progeny or, as in this case, lack of progeny (or its destruction in the case of Molek worship, v. 21). In a word, the theme (with Ramban) is procreation.4

Along the same line, J. E. Miller suggests that the nonincest laws of 18:19–23 are unified by the concept that semen is a controlled substance, which must not be improperly placed.5

Verse 7 reads: “The nakedness of your father, that is [explicative waw], the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover; she is your mother—you shall not uncover her nakedness”6 (cf. NASB; NJPS; NRSV). Although in one sense this verse is redundant because its prohibition against sexual relations with one’s mother is already covered by verse 6 (see above), verse 7 transitions to the following cases by establishing a pattern: The nakedness of a female who has been married belongs to her husband, with whom she has become “one flesh” (cf. Gen. 2:24), even after the marriage ends by divorce or his death. So uncovering her nakedness is tantamount to shaming him by exposing his nakedness (see NIV of Lev. 18:7; cf. Deut. 22:30).

In Leviticus 18, incest is defined more broadly than our modern understanding in that relatives by marriage, to whom a man would have easy access within the household, are off limits in addition to blood relatives.7 Forbidden relatives who marry into one’s family include a wife of one’s father (18:8; i.e., stepmother or additional wife), aunt by marriage (v. 14), daughter-in-law (v. 15), and sister-in-law (v. 16; cf. Matt. 14:3–4). Each of these laws would have independent force only after the end of the marriage that has created the relationship, before which the law of adultery (Lev. 18:20; cf. 20:10; Gen. 35:22; 49:4; Ex. 20:14; Deut. 22:22) would apply. So their intent is to prohibit marriages of widowed or divorced women to men who are related to them by marriage. However, Deuteronomy 25:5–6 recognizes the notable exception of “levirate” marriage to a brother-in-law in order to maintain the identity of a dead man by providing him with a line of posterity (cf. Gen. 38; Ruth 4).

With relatives who marry into one’s family come some of their relatives, who are also forbidden: a stepdaughter or daughter of a stepchild (18:17). In verse 11 a stepsister who comes from the extended family (moledet, “clan”) of one’s father (not “born/begotten to/by your father”; NASB; NKJV; NIV; NRSV; NJB) is prohibited, but by implication it is permissible to marry a stepsister who is not a blood relative.8

Leviticus 18:17–18 prohibits a man from sexual unions with two women who are blood relatives of each other: a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (18:17) or a woman and her sister while the first is alive (v. 18). Only in this last case is the prohibition limited to bigamy. Whereas it is forbidden to marry a woman and her daughter or granddaughter at all, whether sequentially or simultaneously, it is only forbidden to take (i.e., marry) a sister-in-law while one’s wife is still alive, thereby producing rivalry between the two sisters (cf. Leah and Rachel in Gen. 29–30).

A few years ago an American polygamist was interviewed on TV along with five of his nine wives. He justified the arrangement as emulating “the patriarchal ideal.” However, even a casual reading of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis (cf. Judg. 8–9) shows that polygamy was anything but ideal for the patriarchs and their families.

Some have interpreted (lit.) “a woman to her sister” in 18:18 broadly as any woman in addition to a first wife, in accord with idiomatic use of the same expression elsewhere to mean “one [feminine] in addition to another [feminine]” (Ex. 26:3, 5, 6, 17; Ezek. 1:9, 23; 3:13).9 A. Tosato has found further support for the idea that the women are not literally sisters by identifying the formulation of Leviticus 18:18 with the style of the following 18:19–20, the prohibitions of which are not limited to kin, rather than with the preceding laws of incest in 18:6–17.10 If this interpretation is correct, verse 18 is a blanket prohibition of all polygamy.11

Against Tosato’s interpretation, because verse 18 immediately follows laws regulating sexual relations between literal kin, including sisters (vv. 9, 11, 12, 13), it is difficult to avoid the impression that the women in verse 18 are related to each other.12 The literary affinity with the following verses could be due to the fact that by contrast to the previous cases, the prohibitions of verses 18–20 are limited to conditions that can end: the lifetime of one’s wife (v. 18), menstruation (v. 19), and the marriage of a woman to another man (v. 20). So verse 18 could be regarded as transitional, simultaneously (Janus-like) looking backward to incest laws and forward to time-limited laws. Notice that verses 18–19 are paralleled in chapter 20, where an unambiguous prohibition of marriage to a literal sister (20:17) is immediately followed by prohibition of sex during menstruation (20:18).

Why does 18:18 include “as a rival” (Qal infinitive of ṣrr), which introduces a social dynamic over and above the objective kinship relation between the two women? Would this not apply to any polygamous situation? Indeed, 1 Samuel 1:6 refers to Peninnah as the “rival” (noun ṣarah) of Hannah, and there is no inkling that the two were sisters.13 It appears that the law of Leviticus 18:18, like other laws in the Torah, was capable of expansion by logical extension.14 So while Leviticus 18:18 in association with incest laws would refer to a literal sister as a rival, the placement and formulation of the law lend themselves to the conclusion that the social dynamic principle applies more broadly to any other woman. In this way a single law economically met people where they were and led them to a higher level as their experience and reflection matured.

Misuse of “seed.” In Leviticus 18:19–23 are five laws that come under the topic of the Lord’s statutes, by contrast to those of Egypt and Canaan (18:2–5), but not under the heading of incest laws (18:6). Nevertheless, four out of five of them also have to do with sexuality.

Intercourse with a menstruating woman is absolutely forbidden in verse 19, and in verse 29 the consequence of this and other offenses is the divine penalty of being “cut off,” that is, extirpation (cf. 20:18). So how do we explain the fact that in 15:24 a man having sexual relations with a menstruant only incurs a seven-day impurity? Since 15:24 deals with ritual consequences irrespective of intention, it covers situations of accidental violation in which a couple has intercourse without knowing that the woman is menstruating, but they learn this after the fact. In chapters 18 and 20, by contrast, the divine penalty is for deliberate violation; it would be pointless to forbid an accident.

The prohibition of adultery, involving the consent of both parties, is already part of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:14), but the broader scope of Leviticus 18:20 also includes rape.15 Here an Israelite who (lit.) gives/puts his “lying” (i.e., penis16) for “seed” to the wife of his fellow man becomes impure by means of her. While becoming impure (Qal of ṭmʾ ) through inter-course with another man’s wife is generated by the physical act, this is not merely the ritual pollution that we know from chapters 11–15. Rather, it involves permanent moral defilement, for which no ritual remedy is provided.

At the center of the final group of five laws is a prohibition against sacrificing children to the god Molech (18:21), who was worshiped especially by the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 7, 33; 2 Kings 23:13; Jer. 49:1, 3), a Transjordanian people whose ancestor (or “incestor”) was Lot through his youngest daughter (Gen. 19:34–38). This law has to do with idolatrous worship of another deity rather than sexual relations, but the close parallel between the wording of Leviticus 18:21 and the previous verse forges a link for us. Just as you shall not give (Qal of ntn) your penis for seed (zeraʿ; i.e., sperm) to the wife of another (18:20), you shall not give (Qal of ntn) any of your seed (zeraʿ; i.e., posterity/children) to pass through for Molech (18:21). “Pass through” in this context means pass through fire (cf. 2 Kings 16:3; 23:10). Molech worship parallels adultery: Both violate covenant relationships by disloyally giving precious “seed” to parties forbidden to receive it (Ezek. 23:37).

Verse 22 reads: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The language is devastatingly untechnical, leaving no room for ambiguity. Leviticus 20:13 reiterates, but with a penalty directly attached: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” This condemnation of homosexual practice as offensive to God is not “politically correct” today, but our task here is to understand what the Bible says, not to rewrite it. Whether we like it or not, the Bible is simply not bound by modern Western constraints of political correctness. Notice, however, that Leviticus does not condemn persons who have homosexual tendencies as long as they do not act on them.

The last law in chapter 18 prohibits the defiling (Qal of ṭmʾ ) perversion of bestiality, whether by a man or a woman. For a man the terminology is almost the same as in verse 20 (see above), but slightly more specific and therefore graphic: (lit.) “You shall not put your penis in any animal to become impure by means of it” (see also 20:15; cf. Num. 5:20). The language is different for a woman, who is forbidden to initiate mating with an animal by presenting her body to it for this purpose. Again, Leviticus 20 mandates capital punishment for both the human and animal parties (20:15–16).

The conclusion of Leviticus 18 provides powerful incentives to follow the Lord’s directives (18:24–30). If the Israelites defile the Lord’s land by morally polluting themselves, they will be expelled like the Canaanites, as vividly described by the metaphor of vomiting (vv. 24–28). The second incentive is to avoid the divine penalty of being “cut off” (vv. 29–30).

Bridging Contexts

LIFE THROUGH OBEDIENCE? The Lord commanded the Israelites: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them” (18:5). Does this mean that the ancient Israelites were saved by doing works of the law? The answer depends on whether “will live” refers to the present life or to eternal life. In this context, exile is opposite life in the Promised Land during the present era (18:24–28; cf. v. 3). When exile did come, Ezekiel repeatedly quoted Leviticus 18:5 to explain what had gone wrong (Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21; cf. Neh. 9:29).

Leviticus 18:5 expresses the same idea as Deuteronomy 5:33: “Walk in all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land that you will possess” (cf. Deut. 8:1; 32:46–47). The fifth of the Ten Commandments promises long life in the land for those who honor their fathers and mothers (Ex. 20:12). Since respect for parents and other family members, which is essential for healthy society, is the topic of Leviticus 18, it is not surprising to find the stakes of obedience versus disobedience presented in terms of life in the land.

Thus, Leviticus 18:5 has to do with life in the Promised Land rather than eternal salvation. The Israelites did not save themselves by doing works of the law as an alternate route to eternal life that God gives by grace through faith.17 Obedience was predicated on preexisting grace. The Lord had already saved his people from slavery in Egypt (Ex. 20:2) and was about to give them the land of Canaan (Lev. 18:3, 24; 20:24; 23:10; 25:2, 38). They could not earn it. However, he could not bless his people with life and prosperity in that land if they violated laws of cause and effect and severed their covenant connection with him by acting abominably.

God’s laws are not theological abstractions that are separate from dynamics of cause and effect operating in real life. For example:

Suppose the Lord says, “I have a gift for you—a beautiful, wonderful expression of what love is. I will provide you with a spouse—a husband or a wife. Your relationship with this person will bring out the very best in you. . . .

But then He says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:27). Is that command to limit or restrict you? No! It is to protect and free you to experience love at its human best. What happens if you break the command and commit adultery? The love relationship is ruptured between husband and wife. Trust is gone. Hurt sets in. Guilt and bitterness creep in. Even the children begin to respond differently. Scars may severely limit the future dimensions of love you could have experienced together.18

When the Israelites repeatedly apostatized, it was God’s compassion that saved them from their enemies (Judg. 2:15–16, 18; 3:9, 15). While their return to obedience demonstrated their sincerity (10:15–16), it did not pay for past sins so that they could merit deliverance. No amount of law-keeping can make up for past failure. Even today, a murderer can behave well on death row but then be put to death for a crime committed in the past. The only thing that can save a sinner is unmerited mercy. While keeping God’s law is beneficial to those who are obedient (Lev. 18:5), it cannot help those who are disobedient (Gal. 3:11–13, quoting Lev. 18:5).

Departures from God’s ideal for human sexuality. According to Genesis 2, God created man and woman for each other. When the Lord presented Eve to Adam, Adam exclaimed: “‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:23–24).

In this first marriage, before the Fall, we find God’s ideal for human sexuality: an indissoluble union between one man and one woman, represented by the metaphor “one flesh.” This was to be a (1) permanent, (2) monogamous, (3) heterosexual relationship (4) between human beings. The Lord did not need to encase these aspects in legal formulations; he simply created marriage the way it was supposed to be.19

In the Bible, deviations from God’s ideal carry varying degrees of offensiveness to him. Remarriage after the death of one’s spouse receives no negative assessment in the Bible. Divorce, which violates permanence until death, is another matter. God tolerates it as a concession to human weakness only under certain circumstances (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5–9), regulates it in order to mitigate its worst effects (Deut. 24:1–4; cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9),20 and sternly warns against divorcing without justification (Mal. 2:13–16).21

Biblical law penalizes those who engage in heterosexual practices that not only violate permanence but also occur outside marriage, such as adultery, premarital or promiscuous sex, and rape. Violation of a woman’s existing marriage (including betrothal) always results in the death of each consenting individual (see comments on Lev. 20).

Polygamy transgresses the principle of monogamy. As with divorce, while the Old Testament tolerates polygamy, it regulates this arrangement in order to mitigate some of its evil effects (Ex. 21:10–11; Lev. 18:18; Deut. 21:15–17). In the New Testament Paul upholds the ideal of monogamy by barring polygamous individuals from positions of church leadership (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).

Homosexuality violates God’s heterosexual ideal. Biblical law categorically condemns homosexual activity as an abomination that carries the death penalty (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The same is true of bestiality, which violates the principle that human sexuality is to be shared only with other human beings (18:23; 20:15–16). Bestiality existed in the ancient world along with incest and sodomy22; unfortunately, it survives to the present. If only Leviticus were not so relevant to modern life!

By itself an incestuous marriage does not violate the fourfold standard of permanent, monogamous, heterosexual relationships between human beings. In the generation of Adam and Eve’s children, it would have been impossible for the human race to continue without what we regard as incestuous marriage: Cain and Seth had nobody to marry but their sisters. Marriage between some kinds of close relatives was accepted long after it was necessary. In fact, Miriam, Moses, and Aaron were the product of such a marriage (Ex. 6:20). However, Leviticus 18 (cf. ch. 20) established a fifth aspect of the standard for sexual relations, which was introduced in the course of human genetic and moral degeneration: Close relatives must not be sexual partners.

Contemporary Significance

DOES THE BIBLICAL PROHIBITION AGAINST SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A MENSTRUATING WOMAN APPLY TO CHRISTIANS TODAY? The penalty for deliberate violation of the ban on sex with a woman during her period is a grave one: divinely administered “cutting off,” with no ritual remedy available (Lev. 20:18; cf. 18:19, 29). This absolute nature of the prohibition indicates that its applicability does not depend on the ritual system and continues after it has passed away. Reinforcing this conclusion, Leviticus 18 and 20 place the ban on sex with a menstruant among moral laws (cf. Ezek. 18:5–6; 22:10).

It is true that ceremonial law provided a remedy for physical ritual impurity incurred through inadvertent violation of the prohibition (15:24). Now that the ritual system is gone, there is no ceremonial impact or need for such a remedy. However, this does not negate a timeless moral aspect that forbids a man from deliberately having intercourse with a menstruating woman, knowing that this is her condition.

Perhaps a moral rationale for the prohibition can be found in 20:18, which describes a woman with any genital flow as dawah (“faint,” i.e., in a state of malaise; see also 12:2; cf. Lam. 1:13; 5:17). If so, this is a women’s rights issue: The law protects “the woman from unwanted advances by her husband during her period of weakness (R. Gane).”23

Do the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and incest apply to Christians today? Some defenders of homosexuality tie this question to the preceding one as follows: Since Christians generally do not observe the law of Leviticus that bans marital intercourse during menstruation but treat it as culturally relative, they should be consistent and admit that the law of Leviticus against homosexual practice is also culturally relative. W. J. Webb concurs that the laws are related to the extent that they both involve sexual taboos, and he thinks the menstrual intercourse prohibition does not apply today because the New Testament has repealed the laws of physical ritual impurity. However, he argues that the ban on homosexual intercourse is not intrinsically or logically connected to the menstrual intercourse law. Rather, the former remains applicable because it is not linked to ceremonial impurity, which explains the severe penalty of death for homosexual activity (Lev. 20:13) and the fact that the New Testament retained the prohibition against it.24

Webb is right that the homosexuality law is not limited by belonging to regulations concerning physical ritual impurity. But we have found that the law against deliberate intercourse during menstruation is not merely a ceremonial law and carries the terminal divine penalty of being “cut off,” although there is a remedy of ritual purification if the act is inadvertent. Webb does not take into account the possibility that a law can involve more than one category. So although it is true that the menstrual intercourse and homosexuality laws stand independently under the heading of “sexual taboos,” it appears that their applicability is similar.

Milgrom defends homosexual activity from another angle. Because God gave the legislation of Leviticus 18 (cf. ch. 20) to the ancient Israelites and their descendants for life in the land of Israel, Milgrom argues, “the ban on homosexuality and the other illicit unions applied solely to the residents of the holy land.”25 Moreover, because lesbianism does not appear in Leviticus 18 or 20, he further restricts the prohibition to males. Among males in Israel he further narrows the circle: “Both occurrences of the prohibition (18:22; 20:13) contain the phrase mishkeve ʾisha an idiom used for only illicit heterosexual unions. Thus carnal relations are forbidden only with males who are of the equivalent degree of the females prohibited in these lists.”26 Milgrom summarizes his compassionate approach to homosexuality:

I am not for homosexuality, but I am for homosexuals. I grieve for their plight—their pariah status and their discrimination in the workplace and the military. But when the Bible is distorted to make God their enemy, I must speak out to set the record straight. I return to my contention that there is only one deduction to be derived from Lev 18 and 20: The ban on homosexuality is limited to male Jews and inhabitants of the holy land. The basis for the ban, as I have submitted, is the need for procreation, which opposes, in biblical times, the wasting of seed.27

Against the objection that God ejected non-Israelites from Canaan because of their immorality, including homosexuality (18:24–30), Milgrom responds that these peoples came under the scope of the legislation because they resided in the holy land. Although 18:3 recognizes that the Egyptians were committing violations of the laws in this chapter, they were not accountable to God for these because they did not live in the holy land. As for the question of why the Lord incinerated the Sodomites (Gen. 19), Milgrom contends it was their inhumane brutality rather than consensual homosexuality that brought divine fire down on their heads.28

Milgrom’s narrow interpretation certainly does make life easier for the gay community. For him, even the tiny percentage of males who are restricted may practice their lifestyle if they fulfill the spirit of the biblical law by raising adopted children to compensate for their loss of “seed.”29

While much of the argumentation in defense of the moral status of homosexuality these days is based on social, psychological, and biological factors rather than serious biblical interpretation, anyone who wants to know what the Bible says on the matter must pay careful attention to Milgrom because he is a world-class exegete. Alas, his view on this matter is fraught with several significant problems.

(1) Leviticus knows how to limit the scope of a law to the Promised Land: “When you enter the land of Canaan . . .” (14:34, fungus in houses); “When you enter the land . . .” (19:23, fruit trees); “When you enter the land I am going to give you . . .” (23:10, sheaf of grain); “When you enter the land I am going to give you . . .” (25:2, sabbatical fallow year). The Israelites could not practice these laws in the desert because there they lived in tents rather than houses and had no agricultural land to harvest. Since the laws of sexual conduct in chapters 18 and 20 lack such constraints and the corresponding formula “When you enter the land,” they were in force as soon as they were promulgated. Within the Pentateuchal narrative framework, this was in the desert, before the Israelites entered the holy land. Thus, these sexual laws are not limited to that land.

(2) While the punishment of exile only applies to inhabitants of the Promised Land and the infliction of capital punishment (20:13) is dependent on the Israelite judicial system, the divine penalty of being “cut off” (18:29) can be in force anywhere at any time.

(3) While the Egyptians were allowed to stay in Egypt, this does not necessarily mean that God held the Canaanites morally responsible but not the Egyptians. It was Canaan that God gave to Israel, not Egypt. So the Canaanites had to go.

(4) How could God justly hold the Canaanites culpable for transgressing a standard of sexual propriety of which they were not even aware? Leviticus 18 gives the impression that the Canaanites and Egyptians were violating the basics of universal rightness, which they should have known and followed (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1).30

(5) One of Milgrom’s arguments is that both instances of the ban on homosexuality contain the phrase “lyings [plural of miškab] of a woman” (18:22; 20:13), which he claims is “used for only illicit heterosexual unions” (see above). However, by itself this idiom is morally neutral. If the plural of miškab automatically signaled illegitimacy, we would be stuck with the absurdity that by referring to the place of his “lyings,” Jacob condemned his own enjoyment of conjugal rights there (Gen. 49:4). “Lyings” are illicit when one party usurps the customary sexual activity (hence the plural, apparently) that rightfully belongs to another. In Genesis 49:4 the one who usurped Jacob’s “lyings” is Reuben (cf. 35:22). In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the one who usurps a woman’s “lyings” is any male.

(6) In Leviticus 18 and 20 the prohibition of homosexual activity (18:22; 20:13) appears within the same legal framework that also covers incest, adultery, and bestiality. Adultery is independently excluded by the seventh of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), all of which, according to the New Testament, have ongoing application for Christians, whether they are Jewish or Gentile and live inside or outside the holy land (Rom. 7:7, 12; 13:9; James 2:11; cf. Matt. 19:18–19). If these moral laws given to the Israelites are universal and timeless, why would the moral laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 not be the same?31

(7) Acts 15 records lifestyle requirements established at the Jerusalem council for Gentile Christians: “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29; cf. v.20). This list follows the scope of laws in Leviticus 17–18:

17:3–9: well-being offerings, of which the offerer eats, sacrificed to goat-demons

17:10–14: blood in improperly slaughtered meat

chapter 18: sexual immorality in general, including but not limited to adultery

In Acts 15:20, 29 the Greek word for sexual immorality in general (the range covered in Lev. 18) is porneia, which is broader than moicheia, the word for “adultery.” In the New Testament porneia includes incest (1 Cor. 5:1) and the related verb ekporneuo includes homosexuality (Judg. 17; cf. Gen. 19:4–5). The New Testament explicitly condemns incest (1 Cor. 5:1), male homosexuality (Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), and lesbianism (Rom. 1:26) practiced by any human beings.

If we accept the biblical evidence, Christians everywhere are just as accountable to God for avoiding the practices listed in Leviticus 18 as the ancient Israelites were when the legislation was first given. The divine penalty for Israelites was to be “cut off” (18:29), which goes beyond death, and according to 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 the penalty for Christians also goes beyond death:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The answer for people enslaved by sexual perversion is not to tell them that they are OK. They are not. The solution is found in 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” There is hope for redemption from destructive lifestyles. Jesus was given his name because he came to save people from their sins, not in their sins (Matt. 1:21).

These days it is common for psychologists to regard homosexuality as an innate tendency that cannot be overcome. If one is homosexual through no fault of his or her own and cannot escape this basic drive, how can God condemn such a person? This popular line of reasoning overlooks several factors. (1) According to the Bible, homosexuality did not always exist, and it radically departs from God’s universal and timeless creation ideal for human sexuality (see above). Notwithstanding the notion that sexual fulfillment between consenting adults is an “inalienable right,” we should not impose this attitude on the Bible, which offers rehabilitation from rather than vindication of sinful life.32

(2) Through no fault of their own, whether a result of heredity or environmental factors, people are also afflicted with overpowering tendencies to heterosexual promiscuity, alcoholism, gluttony, violence, and suicide. Just because a person has an innate drive that may need to be treated in some ways as a disease does not mean that acting on it is not a moral violation. No decent citizen would think of allowing rapists and pedophiliacs to carry out their obsessions. Is it unfair that some people can find fulfillment but others are not permitted to? Perhaps, but who said life in a fallen world is fair?

The fact that psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors cannot figure out how to help a homosexual become heterosexual simply means that conversion calls for a miracle. That is exactly what God promises to those who want it (1 Cor. 6:11). It is arrogant and faithless for human experts to claim that because they cannot solve a problem, nobody in the universe can.

Can conversion happen today? Of course. I have talked with a committed Christian, married with children, who experienced transformation from a highly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle that involved about a thousand sexual partners. He has had some bumps along the road to recovery, as people often do when they are overcoming addictions, but by God’s grace he has become a different kind of man.

Some regard the biblical approach to homosexuality as “gay bashing.” However, according to the Bible, God loves sinners and wants to save individuals who are now gay by transforming them. If God loves them, should we be afraid to love them too? Ultimately it is far more compassionate for God and for us to warn them of danger and to hold out hope for the divine gift of conversion than to say “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace (cf. Jer. 6:14; 8:11), by condoning gay “marriage.”33

Philip Yancey finds that in dealing with issues such as homosexuality, Christians need to follow Christ’s example more closely by (1) improving our ability to distinguish between sinners and sin and (2) being consistent in the way we define sin:

I view with amazement Jesus’ uncompromising blend of graciousness toward sinners and hostility toward sin, because in much of church history I see virtually the opposite. We give lip service to “hate the sin while loving the sinner,” but how well do we practice this principle? . . .

Nowadays many of the same Christians who hotly condemn homosexuality, which Jesus did not mention, disregard his straightforward commands against divorce. We keep redefining sin and changing the emphasis.34

While the church has no biblical license to sanction the practice of homosexuality in any form, Christ’s approach demands that it be a haven of support to help precious people—including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals—in their often painful and traumatic journeys of recovery from all kinds of lifestyles. To restore the church as the trusted friend rather than the enemy of sinners requires a major shift of attitude on our part.

Sexual abuse of children. By forbidding sexual relations not only between blood relatives but also between persons related by marriage, Leviticus 18 simultaneously accomplishes several things. (1) It rules out genetic impairment that can result from inbreeding. (2) It prevents a woman who joins a family by marriage from being treated as a “hand-me-down” who goes from one male family member to another. (3) It provides a serious deterrent by condemning abuse of females, including children, by the males who have access to them. A stepsister who is not a blood relative (Lev. 18:11) is protected by sanctions against rape (Deut. 22:25–29).

The third point shows that Leviticus 18 indirectly covers pedophilia, which in modern times is an increasing problem, including among people who regard themselves as Christians. Homosexual abuse of male children is automatically prohibited by the law against sexual relations with another male (zakar in v. 22 means “male,” not just “grown man”). Because God himself enforces the laws of Leviticus 18 with the penalty of being “cut off” (v. 29), a violator cannot escape punishment even if his crime is never discovered by other human beings.

For those of us who have been spared sexual abuse, it is impossible to comprehend the full impact of Leviticus 18 and 20. So let’s listen to Minnie Warburton as she searingly describes her surprising reaction to these laws in Leviticus, which have brought her healing:

I remember very clearly the moment. Sunlight coming in the window onto my desk . . . and the words leaping out at me . . . “You shall not have intercourse with . . .” Incest taboos. One after another. I slammed the book shut. I was shocked. I had no idea that was in the Bible. I never imagined it might be mentioned there. I was reeling. . . .

It didn’t matter that my father by now was six years dead. Nor did it matter that long before he’d died, I’d confronted him on all the things he’d done to me. Nor did it even matter that he’d continued to deny them until the day he did die. . . . I never knew that what he did was condemned by his God before he ever did it. I never knew he was breaking God’s law. But there it was, clear as anything. . . .

I will never be able to explain what that moment was like, that discovery of Leviticus 18. I wanted to call up everyone I knew and say, “It was wrong. What he did was wrong. It says so right here, in the Bible.” Therapists had told me, my own instincts told me, everything had told me—yet nothing told me the way Leviticus told me. Wrong. Condemned. Hateful in the eyes of God. Even as I wanted to yell out, I was struck dumb, speechless. It was wrong, truly truly wrong. And for the first time I felt utterly and absolutely vindicated. For the first time, I felt clean. For the first time I felt that what had happened was between him and his God and he’d have to make his expiation however he did it. I felt absolved. I felt released.

What is striking to me now, even as I write this, is that what I am describing is precisely the effect that scripture should and can have. That if scripture is in any way the word of God, then it is an awesomely powerful agent. We need to be judicious when reading scripture, we need to edit, to select, but we also need to remain open to hearing, because the voice of scripture can indeed heal, can absolve, can cleanse and purify.35