Leviticus 18 — When Ancient Boundaries Meet Modern Questions
This week’s Sex Scripture Series took me back into a book I didn’t expect to revisit yet: Leviticus. My whole reading list ended up slightly out of order, so instead of moving forward, we jumped back to chapter 18 — the chapter titled Unlawful Sexual Relations.
I knew the moment I saw the title that this one would be heavy. My stomach tightened. My chest felt protective. My body braced. I’d read this chapter before and remembered exactly what it brought up.
But here we are — facing it again.
Before reading, I prayed what I always pray: for openness, for gentleness, for the Holy Spirit to sit with me while I sort through things I can’t fully understand.
And then I read the whole chapter out loud.
A Long List of “Do Not” — and What It Actually Means
One thing I needed right away was clarity around the phrase “uncover nakedness.” On its surface, it just sounds like seeing someone unclothed. But scripturally, it’s a Hebrew idiom — a euphemism for sexual relations, usually sexual relations that cross a boundary.
So when Leviticus gives this long list of people whose nakedness you must not uncover, it’s not talking about accidental glimpses. It’s talking about sex, and more specifically, sex outside the boundaries of consent, safety, or kinship structures.
The list is extensive — parents, children, siblings, half-siblings, aunts, uncles, in-laws, grandchildren, and more. When you line it all up, it essentially prohibits sex with:
blood relatives
relatives by marriage
relatives under your authority
people whose vulnerability would be exploited
Step-siblings don’t explicitly appear in the list, which made me pause. But historically, blended families like ours didn’t exist the way they do today. A new wife usually brought no children from a previous relationship. Later Jewish and Christian traditions did eventually treat step-siblings as off-limits, even though the original text didn’t explicitly mention them.
The Verse About Menstruation — and Why It Existed
I unexpectedly got stuck on verse 19:
“You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual uncleanness.”
So I dug into the history.
Menstruation in ancient Israel wasn’t “sinful” — it was ritually unclean, meaning it temporarily removed someone from participating in temple practices. And in a world where whole families shared small living spaces, this functioned as a form of:
rest for women
privacy
structured sexual boundaries
relief from expectations
Honestly? A whole week off from responsibilities every month sounds… kind of incredible.
But it also came with exclusion, isolation, and the weight of being labeled “unclean.” So while some modern readers see this as protective, others interpret it as patriarchal.
Today, most Christian traditions consider this a cultural and ceremonial law, not a moral one. The general takeaway seems to be:
Don’t force someone into intimacy when they’re uncomfortable, in pain, or needing space.
Anything beyond that varies wildly.
The Verse That Raises the Most Debate: Leviticus 18:22
Then came the line nearly everyone knows:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
My whole body tightened before I even read it.
This single verse has shaped centuries of conversations around sexuality, identity, and belonging. I’ve heard it used to condemn, to shame, to argue, to exclude. But I’ve also heard it interpreted in ways I’d never encountered until now.
Here are the main approaches I found:
1. The Traditional Interpretation
Sees this as a universal moral law
Applies to all male-male sexual activity
Interprets “as with a woman” as penetrative sex
Does not address women at all
Rooted in the belief that sex is for male-female marriage and procreation
2. The Purity-Law Interpretation
Places this verse within Israel’s “holiness code”
Frames it as a ritual boundary marker, not a universal moral principle
Similar to prohibitions on shellfish, blended fabrics, certain haircuts, etc.
Under this view, the law was for ancient Israel, not Christians today
3. The Exploitation Interpretation
Suggests the verse addresses abusive, violent, or dominance-based acts
Especially relevant given stories like Sodom and Judges 19
Might prohibit treating men as “subjugated partners,” not consensual relationships
4. The Idolatry Interpretation
Noting that the chapter is bookended by warnings against Canaanite worship
Suggesting this may refer to temple sexual rituals, not personal relationships
5. The Progressive Interpretation
Sees “abomination” as a cultural designation, not a moral one
Recognizes the verse exists in a patriarchal culture with no concept of orientation
Does not see it addressing modern consensual same-sex relationships at all
Across all of these, what struck me most was simply: There is not one single uncontested interpretation.
People arrive at their conclusions based on tradition, theology, worldview, or personal experience.
And honestly?
I still have a lot of questions.
Where I Land (For Now)
I come back to what Jesus says:
“You will know them by their fruit.”
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control.
So if a person’s interpretation of Scripture leads to:
cruelty
disdain
exclusion
violence
dehumanization
…then whatever they’re practicing, it’s not the fruit of the Spirit.
And if your reading of Scripture leads you to treat someone with tenderness, dignity, respect, and love — even if you disagree with them —
that aligns far more closely with the Jesus I see in the New Testament.
Closing Thoughts
Leviticus 18 raised more questions than it answered, and more bodily tension than almost any passage I’ve read in this series so far. But even with the heaviness, I found myself surprisingly peaceful at the end.
Not because I know exactly what every verse means.
But because I know the core of my faith is simple:
I believe in Jesus.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
And I believe that God is found wherever love is the fruit.
My questions remain.
But I don’t feel afraid of them anymore.
I’ll see you next time.
If you want to watch the live conversation, you can find it here: