What is the context?
The list now addresses intercourse during menstruation, adultery, giving children to Molech, intercourse between males, and sexual relations with animals. The child-sacrifice prohibition appears within a broader demand that Israel not defile itself or profane God’s name.
These commands identify acts; they do not describe a modern category of sexual identity. The distinction between what the text prohibits and how churches apply it today is central to the disagreements over verse 22.
How is this passage commonly understood?
The Catholic Catechism 2357–2359 treats sexual acts between people of the same sex as contrary to God’s purpose for sexuality, while requiring respect, compassion, sensitivity, and avoidance of unjust discrimination toward people with a homosexual orientation. The Westminster Confession 24.1 confines marriage to one man and one woman.
A 2012 Episcopal liturgy commission report, printed pages 207–208, acknowledges the Levitical prohibition of intercourse between males but argues that its ancient concerns about Israel’s boundaries and gender hierarchy differ from faithful, equal same-sex partnerships today. That is the commission’s interpretive argument, not a statement that the verse discusses only rape or that all Episcopalians agree. These readings differ over present application as well as the place of the ancient setting.
Wesley regards the menstruation rule as an enduring moral prohibition. Other distinctions between temporary ritual requirements and continuing moral teaching must therefore be explained from their supporting arguments rather than assumed from the fact that these instructions appear together.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.
Where can I study this further?
No deeper study linked yet.