Because we are going to start in Leviticus, it is imperative that we know a little bit about ancient codes of law and how they relate to Leviticus, the audience, and us today. Leviticus bears a striking resemblance to other ancient near east documents. For example, there are striking resemblances to the Laws of Eshnunna, and The Code of Hammurapi. In comparing these documents, we find similar ritual procedures, infrastructure, terminology and even concepts. We also find similar literary context, formulation,reasoning, and content. What this tells us is that Leviticus is not a highbrow aspirational document, but instead it is meant to communicate with, and address the needs of, real people in their time and context. That said, it should also be noted that the ancient legal codes would not at all fit the definition of a modern legal code by any stretch of the imagination.

While there certainly are similarities, there are some significant differences as well. Most other ancient near eastern legal codes were designed with a political purpose in mind, and were also designed to demonstrate the wisdom of the rulers through examples. Most use possible cases, usually beginning with “if”, and then giving a ruling for that circumstance that demonstrates the wisdom of the rulers. While there is some of that in Leviticus, notably civil and criminal law, it also includes proper ritual worship of God as well as religious laws, or what we might call now moral laws, that were meant to be a guide to living a life that is holy and pleasing to God. The concept of being holy because God is holy is a theme presented in various ways throughout the entire scriptures. Also present throughout scripture is the reality that it is God who makes us holy. This is a part of the purpose of Leviticus, to instruct God’s people in the ways of holy living, so that God might make us holy so we can fulfill the command to be holy as God is holy. I admit, it is not exactly riveting stuff, but it is important stuff.

In the Wesleyan way of belief, the old testament law is understood to be separated into three parts. This is expressed in the Articles of Religion that are a foundation of the Wesleyan was of faith.

Article VI — Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

John Wesley would expound on this in his sermon “The Original Nature, Property, and Use of the Law” (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-34-the-original-nature-property-and-use-of-the-law/), as well as in other places, especially his speaking on the Sermon on the Mount. Wesley, like many before him going back to the ancient fathers, understood that the “moral law” is rooted in God’s holiness and, like God, was pre-existant. This was expressed in the Ten commandments, and is then expounded on in various places, such as Leviticus. We find evidence of this understanding of different aspects of the Law when Moses delivers the Ten Commandments to the people. First, God instructs him to deliver the commandments (moral law), then God instructs him to speak about civil matters, including laws about justice and mercy, and then ceremonial laws about the Sabbath, festivals, and the Tabernacle. Finally there is the creation of The Ark of the Covenant, where only the Ten Commandments are placed, as they form the basis of God’s moral law.

The Holiness Code

Depending on who you ask, the so called holiness code begins in Leviticus chapters 17 or 18, and ends in chapter 26 or 27. Contained in this section are various laws concerning everything from the eating of blood, ritual worship laws, ritual purity laws, and of course laws regarding sexual ethics, that is to say what types of sexual relationships are forbidden. Some of the forbidden sexual relationships that are forbidden do not involve a great deal of controversy. Theses include sexual relations with ones mother, daughter, son, full sister, your father’s wife, half sister, grandchild, step-sister, aunt, daughter in law, brother’s wife, a woman and her daughter, mother, or granddaughter, the sister of your wife while your wife is alive, your neighbor’s wife, and finally animals. These are found in chapter 18, and, as a general rule, are not really in dispute as being immoral. Chapter 18:21-23 is where things begin to get dicey and there are significant differences in interpretation and understanding.

“ ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. (Leviticus 18:21-23)

The first thing that we need to realize here is that it appears that only sex between two men is a forbidden act, which would, on the surface, seem to indicate that sex between two women would be allowable. This is cleared up when we understand the history of the time and the context in which this was written. While Jewish law did have more protections for women than most ancient near eastern legal codes, the reality is that, for the most part, women did not have any significant rights as we understand them today. Essentially, it was not a woman’s choice who she had sexual relations with for the most part, so it simply didn’t bear mentioning.

It is important to understand that same sex relations and bestiality were common enough in the near east that nearly all of the surviving legal codes dealt with them in one way or another. Temple prostitution and bestiality were common forms of religious worship to pagan deities as well. This is relevant because of the mention of Molech in a chapter dedicated to impermissible sexual practices. For a long time in Christian thought, Molech was thought of as a pagan deity and the associated cultic worship, but Hebrew writings on the topic are not so clear. They describe this as a ritual where a child is passed through the fire and apply it to any pagan deity. There is scholarship that suggests several things that “molech” could be referring to. All of them share one thing in common however, and that is the reality that no matter what “Molech” refers to, it would have involved cultic prostitution of men, women, and often even animals.

Temple prostitution in the ancient near east was incredibly important for many reasons, but one in specific has some bearing on understanding this passage. When female temple prostitutes would become pregnant, the children would be raised to serve the temple as priests or prostitutes themselves. They would be consecrated by a ritual of them passing through the fire as a dedication and purification to the cult. This was a common practice in the near east. This would certainly count as giving a child to Molech. Whether we take Molech to be a pagan deity involved in child sacrifice, a representation of any and all pagan deities, or a description of a common cult dedication in the ancient near east, it would be accompanied by ritual prostitution, often bestiality, and as such has a place in a chapter dealing with forbidden sexual practices.

Does It Belong Here?

There has been some suggestion that the prohibition of sex with members of the same gender refers specifically to whatever Molech refers to, but that understanding becomes problematic for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that by disallowing the practices associated with Molech, any ancient near eastern culture would have known exactly what that would entail, so there would be no need to elaborate. The second reason is that if the prohibition was specific to pagan worship, then it would stand to reason that bestiality is also restricted only in pagan worship based upon the same logic. The third problem is that if there was to be a list of prohibited practices specific to pagan worship, based upon the rest of the holiness code, you would expect it to be much more exhaustive and include things such as not cavorting with temple prostitutes. It is simply much more likely that because of what is associated with Molech, the practice itself was well known and was seen as a collection of forbidden sexual practices, hence its mention. Also, if we look to chapter 20, we will find the section on the various punishments for forbidden actions. The very first verse deals with the punishment for Molech worship. Several verses later, we get to the punishments for sexual sins in verse 10, separated by prohibitions again mediums. In verse 13, we find the penalty for sex with a person of the same gender, and in verses 15 and 16 we see the penalties for bestiality. There is a distinct separation in the punishment for Molech participation and the penalties for sexual sin. If the prohibitions against sex with people of the same gender and bestiality were specific to cult worship, then it stand to reason that their penalties would be listed in the same place, and not with other sexual sin.

Armed with the above knowledge, in order for sex between two people of the same gender to be allowable, there needs to be a rationale to remove it from the list of forbidden practices that there is widespread agreement on. That same logic could then be applied to any sexual practices that is not allowed in this chapter. Not only could it be, for the sake of consistency, it would need to be applied to all the items on this list to see if anything else met whatever standard was set to remove sex between two people of the same gender from the list of prohibited sexual practices. Such an argument to do so would need to be iron clad and would need to hold up to the highest scrutiny. I do not know of any such argument.

Is It Moral?

The final question for this installment is, given the above information and examination, where does the list of prohibited sexual practices fall in the old testament law? It certainly does not pertain to the ritual rites of the old testament law. Is it simply a matter of civil law? If that is the case, then we would need to accept that there is no moral implication to, for example, a father having a sexual relationships with their daughter. It seems clear then that this falls squarely in the realm of “moral law” or, as the Article of Religion says, “obedience to the commandments which are called moral”. The basic question is simply is who we choose to have sexual relations with a moral decision or not. In the realm of Christianity, it certainly is.