Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Chill Out]

Many believers insist the moral rules given in the Bible are divinely inspired by God without exception. There are many places that the Bible is criticized for its morality, but believers may still defend it (executing homosexuals, drowning children in the Flood, condoning slavery, etc). However, there is a command in the Bible that cannot be the word of an all-knowing, moral God and is simply based on the lack of understanding of the humans who wrote it. Note I am not arguing against the morality of this rule itself; I'm showing that it is inaccurate. The section is as follows:

Deuteronomy 22:13-19

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
This commands that a woman be killed if she was not a virgin at marriage. Upon accusation the only recourse the woman has is to display the cloth which would show she bled during the first intercourse. If she cannot produce this, she dies.

The problem here is that this doesn't match reality. The hymen has long been held as a symbol of virginity but this is not biologically accurate. Hymens are very different from woman to woman. Even with an intact hymen, women are not guaranteed to bleed from first intercourse. Many women don't. In fact, some women are born without a hymen at all. Others might have had it break at a young age due to a variety of things (injury, physical activity, etc).

The bottom line is that this man-made rule badly misunderstands female biology and guarantees that innocent women will die based on that misunderstanding. An all-knowing and moral god could not have inspired this.

[jimwalton]

> executing homosexuals, drowning children in the Flood, condoning slavery, etc

Let's not be so cavalier and just blow these things off as if there is no deeper understanding. There is, and they are worthy of discussion.

> Note I am not arguing against the morality of this rule itself; I'm showing that it is inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate. Let's talk.

The laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy were not a law record—recording what was, and explaining all the ins and outs—but case law: giving hypothetical situations so judges know how to make rulings. It gives generic examples and the principles, expecting that knowledgeable and mature judges will understand the intent and create and enforce laws accordingly, ruling in fairness.

All the law is asking for is proof of guilt or innocence, something we do in our courts. If she's guilty, she should be punished, and if innocent, acquitted. It was up to the judge, accusers, defenders, and the community to establish reasonable ways to ascertain guilt or innocence. Due process and fair treatment is both implied and understood.

The first paragraph is divided into 2 parts: a primary case involving a false accusation (v. 13-19), and a counter case in which the charges prove to be true (vv. 20-21). The first case goes to great lengths to protect a woman from false accusations by an abusive husband, and the second doesn't try to defend a woman who is actually guilty of lying to protect her husband about her pre-marital virginity.

> The problem here is that this doesn't match reality. The hymen has long been held as a symbol of virginity but this is not biologically accurate. Hymens are very different from woman to woman.

You are missing that this is casuistic law—all hypothetical to guide a judge. Any judge worth his salt is going to investigate, find out what the truth is, and make a fair judgment. That's what the text is teaching. Of course you're right that hymens differ from woman to woman. They knew that in the olden days, too. The bottom line is not as you assume ("this man-made rule badly misunderstands female biology..."), but instead you have badly misunderstood the text. It's a hypothetical case to guide a judge to establish reasonable ways to ascertain guilt or innocence.

[Mouseketeer]

Please provide any sort of source the ideas that:

1. "they knew that in the olden days"
2. the distinction in the Law between "law record" and "case law" given either other evidence in the Bible or Jewish history

[jimwalton]

> they knew that in the olden days"

That they considered a bloody sheet to be one reasonable form of proof is a source that they knew that virgins usually bled the first time they had sex. As an example to a local judge (casuistic law) of the kind of a thing that constitutes evidence, they obviously knew in the olden days about blood biology. They also knew about women's periods (Gn. 31.35). They knew something about genetics (Gn. 31.1-12). People who have no TVs, Internet, or newspapers end up finding out a lot about nature.

> the distinction in the Law between "law record" and "case law" given either other evidence in the Bible or Jewish history

Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas (IVP Bible Background Commentary): "The principle form of law found throughout the ancient Near East was case or casuistic law. It is characterized by an 'if ... then' clause, which is based on the idea of cause and effect. In the Israelite law codes, case law assumes the equality of all citizens and thus punishment for crime is not hindered or magnified based on class or wealth. This is not the case, however, in ancient Mesopotamia, where in Hammurabi’s Code (ca. 1750 BC) different degrees of punishments (from fines to execution) were prescribed for slaves, citizens, and members of the nobility. Case law can be traced in its origins to apodictic (command) laws, such as those found in the Ten Commandments."

Dr. Daniel Block, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: "[Deuteronomy 5] is to be interpreted, not as a legal code, but as a statement of covenantal policy. Unlike other constitutional documents within the Pentateuch—the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20.22-23.19), the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-27), and the Deuteronomic Torah (Dt. 5-26, 28), the ten terms are cast consistently in apodictic rather than casuistic form. They appear as second person commands (mostly negative), and occur without qualification and without sanctions or promised rewards. They are so general as to be virtually unenforceable through the judicial system."

Walton & Walton, "The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest": "Law codes are not lists of God’s mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. Because they are not comprehensive, and because of the literary context they are in, they are better viewed as legal wisdom—the means of communicating wisdom with regard to this area. Lists of symptoms and treatments, for example, were gathered to give practitioners wisdom about disease. Lists of divinatory observations and the resulting prognoses were gathered to give divination experts wisdom regarding the messages they believed were embedded in the signs provided by the gods. These served the utilitarian purpose of preparing experts in these fields to give competent advice to their clients. They are a gathering of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.
"Therefore they are not intended to be read as rules, but to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles (much as we use word problems to teach math). The purpose is not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry.
"But the underlying principles are not moral commands either. It is wisdom to guide, not a list to identify a moral code. When fans read the baseball rulebook, it’s not to follow them but to understand what is happening as they watch the game. We don’t expect a referee to show up at the house to penalize spectators; we also should not expect God to show up handing out judgments on individuals or institutions because they have not behaved according to the principles that were set down for Israel. This legal wisdom was to shape Israelite society, not to provide a set of instructions by which anyone in any place or time can construct God’s ideal society."

[Chill Out]

> Let's not be so cavalier and just blow these things off as if there is no deeper understanding.

I gave examples of frequently criticized Biblical topics. My personal view is that trying to justify murdering gay people, drowning babies, and condoning slavery is morally suspect, but this thread isn't intended to address those. I'm happy to discuss them anyway, but it just wasn't my thesis.

> All the law is asking for is proof of guilt or innocence, something we do in our courts.

The only example of "proof" listed is the cloth, which is unreliable. Why is the only example God provided a useless test? Can you give me an example of other methods for proving virginity?

> You are missing that this is casuistic law—all hypothetical to guide a judge. Any judge worth his salt is going to investigate, find out what the truth is, and make a fair judgment.

It really doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical when the hypothetical example given is totally flawed. Why would God give a flawed example that would imply to anyone reading it that bleeding is actual proof of virginity?

> Of course you're right that hymens differ from woman to woman. They knew that in the olden days, too.

That one needs sourcing. This still isn't understood worldwide today. There are parts of the world right now where women get surgeries to ensure they bleed on their wedding night to avoid punishments.

[jimwalton]

> I gave examples of frequently criticized Biblical topics.

Yes you did, and these topics are frequently criticized because they are so outrageously misunderstood. My contention is that they are deeper than many critics allow and are worthy of discussion.

> My personal view is that trying to justify murdering gay people

Case in point. In the ancient world homosexual expression was mostly rape and pederasty, obviously immoral and abusive sexual expressions. The ancients had a different view of survival than we do in the modern world, and they also had different worldview regarding the value of the community. It seems you are quick to judge (which is prejudice). Every society develops sexual taboos to regulate marriage practices, adultery, and unacceptable sexual practices. Though the restrictions vary from culture to culture, they are all designed to reflect the economic and moral values of their society. In Israelite culture the practice defile the people and negate the covenant.Sumerian and Akkadian cultures also designate conduct that is "detestable" to deity, whether incest, homosexuality, or adultery. The Hittites, Edomites, and Egyptians also had laws pertaining to sexual expression.

> drowning babies

Who's drowning babies? The only culture doing that in the Bible is the Egyptians, and God let's them know he doesn't approve.

> and condoning slavery is morally suspect

The Bible never condones slavery. It accepts its practice because slavery in the ancient world was debt slavery or corvee labor, not the chattel slavery of the later Greco-Roman world or the Colonial West. Slavery in the ancient Near East was much more like our employment (working to pay off a debt) or the CCC of 1933 (Roosevelt's plan of "work for the government").

> The only example of "proof" listed is the cloth, which is unreliable.

That's the only proof listed, but since it's casuistic law, the point is for the judge to gather evidence and not just make an assumption or follow an accusation. The law doesn't specify a bloody sheet (it's not apodictic [command] law), but it uses the bloody sheet as an example of the kind of evidence a judge might entertain while trying to determine guilt or innocence.

> Why is the only example God provided a useless test?

It's not a totally useless test. Some women do bleed when their hymen is punctured in first sex.

> Can you give me an example of other methods for proving virginity?

I don't have any. A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen,can have sex without rupturing the human, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet. But this is casuistic law, meaning that it was example that they were to use reason, testimony and any evidence to make their case. In other words, they dealt with it. The woman could still plead her case with her evidences. Communities were often small, and the truth could be determined. We understand what the text is for and what it's trying to tell us. The people are not stupid. The principles are solid: innocent until proved guilty, use of evidence and personal testimony, reasonable doubt, and varying punishments depending on the crime.

> It really doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical when the hypothetical example given is totally flawed

It's not totally flawed. After the wedding night it was customary for the bride’s parents to preserve the blood-stained sheet as proof of the girl's virginity. The duty of preserving evidence of the bride's pre-wedding chastity was intended as a safeguard against the slanders of a malicious or inconstant husband. It was used as evidence, but it wasn't the only evidence, and even if there was no bloody sheet didn't mean the girl was stoned to death.

> This still isn't understood worldwide today.

Be careful not to make a quantificational fallacy. Just because some cultures are primitive doesn't mean all cultures are or were primitive. And just because some cultures were barbaric doesn't mean all cultures were necessarily barbaric.

[Chill Out]

> In the ancient world homosexual expression was mostly rape and pederasty

I'm going to need sources with statistics on that claim if you want me to take it seriously. And even if that were true, there should be laws against rape/pederasty and not homosexuality. You went on to state that different cultures had different moral norms and views of survival and community. I didn't see a justification for murdering homosexuals in there though.

>Who's drowning babies?

I'm referring to the Flood, but I recognize some Christians don't believe the Flood literally happened. There is also the wholesale slaughter of children when the Israelites conquered a town.

> The Bible never condones slavery... slavery in the ancient world was debt slavery or corvee labor, not the chattel slavery of the later Greco-Roman world or the Colonial West. Slavery in the ancient Near East was much more like our employment

This only applies to taking fellow Israelite men as slaves. I'd suggest reading Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. You could sell your Israelite daughter and she would not be allowed to go free (Exodus 21:7). Foreigners could be bought and kept as slaves for life (Leviticus 25:44-46). The children of slaves would also become slaves (Exodus 21:4). It was legal to savagely beat your slaves as long as they didn't die (Exodus 21:21).

> It's not a totally useless test...

A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet.

In other words, virginity can result in either a bloody sheet or clean sheet and non-virginity can result in either a bloody sheet or clean sheet. Can you explain how to differentiate between a clean sheet resulting from virginity and a clean sheet resulting from non-virginity?

> The principles are solid: innocent until proved guilty...

Deut 22:21 "If, however... no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found... the men of her town shall stone her to death."
If she can't prove her virginity (her innocence), she is stoned. That's actually guilty until proven innocent.

> [The bloody sheet] was used as evidence, but it wasn't the only evidence...
> I don't have any [other methods of proving virginity].

I'll just leave your two statements next to each other here.

All of your arguments against the passage being read as-is can be seen as: "The inspired word of God is confusing if taken at face value and following it as it is written, without inserting our own caveats and qualifiers, would be a mistake."

Let's also consider this: If you or I were to write down one single example to be given to all mankind for how to determine whether a woman should be killed for her lack of virginity, we would say "Well, a bloody sheet is actually an unreliable indicator so I better leave that out and go with some better example." And you and I are just regular, fallible humans. I have higher expectations for an omniscient god.

[jimwalton]

> I'm going to need sources with statistics on that claim if you want me to take it seriously.

From http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html, we can see that homosexuality in the world of the ancient Near East was not totally pederastic, though that may have been a majority of it. It, along with heterosexual prostitution, was part of their pagan religious system, as it was in the days of the NT as well (notably, but not exclusively, Corinth). A third expression of homosexuality seems to have been homosexual relationships between consenting adults by choice. According to the research, the end of that was not a marriage relationship, or even an enduring one, but merely another way to express one’s affections.

It is in this cultural context that Leviticus was written, where God is defining his own holiness and making an appeal to the holiness of those who claim his name (Lev. 11.44-45). Chapters 18-22 are written to show that because of God's holy nature, there are many behaviors that break fellowship with Him. Homosexual behavior is one of them. It is "detestable". Why? There is no immediate explanation, but the tenor and teachings of the Pentateuch gives us clues. The lives of God's people are supposed to imitate and reflect the character and nature of God: that we must always be attentive to holiness, whether physical, ritual, or moral.

In Romans 1.24-28, Paul speaks of homosexual "indecency." Sarah Ruden, an expert is Greek and Roman literature (B.A. from Univ. of Michigan, M.A. at Johns Hopkins, PhD from Harvard, now a research fellow at Yale Divinity School) says, "For more than 300 years before [Paul] was born, first the Greeks and then the Romans had ruled his home city of Tarsus and made it as similar to the cities of southern Europe as they could. But however much of the Greco-Roman worldview Paul might have adopted, what he heard at home and in the synagogue would not have led him to tolerate homosexuality. Jewish teaching was clear: homosexual acts were an abomination.

"But another teaching mandated circumcision for all males in God’s covenant. Paul put this aside; Judaism would not always hand down what Christianity would practice. Perhaps, in the matter of homosexuality, what he saw as a boy influenced him more than his tradition did. Among the female prostitutes on the streets, or in the windows or doorways of brothels, were males, on average a lot younger. At any slave auction he found himself watching, there might be attractive boys his own age knocked down to local pimps at high prices, to the sound of jokes about how much they would have to endure during their brief careers in order to be worth it. A pious Jewish family, as Paul's probably was, would not have condoned sexual abuse of any of its slaves, but he would know from his non-Jewish friends that household slaves normally were less respected as outlets for bodily functions than were the household toilets, and that a sanctioned role of slave boys was anal sex with free adults.

"Flagrant pedophiles might have pestered him and his friends on the way to and from school, offered friendship, offered tutoring, offered athletic training, offered money or gifts. But adults he trusted would have told him that even any flirting could ruin his reputation, and at worst get him officially classed as a male prostitute, with the loss of all of his civic rights. After his conversion, as he preached what Jesus meant for human society, he wasn’t going to let anyone believe that it included any of this.

"The Roman poet Martial uses 'to be cut to pieces' as the ordinary term for 'to be the passive partner.' The Greeks and Romans thought that the active partner in homosexual intercourse used, humiliated, and physically and morally damaged the passive one. Heterosexual penetration could be harmless in the Christian community, in marriage; homosexual penetration could be harmless nowhere. There were no gay households; there were in fact no gay institutions or gay culture at all, in the sense of times or places in which it was mutually safe for men to have anal sex with one another.

"In 5th-century Athens (the gay paradise we hear of), one of the most common insults in comedy was 'having a loose anus,' meaning depraved—not just sexually, but generally.

"It was a system of ethics that locked people into this cruel regime, a regime which also included the erotic oppression of women. While Paul may seem to mention lesbianism, this was such a rare or little-noticed phenomenon in the ancient world that it is likely he instead means anal penetration of women by men. That did happen often, but men valued it less than penetration of boys: women were made to be penetrated anyway; a real man needed to transform an at least potentially active and powerful creature into a weak and inferior one.

"The Greeks and Romans even held homosexual rape to be divinely sanctioned.

"No wonder parents guarded their young sons doggedly. It was, for example, normal for a family of any standing to dedicate one slave to a son’s protection, especially on the otherwise unsupervised walk to and from school: this was the pedagogue, or 'child leader.' Since success with freeborn, citizen-class boys was rare, predators naturally turned to those with no protectors, young male slaves and prostitutes. Besides that of the pedagogue, another telling slave profession—perhaps only among Romans—was that of the deliciae ('pet') or concubines ('bedmate'), a slave boy whose main duty was passive anal sex with the master. The public acknowledged such a child's status, as well as his vulnerability to being retired at a young age. His retirement was not likely to be a happy one; he kept the stigma of passive sodomy, but he lost the protection of his close relationship to his master, while usually remaining bound to the same household and the other slaves with the accumulated grudges. They may have refused him, as he would have passed his 'boom,' even the status of a sexual plaything. (She continues her chapter with pages and pages of information.)

"Paul could have, like generations of Greek and Roman moralistic and cynical commentators, lit into passive homosexuality, into the victims. But in Romans 1 he makes no distinction between active and passive: the whole transaction is wrong. This is crucially indicated by his use of the Greek word for 'males,' arsenes, for everybody; he does not use the word for 'men.' The Classical and New Testament word for a socially acceptable, sexually functional man is aner. In traditional parlance, this could mean an active but never a passive homosexual. But Paul places on a par all the male participants in homosexual acts, emphasizing this in Romans 2.1 (which see), and clearly implying that they are all morally degraded and that they all become physically debilitated from the sex act with each other. Such effects were unheard of among the Greeks and Romans when it came to active homosexuals: these were thought only to draw their passive partners' moral and physical integrity into themselves.

"According to all of the evidence, Paul’s revolutionary message stuck. This may be in part because he told his audience a more resonant truth than that of sexual misconduct in itself. First look at what he immediately passes on to in Romans 1.28-2.1. I picture Paul flushed and sweating in his rage as he writes that everyone is responsible for what pederasty has made of society: especially those who, egging one another on in an insolent, boastful clique, damage others with active sodomy and then blame them. These acts are 'the very same things,' no matter who is doing what to whom. Compare the list of horrors in vv. 29ff to Gal. 5.16-21."

> I'm referring to the Flood, but I recognize some Christians don't believe the Flood literally happened.

I believe the Flood literally happened, but it wasn't global.

> There is also the wholesale slaughter of children when the Israelites conquered a town.

Actually there wasn't, but there isn't enough room on this post to go into it. It was warfare rhetoric, not what was actually done.

> This only applies to taking fellow Israelite men as slaves. I'd suggest reading Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25.

I've read them. Again, no room on this post. It would take the character limit all by itself.

> Dt. 22.21: If she can't prove her virginity (her innocence), she is stoned. That's actually guilty until proven innocent.

You've misread the text. Vv. 13-14 start off with a false and slanderous accusation. In v. 15 evidence is provided, and the truth starts to come out (16). A counter accusation of slander is offered (17). When the evidence is presented (17), the slanderous man with the false accusation is punished, and the girl's reputation is both protected and vindicated. If, however, there is no evidence or testimony to counter the accusation, then the girl is punished for her promiscuity.

> All of your arguments against the passage being read as-is can be seen as: "The inspired word of God is confusing if taken at face value and following it as it is written, without inserting our own caveats and qualifiers, would be a mistake."

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be satisfied to read the Bible superficially.

[Chill Out]

Can you tell me how you quantified that pederasty "may have been the majority" of homosexual relations in history? Because ancient sources show that ancient people also had biases against it (at least for the receiving party)? Do you think in the face of this social stigma, we should expect to see ancient sources from gay writers proudly professing their consensual love for other men? Less than a century ago in the U.S. homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder and they were often slandered as pederasts as you are now doing.

And of course none of this addresses gay women. Were lesbians primarily pederasts and rapists as well? At what point in history did gay people switch over from being primarily rapists and pederasts to being people in regular consensual relationships as we see today?

And you didn't provide a justification for killing gay people who aren't rapists/pederasts.

The rest of your post seems to just be saying "No, you're wrong," so I'll leave it alone.

[jimwalton]

> Can you tell me how you quantified that pederasty "may have been the majority" of homosexual relations in history?

Quantification is difficult. From my reading I gather that long-term, intimate homosexual relationships were unheard of in the ancient world. Particularly in Greco-Rome it was an expression of how to show power over another individual: whether slaves, children, women, or another man.

> Because ancient sources show that ancient people also had biases against it (at least for the receiving party)

In many cultures of the ancient Near East, homosexual expression was accepted. Each culture had some societal rules about it; the Israelites were one of the few to ban it altogether. In the ANE, it wasn't as much social stigma against it. It was common and expected practice. There's no evidence of which I'm aware of anyone writing or claiming that they wanted a long-term gay relationship. That doesn't seem to have been part of their culture. Mesopotamian scholar Jean Bottero writes that when the Mesopotamians write about sexual abilities and prowess, "We find not the slightest declaration of love, no effusion or sentiment or even tenderness. Such impulses of the heart … are suggested rather than openly expressed." If you're aware of such writing, I'd be more than glad to add it to my database of information on the subject.

For instance, from the Summa alu:

- If a man copulates with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers.
- If a man yearns to express his manhood while in prison and thus, like a male cult-prostitute, mating with men becomes his desire, he will experience evil.
- If a man copulates with an assinnu [a male cult-prostitute], trouble will leave him (?).
- If a man copulates with a gerseqqu [a male courtier, or royal attendant], worry will possess him for a whole year but will then leave him.
- If a man copulates with a house-born slave, a hard destiny will befall him.

That different kinds of homosexual relationships will occur is taken for granted. There doesn't seem to be any social stigma. what mattered was the role and status of the partner, especially the passive partner.

In the temples, Norman Sussman explains that "male and female prostitutes, serving temporarily or permanently and performing heterosexual, homosexual, oral-genital, bestial, and other forms of sexual activities, dispensed their [sexual] favors on behalf of the temple. The prostitute and the client acted as surrogates for the deities."

> And of course none of this addresses gay women. Were lesbians primarily pederasts and rapists as well?

You're right. Lesbianism doesn't really show up much of anywhere in ancient writings. It seems, from all we know, to have been a guy thing. One scholar writes that lesbian love is seldom mentioned because of the low social status of women in ancient times. Again, I'm glad to be corrected. I'm always after a better picture.

> At what point in history did gay people switch over from being primarily rapists and pederasts to being people in regular consensual relationships as we see today?

Good question. I don't know the answer.

> And you didn't provide a justification for killing gay people who aren't rapists/pederasts.

You're probably referring to Leviticus 20.13. I'll assume you're aware that many actions of the community, both sexual and not, were punishable by death in Lev. 20 (child sacrifice, cursing parents, sexual sin). Jacob Milgrom, Jewish scholar, writes that "The biblical ban on homosexual acts must be considered in the context of all other forbidden behaviors of Lev. 18 & 20. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that these regulations were binding only in Israel, but not in other countries. It is illegitimate to apply these prohibitions on a universal scale. However, it cannot be argued on the basis of perorations (18.1-4, 24-30; 20.22-26) that their purpose was solely to distinguish Israel from the nations. Note that lesbianism, though prevalent and known, was not banned."

Capital crimes in Lev. 20 are idolatry (which was perceived as religious prostitution), child sacrifice (perceived as murder), treating parents with contempt (perceived as an act of treason), and many various sexual sins (perceived as making the persons and the land unclean, and therefore a voiding of the covenant). Other sins resulted in being "cut off".

These sexual sins were labeled as "perversion" (v. 12) and "detestable", meaning they did not conform to the holy nature of God, nor did they contribute to the health, wholeness, and purity of the elect community. Our lives are supposed to reflect the character and nature of God. In Genesis 1.27 we are told that when God created "in his own image," the result was "male and female." Something about the differences between them, and yet them being one seem to be behind the meaning, possibly reflecting something about the Trinitarian nature of God: different, and yet one. The male and female complement each other physically, as well as spiritually, intellectually, and morally. There is something about heterosexuality and sexual differentiation that is "the image of God." Ultimately, we do not reflect God's image on our own, but in relationship and community, and that relationship is actually spelled out for us: male and female.

The ubiquitous image throughout Scripture of a lost relationship to God is a plethora of sexual metaphors, but primarily adultery and prostitution. Sexual "deviance" (anything other than a marriage relationship between a man and woman) is used as "Poster Boy #1" that something is wrong spiritually.

Notice that all bans here are against males. The text is talking about heterosexuals performing homosexual acts. The rationale here is to honor procreation. It’s about family and community, but also about purity before God.

The violation of sexual codes (adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality) is placed on a par with idolatry in this law code and thus requires the sentence of death. Both defile persons and the land and cannot be tolerated. Crimes of this nature are also punishable in Hammurabi's Code (adultery requires trial by ordeal in #129 and 132; rape is a capital crime in #130; incest is punished by exile in #154), the Middle Assyrian Laws (homosexuality punished by castration in #20), and the Hittite Laws (bestiality with pigs or dogs punished by death in #199). In the Hittite treaty between Shuppiluliuma and Huqqana, the latter is charged not to take his sister or cousin sexually because among the Hittites people are put to death for such behavior. Such inhibitions, however, were certainly not universal. In the Persian period, for instance, men were encouraged to marry their sisters, daughters, or mother as acts of piety. In Israelite practice, however, these were all believed to undermine the family which was the foundational element of Israelite society. To undermine the family was to undermine the covenant.