At a glance
- Leviticus 20:13 belongs to the Holiness Code, a collection of laws addressed to ancient Israel.
- The verse describes sexual conduct between males and assigns a capital penalty within that legal code.
- Jewish and Christian communities differ over its scope, enduring authority and relevance to modern relationships.
- The verse concerns a specific act; it does not use modern categories of sexual orientation or identity.
This verse closely parallels Leviticus 18:22, while adding a legal penalty. Reading the two passages together helps distinguish the stated prohibition from the judicial framework in which it appears.
Content note
This article discusses an ancient capital law and its later religious interpretation. It reports the text's subject without endorsing violence, criminalization or unequal treatment. The historical wording of individual translations is summarized rather than reproduced verbatim.
What the verse says
Across widely used English Bibles, Leviticus 20:13 is generally rendered as a prohibition involving two males. The verse labels the act prohibited and then assigns both participants a capital penalty under the legal system presented in the chapter.
The Hebrew wording is compact, so translators must make decisions about syntax and English equivalents. Older translations tend to use archaic expressions, while recent versions use more direct language. Their tone varies, but the central structure remains similar: identified conduct, a negative ritual or moral designation, and a legal consequence.
Older formal versions
The American Standard, Darby, King James, Webster and Young translations retain older English forms and closely follow Hebrew word order.
Modern formal versions
The English Standard, New American Standard, New King James and Revised Standard versions update the vocabulary while preserving a relatively literal structure.
Contemporary versions
The New International and New Living translations employ more current language and make some interpretive choices explicit.
Jewish-context editions
Versions emphasizing Hebrew names or Jewish context retain the same broad legal sequence but may choose different English terms for the prohibited act.
Ancient legal and literary context
Leviticus 20 is part of a larger body of instructions traditionally called the Holiness Code. It addresses worship, family relationships, community boundaries and penalties. The chapter presents Israel as a covenant community whose religious and civil rules are closely connected.
Capital penalties also appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures for a range of covenant offenses, including some ritual violations. This wider setting matters because most contemporary Jewish and Christian communities do not treat ancient Israel's entire judicial code as directly enforceable civil law.
The passage itself refers to male participants. It does not discuss female same-sex conduct, sexual orientation as an enduring personal characteristic, civil marriage, or the modern idea of a committed same-sex relationship. Whether broader conclusions can be drawn from it is one of the central interpretive disagreements.
Major interpretive approaches
Traditional prohibition
Many conservative Christian readers understand the verse as part of a broader biblical prohibition on sexual activity between people of the same sex. They commonly distinguish the stated moral rule from the ancient civil penalty, holding that the latter belonged to Israel's covenant government and is not a mandate for churches or modern states.
Historical and covenant reading
Other Christians emphasize that the verse belongs to a particular legal covenant. They argue that Christians do not apply many surrounding ritual and civil provisions as binding law, and that the text must therefore be interpreted through later Christian teachings and the wider biblical canon.
Context-specific reading
Some liberal and affirming interpreters contend that the prohibition concerns practices associated with the ancient cultural setting rather than every possible male same-sex relationship. Proposed settings include exploitative, status-based or religiously prohibited conduct. Scholars disagree about how strongly the Hebrew text supports any single narrow reconstruction.
Jewish interpretation
Jewish readings are also diverse. Traditional halakhic approaches treat the verse as a defined Torah prohibition, while progressive Jewish movements may understand its application through historical study, evolving legal interpretation, human dignity and contemporary knowledge about sexual orientation.
How the penalty is treated today
Mainstream Jewish and Christian bodies do not advocate implementing the verse's ancient capital provision. Readers who regard the underlying sexual prohibition as enduring generally separate it from the judicial penalty. Readers who see the whole rule as historically bounded reach the same practical conclusion by a different route.
Religious disagreement does not remove the need to protect people's safety and civil dignity. An ancient legal text can be studied seriously without using it to justify threats, violence or discriminatory treatment of LGBTQ+ people.
Questions for careful reading
- Is the interpreter treating Leviticus as ritual law, moral teaching, civil legislation, or a combination of these?
- How consistently are neighboring laws and penalties handled?
- Does the interpretation distinguish an ancient description of conduct from modern concepts of identity and relationship?
- What role do later Jewish or Christian interpretive traditions play?
- Is a theological conclusion being separated from the question of civil law and equal protection?
Frequently asked questions
Is Leviticus 20:13 identical to Leviticus 18:22?
The description of the prohibited conduct is closely parallel. Leviticus 20:13 additionally states the judicial penalty. See the site's discussion of Leviticus 18:22.
Does the verse use a modern term for sexual orientation?
No. Its language concerns an act within an ancient legal framework. Modern identity categories developed in a very different historical setting.
Does the passage specifically discuss women?
No. The grammatical wording refers to males. Broader applications arise from theological interpretation rather than an explicit reference in this verse.
Do Christians generally apply the capital penalty?
No. Even traditions that regard the prohibition as morally continuing generally understand ancient Israel's civil penalty as nonbinding for the church and modern government.
Why do interpretations differ so widely?
Readers disagree about covenant law, Hebrew vocabulary, ancient social practices, the relationship between biblical testaments and how scripture applies to modern categories.
Sources and further context
- Leviticus 18–20 in major formal, literal and contemporary English Bible translations.
- Historical reporting that compared conservative and liberal theological approaches to biblical passages concerning same-sex conduct.
- Denominational and academic discussions of the Holiness Code, covenant law and contemporary biblical interpretation.
Editorial note: Historical quotations and translation wording have been paraphrased for concise, respectful archive reading. Readers comparing exact wording should consult the relevant published Bible editions.