Sexual Laws of Leviticus 18

The sexual laws of Leviticus 18 have long been puzzling on a couple of levels. The logic of the arrangement of the laws is difficult to discern; the gaps in the laws seems inexplicable (no prohibition, for instance, of father-daughter incest); and the question of how obedience to these laws fulfills the purpose of distinguishing Israel from the nations is difficult to answer because, with some exceptions, the rules of consanguinity in Leviticus 18 do not diverge significantly from the rules in adjoining cultures (though certain prohibitions would touch on certain practices of surrounding nations ?Ebrother-sister incest among Egyptians, or sodomy practiced in various ANE cultures).

Employing Mary Douglas’s anthropological categories, Doug C. Mohrmann attempts to address these questions in a helpful article in the September 2004 issue of JSOT . He first notes the “frame” surrounding the prohibitions of Leviticus 18: Verses 1-5 and 23-30 provide a set of “external boundaries” around Israel. Sexual laws “were to contribute to Israel’s identity vis-a-vis her neighbors. If an alien was admitted into the culture, they would only be allowed on the condition that they must not violate these external boundaries (18.26; 20.2). Penalties for violations were personal ?Edeath (20.2, 9-16) ?Eand national ?Eforfeiture of the land (18:25), which leads to cultural death. Within the context of the exodus narrative, Israel is here portrayed as entering a physical boundary that, by God’s design, had a cultural boundary invisibly superimposed upon it.”

The laws within the frame (contained in 18:6-23) present internal boundaries, and are arranged, Mohrmann argues, in a set of concentric circles. Verses 6-17 are concerned with violations of sexual boundaries within the family; verses 18-20 with boundaries regarding the clan (verse 18 is concerned not with a man’s relation with his own family, but with his relation with the family of his wife); and verses 21-23 with boundaries between Israel and the Gentiles. This matches other tripartite structures in Leviticus, most obviously the tabernacle. This makes prima facie sense, since the language of “drawing near” (Heb, QRB) in Leviticus 18 is taken from the “drawing near” (QRB, QORBAN) to the tabernacle that is described in Leviticus 1. I’m not certain of all of Mohrmann’s conclusions, and I am not sure that he fully answers the questions he poses, but the basic scheme makes a lot of sense.

In an appendix to his article, Mohrmann discusses Leviticus 18:5. He argues that the plural command and the wider context require us to take 18:5b as a reference to the whole nation. “The man” (HA-ADAM) is “everyone, a collective to represent Israel.” The people, the “humanity” that keeps these laws shall live. There is a clear practical side to this, because a people that ignores the rules of consanguinity will be economically and socially confused, precisely because it is sexually confused. In any case, the idea that Leviticus 18:5 has a collective thrust may hold some important implications for Paul’s use of this passage in Romans and Galatians.