What is the context?
The text gives severe penalties for cursing parents, adultery, several forbidden family relationships, intercourse between males, and sexual relations with animals. The cases correspond to obligations and boundaries stated earlier. The instruction about adultery expressly names both the man and the woman.
The repeated statement about blood being on the offenders describes liability in these laws. It is not an account of a church’s disciplinary procedure. Distinguishing the stated ancient penalty from questions about present moral teaching is necessary to explain the Christian disagreements accurately.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley distinguishes willing participation from a person being forced, appealing to Deuteronomy 22. On intercourse between males, the Catholic Catechism 2357–2359 retains the moral prohibition while also requiring respectful treatment of people. The 2012 Episcopal commission report, pages 207–208, instead argues that the Levitical setting does not settle the standing of faithful same-sex partnerships today.
The Westminster Confession 19.4 and 24.1 illustrates another distinction: it retains marriage between one man and one woman while saying Israel’s judicial laws ended with that political order. Agreement about a moral boundary therefore does not by itself mean agreement that the chapter’s civil penalty continues.
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.