Leviticus 20:13 and the Faithful Rendering of Male Same-Sex Intercourse: Upholding Literal Integrity and Covenant Clarity

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Translation Philosophy: Fidelity Over Cultural Accommodation

The challenge of faithfully translating Leviticus 20:13 lies in resisting the modern tendency to either soften the text’s language for cultural palatability or impose contemporary categories that the ancient Hebrew never used. The Hebrew text communicates with unapologetic directness, employing standard euphemistic phrasing that leaves no ambiguity about the act being prohibited. Translators have a responsibility to retain the clear and straightforward nature of the original wording, not revise the text’s tone to suit modern sensibilities or social debates.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, through rigorous lexical, grammatical, contextual, and theological analysis, why a literal rendering of Leviticus 20:13 best preserves the intent of the original inspired authors. The act described is an action, not an identity category. The translation must remain faithful to the act-focused nature of the Hebrew and avoid the anachronistic imposition of modern identity language such as “homosexuality,” which misrepresents the intent of the Holiness Code.

Hebrew Text of Leviticus 20:13

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם

Transliterated:
wəʾîš ʾăšer yiškab ʾet-zākār miškəbê ʾiššâ tôʿēbâ ʿāśû šənêhem môt yûmātû dəmêhem bām

Literal Translation:
“And a man who lies with a male as the lyings of a woman, both of them have committed a detestable thing; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Lexical Analysis

The key terms central to the translation of Leviticus 20:13 are:

Šākab (שָׁכַב):
The verb means “to lie down,” and in contexts of sexual behavior, it functions as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Genesis 19:33-35; Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 22:22). The verb construction with the direct object marker אֶת (ʾet) identifies the male partner as the object of the sexual action. “Lies with” maintains this structure clearly and faithfully.

Zākār (זָכָר):
Simply and unequivocally “male.” This term is used of both human males and male animals but here, given the context of sexual laws, it refers to human males. Its pairing with אִשָּׁה (ʾiššâ, “woman”) confirms its human referent.

Miškəbê ʾiššâ (מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה):
This plural construct phrase literally means “the lyings of a woman.” It is an idiomatic way to refer to sexual intercourse with a woman. The plural construct emphasizes the sexual nature of the action without needing to specify acts graphically. Translating this phrase as “as one lies with a woman” or “as with a woman” correctly captures the idiom without over-interpreting or softening it.

Tôʿēbâ (תּוֹעֵבָה):
This term is best translated as “detestable thing” or “abomination.” It signifies an act that is morally and religiously abhorrent within the covenant framework. The same term is used in Leviticus 18:22 for this same prohibition and appears frequently to describe violations of cultic purity or moral integrity (Deuteronomy 7:25; Proverbs 6:16).

Môt yûmātû (מוֹת יוּמָתוּ):
This phrase means “they shall surely be put to death.” It employs the infinitive absolute construction, intensifying the certainty of the death penalty. There is no ambiguity in the Hebrew regarding the severity of the prescribed punishment.

Dəmêhem bām (דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם):
Literally, “their blood is upon them.” This idiom indicates personal culpability, emphasizing that the responsibility for the death penalty lies with the offenders themselves.

Grammatical and Syntactical Considerations

The Hebrew construction uses the direct object marker אֶת (ʾet) rather than עִם (ʿim, “with”), marking the male partner as the direct object of the verb “lies.” This strengthens the statement’s clarity and underscores the nature of the act. Miškəbê ʾiššâ, being a plural construct, operates as a comparative phrase, requiring a translation like “as the lyings of a woman” to preserve its idiomatic force.

Any rendering that drops these grammatical features in favor of modern phrasing such as “has sexual relations” or “practices homosexuality” changes both the tone and the focus of the verse. The Hebrew text speaks directly of the act itself, not an abstract category or lifestyle.

Contextual Role within the Holiness Code

Leviticus 18–20 forms a cohesive legal unit known as the Holiness Code, which seeks to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations by prescribing both ritual and moral purity. The prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery, and same-sex intercourse are part of this covenantal demand for holiness, reflecting Jehovah’s own holiness (Leviticus 19:2).

In Leviticus 18:22, the act is first prohibited:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is a detestable thing.”

Leviticus 20:13, by prescribing the penalty for the act, reinforces the gravity of the prohibition. This consistency in language between chapter 18 and chapter 20 confirms that the focus is the act itself, not an identity or inclination.

Theological and Ethical Significance

The text does not speak to orientation, inclination, or desire. It speaks of a specific prohibited act. The moral judgment (tôʿēbâ) and the prescribed penalty (môt yûmātû) are attached to the behavior, not to a psychological condition or social identity. To translate the text using terms like “homosexuality” or “homosexual act” introduces modern concepts that were foreign to the biblical worldview.

The concept of “homosexuality” as an identity did not exist in the ancient world. The prohibition targets the behavior as a violation of covenantal sexual ethics. Rendering the text with modern identity labels projects a framework onto the ancient text that it neither assumes nor conveys.

Problems with Non-Literal Renderings

“Has sexual relations” (NIV):
This phrase softens the directness of the Hebrew euphemism “lies with.” While technically accurate in meaning, it diminishes the text’s blunt tone, which is important for the force of the Holiness Code’s legal prescriptions.

“Practices homosexuality” (NLT):
This is an interpretive gloss, not a translation. It replaces the act-focused language with a modern identity-based category. This is not faithful to the text’s original language, tone, or cultural setting. It recasts an act into a lifestyle or practice category, which is foreign to the Hebrew worldview and the text’s grammatical structure.

“Homosexual act”:
Though sometimes used in conservative circles to avoid the identity category, this phrase still introduces terminology absent from the Hebrew text. It oversimplifies the description and risks ideological framing rather than lexical faithfulness.

Evaluating Major English Translations

The following translations adhere most closely to the Hebrew:

UASV: “If a man lies with a male as one lies down with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable thing; they shall surely be put to death; their own blood is upon them.”

ESV: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

NASB (1995/2020): “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their guilt is upon them.”

LEB: “And if a man lies with a male as lying with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is on them.”

CSB: “If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable act. They must be put to death; their death is their own fault.”

These translations avoid modern rephrasing, maintain the directness of the Hebrew idiom, and preserve the gravity of the moral condemnation. They are theologically sound, lexically accurate, and culturally faithful to the text’s original context.

Translations that deviate from the literal language:

NIV (partially right): “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

NLT (wrong): “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

The NIV’s choice of “has sexual relations” reduces the bluntness of “lies with,” while the NLT’s introduction of “practices homosexuality” outright replaces the text’s direct description with a modern identity label.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Literal Fidelity

Leviticus 20:13 should be translated as literally as possible to retain its grammatical structure, lexical meaning, cultural specificity, and theological weight. Attempts to soften or modernize the terminology diminish the clarity of the Holiness Code and risk distorting the covenantal framework in which these commands were given.

The verse speaks directly of a prohibited action, not an abstract category of people. The act is described with euphemistic bluntness, comparative idiom, and moral condemnation—all of which must remain intact in faithful translation. Rendering the verse as “lies with a male as with a woman” best preserves the inspired text’s authority and original intent.

You May Also Enjoy

Faithful Rendering of tohû wābohû in Genesis 1:2: Literal Precision vs. Interpretive Drift

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).