Leviticus, Bestiality, and Pedophilia

Returning the Challenge—Leviticus, Bestiality, and Pedophilia

Those who propose that we no longer consider the Leviticus prohibitions of homosexuality as binding must tell us what is to be done with the rest of the book. 

They are left in the inconsistent position of either rejecting it all (which Jesus did not do, as seen in Matthew 22:39—Jesus citing Leviticus 19:18) or revealing their true colors and showing their own subjectively selective approach to biblical interpretation. We can discern what is permanent and what is temporary in God’s Word. 

If God has not repealed His Law at any given point, His Law stands, which poses a problem for those advocating the acceptability of homosexuality with the Bible, for they must answer why bestiality and pedophilia are moral evils. 

Such practices are sinful because God declares them so. Specifically, bestiality is condemned in Leviticus 18:23, just one verse after the first Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality, and yet nowhere else outside of the Law of Moses is bestiality mentioned (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15; Deuteronomy 27:21). Recognizing that the Pentateuch was originally delivered to Israel, is the prohibition against intimacy with a beast applicable today to persons outside of Israel? Why is bestiality wrong today?

L. William Countryman has attempted an answer to this question. As is typical with like interpreters, a complex flurry of suggestions are offered, perhaps aimed at giving the impression that a number of possible answers exist. 

Countryman, after noting the close proximity of the prohibitions against homosexuality in 18:22 and bestiality in 18:23, suggests these “may have been connected only as examples of ‘confusion’ or as relatively rare or unusual violations of purity in contrast to the more everyday problems occasioned by marriage and family life.” 

Confusion, indeed. As noted earlier, Countryman has taught that purity concerns in the book of Leviticus are simply a matter of cultural taste and toleration, “like snails or slugs on a dinner plate.” It is interesting, also, that Countryman nowhere denounces the practice of bestiality; it is just assumed to be immoral.

More than mere cultural notions of impurity are connected with bestiality, so Countryman offers another possible explanation. Again, due to the close proximity of homosexuality and bestiality in the text of the Bible, he writes, “They may have shared another feature, an association with idolatry.” He notes how bestiality also is condemned in the book of Exodus and that this prohibition is connected with sorcery and idolatry (Exodus 22:18–22).

Countryman takes these three practices—homosexuality, bestiality, and sorcery—and concludes that they may be wrong because of their connection with idolatry: “The theme that links the three elements is their association with non-Israelite cultus (i.e., religious practice).… The author may well have regarded both homosexual acts and bestiality as tainted with idolatry.”

The refutation of it is actually quite simple. 

• Simply remove the idolatry and religious (“cultus”) aspects from the practice, and then ask if the behavior is acceptable. 
• Remove the idolatry from the sorcery: does it become moral? 
• Remove the idolatry from bestiality; consider it to be practiced in a “non-religious” way. 

Does that make it acceptable before God? We can take the same approach to adultery or prostitution. Do these practices become acceptable when they are practiced non-religiously, away from the temple? 

The answers are obvious: God condemns them in the temple and in the town, in the church and in society. Whatever God condemns, whatever He prohibits, is prohibited because it is contrary to His perfect holiness. To practice sins in a religious context—to add idolatry to certain sins—only compounds the sin.

Another disturbing topic to consider in this regard is pedophilia. We present this topic because of the similarity of argumentation that can be used to justify sexual relations with a child as with those that are being offered to justify homosexuality.

Let us be perfectly clear, we are not accusing homosexuals of being child molesters. On the contrary, we wish to highlight the inconsistency of a homosexual’s adherence to a line of argumentation that many of them would find repugnant when used by those who wish to support pedophilia.

Though we strenuously disagree, many homosexuals will argue that the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality and that, therefore, homosexuality must be a biblically acceptable lifestyle today. 

How does this line of reasoning stand up when it comes to pedophilia? Where is the verse that condemns it? The Bible unquestioningly condemns incest (Leviticus 18), and that would include the child members of one’s own family. So, as far as the biblical prohibition of incest is concerned, pedophilia is prohibited in one’s own family. But what about the practice of pedophilia with someone who does not belong to your family? Would this form of pedophilia be acceptable?

Most people (we hope) would say that this practice is not acceptable; however, we must ask, where is the Bible verse that prohibits this practice of child intimacy? If it doesn’t exist, then what is to prevent this horrid practice? 

This uncomfortable reasoning is precisely the problem for those claiming that the Bible does not condemn or prohibit homosexuality. They claim that the Bible does not provide a single verse that prohibits the practice, so it must be acceptable. This type of faulty reasoning is a slippery slope into hell. Such is the outcome of the attempt to render Leviticus obsolete.


White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 76–79). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.