Leviticus 18:19 · Bible study
Leviticus 18:19 Commentary: Impurity and Sexual Holiness
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine Leviticus 18:19's prohibition on sex during menstruation: Is it moral or ceremonial?
Research Summary
- Meaning: Prohibits sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, as part of Israel's purity code.
- Key words: niddah (menstruous impurity), tum'ah (uncleanness), qarav (approach/draw near), ervah (nakedness/shame).
- Main debate: Whether this is a timeless moral law or a ceremonial regulation fulfilled in Christ.
- Theological theme: God's call to holiness extends to the most intimate areas of life; boundaries protect the sacred.
- Best use: Teaching on the purpose of Old Testament purity laws, the sanctity of the body, and the continuity of moral principles under the new covenant.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
You must not approach a woman to have sexual relations with her during her menstrual period.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“‘You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
KJV King James Version 1769
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`And unto a woman in the separation of her uncleanness thou dost not draw near to uncover her nakedness.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And thou shalt not approach a woman in the separation of her uncleanness to uncover her nakedness.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers: neither shalt thou uncover her nakedness.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y no llegarás á la mujer en el apartamiento de su inmundicia, para descubrir su desnudez.
E não chegarás à mulher na separação de sua impureza, para descobrir sua nudez.
Tu ne t’ approcheras point d’ une femme pendant son impureté menstruelle, pour découvrir sa nudité.
Du sollst nicht zum Weibe gehen, solange sie ihre Krankheit hat, in ihrer Unreinigkeit ihre Blöße aufzudecken.
Ook zult gij tot de vrouw in de afzondering van haar onreinigheid niet naderen, om haar schaamte te ontdekken.
Non t’accosterai a donna per scoprir la sua nudità mentre è impura a motivo dei suoi corsi.
Do niewiasty, gdy jest w odłączeniu nieczystości, nie przystępuj, abyś odkrył sromotę jej.
И к жене во время очищения нечистот ее не приближайся, чтоб открыть наготу ее.
「女人 行經 不潔淨的時候，不可 露 她的下體，與她 親近。
And you may not go near a woman or have sex relations with her when she is unclean, at her regular time.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 18:19
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Leviticus 18:19 prohibits sexual relations during a woman's menstrual period. Gill notes the penalty was severe, both parties were to be cut off from the people (Leviticus 20:18). Keil and Delitzsch place the verse among prohibitions against unchastity and unnatural crimes, linking it to the broader impurity system of Leviticus 12 and 15. Matthew Henry classifies it under "Laws against Iniquity" aimed at preserving the honour of the marriage bed. Wesley argues the prohibition is not merely ceremonial but also moral, since it appears alongside sins like adultery and child sacrifice, and is cited in Ezekiel 18:6 as evidence of righteousness. The Geneva Bible and Adam Clarke treat it as a straightforward rule of separation during uncleanness. Though they differ on whether the command is permanent or fulfilled in Christ, all see it as a serious boundary within God's call to holiness.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Ceremonial only: The law belongs to the purity system of Leviticus, which Hebrews 9:13-14 says is fulfilled in Christ. Acts 15 does not include this among requirements for Gentiles.
- Moral law, still binding: Wesley argues it is listed among sins in Ezekiel 18:6, alongside adultery and idolatry. The penalty of being cut off suggests a moral, not merely ritual, offense.
- Principle of respect: The specific command is part of the old covenant, but the principle of honoring bodily boundaries and considering one's spouse applies perpetually (1 Cor 7:5).
What is clear: The verse prohibits sexual relations during a woman's menstrual period and was part of Israel's holiness code with serious consequences.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability today (moral vs ceremonial) | The verse forbids sex during menstruation in the context of OT Israel. | Some Christians (e.g., Wesley) see it as a perpetual moral law; others view it as part of the ceremonial law that Christ fulfilled (Heb 9:13-14). |
| Relationship to the New Testament | The NT upholds the call to sexual purity and self-control in marriage (1 Cor 7:5). | Whether the specific prohibition is carried over is debated. Some point to Acts 15 (no mention of this law) as evidence it is not binding; others see it as an expression of love and consideration. |
| Underlying principle | God's people are called to distinctiveness and reverence for bodily life. | Is the principle about avoiding ritual impurity, or about respecting bodily functions and the sanctity of blood? Different traditions emphasize different aspects. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Leviticus 18 stands at the heart of the Holiness Code (chapters 17, 26), a collection of laws given to Israel after the exodus. The chapter opens with God commanding the people not to follow the practices of Egypt or Canaan (v. 3). The surrounding verses list incest, adultery, child sacrifice to Molech, homosexuality, and bestiality, each described as an abomination. Verse 19 fits into this catalogue of sexual boundaries.
In ancient Israel, bodily discharges caused ritual impurity (Leviticus 15). A woman's menstrual flow made her unclean for seven days (Leviticus 15:19). Anyone who touched her or the bed she lay on became unclean. The purpose was not to shame women but to teach reverence for life and the boundaries of holiness. Blood represented life (Leviticus 17:11), and its loss required separation from the sanctuary and from intimate contact.
Intercourse during menstruation was not just an individual sin; it defiled the land and risked national exile (vv. 25, 28). The penalties were severe: both the man and woman were to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18). This underscores the high stakes of sexual purity in a community called to be holy as God is holy. The prohibition also distinguished Israel from surrounding nations, where such practices may have been common or even part of fertility rites.
Understanding this context helps modern readers see that the law addressed real spiritual dangers, treating the body with carelessness, ignoring the rhythms of creation, and blurring the line between holy and common. It also raises the question of how such laws apply after Christ's fulfillment of the ceremonial system.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Leviticus 18:19. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts.
Reception History
Ancient Jewish tradition (Mishnah Niddah) expanded the laws of menstrual impurity, creating detailed regulations for separation. Early Christian interpreters differed: some, like Tertullian, saw the law as abrogated; others, like John Chrysostom, emphasized the moral principle of self-control. During the Reformation, Calvin and Luther viewed it as part of the ceremonial law, not binding on Christians. Wesley disagreed, arguing the verse is listed among moral sins in Ezekiel 18:6 and therefore remains in force. Modern evangelical scholarship often distinguishes the ceremonial form from the enduring principle of respect for bodily boundaries, while still others apply the literal command to Christian marriage as a matter of conscience.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- The Context of Holiness: Leviticus 18:19 is not an isolated rule but part of a larger pattern of sexual ethics that separates God's people from the nations.
- The Principle of Respect: The prohibition teaches that intimacy has boundaries, even within marriage. Physical conditions affect the appropriate timing of sexual relations.
- The Question of Application: Christians differ on whether this command is morally binding today. Some see it as ceremonial and fulfilled in Christ; others see a timeless principle of honoring bodily processes and the sanctity of life.
Five-Point Outline
- God's Design for Holiness: The whole chapter calls Israel to be distinct from Egypt and Canaan (v. 3). Sexual practices reflect the community's relationship with God.
- The Seriousness of Uncleanness: The penalty of being cut off (Leviticus 20:18) shows that this is not a minor infraction. Impurity affects both individuals and the land.
- Blood and Life: Menstrual blood symbolizes the possibility of life. The law treats it with reverence, not shame.
- Marriage as a Covenant of Consideration: The command implies that husbands must respect their wives' bodies and natural cycles, not treat them as objects always available.
- Christ's Fulfillment and Our Freedom: Hebrews 9:13-14 says the blood of Christ cleanses our conscience from dead works. While ceremonial purity laws are fulfilled, the underlying call to holy love and self-control remains.
Illustration Hooks
- A construction site has yellow caution tape around a hazardous area. The tape isn't there to spoil the view but to protect life. God's purity laws are caution tape for our good.
- A wedding ring symbolizes commitment, but even in marriage, intimacy has seasons and rhythms. A good farmer doesn't harvest when the field is flooded; he waits for the right time.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- Is this law still relevant for Christians today, or did Jesus set it aside?
- What does this verse teach about how men and women should treat each other in marriage?
- How do we talk about purity without creating shame around normal bodily functions?
Leading a Discussion
This verse addresses a specific purity regulation in ancient Israel. As you read it, notice where it sits, among prohibitions of incest, adultery, homosexuality, and child sacrifice. That placement tells us something about how seriously God takes the boundaries of sexual intimacy.
Discussion Questions
- Observation: What does Leviticus 18:19 actually forbid? To whom is it addressed? (Look at the surrounding verses.)
- Interpretation: Why do you think this law appears in the same chapter as laws against adultery and Molech worship? What does that tell you about its significance?
- Cross-Reference: Read Leviticus 20:18. What is the consequence for breaking this law? How does that compare to the penalties for other sexual sins in this chapter?
- Interpretation: Wesley argued this is a moral law, not just ceremonial, because Ezekiel 18:6 lists it among righteous deeds. Others see it as fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 9:13-14). How do we decide which Old Testament laws still apply?
- Application: What principles about marriage, sexuality, and bodily respect can we draw from this verse, even if we don't keep the literal regulation?
- Application: How does this passage help us think about the purpose of purity? Is it about avoiding dirt or about honoring God and each other?
- Challenge: In what areas of life do we need better boundaries, even within relationships that are otherwise healthy?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 12:2 | “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean. |
| Leviticus 15:19 | “‘If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days. Whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. |
| Leviticus 15:24 | “‘If any man lies with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed he lies on shall be unclean. |
| Leviticus 20:18 | “‘If a man lies with a woman having her monthly period, and uncovers her nakedness, he has made her fountain naked, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. |
| Ezekiel 18:6 | and has not eaten on the mountains, hasn’t lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hasn’t defiled his neighbor’s wife, hasn’t come near a woman in her impurity, |
| Ezekiel 22:10 | In you have they uncovered their fathers’ nakedness. In you have they humbled her who was unclean in her impurity. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
6 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke offers no new comment on this verse. He simply directs the reader to his earlier note on the law of a woman's separation for the explanation.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses that sexual relations with a woman are forbidden for the entire duration of her menstrual separation. The phrase "put apart" marks a clear boundary: the prohibition holds as long as she remains in that state of uncleanness, not only for a part of it.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses that this command forbids a man from approaching even his own wife during her monthly uncleanness, not just other women. He calls it a serious sin, citing the seven-day separation period and the severe penalty of being cut off from the people for violating it.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch draws a careful distinction: the phrase “passing through the fire to Molech” does not necessarily mean slaughtering and burning children. They argue it originally described a rite of purification or fire-baptism, a consecration without sacrifice, citing ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry sees these laws as falling into two groups: those protecting the honor of the marriage bed from misuse or invasion by adultery, and the command against the most unnatural idolatry of sacrificing children to Molech. Such sins defile the land and provoke God's judgment.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley insists this prohibition is not merely ceremonial but moral, since Ezekiel lists it among gross sins. He argues it applies even to a man's own wife and remains binding under the gospel, not just the Old Testament law.