The passage also shows a principle about worship gifts: a gift’s “religious intention” does not automatically make it acceptable; the source of the money matters. The text uses strong moral language (“abomination”) to describe presenting these particular payments at Yahweh’s house.

Where interpretation differs

What “sodomite” refers to (v. 17). Some read it as a general reference to male same-sex practice. Others read it more narrowly as a specific role tied to sexual commerce (a male prostitute) or to sex linked with shrine settings. The verse pairs a female term (“prostitute”) with a male counterpart, which is why many readers think both terms point toward sexual commerce, but the English label “sodomite” can push readers toward a broader idea than the immediate parallel suggests.

What “wages of a dog” means (v. 18). Some take it as a blunt insult for male prostitution (a “dog” as a term of contempt), making it parallel to “hire of a prostitute.” Others think it is a separate category: either a coded phrase for some other sexual payment, or (less commonly) literal earnings connected to dogs. The text itself does not explain the phrase, but it clearly classifies it with prostitution money as unfit for the sanctuary.

How far the money-ban extends. Everyone agrees the explicit command targets bringing these funds “into the house of Yahweh… for any vow.” Some infer a broader moral judgment about all use of such income. Others keep the claim narrower: the passage is specifically about what may be used as a worship offering, not a complete statement about every possible financial or social scenario.

Why the disagreement exists The main uncertainties come from translation and ancient idiom. The terms rendered “sodomite” and “wages of a dog” are not self-explaining in English, and the passage gives no additional description beyond placing them in parallel with prostitution and banning their use at Yahweh’s house. Readers also weigh context differently: some emphasize the immediate pairing and sanctuary focus; others connect the wording to wider biblical themes about sexual behavior.

What this passage clearly contributes The text explicitly claims (1) Israel is not to include recognized roles of prostitution among its people (women and men), (2) prostitution earnings must not be presented at Yahweh’s house, (3) the same ban applies to “wages of a dog,” and (4) even a vow does not make such money acceptable. A theological inference many draw—while keeping it distinct from the explicit claim—is that worship is meant to reflect Yahweh’s standards, so certain sources of money are treated as incompatible with offerings regardless of the giver’s stated purpose. Deuteronomy 23:17–18

yahweh (Yah·weh)