Verse 5

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them--A special blessing was promised to the Israelites on condition of their obedience to the divine law; and this promise was remarkably verified at particular eras of their history, when pure and undefiled religion prevailed among them, in the public prosperity and domestic happiness enjoyed by them as a people. Obedience to the divine law always, indeed, ensures temporal advantages; and this, doubtless, was the primary meaning of the words, "which if a man do, he shall live in them." But that they had a higher reference to spiritual life is evident from the application made of them by our Lord (Luk 10:28) and the apostle (Rom 10:2).

Verse 6

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him--Very great laxity prevailed amongst the Egyptians in their sentiments and practice about the conjugal relation, as they not only openly sanctioned marriages between brothers and sisters, but even between parents and children. Such incestuous alliances Moses wisely prohibited, and his laws form the basis upon which the marriage regulations of this and other Christian nations are chiefly founded. This verse contains a general summary of all the particular prohibitions; and the forbidden intercourse is pointed out by the phrase, "to approach to." In the specified prohibitions that follow, all of which are included in this general summary, the prohibited familiarity is indicated by the phrases, to "uncover the nakedness" [Lev 18:12-17], to "take" [Lev 18:17-18], and to "lie with" [Lev 18:22-23]. The phrase in this sixth verse, therefore, has the same identical meaning with each of the other three, and the marriages in reference to which it is used are those of consanguinity or too close affinity, amounting to incestuous connections.

Verse 18

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her--The original is rendered in the Margin, "neither shalt thou take one wife to another to vex her," and two different and opposite interpretations have been put upon this passage. The marginal construction involves an express prohibition of polygamy; and, indeed, there can be no doubt that the practice of having more wives than one is directly contrary to the divine will. It was prohibited by the original law of marriage, and no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical code can be discovered, although Moses--from "the hardness of their hearts" [Mat 19:8; Mar 10:5] --tolerated it in the people of a rude and early age. The second interpretation forms the ground upon which the "vexed question" has been raised in our times respecting the lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Whatever arguments may be used to prove the unlawfulness or inexpediency of such a matrimonial relation, the passage under consideration cannot, on a sound basis of criticism, be enlisted in the service; for the crimes with which it is here associated warrant the conclusion that it points not to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but with a sister in the wife's lifetime, a practice common among the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, and others.

Verse 21

thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, &c.--Molech, or Moloch, which signifies "king," was the idol of the Ammonites. His statue was of brass, and rested on a pedestal or throne of the same metal. His head, resembling that of a calf, was adorned with a crown, and his arms were extended in the attitude of embracing those who approached him. His devotees dedicated their children to him; and when this was to be done, they heated the statue to a high pitch of intensity by a fire within, and then the infants were either shaken over the flames, or passed through the ignited arms, by way of lustration to ensure the favor of the pretended deity. The fire-worshippers asserted that all children who did not undergo this purifying process would die in infancy; and the influence of this Zabian superstition was still so extensively prevalent in the days of Moses, that the divine lawgiver judged it necessary to prohibit it by an express statute. neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God--by giving it to false or pretended divinities; or, perhaps, from this precept standing in close connection with the worship of Molech, the meaning rather is, Do not, by devoting your children to him, give foreigners occasion to blaspheme the name of your God as a cruel and sanguinary deity, who demands the sacrifice of human victims, and who encourages cruelty in his votaries.

Verse 24

Defile not yourselves in any of these things--In the preceding verses seventeen express cases of incest are enumerated; comprehending eleven of affinity [Lev 18:7-16], and six of consanguinity [Lev 18:17-20], together with some criminal enormities of an aggravated and unnatural character. In such prohibitions it was necessary for the instruction of a people low in the scale of moral perception, that the enumeration should be very specific as well as minute; and then, on completing it, the divine lawgiver announces his own views of these crimes, without any exception or modification, in the remarkable terms employed in this verse. in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you, &c.--Ancient history gives many appalling proofs that the enormous vices described in this chapter were very prevalent, nay, were regularly practised from religious motives in the temples of Egypt and the groves of Canaan; and it was these gigantic social disorders that occasioned the expulsion, of which the Israelites were, in the hands of a righteous and retributive Providence, the appointed instruments (Gen 15:16). The strongly figurative language of "the land itself vomiting out her inhabitants" [Lev 18:25], shows the hopeless depth of their moral corruption.

Verse 25

therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants--The Canaanites, as enormous and incorrigible sinners, were to be exterminated; and this extermination was manifestly a judicial punishment inflicted by a ruler whose laws had been grossly and perseveringly outraged. But before a law can be disobeyed, it must have been previously in existence; and hence a law, prohibiting all the horrid crimes enumerated above--a law obligatory upon the Canaanites as well as other nations--was already known and in force before the Levitical law of incest was promulgated. Some general Iaw, then, prohibiting these crimes must have been published to mankind at a very early period of the world's history; and that law must either have been the moral law, originally written on the human heart, or a law on the institution of marriage revealed to Adam and known to the Canaanites and others by tradition or otherwise.

Verse 29

the souls that commit them shall be cut off--This strong denunciatory language is applied to all the crimes specified in the chapter without distinction: to incest as truly as to bestiality, and to the eleven cases of affinity [Lev 18:7-16], as fully as to the six of consanguinity [Lev 18:17-20]. Death is the punishment sternly denounced against all of them. No language could be more explicit or universal; none could more strongly indicate intense loathing and abhorrence.

Verse 30

Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs--In giving the Israelites these particular institutions, God was only re-delivering the law imprinted on the natural heart of man; for there is every reason to believe that the incestuous alliances and unnatural crimes prohibited in this chapter were forbidden to all men by a law expressed or understood from the beginning of the world, or at least from the era of the flood, since God threatens to condemn and punish, in a manner so sternly severe, these atrocities in the practice of the Canaanites and their neighbors, who were not subject to the laws of the Hebrew nation. Next: Leviticus Chapter 19

Verse 1

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... He continued speaking to him, after he had delivered to him the laws respecting the day of atonement, and the bringing of the sacrifices to the door of the tabernacle, and particularly concerning the Israelites not worshipping devils, as they had done in Egypt: the Lord proceeds to deliver out others, the more effectually to guard against both the immoral and idolatrous practice, of the Egyptians and Canaanites: saying, as follows.

Verse 2

Speak unto the children of Israel,.... To the heads of their tribes, that they might deliver to them the following laws; or Moses is bid to publish them among them, either by word of mouth, or by writing, or both: and say unto them, I am the Lord your God; with which they were to be introduced; showing the right he had to enact and enjoin such laws, since he was Jehovah, the Being of beings, and from whom they received their beings; their sovereign Lord and King, who had a right to rule over them, and command what he pleased; and also the obligation they lay under to him to regard them, and yield a cheerful obedience to them, since he was their God, not only that had made them, but had redeemed them out of Egypt; and who had made a covenant with them, and had taken special care of them, and had bestowed many wonderful favours on them; and for this purpose is this phrase often used in this chapter, and very frequently in the next. See Lev 18:2.

Verse 3

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do,.... Where they had dwelt many years, and were just come out from thence, and where they had learned many of their evil practices; not only their idolatrous ones referred to in the preceding chapter, which it is certain they followed, Eze 20:7; but also their immoral practices, particularly respecting incestuous marriages, after insisted on, some of which were established by a law among them; so Diodorus Siculus relates (q), that it passed into a law with the Egyptians, contrary to the common custom of all others, that men might marry their own sisters; which is one of the incestuous marriages taken notice of in this chapter, and forbid: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: which land had been promised to their ancestors and to them long ago, and whither they were now going under divine direction and guidance, to inherit it, and are here particularly warned of the evil practices among them, that they might avoid them: Maimonides (r) says, these are what our Rabbins call "the ways of the Amorites" (the principal people of the nations of the land of Canaan), and which, he adds, are as branches of the magic art; namely, such which do not follow from natural reason, but from magical operation, and depend upon the dispositions and orders of the stars, and so were necessarily led to worship them: hence, they say, in whatsoever is anything of medicine, in it is nothing of the way of the Amorites; by which they mean nothing else than this, that everything is lawful in which there appears a natural reason for it; and on the contrary, all others are unlawful: but here respect is had not to magical operations but to incestuous marriages, which prevailed among that people, and which they might have received from their ancestor Canaan, who learned them from his father Ham, of whom Berosus (s) writes, that even before the flood he corrupted mankind; asserting and putting it in practice, that men might lie with their mothers, sisters, daughters, and with males and brutes, or any other, for which he was cast out by Noah: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances: which they ordained, appointed, and settled, for they were such a people the Psalmist speaks of, which framed mischief or wickedness by a law, Psa 94:2; so Diodorus Siculus says of the incestuous marriage before referred to, and which the above writer, Berosus, derives from Ham their ancestor, that they are said "to pass into a law"; but Aben Ezra puts another sense on these words, let no man use himself to walk in this way until it becomes an ordinance or statute unto him; custom is second nature, and in course of time has the force of a law, wherefore bad customs should be strictly guarded against. (q) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 23. (r) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (s) Antiqu. l. 3. fol. 25.

Verse 4

Ye shall do my judgments,.... Which are just and right, and according to the rules of justice and equity; these are things, as Jarchi observes, which are said in the law with judgment, or are laws framed with the highest reason, even by the judgment of God himself, whose judgment is always according to truth: Aben Ezra thinks, these are the judicial laws in Exo 21:1; but though they may include them, they have more particular respect to the following laws: and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: which he had ordained and appointed of his own will and pleasure, which Jarchi calls the decree of the king, or which he decreed and determined as a king, having absolute power over his subjects to enact and enjoin what he pleased; wherefore some think these refer to ceremonial laws, which depended upon the will of the lawgiver, and were not founded in any natural sense or reason, wherefore it follows: I am the Lord your God: who had a right to make what laws he pleased, being their Sovereign, and which they in gratitude as well as in justice ought to obey, he being their God, their covenant God, who had done great and good things for them.

Verse 5

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments,.... The same as before; these they were to keep in their minds and memories, and to observe them and do them: which if a man do he shall live in them; live a long life in the land of Canaan, in great happiness and prosperity, see Deu 30:20; for as for eternal life, that was never intended to be had, nor was it possible it could be had and enjoyed by obedience to the law, which fallen man is unable to keep; but is what was graciously promised and provided the covenant of grace, before the world was, to come through Christ, as a free gift to all that believe in him, see Gal 3:11; though some Jewish writers interpret this of eternal life, as Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Ben Gersom: I am the Lord; that has enjoined these statutes and judgments, and promised life to the doers of them, able and faithful to perform what is promised.

Verse 6

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him,.... Or to all "the rest of his flesh" (t), which together with his make one flesh, who are of the same flesh and blood with him, and are united together in the bonds of consanguinity; and such, with respect to a man, are his mother, sister, and daughter; his mother, of whom he was born, his sister, who lay in and sprung from the same "venter" he did, and his daughter, who is his own flesh; and with respect to a woman, her father brother, and son, who are in the same degree of relation, and both sexes are included in this prohibition; for though in the original text it is "a man, a man" (u), yet as it takes in every man, so every woman: hence, as Jarchi observes, it is expressed in the plural number, "do not ye approach", to caution both male and female; and it is also understood by the Talmudists (w) of Gentiles as well as Israelites, for they ask, what is the meaning of the phrase "a man, a man?" the design of it is, they say, to comprehend the Gentiles, who are equally cautioned against incests as the Israelites; and indeed the inhabitants of the land of Canaan are said to defile the land with the incests and other abominations hereafter mentioned, and for which they were driven out of it: now when man and woman are forbidden to "approach" to those of the same flesh and blood with them, the sense is not that they may not come into each other's company, or make use of any civil or friendly salutations, or have a free and familiar conversation with each other, provided that modesty and chastity be preserved; but they are not so to draw near as to lie with, or have carnal knowledge of one another, in which sense the phrase is used, Gen 20:4; or to tempt to it or solicit it, and as it follows, which explains the meaning of it: to uncover their nakedness; that is, those parts, which, by a contrary way of speaking, are so called, which should never be naked or exposed to view; but should be always covered, as nature teaches to do, and as our first parents did, when they perceived themselves naked, and were ashamed, Gen 3:7, this phrase signifies the same as to lie with another, or have carnal knowledge of them, wherefore the following laws are generally understood of incestuous marriages; for if such an action is not to be done between persons standing in such a relation, as here in general, and afterwards more particularly described, then there ought to be no intermarriages between them; and if such marriages are forbidden, and such actions unlawful in a married state, then much more in an unmarried one; wherefore the several following instances are so many breaches of the seventh command, Exo 20:14, and so many explications and illustrations of it, and consequently of a moral nature, and binding upon all men, Jews and Gentiles: I am the Lord; that gave this caution, and enjoined this prohibition, and would greatly resent and severely revenge the neglect of it: the particulars follow. (t) "ad omnes reliquias carnis suae", Montanus; "ad quascunque reliquias carnis suae", Tigurine version. (u) "vir, vir", Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius. (w) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 57. 2. T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 58. 2, 3.

Verse 7

The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shall thou not uncover,.... By uncovering a father's nakedness is not meant anything similar to what befell Noah, which Ham beheld with pleasure, and the other two sons of Noah studiously and with reverence to their father covered; nor any sodomitical practice of a son with his father; as Gersom interprets it; but the same is meant by both phrases, and the words are by many interpreters thus rendered, "the nakedness of thy father, that is (x), the nakedness of thy mother thou shalt not uncover": for what is the mother's is the father's, and uncovering the one is uncovering the other; wherefore the mother only is made mention of in the next clause, where the reason of this prohibition is given: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness; that is, not lie with her, nor marry her, because she is his mother that bore him, of whom he was born, and therefore ought not to become his wife, or be taken into his bed; such a marriage must be incestuous and shocking; such were the marriages of Oedipus with his mother Jocasta, and of Nero with Agrippina; though the words will bear another sense, that a woman may not marry her father, which may be meant by the first clause, nor a man his mother, intended in the next; and where indeed it is not expressed, females in the same degree of relation are included with the males, and under the same prohibition; and so the Targum of Jonathan explains this, a woman shall not have to do with her father, nor a man with his mother; as Lot's two daughters had with him, and the Persians with their mothers; among whom such incestuous marriages and copulations were frequent, and especially among their Magi (y) who might not perform their office unless they had lain with their mothers, sisters, and daughters (z), or were begotten in such incest (a): a man guilty of such incestuous copulations was cursed by the law of Moses, Deu 27:20; this is contrary to nature, what the brute creation abhors; a camel will not cover its dam: Aristotle (b) reports of one who was betrayed into it by his keeper, who, after he had discovered it, fixed his teeth in him and slew him; and he also relates of a horse after that he had ignorantly done the same, ran away in great haste and cast himself down from a precipice headlong. (x) "id est, nuditatem vel pudenda", Vatablus, Fagius, Piscator. (y) Sex. Empir. Pyrrh. l. 3. c. 24. (z) Patricides apud Selden. de jure natur. Gent. l. 5. c. 11. p. 624. (a) "Nam magus ex matre et gnato nascatur oportet." Catull. Epigr. 91. (b) Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 47.

Verse 8

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover,.... That is, who is indeed a man's father's wife, but not his own mother, but a stepmother or mother-in-law; or otherwise this law would coincide with the former; a man lying with such an one is accursed by the law, Deu 27:23; such an incestuous copulation was that of Reuben with Bilhah, and Absalom with his father's concubines or secondary wives, and such an incestuous marriage was that of the Corinthians, Co1 5:1; and of Antiochus Soter, king of Syria, with Stratonice his mother-in-law (c): and even it was criminal to do this after a father's death, as Jarchi interprets it; and though she was only betrothed, and not married, and the father dead after such betrothing; as Gersom; nay, though she was divorced by the father, yet was not lawful for the son to have, no, not after his death: it is thy father's nakedness; being espoused to him, and so one flesh with him; and the son and father being one flesh, such a mixture must be unlawful; and since then the nakedness of a mother-in-law is the father's, then surely that of an own mother's must be so likewise, which confirms a sense given of it in Lev 18:7, Cicero (d) exclaims against such marriages as incredible and unheard of, as instances of unbridled lust and singular impudence. (c) Vid. Julian. in Misopogon, p. 72, &c. (d) Orat. 14. pro A. Cluentio Avito.

Verse 9

The nakedness of thy sister,.... To lie with one in so near a relation is exceeding criminal, and for which the law curses a man, Deu 27:22; and to marry her is not lawful; for though it was necessary for the propagation of mankind that a man should marry his sister, for who else could Cain and Abel marry? yet afterwards, when there was an increase of mankind, and there were people enough remote from each other, it became unlawful for persons in such near ties of consanguinity to marry with each other; though the Egyptians did, in imitation of Isis and Osiris (e), and so the Persians, following the example of Cambyses (f): the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother; whether she is a sister both by father and mother's side, or whether only by the fathers side and not the mother's, as Sarah was to Abraham, Gen 20:12; or only by the mother's side and not the father's: whether she be born at home or born abroad; not whether born and brought up in his and her father's house, or born and brought up in another place and province; though there were some, as Aben Ezra observes, that so interpreted it, according to the sense of the word in Gen 50:23; but rather the sense is, as that writer gives it, whether born according to the law of the house of Israel, after espousals and marriage, or without it; that is, whether begotten in lawful marriage or not, whether a legitimate offspring or spurious, born in adultery and whoredom, whether on the father or mother's side; so the Targum of Jonathan, whom thy father begat of another woman, or of thy mother, or whom thy mother bore or brought forth, of thy father, or of another man; and to the same purpose Onkelos: even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; neither lie with, or have carnal knowledge of, nor marry one or the other. (e) Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. p. 23. (f) Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 31.

Verse 10

The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter,.... A man might not marry his granddaughter, whether a descendant of his son or of his daughter, nor any further off descending from him in a right line, not his great-granddaughter, and so on; and if he might not marry his granddaughter, much less his own daughter, as Jarchi observes, for the relation is still nearer; therefore that being prohibited, this in course must, though not mentioned: even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; neither debauch nor marry such an one: for theirs is thine own nakedness; which sprung from his, being the descendants either of his son or daughter; the Targum of Jonathan is,"for they are as thy nakedness,''his own flesh and blood.

Verse 11

The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter,.... Either the daughter of his father by another wife, which seems to be countenanced by what follows: begotten of thy father, she is thy sister; but then this coincides with what is prohibited, Lev 18:9, "the daughter of thy father"; that is, by another woman than a man's mother, only with this difference, that there is added, or "daughter of thy mother", that is, by another man than a man's own father; so that there is a prohibition of a sister whether by father or mother's side; here only as by the father's side, and so is only a part of that law; and, as some think, is for the confirmation of it, as Aben Ezra observes; or else the sense, as he thinks, is, that if a man marries a woman, and she has a little daughter by a former husband, that daughter may not be given in marriage to his son; and so the Septuagint version finishes this clause first, before it gives the other, which it considers as distinct from it, thus, "the shame of thy father's, wife's daughter thou shalt not uncover"; and then makes a distinct law of the latter; "she that is begotten of thy father is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her shame"; but then this last falls in with Lev 18:9, the Sadducees, as Aben Ezra also observes, by whom he means the Karaites, interpret it not of a mother's daughter, but of one brought up and educated by a man's father, and so is his adopted daughter, whom his son might not marry; and thus with the Romans it is said (g), that adoptive kindred hindered marriage between parents and children altogether; and among brethren so far forth as the loss of freedom did not intervene: some understand this law in this light, as De Dieu, that in Lev 18:9; the son of a second marriage is forbidden to marry with an half sister of the first marriage, whether she is the father's daughter, that is, which the father had by his deceased wife, or the mother's daughter, that is, which his mother had by a deceased husband; but here the son of a first marriage is forbidden with a half sister of a second marriage, which his mother-in-law has bore to his father, and is therefore called "the daughter of thy father's wife"; that is, of thy stepmother, but so the same may be said to be "begotten of thy father"; and therefore one begotten in a former marriage may not be understood; but then as this forbids the marriage of a brother with a sister, that is, of the same father, though not of the same mother, it falls in within the former law; wherefore some (h) have been of opinion, that this law forbids a man to marry the daughter of a woman whom his father has taken to wife, who was his deceased brother's wife, upon the law in Deu 25:5; by which marriage she became the father's daughter, and the son's sister; wherefore they take the phrase, "begotten of thy father", to signify "being akin" to thy father; which, if it can be established, makes a distinct law: Jarchi observes, on this phrase, "the daughter of thy father's wife","this teaches that a man is not guilty concerning his sister that is by an handmaid or stranger; therefore it is said, the daughter of thy father's wife, namely, one that was fit for marriage." thou shalt not uncover her nakedness; See Gill on Lev 18:9. (g) Paulus in Mosaic. & Roman. Leg. Collat. tit. 6. a Pithaeo. (h) Bertram. Lucubrat. Franktal. c. 6. Pool in loc.

Verse 12

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister,.... His aunt by his father's side, an instance of which we have in Amram, Exo 6:20; and Maimonides says (i), an aunt was forbidden whether she was a father's sister in lawful wedlock or in fornication: she is thy father's near kinswoman; or, the rest of thy father (k); the residue of his flesh, one of the same flesh and blood with him; wherefore, as he could not marry her himself, so his son likewise was too near akin to enter into such a relation with her. (i) Hilchot Issure Biah, c. 2. sect. 5. (k) "reliquiarum patris tui", Tigurine version.

Verse 13

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister,.... Which is the same relation as before, an aunt by the mother's side; wherefore, if such a marriage was unlawful, this must also, and for the same reason: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman; the same phraseology is used here as in the preceding verse; See Gill on Lev 18:12; and by the same rule a woman might not marry her uncle, whether by father or mother's side, the relation being the same, and this reaches to great-uncle and great-aunt; instances of women marrying their uncles, and men their aunts, among the Heathens, have been given, as among the Persians and Lacedaemonians by Herodotus (l), and among the Romans by Tacitus (m), but were, in his time, new things with the latter. (l) Erato, sive, l. 6. c. 71. Polymnia, sive, l. 7. c. 224, 239. (m) Annal. l. 12. c. 5, 6, 7.

Verse 14

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother,.... Which Gersom understands of committing sodomy with him, on which account he was doubly guilty, partly because of lying with a male, and partly because of uncovering the nakedness of his father's brother; but it rather seems at first sight as if the sense was, that a woman should not marry her father's brother, that is, her uncle, as a man might not marry his aunt, whether by father or mother's side, as in Lev 18:12; but Jarchi directs to a better sense than either, when he asks, what is his nakedness? in answer to which he recites the following clause as explanative of it: thou shall not approach to his wife; in the use of the bed, as the Targum of Jonathan adds, that is, to lie with her, her husband being living, or to marry her, he being dead: she is thine aunt: even as a father's or mother's sister, only they are aunts by blood, this by marriage or affinity: in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan it is, she is the wife of thy father's brother; and as Aben Ezra, she is accounted as thine aunt, and so marriage with her prohibited; and the same holds good of a father's brother's wife, which being not mentioned, the same writer says, we have need of the tradition which expresses that and also of a father's sister's husband; for if marriage with a father's brother's wife is unlawful, then marriage with a father's sister's husband must be so too; for a father's sister's husband stands in the same degree or line of affinity as a father's brother's wife; and it is a sure rule, that in whatsoever degree or line of affinity males are forbid to marry females, in the same females are forbid to marry males.

Verse 15

Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law,.... Shall not he with her in his son's lifetime, or marry her after his death: she is that son's wife; and so one flesh with him, and who is of the same flesh and blood with his father, and therefore the nearness of the relation forbids such incestuous copulation or marriage: thou shall not uncover her nakedness; or have carnal knowledge of her, whether in the life or after the death of his son, even then marriage with her is not lawful.

Verse 16

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife,.... Neither debauch her nor after the death of the brother marry her, that is, unless he dies without issue; and then, by another law, he was obliged to marry her, Deu 25:5; hence the Targum of Jonathan adds; by way of explanation."in the life of thy brother, or after his death, if he has children,''but then that law was but an exception from this general rule, and so did not make it void in other respects, but bound it the more strongly; and besides, it was a special and peculiar law to the Jews, until the Messiah came to make it manifest of what tribe and family he came; and the reason of it ceasing, the law itself is ceased, and so neither binding on Jews nor Gentiles: hence John the Baptist boldly told Herod to his face, that it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife Mat 14:3; and even such marriages were condemned by the very Heathens: Dionysius Halicarnassensis (n) relates, that Lucius Tarquinius, Superbus, his brother being removed by poison, took Tullia to wife, whom his brother Aruntus had before married; but the historian calls it , "an unholy marriage", and abominable both among Greeks and Barbarians: Plutarch also reports (o), that Marcus Crassus married the wife of his deceased brother; but such marriages are condemned by the same writer, as they are by the ancient Christians in their councils and canons (p); now by this same law, if it is not lawful for a man to have his brother's wife, then it is not lawful for her to have her sister's husband; or, in other words, if it is not lawful for a woman to marry two brothers, then it is not lawful for a man to marry two sisters: the case of Jacob will not countenance such a marriage, since he was imposed upon and deceived; and such marriages have also been disapproved of by the Heathens and Christians: Honorius the emperor married two daughters of Stilico, one after another, but the unhappy exit of both sisters showed that those marriages were not approved of by God, for they both died premature deaths, leaving no children (q): it is thy brother's nakedness; that is, his wife is, being by marriage one flesh with him, and his brother being so to him, the relation is too near to intermarry, and more especially when there is issue by the first, which connects them strongly. (n) Hist. l. 4. (o) In Vita M. Crassi. (p) Canon Apostol. can. 19. Concil. Neocaesar. can. 2. (q) Zonaras, l. 3. apud Zanchium de Sponsalibus, l. 4. c. 1. p. 786.

Verse 17

Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter,.... That is, if a man marries a woman, and she has a daughter, which is the man's daughter-in-law, after the death of his wife he may not marry this daughter; for this daughter is of the same flesh with her mother, who became one flesh with the man she married, and therefore his relation to her daughter is too near to marry her: Jarchi says, if he does not marry the woman, but only deflower her, it is free for him to marry her daughter; but Aben Ezra says, if he has lain with the mother, the daughter is forbidden; however, if he married either of them, the other was forbidden; he could not marry them both, neither in the lifetime of them both, nor after the death of either of them: neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; not any of her granddaughters, either in the line of her son or daughter; that is, might not lie with either of them, or marry them, and much less then marry her own daughter, these being a further remove from her: for they are her near kinswomen; one or other of them, even every one of them, "the rest" and residue "of her" (r), of her flesh, who together made one flesh with her; and therefore not to be married to her husband, either in her life, or after her death: it is wickedness: a very great wickedness, abominable in the sight of God, and to be detested by man as vile and impious; it is whoredom, as the Targum of Jonathan renders it. (r) "reliquiae sunt ipsae", Tigurine version.

Verse 18

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister,.... Both of them together, as Jarchi; two sisters at one and the same time; so the Targum of Jonathan,"a woman in the life of her sister thou shall not take;''that is, in marriage, that sister being his wife; for the sense of the Targumist can never be that a man might not take a woman for his wife, she having a sister living, but not to take one sister to another, or marry his first wife's sister, whether, as Maimonides (s) says, she was sister by father or mother's side, in marriage or in fornication: to vex her, to uncover her nakedness; two reasons are given, why, though polygamy, or having more wives than one, was connived at, yet it was not allowed that a man should have two sisters; partly, because they would be more apt to quarrel, and be more jealous and impatient of one another, if more favour was shown or thought to be shown to one more than another; and partly, because it was a filthy and unbecoming action to uncover the nakedness of one, or lie with one so nearly related to his wife: besides her in her life time; from whence some have concluded, and so many of the Jewish writers (t), that a man might marry his wife's sister after her death, but not while she was living; but the phrase, "in her lifetime", is not to be joined to the phrase "thou shall not take a wife"; but to the phrases more near, "to vex her in her lifetime", or as long as she lived, and "to uncover her nakedness by her" (u), on the side of her, as long as she lived; for that a wife's sister may be married to her husband, even after her death, cannot be lawful, as appears from the general prohibition, Lev 18:6; "none of you shall approach to him that is near of kin to him"; and yet it is certain that a wife's sister is near akin to a man; and from the prohibition of marriage with an uncle's wife, with the daughter of a son-in-law, or of a daughter-in-law, Lev 18:14; now a wife's sister is nearer of kin than either of these; and from the confusion that must follow in case of issue by both, not only of degrees but appellation of kindred; one and the same man, who as a father of children, and the husband of their mother's sister, stands in the relation both of a father and an uncle to his own children; the woman to the children of the deceased sister stands in the relation both of a stepmother, and of a mother's sister or aunt, and to the children that were born of her, she stands in the relation both of a mother and an uncle's wife; and the two sorts of children are both brethren and own cousins by the mother's side, but of this See Gill on Lev 18:16 for more; some understand this of a prohibition of polygamy, rendering the words, "thou shall not take one wife to another"; but the former sense is best; polygamy being not expressly forbidden by the law of Moses, but supposed in it, and winked at by it; and words of relation being always used in all these laws of marriage, in a proper and not in an improper sense: there is a pretty good deal of agreement between these laws of Moses and the Roman laws; by an edict of Dioclesian and Maximian (w), it was made unlawful to contract matrimony with a daughter, with a niece, with a niece's daughter, with a grandmother, with a great-grandmother, with an aunt by the father's side, with an aunt by the mother's side, with a sister's daughter, and a niece from her, with a daughter-in-law to a second husband, with a mother-in-law, with a wife or husband's mother, and with a son's wife; and several of these laws are recommended by Phocylydes, an Heathen poet, at least in a poem that hears his name; and the marriage of a wife's sister after her death has been condemned by several Christian councils (x). (s) Hilchot Issure Biah, c. 2. sect. 9. (t) Misn. Yebamot, c. 4. sect. 13. Vajikra Rabba, sect. 22. fol. 164. 1. Peaicta, Ben Gersom in loc. (u) "apud vel prope eam"; so is sometimes used; see Nold. part. Concord. Ebr. p. 691. (w) Apud Mosaic. & Roman. Leg. Collat. ut supra. (tit. 6. a Pithaeo) (x) Concil. Illiber. can. 61. Aurat. can. 17. Auxer. can. 30.

Verse 19

Also thou shall not approach unto a woman,.... Not even a man to his own wife, and much less to another woman: to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness; in her monthly courses; and the time of her separation from her husband on that account was seven days, Lev 15:19; if a man lay with a woman when in such circumstances, they were both to be cut off from their people, Lev 20:18; and such an action is reckoned among sins, and uncleanness of the worst sort, Eze 22:10.

Verse 20

Moreover, thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife,.... Which is adultery, and a breach of the seventh command, Exo 20:14, to defile thyself with her; not only adultery is a defiling a man's wife, as it is sometimes called, but the adulterer defiles himself: all sin is of a defiling nature, but especially this, which defiles a man both in soul and body, and brings a blot and stain upon his character, which shall not be wiped off, Pro 6:32.

Verse 21

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,.... The name of an image or idol, according to Aben Ezra, who observes, that their wise men interpret it as a general name for everyone whom they made to reign over them; and it is right, he says, that it is the abomination of the children of Ammon, and so the same with Milcom, Kg1 11:5; and with Baal, as appears from Jer 32:35; and they are both of much the same signification, the one signifies a king, the other a lord; and perhaps is the same with the Melicarthus of Sanchoniatho (y), who is also Hercules; to whom Pliny says (z) that the Phoenicians offered human sacrifices every year: of Molech; see Gill on Jer 7:31, Amo 1:13; by "seed" is meant children and offspring; and because the word "fire" is not in the original text, some, as Aben Ezra observes, explain the phrase, "let to pass through", of their causing them to pass from the law of God to the religion of Molech, or of devoting them to his service and worship; but the word "fire" is rightly supplied, as it may be from Deu 18:10; and the same writer says, the phrase to pass through is the same as to burn; but though this they sometimes did, even burn their infants, and sacrificed them to idols, Ch2 28:3; yet this seems to be something short of that, and to be done in the manner, as Jarchi and other Jewish writers (a) relate; who say, the father delivered his son to the priests (of Molech) and they made two great fires, and caused the son to pass on foot between the two fires, which was a kind of a lustration, and so of a dedication of them to the idol; though it must be owned that both were done; yea, that both the phrases of passing through the fire, and of burning, are used promiscuously of the same, see Kg2 16:3; compared with Ch2 28:3 and also Eze 16:20; and they might be both done at different times, or the one previous and in order to the other; and perhaps they might cause the child so often and so long to pass through the fire, as that at last it was burnt and destroyed: neither shall thou profane the name of thy God; who had given them children, and to whom they ought to have devoted them, and in whose service they should have trained them up to the honour of his name; but instead of that profaned it, by the above idolatrous and cruel usages: I am the Lord; who would avenge such a profanation of his name. (y) Apud, Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. p. 38. (z) Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 5. (a) Ben Melech in loc. Kimchii Sepher Shorash. rad.

Verse 22

Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind,.... By carnal knowledge of them, and carnal copulation with them, and mixing bodies in like manner: this is the sin commonly called sodomy, from the inhabitants of Sodom, greatly addicted to it, for which their city was destroyed by fire: those that are guilty of this sin, are, by the apostle, called "abusers of themselves with mankind", Co1 6:9, it is abomination; it is so to God, as the above instance of his vengeance shows, and ought to be abominable to men, as being not only contrary to the law of God, but even contrary to nature itself, and what is never to be observed among brute creatures.

Verse 23

Neither shall thou lie with any beast, to defile thyself therewith,.... A female one, as Aben Ezra notes, as a mare, cow, or ewe, or any other beast, small or great, as Ben Gersom, or whether tame or wild, as Maimonides (b); and even fowls are comprehended, as the same writers observe: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: that is, stand before a beast, and by a lascivious and obscene behaviour solicit the beast to a congress with her, and then lie down after the manner of four-footed beasts, as the word signifies, that it may have carnal copulation with her: for a man to lie with a beast is most shocking and detestable, but for a woman to solicit such an unnatural mixture is most horrible and astonishing: perhaps reference may be had to a most shocking practice among the Egyptians, from among whom the Israelites were lately come, and whose doings they were not to imitate, Lev 18:3; and which may account for this law, as Bishop Patrick observes: at Mendes, in Egypt, a goat was worshipped, as has been remarked Lev 18:7; and where the women used to lie with such creatures, as Strabo (c) and Aelianus (d) from Pindar have related; yea, Herodotus (e) reports, of his own knowledge, that a goat had carnal copulation with a woman openly, in the view of all, in his time; and though that creature is a most lascivious and lustful one, yet, as Bochart (f) from Plutarch has observed, when it is provoked by many and beautiful women, is not inclined and ready to come into their embraces, but shows some abhorrence of it: nature in brutes, as that learned man observes, is often more prevalent in them than in mankind: it is confusion; a mixing of the seed of man and beast together, a blending of different kinds of creatures, a perverting the order of nature, and introducing the utmost confusion of beings, from whence monsters in nature may arise. (b) Hilchot Issure Biah, c. 1. sect. 16. (c) Geograph. l. 17. p. 551. (d) De Animal. l. 7. c. 19. (e) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 46. (f) Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 2. c. 53. col. 642.

Verse 24

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things,.... In incestuous copulations and marriages, in adultery, corporeal and spiritual, and bestiality: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you; that is, the seven nations of the land of Canaan, which God was about to eject out of their land to make room for the Israelites, and that on account of the above shocking vices which abounded among them; so that in some sense the land they dwelt upon was defiled by them, and called for vengeance on them, as even loathing its inhabitants, as afterwards suggested.

Verse 25

And the land is defiled,.... The inhabitants of it, with the immoralities and idolatries before mentioned: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; or punish the inhabitants that are on it for their sins: and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants; as a stomach loaded with corrupt and bad food it has taken in, nauseates it, and cannot bear and retain it, but casts it up, and never receives it again; so the land of Canaan is represented as loathing its inhabitants, and as having an aversion to them, and indignation against them, and as not being able to bear them, but entirely willing to be rid of them and throw them out of their places in it, never to be admitted more, being as nauseous and as useless as the cast of a man's stomach; see Rev 3:16.

Verse 26

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments,.... Before observed to them, whether of a ceremonial nature, and enjoined them according to his sovereign will and pleasure; or of a moral nature, and founded in justice and equity, and so worthy of their regard, and obligatory upon them; as well as in their own nature they recommended themselves to their regard, as being the reverse of those loathsome and abominable things before dehorted from: and shall not commit any of these abominations; such as incest, adultery, idolatry, and bestiality, which are in themselves abominable things, execrable to God, and to be detested by men: neither any of your own nation; that belonged to any of their own tribes, or should be born to them in the land of Canaan when they came thither, and were properly natives of it: nor any stranger that sojourneth among you; any proselyte, and especially a proselyte of righteousness, who conformed to the Jewish religion, and had laid himself under obligation to do everything that was binding upon an Israelite.

Verse 27

For all these abominations have the men of the land done,.... The then present inhabitants of Canaan, who dwelt in it before the Israelites came into it; these were guilty of unclean copulations, of incestuous, marriages, of fornication and adultery, and of bestiality and idolatry: which were before you; lived in the land before them, had long dwelt there, but now about to be cast out for their sins; and therefore they who were going to succeed them should take warning by them, lest, committing the same sins, they should be cast out likewise: and the land is defiled; See Gill on Lev 18:25.

Verse 28

That the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it,.... By sinning on it, and so rendering it obnoxious to the curse of God, as the whole earth originally was for the sin of man; and so be cast out of it, as Adam was out of paradise, and as the Israelites might expect to be cast out of Canaan, as the old inhabitants of it had been: as it spewed out the nations that were before you; which for the certainty of it is spoken of as done, though it was as yet future; and what the Lord did is ascribed to the land, the more to aggravate their crying sins and abominations, for which the land mourned, and which it could not bear.

Verse 29

For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations,.... Before particularly forbid, any of them, be it which it will, they all being very heinous and vile, and especially these last mentioned: even the souls that commit them; whether male or female, as Jarchi observes; for the above things concern them both for the most part, however some one, and some another; and though most, if not all the said crimes are committed by the members of the body, yet since under the influence and direction of the soul, the commission of them is attributed to that, and the punishment threatened respects both: shall be cut off from among the people; be removed from their church state, and deprived of ecclesiastical privileges, and from their civil state, and reckoned no more of the commonwealth of Israel; and if known and convicted, to be punished by the civil magistrate, and if not, by the immediate hand of God.

Verse 30

Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance,.... Whatever the Lord appointed them and commanded, whether contained in this chapter, or elsewhere: that ye commit not anyone of these abominable customs; for attending to the ordinances of God, and a close in them, they would be preserved from the commission of such abominable things, and giving in to such detestable customs as before warned against: which were committed before you; by the inhabitants of Canaan; and by the punishment on them for them they might be deterred from doing the same: and that ye defile not yourselves therein; for though the land is so often said to be defiled, yet, properly speaking, and chiefly, it was the inhabitants that were defiled by their abominable customs; and so would the Israelites also, should they observe the same, and thereby become abominable in the sight of God, and incur his displeasure, and be liable to his vengeance: I am the Lord your God; who had a sovereign authority over them, and a right to give out what commands he pleased, both negative and affirmative; and to whom they were under obligations to obey, as the God of nature and providence, from whom they had their beings, and were supported in them, and as their covenant God, who had bestowed special and spiritual favours on them. Next: Leviticus Chapter 19

Verse 1

Holiness of the Marriage Relation. - The prohibition of incest and similar sensual abominations is introduced with a general warning as to the licentious customs of the Egyptians and Canaanites, and an exhortation to walk in the judgments and ordinances of Jehovah (Lev 18:2-5), and is brought to a close with a threatening allusion to the consequences of all such defilements (Lev 18:24-30). Lev 18:1-4 By the words, "I am Jehovah your God," which are placed at the head and repeated at the close (Lev 18:30), the observance of the command is enforced upon the people as a covenant obligation, and urged upon them most strongly by the promise, that through the observance of the ordinances and judgments of Jehovah they should live (Lev 18:5). Lev 18:5 "The man who does them (the ordinances of Jehovah) shall live (gain true life) through them" (see at Exo 1:16 and Gen 3:22).

Verse 6

The laws against incest are introduced in Lev 18:6 with the general prohibition, descriptive of the nature of this sin, "None of you shall approach בּשׂרו אל־כּל־שׁאר to any flesh of his flesh, to uncover nakedness." The difference between שׁאר flesh, and בּשׂר flesh, is involved in obscurity, as both words are used in connection with edible flesh (see the Lexicons). "Flesh of his flesh" is a flesh that is of his own flesh, belongs to the same flesh as himself (Gen 2:24), and is applied to a blood-relation, blood-relationship being called שׁארה (or flesh-kindred) in Hebrew (Lev 18:17). Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze 16:36; Eze 23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev 18:18; Lev 20:14, Lev 20:17, Lev 20:21). Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father's side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother's wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time. No special reference is made to sexual intercourse with (a) a daughter, (b) a full sister, (c) a mother-in-law; the last, however, which is mentioned in Deu 27:23 as an accursed crime, is included here in No. 10, and the second in No. 3, whilst the first, like parricide in Exo 21:15, is not expressly noticed, simply because the crime was regarded as one that never could occur. Those mentioned under Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10 were to be followed by the death or extermination of the criminals (Lev 20:11-12, Lev 20:14, Lev 20:17), on account of their being accursed crimes (Deu 23:1; Deu 27:20, Deu 27:22-23). On the other hand, the only threat held out in the case of the connection mentioned under Nos. 6, 7, and 9, was that those who committed such crimes should bear their iniquity, or die childless (Lev 20:19-21). The cases noticed under Nos. 4 and 5 are passed over in ch. 20, though they no doubt belonged to the crimes which were to be punished with death, and No. 11, for which no punishment was fixed, because the wrong had been already pointed out in Lev 18:18. (Note: The marriage laws and customs were much more lax among the Gentiles. With the Egyptians it was lawful to marry sisters and half-sisters (Diod. Sic. i. 27), and the licentiousness of the women was very great among them (see at Gen 39:6.). With the Persians marriage was allowed with mother, daughter, and sister (Clem. Al. strom. iii. p. 431; Eusebii praep. ev. vi. 10); and this is also said to have been the case with the Medians, Indians, and Ethiopians, as well as with the Assyrians (Jerome adv. Jovin. ii. 7; Lucian, Sacriff. 5); whereas the Greeks and Romans abhorred such marriages, and the Athenians and Spartans only permitted marriages with half-sisters (cf. Selden de jure nat. et gent. v. 11, pp. 619ff.). The ancient Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, were very strict in this respect, and would not allow of marriage with a mother, daughter, or aunt on either the father's or mother's side, or with two sisters at the same time. The only cases on record of marriage between brothers and sisters are among the Arabs of Marbat (Seetzen, Zach's Mon. Corresp. Oct. 1809). This custom Mohammed raised into a law, and extended it to nieces, nurses, foster-sisters, etc. (Koran, Sure iv. 20ff.).) Elaborate commentaries upon this chapter are to be found in Michaelis Abhandl. ber die Ehegesetze Mosis, and his Mos. Recht; also in Saalschtz Mos. Recth. See also my Archologie ii. p. 108. For the rabbinical laws and those of the Talmud, see Selden oxur ebr. lib. 1, c. 1ff., and Saalschtz ut sup. The enumeration of the different cases commences in Lev 18:7 very appropriately with the prohibition of incest with a mother. Sexual connection with a mother is called "uncovering the nakedness of father and mother." As husband and wife are one flesh (Gen 2:24), the nakedness of the husband is uncovered in that of his wife, or, as it is described in Deu 22:30; Deu 27:20, the wing, i.e., the edge, of the bedclothes of the father's bed, as the husband spreads his bedclothes over his wife as well as himself (Rut 3:9). For, strictly speaking, ערוה גּלּה is only used with reference to the wife; but in the dishonouring of his wife the honour of the husband is violated also, and his bed defiled, Gen 49:4. It is wrong, therefore, to interpret the verse, as Jonathan and Clericus do, as relating to carnal intercourse between a daughter and father. Not only is this at variance with the circumstance that all these laws are intended for the man alone, and addressed expressly to him, but also with Lev 18:8, where the nakedness of the father's wife is distinctly called the father's shame.

Verse 8

Intercourse with a father's wife, i.e., with a step-mother, is forbidden as uncovering the father's nakedness; since a father's wife stood in blood-relationship only to the son whose mother she was. But for the father's sake her nakedness was to be inaccessible to the son, and uncovering it was to be punished with death as incest (Lev 20:11; Deu 27:20). By the "father's wife" we are probably to understand not merely his full lawful wife, but his concubine also, since the father's bed was defiled in the latter case no less than in the former (Gen 49:4), and an accursed crime was committed, the punishment of which was death. At all events, it cannot be inferred from Lev 19:20-22 and Exo 21:9, as Knobel supposes, that a milder punishment was inflicted in this case.

Verse 9

By the sister, the daughter of father or mother, we are to understand only the step-or half-sister, who had either the same father or the same mother as the brother had. The clause, "whether born at home or born abroad," does not refer to legitimate or illegitimate birth, but is to be taken as a more precise definition of the words, daughter of thy father or of thy mother, and understood, as Lud. de Dieu supposes, as referring to the half-sister "of the first marriage, whether the father's daughter left by a deceased wife, or the mother's daughter left by a deceased husband," so that the person marrying her would be a son by a second marriage. Sexual intercourse with a half-sister is described as חסד in Lev 20:17, and threatened with extermination. This word generally signifies sparing love, favour, grace; but here, as in Pro 14:34, it means dishonour, shame, from the Piel חסּד, to dishonour.

Verse 10

The prohibition of marriage with a granddaughter, whether the daughter of a son or daughter, is explained in the words, "for they are thy nakedness," the meaning of which is, that as they were directly descended from the grandfather, carnal intercourse with them would be equivalent to dishonouring his own flesh and blood.

Verse 11

"The daughter of thy father's wife (i.e., thy step-mother), born to thy father," is the half-sister by a second marriage; and the prohibition refers to the son by a first marriage, whereas Lev 18:9 treats of the son by a second marriage. The notion that the man's own mother is also included, and that the prohibition includes marriage with a full sister, is at variance with the usage of the expression "thy father's wife."

Verse 12

Marriage or conjugal intercourse with the sister of either father or mother (i.e., with either the paternal or maternal aunt) was prohibited, because she was the blood-relation of the father or mother. שׁאר = בּשׂר שׁאר (Lev 18:6, as in Lev 20:19; Lev 21:2; Num 27:11), hence שׁארה, blood-relationship (Lev 18:17).

Verse 14

So, again, with the wife of the father's brother, because the nakedness of the uncle was thereby uncovered. The threat held out in Lev 20:19 and Lev 20:20 against the alliances prohibited in Lev 18:12-14, is that the persons concerned should bear their iniquity or sin, i.e., should suffer punishment in consequence (see at Lev 5:1); and in the last case it is stated that they should die childless. From this it is obvious that sexual connection with the sister of either father or mother was not to be punished with death by the magistrate, but would be punished with disease by God Himself.

Verse 15

Sexual connection with a daughter-in-law, a son's wife, is called תּבל in Lev 20:12, and threatened with death to both the parties concerned. תּבל, from בּלל to mix, to confuse, signifies a sinful mixing up or confusing of the divine ordinances by unnatural unchastity, like the lying of a woman with a beast, which is the only other connection in which the word occurs (Lev 18:23).

Verse 16

Marriage with a brother's wife was a sin against the brother's nakedness, a sexual defilement, which God would punish with barrenness. This prohibition, however, only refers to cases in which the deceased brother had left children; for if he had died childless, the brother not only might, but was required to marry his sister-in-law (Deu 25:5).

Verse 17

Marriage with a woman and her daughter, whether both together or in succession, is described in Deu 27:20 as an accursed lying with the mother-in-law; whereas here it is the relation to the step-daughter which is primarily referred to, as we may see from the parallel prohibition, which is added, against taking the daughter of her son or daughter, i.e., the granddaughter-in-law. Both of these were crimes against blood-relationship which were to be punished with death in the case of both parties (Lev 20:14), because they were "wickedness," זמּה, lit., invention, design, here applied to the crime of licentiousness and whoredom (Lev 19:29; Jdg 20:6; Job 31:11).

Verse 18

Lastly, it was forbidden to take a wife to her sister (עליה upon her, as in Gen 28:9; Gen 31:50) in her life-time, that is to say, to marry two sisters at the same time, לצרר "to pack together, to uncover this nakedness," i.e., to pack both together into one marriage bond, and so place the sisters in carnal union through their common husband, and disturb the sisterly relation, as the marriage with two sisters that was forced upon Jacob had evidently done. No punishment is fixed for the marriage with two sisters; and, of course, after the death of the first wife a man was at liberty to marry her sister.

Verse 19

Prohibition of other kinds of unchastity and of unnatural crimes. - Lev 18:19 prohibits intercourse with a woman during her uncleanness. טמאה נדּת signifies the uncleanness of a woman's hemorrhage, whether menstruation or after childbirth, which is called in Lev 12:7; Lev 20:18, the fountain of bleeding. The guilty persons were both of them to be cut off from their nation according to Lev 20:18, i.e., to be punished with death. Lev 18:20 "To a neighbour's wife thou shalt not give שׁכבתּך thy pouring as seed" (i.e., make her pregnant), "to defile thyself with her," viz., by the emissio seminis (Lev 15:16-17), a defilement which was to be punished as adultery by the stoning to death of both parties (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22, cf. Joh 9:5). Lev 18:21 To bodily unchastity there is appended a prohibition of spiritual whoredom. "Thou shalt not give of thy seed to cause to pass through (sc., the fire; Deu 18:10) for Moloch." המּלך is constantly written with the article: it is rendered by the lxx ἄρχων both here and in Lev 20:2., but ὁ Μολόχ βασιλεύς in other places (Kg2 23:10; Jer 32:35). Moloch was an old Canaanitish idol, called by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians Melkarth, Baal-melech, Malcom, and other such names, and related to Baal, a sun-god worshipped, like Kronos and Saturn, by the sacrifice of children. It was represented by a brazen statue, which was hollow and capable of being heated, and formed with a bull's head, and arms stretched out to receive the children to be sacrificed. From the time of Ahaz children were slain at Jerusalem in the valley of Ben-hinnom, and then sacrificed by being laid in the heated arms and burned (Eze 16:20-21; Eze 20:31; Jer 32:35; Kg2 23:10; Kg2 16:3; Kg2 17:17; Kg2 21:6, cf. Psa 106:37-38). Now although this offering of children in the valley of Ben-hinnom is called a "slaughtering" by Ezekiel (Eze 16:21), and a "burning through (in the) fire" by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31), and although, in the times of the later kings, children were actually given up to Moloch and burned as slain-offerings, even among the Israelites; it by no means follows from this, that "passing through to Moloch," or "passing through the fire," or "passing through the fire to Moloch" (Kg2 23:10), signified slaughtering and burning with fire, though this has been almost unanimously assumed since the time of Clericus. But according to the unanimous explanation of the Rabbins, fathers, and earlier theologians, "causing to pass through the fire" denoted primarily going through the fire without burning, a februation, or purification through fire, by which the children were consecrated to Moloch; a kind of fire-baptism, which preceded the sacrificing, and was performed, particularly in olden time, without actual sacrificing, or slaying and burning. For februation was practised among the most different nations without being connected with human sacrifices; and, like most of the idolatrous rites of the heathen, no doubt the worship of Moloch assumed different forms at different times and among different nations. If the Israelites had really sacrificed their children to Moloch, i.e., had slain and burned them, before the time of Ahaz, the burning would certainly have been mentioned before; for Solomon had built a high place upon the mountain to the east of Jerusalem for Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon, to please his foreign wives (Kg1 11:7 : see the Art. Moloch in Herzog's Cycl.). This idolatrous worship was to be punished with death by stoning, as a desecration of the name of Jehovah, and a defiling of His sanctuary (Lev 20:3), i.e., as a practical contempt of the manifestations of the grace of the living God (Lev 20:2-3). Lev 18:22-23 Lastly, it was forbidden to "lie with mankind as with womankind," i.e., to commit the crime of paederastia, that sin of Sodom (Gen 19:5), to which the whole of the heathen were more or less addicted (Rom 1:27), and from which even the Israelites did not keep themselves free (Jdg 19:22.); or to "lie with any beast." "Into no beast shalt thou give thine emission of seed,...and a woman shall not place herself before a beast to lie down thereto." רבע = רבץ "to lie," is the term used particularly to denote a crime of this description (Lev 20:13 and Lev 20:15, Lev 20:16, cf. Exo 22:18). Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats (Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802). Aelian (nat. an. vii. 19) relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330, in modern Egypt men are said to lie even with female crocodiles.

Verse 24

In the concluding exhortation God pointed expressly to the fact, that the nations which He was driving out before the Israelites (the participle משׁלּח is used of that which is certainly and speedily coming to pass) had defiled the land by such abominations as those, that He had visited their iniquity and the land had spat out its inhabitants, and warned the Israelites to beware of these abominations, that the land might not spit them out as it had the Canaanites before them. The pret. ותּקא (Lev 18:25) and קאה (Lev 18:28) are prophetic (cf. Lev 20:22-23), and the expression is poetical. The land is personified as a living creature, which violently rejects food that it dislikes. "Hoc enim tropo vult significare Scriptura enormitatem criminum, quod scilicet ipsae creaturae irrationales suo creatori semper obedientes et pro illo pugnantes detestentur peccatores tales eosque terra quasi evomat, cum illi expelluntur ab ea" (C. a Lap.).

Verse 1

After divers ceremonial institutions, God here returns to the enforcement of moral precepts. The former are still of use to us as types, the latter still binding as laws. We have here, 1. The sacred authority by which these laws are enacted: I am the Lord your God (Lev 18:1, Lev 18:4, Lev 18:30), and I am the Lord, Lev 18:5, Lev 18:6, Lev 18:21. "The Lord, who has a right to rule all; your God, who has a peculiar right to rule you." Jehovah is the fountain of being, and therefore the fountain of power, whose we are, whom we are bound to serve, and who is able to punish all disobedience. "Your God to whom you have consented, in whom you are happy, to whom you lie under the highest obligations imaginable, and to whom you are accountable." 2. A strict caution to take heed of retaining the relics of the idolatries of Egypt, where they had dwelt, and of receiving the infection of the idolatries of Canaan, whither they were now going, Lev 18:3. Now that God was by Moses teaching them his ordinances there was aliquid dediscendum - something to be unlearned, which they had sucked in with their milk in Egypt, a country noted for idolatry: You shall not do after the doings of the land of Egypt. It would be the greatest absurdity in itself to retain such an affection for their house of bondage as to be governed in their devotions by the usages of it, and the greatest ingratitude to God, who had so wonderfully and graciously delivered them. Nay, as if governed by a spirit of contradiction, they would be in danger, even after they had received these ordinances of God, of admitting the wicked usages of the Canaanites and of inheriting their vices with their land. Of this danger they are here warned, You shall not walk in their ordinances. Such a tyrant is custom that their practices are called ordinances, and they became rivals even with God's ordinances, and God's professing people were in danger of receiving law from them. 3. A solemn charge to them to keep God's judgments, statutes, and ordinances, Lev 18:4, Lev 18:5. To this charge, and many similar ones, David seems to refer in the many prayers and professions he makes relating to God's laws in the 119th Psalm. Observe here, (1.) The great rule of our obedience - God's statutes and judgments. These we must keep to walk therein. We must keep them in our books, and keep them in our hands, that we may practise them in our hearts and lives. Remember God's commandments to do them, Psa 103:18. We must keep in them as our way to travel in, keep to them as our rule to work by, keep them as our treasure, as the apple of our eye, with the utmost care and value. (2.) The great advantage of our obedience: Which if a man do, he shall live in them, that is, "he shall be happy here and hereafter." We have reason to thank God, [1.] That this is still in force as a promise, with a very favourable construction of the condition. If we keep God's commandments in sincerity, though we come short of sinless perfection, we shall find that the way of duty is the way of comfort, and will be the way to happiness. Godliness has the promise of life, Ti1 4:8. Wisdom has said, Keep my commandments and live: and if through the Spirit we mortify the deeds of the body (which are to us as the usages of Egypt were to Israel) we shall live. [2.] That it is not so in force in the nature of a covenant as that the least transgression shall for ever exclude us from this life. The apostle quotes this twice as opposite to the faith which the gospel reveals. It is the description of the righteousness which is by the law, the man that doeth them shall live en autois - in them (Rom 10:5), and is urged to prove that the law is not of faith, Gal 3:12. The alteration which the gospel has made is in the last word: still the man that does them shall live, but not live in them; for the law could not give life, because we could not perfectly keep it; it was weak through the flesh, not in itself; but now the man that does them shall live by the faith of the Son of God. He shall owe his life to the grace of Christ, and not to the merit of his own works; see Gal 3:21, Gal 3:22. The just shall live, but they shall live by faith, by virtue of their union with Christ, who is their life.

Verse 6

These laws relate to the seventh commandment, and, no doubt, are obligatory on us under the gospel, for they are consonant to the very light and law of nature: one of the articles, that of a man's having his father's wife, the apostle speaks of as a sin not so much as named among the Gentiles, Co1 5:1. Though some of the incests here forbidden were practised by some particular persons among the heathen, yet they were disallowed and detested, unless among those nations who had become barbarous, and were quite given up to vile affections. Observe, I. That which is forbidden as to the relations here specified is approaching to them to uncover their nakedness, Lev 18:6. 1. It is chiefly intended to forbid the marrying of any of these relations. Marriage is a divine institution; this and the sabbath, the eldest of all, of equal standing with man upon the earth: it is intended for the comfort of human life, and the decent and honourable propagation of the human race, such as became the dignity of man's nature above that of the beasts. It is honourable in all, and these laws are for the support of the honour of it. It was requisite that a divine ordinance should be subject to divine rules and restraints, especially because it concerns a thing wherein the corrupt nature of man is as apt as in any thing to be wilful and impetuous in its desires, and impatient of check. Yet these prohibitions, besides their being enacted by an incontestable authority, are in themselves highly reasonable and equitable. (1.) By marriage two were to become one flesh, therefore those that before were in a sense one flesh by nature could not, without the greatest absurdity, become one flesh by institution; for the institution was designed to unite those who before were not united. (2.) Marriage puts an equality between husband and wife. "Is she not thy companion taken out of thy side?" Therefore, if those who before were superior and inferior should intermarry (which is the case in most of the instances here laid down), the order of nature would be taken away by a positive institution, which must by no means be allowed. The inequality between master and servant, noble and ignoble, is founded in consent and custom, and there is no harm done if that be taken away by the equality of marriage; but the inequality between parents and children, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, either by blood or marriage, is founded in nature, and is therefore perpetual, and cannot without confusion be taken away by the equality of marriage, the institution of which, though ancient, is subsequent to the order of nature. (3.) No relations that are equals are forbidden, except brothers and sisters, by the whole blood or half blood, or by marriage; and in this there is not the same natural absurdity as in the former, for Adam's sons must of necessity have married their own sisters; but it was requisite that it should be made by a positive law unlawful and detestable, for the preventing of sinful familiarities between those that in the days of their youth are supposed to live in a house together, and yet cannot intermarry without defeating one of the intentions of marriage, which is the enlargement of friendship and interest. If every man married his own sister (as they would be apt to do from generation to generation if it were lawful), each family would be a world to itself, and it would be forgotten that we are members one of another. It is certain that this has always been looked upon by the more sober heathen as a most infamous and abominable thing; and those who had not this law yet were herein a law to themselves. The making use of the ordinance of marriage for the patronizing of incestuous mixtures is so far from justifying them, or extenuating their guilt, that it adds the guilt of profaning an ordinance of God, and prostituting that to the vilest of purposes which was instituted for the noblest ends. But, 2. Uncleanness, committed with any of these relations out of marriage, is likewise, without doubt, forbidden here, and no less intended than the former: as also all lascivious carriage, wanton dalliance, and every thing that has the appearance of this evil. Relations must love one another, and are to have free and familiar converse with each other, but it must be with all purity; and the less it is suspected of evil by others the more care ought the persons themselves to take that Satan do not get advantage against them, for he is a very subtle enemy, and seeks all occasions against us. II. The relations forbidden are most of them plainly described; and it is generally laid down as a rule that what relations of a man's own he is bound up from marrying the same relations of his wife he is likewise forbidden to marry, for they two are one. That law which forbids marrying a brother's wife (Lev 18:16) had an exception peculiar to the Jewish state, that, if a man died without issue, his brother or next of kin should marry the widow, and raise up seed to the deceased (Deu 25:5), for reasons which held good only in that commonwealth; and therefore now that those reasons have ceased the exception ceases, and the law is in force, that a man must in no case marry his brother's widow. That article (Lev 18:18) which forbids a man to take a wife to her sister supposes a connivance at polygamy, as some other laws then did (Exo 21:10; Deu 21:15), but forbids a man's marrying two sisters, as Jacob did, because between those who had before been equal there would be apt to arise greater jealousies and animosities than between wives that were not so nearly related. If the sister of the wife be taken for the concubine, or secondary wife, nothing can be more vexing in her life, or as long as she lives.

Verse 19

Here is, I. A law to preserve the honour of the marriage-bed, that it should not be unseasonably used (Lev 18:19), nor invaded by an adulterer, Lev 18:20. II. A law against that which was the most unnatural idolatry, causing their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev 18:21. Moloch (as some think) was the idol in and by which they worshipped the sun, that great fire of the world; and therefore in the worship of it they made their own children either sacrifices to this idol, burning them to death before it, or devotees to it, causing them to pass between two fires, as some think, or to be thrown through one, to the honour of this pretended deity, imagining that the consecrating of but one of their children in this manner to Moloch would procure good fortune for all the rest of their children. Did idolaters thus give their own children to false gods, and shall we think any thing too dear to be dedicated to, or to be parted with for, the true God? See how this sin of Israel (which they were afterwards guilty of, notwithstanding this law) is aggravated by the relation which they and their children stood in to God. Eze 16:20, Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these thou hast sacrificed. Therefore it is here called profaning the name of their God; for it looked as if they thought they were under greater obligations to Moloch than to Jehovah; for to him they offered their cattle only, but to Moloch their children. III. A law against unnatural lusts, sodomy and bestiality, sins not to be named nor thought of without the utmost abhorrence imaginable, Lev 18:22, Lev 18:23. Other sins level men with the beasts, but these sink them much lower. That ever there should have been occasion for the making of these laws, and that since they are published they should ever have been broken, is the perpetual reproach and scandal of human nature; and the giving of men up to these vile affections was frequently the punishment of their idolatries; so the apostle shows, Rom 1:24. IV. Arguments against these and the like abominable wickednesses. He that has an indisputable right to command us, yet because he will deal with us as men, and draw with the cords of a man, condescends to reason with us. 1. Sinners defile themselves with these abominations: Defile not yourselves in any of these things, Lev 18:24. All sin is defiling to the conscience, but these are sins that have a peculiar turpitude in them. Our heavenly Father, in kindness to us, requires of us that we keep ourselves clean, and do not wallow in the dirt. 2. The souls that commit them shall be cut off, Lev 18:29. And justly; for, if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, Co1 3:17. Fleshly lusts war against the soul, and will certainly be the ruin of it if God's mercy and grace prevent not. 3. The land is defiled, Lev 18:25. If such wickednesses as these be practised and connived at, the land is thereby made unfit to have God's tabernacle in it, and the pure and holy God will withdraw the tokens of his gracious presence from it. It is also rendered unwholesome to the inhabitants, who are hereby infected with sin and exposed to plagues and it is really nauseous and loathsome to all good men in it, as the wickedness of Sodom was to the soul of righteous Lot. 4. These have been the abominations of the former inhabitants, v, 24, 27. Therefore it was necessary that these laws should be made, as antidotes and preservatives from the plague are necessary when we go into an infected place. And therefore they should not practise any such things, because the nations that had practised them now lay under the curse of God, and were shortly to fall by the sword of Israel. They could not but be sensible how odious those people had made themselves who wallowed in this mire, and how they stank in the nostrils of all good men; and shall a people sanctified and dignified as Israel was make themselves thus vile? When we observe how ill sin looks in others we should use this as an argument with ourselves with the utmost care and caution to preserve our purity. 5. For these and the like sins the Canaanites were to be destroyed; these filled the measure of the Amorites' iniquity (Gen 15:16), and brought down that destruction of so many populous kingdoms which the Israelites were now shortly to be not only the spectators, but the instruments of: Therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, Lev 18:25. Note, The tremendous judgments of God, executed on those that are daringly profane and atheistical, are intended as warnings to those who profess religion to take heed of every thing that has the least appearance of, or tendency towards, profaneness or atheism. Even the ruin of the Canaanites is an admonition to the Israelites not to do like them. Nay, to show that not only the Creator is provoked, but the creation burdened, by such abominations as these, it is added (Lev 18:25), The land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. The very ground they went upon did, as it were, groan under them, and was sick of them, and not easy till it had discharged itself of these enemies of the Lord, Isa 1:24. This bespeaks the extreme loathsomeness of sin; sinful man indeed drinks in iniquity like water, but the harmless part of the creation even heaves at it, and rises against it. Many a house and many a town have spued out the wicked inhabitants, as it were, with abhorrence, Rev 3:16. Therefore take heed, saith God, that the land spue not you out also, Lev 18:28. It was secured to them, and entailed upon them, and yet they must expect that, if they made the vices of the Canaanites their own, with their land their fate would be the same. Note, Wicked Israelites are as abominable to God as wicked Canaanites, and more so, and will be as soon spued out, or sooner. Such a warning as was here given to the Israelites is given by the apostle to the Gentile converts, with reference to the rejected Jews, in whose room they were substituted (Rom 11:19, etc.); they must take heed of falling after the same example of unbelief, Heb 4:11. Apply it more generally; and let it deter us effectually from all sinful courses to consider how many they have been the ruin of. Lay the ear of faith to the gates of the bottomless pit, and hear the doleful shrieks and outcries of damned sinners, whom earth has spued out and hell has swallowed, that find themselves undone, for ever undone, by sin; and tremble lest this be your portion at last. God's threatenings and judgments should frighten us from sin. V. The chapter concludes with a sovereign antidote against this infection: Therefore you shall keep my ordinance that you commit not any one of these abominable customs, Lev 18:30. This is the remedy prescribed. Note, 1. Sinful customs are abominable customs, and their being common and fashionable does not make them at all the less abominable nor should we the less abominate them, but the more; because the more customary they are the more dangerous they are. 2. It is of pernicious consequence to admit and allow of any one sinful custom, because one will make way for many, Uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur - Admit but a single absurdity, you invite a thousand. The way of sin is downhill. 3. A close and constant adherence to God's ordinances is the most effectual preservative from the infection of gross sin. The more we taste of the sweetness and feel of the power of holy ordinances the less inclination we shall have to the forbidden pleasures of sinners' abominable customs. It is the grace of God only that will secure us, and that grace is to be expected only in the use of the means of grace. Nor does God ever leave any to their own hearts' lusts till they have first left him and his institutions.

Verse 1

18:1–20:27 Chapters 18 and 20 primarily discuss sexual matters, warning against engaging in pagan practices both religious and secular. These chapters bracket exhortations to pursue holiness in everyday life (ch 19).

Verse 2

18:2 Many Near Eastern treaties began with the name and titles of the ruler who was drawing up the treaty. The phrase I am the Lord your God gives the name of the Great King, Yahweh (English the Lord), followed by his title, your God (see also Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6). These words were an abbreviated way to invoke Israel’s covenant with God and all that it implied. By reminding the people that they were the Lord’s, these words carried an authority that required a response (Lev 11:44; 18:4-5). Chapter 18 begins and ends (18:30) with these words, and they appear frequently throughout chs 19–26.

Verse 4

18:4-5 regulations . . . decrees: The Bible anticipated that the courts would need to interpret the laws that God had provided to apply them to different circumstances. Such interpretations became case laws; the body of these court decisions was called mishpatim in Hebrew (cp. “decrees” in 10:11). • Paul alludes to these verses in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12, where he contrasts the “way of faith” with the “way of law.”

Verse 6

18:6-7 have sexual relations with: Literally to uncover the nakedness of. Similar regulations in ch 20 use the Hebrew word shakab (“lie with”), a word frequently used to indicate an improper sexual relationship.

Verse 7

18:7-8 violate your father: The Hebrew text here equates having sexual relations with your mother or any of your father’s wives with having sexual relations with him (cp. Gen 35:22; 49:4; see also 1 Cor 5:1). The husband and his wife were “two united into one” (Gen 2:24; cp. Eph 5:29). Always in the background of these commands are the commands to honor your parents (Lev 20:9; Exod 20:12) and, by extension, other members of the family (see also study note on Lev 20:17).

18:7 She is your mother: Incest was prohibited because of the disruption it created in families, so the commands concerning this sin included close relatives not necessarily related by blood. Incest was a serious crime because it brought competition and chaos into the family structure. It threatened the safety of the home by violating a family’s appropriate intimacy and the sense of belonging shared by its members. • The commands were directly addressed to the male, even though the female could be older (such as one’s mother). The male, especially if he was the head of the household or the firstborn, wielded more power than the female; with this position came the responsibility to use that power lawfully. In addition, the male was more likely to be the sexual aggressor in an illicit sexual union, although this was not always the case (e.g., Gen 39:6-18).

Verse 9

18:9 Sexual relations with a full sister dishonored both parents, and relations with a half sister dishonored one parent.

Verse 12

18:12-13 your father’s sister . . . mother’s sister: These actions would dishonor your father or mother.

Verse 14

18:14 Having sexual relations with your aunt would dishonor your uncle. In turn, this would also dishonor your father (see 20:20).

Verse 15

18:15 Just as having sexual relations with your father’s wife would dishonor your father, having sexual relations with your daughter-in-law would dishonor your son. The law called for daughters-in-law to be treated like natural daughters (Exod 21:9; cp. Gen 38:1-30).

Verse 16

18:16 Sexual relations with your sister-in-law would be adulterous and disgrace your brother. The exception was the law of levirate marriage (see Deut 25:5-10), which called for a man to marry his brother’s widow in order to produce an heir who was considered the dead brother’s son.

Verse 17

18:17 As with all examples listed in ch 18, marrying a woman together with her daughter or granddaughter was prohibited because of the disruption it would cause in the family order. It would violate the intimacy of the family group by forcing a wife to compete for her husband’s affections against a much younger woman. The penalty for this act was death by burning (20:14).

Verse 18

18:18 The word rivals (Hebrew tsarah) vividly describes the relationship between Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:16–30:24) and Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam 1:6); in both cases, the fellow wives were driven to bitter rivalry for their husband’s affections.

Verse 20

18:20 The Hebrew word translated defile yourself could be more literally translated to become ceremonially unclean. • Sexual intercourse with a neighbor’s wife or any married woman defined adultery in the Old Testament. Breaking this law was punishable by death (Deut 22:22). Like incest, adultery threatened the integrity and security of the home and family. In this case, it violated the covenant of marriage and divided the adulterer’s affection between his spouse and his mistress.

Verse 21

18:21 Molech was the national god of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:7). This god was later worshiped by Israel during times of apostasy (2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35). Molech probably appears in this list because Molech worship was associated with sexual sins; it seems to have included child sacrifice as well. • To bring shame on (literally blaspheme, profane) the name of your God meant using the name of the Lord as though it were not holy, such as in a false oath (Lev 19:12) or in the worship of a false god (Ezek 20:39).

Verse 22

18:22 In Gen 1:31, God pronounced all things good. This yielded a theology of the created order where good is defined by what God created and by the way he intended it to function. Part of this “good” was the creation of woman as man’s companion (Gen 2:22-24). Marriage forms a microcosm of the human race, which stands as the corporate bearer of God’s image. Sin, introduced by the Fall (Gen 3), disrupted the created order. Homosexuality is but one example of sinful violation of God’s order; it is tied to the rejection of God by fallen humanity (Rom 1:25-32). • The Hebrew word translated detestable (to‘ebah) indicates strong disapproval and disgust (Lev 20:13; see also 18:26-30).

Verse 23

18:23 Like homosexuality, bestiality is a violation of the natural order (see study note on 18:22). • The phrase perverse act referred not only to a violation, but to a confusion of the order God created because it broke down clear boundaries that he had established.

Verse 24

18:24-25 any of these ways: Pagan worship (18:21), homosexuality (18:22), and bestiality (18:23). • The land was so nauseated by Canaanite practices that it would dramatically vomit them out (see 18:28).

Verse 28

18:28 Just as the land would vomit out the Canaanites, it would also vomit out the Israelites if they acted like the Canaanites (see study note on 18:24-25). This came to pass with the destruction and exile of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:6) and when the Babylonians destroyed and exiled Judah in 586 BC (2 Kgs 25:8-21).