(Leviticus 18:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God.'"
After delivering to him the laws of atonement (specifically the day of atonement) and proper handling of the sacrifices for atonement in the past two chapters (and posts), the Lord continued speaking to Moses, instructing him to give His words to the children of Israel. He began by reminding them that He was their Lord God, their one and only sovereign God and lawgiver.
(3) "‘According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances.'"
The Lord told the people through Moses that they were not to follow the customs of the people of Egypt where they had dwelt and no doubt picked up some customs. Likewise, they also were not to follow the customs of the people of Canaan where He was bringing them.
(4) "‘You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them; I am the LORD your God.'"
Rather than observing the customs of the Egyptians and the Canaanites and the like, the people were commanded by God to observe only His judgments and laws and to walk in those, as He was their Lord God. Their Lord God was the one true and sovereign God, but also the One to whom they owed their very lives, which ought to give them incentive to want to please Him and show gratitude for all the great things He had done for them.
(5) "‘You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.'"
Because He was their Lord God, THE one true sovereign Lord, therefore they were to keep only His statutes and judgments. God then added that if the people did keep His statutes and ordinances that they would live by them. Keeping the law meant living by it, but I think the actual meaning is that if they obeyed His laws, they would live. That sentiment is found throughout scripture in that God's laws meant life whereas the ways of the world meant death:
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. - Romans 8:13
There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. - Proverbs 16:25
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live. - Deuteronomy 30:19
For whoever will save his life shall lose it, and whoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? - Matthew 16:25-26
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. - Romans 12:2
(6) "‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD.'"
The Lord now began a list of His laws that were probably opposite to what the people had before witnessed or even practiced themselves among the Egyptians. No one was to approach his near kin to expose his or her nakedness. The original word "ervah" more completely referred to a shameful or indecent exposure of the pudenda, or genital organs. The implication is that the people were not to have sexual intercourse with their next of kin. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, pointed out that in the infancy of the world, people of near kinship must necessarily have married to populate the world. This practice was no longer necessary, and the Lord now commanded against it. He was THE Lord, and a thing was established because He said so.
(7) "‘The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. (8) The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.'"
Uncovering "the nakedness of your father" doesn't appear to mean any sexual act of a son with his father, but rather seems to mean that uncovering the nakedness of your mother would shamefully expose your father by taking what was his and his alone. As the verses continue, it seems apparent that these commandments were addressed to men about the women with whom they were not to engage sexually, but that by the taking of those women they would "uncover the nakedness" of the women's husbands. The first specific prohibition was a son with his mother. Rather than a repetition of verse 7, verse 8 may refer also to his father's wife who was not his mother, but his stepmother.
(9) "‘The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, her nakedness you shall not uncover.'"
The man of Israel was not to lie with his sister, whether she was the daughter of both his parents, or just of his father or just of his mother. It did not matter where his sister was born, or as some interpret this scripture, whether she was born in a lawful marriage or as the result of adultery or whoredom outside of marriage; if she was the daughter of either his father or his mother or both, the man of Israel was not to have sexual relations with her.
(10) "‘The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness.'"
A man was not to have relations with the daughter of his son or daughter, his granddaughter, because she was from his own flesh, from his union with her grandmother, and said to be of his own nakedness.
(11) "‘The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.'"
This seems to further expound on verse 9, that the daughter of a man's father's wife, other than his own mother, if she is begotten of his father, she is off limits to him.
(12) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father's near kin.'"
Men now were not to have relations with their aunts, their father's sisters, because they were so near kin. This was a change from the union that produced Aaron and Moses: And Amram took for himself Jochebed, his father’s sister, as wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. - Exodus 6:20a.
(13) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother's near kin.'"
Likewise they were not to have relations with aunts on their mother's side, their mother's sisters.
(14) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.'"
I believe the sense of uncovering the nakedness of a man's father's brother, his uncle, is that a man was not to sexually approach the wife of his father's brother, thus uncovering what had been only his uncle's private "nakedness". A man was not to lie with his aunt; the kinship was too near.
(15) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law, she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.'"
A man was forbidden to have sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, his son's wife.
(16) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.'"
A man was forbidden to have sexual relations with his brother's wife, as that privilege belonged to his brother alone. However if his brother died childless, we later see that God in Deuteronomy 25:5, said that in that case it was not only lawful for him to marry his brother's wife, but he was obliged by the law to do so.
(17) "‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness, for they are her near kin; it is wickedness.'"
It was not lawful for a man to take both a woman and her daughter or her granddaughter. I believe in this case, the sense of uncovering the woman's nakedness meant that because her daughter and granddaughter were of her flesh and she had been one flesh with the man she had married, the relationship with her daughter and granddaughter would be too close.
(18) "'Neither shall you take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other in her lifetime.'"
A man was not to marry two sisters while both were alive, as Jacob had done with Rachel and Leah. With them as an example, we certainly saw how the sisters as wives would be vexed, and prone to jealousy and quarrels. The prohibition applied only during their lifetime; a man was free to marry his wife's sister if his wife had died.
(19) "‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.'"
A man was not to sexually approach a woman, even his own wife, during her monthly period of uncleanness.
(20) "‘Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.'"
A man was not to have sexual relations with his neighbor's wife, thus also defiling himself with her. This would be against two of the ten commandments, committing adultery and coveting thy neighbor's wife.
(21) "‘And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.'"
A man of Israel was not to let any of his descendants "pass through the fire to Molech". In this verse, the King James Version italicized "the fire", indicating the translators had added that phrase. The original text stated only that they "pass through to Molech", which would seem to mean they passed from the law of God to the religion of Molech, thus profaning the name of the Lord by such idolatry. However, "the fire" may be rightly supplied here as other scriptures do seem to indicate there was a practice of burning children in the fire to sacrifice to Molech (Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35, 2 Chron. 28:3).
(22) "‘You shall not lie with with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.'"
A man was not to lie with a man in the like manner he would lie with a woman. How can anyone deny that this is a prohibition against homosexuality? I actually did a search to see how people explained it away. People went to great lengths to explain that it was a mistranslation to call it "abomination". It was more like "taboo", which I guess, wasn't so bad, because it was just unusual, but not wrong, you see. Incredible! The original word was "toebah", which may indeed look like "taboo", but what does "taboo" mean? Improper, unacceptable, forbidden. Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs both define the original word as "disgusting, abhorrent, abominable". Whether it's abominable, disgusting, or improper and unacceptable, what difference does it make? Unbelievably, I found that people trying to disprove the general translation of Leviticus 18:22 often used other scriptures where the same word was used to prove it couldn't mean abomination--like child sacrifice and idolatry. Whatever word you use to describe God's feeling about child sacrifice, idolatry, and homosexuality, there is no way you can turn it into a positive attitude! The arguments against God calling the act of homosexuality an abomination are definitely far-reaching and weak and untrue.
(23) "'Neither shall you lie with any beast to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down with it; it is perversion.'"
Lying with animals was also prohibited. In the previous verses, the prohibitions were given to the man, but this verse added that it was just as unlawful for a woman to practice bestiality. It was a perversion or violation of the natural or divine order of things.
(24) "‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you.'"
God through Moses told the people not to defile themselves with any of the aforementioned abominations. It was because of these such abominations that the nations were defiled that the Lord was casting out in order to give the land to His people.
(25) "'And the land is defiled; therefore I do visit its iniquity upon it, and the land itself vomits out its inhabitants.'"
The land where these defiled nations had been was itself defiled because of the abominations performed in it. Therefore the Lord was about to visit, or perhaps one of the more applicable definitions of the original word "paqad", "attend to", would better describe what He was about to do about the iniquity of the land. The verse is clear that it was the Lord tending to the iniquity of the land, but He described it as the land itself vomiting out its inhabitants as a stomach full of corrupt and bad food is nauseated and cannot bear to retain it.
(26) "‘You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you,'"
The people were therefore to keep the commandments of God and not commit any of the abominations that He had described above, incest, adultery, idolatry, homosexuality, and bestiality. These statutes applied to the people of Israel, as well as to any stranger who lived among them.
I have to take a short digression here. I think of all the times God said that "you" and "the stranger who dwelt among you" were to do the same things. God was very welcoming of the strangers, the foreigners, the aliens, BUT He required that they live as His people lived if they were going to live among them. The stranger was not forced to submit to the Israelite's religion, but he was required to act in a way that did not show contempt for their religion or their God, if they wanted to live among them. As with most all God's commandments, even though a sovereign God in no way had to adhere to our human ideals of reasonable rules, nor had to explain Himself, it seems as if His laws were indeed common sense laws designed to prolong health and life. Choose God and live. God doesn't demand that we choose Him; we have free will. However, a country would do good to adhere to the laws of God, and demand that its immigrant citizens do likewise. This idea of total diversity within one country, that it shouldn't stand for any one thing, cannot and will not work. Diversity is wonderful, but if one desires to be a part of another country, he must necessarily give up some of his traditional rites and become assimilated with his supposed preferred country of domicile. ALL traditions cannot coincide together, when some are in direct conflict with others, so there must be a unified country standard. People nowadays have become so afraid of appearing prejudiced and isolationist, that they bend over so far backward to accommodate in ways that destroy themselves. In doing so, they are the very ones who create any negative feelings that may arise toward immigrants. By ignoring the fact that free moving uninhibited illegal immigration brings gang members, drug runners, criminals, and those who wish to do us harm, along with those who may simply want a better life for their children, they enable the lawless acts against our citizens which cause some to seem "anti" immigrant if they dare to speak out against those things. In most cases, it's not that people are against immigrants. We were ALL immigrants! But we became Americans legally. There was a certain process in coming to America and in becoming an American. It didn't mean you totally gave up your heritage, but your decision to be a part of America meant you had to become an American and accept all that that entailed. If there is something wrong with our LEGAL immigration laws, then let's fix them, but it is foolish to just ignore them and allow illegal immigration which will destroy us. There was wisdom in this, God's law, as there is with all God's laws. The foolishness of man is that he thinks he can be wise apart from God:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. - Proverbs 1:7
There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. - Proverbs 21:30
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!- Isaiah 5:20-21
(27) "'(For all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and the land is defiled;)'"
Leviticus 18:27 is a parenthetical phrase to verse 26 above that stated the people were to keep God's statutes and not commit any of the before mentioned abominations. All the abominations described by God in this chapter were done by the men of the land to which God was bringing His people. The men living in the land before them had done these wicked things and had thus defiled the land.
(28) "'That the land not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.'"
A continuation of the statement started in verse 26, the people were to keep God's statutes so that the land would not have to spew them out of it when they defiled it, as it was spewing out the nations before them.
(29) "‘For whoever commits any of these abominations, the souls who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.'"
Whoever committed any of these abominations would be cut off from among their people. This could be done by the immediate hand of God, or by civil or ecclesiastical punishment.
(30) "‘Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, that you do not commit any one of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them; I am the LORD your God.’”
Therefore the people were to keep God's ordinances so that they did not commit any of the abominable customs that were committed before them, and thus defiling themselves. Thus saith the Lord your God, who has the sovereign authority to command whatever He wills, but lovingly commands what is best for our well-being. I like how Matthew Henry (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) described this concluding statement of the Lord: "This is the remedy prescribed...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...It is of pernicious consequence to admit and allow of any one sinful custom, because one will make way for many...Admit but a single absurdity, you invite a thousand. The way of sin is downhill...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..."
