Laws Repeated with Penalties Assessed

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 20:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel, 'Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.'"

In the past couple of chapters (and posts), the Lord had been giving Moses various laws that he was to pass on to the people.  He continued speaking to Moses, telling him to in turn tell it to the children of Israel:  Anyone of the people of Israel, including the strangers who dwelt among them, who gave any of their offspring to the god Molech, would be put to death by stoning by the people of the land.  Molech was the fire-god of the eastern nations.  To give one's offspring to Molech may have been literal, to give to Molech in sacrifice.  The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others, describe Molech and the sacrificing to him this way:

"The Rabbins describe this idol as made of brass sitting upon a throne of the same metal, in the form of a man, with the head of a calf, adorned with a royal crown, and his arms extended as if to embrace any one. When they offered any children to him, they heated the statue by a great fire kindled within, and the victim was put into his arms, and thus consumed. Others relate, that the idol, which was hollow, was divided into seven compartments within; in one of which they put flour, in the second turtles, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and the seventh a child; which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside."

Indeed, other scriptures (Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35, 2 Chron. 28:3) do speak of burning children in the fire:

“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart." - Jeremiah 7:31

Moreover he (Ahaz) burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. - 2 Chronicles 28:3 (parentheses mine).

Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, doubted the description of the TSK above, writing that he saw no evidence of it in the "sacred writings".  He felt there was only "presumptive proof, and that not very strong, that human sacrifices were at all offered to Molech by the Jews. The passing through the fire, so frequently spoken of, might mean no more than a simple rite of consecration to the service of this idol. Probably a kind of ordeal was meant, the persons passing suddenly through the flame of a large fire, by which, though they might be burnt or scorched, yet they were neither killed nor consumed. Or they might have passed between two large fires, as a sort of purification."  The scriptures referenced above do speak of burning their children, but I suppose it is possible that Mr. Clarke could be right that they might have been burned but not completely consumed and killed. 

Most of the Bible translations of the original word "zera" indicate it meant "children" or "offspring".  The KJV translated it as "seed" which also meant children and offspring, but could have also meant "sperm", as the man's reproductive "seed".  Indeed, that is what Dr. John Gill wrote in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, referencing Aben Ezra, early Jewish biblical commentator and philosopher.  He interpreted it as "lying with an idolatrous woman, or a worshipper of Molech, the abomination or idol of the Ammonites." 

With so many different opinions on what is meant in verse 2, I think it is safe to say that at the minimum, the people were not to give their seed or children over to Molech, in any form or fashion, encouraging them to follow a false idol.  Steering them away from the one true God, the only One who could give them everlasting life, was to lead them to death, and their punishment for doing so was indeed death.  If it had nothing to do with his children, but meant mingling reproductive seed with an idolatrous woman, then that person himself was guilty of idolatry and deserving of death, which is what he chose for himself.  Stoning with stones was a common form of capital punishment.  I wonder if it was the preferred method because the execution was the act of the whole congregation, making each person cognizant of the sin against God that led to the stoning.

(3) "'And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given of his seed to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name.'"

The Lord actively setting His face against a man would be treating him as an enemy, throwing the force of His full anger and wrath toward him.  The Lord would cut him off from among His people, which of course, meant literally, as he was stoned and removed from the living, but also meant he was spiritually removed from God's own people.  I suppose you could say that man was given over to Molech, whom he chose, whether by literally giving his children in sacrifice to Molech, or giving his potential posterity over to him by lying carnally with worshipers of the false god.  Either way, it would defile God's pure sanctuary and profane His holy name by allowing the sharing of the presence and worship of false idols.

(4) "‘And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and they do not kill him, (5) Then I will set my face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.'"

There is some discrepancy among commentators as to what man is meant in these verses, with regard to the one that will be cut off.  If taken as written, I interpret it the following way:  If the people of the land purposely look the other way when they know a man is giving his seed to Molech, and do not kill him, then God Himself will set His face against that man and his family, and will cut him off from his people.  Just because the people did not follow through and stone the man, would not mean that the man got away with it.  God would not tolerate it.  Dr. John Gill believed that the man God was setting His face against in verse 5 was the man that knew of, but winked at, the sin.  I don't believe that's the case, because the plural people were hiding their eyes from the singular man who gave his seed to Molech.  Then God set His face against that singular man.  However, God did say He would also cut off the man's family and all that went "a whoring" after him.  Committing whoredom with Molech referred to spiritual whoredom, idolatry, giving worship, something that belonged to the one true God alone, to the faithful God who had brought them out of bondage in Egypt, giving that worship to another god.  The man's family would have known about him giving his seed to Molech, and all that went "a whoring" after he did it, perhaps would indeed mean those who knew he did it and allowed it were also guilty of committing spiritual whoredom.  Verse 5 does end with "from among their people"; the man would be cut off, as well as all who went a whoring after him would be cut off, from among their people.  The apostle Paul wrote about those who approved of those who sinned, fully realizing that they sinned against God:

Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1:32

(6) "'And the soul who turns after those who have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.'"

The person who consulted mediums and their spirits or wizards and their magic, rather than the only true and sovereign God, was seen as "a whoring" after other spirits, forsaking their Lord and putting their faith and confidence in fortune-tellers and the like.  The person who turned to those things, would be cut off from his people by the Lord.  I believe there is just as strong a prohibition against this now.  I do believe these spirits can be real, and can perhaps be truthful at times, but they are not of the Lord.  They can't possibly be, because to encourage a person to communicate with themselves, would be to go against the Lord from whom they professed to be.  Common sense tells us to stay away from such things.  Just because they might be real or might be truthful, does not make them from God.  God alone knows what is best for us and desires what is best for us, and He will reveal to us what He wants us to know.  Any truth revealed by other spirits is only to ultimately benefit them and the force behind them, Satan.  It would likely be to entrap the one consulting the spirits into following them.

(7) "'Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.'"

Therefore the people were to sanctify themselves, consecrating themselves to their Lord, separating themselves from the idolatrous practices mentioned before.  They were to be holy, as much as was within their power to be, because their Lord God was holy and instructed them to imitate Him.

(8) "‘And you shall keep My statutes, and do them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.'"

The people were to observe their Lord's statutes and were to practice them.  When doing so, their Lord would sanctify them.  We know that the law itself does not make one holy.  All people will sin and will fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), but by having a heart toward their Lord and desiring to follow Him and to do what He said, their Lord would respect that and sanctify them.  It reminds me of the passages in Romans 4 that spoke of Abraham.  Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.  Abraham was a flawed man who at times faltered and sinned, but he had faith in the promises of God, and that was what was counted for righteousness.  If the people would honor and do the Lord's statutes, then they would be sanctified.

(9) "‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood shall be upon him.'"

Now begins a repetition of those statutes, and the penalty for disobeying.  The people were to honor their mothers and their fathers, and anyone who cursed either was to be put to death.  The original word translated as "cursed" was "qalal" and meant more completely to belittle, to disrespect, to make light of.  He who disrespected his parents was said to have cursed them, and he was guilty and deserving of death.

(10) "'And the man who commits adultery with a man’s wife, who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.'"

Both the adulterer, the man committing adultery, and the adulteress, the woman with whom the man committed adultery, were to be put to death.  The clause is repeated, the first time "the man who commits adultery with a man's wife", and then he "who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife", I believe only for emphasis and further explanation.  A man was not to commit adultery, period; that was an act against the seventh commandment of God.  A man was also not to covet his neighbor's wife, in violation of the tenth commandment.  Dr. John Gill wrote that early Jewish scholars Jarchi and Ben Gershom thought it was expressed that way to make an exception for the wife of a stranger, but most commentators I study don't believe that to be the case.  I don't either.  After all, who is your neighbor?  That has been proven elsewhere to be any member of mankind.  Other scriptures definitely point to adultery with any married woman being punishable by death (Deut. 22:22, Num. 25:6).

(11) "'And the man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

I am beginning to understand that the first clause in verse 10 was a general one, the man who committed adultery with a man's wife (period) was to be put to death.  The second clause in verse 10, and subsequent verses 11 and 12, further explain the ways in which a man might commit adultery, first with his neighbor's wife, next with his father's wife, etc.  In Leviticus 18:7-8, God had already outlined a law in which a man must never uncover his father's nakedness, that is, taking his wife that was his father's and his father's alone, whether the woman was his own mother or not related, but his stepmother.  In further explanation of the ways a man might commit adultery, in this case, both parties were to be put to death.

(12) "'And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought perversion; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Likewise, if a man committed adultery with his daughter-in-law, both parties were to be put to death.  The word translated as "perversion" was "tebel", and Strong's defined it as "unnatural, as in bestiality", and Brown-Driver, Briggs defined it as "a violation of nature, perversion".

(13) "'If a man also lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Additionally, besides the ways in which he might commit adultery, if a man lay with another man as he would lie with a woman, both men would be considered as having committed an abomination, and were to be put to death.  It can be reasonably assumed that this only applied to two consenting partners.  A later scripture speaks of a man who forces a woman against her will (Deut. 22:25), and in that case, only the man was to be put to death.  That would reasonably be assumed to be the case in this situation, as well.

(14) "'And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.'"

I believe the case to which this referred would be one in which they all three consented to the union; then they would all be burned with fire so as to deter others from doing such wickedness.  It doesn't seem reasonable that a wife who married her husband with the best intentions should later be guilty and burned in the fire, if her husband decided at a later date to take her mother to wife, as well.  I believe the phrase "if a man takes a wife and her mother" must necessarily mean the taking of them at the same time.

(15) "'And if a man lies with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the beast.'"

Bestiality was punishable by death; both the man and the beast were to be killed.  There are those who might question why an innocent beast was put to death when it was a victim and abused by a man.  I have never been one who believed an animal's "rights" were equal to man's.  Back in Genesis 1, God gave man dominion over the animals.  Countless verses tell us they were given to be used for food and clothing and protection, but they were not to be tortured and abused:  "A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10).  In this case the animal was put to death probably to wipe out the temptation that might arouse from the curiosity from seeing such an animal that was an instrument in so heinous a sin.  Even if there was no temptation to "lie with the beast", you can imagine the curiosity and talk surrounding the animal, and I am sure it was best to blot out the memory of such a sin.

(16) "'And if a woman approaches any beast and lies down with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

It was not only in the case of a man lying with an animal, but a woman who lay with an animal was also to be killed along with the animal.

(17) "'And if a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.'"

A man was forbidden to lie with his sister, whether his full sister, daughter of both his parents, or just his half sister, daughter of just one of his parents.  "Seeing her nakedness" did not refer to an innocent or even intentional mere glimpse of nakedness, but referred to lying together naked in fornication.  Both were to be cut off from the sight of their people, which probably meant death, but I suppose could have meant just a casting out or separation from their people.  The fact that "he shall bear his iniquity" meant that the guilt of it would stay with them, to be reckoned for another day, if not immediately.

(18) "'And if a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.'"

If a man lay with a woman during her period, both of them were to be cut off from their people.  In this case, previous verses have told us this being "cut off from among their people" meant a separation for a time from their people because of uncleanness.  That is why I am not sure whether the phrase in verse 17 meant separation by killing or just a casting out from among their people.  However, in this case (v. 18), a person could be made clean again after a period of seven days and by offering a sacrifice (Lev. 15:24), but verse 17 does explicitly state that he would "bear his iniquity" which sounds as if that iniquity would stay with him, and would not be purged with sacrifice and offering.

(19) "'And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister, for that would uncover his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.'"

A man was not to lie with his aunt, whether his mother's sister or his father's sister.  This relationship was considered "near kin", and the Lord had pronounced a law against this in Leviticus 18:6 and 18:12-13.  Both would bear their iniquity, both the man and his aunt, and we can assume it would also refer to a woman and her uncle.

(20) "'And if a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.'"

I believe this means that even if the woman was not his aunt by blood, either his mother or father's sister, but merely his uncle's wife, he was still guilty because he had exposed what was his uncle's alone.  Both he and his uncle's wife would bear their sin and they would die childless.  I suppose there are different ways of interpreting this.  Perhaps they were cut off from their people and any children would likewise be cut off and not considered among the Israelites.  Perhaps they were cut off by death and therefore would die before having any children.  Maybe God denied them the blessings of children because of their incestuous relationship.  The verse does not detail exactly how this was to play out, but we do know that God considered this a sin that had lasting consequences.

(21) "'And if a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.'"

A man was not to take his brother's wife, that which was his brother's alone; that would be considered an unclean thing and they would die childless.  I believe this probably refers to the taking of his brother's wife while his brother was still living, as God did provide for a case when a man was to marry the wife of his brother (Deut. 25:5) after the brother died.

(22) "‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and do them, that the land where I bring you to dwell may not spew you out.'"

The people were instructed by the Lord to keep all His statutes and judgments as He had laid out for them; they were to honor and perform them, so that the land to which the Lord was bringing them would not vomit them out, as He had described in Leviticus 18 the land had done to its previous inhabitants because of their wickedness.

(23) "‘And you shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you; for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.'"

Continuing the thought started in verse 22, the people were to keep God's statutes and were not to walk in the ways of the nations that occupied the land before them, for they had committed all the idolatries, incests, and uncleannesses before mentioned, and He abhorred them and drove them out to give the land to His people, the children of Israel.  God warned His people against doing the same things that resulted in the previous people being spewed or driven out of their land.

(24) "‘But I have said to you, “You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from other people.'"

God reminded His people that He had promised they would inherit a land abundant in rich blessings, and that He, their one true Lord God, had separated them from all the other peoples of the world to be His special people.

(25) "‘You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.'"

Because they were God's chosen people, they were to observe His clean and unclean laws and not make themselves abominable by choosing the unclean of any animal, those animals He had explicitly told them were unclean (Lev. 11).

(26) "‘And you shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from other people, that you should be Mine.'"

His people were to be holy and follow His example and statutes for He was holy and had separated them from other people to be His holy chosen people.  They were His chosen people and therefore were to obey His statutes and judgments if they were to be considered His people.

(27) "‘A man or a woman who has a familiar spirit, or who is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Finally, any man or woman who had a familiar spirit, a spirit with whom he or she communicated, or one who was a wizard, was to be put to death, stoned with stones.  That person was guilty of putting his faith in spirits other than his one true Lord, and his blood would be upon him, that is, he was worthy of death.

Most of these laws are repetitions of laws before given, now repeated with the penalties for breaking them.  As Matthew Henry wrote in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "those who would not be deterred from sin by the fear of God might be deterred from it by the fear of punishment. If we will not avoid such and such practices because the law has made them sin...surely we shall avoid them when the law has made them death, from a principle of self-preservation."

The last few verses summarized how we are to act if we are God's children, as stated so well in Ephesians 5:11:

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."