Jesus Teaches the Spirit of the Law and Perfect Love

Continuing a study of the Gospels:

(Matthew 5:21) "You have heard that it was said by them of old, 'You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.'"

Jesus had gone up on a mountain to escape the crowd and had begun what is called the Sermon on the Mount.  He continued here.  He had told the disciples in the last post that He had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but had come to fulfill them.  He had said in essence, that the scribes and Pharisees were no longer to be their rulers and teachers, but Moses and the prophets were still to be their rulers.  He reminded them of the law they had heard and had been taught to observe, that they shall not kill (Exodus 20:13).  This killing referred to murder, and the Mosaic law declared that anyone judged guilty of murder was to be put to death (Leviticus 24:21, Numbers 35:16).

(22) "But I say to you, that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire."

Jesus expounded on this law, not adding anything new, but teaching the full extent and true spiritual intent of the law.  He went to the heart of the matter, and said that whoever was angry with another without cause would be judged guilty of murder in his heart.  This judgment spoken of by Jesus would have to be the judgment of God, as it is not likely that the courts would judge the heart of man.  By His statement, Jesus sought to teach the spiritual intention of the law, and demonstrate how the scribes and Pharisees, with their strict legalistic interpretation of the word of the law, had corrupted the law and abused permissions that would be inevitably allowed by only a strict interpretation of only the words of the law.  

If the person angry with his brother without cause went on to voice this anger, and exclaim "Raca!" which was a term of contempt meaning a senseless, empty-headed man, then that anger in his heart was manifesting into something worthy of punishment by the Sanhedrin.  "You fool," which seems to our modern interpretation to mean the same as "raca," was actually commonly used to denote idolaters, and godless, wicked men.  When the anger or murder in the heart rose to that level, a person would be in danger of hell fire.  Jesus wasn't speaking of hell in this instance, but the original word was Gehennah of fire, and it referred to the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom.  That was the site where idolaters worshipped Molech and made their children pass through fire, and sometimes even burnt their children with fire in sacrifice to Molech.  Because this valley had been the scene of those fiery sacrifices, the Jews used the word for hell during this time.  However, after much study of this difficult verse, I don't believe that Jesus meant hell.  

Jesus had previously established that anyone angry with his brother without cause had committed murder in his heart.  The Jews at that time considered only actual murder a violation of the sixth commandment.  By using terms associated with punishment used in their laws, with which they were familiar, Jesus demonstrated a broader sense of the commandment.  When He spoke of "judgment", although I do believe there was a double meaning in that God indeed judged the heart, the term would have meant to the Jews at that time civil judgment by a panel of judges who judged smaller matters.  The "council" was the Sanhedrin that judged weightier matters; and the Gehennah of fire was where people were burned alive.  I believe Jesus was illustrating just how that anger without cause was already murder in the heart, left unchecked, growing to contempt, wickedness, then murder.  He compared the growing anger to levels of judgment in their government that the people understood to demonstrate that there was much more to the sixth commandment than just actual murder.

(23) "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, (24) Leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."

The Pharisees were intent on external acts of worship.  If they conformed to the rites of religious worship, no matter what hatred for their brother might be in their hearts, they felt they were just and righteous.  Jesus taught the heart of the matter.  Even if one was in the act of worship and offering at the altar, and remembered that someone had something against him, it was his duty to leave his offering and go be reconciled with his brother.  Note that he did not have to be the person with anger in his heart; if he knew someone had anger against him, it was his duty to reconcile the matter.  Evil was to be nipped in the bud.  Anger in the heart can lead to murder, and is actually judged as murder in the heart by God.  As Christians with love for one another, it is our duty to forgive and save another from that judgment as much as we are able.

(25) "Agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison."

I believe again this is Jesus's comparison of the growing anger in the heart to steps of civil dispute that men would understand.  One was to reconcile his differences with another quickly, while they were on the way, probably a reference to taking their matter to court, in Jesus's law analogy.  Once again, one was to nip evil in the bud.  Allowing a matter to fester, even if not in his own heart, but in his adversary's, brings much trouble and evil.

(26) "Verily, I say to you, you will by no means come out of there till you have paid the last penny."

Completing the thought begun in verse 25, Jesus was warning to do all possible to reconcile differences before they reached this level, because it cost so dearly and so completely.  One was not to let even someone else's anger against him fester and grow until it could not be satisfied until he had given all.  Consider what that does to the soul of the adversary.  One would be saving the soul of his brother from murder in his heart that would ultimately lead to much greater hatred and damage, if he would just reconcile his differences early.  Matthew Henry compared this passage to reconciliation to God through Christ.  While we are alive and on the way to His judgment seat after death, it's the time to reconcile with God through Jesus Christ; once we are dead, it is too late, and we truly will have given all, eternal life with God in heaven.

(27) "You have heard that it was said by them of old time, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"

Jesus turned to the subject of the seventh commandment against adultery.  Just like the commandment against murder, the Pharisees looked at this commandment in the strictest sense, and considered only the act of actual adultery as unlawful, so that it had no respect to acts of fornication, or lustful thoughts, words, and actions.  They felt justified by being able to say they were not adulterers.

(28) "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Once again, Jesus taught the heart of the matter.  He went behind the actual deed to the early stages in the heart when a lustful look might inflame passions that lead to fornication, defilement, adultery, or rape; in current times, it can lead to an addiction to pornography.  Like with anger or murder in the heart, this adultery in the heart must be nipped in the bud.  Like Joseph with Potiphar's wife and the advice of Solomon and Paul, one must flee from that temptation; one must turn his eyes from temptation.

(29) "And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not that your whole body should be cast into hell."

Obviously, Jesus did not intend for one to mutilate his body by plucking his eyes out.  His intention was to show just how serious the sin of adultery in the heart was.  It was imperative that one turn his eyes away from the temptation a beautiful woman might bring.  It was far more profitable to his soul that he deny his eyes any visual pleasure that might lead to something that would have his whole body cast into hell.  

Personally, I see this scripture another way.  My husband was blinded in a terrible car crash when he was a rebellious teenager.  He came from a Word of Faith believing family who always believed that they could faithfully pray his vision back, that by Jesus's stripes he was already healed, that he just needed to accept it because it was God's will that everyone be healed.  My husband came to believe that just because something looks bad, doesn't mean it is.  He looked to this verse, realizing that the taking of his eyes could be the thing that saved his soul.  He realized he was headed head-strong into the wrong direction away from God, and he came to thank God for His mercy in allowing whatever it took to save his soul.  God knows what it takes for each of us; some may need more than others to turn us back to Him.  This time on earth is but a brief minute compared to our glorious time in eternity with God.  Romans 8:18 tells us, "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."  I also believe that in my husband's suffering, as he had many other health issues as a result of that accident, many people may have been brought to Jesus by seeing his strong faith through all his struggles.  For all we knew, that may have been his purpose on earth.  We should be ready and willing for God to use us where we are.  My husband never faltered in his faith, and I know his reward is great in heaven.   

(30) "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell."

Likewise, Jesus said to keep one's hands from evil.  Denying oneself  temporary sinful pleasures is far more profitable to his soul.  I think of Hebrews 11 and the great leaders of faith, specifically the words spoken about Moses in verses 24 to 26, "By faith Moses, when he had come of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, for he looked to the reward."

Scripture tells us that all things work together for good to them who love God and are called according to His purposes (Romans 8:28).  If we could only view our troubles as opportunities for God to use us, and realize that it is far better that we have these troubles and work in fellowship with Jesus, than to be free from troubles and go along distracted and unaware of the dangers to our souls in a godless world.

(31) "It has been said, 'Whoever shall divorce his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorcement.'"

Jesus spoke on the subject of divorce.  He didn't refer to this as a law said by them of old; divorce never was God's plan.  It was only a permission granted because of the hardness of the hearts of men (Mark 10:5); and the original intent was that only adultery permitted it.  However, the way the law was written in Deuteronomy 24:1, if his wife found "no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her," he could give her a bill of divorcement.  Men began to forget the second part, and if his wife no longer found favor in his eyes for whatever trivial reason, like he found another woman more desirable, then he could divorce her.  I can't help but compare this to our laws, how the original intent of our constitution has been lost, and bizarre rights have been written into it because of some language that could be taken out of context and twisted to invent rights never intended.  That is exactly what the Jews were doing 2000 years ago.

(32) "But I say to you that whoever shall divorce his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever shall marry her who is divorced, commits adultery."

Jesus said that if a man divorced his wife for any reason except for her sexual immorality (Strong's defined it as harlotry), then he caused her to commit adultery if she then married again.  Additionally, any man who would marry her would also be guilty of adultery.  Jesus was not revoking the permission granted in the law; He was restoring it to its original intent.  With their present interpretation of the law, if a man divorced his wife for a frivolous reason, that marriage bond ordained by God was still in effect; if she ran to the arms of another man and married him, she would be guilty of adultery because she was still lawfully married in the eyes of God and the original intent of the law.  The man who married her would also be guilty of adultery because he married an already married woman.  The first husband would have caused all this because of his rejection of his wife for a trivial reason.

(33) "Again you have heard that it has been said by them of old time, 'You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform to the Lord your oaths.'"

Jesus spoke again about a law from men of old, referring to Leviticus 19:12, that one must not swear by the Lord's name falsely, and that he was to carry out his oaths he vowed to the Lord or by His name.

(34) "But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; (35) Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."

Once again, we can be certain that Jesus was not changing any law.  There would be times when swearing by God would be necessary as in a court of law.  However, He was discouraging swearing about trivial matters.  An oath to God was a very solemn matter.  As Leviticus 19:12 went on to say, by swearing falsely by His name, one would so profane the name of his Lord God.  By flippantly swearing an oath to God, one would be taking His name in vain, equating it to some trivial matter.  He also said not to swear by heaven; that was equally solemn and serious because heaven was God's throne.  Swearing by the earth should be prohibited because the earth was God's footstool; and swearing by Jerusalem would be carelessly swearing about the city of the great King, their Lord.  It was better not to swear at all because to do so in the manner He described was to profane the Lord and take His name in vain.

(36) "Neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black."

Likewise, one should not swear by his head or his life or the like because in doing so, he swore by things out of his control, and things which are more God's than his own.  That, in effect, would be diminishing God, as well.

(37) "But let your communication be 'Yes' for yes, and 'No' for no; for whatever is more than these comes of evil."

Jesus said a simple truthful yes or no was sufficient without swearing oaths.  More than that would lead to evil.  However, Jesus's words were, "comes of evil."  It seems men again twisted a law.  They might not swear by God, but by swearing by other things, they could get away with perjury through a loophole.  Because they had not sworn an oath to God, they were under no obligation to perform what they had vowed according to the strict words of the law.  However, Jesus informed the people before him that all was God's, so they shouldn't swear at all.

(38) "You have heard that is has been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'"

This was the law of retribution.  Its original intent was that it should take vengeance out of the hands of private parties and commit it to the magistrate.  It was not intended to be used as an excuse to literally maim the accused, but understood to mean that one must pay a price equivalent to the damage done; and that was left up to the judges to determine, not for private parties to exact revenge.

(39) "But I say to you that you do not resist evil, but whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The word translated as evil here, "poneros," Strong's tells us is not the same as other words used for evil that represent the essential character of evil, evil itself.  "Poneros" is a form of the word "ponos" which means anguish or pain; therefore this was an evil act conducted to bring about anguish or pain.  It cannot be said it was meant to be evil itself, as we are told elsewhere to resist the devil, the quintessential evil one (James 4:7).  Jesus's meaning in turning the other cheek was to resist the inclination to immediately seek vengeance, but to be willing to patiently suffer a repetition of the same injury.  "A soft answer turns away wrath" (Proverbs 15:1), but seeking revenge would only stir up more anger and more evil.  Although the law allowed for retribution, again Jesus went to the heart of the matter, suggesting that there not be evil in men's heart against their adversary so that they seek revenge, but they should seek to lovingly defuse the situation.

(40) "And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also."

Likewise, if the matter went all the way to court, and one lost something to another in court, rather than dropping the matter there with resentments still in place, one should give something else of himself to ease the hostilities.  It was better to suffer loss of property than to engender hatred that could eventually affect men's souls.

(41) "And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two."

I am reminded of the saying that if you give an inch, they'll take a mile.  Jesus says that is actually what we should intend.  If someone should force some action of us, we should be willing to do more.  Adam Clarke in his Commentary on the Bible, pointed out that these previous verses represented three types of injuries:  insults and injuries (striking the cheek); loss of property (coat and cloak); and when our bodies are forced to endure all kinds of toil and torment (forcing to go a mile).  We are exhorted to love, patience, and forgiveness.

(42) "Give to him who asks you, and from him who would borrow from you, do not turn away."

In a sort of summary, Jesus said to give to one who asked and not to turn away from one who wanted to borrow.  Note that Jesus didn't say a brother or a Christ follower (Christian), but anyone who asks.  In Luke 6:30, Jesus said to "give to every man who asks of you".  

(43) "You have heard that it has been said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.'"

It is totally evident that scripture had told men to love their neighbors, but I wasn't sure it ever said to hate their enemies.  This was probably a corruption of the law to love one's neighbor, as a neighbor the Jews interpreted to be one of their own nation and religion, giving them justification to hate those who were not part of it.  In a psalm of David, Psalm 139:20-22, David felt justified in hating his enemies because they hated His Lord; he hated them with "perfect hatred."

(44) "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you."

However, Jesus said to love your enemies, and to bless and do good to them.  Of course, the best thing we can do for all is to pray for them.  The law had been corrupted in that people felt justified in separating their neighbor from their enemy.  It was never God's intention that we hate anyone.  Harboring hatred in the heart hurts the heart's owner, not so much the one who is the object of the hatred.  We are to hate evil (Psalm 97:10, Proverbs 8:13, Amos 5:15), but not the person.  We don't wrestle against flesh and blood, but against dark powers and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12).  Is it so hard to love a lost soul who is being deceived by Satan and may spend eternity in hell because of it?  If we could see our enemies as Jesus did, poor lost souls who "know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), we can find it in our hearts to love them.  It doesn't mean we have complacency in their evil or profane actions, or put confidence in someone we know to be deceitful, but we love the person.  We must remember that when we were lost, we did atrocious things, and our Lord loved and forgave us; so should we be willing to love our enemies.  "There but for the grace of God go I."

(45) "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."

Jesus said people were to love their enemies so that they might be called the children of God, followers and imitators of Him.  God gives His sun and rain to both the just and the unjust, both the evil and the good.  As imitators of their Father, so should they give their love to both their neighbors and their enemies.

(46) "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?"

Jesus said if people only loved those who loved them, there was nothing deserving of praise in that.  Even the tax collectors, whom the Jews considered generally men of the worst characters, loved those who loved them.  People who only found it in their hearts to love those who loved them were no better that the most despicable people.

(47) "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Don't even the tax collectors do so?"

Likewise, Jesus said if people only greeted their friends, they were doing nothing more than the loathsome tax collectors did.

(48) "Therefore be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Obviously, no person on earth can ever be perfect like God!  However, that should always be our goal.  We can be children of God, imitators of Him; in this case, we can love all people, even those who do harm to us.  Perfect love casts out fear and torment.  God is love and he who lives in love lives in God, and God is in him; in that way love is made perfect. (1 John 4:16-18).

The laws Jesus spoke about in these verses all have to do with love in our hearts--love instead of anger and murder in our hearts, love instead of lust in our hearts, love for our enemies, and there's even love in truth (v. 37).  Jesus would later say that to love was the greatest commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind...and...you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

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."