Leviticus · Chapter 18

Verse 1. It being one special design of God to preserve his people from the lewd and idolatrous customs of other nations, Moses now receives particular orders to prohibit the Israelites from many of those unnatural practices which were common among the ancient idolaters.

V. 2. Your God-Your sovereign, and lawgiver. This is often repeated because the things here forbidden were practised and allowed by the Gentiles, to whose custom he opposes divine authority and their obligation to obey his commands.

Verse 2. Your God — Your sovereign and lawgiver. This is often repeated, because the things here forbidden were practised and allowed by the Gentiles, to whose custom he opposes divine authority and their obligation to obey his commands.

2. I am the Lord — In giving commandments, the authority of the Lawgiver is made prominent. See Leviticus 11:44, note.

V. 3. Egypt and Canaan-These two nations he mentions, because their habitation and conversation among them made their evil example in the following matters more dangerous. But under them he includes all other nations.

Verse 3. The doings of the land of Egypt-the land of Canaan] The worshipping of demons, beasts, &c., as mentioned in the preceding chapters, Leviticus 17:7, and the abominations mentioned in this chapter from Leviticus 18:21-23.

Verse 3. Egypt and Canaan — These two nations he mentions, because their habitation and conversation among them made their evil example in the following matters more dangerous. But under them he includes all other nations.

3. After the doings of… Egypt — The Israelites appear during the oppression, for the most part, to have adopted the religion of their masters, (Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:7, 8,) and, of course, were morally defiled. Ashtoreth, the oriental Venus, was worshipped in Memphis with all the pollutions attendant upon such a cultus, as is shown by a tablet recently discovered. The sculptures and paintings of the tombs give a very full insight into the domestic life of the ancient Egyptians, as exhibited by Sir G. Wilkinson. Licentious and naked festal dances are conspicuous in the stony record, exactly corroborating Exodus 32:25. Concubines, or trains of inferior wives, also appear on the tablets. The gross and unnatural vices of the Egyptians are hinted at in this chapter. After the doings of… Canaan — Outside of the Old Testament we have no clew to the manners or customs of this people; but within, the sacred annals are abundant proofs of the moral abominations by which the land was defiled. Leviticus 20:23; Deuteronomy 12:30, 31. Whither I bring you — These words point to the sojourn in the wilderness prior to the occupation of Canaan; and they are an insuperable objection to the theory that the Levitical legislation was an invention of crafty men centuries after Moses died. Ordinances — The extent and pervasiveness of Canaanitish depravity may be inferred from the fact that their very laws, in which moral purity lingers longest, had been changed from guardians of virtue to patrons of vice.

V. 4. My judgments-Though you do not see the particular reason of some of them, and though they be contrary to the laws and usages of the other nations.

Verse 4. My judgments — Though you do not see the particular reason of some of them, and though they be contrary to the laws and usages of the other nations.

4. Judgments — Judicial utterances or legal precepts.

V. 5. He shall live in them-Not only happily here, but eternally hereafter. This is added as a powerful argument why they should follow God’s commands, rather than mens examples, because their life and happiness depend upon it. And though in strictness, and according to the covenant of works they could not challenge life for so doing, except their obedience was universal, perfect, constant and perpetual, and therefore no man since the fall could be justified by the law, yet by the covenant of grace this life is promised to all that obey God’s commands sincerely.

Verse 5. He shall live in them — Not only happily here, but eternally hereafter. This is added as a powerful argument why they should follow God’s commands rather than men’s examples, because their life and happiness depended upon it. And though in strictness, and according to the covenant of works, they could not challenge life for so doing, except their obedience was universal, perfect, constant, and perpetual, and therefore no man since the fall could be justified by the law; yet by the covenant of grace this life is promised to all that obey God’s commands sincerely. I am the Lord — Hebrew, I am Jehovah; that is, I am faithful to keep my covenant, and to fulfil my promises. See on Exodus 6:3. I am the sovereign dispenser of life and death, and therefore they that keep my laws shall live.

5. If a man do, he shall live — This important sentence contains the whole doctrine of justification by works. It is rendered more correctly and more emphatically in Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21, “he shall even live.” “The precepts of the law,” says Aquinas, “are not concerning things to be believed, but concerning things to be done.” Nevertheless, acceptable doing implies faith, while evangelical believing includes the subsequent doing of the will of God as the fruit of faith. As regards the life here promised, the Jewish interpreters themselves included in it more than mere earthly felicity in Canaan, (Deuteronomy 30:20,) and extended their view to a better life hereafter. The Palestine Targum renders it, “he shall live in them in the life of eternity;” that of Onkelos, “an everlasting life.” Says Tholuck, “Life seems to be a general promise, and length of days a particular species of felicity. In the New Testament this idea (of life) is always exalted into that of life blessed and eternal. See Matthew 7:14; 18:8, 9; Luke 10:28.” Hence this is a plain intimation of the doctrine of a future life in the Pentateuch, which is denied by some superficial readers. St. Paul found “to be unto death” “the commandment which was ordained to life,” just as the murderer on the scaffold finds that the law against murder, designed to protect life, when transgressed, is “unto death.” The design and normal tendency of the law is life; but through man’s imperfection and disobedience the actual result is death. See Galatians 3:21, note, and John 11:25, note. In them — He shall live in the strength of, or by means of, these laws, in the faithful keeping of which is his fountain of life. But “he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Failure to do this renders “all the world guilty before God.”

V. 6. To uncover their nakedness-I think Mr. Free has made it highly probable, that this phrase does not mean marriage, but fornication, throughout this chapter. So it unquestionably means in the twentieth chapter.

Verse 6. Any that is near of kin] wrcb rav lk col shear besaro, any remnant of his flesh, i.e., to any particularly allied to his own family, the prohibited degrees in which are specified from Leviticus 18:7-17 inclusive. Notwithstanding the prohibitions here, it must be evident that in the infancy of the world, persons very near of kin must have been joined in matrimonial alliances; and that even brothers must have matched with their own sisters. This must have been the case in the family of Adam. In these first instances necessity required this; when this necessity no longer existed, the thing became inexpedient and improper for two reasons: 1. That the duties owing by nature to relatives might not be confounded with those of a social or political kind; for could a man be a brother and a husband, a son and a husband, at the same time, and fulfil the duties of both? Impossible. 2. That by intermarrying with other families, the bonds of social compact might be strengthened and extended, so that the love of our neighbour, &c., might at once be felt to be not only a maxim of sound policy, but also a very practicable and easy duty; and thus feuds, divisions, and wars be prevented.

Verse 6. The first of these prohibitions is against all improper and incestuous marriages, a thing very common among the Canaanitish nations and in Egypt, even to the last degree of unnatural mixtures. Diodorus Siculus relates, that it was permitted by law in the latter country, contrary to the custom of other nations, that a man might marry his own sister. None of you shall approach — The prohibition is absolute, and no advances were to be made toward its violation. Indeed the only way to avoid actual transgressions, is to resist and guard against the first motions of evil. Principiis obsta, withstand the first approach of sin, is a most important precept. And it is to be well observed, that as these laws forbade marriages between near relations, they certainly much more prohibited unchastity between them, and every approach to it. Any that is near akin to him — Hebrew, The remainder of his flesh; that is, his immediate relations, so near akin to him, that they are, as we say, his own flesh and blood; such as a man’s sister, mother, daughter. Indeed, had near relations been allowed to marry each other, the most mischievous and fatal consequences must have resulted from it. For being much together in youth, temptations to unchastity would frequently have been too powerful to have been resisted. But, by such a restriction as this, being taught to look upon all such intercourse as prohibited and incestuous, they were assisted to withstand temptations to evil.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

Verse 7. The nakedness of thy father, or of thy mother — This is but one fact, though expressed two ways, as appears from verse 8, compared with Leviticus 20:11. The expression imports, that such an action is doing the greatest dishonour to one’s father and mother.

7. Nakedness of thy father — Here the “father” is grammatically the possessor. It is the wife’s nakedness, as the Hebrew properly rendered shows, where the “or” is rendered “even;” thus “the nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother.” Since the husband and wife are one flesh, what is predicated of the wife may be predicated of him. The last clause of the verse implies that the command is directed only to a son, and refers only to his mother.

8. Father’s wife — His stepmother is especially intended.

Verse 9. Whether she be born at home, or born abroad — Whether she be legitimately born in wedlock, or illegitimately out of wedlock. Others explain it thus: “Whether she be thy sister by the same father, or by another marriage.”

9. Thy sister — The half-sister is here described; born at home, or born abroad — This has generally been understood as equivalent to “in or out of wedlock,” that is, the daughter of the father’s former wife or concubine; or it may amplify the preceding words, and signify one born to either parent in a former marriage. The Athenians were allowed to marry half-sisters by the father’s side; the Spartans married half-sisters by the same mother.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

11. Father’s wife’s daughter — Knobel finds this distinction between this and verse 9, namely, that the words “father’s wife” include the mother as well as the stepmother, and thus specifically state the full sister. Others find no prohibition of the marriage of a full sister, as there is none of the marriage of a daughter, simply because such unions, like parricide, were regarded as crimes so unnatural that they never could occur. But the Assyrians, and especially the Egyptians, against whose customs Israel was warned in verse 3, married full sisters. This fact sustains Knobel.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

Verse 14. Thy father’s brother — Thou shalt not marry thy uncle’s wife, as is explained in the next words.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES, 6-18.

These fall into three classes: 1.) blood-relationships proper, 7-13; 2.) the wives of blood-relations, 14-16; 3.) the blood relations of the wife. This prohibition is not grounded on the eternal principles of absolute morality, since the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” must have involved the marriage of brothers and sisters in the family of Adam, and since, also, Abraham married his half sister, Jacob two sisters at a time, Amram his aunt Jochebed, and Judah married Tamar, the widow of his own son, with no indication of the divine disapproval; and by the commandment of the Levitical law the brother must marry the wife of his deceased childless brother. Still it must be confessed that the horror naturalis, or revulsion of feeling at the thought of marrying one’s mother or daughter is very closely allied to the abhorrence of the violation of the seventh commandment.

6. Near of kin — Hebrew, the flesh of his flesh, or his blood kindred. In Leviticus 25:49, the same words are equivalent to “family,” and they are applicable to marriage relationship, since in verses 17, 18 they include the near blood relations of the wife. Uncover… nakedness — This is the customary expression in the Pentateuch for the cohabitation of persons married or unmarried, though the former are chiefly referred to. This prohibition is addressed to males; the exceptions in verses 7 and 14 are only apparent, not real.

V. 16. Thy brother’s wife-God afterwards commanded, that in one case, a man should marry his brother’s widow.

Verse 16. Thy brother’s wife] This was an illegal marriage, unless the brother died childless. In that case it was not only lawful for her to marry her brother-in-law, but he was obliged by the law, Deuteronomy 25:5, to take her to wife.

Verse 16. Thy brother’s wife — Unless he died childless, for in that case God afterward commanded that a man should marry his brother’s widow, Deuteronomy 25:5. For the prohibiting of marriages in the more remote degrees of consanguinity, where other moral considerations are less obvious, there is this good reason to be assigned, namely, that marriage being one of the firmest bonds of friendship, it is proper, for the greater good of society, that men should seek to enlarge the ties of friendship and social affection, by uniting, not with those to whom they were before related, but with persons of different families.

16. Brother’s wife — This is supposed to refer either to a brother’s widow who has children, or to a woman put away from the brother by divorce, whose bill of divorcement permitted her to “go and be another man’s wife.” Deuteronomy 24:1, 2. Keil advocates the first, and Haley the second theory.

Verse 17. A woman and her daughter — If a man married a widow that had a daughter, he was not allowed to marry this daughter, either while the mother was alive or after her death.

17. A woman and her daughter — This verse prohibits the successive marriage of a man with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter on account of their near blood relationship. Wickedness — This word zimmah is elsewhere generally translated lewdness, and signifies a gross violation of decency or principle.

V. 18. Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister-Perhaps this text doth not simply forbid the taking one wife to another, but the doing it in such a manner or for such an end, that he may vex or punish, or revenge himself of the former; which probably was a common motive amongst that hardhearted people to do so.

Verse 18. A wife to her sister] Thou shalt not marry two sisters at the same time, as Jacob did Rachel and Leah; but there is nothing in this law that rendered it illegal to marry a sister-in-law when her sister was dead; therefore the text says, Thou shalt not take her in her life time, to vex her, alluding probably to the case of the jealousies and vexations which subsisted between Leah and Rachel, and by which the family peace was so often disturbed. Some think that the text may be so understood as also to forbid polygamy.

Verse 18. A wife to her sister — The meaning seems to be, that no man should take to wife two sisters, which had sometimes been done, as we see in the example of Jacob. It may, however, signify that a man, who already had a wife, was not to take another out of mere incontinency, which would tend only to break his wife’s peace; but that if he took that liberty at all, it ought only to be when his wife consented to it, as Sarah did in the case of Abraham’s marrying Hagar, and Rachel in the case of Bilhah. To vex her — Grotius justly observes, that as the feuds and animosities of brothers are, of all others, the most keen; so are generally the jealousies and emulations between sisters, whereof we have an example in the history of Rachel and Leah.

18. A wife to her sister — This is a much disputed verse in the debate about marriage with a deceased wife’s sister. Our English version is supported by a whole chain of authorities of the first rank. Some contend for the marginal translation, “one wife to another,” and argue that this prohibition is directed against polygamy. The Seventy render it gunaika ep’ adelfh, authv, a wife in addition to her sister; and the Vulgate, sororem uxoris tuae, a sister of thy wife. But it is objected that the same Hebrew expression in seven other places can have only the translation “one to another.” See Exodus 26:3, 5, 6, 17; Ezekiel 1:9, 23; 3:13. The fact that all these have a preceding noun in the plural, which is lacking in this verse, is fatal to the marginal rendering, as well as the violent change in the meaning of “wife” and “sister” from their meaning in the previous verses. The Targums sustain our English version. Moreover, polygamy was recognised, though not expressly approved, by the Mosaic law, (Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15,) and therefore cannot be forbidden in this passage, especially in view of the fact that in verse 29 the death penalty is denounced against the abominations specified in this chapter. If polygamy is prohibited in this passage, we have the following legislative contradiction and absurdity: 1.) Polygamy is pronounced an abomination which must be punished by death; and 2.) A law is enacted conserving the rights of the first wife after the marriage of the second, and another statute entitling the children of the hated wife to inherit with those of the favourite. Thus the second law supposes that the man put to death under the first law has begotten a family of children, and in advanced age is sitting down to make his will. As there can be no such collision of laws emanating from the same legislator, we are constrained to reject the marginal rendering which makes this verse a prohibition of polygamy, and to say that it forbids the simultaneous marriage of two sisters. The jealousies and rivalries incident to the polygamous household arising between sisters tenderly bound by the ties of blood when thus thrown into an unnatural and hostile attitude toward each other, turning the gentle amenities of domestic life into fiendish hate, the merciful lawgiver would prevent by this law. To vex her — This little word vex — R.V., “to be a rival to” — speaks volumes concerning the bickering broils and heart burnings of polygamy, especially when intensified by the soured sweetness of sisterhood. No hate is so bitter as that of angered love. In 1 Samuel 1:6, Peninnah is called “the adversary,” or vexer, of devout Hannah, provoking her” year by year;” therefore she wept and did not eat. The households of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exhibit the same bellum domesticum, the brand of the divine disapproval of the attempt to improve the paradisaical perfection of monogamic marriage. In her life — This means as long as she lives. The inference that marriage with a sister after the death of the first wife is legal would seem to be conclusive, as the Talmudists taught. But the Karaites and others denounced it as an abomination. “It is directly against the scope of all these laws,” says Selden, “which prohibit men to marry at all with such persons as are here mentioned, either in their wives’ lifetime or after. And there being a prohibition (verse 16) to marry a brother’s wife, it is unreasonable to think Moses gave them leave to marry their wife’s sister. These words, therefore, ‘in her life,’ are to be referred, not to the first words, ‘neither shalt thou take,’ but to the next, ‘to vex her,’ as long as she lives.” On the contrary, it is stoutly alleged that this prohibition refers expressly only to the time when the wife is living, as in the case of Jacob, and that all the arguments brought to prove that marriage with the sister of a dead wife is, according to Mosaism, a sin, and the analogies on which this conclusion is based, are quite worthless. In the year 1882 Lord Dalhousie asked the opinions of the professors of Hebrew and of Greek in all the universities of Europe, their attention being specially directed to the Levitical law and to Ephesians 5:31. Those of one hundred professors were received. One, a professor of Greek, declines to express an opinion on what he regards as a question of Hebrew, and another is ambiguous, while the late Dr. Pusey alone states that the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife is forbidden by Leviticus chap. 18. All the other professors declare either that such a marriage is not forbidden by the portions of the Bible referred to, or that there is no prohibition of it either in the Old or the New Testament. See Concluding Note.

V. 19. As long as she is set apart-No not to thy own wife. This was not only a ceremonial pollution, but an immorality also, whence it is put amongst gross sins, Ezekiel 18:6. And therefore it is now unlawful under the gospel.

Verse 19. As long as she is put apart] See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 15:24”.

Verse 19. As long as she is set apart — No, not to thy own wife. This was not only a ceremonial pollution, but an immorality also, whence it is put among gross sins, Ezekiel 18:6. And therefore it is now unlawful under the gospel.

UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, 19-30.

19. Thou shalt not approach — This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Leviticus 15:19, 25. See notes. In Leviticus 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.

Verse 20. Thy neighbour’s wife] See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 20:14”.

20. Thy neighbour’s wife — This is a repetition of the seventh commandment, in another form, for the purpose of emphasis and of completing the enumeration of abominations prevalent in Egypt and Canaan. This verse prohibits not only adultery proper, or double adultery, as some laws define this crime, in two married persons, (see Exodus 20:14, note,) but also one species of single adultery. Defile thyself — This is moral and ceremonial pollution.

V. 21. Pass through fire-This was done, either by burning them in the fire, or by making them pass between two great fires, which was a kind of consecration of them to that God. Moloch-Called also Milcom, was an idol chiefly of the Ammonites. He seems to be the Saturn of the heathens, to whom especially children and men were sacrificed. This is mentioned, because the neighbours of Israel were most infected with this idolatry, and therefore they are particularly cautioned against it, though under this one instance all other idols and acts, or kinds of idolatry, are manifestly comprehended and forbidden.

Verse 21. Pass through the fire to Molech] The name of this idol is mentioned for the first time in this place. As the word jlm molech or melech signifies king or governor, it is very likely that this idol represented the sun; and more particularly as the fire appears to have been so much employed in his worship. There are several opinions concerning the meaning of passing through the fire to Molech. 1. Some think that the semen humanum was offered on the fire to this idol. 2. Others think that the children were actually made a burnt-offering to him. 3. But others suppose the children were not burnt, but only passed through the fire, or between two fires, by way of consecration to him. That some were actually burnt alive to this idol several scriptures, according to the opinion of commentators, seem strongly to intimate; see among others, Psalm 106:38; Jeremiah 7:31, and Ezekiel 23:37-39. That others were only consecrated to his service by passing between two fires the rabbins strongly assert; and if Ahaz had but one son, Hezekiah, (though it is probable he had others, see 2 Chronicles 28:3,) he is said to have passed through the fire to Molech, 2 Kings 16:3, yet he succeeded his father in the kingdom, 2 Kings 18:1, therefore this could only be a consecration, his idolatrous father intending thereby to initiate him early into the service of this demon. See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 20:2”.

Verse 21. Pass through the fire to Molech — In the Hebrew it is only pass through to Molech. But though the word fire be not in the original, it is reasonably supplied from other places, where it is expressed, as Deuteronomy 18:10; 2 Kings 23:10. Molech, called also Milcom, was the idol of the Ammonites. The name signifies king, or regal dominion, and is thought to denote the sun, the supreme, and probably the first object of idolatrous worship. Or, as others, the planet Saturn; for it appears from Amos 5:26, that Molech represented one of the celestial luminaries. Now, as fire is a fit emblem of the sun, the causing their seed to pass through the fire is thought to have been a rite of purification whereby parents consecrated their children to that deity, either by waving them over the fire, or by making them walk between two fires, or jump over a fire. This is the opinion of many able interpreters. But Selden, who has given a large account of this idol, and of the rites with which it was worshipped, shows, from several testimonies, that the Phœnicians, and other nations in the neighbourhood of Judea, actually sacrificed their children, in times of great calamity, to this blood-thirsty demon. Accordingly this phrase of causing them to pass through the fire, signifies sacrificing them in the following horrid manner, Ezekiel 16:20, 21. Fagius informs us, that the image of Molech was of brass, contrived with seven cells or receptacles, probably representing the seven planets, the first for receiving an offering of flour; the second of turtle-doves; the third for a ewe; the fourth for a ram; the fifth for a calf; the sixth for an ox; the seventh for a child. who, being shut up in this cell, as in a furnace, was therein burned to death, while the people danced about the idol, and beat timbrels, that the cries of the tormented infant might not be heard. We have authority from the sacred writings to believe that these nations actually sacrificed their children to that grim idol, in some such horrid manner. Compare 2 Chronicles 28:3, and Jeremiah 7:31, with Jeremiah 32:35, and 19:5; Psalm 106:37, 38, and Ezekiel 16:20, 21. In all which places, to pass through the fire, signifies the consuming of the victim by fire. And Le Clerc ingeniously conjectures, that this phrase, passing through to Molech, was invented by the impious priests, in order to convey a softer idea of that horrid rite. We may further observe, that there was a place near Jerusalem, where this horrid custom was observed. It was called the valley of the sons of Hinnom, (2 Chronicles 28:3,) from the yelling of the sacrificed infants. And for the same reason it had the name of Tophet, (2 Kings 23:10,) from Toph, a tabret or drum, with which they used to drown the dreadful outcries of the unhappy victims. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God — This idolatry in the Israelites would be the foulest and most profane renunciation of the true GOD, to whom they and their posterity were solemnly devoted, and at the same time it would give occasion to strangers to blaspheme the name of Jehovah, as if he authorized such barbarities in his worshippers.

Verse 21. Molech, or Moloch, was the chief idol of the Sabians, and of the Ammonites. 1 Kings 11:7, 33. To this idol Solomon built a high place on mount Olivet. The form of the idol was a gigantic human figure, with his arms extended to receive something, but his head resembled a calf. His belly being heated red hot, the priests placed the infants of infatuated parents to be consumed in the arms of the idol, making a horrid noise with drums to deafen their cries, and forcing the parents to join the dance. It appears by comparing Jeremiah 7:31, and 19:5, that Baal and Molech were one and the same god. The Israelites worshipped this idol under the appellation of Baal-peor, Numbers 25. and Psalm 106:36-39, feasting at the very time they offered up their sons and daughters to devils. The same idol with some variations in its figure, was worshipped by the heathens, under the names of Mars, Saturn, and the Sun. Surely God for a time gave up the nations to strong delusions, as evidently appears from the millions of human beings immolated to the devil. And how lamentable to learn, from the Rev. Dr. Buchanan, that considerable numbers of deluded men in India are almost daily throwing themselves under the wheels of this imaginary divinity, and willingly embracing death for the expiation of sin, that they may enter heaven in spotless purity. Amos 5:26.

21. Seed pass through the fire — Those Semitic nations that burned their children upon the funeral pyre, when they would spare their lives let them pass through the fire. The word fire is supplied from Deuteronomy 18:10. This prohibits the burning of children in honour of Molech, or Moloch, the fire-god, called in Deuteronomy 12:31, simply elohim, gods. He was a Canaanitish god, easily identified by the philologist with Melkarth, Malcham, Baal-melech, and other such names as appear in Carthagenian and Phenician mythology. He was propitiated by the sacrifice of children. The service of this fire-god had spread in the lands bounding Egypt on the east. We infer from this rigid prohibition that this cultus had even at this time penetrated into the camp of Israel. Since idolatry is regarded as whoredom, it is appropriately mentioned in this connexion. See chap. xvii, note. Properly speaking, this worship symbolized the purification of the soul after destroying its earthly dross, and consequently its immortality. To sustain this horrid and unnatural practice the idolatrous Hebrews quoted Numbers 31:23. The children were first slain (Ezekiel 16:20, 21) and then burned on a mound, built up in the valley of Hinnom, called, in Jeremiah 19:5, “the high places of Baal,” with whom Moloch is once identified. He is commonly identified with the Moabitish Chemosh. The name Moloch, written without the points, is the same as Melek, king, and is translated by the Seventy as a common noun, arcwn. This confusion of terms is supposed to cover up a widespread worship of this grim divinity. Thus Isaiah 30:33 may be read, “For Tophet is ordained of old, yea, for Moloch it is prepared.” Most of the Jewish interpreters have endeavoured to soften this worship by saying that the children were not burned, but made to pass between two burning pyres, as a purifying rite. But the slaughter of the innocents is evident from 2 Chronicles 28:3; Psalm 106:37, 38; Jeremiah 7:31. Kimchi describes the image of Moloch as set within seven chapels, the outer ones being opened to those who brought annual sacrifices, but the inner one, enshrining the idol, was opened only to him who offered his son. This may explain the tabernacle of Moloch in Acts 7:43. According to Diodorus Siculus the hands of the image of the Carthagenian Kronos stretched forth like a man about to receive something of his neighbour. When it was heated with fire the priests took the babe and put it into the hands of their Moloch, and the babe gave up the ghost, while the priests drowned its screams by beating drums. The Israelite who became a votary of Moloch was to be stoned. Leviticus 20:3. Neither… profane the name of thy God — This forbids the irreverent use of the divine name. The Hebrews understood it as prohibiting the pronunciation of Jehovah, the sacred tetragrammaton, hwhy, the correct pronunciation of which was lost in consequence. See Leviticus 24:10-14, notes.

Verse 22. With mankind] This abominable crime, frequent among the Greeks and Romans as well as the Canaanites, may be punished with death in this country.

22. Lie with mankind, as with womankind — The whole heathen world, according to St. Paul, (Romans 1:27, note,) corroborated by the ancient historians and all modern travellers, was more or less addicted to the disgusting vice of paederastia, or boy love, a crime against nature, “male on male performing the unseemliness,” which Christianity has banished. To this loathsome form of sensuality Roman poets once unblushingly sung praises. Read Virgil’s Second Eclogue. Abomination — The Hebrew word occurs one hundred and sixteen times, and always expresses the loathsome and disgusting aspects of crimes and criminals.

Verse 23. With any beast] This abomination is also punishable with death by the laws of this country.

Any woman stand before a beast] That this was often done in Egypt there can be no doubt; and we have already seen, from the testimony of Herodotus, that a fact of this kind actually took place while he was in Egypt. See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 17:7”, and “Leviticus 20:16”.

23. With any beast — Let him who denies the inherent depravity of man study this prohibition. This prohibition implies the sacredness and dignity of human nature, inasmuch as the abomination was punished by death. In Egypt women publicly submitted themselves to goats. Nor has unregenerate nature entirely outgrown its dreadful downward tendency. In modern Egypt men lie even with female crocodiles. (Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330.) The heathen generally have no moral abhorrence for this crime. The Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, a foremost Christian State, contains this law: “Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with any beast, shall be punished in the State prison not exceeding twenty years.” Confusion — Hebrew tebhel, pollution or profanation.

Ver. 24. Defile not yourselves in any of these things, for with all of them are the nations defiled which I cast out. The iniquity of the Amorite was now full, the period of divine forbearance was expired, and the Canaanites became the objects of God’s abhorrence. The moral contagion had extended to all ranks of men, and therefore the land vomited them out. The Judge of all the earth does right. For these sins he burned the people of Sodom and Gomorrah; for these sins, as in the warning of Moses, the Lord sent the Chaldeans to burn Samaria, and afterwards to burn Jerusalem. The visitation extended to man, woman, and child: to spare them would have been a snare to the Hebrews. The Lord inspired Joshua fully, as a minister of vengeance, to execute his awful displeasure; he also aided him by raining sheets of hail on the guilty, and by staying the course of the sun. Joshua 10:40.

UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, 19-30.

19. Thou shalt not approach — This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Leviticus 15:19, 25. See notes. In Leviticus 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.

V. 25. I visit-I am about to visit, that is, to punish.

Verse 25. The land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.] This is a very nervous prosopopœia or personification; a figure by which any part of inanimate nature may be represented as possessing the passions and reason of man. Here the land is represented as an intelligent being, with a deep and refined sense of moral good and evil: information concerning the abominations of the people is brought to this personified land, with which it is so deeply affected that a nausea is produced, and it vomits out its abominable and accursed inhabitants. It was natural for the inspired penman to make use of such a figure, as the description he was obliged to give of so many and enormous abominations must have affected him nearly in the same way in which he represents the land to be affected.

25. The land itself — Canaan. Vomiteth — By a striking personification the very ground on which these abominations are enacted, like the stomach of a sick man, figuratively ejects the perpetrators of these filthy deeds.

V. 26. Nor any stranger-In nation or religion, of what kind soever. For though they might not force them to submit to their religion, yet they might restrain them from the publick contempt of the Jewish laws, and from the violation of natural laws, which, besides the offence against God and nature, were matters of evil example to the Israelites themselves.

Verse 26. Nor any stranger — In nation or religion, of what kind soever. For though they might not force them to submit to their religion, yet they might restrain them from the public contempt of the Jewish laws, and from the violation of natural laws, which, besides the offence against God and nature, were matters of evil example to the Israelites themselves.

26. The stranger in all his moral conduct must be coerced into obedience. In his speculative religious beliefs he was left free. This was three thousand years before Roger Williams. In Deuteronomy 14:21 the alien was left more at liberty in eating, and the Hebrew in selling to him the flesh of the animal that died of itself.

UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, 19-30.

19. Thou shalt not approach — This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Leviticus 15:19, 25. See notes. In Leviticus 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.

28. Spew not you out also — The impartial justice of the moral government of Jehovah here flashes out in prophetic warning to the nation called to be the peculiar people of God. Like sins will be invariably followed by like punishments. See Joshua 6:21, note. The fact that this passage assumes the occupation of the land of Canaan by Israel does not argue that it is a supplementary remark of a writer after that event, as the “higher criticism” avers, for the words are the words of Jehovah directing Moses what he is to say to the children of Israel.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) That portion of the Levitical law which prohibits incestuous marriages is either still in force or we have no divine legislation on this important subject. All Christian nations, by incorporating into their laws this prohibitory code, declare that it has never been repealed. The inference that it is now a law demanding universal obedience is strongly confirmed by that moral, if not instinctive, abhorrence of incest widely prevalent in the pagan world. See 1 Corinthians 5:1, and Sophocles’s OEdipus, Rex. This harmonizes with Luther’s method of eliminating the local and transient precepts of the Mosaic law. He says: “Moses is dead. He lived for the Jewish people, and his laws do not bind us unless they are approved by our laws, both natural and statutory.”

(2.) There are two schools of interpreters of this code, 1.) the restrictive or exclusive, which limits the prohibitions to the classes specified, and 2.) the broad or inclusive interpreters, who extend the prohibition to all within the same degree with those specifically forbidden, as the positive exclusion of a man’s aunt from marriage with him implies the exclusion of his niece, since she is in the same degree of consanguinity.

The degree is always found by reckoning through the common progenitor. Parent and child are in the first degree.

Brothers are in the second degree.

Cousins are in the fourth degree.

Second cousins are in the sixth degree.

The highest prohibited class is in the third degree. Since the restrictive interpretation must admit the marriage of an uncle and his niece and a father and his daughter, we prefer the inclusive interpretation. Relationship by affinity or marriage is reckoned in the same way as blood relationship, since a man and his wife are one flesh. Hence a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister are in the second degree of affinity, and an uncle’s wife is in the third degree of affinity, because he is in the third degree of consanguinity. The following table contains the kindred forbidden to any man in marriage, either expressly or by implication, with their punishments. Of course, the corresponding male relations are forbidden to a woman: [ * Kindred forbidden by implication are in italics.]

[ ‡ Punished with death.]

[ ° Punished with childlessness.]

[ ¶ Shall bear their iniquity.] [ † Except a childless widow.] [ § Forbidden by the canon law of England. In 1835 past marriages of such were legalized and future marriages were prohibited by an act of Parliament. Legal elsewhere in Christendom, except that the Roman Church requires a permit from the pope, which is never refused.] [ || Permitted by some Christian States, as Massachusetts.] [ ¶ Pronounced accursed in Deuteronomy 27:23.]

We have italicised the wife’s sister because the express prohibition in verse 18 is disputed. The argument derived from the nearness of affinity would lead us to the conclusion that marriage in this case is unlawful on the principle of interpretation which extends the prohibition to all within the same degree with any who are forbidden. But in the case of relationship by affinity merely, it must be confessed that marriage with a sister of the deceased wife is just as lawful as it is with a wife’s sister-in-law, or for two brothers to marry sisters, or for the father and son to marry mother and daughter, or for the child of a widow to marry the child of a widower after the intermarriage of their widowed parents, or for a marriage required by the Levirate law, that of a brother to the childless widow of his brother. The state of opinion among English scholars and divines may be inferred from the fact that the House of Commons voted to legalize this kind of marriage in 1850, 1855, 1858, 1859, 1870, 1871, 1873, and in 1883 by large but diminishing majorities. The House of Lords rejected the bill against the vote of several bishops, under the lead of Archbishop Tait. But in 1861, 1862, 1866, and 1875 the bill was defeated by the Commons. The following authorities are quoted in favour of such marriages: John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Joseph Parker, C.H. Spurgeon, Drs. Chalmers, N. MacLeod, and Moffatt, Dr. Adler, the chief rabbi of England, Archbishop Whately, Cardinal Cullen, and the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, as well as the whole Roman Catholic hierarchy of Dublin and London. According to the civil law of every Christian State in the world, except certain parts of the British Empire, marriage with the sister of the deceased wife is legal. Until the fourth century the prohibition of it had never been heard of in the Christian Church. The same Council which first prohibited marriage with the sister of a deceased wife also prohibited the marriage of the clergy. The marriage of cousins was about the same time prohibited under pain of death by fire.

(3.) The ground of this prohibition of wedlock within the fourth degree exclusive is not arbitrary, but a beneficent regard for the well-being of mankind. 1.) Maladies both physical and mental, such as insanity and idiocy, arise from consanguineous marriages. 2.) If marriage between near kindred were lawful, it would be a great restraint upon that social freedom in which blood kindred can now indulge without peril or suspicion. There is, moreover, a difference in kind between the love of blood kindred and the love uniting husband and wife. The amalgamation of these affections cannot take place without a serious detriment to one or the other; hence the desirableness of drawing a distinct line between them by stating definitely where the matrimonial affection may legitimately take root. 3.) The prohibition tends to break up the intense clannishness to which men are prone, and to link all mankind together in the bonds of brotherhood. 4.) In the purpose of Jehovah to make Israel a peculiar people, the laws in this chapter constitute a striking difference between them and all the heathen nations. (4.) After the captivity of Israel in Babylon, the scribes added to the fifteen proscribed relatives enumerated in the Levitical law twenty other prohibitions, called secondary, four of which were infinite, including an endless series, such as the mother’s mother’s mother, back to the wife of our father Jacob, and the son’s son’s son’s wife, descending to the end of the world.

(5.) The rabbinic law adds seven prohibitions relating to the marriage of a divorced woman to a man with whom she has committed adultery; of a widow to a man who attests the death of her former husband; of a widow who has lost two husbands; of a young girl to an old man, and vice versa; together with several limitations of time within which widows, widowers, and divorced women may not marry.

(6.) The marriage of an uncle to his niece, which is strictly forbidden by the English law, and inferentially so by the Levitical law, has been considered by the Jews from time immemorial as something specially meritorious. The Talmud says that the promise given in Isaiah 58:9, 10, refers especially to him “who loves his neighbours, befriends his relations, marries his brother’s daughter, and lends his money to the poor in the hour of need.”

(7.) Much ingenuity has been exercised in harmonizing the apparent sanction of human sacrifices with the stringent prohibitions in this chapter and in chapter 22. It is evident that God’s design in the command to Abraham to offer up Isaac was not to secure that outward act, but to develop the spirit of obedience through entire consecration; “the principle,” says Dr. Thomas Arnold, “which has been applied to every age.” Hengstenberg shows “that satisfaction was rendered to the Lord’s command when the spiritual sacrifice was completed.” Thus Bush, Lange, Keil, Kurtz, Murphy, and many others. The burning of Achan’s children was probably the burning of their corpses to render their punishment more impressive. See Joshua 7:24, 25, notes. There is no proof that Jephthah ever executed his vow by actually making a holocaust of his daughter. The authorities for holding that she was devoted to perpetual virginity are Auberlen, Bush, Cassel, Delitzsch, Grotius, Hengstenberg, Houbigant, Keil, the Kimchis, Lange, LeClerk, and many others. See Judges 11:30-40, extended notes. The seven descendants of Saul were not delivered to the Gibeonites as a religious sacrifice, but as a demand of justice, so considered. See 2 Samuel 21, notes.

V. 29. Cut off-This phrase therefore of cutting off, is to be understood variously, either of ecclesiastical, or civil punishment, according to the differing natures of the offences for which it is inflicted.

Verse 29. Cut off — This phrase therefore, of cutting off, is to be understood variously, either of ecclesiastical or civil punishment, according to the differing natures of the offences for which it was inflicted.

UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, 19-30.

19. Thou shalt not approach — This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Leviticus 15:19, 25. See notes. In Leviticus 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.

Verse 30. Shall ye keep mine ordinance] The only way to be preserved from all false worship is seriously to consider and devoutly to observe the ordinances of the true religion. He who in the things of God goes no farther than he can say, Thus it is written, and thus it behoves me to do, is never likely to receive a false creed, nor perform a superstitious act of worship.

1. How true is that word, The law of the Lord is PERFECT! In a small compass, and in a most minute detail, it comprises every thing that is calculated to instruct, direct, convince, correct, and fortify the mind of man. Whatever has a tendency to corrupt or injure man, that it forbids; whatever is calculated to comfort him, promote and secure his best interests, that it commands. It takes him in all possible states, views him in all connections, and provides for his present and eternal happiness.

2. As the human soul is polluted and tends to pollution, the great doctrine of the law is holiness to the Lord: this it keeps invariably in view in all its commands, precepts, ordinances, rites, and ceremonies. And how forcibly in all these does it say, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thyself! This is the prominent doctrine of the preceding chapter; and this shall be fulfilled in all them who believe, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to them that believe. Reader, magnify God for his law, for by it is the knowledge of sin; and magnify him for his Gospel, for by this is the cure of sin. Let the law be thy schoolmaster to bring thee to Christ, that thou mayest be justified by faith; and that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in thee, and that thou mayest walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

LEVITICUS

UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, 19-30.

19. Thou shalt not approach — This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Leviticus 15:19, 25. See notes. In Leviticus 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.