Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] Sometime after the delivery of the Laws mentioned in the two foregoing Chapters; the chief of them were inforced with the addition of Penalties, which are ſet down in this Chapter.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Again, thou ſhalt ſay to the Children of Iſrael.] Repeat what I ſaid before (XVIII. 21.) and add this which follows unto it.
Whoſoever he be of the Children of Iſrael, or of the ſtranger that ſojourneth among you.] The Proſelytes, who had embraced their Religion, were no leſs concerned in this Law, than the Native Iſraelites. See XVII. 8, 10, &c.
That giveth any of his ſeed unto Molech.] This looks like the Prohibition before given XVIII. 21. and R. Levi gives this reaſon of its repitition, becauſe it was a piece of Idolatrous Worſhip ſo uſual in thoſe days, when the Law was delivered, that there needed great indeavours to preſerve them from it, Praecept. CCVIII. And Maimonides alſo obſerves (as I noted upon XVIII. 21.) that Idolaters uſed to fright People into this Worſhip, by telling them their Children would dye, if they did not make them paſs through the fire, and thereby devote them to their Gods. But upon due conſideration of theſe words, it may appear probable that there is ſomething more in them than in the former; importing a higher degree of this ſin. For to give their Children to Molech, ſeems to be no leſs than to offer them in Sacrifices, (So Chriſt giving himſelf for us conſtantly ſignifies in the New Teſtament) which was a more horrid thing, than meerly making them paſs through the fire, which did them no hurt. And therefore this Crime is here forbidden under the Penalty of Death; whereas in the XVIIIth Chapter no puniſhment is threatned. Certain it is, Children were really burnt upon the Altars of the ancient Pagans, eſpecially in times of great Diſtreſs, when they hoped to paciſie the Anger of their Gods, by offering to them the deareſt thing they had. See our great Selden Lib. de Diis Syris Syntagm I. cap. 6. where he ſhows the Phaenicians offered their Children to Saturn, (ſo Porphyrius expreſly ſays, Lib. II. de Abſtin.) who is ſaid by the Poets to have devoured his own Children; and by many is thought to be the ſame with Molech. Though others take it for the Sun, to whom it is certain Human Sacrifices were offered. Many Authors make mention of it; and Eben Batrich thinks ſuch Sacrifices began in the days of Serug, and were firſt uſed among the Syrians. Which is a very probable Opinion, as Johan. Geuſius hath demonſtrated, Lib. de Victimis Humanis, Pars I. cap. 4, 5. And it is eaſie to conceive how, from the Syrians, this abominable practice was derived to the Phaenicians, who worſhipped the Sun, under the name of Baal, or Bel, as Herodian, Lib. VIII. teſtifies. Which doth not contradict what others ſay, that they were devoted to the Worſhip of Hercules: for by him is meant the Sun alſo, as his very name imports, viz. Or-Col, which in that Language ſignifies as much as him that illuminates all things. From the Phaenicians this Worſhip of offering Human Sacrifices, was propagated to the Carthaginians, and other People of Africa, among whom this impious Idolatry continued till the time of Hannibal, as Bochartus gathers out of Silius Italicus, Lib. IV.
Mos fuit in populis quos condidit advena Dido
Poſcere caede Deos veniam, ac flagrantibus aris,
Infandum dictu, parvos imponere natos.
Who ſays the Carthaginians were wont to appeaſe their Gods, by burning their Children on their Altars: and then follows (after the words now mentioned) the Lamentation of Imilce the Wife of Annibal, whoſe Son was, by lot, to be ſacrificed, Lib. I. Canaan, cap. 28. And this wicked Cuſtom continues ſtill to this day, among ſome of the People in the Southern Parts of Africa, as good Authors affirm; it having ſpread it ſelf all over the World (as appears by the Diſcoveries that have been made in America) even into the Northern Countries of Scythia. But I ſhall content my ſelf with obſerving only what the Scripture ſaith concerning a People in the Eaſt, called Sepharvites, who burnt their Children in the fire to Adramelech, 2 Kings XVII. 31. which God ſeems to have been the ſame with Molech here mentioned by Moſes; only with the addition of an Epithete ſignifying their high opinion of him: For Adra is as much as potent or mighty, and therefore Melech ſignifying a King; Adramelech is in our Language mighty King. Now that the Children of Iſrael, notwithſtanding this ſevere Prohibition againſt it, imitated this barbarous Worſhip, is evident from 2 Kings XXIII. 10. VII Jer. 31. XIX. 5. CVI Pſal. 37, 38. and we may very well think the Prophet Micah alſo alludes to it, VI. 7. as Iſaiah LVII. 5, 6. and Ezekiel XVI. 20, 21, 36. XXIII. 37, 39. likewiſe do.
The manner of Sacrificing their Children, and the figure of the Idol to which they offered, is deſcribed by many, according to the Jewiſh Notion; particularly by Paulus Fagius out of Jalkut: who makes it an hallow Image, having ſeven Apartments in it (according to the number, I ſuppoſe, of the ſeven Planets) into one of which, viz. the loweſt, the Infant was thrown when it was red hot, as Flour, a Turtle Dove, a Sheep, &c. were into the reſt. We can have no certainty of this, but ſuch kind of Statues were found in the West-Indies when they were diſcovered, as Ludovicus Vives obſerves in Lib. VI. cap. 19. de Civitate Dei. And Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca, Lib. XX. deſcribes the Statue of Saturn among the Carthaginians, as ſtretching forth its hands down toward the Earth; ſo that the Child which was put into them, might roll and fall, foreign into a gulph full of fire. Benjamin Tudelenſis in his Travels (about 500. years ago) affirms, that in ſome Iſlands in the Eaſt, the Worſhippers of Fire were wont to leap into it, in performance of ſome Solemn Vow, and were counted by all to be happy Men. Which I mention here, becauſe he ſays theſe Fires were kindled in a Valley, as thoſe among the Jews were in the Valley of Hinnom, p. 108, 109.
He ſhall ſurely be put to death.] Sufficient proof being made of the Fact, XVII Deut. 6.
The people of the Land ſhall ſtone him with ſtones.] Which was the proper Puniſhment in this, and in ſome other Caſes; particularly Adultery, v. 10. and Blaſphemy, XXIV. 14, &c. The manner of it is deſcribed out of an Hebrew MS. (Ez Hechajim) by J. Wagenſeil upon Sota, cap. 3. to have been thus: He that was to be puniſhed with ſtoning was ſtript naked, having only a covering before, and ſet upon an high place, attended by the Witneſſes againſt him, his hands being bound: one of the Witneſſes giving him a ſtrong puſh, threw him down head-long from thence. If this fall kill'd him, there was an end: But if Life remained in him, the Witneſſes took up a Stone, which was laid there on purpoſe, as big as two Men could lift, and threw it upon him; and before he quite expired, all the People that ſtood by threw ſtones at him, according to the Law, XVII Deut. 7. A Woman was only ſtript to her ſhift.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 And I will ſet my face againſt that man, and will cut him off from among his people.] In caſe, that is, there was not ſufficient proof againſt him, God threatens that he himſelf would take care to puniſh him, by cutting him off from the Land of the Living. R. Bechai, and others, obſerve that this cutting off is threefold in the Law: one is, the cutting off the Body, i. e. ſhortning Mens lives; which is threatned to ſix ſins in Scripture. The ſecond is, the exciſion of the Soul only: which is threatned by Moſes ſix and twenty times; and particularly to inceſtuous Marriages. The third is, exciſion both of Soul and Body: which is threatned to fifteen ſins; among which they reckon this of giving their Children to Molech. See Selden, Lib. VII. de Jure N. & G. ſec. Hebr. cap. 9. p. 828, 829, &c.
To defile my Sanctuary.] By this Sin God's Sanctuary was defiled, as well as his holy Name prophaned, becauſe they ſacrificed to Molech in other places, deſpiſing the Tabernacle, which was the only place appointed by God, where Divine Service was to be performed. And therein conſiſted part of the Honour and Reverence which God required to his Sanctuary, (XIX. 30.) that it ſhould be lookt upon as the only place, where acceptable Sacrifices could be offered to him. And therefore then it was diſhonoured and defiled, when they offered Sacrifice in any other place, as they did, in after times, to Molech in the Valley of Hinnom, as I obſerved before, 2 Kings XXIII. 10. Where they built High Places to Baal (which is another name for the Sun) on purpoſe that they might offer their Children upon them, XX Jer. 5, 6. XXXII. 35. This was a plain Contempt of God, and of his Sanctuary, which they forſook as if it had not been an holy, but a defiled place. Otherwiſe they would have kept to it, and offered no where elſe; nor after any other manner than according to the Rites thereof.
And to profane my holy Name.] By giving the Name of God and his Honour, to ſuch an abominable Idol.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 If the People of the Land.] In that part of the Country where this Crime was committed.
Do any way hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his ſeed unto Molech, and kill him not.] If they connived at what he did, and diſſembled their knowledge of it; or would not ſpeak the whole Truth, and endeavour to convict him of this foul Crime, that he might be ſtoned.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 Then will I ſet my face against that man, and against his family.] As the Idolater was liable to this puniſhment, from the hand of Heaven, (See v. 3.) ſo they that favoured him, and would not teſtifie againſt him when they knew him guilty, fell under God's high diſpleaſure, (which is meant by ſetting his face against them) and ſo did all their Children, whom God threatens to deſtroy. He ſpeaks indeed in the ſingular number, becauſe commonly in ſuch caſes, there was ſome one Perſon, by whoſe Authority others were perſwaded to wink at ſuch Offences, and not to diſcover what they knew of them. But all ſuch Men are threatned with the Divine Vengeance in the next words.
And will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, &c.] That is, all others who, following his Example, favour ſuch Idolaters, and protect them from puniſhment. For every one knows that Idolatry is called by the name of Whoredom in Scripture; becauſe God having eſpouſed the Iſraelites to himſelf, as his peculiar People their forſaking him, to ſerve other Gods, was a Spiritual Adultery.
To commit whoredom with Molech.] i. e. To worſhip him as their God.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 And the ſoul.] i. e. The Perſon.
That turneth after ſuch as hath familiar ſpirits, and after wizards.] Who they were that pretended to have familiar Spirits, or were Wizards, ſee XIX. 31. where they are commanded not to regard them: and here, if any did conſult them (which is called turning after them) cutting off is threatned to them; that is, ſhortning their days: for ſuch Perſons are reckoned by the Jews, as the chief of thoſe ſix ſorts of ſinners, who were liable to the firſt kind of Exciſion, which I mentioned v. 3. As for the Man himſelf who had a familiar Spirit, or was a Wizard, he was to be ſtoned, if he was diſcovered and convicted, v. 27. And ſo they obſerve in Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 7.
To go a whoring after them.] It was a kind of Idolatry to ſeek to ſuch People for advice or relief; being a forſaking of God, and putting confidence in them. Though ſometimes to go a whoring, ſignifies the commiſſion of any grievous ſin, which Idolatry uſually led men unto; as Mr. Selden hath noted Lib. III. de Ʋxore Hebr. cap. 23.
There is ſome reaſon to think, there was ſomething magical in the Oblation of their Children to Molech; and that thereby they conſulted with Daemons about things future, or ſecret; becauſe ſuch Superſtitions are here immediately forbidden, after the Prohibition of giving their Children to Molech; and becauſe they are frequently joyned together in other places, as in XVIII Deut. 10, 11. 2 Kings XVII. 17. XXI. 6. Certain it is, that in after times they did Sacrifice Children, foreign, that they might Divine, by looking into their Bowels, as Joh. …ſius hath ſhown out of Porphyrius, Philoſtratus, Herodotus, and others, Lib. de Victimis Humanis, Pars I. cap. 17.
I will even ſet my face against that ſoul, &c.] See v. 3, 5.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 Sanctifie your ſelves therefore.] Worſhip therefore God alone; to whoſe Service you are ſet apart.
And be ye holy.] Keep your ſelves free from all Idolatry. See 11.44.
I am the LORD your God.] See XIX. 2, 3, 10, &c.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 And ye ſhall keep my Statutes and do them.] Be governed by theſe Laws, and not by the Cuſtoms of other People.
I am the LORD which ſanctifie you.] Separated you to my ſelf from all other People; by peculiar Laws which I have given you.
Ver. 9. For every one.] Or, If any one: the Particle we tranſlate for ſignifying frequently with, or if.
That curſeth his Father or Mother.] Reproacheth them with Imprecations.
Shall ſurely be put to death.] i. e. Be ſtoned. And it made no difference, whether he curſed them when they were alive, or after their death, as R. Levi Barcelonita ſays the Rule of their Doctors was, yet they reſolve that unleſs he curſed them by ſome proper name of God, he was not liable to be put to death, but was only ſcourged, Praecept. CCLXI. See XXI Exod. 17.
His blood ſhall be upon him.] When the Law only ſaith a man ſhall die the death, the Jews underſtand it of ſtrangling; which was the eaſieſt puniſhment among them. For where there was not an expreſs mention of the kind of death, they thought the moſt favourable was to be inflicted. But when the Law adds, his blood ſhall be upon him, they ſay it is meant of ſtoning. And the meaning of this phraſe is, he ſhall periſh by his own fault; and therefore his blood, that is, his death, ſhall not be vindicated. The blood of one that was ſlain being innocent, was upon the Murderer, and therefore avenged. But he that was put to death for his Crimes, had his Blood upon himſelf, and no body was to bear it, the Executioner himſelf being not guilty of Blood.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife, &c.] By the ancient Law of Draco and Solon, the Husband of the Adultereſs, if he found them in the fact, might kill them both, or put out their Eyes, or ſtigmatize them; or make the Adulterer pay a Fine, if he had a mind to ſpare his Life. See Meurſius in his Themis Attica, Lib. I. cap. 4, 5. and the Leges Atticae ſet forth by Petitus, Lib. VI. Tit. 4. where it appears that it was infamous for the Husband to live with his Wife, after ſhe had committed Adultery: And that it was unlawful for her to enter into the publick Temples, or go dreſſed in the Streets. If ſhe did, any body might tear off her Clothes, and beat her; only not kill her. See S. Petiti Comment. p. 460. &c.
The adulterer and adultereſs ſhall ſurely be put to death.] It is not left to the Husband's liberty, by this Law, whether he would ſpare their Lives or no: but the Fact being proved, they were both to die for it. Only it is not ſaid here, what kind of Death they ſhould ſuffer: nor was the ſame kind of Death inflicted upon all that were guilty of this Crime. For if the Daughter of a Prieſt play'd the Adultereſs, ſhe was to be burnt, XXI. 9. and the Adulterer to be ſtrangled, as the Jews underſtand it. If a man lay with a Virgin eſpouſed to another man, but not yet married, they were both to be ſtoned, by the expreſs words of the Law, XXII Deut. 23. But Adultery with a married Woman, if we may credit the Jewiſh Doctors, was puniſhed with ſtrangling. See Selden, Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. cap. 2. For when we meet with this phraſe, they ſhall ſurely die, it is always meant of Death by the Sentence of the Houſe of Judgment (as they ſpeak) and if the Law add no more, they reſolve it to be by ſtrangling. If theſe words be added, their blood ſhall be upon them, then they ſay, they were to be ſtoned. This I obſerved before; and ſhall add now, that ſtrangling, as they deſcribe it, was not ſuch a puniſhment as our hanging men by the neck: but the Criminal, being ſtuck up to the knees in dung, they tied a Napkin about his Neck, and drawing it hard at both ends, choaked him. There was ſuch a thing as hanging men on a Gallows, (as we ſpeak) but it was after they were dead, and only ſuch as had been ſtoned: and not all them neither; but ſuch alone as had been ſtoned for Blaſphemy, or Adultery. See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium, cap. 4. Theorem. XIV.
The greateſt thing that can be objected againſt this account of the puniſhment of Adultery, is that which St. John tells us the Jews ſaid concerning the Woman taken in the very act of it, Moſes in the Law commanded us, that ſuch ſhould be ſtoned, VIII Joh. 5. But it may be anſwered, that this Woman was eſpouſed only, and not yet married: and ſo by the Law, as I obſerved before, was to be ſtoned, XXII Deut. 23, 24. If this ſeem abſurd, that the Adultery of one eſpouſed ſhould be accounted a greater Crime than of one married (for ſtoning was an heavier puniſhment than ſtrangling) it ought to be conſidered, that the love of thoſe who were newly eſpouſed, was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married; eſpecially among the Jews, who for light cauſes were wont to be divorced from their Wives. And therefore no wonder if the Adultery of the former was judged a greater Crime than of the latter.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife, &c.] This was condemned before, as an heinous ſin (XVIII. 8.) and now the penalty of Death is inflicted upon the Offenders.
Their blood ſhall be upon them.] All the Hebrew Doctors agree, that whereſoever we meet with this phraſe, it is meant of ſtoning; as I before obſerved.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 If a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them ſhall ſurely be put to death.] This was forbidden XVIII. 15. and the ſame penalty is here enacted, as againſt the former Crime.
They have wrought confuſion.] By perverting the order which God hath appointed, and making great diſturbance in the Family, &c. It is the ſame word that is uſed for a more foul ſin, XVIII. 23. and therefore ſhows this to be an abominable mixture.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 If a man alſo lie with mankind, &c.] This alſo was condemned before, XVIII. 22. but the penalty not declared till now.
They ſhall ſurely be put to death, &c.] By ſtoning; unleſs one of them was under a force, and then that Law took place, which we find XXII Deut. 25, 26.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedneſs.] See XVIII. 17.
They ſhall be burnt with fire.] Which was an higher puniſhment than ſtoning, as that was higher than ſtrangling. R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCXXIV. deſcribes the manner of it to have been thus: They ſet the Malefactor in dung up to the knees, and then tied a Cloath about his Neck, which was drawn by the two Witneſſes, till they made his Mouth gape; into which they poured hot melted Lead down his Throat, which burnt his bowels. And thus the reſt of the Talmudiſts expound it. But I ſee no good Authority they have for it; the word for burning being the ſame that is uſed, when mention is made of burning with Fire and Faggots, as we ſpeak. And R. Elieſer ben Zadock ſaith he ſaw a Prieſt's Daughter thus burnt for Fornication. But the Doctors commonly ſay the Judges were ignorant of the Law; or that they were Sadducees who then had got into the Seat of Judgment, who followed the very Letter of the Scripture.
Both he and they.] That is, both the Mother and Daughter, if the Mother were conſenting to it. Otherwiſe, only the Woman that offended. From whence the Karaites formed this Rule, after the ſame manner that men were obliged by a Precept in Scripture, the Women were obliged alſo, Selden. Lib. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 5.
That there be no wickedneſs among you.] That others may be deterred from the commiſſion of ſuch enormous Crimes: For the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedneſs. See XVIII. 17.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he ſhall ſurely be put to death.] See XVIII. 23. This Death was by ſtoning, as appears from the next Verſe.
And ye ſhall ſlay the beast.] Juſt as they were to deſtroy, not only the Inhabitants of an Apoſtate City, but their Cattel alſo, &c. (XIII Deut. 15, 16.) to terrifie others from committing the like ſin. And, as the Talmudiſts obſerve, that there might be no Memorial left of ſo foul a Crime, by Mens pointing at the Beaſt, and ſaying, There goes the Beaſt that ſuch a Man lay with. They might have added, to prevent monſtrous Births. See Selden, Lib. I. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 4. Maimonides gives a good reaſon, why a Beaſt that killed a Man ſhould be ſlain; as a puniſhment to the Owner, for looking no better after it: but his application of it to this matter ſeems impertinent, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 40. Bochartus his Gloſs is far better; The Beaſt was killed as an Inſtrument in the Crime; juſt as a Forger of Deeds is hanged with his Pen and Counterfeit Seals; and a Conjurer with his Magical Books and Characters. And this alſo is uſeful for an Example, though not to other Beaſts, yet to Men; whoſe concern it is to conſider that if Beaſts were not ſpared, who were not capable of ſinning, what would become of them, who committed ſuch Crimes, againſt the known Law of God, and the impreſſions of Nature it ſelf, Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. 2. cap. 16.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 Their blood ſhall be upon them.] This relates to the Man and the Woman (mentioned in theſe two Verſes) who committed this foul Crime: for a Beaſt is not capable of puniſhment. But as the Canon Law ſpeaks, Pecora inde credendum est juſſa interfici, quia tali flagitio contaminata refricant facti memoriam, it is to be believed that the Beaſts which were polluted with ſuch a flagitious wickedneſs, were therefore commanded to be ſlain, becauſe they rub'd up the memory of the Fact. Which is the very reaſon given of it in the Miſchna, Tit. Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 4. And ſo R. Solomon, The Beaſt was killed, lest it ſhould be ſaid, there is the Beast for which ſuch a Woman was put to death.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 If a man ſhall take his ſiſter, &c.] Whether ſhe was his Siſter by the whole Blood, (as we ſpeak) or by half Blood only; by the Fathers ſide, or Mothers; he was not permitted to marry her by the Law mentioned XVIII. 9.
And ſee her nakedneſs.] It is the ſame with uncovering her nakedneſs to lie with her; as it is there expreſſed, and here in the end of the Verſe (he hath uncovered his ſiſters nakedneſs) the ſenſe of ſeeing being put for that of touching, or any other in this Language.
It is a wicked thing.] A flagitious, or nefarious wickedneſs, as the Vulgar expreſſes it. But the Hebrew word Cheſed ſignifying ſometimes in the Prophetical Language Mercy and Indulgence, the Talmudiſts take theſe words, as if they came in by a Parentheſis, to obviate an Objection which might be made, that Cain and Abel married their Siſters. True, ſaith Moſes, that was by an indulgence in the beginning, ariſing from the neceſſity of things; when there were none but Brothers and Siſters in the World. But now they ſhall be cut off in the ſight of their People, who marry ſuch near Relations. So the Gemara Hieroſol. ad Tit. Sanhedrim. See Selden, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 8. p. 581. And ſo the Chaldee Paraphraſe, aſcribed to Jonathan, whoſe words are theſe; It is a filthy thing; but I uſed an indulgence to the first Men by whom the World was to be propagated, until Mankind was ſufficiently multiplied: after that, whoſoever doth any ſuch thing, let him be cut off, &c.
And they ſhall be cut off in the ſight of their people.] Publickly put to death. See v. 10.
He ſhall bear his iniquity.] i. e. The puniſhment of it, Chap. V. 1.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 And if a man ſhall lie with a Woman, having her ſickneſs, &c.] Here the Sentance of Death is pronounced upon them; whereas in XV. 24. it is only ſaid, the Man ſhould be unclean ſeven days. Therefore many think in that place he ſpeaks of doing this ignorantly; and here of doing it knowingly. But if the Man might be ignorant of the condition ſhe was in, the Woman her ſelf could ſcarce be ſo: and therefore others think, when the fact was altogether private, they only incurred a Legal Impurity for a certain ſeaſon; but when it was publickly known, and proof made of it before a Judge, it was a capital Crime. Becauſe it was done in contempt and deſpite of the Law: otherwiſe, it could not have been ſo publickly known, as to be legally proved. Whether this Law oblige in the ſtate of Chriſtianity, is at large diſcuſſed by Biſhop Taylor (not to mention other Writers abroad) in his Doctor Dubitantium, Book II. Chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 8. and Book III. Chap. 2. Rule 2. n. 3. &c.
Ver. 19. Verſe 19 And thou ſhalt not uncover the nakedneſs of thy mothers ſiſter, &c.] See XVIII. 12, 13.
They ſhall bear their iniquity.] It not being ſaid, they ſhall die, or be cut off, (as in the former caſes) it hath made ſome conclude this Sin, being not of ſo high a nature as the foregoing, was puniſhed only as thoſe that follow v. 20, 21. where they that committed them are threatned to die childleſs.
Ver. 20. Verſe 20 If a man ſhall lie with his uncles wife, &c.] See XVIII. 14.
They ſhall die childleſs.] This is underſtood by ſome as if Moſes meant they ſhould be put to death, before they could have any fruit of ſuch a Conjunction. But moſt think he only means, that either they ſhould have no Children; or that their Children ſhould not live, but die before their Parents; or be lookt upon as a ſpurious Iſſue, and not inherit their Eſtate: which is the ſenſe St. Auſtin puts upon theſe words. And Procopius Gazaeus alſo mentions it; and ſays this was the Roman Law about all inceſtuous Marriages, Semen eorum non recenſebitur inter liberos; Such Iſſue ſhall not be reckoned among their Children.
Ver. 21. Verſe 21 And if a man ſhall take his brothers wife, &c.] See XVIII. 16.
They ſhall be childleſs.] See v. 20.
Ver. 22. Verſe 22 Ye ſhall therefore keep all my ſtatutes, and all my judgments, &c.] Particularly theſe concerning the foregoing matters. See XVIII. 4, 5.
That the Land whether I bring you to dwell therein, ſpue you not out.] As it did the former Inhabitants. See XVIII. 25, 28.
Ver. 23. Verſe 23 And ye ſhall not walk in the manners of the Nation, which I cast out before you.] Viz. of the Amorites, as the Hebrews rightly expound it: for they were the principal Nation in Canaan, and extreamly given to Idolatry. R. Levi Barcelonita extends this to all their Cuſtoms, in cutting their hair, and ſuch like, (Praecept. CCLXII.) but it ſeems here particularly to relate to their Marriages, and Idolatry. See XVIII. 3.
For they committed all theſe things.] Theſe words ſhew, that the foregoing have particular reſpect to their abominable Marriages and Idolatry.
Therefore I abhorred them.] So as to caſt them out of their Country, XVIII. 25. Onkelos tranſlates it, My word [MEMRI] abominated them. Which is a plain intimation of a Notion they had in ancient times of more Perſons than one in the Deity: and particularly here denotes him whom St. John calls the WORD. For Memra (Word) plainly ſignifies a Perſon in this place; and a Perſon of the ſame Eſſence with Jehovah.
Ver. 24. Verſe 24 But I have ſaid unto you.] Made you a promiſe.
Ye ſhall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to poſſeſs it, &c.] For he promiſed to expel the former Inhabitants of that Country, to make room for them. See III Exod. 8, 17. XXIII. 27, 28. XXXIII. 3.
I am the LORD your God which have ſeparated you from other people.] This may refer either to what goes before, that they ſhould not live like other Nations, becauſe he had by peculiar Laws, as well as by ſignal Deliverances, diſtinguiſhed them from all the People of the Earth: or to what follows, that he had made ſuch a difference between them, and other People, that in their very Diet they ſhould not agree with them, much leſs in the fore-named Impurities. For that the difference of Meats was inſtituted, to keep them from familiar converſation with their idolatrous Neighbours, is very evident (as I before obſerved) and the Gentiles themſelves took notice of it, and looked upon them as unſociable People upon this very account. Joſephus often mentions this Objection againſt them. And Euphrates complains (in Philoſtratus de vita Apolon. Lib. cap. 2.) That of old they ſeparated not only from the Romans, but from all Mankind: for they had invented foreign, a manner of living that would not let them mix with other People, either at a common Table, or in their Prayers or Sacrifices.
Ver. 25. Verſe 25 Ye ſhall therefore put difference between clean beaſts and unclean, &c.] According to the preſcriptions in the XIth Chapter: which are here briefly repeated, to inforce the obſervation of the foregoing Precepts againſt ſuch inceſtuous Marriages as other Nations allowed; their Law not permitting them ſo much as to eat ſuch Meat as thoſe Nations did; but to account many things, which they freely uſed, unclean and abominable.
Ye ſhall not make your ſelves abominable, &c.] See XI. 43.
Which I have ſeparated from you, as unclean.] Forbidden you to eat; and thereby ſeparated you from all other People. Which had this intention in it (among others already mentioned) that this Nation, from whom the MESSIAH was to ſpring, might be kept pure and ſincere; free from all mixture with ſtrange People: unto which nothing contributed more efficaciouſly (as an excellent Perſon hath obſerved) than the difference of Meat, which made it not eaſie for them to contract Acquaintance, much leſs Friendſhip with other Nations. And truly, unleſs the People from whom the Meſſiah was to come, had been kept ſeparate from other Nations, either all hope of him would have been loſt, or many in every Country, to the great hurt and deſtruction of Mankind, would have pretended to be the Perſon. Whereas by keeping them a People diſtinct by themſelves, it came to paſs that all Countries thereabouts were filled with a report, that the Lord of the World ſhall come out of Judaea. See Joh. Wagenſeil. Confut. Carm. Lipman. p. 554, &c.
Ver. 26. Verſe 26 And ye ſhall be holy unto me, for I the LORD am holy.] See XI. 44. XIX. 2. and v. 7. of this Chapter.
And have ſevered you from other people, that ye ſhould be mine.] The very difference of Meats, which they uſed, was a Token that God had ſeparated them from other People, to be ſubject to ſuch Rites and Laws as he ordained: and hereby alſo they were ſo ſevered from others, as to be kept from the moſt familiar Converſation with them (which is at Meals) and thereby they were preſerved from the danger of being ſeduced to the Worſhip of ſtrange Gods.
Ver. 27. Verſe 27 A man alſo or woman that hath a familiar ſpirit, or that is a wizard, &c.] The conſulting ſuch Perſons is forbidden XIX. 31. and the penalty added v. 6. of this Chapter: and here the Perſons themſelves who were proved to have a familiar Spirit, or to be a Wizard (what they are, ſee there) are condemned to the heavieſt puniſhment; which was by being ſtoned to death. For which Severity Maimonides gives this reaſon; Becauſe it is the very Scope of the whole Law to root out Idolatry, and aboliſh the very name of it. And therefore God ordered Magicians to be ſtoned, becauſe, without doubt, they are Idolaters; though in a manner peculiar and different from the Vulgar. And the greater part of ſuch evil Arts being practiſed by Women (which is the ground he thinks of that Law, XII Exod. 18.) towards whom Men are naturally pitiful; therefore Moſes ſaith in this place, A man alſo or woman that hath a familiar ſpirit, &c. like to which we find in no Precept, not about the prophanation of the Sabbath: but in this caſe it was neceſſary expreſly to mention Women as well as Men; becauſe of Mens natural tenderneſs and clemency towards Women. Thus he, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. Procopius Gazaeus his Gloſs on theſe words is very pious, but ſomething fanciful; He that is hardned like a ſtone to vertue, deſerves to be ſtoned. For Magick commits Murders, digs up Sepulchres, diſturbs the ſouls of men. For Magicians are Men who corrupt Human Nature.