Leviticus 20 commentary

LEVITICUS 20 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Punishments for Sin
1 The Lord said to Moses,
BARNES, "The crimes which are condemned in Lev. 18; 19 on purely spiritual
ground, have here special punishments allotted to them as offences against the well-
being of the nation.
GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... After he had delivered the above laws
to him in the preceding chapter, he added penalties, to many of them, or declared what
punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of them:
HENRY, "Moses is here directed to say that again to the children of Israel which he had
in effect said before, Lev_20:2. We are sure it was no vain repetition, but very necessary,
that they might give the more earnest heed to the things that were spoken, and might
believe them to be of great consequence, being so often inculcated. God speaketh once,
yea, twice, and what he orders to be said again we must be willing to hear again, because
for us it is safe, Phi_3:1.
JAMISON, "Lev_20:1-27. Giving one’s seed to Molech.
K&D, "Punishments for the Vices and crimes Prohibited in Ch. 18 and 19. - The list
commences with idolatry and soothsaying, which were to be followed by extermination,
as a practical apostasy from Jehovah, and a manifest breach of the covenant.
CALVIN, "1.And the Lord spake. The prohibition of this superstition was
previously expounded in its proper place. God here commands the punishment to be
inflicted, if any one should have polluted himself with it. And surely it was a
detestable sacrilege to enslave to idols that offspring, which was begotten to God,
and which He had adopted in the loins of Abraham, since in this way they not only
despoiled God of His right, but, so far as they could, blotted out the grace of
adoption. What He had then generally pronounced, He now specially applies, viz.,
1

that they should be stoned who offered their seed to Molech; for otherwise they
would have tried to escape on the pretense that they had no intention of revolting to
other gods. Just as now-a-days, under the Papacy, whatever is alleged from
Scripture against their impious and corrupt worship, is coldly and contemptuously
received; because they varnish over their idolatries, and so indulge themselves in
them in security. But after God has commanded His judges to punish this crime
severely, He at the same time declares that, if perchance they should connive at it,
and encourage it by their lenity, He Himself will avenge it, so as to punish much
more heavily those who may have escaped from the hands of men; and not only so,
but that He would implicate all those who might have been aware of it in the same
con-detonation.
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
This chapter covers much of the same ground covered in Leviticus 18, with this
difference, that the things understood as "sins" there are here regarded as "crimes"
to be punished by the severest penalties. Full comment upon all of these sins was
made in Leviticus 18, with the exception of "cursing" father or mother (Leviticus
20:9), and will not need to be repeated here. The sin/crime of passing infants
through the fire to Molech is elaborated here.
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Moreover, thou shalt say to the children of
Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in
Israel, that giveth of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the
people of the land shall stone him with stones. I also will set my face against that
man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed
unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the
people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he giveth of his seed
unto Molech, and put him not to death; then I will set my face against that man, and
against his family, and will cut him off, and all that play the harlot after him, to play
the harlot with Molech, from among their people."
Efforts of some critics to make something less reprehensible out of sacrifices to
Molech than the wanton infanticide which it surely was have been completely
frustrated by recent confirmations that the destruction of infants was widely
practiced in the borders of Canaan during the times of Moses and Joshua. The true
believer hardly needs any confirmation of this, because the O.T. makes it absolutely
clear what was involved in giving "one's seed to Molech."
"They have caused their sons whom they bare unto me, to pass through the fire
unto them to be devoured. Moreover, this they have done unto me: they have defiled
my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For when they had
slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to
profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of my house" (Ezekiel
23:37-39).
2

Thus, Ezekiel makes it clear what is meant above in Leviticus 20:3. Yes, it is true
that Ezekiel was written long after the books of Moses, but there is no reason to
believe that Ezekiel's description is any different from the practice as it had been
known for many centuries all over the Mediterranean world, especially in Carthage
and in Canaan. Recent descriptions of the wholesale infanticide in Carthage have
been highlighted by articles in Biblical Archaeology Review.
Leviticus 20:2 ... The requirement of death by stoning, "Emphasized the whole
community's repudiation of the sin committed and involved the people themselves in
the execution of it."[1]
"Moreover ..." (Leviticus 20:2). "This word means simply and in Hebrew and shows
the close connection with previous chapters."[2] It is the same word that begins each
of the three books of Moses following Genesis.
Leviticus 20:4 ... The imputation of guilt to those who concealed crime is taught
here, a principle which has found its way into the laws of all nations. Furthermore,
God promised here that if the people did not slay the perpetrator of such crimes,
God would take care of the punishment Himself.
McGee is not fully correct in his view that all of the Ten Commandments carried the
death penalty for their violation. He pointed out that, "Only a few are given here as
examples,"[3] citing murder, one of the Ten Commandments not listed here, as also
requiring the death penalty. However, the tenth Commandment which dealt with a
subjective desire was incapable of being so enforced. Nevertheless, it must be
allowed as certain that the death penalty was freely assigned to many violations of
sacred law during the Mosaic period.
COKE, "Verses 1-5
Leviticus 20:1-5. And the Lord spake, &c.— In ch. Leviticus 18:21 this dedication of
children to Molech, is forbidden in more general terms. It is there said, thou shalt
not let any of thy offspring pass through the fire to Molech: where the reader will
observe, that the words, the fire, are in Italics, and, consequently, not in the Hebrew.
Accordingly, Houbigant is of opinion that the phrase signifies to become servants to;
and that it expresses dedicating children in perpetual servitude to the worship of
Molech, and therefore he renders it, non mittes ad Molech semen tuum in
servitutem, thou mayest not send thy offspring into servitude to Molech: and he
observes, that the word fire is never used, where Molech is spoken of: but he
certainly forgot, 2 Kings 23:10 where it is expressly said, that no man might make
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech: and I have no doubt but
that in many other places in Scripture, where passing through the fire is spoken of,
reference is made to this same idol. Calmet has a very learned and excellent
dissertation upon this subject. He informs us from the Rabbins, that "this idol was
of brass, sitting upon a throne of the same metal, adorned with a royal crown;
having the head of a calf, and his arms extended, as if to embrace any one. When
3

they would offer any children to him, they heated the statue within by a great fire;
and, when it was burning hot, they put the miserable victim within his arms, which
was soon consumed by the violence of the heat: and, that the cries of the children
might not be heard, they made a great noise with drums and other instruments
about the idol." Others relate that the idol was hollow, and within it were contrived
seven partitions, one of which was appointed for meal or flour; in the second, there
were turtles; in the third, an ewe; in the fourth, a ram; in the fifth, a calf; in the
sixth, an ox; and in the seventh, a child. All these were burned together by heating
the statue in the inside. Parkhurst observes, that "it appears from the substance of
this idol, which was brass; from its having the head of a calf (the animal-emblem of
fire;) from its being divided into seven partitions, answering to the seven planetary
spheres or orbits; and from the horrid rites performed to it, that it was intended as a
representative of the solar fire. This is also confirmed by its name ֶ‫מלך‬ melek, the
king: [the LXX several times render it, when meaning the idol, αρχων the ruler:]
for, as a king, in his political capacity, acts where he is not, by means of others; so
the solar fire in our system does, in some sense, act where it is not, by means of the
light which it is continually sending forth, and putting in motion. It has been
doubted, whether in that shocking rite of making their children pass through the
fire to Molech, they were always destroyed or burnt to death or not. Whoever will
attentively consider the following passages in the Hebrew Bible, will be strongly
inclined to the affirmative; Ezekiel 16:20-21; Ezekiel 37:28.: Compare Jeremiah
32:35 with Jeremiah 7:31. Some savages of Florida, we are informed by some
writers, used to sacrifice their first-born, if a male, to the sun; see Ceremonies and
Religious customs, vol. 3: p. 129:" see also 2 Chronicles 28:2. 2 Kings 23:10. Those
who desire further information on this subject, we refer to Calmet and Selden's
Dissertations, and Bishop Newton's Notes on Milton's Paradise Lost, Book i. ver.
392.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMENTARY, "PENAL SANCTIONS
Leviticus 20:1-27
In no age or community has it been found sufficient, to secure obedience, that one
should appeal to the conscience of men, or depend, as a sufficient motive, upon the
natural painful consequences of violated law. Wherever there is civil and criminal
law, there, in all cases, human government, whether in its lowest or in its most
highly developed forms, has found it necessary to declare penalties for various
crimes. It is the peculiar interest of this chapter that it gives us certain important
sections of the penal code of a people whose government was theocratic, whose only
King was the Most Holy and Righteous God. In view of the manifold difficulties
which are inseparable from the enactment and enforcement of a just and equitable
penal code, it must be to every man who believes that Israel, in that period of its
history, was, in the most literal sense, a theocracy, a matter of the highest civil and
governmental interest to observe what penalties for crime were ordained by infinite
wisdom, goodness, and righteousness as the law of that nation.
4

This penal code (Leviticus 20:1-21) is given in two sections. Of these, the first
(Leviticus 20:1-6) relates to those who give of their seed to Molech, or who are
accessory to such crime by their concealment of the fact; and also to those who
consult wizards or familiar spirits. Under this last head also comes Leviticus 20:27,
which appears to have become misplaced, as it follows the formal conclusion of the
chapter, and by its subject-the penalty for the wizard, or him who claims to have a
familiar spirit-evidently belongs immediately after Leviticus 20:6.
The second section (Leviticus 20:9-21) enumerates, first (Leviticus 20:9-16), other
cases for which capital punishment was ordered: and then (Leviticus 20:17-21)
certain offences for which a lesser penalty is prescribed. These two sections are
separated (Leviticus 20:7-8) by a command, in view of these penalties, to
sanctification of life, and obedience to the Lord, as the God who has redeemed and
consecrated Israel to be a nation to Himself.
These penal sections are followed (Leviticus 20:22-26) by a general conclusion to the
whole law of holiness, as contained in these three chapters, as also to the law
concerning clean and unclean meats (chapter 11); which would thus appear to have
been originally connected more closely than now with these chapters. This closing
part of the section consists of an exhortation and argument against disobedience, in
walking after the wicked customs of the Canaanitish nations; enforced by the
declaration that their impending expulsion was brought about by God in
punishment for their practice of these crimes; and, also, by the reminder that God
in His special grace had separated them to be a holy nation to Himself, and that He
was about to give them the good land of Canaan as their possession.
It is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that the law of this chapter does not
profess to give the penal code of Israel with completeness. Murder, for example, is
not mentioned here, though death is expressly denounced against it elsewhere.
{Numbers 35:31} So, again, in the Book of Exodus {Exodus 21:15} death is declared
as the penalty for smiting father or mother. Indeed, the chapter itself contains
evidence that it is essentially a selection of certain parts of a more extended code,
which has been nowhere preserved in its entirety.
In this chapter death is ordained as the penalty for the following crimes: viz., giving
of one’s seed to Molech (Leviticus 20:2-5); professing to be a wizard, or to have
dealings with the spirits of the dead (Leviticus 20:27); adultery, incest with a mother
or step-mother, a daughter-in-law or mother-in-law (Leviticus 20:10-12, Leviticus
20:14); and sodomy and bestiality (Leviticus 20:13). In a single case-that of incest
with a wife’s mother-it is added (Leviticus 20:14) that both the guilty parties shall
be burnt with fire; i.e., after the usual infliction of death by stoning. Of him who
becomes accessory by concealment to the crime of sacrifice to Molech, it is said
(Leviticus 20:5) that God Himself will set His face against that man, and will cut off
both the man himself and his family. The same phraseology is used (Leviticus 20:6)
of those who consult familiar spirits: and the cutting off is also threatened, Leviticus
20:18. The law concerning incest with a full- or half-sister requires (ver. 17) that this
5

excision shall be "in the sight of the children of their people"; i.e., that the sentence
shall be executed in the most public way, thus to affix the more certainly, to the
crime the stigma of an indelible ignominy and disgrace. A lesser grade of penalty is
attached to an alliance with the wife of an uncle or of a brother; in the latter case
(Leviticus 20:21) that they shall be childless, in the former (Leviticus 20:20), that
they shall die childless; that is, though they have children, they shall all be
prematurely cut off; none shall outlive their parents. To incest with an aunt by
blood no specific penalty is affixed; it is only said that "they shall bear their
iniquity," i.e., God will hold them guilty.
The chapter, directly or indirectly, casts no little light on some most fundamental
and practical questions regarding the administration of justice in dealing with
criminals.
We may learn here what, in the mind of the King of kings, is the primary object of
the punishment of criminals against society. Certainly there is no hint in this code of
law that these penalties were specially intended for the reformation of the offender.
Were this so, we should not find the death penalty applied with such unsparing
severity. This does not indeed mean that the reformation of the criminal was a
matter of no concern to the Lord; we know to the contrary. But one cannot resist the
conviction in reading this chapter, as also other similar portions of the law, that in a
governmental point of view this was not the chief object of punishment. Even where
the penalty was not death, the reformation of the guilty persons is in no way
brought before us as an object of the penal sentence. In the governmental aspect of
the case, this is, at least, so far in the background that it does not once come into
view.
In our day, however, an increasing number maintain that the death penalty ought
never to be inflicted, because, in the nature of the case, it precludes the possibility of
the criminal being reclaimed and made a useful member of society; and so, out of
regard to this and other like humanitarian considerations, in not a few instances, the
death penalty, even for wilful murder, has been abrogated. It is thus, to a Christian
citizen, of very practical concern to observe that in this theocratic penal code there
is not so much as an allusion to the reformation of the criminal, as one object which
by means of punishment it was intended to secure. Penalty was to be inflicted,
according to this code, without any apparent reference to its bearing on this matter.
The wisdom of the Omniscient King of Israel, therefore, must certainly have
contemplated in the punishment of crime some object or objects of more weighty
moment than this.
What those objects were, it does not seem hard to discern. First and supreme in the
intention of this law is the satisfaction of outraged justice and of the regal majesty of
the supreme and holy God, defiled; the vindication of the holiness of the Most High
against that wickedness of men which would set at nought the Holy One and
overturn that moral order which He has established. Again and again the crime
itself is given as the reason for the penalty, inasmuch as by such iniquity in the midst
6

of Israel the holy sanctuary of God among them was profaned. We read, for
example, "I will cut him off because he hath defiled My sanctuary, and hath
profaned My holy name; they have wrought confusion," i.e., in the moral and
physical order of the family; "their blood shall be upon them"; "they have
committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death"; "it is a shameful thing;
they shall be cut off." Such are the expressions which again and again ring through
this chapter; and they teach with unmistakable clearness that the prime object of
the Divine King of Israel in the punishment was, not the reformation of the
individual sinner, but the satisfaction of justice and the vindication of the majesty of
broken law. And if we have no more explicit statement of the matter here, we yet
have it elsewhere; as in Numbers 35:33, where we are expressly told that the death
penalty to be visited with unrelenting severity on the murderer is of the nature of an
expiation. Very clear and solemn are the words, "Blood, it polluteth the land: and
no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the
blood of him that shed it." But if this is set forth as the fundamental reason for the
infliction of the punishment, it is not represented as the only object. If, as regards
the criminal himself, the punishment is a satisfaction and expiation to justice for his
crime, on the other hand, as regards the people, the punishment is intended for their
moral good and purification. This is expressly stated, as in Leviticus 20:14 : "They
shall be burnt with fire, that there be no wickedness among you." Both of these
principles are of such a nature that they must be of perpetual validity. The
government or legislative power that loses sight of either of them is certain to go
wrong, and the people will be sure, sooner or later, to suffer in morals by the error.
In the light we have now, it is easy to see what are the principles according to which,
in various cases, the punishments were measured out. Evidently, in the first place,
the penalty was determined, even as equity demands, by the intrinsic heinousness of
the crime. With the possible exception of a single case, it is easy to see this. No one
will question the horrible iniquity of the sacrifice of innocent children to Molech; or
of incest with a mother, or of sodomy, or bestiality. A second consideration which
evidently had place, was the danger involved in each crime to the moral and
spiritual well being of the community; and, we may add, in the third place, also the
degree to which the people were likely to be exposed to the contagion of certain
crimes prevalent in the nations immediately about them.
But although these principles are manifestly so equitable and benevolent as to be
valid for all ages, Christendom seems to be forgetting the fact. The modern penal
codes vary as widely from the Mosaic in respect of their great leniency, as those of a
few centuries ago in respect of their undiscriminating severity. In particular, the
past few generations have seen a great change with regard to the infliction of capital
punishment. Formerly, in England, for example, death was inflicted, with
intolerable injustice, for a large number of comparatively trivial offences; the death
penalty is now restricted to high treason and killing with malice aforethought; while
in some parts of Christendom it is already wholly abolished. In the Mosaic law,
according to this chapter and other parts of the law, it was much more extensively
inflicted, though, it may be noted in passing, always without torture. In this chapter
7

it is made the penalty for actual or constructive idolatry, for sorcery, etc., for
cursing father or mother, for adultery, for the grosser degrees of incest, and for
sodomy and bestiality. To this list of capital offences the law elsewhere adds, not
only murder, but blasphemy, sabbath breaking, unchastity in a betrothed woman
when discovered after marriage, rape, rebellion against a priest or judge, and man
stealing,
As regards the crimes specified in this particular chapter, the criminal law of
modern Christendom does not inflict the penalty of death in a single possible case
here mentioned; and, to the mind of many, the contrasted severity of the Mosaic
code presents a grave difficulty. And yet, if one believes, on the authority of the
teaching of Christ, that the theocratic government of Israel is not a fable, but a
historic fact, although he may still have much difficulty in recognising the
righteousness of this code, he will be slow on this account either to renounce his
faith in the Divine authority of this chapter, or to impugn the justice of the holy
King of Israel in charging Him with undue severity; and will rather patiently await
some other solution of the problem, than the denial of the essential equity of these
laws. But there are several considerations which, for many, will greatly lessen, if
they do not wholly remove, the difficulty which the case presents.
In the first place, as regards the punishment of idolatry with death, we have to
remember that, from a theocratic point of view, idolatry was essentially high
treason, the most formal repudiation possible of the supreme authority of Israel’s
King. If even in our modern states, the gravity of the issues involved in high treason
has led men to believe that death is not too severe a penalty for an offence aimed
directly at the subversion of governmental order, how much more must this be
admitted when the government is not of fallible man, but of the most holy and
infallible God? And when, besides this, we recall the atrocious cruelties and
revolting impurities which were inseparably associated with that idolatry, we shall
have still less difficulty in seeing that it was just that the worshipper of Molech
should die. And as decreeing the penalty of death for sorcery and similar practices,
it is probable that the reason for this is to be found in the close connection of these
with the prevailing idolatry.
But it is in regard to crimes against the integrity and purity of the family that we
find the most impressive contrast between this penal code and those of modern
times. Although, unhappily, adultery and, less commonly, incest, and even, rarely,
the unnatural crimes mentioned in this chapter, are not unknown in modern
Christendom, yet, while the law of Moses punished all these with death, modern law
treats them with comparative leniency, or even refuses to regard some forms of
these offences as crimes. What then? Shall we hasten to the conclusion that we have
advanced on Moses? that this law was certainly unjust in its severity? or is it
possible that modern law is at fault, in that it has fallen below those standards of
righteousness which rule in the kingdom of God?
One would think that by any man who believes in the Divine origin of the theocracy
8

only one answer could be given. Assuredly, one cannot suppose that God judged of a
crime with undue severity; and if not, is not then Christendom, as it were,
summoned by this penal code of the theocracy-after making all due allowance for
different conditions of society-to revise its estimate of the moral gravity of these and
other offences? In these days of continually progressive relaxation of the laws
regulating the relations of the sexes, this seems indeed to be one of the chief lessons
from this chapter of Leviticus; namely, that in God’s sight sins against the seventh
commandment are not the comparative trifles which much over charitable and
easygoing morality imagines, but crimes of the first order of heinousness. We do
well to heed this fact, that not merely unnatural crimes, such as sodomy, bestiality,
and the grosser forms of incest, but adultery, is by God ranked in the same category
as murder. Is it strange? For what are crimes of this kind but assaults on the very
being of the family? Where there is incest or adultery, we may truly say the family is
murdered; what murder is to the individual, that, precisely, are crimes of this class
to the family. In the theocratic code these were, therefore, made punishable with
death; and, we venture to believe, with abundant reason. Is it likely that God was
too severe? or must we not rather fear that man, ever lenient to prevailing sins, in
our day has become falsely and unmercifully merciful, kind with a most perilous
and unholy kindness?
Still harder will it be for most of us to understand why the death penalty should
have been also affixed to cursing or smiting a father or a mother, an extreme form
of rebellion against parental authority. We must, no doubt, bear in mind, as in all
these cases, that a rough people like those just emancipated slaves, required a
severity of dealing which with finer natures would not be needed; and, also, that the
fact of Israel’s call to be a priestly nation bearing salvation to mankind, made every
disobedience among them the graver crime, as tending to so disastrous issues, not
for Israel alone, but for the whole race of man which Israel was appointed to bless.
On an analogous principle we justify military authority in shooting the sentry found
asleep at his post. Still, while allowing for all this, one can hardly escape the
inference that, in the sight of God, rebellion against parents must be a more serious
offence than many in our time have been wont to imagine. And the more that we
consider how truly basal to the order of government and of society is both sexual
purity and the maintenance of a spirit of reverence and subordination to parents,
the easier we shall find it to recognise the fact that if in this penal code there is
doubtless great severity, it is yet the severity of governmental wisdom and true
paternal kindness on the part of the high King of Israel: who governed that nation
with intent, above all, that they might become in the highest sense "a holy nation" in
the midst of an ungodly world, and so become the vehicle of blessing to others. And
God thus judged that was better that sinning individuals should die without mercy,
than that family government and family purity should perish, and Israel, instead of
being a blessing to the nations, should sink with them into the mire of universal
moral corruption.
And it is well to observe that this law, if severe, was most equitable and impartial in
its application. We have here, in no instance, torture; the scourging which in one
9

case is enjoined, is limited elsewhere to the forty stripes save one. Neither have we
discrimination against any class, or either sex; nothing like that detestable injustice
of modern society which turns the fallen woman into the street with pious scorn,
while; it often receives the betrayer and even the adulterer-in most cases the more
guilty of the two-into "the best society." Nothing have we here, again, which could
justify by example the insistence of many, through a perverted humanity, when a
murderess is sentenced for her crime to the scaffold, her sex should purchase a
partial immunity from the penalty of crime. The Levitical law is as impartial as its
Author; even if death be the penalty, the guilty one must die whether man or
woman.
Quite apart, then, from any question of detail, as to how far this penal code ought to
be applied under the different conditions of modern society, this chapter of
Leviticus assuredly stands as a most impressive testimony from God against the
humanitarianism of our age. It is more and. more the fashion, in some parts of
Christendom, to pet criminals; to lionize murderers and adulterers, especially if in
high social station. We have even heard of bouquets and such like sentimental
attentions bestowed by ladies on blood-red criminals in their cells awaiting the
halter; and a maudlin pity quite too often usurps among us the place of moral
horror at crime and intense sympathy with the holy justice and righteousness of
God. But this Divine government of old did not deal in flowers and perfumes; it
never indulged criminals, but punished them with an inexorable righteousness. And
yet this was not because Israel’s King was hard and cruel. For it was this same law
which with equal kindness and equity kept a constant eye of fatherly care upon the
poor and the stranger, and commanded the Israelite that he love even the stranger
as himself. But, none the less, the Lord God who declared Himself as merciful and
gracious and of great kindness, also herein revealed Himself, according to his word,
as one who would "by no means clear the guilty." This fact is luminously witnessed
by this penal code; and, let us note, it is witnessed by that penal law of God which is
revealed in nature also. For this too punishes without mercy the drunkard, for
example, or the licentious man, and never diminishes one stroke because by the full
execution of penalty the sinner must suffer often so terribly. Which is just what we
should expect to find, if indeed the God of nature is the One who spake in Leviticus.
Finally, as already suggested, this chapter gives a most weighty testimony against
the modern tendency to a relaxation of the laws which regulate the relations of the
sexes. That such a tendency is a fact is admitted by all; by some with gratulation, by
others with regret and grave concern. French law, for instance, has explicitly
legalized various alliances which in this law God explicitly forbids, under heavy
penal sanctions, as incestuous; German legislation has moved about as far in the
same direction; and the same tendency is to be observed, more or less, in all the
English-speaking world. In some of the United States, especially, the utmost laxity
has been reached, in laws which, under the name of divorce, legalise gross
adultery, - laws which had been a disgrace to pagan Rome. So it goes. Where God
announces the death penalty, man first apologises for the crime, then lightens the
penalty, then abolishes it, and at last formally legalises the crime. This modern drift
10

bodes no good; in the end it can only bring disaster alike to the well being of the
family and of the State. The maintenance of the family in its integrity and purity is
nothing less than essential to the conservation of society and the stability of good
government.
To meet this growing evil, the Church needs to come back to the full recognition of
the principles which underlie this Levitical code; especially of the fact that marriage
and the family are not merely civil arrangements, but Divine institutions; so that
God has not left it to the caprice of a majority to settle what shall be lawful in these
matters. Where God has declared certain alliances and connections to be criminal,
we shall permit or condone them at our peril. God rules, whether modern majorities
will it or not; and we must adopt the moral standards of the kingdom of God in our
legislation. or we shall suffer. God has declared that not merely the material well
being of man, but holiness, is the moral end of government and of life; and He will
find ways to enforce His will in this respect. "The nation that will not serve Him
shall perish." All this is not theology, merely, or ethics, but history. All history
witnesses that moral corruption and relaxed legislation, especially in matters
affecting the relations of the sexes, bring in their train sure retribution, not in
Hades, but here on earth. Let us not miss of taking the lesson by imagining that this
law was for Israel, but not for other peoples. The contrary is affirmed in this very
chapter (Leviticus 20:23-24), where we are reminded that God visited His heavy
judgments upon the Canaanitish nations precisely for this very thing, their doing of
these things which are in this law of holiness forbidden. Hence "the land spued them
out." Our modern democracies, English, American, French, German, or whatever
they be, would do well to pause in their progressive repudiation of the law of God in
many social questions, and heed. this solemn warning. For, despite the unbelief of
multitudes, the Holy One still governs the world, and it is certain that He will never
abdicate his throne of righteousness to submit any of his laws to the sanction of a
popular vote.
PETT, "Chapter 20 Punishment On The Transgressors.
Having been faced with the covenant requirements of Yahweh thought is now given
to the punishment for disobedience to His demands. In this chapter various
regulations from previous chapters are listed and the judgment to come on them is
now emphasised. The principle is that in the end all sin will bring us into judgment.
Verse 1
Leviticus 20:1
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
It is again stressed that these are God’s word, given to Moses. They possibly indicate
another separate revelation.
11

PULPIT, "The subject of Leviticus 18:1-30, is resumed in this chapter; but that
which was before considered as sin only is now regarded as crime, and penalties are
attached according to the heinousness of the offense. For example, the sin of "giving
of his seed to Molech," or which is the same thing, "letting any of his seed pass
through the fire to Molech," had been forbidden as a sin in Leviticus 18:21; now it
is condemned as a crime. The various penalties assigned in this chapter are
The first of these penalties, burning with fire, does not mean that those on whom it
was inflicted were burnt alive, but that their dead bodies were burnt after they had
been stoned to death, as in the case of Achan (Joshua 7:25). It is the punishment for
taking a mother and daughter together into the same harem (Leviticus 18:14).
Stoning with stones is appointed for crimes which are at once offenses against
religion and morals, viz. giving of his seed to Molech (Leviticus 18:2), and witchcraft
(Leviticus 18:27). The other form of putting to death, which no doubt was
strangling, is the penalty assigned to cursing parents (Leviticus 18:9), adultery
(Leviticus 18:10), marriage or intercourse with a stepmother (Leviticus 18:11) or
stepdaughter (Leviticus 18:12), the sin of Sodom (Leviticus 18:13), and bestiality
(Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 18:16). Cutting off from his people may be effected either
by death (Leviticus 18:4, Leviticus 18:5, and perhaps 6), which is the penalty for
Molech-worship, connivance at Molech-worship, and dealing with witches; or by
excommunication (Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 18:18), which was the punishment for
intercourse with a sister, or with one who was unclean by reason of her monthly
sickness (see Exodus 31:14).
The phrase, bearing his iniquity, means that the man continues in the state of a
criminal until he has been cleansed either by suffering the punishment of his offense
or making atonement for it, which sometimes he might, sometimes he might not, do.
The man who committed incest with a sister would "bear his iniquity" (Leviticus
18:17), because he would be put in a state of excommunication without permission
of restoration by means of sacrificial offerings. And so with the man who took his
aunt by blood (Leviticus 18:19) or by marriage (Leviticus 18:20) as his wife,—he
would not be allowed to recover his status by offering sacrifice. Childlessness, the
punishment for marrying an uncle's or brother's wife, probably means that in those
eases the offender's children should not be counted as his own, but should be
entered in the genealogical register as his uncle's or his brother's children.
2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any
foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of
his children to Molek is to be put to death. The
12

members of the community are to stone him.
BARNES, "Molech, literally, “the King”, called also Moloch, Milcom, and Malcham,
was known in later times as “the abomination of the Ammonites” 1Ki_11:5. He appears
to have been the fire-god of the eastern nations; related to, and sometimes made
identical with, Baal, the sun-god. The nature of the rite and of the impious custom called
passing children through the fire to Molech is very doubtful. The practices appear to
have been essentially connected with magical arts, probably also with unlawful lusts, and
with some particular form of profane swearing. The rite in the time of Moses belonged to
the region rather of magic than of definite idolatrous worship, and may have been
practiced as a lustral charm, or fire-baptism, for the children of incest and adultery.
Lev_20:2
Stone him with stones - The commonest form of capital punishment. It was
probably preferred as being the one in which the execution was the act of the whole
congregation.
CLARKE, "That giveth any of his seed unto Molech - To what has been said in
the note on Lev_18:21 (note), we may add, that the rabbins describe this idol, who was
probably a representative or emblematical personification of the solar influence, as made
of brass, in the form of a man, with the head of an ox; that a fire was kindled in the
inside, and the child to be sacrificed to him was put in his arms, and roasted to death.
Others say that the idol, which was hollow, was divided into seven compartments within;
in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the
fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which, by
heating the statue on the outside, were all burnt alive together. I question the whole
truth of these statements, whether from Jewish or Christian rabbins. There is no
evidence of all this in the sacred writings. And there is but 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. See the notes on Lev_20:14; See
the notes on Lev_18:21. Caesar, in his history of the Gallic war, lib. vi., c. 16, mentions a
custom of the Druids similar to this. They made an image of wickerwork, enclosed those
in it whom they had adjudged to death, and, setting the whole on fire, all were consumed
together.
GILL, "Again thou shalt say to the children of Israel,.... The body of the people
by their elders, and the heads of their tribes; for the following laws were binding on them
all:
13

whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in
Israel; everyone of the people of Israel, of whatsoever age, sex, or condition of life: and
not they only, but the strangers and proselytes; and not the proselytes of righteousness
only, but the proselytes of the gate, who, as well as the others, were to shun idolatry, and
other impieties and immoralities after mentioned:
that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; which Aben Ezra interprets of lying with
an idolatrous woman, or a worshipper of Molech, the abomination or idol of the
Ammonites, 1Ki_11:7; of which see Lev_18:21; but more than that is here intended, or
even than causing their seed or offspring to pass through the fire to Molech, as in the
place referred to; more is meant by it than a lustration of them, or a dedicating them to
Molech, by delivering them to his priests to lead them between two fires for that
purpose, but even the sacrificing of them to him; and so the Targum of Jonathan seems
to understand it, which is,"that makes (or sacrifices) of his seed Molech to be burnt in
the fire:''for that the Phoenicians or Canaanites, whose customs the Israelites were in
danger of imitating, and therefore cautioned against, did sacrifice human creatures, and
these the dearest to them, even their beloved and only begotten children, to Saturn, is
certain, as Porphyry (y) and Eusebius (z) affirm, or to Hercules, as Pliny (a), and both
the same with Molech, or the sun:
he shall surely be put to death; by the hand of the civil magistrate, which death was
to be by stoning, as follows:
the people of the land shall stone him with stones: that is, the people of the
house of Israel, as both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; such as lived in that part
of the country where the idolater lived, and where he committed the sin, or was
condemned for it; of the manner of stoning; see Gill on Act_7:58.
HENRY 2-5, "I. Three sins are in these verses threatened with death: -
1. Parents abusing their children, by sacrificing them to Moloch, Lev_20:2, Lev_20:3.
There is the grossest absurdity that can be in all the rites of idolatry, and they are all a
great reproach to men's reason; but none trampled upon all the honours of human
nature as this did, the burning of children in the fire to the honour of a dunghill-god. It
was a plain evidence that their gods were devils, who desired and delighted in the misery
and ruin of mankind, and that the worshippers were worse than the beasts that perish,
perfectly stripped, not only of reason, but of natural affection. Abraham's offering Isaac
could not give countenance, much less could it give rise to this barbarous practice, since,
though that was commanded, it was immediately countermanded. Yet such was the
power of the god of this world over the children of disobedience that this monstrous
piece of inhumanity was generally practised; and even the Israelites were in danger of
being drawn into it, which made it necessary that this severe law should be made against
it. It was not enough to tell them they might spare their children (the fruit of their body
should never be accepted for the sin of their soul), but they must be told, (1.) That the
criminal himself should be put to death as a murderer: The people of the land shall stone
him with stones (Lev_20:2), which was looked upon as the worst of capital punishments
among the Jews. If the children were sacrificed to the malice of the devil, the parents
must be sacrificed to the justice of God. And, if either the fact could not be proved or the
14

magistrates did not do their duty, God would take the work into his own hands: I will cut
him off, Lev_20:3. Note, Those that escape punishment from men, yet shall not escape
the righteous judgments of God; so wretchedly do those deceive themselves that promise
themselves impunity in sin. How can those escape against whom God sets his face, that
is, whom he frowns upon, meets as an enemy, and fights against? The heinousness of the
crime is here set forth to justify the doom: it defiles the sanctuary, and profanes the holy
name of God, for the honour of both which he is jealous. Observe, The malignity of the
sin is laid upon that in it which was peculiar to Israel. When the Gentiles sacrificed their
children they were guilty of murder and idolatry; but, if the Israelites did it, they
incurred the additional guilt of defiling the sanctuary (which they attended upon even
when they lay under this guilt, as if there might be an agreement between the temple of
God and idols), and of profaning the holy name of God, by which they were called, as if
he allowed his worshippers to do such things, Rom_2:23, Rom_2:24. (2.) That all his
aiders and abetters should be cut off likewise by the righteous hand of God. If his
neighbours concealed him, and would not come in as witnesses against him, - if the
magistrates connived at him, and would not pass sentence upon him, rather pitying his
folly than hating his impiety, - God himself would reckon with them, Lev_20:4, Lev_
20:5. Misprision of idolatry is a crime cognizable in the court of heaven, and which shall
not go unpunished: I will set my face against that man (that magistrate, Jer_5:1) and
against his family. Note, [1.] The wickedness of the master of a family often brings ruin
upon a family; and he that should be the house-keeper proves the house-breaker. [2.] If
magistrates will not do justice upon offenders, God will do justice upon them, because
there is danger that many will go a whoring after those who do but countenance sin by
winking at it. And, if the sins of leaders be leading sins, it is fit that their punishments
should be exemplary punishments.
2. Children's abusing their parents, by cursing them, Lev_20:9. If children should
speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, or carry it scornfully or spitefully towards
them, it was an iniquity to be punished by the judges, who were employed as
conservators both of God's honour and of the public peace, which were both attacked by
this unnatural insolence. See Pro_30:17, The eye that mocks at his father the ravens of
the valley shall pick out, which intimates that such wicked children were in a fair way to
be not only hanged, but hanged in chains. This law of Moses Christ quotes and confirms
(Mat_15:4), for it is as direct a breach of the fifth commandment as wilful murder is of
the sixth. The same law which requires parents to be tender of their children requires
children to be respectful to their parents. He that despitefully uses his parents, the
instruments of his being, flies in the face of God himself, the author of his being, who
will not see the paternal dignity and authority insulted and trampled upon.
JAMISON, "Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech — (See on Lev_
18:21).
the people of the land shall stone him with stones, etc. — Criminals who were
condemned to be stoned were led, with their hands bound, without the gates to a small
eminence, where was a large stone placed at the bottom. When they had approached
within ten cubits of the spot, they were exhorted to confess, that, by faith and
repentance, their souls might be saved. When led forward to within four cubits, they
were stripped almost naked, and received some stupefying draught, during which the
witnesses prepared, by laying aside their outer garments, to carry into execution the
capital sentence which the law bound them to do. The criminal, being placed on the edge
of the precipice, was then pushed backwards, so that he fell down the perpendicular
15

height on the stone lying below: if not killed by the fall, the second witness dashed a
large stone down upon his breast, and then the “people of the land,” who were by-
standers, rushed forward, and with stones completed the work of death (Mat_21:44;
Act_7:58).
COKE, "Verses 2-5
Leviticus 20:2. Shall stone him, &c.— Compare Deuteronomy 7:2; Deuteronomy
7:26. Who, upon the face of these laws, could ever attempt to support so absurd a
notion, as that idolatry was tolerated among the Jews? Yet such is the hypothesis of
the admirable Voltaire! Bishop Warburton upon this law observes, that there were
two cases in which the offender, here described, might escape punishment: first,
when the crime could not be legally proved; or, secondly, when the magistrate was
remiss in punishing. The divine lawgiver obviates both; and declares, that the
infanticide shall suffer death by God's own hand in an extraordinary manner. The
supplial of the first defect is in these words, and I will set my face, &c. Leviticus
20:3. The supplial of the second is in these; and if the people of the land, &c.
Leviticus 20:4-5.
TRAPP, "Leviticus 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever
[he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth
[any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land
shall stone him with stones.
Ver. 2. That giveth any of his seed unto Moloch.] {See Trapp on "Leviticus 18:21"}
Lactantius reports out of "Pescennius Festus," that the Carthaginians being
overcome by Agathocles king of Sicily, and fearing lest their slackness in the service
of Saturn - who is thought to be the same with Moloch - was the cause, offered unto
him for a sacrifice no fewer than four hundred young gentlemen at once.
PETT, "Verses 2-6
Child Sacrifice To Molech And Involvement In The Occult Is Forbidden To All In
The Land (Leviticus 20:2-6).
Leviticus 20:2-3
“Moreover, you shall say to the children of Israel, Whoever he be of the children of
Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel, who gives of his seed to Molech, he
shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I
also 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 to profane
my holy name.”
The horror of what Molech was comes out in the constant mention of him. He was
the god of Ammon, but he demanded child sacrifice, and was clearly fairly widely
16

worshipped in Canaan in a day when it was considered that the greater the sacrifice
the greater the benefit received. His name was probably Melech (King) but the
writers changed the vowels to the vowels used on bosheth (shame) in order to
indicate their view of him.
Anyone, whether Israelite or resident alien, who encouraged the worship of Molech
or gave to him their ‘seed’ was to be put to death without question. The ‘people of
the land’ were to stone such a person with stones (see Deuteronomy 13:10;
Deuteronomy 21:21). He had defiled ‘the land’. It was to be a people’s execution for
the removal of evil from among them. The thought is probably that the execution
should be carried out immediately on one who was an isolated case, and discovered
in the act. The worship of Molech was to be allowed nowhere in the land by anyone.
Stoning with stones was later especially the punishment for blasphemy, carried out
by the people (Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 24:23; Numbers 14:10; Numbers 15:35-36;
Deuteronomy 8:9; Deuteronomy 13:10; Deuteronomy 17:5; Deuteronomy 21:21;
Deuteronomy 22:21; Deuteronomy 22:24; Joshua 7:25; 1 Kings 12:18), and could be
carried out immediately (compare Stephen - Acts 7).
Moreover God Himself would set His face against that man and cut him off from
among his people, for by giving his seed to Molech he had defiled Yahweh’s
Sanctuary, and profaned His holy name. So the people had to act to maintain the
purity of the land, God Himself would act to maintain the purity of the Sanctuary.
The ‘people of the land’. Some see this as a technical description of a group of
property owning aristocrats (compare 2 Kings 25:19), others as signifying the whole
people acting as one (compare Genesis 42:6). In Genesis it means the indigenous
population (Genesis 23:7; Genesis 23:12-13), but not so here. In Exodus 5:5 it refers
to a section of the common people in a particular place, which may well be its
meaning here.
PULPIT, "Leviticus 20:2, Leviticus 20:3
The close connection between giving of his seed unto Molech and defiling my
sanctuary, and profaning my holy name, is explained and illustrated by Ezekiel in
the judgment on Aholah and Aholibah. "They have caused their sons, whom they
bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. Moreover this they
have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have
profaned my sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then
they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they
done in the midst of mine house" (Ezekiel 23:37-39). Not only was the juxtaposition
and combination of the worship of Molech and Jehovah an offense to him whose
name is Jealous, but at the time that Molech-worship was carried on in the valley of
Hinnom, idols were set up in the court of the temple itself, as we learn from the
Book of Kings and from Jeremiah. "But they set their abominations in the house,
which is called by my Name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal,
which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters
17

to pass through the fire unto Molech; which! commanded them not, neither came it
into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin"
(Jeremiah 32:34, Jeremiah 32:35). And of Manasseh it is related, "He built altars in
the house of the Lord, of which the Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my Name.
And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the
Lord. And he made his son pass through the fire" (2 Kings 21:4-6).
BI 2-27, "He shall surely be put to death.
Penal sanctions
This chapter, directly or indirectly, casts no little light on some most fundamental and
practical questions regarding the administration of justice in dealing with criminals. We
may learn here what, in the mind of the King of kings, is the primary object of the
punishment of criminals against society. First and foremost is the satisfaction of
outraged justice, and of the regal majesty of the supreme and holy God; the vindication
of the holiness of the Most High against that wickedness of men which would set at
nought the Holy One and overturn that moral order which He has established. Again
and again the crime itself is given as the reason for the penalty, inasmuch as by such
iniquity in the midst of Israel the holy sanctuary of God among them was profaned. But
if this is set forth as the fundamental reason for the infliction of the punishment, it is not
represented as the only object. If, as regards the criminal himself, the punishment is a
satisfaction and expiation to justice for his crime, on the other hand, as regards the
people, the punishment is intended for their moral good and purification (see Lev_
20:14). Both of these principles are of such a nature that they must be of perpetual
validity. The government or legislative power that loses sight of either of them is certain
to go wrong, and the people will be sure, sooner or later, to suffer in morals by the error.
In the light we have now, it is easy to see what are the principles according to which, in
various cases, the punishments were measured out. Evidently, in the first place, the
penalty was determined, even as equity demands, by the intrinsic heinousness of the
crime. A second consideration, which evidently had place, was the danger involved in
each crime to the moral and spiritual well-being of the community; and, we may add, in
the third place, the degree to which the people were likely to be exposed to the contagion
of certain crimes prevalent in the nations immediately about them. As regards the
crimes specified, the criminal law of modern Christendom does not inflict the penalty of
death in a single possible case here mentioned; and, to the mind of many, the contrasted
severity of the Mosaic code presents a grave difficulty. And yet, if one believes, on the
authority of the teaching of Christ, that the theocratic government of Israel is not a fable,
but a historic fact, although he may still have much difficulty in recognising the
righteousness of this code, he will be slow on this account either to renounce his faith in
the Divine authority of this chapter or to impugn the justice of the holy King of Israel in
charging Him with undue severity, and will rather patiently await some other solution of
the problem than the denial of the essential equity of these laws. But there are several
considerations which, for many, will greatly lessen, if they do not wholly remove, the
difficulty which the case presents. In the first place, as regards the punishment of
idolatry with death, we have to remember that, from a theocratic point of view, idolatry
was essentially high treason, the most formal repudiation possible of the supreme
authority of Israel’s King. If, even in our modern states, the gravity of the issues involved
in high treason has led men to believe that death is not too severe a penalty for an
offence aimed directly at the subversion of governmental order, how much more must
18

this be admitted when the government is not of fallible man, but of the most holy and
infallible God? And when, besides this, we recall the atrocious cruelties and revolting
impurities which were inseparably associated with that idolatry, we shall have still less
difficulty in seeing that it was just that the worshipper of Molech should die. And as
decreeing the penalty of death for sorcery and similar practices, it is probable that the
reason for this is to be found in the close connection of these with the prevailing idolatry.
But it is in regard to crimes against the integrity and purity of the family that we find the
most impressive contrast between this penal code and those of modern times. Although,
unhappily, adultery and, less commonly, incest, and even, rarely, the unnatural crimes
mentioned in this chapter, are not unknown in modern Christendom, yet, while the law
of Moses punished all these with death, modern law treats them with comparative
leniency, or even refuses to regard some forms of these offences as crimes. What then?
Shall we hasten to the conclusion that we have advanced on Moses? that this law was
certainly unjust in its severity? or is it possible that modern law is at fault in that it has
fallen below those standards of righteousness which rule in the kingdom of God? One
would think that by any man who believes in the Divine origin of the theocracy only one
answer could be given. Assuredly, one cannot suppose that God judged of a crime with
undue severity; and if not, is not then Christendom, as it were, summoned by this penal
code of the theocracy—after making all due allowance for different conditions of society
into revise its estimate of the moral gravity of these and other offences? We do well to
heed this fact, that not merely unnatural crimes, such as sodomy, bestiality, and the
grosser forms of incest, but adultery, is by God ranked in the same category as murder.
Is it strange? For what are crimes of this kind but assaults on the very being of the
family? Where there is incest or adultery we may truly say the family is murdered; what
murder is to the individual, that, precisely, are crimes of this class to the family. In the
theocratic code these were, therefore, made punishable with death; and, we venture to
believe, with abundant reason. Is it likely that God was too severe? or must we not rather
fear that man, ever lenient to prevailing sins, in our day has become falsely and
unmercifully merciful, kind with a most perilous and unholy kindness? Still harder will it
be for most of us to understand why the death-penalty should have been also affixed to
cursing or smiting a father or a mother, an extreme form of rebellion against parental
authority. We must, no doubt, bear in mind, as in all these cases, that a rough people,
like those just emancipated slaves, required a severity of dealing which with finer
natures would not be needed; and also, that the fact of Israel’s call to be a priestly nation
bearing salvation to mankind, made every disobedience among them the graver crime,
as tending to so disastrous issues, not for Israel alone, but for the whole race of man
which Israel was appointed to bless. On an analogous principle we justify military
authority in shooting the sentry found asleep at his post. Still, while allowing for all this,
one can hardly escape the inference that in the sight of God rebellion against parents
must be a more serious offence than many in our time have been wont to imagine. And
the more that we consider how truly basal to the order of government and of society is
both sexual purity and the maintenance of a spirit of reverence and subordination to
parents, the easier we shall find it to recognise the fact that if in this penal code there is
doubtless great severity, it is yet the severity of governmental wisdom and true paternal
kindness on the part of the high King of Israel, who governed that nation with intent,
above all, that they might become, in the highest sense, “a holy nation” in the midst of an
ungodly world, and so become the vehicle of blessing to others. And God thus judged
that it was better that sinning individuals should die without mercy than that family
government and family purity should perish, and Israel, instead of being a blessing to
19

the nations, should sink with them into the mire of universal moral corruption. And it is
well to observe that this law, if severe, was most equitable and impartial in its
application. We have here, in no instance, torture; the scourging which in one case is
enjoined is limited elsewhere to the forty stripes save one. Neither have we
discrimination against any class or either sex; nothing like that detestable injustice of
modern society which turns the fallen woman into the street with pious scorn, while it
often receives the betrayer and even the adulterer—in most cases the more guilty of the
two—into “the best society.” Nothing have we here, again, which could justify by
example the insistence of many, through a perverted humanity, when a murderess is
sentenced for her crime to the scaffold, her sex should purchase a partial immunity from
the penalty of crime. The Levitical law is as impartial as its Author; even if death be the
penalty the guilty one must die, whether man or woman. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Stone him with stones.
Lapidation
Lapidation, as is well known, was frequently resorted to by excited mobs for the exercise
of summary justice or revenge. But as a legal punishment it was not usual in the ancient
world; it is only mentioned as a Macedonian and a Spanish custom, and as having been
occasionally employed by the Romans. Among the Hebrews, however, it was very
common; it was counted as the first and severest of the four modes of inflicting capital
punishment—the three others being burning, beheading, and strangling—and it was in
the Pentateuch ordained for a variety of offences, especially those associated with
idolatry and incest; in certain cases it was even inflicted upon animals; and its
application was by the Rabbins considerably extended. As regards the proceedings
observed, the Bible contains no hints except the statements that it took place without the
precincts of the town, and that the men by whose testimony the criminal had been
convicted were obliged to throw the first stones. But the Mishnah gives the following
account, some features of which are possibly of remoter antiquity: When the offender is
being led away to the place of execution, an official remains at the door of the law-court,
while a man on horseback is stationed at some distance, but so that the former can see
him wave a handkerchief, which he does when any one comes declaring that he has
something to say in favour of the condemned; in this case the horseman at once hastens
to stop the procession; if the convicted himself maintains that he can offer proofs of his
innocence or extenuating circumstances, he is taken back before the tribunals; and this
may be repeated four or five times, if there appears to be the least foundation for his
assertions. A herald precedes him all the while, exclaiming, “So-and-so is being led out
to be stoned to death for this and this offence, and so-and-so are the witnesses;
whosoever has to say anything that might save him let him come forward and say it.”
Having arrived about ten yards from the appointed spot, he is publicly called upon to
confess his sins; for “whosoever confesses his sins has a share in the future life”; if he is
too illiterate to confess, he is ordered to say, “Let my death be the expiation for all my
sins.” At four yards from the place he is partially stripped of his garments. When the
procession has at last reached its destination, he is conducted upon a scaffolding, the
height of which is that of two men, and after drinking “wine mingled with myrrh,” to
render him less sensible to pain, he is by one of the witnesses pushed down, so that he
falls upon his back; if he is not killed by the fall the other witness throws a stone upon
his breast; and if he is still alive all the people present cover him with stones. When the
20

corpse, which is usually nailed to the cross, is in a state of decomposition, the bones are
collected and burnt in a separate place; then his relatives pay visits to the judges and the
witnesses, in order to prove that they bear them no hatred, and that they acknowledge
the justice of the sentence; and they must show their grief by no external mark of
mourning. (M. M. Kalisch, Ph. D.)
3 I myself will set my face against him and will cut
him off from his people; for by sacrificing his
children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary
and profaned my holy name.
BARNES, "Lev_20:3
Defile my sanctuary - i. e. pollute the people as identified with their sanctuary.
GILL, "And I will set my face against that man,.... Express resentment, anger,
wrath, and indignation at him, see Psa_34:16,
and will cut him off from among his people: that is, supposing him to have been
guilty of the above horrid crime, and there being not sufficient evidence given of it by
witnesses, or the magistrates negligent in doing their duty; and the matter being known
to God the omniscient, he, according this declaration, would deal with him himself, and
cut him off out of the land of the living, from among his relations, friends, and
neighbours, by his own immediate hand; otherwise the law before provided a penalty,
which is death by stoning, whereby he would be effectually cut off from his people, and
deprived of all natural, civil, and religious privileges in this life, and sent into everlasting
punishment in another, unless forgiving grace should be vouchsafed:
because he hath given of his seed to Molech; an iniquity to be punished by the
judge, and deserving of everlasting wrath and destruction:
to defile my sanctuary; not by doing this horrid action in it, but by coming into it,
having done it; or by offering sacrifice in another place than where God had
commanded, as well as such a sacrifice as was abominable to him, sacrifice being to be
offered nowhere but on the altar of the Lord in the sanctuary. Jarchi interprets this of
the congregation of Israel, which was sanctified to the Lord, in the midst of which this
wickedness was committed, and with which they were polluted:
and to profane my holy name: by sacrificing to an idol, when sacrifice should be
21

offered to God; and such a sacrifice as would cause the name of God, and his holy laws,
and true religion, to be blasphemed and evil, spoken of among the Gentiles, Rom_2:23.
K&D, "By this punishment the nation only carried out the will of Jehovah; for He
would cut off such a man (see at Lev_17:10 and Lev_18:21) for having defiled the
sanctuary of Jehovah and desecrated the name of Jehovah, not because he had brought
the sacrifice to Moloch into the sanctuary of Jehovah, as Movers supposes, but in the
same sense in which all the sins of Israel defiled the sanctuary in their midst (Lev_15:31;
Lev_16:16).
BENSON, "Leviticus 20:3. I will set my face against that man — Deal with him as
an enemy, and make him a monument of my justice. To defile my sanctuary —
Because the sanctuary was defiled by gross abominations committed in that city or
land where God’s sanctuary was: or because by these actions they declared to all
men that they esteemed the sanctuary and service of God abominable and vile, by
preferring such odious idolatry before it. And to profane my name — Partly by
despising it themselves, partly by disgracing it to others, and giving them occasion to
blaspheme it, and to abhor the true religion.
There is to be no connivance with Molech-worship. The penalty is death, and is to
be carried out by the proper tribunals, whose business it was to see that the stoning
took place. So in Deuteronomy the duty of killing those who entice to idolatry is laid
down. "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine
eye pity him, neither shall thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt
surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people" (Deuteronomy 13:8, Deuteronomy 13:9). In
the case of Molech-worship God declares that, if the tribunals of the nation fail to
adjudge the penalty of death to the offender, he will himself lake the matter into his
hands, and cut him off with his family and all that follow him in his sin of
unfaithfulness.
4 If the members of the community close their
eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children
to Molek and if they fail to put him to death,
22

GILL, "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the
man,.... That is, the people of the house of Israel, as the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan; if the friends, relations, and neighbours of such a man, though they know
what he is about to do, or has done, yet they shut their eyes wilfully, or look another way;
or, however, wink and connive at his wickedness, and will not discover him, and bear
witness against him; or if a court of judicature, before whom he comes, does not take the
evidence of his crime, nor condemn for it, or are negligent in punishing him as the law
directs, a gift having blinded their eyes, or they careless and remiss in their duty:
when he giveth his seed unto Molech; a crime so heinous and abominable:
and kill him not; do not bring witness against him, so as that he may be put to death,
or do not upon the evidence given condemn him to death, or do not take care to have
sentence executed, by stoning him to death.
JAMISON, "If the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the
man, etc. — that is, connive at their countrymen practicing the horrid rites of Molech.
Awful was it that any Hebrew parents could so violate their national covenant, and no
wonder that God denounced the severest penalties against them and their families.
K&D 4-5, "If the people, however (the people of the land), should hide their eyes
from him (on the dagesh in ‫ם‬ ֵ‫לּ‬ ְ‫ע‬ ַ‫ח‬ and ‫ימוּ‬ ִ‫לּ‬ ְ‫ַע‬‫י‬ see the note on Lev_4:13-21), from an
unscrupulous indifference or a secret approval of his sin, the Lord would direct His face
against him and his family, and cut him off with all that went a whoring after him.
PETT, "Leviticus 20:4-5
“And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives
of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face against
that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that play the harlot
after him, to play the harlot with Molech, from among their people.”
But if the people of the land deliberately ‘hide their eyes’ and refrain from doing
their duty and the worship becomes more prevalent, then this case is so bad that
God Himself will step in to intervene. He will set His face against the man, his
family, who will undoubtedly be involved with him in it, and with all others involved
in the worship. They will all be cut off. This is because they are ‘playing the harlot’.
They are looking to Molech rather than to their ‘husband’ Yahweh.
It is interesting that at this stage Molech is seen as the great enemy they will face in
the land. This may be because he was particularly objectionable, or because at this
stage they were close to Moab and Ammon where his worship was prevalent.
23

5 I myself will set my face against him and his
family and will cut them off from their people
together with all who follow him in prostituting
themselves to Molek.
GILL, "Leviticus 20:5
Then I will set my face against that man,.... That man that sees him do the fact,
and winks at it, or the judge that connives at him, and will not condemn him, as well as
the man that has committed the iniquity:
and against his family; either the family of the witness, who could and should have
testified against him, or of the judge negligent of his office, or of the man himself, whose
family must be privy to so shocking an action, and were abettors of it, and aiders and
assisters in it; and so Onkelos renders it, "and his helpers":
and will cut him off: the head of the family, whether judge, witness, or the criminal
himself:
and all that go a whoring after him: that commit the like idolatry after his example,
and encouraged to it by the connivance of others at it:
to commit whoredom with Molech; that is, idolatry, which is spiritual whoredom,
and often so called in Scripture, and with great propriety; for since God had espoused
these people to himself, and was their husband, as he was from the time of his bringing
them out of Egypt, and making a covenant with them, Jer_31:32; and their sacrificing to
and serving other gods being a breach of their matrimonial covenant with him, it was no
other than whoredom in a spiritual sense, for which he threatens to cut them off:
from among their people; by an immature death, even all that were guilty of such
abominable actions, or made themselves accessory to them, by any ways conniving at
them, either as judges or witnesses.
TRAPP, "Leviticus 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit
whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Ver. 5. I will set my face against that man.] See the reason in Ezekiel 16:20-21, "Is
this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children, and
24

delivered them to pass through the fire for them?" This was an enraging sin; such
as God is absolute in threatening, and will be as resolute in punishing.
6 “‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to
mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by
following them, and I will cut them off from their
people.
GILL, "The soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits,.... The man or
woman that has respect unto them, seeks after them, and inquires of them, in order to
get knowledge of things:
and after wizards who pretend to tell fortunes, and discover lost and stolen goods; see
Gill on Lev_19:31,
to go a whoring after them; for to consult them is to forsake the Lord, and have
recourse to Satan and his instruments; to relinquish their trust in God, and put
confidence in them, and attribute such things to them as only belong to God, even the
knowledge of things future; and this is to commit idolatry, which is spiritual adultery:
I will even set my face against that soul; show like resentment and indignation as
at him that gives his seed to Molech:
and will cut him off from among his people; in case his people do not bear witness
against him, but hide their eyes, and wink at his crimes, or the civil magistrate does not
condemn and punish him; the Targum of Jonathan is,"I will destroy him by the
pestilence.''
HENRY, "Persons abusing themselves by consulting such as have familiar spirits,
Lev_20:6. By this, as much as any thing, a man diminishes, disparages, and deceives
himself, and so abuses himself. What greater madness can there be than for a man to go
to a liar for information, and to an enemy for advice? Those do so who turn after those
that deal in the black art, and know the depths of Satan. This is spiritual adultery as
much as idolatry is, giving that honour to the devil which is due to God only; and the
jealous God will give a bill of divorce to those that thus go a whoring from him, and will
cut them off, they having first cut themselves off from him.
25

K&D, "He would also do the same to every soul that turned to familiar spirits and
necromantists (Lev_19:31, cf. Exo_22:17), “to go a whoring after them,” i.e., to make
himself guilty of idolatry by so doing, such practices being always closely connected with
idolatry.
COFFMAN, "Verse 6
"And the soul that turneth unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto the
wizards, to play the harlot after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and
will cut him off from among his people. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye
holy; for I am Jehovah your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am
Jehovah who sanctifieth you. For every one that curseth his father or his mother
shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall
be upon him."
Leviticus 20:6 ... "To play the harlot" is equivalent to the same words in Leviticus
20:5, above. It is a mistake to read this merely as "spiritual adultery." Of course, it
was also that, but there was the grossest kind of immorality connected with all
phases of pagan worship. Furthermore, the mention of harlotry in connection with
the visitation of wizards, witches, etc., as connected with this vice gives a glimpse of
the immorality often associated with such persons.
"Everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death ..."
(Leviticus 20:9). "This is the only crime in this chapter that was not mentioned in
Leviticus 18."[4] It is not here stated that the offender should be stoned, but
Jamieson was of the opinion that, "When no specific form of execution was
specified, stoning was implied."[5] Many have sought to refer the meaning of this
offense to something more serious than merely cursing father or mother, but our
view is that that crime was more serious than some might think. Orlinsky rendered
it "insults" or "repudiates."[6] Wenham wrote that, "To curse means more than
uttering the occasional angry word (2 Samuel 16:ff; Job 3:1ff). It is the very
antithesis of honoring one's father and mother.[7]
PETT, "Leviticus 20:6
“And the person who turns to those who have familiar spirits, and to the wizards, to
play the harlot after them, I will even set my face against that person, and will cut
him off from among his people.”
And the same is to apply to the occult. Those who look to familiar spirits or to
seekers after the dead, which is again described as ‘playing the harlot’ and being
unfaithful to Yahweh, will discover that Yahweh sets His face against them and cuts
them off from among the people. They will no longer be His. But we also have here
26

again the contrast between life and death, what was ‘clean’ and what was ‘unclean’.
This too would have had special significance if it came at the time when Balaam had
been called on to ‘fight’ against Israel (Numbers 22-24).
7 “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I
am the Lord your God.
GILL, "Sanctify yourselves therefore,.... By abstaining from such impious and
idolatrous practices, and separating themselves from all that gave into them, as well as
by observing the holy commandments of the Lord; otherwise internal sanctification is
not the work of man, but of the Lord himself, as in Lev_20:8,
and be ye holy; or a separate people from all others in worship and conversation:
for I am the Lord your God; who is a holy God, and therefore it became them to be
holy, in imitation of him, Lev_19:2.
HENRY, "II. In the midst of these particular laws comes in that general charge, Lev_
20:7, Lev_20:8, where we have,
1. The duties required; and they are two: - (1.) That in our principles, affections, and
aims, we be holy: Sanctify yourselves and be you holy. We must cleanse ourselves from
all the pollutions of sin, consecrate ourselves to the service and honour of God, and
conform ourselves in every thing to his holy will and image: this is to sanctify ourselves.
(2.) That in all our actions, and in the whole course of our conversation, we be obedient
to the laws of God: You shall keep my statutes. By this only can we make it to appear
that we have sanctified ourselves and are holy, even by our keeping God's
commandments; the tree is known by its fruit. Nor can we keep God's statutes, as we
ought, unless we first sanctify ourselves, and be holy. Make the tree good, and the fruit
will be good.
2. The reasons to enforce these duties. (1.) “I am the Lord your God; therefore be holy,
that you may resemble him whose people you are, and may be pleasing to him. Holiness
becomes his house and household.” (2.) I am the Lord who sanctifieth you. God
sanctified them by peculiar privileges, laws, and favours, which distinguished them from
all other nations, and dignified them as a people set apart for God. He gave them his
word and ordinances to be means of their sanctification, and his good Spirit to instruct
them; therefore they must be holy, else they received the grace of God herein in vain.
Note, [1.] God's people are, and must be, persons of distinction. God has distinguished
27

them by his holy covenant, and therefore they ought to distinguish themselves by their
holy conversation. [2.] God's sanctifying us is a good reason why we should sanctify
ourselves, that we may comply with the designs of his grace, and not walk contrary to
them. If it be the Lord that sanctifies us, we may hope the work shall be done, though it
be difficult: the manner of expression is like that, 2Co_5:5, He that hath wrought us for
the self-same thing is God. And his grace is so far from superseding our care and
endeavour that it most strongly engages and encourages them. Work out your salvation,
for it is God that worketh in you.
JAMISON 7-19, "Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy — The minute
specification of the incestuous and unnatural crimes here enumerated shows their sad
prevalence amongst the idolatrous nations around, and the extreme proneness of the
Israelites to follow the customs of their neighbors. It is to be understood, that, whenever
mention is made that the offender was “to be put to death” without describing the mode,
stoning is meant. The only instance of another form of capital punishment occurs in
Lev_20:14, that of being burnt with fire; and yet it is probable that even here death was
first inflicted by stoning, and the body of the criminal afterwards consumed by fire (Jos_
7:15).
K&D 7-8, "For the Israelites were to sanctify themselves, i.e., to keep themselves pure
from all idolatrous abominations, to be holy because Jehovah was holy (Lev_11:44; Lev_
19:2), and to keep the statutes of their God who sanctified them (Exo_31:13).
PETT, "Verse 7-8
Israel Are To Be Sanctified And Obedient (Leviticus 20:7-8).
Israel are to sanctify themselves to being holy (Leviticus 20:7) and must be obedient
because Yahweh is santifying them (Leviticus 20:8).
Leviticus 20:7
“Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be you holy; for I am Yahweh your God.”
So they are rather to set themselves apart totally to Yahweh, and be holy (set apart
in what they were as uniquely like Him) as He is holy, by walking in His revealed
ways. For He is Yahweh their covenant God. They are to look to none other but
Him, and to serve Him only.
A positive command, Sanctify yourselves therefore, and he ye holy: for I am the
Lord your God, is introduced early in the list of penalties to show what is the main
purpose of the latter. The only way in which the nation can recover holiness lost by
the sins of its members, is by the punishment of the latter, or by their purification by
means of sacrifice, according to the nature of the offense.
28

8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the
Lord, who makes you holy.
GILL, "And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them,.... Not only those respecting
the above things, but all others, which would be a means of preserving them from sin,
and of promoting holiness in their lives and conversations:
I am the Lord which sanctify you: who had separated and distinguished them from
all other people on earth, and who had given them holy laws, as the means of holiness;
and who only could and did sanctify internally, by his Spirit and grace, such or them as
were sanctified in heart, as well as outwardly.
PETT, "Leviticus 20:8
“And you shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am Yahweh who sanctifies you.”
And because He is the One Who is continually sanctifying them as His people,
making them holy, caring for them, watching over them, shepherding them, they are
to keep in their hearts, and do, His statutes, all that He has laid down for them to
do. We also may treasure His word, but the question is, do we ‘do’ it? See Matthew
21:30. To hear is good, but to obey is what is demanded. Some of those statutes are
now outlined.
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is
to be put to death. Because they have cursed their
father or mother, their blood will be on their own
head.
29

CLARKE, "Curseth his father or his mother - See the notes on Gen_48:12, and
Exo_20:12 (note). He who conscientiously keeps the fifth commandment can be in no
danger of this judgment. The term ‫יקלל‬ yekallel signifies, not only to curse, but to speak
of a person contemptuously and disrespectfully, to make light of; so that all speeches
which have a tendency to lessen our parents in the eyes of others, or to render their
judgment, piety, etc., suspected and contemptible, may be here included; though the act
of cursing, or of treating the parent with injurious and opprobrious language, is that
which is particularly intended.
GILL, "For everyone that curseth his father or his mother,.... Here begins the
account of the penalties annexed to the several laws in the preceding chapter; and that
respecting the fear and honour of parents being the first, Lev_19:3, is here begun with:
shall surely be put to death; the Targum of Jonathan adds,"by casting of
stones,''stoning being the punishment of such transgressors:
he hath cursed his father or his mother: to do either is his sin, and a capital crime
it is:
his blood shall be upon him: he shall be guilty of death, be condemned unto it, and
punished with it, namely, by stoning; for, as Jarchi observes, wherever it is, "his blood
shall be on him", or "their blood shall be on them", it is to be understood of stoning.
HENRY, "Children's abusing their parents, by cursing them, Lev_20:9. If children
should speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, or carry it scornfully or spitefully
towards them, it was an iniquity to be punished by the judges, who were employed as
conservators both of God's honour and of the public peace, which were both attacked by
this unnatural insolence. See Pro_30:17, The eye that mocks at his father the ravens of
the valley shall pick out, which intimates that such wicked children were in a fair way to
be not only hanged, but hanged in chains. This law of Moses Christ quotes and confirms
(Mat_15:4), for it is as direct a breach of the fifth commandment as wilful murder is of
the sixth. The same law which requires parents to be tender of their children requires
children to be respectful to their parents. He that despitefully uses his parents, the
instruments of his being, flies in the face of God himself, the author of his being, who
will not see the paternal dignity and authority insulted and trampled upon.
3. Persons abusing themselves by consulting such as have familiar spirits, Lev_20:6.
By this, as much as any thing, a man diminishes, disparages, and deceives himself, and
so abuses himself. What greater madness can there be than for a man to go to a liar for
information, and to an enemy for advice? Those do so who turn after those that deal in
the black art, and know the depths of Satan. This is spiritual adultery as much as idolatry
is, giving that honour to the devil which is due to God only; and the jealous God will give
a bill of divorce to those that thus go a whoring from him, and will cut them off, they
having first cut themselves off from him.
30

K&D 9-18, "Whoever cursed father or mother was to be punished with death (Lev_
19:3); “His blood would be upon him.” The cursing of parents was a capital crime (see at
Lev_17:4, and for the plural ‫יו‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫דּ‬ Exo_22:1 and Gen_4:10), which was to return upon
the doer of it, according to Gen_9:6. The same punishment was to be inflicted upon
adultery (Lev_20:10, cf. Lev_18:20), carnal intercourse with a father's wife (Lev_20:11,
cf. Lev_18:7-8) or with a daughter-in-law (Lev_20:12, cf. Lev_18:17), sodomy (Lev_
20:13, cf. Lev_18:22), sexual intercourse with a mother and her daughter, in which case
the punishment was to be heightened by the burning of the criminals when put to death
(Lev_20:14, cf. Lev_18:17), lying with a beast (Lev_20:15, Lev_20:16, cf. Lev_18:23),
sexual intercourse with a half-sister (Lev_20:17, cf. Lev_18:9 and Lev_18:11), and lying
with a menstruous woman (Lev_20:18, cf. Lev_18:19). The punishment of death, which
was to be inflicted in all these cases upon both the criminals, and also upon the beast
that had been abused (Lev_20:15, Lev_20:16), was to be by stoning, according to Lev_
20:2, Lev_20:27, and Deu_22:21.; and by the burning (Lev_20:14) we are not to
understand death by fire, or burning alive, but, as we may clearly see from Jos_7:15 and
Jos_7:25, burning the corpse after death. This was also the case in Lev_21:9 and Gen_
38:24.
COKE, "Leviticus 20:9. For every one— Our old version here is, If there be any
that curseth, &c. The particle ‫כי‬ ki, rendered for, is not always causal; but
frequently signifies moreover, further, when, &c.; see Noldius, Leviticus 9:22 : &c.
REFLECTIONS.—The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The former laws are here
armed with their sanction, and we need hear and fear before this holy Lord God.
1. In respect to the sacrificing of children. When we see the votaries of sin in general
serving the devil with such loss and suffering, how ought we to value the perfect
freedom of God's service. 2. In respect to the escape of the criminal from the hands
of men, God would then take the matter into his own hand. Note; Sinners may
escape the hand of justice here; but at God's tribunal they must stand, and none can
deliver them out of his hand. 3. Nor shall the abettors of the idolaters share a milder
judgment. Note; (1.) The character of an informer is often, and justly perhaps in
general, stamped with infamy: but there are offences where silence involves us in the
guilt of the crime we conceal; and it is at our peril if we hold our tongue. (2.) A
negligent magistrate is a most criminal character; and they who will not judge for
God, shall be judged by him. 4. A general charge is given to sanctify themselves for
God, and, consequently, to separate themselves from the ways and company of
sinners: and the reasons are given: (1.) Because God is their Lord and Master, and
they must serve him only. (2.) Because they thus answer his designs of grace upon
them: I am he that sanctifieth you. Note; [1.] Sanctification is the work of God: his
power must be obtained, or else impotent would be the command. [2.] All God's
people are a holy people: though the measure of their attainments differ, yet
universal sanctification of heart and life is the prayer, the purpose, and sincere
endeavour of every gracious soul.
31

PETT, "Verses 9-18
Crimes Which Deserve The Death Penalty (Leviticus 20:9-18).
Leviticus 20:9
“For every one who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He
has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be on him.”
The first such crime is that of a man cursing his father or mother. This does not
mean that he just swears about something they have done, or at them because they
have annoyed or frustrated him. It refers rather to a man who seeks to put his
father and mother under a specific curse. He calls on Yahweh to do the very
opposite of what Yahweh has declared He will do. The man is not only dishonouring
them, he is seeking to do them real harm, and dishonouring Yahweh.
The use of curses was widespread. A multitude of examples have been found in
Egypt, and many could be bought and sold. The purpose of a curse was to use
‘occult’ means to do someone harm. It would especially appeal to the weak who had
no other means of vengeance.
In a patriarchal society where the father figure was the supreme authority this
would have been a deliberate attempt to undermine tribal authority, and even to
take over power for himself. It was a blow at the family structure, and if successful
could have undermined the society in which he lived. The one who attempts
something like this must be put to death. Such a person with such aims to carry out
in such an evil way cannot be allowed to live, because of the harm he will do in
destabilising society. And he has brought his blood on his own head. There will be
no guilt on any who put him to death. The guilt will be on him.
PULPIT, "Leviticus 20:9
See above, the note on Leviticus 19:14, which shows how God's word is made of
none effect by man's traditions. God says that a man who curseth his father or his
mother shall be surely put to death. Human authority, incontrovertible throughout
a great part of Christendom, declares that in most cases it is no grave sin.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another
man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both
the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to
32

death.
CLARKE, "Committeth adultery - To what has been said in the note on See Exo_
20:14 (note), we may add, that the word adultery comes from the Latin adulterium,
which is compounded of ad, to or with, and alter, another, or, according to Minshieu, of
ad alterius forum, he that approaches to another man’s bed.
GILL, "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,....
Which is a breach of the seventh command, Exo_20:14,
even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife: which is only an
explanation of the former clause; though the Jewish writers, as Jarchi and Ben Gersom,
say this is so expressed to except the wife of a stranger, or a Gentile; but it means
whether a Gentile or an Israelite; and which may be confirmed by the instance of
Phinehas slaying a prince of Israel, that lay with a Midianitish woman, Num_25:6,
the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death; on account of her
that is espoused, by strangling, with a hard napkin within a soft one; and on account of
her that is married, by casting stones; even both the adulterer and adulteress, as the
Targum: and the Jews say (b), strangling was thus performed; they that were strangled
were fixed up to their knees in dung, and then they put a hard napkin within a soft one,
and rolled it about his neck, and one drew it to him this way, and another drew it to him
that way, until he expired: and there is no unlawful copulation punished with strangling,
according to Maimonides (c), but lying with another man's wife; and who observes, that
the death which is spoken of in the law absolutely, that is, without specifying any kind of
death, is strangling; but stoning seems rather meant, agreeably to Deu_22:24.
HENRY, "Sins against the seventh commandment are here ordered to be severely
punished. These are sins which, of all others, fools are most apt to make a mock at; but
God would teach those the heinousness of the guilt by the extremity of the punishment
that would not otherwise be taught it.
I. Lying with another man's wife was made a capital crime. The adulterer and the
adulteress that had joined in the sin must fall alike under the sentence: they shall both
be put to death, Lev_20:10. Long before this, even in Job's time, this was reputed a
heinous crime and an iniquity to be punished by the judges, Job_31:11. It is a
presumptuous contempt of an ordinance of God, and a violation of his covenant, Pro_
2:17. It is an irreparable wrong to the injured husband, and debauches the mind and
conscience of both the offenders as much as any thing. It is a sin which headstrong and
unbridled lusts hurry men violently to, and therefore it needs such a powerful restraint
as this. It is a sin which defiles a land and brings down God's judgments upon it, which
disquiets families, and tends to the ruin of all virtue and religion, and therefore is fit to
be animadverted upon by the conservators of the public peace: but see Joh_8:3-11.
33

COFFMAN, ""And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the
adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife
hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of
them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be
upon them. And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have
committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt
with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie
with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a
woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman,
and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
The various penalties assigned to these various offenses are as follows:
They shall be put to death (Leviticus 20:10,12,13,15).
They shall be stoned with stones (Leviticus 20:2,27, and Leviticus 24:14).
They shall be burned with fire (Leviticus 20:14; 21:9).
They shall be cut off (Leviticus 20:5,17,18).
They shall bear their iniquity (Leviticus 20:17,19).
They shall bear their sin (Leviticus 20:20).
They shall die childless (Leviticus 20:20).
They shall be childless (Leviticus 20:21).
The method of stoning probably varied from time to time, but either the leaders of
the people, or in some cases the whole congregation, participated in the execution.
The principal witness was commissioned to "throw the first stone." (see John 8:7).
On being "burned with fire" (Leviticus 20:14), Meyrick was certain that, "This does
not mean that those on whom it was inflicted were burned alive, but that their dead
bodies were burnt after they had been stoned to death, as in the case of Achan
(Joshua 7:25)."[8]
COKE, "Verse 10
Leviticus 20:10. The man that committeth adultery— The Hebrew word may signify
all kinds of uncleanness; yet here it does, and must, properly, signify adultery; a
crime held so detestable by all nations, that there were few in ancient times that did
34

Leviticus 20 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Leviticus 20 commentary

Similar to Leviticus 20 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Leviticus 20 commentary