By Dr Peter Pett BA BD(Hons-London) DD

The Law of Holiness (Leviticus 17-27).

The main section of the Book of Leviticus is constructed on a definite pattern. It commences with a description of the offerings and sacrifices of Israel (1-7), and ends with a description of the times and seasons as they are required of Israel (23-25). It continues with the establishment of the priesthood (8-10), which is balanced by the section on the maintenance of the holiness of the priesthood (21-22). This is then followed by the laws of uncleanness (11-15) which are balanced by the laws of holiness (17-20). And central to the whole is the Day of Atonement (chapter 16).

This second part of the book has been spoken of as ‘The Holiness Code’. We may balance this by calling chapters 1-15 ‘The Priestly Code’. The first part certainly has a priestly emphasis, for the priests control the offerings and sacrifices (1-7) and administer the laws of cleanness and uncleanness (11-15), and the second part a holiness emphasis. But this must not be over-emphasised. The whole book is mainly addressed to the people, it is for their benefit as God’s covenant people, and the maintenance of the holiness of the priests is just as important in the second half. It is to be seen as a whole.

We may thus analyse it as follows:

1). THE PRIESTLY CODE (1-15).

a) Offerings and Sacrifices (1-7)
b) Establishment of the Priesthood (8-10)
c) The Laws of Cleanness and Uncleanness (11-15)

2) THE DAY OF ATONEMENT (16)

3) THE HOLINESS CODE (17-25)

a) The Laws of Holiness (17-19)
b) Maintenance of the Holiness of the Priesthood (20-22)
c) Times and Seasons (23-25).

As will be seen the Day of Atonement is central and pivotal, with the laws of cleanness and uncleanness and the laws of holiness on each side. This central section is then sandwiched between the establishment of the priesthood (10-12) and the maintenance of the holiness of the priesthood (20-22). And outside these are the requirements concerning offerings and sacrifices (1-7) and the requirements concerning times and seasons (23-25).

So the Holiness Code may be seen as a suitable description of this second half of the book as long as we do not assume by that that it was once a separate book. The description in fact most suitably applies to chapters 19-22. It describes what Israel is to be, as made holy to Yahweh.

It was as much a necessary part of the record as what has gone before. The Book would have been incomplete without it. The Book of Leviticus is, as it claims, the record of a whole collection of revelations made to Moses at various times, brought together in one book, and carefully constructed around the central pivot of the Day of Atonement. There is no good reason for doubting this, and there are possible indications of colophons to various original records. It was the necessary basis for the establishment of the religion of Yahweh for a conglomerate people.

So having in what we know of as the first sixteen chapters of the Book laid down the basis of offerings and sacrifices (1-7), the establishment of the Priesthood (8-10), the laws of cleanness and uncleanness (11-15), and the requirements of the Day of Atonement (16), the whole would have been greatly lacking had Moses not added some further detail of the holiness that God required of His people and of His priests.

The former is contained in 17.1-20.27. In this section Moses deals with the sacredness of all life (17), the sexual relationships which can defile (18), and the positive requirements for holiness in the covenant (19-20).

It is then followed by the further section dealing with the maintenance of the holiness of the priesthood (21.1-22.16), with 22.17-33 forming a transition from speaking to the priests to speaking to the people.

Chapters 23-25 then deal with sacred times and seasons, including the seven day Sabbath (23.1-3), the set feasts of Israel (23.4-44), the daily trimming of the lamps and the weekly offering of showbread (24.1-9), the Sabbatical year (25.1-7), and the year of Jubile (25.8-55). Included in this is a practical example of blasphemy against the Name (24.10-23), which parallels the practical example of priestly blasphemy in 10.1-7. Thus practical examples of the blasphemy of both priests and people are included as warnings.

Chapter 26 seals the book with the promises of blessings and cursings regular in covenants of this period, and closes with the words ‘these are the statutes and judgments and laws which Yahweh made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses’ (26.46). Chapter 27 is then a postscript on vows and how they can lawfully be withdrawn from.

Chapters 11-15 dealt with the uncleannesses of Israel, leading up to the Day when all uncleannesses were atoned for (chapter 16). But the Day of Atonement covered far more than those. It covered every way in which the covenant had been broken. It also covers the direct transgressions of Israel. Chapter 17 onwards therefore deals further with the basis of the covenant against which they ‘transgressed’ and for which they also needed atonement. Chapters 11-15 dealt with practical matters considering what was ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ as they faced daily life, these chapters from 17 onwards now deal with the basis on which they should live their lives as Yahweh’s holy people, and the attitudes that they should have. They deal with prospective sin and disobedience. The former were more within the cultic section up to chapter 16, but the latter are firmly directed at the people’s moral response, so that their responsibilities under the covenant might be made clear directly to them. The distinction must not be overpressed. They are all still, of course, cultic, but the latter from a less direct viewpoint. They do not have so much to do with priestly oversight. They come more under the jurisdiction of the elders.

There is, however, no change of direction in overall thought. The whole of Leviticus emphasises holiness from start to finish. There is not a change of emphasis only a change of presentation because God is now directly involving the people.

It must, however, be firmly asserted that, as we shall see in the commentary, there is nothing in what follows that requires a date after the time of Moses. Having been given by God control of a conglomerate people (Exodus 12.38), with a nucleus made up of descendants from the family and family servants of the patriarchs (Exodus 1 - ‘households’), he had to fashion them into a covenant keeping nation under Yahweh and provide the basis on which they could be one nation and kept in full relationship with their Overlord. It was precisely because the disparate peoples believed that his words came from God that they were willing mainly to turn their backs on their past usages and customs and become one nation under Yahweh, culminating in them all being circumcised into the covenant when they entered the land (Joshua 5).

And with such a conglomeration of people with their differing religious ideas, customs and traditions, it is clear that this could only have been successfully achieved by putting together a complete religious system which was a revelation from Yahweh, which would both keep them together as one people and would ensure that when they reached Canaan they would have no excuse for taking part in the Canaanite religious practises such as he knew of from his time of administration in Egypt and from his time with the Priest of Midian. Had they arrived in Canaan without a single binding system, they would soon have fallen prey (as they almost did anyway) to the attractions of Canaanite religion. It was only the firm foundation that Moses had laid (combined with God’s own powerful activities) that finally resulted in their rising above their backslidings, and in their constantly turning back to Yahwism, because Moses had rooted it so deeply within them. And this finally enabled the establishing of the nation under Samuel and David after times of great turmoil.

This system did not come all at once. He had to begin instructing them soon after the crossing of the Reed Sea (Exodus 15.26), and a system gradually grew up (Exodus 17.13-26) as they went along, based as we learn later on a tent of meeting set outside the camp (Exodus 33.7-11), until at Sinai the book of the covenant (Exodus 20.1-23.33) was written down as a result of God’s words to the people and to Moses. Then in his time in the Mount this was expanded on. But it would continue to be expanded on in the days to come, until the time came when Moses knew that he had to accumulate in one record all the regulations concerning sacrifices, priesthood and the multitude of requirements that went along with them. By this time he had much material to draw on.

For leaders from different groups had no doubt been constantly coming to him for direction and leadership (Exodus 16.22), and especially for those who were not firmly established in the customs of Israel he no doubt had to deal with a wide number of diversified queries, and seek God’s will about them. This explains why sometimes the collections may not always seem as having been put together in as logical order as they might have been. They partly depended on what questions he had been asked, and what particular problems had arisen, and what particular issues were important at the time. But it was on the basis of all this activity that we have the Book of Leviticus as a part of the wider Pentateuch.

THE HOLINESS CODE.

The first emphasis on the holiness that Yahweh required of His people comes out in His requirements concerning the sacredness of life, and the shedding of blood.

Chapter 17. The Sacredness of Life and The Shedding of Blood.

With the emphasis that God has placed on the need for the careful regulation of the shedding of blood which represented God-given life (Genesis 9.2-6), it was necessary at some stage that Israel be carefully instructed in how to deal with situations where such questions arose. God wanted them to recognise that life was sacred, and that all life belonged to Him. And this is now the basis of what we find in this chapter, combined with definitions as to the significance of the blood which are of importance to us all.

But there is more to it than that. It will have already been noted that pivotal to this Book is the idea of sacrifice. The first seven chapter centralised on it. The priests were anointed in order to be able to perform it. Severe uncleanness required it. The Day of Atonement focused on it. And now this chapter introduces the remainder of the Book, stressing that underlying the whole covenant lies the idea of sacrifice. Without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness of sin, no atonement, no covenant. All is based on sacrifice. For the shedding of the blood in offerings and sacrifice of all clean, sacrificeable animals lies at the root of atonement in the Old Testament. Their lives are God’s great requirement for the sins of His people. And yet the very offerings themselves revealed that they were not enough. More and more were required, and were still insufficient. They merely pointed ahead to the one great sacrifice for sin that one day He Himself would make Who would alone be sufficient for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2).

17.1 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

Again it is stressed that we have here God’s word to Moses.

17.2 “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded, saying,”

This brings out that, while Aaron and his sons were responsible for the priestly ministry, the details of the Law were still the province of Moses. It was he who had to convey to Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel the whole word of God. The priests’ task would then be to apply that Law as it had been given to them by Moses.

In a sense this verse looks forward to the remainder of the book. It is ‘to Aaron, to his sons, to all the children of Israel’ (only here, and in 22.18 where it forms a transition from words to the priests to words to the people). This overall phrase covers both groups to whom Moses will speak in this last part of the book.

The Law Concerning the Slaying of Clean Domestic Beasts (17.3-10).

17.3-4 “Whatever man there is of the house of Israel, who kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation to Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh, blood shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood. And that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

He begins by declaring that any clean (eatable) domestic animal that was slain, whether in the camp or outside, had to be brought to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered as a gift to Yahweh. If it was not the person involved would be seen as guilty of ‘shedding blood’ without acknowledgement to Yahweh, and would therefore have to pay the penalty. He would be bloodguilty and would be cut off from among the people. ‘Cutting off’ probably signifies being put to death, although some have seen it as being cast permanently out of the camp. Thus every clean domestic animal that was slain was acknowledged as belonging to Yahweh, and as His gift to His people, and as being in its death part of the great atonement for them.

Apart from the daily and seasonal offerings this slaughter would not be such a regular an occurrence as we might at first imagine. We must remember that, while in the wilderness, the children of Israel would be seeking to preserve their herds and flocks, so that such optional slaughtering would not necessarily be very common. They saw their domestic animals as there to provide milk and wool, and to act as beasts of burden. They lived mainly on the manna provided by God, supplemented by hunting, by fishing, on bird’s eggs and on any other food that they were able to gather, and on the milk with its by-products provided by the domestic animals. They would not want to eat the animals themselves except on special occasions.

Once settled at the oases in Kadesh and its surrounds they would sow such crops as might grow. They would have been keen to preserve and build up their herds and flocks ready for when they reached Canaan. Thus this provision ensured that when they did partake of meat it would also ensure that a peace offering was made to Yahweh, so as to maintain peace with Him, and that they acknowledged their debt to him for His goodness towards them. Every deliberate death of such an animal contributed to atonement, acknowledged that life belonged to God, and confirmed their recognition that all that they had came from His hand (Psalm 50.10), that they were His covenant people.

17.5 “To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices (cattle they have slaughtered), which they sacrifice (slaughter) in the countryside, even that they may bring them to Yahweh, to the door of the tent of meeting, to the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace-offerings to Yahweh.”

The reason for this provision was so that any clean domestic animal which was slaughtered was brought as a peace sacrifice to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered up by the priests. This would then ensure that the blood was properly dealt with, that the fat was offered to Yahweh, and that the life was offered back to God, and from this it would be made quite clear to them that they had received its benefits from Him. They could then themselves partake of its meat, once the priest had had his portion, the fat and vital parts having been offered to God. Every animal slaughtered for meat thus also became a sacrifice of peace offering, confirming peace and wellbeing before Yahweh.

17.6 “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of Yahweh at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasing odour to Yahweh,”

The priest would deal with it as usual (as described earlier in 1-7) by sprinkling the blood on the altar, and burning the fat, which would arise as a pleasing odour, well pleasing to Yahweh. Continually atonement had to be made. This summary of such sacrifices indicates that the detail must have been given previously. This legislation could not stand on its own.

17.7 “And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the he-goats (or ‘demons’), after which they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations.”

An apparent further reason for this requirement, apart from the fact that it was an acknowledgement that life was sacred, and that all their cattle essentially belonged to God, was in order to counter pagan practises that had clearly sprung up, or may even have continued among some of them since they left Egypt. It is indicated here that some of the people had been slaughtering sacrifices ‘to the he-goats’ which they were falsely and indecently worshipping (‘playing the harlot’ with them). There may be a reference here to the goat worship practised in Lower Egypt which involved among other things women worshippers copulating with the goats. Such abominations would now be prevented by ensuring that all such animals were offered to Yahweh before the tent of meeting, which would make the other almost impossible, except by gross breach of the covenant.

17.8-9 “And you shall say to them, Whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a whole burnt offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it to Yahweh, that man shall be cut off from his people.”

The principle was now firmly laid down, and the whole burnt offering and all other sacrifices were also now included in the provision, that all offerings and sacrifices of any kind were to be brought to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered or sacrificed, whether it be by Israelites themselves, or by aliens who had settled among them. Any who did not do so would be cut off from among the people. Later the principle would be altered to take into account the fact that, once they were in the land, the site where the tabernacle was situated might be too far for people to come regularly for such a purpose (Deuteronomy 12.20-28). Then the blood had rather to be poured out on the earth like water, to ensure that it was not eaten or drunk.

Note the continued stress on resident aliens. They were not to be free to outwardly practise their own religion or worship as they pleased. If they wished to do so they must go elsewhere. While they lived in Israel, or in the camp, there must be no danger of their leading Israel astray. While they lived in Yahweh’s land they must worship and make offering to Yahweh alone.

For us the lesson comes over quite clearly from this that we must give proper thanks to God for all meat of which we partake. It is His provision for us, it is part of His creation, it has cost a life that belongs to Him, and it provides us with a specific opportunity for worship and thanksgiving. And it is above all a reminder of Him Who was offered as a peace offering for us, of Whom we may continually partake by faith.

17.10 “And whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who eats any manner of blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Furthermore, God stressed, no one in Israel must partake of the blood of an animal, whether it was those within the covenant or the alien who settled down among them. It was absolutely forbidden. God would set His face against anyone who ate blood. Rather than receiving life from it they would be cut off from among the people.

The Reason Why Abstaining From Blood Is So Vital (17.11-12).

17.11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your persons. For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.”

And the reason for this provision, which was permanent and binding, and permitted of no exception, was because ‘the life of the flesh is in the blood’, the blood uniquely represents the life. It was the life principle of the animal, and no human being should seek to partake of an animal’s life principle. It belonged solely to God.

But God had in His goodness provided that that life principle might be laid out in death on the altar in order to make atonement for the people. The life of that part of creation that God had provided as food for men, and as suitable for sacrifice, was offered in lieu of the lives of the sons of men. For the blood atones precisely because it represents the life laid out in death. Such continual sacrifice resulted in continual substitution for, and atonement for, sin, as the death of others provided by God was in this way constantly used to purify the sin of Israel and atone for it.

17.12 “Therefore I said to the children of Israel, No one of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.”

That is why no permanent resident of Israel, whether homeborn or sojourner (permanent alien resident) would be permitted to partake of blood. The blood was the life of the animals, could only be given to God in death, was laid out in death for man’s sins, and was the sacred symbol of God’s atoning work. It was thus not available for man’s use.

So constantly the people of God had the reminder of their own sin, and of the death which was the consequence of sin, and of the atonement that God had made available for them, in each domestic animal that was slain. So too must we daily and continually remind ourselves of the One Who was slain for us, that we might be forgiven and find reconciliation with God, and live out our lives to please Him.

The Law Concerning The Eating of Hunted Down Wild Beasts And Birds (17.13-14)

17.13 “And whatever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood, and cover it with dust.”

When a beast or bird ‘which may be eaten’ (compare chapter 11) is taken in hunting, and the main stress here is on the hunting of clean beasts and birds, their blood must be poured out on the ground and covered in dust. On no account must the blood be eaten. Again this applied to both Israelite and resident alien. All life belonged to God and He had the sole right to its disposal. The flesh of such animals could be eaten, but not their blood.

17.14 “For as to the life of all flesh, its blood is all one with its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”

For the blood represents the life of the animal or bird. It is its life principle And no one was to seek to partake of an animal’s life principle. Men and women were made in the image of God, and were of a different nature to wild beasts. To seek to imbibe an animal’s life principle was therefore to seek to alter one’s nature, and to turn oneself into a beast (which indeed was what they saw as one of its purposes, to give them the ferocity and/or strength of the beast). It was an example of what would later be described as ‘confusion’ (18.23; 20.12).

This teaching concerning the blood brings home the fact that we too can find life through blood shed, the blood of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1.29). It is through His life given in death that we can find forgiveness and new life. Jesus even spoke of ‘drinking His blood’ (John 6.53-56), but the thought there also was of putting Him to death and benefiting by it (compare Isaiah 49.26; Zechariah 9.15 LXX; Matthew 23.30; 2 Samuel 23.17). Men ‘drank His blood’ when they killed Him as they had the prophets (Matthew 23.30). We ‘drink His blood’ when we claim and participate in the benefits of His death.

The Law Concerning The Eating Of What Is Not Slain Or Hunted Down But Dies of Itself Or Through Other Wild Beasts (17.15-16).

17.15 “And every person who eats what dies of itself, or what is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a sojourner, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. Then shall he be clean.”

With regard to beasts’ carcases, where the death had occurred naturally, or as a result of one beast killing another, so that some of the blood would have drained out, then to eat of them was to render the eater unclean. The blood had not been properly dealt with. But still the blood and the fat must not be consciously eaten of, although the problem now arose as to how to remove the blood. Nevertheless the blood and fat were sacred to Yahweh. In fact elsewhere the Israelite was discouraged to eat of such animals at all (compare 11.39-40; 22.8 of priests) because as the people of God they were ‘holy’ (Deuteronomy 14.21). If they did eat of them they became unclean, although, once they had washed their clothes and washed themselves thoroughly, their uncleanness only lasted until the evening. Once the evening came they would be clean again.

(It will be apparent to all that the total removal of all blood was not practical even with sacrificially slain animals. It was the principle that was important, the avoidance of the deliberate imbibing of blood).

17.16 “But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.”

But if they became unclean in this way and did not wash their clothes or themselves, then they must bear any punishment that God sees fit to mete out to them. There seems to be an indication here that unpleasant results can follow such eating, especially if they do not wash fairly soon afterwards. In view of the fact that the animal would either be diseased or possibly infected by other animals and birds who had torn at it with tooth and claw, there was a good likelihood of their picking up infections, and those who followed God’s instructions not to eat at all made the most sensible choice. The hygienic reasons for this are quite clear.

One great lesson that comes from this chapter is the wonder of life. God gave all life, and it is His. It is never something to be taken or treated lightly. It is holy to Him.

Chapter 18. God’s Covenant Is Concerned With Right Sexual Relations.

In this chapter, having laid the basis in sacrifice, God now commands His people to walk in His ways and in accordance with all that He has shown them. And here He especially declares to them what relationships with women they are to avoid. So as in 11-12 the pattern is maintained. First the treatment of domestic and other animals (compare chapter 11), then the treatment of sexual relations with their results in the bearing of life (chapter 12, 15).

The chapter is in twelfth century BC treaty form. It begins with the declaration of the overlord, ‘I am Yahweh your God’, goes on with the preamble about their required behaviour, followed by the promised blessing that those who did His commands would live in them, details the further requirements, and finishes up with the final warnings for disobedience. Note how ‘I am Yahweh’ is repeated (verse 2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30), stressing the connection with the covenant.

18.1 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

Once more we have the emphasis on the fact that these are God’s words to Moses. The ideas are not to be seen as Moses’ ideas, but as God’s.

The Command To Obey Yahweh Their God Whose Commands Bring Life (18.2-5).

18.2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, I am Yahweh your God.”

What follows very much has the covenant in mind. God stresses constantly, as He did at the giving of the covenant (20.2), that He is Yahweh their God, and that He therefore expects their response. Note that these words are directed solely at the people. This continues from now until 20.27, and then from chapter 23 onwards.

18.3 “You shall not do after the doings of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, and you shall not do after the doings of the land of Canaan, to which I will bring you, nor shall you walk in their statutes.”

Because He is Yahweh their God, and because they are His, they are not to live as others live and do as others do. They are not to follow the doings of the land of Egypt. They are not to follow the doings of the land of Canaan. Nor when he has brought them there are they to walk in their statutes, their behavioural rules that were recorded and required of men. They are rather to do as He requires.

Particularly are they not to follow their attitudes towards sexual relationships. Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites allowed sexual relationships and marriage within some of the degrees described below, and the Canaanites especially were free with their sexual favours, but Israel was not to be so.

This was particularly important in view of the conglomerate nature of ‘the children of Israel’. All among them were used to living in accordance with differing long established and varying customs picked up in Egypt, and previously in Canaan and other places. They were a total mixture of customs. But now they were to put all those behind them and begin to follow Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances. The new beginning established at Sinai had to be seen as pre-eminent. The past must be put behind them.

18.4 “My ordinances shall you do, and my statutes shall you keep, to walk in them. I am Yahweh your God.”

Rather are they to do the ordinances and judgments that He has required of them, given them in judgments, or caused to be written as their guide (see Exodus 17.14; 24.4; 34.27; Numbers 33.1-2; Deuteronomy 31.9), and to follow His demands and declarations, and walk in His ways. And they are to do this because He is Yahweh their God, their Great Deliverer.

We are reminded by this that we too when we become Christians have become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5.17). We too have to put aside the old ways and walk as new men and women (Ephesians 4.22-32; Colossians 3.5-11; Galatians 2.20).

18.5 “You shall therefore keep my statutes, and my ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live in them. I am Yahweh.”

For it is in keeping those statutes and ordinances that they will find life. First of all they will avoid the danger of dying because of sin (compare Exodus 28.35, 43; 30.20, 21; Leviticus. 8.35; 10.6, 7, 9; 15.31; 16.2, 13). Secondly they will live in prosperity and blessing, for in Deuteronomy the idea of life and prosperity go very much together (Deuteronomy 30.15-16). The blessings of Deuteronomy 28.1-14 were to be for those who ‘lived’. And thirdly elsewhere in Leviticus it is stressed that they would enjoy the abundant blessings of God. ‘If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments and do them, then I shall give you rains in their season, and the land will yield its abundant produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. And your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time, and you will eat your food to the full and live securely in your land’ (26.3-5).

So fullness of life, He tells us, results from knowing God and walking in His ways. This was also the essential message of the writer of Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 2.24-26; 3.22; 5.18-19; 11.9) as he sought to understand the meaning of life. He pointed to the free and happy life under God available to those who trusted in Him. And that was the life that the Law was intended to give, as the people responded to God in love and worship and sought eagerly to do what pleased Him and to enjoy the good things in life that He gave them.

This was not saying that the Law could ‘give life’ as we might understand it. It very much could not. It could only show the life that should be lived. It could show what life was. It was the God of the covenant Who could give life, Who could renew His spirit within them (Psalm 51.10; 139.7; 143.10 compare Numbers 11.25), Who could give them clean hearts if they sought them (Psalm 51.10; Ezekiel 18.31). For the purpose of the ordinances was that they should constantly be returned to cleanness, and to a sense of a right relationship with God. The one who had raised up Abraham, Who had raised up Jacob, could also constantly raise them up. This is the message that the prophets would remind them of again and again. But it was true from the beginning. And through this they could live according to His covenant and enjoy His fullness of blessing. They would ‘live in them’.

Relationships Which Are Forbidden.

But central to this fullness of life were satisfactory family relationships. If they wished to enjoy ‘life’ these were vital. Living in a patriarchal society where the wider family lived in close relationships with each other, and where authority was vested in the wider family and very much determined by status in the household, there was the greatest possible danger among such families, knowing the propensities of men, that the closeness of their relationships in their living together could produce sexual problems, and that those could then produce situations that struck at the very roots of the family and of authority. Men’s lusts would be able to destroy families and especially womenfolk. They could also make life very difficult for everybody in a constant changing of relationships. They could in effect destroy ‘life’.

This was especially true because men who were in positions of authority in the family could, without these regulations, have enforced their will sexually and caused untold hurt within their own family circles. Without regulation children especially would clearly be vulnerable to those whom they loved and who were responsible for their protection. It was therefore necessary to have strict rules to control these relationships, to prevent them getting out of hand, and to so legislate that such aberrations should not even be thought of.

Practically speaking there were a number of good reasons why the relationships that follow were to be carefully regulated and any stepping across the boundary avoided, even if the assumption is that marriage, albeit often ‘forced’ marriage, was mainly in view by the perpetrators. They could produce complications in status and in inheritance, cause deep rows, division and distress within families, result in huge tensions, destroy inter-relationships, foster discrimination and jealousies between blood relations, produce insecurity and uncertainty in family life, encourage constant distrust and fear, leave young children very vulnerable, and cause much bad blood and hurt which might affect a number of generations. They could destroy the stability, trust and love of the family. Such practises could also have been carried out deliberately in order to concentrate wealth and power within a few families to the general harm of the nation (compare the inter-marriage policy of Abraham’s family in order to maintain status).

In most cases they were also totally unseemly anyway, denoting total lack of what was decent and natural (like boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was to be unthinkable because it went against nature), and underlying them were also no doubt a recognition by God of the genetic problems that could arise. But above all they are a reminder that we are not just to be free to follow ‘love’ (or lust) but must first do what is seemly and considerate for all. There are things that come before ‘love’. The family unity must not be destroyed for the selfish gratification of the few. That is why rigid barriers were and are necessary.

Where Christian standards of marriage and life, based on these words, have held sway, these relationships described have not outwardly seemed much of a problem. They have simply not been openly breached (although much has gone on under cover which we would be ashamed to talk about if we knew of it). But now that in many countries sex has become a free for all once again they have again begun to raise their heads, and many families are being affected, and many people hurt, by uncouth sexual behaviour in lands once thought of as ‘Christian’.

The problem of incestuous relationships was acknowledged elsewhere in the ancient world, but in a wide variety of ways and with varying penalties, many not very severe. It was, therefore, often not treated too seriously and never dealt with in detail in quite this way. This is thus a rare attempt to formalise in depth how such relationships should be viewed.

Relationships Within Families (18.6-18)

18.6 “None of you shall approach to any who are near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh.”

Firstly the initial principle was laid down that there should be no sexual approaches among those who were of near kin, no approaches of the kind which were with a view to marriage and sexual relations. This was because Yahweh was Yahweh and disapproved of anything that could destroy family relationships, and knew what great dangers there were of sexual relationships doing this, and what tragedy they could bring about. This principle is now expanded in detail. For He wanted it known that His people were simply not expected to behave like that because they accepted Who and What He is.

That ‘marriage’ is probably mainly in mind throughout, in that the person would seek to justify their behaviour by that means, comes out in that without legal marriage such behaviour should automatically have resulted in the death penalty anyway. Thus to have legitimacy they would have to marry the person involved. For when two had sexual relations they became one flesh. So it had to be made clear that in relation to those who are of near kin marriage is as bad as fornication and adultery.

On the other hand it might be argued that illicit sex within the family would be so hushed up, and so never revealed, that it had to be legislated against anyway, which explains the strong statements against it within close family relationships. Each man must be made to recognise that God would know and would punish what he did even if men could not. The point is being made that these activities are in fact forbidden under any circumstances, whether within marriage or not, and the emphasis is not so much on marriage as on the evil of sexual relations between such related people. They were wrong under any circumstance, and a professed marriage did not excuse them. To ‘uncover nakedness’ refers to sexual intercourse.

From this point until verse 23 the commands are all in the singular, stressing their application to each individual. He then again returns to the plural.

18.7 “The nakedness of your father, even the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover. She is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”

The first forbidden relationship for a man was with his own mother. To marry and/or have relations with his own mother, to uncover her nakedness, was clearly totally unseemly. To do so would be to utterly shame his father’s name, with whom his mother was one flesh, and indeed his mother herself as made one with his father. He would be exposing his father’s nakedness as Ham had done long before (Genesis 9.22). It would be totally unnatural and could not even be considered. Here God was enforcing the fact by statute.

Among other things such a relationship would dishonour the father with whom his wife had been one flesh, so that the revealing of her nakedness was the revealing of his; would distort positions of authority as the son, as the husband of the mother, would gain a status contrary to and in apposition to that of the firstborn son; and it could be seen as against nature. It also carried with it genetic dangers.

The sin of Lot’s two daughters, which resulted in the birth of Ammon (Ben-ammi) and Moab (Genesis 19.30-38), can be compared to this although they literally uncovered their father’s nakedness.

18.8 “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover. It is your father’s nakedness.”

The next forbidden relationship was with any other wife or ex-wife of a man’s father. This was forbidden because she and his father were one. Therefore to marry her and/or have sexual relations with her would be shaming his father. It is as if he had had sex with his father. He must not seek to take his father’s place in this way. Furthermore it would again undermine authority.

And on top of that lust for a beautiful relative, if not absolutely forbidden, could cause all kinds of evil behaviour through the centuries, including convenient murder of the father. Without these laws forbidding it, any father with a very beautiful wife (like Sarah) might always be in danger of being murdered by his sons so that they could have her for themselves. But if legally they could not marry acceptably, much of the danger was removed. In Israel God was seeking to scotch that from the beginning by indicating that marriage to her would be out of the question. In this case the penalty for failure was to be death (20.11).

In fact a man lying with his father’s wife was accursed by the law (Deuteronomy 27.23). He stood cursed before God. Such an incestuous relationship was engaged in by Reuben with Bilhah (Genesis 35.22), and by Absalom with his father's concubines or secondary wives (2 Samuel 16.22). The one lost his pre-eminence as the firstborn, the other his life. It was the sin that especially shocked Paul among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:1), one not even thought of among the Gentiles.

18.9 “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness you shall not uncover.”

Marriage and/or sexual relations with a blood sister or half-blood sister were also forbidden, even if she had been born elsewhere. It is quite clear how impossible family life would have been if men could pressurise their own sisters. Family unity would have been impossible and no beautiful woman would have been safe to pursue an ordinary life (see 2 Samuel 13.12-32). But the regulations produced a mind set in Israel which helped to prevent all but the worst of men even thinking in this way. Those who did this were to be ‘cut off in the sight of the people’ (20.17). They were cursed (Deuteronomy 27.22).

‘Born abroad’ may indicate an illegitimate daughter, but there may have been cases where a man had two families living separately.

When man was first in the world it is clear that such relationships did occur, but that was another matter, for then there was no alternative. All Adam’s sons married their sisters, including Cain. It had to be so then, and genetic make-ups were simpler. But this was now forbidden.

18.10 “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover: for theirs is your own nakedness.”

Marrying and having sexual relationships with grandchildren was also forbidden. Again families could have been destroyed by it, and the future of young children regularly blighted. It was vital that those who had responsibility for such children should honour them and not take advantage of them. They were intended to be their protectors! They should be able to trust their grandfathers absolutely, to watch over them and look after their best interests, not to be themselves pursuing them for sexual gratification. After all, they were a part of himself. How could he seek sexual relations with himself?

It would also distort lines of authority. If a child resulted a man could thereby find himself under the ‘authority’ of his own daughter, which would make a mockery of authority.

18.11 “The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.”

This confirms verse 9, especially in the case of a half sister. Abraham seemingly went contrary to this rule, which had not, of course, then been laid out. Such intermarriage seems in his day to have been approved of in order to maintain the family aristocracy. Here it is forbidden. In 20.17 the punishment is to be cut off in the sight of the people

18.12-13 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister. She is your father’s near kinswoman. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s near kinswoman.”

Here aunts are forbidden as objects of lust, marriage and sexual relations. Again the protection of family unity, and lines of authority, and the necessity to ensure that those who should be protecting relatives left without protection did so with no ulterior motive, is in mind. This was especially so when they were children. A woman should be able to have confidence that her affectionate response to, and reliance on, her relatives did not result in unfortunate situations or coercion. She must be able to trust them. In this case the matter would be brought up for judgment and a suitable penalty be decided on, ‘they shall bear their iniquity’ (20.19). It was thus not seen as quite such a serious offence. In fact Amram, Moses’ father/ancestor, married his father’s sister (Exodus 6.20).

18.14 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, you shall not approach his wife. She is your aunt.”

The prohibition also includes aunts through marriage. Marrying and having sexual relations with an uncle’s wife would be a shaming of one’s uncle, whether alive or dead. This also would be judged by the courts, but in this case, additionally, God would punish it directly by making them childless (20.20).

18.15 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”

A daughter-in-law, a son’s wife, is forbidden for marriage and sexual relations to a father. The daughter-in-law is one flesh with his son. Thus the father must honour what is his son’s, and not shame his son. Among other things the inheritance problems and the resulting hatreds and rivalries could have been horrendous. The point was that a son should be able to trust his father in such matters absolutely and be confident that he would not complicate or take advantage of his family if he died or divorced, but would act only in their best interests. The punishment in this case is death because it has ‘wrought confusion’ (20.12). It is intermixing two generations.

18.16 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife. It is your brother’s nakedness.”

Nor shall one brother marry and have sexual relations with his brother’s wife, with a view to her becoming his wife and bearing children to him, whether his brother is dead or divorced, for to do so would be to shame his brother, with whom his wife was ‘one’, and destroy family relationships. This was the sin for which John the Baptiser rebuked Herod Antipas. This is not forbidding levirate marriage. In that case the brother was dead and the aim was to honour his brother, and raise up children in his name. In that case also the children were seen as the brother’s. That was not a case of family conflict, but of family cooperation. The penalty for not fulfilling the levirate law but taking the wife for himself would be that the marriage went childless (20.21).

It may well be that in levirate ‘marriage’ the sexual relations were deliberately carried out more discreetly.

18.17 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near kinswomen. It is wickedness (prostitution).”

To marry and have sexual relations with both a mother and her daughter, or with a mother and her granddaughter, was forbidden. They were near kinswomen. The tensions that would arise and the pain that could be caused are not to be contemplated, and no man should so take advantage of his position. He should be aware of the great harm and misery that could result. It was to treat them like prostitutes just available for his lust, have no regard for their deeper feelings and play havoc with relationships. And once again lines of authority and inheritance would be blurred. This was another case where death was the penalty for both (20.14). For a man to lie with his mother-in-law was to be cursed (Deuteronomy 27.23).

18.18 “And you shall not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.”

Nor should a man marry one sister after another while they were both alive. In a polygamous marriage wives were rivals, and this would be to make two sisters rivals and possibly antagonistic to each other, and would be to destroy the natural love between them. This was not to be contemplated. Family love was important to God, the Supreme Father. This was, of course, what Jacob did and it caused great grief of heart.

In all these prohibitions we see God’s concern that non-sexual, loving relationships and responsibilities within families were of prime importance, that lines of authority should be clearly maintained, that inheritance questions must not be complicated unduly, and that these things must come before all others, so that lust especially must not be in a position to destroy them. They reveal a deep sense of the current and counter-currents that sexual feelings could cause within close family units, and provided the standards by which they should be assessed and dealt with.

However, they also served another purpose. The inter-marriage of relatives who are in too close a relation to each other can also be the cause of an increase in birth defects and, if continued in through the generations, can result in a lack of vitality and vigour in the strain. That also is therefore not something to be advised.

Other Forbidden Sexual Relations (18.19-

18.19 “And you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.”

Sexual relations are forbidden with a woman while she is menstruating. This is put in for completeness here so that all aspects of sexual relations are covered, but it has been dealt with previously (15.24; compare 20.18).

To lie with a woman so that her blood comes on him renders a man unclean for seven days (15.24). But this would seem to refer to a situation which is ‘unwitting’, for 20.18 makes a deliberate lying with a menstruous woman a ground for being ‘cut off’, and Ezekiel lists it as a sin parallel to idolatry and adultery (Ezekiel 18.6; 22.10). This would make this an absolute prohibition, on a par with the previous ones.

Whether this should apply in a modern medically hygienic situation is often questioned. The purpose of this in those days was partly because the blood was seen as ‘unclean’ because of what it indicated and probably partly because of medical dangers and dangers of infection. To lie with her in her blood was to treat ‘life’ and ‘death’, and the woman herself, casually, and to deliberately come in contact with the ‘unclean’ (see on chapter 15). With modern knowledge we do not see things in that way and should possibly rather be aware of any hygiene dangers. But whether it is seemly is certainly something that we should consider carefully.

18.20 “And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife, to defile yourself with her.”

Adultery is once more specifically forbidden. This again is in order to have a complete picture of sexual relations that are totally forbidden. To lie with a neighbour’s wife is to be defiled, and as we know from elsewhere, deserving of death.

18.21 “And you shall not give any of your seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.”

This at first seems out of place. It describes the sacrificing of a child to the Ammonite god Molech by ‘passing it through the fire’, which seems to have nothing to do with sexual relations. But this might suggest that in fact such a sacrifice was seen as some kind of ‘marriage’ by which the child (or the sacrificer) was being given to Molech so that he could satisfy his infernal lust, being seen as ‘having sexual relations’ with the sacrificed child for the good of the sacrificer. If so, by doing this with their children they profaned the name of Yahweh. For they were giving to Molech what belonged to Him as the husband of His people (Isaiah 54.5; Hosea 2.7). This would add a new dimension to the thought of idolatry as ‘going a whoring’ or ‘playing the harlot’ (Exodus 34.15, 16; Deuteronomy 31.16).

18.22 “You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

For men to have sexual relations with another man is immediately declared to be an abomination. Compare 20.13 where both parties are to be put to death. Compare 1 Kings 14.24. The use of the term abomination demonstrates the strength of God’s feeling against it. It ranked with the creatures in the dirt (11.20) and those who engaged in the occult (Deuteronomy 18.12), but see also 18.26 below. It should be noted that to the Old Testament writers and to God there was no such thing as a ‘homosexual’. Men were men. It was their deeds which were judged. This is not a question of whether ‘God loves homosexuals’. This is a question of what actions are wrong. The fact that this was still God’s attitude in the New Testament is confirmed by Paul in Romans 1.26-27. Practising homosexuality and practising adultery were both seen as equally abominable in the sight of God, however ‘natural’ they may be, and both were deserving of death. The paeodophile (who has been in mind above in relation to family relationships) could also claim that his feelings were ‘natural’.

The context of this command is to be noted. It is that of sexual expression. Thus the idea is that practising homosexuality itself is wrong, not that it has anything to do with idolatry. It is true that homosexuality was practised by the Canaanites in connection with their religion, but so were all the other ‘abominations’ described above, and it is the practise of these things in general which is condemned. There is no suggestion that the condemnation was limited to cult male and female prostitutes (Deuteronomy 23.17; 1 Kings 14.24), although they were equally condemned.

18.23 “And you shall not lie with any beast to defile yourself with them, neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down with it. It is confusion.”

For a man or woman to have sexual relations with an animal is defiling. This is because it breaks down the barrier between man and beast. It is ‘confusion’ (compare 20.12). It is punishable by death. 20.15-16 indicates that the man or woman, along with the animal, must be put to death compare Exodus 22.19.

Bestiality was practised at various times among the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Hittites and the Babylonians, among others. It illustrates why the nations were seen as wild beasts.

18.24 “Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you, and the land is defiled. That is why I am visiting its iniquity on it, and the land is vomiting (about to vomit) out her inhabitants.”

All that has been described is defiling. They are therefore to avoid doing such things. They should remember that it was this kind of behaviour that has caused God’s anger to come against the Canaanites in order to drive them from the land. The land is vomiting the Canaanites out because it has been made sick because of their behaviour. And it is because of that that God is now visiting His judgment on them for it. Their iniquity has now peaked (compare Genesis 15.16). His purpose is to cleanse the land of them.

18.26-28 “You therefore shall keep my statutes and my ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger who sojourns among you, (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, who were before you, and the land is defiled); that the land vomit not you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.”

So Israel must now ‘keep’ (take note of, observe and carry out) His statutes and His ordinances, His laws and His cultic requirements. Neither they nor those whom they allow to dwell among them must engage in such abominations. They are replacing the Canaanites in Yahweh’s land in order to purify the land. If they do such things they too will be vomited out because they have defiled themselves and the land. For it is because of such abominations that the Canaanites are to be driven out in order to cleanse the land ready for their occupation.

We are reminded here how the Laodicean church made God vomit (Revelation 3.16). We should beware lest we too make God vomit through our disobedience and cold-heartedness.

18.29 “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the people that do them shall be cut off from among their people.”

Therefore any who behave in any of these ways are to be cut off from among the people. The point is that they must be removed from among God’s covenant people and from the land. It may be that God allowed the people to do the ‘cutting off’ in whatever way they wished, by death or exile (as the Canaanites could be either killed or driven out), or that He intended to do it Himself.

18.30 “Therefore shall you keep my charge, that you do not practise any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that you do not defile yourselves in them. I am Yahweh your God.”

So they are to keep God’s charge, obey His will, and are not to practise any of the abominable things practised by the Canaanites. Such things are defiling, and they must remember with Whom they have to do. He is Yahweh, the Holy One, their God Who has spoken all these things and is there to ensure that they fulfil them (Yahweh - ‘the One Who is there’).

It need hardly be said that it is also incumbent on us to ensure that we too avoid such ‘abominations’.

Chapter 19. God Requires His People To Be Holy.

Having spoken of what God requires of His people especially as regards sexual relations which had a vital place in a patriarchal society, God now moves on to remind them that they are to be holy in every way. They must not be spiritually skin-diseased.

It is not apparent from the English text but in this chapter there is continual movement from plural to singular and back again in order to bring home the personal application of the words. In view of this we will mark the verbs (p) - plural, or (s) - singular to bring out the difference.

19.1 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

Once more we have the emphasis that all this was God’s word to Moses.

19.2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You (p) shall be holy; for I Yahweh your God am holy.”

We now come to the central point of all these statutes, ordinances and regulations. It is that God’s people be holy as He is holy, be set apart from the world’s ways as He is set apart from them, be pure as He is pure. They all know the purity and moral demands of Yahweh that reveal Him as distinct from all gods. They are therefore to be as pure and holy as He is, for they are His people. Their aim must therefore be to be like Him. Thus what comes next follows closely and expands on the ten words of the covenant of Sinai and the spirit of the covenant. Note the constant refrain, ‘I am Yahweh your God’ (compare Exodus 20.2, and see here verses 3, 4, 10, 25, 31,34 and especially 36. Note also the slightly different phrase ‘I am Yahweh’ in verses 12, 14, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37). The covenant God was speaking to them constantly, personally and powerfully.

That God is ‘the Holy One of Israel’ is stressed by Isaiah, based on His own vision of Yahweh’s holiness which made him cry out in his uncleanness (Isaiah 6.1-6). He knew Him as the high and lofty One Who inhabits eternity Whose name is Holy (Isaiah 57.15), the One Who meets with the humble and contrite, who worship Him in the beauty of holiness (Psalm 96.9). There is nothing impure in Him (Habakkuk 1.13). This was what holiness meant to Israel.

“Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel.” It is again stressed that God’s words are directed directly to the people. This concerns the behaviour of the whole people.

Various Holiness Requirements (19.3-37).

Rightness Of Attitude Towards God and Generosity Towards One’s Neighbours (19.3-10).

19.3 “You (p) shall fear every man his mother, and his father; and you (p) shall keep my sabbaths. I am Yahweh your God.”

They are to show godly and reverent fear for mother and father. It is interesting that here mother comes first (contrast Exodus 20.12). In spite of it being a patriarchal society her influence is seen to be very important. But the point is that to obey parents, set in their place by God, is to obey God and recognise His authority (compare the fifth commandment).

Their obedience to God will also be shown by keeping His sabbaths, both every seven days and on special occasions (compare the fourth commandment). Observing the sabbaths was a positive way of demonstrating that they belonged to Yahweh, that they were obedient to His will, and of keeping their minds on Him (compare Isaiah 58.13-14).

19.4 “Do not turn (p) to idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods. I am Yahweh your God.”

They must not turn to idols, or make themselves molten gods. The first are the regular ‘gods’ (literally the elilim - the ‘nothings’ - see Isaiah 44.10) of other people, compared with the God (elohim) of Israel. The second are the home-made ones made from molten metal that Isaiah describes so graphically (Isaiah 44.9-18). This covers the first two commandments.

19.5 “And when you (p) offer a sacrifice of peace-offerings to Yahweh, you (p) shall offer it that you may be accepted. It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the morrow: and if anything remain until the third day, it shall be burnt with fire.”

The one offering by which the Israelite could show his full obedience was the peace sacrifice. The others were ministered by the priests, but this one he had a part in himself, and made the choice as to what should be done with it. He is to treat it rightly and with reverence. As well as honouring parents, keeping the sabbaths and avoiding idolatry, thus honouring Yahweh’s authority, every Israelite was to show true respect for His offerings and sacrifices.

They were to offer their peace/wellbeing sacrifices exactly in accordance with how they had been told and to ensure that it was ‘accepted’ by not keeping any meat until the third day. Any that remained after the second day was to be burned with fire (compare 7.16-17). So would they honour God.

Limiting the time available in which to eat the meat in fact enabled more to be called to the feast. It was part of God’s desire to benefit all. The point was that those who would be at peace with Him and enjoy wellbeing must be also be obedient and hospitable. The obedience looks back to recognition of God’s authority (‘I am Yahweh’). The being hospitable looks forward to the thoughtfulness for the needy (verse 9 etc).

19.7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination. It shall not be accepted.”

Any attempt to eat the meat on the third day will make their sacrifice an abomination. It will then not be accepted. They will just be being greedy and forgetting Whose sacrifice it is. It will be an affront to God.

19.8 “But every one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy thing of Yahweh, and that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Indeed anyone who eats of it on the third day will have to bear the punishment that his iniquity deserves. It is the holy thing of Yahweh and he will have profaned it. He will be cut off from the people. It is probable that the punishment here is left to Yahweh as He would be the one who knew of the failure to obey His command. Often the cooked meat which had been in the hot air for more than two days would have turned bad and would bring its own judgment!

At first sight it may have seemed strange that this seeming snippet from the previous regulations was introduced here, but a moment’s thought reveals that this was the one way in which the people themselves could destroy the effectiveness of a sacrifice. This was the part for which they had direct responsibility. And these words were intended specifically for the people. It was also seen as a sacrifice through which they could give directly benefit to others, which ties in with what follows.

19.9 “And when you (p) reap the harvest of your land, you (s) shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you (s) gather the gleaning of your harvest.”

God’s concern for the poor and needy constantly comes out is His provision for them. It comes out here in that the farmer was to leave in his fields what was in the corners, as well as any gleanings (stray pieces that fell when they were gathering the grain). These were to be left as available for the poor to gather (as Ruth would do later on - Ruth 2.2-3).

19.10 “And you (s) shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you (s) gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard. You (s) shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner. I am Yahweh your God.”

Nor should the vinedresser, once he has picked the bunches, gather all the spare grapes nor should he pick up what falls to the ground. These are to be left for the poor and the resident alien who has no land. For the same idea see Exodus 23.11.

The Requirement For Full Honesty Towards One’s Neighbour (19.11-13).

19.11 “You (p) shall not steal; neither shall you deal falsely, nor lie one to another.”

As well as generosity, honesty is required. Three aspects of honesty are in mind here, avoiding stealing, avoiding cheating and avoiding deceit. There are not many societies where people can be trusted but Israel’s was to be one of them. Avoiding stealing, and avoiding dealing falsely, reflected the eighth commandment (Exodus 20.15). They were not to take other people’s property, nor to cheat them in their dealings. Not to lie to one another meant that all should be able to believe what they said (compare Psalm 15.4). It was to be an open and honest society.

19.12 “And you (p) shall not swear by my name falsely, nor shall you (s) profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.”

When called to testify on oath they were to speak truly as required by the ninth commandment (Exodus 20.16), and not to bear false testimony against a neighbour, for this would profane the name of God, and He is Yahweh, the God of truth and justice. They could also profane His name by neglecting to take note of when they were ‘unclean’, by misusing the Sanctuary (21.12; Ezekiel 22.8), by sexual misbehaviour (21.9) and by idolatry (18.21; 21.5). These represent the third and ninth commandments.

19.13 “You (s) shall not oppress your neighbour, nor rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you (s) all night until the morning.”

They were not to use their superior position or strength in order to oppress a neighbour in order to get their own way, or in order to get from him dishonestly what they wanted. And if they hired workers they were to pay them the same day. For the poor would need what they had earned immediately, and they must not take advantage of them. Thus in all their dealings they were to be fair and honest.

The Requirement To Ensure Fairness and Compassion (19.14-16).

19.14 “You (s) shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh.’

They were not to take advantage of the weak and helpless. To deliberately shout comments at someone who is deaf which they cannot hear, often derisory, or to put obstacles in the way of a blind person so as to cause him to stumble, is the sign of a sick mind. It should never be done or even considered. That this had to be said suggests that the doing of such things was not unknown among some who had a coarse humour, or even a nasty and cruel temperament. Compare Deuteronomy 27.18.

Sadly the need for this command demonstrates that there must have been quite a good number of severely deaf and blind people among the people of Israel.

19.15 “You (p) shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: you (s) shall not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shall you (s) judge your neighbour.”

They were to be absolutely honest in their system of justice. Every decision must be fair and square. Those responsible for carrying out justice should favour neither one side or the other; they were to favour neither the poor on the one hand, nor the wealthy or the powerful on the other. They should rather judge absolutely fairly, and seek to come to the right and true verdict, regardless of the influence of others and the importance or need of the people that they have to deal with. (Easier said than done by us prejudiced mortals). Prejudice on behalf of the poor is as bad as prejudice on behalf of the rich and powerful, and perverts justice.

19.16 “You (s) shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people, nor shall you (s) stand against the blood of your neighbour. I am Yahweh.”

This was an important provision. They were not to go about spreading lies and gossip and rumours, whether malicious or otherwise. They were to have consideration for each other’s reputations and feelings and not to seek to destroy them. Nor were they to stand by and do nothing when their neighbour’s blood was likely to be spilled, or engage in violent activity against their neighbours themselves. For Yahweh Who knows all is present here, and requires of them right and considerate behaviour towards their neighbours.

It will be apparent from these laws that they would provide a foundation for the true and just society where all were honoured equally, and where men sought to do the right and obey God’s commandments. This should be the godly aim of all societies. Once they come short of it society itself is undermined.

The Required Attitude To One’s Neighbour (19.17-18).

19.17 “You (s) shall not hate your brother in your heart. You (s) shall surely rebuke your neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.”

This principle is then applied to the thoughts of their hearts (compare the tenth commandment - ‘you shall not covet’). They were not to hold hatred in their hearts. Thus they were not to hold grudges or secret resentments, or carry in the hearts a continual hatred of a brother in the covenant community. Rather they should bring up with their neighbour any grievance that they might have and clear the air, thus preventing themselves from carrying sin in their own hearts which might result in activities which would bring judgment on them so that they had to ‘bear sin’.

If we would but keep short accounts we would not end up in troublesome situations.

19.18 “You (s) shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you (s) shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am Yahweh.”

Thus they were not to carry vengeance in their hearts, nor exact it, nor should they continue to bear a grudge against others. They were not to be negative. Instead they were to love their neighbours as themselves. This was one of the two great commandments which summed up the whole law, cited by Jesus (Matthew 19.19; 22.39; Mark 12.31; Luke 10.27). To have as much concern for one’s neighbour as for oneself, and to reveal it by loving action, is to be like Yahweh. And that is what Yahweh desires of His people. Life should be lived out in full consideration and thoughtfulness for others and with a desire for their good.

Further Requirements For God’s People.

The Non-mixing of Kinds (19.19).

We have already had cause to see in chapter 11 the principle of the separation of living things, now this is more specifically applied. A blurring of distinctions can be harmful to society. This is illustrated from everyday affairs.

19.19 “You (p) shall keep my statutes. You (s) shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind. You (s) shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, neither shall there come on you a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.”

‘You (p) shall keep my statutes.’ This general statement introduces the section that follows and stresses the need for observing the instructions carefully. There is also the reminder here that they must keep no one else’s statutes but His.

‘You (s) shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.’ No attempt was to be made to breed hybrids. God made animals after their kind, and men should be satisfied to leave them so. There should be no interfering with nature. They could consider, for example, how animals that they could eat which were ‘clean’ were of a specific kind, whole and complete (chapter 11). This was how God wanted it to be.

This may have been partly because hybrids are not productive. They do not produce seed. Or it may have been the fear that one ‘confusion’ could lead to another and that before long men could be involving themselves. It was not a dictate against interbreeding of the same species (Genesis 30.37-40) but against inter-mixing species. The very fact that such animals cannot breed demonstrates that it is against creation ordinances. It is against nature. They cannot go forth and multiply (Genesis 1.22). Once men begin to play with nature dreadful results can follow.

‘You (s) shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, neither shall there come on you a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.’ The intermingling of seed could result in neither of them achieving their best growth, and could help to exhaust the land by overproduction. The intermingling of cloths could result in the garment losing strength and being more easily torn; in discomfort in wearing them; and even in the discomfort of static electricity.

But the principle to be got over by all these regulations was that God did not favour the blurring of distinctions. Distinct things should be kept separate. His purpose then was that this would pass over into the religious and moral realm, so that again distinctions might not be blurred. No one is better than man at blurring distinctions to his own benefit in order to get his own way. His people therefore had to recognise from daily life that this was not pleasing to God, either in religious practise or in practical living. This comes out once more in the next example.

Adultery and the Bondwoman (19.20-21)

19.20 “And whoever lies carnally with a woman, who is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.”

Adultery between a bondwoman and a free man is not automatically to be punished by death as it would be with a freewoman. That would not be fair on the bondwoman who was possibly not in a position to have any choice in the matter, especially if it was her master who was involved. Rather the courts must investigate the situation and decide on the punishment to be meted out to each depending on the circumstances. If the bondwoman had been redeemed or given her liberty before it happened that would be a different matter. She would have been a freewoman. Then the death penalty would apply.

From this point of view we need to recognise that in those days betrothal was the equivalent of, and as binding as, marriage, and presumably this bondmaid was betrothed to a bondman (otherwise the penalty would have been stronger). Thus the act was one of adultery. Yet she would have had no option but to obey her master if he wanted her, or even to obey his demand that she pleasure a friend. Thus the person involved needed to be aware that he would be liable to be judged for his offence. For being betrothed (presumably with her master’s agreement) she should be seen as untouchable

The very law meant that a master was aware that a bondmaid could lay complaint against him in circumstances like this and make the situation less likely to arise. It provided her with some protection. The death penalty was excluded because having been rejected for the bondmaid it would not be right to punish only one in that way. The bondmaid could in fact benefit more in other ways as now outlined.

19.21-22 “And he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, to the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned: and the sin which he has sinned shall be forgiven him.”

The man involved must also, on top of any punishment meted out, offer a guilt offering in the form of a ram, a pretty hefty preventitive fine in itself. This was to be offered in the usual way at the door of the tent of meeting. There atonement would be made for him and he would be forgiven. There was probably in this a suggestion to the court that the bondmaid should be compensated if she was innocent, for compensation and guilt offerings regularly went together (5.16; 6.4). Compensation would be more useful for her than vengeance (who would in future want a vengeful bondmaid?). It is noteworthy that she does not have to offer a guilt offering. It is recognised that she has offended no one.

Overall it should be noted here from a practical point of view that the consequences of having had ‘pressurised’ sexual relations would probably not be so severe for a bondwoman as for a raped freewoman, as her marriage options would probably not have been so much reduced, unless she was a blameworthy participant, because her partner would recognise that she had had no choice. The responsibility was put on the courts to defend her interests, or to blame her as the facts determined, and yet to leave her employable and still acceptable in society. But for the man the minimum punishment he could receive was the high cost of a ram, and any other punishment the court may decide.

While in some ways this might not seem ‘fair’ it actually probably left the bondmaid in the happier position of not having to face up to the resentments of an unfair society, while at the same time possibly being compensated. If the law was too heavy it or demanded too much it would just have been ignored. Good law takes into account the likelihood of it being carried out.

Care For Trees (19.23-25)

19.23 “And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count its fruit thereof as their uncircumcision, three years shall they be as uncircumcised to you, it shall not be eaten.”

When they arrive in the land and begin to plant trees they are to allow them to grow for three years without picking their fruit. They are to look on them as though they were like uncircumcised babes, not yet a part of the covenant, and therefore not available for their use.

19.24 “But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, for giving praise to Yahweh.”

Then in the fourth year they were to be seen as now within the covenant, but with all their fruit seen as holy and available for giving praise to Yahweh. It was His, and still not to be eaten. It was to be seen as an offering of praise and gratitude and a recognition that the trees, like everything else in the land, were His.

This practise was good for the trees which thus had time to develop without being depleted. It was good horticultural practise. The ancient Babylonians also gave a similar time for trees to mature before they picked their fruit.

19.25 “And in the fifth year you shall eat of its fruit, that it may yield to you the its increase. I am Yahweh your God.

From the fifth year onwards, they could eat the fruit from the tree, and its increase would be theirs. It was given to them by Yahweh their God. Thus this provision resulted in healthy trees, acknowledged God’s ownership of the land, and finally was beneficial to all. It was also a reminder of the good things which were to be theirs.

This practise would remind them that He was Yahweh their God. The phrase ‘I am Yahweh’ in one form or another now become predominant (verses 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37). These final short commands are to be seen as being given with the full force of His authority.

Bans In Religious Matters: Warnings Against Pagan Practises (19.26-29).

There now follow in the name of Yahweh a number of provisions banning various aspects connected with ‘other-worldly’ practises which were forbidden. They were to look to Yahweh and Yahweh alone, and He was against these things. They were contrary to what He was.

19.26 “You (p) shall not eat anything with the blood: neither shall you (p) use enchantments, nor practise divination.”

As has already been noted nothing must be eaten with its blood. The blood must be drained out (17.10-14). They must not seek to eat the life principle of the animal, for that is the practise of bestial men. This repetition brings home the vital importance of the pronouncement. It was a reminder of the strength of the prohibition. Its mention in this list may also suggest it was a particular idolatrous trait. It was anti-Yahweh.

Nor were they to use enchantments or practise sorcery or divination. All magic was forbidden. Divination was a means of discovering what the ‘portents’ pointed to in the making of ‘right’ choices, especially with regard to the future. But they were to leave their futures in the hand of God, not look to superstitious and evil practises. Both forbidden things would result in going out of their spheres.

This makes clear to us today that all contact with the supernatural and the occult apart from prayer and worship to God are totally forbidden and can only lead men into harm. They are firmly and strongly forbidden, and we disobey at our peril.

19.27 “You (p) shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you (s) mar the corners of your beard.”

These were either idolatrous or magical practises. They were forbidden. Compare 21.5. They were not to be tempted to follow the ways of the idolatrous ‘world’ outside. Again it would be going outside their sphere into the realms of the gods or of magic.

19.28 “You (p) shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print (p) any marks on you. I am Yahweh.”

‘Cuttings in the flesh’ for the dead were pagan mourning practise and were also forbidden (Deuteronomy 14.1-2). To follow them was to enter the sphere of the dead. Tattoos were a forbidden mark of ownership. The invisible God needed no visible marks of ownership, and they were not to mark themselves as belonging to anyone else. Thus tattoos were also totally banned. And this because God was Yahweh. (Even today our tattoos reveal what we are and whether we put first God or the world).

19.29 Do not profane your daughter, to make her a prostitute, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.”

The main thought here is against prostitution as a whole, but making her a religious prostitute may have been a way of trying to make it seem respectable. However, for a man to make his daughter a prostitute so that he could profit by it was to be seen as obscene, whatever the circumstances, and if permitted would be the first beginnings of a downward slide for Israel. Men should have a higher regard for their daughters. Sexual relations on this basis were forbidden. Even though extreme poverty often did mean that fathers succumbed in this way, they did so contrary to God’s law, and had to face their shame.

If the thought was of making her a cult prostitute, that would be no better. They were not to even consider following such Canaanite practises and sex in that way had no part in the religion of Yahweh. This was thus also strictly forbidden.

The Importance of a Right Attitude Towards Yahweh (19.30-31).

19.30 “You shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary. I am Yahweh.”

Indeed rather than sinking to the depths of the other nations they should look to exalt Yahweh. The regulations had begun with a reference to the God-given authority of mother and father, and the need to keep God’s sabbaths (verse 3), now as we draw to a close the keeping of sabbaths is confirmed along with the need to reverence God’s Sanctuary.

The keeping of the sabbath was an open sign of obedience, and marked them off as belonging to Yahweh, and their attitude towards His Sanctuary revealed their attitude towards Him. Thus they were both very important practises. But this meant keeping all His other commandments, for breaking the regulations, both ritual and moral, would profane His Sanctuary. They were therefore to recognise the effects on Him of their sins. For He is Yahweh.

19.31 “Do not turn to those who have familiar spirits, nor to the wizards. Do not seek them out, to be defiled by them. I am Yahweh your God.”

Reverencing His Sanctuary includes turning away from familiar spirits and wizards. They are at the very opposite extreme. Seeking God and His guidance at the Sanctuary was the true way of looking to the future. Thus familiar spirits and wizards were not to be sought out or approached. Their effects could only be defiling. They dealt with the dead and peeped and muttered from the dust (Isaiah 8.19). Such attempted contact with the dead could only defile God’s camp and God’s land. They needed to be free of both because God is the living God and death is foreign to His ways. Rather they should look to Yahweh their God, and keep His Sanctuary holy. They must remember Who their God is. He is Yahweh, and Yahweh has nothing to do with such things.

The Need To Honour The Elderly (19.32)

19.32 “You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh.”

Honouring the old is something also required of His people. They are to be treated with the honour due to those who have lived long lives and faithfully served God. For He is Yahweh and looks on such with love and compassion. Furthermore they often have the wisdom that hotter heads do not. To honour them is to fear God and to acknowledge Yahweh.

The Right Attitude Towards the Resident Alien (19.33-34).

19.33-34 “And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the home-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God.”

The resident alien who lives among them is not to be wronged. Rather he is to be treated as though he were a native of the land, and is to be loved by them as they love themselves (compare verse 18). This is because Israel will remember how they were in the same position in the land of Egypt, and will recognise that they must treat him as they would have wished to be treated.

This application of the principle of loving one’s neighbour to all who came to live among them is one of the most remarkable teachings of the Old Testament. Had it been carried through it would have been a beacon to the world.

The Importance Of Justice And Honesty (19.35-36).

19.35-36 “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or of quantity. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

The chapter finishes with concern about the public administration of justice (compare verse 15), and rightness in all dealings. The courts are to be fair and just, and their systems of weights and measures is to be accurate and honest, as are their balances. For they are the people of Yahweh, the great Deliverer from Egypt. And there is nothing crooked about Him. They have been delivered so that they can be like Him, and this must be revealed in everyday life.

An ephah and a hin were both volume measurements of differing sizes.

The Final Command (19.37).

19.37 “And you shall observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them: I am Yahweh.”

So are they to observe all His statutes and ordinances, and are to do them. This is the requirement of Yahweh. We are all very good at ‘observing’ His statutes and ordinances but how good are we at doing them? This chapter of practical moral teaching is one that we all need to take to heart. We need to go through it item by item asking ourselves how it compares with our own lives. Are we truly obedient to God in all things?

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.

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.

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 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; 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 (20.27; 24.23; Numbers 14.10; 15.35-36; Deuteronomy 8.9; 13.10; 17.5; 21.21; 22.21, 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, 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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

Crimes Which Deserve The Death Penalty.

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.

20.10 “And the man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

The next crime is adultery, where a man takes his neighbour’s wife. In this case both he and the adulteress were to be put to death. Again it was a blow at the family which was the very basis of society.

20.11 “And the man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.”

The third such crime was when a man lay with his father’s wife, that is, had sexual relations with her. Both he and she were to be put to death. For it would be as if he has publicly stripped his father naked. A man’s wife is one flesh with him (Genesis 2.24). To make her naked would be to make her husband naked. They have brought their blood on their own heads. Anyone who executes them is guiltless.

20.12 “And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have wrought confusion. Their blood shall be on them.”

The same principle applied between a man and his daughter-in-law. If they had sexual relations, both were to be put to death. They would have mixed up the generations, causing ‘confusion’, (for the son could become brother to his wife’s son), and the man would have exposed his son to shame and ridicule. Again those who put them to death will bear no guilt. The guilt is on their own heads. In all these examples the destruction of family relationships is central.

20.13 “And if a man lies with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.”

For a man to have sexual relations with another man is an abomination. No other relationship is always described specifically as an abomination in this way, so it is clearly particularly hateful to God. And being in the midst of a passage dealing with sexual matters this refers to any practising homosexual relationship, not just to cultic practise. It is saying that there is no such thing as a Christian practising homosexual. This has nothing to do with whether a man has homosexual tendencies, it is speaking of a deliberate giving way to those tendencies. Those who do so shall ‘surely be put to death’. Again they have brought their blood on their own heads.

20.14 “And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is sexual wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you.”

Equally guilty would be a man who had sexual relations with both his wife and her mother. This would be sexual wickedness. They are all three to be burned with fire. The burning may indicate a death of particular shame as devoted to destruction (as Achan was - Joshua 7). Or perhaps the thought is that they deserve the same thing as happened to worshippers of Molech. They have shown themselves worthy only of Molech.

20.15 “And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall slay the beast.”

The same principle applies to a man who has sexual relations with a dumb animal. Both he and the beast must be put to death. But it is not quite as abhorrent as a man who beds mother and daughter for the punishment is less horrific.

20.16 “And if a woman approach any beast, and lie down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.”

A woman is no different. If she allows a beast to have sexual relations with her, both she and the beast must die. They shall surely be put to death. Their actions have brought their blood on themselves. There will be no bloodguilt for those who slay them. (The beast, if previously a clean one, is clearly not to be offered as a sacrifice).

20.17 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness, it is a shameful thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his iniquity.”

No man shall have sexual relations with a sister or half-sister by blood. It is a shameful thing and means that they must be cut off ‘in the sight of the children of Israel’, presumably this indicates stoning. He must take the punishment for the evil he has done.

20.18 “And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood, and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”

The one who deliberately lies with a woman during menstruation, while the blood is on her, shall be cut off from among the people, as shall also the woman, he because he has exposed her bleeding, she because she has uncovered her bleeding. Her bleeding is an uncleanness and related to death. It speaks of sin and death. It should be hidden and not exposed. To expose it is to deserve the death of which it speaks.

It is, however, possible that this does not refer to husband and wife, but to where a man forces a woman who is not his wife during her menstruation. By shaming her like this it is as if he had committed adultery.

These then (from verses 2-18) are the major crimes which in God’s eyes are worthy of death. They are so evil that they override the concept of the sacredness of life. Those who do them have forfeited the right to life.

Lesser Penalties.

Three examples are now given of slightly lesser crimes, still forbidden but not punishable with death.

20.19 “And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, nor of your father’s sister, for he has made naked his near kin. They shall bear their iniquity.”

Men must not have sexual relations with aunts or uncles of the blood whether in marriage or out of marriage. That will be to make naked their near kin, and that is displeasing to God. In that case they must receive whatever punishment the courts or God decide.

20.20 “And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin. They shall die childless.”

For a man to have sexual relations with his uncle’s wife is unseemly, for she is one flesh with his uncle. They are not to marry. This too may be judged by the courts, but they are also warned that they will go childless.

20.21 “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.”

For a man to take his brother’s wife is impurity. It is unseemly. He will have uncovered his brother’s nakedness and exposed his brother to shame. The punishment will be childlessness. But this was not to stop him from raising up seed to his brother under a levirate marriage. That would be a different matter. The consummation was then probably more discreetly arranged.

20.22 “You shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them; that the land, to which I bring you for you to dwell in it, does not vomit you out.”

So they must be careful to keep all God’s statutes and all His ordinances, and do them, obeying all regulations and all commands. Then once they have arrived in the land they will not be vomited out, as the nations in the land are about to be vomited out. Rather will they continue to dwell in it and prosper, which is God’s real purpose for them.

20.23 “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.”

They are to be careful not to behave like the nations who are already there, whom God will drive out before them. They in fact did all these things that he has forbidden to Israel. That is why God hated them, that is, had an aversion towards them because of their sinfulness.

20.24 “But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am Yahweh your God, who has separated you from the peoples.”

For God’s purpose for His people is that they might inherit the land and receive it as a gift from God, as their own possession. An inheritance is something freely given and undeserved. Thus He is giving it to them freely. It is a land flowing with milk and honey, having plenteous sustenance and sweetness. And He, Yahweh their God, has separated them from the peoples that they might be holy to Him and live in holiness in the land that He has cleansed. They are His and must reveal that they are His separated ones by the way that they live and the way they behave.

20.25 “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast, or by bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have separated from you as unclean.”

And one clear way in which they will do this is by only eating what is clean, as described in chapter 11. They may eat all that is clean and must avoid all that is unclean, especially that which lives in the ground. They must especially avoid all abominable things.

20.26 “And you shall be holy to me, for I, Yahweh, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that you should be mine.”

So He re-emphasises, they must be holy because Yahweh, their God is holy. He has set them apart from all peoples, in order that they might be His, and live as he has directed both ritually and morally, and that they reveal Him in their lives. Then they will be His own separated off possession.

‘Set you apart.’ The verb is strong. ‘Severed.’ He has used His mighty arm to separate them from Egypt and from all who have come against them, and will also sever them from the Canaanites.

20.27 “A man also or a woman who has a familiar spirit, or who is a wizard, shall surely be put to death. They shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be on them.”

And especially they must avoid anyone who has anything to do with the occult or with the dead. If they find among them any indulging in contact with familiar spirits or with the dead they are to stone them with stones. Their blood will be on their own heads. There will be no guilt on Israel. This constant stress on avoiding the occult must be seen as a strong condemnation of such practises as much today as then.

So does God stress the seriousness of those things concerning which He has charged His people, and warn us that we must take His commandments seriously.

Chapter 21. Instructions Concerning The Maintenance of the Holiness of the Priests.

Having laid down the basic principles behind the covenant as regards the people and their holiness, Moses now turns again to the priests. In so doing we remind ourselves of the pattern around which Leviticus is built. It began with the laws relating to sacrifice (1-7), continued with the consecration of the priests (8-10), which was then followed by the laws of cleanness and uncleanness for the people (11-15), leading up to the Day of Atonement (16). This was then followed by the laws of ritual and moral holiness for the people 17-20), which is now followed by instructions re the maintenance of the holiness of the priests (21-22), a reversal of the order in the first part, which will then be followed by laws relating to the ritual requirements on the nation with regard to times and seasons (23-25). It is of a basic chiastic construction. Chapter 26 then closes off with the blessings and curses which were a normal ending to covenants around the time of Moses in 2nd millennium BC, and chapter 27 is a postscript in respect of vows.

The sections concerning the people are thus sandwiched within the ministry of the priests. The priesthood is given responsibility for them, and their holiness is therefore of prime importance.

This is brought out here in that this section is divided into subsections by the phrase “For I am Yahweh, Who sanctifies them,” or similar (21.8, 15, 23; 22.9, 16, 32), stressing the exceptional importance of the fact that the priests must be holy (although they are not the only ones - 20.8). They are God’s specially set apart ones, set apart to holiness.

As Christians we too are His priests (1 Peter 1.5, 9; Revelation 1.6) and sanctified by Him so that our lives too might be pure and clean, and might reveal His praise and glory. We too therefore must ensure that we avoid all that might defile us.

The Priests Must Not Defile Themselves Unless Absolutely Necessary.

The priesthood was the essential link between Yahweh and His people. They were therefore to be especially careful in the maintenance of holiness so that they might fulfil their functions before a holy God. Great was their privilege, but great the demands made on them. Humanly speaking the holiness of God’s people depended on them.

The Requirements for Exceptional Holiness For the Priesthood (21.1-7)

Avoidance of Contact With The Dead (21.1-4).

Especially must they avoid coming in contact with death. To come in contact with a dead body was to become unclean for seven days (Numbers 19.11-13), for as has been apparent in the laws of uncleanness death was the opposite of all that Yahweh stood for. He was Lord of life. This would render a priest inoperative over that period.

He was thus totally to avoid all contact with the dead, in order to prevent himself from being ‘defiled’. He was not free to do as he would. He was ‘holy’. Contact with the dead was a major source of uncleanness for a man. It lasted seven days. So the stress on the need to avoid this uncleanness, includes within it the idea that they should avoid all lesser uncleanness (as will be demonstrated later). They were ever to remain clean. The only exception was where close family relationships made it necessary

21.1-3 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them, None shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his kin, who is near to him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, who is near to him, who has had no husband, for her may he defile himself.”

So the priest was to avoid all contact with the dead apart from near kin. These comprised father, mother, son, daughter, brother or a virgin sister who has no one else responsible for her. Where she was married the latter was her husband’s responsibility. For these he could be responsible for their mourning and burial. This both emphasises proper respect for close kin, and the need for continuing purity in all other cases. There is no mention of his wife. This is quite usual (compare Exodus 20.10). That she was included would be assumed. She was of one flesh with him.

21.4 “He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.”

And the reason for these extreme precautions is given, his prominence as a ‘chief man’ among the people, someone set apart from the ordinary with a principal function. This made it important that he did not profane himself by making himself unable to operate in fulfilment of his responsibilities. Those who have the greatest responsibility must exercise the greatest care in maintaining a worthiness necessary for the fulfilment of their responsibilities.

While not forbidden to touch dead bodies, those who would serve God most truly today must avoid all contact with anything that is unseemly to God. Their eyes too should be turned away from the mundane to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Colossians 3.1-3). They should be taken up with the things of eternal life, not with the things of death through trespasses and sins. They are to look not at the things which are seen but at the things which are unseen (2 Corinthians 4.18). For they know that they are passed from death to life because they love their Christian brothers and sisters (1 John 3.14), and that love should permeate their whole lives. They must throw all their weight into things to do with life and purity. Their thoughts must be on whatever things are true, honourable, righteous, pure, lovely and gracious (Philippians 4.8). Like the priests they are to be separated to God.

Avoidance of Pagan Cultic Acts (21.5).

21.5 “They shall not make baldness on their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.”

Nor were they were ever to profane themselves by engaging in activities and dress that were foreign to Yahweh’s ways. These included shaving their heads, trimming their beards in any fashion that might be connected with idolatry, and making cuttings in their flesh (compare 1 Kings 18.28). All these were pagan methods of representing a state of mourning or seeking to influence deity (see also 19.27-28), and may also have been utilised on other religious occasions. All were forbidden. They would be seen as blemishes which would render them ineligible to enter the sanctuary, for they would declare that they were not Yahweh’s men, but defiled by paganism.

The ‘baldness’ mentioned here is probably the same as the ‘rounding of the corners of the head’ in 19.27, and may have reference to offering the hairs of the head to the dead to help them maintain some form of life among the dead shades of the underworld. Later the shaving of the full head was seen as a legitimate sign of mourning (Isaiah 22.12; Amos 8.10; Micah 1.16). But that had no such idolatrous connections, and was simply a way of expressing a sense of bereftness and distress.

Thus those who would serve God truly must abstain from anything that is doubtful in the ‘spiritual’ realm, seeking only to God Himself. Anything to do with the occult is to be seen by the Christian as taboo, as something not to be touched and to be avoided. For we are Christ’s, and our lives are hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3.3)

The Requirement Not To Render Common God’s Name But To Be Holy As Befits Their Sacred Responsibilities (21.6).

21.6 “They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, the bread of their God, do they offer. Therefore they shall be holy.”

For the priests were to be seen as holy to God, and must not degrade Him by making Him seem like other supposed gods, or bringing death into His presence. They were to avoid anything that might profane His name, that is, might wrongly represent how He was seen and what He was, anything that would hide how different He was. For they were the ones who offered to God ‘the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, the bread of their God’. They were His chosen servants. So in order to be fitted for this holy task they must be holy, and set apart from all that is related to death and to paganism, and all that misrepresents Him. (Mourning was given as the extreme example).

‘The bread of their God do they offer.’ The word ‘bread’ (lechem) refers to the staple food of a people. It can refer to such diverse things as honey (1 Samuel 14.24) and goat’s milk (Proverbs 27.27). Compare verse 22 where the priests eat ‘the bread of their God’. It is therefore a general expression for sacrificial offerings through which God makes food available for His priests.

In 24.9 the bread of the presence which is mainly eaten by the priests is described as an offering made by fire to Yahweh. That may be in mind here. In Exodus 29.25 the whole burnt offering and the bread combined are an offering made by fire to Yahweh, compare with verse 32 where the priests eat it. In Numbers 28.2 where God speaks of ‘my offering and my bread’ it refers to the morning and evening sacrifices, offered with the grain offering part of which is partaken of by the priests. See also Leviticus 3.11, 16, where the offering is called ‘the bread/food of the offering made by fire’. But it does not indicate food for God Himself. God Himself is always from the very beginning depicted as receiving the pleasing odour, not as eating the sacrifices. It is specifically and constantly stated that it is the priests who eat the offerings and sacrifices, and the bread and grain, that can be eaten. And that is why they must be holy.

We too are to be concerned for the name and reputation of God. By our lives we are to bring glory to Him (1 Corinthians 10.31), and to avoid anything that would besmirch His name (1 Peter 4.14-16). Rather we are to show forth the excellencies of His Who has called us out of darkness into His most marvellous light (1 Peter 2.9), and by our good works glorify our Father Who is in Heaven (Matthew 5.16)..

The Requirement To Marry A Suitable Woman (21.7)

21.7 “They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profane, nor shall they take a woman put away from her husband, for he is holy to his God.”

The priests must also have no sexual contact with ‘second-hand’ women. Because the priests are holy they must not marry a prostitute, whether cult or otherwise, or a woman with a reputation for not being godly (or possibly an alien woman who had not entered within the covenant), or a divorced woman, who was still seen as in some way ‘one’ with her divorced husband. Their wives must be of good repute and virginal, as they came from the hand of God, fitted in purity to be the wives of God’s servants. Seemingly, however, they could marry widows of good repute (contrast verse 13). Such were no longer one with their husbands because the death of their husbands had removed the oneness.

In the same way those who would serve God truly must beware of whom they marry. Not only should they avoid marrying a non-Christian (2 Corinthians 6.14), they should look for chastity and purity and a right attitude of heart towards God. A man or woman’s future can be made or broken by the partner that they marry.

Thus He Is To Be Kept Apart From The Run Of Men (21.8).

21.8 “You (s) shall sanctify him therefore; for he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, Yahweh, who sanctify you, am holy.”

These words are spoken to either Moses or Israel as a whole. Yahweh is thus telling Moses to ‘sanctify’ (make holy) each priest by strictly requiring of him a life of purity and separateness from all that was unclean, precisely because he offers and eats the bread of his God. Moses had a continual responsibility, while he was alive, to watch over the holiness of the priests. If the reference is to Israel then ‘sanctify’ probably means ‘see as holy’. This was so that each one would be holy in Moses’ eyes, and therefore in Israel’s eyes, just as Yahweh, Who Himself sanctifies both Moses and Israel, is holy, and is to be seen as holy in their eyes. All was to be holiness.

‘For I, Yahweh, who sanctify you, am holy.’ This is the first of a number of similar phrases which end each of the divisions in this section, stressing the unique position of the priests (compare 21.15, 23; 22.9, 16, 32). As His priests they had to be like Him and truly represent Him as the Holy One.

The Behaviour Of Priests’ Daughters (21.9).

21.9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.”

The thought of the priest not marrying a prostitute leads on to the possible danger of a priest’s daughter becoming a prostitute by virtue of her situation. As probably in the case of the worship of the golden calf (‘rose up to play’ - Exodus 32.6) it is clear that many people, even those with priestly connections, were ever in danger of desiring to participate in sexual rites connected with idolatry, possibly revering them as a kind of religious expression. And they would see sexual union with a priest’s daughter as the most desirable kind of such an expression. They had clearly had much contact with such sentiments and tended to revert to them. Such ideas had an understandable magnetic attraction. But they were forbidden to Israel, and especially to a priest’s daughter.

If a priest’s daughter was therefore encouraged by some to act in this way, and did so, she would be profaning her father, bringing shame on him and connecting him with worship that was both crude and unacceptable, and she must therefore be burned with fire. This punishment is on a par with that for a man marrying both mother and daughter at the same time (20.14), and for sinning in sacred things (Joshua 7.25). She would be being ‘devoted’ to Yahweh because she had sinned in a sacred thing. A priest’s family members were seen as holy, and must behave so.

In the New Testament also the failure of a child to live rightly always brings disrepute on its parents and makes them unfitted for ministry. See 1 Timothy 3.11; Titus 1.6. They are a reflection of their parents. Our children reveal what we are.

The Special Case Of The High Priest (21.10-15).

There was one for whom there were no exceptions. His position was so high and so privileged that he must seek to avoid all contact with death under any circumstance.

21.10-12 “And he who is the high priest among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured, and who is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not let the hair of his head go loose, nor rend his clothes, nor shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; nor shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God. For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is on him. I am Yahweh.”

The High Priest especially is unique. He represents the whole of Israel continually before God, and is the anointed one of Yahweh. He alone has been consecrated to wear the holy garments. He stands alone. His holiness therefore is of primary concern and must be preserved at all costs and at all times. He must avoid anything that might lessen his ability to fulfil his function at any time.

He therefore must not show signs of mourning, or touch a dead body, not even that of his father and mother (compare the Nazarite while under his vow - Numbers 7.7-8). He must not leave the sanctuary for this purpose, nor carry signs of death within the sanctuary. For he bears the crown of the anointing oil of his God. Yahweh is ‘the One Who is’, the living God, to Whom death and all connected with it is a stranger. The High Priest must therefore avoid all such contact. He must be seen to be on Yahweh’s side of things at all times.

21.13-14 “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced, or a profane woman, a harlot, these shall he not take, but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife.”

He may only marry a virgin, the purest of the pure. He must not marry a widow, or a divorcee, or a godless, careless living, woman (or possibly a ‘foreigner’ not within the covenant), or a prostitute for they are all blemished by their state. They are not pristine. Thus sex itself was not seen as sinful, although he would have to restrict sexual relations to ensure that he was ‘clean’ whenever he was likely to be needed for sanctuary worship, for such relations did convey temporary uncleanness (15.16), which was clearly allowed even in his case as long as he was not required for duty.

21.15 “And he shall not profane his seed among his people, for I am Yahweh who s