Leviticus 20

UTietherit be a ivoollen garment or a linen. There is a great dispute among the Talmndists, whether garments made of camels’ hair (which they call the ivool of camels) were comprehended under these words or not. punished with strangling. (SeeSelden,lib;iii. Uxor. Hcbr. cap. 2.) For when we meet with this phrase, they shall surely die, it is always meant of death by tho sentence of the house of judgment (as they speak), and if the law add no more, they resolve it to be by strangling. If these words be added, their blood shall be upon them, then, they say, they were to be stoned. This I observed before; and shall add now, that strangling, as they describe it, was not such a punishment as our hanging men by the neck; but the criminal being stuck up to the knees in dung, they tied a napkin about his neck, and drawing it hard at both ends, choked him. There was such a thing as hanging men on a gallows (as we speak), but it was after they were dead, and only such as had been stoned; and not all of them neither, but such alone as had been stoned for blasphemy or idolatry. (See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard’s Jus Regium, cap. 4. Theor. xiv.) Tho greatest thing that can be objected against this account of the punishment of adultery, is that which St, John tells us the Jews said concerning the woman taken in the very act of it, " Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned/’ (John viii. 5.) But it maybe answered, that this woman was espoused only, and not yet married; and so, by the law, as I observed before, was to be stoned, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) If this seem absurd, that the adultery of one espoused should be accounted a greater crime than of one married (for stoning was a heavier punishment than strangling), it ought to be considered, that the love of those who were newly espoused, was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married, especially among the Jews, who for light causes were wont to be divorced from their wives; and therefore no wonder if the adultery of the former was judged a greater crime than of the latter. was his sister by the whole blood (as we speak), or by half blood only, by the father’s side or mother’s, he was not permitted to marry her by the law mentioned, chap, xviii. 9. And see her nakedness.] It is the same with uncovering her nakedness to lie jvith her; as it is there expressed, and here in the end of the verse (he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness), the sense of seeing being pntfor that of touching, or any other, in this language. It is a wicked thing.] A flagitious, or nefarious wickedness, as the Vulgar expresses it. But the Hebrew word chesed signifying sometimes in the prophetical language mercy and indulgence; the Talmudists take these words, as if they came in by a parenthesis, to obviate an objection which might be made, that Cain and Abel married their sisters. True, saith Moses, that was by an indulgence in the beginning, arising from the necessity of things, when there were none but brothers and sisters in the world. But now they shall be cut off in the sight of their people, w r ho marry such near relations. So the Gemara Hicrosol. ad Tit. Sanhedrin. (Sec Selden, lib. v. dc Jure Nat. et Gent, cap. 8. p. 581.) And so the Chaldee paraphrase, ascribed to Jonathan, whose words are these: " It is a filthy thing; but I used an indulgence to the first men by whom the world was to be propagated, until mankind was sufficiently multiplied: after that, whosoever doth any such thing, let him be cut off," &c. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people.] Publicly put to death: (see ver. 10.) He shall bear his iniquity.] i. e. The punishment of it, (chap. v. 1.)

Leviticus 20:4

If the people of the land. In. thatpart of the country where this crime was committed. Do any way hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth. of his seed unto Moloch, and kill him not.] If they connived: at what he did, and dissembled their knowledge of it; or would not speak the whole truth, and endeavour to convict him of this foul crime, that he might be stoned.

Leviticus 20:5

Then will I set my face against that man, and against his family. As the idolater was liable to this punishment from the hand of Heaven, (see ver. 3.) so they that favoured him, and would not testify against him when they knew him guilty, fell under God’s high displeasure (which is meant by setting his face against them), and so did all their children, whom God threatens to destroy. He speaks, indeed, in the singular number, because commonly, in such cases, there was some one person by whose authority others were persuaded to wink at such offences, and not to discover what they knew of them. But all such men are threatened with the Divine vengeance in the next words. And will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, &c •]:That is, all others, who, following his example, favour such idolaters, and protect them from punishment. For every one knows that idolatry is called by the name of whoredom in Scripture; because God having espoused the Israelites to himself, as his peculiar people, their forsaking him, to serve other gods, was a spiritual adultery. > To commit whoredom with Moloch.] u e. To worship him ■ as their god. Ver. G. And the soul.] i. e. The person, t That turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards.] Who they were that pretended to have familiar spirits, or were tvizards, see chap, xix.31. where they are commanded not to regard them; and here, if any did consult them (which is called turning after them), cutting off is threatened to them; that is, shortening their days: for such persons are reckoned by the Jews as the chief of those six sorts of sinners, who were liable to the first kind of excision, which I mentioned ver. 3. As for the man himself who had a familiar spirit, or was a wizard, he was to be stoned, if he was discovered and convicted, (ver. 27.) And so they observe in Sanhedrin, cap. 7. n. 7. To go a whoring after them.] It was a kind of idolatry to seek to such people for advice or relief; being a forsaking of God, and putting confidence in them. Though sometimes to go a whoring, signifies the commission of any grievous sin, which idolatry usually led men unto; as Mr. Selden hath noted, lib. iii. de Uxore Hebr. cap. 23. There is some reason to think, there was something magicalin the oblation of their children to Moloch; and that thereby they consulted with demons about things future or secret; because such superstitions are here immediately forbidden, after the prohibition of giving their children to Moloch; and because they arc frequently joined together in other places, as in Deut. xviii. 10, 11. 2 Kings xvii. 17. and xxi. G. Certain it is, that in aftertimes they did sacrifice children, \m\p /jLavrucric, that they might divine, by looking into their bowels; as Joh. Geusius hath shewn out of Porphyrins, Philostratus, Herodotus, and others, lib. de Victiinis Humanis, par. i. cap. 17…. - I will even set my face against that soul, &c] See ver.

Leviticus 20:7

Sanctify yourselves therefore?. Worship therefore God alone; to whose service you are set apart. Andbeyeholy.] Keep yourselves free from all idolatry 1 (See chap. xi. 44.) lam the Lord your God.] See chap. xix. 2, 3. ID, &c.

Leviticus 20:8

And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them. Be governed by these laws, and not by the customs of other people: - I am the Lord ivhich sanctified you.] Separated you to myself from all other people, by peculiar laws which I have given you.

Leviticus 20:9

For every one. Or, if any one; the particle we translate for* signifying frequently with, or if. r That curseth his father or mother.] Reproacheth them with imprecations. Shall surely be put to death.] i. e. Be stoned. And it made no difference, whether he cursed them when they were alive, or after their-death, as R.Levi Barzelonita says, the rule of their doctors was; yet they * resolve, that, unless he cursed them by some proper name of God, he was not lia-’ ble to be put to death, but only to be scourged, (Preecept. eclxi.) See Exod. xxi. 17. His blood shall be upon him.] When the law only saith, a’ man shall die the -death,- the’ Jews understand it’of strangling; which was the easiest punishment among them. For where there was not an express mention of the kind of death, they thought the most favourable was to be inflicted. But when the law adds, his blood shall be upon him, they say, it is meant of stoning: and the meaning of this phrase is, he shall perish by his otvn fault;■ and therefore his blood, that is, his death, shall not be vindicated: The blood of one that was slain, being innocent, was upon the murderer, and therefore avenged; but he that was put to death for his crimes, had his blood upon himself, and nobody was to bear it, the executioner himself being not guilty of blood.

Leviticus 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, &c. By the ancient law of Draco and Solon, the husband of the adulteress, if he found them in the fact, might kill them both; or put out their eyes, or stigmatize them; or make the adulterer pay a fine, if he had a mind to spare his life. See Mcursius in his Themis Attica, lib. i. cap. 4, 5. and the Leges Atticse, set forth by Pctitus, lib. vi. tit. 4. where it appears, that it was infamous for the husband to live with his wife after she had committed adultery; and that it was unlawful for her to enter into the public temples, or go dressed in the streets." If she did, any body might tear off her clothes, and beat her, only not kill her. (See S.Petiti Comment, p. 460, &c.) The adulterer and adulteress shallsurely be put to death.] It is not left to the husband’s liberty, by this law, whether he would spare 4heir lives or not; but the fact being proved, they were both to die for it: only it is not said here what kind of death they should suffer; nor was the same kind of death inflictedupon all that were guilty of this crime; for, if the daughter of a priest played the adulteress, she. wasto be burnt, (chap. xxi. 9.) and the adulterer to be strangled, as the Jews understand it. If a man lay with a virgin espousedto another man, but not yet married, they were both to be stoned, by the express words of the law, (Deut. xxii. 23.) But adultery with a married woman, if wo may: credit the Jewish doctors, was

Leviticus 20:11

And the man that lieth with his father s wife, &c. This was condemned before as a heinous sin, (chap, xviii. 8.) and now the penalty of death is inflicted upon the offenders. Their blood shall be upon them.’] All the Hebrew doctors agree, that wheresoever we meet with this phrase, it is meant of stoning, as I before observed,

Leviticus 20:12

If a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. This was forbidden, chap, xviii. 15. and the same penalty is here enacted as against the former crime. They have wrought confusion.] By perverting the order which God hath appointed, and making great disturbance in the family, &c It is the same word that is used for a more foul sin, (chap, xviii. 23.) and therefore shews this to be an abominable mixture.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, &c. This also was condemned before, (chap, xviii. 22.) but the penalty not declared till now. They shall surely be put to death, &c] By stoning; unless one of them was under a force, and then that law took place which we find Deut. xxii. 25, 2G.,

Leviticus 20:14

And if a man take a ivife and her mother, it is wickedness!. See chap, xviii. 17. They shall be burnt with fire.] Which was a higher punishment than stoning, as that was higher than strangling. R. Levi Barzelonita (Proccept. cexxiv.) describes the manner of it to have been thus: they set the malefactor in dung up to the knees, and then tied a cloth about his neck, which was drawn by the two witnesses, till they mado his mouth gape; into which they poured hot melted lead down his throat, which burnt his bowels. And thus the rest of the Talmudists expound it: but I see no good authority they have for it, the word for burning being the same that is used, when mention is made of burning with fire and faggots, as we speak. And 11. Eliezer ben Zadoc saith, he saw a priest’s daughter thus burnt for fornication. But the doctors commonly say, the judges were ignorant of the law; or, that they wero Sadducees who then had got into the seat of judgment, who followed the very letter of the Scripture. Both he and they.] That is, both the mother and daughter, if the mother were consenting to it. Otherwise, only the woman that offended. From whence the Karaites formed this rule, " after the same manner that men were obliged by a precept in Scripture, the women were obliged also/’ (Selden.lib. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 5.) That there benoivickedness among you.] That others may be deterred from the commission of such enormous crimes: for the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedness. (See chap, xviii. 17.)

Leviticus 20:15

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death. See chap, xviii. 23. This death was by stoning, as appears from the next verse. And ye shall slay the beast.] Just as they were to destroy, not only the inhabitants of an apostate city, but their cattle also, &c. (Deut. xiii. 15, 16.) to terrify others from committing the like sin; and, as the Talmudists observe, that there might be no memorial left of so foul a crime, by men’s pointing at the beast, and saying, There goes the beast that such a man lay with. They might have added, to prevent monstrous births, (See Selden, lib. i. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 4.) Maimonides gives a good reason, why a beast that killed a man should be slain; as a punishment to the owner, for looking no better after it; but his application of it to this matter seems impertinent, (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 40.) Bochartus’s gloss is far better; the beast was killed as an instrument in the crime, just as a forger of deeds is hanged with his pen and counterfeit seals; and a conjurer with his magical books and characters. And this also is useful for an example, though not to other beasts, yet to men; whose concern it is to consider, that if beasts were not spared, who were not capable of sinning, what would become of them who committed such crimes against the known law of God, and the impressions of nature itself? (Hierozoicon,par. i.lib". ii. cap. 16.) Ver. 1G. Their blood shall be upon them.] This relates to the man and the woman (mentioned in these two verses), who committed this foul crime; for a beast is not capable of punishment. But, as the canon law speaks, “Pecora inde credendum est jussa interfici, quia tali flagUio contaminata refricant facti memoriam;” it is to be believed, that the beasts which were polluted with such a flagitious wickedness, were therefore commanded to be slain, because they rubbed tip the memory of the fact: which is the very reason given of it in the Mischna, Tit. Sanhedrin, cap. 7. n. 4. And so R. Solomon: " the beast was killed, lest it should be said, There is the beast for which such a woman was put to death."

Leviticus 20:17

If a man shall take his sister, &c. Whether she

Leviticus 20:18

And if a man shall lie with a woman, having her sickness, &c. Here the sentence of death is pronounced upon them; whereas; in chap. xv. 24. it is only said, the man should be unclean seven days. Therefore many think in that place he speaks of doing this ignorantly, and here of doing it knowingly. But if the man might be ignorant of the condition she was in, the woman herself could scarce be so: and, therefore, others think, when the fact was altogether private, they only incurred a legal impurity for a certain season; but when it was publicly known, and proof made of it before a judge, it was a capital crime, because it was done in contempt and despite of the law; otherwise, it could not have been so publicly known as to be legally proved. Whether this law oblige in the state of Christianity, is at large discussed by Bishop Taylor (not to mention other writers abroad), in his Ductor Dubitant. book ii. chap. 2. rule iii. n. 8. and book iii. chap. 2. rule ii. n. 3, &,c.

Leviticus 20:19

And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister, &c. See chap, “xviii. 12, 13. They sliall bear their iniquity.] It not being said, they shall die, or be cut off (as in the former cases), it hath made some conclude this sin, being not of so high a nature as the foregoing, was punished only as those that follow, (ver. 20, 21.) where they that committed them arc threatened to die childless.

Leviticus 20:20

If a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, &c.J Sec chap, xviii. 14. They shall die childless. This is understood by some as if Moses meant they should be put to death, before they could have any fruit of such a conjunction. But most think he only means, that cither they should have no Children; or that their children should not live, but die before their parents; or be looked upon as a spurious issue, and not inherit their estate; which is the sense St. Austin puts ypon these words. And Procopius Gazacus also mentions it; and says this was the Roman law about all in* cestuous marriages; " Semen eorum non rccensebitur inter liberos;” such issue shallnot be reckoned among their children.

Leviticus 20:21

And if a man shall take Ms brother’s wife, &c. See chap, xviii. 16. They shall be childless.] See ver. 20.

Leviticus 20:22

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, &c. Particularly these concerning the foregoing matters. (See chap, xviii. 4, 5.) That the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, speio you not out.] As it did the former inhabitants. (See chap. xviii. 25. 28.)

Leviticus 20:23

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which least out before you. viz. Of the Amoritcs, as the Hebrews rightly expound it; for they were the prin^ cipal nation in Canaan, and extremely given to idolatry. R. Levi Barzelonita extends this to all their customs, in cutting their hair,.and such like, (Proecept. eclxii.) but it seems here particularly to relate to their marriages and idolatry. (See chap, xviii. 3.) For they committed all these things.] These words shew that the foregoing have particular respect to their abominable marriages and idolatry. Therefore I abhorred them.] So as to cast them out of their country, (chap, xviii. 25.) Onkelos translates it, my Word [Memri] abominated them. Which is a plain intimation of a notion they had in ancient times of more persona than one in the Deity; and particularly here denotes him whom St. John calls the Word. Vox Memri (Word) plainly signifies a person in this place; and a person of the same essence with Jehovah..

Leviticus 20:24

But I have said, unto you. Made you a promise. Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, &c] For he promised to expel the former inhabitants of that country, to make room for them. (See Exod. iii. 8. 17. xxiii. 27, 28. xxxiii. 3.) I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.] This may refer either to what goes before, that they should not live like other nations, because he had, by peculiar laws, as well as by signal deliverances, distinguished them from all the people of the earth; or to what follows, that he had made such a difference between them, and other people, that in their very diet they should not agree with them, much less in the forenamed impurities. For, that the difference of meats was instituted, to keep them from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, is very evident (as I before observed), and the gentiles themselves took notice of it, and looked upon them as unsociable people upon this very account. Joscphus often mentions this objection against them. And Euphrates complains, (in Philostratus dc vita Apolon. Lib. cap. 2.) " That of old they separated not only from the Romans, but from all mankind: for they had invented j3fov auiKrov a manner of living that would not let them mix with other people, cither at a common table, or in their prayers or sacrifices."

Leviticus 20:25

Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, &c. According to tho prescriptions in

MHxether it bein the ivarp or woof, of linen, or of woollen. In the inward or outward part of it. Whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin.] They were more likely to bo infected than woollen or linen garments; because they had been part of the body of living creatures.

And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garments, &c. There seems to be great reason in what Maimonides saith, in his treatise of the leprosy, that the Hebrew word jerakrak (which is made by the doubling of the radical letters) should be interpreted the most intense green; such as is in the wings of a peacock (as he speaks) or in the leaves of a palm-tree. As the word adamdam, in like manner, signifies the highest degree of another colour, viz. redness; such as the brightest scarlet: (see ver. 19.) And if aspot of these colours were found in a garment or skin, as broad as a bean, it was a sufficient ground to think it might be the leprosy; if it were not so broad, it was accounted clean. " It is a plague of leprosy, &c] It was justly to be suspected, and therefore was to be brought to the priest for his judgment to be passed upon it." Who w r as to make a trial what it would prove, by shutting up that garment or skin wherein the spot was for the space of seven days; as is directed in the next verse.

And the priest shall look upon the plague, &c. If, upon his inspection, he found the foreuamed tokens, he was to do with it as he did with persons who were under a suspicion of a leprosy.

If the plague be spread in the garment, &c. There were three certain marks (as Maimonides notes) of the leprosy in a garment; the extreme greenness or redness of the spots in it; and the spreading of them after they were first discovered. The plague is a fretting leprosy.] The Hebrew word mamereth, which we translate fretting, is very variously rendered by the ancient interpreters; as Bochart hath observed in his Hierozoicon. par. i. lib. ii. cap. 45. where, from the Arabic tongue, he thinks it may be best translated an exasperated or irritated leprosy: that is, very sharp and pricking (which suits well with our translation), eating into the garment.or skin, till it was consumed. Abarbinel translates it painful: because this sort of leprosy in the body of a man was full of anguish. And so this word is used in Ezek. xxviii. 24. where a thorn is called mamir; and translated by us a grieving thorn.

lie shall therefore burn that garment, Sec. It seems this leprosy could never be got out of the garment or skin wherein it w T as; which therefore was ordered to be burnt, as never likely to be fit for use.

If it be not spread in the garment, &c. If the spot was at a stay, and did not proceed further, then the garment, as the following verse directs, was to be washed, and shut up for seven days; in which time it appeared whether the impurity were quite gone, or still remained.

If the plague had. not changed its colour. If washing had not altered that vicious colour, but it still continued very red or green. And the plague be not spread.] Or, though it be not’ spread; yet it was to bo pronounced unclean, and adjudged to be burnt. It is fret inward.] Though it did not spread in breadth; yet it fretted in depth. Wlicthcr it be bare within or without.] In the Hebrew the words are, In the baldness of the hinder part, or in its forepart: which seems to be a manner of speaking taken from ver. 42, 43. where he treats of bald heads. And the 1 meaning is, whether it cat into the right side of the garment (which is compared to the forehead), or into the wrong side (which is compared to the hinder part of the head), making it as bare as a bald head is, when there is not a hair left. For this sort of leprosy was wont to cat off the nap of the cloth, and make it threadbare. Ver. 5G. And if the priest look; and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark, after the washing of it, &c] If it had changed its colour, from very green or red, and became duskish (or, as Abarbinel understands it, the spot was cowtracted or shrunk up in the washing; so that it was gone in part, if not in whole), then the priest was to cut out that part of the garment where the spot was; there being some indication that the whole garment might not be tainted.

If it appear still in the garment, &c.J If, after the spot was out, the neighbouring parts appeared to have a tincture of a very green or red colour, it was to be taken for a demonstration that there was a spreading leprosy (a3 it here follows) in the garment, or skin, which would proceed till it was entirely infected with it. TJiou shalt burn that wherein - the plague is with fire.] Therefore, the leprosy being incurable, there was no other remedy but to destroy the thing wherein it was.

And the garment, either warp or icooforivhalsoever -thing of skin it be, which thou shalt ivash, if the plague be departed from them, &c. Whatsoever, after washing, had no appearance of such spots, as are here beforementioned (ver. 49, &c.) remaining in it, there was no further trial to be made of it, but, being washed a second, time, it was to be accounted clean, i. e. fit for common use.

This is the taw of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, &c. By these rules the priests were to judgo whether garments were lawful to be used or not; and accordingly to determine: as, by the rules in the foregoing part of the chapter, they were to judge and pronounce whether men and women were fit to be allowed to keep company with others. And when we consider how nice and diligent many nations were, and still are, in their washings, after any sort of defilement, it it no wonder (as Conradus Pellicanus here glosses) that some laws of cleanliness, even about their garments, were prescribed to the Jews; which admonished them of that inward purgation of their hearts from all impure affections, about which they were to be far more solicitous. I have forborne to apply what is here said of the leprosy, in this chapter, to the various degrees of pollutions that are in men’s minds; because that would have made this book too large; and itis done already, by a great number of commentators, botli modern and ancient; particularly among the latter, by Procopius Gazaeus, and Hesychius Presb. Ilierosolymorum, who sometimes have done it very ingeniously.