Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 18:19
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Verse 19. As long as she is put apart] See Clarke on Le 15:24.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
No, not to thy own wife. See Exo 12:2; 15:24,25. This was not only a ceremonial pollution, but an immorality also, whence it is put amongst gross sins, Eze 18:6. There is also a natural turpitude in this action. And therefore it is now unlawful under the gospel.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Also thou shall not approach unto a woman,…. Not even a man to his own wife, and much less to another woman:
to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness; in her monthly courses; and the time of her separation from her husband on that account was seven days, Le 15:19; if a man lay with a woman when in such circumstances, they were both to be cut off from their people, Le 20:18; and such an action is reckoned among sins, and uncleanness of the worst sort, Eze 22:10.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Prohibition of other kinds of unchastity and of unnatural crimes. – Lev 18:19 prohibits intercourse with a woman during her uncleanness. signifies the uncleanness of a woman’s hemorrhage, whether menstruation or after childbirth, which is called in Lev 12:7; Lev 20:18, the fountain of bleeding. The guilty persons were both of them to be cut off from their nation according to Lev 20:18, i.e., to be punished with death.
Lev 18:20 “To a neighbour’s wife thou shalt not give thy pouring as seed” (i.e., make her pregnant), “to defile thyself with her,” viz., by the emissio seminis (Lev 15:16-17), a defilement which was to be punished as adultery by the stoning to death of both parties (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22, cf. Joh 9:5).
Lev 18:21 To bodily unchastity there is appended a prohibition of spiritual whoredom. “ Thou shalt not give of thy seed to cause to pass through (sc., the fire; Deu 18:10) for Moloch.” is constantly written with the article: it is rendered by the lxx both here and in Lev 20:2., but in other places (2Ki 23:10; Jer 32:35). Moloch was an old Canaanitish idol, called by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians Melkarth, Baal-melech, Malcom, and other such names, and related to Baal, a sun-god worshipped, like Kronos and Saturn, by the sacrifice of children. It was represented by a brazen statue, which was hollow and capable of being heated, and formed with a bull’s head, and arms stretched out to receive the children to be sacrificed. From the time of Ahaz children were slain at Jerusalem in the valley of Ben-hinnom, and then sacrificed by being laid in the heated arms and burned (Eze 16:20-21; Eze 20:31; Jer 32:35; 2Ki 23:10; 2Ki 16:3; 2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6, cf. Psa 106:37-38). Now although this offering of children in the valley of Ben-hinnom is called a “slaughtering” by Ezekiel (Eze 16:21), and a “burning through (in the) fire” by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31), and although, in the times of the later kings, children were actually given up to Moloch and burned as slain-offerings, even among the Israelites; it by no means follows from this, that “passing through to Moloch,” or “passing through the fire,” or “passing through the fire to Moloch” (2Ki 23:10), signified slaughtering and burning with fire, though this has been almost unanimously assumed since the time of Clericus. But according to the unanimous explanation of the Rabbins, fathers, and earlier theologians, “causing to pass through the fire” denoted primarily going through the fire without burning, a februation, or purification through fire, by which the children were consecrated to Moloch; a kind of fire-baptism, which preceded the sacrificing, and was performed, particularly in olden time, without actual sacrificing, or slaying and burning. For februation was practised among the most different nations without being connected with human sacrifices; and, like most of the idolatrous rites of the heathen, no doubt the worship of Moloch assumed different forms at different times and among different nations. If the Israelites had really sacrificed their children to Moloch, i.e., had slain and burned them, before the time of Ahaz, the burning would certainly have been mentioned before; for Solomon had built a high place upon the mountain to the east of Jerusalem for Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon, to please his foreign wives (1Ki 11:7: see the Art. Moloch in Herzog’s Cycl.). This idolatrous worship was to be punished with death by stoning, as a desecration of the name of Jehovah, and a defiling of His sanctuary (Lev 20:3), i.e., as a practical contempt of the manifestations of the grace of the living God (Lev 20:2-3).
Lev 18:22-23 Lastly, it was forbidden to “lie with mankind as with womankind,” i.e., to commit the crime of paederastia, that sin of Sodom (Gen 19:5), to which the whole of the heathen were more or less addicted (Rom 1:27), and from which even the Israelites did not keep themselves free (Jdg 19:22.); or to “lie with any beast.” “Into no beast shalt thou give thine emission of seed,…and a woman shall not place herself before a beast to lie down thereto.” = “to lie,” is the term used particularly to denote a crime of this description (Lev 20:13 and Lev 20:15, Lev 20:16, cf. Exo 22:18). Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats ( Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802). Aelian (nat. an. vii. 19) relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330, in modern Egypt men are said to lie even with female crocodiles.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Laws against Iniquity. | B. C. 1490. |
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Here is, I. A law to preserve the honour of the marriage-bed, that it should not be unseasonably used (v. 19), nor invaded by an adulterer, v. 20.
II. A law against that which was the most unnatural idolatry, causing their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, v. 21. Moloch (as some think) was the idol in and by which they worshipped the sun, that great fire of the world; and therefore in the worship of it they made their own children either sacrifices to this idol, burning them to death before it, or devotees to it, causing them to pass between two fires, as some think, or to be thrown through one, to the honour of this pretended deity, imagining that the consecrating of but one of their children in this manner to Moloch would procure good fortune for all the rest of their children. Did idolaters thus give their own children to false gods, and shall we think any thing too dear to be dedicated to, or to be parted with for, the true God? See how this sin of Israel (which they were afterwards guilty of, notwithstanding this law) is aggravated by the relation which they and their children stood in to God. Ezek. xvi. 20, Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these thou hast sacrificed. Therefore it is here called profaning the name of their God; for it looked as if they thought they were under greater obligations to Moloch than to Jehovah; for to him they offered their cattle only, but to Moloch their children.
III. A law against unnatural lusts, sodomy and bestiality, sins not to be named nor thought of without the utmost abhorrence imaginable, Lev 18:22; Lev 18:23. Other sins level men with the beasts, but these sink them much lower. That ever there should have been occasion for the making of these laws, and that since they are published they should ever have been broken, is the perpetual reproach and scandal of human nature; and the giving of men up to these vile affections was frequently the punishment of their idolatries; so the apostle shows, Rom. i. 24.
IV. Arguments against these and the like abominable wickednesses. He that has an indisputable right to command us, yet because he will deal with us as men, and draw with the cords of a man, condescends to reason with us. 1. Sinners defile themselves with these abominations: Defile not yourselves in any of these things, v. 24. All sin is defiling to the conscience, but these are sins that have a peculiar turpitude in them. Our heavenly Father, in kindness to us, requires of us that we keep ourselves clean, and do not wallow in the dirt. 2. The souls that commit them shall be cut off, v. 29. And justly; for, if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, 1 Cor. iii. 17. Fleshly lusts war against the soul, and will certainly be the ruin of it if God’s mercy and grace prevent not. 3. The land is defiled, v. 25. If such wickednesses as these be practised and connived at, the land is thereby made unfit to have God’s tabernacle in it, and the pure and holy God will withdraw the tokens of his gracious presence from it. It is also rendered unwholesome to the inhabitants, who are hereby infected with sin and exposed to plagues and it is really nauseous and loathsome to all good men in it, as the wickedness of Sodom was to the soul of righteous Lot. 4. These have been the abominations of the former inhabitants, Lev 18:24; Lev 18:27. Therefore it was necessary that these laws should be made, as antidotes and preservatives from the plague are necessary when we go into an infected place. And therefore they should not practise any such things, because the nations that had practised them now lay under the curse of God, and were shortly to fall by the sword of Israel. They could not but be sensible how odious those people had made themselves who wallowed in this mire, and how they stank in the nostrils of all good men; and shall a people sanctified and dignified as Israel was make themselves thus vile? When we observe how ill sin looks in others we should use this as an argument with ourselves with the utmost care and caution to preserve our purity. 5. For these and the like sins the Canaanites were to be destroyed; these filled the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity (Gen. xv. 16), and brought down that destruction of so many populous kingdoms which the Israelites were now shortly to be not only the spectators, but the instruments of: Therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, v. 25. Note, The tremendous judgments of God, executed on those that are daringly profane and atheistical, are intended as warnings to those who profess religion to take heed of every thing that has the least appearance of, or tendency towards, profaneness or atheism. Even the ruin of the Canaanites is an admonition to the Israelites not to do like them. Nay, to show that not only the Creator is provoked, but the creation burdened, by such abominations as these, it is added (v. 25), The land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. The very ground they went upon did, as it were, groan under them, and was sick of them, and not easy till it had discharged itself of these enemies of the Lord, Isa. i. 24. This bespeaks the extreme loathsomeness of sin; sinful man indeed drinks in iniquity like water, but the harmless part of the creation even heaves at it, and rises against it. Many a house and many a town have spued out the wicked inhabitants, as it were, with abhorrence, Rev. iii. 16. Therefore take heed, saith God, that the land spue not you out also, v. 28. It was secured to them, and entailed upon them, and yet they must expect that, if they made the vices of the Canaanites their own, with their land their fate would be the same. Note, Wicked Israelites are as abominable to God as wicked Canaanites, and more so, and will be as soon spued out, or sooner. Such a warning as was here given to the Israelites is given by the apostle to the Gentile converts, with reference to the rejected Jews, in whose room they were substituted (Rom. xi. 19, c.) they must take heed of falling after the same example of unbelief, Heb. iv. 11. Apply it more generally; and let it deter us effectually from all sinful courses to consider how many they have been the ruin of. Lay the ear of faith to the gates of the bottomless pit, and hear the doleful shrieks and outcries of damned sinners, whom earth has spued out and hell has swallowed, that find themselves undone, for ever undone, by sin; and tremble lest this be your portion at last. God’s threatenings and judgments should frighten us from sin.
V. The chapter concludes with a sovereign antidote against this infection: Therefore you shall keep my ordinance that you commit not any one of these abominable customs, v. 30. This is the remedy prescribed. Note, 1. Sinful customs are abominable customs, and their being common and fashionable does not make them at all the less abominable nor should we the less abominate them, but the more; because the more customary they are the more dangerous they are. 2. It is of pernicious consequence to admit and allow of any one sinful custom, because one will make way for many, Uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur–Admit but a single absurdity, you invite a thousand. The way of sin is downhill. 3. A close and constant adherence to God’s ordinances is the most effectual preservative from the infection of gross sin. The more we taste of the sweetness and feel of the power of holy ordinances the less inclination we shall have to the forbidden pleasures of sinners’ abominable customs. It is the grace of God only that will secure us, and that grace is to be expected only in the use of the means of grace. Nor does God ever leave any to their own hearts’ lusts till they have first left him and his institutions.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verse 19:
This text forbids sexual intercourse between husband and wife for the period of her ceremonial uncleanness, due to:
1. Her monthly menstrual cycle, Le 15:19-28, including the seven days following the end of her period;
2. Forty days following the birth of a boy, Le 12:2-4;
3. Eighty days following the birth of a girl, Le 12:5.
Modern medical science has discovered that observance of this schedule will greatly lessen the danger of cervical infection in the wife. Among orthodox Jewish women who observe this cycle, the rate of hysterectomies and other related genital surgery is considerably lower than among women who ignore it.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL CRIMES 18:1923
TEXT 18:1923
19
And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
20
And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbors wife, to defile thyself with her.
21
And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.
22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 18:1923
404.
Is Lev. 18:19 a discussion of prohibited marriage relationship?
405.
What is meant by lying carnally? as in Lev. 18:20?
406.
Who was Molech? Just what was involved here?
407.
Does Lev. 18:22 condemn homosexuality? Discuss.
408.
Why would anyone stoop so low as to desire sex relations with beasts?
PARAPHRASE 18:1923
There must be no sexual relationship with a woman who is menstruating; nor with anyone elses wife, to defile yourself with her. You shall not give any of your children to Molech, burning them upon his altar; never profane the name of your God, for I am Jehovah. Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. A man shall have no sexual intercourse with any female animal, thus defiling himself; and a woman must never give herself to a male animal, to mate with it; this is a terrible perversion.
COMMENT 18:1923
Lev. 18:19-23 It will be helpful to consider this outline of these verses: (1) adultery19, 20; (2) infant sacrifice21; (3) sodomy22; (4) beastiality23. We shall discuss these verses under these headings.
(1) Adultery. Lev. 18:19-20 Lev. 18:19 speaks against intercourse with a woman during her period of menstruation and also in the time immediately after childbirth. In Lev. 15:19-24 we discussed this act by a man who did not know of the condition of the woman; for such an act he was unclean seven days. In both cases fornication or adultery is involved. When the act is presumptuous, both he and the woman are to be put to death. Cf. Lev. 20:18; Eze. 18:16; Eze. 22:10.
Lev. 18:20 is a straight-forward description and condemnation of adultery. Both persons involved were to be put to death. Cf. Deu. 22:22; Eze. 16:38; Eze. 16:40; Joh. 8:5Cf. Lev. 20:10 of Lev.) The use of the expression, lie carnally well describes the motivethe lust of the flesh for such God has the death penalty. So called modern man might legalize it between consenting adultsGod condemns them both under the penalty of death.
(2) Infant sacrifice. Lev. 18:21 This is related to the worship of the god of Molech. Those involved in the uncleanness described earlier would be easy prey to the god Molech. C. D. Ginsburg has supplied us with a very graphic description of this form of idolatry:
Pass through the fire to Molech.Literally, to let it pass to Molech, that is, to put the child into the hands of the figure of Molech, when it fell into the fire which was kindled in the hollow statue of this idol. Molech, also called Milcom, which denotes king, is described as the hideous idol, or the abomination of the Ammonites (1Ki. 11:5; 1Ki. 11:11). The following graphic description has been handed down traditionally of this idol and its worship:Our sages of blessed memory say that whilst all other idols had temples in Jerusalem, Molech had his temple outside Jerusalem, in a place by itself. It was a brass and hollow image, bull-headed, with arms stretched out like a human being who opens his hands to receive something from his neighbour. Its temple had seven compartments, into which the offerers went according to their respective gifts. If one offered a fowl, he went into the first compartment; if a sheep, into the second; if a lamb, into the third; if a ram, into the fourth; if a bullock, into the fifth; if an ox, into the sixth; and if he offered his son, he was conducted into the seventh compartment. He first kissed the image, as it is written, let the sacrificers of men kiss the calf (Hos. 13:2), whereupon a fire was kindled in Molech till its arms became red hot; the child was then put into its hands, and drums were beaten to produce tremendous noises so as to prevent the shrieks of the child reaching the fathers ears, lest he should be moved with pity towards his offspring. It was to this idol that Solomon erected a temple on the southern side of Mount Olivet (2Ki. 23:13). This idolatrous worship was punished with death by stoning. (See chap. Lev. 20:2)
(3) Sodomy. Lev. 18:22 We know of this sin under the name homosexuality. Is the Bible very clear on Gods estimate of this act? Indeed it is! This was the sin of Sodom (Gen. 19:5) for which God burned them up. The death penalty was given for it in Lev. 20:13. Israel was involved in this sin and suffered for it. (Jdg. 19:22; 1Ki. 14:24) The apostle Paul described it as being a sin upon which the wrath of God was revealed from heaven. (Rom. 1:27) He condemned it in no uncertain terms. (1Co. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; 1Ti. 1:10) Men have beenand are now delivered from such a bondage. We have nothing but concern and compassion for such persons on a human levelbut there must be motivation from God, not man to deliver such persons.
(4) Beastiality. Lev. 18:23 We are shocked (or should be) at the thought of such an act. At the same time we are not unaware of such practices for every generation since Moses. Keil is exceedingly clear on this practice. He says: Into no beast shalt thou give thine emission of seed, . . . and a woman shall not place herself before a beast to lie down thereto. To lie, is the term used particularly to denote a crime of this description (Cf. Lev. 20:13; Lev. 20:15-16; Exo. 22:18). Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats (Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802) Aelian relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini in modern Egypt men are said to lie even with female crocodiles.
FACT QUESTIONS 18:1923
413. Does Lev. 18:19 forbid sexual relations for all during the menstruation of a woman? Discuss.
414.
How does God consider adultery?
415.
Why would anyone degrade themselves to the extent of burning their children?
416.
Discuss the Bible teaching on homosexuality and how to help such persons.
417.
What possible reason could there be for beastiality? Discuss.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(19) Also thou shalt not approach.Literally, thou shalt not approach. The marriage laws are now followed by sexual impurities, which to some extent are suggested by the subjects that had necessarily to be discussed or hinted at in regulating the alliance in question.
As long as she is put apart.Put apart, i.e., seven days. (See Lev. 15:19.) For consorting with her without being aware of her condition the man contracted defilement for seven days (see Lev. 15:24), and for committing this gross act presumptuously, both parties to it were visited with death. (See Lev. 20:18.) Ezekiel refers to the transgression of this law as one of the heinous sins perpetrated by the people of Israel (Eze. 18:16; Eze. 22:10).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
UNNATURAL LUSTS PROHIBITED, Lev 18:19-30.
19. Thou shalt not approach This verse forbids contracting the ceremonial impurity specified in Lev 15:19; Lev 15:25. See notes. In Lev 20:18, the penalty of death is denounced against both parties to the offence. See note.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Other Forbidden Sexual Relations ( Lev 18:19-23 ).
Lev 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 (Lev 15:24; compare Lev 20:18).
To lie with a woman so that her blood comes on him renders a man unclean for seven days (Lev 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 (Eze 18:6; Eze 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 Leviticus 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.
Lev 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.
Lev 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 (Isa 54:5; Hos 2:7). This would add a new dimension to the thought of idolatry as ‘going a whoring’ or ‘playing the harlot’ (Exo 34:15-16; Deu 31:16).
Lev 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 Lev 20:13 where both parties are to be put to death. Compare 1Ki 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 (Lev 11:20) and those who engaged in the occult (Deu 18:12), but see also Lev 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 Rom 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 (Deu 23:17; 1Ki 14:24), although they were equally condemned.
Lev 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 Lev 20:12). It is punishable by death. Lev 20:15-16 indicates that the man or woman, along with the animal, must be put to death compare Exo 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.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
I do not think it necessary to enlarge, either in notes or references, on the several verses here enumerated. They all speak expressly and plainly to the subjects intended. While the Christian Reader from the perusal of them reflects upon his privileges, I pray the LORD to enable him to keep in view, and find grace to practice what the apostle hath said, 1Th 4:1-8 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Ver. 19. Unto a woman. ] See Trapp on “ Lev 15:24 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 15:19, Lev 15:24, Lev 20:18, Eze 18:6, Eze 22:10
Reciprocal: 2Sa 11:4 – purified
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 18:19. As long as she is set apart No, not to thy own wife. This was not only a ceremonial pollution, but an immorality also, whence it is put among gross sins, Eze 18:6. And therefore it is now unlawful under the gospel.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 18:19-23. Appendices.The grouping of offences is noteworthy, and the presence of Lev 18:21 (perhaps not original) with the rest. For Lev 18:19, see on Lev 15:24, and cf. Eze 18:6. For Lev 18:20, cf. Exo 20:14. If the characteristic words to defile thyself, were taken seriously, they would revolutionise the still prevailing moral estimates of sexual sins. For the custom of the ceremonial passing of children through the fire, cf. Lev 8:21*, 2Ki 23:10, Jer 7:31*, Eze 20:25 f.* It is not certain that this meant a horrible death; it might simply involve (as in other countries) a leaping through flames, regarded either as purificatory or as an equivalent for such a sacrifice as that of Genesis 22. The name Molech is connected with the Heb. word for king (cf. Baal = lord), possibly pronounced by later Jews with the vowels of the word Bosheth (shame, cf. Num 32:38*, 1Sa 14:47-51*, 1Ki 16:32*). Doubtless Molech was identified by the populace with Yahweh. The horror of the unions prohibited in Lev 18:22 f. is deep-rooted (cf. Gen 19:5). By confusion (Lev 18:23) is meant a disturbance and violation of the order of nature, and therefore something repulsive. The chapter does not refer either to fornication or to simple unchastity. The former is a recognised institution in the OT (cf. Genesis 38, 1Ki 22:38, not RVm), but regarded by the better minds with loathing (Hosea 1-3, Ezekiel 23). The latter is seldom referred to (in Exo 22:16 and Lev 19:20, unchastity is thought of as a sin chiefly against property, as often in English and other law); independently of the codes, however, moral feeling on the subject definitely though perhaps slowly advances in Israel, doubtless owing in part to the intensity of family life and feeling but it first finds clear expression in the NT.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put {k} apart for her uncleanness.
(k) Or while she has her period.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God also condemned other kinds of unacceptable sexual behavior including adultery (Lev 18:20), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; cf. Lev 20:13), and bestiality (Lev 18:23). [Note: See Sherwood A. Cole, "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.] All of these were fairly common practices in the ancient Near East. The Mesopotamians and Hittites generally condemned incest and bestiality, with some exceptions, but not homosexuality. [Note: See Harry A. Hoffner, "Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East," in Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, pp. 81-90.]
Molech (Moloch, Lev 18:21) was a Canaanite god often represented by a bronze image with a bull’s head and outstretched arms. The idol was usually hollow, and devotees kindled a fire in it making it very hot. The Canaanites then passed children through the fire (cf. 2Ki 23:10) or placed them on the hot outstretched arms of the idol as sacrifices (Eze 16:20). [Note: Some Velikovskians have identified Molech with Saturn. See Dwardu Cardona, "The Rites of Molech," Kronos 9:3 (Summer 1984):20-39.] The Talmud and some modern commentators prefer a translation of Lev 18:21 that prohibits parents from giving their children for training as temple prostitutes. [Note: E.g., Norman Snaith, "The Cult of Molech," Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966), pp. 123-24; and Geza Vermes, "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis," in Studies in Aggadah, Targum, and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, pp. 108-124.]
"To ’profane’ means to make something unholy. The object of the verb is always something holy, e.g., God’s sanctuary, Lev 21:12; Lev 21:23; the holy foods (Lev 22:15); the sabbath, Isa 56:2; Isa 56:6; Eze 20:13; Eze 20:16, etc. Profaning God’s name occurs when his name is misused in a false oath (Lev 19:12), but more usually it is done indirectly, by doing something that God disapproves of (e.g., by idolatry, Eze 20:39; by breaking the covenant, Jer 34:16; by disfiguring oneself, Lev 21:6). By these actions Israel profanes God’s name; that is, they give him a bad reputation among the Gentiles (Eze 36:20-21). This is why they must shun Molech worship." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 259.]
"Homosexual acts [Lev 18:22] are clearly denounced here as hateful to God. [An "abomination" (Lev 18:22; Lev 18:26-27; Lev 18:29-30) is something that God hates and detests (cf. Pro 6:16; Pro 11:1).] The penalty given at Lev 20:13 is capital punishment. They are denounced also in Rom 1:26-27. . . . It is hard to understand how ’gay churches,’ where homosexuality is rampant, can exist. Clearly it is possible only where people have cast off biblical authority and teaching." [Note: Harris, p. 601.]
"The biblical injunctions against homosexuality are clear and repeatedly declared. It must be remembered that AIDS is a virus, which is not limited to or caused by homosexuality or drug abuse, since 12 percent of people with AIDS have not practiced these acts. However, the statistics indicate that these disorders are significantly contributing to the epidemic.
"Psychiatrists are not supposed to call homosexuality a ’disorder.’ In 1979 the American Psychiatric Association, to which most psychiatrists in the United States belong, voted by a simple majority that homosexuality is no longer a perversion. This vote was prompted by a powerful gay lobby within the association, thought to consist of at least 10 percent of its members. Homosexuals have subsequently used this APA revision to claim that ’even psychiatrists feel that homosexuality is normal.’ . . .
"Homosexual activity is anatomically inappropriate. The sadomasochistic nature of anal intercourse leads to tears in the anal and rectal linings, thereby giving infected semen a direct route into the recipient’s blood supply. In a similar manner a prostitute is more likely to contract AIDS due to tears in her vaginal wall because of repeated intercourse from numerous sexual partners, frequently within the same day. . . .
"Otis R. Bowen, MD, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services on President Reagan’s Cabinet, stated, ’Abstinence, monogamy, and avoidance of drugs are no longer just good morals. Now, they are good medical science.’ [Note: Otis R. Bowen, "Safer Behavior against AIDS Reiterated for Minorities," American Medical News, December 11, 1987, p. 59.] His statement is consistent with the biblical theme of preventive medicine, which emphasizes prohibitions that can curtail the epidemic, rather than stressing the directed treatment of the illness." [Note: Fawver and Overstreet, pp. 283, 284.]