Sins against the seventh commandment are here ordered to be severely punished. These are sins which, of all others, fools are most apt to make a mock at; but God would teach those the heinousness of the guilt by the extremity of the punishment that would not otherwise be taught it.

I.Lying with another man's wife was made a capital crime. The adulterer and the adulteress that had joined in the sin must fall alike under the sentence: they shall both be put to death, Lev 20:10. Long before this, even in Job's time, this was reputed a heinous crime and an iniquity to be punished by the judges, Job 31:11. It is a presumptuous contempt of an ordinance of God, and a violation of his covenant, Pro 2:17. It is an irreparable wrong to the injured husband, and debauches the mind and conscience of both the offenders as much as any thing. It is a sin which headstrong and unbridled lusts hurry men violently to, and therefore it needs such a powerful restraint as this. It is a sin which defiles a land and brings down God's judgments upon it, which disquiets families, and tends to the ruin of all virtue and religion, and therefore is fit to be animadverted upon by the conservators of the public peace: but see Joh 8:3-11.

II.Incestuous connections, whether by marriage or not. 1. Some of them were to be punished with death, as a man's lying with his father's wife, Lev 20:11. Reuben would have been put to death for his crime (Gen 35:22) if this law had been then made. It was the sin of the incestuous Corinthian, for which he was to be delivered unto Satan, Co1 5:1, Co1 5:5. A man's debauching his daughter-in-law, or his mother-in-law, or his sister, was likewise to be punished with death, Lev 20:12, Lev 20:14, Lev 20:17. 2. Others of them God would punish with the curse of barrenness, as a man's defiling his aunt, or his brother's wife (Lev 20:19-21): They shall die childless. Those that keep not within the divine rules of marriage forfeit the blessings of marriage: They shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase, Hos 4:10. Nay it is said, They shall bear their iniquity, that is, though they be not immediately cut off by the hand either of God or man for this sin, yet the guilt of it shall lie upon them, to be reckoned for another day, and not be purged with sacrifice or offering.

III.The unnatural lusts of sodomy and bestiality (sins not to be mentioned without horror) were to be punished with death, as they are at this day by our law, Lev 20:13, Lev 20:15, Lev 20:16. Even the beast that was thus abused was to be killed with the sinner, who was thereby openly put to the greater shame: and the villany was thus represented as in the highest degree execrable and abominable, all occasions of the remembrance or mention of it being to be taken away. Even the unseasonable use of the marriage, if presumptuous, and in contempt of the law, would expose the offenders to the just judgment of God: they shall be cut off, Lev 20:18. For this is the will of God, that every man should possess his vessel (and the wife is called the weaker vessel) in sanctification and honour, as becomes saints.

If a woman approach unto any beast - We have the authority of one of the most eminent historians in the world, Herodotus, to say that this was a crime not unknown in Egypt; yea, that a case of this nature actually took place while he was there. Εγενετο δ' εν τῳ νο μῳ τουτῳ επ' εμευ τουτο το τερας, Γυναικι Τραγος εμισγετο αναφανδον. Τουτο ες επιδειξιν ανθρωπων απικετο. - Herod. in Euterp., p. 108. Edit. Gale, Lond. 1679.

"In this district, within my own recollection, this portentous business took place: a goat coupled so publicly with a woman that every person knew it," etc. After this, need we wonder that God should have made laws of this nature, when it appears these abominations were not only practiced among the Egyptians, but were parts of a superstitious religious system? This one observation will account for many of those strange prohibitions which we find in the Mosaic law; others, the reasons of which are not so plain, we should see the propriety of equally, had we ampler historic records of the customs that existed in that country.

And if a man shall take his brother's wife,.... To his wife, whether in his life, as the Targum of Jonathan adds, or whether after his death, unless when there is no issue, then he was obliged to it by another law, Deu 25:5; which is now ceased, and the law in Lev 18:16; here referred to, stands clear of all exceptions:

it is an unclean thing; or a "separation" (k) from which a man should remove and keep at a distance, as from menstruous women, of whom this word is used; and so denotes that it is by all means to be avoided, as an abominable and detestable thing; and it is observed that of all copulations it is only used of this: and the Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra and others, observe that this case is somewhat like that of a menstruous woman, who in the time of her separation is unlawful, but when out of it lawful; and so, in this case, a brother's wife might not be taken, he being alive; but after his death she might, if she had no son, according to the law before referred to, but that is now abolished:

he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; his wife's, which was his brother's; which through nearness of kin, he ought not to have done; and the same holds good of a wife's sister, the relation being the same:

they shall be childless; they shall have none by such a marriage or copulation, and die without any; and as this supposes the brother's wife to have children by her first husband, or otherwise while the Jewish law lasted, it would not have been unlawful to marry her husband's brother; the meaning may be, that these should die before them, or rather, as some think, those that might be born of such a marriage should not be reckoned legitimate, and so not inherit.

(k) "separatio", Drusius,

they shall die childless--Either by the judgment of God they shall have no children, or their spurious offspring shall be denied by human authority the ordinary privileges of children in Israel.