Molech means king in Hebrew.  Here, it is a reference to the Ammonite god to which human sacrifices were made.

Molech was a large bronze figure with the head of an ox.
There was a cradle (arms) in front where a child could be placed.  A fire was then lit underneath and the screaming child would be burned to death.

It is difficult to believe that parents could offer their children in this way and watch them die howling in pain. Perhaps they were under the influence of drugs and had their senses deadened.
That the pagans did this is one thing, but to contemplate  Israelites, with all their spiritual education, doing it is mind boggling.

And yet, despite Yahweh's injunction (v.2,3) they did participate (see 2Kin 21:6, 23:10, 2Chron 28:3, Psa 106:38, Jer 7:31, 9:4-5, Eze 16:21, 23:37,39).

Notice references to Topheth, or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which is Gehenna.  This, of course, is picked up by Jesus later when he talks of hell (Gr. ge'enna) fire (Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47).

Note that if any member of the community turned a blind eye to this evil practice, then he would be punished (v.4,5). We too have the same responsibility, in the community of Christ, to confront sin when it appears (1Tim 5:20).

20:2      Offering seed to Molech was evil because it violated what God said. However there is a fundamental reason why it was abhorrent to God. Israel had been bought by God – Hos 11:1 – and so they belonged to God. No man, therefore, was free to offer his seed to anyone else, be it man or a god.

20:4   Israel are warned that neglect of addressing the issue of false worship is punishable by death. This is the degree to which God seeks faithful worship.

20:7 ‘sanctify yourselves ...’ contrasts with the evil practices spoken of earlier in this chapter. Israel were to separate themselves from the practices of the heathen in the land rather than imitate them in order to manifest God’s holiness. Likewise if we are to manifest His holiness we axe to separate ourselves from the practices of those with whom we sojourn.

Is homosexuality ok?

We don't keep the law of Moses nowadays because Jesus replaced it with a more excellent commandment: the law of loving one another (John 15:12). And this can be used to justify homosexuality in two ways. 1) the law of v13 doesn't apply any more, and 2) loving someone of the same sex must be a good thing because Jesus preached love. But if we simply look in the context here we see that God's disgust with these practices is not founded in the law of Moses. In v22-23 we read "the nations commit all these things, therefore I abhor them" - these people who are not bound by the law of Moses, but Gentiles like we are. So this principle came long before the law of Moses. God simply hates such practice so much that He was prepared to lead Israel in battle to cleanse the land of them. The Bible actually labels it "against nature" (Rom 1:26) or in other words against the law of nature.

So if the Bible is so clear about the subject, why is western society, which is built basically on the laws found in the Bible, so unanimously in favour of homosexuality? The answer to that is found in v4-5. People who turned a blind eye to it are as much to blame as the perpetrators, because now that it has been allowed to take hold it is impossible to eradicate. It will continue to spread until every child grows up confused as to the natural order of things. All we can do is to educate children, and one another, taking the example of v4-5 and never being content to let it be talked about in a positive light; never without challenging it; never accepting it as normal, or being seen to condone it. Coupled with this attitude, shouldn't we equally show love and understanding to those who are confused? We have to be careful to emulate Jesus who showed love and understanding to all sinners, no matter how grave we would think the sin was. He never once condoned sin, but he always allowed them to come to him in repentance. Here lies an enormous challenge for us as followers of Christ in the next few years, as we find more and more in our community who have problems in this area.

119:129 Do we desire to live the gospel because we view the instruction as ‘wonderful’? Or do we some times – or maybe often – think that the gospel places unpleasant constraints upon us?

MAY I?

There are people who think that living a Christian life holds them back. It seems that once we become a Christian, there are a whole lot of rules that we must suddenly keep in order to live God's way. Most of the rules seem to be "Don'ts." Don't go to the movies, don't swear, don't drink, don't have sex outside marriage ... and so on. Some of these rules are important to keep, but when we approach them as a burden, something imposed on us by God or by people in the church, living a Christian life becomes a drag. That is not how God intended it.

The psalmist has a better attitude in this regard when he says, "Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them." (Psa 119:129) It makes it a joy and a pleasure to be able to obey God when we know that his commands are for our benefit. It makes a world of difference when we obey God because we love him instead of because we have to.

A good friend says we need to replace the "Must I?" with the "May I?" of service and love. God's commands are there for our benefit. They are there because he loves us. So let's change from grudging service to become a thankful and willing servant for our God.

119:151 When Jesus said ‘thy word is truth’ – John 17:17 he is echoing the sentiments of the Psalmist as recorded here.

v147  Prevent here doesn't mean that he stopped the day dawning, simply that he rose before dawn.  Compare with the similar action of Jesus in Mark 1:35. 

Luke 1:36 tells us that Mary and Elisabeth were cousins.

It is not certain that the term cousin refers to the children of brothers or sisters, as we understand it, or simply a relative of some kind.

Assuming that Mary and Elisabeth were first cousins, Jesus and John would be second cousins.
John was six months older that Jesus.  His father was from a priestly line while his mother was a descendant of Aaron.  He was a Nazarite and his role was to prepare the people for the coming of the Messiah.  As such, he came in the spirit and power of Elijah.  His ministry ended and the Lord's began when they were both thirty.

3:13  The command John gave to the tax gatherers had been observed by Zacchaeus as can be seen in Luke 19:8

3:3 As John was preaching and baptising in Jordan he was a long way from Jerusalem – the centre of religious life – so anyone who wanted to hear his message had to make the effort to leave their home and seek him out rather than go to Jerusalem where they would previously have gone to worship. Thus there is a little indication that the things of the law were to be done away with in Christ.

3:15   That people thought that John might have been the Christ or not is consistent with the narrative which earlier said that there were others in expectation – Luke 2:25

3:3 John’s baptism – a baptism for repentance – had the same significance as Jesus’ baptism in this respect. Those who came out of the water had acknowledged their death to sin and coming alive to righteousness. We should not think of John’s baptism as inferior to Jesus’. It was what was required at that time.

3:17 The seeming casual reference to ‘wheat’ and ‘chaff’ actually draws upon the condemnation of the prophet – Jer 23:28