Shared ground

Leviticus 20:27 gives a direct closing verdict: if a man or a woman is identified as a medium (“has a familiar spirit”) or as a “wizard,” the required penalty is death by stoning. The wording treats this as a community-handled response (“they shall stone them”), not a private act of revenge. The final line (“their blood shall be on them”) frames the result as the offenders’ responsibility, not an accident or injustice.

The verse also shows that, in this legal setting, seeking guidance from spirit sources was treated as a public threat to Israel’s covenant life, not merely a personal spiritual preference.

Where interpretation differs

What exactly counts as “a familiar spirit” or “wizard.” Everyone agrees the verse targets spirit-contact roles, but readers differ on how specific the categories are. Some take “familiar spirit” and “wizard” as two labels for essentially the same practice; others think they point to different kinds of specialists or techniques, even if the verse does not define the difference.

What “their blood shall be on them” is doing. Many understand it as a standard responsibility formula: the guilt and liability for the death rests on the offender because the act was known to be forbidden. Others think it also signals that the community is cleared from blame when carrying out the sentence.

Why the disagreement exists The verse is short and does not describe the practices. It uses older labels that likely referred to recognizable roles in Israel’s environment, but later readers do not share that social setting. Also, the responsibility line is brief and can be heard either as moral evaluation (“they brought it on themselves”) or as a statement about public accountability (“the executors are not guilty of murder”).

What this passage clearly contributes Explicitly, it contributes a final, unambiguous legal judgment within Leviticus 20: (1) the prohibition and penalty apply to both men and women, (2) the penalty is mandatory death, (3) the method is stoning carried out by the community, and (4) the outcome is presented as the offender’s responsibility. More broadly (by inference from the setting of Leviticus 20), it reinforces that Israel’s sources of guidance and spiritual authority were tightly regulated and that spirit-consultation was treated as a severe breach (compare Leviticus 19:31).