Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1

Leviticus 17:1—20:27

Most critical scholars see in this section the beginning of what has come to be called the Holiness Code (cc. 17—26). It is looked upon as a separate document that was incorporated into the so-called “priestly material” said to make up the earlier part of Leviticus. Some, however, have felt that c. 17 stands in closest relationship with what has gone before and is a logical consequent. Allis has said:

Since the day of atonement exhibits in a superlative degree the significance of sacrifice in the life of the covenant people, and points out the unique sacredness of the blood in that on this one day the sacrificial blood is brought into the holiest place and sprinkled on the ark of the covenant itself, to obtain the remission of all the sins of all the people, it is appropriate that in this next chapter the two aspects of sacrifice which specially concern all the people should be particularly emphasized.1

It is legitimate to ask here whether ancient documents should be forced to fit modern canons of logical consistency. The content of this and the subsequent chapters is material that was important to the priest for his service in the sanctuary and for his instruction of the people.

1. Slaughter of Animals as Sacrifice (17:1-9)

In the ancient world all slaughter of animals was considered sacrifice. In Hebrew the common word for sacrifice (zabach) originally meant “to slaughter.” Some feel that in the ancient Near East the use of domestic animals for food was rare and that all slaughter was connected with sacrifice. This may well have been so. It must be remembered that the ancient world did not differentiate the sacred and the secular to the extent that Western man has come to do. Life itself was mysterious. Thus the slaughter of any animals may have had religious overtones. In this case the Hebrew is commanded to bring an ox, a lamb, or a goat (3) to the tabernacle (4) before killing it. Here they would be slaughtered as peace offerings (5) before the Lord. The priest officiating took an allotted portion of the animal (6) and returned the remainder to the one offering it. Thus the food was received by the offerer but not before he had ritually acknowledged that his daily bread came from God.

The passage also makes it clear that this practice was directed at a pagan custom common in the world of that day, namely, offering the slaughtered animal to the demons of the countryside. The Hebrew word translated devils (7) means “the hairy ones,” or “the goats.” The ASV translates it “he-goats” and the RSV “satyrs.” The non-biblical world of antiquity was thought to be filled with spirits. Often the worship of these was accompanied by the grossest of conduct. Here to sacrifice to these devils was to go a whoring. The full seriousness of this practice is not known, but the passage is undoubtedly directed at preventing an association that would be detrimental to the religious faith of Israel.

2. Significance of Blood and Its Proscription (17:10-16)

The requirements of the preceding section may have had as their intended end the prevention of eating blood. This was not a new thing with the Levitical legislation (cf. Gen. 9:4). Blood was the most religiously significant thing in the life of the Israelites. God said, I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul (11). As the seat of physical life and the most important element in expiation of sin, it was peculiarly the Lord's. To eat blood, then, was to invite excommunication from Israel—to be cut … off from among his people (10). This rule applied both to the children of Israel and any stranger that so-journeth among you (12). Even the blood of the animal killed in the hunt was to be carefully poured upon the ground and covered with dust (13), probably as an indication of the respect in which all blood was to be held. An animal that died of itself or was torn with beasts (15) was not to be eaten, since there was danger that the blood would have been left in it. Such animals could not be used for food in Israel.

B. SOCIAL REGULATIONS, 18:1—20:27

The legislation in this section covers a wide variety of matters. It reveals the extent to which the law was designed to regulate all of human life. For those who stood in covenant relation with the Lord there was no part of life that could be exempted from His dominion. Characteristic of this section is the recurrence of the expression, I am the Lord, and the variation, I am the Lord your God. These expressions appear 20 times in cc. 18—19. Israel was to be different from other nations (18: 3) because the Lord is different. That difference is His holiness. The concluding verses of this section (20:24-26) identify the God of Israel as the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people (24). In 20:26 the purpose of the separation is given—That ye should be mine. This section reveals something of what it means to be holy in social and religious relations.

This legislation reveals one of the things that makes it without parallel in the ancient world. As Eichrodt says, there is an expressed determination to relate “the whole of life to the one all-ruling will of God.” And the appeal to the nature of God as the real sanction removes the law “from the sphere of human arbitrariness and relativism and bases it firmly on the metaphysical.”2 The appeal is not simply ethical; it is religious. An age when the appeal to men to do right has been based largely on utilitarian and humanitarian reasons and an age that has seen those appeals steadily losing their power might turn to these ancient pages for instruction. The basis for determining right and wrong is the Word of God. It has yet to be proven that society can survive where its ethic is without religious sanction.

1. Unlawful Sex Relationships (18:1-30)

a. Where does one get his standards? (18:1-5.) This chapter is directed to the children of Israel (2). The people are reminded that the Lord is their God and that they are to be different from the other nations of the earth. They must not take their standards from Egypt (3), whence they have come, nor from Canaan, where they are going. They are to take their standards from the Lord, who gives them these statutes and judgments (5). They are told that if they accept the Lord's way they will live. Here is seen the striking difference between the believer in God and the nonbeliever. The worldling takes his standards from his context; the believer, from his God.

b. Standards with respect to sex (18:6-23). This section deals with those family relationships where sexual intimacy is forbidden. Commentators have tried to determine whether these commands have to do with marriage or not. It is obvious that some of the relationships discussed here were not envisioned as within the legitimate marriage bonds. However, it would not be improper to think that this section provided a basis for possible marriage ties. In fact, modern marriage laws are largely based on the limitations found here.

The section begins with the closest relationships, father and mother (7), moves to the more remote, e.g., a brother's wife (16). To uncover their nakedness (6) means “to have sexual relations” (Amp. OT). There are two Hebrew words used for “flesh.” One means “the inner flesh, full of blood, next the bones,” while the other means “the flesh next the skin.”3 The former is the one used throughout this chapter. In v. 6 both are used, “flesh of his flesh” being the literal translation of near of kin. So the prohibition here is that of incest. Levitical legislation is rigid in its attempts to protect the sanctity of the marriage bond from the problems resulting from promiscuity. God is concerned about the purity of the intimate relationships that are designed to be practiced within that bond. This standard was sharply at odds with the practice of Israel's neighbors.

Verse 16 has often been cited as being in opposition to levirate marriage (cf. comments on Gen. 38: 8). In actuality v. 16 seems to be speaking against sexual familiarity with a brother's wife while he is yet alive.

The meaning of v. 18 is, “While your wife is still living do not take her sister for a rival” (Berk.).

The reference to Molech in v. 21 has been understood as referring to a pagan rite of throwing children into a raging fire in sacrifice. There is actually no reference to fire in the Hebrew text here; note that the fire is in italics, indicating that it is a translator's addition. Because of the context which is dealing with sexual irregularities, Snaith suggests that what is forbidden is the giving of children to the temple shrines for training as male or female prostitutes.4 The references in the OT are not clear enough and our knowledge of Israel's neighbors is not extensive enough to know exactly what is involved here other than an illicit use of children, and that probably in sexual matters. Since homosexuality and bestiality were known within the Canaanite religious circles, vv. 21-23 could possibly go together. Practices such as these are what this legislation and Gen. 15:16 envision as the reasons for God's permitting the Canaanites to be dispossessed (cf. vv. 24-25).

c. A warning for the covenant people (18:24-30). This chapter closes with a warning to Israel. If Gen. 15:16; 50:24-25 are to be taken seriously, part of Israel's faith was the confidence that God was going to give the land of Canaan to Israel and dispossess the Canaanite. Now God warns the nation that this promise is not automatic nor unconditional. If Israel stoops to the iniquity of the people whom they are to drive out, then Israel too will be spued cut (28) from the land. God is holy and His promises are morally conditioned. The solemn word, I am the Lord your God (30), is the sober guarantee of that truth.

2. Holiness and Some Varied Laws (19:1-37)

This chapter is obviously intended to be a unit in itself. This is evident from its introductory formula (1; cf. 18:1; 20:1). Its subject is indicated in the command, Ye shall be holy (2). What the Levitical legislation understood by holiness in daily living is indicated throughout this chapter. To the modern reader it appears to be a collection of different admonitions covering a score or more of subjects. There seems to be little organization to the list. However, its disconnected nature should not keep us from seeing it as a whole. It is a remarkable collection of sundry concerns that could be compared to Romans 12—13. Perhaps a study of these two passages would indicate the similarities and the differences in the understanding of holy living in daily life from the old covenant point of view and from the new. Some of the most exalted lines in the OT are found here.

Here in 19:1-4 we discover “Holiness, the Key Word of Leviticus.” (1) God is the Source of all holiness, 1-2; (2) God is the Standard of holiness, 2; (3) Holiness is separation from evil and separation unto God, 3-4 (G. B. Williamson).

There is a sense in which this chapter is a miniature of the Levitical law. Note what is contained here: respect for parents, and respect for the sabbaths (3); abstinence from idolatry (4); correct sacrifice of peace offerings (5-8); concern for the poor and the stranger b y not gleaning thoroughly the fields (9-10); prohibition of stealing, dealing falsely, lying (11); swearing falsely and profaning God's name (12); prohibition of taking advantage of the deaf and the blind (14); prohibition of unfair judgment (15); talebearing (16); the hating of one's neighbour (17); taking vengeance (18); mixing breeds, seeds, or fabrics (19); eating the fruit of a newly bearing tree (23-25); eating blood (26); practicing the occult (26b, 31); cutting the hair wrongly or cutting the flesh for the dead (27-28); prostituting one's daughter (29); crooked business transactions (35-36); a demand of respect for the elderly (32); love for the neighbour and the stranger like the love that one has for oneself (18, 33-34). Simply to note the list indicates the humanitarian character of the Levitical law.

To respect the person (15) means to “be partial” to the poor (RSV). To honour the person of the mighty means to “show a preference” for them (Amp. OT). To stand against the blood of a neighbour (16) was to endanger his life by a false testimony (Amp. OT). The meaning of 17b is, “You shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him” (RSV).

The standard demanded here approaches that of the NT when it forbids vengeance, and demands love for neighbor and stranger like that which one has for himself. The mention of the stranger (34) makes it immaterial whether neighbour means “neighbour Israelite,” as Snaith says, or “neighbour anybody.”5 This entire chapter is an extremely practical passage and was undoubtedly used to teach the ancient Hebrew what it really meant to live a holy life.

Most of the chapter needs little comment. Much of it is mandatory in character, stated either in a negative imperative or in straightforward, positive command in the second person. No difference is made between the ceremonial and the ethical requirements. The Lord is the sanction behind both. The concern here is for justice and social righteousness but also for proper religion.

Some items are strange to the modern reader. The prohibition of mixing seed and fabric materials (19) illustrates the principle of separation. It was called habdalah by the Jews, and was to characterize all of life. What God separated, they were to keep separate. Hybrids seem to have been forbidden. It may be that elements are involved of which the significance has long been lost to us. Deut. 22:9-11 repeats and extends what is found here. The prohibition against eating the fruit of the new trees (23) is, as Snaith points out, a sound agricultural principle that would ultimately enable the trees to bear better crops.6 The firstfruits were to belong to the Lord (24). Perhaps the fruit produced in those first three years was not felt to be an acceptable offering for the Lord. The expression as uncircumcised (23) is the Hebrew way of saying it is “forbidden to you” (Amp. OT).

The limitations of the old covenant are illustrated in vv. 20-22 in the case of the bondmaid. Here we see illustrated one of the great dangers of slavery. The girl involved would be wholly at the disposal of her master. The word betrothed (20) seems to be misleading. She evidently had been spoken for but no payment had been made. If the woman had been betrothed, the penalty would have been death for both (cf. Deut. 22:23-24). The woman here was as much at her master's disposal as was Hagar (Gen. 16:1), or Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen. 30:4, 9). The word used is shiphchah, not 'amah. It means a female slave belonging to her mistress. The Levitical legislation apparently did not look upon this act as necessarily a violation of the seventh commandment. She shall be scourged (20) is better, “A court inquiry shall be conducted” (Berk.). In meteyard (35) would be “in measures of length” (RSV).

This chapter is an excellent example of the fact that the Levitical legislation attempted to bring the totality of a man's life and its relations under the sovereign control of the Lord. The chapter begins with the command to be holy because the Lord is Israel's God (2). It closes with the command to observe these statutes and ordinances because He is the one who brought them out of the land of Egypt (36). The claims of the Levitical law are thus really based upon the fact of grace.

3. Molech, the Occult, Parents, and Aberrations (20:1-27)

This chapter picks up much of what is contained in c. 18. Here, however, it spells out the penalties in an effort to reveal the extreme seriousness of these sins. It concludes with an exhortation to holiness longer than that at the end of c. 18.

a. More about Molech (20:1-5). Not all that is involved in giving children unto Molech (3) is known to us (cf. comments on 18:21). Here we are told that the penalty was death by stoning. God would also set His face against that man, and … cut him off from among his people (3). God declared that to give one's seed to Molech was to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. It was spiritual adultery.

The determinative passage for most scholars in explaining this practice is II Kings 23:10, where the son or daughter is caused to pass through the fire to Molech. There is evidence in Punic discoveries that the Carthaginians burned children as sacrifices by placing them in the arms of a bronze statue of Kronos, from whence they rolled into the fire to be burned. These references in Leviticus have been interpreted accordingly.7 It must be remembered, though, that the chronological gap between the Punic material and these references is very wide. As mentioned at 18: 21, Snaith suggests that it means the giving of sons and daughters for temple prostitution.

b. Concerning the occult (20:6-8, 27). The biblical prohibition of magic is important for an understanding of how revolutionary monotheism was in its world. Pagan religions often forbade black magic, that is, the magic which brought injury to men. But the Bible makes no differentiation. It will make no concession to any claim that there is supernatural help for man outside of the Lord. To try through the occult to get help was a denial of the sovereignty of the Lord and was thus equivalent to idolatry. Sorcery, witchcraft, and magic are not as serious a problem in our society as in the ancient world. Nevertheless, the Christian should be as careful to keep himself deliberately dependent upon the Lord alone as Israel was commanded to do. Use of the occult (6) or the practice of it (27) here meant death. Sanctify yourselves (7) here means to “set yourselves apart” for the purpose of obeying God.

c. Respect jor parents (20:9). Equally serious was the sin of cursing one's parents. In Exod. 21:17 the penalty for this sin was death. The clause, His blood shall be upon him, meant that the laws of blood revenge did not apply (cf. Ezek. 18:13).

d. Sexual aberrations (20:10-21). This paragraph on illegal sexual conduct is like that found in 18:6-20, 22-23, except that here penalties are prescribed. Sex relations were forbidden with another man's wife (10), with one's father's wife (11, not the son's own mother), his own daughter in law (12), a person of the same sex (13), with an animal (15), with a mother and her daughter (14), with a sister or a half sister (17), with a menstruous women (18), with an aunt (19), an uncle's wife (20) or a brother's wife (21). All these sins were forbidden on pain of death, of being cut off from one's people, or of being divinely afflicted with childlessness. The reference to dying childless may mean the sentence of death for the participants, which would preclude the possibilities of progeny. Confusion (12) here means “incest” (RSV).

e. Warning and exhortation (20:22-26). This paragraph is much like 18:24-30. Israel is told that the land will spue it out if it does not separate itself from the ways of the Canaanites. The Israelites must be a holy people to live in a holy land and walk with a holy God.