Chs. 17–26. THE ‘LAW OF HOLINESS1[53]’

[53] It should be noted that the ‘Law of Holiness’ denoted by His sometimes used to mean the whole of chs. 17–26, sometimes the old laws embedded in these chs., and sometimes again these laws together with their hortatory settings.

The leading features of this code, the probable date of its compilation, and an explanation of its origin and development, are discussed in Introd. The Law of Holiness, pp. 22 ff., and in App. I, pp. 167 ff. It is there shewn that laws drawn from various sources have been collected by an editor (Rh[54]), and this collection has been revised by a later writer (Rp[55]). The analysis of the separate chapters which follows will shew their composite character; in drawing the distinction between Rh[56] and Rp[57] the inferences that these represent two stages in the composition of the code will be further illustrated; with an occasional hint that the two stages may themselves be capable of sub-division. This code has a certain likeness to Exodus 20:22 to Exodus 23:33, ‘the Book of the Covenant.’ The precepts of both are addressed (in the main) to the people, not to the priests, and in both codes many of the laws are cast in a terse form, as though for the purpose of aiding the memory to retain them. But in the ‘Law of Holiness’ there is (i) a greater amount of detail, and (ii) it deals with the ceremonial, rather than with the civil, side of an Israelite’s life (see LOT9. p. 58).

[54] A Reviser who combined laws taken mainly from existing codes with a hortatory and warning element.

[55] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

[56] A Reviser who combined laws taken mainly from existing codes with a hortatory and warning element.

[57] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

Traces of H have been found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. We find some of its characteristic expressions combined in Exodus 31:13-14 a (to the word ‘death’). So Leviticus 11:43 ff. See note there.

We may append the following as characteristic expressions of H—abomination, Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 18:26; Leviticus 18:29, Leviticus 20:13.

blemish (מום), Leviticus 21:17-23, Leviticus 22:20; Leviticus 22:25, Leviticus 24:19.

(his) blood shall be upon (him), Leviticus 20:9; Leviticus 20:11-13; Leviticus 20:16; Leviticus 20:27.

reverence my sanctuary, Leviticus 19:30, Leviticus 26:2.

I am Jehovah your (their) God (occasionally followed by, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt), Leviticus 18:2; Leviticus 18:4; Leviticus 18:30, Leviticus 19:3; Leviticus 19:10; Leviticus 19:25; Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 19:36, Leviticus 20:7; Leviticus 20:24, Leviticus 22:32, Leviticus 23:22; Leviticus 23:43, Leviticus 24:22, Leviticus 25:17; Leviticus 25:38; Leviticus 25:55 b, Leviticus 26:1; Leviticus 26:13; Leviticus 26:44.

I, Jehovah your God am holy, Leviticus 19:2, Leviticus 20:26.

I (am) Jehovah which sanctify (hallow) you (him, them), Leviticus 20:8, Leviticus 21:8; Leviticus 21:15; Leviticus 21:23, Leviticus 22:9; Leviticus 22:16; Leviticus 22:32.

neighbour (עמית), Leviticus 18:20, Leviticus 19:11; Leviticus 19:15; Leviticus 19:17, Leviticus 24:19, Leviticus 25:14 a, b, 15, 17.

the (a or any) priest, as a designation for the order, in contrast to ‘the sons of Aaron,’ Leviticus 17:5, Leviticus 19:22, Leviticus 21:9, Leviticus 22:10-14, Leviticus 23:10-11; Leviticus 23:20.

(to) vomit (of the land casting forth its inhabitants), Leviticus 18:25; Leviticus 18:28 a, b, Leviticus 20:22.

what man soever (or the like; with negatives, none, איש איש), Leviticus 17:3; Leviticus 17:8; Leviticus 17:10; Leviticus 17:13, Leviticus 18:6, Leviticus 20:2; Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 22:4; Leviticus 22:18, Leviticus 24:15.

On these chapters see Introd. pp. xxii ff. and App. I, pp. 167 ff.

Ch. Leviticus 17:1-16. Laws Relating to Sacrifice and to the Eating of Animal Foods

The ch. may be sub-divided as follows:

(1) Leviticus 17:3-7. The slaughter of all animals fit for sacrifice is to take place at the tent of meeting.

(2) Leviticus 17:8-9. All Burnt-Offerings and sacrifices are to be brought to the tent of meeting.

(3) Leviticus 17:10-12. The eating of blood is forbidden, because of its atoning efficacy.

(4) Leviticus 17:13-14. The blood of animals taken in hunting is to be poured out and covered with dust.

(5) Leviticus 17:15-16. The flesh of that which dies of itself or is torn in pieces is not to be eaten.

Of the first four commands, those which commence Leviticus 17:3; Leviticus 17:8; Leviticus 17:10 are introduced by such words as, ‘what man soever there be of the house of Israel,’ while Leviticus 17:13 has ‘of the children (lit. sons) of Israel1[58].’

[58] In Leviticus 17:13 ‘children’ occurs instead of ‘house.’ The difference is slight, and it is possible that ‘house’ may have been the original reading. See the note there, p. 101. The LXX. have ‘of the sons of’ in all four places, and the Heb. MSS. vary. The LXX. of Leviticus 17:3-4 contain some additional matter, and Kayser (Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologie, 1881, pp. 541 ff.) with its help proposes to amend the text so as to make the whole passage refer only to beasts offered in sacrifice. His theory, however, is not favourably regarded by other critics (see Kuenen, Hex. § 6, 28 a, etc., following him, Baentsch, das Heiligkeits-Gesetz, p. 17).

According to Leviticus 17:3-4, all animals suitable for sacrifice must, when killed, be brought to the door of the tent of meeting, and presented as Peace-Offerings. No distinction is made between slaughtering for sacrifice and for food. This may well have accorded with ancient practice, and pointed to the time when the use of domestic animals for food was rare, and all slaughter was connected with sacrifice.

On the rare occasions on which an Israelite wished to kill a domestic [i.e. a sacrificial] animal, he brought it to the priest at the nearest high place, who poured out the blood at the altar. Shedding blood was regarded as a solemn act, which should be accompanied with certain religious ceremonies. When permission was accorded in the Deuteronomic code to kill the animal at home (see Intr. to Pent. p. 141, and the reff. to Driver, Deut. I.C.C. p. 145, Rob.-Sm. OTJC.2 p. 249), the old feeling remained, and prompted the person who killed it to add certain actions similar to those which he had seen the priest perform at the altar. Probably he killed it on a stone after the manner described in 1 Samuel 14:31-34. In this way killing ‘in the open field’ assumed a sacrificial aspect, and some of the observances were probably of a superstitious character. Such ceremonial slaughtering seems to be described in Leviticus 17:5 as ‘their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field.’ There was a real danger lest sacrifices in the open field with their attendant irregularities, might produce more evils than the old system of ‘sacrificing in the high places’; at the latter there was some control, though not sufficient to satisfy the reformers who aimed at a higher standard, but ‘in the open field’ the common people might indulge their fancy for idolatrous cults, and definitely offer some part of the animal killed for food to the demons which, according to popular belief, were near and ready to do them harm. (Compare what was done in Jerusalem, according to Jeremiah 7:18; Jeremiah 11:13, and Ezekiel 8) From Leviticus 17:7 it appears that sacrifices to ‘satyrs,’ which were abolished at Josiah’s reformation (2 Kings 23:8), were one of the many forms of idolatry which had regained their hold on the popular imagination.

The prohibition here affects the Israelites only (in the LXX. the stranger is included), whereas the command of Leviticus 17:8-9, that all sacrifices shall be brought to the tent of meeting applies to the stranger also.

In this ch. the reader will at once notice the recurrence of such a phrase as ‘What man soever there be of the house of Israel’ in Leviticus 17:3; Leviticus 17:8; Leviticus 17:10; Leviticus 17:13. It introduces four precepts relating to sacrifice and cognate subjects, and in each precept the punishment awaiting him who disregards it is announced in nearly the same terms ‘that man shall be cut off,’ or ‘I will cut him off from his people,’ briefly in the last precept ‘(he) shall be cut off’ (Leviticus 17:14). The four precepts are (1) Leviticus 17:3-7; (2) Leviticus 17:8-9; (3) Leviticus 17:10-12; (4) Leviticus 17:13-16.

Leviticus 17:15-16 may be considered as an obvious deduction from Leviticus 17:10-14; both kinds of meat would contain some part of the blood. The introductory phrase ‘every soul that’ is different from that employed in the preceding verses, and the penalty announced ‘he shall bear his iniquity’ is not the same. Many critics assign these two verses to Rp[59]. They are probably an addition to the precepts of Leviticus 17:3-14; whether due to Rh[60] or Rp[61] may be left undecided: the fourth precept may be regarded as originally ending at Leviticus 17:14.

[59] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

[60] A Reviser who combined laws taken mainly from existing codes with a hortatory and warning element.

[61] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

3. killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat] The animals mentioned are those which are suitable for sacrifice, ‘of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord’ (Leviticus 7:25), and the verb, though used of sacrificial slaughter (Leviticus 1:5, Leviticus 9:8, etc.), also has the sense of ordinary killing for food. This is its meaning here. The act of killing a beast included in the category of those admissible for sacrifice must be accompanied by certain other religious rites, viz. (1) bringing it before the Lord, (2) bringing it to one special place.

4. the tent of meeting … the tabernacle] For the significance of the double indication of place which suggests a combination of two sources see p. 88.

5. The whole v. appears to be an expansion on the part of Rp[62]. See p. 99.

[62] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

the open field] In contrast to the city. For the expression cp. Leviticus 14:7; Leviticus 14:53.

7. he-goats] satyrs, as R.V. mg., i.e. demons of the desert believed to take the shape of goats, like the satyrs of classical mythology. For the survival of Canaanitish rites, as practised by Israelites, cp. Exodus 34:15-16; Isaiah 13:21; Isaiah 34:14; Isaiah 57:6 (with note in Camb. Bible), Isaiah 65:7.

go a whoring] A frequent expression (e.g. Exodus 34:15-16) for the worship of other gods.

8. of the strangers …] See p. 99.

9. his people] Although the EVV render ‘his people’ in Leviticus 17:4; Leviticus 17:9-10, the Heb. noun is plural in Leviticus 17:9, and should there be translated his father’s kin. See Intr. to Pent. App. II. (25), pp. 215 f. See also Skinner (Cent. Bible) on 2 Kings 23:8.

10. The prohibition (cp. Leviticus 17:12) is found also in Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 7:26, Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16; Deuteronomy 12:23-24; Deuteronomy 15:23. It is regarded as having been obligatory from the beginning (Genesis 9:4). The word ‘eat’ is probably used in order to include eating flesh which contained blood. When the people ate thus in their haste after the defeat of the Philistines, this is described as eating ‘with (Heb. upon) the blood’ (1 Samuel 14:32-34). Cp. ch. Leviticus 19:26; Ezekiel 33:25.

11. The reason for avoiding blood is given.

the life … your souls … the life] The Heb. word néphesh is the same in the three cases.

it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life] i.e. the life which it contains, not as A.V. ‘maketh atonement for the soul.’

13. of the children of Israel] The Samaritan text and certain of Kennicott’s Heb. MSS. read ‘house’ here, as in Leviticus 17:3; Leviticus 17:5; Leviticus 17:10. The LXX. (see above) have ‘sons’ in all four places, but the Vulg. follows MT.

the strangers that sojourn among them] Foreigners are here made to be subject to the same law in the matter as the home born. On the other hand, in Deut. (Deuteronomy 14:21) that which dieth of itself may be given to ‘the stranger’ or sold to ‘a foreigner.’ According to Dillm. the contradiction arises from a difference in standpoint, the direction in Deut. basing itself on real and practical life, while that of P has in mind an ideal theocracy. More probably, the greater strictness of P is the product of a time (later than Deut.) when emphasis was laid on the binding character of Israel’s laws upon the resident of foreign extraction, who desired to share the advantages afforded him. So Driver.

13, 14. Directions how the blood of beasts or fowls taken in hunting is to be dealt with.

15. Cp. Leviticus 7:24, Leviticus 22:8; Deuteronomy 14:21 allowed the ‘stranger’ to eat that which ‘dieth of itself.’

16. See on Leviticus 19:26.