Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 19:20
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
20. Inasmuch as the woman here referred to, though betrothed to a husband, is still a slave, it is no ordinary case of adultery, which is punishable by death (Lev 20:10), and so the penalty is to be less severe, but is nevertheless demanded, on the ground that she is the husband’s property.
bondmaid ] The Hebrew word used here in place of the term ordinarily employed is found nowhere else in a legal enactment.
they shall be punished ] The mg. is the literal rendering of the Heb., but it is implied that the ‘inquisition’ is with a view to punishment.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Betrothed to an husband – Rather, who has been betrothed to a man. The reference appears to be to a bondwoman who has been betrothed to a fellow-servant by her master. Death was the punishment for unfaithfulness in a betrothed woman in other cases. Compare Deu 22:23-24.
She shall be scourged – Or, They shall be chastized (see the margin). The trespass-offering was especially due from the man as having not only sinned with the woman, but inflicted an injury on the rights of the master.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 19:20-22
A bondmaid betrothed.
Divine toleration of defective morality
It will be said, and truly, that by this law slavery and concubinage are to a certain extent recognised by the law; and upon this fact has been raised an objection bearing on the holiness of the lawgiver, and, by consequence, on the Divine origin and inspiration of the law. Is it conceivable that the holy God should have given a law for the regulation of two so evil institutions? The answer has been furnished us, in principle, by our Lord (Mat 19:8), in that which He said concerning the analogous case of the law of Moses touching divorce; which law, He tells us, although not according to the perfect ideal of right, was yet given because of the hardness of mens hearts. That is, although it was not the best law ideally, it was the best practically, in view of the low moral tone of the people to whom it was given. Precisely so it was in this case. Abstractly, one might say that the case was in nothing different from the case of a free woman, mentioned Deu 22:23-24, for which death was the appointed punishment; bat practically, in a community where slavery and concubinage were long-settled institutions, and the moral standard was still low, the cases were not parallel. A law which would carry with it the moral support of the people in the one case, and which it would thus be possible to carry into effect, would not be in like manner supported and carried into effect in the other; so that the result of greater strictness in theory would, in actual practice, be the removal thereby of all restriction on license. On the other hand, by thus appointing herein a penalty for both the guilty parties such as the public conscience would approve, God taught the Hebrews the fundamental lesson that a slave-girl is not regarded by God as a mere chattel; and that if, because of the hardness of their hearts, concubinage was tolerated for a time, still the slave-girl must not be treated as a thing, but as a person, and indiscriminate license could not be permitted. And thus, it is of greatest moment to observe, a principle was introduced into the legislation, which in its ultimate logical application would require and effect–as in due time it has–the total abolition of slavery wherever the authority of the living God is truly recognised. The principle of the Divine government which is here illustrated is one of exceeding practical importance as a model for us. We live in an age when, everywhere in Christendom, the cry is Reform; and there are many who think that if once it be proved that a thing is wrong, it follows by necessary consequence that the immediate and unqualified legal prohibition of that wrong, under such penalty as the wrong may deserve, is the only thing that any Christian man has a right to think of. And yet, according to the principle illustrated in this legislation, this conclusion in such cases can by no means be taken for granted. That is not always the best law practically which is the best law abstractly. That law is the best which shall be most effective in diminishing a given evil, under the existing moral condition of the community; and it is often a matter of such exceeding difficulty to determine what legislation against admitted sins and evils may be the most productive of good in a community whose moral sense is dull concerning them, that it is not strange that the best men are often found to differ. Remembering this, we may well commend the duty of a more charitable judgment, in such eases, than one often hears from such radical reformers, who seem to imagine that in order to remove an evil all that is necessary is to pass a law at once and for ever prohibiting it; and who, therefore, hold up to obloquy all who doubt as to the wisdom and duty of so doing, as the enemies of truth and of righteousness. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 20. A woman that is a bondmaid] Had she been free, the law required that she should be put to death; (see De 22:24😉 but as she was a slave, she is supposed to have less self-command, and therefore less guilt: but as it is taken for granted she did not make resistance, or did consent, she is to be scourged, and the man is to bring a ram for a trespass-offering.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Betrothed to an husband; or, reproached or despised, and therefore forsaken, of her husband. For as his continuance with her in his and her masters family and service is mentioned as an evidence that he loved her, Exo 21:5,6 so on the contrary, his forsaking of her was a reproach to her, and a sign of contempt.
She shall be scourged, Heb. there shall be a scourging, which may belong, either,
1. To her alone, as the Jews understand it, for the mans punishment follows, Lev 19:21,22. Or,
2. To both of them; for,
1. Both were guilty.
2. It follows, they shall not be punished with death, which may seem to imply that they were to be punished by some other common and considerable punishment, which scourging indeed was, but the paying of a ram was a small penalty, and very unsuitable to the greatness of the offence. And the offering of the ram as a trespass-offering for the sin against God, is not inconsistent with making satisfaction other ways for the injury done to men, as we may see Lev 6:4-6, but only added here as a further punishment to the man; either because he only could do this, and not the woman, who being a bond-woman had nothing of her own to offer; or because his sex and his freedom aggravated his sin.
They shall not be put to death, which they should have been, had she been free, Deu 22:23,24.
Because she was not free: the reason of this difference is not from any respect which God gives to persons, for bond and free are alike to him, but because bond-women were scarce wives, and their marriages were scarce true marriages, being neither made by their choice, but by their masters authority, nor continued beyond the year of release, but at her masters or husbands pleasure; of which see Exo 21:4, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman,…. Has carnal knowledge of her: a man and woman are expressed, signifying those that are of age, Aben Ezra observes, that according to the mystical exposition of these words, this same carnally lying is as of divers kinds, of a free man with a bondwoman, and so follows upon the above law and in connection with it: the woman is described as one
that [is] a bondmaid; either meaning a Canaanitish maid, as Jarchi, or an Israelitish one, as Aben Ezra, whom her father had sold, Ex 21:7;
betrothed to her husband: to an Hebrew servant, as Jarchi, or who was promised marriage, either by her master or his son, as Aben Ezra,
Ex 21:8;
and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her: or redeemed and not redeemed, as Jarchi; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, not yet redeemed with an entire redemption (or wholly redeemed) with silver, nor a writing of her freedom given her, part of the redemption price being paid, but not the whole; so that she was, as Jarchi and Ben Gersom express it, half a bondmaid and half free:
she shall be scourged; and not he, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi remark, though the Vulgate Latin version renders it, “both shall be beaten”; and the original text does not clearly determine it whether one or both should be scourged, since it may be rendered, “there shall be a scourging” o; and seeing both were guilty of sin, it is reasonable to suppose that both should be scourged, but this is contrary to the sense of the Jewish writers; so Kimchi p observes, the word is in the singular number and feminine gender, and not in the plural; wherefore, according to the simple sense, she is to be beaten, and not he to be beaten; and this was done with the thong of an ox’s hide, as is the sense of the word used, according to Gaon, and so some in Aben Ezra; and so it is remarked in the Misnah q, all the uncleannesses, whether of a man or woman, are alike as to stripes and sacrifice, but with respect to a bondmaid, he (i.e. God) hath not made the man equal to the woman as to stripes, nor the woman to the man as to sacrifice:
they shall not be put to death, because she was not free; otherwise adultery was punished with death of both parties, when committed with a woman married to an husband, De 22:22; and she a free woman, but this not being so, were not guilty of death, because, as Jarchi says, her espousals were no espousals, whereas they would had she been free, and so have been guilty of death: this difference the law made between a bond and free woman, but in Christ Jesus and under the Gospel dispensation there is no difference, Ga 3:28.
o “vapulatio erit”, Fagius, Vatablus, Ainsworth; “flagellatio adhibetor”; Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. p Sepher Shorash. rad. . q Ceritot, c. 2. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 20-22:
There was a distinction made between sexual relations with a slave-girl, and with a free woman. In the latter case, the punishment was death, Le 20:20; De 22:23. The former case, the punishment was scourging, and the man must offer a ram for a Trespass Offering, Le 5:14-16.
“She shall be scourged” is literally “they shall be punished, after an investigation.” Since adultery is a sin committed by two people, it would be manifestly unjust that only one should suffer punishment.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Albeit in God’s sight there is no difference between bond and free, yet their condition is diverse as regards courts of justice; (70) nor do the same evil consequences ensue from adultery with a bond-maid, (as with a free woman.) (71) Notwithstanding, therefore, that the crime is worthy of death, still, in consideration of the people’s infirmity, the punishment is mitigated, so that, if a person shall have corrupted a betrothed bond-maid, both shall be scourged. (72) From hence we infer that, if a concubine, who had already cohabited with a man, were seduced, it was accounted a capital adultery. Lest it should be falsely held, from the lenity or indulgence of the law, that the offense was a trifling one, this error is at once anticipated by the addition of the expiation: for, if one already beaten with stripes still required reconciliation, it follows that the measure of the offense is not to be estimated by its penalty.
(70) “Quant aux jugemens terreins, et humains.” — Fr.
(71) Added from Fr.
(72) C. ’s Latin version and Commentary agree here with the margin of, A. V. rather than the text, “she shall be scourged;” margin, “there shall be a scourging.” Dathe ’ s translation is “vapulabunt ambo,” and his note, “sic Vulgatus recte, sequitur enim pluralis non moriantur. Cf. Michaelis in J. M. P. V., p. 50.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20) And whosoever lieth.Better, If a man lie, as the same phrase is translated in the Authorised Version, Lev. 22:14; Lev. 24:19; Lev. 25:29; Lev. 27:14.
Betrothed to an husband.Better, betrothed to a man. From the law about the mixed seeds the Lawgiver passes to heterogeneous alliances. The case here legislated for is that of seducing a bondwoman who is espoused to another man. This bondwoman might be either one of an intermediate kind, that is, one whose redemption money had been partially paid, or belong to that class who had no prospect of a free discharge. According to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, the case before us is that of a Canaanitish maid, partly free and partly servile, whom her master had espoused to a Hebrew slave. (See Exo. 21:4.)
And not at all redeemed.Better, not fully or entirely redeemed, that is, only part of her redemption money had been paid, so that she was partly free and partly slave. According to the law which obtained during the second Temple, the espousal of such a woman was not legally complete, and hence she is not properly a married woman or the wife of another man.
Nor freedom given her.That is, the legal document that she is a free woman and has ceased to be a slave. This was done upon payment of the full money, or of her masters free choice without redemption money at all. In either case, however, she was then only legally free when she received the bill of freedom. Hence the ancient Chaldee Version translates this clause, Nor has freedom been given her by a bill of dismission.
She shall be scourged.Literally, there shall be visitation or inquisition; then, as is frequently the case, the effect of this visitation or requisition, i.e., punishment, which, according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, consisted in giving the woman forty stripes with the thong of an ox-hide. This punishment, however, she only received when it was proved that she was a consenting party to the sin. Hence the rendering in the Authorised Version, she shall be scourged. The Marginal rendering, they shall be scourged, though supported by some ancient Versions, is contrary to the legislation during the second Temple. The punishment prescribed in this clause is for the woman alone, the mans punishment follows in the next verse.
They shall not be put to death.As she was a slave, and her espousals were illegal, the punishment of death, which was ordinarily inflicted in cases of adultery or seduction of a free woman betrothed to a man (see Lev. 20:10; Deu. 22:23), was not inflicted on them.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. A bondmaid In ancient wars there were but two ways of dealing with the captives, namely, putting them to death or reducing them to slavery. The latter, as the milder of these alternatives, was recognised and greatly mitigated by the Mosaic law. But when Christianity came, whose first evangel was peace on earth, the death blow was given to war and slavery, its hideous progeny.
Betrothed to a husband Rather, to a man, probably a fellow-servant. Unfaithfulness in a free betrothed woman was a capital offence. Deu 22:23-24.
Not redeemed The rabbins specify four modes of redemption: 1.) by money, 2.) by a ticket of freedom, 3.) by testamentary disposition, or, 4.) by an act implying manumission, such as making the slave one’s heir.
Freedom This Hebrew word, chuphshah, occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It probably signifies “free papers,” or a certificate of freedom.
She shall be scourged Hebrew, there shall be a chastisement inflicted, evidently upon both parties. Thus read the Seventy, Vulgate, Syriac, and the Revised Version, and thus says the moral sense of universal humanity. The Authorized Version, which limits the scourging to the weaker criminal to the tempted and lets the tempter off with the fine of a ram, is an unpardonable blunder, and a foul blot needlessly cast upon the law of Moses.
Not free There was property invested in the woman, and probably in the man also, which would be destroyed by putting them to death.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The apostle to the Galatians, hath given us so much authority to consider the law and the gospel as shadowed out in the Old Testament, that I venture to think we are, in many cases like the present, allowed to interpret it spiritually. See Gal 4:23-24 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Ver. 20. She shall be scourged. ] Thus still, saith a grave interpreter, the Lord debaseth bond servants, to teach his children to hate the bondage of sin.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
redeemed = set free (by power). Hebrew. padah. See note on Exo 13:13.
not free. Otherwise death. Deu 22:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
betrothed to an husband: or, abused by any, Heb. reproached by, or, for man
she shall be scourged: or, they, Heb. there shall be a scourging. they shall. Exo 21:20, Exo 21:21, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24
Reciprocal: Mat 1:19 – her husband
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 19:20. She shall be scourged Hebrew, There shall be a scourging, which probably may belong to both of them; for, 1st, Both were guilty; 2d, It follows, they shall not be punished with death, which may seem to imply that they were to be punished by some other common and considerable punishment, which scourging indeed was; but the paying of a ram was a small penalty, and very unsuitable to the greatness of the offence. And the offering of the ram, as a trespass-offering for the sin against God, is not inconsistent with making satisfaction other ways for the injury done to men, but only added here as a further punishment to the man, either because he only could do this, and not the woman, who being a bond- woman had nothing of her own to offer; or because his sex and his freedom aggravated his sin. Not put to death Which they should have been, had she been free, Deu 22:23-24. The reason of this difference is not from any respect which God gives to persons, for bond and free are alike to him, but because bond-women were scarcely wives, and their marriages were scarcely true marriages, being neither made by their choice, but their masters authority, nor continued beyond the year of release, but at their masters or husbands pleasure.