Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 17:3
What man soever [there be] of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth [it] out of the camp,
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’ (Lev 7:25), and the verb, though used of sacrificial slaughter (Lev 1:5, Lev 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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Every domesticated animal that was slain for food was a sort of peace-offering Lev 17:5. This law could only be kept as long as the children of Israel dwelt in their camp in the wilderness. The restriction was removed before they settled in the holy land, where their numbers and diffusion over the country would have rendered its strict observance impossible. See Deu 12:15-16, Deu 12:20-24.
Lev 17:4
Blood shall be imputed unto that man – i. e. he has incurred guilt in shedding blood in an unlawful manner.
Cut off – See Exo 31:14 note.
Lev 17:5
Rather, May bring their beasts for slaughter, which they (now) slaughter in the open field. even that they may bring them before Yahweh to the entrance of the tent of meeting unto the priests, and slaughter them as peace-offerings to Yahweh.
Lev 17:7
Devils – The word in the original is the shaggy goat of Lev 4:23. But it is sometimes employed, as here, to denote an object of pagan worship or a demon dwelling in the deserts 2Ch 11:15; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14. The worship of the goat, accompanied by the foulest rites, prevailed in Lower Egypt; and the Israelites may have been led into this snare while they dwelt in Egypt.
This law for the slaughtering of animals was not merely to exclude idolatry from the chosen nation. It had a more positive and permanent purpose. It bore witness to the sanctity of life: it served to remind the people of the solemnity of the grant of the lives of all inferior creatures made to Noah Gen 9:2-3; it purged and directed toward Yahweh the feelings in respect to animal food which seem to be common to mans nature; and it connected a habit of thanksgiving with the maintenance of our human life by means of daily food. 1Ti 4:3-5. Having acknowledged that the animal belonged to Yahweh the devout Hebrew received back its flesh as Yahwehs gift.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
That killeth, not for common use or eating, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place, but for sacrifice, as manifestly appears both from Lev 17:4, where that is expressed, and from the reason of this law, which is peculiar to sacrifices, Lev 17:5, and from Deu 12:5,15,21. in the camp, or out of the camp: in Canaan, the city answered to the camp, and so it forbids any man doing this either in the city or in the country.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3, 4. What man . . . killeth anoxThe Israelites, like other people living in the desert,would not make much use of animal food; and when they did kill a lambor a kid for food, it would almost always be, as in Abraham’sentertainment of the angels [Ge18:7], an occasion of a feast, to be eaten in company. This waswhat was done with the peace offerings, and accordingly it is hereenacted, that the same course shall be followed in slaughtering theanimals as in the case of those offerings, namely, that they shouldbe killed publicly, and after being devoted to God, partaken of bythe offerers. This law, it is obvious, could only be observable inthe wilderness while the people were encamped within an accessibledistance from the tabernacle. The reason for it is to be found in thestrong addictedness of the Israelites to idolatry at the time oftheir departure from Egypt; and as it would have been easy for any bykilling an animal to sacrifice privately to a favorite object ofworship, a strict prohibition was made against their slaughtering athome. (See on De 12:15).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
What man soever [there be] of the house of Israel,…. Whether high or low, rich or poor:
that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp; which are particularly mentioned, as Gersom observes, because of these the offerings were; for the law respects the killing of them not for common food, but for sacrifice, as appears from the following verses; for this law was to be a statute for ever, whereas in that sense it was not, and could not be observed, especially when they were come into the land of Canaan; nor would it have been decent or convenient to have brought such vast numbers of cattle every day to be killed at the door of the tabernacle, and must have made the service of the priests extremely laborious to kill them, or even to see that they were killed aright:
or that killeth [it] out of the camp; which furnishes out another reason against the same notion, since it was not usual to kill for common food without the camp, but in their own tents within it; whereas to sacrifice without the camp was commonly done.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whoever of the house of Israel slaughtered an ox, sheep, or goat, either within or outside the camp, without bringing the animal to the tabernacle, to offer a sacrifice therefrom to the Lord, “ blood was to be reckoned to him; ” that is to say, as the following expression, “he hath shed blood,” shows, such slaughtering was to be reckoned as the shedding of blood, or blood-guiltiness, and punished with extermination (see Gen 17:14). The severity of this prohibition required some explanation, and this is given in the reason assigned in Lev 17:5-7, viz., “that the Israelites may bring their slain-offerings, which they slay in the open field, before the door of the tabernacle, as peace-offerings to Jehovah,” and “no more offer their sacrifices to the , after whom they go a whoring” (Lev 17:7). This reason presupposes that the custom of dedicating the slain animals as sacrifices to some deity, to which a portion of them was offered, was then widely spread among the Israelites. It had probably been adopted from the Egyptians; though this is not expressly stated by ancient writers: Herodotus (i. 132) and Strabo (xv. 732) simply mentioning it as a Persian custom, whilst the law book of Manu ascribes it to the Indians. To root out this idolatrous custom from among the Israelites, they were commanded to slay every animal before the tabernacle, as a sacrificial gift to Jehovah, and to bring the slain-offerings, which they would have slain in the open field, to the priest at the tabernacle, as shelamim (praise-offerings and thank-offerings), that he might sprinkle the blood upon the altar, and burn the fat as a sweet-smelling savour for Jehovah (see Lev 3:2-5). “ The face of the field ” (Lev 17:5, as in Lev 14:7, Lev 14:53): the open field, in distinction from the enclosed space of the court of Jehovah’s dwelling. “The altar of Jehovah” is spoken of in Lev 17:6 instead of “ the altar ” only (Lev 1:5; Lev 11:15, etc.), on account of the contrast drawn between it and the altars upon which they offered sacrifice to Seirim. , literally goats, is here used to signify daemones ( Vulg.), “field-devils” ( Luther), demons, like the in Deu 32:17, who were supposed to inhabit the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14), and whose pernicious influence they sought to avert by sacrifices. The Israelites had brought this superstition, and the idolatry to which it gave rise, from Egypt. The Seirim were the gods whom the Israelites worshipped and went a whoring after in Egypt (Jos 24:14; Eze 20:7; Eze 23:3, Eze 23:8, Eze 23:19, Eze 23:21, Eze 23:27). Both the thing and the name were derived from the Egyptians, who worshipped goats as gods (Josephus c. Ap . 2, 7), particularly Pan, who was represented in the form of a goat, a personification of the male and fertilizing principle in nature, whom they called Mendes and reckoned among the eight leading gods, and to whom they had built a splendid and celebrated temple in Thmuis, the capital of the Mendesian Nomos in Lower Egypt, and erected statues in the temples in all directions (cf. Herod. 2, 42, 46; Strabo, xvii. 802; Diod. Sic. i. 18). The expression “a statute for ever” refers to the principle of the law, that sacrifices were to be offered to Jehovah alone, and not to the law that every animal was to be slain before the tabernacle, which was afterwards repealed by Moses, when they were about to enter Canaan, where it could no longer be carried out (Deu 12:15).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(3) That killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat.The law which is thus solemnly laid down is that when one of the three kinds of the sacrificial quadrupeds (see Lev. 7:23) are intended for private use, they must not be slaughtered within or outside the camp. That the injunction here refers to the domestic animals in question, and not to the ordinary sacrifices, is not only evident from the expression killeth, instead of sacrificeth, but more especially from a comparison of Lev. 17:3-4 with Lev. 17:8-9.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The Law Concerning the Slaying of Clean Domestic Beasts ( Lev 17:3-10 ).
Lev 17:3-4
“Whatever man there is of the house of Israel, who kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation to Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh, blood shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood. And that man shall be cut off from among his people.”
He begins by declaring that any clean (eatable) domestic animal that was slain, whether in the camp or outside, had to be brought to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered as a gift to Yahweh. If it was not the person involved would be seen as guilty of ‘shedding blood’ without acknowledgement to Yahweh, and would therefore have to pay the penalty. He would be bloodguilty and would be cut off from among the people. ‘Cutting off’ probably signifies being put to death, although some have seen it as being cast permanently out of the camp. Thus every clean domestic animal that was slain was acknowledged as belonging to Yahweh, and as His gift to His people, and as being in its death part of the great atonement for them.
Apart from the daily and seasonal offerings this slaughter would not be such a regular an occurrence as we might at first imagine. We must remember that, while in the wilderness, the children of Israel would be seeking to preserve their herds and flocks, so that such optional slaughtering would not necessarily be very common. They saw their domestic animals as there to provide milk and wool, and to act as beasts of burden. They lived mainly on the manna provided by God, supplemented by hunting, by fishing, on bird’s eggs and on any other food that they were able to gather, and on the milk with its by-products provided by the domestic animals. They would not want to eat the animals themselves except on special occasions.
Once settled at the oases in Kadesh and its surrounds they would sow such crops as might grow. They would have been keen to preserve and build up their herds and flocks ready for when they reached Canaan. Thus this provision ensured that when they did partake of meat it would also ensure that a peace offering was made to Yahweh, so as to maintain peace with Him, and that they acknowledged their debt to him for His goodness towards them. Every deliberate death of such an animal contributed to atonement, acknowledged that life belonged to God, and confirmed their recognition that all that they had came from His hand (Psa 50:10), that they were His covenant people.
Lev 17:5
“To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices (cattle they have slaughtered), which they sacrifice (slaughter) in the countryside, even that they may bring them to Yahweh, to the door of the tent of meeting, to the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace-offerings to Yahweh.”
The reason for this provision was so that any clean domestic animal which was slaughtered was brought as a peace sacrifice to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered up by the priests. This would then ensure that the blood was properly dealt with, that the fat was offered to Yahweh, and that the life was offered back to God, and from this it would be made quite clear to them that they had received its benefits from Him. They could then themselves partake of its meat, once the priest had had his portion, the fat and vital parts having been offered to God. Every animal slaughtered for meat thus also became a sacrifice of peace offering, confirming peace and wellbeing before Yahweh.
Lev 17:6
“And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of Yahweh at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasing odour to Yahweh,”
The priest would deal with it as usual (as described earlier in chapters 1-7) by sprinkling the blood on the altar, and burning the fat, which would arise as a pleasing odour, well pleasing to Yahweh. Continually atonement had to be made. This summary of such sacrifices indicates that the detail must have been given previously. This legislation could not stand on its own.
Lev 17:7
“And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the he-goats (or ‘demons’), after which they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations.”
An apparent further reason for this requirement, apart from the fact that it was an acknowledgement that life was sacred, and that all their cattle essentially belonged to God, was in order to counter pagan practises that had clearly sprung up, or may even have continued among some of them since they left Egypt. It is indicated here that some of the people had been slaughtering sacrifices ‘to the he-goats’ which they were falsely and indecently worshipping (‘playing the harlot’ with them). There may be a reference here to the goat worship practised in Lower Egypt which involved among other things women worshippers copulating with the goats. Such abominations would now be prevented by ensuring that all such animals were offered to Yahweh before the tent of meeting, which would make the other almost impossible, except by gross breach of the covenant.
Lev 17:8-9
“And you shall say to them, Whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a whole burnt offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it to Yahweh, that man shall be cut off from his people.”
The principle was now firmly laid down, and the whole burnt offering and all other sacrifices were also now included in the provision, that all offerings and sacrifices of any kind were to be brought to the door of the tent of meeting to be offered or sacrificed, whether it be by Israelites themselves, or by aliens who had settled among them. Any who did not do so would be cut off from among the people. Later the principle would be altered to take into account the fact that, once they were in the land, the site where the tabernacle was situated might be too far for people to come regularly for such a purpose (Deu 12:20-28). Then the blood had rather to be poured out on the earth like water, to ensure that it was not eaten or drunk.
Note the continued stress on resident aliens. They were not to be free to outwardly practise their own religion or worship as they pleased. If they wished to do so they must go elsewhere. While they lived in Israel, or in the camp, there must be no danger of their leading Israel astray. While they lived in Yahweh’s land they must worship and make offering to Yahweh alone.
For us the lesson comes over quite clearly from this that we must give proper thanks to God for all meat of which we partake. It is His provision for us, it is part of His creation, it has cost a life that belongs to Him, and it provides us with a specific opportunity for worship and thanksgiving. And it is above all a reminder of Him Who was offered as a peace offering for us, of Whom we may continually partake by faith.
Lev 17:10
“And whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who eats any manner of blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”
Furthermore, God stressed, no one in Israel must partake of the blood of an animal, whether it was those within the covenant or the alien who settled down among them. It was absolutely forbidden. God would set His face against anyone who ate blood. Rather than receiving life from it they would be cut off from among the people.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 17:3. What man soever there be of the house of Israel, &c. This law forbids any beast to be slain for domestic use, unless the blood be poured or sprinkled upon the altar; lest, if they should be slain out of the camp, and the blood poured on the ground, it should give room for idolatry, the Gentiles often sacrificing to their gods after this manner: therefore this law was only temporary; neither did it oblige the children of Israel any longer than while they were travelling through the desart; for being newly come out of Egypt, they had hardly put off the idolatrous customs which they had imbibed there. This is the opinion of the judicious Spencer, and Dr. Cudworth also is of the same mind: “for all the while,” says he, (in his Treatise on the Sacrament) “the Jews were in the wilderness, they were to eat no meat at all at their private tables, but that whereof they had first sacrificed to God at the tabernacle; which command was afterwards dispensed with when they came into the land, and their dwellings were become remote from their tabernacle.” See Deu 12:20-21. Instead whereof, Houbigant observes, three set times in the year were appointed for all the males to come and sacrifice. Among other reasons, Houbigant remarks, that the words blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood, (Lev 17:4.) prove the interpretation given. For the law would not condemn him as guilty of shedding blood who should slay an animal designed for God: but if they, who slew an animal without the tabernacle, were desirous to sacrifice to strange gods, they were guilty of idolatry, and not of shedding blood only. Therefore the law does not provide that the children of Israel should slay at the door of the tabernacle the animals designed to be offered to God, but that no animals at all, of the kinds immediately mentioned, should be slain in any other place; at the same time appointing, that their fat should be burnt upon the altar, lest they should be offered to false gods if it was allowed to slay the animals in any other place than under the inspection of the priests. And the law itself plainly discovers its own design, thus directing in the 7th verse, they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils. The intention of the lawgiver is the best rule to discover the spirit of the law; but we see plainly that the intention of the lawgiver was here to prevent the Israelites from the worship of devils. This law concerned the Israelites only while they dwelt in camps; necessity abrogated it when they inhabited cities. In this view the penalty of death, enjoined for this offence, Lev 17:4 is obviously most just and reasonable, as well as agreeable to the whole tenor of the law against idolatry; and consequently their observation is of no use, who would read, the blood (i.e. of the animal) shall be counted to that man, he having shed it: as if the man was not to be adjudged as a murderer, but only as a transgressor of the law.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Lev 17:3 What man soever [there be] of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth [it] out of the camp,
Ver. 3. What man soever. ] Whether Israelite or proselyte, Lev 17:8 unless by special dispensation from the lawgiver, as 1Sa 7:9 ; 1Sa 11:15 2Sa 24:18 1Ki 18:22 ; and then they were to offer upon altars of earth, or rough stone, that might be soon and easily thrown down. Exo 20:24-25
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
What man soever = Hebrew. ‘ish ‘ish.
killeth [in sacrifice]. The Figure of speech Ellipsis (App-6. d) must be thus supplied. For, although the word is Hebrew. shachat (App-43.) and not zabach (App-43.), the context (verses: Lev 17:7-9) shows that only sacrifices in unlawful places are being treated of. There is no contradiction, therefore, of Deu 12:15, Deu 12:21, where the context shows equally clearly that only food is in question. Compare Lev 17:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
be of: Lev 17:8, Lev 17:12, Lev 17:13, Lev 17:15
that killeth an: Deu 12:5-7, Deu 12:11-15, Deu 12:20-22, Deu 12:26, Deu 12:27
Reciprocal: Deu 12:6 – your burnt Deu 12:15 – the unclean 1Ki 3:2 – the people
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 17:3. That killeth Not for common use, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place, (Deu 12:5-14; Deu 12:26-27,) but for sacrifice, as the sense is limited, Lev 17:5, where the reason of the injunction is given. It is true, some suppose that the Israelites were forbidden by this law, while they were in the wilderness, to kill, even for food, any of the animals that were wont to be sacrificed, elsewhere than in the door of the tabernacle, where the blood and the fat were to be offered to God upon the altar, and the flesh returned to the offerer to be eaten as a peace-offering according to the law. And the statute is so worded in Lev 17:3-4, as to favour this opinion. The learned Dr. Cudworth understands if in this sense, and thinks that while they had their tabernacle so near them, in the midst of their camp, they ate no flesh but what had first been offered to God; but that when they were about to enter Canaan, this constitution was altered, and they were allowed to kill their beasts of the flock and herd at home, as well as the roe-buck and the hart, (Deu 12:21,) only that thrice a year they were to see God at his tabernacle, and to eat and drink before him. It is indeed probable, that in the wilderness they did not eat much flesh but that of their peace- offerings, preserving what cattle they had for breed, against they came to Canaan. And yet it is hard to construe into a mere temporary law, what is expressly said to be a statute for ever, Lev 17:7. And, therefore, it seems rather to forbid only the killing beasts for sacrifice anywhere but at Gods altar. They must not offer a sacrifice as they had done in the open field, (Lev 17:5,) no, not to the true God; but their sacrifices must be brought to the priest, to be offered on the altar of the Lord. And the mighty solemnity they had lately seen of consecrating both the priests and the altar, would serve for a good reason why they should confine themselves to both these which God had so signally appointed and owned.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
17:3 What man soever [there be] of the house of Israel, that {b} killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth [it] out of the camp,
(b) To make a sacrifice of offering of it.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God did not permit the Israelites to slaughter sacrificial animals (Lev 17:5) anywhere except before the altar of burnt offerings. This may seem to us to have created logistical problems. How could the priests handle all those sacrifices? However most of the Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern people rarely slaughtered animals. They did not eat as much meat as we do.
"Meat was eaten only occasionally, except perhaps for the rich, who may have had it regularly." [Note: The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Food," by R. P. Martin.]
The Israelites in the wilderness lived primarily on manna (cf. Num 11:6). They kept animals for producing milk, wool, bearing burdens, and doing hard work. Any Israelite who slaughtered an animal for sacrifice except before the altar would die (Lev 17:4; cf. Lev 17:9-10; Lev 17:14).
"It appears . . . that this phrase ["cut off"] may not only refer to premature death at the hand of God, but hint at judgment in the life to come." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 242]
Similarly the Christian who commits a "sin unto death" (1Jn 5:16; cf. 1Co 11:30) dies prematurely at God’s hand. The reasons for so severe a penalty were two. First, each slaughter was to be an offering to God, an act of worship (Lev 17:5). God owned the animal since He had given it life. Second, killing animals was commonly part of a pagan ritual connected with worship of the "goat demon" (Lev 17:7).
The goat demon was a god that the Egyptians and other ancient Near Easterners worshipped. It was supposedly responsible for the fertility of the people, their herds, and their crops. They believed it inhabited the deserts. A goat represented this demon (cf. 1Co 10:20), and part of its abhorrent rituals involved goats copulating with women votaries. [Note: Harrison, p. 180.] The Israelites were at this time committing idolatry with this Egyptian god (Lev 17:7). They continued to worship Egyptian deities for many generations (cf. Jos 24:14) in spite of commandments like this one that should have ended this practice. Even today the goat is a demonic symbol in Satan worship. [Note: See Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, p. 60; and idem, Demons in the World Today.]
"Just as the narrative about the incident of the golden calf revealed the imminent danger of Israel’s falling into idolatry, so the present narrative demonstrates the ongoing threat. These two narratives play an important role in the composition of this part of the Pentateuch.
"The two narratives showing the threat of idolatry bracket the detailed legislation dealing with the office of the priest-legislation primarily directed toward preventing further idolatry. The narratives provide the priestly legislation with two vivid examples of Israel’s falling away after ’other gods.’" [Note: Sailhamer, p. 343.]