Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle engender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.
19. Prohibition of improper mixtures. Apparently the precept was based upon the view that each individual, animate or inanimate, had individual qualities assigned by the Creator, and that to mix them was therefore directed against God’s ordinance, and as such involved impurity. Cp. Deu 22:5; Deu 22:9-11, where the prohibition is extended to the wearing by one sex of garments properly belonging to the other, or the attaching of an ox and an ass to the same plough.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
19 32. Miscellaneous precepts in reference to the various circumstances of every-day life.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Linen and woolen – The original word is found only here and in Deu 22:11, where it is rendered of divers sorts. It may denote such tissues as linsey woolsey.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 19:19
A garment mingled of linen and woollen.
Unnatural commixtures
Most probably the reference is to different materials, interwoven in the yarn of which the dress was made; but a difficulty still remains in the fact that such admixture was ordered in the garments of the priests. Perhaps the best explanation is that of Josephus, that the law here was only intended for the laity; which, as no question of intrinsic morality was involved, might easily have been. But when we inquire as to the reason of these prohibitions, and especially of this last one, it must be confessed that it is hard for us now to speak with confidence. Most probable it appears that they were intended for an educational purpose, to cultivate in the mind of the people the sentiment of reverence for the order established in nature by God. For what the world calls the order of nature is really an order appointed by God, as the infinitely wise and perfect One; hence, as nature is thus a manifestation of God, the Hebrew was forbidden to seek to bring about that which is not according to nature, unnatural commixtures; and from this point of view, the last of the three precepts appears to be a symbolic reminder of the same duty, namely, reverence for the order of nature, as being an order determined by God. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Woollen and flaxen threads
Not only is it forbidden to weave woollen and flaxen threads together into one material to make wearing apparel of it; but, according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, an Israelite must not mend a woollen garment with a flaxen thread, and vice versa. One of the reasons which the ancient canonists assign for this prohibition is that wool and linen were appointed for the priests alone. This law is observed by the orthodox Jews to this day. (C. D. Ginsburg, LL. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 19. Gender with a diverse kind] These precepts taken literally seem to imply that they should not permit the horse and the she-ass, nor the he-ass and the cow, (as they do in the East,) to couple together; nor sow different kinds of seeds in the same field or garden; nor have garments of silk and woollen, cotton and silk, linen and wool, c. And if all these were forbidden, there must have been some moral reason for the prohibitions, because domestic economy required several of these mixtures, especially those which relate to seeds and clothing. With respect to heterogeneous mixtures among cattle, there is something very unnatural in it, and it was probably forbidden to prevent excitements to such unnatural lusts as those condemned in the preceding chapter, Le 18:22-23. As to seeds, in many cases it would be very improper to sow different kinds in the same plot of ground. It would be improvident to sow oats and wheat together: the latter would be injured, the former ruined. The turnip and carrot would not succeed conjointly, where either of them separately would prosper and yield a good crop so we may say of many other kinds of seeds; and if this be all that is intended, the counsels are prudential agricultural maxims. As to different kinds of garments, such as the linsey woolsey, the prohibition here might be intended as much against pride and vanity as any thing else; for it is certain that both these articles may be so manufactured in conjunction as to minister to pride, though in general the linsey woolsey or drugget is the clothing of the poor. But we really do not know what the original word shaatnez, which we translate linen and woollen, means: it is true that in De 22:11, where it is again used, it seems to be explained by the words immediately following, Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of linen and woollen together; but this may as well refer to a garment made up of a sort of patchwork differently coloured and arranged for pride and for show. A folly of this kind prevailed anciently in this very land, and I shall give a proof of it, taken from a sermon against luxury in dress, composed in the fourteenth century.
“As to the first sinne in superfluitie of clothing, soche that maketh it so dere, to the harme of the peple, nat only the cost of enbrauderlng, the disguised endenting, or barring, ounding paling, winding or bending and semblable wast of clothe in vanite. But there is also the costlewe furring in their gounes, so moche pounsing of chesel, to make holes; so moche dagging with sheres foorth; with the superfluitie in length of the forsaied gounes, – to grete dammage of pore folke. – And more ouer – they shewe throughe disguising, in departing of ther hosen in white and red, semeth that halfe ther members were slain. – They departe ther hosen into other colours, as is white and blewe, or white and blacke, or blacke and red, and so forth; than semeth it as by variaunce of colour, that the halfe part of ther members ben corrupt by the fire of Saint Anthony, or by canker, or other suche mischaunce.”
The Parson’s Tale, in Chaucer, p. 198. Urry’s edit. The reader will pardon the antiquated spelling.
“What could exhibit,” says Dr. Henry, “a more fantastical appearance than an English beau of the 14th century? He wore long pointed shoes, fastened to his knees by gold or silver chains; hose of one colour on the one leg, and of another colour on the other; short breeches which did reach to the middle of his thighs; a coat the one half white, the other half black or blue; a long beard; a silk hood buttoned under his chin, embroidered with grotesque figures of animals, dancing men, c., and sometimes ornamented with gold and precious stones.” This dress was the height of the mode in the reign of King Edward III.
Something of the same kind seems to have existed in the patriarchal times witness the coat of many colours made by Jacob for his son Joseph. See Clarke on Ge 37:3. Concerning these different mixtures much may be seen in the Mishna, Tract, Kilaim, and in Ainsworth, and Calmet on this place.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Ye shall keep my statutes; either,
1. My laws. So this is fitly premised, because otherwise some of the following commands might seem trifling, and obedience to them unnecessary. Or,
2. My ordinances, to wit, of nature; or the order which I have appointed in creatures, as the word is used Job 26:10; 38:33; Psa 148:6; Pro 8:29; and therefore they shall not confound those things that I have distinguished, which were in some sort to reproach and correct my works, and which may seem to be done in some of the following instances.
Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: this was prohibited, partly, to restrain the curiosity and boldness of men, who might attempt to amend or change the works of God; partly, that by the restraints here laid even upon brute creatures men might be taught to abhor all unnatural and unlawful lusts; partly, to teach the Israelites to avoid mixtures with other nations, either in marriage or in religion; which also may be signified by the following prohibitions. See of this and the next Deu 22:9-11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Thou shalt not let thy cattlegender with a diverse kindThis prohibition was probablyintended to discourage a practice which seemed to infringe upon theeconomy which God has established in the animal kingdom.
thou shalt not sow thy fieldwith mingled seedThis also was directed against an idolatrouspractice, namely, that of the ancient Zabians, or fire-worshippers,who sowed different seeds, accompanying the act with magical ritesand invocations; and commentators have generally thought the designof this and the preceding law was to put an end to the unnaturallusts and foolish superstitions which were prevalent among theheathen. But the reason of the prohibition was probably deeper: forthose who have studied the diseases of land and vegetables tell us,that the practice of mingling seeds is injurious both to flowers andto grains. “If the various genera of the natural order Gramine,which includes the grains and the grasses, should be sown in the samefield, and flower at the same time, so that the pollen of the twoflowers mix, a spurious seed will be the consequence, called by thefarmers chess. It is always inferior and unlike either of thetwo grains that produced it, in size, flavor, and nutritiousprinciples. Independently of contributing to disease the soil, theynever fail to produce the same in animals and men that feed on them”[WHITLAW].
neither shall a garmentmingled of linen and woollen come upon theeAlthough thisprecept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in allprobability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to havehad a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did notprohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of clothstogether, but only the two specified; and the observations andresearches of modern science have proved that “wool, whencombined with linen, increases its power of passing off theelectricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignantfevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body,it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister”[WHITLAW]. (See Eze 44:17;Eze 44:18).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ye shall keep my statutes,…. Those which follow, and which are of a different sort from what are last mentioned, of a moral nature, and are planted in the heart, as Aben Ezra says; are agreeably to the law and light of nature, and part of the work of the law written on the heart, as the apostle calls it, Ro 2:15; but the following are of positive institution, and depend upon the will of the lawgiver, the reasons of which are not so apparent and manifest; and therefore Jarchi calls them the decree of the king, who gives no reason for it; ordinances and appointments of a ceremonial kind, which, though there is a meaning in them, and a reason for them, yet not clear and plain:
thou shall not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; or “cause [them] to gender” e for cattle do not usually of themselves gender with a diverse kind, unless directed and solicited to it, as a male of one kind with a female of another; for instance, an horse with a she ass, or an he ass with a mare, and even creatures that were like one another, yet of different kinds, were not to mix together; as a wolf and a dog, a hound and a fox, goats and roebucks, goats and sheep, a horse and a mule, a mule and an ass, an ass and a wild ass; for though they are like one another, they are of different kinds f: a creature thus gendered was not forbidden to be used, as a mule; and if a clean creature and gendered of clean ones, though of a different kind, it might be eaten, as Maimonides g affirms; for not the creature gendered was unlawful for use, but the act of causing to gender is what is forbidden: the design was to preserve the order of beings, and the nature of creatures as they were at the first creation; that there might be no change among them, or anything taken from or added to what God had made; not to separate what God had joined, or join what God had separated, which to do must reflect upon his wisdom; as also, that men and women, as Philo h observes, might abstain from unlawful converse, from unnatural lusts and mixtures; and as Ainsworth thinks, this was to lead Israel to the simplicity and sincerity of religion, and of all the parts and doctrines of the law and Gospel in their distinct kinds, as faith and works, to mingle which together in our justification before God is forbidden; or rather to teach the saints not to mix with the men of the world, in evil conversation, or in superstitious worship; to which may be added, to show that spiritual regeneration is not partly of corruptible and partly of incorruptible seed, nor partly of the will of man, and partly of the will of God; nor partly of the power of man, and partly of the power of God, but wholly of the Spirit and grace of God:
thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: or seed of divers sorts, as wheat and barley, and which, according to the Jews i, was not mingled unless there be two grains of wheat and one of barley, or one of wheat and two of barley; or wheat, and barley, and rye: they also include herbs and trees in this law, and make an graft of them a forbidden mixture; hence, they say k, they do not ingraft one tree in another, nor one herb in another, nor a tree in an herb, nor an herb in a tree, of which they give instances: and there are various sorts of seeds, herbs, roots, and trees, which are and are not of divers kinds, and some that are alike and yet diverse; for they have a whole treatise of such like things, called “Celaim”, or divers kinds: as to the mystical sense, the “field” may represent the church of God, which is not an open but an enclosed field, enclosed by the grace of God, and separated from others by it, well manured and cultivated by the Spirit of God, and through the word and ordinances, as means, in which manner of fruit and flowers grow, and is the property of Christ; see So 4:12; the seed may signify the word or doctrine of the Gospel, sown by the ministers of it, skilfully and plentifully, which should be pure and unmixed, not contradictory, nor inconsistent, but all of a piece; the doctrines of it, as those of election, justification, peace, pardon, and salvation, are to be represented, not as partly of works and partly of grace, but as entirely of the grace of God through Christ: or good and bad men may be signified by the mingled seed; good men, who are made so by the grace of God, and are the good seed, or the good ground which receives it, which hear the word, understand it, and bring forth fruit; bad men, such as are of bad principles and practices, these are not to be mixed together in a church state; bad men are neither to be received nor retained:
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee; for, as Josephus l says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah m agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen; which seems to be a better reason of this prohibition than what Maimonides n gives, that it was on the account of idolatrous priests, who used to go clothed with such a garment, and a metal ring on their fingers: the Jewish tradition is, nothing is forbidden on account of divers kinds (i.e. in garments) but wool and flax; camels’ wool, and sheep’s wool, mixed together, if the greater part is camels’, it is free, but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden, if half and half, it is forbidden; and so flax and hemp mixed together; also that nothing is forbidden on such account but what is spun and wove o: the design of this, as of the other, seems to be in general to caution against unnatural lusts and impure mixtures, and all communion of good and bad men, and particularly against joining the righteousness of Christ with the works of men, in the business of justification: Christ’s righteousness is often compared to a garment, and sometimes to line linen, clean and white; and men’s righteousness to filthy rags, Re 19:8; which are by no means to be put together in the said affair; such who believe in Christ are justified by the obedience of one and not of more, and by faith in that obedience and righteousness, without the works of the law, Ro 5:19 Ro 3:28; to join them together is needless, disagreeable, and dangerous.
e “non facies coire”, V. L. Pagninus, Drusius. f Misn. Gelaim, c. 1. sect. 6. g Hilchot Gelaim, c. 9. sect. 3. h De Special. Leg. p. 784. i Misn. ut supra, (f) sect. 9. k Misn. Celaim, c. 1. sect. 7, 8. l Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 11. m Celaim, c. 9. sect. 1. n Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. o Misn. ut supra, (k) c. 9. sect. 1. 8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The words, “Ye shall keep My statutes,” open the second series of commandments, which make it a duty on the part of the people of God to keep the physical and moral order of the world sacred. This series begins in Lev 19:19 with the commandment not to mix the things which are separated in the creation of God. “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed, or put on a garment of mixed stuff.” , from separation, signifies duae res diversi generis , heterogeneae, and is a substantive in the accusative, giving a more precise definition. is in apposition to , and according to Deu 22:11 refers to cloth or a garment woven of wool and flax, to a mixed fabric therefore. The etymology is obscure, and the rendering given by the lxx, , i.e., forged, not genuine, is probably merely a conjecture based upon the context. The word is probably derived from the Egyptian; although the attempt to explain it from the Coptic has not been so far satisfactory. In Deu 22:9-11, instead of the field, the vineyard is mentioned, as that which they were not to sow with things of two kinds, i.e., so that a mixed produce should arise; and the threat is added, “that thy fulness (full fruit, Exo 22:28), the seed, and the produce of the vineyard (i.e., the corn and wine grown upon the vineyard) may not become holy” (cf. Lev 27:10, Lev 27:21), i.e., fall to the sanctuary for its servants. It is also forbidden to plough with an ox and ass together, i.e., to yoke them to the same plough. By these laws the observance of the natural order and separation of things is made a duty binding upon the Israelites, the people of Jehovah, as a divine ordinance founded in the creation itself (Gen 1:11-12, Gen 1:21, Gen 1:24-25). All the symbolical, mystical, moral, and utilitarian reasons that have been supposed to lie at the foundation of these commands, are foreign to the spirit of the law. And with regard to the observance of them, the statement of Josephus and the Rabbins, that the dress of the priests, as well as the tapestries and curtains of the tabernacle, consisted of wool and linen, is founded upon the assumption, which cannot be established, that , , is a term applied to linen. The mules frequently mentioned, e.g., in 2Sa 13:29; 2Sa 18:9; 1Ki 1:33, may have been imported from abroad, as we may conclude from 1Ki 10:25.
Lev 19:20-22 Even the personal rights of slaves were to be upheld; and a maid, though a slave, was not to be degraded to the condition of personal property. If any one lay with a woman who was a slave and betrothed to a man, but neither redeemed nor emancipated, the punishment of death was not to be inflicted, as in the case of adultery (Lev 20:10), or the seduction of a free virgin who was betrothed (Deu 22:23.), because she was not set free; but scourging was to be inflicted, and the guilty person was also to bring a trespass-offering for the expiation of his sin against God (see at Lev 5:15.). , from carpere , lit., plucked, i.e., set apart, betrothed to a man, not abandoned or despised. redeemed, emancipation without purchase, – the two ways in which a slave could obtain her freedom. , . . , from to examine (Lev 13:36), lit., investigation, then punishment, chastisement. This referred to both parties, as is evident from the expression, “they shall not be put to death;” though it is not more precisely defined. According to the Mishnah, Kerith. ii. 4, the punishment of the woman consisted of forty stripes.
Lev 19:23-25 The garden-fruit was also to be sanctified to the Lord. When the Israelites had planted all kinds of fruit-trees in the land of Canaan, they were to treat the fruit of every tree as uncircumcised for the first three years, i.e., not to eat it, as being uncircumcised. The singular suffix in refers to , and the verb is a denom. from , to make into a foreskin, to treat as uncircumcised, i.e., to throw away as unclean or uneatable. The reason for this command is not to be sought for in the fact, that in the first three years fruit-trees bear only a little fruit, and that somewhat insipid, and that if the blossom or fruit is broken off the first year, the trees will bear all the more plentifully afterwards ( Aben Esra, Clericus, J. D. Mich.), though this end would no doubt be thereby attained; but it rests rather upon ethical grounds. Israel was to treat the fruits of horticulture with the most careful regard as a gift of God, and sanctify the enjoyment of them by a thank-offering. In the fourth year the whole of the fruit was to be a holiness of praise for Jehovah, i.e., to be offered to the Lord as a holy sacrificial gift, in praise and thanksgiving for the blessing which He had bestowed upon the fruit-trees. This offering falls into the category of first-fruits, and was no doubt given up entirely to the Lord for the servants of the altar; although the expression (Jdg 9:27) seems to point to sacrificial meals of the first-fruits, that had already been reaped: and this is the way in which Josephus has explained the command ( Ant. iv. 8, 19). For (Lev 19:25) they were not to eat the fruits till the fifth year, “to add (increase) its produce to you,” viz., by the blessing of God, not by breaking off the fruits that might set in the first years.
Lev 19:26-32 The Israelites were to abstain from all unnatural, idolatrous, and heathenish conduct.
Lev 19:26 “Ye shall not eat upon blood” ( as in Exo 12:8, referring to the basis of the eating), i.e., no flesh of which blood still lay at the foundation, which was not entirely cleansed from blood (cf. 1Sa 14:32). These words were not a mere repetition of the law against eating blood (Lev 17:10), but a strengthening of the law. Not only were they to eat no blood, but no flesh to which any blood adhered. They were also “to practise no kind of incantations.” : from to whisper (see Gen 44:5), or, according to some, a denom. verb from a serpent; literally, to prophesy from observing snakes, then to prophesy from auguries generally, augurari . a denom. verb, not from a cloud, with the signification to prophesy from the motion of the clouds, of which there is not the slightest historical trace in Hebrew; but, as the Rabbins maintain, from an eye, literally, to ogle, then to bewitch with an evil eye.
Lev 19:27 “ Ye shall not round the border of your head: ” i.e., not cut the hair in a circle from one temple to the other, as some of the Arab tribes did, according to Herodotus (3, 8), in honour of their god , whom he identifies with the Dionysos of the Greeks. In Jer 9:25; Jer 25:23; Jer 49:32, the persons who did this are called , round-cropped, from their peculiar tonsure. “ Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard, ” sc., by cutting it off (cf. Lev 21:5), which Pliny reports some of the Arabs to have done, barba abraditur, praeterquam in superiore labro, aliis et haec intonsa , whereas the modern Arabs either wear a short moustache, or shave off the beard altogether (Niebuhr, Arab. p. 68).
Lev 19:28 “ Ye shall not make cuttings on your flesh (body) on account of a soul, i.e., a dead person ( = , Lev 21:11; Num 6:6, or , Deu 14:1; so again in Lev 22:4; Num 5:2; Num 9:6-7, Num 9:10), nor make engraven (or branded) writing upon yourselves.” Two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body. The first refers to passionate outbursts of mourning, common among the excitable nations of the East, particularly in the southern parts, and to the custom of scratching the arms, hands, and face (Deu 14:1), which is said to have prevailed among the Babylonians and Armenians ( Cyrop. iii. 1, 13, iii. 3, 67), the Scythians ( Herod. 4, 71), and even the ancient Romans (cf. M. Geier de Ebraeor. luctu, c. 10), and to be still practised by the Arabs ( Arvieux Beduinen, p. 153), the Persians ( Morier Zweite Reise, p. 189), and the Abyssinians of the present day, and which apparently held its ground among the Israelites notwithstanding the prohibition (cf. Jer 16:6; Jer 41:5; Jer 47:5), – as well as to the custom, which is also forbidden in Lev 21:5 and Deu 14:1, of cutting off the hair of the head and beard (cf. Isa 3:24; Isa 22:12; Micah. Lev 1:16; Amo 8:10; Eze 7:18). It cannot be inferred from the words of Plutarch, quoted by Spencer, , that the heathen associated with this custom the idea of making an expiation to the dead. The prohibition of , scriptio stigmatis , writing corroded or branded (see Ges. thes. pp. 1207-8), i.e., of tattooing, – a custom not only very common among the savage tribes, but still met with in Arabia ( Arvieux Beduinen, p. 155; Burckhardt Beduinen, pp. 40, 41) and in Egypt among both men and women of the lower orders ( Lane, Manners and Customs i. pp. 25, 35, iii. p. 169), – had no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelites a proper reverence for God’s creation.
Lev 19:29 “ Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of vice ” ( zimmah : see Lev 18:17). The reference is not to spiritual whoredom or idolatry (Exo 34:16), but to fleshly whoredom, the word zimmah being only used in this connection. If a father caused his daughter to become a prostitute, immorality would soon become predominant, and the land (the population of the land) fall away to whoredom.
Lev 19:30 The exhortation now returns to the chief point, the observance of the Lord’s Sabbaths and reverence for His sanctuary, which embrace the true method of divine worship as laid down in the ritual commandments. When the Lord’s day is kept holy, and a holy reverence for the Lord’s sanctuary lives in the heart, not only are many sins avoided, but social and domestic life is pervaded by the fear of God and characterized by chasteness and propriety.
Lev 19:31 True fear of God, however, awakens confidence in the Lord and His guidance, and excludes all superstitious and idolatrous ways and methods of discovering the future. This thought prepares the way for the warning against turning to familiar spirits, or seeking after wizards. denotes a departed spirit, who was called up to make disclosures with regard to the future, hence a familiar spirit, spiritum malum qui certis artibus eliciebatur ut evocaret mortuorum manes, qui praedicarent quae ab eis petebantur ( Cler.). This is the meaning in Isa 29:4, as well as here and in Lev 20:6, as is evident from Lev 20:27, “a man or woman in whom is an ob ,” and from 1Sa 28:7-8, baalath ob , “a woman with such a spirit.” The name was then applied to the necromantist himself, by whom the departed were called up (1Sa 28:3; 2Ki 23:24). The word is connected with ob , a skin. , the knowing, so to speak, “clever man” ( Symm. , Aq. ), is only found in connection with ob , and denotes unquestionably a person acquainted with necromancy, or a conjurer who devoted himself to the invocation of spirits. (For further remarks, see as 1Sa 28:7.).
Lev 19:32 This series concludes with the moral precept, “ Before a hoary head thou shalt rise up (sc., with reverence, Job 29:8), and the countenance (the person) of the old man thou shalt honour and fear before thy God.” God is honoured in the old man, and for this reason reverence for age is required. This virtue was cultivated even by the heathen, e.g., the Egyptians ( Herod. 2, 80), the Spartans ( Plutarch), and the ancient Romans ( Gellius, ii. 15). It is still found in the East ( Lane, Sitten und Gebr. ii. p. 121).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. 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. 21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. 23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. 24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal. 25 And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the LORD your God. 26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. 29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Here is, I. A law against mixtures, v. 19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen. i. 25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Eccl. iii. 14. As what God has joined we must not separate, so what he has separated we must not join. The sowing of mingled corn and the wearing of linsey-woolsey garments are forbidden, either as superstitious customs of the heathen or to intimate how careful they should be not to mingle themselves with the heathen nor to weave any of the usages of the Gentiles into God’s ordinances. Ainsworth suggests that it was to lead Israel to the simplicity and sincerity of religion, and to all the parts and doctrines of the law and gospel in their distinct kinds. As faith is necessary, good works are necessary, but to mingle these together in the cause of our justification before God is forbidden, Gal. ii. 16.
II. A law for punishing adultery committed with one that was a bondmaid that was espoused, v. 20-22. If she had not been espoused, the law appointed no punishment at all; being espoused, if she had not been a bondmaid, the punishment had been no less than death: but, being as yet a bondmaid (though before the completing of her espousals she must have been made free), the capital punishment is remitted, and they shall both be scourged; or, as some think, the woman only, and the man was to bring a sacrifice. It was for the honour of marriage, though but begun by betrothing, that the crime should be punished; but it was for the honour of freedom that it should not be punished as the debauching of a free woman was, so great was the difference then made between bond and free (Gal. iv. 30); but the gospel of Christ knows no such distinction, Col. iii. 11.
III. A law concerning fruit-trees, that for the first three years after they were planted, if they should happen to be so forward as to bear in that time, yet no use should be made of the fruit, v. 23-25. It was therefore the practice of the Jews to pluck off the fruit, as soon as they perceived it knit, from their young trees, as gardeners do sometimes, because their early bearing hinders their growing. If any did come to perfection, it was not to be used in the service either of God or man; but what they bore the fourth year was to be holy to the Lord, either given to the priests, or eaten before the Lord with joy, as their second tithe was, and thenceforward it was all their own. Now, 1. Some think this taught them not to follow the custom of the heathen, who, they say, consecrated the very first products of their fruit-trees to their idols, saying that otherwise all the fruits would be blasted. 2. This law in the case of fruit-trees seems to be parallel with that in the case of animals, that no creature should be accepted as an offering till it was past eight days old, nor till that day were children to be circumcised; see ch. xxii. 27. God would have the first-fruits of their trees, but, because for the first three years they were as inconsiderable as a lamb or a calf under eight days old, therefore God would not have them, for it is fit he should have every thing at its best; and yet he would not allow them to be used, because his first-fruits were not as yet offered: they must therefore be accounted as uncircumcised, that is, as an animal under eight days’ old, not fit for any use. 3. We are hereby taught not to be over-hasty in catching at any comfort, but to be willing with patience to wait the time for the enjoyment of it, and particularly to acknowledge ourselves unworthy of the increase of the earth, our right to the fruits of which was forfeited by our first parents eating forbidden fruit, and we are restored to it only by the word of God and prayer, 1 Tim. iv. 5.
IV. A law against the superstitious usages of the heathen, v. 26-28. 1. Eating upon the blood, as the Gentiles did, who gathered the blood of their sacrifices into a vessel for their demons (as they fancied) to drink, and then sat about it, eating the flesh themselves, signifying their communion with devils by their feasting with them. Let not this custom be used, for the blood of God’s sacrifices was to be sprinkled on the altar, and then poured at the foot of it, and conveyed away. 2. Enchantment and divination, and a superstitious observation of the times, some days and hours lucky and others unlucky. Curious arts of this kind, it is likely, had been of late invented by the Egyptian priests, to amuse the people, and support their own credit. The Israelites had seen them practised, but must by no means imitate them. It would be unpardonable in those to whom were committed the oracles of God to ask counsel of the devil, and yet worse in Christians, to whom the Son of God is manifested, who has destroyed the works of the devil. For Christians to have their nativities cast, and their fortunes told them, to use spells and charms for the cure of diseases and the driving away of evil spirits, to be affected with the falling of the salt, a hare crossing the way, cross days, or the like, is an intolerable affront to the Lord Jesus, a support of paganism and idolatry, and a reproach both to themselves and to that worthy name by which they are called: and those must be grossly ignorant, both of the law and the gospel, that ask, “What harm is there in these things?” Is it no harm for those that have fellowship with Christ to have fellowship with devils, or to learn the ways of those that have? Surely we have not so learned Christ. 3. There was a superstition even in trimming themselves used by the heathen, which must not be imitated by the people of God: You shall not round the corners of your heads. Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous. 4. The rites and ceremonies by which they expressed their sorrow at their funerals must not be imitated, v. 28. They must not make cuts or prints in their flesh for the dead; for the heathen did so to pacify the infernal deities they dreamt of, and to render them propitious to their deceased friends. Christ by his sufferings has altered the property of death, and made it a true friend to every true Israelite; and now, as there needs nothing to make death propitious to us (for, if God be so, death is so of course), so we sorrow not as those that have no hope. Those whom the God of Israel had set apart for himself must not receive the image and superscription of these dunghill deities. Lastly, The prostituting of their daughters to uncleanness, which is here forbidden (v. 29), seems to have been practised by the heathen in their idolatrous worships, for with such abominations those unclean spirits which they worshipped were well pleased. And when lewdness obtained as a religious rite, and was committed in their temples, no marvel that the land became full of that wickedness, which, when it entered at the temple-doors, overspread the land like a mighty torrent, and bore down all the fences of virtue and modesty. The devil himself could not have brought such abominations into their lives if he had not first brought them into their worships. And justly were those given up to vile affections who forsook the holy God, and gave divine honours to impure spirits. Those that dishonour God are thus suffered to dishonour themselves and their families.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verse 19:
This text is a prohibition against mixing of those things best kept separate. In this text, it is three-fold:
1. “Cattle” or domestic livestock generally.
2. Seeds sown in the field.
3. Garments.
De 22:10 adds a prohibition against yoking ox and ass together in plowing the field.
These apply to all areas of life: business, domestic, social. The symbolic significance of this may be seen in these passages: 1Co 10:21; 2Co 6:14-16; Jas 3:11, 12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
VARIOUS ORDINANCES 19:1929
TEXT 19:1929
19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.
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; they shall be punished; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
21
And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, unto the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a trespass- offering.
22
And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering before Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned: and the sin which he hath sinned shall be forgiven him.
23
And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as their uncircumcision: three years shall they be as uncircumcised unto you; it shall not be eaten.
24
But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto Jehovah.
25
And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am Jehovah your God.
26
Ye shall not eat anything with blood: neither shall ye use enchantments, nor practise augury.
27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Jehovah.
29
Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 19:1929
432.
Is there some difference between statutes and commandments?
433.
Is there some practical or moral reason for not mixing seed, cattle or cloth?
434.
To commit adultery with a female slave was a sad offense. What was to be done?
435.
What happened to the slave? to the child, i.e. if one were born?
436.
God had some very practical laws concerning horticulture. What were they?
437.
Does Lev. 19:26 speak against present-day horoscopes?, Discuss.
438.
Lev. 19:27 seems to have little present-day meaning. Discuss.
439.
Is it a sin to be tattooed?
PARAPHRASE 19:1929
Obey My laws: do not mate your cattle with a different kind; dont sow your field with two kinds of seed; dont wear clothes made of half wool and half linen, If a man seduces a slave girl who is engaged to be married, they shall be tried in a court but not put to death, because she is not free. The man involved shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord at the entrance of the Tabernacle; the offering shall be a ram. The priest shall make atonement with the ram for the sin the man has committed, and it, shall be forgiven him. When you enter the land and have planted all kinds of fruit trees, do not eat the first three crops, for they are considered ceremonially defiled. And the fourth year the entire crop shall be devoted to the Lord, and shall be given to the Lord in praise to Him. Finally, in the fifth year, the crop is yours. I am Jehovah your God! You must not eat meat with undrained blood; nor use fortune telling or witchcraft. You must not trim off your hair on your temples or clip the edges of your beard, as the heathen do. You shall not cut yourselves nor put tattoo marks upon yourselves in connection with funeral rites; I am the Lord. Do not violate your daughters sanctity by making her a prostitute, lest the land become full of enormous wickedness.
COMMENT 19:1929
Lev. 19:19-29 (1) Prohibition against hybridsLev. 19:19; (2) Sin of a betrothed bondmaidLev. 19:20-22; (3) The first-fruit of the trees in CanaanLev. 19:23-25; (4) Abstention from heathen ritesLev. 19:26-29.
We appreciate Bruce Obersts comment on the companion reference of Deu. 22:9-11 : Note the basic concept of separation which runs throughout these verses. The fact that two kinds of seed might grow quite well together, or that one could plow together quite well with an ox and an ass, or that linen (originating from flax) and wool might make a durable, warm, and nice-looking garment when combined, was nothing to the point! God had said they were not to be mixed! His word was to be respected and honored.
As a separated people, they were to live separated lives (Cf. 1Ki. 8:53, etc.). Such laws as this would also distinguish and identify them as Gods own people, different from all others.
Separation is as much a New Testament doctrine as Oldnot the separation here spoken of, but the separation from the world and its ways that has always characterized Gods true children. It is still very necessary that the child of God distinguish and differentiate in this worldan ability he develops more and more as he matures and grows into the likeness of his Master. Mature Christians should see the difference between light and darkness, sham and sincerity, truth and falsehood.
The unequal yoke of the ox and ass (Lev. 19:10) perhaps were in the very minds eye of the apostle when he exhorted the Corinthian Christians, Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity . . . etc. (see 2Co. 6:14Lev. 7:1).
What a pathetic use of position to use it in seducing a slavemost especially one who is betrothed! This bond woman might be of either one of the intermediate kind, that is, one whose redemption money had been partially paid, or belong to that class who had no prospects of a free discharge. It could be such a female slave was espoused to a Hebrew slaveboth of whom were owned by the master who was guilty of this seduction. When this happens, the woman is also held responsible; she was therefore given 40 stripes.
Punishment by death was the penalty ordinarily inflicted: Cf. Lev. 20:10; Deu. 22:23. However because she was degraded to the condition of private property to only be used to satisfy the lusts of her master, a lesser punishment was permitted. She was exempted from offering the sacrifice. The man must bring a ram for a trespass offering. A slave had no property, therefore no sacrifice was required. The sacrifice being made according to the prescribed ritual (Cf. Lev. 4:20; Lev. 4:26), he was forgiven of his sin.
There are four references in Leviticus where regulations are given in anticipation of entering Canaan: (1) Lev. 14:34the promise of leprosy in their houses; (2) Lev. 19:23the planting of fruit trees in the land; (3) Lev. 23:10the law of the first fruits of the land; (4) Lev. 25:2keeping a sabbath day in the land. In the mind of God. Canaan was already a possession. In the mind of God we are already in our eternal promised land enjoying all the bounties of that place.
The trees of Canaan were: (1) all manner of citrus trees: oranges, lemons, etc.; (2) olive trees; (3) fig trees. In the first three years the trees were to be regarded as uncircumcised i.e. unclean for use as food. Some see a metaphorical use of this word in the cutting or plucking off the buds or early fruit during the first three years. On the fourth year the whole harvest was to be given to the Lord and eaten in joyful worship before Him. The fifth year could be the first year of use for Israel. Such treatment of the trees would yield the highest possible harvest by the fifth year.
Lev. 19:26-29 discuss abstinence from certain heathen rites. Evidently the eating of blood in this instance was associated in some manner with idolatry. There are various possible explanations, but since all of them are conjectural, we will forego reference to them.
The practice of magic or enchantments as used here refers to certain kinds of incantations, according to some to prophecy obtained from observing snakes. The practice of augury is called the observing of days or of times by other translations. Some authorities refer this to taking notice of the seasons and days, and saying this is a good day to begin a journey, tomorrow will be a lucky day to make a purchase.
The reference to haircuts and the care of beards sounds strangely familiar in our day. Of course present day hair trimming and beard care does not have such a direct relation to the deity involvedhuman pride seems to be the god in view today. In the day of Moses the hair was shaved off around the temples and behind the ears, so as to leave the head bald except for a dish-like tuft upon the crown of the head. This, according to those who did it, imparted to the head the form and shape of a hemisphere. This was done by the Arabs, and other worshippers of the god Orotal. The Arabs are ironically called those with the corner of their hair polledas is rightly rendered in the margin. Cf. Jer. 9:26; Jer. 25:23; Jer. 49:32.
The beard was regarded by the Hebrews and other eastern nations as the greatest ornament of a man, and was as dear to them as life itself. It was the object of salutation, Cf. 2Sa. 20:9, and the mutilation of it was looked upon as the greatest disgrace and most degrading punishment. Cf. 2Sa. 10:4; Isa. 7:20; Ezr. 5:1-5. It was only in seasons of sorrow that the Hebrews neglected their beards; and sometimes, to show how deeply they were afflicted, they covered them up, or even cut them off, or tore them out. Cf. 2Sa. 19:24; Isa. 15:2, Jer. 51:5. Because it was so precious a treasure it was customary among some of the ancients to present to their gods the firstlings of their beards. The prohibition in this verse refers to this practice. (Ginsburg)
The worshippers of Baal in the contest of Elijah on Mount Carmel cut themselves with knives and lances until the blood gushed out upon them. Cf. 1Ki. 18:28. This was a custom of many idol worshippers when mourning for the dead as well as when calling upon their god for fire from heaven. The Israelite was to respect his body as the creation of God not to disfigure it. Cf. Lev. 21:6; Deu. 14:1.
The practice of tattooing is as old as the history of nations. Incisions or punctures were made in the skin in the form of words or pictures and some type of ink was impressed upon the incisions. Slaves bore the tattooed name of their masters, soldiers of their captain, and worshippers of their gods. Were the phylacteries which the Hebrews were to bind on the head and hands as a memorial a reaction or accommodation to tattooing? Cf. Exo. 13:9; Exo. 13:16; Deu. 6:8; Deu. 9:18.
Daughters were given to Astarte to serve in her temple as prostitutes. Astarte was the goddess of fertility and prostitution was a part of her worship. The Jews became so degraded that fathers thought it was an honor to thus give their daughters. Here is a plain word from God against such a practice.
FACT QUESTIONS 19:1929
444.
Why not inter-breed cattle as in Lev. 19:19? Arent present day cattle evidence that such is a good practice? Discuss.
445.
Why not stone the adulterers described in Lev. 19:20?
446.
God anticipates the activities in Canaan in four references. What regulations are given?
447.
In the first three years the trees were uncircumcised. In what regard?
448.
Wasnt it selfish of God to refuse the fruit for four years?
449.
Eating of blood here is different than earlier references, i.e. the purpose was different. What was it?
450.
How were magic or incantations used?
451.
The care of hair and beards became very important in the days of Moses. How so? Discuss.
452.
Cutting and tattooing was used for what purpose?
453.
Why would any father consider giving his daughter to prostitution?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(19) Ye shall keep my statutesthat is, the following ordinances, which though not of the same high moral nature as the precepts laid down in the preceding verses, are yet necessary to attain to holiness. The Holy God has made everything after its kind (Gen. 1:11-12; Gen. 1:21; Gen. 1:24-25, &c.), and has thus established a physical distinction in the order of His creation. For man to bring about a union of dissimilar things is to bring about a dissolution of the Divine laws and to act contrary to the ordinances of Him who is holy, and to whose holiness we are to attain.
Cattle gender with a diverse kind.Such commixtures would not only contravene the Divine order of things, but would lessen the abhorrence of the crime prohibited in Lev. 18:22-23. The use, however, of animals produced from such mixtures was not forbidden. Hence we find that mules were largely employed by the Jews (2Sa. 13:29; 2Sa. 18:9; 1Ki. 1:33; 1Ki. 1:38; 1Ki. 10:25; 1Ki. 18:5; Ezr. 2:66, &c.). These hybrids were either the issue of parents voluntarily coming together without the aid of the Israelites, or were imported from other countries. This law is binding upon the Jews to this day in every country where they happen to live, whether in Palestine or out of it.
Not sow thy field with mingled seed.According to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, the prohibition is only applicable to diverse seeds for human food, mixed together for the purpose of sowing them in the same field, as, for instance, wheat and barley, beans and lentils. These an Israelite must neither sow himself nor allow a non-Israelite to do it for him. Seeds of grain and seeds of trees, as well as seeds of different kinds of trees, may be sown together. The opening words of the parable, A certain man had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard (Luk. 13:6), do not contravene this law. Seeds which were not intended for human food, such as of bitter herbs, or of vegetables intended for drugs, were exempted from this law, and like the hybrids of mixed parents, the seeds of herbs sown with diverse kinds were allowed to be used. Unlike the law, however, about the commixture of animals, which, as we have seen, is of universal application, the law about mixed seeds was only applicable to the Holy Land, since the command here is, thou shalt not sow thy field which these authorities maintain means the fields of their inheritance in the promised land. Though trees are not mentioned here, the law was applied to grafting. Hence it was forbidden to graft an apple-tree on a citron-tree, or herbs into trees. The fruit, however, which grew upon the trees of such graftings was allowed to be eaten. The law about the diverse graftings is binding upon the Jews in every country and to all ages.
A garment mingled of linen and woollen.Not only is it forbidden to weave woollen and flaxen threads together into one material to make wearing apparel of it, but according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, an Israelite must not mend a woollen garment with a flaxen thread, and vice vers. One of the reasons which the ancient canonists assign for this prohibition is that wool and linen were appointed for the priests alone. This law is observed by the orthodox Jews to this day. The law laid down in this verse is substantially repeated in Deu. 22:9-11.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Gender with a diverse kind This would forbid the propagation of mules. Those mentioned in 2Sa 13:29; 2Sa 18:9, and in many other passages, were probably imported, as they evidently were in the reign of Solomon. See 1Ki 10:25. They are not mentioned in the New Testament. Such a mixture of species confounds the distinctions made by a wise Creator, and contradicts the fundamental notion of holiness, as that of unmingled purity and wholeness of moral character. It is a symbolical prohibition of improper alliances in religious, civil, and social life.
A garment mingled Hebrew, or rather Coptic, shaatnez, mixtures. The words of woollen and linen are not in the original, but are supplied from Deu 22:11, the only other place where shaatnez is found. It is supposed to signify “carded, spun, and twisted;” and to relate not to fabrics of different materials, which can be distinctly seen, as in the embroidered apparel of the high priest, but to spinning flax and wool with one thread, making linsey woolsey. Spencer conjectures that this mixed garment was forbidden because it was worn by the ancient Tabii, and was associated with their idolatrous ceremonies.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Further Requirements For God’s People.
The Non-mixing of Kinds ( Lev 19:19
We have already had cause to see in Leviticus 11 the principle of the separation of living things, now this is more specifically applied. A blurring of distinctions can be harmful to society. This is illustrated from everyday affairs.
Lev 19:19
“You (p) shall keep my statutes. You (s) shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind. You (s) shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, neither shall there come on you a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.”
“You (p) shall keep my statutes.” This general statement introduces the section that follows and stresses the need for observing the instructions carefully. There is also the reminder here that they must keep no one else’s statutes but His.
“You (s) shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.” No attempt was to be made to breed hybrids. God made animals after their kind, and men should be satisfied to leave them so. There should be no interfering with nature. They could consider, for example, how animals that they could eat which were ‘clean’ were of a specific kind, whole and complete (Leviticus 11). This was how God wanted it to be.
This may have been partly because hybrids are not productive. They do not produce seed. Or it may have been the fear that one ‘confusion’ could lead to another and that before long men could be involving themselves. It was not a dictate against interbreeding of the same species (Gen 30:37-40) but against inter-mixing species. The very fact that such animals cannot breed demonstrates that it is against creation ordinances. It is against nature. They cannot go forth and multiply (Gen 1:22). Once men begin to play with nature dreadful results can follow.
“You (s) shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, neither shall there come on you a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.” The intermingling of seed could result in neither of them achieving their best growth, and could help to exhaust the land by overproduction. The intermingling of cloths could result in the garment losing strength and being more easily torn; in discomfort in wearing them; and even in the discomfort of static electricity.
But the principle to be got over by all these regulations was that God did not favour the blurring of distinctions. Distinct things should be kept separate. His purpose then was that this would pass over into the religious and moral realm, so that again distinctions might not be blurred. No one is better than man at blurring distinctions to his own benefit in order to get his own way. His people therefore had to recognise from daily life that this was not pleasing to God, either in religious practise or in practical living. This comes out once more in the next example.
Lev 19:20-22
Adultery and the Bondwoman ( Lev 19:20-22 ).
Lev 19:20
“And whoever lies carnally with a woman, who is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.”
Adultery between a bondwoman and a free man is not automatically to be punished by death as it would be with a freewoman. That would not be fair on the bondwoman who was possibly not in a position to have any choice in the matter, especially if it was her master who was involved. Rather the courts must investigate the situation and decide on the punishment to be meted out to each depending on the circumstances. If the bondwoman had been redeemed or given her liberty before it happened that would be a different matter. She would have been a freewoman. Then the death penalty would apply.
From this point of view we need to recognise that in those days betrothal was the equivalent of, and as binding as, marriage, and presumably this bondmaid was betrothed to a bondman (otherwise the penalty would have been stronger). Thus the act was one of adultery. Yet she would have had no option but to obey her master if he wanted her, or even to obey his demand that she pleasure a friend. Thus the person involved needed to be aware that he would be liable to be judged for his offence. For being betrothed (presumably with her master’s agreement) she should be seen as untouchable
The very law meant that a master was aware that a bondmaid could lay complaint against him in circumstances like this and make the situation less likely to arise. It provided her with some protection. The death penalty was excluded because having been rejected for the bondmaid it would not be right to punish only one in that way. The bondmaid could in fact benefit more in other ways as now outlined.
Lev 19:21-22
“And he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, to the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned: and the sin which he has sinned shall be forgiven him.”
The man involved must also, on top of any punishment meted out, offer a guilt offering in the form of a ram, a pretty hefty preventitive fine in itself. This was to be offered in the usual way at the door of the tent of meeting. There atonement would be made for him and he would be forgiven. There was probably in this a suggestion to the court that the bondmaid should be compensated if she was innocent, for compensation and guilt offerings regularly went together (Lev 5:16; Lev 6:4). Compensation would be more useful for her than vengeance (who would in future want a vengeful bondmaid?). It is noteworthy that she does not have to offer a guilt offering. It is recognised that she has offended no one.
Overall it should be noted here from a practical point of view that the consequences of having had ‘pressurised’ sexual relations would probably not be so severe for a bondwoman as for a raped freewoman, as her marriage options would probably not have been so much reduced, unless she was a blameworthy participant, because her partner would recognise that she had had no choice. The responsibility was put on the courts to defend her interests, or to blame her as the facts determined, and yet to leave her employable and still acceptable in society. But for the man the minimum punishment he could receive was the high cost of a ram, and any other punishment the court may decide.
While in some ways this might not seem ‘fair’ it actually probably left the bondmaid in the happier position of not having to face up to the resentments of an unfair society, while at the same time possibly being compensated. If the law was too heavy it or demanded too much it would just have been ignored. Good law takes into account the likelihood of it being carried out.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Certainly there is a spiritual meaning in this prohibition of mingling seed, and of wearing a motly garment. The question is what is it? Perhaps, (for I do not take upon me to decide) the mystical intention might be, to show that we cannot wear our own woollen garment of nature, the very best of our own spinning, in a way of justifying righteousness, with the linen garment of JESUS’S righteousness and salvation. LORD, grant that my soul may be found clothed with his robe, which may make me all glorious within. Psa 45:13 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Ver. 19. Ye shall keep my statutes. ] Even these next following, though they may seem to be but minutula legis, not worth keeping.
Thou shalt not let thy cattle.
Neither shall a garment.
a Act. and Mon., fol. 1189.
b The London Ministers’ Testimony, &c., Attested.
c Leo Moden.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
diverse kind. Everything created “after his kind”. See note on Gen 1:11; a deep, moral, and spiritual lesson is contained in this prohibition.
mingled. Another lesson here as to mingling the clean and unclean, human and Divine, flesh and spirit, &c. This law relates only to “seeds” which are used for food and actually eaten. Compare Luk 13:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
thy cattle gender: These practices might have been considered as altering the original constitution of God in creation; and this is the view which the Jews, and also Josephus and Philo, take of the subject. There were, probably, also both moral and political reasons for these prohibitions. With respect to heterogenous mixtures among cattle, it was probably forbidden, to prevent excitements to the abominations condemned in the preceding chapter. As to seeds, in many cases, it would be highly improper to sow different kinds in the same plot of ground. If oats and wheat, for instance, were sown together, the latter would be injured, and the former ruined. This prohibition may therefore be regarded as a prudential agricultural maxim. As to different kinds of garments, the prohibition might be intended against pride and vanity in clothing. Gen 36:24, 2Sa 13:29, 2Sa 18:9, 1Ki 1:33, Ezr 2:66
mingled: Deu 22:9-11, Mat 9:16, Mat 9:17, Rom 11:6, 2Co 6:14-17, Gal 3:9-11
Reciprocal: Deu 22:11 – General Luk 5:36 – agreeth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 19:19. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender This was prohibited, partly to restrain the curiosity and boldness of men, who might attempt to amend or change the works of God; partly that by the restraint here laid, even upon brute creatures, men might be taught to abhor all unnatural lusts; partly to teach the Israelites to avoid mixtures with other nations, either in marriage or in religion, which also may be signified by the following prohibitions.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 19:19-25. Holiness in Farm Life and between the Sexes.Hybrids are forbidden; a rule which, with its curious extensions, is found in Deu 22:9 f.; but contrast 2Sa 13:29, 1Ki 10:25, Eze 27:14; mules were highly valued in Palestine. Perhaps some magical heathen practice is the real object of the prohibition. [Mixtures of wool and cotton played a part in magic, and that probably accounts for the prohibition of two kinds of stuff, which is explained in Deu 22:11 as wool and linen together. In Deu 22:10 the prohibition of hybrids is absent, and in its place ploughing with ox and ass together is forbidden.A. S. P.] The punishment of the seduction of a betrothed slave (Lev 19:20-22) should follow Lev 20:12. In Leviticus 19, no penalties are stated. The woman is not to be put to death, as her master would lose her. With the necessary guilt offering (Lev 5:15), no extra fifth is here mentioned. Newly-planted trees are not to be plucked for three years, possibly because the first-fruits must in any case be given to Yahweh, and these are not good enough for such a gift. The circumcision of a tree is its ceremonial stripping. Not till the fifth year can it be safely used for food. [The point is perhaps that during the first three years it is taboo and must be left alone; it may originally have been left for the field-spirits. Notice that animal firstlings were also not used till they were three years old. The Arabs propitiate the jinn with blood when a piece of land is ploughed for the first time.A. S. P.]
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a {g} diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
(g) As a horse to leap an ass, or a mule a mare.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Statutes and judgments 19:19-37
"This section is introduced with the admonition ’You shall keep my statutes’ (Lev 19:19 a) and concludes with a similar admonition, ’You shall keep all my statutes and all my judgments’ (Lev 19:37 a), and the statement ’I am the LORD’ (Lev 19:37 b). Like the preceding section of laws, it consists of a list of twenty-one (3×7) laws. These laws also are broken up into smaller units by a sevenfold repetition of the phrase ’I am the LORD (your God)’ (Lev 19:25; Lev 19:28; Lev 19:30-32; Lev 19:34; Lev 19:36)." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 351.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The opening words of this section indicate a change of subject. God called on His people to honor the order of nature by not mixing things that God had separated in creation (Lev 19:19).
"Most of the ancient Near Easterners believed that all things that came into being were born into being. This was a major tenet of their belief system. They believed that not only animals were born, but also plants. (This is the reason that they ’sowed their field with two kind of seed,’ i.e., male and female seed as they thought of it; see Lev 19:19.)" [Note: Douglas Stuart, Ezekiel, p. 181.]
God probably intended these practices to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites too. [Note: See Calum Carmichael, "Forbidden Mixtures," Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (September 1982):394-415.]
"As God separated Israel from among the nations to be his own possession, so they must maintain their holy identity by not intermarrying with the nations (Deu 7:3-6)." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., pp. 269-70.]
Yahweh upheld the rights of slaves (Lev 19:20-22). A man was not to mix with a female slave engaged to another man by having sexual intercourse with her. The Israelites considered engaged people virtually married.
By allowing three years to pass before someone ate the fruit on a tree, the tree could establish itself and be more productive in the long run (Lev 19:23-25).
God’s people were to avoid pagan practices that characterized the Canaanites (Lev 19:26-32). These included eating blood (Lev 19:26), cutting their hair in the style of the pagan priests (Lev 19:27), and disfiguring their bodies that God had created (Lev 19:28). They were not to disfigure the divine likeness in them by scarring their bodies. These foreign practices also included devoting one’s daughter to prostitution (Lev 19:29), seeking knowledge of the future from a medium (Lev 19:31), and failing to honor the aged (Lev 19:32).
". . . there are indications of ancestor worship in Old Testament times but there was no ancestor worship in Israel." [Note: Andrew Chiu, "Is There Ancestor Worship in the Old Testament?" Evangelical Review of Theology 8:2 (October 1984):221.]
That is, God did not permit it, though the Israelites may have practiced it to a limited extent as a result of pagan influence.
Lev 19:30 prohibits seeking special knowledge either from the dead in general or from dead relatives (familiar spirits, spirits with whom the one praying had previous personal acquaintance).