In our short series on the holiness laws of Leviticus 18-20, we noted that the laws of chapter 19 were all undergirded by two broad principles. First, God loves to be revered. Second, God loves for His people to love their neighbor. Though we were moving at a good clip, we were unable to look at every section in chapter 19, so this post will cover the last two.
These two ended up being the last two, not because they come at the end, but because we covered the laws of the section thematically, and these two are difficult to group together with other laws in the section. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t belong. They offer great opportunities to stretch ourselves as interpreters and thinkers. I encourage you to take a little time with each before reading my thoughts.
Leviticus 19:20-22 is widely regarded as a peculiar passage…
20 “If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;
21 but he shall bring his compensation to the Lord, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.
22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he has committed.
The situation is one of a free man who has sexual relations with a slave woman while she is betrothed to another man. Typically, sexual relations with a betrothed woman was tantamount to adultery, which would require the death penalty for both the man and the woman (Lev 20:10). However, in this case, there is no death penalty for the man or the woman because she was not free (v20). The woman is not culpable at all due to her vulnerable position in society; the free man, though he is not liable to death, is culpable monetarily for the wrong done to the woman’s future husband.
While no explicit mention of compensation is made in the text, compensation is implied by the very mention of a guilt offering, or as we called it, the restitution offering (see Lev 5:14-6:7). Just as the man brings his guilt/restitution offering for his forgiveness before God, he would be required to make restitution to the man he wronged as well, likely repaying the bride-price plus one-fifth.
Why would this law be in this section? What does this have to do with revering God or loving neighbor?
It may be tempting broad-brush the section and say, “God loves for us to be forgiving of sexual sin.” Certainly, He does, but that can’t be the point here since He levies the death penalty for a host of sexual sins in the next chapter!
A better approach would be to say that God loves for us to be wise and careful in our application of justice. This was not a straightforward case of adultery. There were factors calling for a different resolution. Not every situation is the same. Some situations have mitigating factors that call for wisdom and discretion. This is a major reason we should know the Word of God very well, so that in any given situation our thoughts are not governed by a single passage, but by the whole counsel of God.
The second section—Leviticus 19:23-25—may also seem a bit out of place…
23 “When you come into the land and plant any kind of tree for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten.
24 And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord.
25 But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the Lord your God.
This seems like a simple requirement that the people give God their first fruits. For three years, they forego eating the fruit of planted trees. The fruit of the fourth year is dedicated as an offering to Yahweh. The fruit of the fifth year is fair game. The whole thing is designed to increase the yield for the people, perhaps both by allowing the trees to mature and by showing gratitude to the Yahweh for his provision.
At the same time, this law could be considered a living parable of this whole section of laws (chs18-20) requiring the people to live holy lives in the land of promise. The people were to regard the fruit as forbidden for three years, meaning that it could not be eaten. “Forbidden” is more literally translated “uncircumcised.” There is a good reason to choose that word over the many other words that could have been used to describe the fruit as off-limits. “Uncircumcised” evokes the idea of being outside of the covenant. For the Israelites, all people were either circumcised—inside the covenant—or uncircumcised—outside the covenant. Leviticus chapters 18-20 is all about reflecting covenant faithfulness through lifestyle. A major emphasis has been refusing the practices of the nations of Canaan. Refusing the fruit perhaps pictured putting off the customs of the Canaanites.
In the fourth year, the fruit was still off-limits, but for the opposite reason: it was holy. That is, there was a transformation of the fruit from uncircumcision to holiness. Chapter 19 in particular called the people to be holy as Yahweh is holy. The section as a whole called for rejecting the ways of the Canaanites and adopting the ways of Yahweh. This is perhaps pictured by the first fours years of every planted tree.
The fifth year was a year of enjoying the fruit in freedom. Leviticus 26:3-13 details the blessings that will come if the people walk in God’s ways in the land. The first blessing mentioned there is, “then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit” (Lev 26:4).
So these verses, too, seem peculiar on the surface, but they actually call the people to act out the whole section. God loves for His people to be set apart in all their ways, and He loves to bless them in the set-apartness!
We’ve noted before, that we are not under the law of Moses. However, these portions of Scripture give us a glimpse at the heart of God, which is unchanged over time. God loves wisdom in justice and for His people to be set apart…where in the New Testament do we find similar ideas expressed?
Comments