(The following is my term paper for Genesis-Deuteronomy at Reformed Theological Seminary, submitted Spring 2021. Formatting not retained.)
Leviticus 19:19 is a passage that, although often misunderstood in our modern context, remains beneficial for Christians in understanding the importance of holiness in the Old Testament and provides an essential contrast for understanding holiness in the New Testament. Although there are several cultural and historical difficulties with these three laws (often grouped together as “mixture laws”), their spiritual and symbolic significance is straightforward and instructive for understanding the context of the many laws in the Old Testament and how Christ, through his work of redemption, changes our understanding of holiness through the Gospel.
Translation and Textual Notes
Leviticus 19:19, in the Hebrew[1], reads as follows:
אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹרוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֨יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ[2]
Literally translated, the verse reads, “My statutes you shall keep. Your animals shall not lie with two kinds. Your fields you shall not sow seed with two kinds, and a garment of two kinds of mixed cloth shall not ascend upon you.” The ESV renders the verse “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material”, and several other translations render the verse similarly. Despite the straightforwardness of these laws, there are several interesting textual notes to be made regarding this text, some of which will be commented upon further in other sections of this paper.
Accents
With respect to the accents of Leviticus 19:19, the verse is very straightforward. The Athnak occurs on the second of three instances of כִּלְאָ֑יִם , specifically for the second commandment related to sow mixtures of seeds. In this division, the Atnakh divides the verse in half by grouping the first two commandments (animals and seeds) together while keeping the third commandment (clothing) separate as it’s own division. Beyond this, the text is further divided by a Segoletta in Atnakh A, Zaqef Qaton in Atnakh B, and several other further subdivisions that yield little additional insight into the text.
Grammatical and Lexical Features
This verse is unique in that each of it’s three clauses demonstrate a phenomenon known as “fronting”, or a construction “used to signal that an entity or attribute of an entity is the focus of an utterance[3].” All four direct objects in this verse stand out first in this verse,[4] and by breaking away from the standard verb-subject-object order of Hebrew grammar, Moses is emphasizing the objects of the mixture prohibitions in a sense that would be lost in the normal VSO order of the grammar. It is not simply that these three things (animals, seed, clothing) that must not be mixed, but that there is something significant about these three things and why they shouldn’t be mixed.
Additionally, there are two very rare Hebrew words that only occur in this verse and the parallel verses in Deuteronomy: “כִּלְאָ֑יִם” , “two kinds”,[5] and שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז, a word with debated etymological origins (often claimed to be Egyptian) but understood as “mixed fabric”[6]. “כִּלְאָ֑יִם” is unique in that, apart from only occurring here and the parallel Deuteronomy passage, the form of the word is inherently dual, quite literally specifying “two” through the inflection of the word. שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז is a much more complicated word, one whose meaning is largely illuminated through context of both sets of mixture laws, specifically in Deuteronomy, which specifically names the two fabrics as “wool and linen” (Deut 22:11). The significance of this word will be discussed later in the paper, but for now it must be noted that this verse contains not one, but two, unique Hebrew words that only appear in the context of this law.
Leviticus 19:19 in the Pentateuch
As with many laws in the Pentateuch, the mixture prohibitions of Leviticus 19:19 do not appear once or in a contextual vacuum. The mixture prohibitions of Leviticus 19:19 appear again in Deuteronomy 22, where they are expanded upon in ways that both clarify and confuse the original meaning of the laws in Leviticus. This section will examine Leviticus 19:19 in relation to Leviticus 19, it’s parallel passage in Deuteronomy 22, and the textual differences between both occurrences.
Leviticus 19
In the context of Leviticus 19, verse 19 sticks out like a sore thumb. It interrupts and disrupts many attempts to find a chiasm in this chapter, and does not fit neatly into many attempts to reconstruct Leviticus 19 according to the Decalogue[7]. Although it is generally agreed upon that the primary emphasis of Leviticus 19 is the holiness of the people of God, there is no shortage of discussion as to how verse 19 specifically fits into this topic and to Leviticus 19 as a whole.
Although most commentators read verse 19, specifically the prelude charge “You shall keep my statutes”, as signaling the beginning of a new topical division within the text, there is no uniform agreement as to which division this verse belongs to. The Word Biblical Commentary[8] lists verse 19 as beginning a second section of laws (with a later third section to follow), while the Anchor Bible Commentary[9] and the New International Commentary on the Old Testament[10] list verse 19 as beginning a third section of laws, both named “miscellaneous laws”. In the NASB and NIV, verse 19 is listed under subheadings for various laws, while the HCSB (and to a lesser extent, the ESV) list verse 19 as belonging to laws explicitly about holiness. While the divisions of the text often lend shading to one’s interpretation of the verse and its implications, nearly all commentators recognize that this verse speaks to God’s concern for the holiness of his people, which includes, to some degree or another, differentiating the people of Israel from the people of the nations.[11]
Deuteronomy 22:9-11
Deuteronomy 22:9-11 reads as, ““You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole yield be forfeited, the crop that you have sown and the yield of the vineyard. 10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.” Already it is apparent how Deuteronomy expands and clarifies Leviticus 19:19 in several key ways, but simultaneously raises additional questions about the mixture prohibitions as well.
Both sections include the same three prohibitions for seed, animals, and mixtures; however, Deuteronomy reverses the ordering of the first two prohibitions. In Deuteronomy, the seed prohibition specifically includes references to “vineyards” and specifies that failure to keep this law will result in the forfeiture of the yield of the crop. The animal prohibition seemingly shifts the focus of the prohibition from breeding in Leviticus (based on the Hiphil of רבע, “to lie down”) to plowing (Qal Imperfect 2ms of חרשׁ, “to plow”), and specifically mentions ox and donkey over the generic term בהמה, “animals”, in Leviticus. The clothing prohibition, while still using the same word שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז, immediately clarifies the term by including צֶ֥מֶר, “wool”, and פֵּ֫שֶׁת, “linen”, as being the two kinds of material prohibition from blending. Given the specificity of the two kinds in both the animal and clothing prohibitions, the term כִּלְאָ֑יִם appears only for the seed mixture, which remains unspecified.
Leviticus 19:19 to Old Testament Jews
There is no shortage of discussion as to what these mixture prohibitions, both in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, would have meant to the people of God in the wilderness. Because there is no explicit rationale given in the text, commentators are left to attempt to reconstruct, from various other contexts or themes, what the significance of these laws were to the original audience. In this section, we will examine a possible interpretation for the significance of “mixtures” and how the three prohibitions individually reinforce the importance of these prohibitions.
Mixtures and Sacred Space
In Leviticus, there is a direct correlation between holiness and space, with gradations of holiness that all of Israel, including the priests, was required to respect. At the center of the Israelite camp was the Holy of Holies, the most sacred space of the camp, and with each division of the Tabernacle the spaces became more “common”, with the least holy/most common space being outside the camp.[12] The Holy of Holies is the most sacred space given the fact that only the chief priest could enter it once annually, but it also the most sacred space because, as demonstrated by the tablets of God’s law and the Ark, the Holy of Holies is itself a mixture between heaven (where God dwells) and the earth (where the Ark serves as his footstool).
Each of these three prohibitions seek to safeguard realities that exist within the Holy of Holies and are not to extend into less sacred spaces; mixtures belong first and foremost to God, who then extends it to his priests.[13] Within the Holy of Holies were the Cherubim, who were themselves beings of mixed kinds;[14] when the chief priest entered the Holy of Holies, he himself wore an ephod, breastplate, and belt of linen and wool (Exod 28:6, 15; 39:29);[15] only priests were permitted to administer over sacred spaces, hence the forfeiture of vineyards with mixed seed.[16] As Jacob Milgrom concludes in the Anchor Bible commentary,
“The most plausible explanation, in my estimation, is that mixtures belong to the sacred space, namely, the sanctuary, as do its officiants, the priests. . . . The laity, however, dare not cross it’s boundary. . . . It is but a warning to the Israelite that his holiness is not achieved be penetrating into the sacred realm, but by practicing the proper ritual and ethical behavior as specified in this chapter.”[17]
Although the primary emphasis of these laws were to reinforce the significance of sacred spaces and the importance of not combining what is God’s to combine, there are other practical and symbolic considerations revealed in each of the three prohibitions.
Animals
Commentators have struggled to reconcile the shift in focus between Leviticus and Deuteronomy with respect to the animal prohibition. While Leviticus reads as a general prohibition of cross-breeding animals, Deuteronomy is specifically referring to oxen and donkeys and plowing together with them, not cross-breeding them, and Leviticus’ straightforward emphasis on “with two kinds” is lost. Do these two passages contradict each other in what they command?
The Anchor Bible commentary posits that the discrepancies between Leviticus and Deuteronomy are proof of the existence of two sources within source criticism (D, for Deuteronomy, and H, for Holiness). Although they correctly note that the repetition of this law in Deuteronomy is to provide commentary on the law in Leviticus, this commentary is seen in terms of competition rather than harmony. For example, commenting on the changes between the two books’ on breeding different animal species, Milgrom notes that,
“D changes breeding different animal species (H) to plowing with them. Fishbane…conjectures that D intends a double entendre, since ‘plowing’ is a common New Eastern euphemism for sexual intercourse… However, this does not explain why D changed H’s law instead of just supplementing it. Clearly, D must have opposed H on this matter.”[18]
Milgrom concludes that, given the presence of mules (the offspring of donkeys and horses) are referenced later on in Scripture and that Scripture does not speak disparagingly against mules, that some animals must be exempted from this prohibition, and Milgrom offers evidence suggesting a Jewish interpretation of this command as applying to only clean animals, opening the door for unclean animals to be bred[19].
Conservative commentators are less inclined to understand how these discrepancies came to be and instead emphasize the commonality between the two sets of laws. Although the verb used between two sets of laws is different, the focus on “two kinds” remains present, even if Deuteronomy names those two kinds and Leviticus speaks generally. Deuteronomy’s commentary is a practical illustration of why the Israelites ought not mix what God has kept separate: “An ox and ass, being of different species and of very different characters, cannot associate comfortably, nor unite cheerfully in drawing a plough or a wagon. The ass being much smaller and his step shorter, there would be an unequal and irregular draft.”[20]Some have suggested that Deuteronomy’s version of the law includes a display of God’s care and concern towards animals, specifically that weaker animals are not worn out and oppressed by stronger animals, to which Israel would demonstrate by not oppress the nations that surround them despite being of a different “kind” as oxen and donkeys are of different “kinds”.[21]
This prohibition is also meant to reinforce the significance of the cherubim within the Holy of Holies, where God himself created a mixture of two kinds and only the chief priest would behold. Animal-human hybrids were very common in the pantheons of the pagan nations, and “the cherubim remind us that in ancient Near Eastern art and literature, mixed beings, including composite guardian creatures, belong to the supernatural realm of the gods[22].” By prohibiting mixtures outside of the Holy of Holies, the Lord was demonstrating that mixtures are something the Lord takes seriously and the Israelites are not free to pursue at their own will. Thus, to the Israelites, these sets of law are quite harmonious with each other: God has created all things according to “kinds”, and those “kinds” include unique differences with both practical and symbolic consequences, such as the difficulty of the donkey plowing a field with an ox, the incompatibility of Israel with their surrounding neighbors, and the Lord’s authority and claim over mixtures as belonging to his holy space. These distinctions must be preserved, and “to accept this order of creation is to honour God.”[23]
Seeds
Of the three prohibitions, the seed prohibition is perhaps the least puzzling. Different species of seed have different water and soil needs, and will compete with other species of seed seeking to share a space, and thus the restriction of sowing seed according to their kind is a wise agricultural guideline. The principle of “kinds” from the animal probation fits here quite nicely, as does the symbolism of Israel keeping itself separate from other nations and not sowing the vineyards of Israel with the beliefs, practices, and customs of other nations.
There is speculation that mixing different types of seed together was a superstitious practice among pagan nations[24], but there is little evidence as to what these practices were and where they originated from. Furthermore, if the practice itself were inherently superstitious, it would be odd that Deuteronomy specify the forfeiture of the land to Israel’s priests, who themselves would be in grave sin for receiving something of pagan practice. The basis of this forfeiture is based on the questionable English translation of the phrase פֶּן־תִּקְדַּ֗שׁ הַֽמְלֵאָ֤ה הַזֶּ֨רַע֙ in Deuteronomy 22:9, which literally reads “lest the full seed become holy”. If it becomes holy, it goes to the priests by necessity, and is thus “forfeited”.[25] The priests administer sacred spaces, and if a field becomes sacred through the mixture of seeds, the priests are required to oversee it – the laity of Israel is not permitted to steward that which belongs to the priestly class.
Clothing
The clothing prohibition is a favorite among those who wish to accuse Christians of cherry-picking which OT laws to obey and which ones to ignore, often with the “gotcha” question of asking what materials are listed on one’s shirt tag. However, as it has been demonstrated thus far, this law is not immediately focused with wearing clothing of mixed fabric and, as the Deuteronomy parallel specifies, the mixture prohibition is specifically that of wool and linen – given that the Lord explicitly commanded the priest’s garments (and other materials in the tabernacle) to be made of wool and linen, this prohibition must have a specific scope and focus.
Although the Deuteronomy passage specifies wool and linen as the two fabrics prohibited from being blended, there are clues in the word שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז that suggest that Deuteronomy’s clarification of Leviticus 19:19 is redundant. Benjamin Noonan posits that the word שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז is actually a portmanteau of the Semitic words for “ewe” (שַׁאַת) and “goat” (עִנְז), and the resulting word שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז would “denote a mixture of two substances produced by two different animals, namely, sheep and goat wool. It was subsequently generalized in meaning to cover all mixed fabrics.”[26] If Noonan is correct, this explanation would harmonize strongly with the emphasis on “two kinds”, both with the clothing prohibition and especially the animal prohibition. If שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז has it’s origins in referring to sheep and goat wool, then the identity of the mixture prohibited is not the end product, but in the source – though both are technically “wool”, they are sourced from two different kinds, and are thus prohibited.
With respect to the clothing prohibition, the emphasis on “kinds” extends quite well into the holiness dimension discussed earlier. The priestly class, while subject to the same law as the rest of the Israelites, was nonetheless a special “kind” within the nation of Israel, performing unique duties with unique responsibilities that could not be fulfilled by simply anyone. This is reflected in the garments worn by the priests: normal priests wore belts with the blend (Exod 39:29), while everything the high priest wore contained the blend (Exod 28:6, 15; 39:29). Later in the nation’s history, the Lord will prescribe a single blue wool thread to be sown into the linen garments of the laity, which will be the backdrop of Korah’s claim that “all in the congregation are holy” (Num 16:3) and subsequent rebellion. As there are gradations of holiness in the camp, so there are graduations in which mixtures are acceptable and appropriate. Mixtures belong to sacred spaces, and the priests wear clothing appropriate of signifying the corresponding gradients of holiness embodied in the Tabernacle and it’s divisions.
Leviticus 19:19 to New Testament Christians
The mixture prohibitions were explicitly tied to a Levitical understanding of “holiness” as it pertained to the tabernacle and it’s gradations of sacredness. Although there were tangible reasons for some of the prohibitions, their importance was to prevent the Israelites from attempting to attain holiness by circumventing God’s design in the Tabernacle. Given this explicit context for these prohibitions, it is important to understand how New Testament Christians ought to think of these laws and what they have to say about our holiness as a result of Christ’s work of redemption.
Immediately, there are many aspects and dimensions of these commandments that are no longer applicable to Christians today. With respect to the seed prohibition, there is no longer a priestly class to forfeit mixed vineyards to, nor a geographical allotment within the nation of Israel for this priestly class – while there may still be general wisdom related to agricultural practices, this prohibition is no longer enforceable. With respect to the clothing prohibition, there is no longer a tabernacle to establish gradations in holiness, nor a priestly class to demonstrate their work in these sacred spaces, and this prohibition is no longer enforceable. With respect to the animal prohibition, although there are no longer physical cherubim displayed in the most consecrated space among the people of God, there is still a need to recognize the often spiritual nature of animal/human hybrids, both with respect to modern pagan practices as well as the spiritual darkness of those who experience body dysmorphia and are convinced they are animal-human hybrids. Ultimately, the majority of the implications from these laws are lost to us today, due to a loss of context and their general inability to be enforced in any meaningful sense.
The New Testament does echo one significant feature of these laws: the symbolism of not mixing Christianity with non-Christian beliefs or practices. Although holiness is no longer defined in terms of space, nor the priesthood confined to a certain portion of believers, the people of God in the New Testament are to live as the people of God in the Old Testament – in the world, but not of the world. As a royal priesthood, our lives are to demonstrate “our devotion to Christ and his moral expectations. As kingdom citizens we are commissioned to live holy lives, conducting ourselves in conformity with God’s moral standard.”[27] The mixture prohibitions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are likely in the background of Paul’s prohibition of “do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers” in 2 Corinthians 6:14, almost certainly an allusion to the impracticality of plowing a field with an ox and donkey together. The mixture prohibitions are likely in the background of many of Christ’s teachings as well, such as “you cannot serve God and money” (Matt 6:24), and to beware the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees from being mixed among the disciples (Mark 8:15, recapitulated in 1 For 5:17 and Gal 5:9). Just as the nation of Israel was not to mix it’s practices with that of neighboring pagan nations, the New Testament church is not to mix it’s practices with that of sin, bearing the fruit of the Spirit exclusively from the vineyards of our lives and not mixtures of the Spirit and sin.
Although the Levitical model of holiness is no longer applicable to us today, it remains a helpful contrast for understanding our holiness in Christ. As a result of his work of redemption, there is no longer a veil that separates us from God as it was in the tabernacle; the Spirit himself dwells in the hearts of believers, and not externally in an exclusive geographical space. This is possible because our holiness is now imputed to us through Christ’s holiness; his perfect record and reward of obedience are now ours as well. Unlike Korah, who foolishly claimed all of Israel was holy because of a single thread of blue wool, Christ has made us “holy, blameless, and above reproach” (Col 1:22) because he himself is holy. As the church goes, so does the Spirit indwelling in believers, and as Christ came and “tabernacled” among us (John 1:14), so now the tabernacle and temple of the Lord extends into creation as the church fulfills the great commission. Finally, as our great high priest, Christ himself intercedes on our behalf before the Father, who we now have access into the true Holy of Holies through the representation of our mediator. The types and shadows of the Levitical model of holiness – and the mixture laws – are there contrast for the abundant riches that have been lavished on us in Jesus Christ, who is worthy of our exclusive and singular devotion.
Conclusion
The mixture laws are often misunderstood today, but they are significant for helping us understand the nature of holiness in the Old Testament and serve as a helpful contrast to understanding holiness in the New Testament. The Levitical understanding of holiness is governed by gradations of space, and mixtures belonged only to those sacred spaces; thus, mixtures outside the tabernacle were prohibited. Although there are secondary practical and symbolic applications to these laws for the original audience, many of these applications are echoed in the New Testament, the primary application being that Christians are not to be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers and to exclusively bear the fruit of the Spirit in our devotion to Christ. Although puzzling to modern audiences, these laws remain instructive for Christians today and ought to be a source of gratitude and thankfulness to Christ, our mediator and great high priest who has made Christians all throughout the world holy in his work of redemption.
Bibliography
- Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. Logos Bible Software, 2006.
- Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
- Hartley, John E. Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992.
- Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
- Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
- Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
- Mathews, Kenneth A. Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.
- Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000.
- Noonan, Benjamin J. “Unraveling Hebrew שַׁעַטְנֵז.” Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 1 (2016): 95–101. doi:10.15699/jbl.1351.2016.3028.
- The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.
- Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Second Edition. London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017.
- Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
- Wünch, Hans-Georg. “Does God Care about the Oxen?: Some Thoughts on the Protection of Animals in the Law Texts of the OT from a Canonical Perspective.” Old Testament Essays 33, no. 3 (2020): 538–55. https://search-ebscohost-com.rts.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiE8N210130000996&site=ehost-live.
[1] Prior to this paper, I completed Hebrew I, II, and Exegesis through RTS Global.
[2] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. (Logos Bible Software, 2006), Le 19:19.
[3] Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, Second Edition. (London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017), 499.
[4] Hartley, John E. Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992.
[5] Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
[6] Noonan, Benjamin J. “Unraveling Hebrew שַׁעַטְנֵז.” Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 1 (2016): 95–101. doi:10.15699/jbl.1351.2016.3028.
[7] see Table 1 of Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. pg. 1600.
[8] Hartley, John E. Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1992. 307-308.
[9] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. 1596-7.
[10] Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979. 263-4.
[11] Mathews, Kenneth A. Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.
[12] Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 345.
[13] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1658.
[14] Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 338.
[15] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1660.
[16] Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 338.
[17] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1660.
[18] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1658.
[19] Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1659.
[20] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 135.
[21] Wünch, Hans-Georg. “Does God Care about the Oxen?: Some Thoughts on the Protection of Animals in the Law Texts of the OT from a Canonical Perspective.” Old Testament Essays 33, no. 3 (2020): 538–55.
[22] Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 338.
[23] Wünch, Hans-Georg. “Does God Care about the Oxen?: Some Thoughts on the Protection of Animals in the Law Texts of the OT from a Canonical Perspective.” Old Testament Essays 33, no. 3 (2020): 538–55.
[24] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 264.
[25] Gane, Roy E. Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 338.
[26] Noonan, Benjamin J. “Unraveling Hebrew שַׁעַטְנֵז.” Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 1 (2016): 95–101. doi:10.15699/jbl.1351.2016.3028.
[27] Mathews, Kenneth A. Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.
That Gravley Guy 