Leviticus 19:20-25 – Can You Redeem What God Has Cursed?

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church, Manhattan, KS, 13 Nov. 2016

Introduction

v Today we get to meditate on what to do when things go wrong with a slave and then cover how to circumcise a fruit tree!? I bet you’ve all been wondering about those things all your life! No?

v They seem so disconnected from our culture and life and so irrelevant to the topic of holiness that it started out as a real puzzle to me, but the more I have considered it, the more I have been impressed that this does indeed have to do with personal holiness – that is, with conforming ourselves to the character of God Himself, and that there is at least one Godly virtue in common between these two odd laws, and that is the virtue of being a redeemer.

1. In verse 20, we read of a slave who, I think, is a pagan foreigner being redeemed,

2. In verses 21-22, we read of a sinner being redeemed through the guilt offering,

3. And in verses 23-25, we see trees growing out of a cursed ground in a cursed land nevertheless being redeemed for the worship of God and the nourishment of His people.

v As we see the redemptive nature of our God played out in these scenarios, I want you to consider, first of all, have you been redeemed from alienation from God, and secondly, does this divine character trait of being a redeemer characterize you?

A) Can You Redeem A Foreigner or A Fornicator? (vs. 20-22)

20 Now, if a man lays down lying-down seed with a woman, and she is a servant engaged to a man, yet she is not fully redeemed and freedom has not been granted to her, there must be a trial [for him]. (They shall not be put to death because she had not been freed.) 21 Then he shall bring his guilt-offering – the ram of the guilt-offering – to Yahweh, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, 22 and the priest will make atonement over him with the ram of the guilt-offering before the face of Yahweh for his sin which he sinned, and the sin which he sinned will be pardoned for him.

v The Hebrew word in v.20 translated “betrothed/acquired/promised/engaged” is unusual, because it is translated “reviled/reproached” in the other 40 places it occurs in the Old Testament (except one in Isaiah which is translated “winter”). The literal meaning is to “strip bare.” So, right away it must be admitted that there is some uncertainty as to exactly what the status of this particular kind of woman is. Whatever it is, it is not a presteigous status.

Ø R. J. Rushdoony, in his Institutes of Biblical Law interprets the phrase “bondmaid betrothed to a husband” as “a girl who has been secured as a concubine.” According to this interpretation (which was also that of John Calvin), this verse is describing a woman already relating to a husband as a secondary wife who then commits adultery with another man. According to this interpretation, this illegitimate affair was not on the same level as adultery because she wasn’t a full-fledged wife; therefore she and the adulterous man should not be put to death as adulterers but merely be beaten with whips and allowed to go on with life.

§ I have problems with this interpretation, not only because concubines were uncommon among God’s people because God clearly taught that marriage was intended to be between one man and one woman, but it also seems to accept an unbiblical social construct that some marriages are more real marriages than others. I think that’s rubbish. She either is or she isn’t his wife, and it either is or it isn’t adultery, and adultery should be punished equally.

Ø Another interpretation is that the woman is a slave^{^[1]}, and not a wife at all. Hagar, Bilhah, Zilpah, and Ruth were called by this same word which seems to be used of married as well as unmarried female servants. But as a servant, it is thought that she would not have the social standing to resist the advances of a free man^{^[2]}, so if such a man forces himself upon her, she has not sinned but he has, and therefore it should not be assumed that she sinned and should be put to death, rather, she should go free, and he should be punished.

§ Although this is a little better, I think it still has some problems because I think it does not match well the meaning of the Hebrew word used here to describe the woman, and because it promotes an unbiblical concept that slaves are of a different class of human beings than free people and subject to a different morality^{^[3]}.

Ø The Greek Septuagint translation which predates the oldest-known Hebrew manuscript by a thousand years seems to support the idea of this woman being a “captive,” with its translation διαπεφυλαγμένη (from fulake) which could be literally interpreted to “imprison indoors.”

§ Although the words are not exactly the same, I think that the situation of Leviticus 19:20 bests fits the situation of Deuteronomy 21:10-14, referring to a foreign woman^{^[4]} taken captive in war. See if you think it matches:

§ Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.” (NKJV)

§ So, a Hebrew soldier is on a war campaign and notices a vulnerable foreign woman whose family has been killed. He says, “Hey why don’t I marry that gal; I think she’s pretty, and she needs someone to take care of her now.” So he follows God’s law and brings her into his home for a month, during which she takes off the clothes of her captivity and mourns for her parents who were killed in the war, and he gets some idea of whether they could stand to live together for the rest of their lives, but he can’t treat her like a wife yet.

§ At the end of the month, if all goes well, the soldier can marry his captive bride. If, however, during that month, he changes his mind and decides it would be a bad idea to marry this woman after all, then he must release her, and then she would be at liberty to marry another man.

§ But what if another man were to see this beautiful, unattached woman in the first soldier’s house and intervene before redemption month is completed, what then?

§ Do you see how that could fit the situation laid out in v.20. She has not been “all” redeemed yet (the NIV and ESV omit a word that indicates the completeness of the ransom^{^[5]}) so the month isn’t up yet and she can’t marry the soldier that captured her, and also, since the soldier who captured her has not decided to let her go either, she has not been given “freedom.”

§ If this is the case, she hasn’t actually been married yet, so this man’s intrusion is a form of fornication. A marriage covenant has not been directly violated, instead, a new marriage has been inappropriately entered into.

§ This would explain to me why nobody would be put to death, as would have been the case if the woman had been actually married (Lev. 20:10) or betrothed (Deut. 22:23).

Ø Commentators are all over the map, so you don’t have to agree with me on this woman’s situation, but

v At any rate, there must be a trial and, if appropriate, a punishment (perhaps a “scourging,” as the KJV says, following the Vulgate, but not just of the woman, as they mistakenly translate it^{^[6]}. The word “scourging/punishment/trial” is feminine, so the feminine verb “to be” refers to the trial and punishment coming to be, not to the woman being punished as though it were all her fault^{^[7]}).

Ø The Hebrew word for this “trial/punishment” is biqoret. As a noun, it occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but in all seven occurrences of its associated verb form it refers to a judicial process overseen by a priest – or by God Himself.

Ø I think that the American Jewish Version (“inquisition”), the ESV (“distinction”) and the Septuagint (ἐπισκοπὴ – indicating that someone with authority will “look in” to the case) go in better directions than the KJV^{^[8]}, NAS and NIV, here, although certainly a punishment would be the outcome of a trial if the imposter were found guilty.^{^[9]}

Ø It would seem likely to me that the terms of Exodus 22:16-17 could apply: "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.” (NKJV)

v The death penalty, however, is not appropriate “because she was not free.”

Ø Most Bible commentators interpret this along the lines that a slave was held to a more lenient standard of punishment than a free person. “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. 4:30); but the gospel of Christ knows no such distinction (Col. 3:11).” ~Matthew Henry

Ø I would like to suggest an alternate interpretation that it means that since she was not free, she was not married and therefore there was no death penalty, but she was also not free to marry, which is why there had to be a trial and punishment. This interpretation avoids conceeding to a different standard of justice for slaves than for free men.

v Note, however, the many safeguards for the woman:

Ø Women were not to simply be used and abused – not even those who were slaves. There had to be due process toward marriage or toward punishment if they were violated.

Ø She had a right to a trial, and her case was taken seriously with resulting punishment.

Ø She was not to be put to death and gotten rid of to make life convenient for the rich and powerful.

Ø Marriage was to be taken seriously, and whether this “redemption” refers to the payment of a dowry or the fulfillment of a probation period, both underscore the fact that marriage was not something entered into willy-nilly.

§ Even a captive slave got a probation period of a month to mourn her family and see if she could stand living in the same house with this man who captured her. If they found they couldn’t stand each other, she walked out free and no longer a captive. Free to go somewhere else, free to marry someone else.

§ And if it is speaking of a dowry, that too gave security to a woman. Biblical dowries were paid by the groom or the groom’s family to the bride, generally in the range of 3 year’s wages. The bride kept that money. It was hers, and she could pass it on to her children. If her husband died or married someone else, she could walk away with that money and live on it for three years or more.

v And the act of the man is labeled a “sin.” Great emphasis is put upon the fact that it was a sin bringing guilt. And, like all sin, it is an offense not only against other people (which the trial and punishment took care of) but also against God, and therefore a sacrifice had to be offered. A death had to be paid to atone for that sinner.

v So we’ve seen that a pagan foreign woman who would normally be under God’s wrath and curse could be redeemed and brought into the community of God’s people and God’s blessing. And we’ve seen that a man who has sinned against her could be redeemed by the blood of a lamb from God’s wrath and curse against his sin.

v But what about the land itself? In chapter 18 verse 25, we read that “the land itself became defiled” by the wickedness of the Cannanite tribes who lived on that land. Those pagans did abominable things with trees. Could trees grown on that land ever be used to glorify God and feed the people of God? Verses 23-25 say YES!

B) Can You Redeem A Fruit Tree? (vs. 23-25)

23 Now, when y’all go into the land [the Septuagint specifies “the land which the Lord your God will give you”] and plant any tree to eat from, then y’all shall uncircumcise its uncircumcision. [For] three years its fruit shall be to y’all [like] uncircumcised things; it may not be eaten. 24 Then, in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy; it shall be celebrations for Yahweh. 25 Then, in the fifth year y’all may eat its fruit. This is in order to increase its produce for y’all. I am Yahweh y’all’s God.

v Remember that God made trees to be good for food (Genesis 2:9)^{^[10]}, so the goal is to be able to eat from the tree.

v Not only would the children of Israel “plant” fruit trees when they settled in the Promised Land, but when they conquered the land, they would also take over the use of fruit trees which had been planted by the Canaanites, and, according to Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 24, these too were intended by God to serve for food for His people^{^[11]}.

v But Leviticus 19 here says that trees planted in a defiled land were to be considered “uncircumcised” – and therefore not eaten from – during their first few years of growth. How on earth could a tree be uncircumcised? Consider what the Bible says about circumcision^{^[12]}:

Ø The first time that circumcision is mentioned is in Genesis 17, where God institutes it as a sign of being in a covenant relationship with God: verses 11&14, “and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you... And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (NKJV).

Ø Thus, God’s covenant people could not

§ marry uncircumcised men (Gen 34:14);

§ Uncircumcised men could not move into the promised Land (Josh. 5:7);

§ Uncircumcised men could not be included in Passover meals (Exodus 12:48) -

§ ideally, they were not even to enter the holy city (Isa. 52:1) – they were to be literally “outsiders,”

§ And most of all, they were not to enter God’s temple: Ezekiel 44:9 Thus says the Lord GOD: “No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.” (NKJV)

§ Throughout the historical books of the Old Testament, the uncircumcised were the enemies of God and enemies of God’s people (1 Sam. 17:26).

§ Finally, the uncircumcised (symbolizing those not in a right relationship with God) were to be judged by God (Jer. 9:25-26) and sent to hell^{^[13]}.

§ So, every Israelite boy was to be thus brought into a covenant relationship with God eight days after birth, which is what we already saw in Leviticus 12:3.

§ To be uncircumcised was to be outside of a covenant relationship with God, unable to come near to God, and separated from God’s people.

Ø In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul explains that circumcision was a symbol that the person trusted God to make them right, and therefore it wasn’t the circumcision that brought them into a right relationship with God but rather it was their faith (Romans 4:11).

§ Furthermore, the bloody symbol of circumcision was no longer to be used as the seal of being a Christian (1 Cor. 7:18, Gal. 5:6, Col. 3:11).

§ In fact, Paul took it a step further back in logical progression in Colossians 2 when he related circumcision to the “baptism” of the Spirit which regenerates us and gives us the gift of faith in the first place.

§ God’s initiative to give us spiritual life and faith – and our trusting response to Him – is what places us in a right relationship with him and takes us from the category of an uncircumcised outsider to a circumcised insider.^{^[14]}

Ø So much for a review on the meaning of circumcision.

v But, how is it that trees could be considered uncircumcised – outside of a proper relationship with God? Romans 8:19-21 teaches us that every tree in your yard “groans” as a result of human sin and experiences “futility” due to being “in the bondage of corruption.^{^[15]}”

Ø John Calvin explained in his Harmony of the Penteteuch that, “whatsoever the earth produces is in a manner profane, until it is purified. For surely by this ceremony was set forth what Paul teaches, that all things are ‘sanctified by the word of God, and prayer’ (1 Timothy 4:5), not that anything is in itself impure, but because the earth has contracted pollution from the corruption of man, it is just, as regards us, that the harmless fruits also should be accounted to be in uncircumcision.”

v So even the trees had to be redeemed and made holy first! For three years, whatever the tree grew was supposed to be left alone^{^[16]} (or perhaps “pinched off” as some interpret it).

Ø Although the NAS, ESV, and NIV render the word “forbidden” in v.23, they don’t render the same Hebrew word as “forbidden” in any of the other 35 instances it occurs in the Bible. In practically every other instance they render it as “uncircumcised,” because that’s literally what the Hebrew word means: “uncircumcised.”

Ø What the Hebrew text actually says is, “You shall uncircumcise it’s uncircumcision; three years its fruit shall be to y’all uncircumcised things…” The word “uncircumcise” is there three times in the Hebrew. I realize that I’m stepping out on a limb to say this because none of the other English versions take it this way, but I really think this is talking about a principle of “uncircumcising uncircumcision,” in other words, rolling back a cursed status and reconciling even the land itself to be properly related to God.

Ø And how was that done? By giving it all to God for four years and denying that any other god or mortal was lord over it, but Yahweh alone^{^[17]}.

§ They were to leave the tree alone for three years, then in the fourth year, they were to collect whatever edible fruit that tree bore and take it to the temple as an offering of firstfruits. Here it is called a “praise-offering” or “celebration.” (Judges 9:27 is the only place in the Old Testament that describes this particular kind of praise-offering: “They went out to the field, harvested their grapes, squeezed out the juice, and celebrated. They came to the temple of their god and ate...”)^{^[18]}

§ “By dedicating the first of everything to God, the man of the Old Covenant publicly acknowledged that all he had was from God, and he thanked Him for His blessings.” ~Wenham, NICOT

v Our passages closes with something wonderful in v. 25: What is honoring to God is good for you too! God says, “I am your God, so I am taking responsibility to look out for you. By “uncircumcising the uncircumsision” of your fruit trees, or, in New Testament language “sanctifying all things through the word of God and prayer” you will not only be doing God’s will, you will also be increasing the productivity of your trees^{^[19]} and you will get more fruit to eat in the years to come! That principle is apparently well-established in horticulture^{^[20]}. Isn’t God wonderful?!

§ It’s in the Proverbs too, “Honor the Lord with your substance and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty and your vats will be bursting with wine” ~Prov. 3:9-10, Wenham

v Now, when you apply to become a member of this church, I’m not going to ask you whether you waited four years before you harvested the pear tree in your backyard. That’s not the point. The point is, Do you see God as the Master over all that you own, and are you seeking to bring everything and everyone around you into a blessed relationship with God? Do you believe God is your redeemer and therefore that you are His ambassador to reconcile others to God, or do you believe that you are a little god and therefore if you want something you should have it, and if you don’t care for someone or something, they should just go away? That’s a serious question!

C) Conclusion: You Can Be Redeemed!

v Although there are things in these passages which are obscure, the good news that I see shining through this passage of scripture is that

· pagans who are aliens to the people of God can be brought into the people of God and be blessed,

· Sinners who deserve for God to smite them dead in His wrath can be reconciled to God through the death of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,

· and even inanimate nature can be redeemed from its corruption to be made holy for God’s service by God’s people. And that is the gospel.

v 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (NKJV)

v Let me close with the same good news as it is phrased in the greatest English poem of all time, Milton’s Paradise Lost:

v But by fulfilling that which thou didst want,
Obedience to the Law of God, imposed
On penalty of death, and suffering death,
The penalty to thy transgression due,
And due to theirs which out of thine will grow:
So only can high Justice rest appaid.
The Law of God exact he shall fulfill
Both by obedience and by love, though love
Alone fulfill the Law; thy punishment
He shall endure by coming in the Flesh
To a reproachful life and cursed death,
Proclaiming Life to all who shall believe
In his redemption, and that his obedience
Imputed becomes theirs by Faith, his merits
To save them, not their own, though legal works.
For this he shall live hated, be blasphemed,
Seized on by force, judged, and to death condemned
A shameful and accurst, nailed to the Cross
By his own nation, slain for bringing Life;

But to the Cross he nails thy Enemies,
The Law that is against thee, and the sins
Of all mankind, with him there crucified,
Never to hurt them more who rightly trust
In this his satisfaction; so he dies,
But soon revives, Death over him no power
Shall long usurp; ere the third dawning light
Return, the Stars of Morn shall see him rise
Out of his grave, fresh as the dawning light,
Thy ransom paid, which Man from death redeems
His death for Man, as many as offered Life
Neglect not, and the benefit embrace
By Faith not void of works: this God-like act
Annuls thy doom, the death thou shouldst have died,
In sin for ever lost from life; this act
Shall bruise the head of Satan, crush his strength
Defeating Sin and Death, his two main arms,
And fix far deeper in his head their stings
Than temporal death shall bruise the Victor’s heel,
Or theirs whom he redeems…

Comparative translations of Leviticus 19:20-25

When a translation adds words not in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics (or greyed-out text), I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original Hebrew, I use ~~strikeout~~. And when a version omits a word which is in the Hebrew text, I insert an X. (Sometimes I will place the X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular.) I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. Hebrew text that is colored purple matches the Dead Sea Scrolls, and variants between the DSS and the MT are noted in endnotes with the following exceptions: When a holem or qibbutz pointing in the MT is represented in the DSS by a vav or a hireq pointing in the MT is represented in the DSS by a yod (the corresponding consonantal representation of the same vowel) or when the tetragrammaton is spelled with paleo-Hebrew letters, I did not record it a variant. In Chapter 19, 11Q1 paleoLeviticus^a contains verses 1-4, 1Q3 PaleoLev-Num contains verses 30-34, 4Q26a Leviticus^e contains verses 34-37, and 4Q23 Leviticus-Numbers^a contains verses 3-8.

LXX	Brenton	KJV	NAW	MT
20 Καὶ ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ αὐτὴ οἰκέτις διαπεφυλαγμένη ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ αὐτὴ λύτροις οὐ λελύτρωται ἢ ἐλευθερία οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ, ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται [αὐτοῖς]· οὐκ ἀποθανοῦνται, ὅτι οὐκ ἀπηλευθερώθη.	20 And if any one lie carnally with a woman, and she should be a home-servant kept for a man, and she has not been ransomed, and her freedom has not been given to her, [~~they~~] shall be visited [~~with punishment~~]; [but] they shall not die, because she was not set at liberty.	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.	20 Now, if a man lays down lying-down seed with a woman, and she is a servant engaged to a man, yet she is not fully redeemed and freedom has not been granted to her, there must be a trial [for him]. (They shall not be put to death because she had not been freed.)	20 וְאִישׁ כִּי-יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע וְהִוא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת^{^[A]}לְאִישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן-לָהּ בִּקֹּרֶת^{^[B]} תִּהְיֶה^{^[C]} לֹא יוּמְתוּ^{^[D]} כִּי-לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה:
21 καὶ προσάξει τῆς πλημμελείας αὐτοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ παρὰ τὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου κριὸν πλημμελείας·	21 And he shall bring for his trespass to the Lord to the door of the tabernacle of witness, a ram for a trespass-offering.	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.	21 Then he shall bring his guilt-offering – the ram of the guilt-offering – to Yahweh, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,	21 וְהֵבִיא אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵיל אָשָׁם:
22 καὶ ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν τῷ κριῷ τῆς πλημμελείας ἔναντι κυρίου περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας X, ἧς ἥμαρτεν, καὶ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ ἡ ἁμαρτία X , ἣν ἥμαρτεν.	22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering, before the Lord, for ~~the~~ sin which he sinned; and ~~the~~ sin which he sinned shall be forgiven X him.	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 X him.	22 and the priest will make atonement over him with the ram of the guilt-offering before the face of Yahweh for his sin which he sinned, and his sin which he sinned will be pardoned for him.	22 וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַל-חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא: פ
23 Ὅταν δὲ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν γῆν, [ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν], καὶ καταφυτεύσετε πᾶν ξύλον βρώσιμον καὶ περικαθαριεῖτε τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν αὐτοῦ· ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ τρία ἔτη ἔσται ὑμῖν ἀπερικάθαρτος, οὐ βρωθήσεται·	23 And whenever ye shall enter into the land [which the Lord your God gives you], and shall plant any fruit-tree, then shall ye purge away its uncleanness; its fruit shall be three years uncleansed to you, it shall not be eaten.	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 X ~~thereof~~ as uncircumcised: three years shall it be [as] uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.	23 Now, when y’all go into the land and plant any tree to eat from, then y’all shall uncircumcise its uncircumcision. [For] three years its fruit shall be to y’all [like] uncircumcised things; it may not be eaten.	23 וְכִי-תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל-עֵץ מַאֲכָל וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת-פִּרְיוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל:
24 καὶ τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ ἔσται πᾶς ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ ἅγιος αἰνετὸς τῷ κυρίῳ·	24 And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, a [subject of] praiseX to the Lord.	24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praiseX the LORD withal.	24 Then, in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy; it shall be celebrations for Yahweh.	24 וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִת יִהְיֶה כָּל-פִּרְיוֹ קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים^{^[E]} לַיהוָה:
25 ἐν δὲ τῷ ἔτει τῷ πέμπτῳ φάγεσθε τὸν καρπόν, X πρόσθεμα ὑμῖν τὰ γενήματα αὐτοῦ· ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν.	25 And in the fifth year ye shall eat the fruit, its produce is X X increase to you. I am the Lord your God.	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.	25 Then, in the fifth year y’all may eat its fruit. This is in order to increase its produce for y’all. I am Yahweh y’all’s God.	25 וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁת תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת-פִּרְיוֹ לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

^{^[1]} “Speiser supposes that ‘assigned to another man’ does not indicate betrothal, hence the injured party who receives the damages is her owner.” ~Wenham, New International Commentary on Leviticus. Cf. Albert Barnes, following Ibn Ezra: “The reference appears to be to a bondwoman who has been betrothed to a fellow-servant by her master” (Ex. 21:7ff).

^{^[2]} Or, according to Rashi’s interpretation recorded in the Soncino Chumash, her marriage to another slave would not even be considered a “legal” or “proper” marriage.

^{^[3]} It seems to me that 16-19^th century European Christians were guilty too often of a double standard due to their perpetuation of different social classes.

^{^[4]} Rashi suggested that this refers to a Canaanite woman, and Wenham cited Deut. 21:10-14, asserting, “Often slave-girls would be foreigners.” Wenham followed Ibn Ezra in suggesting that perhaps the connection between v.20 and the previous is the concept of “mixtures” flowing from agriculture into marriage.

^{^[5]} “‘[N]ot at all redeemed’ is more accurately translated ‘not fully or entirely redeemed.’” ~Rushdoony, citing Ginsburg and Ellicott

Rushdoony sees this “redemption” as the woman paying back the dowry that the husband had put down for her, or perhaps of the man not having completed putting down the full amount of dowry (approx. 3 year’s wages paid to the woman) to make her his wife. (Institutes pp. 176-177)

^{^[6]} The KJV apparently follows the Targums which spell it out this way. “Notwithstanding, therefore, that the crime is worthy of death, still, in consideration of the people’s infirmity, the punishment is mitigated, so that, if a person shall have corrupted a betrothed bond-maid, both shall be scourged.” ~John Calvin, Harmony of the Pentateuch (Calvin used the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew here, which mistakenly made the verb plural instead of singular, leading to the interpretation that “both” shall be scourged. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law agree with Calvin’s position on this sentence of justice, saying that “since a concubine receives a limited status and receives less dignity in the marriage, only a limited loyalty can be expected.” Cf. Adam Clarke: “As she was a slave, she is supposed to have less self-command, and therefore less guilt.” Matthew Henry and, surprisingly, Keil & Delitzsch also favored scourging both the man and woman, although K&D moderate their position with the comment that the word really means to make an inquiry.)

^{^[7]} Muslim practice would probably pin all the blame on the woman no matter what, but Biblical justice is not prejudiced toward men.

^{^[8]} “’She shall be scourged,’ or more accurately, ‘there shall be visitation or inquisition’” ~Rushdoony

^{^[9]} Wenham takes a different route, following E.A. Speiser’s Oriental & Biblical Studies, interpreting biqqoret as “damages” – saying that the man had to pay the bride price or dowry to the owner of the slave or to the jilted fiancé.

^{^[10]} Genesis 2:9a “And out of the ground Yahweh God caused to sprout up every tree that is lovely to look at and good for food...” (NAW)

^{^[11]} Deuteronomy 20:19 NKJV "When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them; if you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree of the field is man's food.

Joshua 24:13-14 NKJV I have given you a land for which you did not labor, and cities which you did not build, and you dwell in them; you eat of the vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant.' 14 "Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD!

^{^[12]} Not only trees, but other objects in Scripture were considered “uncircumcised” and thus improperly related to God: Lips (or manner of speech, Ex. 6:12), Hearts that are “unfaithful” and “walk contrary” to God are called “uncircumcised hearts,” and God does not relate to such people as though they are in covenant with Him anymore. (Leviticus 26:40-42), and Ears that Jeremiah 6:10 says can be “uncircumcised” because they hate what God says and won’t give heed to Him.

^{^[13]} Ezekiel 32:21 NKJV The strong among the mighty Shall speak to him out of the midst of hell With those who help him: 'They have gone down, They lie with the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.'

^{^[14]} Romans 4:11 NKJV And he [that is, Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

1 Corinthians 7:18 NKJV Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Galatians 5:6 NKJV For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Colossians 3:11 NKJV where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Colossians 2:11-13 NKJV In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him…

^{^[15]} Romans 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

^{^[16]} Bonar’s commentary on Leviticus sees this as a recapitulation of the Edenic tree prohibition.

^{^[17]} There seems to be some common principle of not offering that which was too immature to God: In the minchah, not unripe wheat stalks but mature grains threshed and ground into flour were offered, and with the firstborn, no child or animal younger than 8 days, so too no fruit from a tree less than four years old. Matthew Henry opined, “[I]t is fit He should have every thing at its best…” and, “We are hereby taught not to be over-hasty…”

^{^[18]} The Judges passage seems to indicate that it was enjoyed by the farmer in the temple, whereas the wording of this passage in Leviticus would lean in favor of the first harvest being given over entirely to God and not eaten by the farmer. K&D and Matthew Henry also noted this ambiguity, but Wesley and Gill assumed only the latter to be the case.

^{^[19]} “The conservation of the soil and the preservation of the fertility of are important. They underlie this fact of uncircumcision.” ~Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 148.

^{^[20]} “Every gardener will teach us not to let fruit trees bear in their earliest years, but to pluck off the blossoms: and for this reason, that they will thus thrive the better, and bear more abundantly afterwards.” ~JFB