Original Meaning
Moses’ Instructions on Profane Slaughter (12:15–16 , 20–25)
IN THESE PASSAGES MOSES expresses his positive disposition toward profane slaughter through the principal verbs. First he declares, “You may slaughter,” and “eat as much of the meat as you want”; then he adds: “Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it” (v. 15). In the second part he is even more emphatic: “You may eat meat” (v. 20); “you may slaughter” (v. 21a); “you may eat” (v. 21b); “eat them” (v. 22a); “both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it” (v. 22b).
The need for this instruction is created by the fact that an individual will crave meat but will be far from the central sanctuary. Verse 15 specifies the context as (lit.) “in your gates,” a figure of speech for “your towns” (NIV) within the allotted tribal territories where the Israelites reside (cf. v. 12). Moses’ own clarification in verses 20–21 confirms this interpretation: when Yahweh has fulfilled his promise and enlarged the individual’s territory (Ex. 34:23–24), and the person lives far from the place “where the LORD your God chooses to put his Name.”
Moses highlights the craving for meat with the threefold repetition of “in all the desire of your soul/person” (pers. trans. of vv. 15, 20b, 21b), and casting it in direct speech, “I would like some meat” (v. 20a).1 Moses responds to this craving by opening wide the door to “profane” consumption with four significant comments. (1) The people may slaughter and eat meat proportionate to the blessing that Yahweh lavishes on them (v. 15; cf. 16:17). This comment suggests that butchering an animal for meat may be a profane act (i.e., not directly associated with the cult), but it is never secular.2 The demand to drain the blood (vv. 16, 23), and the addition of “as I have commanded you” (v. 21) reinforce this conclusion.3
(2) Israelites may slaughter and eat meat “in your gates/towns to your hearts’ content” (pers. trans.), as well as in proportion to the blessing of Yahweh (vv. 15, 20–21).
(3) Anyone, whether clean or unclean, may eat the meat (vv. 15b, 22b).4 To restrict consumption of the meat to those who were ceremonially pure would prove unworkable, since at any given time a large portion of the population would be in a state of ceremonial impurity. Indeed, the act of slaughtering an animal would render one unclean.
(4) The people may eat meat of domestic animals (“from the herds and flocks”) like the meat of wild game. The pair “gazelle or deer” in verses 15b and 22 is a shorthand expression for all wild game authorized for human consumption (14:5–6; 15:22).
Having opened the door to the consumption of meat of domestic animals away from the central sanctuary does not mean that Israelites can treat these animals callously, or that this slaughter could be considered amoral or secular. Verses 16 and 23 specify that when they kill an animal, the blood must not be consumed but poured out on the ground like water. In verse 23 Moses elaborates on the terse prohibition of verse 16 by specifying the grounds: Because the blood is the life, the blood is not to be eaten with the meat.5 This identification of the blood with life derives from observing the life of an animal or person ebbing away as blood is lost. Because life is sacred and the blood is identified with the life, consuming blood is viewed as an attack on life itself, which explains Moses’ explicit comment in verse 23, “You must not eat the life with the meat.”
Although the blood of an animal slaughtered for its meat did not require satisfaction, in a sense all slaughter is sacrificial and substitutionary: a life for a life.6 Whereas Leviticus 17:10–14 stressed the taboo on the blood of slaughtered animals by threatening to cut violators off from their people, in verse 25 Moses takes a more positive and pastoral approach. Compliance is the precondition to well-being for them and their children, and it guarantees the approval of Yahweh. After all, they “will be doing what is right in the eyes of the LORD.”7
Bridging Contexts
A GRACIOUS DISPOSITION. THIS passage reflects the fundamentally gracious disposition of Moses and Yahweh toward the people. They recognize the logistical problems created by the call for worship at the central sanctuary and are sensitive to the personal appetites of the people. Rather than hemming in Israelite behavior, with remarkable generosity Moses affirms the people’s desire to enjoy the meat of animals in their own towns. A similar disposition toward the people’s desires is reflected in 17:14–20. Anticipating the people’s future request for a king Moses authorizes them to set a king over themselves. However, as in this case, the permission is qualified by specifying who may or may not be candidates for the office and then prescribing the boundaries of the king’s performance.
Slaughtering animals. The notion of clean and unclean animals is as old as the human race. According to Genesis 7:2, in addition to pairs of all the other species of animals, Noah took into the ark seven clean animals. The narrative assumes Noah knew the boundaries between clean and unclean. Presumably God had revealed this information to Adam and Eve as they left Eden. The subject will return in chapter 14, where Moses spells out in considerable detail which animals are clean (i.e., fit for Israelite consumption) and which are not (cf. Lev. 11). For now we note only that this passage is concerned more with how slaughtered animals are handled than which animals are authorized as food for Israelite consumption.
The taboo on eating the blood reflected in this passage also goes back to the fountainhead of humanity (Gen. 9:4), in which God forbids the consumption of blood by any of Noah’s descendants. The original ordinance reinforces the notion that respect for the sanctity of animal life was never perceived as a uniquely Israelite concern; it applies to all humanity. In Acts 15:20 the council of Jerusalem recognized the permanence and supra-Israelite validity of the ban on blood, binding Gentile Christians to this ordinance.9 The principle of the sanctity of all life transcends the Torah of Deuteronomy and ethnic Israel.
Contemporary Significance
ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. The picture of God painted here surprises many readers. Perceiving the God of the Old Testament to be dour and angry, if not violent and bloodthirsty, more intent on punishing than in showing mercy, some will be surprised by the ease with which Moses (and Yahweh, who inspires him) accedes to the people’s desire to eat meat wherever they live. Yes, meals eaten in the presence of God are special, and when Yahweh the divine host turns around and serves his guests the food they have brought to him as offerings, this is a great privilege and honor. But how welcome to hear him say, “Go ahead. Do not wait until you are at the sanctuary to celebrate the goodness of God. Rejoice in his blessing and eat freely of the food—including the meat—that he has provided.” Incidentally, Scripture does not assume a vegetarian diet.
However, even as this passage encourages us to enjoy the provision of God, it does so with a profound ethical sensitivity. The slaughter of animals for meat could easily degenerate into savagery and a ruthless disregard for the life of the animal. However, the ritual of draining the blood reminds the persons who slaughtered the animal and those who eat its meat that even the life of the creature is sacred. If the meat is eaten with its blood, the blood will cry out to God and the offender will become the target of divine fury. While the flesh is sanctioned for human consumption, life itself is inviolable, and God remains the guarantor of the sanctity of the life of the animal.10
However, there is another aspect of the ordinance that is seldom noted. It is easy to imagine a hunter being calloused toward the life of his victim, especially when the animal is killed from a distance with a projectile (arrow, spear) or in a trap. This ordinance forces those who kill animals for their meat to identify with the creature by touching it and personally bearing responsibility for its death. This identification with a nonhuman animal in its death enhances humans’ appreciation for all life and forces them to grieve over the loss, even as they take advantage of the benefit the animal offers them. Since all slaughter is sacrificial and substitutionary—a life for life—the slaughter of animals may be profane (dissociated from the cult), but it is never secular. So whether the occasion is a festive Thanksgiving dinner or a common meal, when we sit down to feast on the turkey or mutton set before us, we need to give thanks to God who has blessed us by providing food, but we also need to thank him for the animal that has given its life for us.
After studying this passage I understand better my father’s emotional stress every fall when it was time to fill the larder with meat for his large family. He was uncomfortable selecting one of the animals and then having to kill it that we might have food. But cutting the jugular and watching the blood drain onto the ground was for him a religious experience. We youngsters should be grateful to God and his creation for this provision. This text speaks to the ethical problems posed by some practices in slaughterhouses across the country. If factory farms have depersonalized and dehumanized animal husbandry, gigantic slaughterhouses have desecrated the life of these animals. While the Scriptures offer no warrant for vegetarianism, and we obviously cannot go back to the small family farm where hogs were recognized by personality and temperament and every cow had a name, Christians need to be in the forefront of efforts to ensure the ethical treatment of animals from birth to death.11
Original Meaning
Moses’ Instructions on Sacred Offerings (12:17–19 , 26–27)
AS NOTED EARLIER, WHEREAS the first part of these two segments deal with the same issues, the concerns of the second parts diverge. While they exhibit some common features,8 in the details they go their own ways and are best dealt with separately.
Following his summary authorization of profane slaughter (vv. 15–16), in verses 17–19 Moses reminds his people of the other side of this coin. Permission to slaughter domestic animals in all their towns whenever they crave meat does not mean that all livestock are candidates for profane consumption. In fact, this restriction extends to horticultural products as well (cf. 7:13; 12:6). Animals and produce of the field that have been set apart as sacred offerings may not be eaten at home; this food may be consumed only in the presence of Yahweh at the place he chooses. The juxtaposition of “before the LORD your God” and “in your towns” does not mean Yahweh is not present with the Israelites in the towns where they will live. Rather, for purposes of cultic worship his presence is localized in the place he will choose.
Moses follows up the command to eat these products as sacrificial meals at the central sanctuary by specifying who may participate in these events (v. 18a). This list is identical with verse 12, except that he now refers to the addressee in the second person singular instead of the plural. Verse 18 concludes with another invitation to celebrate before Yahweh with all the products of the Israelites’ labor. Almost as an afterthought, Moses ends the first panel with a stern warning not to neglect the Levite as long as the Israelites live in the land (v. 19).
Verses 26–27 follow Moses’ more detailed instructions on profane slaughter (vv. 20–25). Once again (cf. v. 17) he restricts the meals authorized for consumption in the towns by excluding sacred offerings. But rather than listing the kinds of forbidden offerings, he speaks generally of “your consecrated things and whatever you have vowed to give.” The former represent contributions required by the cultic rituals; the latter are gifts voluntarily promised to Yahweh. For these offerings the Israelites should go to the place Yahweh chooses.
The panel concludes with summary instructions on what worshipers are to do when they arrive at the sanctuary: perform (ʿâśâ; lit. “do”; NIV “present”) the rituals of the whole burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. With burnt offerings the flesh and blood are consumed entirely by fire on the altar; with the rest the meat is eaten by worshipers and the blood is poured out on the altar.
Bridging Contexts
A GRACIOUS DISPOSITION. THIS passage reflects the fundamentally gracious disposition of Moses and Yahweh toward the people. They recognize the logistical problems created by the call for worship at the central sanctuary and are sensitive to the personal appetites of the people. Rather than hemming in Israelite behavior, with remarkable generosity Moses affirms the people’s desire to enjoy the meat of animals in their own towns. A similar disposition toward the people’s desires is reflected in 17:14–20. Anticipating the people’s future request for a king Moses authorizes them to set a king over themselves. However, as in this case, the permission is qualified by specifying who may or may not be candidates for the office and then prescribing the boundaries of the king’s performance.
Slaughtering animals. The notion of clean and unclean animals is as old as the human race. According to Genesis 7:2, in addition to pairs of all the other species of animals, Noah took into the ark seven clean animals. The narrative assumes Noah knew the boundaries between clean and unclean. Presumably God had revealed this information to Adam and Eve as they left Eden. The subject will return in chapter 14, where Moses spells out in considerable detail which animals are clean (i.e., fit for Israelite consumption) and which are not (cf. Lev. 11). For now we note only that this passage is concerned more with how slaughtered animals are handled than which animals are authorized as food for Israelite consumption.
The taboo on eating the blood reflected in this passage also goes back to the fountainhead of humanity (Gen. 9:4), in which God forbids the consumption of blood by any of Noah’s descendants. The original ordinance reinforces the notion that respect for the sanctity of animal life was never perceived as a uniquely Israelite concern; it applies to all humanity. In Acts 15:20 the council of Jerusalem recognized the permanence and supra-Israelite validity of the ban on blood, binding Gentile Christians to this ordinance.9 The principle of the sanctity of all life transcends the Torah of Deuteronomy and ethnic Israel.
Contemporary Significance
ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. The picture of God painted here surprises many readers. Perceiving the God of the Old Testament to be dour and angry, if not violent and bloodthirsty, more intent on punishing than in showing mercy, some will be surprised by the ease with which Moses (and Yahweh, who inspires him) accedes to the people’s desire to eat meat wherever they live. Yes, meals eaten in the presence of God are special, and when Yahweh the divine host turns around and serves his guests the food they have brought to him as offerings, this is a great privilege and honor. But how welcome to hear him say, “Go ahead. Do not wait until you are at the sanctuary to celebrate the goodness of God. Rejoice in his blessing and eat freely of the food—including the meat—that he has provided.” Incidentally, Scripture does not assume a vegetarian diet.
However, even as this passage encourages us to enjoy the provision of God, it does so with a profound ethical sensitivity. The slaughter of animals for meat could easily degenerate into savagery and a ruthless disregard for the life of the animal. However, the ritual of draining the blood reminds the persons who slaughtered the animal and those who eat its meat that even the life of the creature is sacred. If the meat is eaten with its blood, the blood will cry out to God and the offender will become the target of divine fury. While the flesh is sanctioned for human consumption, life itself is inviolable, and God remains the guarantor of the sanctity of the life of the animal.10
However, there is another aspect of the ordinance that is seldom noted. It is easy to imagine a hunter being calloused toward the life of his victim, especially when the animal is killed from a distance with a projectile (arrow, spear) or in a trap. This ordinance forces those who kill animals for their meat to identify with the creature by touching it and personally bearing responsibility for its death. This identification with a nonhuman animal in its death enhances humans’ appreciation for all life and forces them to grieve over the loss, even as they take advantage of the benefit the animal offers them. Since all slaughter is sacrificial and substitutionary—a life for life—the slaughter of animals may be profane (dissociated from the cult), but it is never secular. So whether the occasion is a festive Thanksgiving dinner or a common meal, when we sit down to feast on the turkey or mutton set before us, we need to give thanks to God who has blessed us by providing food, but we also need to thank him for the animal that has given its life for us.
After studying this passage I understand better my father’s emotional stress every fall when it was time to fill the larder with meat for his large family. He was uncomfortable selecting one of the animals and then having to kill it that we might have food. But cutting the jugular and watching the blood drain onto the ground was for him a religious experience. We youngsters should be grateful to God and his creation for this provision. This text speaks to the ethical problems posed by some practices in slaughterhouses across the country. If factory farms have depersonalized and dehumanized animal husbandry, gigantic slaughterhouses have desecrated the life of these animals. While the Scriptures offer no warrant for vegetarianism, and we obviously cannot go back to the small family farm where hogs were recognized by personality and temperament and every cow had a name, Christians need to be in the forefront of efforts to ensure the ethical treatment of animals from birth to death.11
Original Meaning
Conclusion (12:28)
FOREVER THE PASTOR, MOSES concludes his instructions regarding the central sanctuary and profane slaughter with a final exhortation to pay careful attention to all that he has said. Characterizing his instructions as “words” (NIV “regulations”) rather than as commands or ordinances does not suggest this has been a casual conversation. On the contrary, heeding his instructions is the precondition for the well-being of the present generation and their descendants in perpetuity. Furthermore, when they bring their sacrifices to the sanctuary and butcher animals for food according to the instructions given, they not only obey him; they also do “what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God.”
Bridging Contexts
A GRACIOUS DISPOSITION. THIS passage reflects the fundamentally gracious disposition of Moses and Yahweh toward the people. They recognize the logistical problems created by the call for worship at the central sanctuary and are sensitive to the personal appetites of the people. Rather than hemming in Israelite behavior, with remarkable generosity Moses affirms the people’s desire to enjoy the meat of animals in their own towns. A similar disposition toward the people’s desires is reflected in 17:14–20. Anticipating the people’s future request for a king Moses authorizes them to set a king over themselves. However, as in this case, the permission is qualified by specifying who may or may not be candidates for the office and then prescribing the boundaries of the king’s performance.
Slaughtering animals. The notion of clean and unclean animals is as old as the human race. According to Genesis 7:2, in addition to pairs of all the other species of animals, Noah took into the ark seven clean animals. The narrative assumes Noah knew the boundaries between clean and unclean. Presumably God had revealed this information to Adam and Eve as they left Eden. The subject will return in chapter 14, where Moses spells out in considerable detail which animals are clean (i.e., fit for Israelite consumption) and which are not (cf. Lev. 11). For now we note only that this passage is concerned more with how slaughtered animals are handled than which animals are authorized as food for Israelite consumption.
The taboo on eating the blood reflected in this passage also goes back to the fountainhead of humanity (Gen. 9:4), in which God forbids the consumption of blood by any of Noah’s descendants. The original ordinance reinforces the notion that respect for the sanctity of animal life was never perceived as a uniquely Israelite concern; it applies to all humanity. In Acts 15:20 the council of Jerusalem recognized the permanence and supra-Israelite validity of the ban on blood, binding Gentile Christians to this ordinance.9 The principle of the sanctity of all life transcends the Torah of Deuteronomy and ethnic Israel.
Contemporary Significance
ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. The picture of God painted here surprises many readers. Perceiving the God of the Old Testament to be dour and angry, if not violent and bloodthirsty, more intent on punishing than in showing mercy, some will be surprised by the ease with which Moses (and Yahweh, who inspires him) accedes to the people’s desire to eat meat wherever they live. Yes, meals eaten in the presence of God are special, and when Yahweh the divine host turns around and serves his guests the food they have brought to him as offerings, this is a great privilege and honor. But how welcome to hear him say, “Go ahead. Do not wait until you are at the sanctuary to celebrate the goodness of God. Rejoice in his blessing and eat freely of the food—including the meat—that he has provided.” Incidentally, Scripture does not assume a vegetarian diet.
However, even as this passage encourages us to enjoy the provision of God, it does so with a profound ethical sensitivity. The slaughter of animals for meat could easily degenerate into savagery and a ruthless disregard for the life of the animal. However, the ritual of draining the blood reminds the persons who slaughtered the animal and those who eat its meat that even the life of the creature is sacred. If the meat is eaten with its blood, the blood will cry out to God and the offender will become the target of divine fury. While the flesh is sanctioned for human consumption, life itself is inviolable, and God remains the guarantor of the sanctity of the life of the animal.10
However, there is another aspect of the ordinance that is seldom noted. It is easy to imagine a hunter being calloused toward the life of his victim, especially when the animal is killed from a distance with a projectile (arrow, spear) or in a trap. This ordinance forces those who kill animals for their meat to identify with the creature by touching it and personally bearing responsibility for its death. This identification with a nonhuman animal in its death enhances humans’ appreciation for all life and forces them to grieve over the loss, even as they take advantage of the benefit the animal offers them. Since all slaughter is sacrificial and substitutionary—a life for life—the slaughter of animals may be profane (dissociated from the cult), but it is never secular. So whether the occasion is a festive Thanksgiving dinner or a common meal, when we sit down to feast on the turkey or mutton set before us, we need to give thanks to God who has blessed us by providing food, but we also need to thank him for the animal that has given its life for us.
After studying this passage I understand better my father’s emotional stress every fall when it was time to fill the larder with meat for his large family. He was uncomfortable selecting one of the animals and then having to kill it that we might have food. But cutting the jugular and watching the blood drain onto the ground was for him a religious experience. We youngsters should be grateful to God and his creation for this provision. This text speaks to the ethical problems posed by some practices in slaughterhouses across the country. If factory farms have depersonalized and dehumanized animal husbandry, gigantic slaughterhouses have desecrated the life of these animals. While the Scriptures offer no warrant for vegetarianism, and we obviously cannot go back to the small family farm where hogs were recognized by personality and temperament and every cow had a name, Christians need to be in the forefront of efforts to ensure the ethical treatment of animals from birth to death.11