Leviticus 22:28

on the same day: There are several possible explanations for this command, although none is certain:

1. Senseless slaughtering would leave nothing of the herd;

2. it would be cruel to slaughter the young and the mother at the same time; or

3. it would resemble pagan worship rites, where people cooked the newborn animal in the milk of its slain mother (see Exodus 23:19).

it shall be seven days under the dam--Animals were not considered perfect nor good for food till the eighth day. As sacrifices are called the bread or food of God (Lev 22:25), to offer them immediately after birth, when they were unfit to be eaten, would have indicated a contempt of religion; and besides, this prohibition, as well as that contained in Lev 22:28, inculcated a lesson of humanity or tenderness to the dam, as well as secured the sacrifices from all appearance of unfeeling cruelty.




Next: Leviticus Chapter 23

Here are four laws concerning sacrifices: -
I. Whatever was offered in sacrifice to God should be without blemish, otherwise it should not be accepted. This had often been mentioned in the particular institutions of the several sorts of offerings. Now here they are told what was to be accounted a blemish which rendered a beast unfit for sacrifice: if it was blind, or lame, had a wen, or the mange (Lev 22:22), - if it was bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut (Lev 22:24), that is, as the Jewish writers understand it, if it was, in any of these ways, castrated, if bulls and rams were made into oxen and weathers, they might not be offered. Moreover a difference is made between what was brought as a free-will offering and what was brought as a vow, Lev 22:23. And, though none that had any of the forementioned blemishes might be brought for either, yet if a beast had any thing superfluous or lacking (that is, as the Jews understand it, if there was a disproportion or inequality between those parts that are pairs, when one eye, or ear, or leg, was bigger than it should be, or less than it should be) - if there was no other blemish than this, it might be accepted for a free-will offering, to which a man had not before laid himself, nor had the divine law laid him, under any particular obligation; but for a vow it might not be accepted. Thus God would teach us to make conscience of performing our promises to him very exactly, and not afterwards to abate in quantity or value of what we had solemnly engaged to devote to him. What was, before the vow, in our own power, as in the case of a free-will offering, afterwards is not, Act 5:4. It is again and again declared that no sacrifice should be accepted if it was thus blemished, Lev 22:20, Lev 22:21. According to this law great care was taken to search all the beasts that were brought to be sacrificed, that there might, to a certainty, be no blemish in them. A blemished sacrifice might not be accepted even from the hand of a stranger, though to such all possible encouragement should be given to do honour to the God of Israel, Lev 22:25. By this it appears that strangers were expected to come to the house of God from a far country (Kg1 8:41, Kg1 8:42), and that they should be welcome, and their offerings accepted, as those of Darius, Ezr 6:9, Ezr 6:10; Isa 56:6, Isa 56:7. The heathen priests were many of them not so strict in this matter, but would receive sacrifices for their gods that were ever so scandalous; but let strangers know that the God of Israel would not be so served. Now, 1. This law was then necessary for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary, and of the God that was there worshipped. It was fit that every thing that was employed for his honour should be the best of the kind; for, as he is the greatest and brightest, so he is the best of beings; and he that is the best must have the best. See how greatly and justly displeasing the breach of this law was to the holy God, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13, Mal 1:14. 2. This law made all the legal sacrifices the fitter to be types of Christ, the great sacrifice from which all these derived their virtue. In allusion to this law, he is said to be a Lamb without blemish and without spot, Pe1 1:19. As such a priest, so such a sacrifice, became us, who was harmless and undefiled. When Pilate declared, I find no fault in this man, he did thereby in effect pronounce the sacrifice without blemish. The Jews say it was the work of the sagan, or suffragan, high priest, to view the sacrifices, and see whether they were without blemish or no; when Christ suffered, Annas was in that office; but little did those who brought Christ to Annas first, by whom he was sent bound to Caiaphas, as a sacrifice fit to be offered (Joh 18:13, Joh 18:24), think that they were answering the type of this law. 3. It is an instruction to us to offer to God the best we have in our spiritual sacrifices. If our devotions are ignorant, and cold, and trifling, and full of distractions, we offer the blind, and the lame, and the sick, for sacrifice; but cursed be the deceiver that does so, for, while he thinks to put a cheat upon God, he puts a damning cheat upon his own soul.
II. That no beast should be offered in sacrifice before it was eight days old, Lev 22:26, Lev 22:27. It was provided before that the firstlings of their cattle, which were to be dedicated to God, should not be brought to him till after the eighth day, Exo 22:30. Here it is provided that no creature should be offered in sacrifice till it was eight days old complete. Sooner than that it was not fit to be used at men's tables, and therefore not a God's altar. The Jews say, "It was because the sabbath sanctifies all things, and nothing should be offered to God till at least one sabbath had passed over it." It was in conformity to the law of circumcision, which children were to receive on the eighth day. Christ was sacrificed for us, not in his infancy, though then Herod sought to slay him, but in the prime of his time.
III. That the dam and her young should not both be killed in one day, whether in sacrifice or for common use, Lev 22:28. There is such a law as this concerning birds, Deu 22:6. This was forbidden, not as evil in itself, but because it looked barbarous and cruel to the brute creatures; like the tyranny of the king of Babylon, that slew Zedekiah's sons before his eyes, and then put out his eyes. It looked ill-natured towards the species to kill two generations at once, as if one designed the ruin of the kind.
IV. That the flesh of their thank-offerings should be eaten on the same day that they were sacrificed, Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30. This is a repetition of what we had before, Lev 7:15; Lev 19:6, Lev 19:7. The chapter concludes with such a general charge as we have often met with, to keep God's commandments, and not to profane his holy name, Lev 22:31, Lev 22:32. Those that profess God's name, if they do not make conscience of keeping his commandments, do but profane his name. The general reasons are added: God's authority over them - I am the Lord; his interest in them - I am your God; the title he had to them by redemption - "I brought you out of the land of Egypt, on purpose that I might be your God;" the designs of his grace concerning them - I am the Lord that hallow you; and the resolutions of his justice, if he had not honour from them, to get himself honour upon them - I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. God will be a loser in his glory by no man at last; but sooner or later will recover his right, either in the repentance of sinners or in their ruin.

Leviticus 22:27.

When a bullock or a sheep. God forbids the young to be taken from the womb to the altar, not only because this bad example was likely to be transferred from the sacrifices to the ordinary food, but also because the offering would have been a fraudulent one. We have seen that the sacrifices were called the bread of God, in order that men should be more liberal with respect to them, and not offer meagre victims; but to kill a young animal fresh from the womb would have been a sign of contempt; although regard was also had to humanity, lest, by eating of such sacrifices, they should grow accustomed to cruelty. The eighth day is appointed, on which the lawfulness of the offering should commence. I am afraid that the reason which some assign for this is too subtle, viz., that an animal is made perfect in seven days, because God completed the work of creation in seven days. Besides, on this ground the seventh day would be the fittest for sacrifice, because in six days God completed all His work, and the seventh was hallowed for His service It is enough for me that regard was had to maturity of age, just as in the case of circumcision. [296] 28. And whether it be a cow or ewe. Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. I confess the word scht, shachat, which he uses, is a general one; but since throughout the chapter he is professedly treating of the sacrifices, and in connection with these words adds the conclusion respecting the hallowing of His holy name, ver. 32, the context requires that we should consider it to be an inculcation of purity in God's service. If any prefer to extend it further, I will not contest the point; and thus this sentence will be a supplement to the Sixth Commandment. I have, however, followed what appears most probable, and the reader of sound judgment will, I hope, agree with me. Meanwhile, I confess that all barbarity and cruelty was thus prohibited in the sacrifices, and in them the rule was laid down, that men should not be cruel in reference to their daily food. It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God's altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.

Footnotes:

[296] This closing sentence is omitted in Fr. Exodus 23

Ye shall not kill it and her young in one day - This precept was certainly intended to inculcate mercy and tenderness of heart; and so the Jews understood it. When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission, to do it.

And whether it be cow or ewe,.... Or "an ox or sheep" (f), for this law, as Aben Ezra says, respects both male and female, and neither the one nor the other with their young might be slain; though Jarchi says, the custom is concerning the female, for it is forbidden to slay the dam and its son, or daughter; but it is not the custom concerning males, wherefore it is lawful to slay the father and the son:

ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day; or, "it and its son" (g), the young, whether of a cow or ewe, and whether it be male or female; though Gersom observes, that this law takes place only in the dam and its female young, and not in the father and the son; for it is not manifest, in many animals, who is their father, wherefore he is not guilty of stripes, if the father and his son are slain in one day, even though it is known it is its father: the reason of the law seems to be, to encourage mercy and pity, and to discourage cruelty: hence the Targum of Jonathan is,"and my people, the children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so be ye merciful on earth: a cow, or a sheep, &c.''

(f) "bovem vel pecus", Pagninus, Montanus, &c. (g) "ipsum et filium ejus", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.

Because it savoured of cruelty. See Poole .

The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring. - In Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30, the command to eat the flesh of the animal on the day on which it was offered (Lev 7:15; Lev 19:5-6) is repeated with special reference to the praise-offering.