1. Title. Leviticus received its name from the fact that it deals chiefly with the priesthood, which was of the tribe of Levi. Ancient Hebrew scholars called it WayiqraÕ, from the first word of the book, and modern Jews have retained the name. The Talmud called it “The Law of the Priests,” or “The Law of Sacrifice.” Its subtitle, “The Third Book of Moses,” was not a part of the original Hebrew text, but was added centuries later.
2. Authorship. There can be no doubt that Moses, the author of Genesis, is also the author of Leviticus (see the Introduction to Genesis). The theories that discount Moses as the author of the books that bear his name are too conflicting to warrant a discussion here. From the earliest times both Jews and Christians have believed Leviticus to be the work of Moses, and it is only in modern times that doubt has been raised as to its authorship.
Leviticus is an integral part of what Jesus called “the law of Moses” (Luke 24:44). In the story of the healing of the leper He distinctly associates it with the great lawgiver (see Matt. 8:4; Luke 5:14; Lev. 14:3, 4, 10). Significant are His words to the unbelieving Jews: “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47). Here we are informed that Moses “wrote,” and what he wrote is called “his writings.” The plural, “writings,” implies that he wrote more than one book. If the books commonly called the books of Moses are not here meant, we know not where to find them.
3. Historical setting. Leviticus covers a period of but 30 days. The Exodus story ends with the account of the erection of the tabernacle, and preparation for its dedication. It was completed “in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month” (Ex. 40:17). Inasmuch as the book that follows Leviticus, the book of Numbers, begins with the first day of the second month in the second year (Num. 1:1), the intervening time is exactly one month. In this month the instruction contained in Leviticus was communicated to Moses, and in that same month the events recorded in the book took place.
The building of the tabernacle in the wilderness followed closely the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. Israel had there heard the voice of God speaking from the dark clouds crowning the summit of the mountain, and had been sore afraid. “So terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake” (Heb. 12:21). In Leviticus, Israel was to hear God speak again, not from the mount but from the sanctuary, where were enshrined the law and the mercy seat. It was from between the cherubim, the place of atonement, that God would make Himself known. The sanctuary stood for mercy as well as law. In the most holy apartment law and mercy met, and there atonement became possible. It is from this place that God speaks in Leviticus.
4. Theme. Leviticus deals chiefly with the priesthood and the sanctuary services. It does not contain all the instruction God had for Israel on these subjects, for much important matter is reserved for the book of Numbers. However, most of the fundamental principles of worship are outlined in Leviticus. This makes the book of importance and worthy of special study.
Sacrifices had been known since the time of the fall in Eden; but in the Levitical ordinances a clearer revelation was made respecting the Saviour to whom all sacrifices looked forward. The continual and symbolic use of the blood put on the horns of the altar, or sprinkled before the veil, or ministered in the second apartment of the sanctuary before the ark brought home to the people the close relation between sin and sacrifice. The principles of the transfer of sin, of mediation, reconciliation, and atonement were distinctly conveyed by the everyday ceremony in which the offerer laid his hand upon he head of the victim as he confessed his sin; by the institution of a regular priesthood to minister between God and man; by the evening and morning sacrifice; by the individual burnt and sin offerings; and by the high priest’s entrance once a year into the presence of God in the most holy place. In all of these regulations and precepts men saw the reconciliatory work of Him who took our sins upon Himself, who died for us, and by whose stripes we are healed. Leviticus is a pre-gospel, and should find a large place in the study of all who wish to follow the Lamb all the way.
The sanctuary service was clearly symbolical and hence temporary, for there is no necessary relation between the blood of bulls and goats and the forgiveness of sin. The sacrifices were all typical and had little virtue in themselves. But they did foreshadow good things to come, and thus served a vital purpose. Rightly understood, they led men to God. They conveyed lessons of the seriousness of sin, of the need of confession, of the majesty of law, of the holiness of God, of His great love for fallen man, and of the preparation necessary to stand in His presence.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of all was that of holiness. This, indeed, is the great theme with which every chapter in the book is concerned. The priests must be holy; their lives must be above reproach; their food must be clean; even their garments must be symbolic of holiness. The sacrifices offered must be perfect and without blemish; the sanctuary itself was holy; the utensils were holy; the portion of offerings which fell to the priests was holy; even the sanctuary grounds were sacred and no defilement must come to them. Everything and everyone about the tabernacle must be scrupulously clean, physically, symbolic of the spiritual cleanliness that God required. God’s repeated command was, “Ye shall be holy; for I am holy” (chs. 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7, 26). Symbolic of this holiness was “the plate of the holy crown of pure gold” which the Lord commanded Moses to make and which was fastened to the miter which the high priest wore, and upon which was “a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 39:30).
Leviticus is central in the five books of Moses, being flanked on the one side by Genesis and Exodus and on the other by Numbers and Deuteronomy. As the sanctuary was central in the worship of Israel, so Leviticus contains the core of the instruction given in regard to that worship. It is the gospel in embryo. With it, the New Testament can be better understood; without it, some parts of the Gospels and the Epistles are shrouded in obscurity and darkness. Christ as priest and high priest; as the Lamb of God; as our sin offering; as the sacrifice slain, its blood sprinkled round about upon the altar; as the bread which came down from heaven; as the light of the world; as the fragrant incense—these and many other allusions would be but dimly understood without the light Leviticus throws upon them. Paul drew heavily on this book when he wrote Hebrews and discussed the doctrines of the Christian faith. It goes without saying that Israel today can ill afford to neglect this book. If the true doctrine of atonement, of the Day of Atonement, of the cleansing of the sanctuary, of Christ as our high priest and advocate ministering in the sanctuary above, of the judgment and Christ’s soon return, of the law and the Sabbath in their true setting—if all these doctrines are definite contributions to religion and life and messages which must be given to the world, then Leviticus must be given its rightful place in the framework of truths to be preached. “The gospel is given in precept in Leviticus” (6T 392).
The question is sometimes raised as to why God instituted the system of sacrifices and required the shedding of blood. God hates sin, knowing its results; and one of the chief purposes of sacrifices was to cause Israel likewise to hate it. He could simply have counseled His people not to sin, as sin was evil and should be shunned. But would not a stronger and more lasting impression be made upon them by a visual demonstration of the result of sin, so that ever in their minds sin and death would appear as cause and effect? This is what He did in the Garden of Eden, when consequent to Adam’s sin a lamb was killed. And would not this effect be greatly heightened by having the sinner himself carry out the death sentence? God might then ask, What more could be done that I have not done to teach man the seriousness of sin? “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” (Isa. 5:4).
But Israel greatly perverted God’s plan. Instead of seeing in the death of the sacrificial animals an evidence of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and of the need of their shunning sin, they began to consider sacrifices a kind of payment for the privilege of sinning. That is why God sent word by His prophets that He wanted no more of their sacrifices: “I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats” (Isa. 1:11). Through Amos He said, “Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts” (Amos 5:22). And Micah asks, “Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” And then he answers his own questions, “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6–8).
This is good Old Testament doctrine, and it is good New Testament doctrine. Nevertheless, many precious lessons may be learned from the ritual as it was originally commanded. A study of Leviticus will amply repay the time spent with it.
5. Outline.
I. Laws Concerning Sacrifices and Public Worship, 1:1 to 10:20.
A. The principal sacrifices, 1:1 to 7:38.
1. Burnt offerings, 1:1–17.
2. Meat offerings, 2:1–16.
3. Peace offerings, 3:1–17.
4. Sin offerings, 4:1–35.
5. Trespass offerings, 5:1 to 6:7.
6. Law of burnt offerings, 6:8–13.
7. Law of meat offerings, 6:14–18.
8. High priest’s meat offering, 6:19–23.
9. Law of sin offerings, 6:24–30.
10. Law of trespass offerings, 7:1–7.
11. Priest’s portion of burnt and meat offerings, 7:8–10.
12. Law of peace offerings, 7:11–21.
13. Prohibition against eating blood and fat, 7:22–27.
14. Priest’s portion of peace offering, 7:28–34.
15. Conclusion to this section, 7:35–38.
B. Consecration of the tabernacle and of Aaron and his sons, and their first offerings, 8:1 to 9:24.
1. Consecration of Aaron and his sons, 8:1–9.
2. Anointing the tabernacle, 8:10, 11.
3. Sin offering for Aaron and his sons, 8:12–17.
4. Burnt offerings for Aaron and his sons, 8:18–21.
5. The ram of consecration, 8:22–30.
6. Aaron and his sons to remain seven days within the sanctuary grounds, 8:31–36.
7. Aaron and his sons bring their first offerings for themselves, 9:1–14.
8. The offering for the people, 9:15–23.
9. God approves by sending fire, 9:24.
C. The transgression of Aaron’s two sons; instruction in regard to eating and drinking, 10:1–20.
1. Aaron’s sons transgress and are slain, 10:1–7.
2. Prohibition against wine, strong drink, things unclean, 10:8–11.
3. Law of eating holy things, 10:12–15.
4. Moses rebukes Aaron for not having eaten the sin offering, 10:16–20.
II. The Law of Holiness, 11:1 to 15:33.
A. Distinction between clean and unclean animals, 11:1–47.
B. Law of purity of persons, garments, houses, 12:1 to 15:33.
1. Impurity occasioned by childbirth, 12:1–8.
2. Impurity occasioned by leprosy, 13:1 to 14:57.
a. Leprosy of persons, 13:1–46.
b. Leprosy of garments, 13:47–59.
c. Purification of a leprous person, 14:1–32.
d. Leprosy of houses, 14:33–53.
3. Personal uncleanness, 15:1–33.
a. Uncleanness of men, 15:1–18.
b. Uncleanness of women, 15:18–33.
III. Cleansing of the Sanctuary and Supplementary Laws, 16:1 to 17:16.
A. Day of Atonement, 16:1–34.
1. Aaron’s entrance into the sanctuary, 16:1–4.
2. Aaron offers sin and burnt offerings for the people and casts lots upon the two goats, 16:5–10.
3. Offers sin offering for himself and house and brings the blood and incense into the most holy place, 16:11–14.
4. Kills the Lord’s goat and makes atonement for the holy and the most holy place, 16:15–17.
5. Makes atonement for the altar of burnt offering with the mixed blood of the bullock and goat, 16:18, 19.
6. Lays both hands on scapegoat, transfers to him all the transgressions of Israel, and sends him away into the wilderness, 16:20–22.
7. Changes garments, washes, and offers sacrifice for himself and the people, and burns bullock without the camp, 16:23–28.
8. The observance of the tenth day of the seventh month a statute forever, a day to make atonement, 16:29–31.
9. This day a sabbath of sabbaths, when atonement shall be made for the sanctuary, the altar, the priests, and the people, 16:32–34.
B. Regulations concerning the place of sacrifice, 17:1–9.
C. Eating of blood forbidden, 17:10–14.
D. Additional rules concerning purity, 17:15, 16.
IV. Moral and Civil Laws, 18:1 to 20:27.
A. Transgressions in moral matters, 18:1–30.
1. Israel not to follow the Canaanites but to keep God’s statutes, 18:1–5.
2. Unlawful marriages, 18:6–18.
3. Unlawful lusts, 18:19–30.
B. Various moral precepts, interspersed with ceremonial and sacrificial ordinances, 19:1 to 20:27.
V. Supplementary Precepts in Regard to Priests, Their Qualifications, Rights, and Duties, 21:1 to 22:33.
VI. Sabbaths and Festivals: Passover, Pentecost, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, 23:1–44.
VII. Additional Laws on the Service of the Sanctuary, 24:1–9.
VIII. The Sin of Blasphemy, 24:10-16, 23.
IX. Laws Concerning Violence Against Persons and Property, 24:17–22.
X. The Year of Jubilee, 25:1–55.
XI. Blessing for Keeping the Sabbath and God’s Other Commandments, Curse for the Disobedient, 26:1–46.
XII. Supplementary Laws, 27:1–34.
A. The making of vows, 27:1–25.
1. On persons hallowed by a vow, 27:1–8.
2. Gift not to be altered, adding one fifth, 27:9–13.
3. Sanctifying a house or a field, 27:14–25.
B. Devoted things, 27:26–34.
1. The firstlings of beasts and devoted things, 27:26–29.
2. The tithe, holy unto the Lord, 27:30–34.
outline of sanctuary service
The following summary of Levitical sacrifices and ceremonies, though not a part of the outline of the book of Leviticus, is given here to assist in the study of the book.
burnt offerings
Nature: Voluntary, so far as the individual was concerned, but specified on certain occasions for the whole congregation, and in certain instances for individuals. Lev. 1:3.
Purpose: To make atonement—it was “accepted for him.” Lev. 1:4.
When Offered
Animals Prescribed
1. At will—usually (Lev. 1:3)
1. Any clean male animalordinarily used for sacrifice (Lev. 1).
2. Daily (Ex. 29:38-42; Num. 28:3-8).
2. 2 male yearling lambs.
3. At consecrations (Ex. 29:15-18 Lev. 8:18-21; Num. 7, 8).
3. Bullocks, rams, lambs.
4. On special days and feasts.
4. On special days and feasts.
a. Sabbath (Num. 28:9, 10).
a. 2 additional lambs.
b. New moons (Num. 28:11-14).
b. 12 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs.
c. Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:17-25).
c. Daily—2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs.
d. Day of Wave Sheaf (Lev. 23:10-14).
d. 1 male yearling lamb.
e. Day of Pentecost (Lev. 23:17-21; Num. 28:26-31).
e. For the day—2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs. For the bread—1 bullock, 2 rams, 7 lambs.
f. 1st day of 7th month (Num. 29:1-6).
f. 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, besides the monthly offering.
g. Day of Atonement (Lev. 16; Num. 29:7-11).
g. For the priest—1 ram (Lev. 16:3).
For the people—1 ram (Lev. 16:5).
For the day—1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs Num. 29:7-11
h. Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 29:12-34).
h. 13 bullocks, 2 rams, 14 lambs on 1st day, decreasing bullocks daily by 1 to 7 bullocks, 2 rams, 14 lambs on the 7th day.
i. Octave of Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 29:35-38).
i. 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs.
5. For purification.
5. For purification.
a. Childbirth (Lev. 12).
a. Lamb or pigeon or turtledove.
b. Leprosy (Lev. 14).
b. Lamb or pigeon or turtledove.
c. Bloody issue (Lev. 15:13-15, 25-30),
c. Pigeon or turtledove.
6. Nazirite vow (Num. 6).
6. Nazirite vow.
a. Accidental violation—pigeon or turtledove.
b. Fulfillment—lamb.
7. With sin offering of poor (Lev. 5:7-10).
7. Pigeon or turtledove.
8. With sin offering when congregation sins through ignorance (Num. 15
Accessory Offerings
General
Salt (Lev. 2:13).
Meal offerings (Num. 15:2–12):
For a lamb or kid: 1/10 deal of flour, 1/4 hin of oil, 1/4 hin of wine.
For a ram: 2/10 deal of flour, 1/3 hin of oil, 1/3 hin of wine.
For a bullock: 3/10 deal of flour, 1/2 hin of oil, 1/2 hin of wine.
Incense (Lev. 2:1, 2).
Sabbaths
For each lamb: 2/10 deal of flour, with appropriate oil and drink offering (double the usual amount for each lamb).
Day of Wave Sheaf
For the lamb: 2/10 deal of flour (double), oil (probably in proportion), 1/4 hin of wine (regular) (Lev. 23:13).
Purification for Childbirth
Not specified.
Purification of Cleansed Leper
3/10 deal of flour with oil, or 1/10 deal of flour with oil.
Purification of Bloody Issue
None.
Procedure
Bullock, Sheep, or Goat (Lev. 1:3–13).
1. Offerer places hand on head of victim, and slays it.
2. Priest sprinkles blood upon the altar.
3. Offerer skins and cuts up animal, washing legs and entrails in water.
4. Priest places fire, arranges wood, and places pieces of animal in order on the fire.
5. Sacrifice is completely consumed on the altar.
Turtledove or Pigeon (Lev. 1:14–17).
1. Priest wrings off head, and burns it on the altar.
2. Squeezes out blood against the side of the altar.
3. Cuts out crop and removes feathers.
4. Cuts bird open, but not apart.
5. Offering is completely consumed on the altar.
Disposition
Blood
Sprinkled on the altar round about (Lev. 1:5, 11, 15).
Fat, etc.
Not separated (Lev. 1:8, 12).
Wave Offering
None.
Whole Carcass
Burned on the altar (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17).
Skin
Given to priest (Lev. 7:8).
Crop and Feathers
Thrown on ash heap (Lev. 1:16).
peace offerings
Nature: Ordinarily voluntary. Included vows, thank offerings, and freewill offerings (Lev. 19:5; 7:15, 16). Communal feast in which the Lord, the priest, and the people shared (Lev. 3:11; 7:14, 31–33; 7:15–18; 19:5–8; Deut. 27:7; 12:17, 18).
When Offered
Animals Prescribed
1. At will, or in fulfillment of a vow (Lev. 19:5; 7:16).
1. Any clean animal ordinarily used for sacrifice, male or female (Lev. 3).
2. At consecrations (Ex. 29:19-28; Lev. 8:22; Num. 7).
2. Ram (Lev. 8:22), bullock and ram (Lev. 9:4), oxen, rams, he–goats, lambs (Num. 7).
3. At Pentecost, with the bread (Lev. 23:17-20).
3. 2 lambs (Lev. 23:20).
4. At fulfillment of Nazirite vow (Num. 6:14, 17, 18).
4. Ram (Num. 6:14).
Rule: Ordinarily a sacrifice must be perfect to be accepted, but a freewill offering could have superfluous parts, or parts lacking (Lev. 22:21-24
Accessory Offerings
Offering of Thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12–14)
Unleavened cakes mingled with oil.
Unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
Fried cakes.
Leavened bread, part of which is waved, and given to the officiating priest.
Vow and Voluntary Offering (Num. 15:3–12)
For a lamb: 1/10 deal of flour, 1/4 hin of oil, 1/4 hin of wine.
For a ram: 2/10 deal of flour, 1/3 hin of oil, 1/3 hin of wine.
For a bullock: 3/10 deal of flour, 1/2 hin of oil, 1/2 hin of wine.
For All Offerings
Salt (Lev. 2:13).
Procedure
(See Lev. 3)
1. Offerer lays hand on head of victim.
Offerer slays animal.
3. Priest sprinkles blood on the altar round about.
4. Offerer waves breast, right shoulder, fat, etc., before the Lord (Lev. 7:29–32).
5. Priest burns fat, etc., on the altar.
6. Remainder is eaten (see Disposition).
Disposition
Blood
Sprinkled on the altar round about (Lev. 3:2; etc.).
Fat, etc.
Burned on the altar (Lev. 3:3–5; 7:31).
Wave Offering
Breast and right shoulder go to the priest (Lev. 7:29–36).
Rest of Carcass
Eaten by offerer (Deut. 27:7; 12:17, 18).
Rule: Thanksgiving offering must be eaten the same day. Voluntary and vow offerings may be eaten on the second day also, but no later (Lev. 7:16–18).
sin offerings
Nature: Required when any sinned through ignorance, and on special occasions to cover such sins for the whole congregation (Lev. 4:2; Num. 15:22–29).
Purpose: To make atonement for sin (Lev. 4:35; Num. 15:24).
When Offered
Animals Prescribed
1. General—If a man “sin through ignorance” (Lev. 4:2; Num. 15:27, 28).
a. Priest (Lev. 4:3-12).
a. Bullock (Lev. 4:3-12).
b. Congregation (Lev. 4:13-21).
b. Bullock (Lev. 4:13-21).
Kid (Num. 15:24).
c. Ruler (Lev. 4:22-26).
c. Kid of the goats, male (Lev. 4:22-26).
d. Common people (Lev. 4:27-35).
d. Kid or lamb, female (Lev. 4:27-35); or if he is too poor, 2 turtledoves or pigeons (Lev. 5:7), 1 for a sin offering, 1 for a burnt offering. If he is yet poorer, 1/10 ephah of fine flour, as a sin offering, not a meal offering (Lev. 5:11, 12).
Specific borderline cases in which sin offering was used.
a. Perjury under oath (Lev. 5:1).
b. Uncleanness from dead body (Lev. 5:2).
c. Uncleanness of man (Lev. 5:3).
d. Rash oath (Lev. 5:4).
2. Consecrations.
2. Consecrations.
a. Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:10-14, 36, 37; Lev. 8:2, 3; etc.).
a. Bullock.
b. Princes (Num. 7).
b. Kid.
c. Levites (Num. 8).
c. Bullock.
3. Special days.
3. Special days.
a. New moons (Num. 28:15).
a. Kid (Num. 28:15).
b. Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:17-24).
b. Kid, daily (Num. 28:22-24).
c. Pentecost (Lev. 23:19; Num. 28:30).
c. For the day—kid (Num. 28:30)
For the bread—kid (Lev. 23:18, 19).
d. 1st day of 7th month (Num. 29:5).
d. Kid (Num. 29:5).
e. Day of Atonement (Lev. 16; Num. 29:11).
e. 1 kid besides the sacrifice of the atonement (Num. 29:11).
f. Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 29:11)
f. Kid, daily (Num. 29:16-34).
g. Octave of Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 29:38).
g. Goat (Num. 29:38).
4. Purification
4. Purification
a. Childbirth (Lev. 12:6, 8).
a. Pigeon (Lev. 12:6, 8).
b. Leprosy (Lev. 14:10, 19, 22).
b. Ewe lamb or pigeon (Lev. 14:10, 19, 22).
c. Issue of blood (Lev. 15:14, 15, 29, 30).
c. Pigeon (Lev. 15:14, 15, 29, 30).
5. Nazirite vow.
5. Nazirite vow.
a. Accidental violation (Num. 6:10, 11).
a. Pigeon (Num. 6:10, 11).
b. Fulfillment (Num. 6:14-16).
Accessory Offering
Salt (Lev. 2:13).
Procedure
Priest and Congregation (Lev. 4)
1. Hand on head of victim.
2. Animal slain.
3. Blood sprinkled before veil in holy place, and placed on horns of the golden altar.
4. Remainder of blood poured out at foot of the altar of burnt offering.
5. Fat, kidneys, etc., burned on the altar.
6. Whole animal—with skin, entrails, dung, etc.—burned without the camp.
Ruler and Common People (Lev. 4)
1. Hand on head of victim.
2. Animal slain.
3. Blood placed on horns of the altar of burnt offering.
4. Remainder of blood poured out at foot of the altar.
5. Fat, etc., burned on the altar.
6. Priest eats flesh of animal (Lev. 6:25–29; 10:16–20).
Occasional offerings apparently follow general rule.
(For Day of Atonement sin offerings, see under Special Ceremonies.)
Disposition
Blood
1. Priest and congregation—sprinkled before the veil, and put on horns of the golden altar. Remainder poured out (Lev. 4:6, 7, 16–18).
2. Ruler and people—placed on horns of the altar of burnt offering. Remainder poured out (Lev. 4:25, 30, 34).
Fat, etc.
Burned on the altar (Lev. 4:8-10, 19, 26, 35).
Wave offering
None.
Flesh
1. For priest and congregation—burned without the camp (Lev. 4:12, 21).
2. For ruler and people—eaten by the priest (Lev. 6:25–29).
Skin
1. For priest and congregation—burned with whole animal (Lev. 4:12, 21).
2. For ruler and people—not specified, but may assume it went to the priest.
Rule: “No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burned in the fire” (Lev. 6:30).
trespass offerings
Nature: Prescribed in cases of known sin.
Purpose: To make atonement (Lev. 5:16; 6:7).
When Offered
Animals Prescribed
1. In case of known sin (Lev. 6:2, 3).
1. Ram (Lev. 6:6).
2. Ignorant sacrilege (Lev. 5:15).
2. Ram (Lev. 5:15).
(Borderline case in which trespass offering is used
3. Violation of betrothed slave (Lev. 19:20-22).
3. Ram (Lev. 19:20-22).
4. Purification for leprosy (Lev. 14:12-18).
4. Lamb (Lev. 14:10, 13; etc.).
5. Accidental violation of Nazirite vow (Num. 6:12)
5. Lamb (Num. 6:1
Accessory Offering
Salt (Lev. 2:13).
Procedure
Same as sin offering, except blood (Lev. 7:1–7).
Disposition
Same as sin offering (Lev. 7:1–7), except blood. It was sprinkled upon the altar round about, instead of being put upon the horns of the altar (Lev. 7:2).
meal offerings
Nature: Nonbloody. Accessory to bloody offerings (Num. 15:3, 4).
When Offered
1. With all burnt offerings, regular, special, and personal (Num. 15:2-12, 28, 29).
2. With all peace offerings (Num. 15:3; Lev. 7:11–14).
3. Special cases
a. High priest’s meal offering (Lev. 6:20–23).
b. The shewbread (Lev. 24:5–9).
c. The wave sheaf (Lev. 23:10–14).
d. First-fruits loaves (Lev. 23:16, 17).
e. Trial of jealousy (Num. 5:15).
f. Nazirite (Num. 6:15).
Material Prescribed
Fine flour (Lev. 2:1, 2).
Unleavened bread or cakes (Lev. 2:4).
Unleavened wafers (Lev. 2:4).
Fried cakes (Lev. 2:7).
Beaten grain (Lev. 2:14–16).
Barley meal (Num. 5:15).
Rule: No meal offering shall be made with leaven, for leaven and honey never come to the altar (Lev. 2:11).
Exception: The loaf of the first fruits at Pentecost and the loaf with the thank offering shall be made with leaven, but they shall not be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12; 7:12, 13; 23:17–20).
Accessory Offerings
Salt (Lev. 2:13).
Oil (Lev. 2:2–7; Num. 15:4–11)
Wine (Num. 15:4–11).
Frankincense (Lev. 2:2; 24:7).
Procedure
General (Lev. 2)
1. Bring offering to priest.
2. Priest burns handful of flour with oil, and all frankincense; or portion of prepared bread with oil.
3. Remainder goes to priest.
High Priest’s Meal Offering
All burned (Lev. 6:23).
Shewbread
Placed on table in holy place for one week, with incense beside it (Lev. 24:5–8).
Wave Sheaf and First-Fruits Loaves
Waved before the Lord (Lev. 23:11).
Disposition
Flour
Handful on the altar (Lev. 2:2). Remainder for the priesthood in general (Lev. 7:10).
Prepared Bread
Portion on the altar (Lev. 2:9). Remainder to the officiating priest (Lev. 7:9).
Shewbread
To priesthood (Lev. 24:5–9).
Waved Part of Leavened Bread
In thank offering to officiating priest; remainder to offerer (Lev. 7:13, 14; Deut. 27:7).
First-Fruits Loaves
To priest (Lev. 23:20).
passover
Nature: Prescribed. Sign and memorial (Ex. 13:9, 10).
Purpose: To memorialize deliverance from Egypt (Ex. 12:12, 13).
When Offered
14th of Abib, 1st month (Ex. 12:2, 6).
Animal Prescribed
Lamb or kid (Ex. 12:5).
Accessories
Bitter herbs (Ex. 12:8).
Unleavened bread (Ex. 12:8).
Wine (Jewish tradition) (DA 653).
Procedure
1. Select animal on 10th of Abib.
2. Kill on 14th at even.
3. Sprinkle blood on doorposts and lintel.
4. Roast animal entire.
5. Eat with bitter herbs.
6. Burn what remains.
Disposition
Blood
Sprinkled on doorpost and lintel.
Flesh
Eaten by offerer and friends.
Remainder
Burned.
incense
Nature: Prescribed.
Purpose: To accompany prayers before God (Ps. 141:2; Rev. 8:3).
When Offered
1. Morning and evening (Ex. 30:7, 8).
2. Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12, 13).
3. Special occasions (Num. 16:46, 47).
Material Prescribed
Combination of sweet spices (Ex. 30:34–38).
Accessories
None.
Procedure
Burned before the Lord.
special ceremonies
Day of Atonement
Texts: Lev. 16; 23:27–32; Num. 29:7–11; Ex. 30:10.
Offerings: Daily burnt offering; bullock for a sin offering and ram for a burnt offering for the priest; 2 goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering for the people; and for the day, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering, and 1 kid for a sin offering.
Procedure
1. High priest bathes and changes to white garments, after officiating at the regular morning service in his pontifical robes.
2. Presents bullock before the Lord; lays his hands on its head.
3. Presents goats; casts lots to determine which shall be for Jehovah and which for Azazel.
4. Kills bullock and preserves its blood.
5. Takes censer and incense into most holy place and arranges incense on coals.
6. Returns to court for blood of bullock, which he takes into most holy place and sprinkles it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat 7 times.
7. Returns to court, kills Lord’s goat, and enters most holy place with the blood, sprinkling it as he did the bullock’s blood.
8. Returns to holy place, and makes atonement for the holy things.
9. Returns to court, and makes atonement for the altar, sprinkling it with the blood of both bullock and goat 7 times, placing the blood on the horns of the altar.
10. Confesses sins of Israel over head of live goat, and sends it into wilderness by a fit man.
11. Resumes pontifical robes, and offers fat of sin offerings, the burnt offerings for himself and the people, the burnt offerings for the day, and kid of the sin offering for the day.
The Nazirite Vow
Text: Num. 6:1–21.
Accidental Violation
Offerings: 2 pigeons—1 for a burnt offering and 1 for a sin offering—and a lamb for a trespass offering.
Procedure
1. Shave head on 1st and 7th days of the cleansing.
2. On 8th day bring 2 pigeons to the priest, 1 for a sin offering and 1 for a burnt offering.
3. Bring a lamb for a trespass offering.
4. Forfeit the days prior to defilement.
Fulfillment
Offerings: Male lamb for a burnt offering, ewe lamb for a sin offering, 1 ram for a peace offering, basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour, and the meal and drink offerings of the appropriate animals.
Procedure
1. Offer sin offering.
2. Offer burnt offering.
3. Offer peace offering with accessories.
4. Shaves his head and burns the hair.
5. Wave heave offering.
Cleansing of the Leper
Text: Lev. 14:1–32.
Preliminary Ceremony
Offerings: 2 sparrows, cedarwood, scarlet, hyssop, and running water.
Procedure
1. Kill 1 bird over earthen vessel filled with running water.
2. Dip living bird, cedarwood, scarlet, and hyssop into water and blood, and sprinkle leper 7 times.
3. Let living bird go free.
4. Leper shaves and bathes on 7th day.
5. Leper returns on 8th day for concluding ceremonies and offerings.
(This same ceremony is used to cleanse a house infested with plague. Lev. 14:48–53.)
Main Ceremony
Offerings: 1 male lamb for a trespass offering; 1 male lamb for a burnt offering; 1 ewe lamb for a sin offering; 3/10 deal of flour mingled with oil for meal offering; and 1 log of oil.
Procedure
1. Slay trespass offering; wave it and the log of oil before the Lord.
2. Put some of the blood on the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of the offerer.
3. Sprinkle oil 7 times before the Lord.
4. Put oil on ear, thumb, and toe where blood was put.
5. Pour oil over head of offerer.
6. Offer sin offering.
7. Offer burnt offering and meal offering.
(In case of poverty, it would suffice to have 1 lamb for a trespass offering, and 2 pigeons—1 for a sin offering and 1 for a burnt offering).
Water of Separation
(Ceremony of the Red Heifer)
Text: Num. 19.
Purpose: To purify from defilement received from dead body, bone, grave, etc.
Preparation
(Any clean person may perform, but priest shall oversee.)
1. Take red heifer without the camp.
2. Slay animal.
3. Priest sprinkles blood toward the sanctuary 7 times.
4. Whole animal is burned.
5. Priest casts cedarwood, scarlet, and hyssop into the fire.
6. Clean man gathers ashes, and stores them in a clean place without the camp.
Procedure
(Any clean person may officiate.)
1. Mix ashes and running water.
2. Sprinkle place of death first, if house or tent is involved.
3. Sprinkle unclean person.
4. Sprinkle unclean person on 3d and 7th day.
5. Unclean person shall bathe himself on 7th day, and shall be clean at even.
Purification for Childbirth
Text: Lev. 12.
Separation: For a son, 7 days plus 33 days. For a daughter, 14 days plus 66 days.
Offerings: Lamb for a burnt offering and pigeon for a sin offering. In case of poverty, 2 young pigeons will suffice—1 for a burnt offering, and 1 for a sin offering.
Purification From Uncleanness of Issue
Text: Lev. 15.
Offerings: 2 pigeons, 1 for a burnt offering and 1 for a sin offering.
Procedure
1. Number 7 days from time issue stops.
2. Bathe on 7th day.
3. Bring 2 pigeons to priest on 8th day.
4. Offer 1 for sin offering and 1 for burnt offering.
Trial of Jealousy
Text: Num. 5:11–31.
Offering: 1/10 ephah of barley flour.
Occasion: When a man doubts his wife’s loyalty.
Procedure
1. Come before the priest with offering.
2. Priest shall prepare bitter water by mixing dust of the sanctuary floor with holy water in an earthen vessel.
3. Priest pronounces curses for infidelity, writes them in a book, and blots them with the bitter water.
4. Priest waves meal offering before the Lord, and burns a handful on the altar.
5. The woman drinks the water.
6. If she is innocent, nothing happens; if she is guilty, the curses take effect.
Expiation of Uncertain Murder
Text: Deut. 21:1–9.
Offering: Heifer not wrought with, and not yoked.
Procedure
1. Measure from dead man to nearest city.
2. Elders of that city bring heifer to rough valley, unsown.
3. Strike off the heifer’s neck.
4. Priests come near.
5. Elders wash hands over the heifer.
6. Elders proclaim their innocence.
Feast and Holy Convocations
Sabbath
Texts: Ex. 20:8–11; Num. 28:9, 10.
Time: Every 7th day is holy.
Offerings: 2 lambs for a burnt offering, besides the continual burnt offering.
New Moons
Text: Num. 28:11–15.
Time: 1st day of every month.
Offerings: 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal and drink offerings; and 1 kid for a sin offering.
Passover
Text: Ex. 12; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:1–14; 28:16; Deut. 16:1–7.
Time: 14th of Abib, the 1st month.
Offering: Paschal lamb.
Feast of Unleavened Bread
Texts: Ex. 12:15–20; 13:5–9; Lev. 23:6–8; Num. 28:17–25; Deut. 16:8.
Time: 15th to 21st of Abib.
Offerings: For burnt offering, daily, 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs, with appropriate meal offerings; and 1 kid for a sin offering.
Ceremonial Sabbath: On the 1st day and the 7th day shall be holy convocations.
No servile work may be done.
Ceremony of the Wave Sheaf
Text: Lev. 23:10–14.
Time: 16th of Abib, the 2d day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Offerings: Wave sheaf or omer of barley, waved before the Lord; yearling lamb and its appropriate meal offering.
“Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God” (Lev. 23:14).
Pentecost
Texts: Lev. 23:15–21; Num. 28:26–31; Deut. 16:9–11.
Time: 50 days from the wave sheaf.
Offerings: 2 loaves to be waved; and—
1. For the day, 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; 1 kid for a sin offering (Num. 28:26–30).
2. For the bread, 1 bullock, 2 rams, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; 1 kid for a sin offering; 2 lambs for a peace offering (Lev. 23:15).
Ceremonial Sabbath: A holy convocation. No servile work may be done.
Blowing of Trumpets
Text: Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1-6.
Time: 1st day of 7th month.
Offerings: 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; 1 kid for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering and the new moon offering.
Ceremonial Sabbath: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.
Day of Atonement
Texts: Lev. 16; Lev. 23:27–32; Num. 29:7–11.
Time: 10th day of 7th month.
Offerings: (See under Special Ceremonies, Day of Atonement.)
Ceremonial Sabbath: On this day shall be a holy convocation. “Ye shall afflict your souls.” No manner of work may be done.
Feast of Tabernacles
Texts: Lev. 23:34–43; Num. 29:12–34; Deut. 16:13–15.
Time: 15th to 21st of 7th month.
Offerings: 1st day, 13 bullocks, 2 rams, 14 lambs, for a burnt offering, and 1 kid for a sin offering. Each day thereafter, the number of bullocks is reduced by 1, until on the last day the offering is 7 bullocks, 2 rams, 14 lambs for a burnt offering, and 1 kid for a sin offering.
Ceremonial Sabbath: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.
Octave of Feast of Tabernacles
Texts: Lev. 23:36, 39; Num. 29:35–38.
Time: 22d day of 7th month.
Offerings: 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, for a burnt offering; 1 kid for a sin offering.
Ceremonial Sabbath: On this day shall be a solemn assembly. No servile work may be done.
1 The burnt offerings. 3 Of the herd, 10 of the flocks, 14 of the fowls.
1. The Lord called unto Moses. God had promised that when the tabernacle was erected, He would commune with Moses from the sanctuary. He had previously spoken to him from the mount, but now He would speak from the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22). He now fulfills this promise, and calls Moses to come near, that through him He might instruct the people how to approach God and the sanctuary.
This instruction was urgently needed. Israel had but a vague conception of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. The people needed to be taught the first principles of reverence and worship. They were to learn that not only was God holy but His house and even its surroundings were sacred. They were to learn that only he who is holy can approach God and enter into His presence. They might therefore not presume to enter God’s dwelling place, but might come only as near as the door of the court, and with humility and contrition bring sacrifice. This the priests would receive from them on God’s behalf, and minister the blood and burn incense in the first apartment. Not even the priests could enter into the inmost sanctuary to minister. This was reserved for the high priest alone, who after deep heart searching had access to the most holy place for only a few minutes one day a year, the great Day of Atonement. After that the holiest remained closed for another year. God is indeed most holy.
Through the slain lamb; through the bullock, the ram, the he-goat, the turtledoves, the pigeons; through the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar of burnt offering, upon the altar of incense, toward the veil, or upon the ark; through the teaching and mediation of the priesthood, Israel was to learn how to approach God. They were not to be left in hopelessness as they faced the condemnation of God’s holy law. There was a way of escape. The Lamb of God would die for them. Through faith in His blood they might enter into communion with God. Through the mediation of the priest they might vicariously enter the sanctuary, and might, in the person of the high priest, even appear in the very audience chamber of the Most High. To the faithful in Israel this pre-figured the time when God’s people will with boldness “enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19).
All this God desired to teach Israel through the sacrificial system. To them it was the way of salvation. It gave them hope and courage. Though the law of God, the Ten Commandments, condemned them because of their sins, the fact that the Lamb of God was to die for them gave them hope. The sacrificial system constituted the gospel for Israel. It pointed the way to communion and fellowship with God.
There are professed Christians who do not see much of importance or value for them in the divinely appointed Temple services; yet the gospel plan of salvation as revealed more fully in the NT is made clearer by an understanding of the OT. In fact, he who understands the Levitical system as presented in the OT can much better understand and appreciate gospel as set forth in the NT. The one foreshadows the other and is a type of it.
Out of the tabernacle. As a result of sin man had been driven from his Paradise home, where he enjoyed open communion with his Maker. Because man no longer qualified to live with God, God now condescended to come down and live with man. Accordingly, He had instructed Moses, “Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8). This Moses had done, and “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34). Wonderful love! God could not bear to be separated from His own, and His love devised a plan whereby He might even yet live among them! He would go with them on their journeys to and fro in the wilderness, and at last lead them into the Promised Land.
2. An offering. Heb. qorban, from the verb qarab, “to draw near,” “to approach.” Burnt offerings were of two kinds, obligatory and voluntary. Certain of the obligatory burnt offerings came at stated times and were presented by the priests on behalf of the entire nation. These included the daily burnt offering (Ex. 29:38–42; Num. 28:3–8), the Sabbath burnt offering (Num. 28:9, 10), and festal burnt offerings at the new moon, the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles (Num. 28:11 to 29:39). Other obligatory burnt offerings were of an occasional nature and were presented by individuals. Such were the offerings at the consecration of a priest (Ex. 29:15–18; Lev. 8:18–21; 9:12–14), at childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), at the cleansing of a leper (ch. 14:19, 20), at the purifying from ceremonial defilement (ch. 15:14, 15, 30), and at the taking of a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:13–16). Voluntary burnt offerings might be presented by an individual at any time, but must conform in all respects to the same regulations that governed the obligatory burnt offerings (see Num. 7; 1 Kings 8:64). The regulations of Lev. 1 are concerned specifically with voluntary burnt offerings, though the ritual was similar for the others as well.
3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice. “If his qorban [see v. 2] be an Ôolah.” ÔOlah, the usual Hebrew word for “burnt sacrifice” or “burnt offering,” means “that which goes up” or “that which ascends.” Another term, used but twice, is kalil, meaning “whole.” These words derive from the fact that burnt offerings were wholly burned on the altar, and that as the smoke arose, so the offering ascended, figuratively, to God. The Douay Version uses the word “holocaust,” meaning “that which is wholly burnt up.” These names fitly describe the burnt offering. No part of it was eaten, as was the case with some of the other sacrifices; all was burned and ascended to God in the flames as a “sweet savour” (v. 9). Nothing was held back. All was given to God. It denoted complete consecration.
Burnt offerings are first mentioned after the Flood, when Noah “offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20). They are next mentioned in God’s command to Abraham to offer up his son “for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of” (Gen. 22:2). The book of Job, perhaps the oldest in the Bible, records how Job “rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings … for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). Job apparently believed that his burnt offerings availed to avert the anger of God even though his sons had brought no offering for themselves, and perhaps were not aware that they had sinned. The rabbis had a saying: “Burnt offerings atone for the transgressions of Israel.”
Burnt offerings were the earliest of all offerings and the most characteristic and comprehensive, combining in themselves the essential elements of all offerings. Their importance is shown by the fact that for centuries they were the only offerings in existence. Later, when other offerings were commanded, it was expressly provided that they were not to take the place of, but were to be in addition to, the continual burnt offering” (see Num. 28:10; 29:16; etc.).
Although the daily morning and evening sacrifices, mandatory even on the great Day of Atonement, were for the nation, they also served a definite purpose for the individual Israelite. When the sanctuary service was finally established in Jerusalem, God commanded that henceforth all sacrifices should be brought there, and that the priests only should officiate at the altar. Though this centralized the worship and tended toward uniformity, and was thus helpful, it created hardship for those who lived at some distance from the sanctuary. A journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would take several days, especially if a sacrificial animal was brought along. On the journey home the man might sin again and would need to make a return trip. This, of course, presented an impossible situation. For him, the daily evening and morning sacrifice offered a happy solution.
The prescribed animals used in the daily services were procured with money contributed by the entire people. Every morning a lamb was offered on the altar of burnt offering for the whole nation, and in the evening the service was repeated. This burnt sacrifice provided a temporary and provisional atonement for the nation until such time as the individual sinner could himself appear and bring his own sacrifice. These national offerings did for the nation what Job had in mind when he said, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). Job did not know whether his sons had sinned. But it might be that they had. And so, to “cover” them until they should bring their own offerings, Job acted for them. In like manner the daily burnt offering for the nation covered Israel until each could bring his individual offering. The Talmud teaches that the morning sacrifice atoned for sins done during the night, and the evening sacrifice for sins done during the day.
The daily burnt offerings were burned on the altar, but over a slow fire so that one sacrifice would last until the next was put on (Lev. 6:9). The evening sacrifice lasted until morning, and the morning sacrifice until evening. Thus there was always a victim on the altar to provide provisional and temporary atonement for Israel. When a man sinned, though he was unable to appear at the sanctuary immediately, or even for weeks and months, he knew that there was a sacrifice on the altar for him, and that he was “covered” until he could bring his own offering and confirm his repentance.
This merciful provision for sinners of old constitutes a strong hope for the sinner today. There are times when we sin but are not aware of it until later, and hence do not confess immediately. What a comfort to know that Christ stands ever ready to “cover” us with His robe of righteousness until we come to realize our condition, that He never leaves us or forsakes us, and that even before we come to Him He has made the necessary provision for our salvation. Thanks be to God for this wonderful provision! But let none take undue advantage of this and delay confession.
Even though the individual burnt offerings discussed in Lev. 1 are all voluntary, yet when offered, as already noted, the ritual to be followed was precise and strict. The Israelites were thus taught implicit obedience. God might forgive, God will forgive, but there must be absolute adherence to the divine instructions. He who would draw near to God, must do it in the manner of God’s appointment. That worship only is acceptable to Him which is in accordance with His will—not that which to us may seem best and most effective, not that which we might think best adapted to the occasion, not that which appears to bring the quickest returns or the most money, but that only which God approves and upon which He can bestow His blessing.
Four kinds of animals were used as burnt offerings: bullocks, sheep, goats, fowls. The offerer might choose whichever he wished. The rich who could afford a bullock would naturally bring one. The poor who could afford only a turtledove or a pigeon would bring one of these. Significantly Mary, the mother of Jesus, brought two turtledoves to the Temple as her gift after childbirth (see Lev. 12:8; Luke 2:22–24). Joseph and Mary were poor people. The lion and the eagle, kings among beasts and fowls, being unclean, were not used in sacrifice, but rather the lamb and the dove. God does not regard a high and lofty spirit, but the meek and the lowly He will accept.
The voluntary burnt offering was a gift of love, of dedication, of consecration. It was offered in a spirit of cheerful sacrifice to God. It was more than a gift; it was the giving of oneself, a living sacrifice. We do not offer burnt offerings today, but it would be well for us to apply the spirit which prompted burnt offerings to everyday Christian living. God still loves cheerful, willing service (2 Cor. 9:7).
A male without blemish. “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein” (Lev. 22:21). This emphasizes the fact that God demands our best. We may not be rich or able to bring great gifts to God, but that which we give must be perfect. We are not to bring anything less than the best we have. We are not to give to God that which is of inferior value—a defective coin, unsalable property, scraps of unoccupied time. God is to be served with the best we can command.
Of his own voluntary will. Rather, “that he may be accepted before the Lord” (RSV). He was to “offer it … at the door of the tabernacle,” but in so doing he would be “accepted before the Lord.” The same Hebrew word here translated “voluntary” is rendered “accepted” in v. 4.
4. Accepted for him. The animal brought as a sacrifice was considered a substitute for the sinner. It was to be accepted “for” him, that is, instead of him. Inasmuch as the substitute was a symbol of Christ, it too must be perfect (ch. 22:25).
A solemn and essential part of the ritual was the placing of the hand of the offerer upon the head of the victim. The word samak, “put,” means “to lean” with one’s weight, an act by which the penitent sinner represented his utter dependence upon the substitute. As to the meaning of this, commentators, ancient and modern, understand that it signifies a symbolic transfer of his sins from the offerer to the victim, or the substitution of the victim to die in the sinner’s place. “The laying of hands upon the victim’s head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and the transfer of sins are effected.” “In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner” (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286, art. “Atonement, Day of”).
Inasmuch as Christians now by faith lay their sins on Jesus, the Lamb of God, it seems fitting to find in the sacrificial service a ceremony typifying this. In the ritual of the burnt offering we find this mirrored; in fact, the laying on of the hand was required in all cases where sin was involved. The Christian sees in the ceremony of the laying on of the hand and leaning on the victim a type of his own dependence upon Christ for salvation. In so leaning we place our sins upon Him, and He takes our place on the altar, a sacrifice “holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1).
Having followed the directions God gave, the repentant sinner could be sure that the victim was accepted in his stead. Even so, we too may be assured that as we follow God’s directions we may be accepted in Christ, our Substitute, knowing that He takes our place on the altar—that He has, in truth, already done so on the cross. He died for us, instead of us, and because He died we shall live.
5. Kill the bullock. We cannot believe that a normal individual would take pleasure in plunging a knife into an innocent victim, even though that victim be only an animal. Yet God required this act of the offerer. In later times the priests did the slaying, thought it was God’s original intent that the sinner himself should do so. This must have been a painful and distressing experience for the sinner, because he knew that it was his sin that made the death necessary. It must have impressed him with the determination to “go, and sin no more.” He saw vividly before him the result of sin. It meant not only death, but the death of an innocent one. What other result could this ceremony have than to create in the transgressor a hatred for sin and a solemn resolve to have no more to do with it?
The first lesson God wanted to teach Israel through the sacrificial system was that sin means death. Again and again this lesson was impressed upon their hearts. Every morning and evening throughout the year a lamb was offered for the nation. Day after day the people brought their sin offerings and their burnt offerings to the sanctuary. In each case an animal was slain and the blood ministered in the appointed place. On every ceremony and on every service was stamped the lesson:Sin means death.
This lesson is needed as much in our time as it was in the days of old. Some Christians hold sin too lightly. They think of it as a passing aspect of life that mankind will outgrow. Others consider sin regrettable but unavoidable. All need to have impressed indelibly upon the mind the lesson that sin means death. The NT specifically states that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), but many fail to grasp the importance of the statement. A more realistic conception of sin and death as being inseparably connected would help much in an appreciation and understanding of the gospel. For the Christian this holds an important lesson. We were guilty, not He. A contemplation of the cross should bring to us first a feeling of guilt, then of revulsion from sin, and finally profound thankfulness to God that through death comes salvation. Christ died for me. I should have died, for I sinned, and “the wages of sin is death.” But Christ died for me; He went to Calvary in my place! How adequate the provision! How wonderful the love!
Sprinkle the blood. The offerer had finished his work. He had brought his sacrifice, confessed his sin, and slain the victim. Now the ministration of the blood began. A priest had stood by as the blood gushed forth, and had caught it in a vessel. He now ministered the blood by sprinkling it round about upon the altar of burnt offering. The word here translated “sprinkle” literally means “to scatter.” It is used of scattering dust (Job 2:12), live coals (Eze. 10:2), water (Num. 19:13), etc. According to the Talmud the officiating priest scattered the blood against the altar at two places, the northeastern and southwestern corners, in such a way that it would touch all four sides of the altar. For sanitary reasons this was probably done on the inside of the altar. The unused portion of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar. Later, at the Temple in Jerusalem, surplus blood was disposed of by means of a tile drain, which conveyed it to the brook Kidron.
God sought to impress upon Israel that forgiveness of sin can be obtained only through confession and the ministration of blood. They were to realize the infinite cost of forgiveness. It is more than merely overlooking faults. It cost God something to be able to forgive; it cost a life, even the life of His own Son.
To some the death of Christ appears unnecessary. God could, or should, they think, forgive without Calvary. The cross does not seem to them an integral and vital part of the atonement. It would be well if Christians today contemplated more than they do the cost of their salvation. Forgiveness is not a simple matter. Through the ceremonial system God taught Israel that forgiveness can be had only through the shedding of blood. We need that lesson now. In the sacrificial system of Israel are to be found the fundamental principles of holy living. The OT is fundamental. He who is thoroughly grounded in it will be able to erect a superstructure that will not fall when the rains descend and the winds blow. He will be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).
6. Flay the burnt offering. Originally, the offerer himself did this, though this part of the ritual was later taken over by the Levites. In the wilderness there were but few to participate in the services, as compared with later times, in the Promised Land, when hundreds and even thousands of offerers arrived in a single day. The Levites and priests who were accustomed to the ritual could perform the flaying more expeditiously than the people.
7. Put fire upon the altar. At a designated place upon the altar of burnt offering a fire was always burning. It was the duty of the priests to make sure that this fire never went out. Because God Himself had kindled it, it was considered sacred fire. This fire must not be put to common use, nor must common fire be used in any sanctuary service. From this central fire on the altar, the priests lighted other fires to accommodate such sacrifices as might be brought. Thus several fires were burning at the altar at one time, all lighted from the one central fire. It was from this altar that the priests took coals for their censers when they went in to offer incense in the holy place. The fire on the altar of incense came from the altar of burnt offering. It is interesting to note that in heaven there is an angel who has charge of the fire (Rev. 14:18).
Lay the wood in order. The wood used in the sanctuary service was carefully inspected before it was permitted to come on the altar. Wood that had been attacked by insects or eaten by worms was rejected. It was the work of certain of the priests to provide and care for the wood, and once a year the people were asked to help gather fuel for the sanctuary. This must in itself have been educational for them; for as they gathered the wood and examined it to see that it would pass the inspection of the priests, they must have been impressed with God’s holiness and His demand for perfection even in small matters.
The wood was not thrown on the fire, nor casually put on. It was carefully placed “in order.” The lesson is evident. Nothing that has to do with God’s service may be done in a slipshod manner. All must be done with care and reverence.
8. Lay the parts. The lesson of orderliness is the same as in v. 7. All parts of the victim were to be placed in position on the altar as in the living animal, on the wood which was also “in order.” Says the apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). This is good NT Christianity.
9. Wash in water. In harmony with the rule that nothing unclean must come on the altar or be used in the service of God, the entrails and the legs were washed in water before the victim was placed on the altar. It might readily be argued that this was unnecessary, as the fire would soon consume the sacrifice and everything unclean be destroyed. Why, then, spend time in washing parts of the animal?
This, again, must have deeply impressed all with the holiness of God, and His hatred of disorder and everything that defiles. In fact, every act, every ceremony, brought home the lesson of the sacredness of God’s work, the holiness of His character.
The priest shall burn all. There was one exception to this: the skin was not burned, but given to the priest (ch. 7:8). We are not told why this exception was made.
A sweet savour. That is, pleasing to Him. The burnt offerings of ch. 1 were not mandatory offerings but voluntary, something the offerer brought because he felt his need of God and wanted to show his appreciation for the goodness of the Lord. In bringing the offering he was expressing his love for God and consecrating himself to His service.
Burnt offerings were offered on many occasions and represented consecration and thankfulness to God. They did not call for any specific favor, but expressed gratitude for past mercies. They were offered in the cleansing of a leper (ch. 14:19, 20), the cleansing of women after childbirth (ch. 12:6–8), and also for general defilement (ch. 15:15, 30). In many cases a sin offering accompanied the burnt offering, but not always. When sin and burnt offerings were brought by the same individual, the sin offering came first and was for a specific sin or sins; the burnt offering was for general sinfulness, without reference to any particular sin.
Burnt offerings had a prominent place in the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:15–25; Lev. 8:18), as well as their induction into the priesthood (Lev. 9:12–14). They were also used in Nazirite vows (Num. 6:13–16). In these instances they stood for complete consecration of the individual to God. In them the offerer placed himself symbolically on the altar, his life wholly devoted to God’s service.
Sacrifices were embodied prayers. Considered in this light they take on deeper meaning. If a Christian falls into temptation and commits a sin, he meekly confesses his sin and asks for forgiveness. The true Israelite did the same, but in addition he brought a sin offering for the specific sin. If he also brought a burnt offering, he was in that act saying, “Lord, I may have done other things also that are not pleasing to Thee. I am not aware that I have done this, but in mercy forgive wherein I may have come short.” When we pray this prayer today we are doing what the Israelite did when he brought his burnt offering.
Paul’s expression in Rom. 12:1, “present your bodies a living sacrifice,” is a reference to ancient burnt offerings. We are to be wholly dedicated to God. We are to be completely cleansed. Only when all filth was removed from the burnt offering, was it permitted to come upon the altar, “an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” So it is with us. All sin, all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, must be removed before we are fit for the altar (2 Cor. 7:1).
The burnt offering is a type of Christ, who gave Himself fully, completely to God, leaving an example for us to follow. It teaches entire sanctification, complete dedication. It is rightly placed first in the list of offerings in Leviticus. It tells us in no uncertain tones that to be a sweet savor unto God, a sacrifice must be one of entire surrender. All must be placed on the altar, all must be dedicated to God.
As the sacrifice was to be perfect, so Christ is the “lamb without blemish and without spot,” the One altogether lovely, the Holy One, who “loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (1 Peter 1:19; Eph. 5:2).
The burnt sacrifice was pleasing to God because it revealed a desire in the heart of the offerer to dedicate himself to God. In bringing his sacrifice the offerer said in effect, “Lord, I desire to serve Thee. I am placing myself on the altar, reserving nothing for myself. Accept me in the Substitute and for His sake.” Such an attitude is pleasing to God.
The burnt offerings of ch. 1 were a “sweet savour” unto God because they were entirely voluntary. Christians are in danger of doing that which in itself is good and right, not because of an inner urge or an impelling love but because it is the custom or because it is expected. Duty is a great word and should be emphasized; but we are not to forget that love is still greater, and that rightly applied it fulfills duty because it includes duty. Love is voluntary, spontaneous, free; duty is exacting, compulsory. Both are necessary in the Christian life, and one must not be stressed to the exclusion of the other. Duty fulfills the law and goes all the way. Love also fulfills the law and goes all the way; but then it goes even further. It goes the second mile. It gives the cloak also.
“God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Some would substitute “liberal” for “cheerful” which would probably be true also. But the text reads “cheerful.” It denotes one who gives willingly, who does not need to be urged, but cheerfully does his part. Such is pleasing to God. This spirit is typified in the burnt offering. It would be pleasing to God if the spirit of happy, cheerful service were more common than it is. Often we do resignedly, perhaps even with grumbling, that which we should do with eagerness and a happy spirit. God loves a cheerful giver, not only of money but of service. There are tasks to be done that are not agreeable or pleasant. God appreciates our doing them as a matter of duty, but He would be even more pleased if we would do them voluntarily and without murmur or complaint. There are those who have to be encouraged, admonished, urged, almost bribed to do what they should do cheerfully and of their own free will (see Isa. 64:7; Mal. 1:10). An indifferent attitude and the desire for reward weary both men and God. It is disheartening to leaders to admonish earnestly and repeatedly and win but a feeble response.
10. Of the flocks. If an offerer could not afford or was not inclined to offer a bullock, he might select a sheep or a goat from the flock. This was acceptable to God; but whatever he selected, it must be a male, and it must be without blemish.
11. Sprinkle his blood. The ritual was the same as for a bullock. In this case nothing is said of placing the hand on the head of the animal, but doubtless this was done. As in the case of a bullock, the priest stood ready to receive the blood and to sprinkle it round about upon the altar (see on v. 5).
13. He shall wash the inwards. The same ritual was followed as with the bullock. The animal was flayed, cut into pieces, the legs and the entrails washed, and then the pieces carried to the altar and there placed in order.
14. Of fowls. Turtledoves and pigeons were inexpensive, and even the poor could afford to bring one. It should be remembered that the offerings of ch. 1 were voluntary. But a heart overflowing with love would find some way of bringing a gift to God, however small it might be. Such offerings were as precious in the sight of God as the more pretentious ones.
Jesus plainly taught this when He said of the widow who cast in the two mites, that she “hath cast in more than they all” (Luke 21:3, 4). A mite being worth only a fraction of a cent, her gift was small indeed. But she gave all she had. The amount she gave was not the true measure of her gift. It was not what she gave but what she had left that counted.
15. The priests shall bring it. Ordinarily, the offerer did the slaying. But in the case of a fowl the quantity of blood was so small that it was necessary for the priest himself to kill the bird, so that he might quickly touch the altar with the blood of the victim.
16. His crop with his feathers. These were thrown on the ash heap, as burning them would produce an offensive odor.
17. A sweet savour. The birds were too small to divide, too small to sprinkle the blood in the same manner as in other offerings, too small to rest the hand on (see on v. 4); but they were, nevertheless, a sweet savor unto God. The offerer had little part in the ritual except to provide the bird. The priest did the rest. Even so, the offerer had done what he could, and this was pleasing and acceptable to God.
1 The meat offering of flour with oil and incense, 4 either baken in the oven, 5 or on a plate, 7 or in a fryingpan, 12 or of the first-fruits in the ear. 13 The salt of the meat offering.
1. Offer a meat offering. More accurately, bring “a cereal offering [minchah] as an offering [qorban see on ch. 1:2], ” RSV. The word minchah, originally without specific religious significance, designated a gift presented to a superior. The “present” Jacob gave Esau was a minchah (Gen. 32:13). So also was the “present” that Joseph’s brothers gave him upon their arrival in Egypt (Gen. 43:11). It stood, as well, for the tribute paid by conquered peoples (2 Sam. 8:2, 6). These gifts expressed submission and dependence. At the time of Sinai minchah became the official designation for a gift to God, a gift of homage, an acknowledgment of the superiority of the One to whom the gift was given. It signified man’s dependence upon God for all the good things of life, in recognition of Him as owner and provider. In presenting such an offering a man acknowledged himself as but a steward of the things entrusted to him.
When the KJV translation was made the word “meat” meant food of all kinds. However, the expression “meat offering,” from minchah, now conveys the idea of flesh meat, which was not used in the “meat” offerings of Lev. 2. It was, rather, a meal or cereal offering, consisting of flour or grain prepared in various ways, but never of flesh meat. The minchah of Abel was, nevertheless, a lamb (Gen. 4:4). Most recent translations render minchah as “meal” or “cereal” offering.
As there were both private and public burnt offerings, so there were private and public meat offerings. The private meat offerings were voluntary, and could be offered at will and at any time. The public meat offerings were prescribed and mandatory.
Chief among the public meat offerings was the shewbread, or “bread of the Presence,” placed each Sabbath on the table in the first apartment of the sanctuary. It was first presented to the Lord, left on the table for a week, and then eaten by the priests. It was called the “bread of the Presence,” literally the “bread of the Face,” as it was continually on the table in the presence of, or before the face of, God. The shewbread table was also called the “pure table” (Lev. 24:6).
The shewbread offering consisted of 12 loaves, each made from about 51/3 lb. (2.4 kg.) of flour, and hence of considerable size. The loaves were placed in two stacks of six each on the table. The priests who had served during that week offered the Sabbath morning sacrifices and remained until the priests who had come in on Friday to serve the coming week offered the Sabbath evening sacrifices. The outgoing priests removed the old bread as the incoming priests placed the new on the table. They were careful not to remove the old until the new was ready to be put on; for there must always be bread on the table, as there must always be a burnt sacrifice on the altar. Hence, the burnt sacrifice was called the “continual burnt offering,” and the bread the “continual shewbread” (Ex. 29:42; 2 Chron. 2:4). The shewbread was offered to God under an “everlasting covenant” (Lev. 24:8). It was an ever-present testimony of Israel’s dependence upon God for sustenance and life; on God’s part it constituted a continual promise that He would sustain His people. Israel’s need was ever before God, and God’s promise was ever before the people.
A drink offering accompanied the morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. 29:40; Num. 15:5). For this reason the shewbread table contained dishes, spoons, covers, and bowls, or as other versions render it, dishes, spoons, and “cups, with which they pour out” (Ex. 25:29, Young’s translation). This drink offering was poured out in the holy place “unto the Lord.”
It is not a long step from the table of shewbread mentioned in the OT to the table of the Lord in the NT (see Luke 22:30; 1 Cor. 10:21). The bread is Christ’s body, broken for us. The cup is the new testament in His blood (1 Cor. 11:24, 25).The “bread of the Presence” is symbolic of Him who “ever liveth to make intercession” for us, of the “living bread which came down from heaven” (Heb. 7:25; John 6:51).
His offering shall be. This offering could be brought by anyone who desired to present a gift to God. It consisted of fine flour, oil, and frankincense. At times it was brought as a separate offering, but was generally combined with a burnt sacrifice.
Fine flour is the product of cooperation between God and man. God places the life principle in the seed, gives sunshine and rain, and causes it to grow. Man sows the seed, tends it, harvests it, grinds it into fine flour, and then presents it to God either in its material state as flour or as cakes baked in an oven. It is God’s original gift plus man’s labor. It is giving back to God His own with interest. It is symbolic of man’s lifework, of talents improved.
God gives to every man talents according to his capacity for using them. Some have more than one talent, no one has less. God is not pleased when men give back to Him only that which He has given them, return to Him only the amount of seed entrusted to them. God would have man plant the seed, tend and harvest it, remove all foreign and coarse particles, grind it between the upper and the nether millstone, crushing all life out of it, and then present it to Him as “fine flour.” He expects every talent to be improved, refined, ennobled.
2. Bring it to Aaron’s sons. No directions are given as to the amount to be brought. This was optional with the individual. Of each offering the priest took a handful of the flour, some of the oil, and all of the frankincense, and burned them on the altar. This was called the “memorial” part, and was “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” To this, as to all other offerings, salt was to be added (v. 13; DA 439).
3. The remnant. The cereal offering was in reality a gift to the priests, for they received all except the “memorial” portion of it. They were to divide their own portion among themselves, and each was to receive an equal share (ch. 7:10).
4. Baken in the oven. The meat offering the priests received consisted of flour and oil. They could take this and bake what they pleased. But it was also permissible for the offerer to bake it himself and bring the baked offering to the priests. If he did so, he must make unleavened cakes of fine flour and oil, divide the cakes into pieces, and pour oil over them. They might be baked in an oven or in a pan.
7. Baken in the fryingpan. The ingredients were the same, fine flour and oil. The cakes were brought “unto the Lord” and presented to the priest, who was to take the “memorial” part (v. 9) and burn it on the altar. The part that was left belonged to Aaron and his sons and was “a thing most holy” (see v. 10).
Fine flour. The fine flour used in meat offerings was no different from other fine flour, and had no special virtue attached to it. Yet, after it was given to the priest it became “most holy.” The same principle applied in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5). It should cause all who minister in holy things and receive dedicated offerings to be careful in the use of and handling of these “most holy” things.
As noted above, fine flour represents man’s lifework, his talents consecrated and improved.
Flour is merely crushed grain. Before being crushed it was capable of perpetuating itself, of transmitting life. Now, being crushed, it is apparently useless. It can never be planted again. The life is crushed out of it. But is it useless? No. It has given its life, it has died, that another life might be maintained. The crushing of its own life becomes the means through which a higher life is perpetuated. It was the life of the seed; now it helps sustain the life of a living being, created in the image of God. Death has enriched it, glorified it, made it serviceable to man.
Few lives are of real and enduring value until they have been bruised and crushed. It is in the deep and dark experiences of life that men find themselves and God. It is when the water goes over the soul that character is built. Sorrow, disappointment, and suffering are the able servants of God. The dark days bring showers of blessing, enabling the seed to germinate, fulfill its mission, and bring forth fruit.
The problem of suffering may be unfathomable in its deeper aspects. But some things are clear. Suffering serves a definite purpose in the plan of God as a means of preparing the soul for heaven. It mellows the spirit. It fits the soul for a deeper understanding of the true meaning of life. It inspires sympathy for others. It leads one to walk softly before God and men. It humbles.
In this life, only he who has suffered has really lived. Only he who has loved has lived. The two are inseparable. Love involves sacrifice, and sacrifice often involves suffering. This, however, need not necessarily be painful suffering; for the highest kind of suffering is holy, exalted, joyful. A mother may sacrifice for her child; she may suffer physically; but she does it joyfully, willingly. Love counts sacrifice a privilege.
The full lesson of suffering has not been learned until we can rejoice in it. And rejoice we may, and will, when we experience what Paul did when he said that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ” (2 Cor. 1:5). This is true also of vicarious suffering. Christ, “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2).
The flour in the meat offering was not to be offered by itself alone; it was to be mingled with oil. Oil is symbolic of the Spirit of God. Only as a life is sanctified by the Spirit, mixed with it, anointed with it, can it be pleasing to God. Suffering in and of itself may not prove a blessing. With some it only leads to hardness of heart and bitterness of spirit. But as the Holy Spirit takes possession of the soul, as the sweet spirit of the Master permeates the life, the fragrance of a dedicated life becomes manifest.
9. A memorial. As God reserved a “memorial” portion of every meat offering for Himself, so He also reserves a memorial part of our income and our time. One tenth of our increase belongs to God. “All the tithe … is the Lord’s” (ch. 27:30). In like manner He has reserved the seventh day as belonging to Him (Ex. 20:10).
In these respects the Christian church comes lamentably short. Few recognize God’s claims upon them. They act as if what they have belongs to them, when in reality they are merely stewards. They count themselves liberal when they give to God’s cause, when perhaps the amount of their liberality does not equal the part which of right belongs to God, and is not theirs to begin with. In like manner, many fail in their observance of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath hours are holy time, in which we are to do God’s work and not our own.
It would be well for us to remember that the memorial part of all we possess belongs to God.
11. No leaven, nor any honey. Leaven was forbidden in any meat offering presented to God to be burned on the altar. The same prohibition applied to honey. Fermentation is a symbol of corruption. Said Christ, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1). Paul speaks of the “leaven of malice and wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:8). Honey as well as leaven was used to produce fermentation, especially in the making of vinegar. Interpreters generally associate honey with the lusts of the flesh, which may indeed be pleasing, but which contain the elements of corruption and are destructive of spiritual life. However, though leaven and honey might not be burned on the altar, leaven was definitely commanded to be brought as first fruits (Lev. 23:17), and honey was among the first fruits offered by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:5).
13. The salt of the covenant. A covenant of salt is a perpetual covenant (Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5). In its ability to preserve, salt is the opposite of leaven and honey. Its symbolic meaning is plain: the purifying and preserving principles of holiness and truth must never be wanting in our covenant relations with God.
“Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt” (Mark 9:49). Fire purifies, salt preserves. To be salted with fire means not only purification but preservation. God desires a pure people, a clean people, a holy people, a people whose sins are forgiven. The keeping power of God is theirs for the asking. Not only are they to become clean and holy, but they are to be kept so. The fire with which they are to be “salted” does not destroy, but purifies. We are first to be cleansed, then we are to be kept. “Salted with fire!” “Salted with salt!” Purified and kept pure! Wonderful provision!
14. Green ears of corn. “New grain from fresh ears” (RSV). By “corn” is meant any grain, such as wheat, barley, rye, or oats. Stalks of wheat, with the ears, gathered before they are fully ripe and roasted, are still a favorite food in the East. Such could also be used for a meat offering. Oil was poured on the ears of corn, with frankincense; the “memorial” portion was burned on the altar, and the remainder given to the priest. Perhaps the bruised grain here typifies Him who was bruised for us, and by whose stripes we are healed (Isa. 53:5).
The various meat offerings present Christ as the life-giver and upholder, the One through and in whom “we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). As burnt offerings stood for consecration of the life, so meat offerings called for consecration of one’s means. The dedication of one’s means should be preceded by a dedication of life. A dedication of the life without a dedication of one’s means is not provided for in the gospel; neither is a dedication of means without a dedication of life. The two must go together. Combined, they constitute a complete sacrifice, pleasing to God, “a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev. 1:9).
The idea of stewardship needs emphasis. Some bear the name of Christ and loudly profess holiness and devotion to God, but their works do not correspond to their profession. The purse strings are held tightly, appeals go unheeded, and God’s cause languishes. Such need to understand that entire consecration of the life includes also consecration one’s means.
It would be incorrect, however, to conclude that a consecration of one’s means is all that God requires, and that liberal giving will smooth the way to heaven. We are to consecrate ourselves to Him. We are responsible to God for every talent He has entrusted to us, whether of means, time, or natural gifts. Of all these we are stewards, and God is the rightful Master. Talents such as song, music, speech, and leadership all belong to God. They must be dedicated to Him; they must be put on the altar.
The “meat” offerings are replete with spiritual lessons for the devout soul. All we are should be dedicated to God; all we have should be on the altar. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:7). “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another” (Mark 9:50). Finally, in the service of God we may not substitute our own inventions and methods for the plans of God, though they may be sweet as honey to out own taste.
1 The peace offering of the herd, 6 of the flock, 7 either a lamb, 12 or a goat.
1. Peace offering. Heb. shelem, from a root word meaning “to make peace” (Joshua 10:4) or “to be at peace” (Job 22:21), “to make restitution” (Ex. 22:5), “to make complete [pay]” (Ps. 50:14). The distinguishing feature of the peace offering was the communal meal held within the precincts of the sanctuary, in which joy and happiness prevailed and in which people and priests held converse. This was not an occasion where peace was effected, but a feast of rejoicing that peace existed. It was generally preceded by a sin offering and a burnt offering. The blood had been sprinkled, atonement had been made, forgiveness extended, and justification assured. In celebration of this experience the offerer invited his near of kin, the servants, and the Levites to eat with him. The whole family assembled in the court of the congregation to celebrate the fact that peace had been effected between God and man, and between man and man.
There is no higher joy conceivable than that of being at peace with God (see Rom. 5:1). It is the legacy Christ left when He said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27). Christ’s peace is that quiet assurance that comes from confidence in God.
Christ spoke these words of peace in the very shadow of Gethsemane and Golgotha. He knew what awaited Him, but He did not shrink from it. His heart was filled with peace and love. He knew in whom He trusted, and rested in the assurance that the Father loved Him. He might not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope might not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, nor tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. But by faith He was victor. He knew whom He believed, and was assured that all would come out well. It is this peace He bequeaths to us. It means oneness with the Father; it means quiet, rest, joy, and contentment; it means love, faith, fellowship, communion; it means freedom from worry, fear, and anxiety. The Christian who enjoys this peace has a source of strength not dependent on circumstances. He is in tune with God.
As noted before, the various sacrifices of the OT were embodied prayers. They combined faith and works. They expressed man’s need of and relation to God. The people might not offer up incense with their prayers, but they might provide the incense. They might not minister the blood, but they might provide the sacrifice. They might not enter the sanctuary, but they might provide the gifts and offerings that made the service possible. They might not eat the shewbread, but they might provide “the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord” (v. 11).
“Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1), “for he is our peace” (Eph. 2:14). Israel of old was invited to celebrate the fact that they were at peace with God and man, that their sins were forgiven, that they were restored to favor with Heaven. These were occasions of joy and thankfulness, when misunderstandings had been cleared up and peace and good fellowship prevailed. Sons and daughters, manservants and maidservants, and invited Levites were to participate. All sat down at the table of the Lord and rejoiced together “in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:2). It might be well for the people of God today to celebrate feasts of rejoicing over the fact that they are at peace with God (see Additional Note at close of chapter).
2. Lay his hand. The animal was killed at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, where most sacrificial animals were slain, and its blood sprinkled upon the altar of burnt offerings (see on ch. 1:4, 5).
3. All the fat. Not fat scattered throughout the body, but the fat covering certain organs. This, together with the kidneys, was consumed on the altar.
The word translated “fat” is cheleb, from an unused root meaning “to be fat.” The word for “milk” is chalab and differs from “fat” only in the vowel pointings.
5. A sweet savour. Inasmuch as the fat was burned on the altar, “a sweet savour unto the Lord,” it seems inconsistent to hold, as some do, that it was a symbol of sin. Sin is an abomination to God, and nothing symbolizing it was permitted to come on the altar. It was for this reason that leaven, as a symbol of sin, was excluded (ch. 2:11, 12). Psalms 37:20 is sometimes quoted as proof that “fat” signifies sin. But the word translated “fat” is yaqar, and means “beauty,” “magnificence,” or “preciousness” rather than “fat.” It is the same word God uses in calling His people “precious” (Isa. 43:4). The fat was always burned on the altar; God claimed it as His (Lev. 3:16); it was a “sweet savour” unto the Lord; it was precious; it was “the food of the offering” presented to the Lord (v. 16). To “eat the fat of the land” (Gen. 45:18) meant to enjoy the best it had to offer.
6. Of the flock. The rules applied to animals taken from the flock applied also to those from the herd. Note that in this offering, a male or a female might be used, but it must be without blemish. The offerer laid his hand upon the head of the victim and killed it, after which the priest ministered the blood.
9. The whole rump. More accurately, “the tail,” that is, of the broadtail sheep (Ovis laticaudata). The tail of this sheep usually weighs from 10 to 15 lb., and may weigh as much as 50 lb. or more. Because of its weight the tail drags on the ground, and the result is painful sores that lessen the value of the sheep. In olden times, as today, shepherds tied light boards to the tails or made small carts on which the tail could ride.
The tail itself was composed of a mixture of fat and marrow, which, blended with other things, was used as a substitute for butter by those who were not inhibited by God’s command not to eat the fat. In some Eastern countries the tail is still so used.
12. A goat. The procedure in this case was the same as with other sacrifices. The laying on of the hand, the slaying, the sprinkling of the blood—all followed the regular pattern. The fat was carefully removed, and, with the kidneys, burned on the altar.
17. A perpetual statute. God commanded Israel to “eat neither fat nor blood.” “All the fat is the Lord’s” (v. 16), and, “all the tithe … is the Lord’s” (ch. 27:30), are parallel statements. The reason given for not eating fat is that it belongs to God (see on ch. 7:23).
Literal peace offerings of joy and thankfulness are no more offered, but their spirit should remain. Few, even among supposedly “good” Christians, rejoice in the peace and love of God as they should and as is their privilege. Though the reason in some cases may be a lack of appreciation for what God has done for them, this is not always so. There are many Christians who fail to understand that it is their privilege to be happy in their religion. They live in the shadow of the cross rather than in its sunshine. They feel that there is something wrong about being happy, that even a smile may be inappropriate, and that laughter, innocent or otherwise, is sacrilegious. They point to the fact that there is no record that Christ ever laughed or even smiled. True, but neither is there any record that He ever combed His hair or bathed. Such individuals seek to carry the burden of the world upon their shoulders, and feel that to spend any time whatever in recreation is not only a waste of time but definitely irreligious. They are “good” Christians, but not happy ones. Had they lived in the time of Christ, and had they been among His followers, they would have questioned the advisability of His attending the wedding in Galilee, and would have followed Him reluctantly if at all. They would have waited most impatiently for Him. Did He not have a great work to do? How could He then waste time at a social occasion? Had they known that He was to have but three years in which to work, they would have been still more perplexed.
This kind of “good” Christians would feel that there was something wrong about Christ’s social activities. How could He spend time in eating and drinking with sinners? Even the Pharisees were perplexed about this as they pointed to the fasting and praying of John’s disciples, implying rebuke to Christ, who was feasting (see Luke 5:29–35).
This is written with a full appreciation of the day in which we live, on the very brink of eternity. If there ever was a time when seriousness and sobriety should characterize the lives of Christ’s followers this is such a time. In view of the approaching crisis, “what sort of persons” ought we to be “in lives of holiness and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11, RSV). All frivolity and lightness should be put aside, and solemnity should take possession of every believer. Great and momentous events are hastening on apace. This is no time for trifling and nonsense. The King is at the door.
These facts, however, should not cause us to forget that we are children of the King, that our sins are forgiven, and that we have a right to be happy and rejoice. The work must be finished, and we are to have a part in it; but some talk as if all depended on them. In their prayers they remind God of what needs to be done, seemingly fearful that He might forget some important matters dear to their hearts. They are “good” souls, anxious at all times to do right, but they have never learned to cast their burdens on the Lord. They are doing their best to carry the load, and though groaning under the burden, are determined never to give up. They struggle on and do much good. They are valuable workers, and the Lord loves them dearly.
But with all their work and striving, this one thing they lack—faith in God. They lack faith that He who began the work will also finish it, that He is as much interested in it as they are, even more, and that He is doing all that can be done at the moment. They find little joy in their religion, but a great deal of worry. They are like Martha, who toiled and worried, but left out the one thing needful. They look disapprovingly on the Marys, complain to the Lord about them, and experience difficulty understanding how Christ could take Mary’s part. Would the meal ever have been ready if there had been two Marys and no Martha? they ask. Such Christians work and are faithful in their work, but inwardly they feel that others are not doing their share and that too much of the load is on them.
The same lesson is emphasized in the story of the prodigal son. The elder son claimed that he had never done wrong. He had always worked hard, and had not wasted his time in feasting and carousing. Now, when the younger son came home after spending his portion of the inheritance in riotous living, he was angry and would not go in to the feast in honor of the returned brother. It was of no avail that the father went out and entreated him. Instead, he rebuked the father, saying that as soon as the prodigal son, who had devoured his living with harlots, came home, the father made for him a feast and killed the fatted calf—but had never done anything for his obedient son (Luke 15:30).
Christians should be happy people, though in the midst of the most solemn events. Christ was cheerful and radiant, even when facing the cross. Why should we not be happy? God has placed a new song in the hearts of those who are redeemed. They are children of the Most High. They are walking with God. They are happy in His love.
Not all Christians have the peace of God in their hearts as they should have, and as they are entitled to have. They have forgotten Christ’s promise, “Peace I leave with you. … Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).
The hearts of many are troubled. They are afraid. They worry. Some dear one is outside the fold and they are trying to “pray him in.” Day and night they toil and pray. They leave no stone unturned in their efforts to encompass his salvation. If anyone can be saved by the works of someone else, they are determined that it shall be done. And they do not leave God out of the reckoning. They pray to Him. They entreat Him. They pray as if God needed urging. And at last the dear one turns to God. How happy they are! Now they can rest. Their work is done, their task accomplished.
Does it ever occur to such that God is as much interested in a soul’s conversion as they are? Does it ever occur to them that long before they began to pray and work, God had set agencies in motion that would, if possible, effect the desired end? God cannot save a man against his will, but there are many things God can do, and He is doing them all. He could do still more if we would cooperate with Him and quietly ask if there is anything we can do to help, instead of attempting to direct Him. We are prone to take over God’s work and ask His help, when it would be better if we recognized God’s work and cooperated with Him. The moment such realization comes to a soul, peace comes with it. He will not work or pray less, but he will shift the emphasis. He will begin to pray in faith. If we really believe that God is at work, if we believe that He is interested in men’s salvation, we will pray more than ever; but we will leave the responsibility with God. In joy and gladness let us present our hearts and lives to God, “for a sweet savour.”
17 2T 61
1 The sin offering of ignorance, 3 for the priest, 13 for the congregation, 22 for the ruler, 27 for any of the people.
2. Sin. Sin offerings are first mentioned in connection with the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:14), but they were not at that time commanded for the people in general. The words “sin” and “sin offering” are both translated from the same Hebrew word, chat\t\aÕth, a fact that implies a close relationship between the two. “Sin” implied the need of an offering for sin. The bringing of a sin offering implied that sin had been committed. In bringing a “sin offering” to the sanctuary a man was literally bringing the sin represented by it, and for which it was to make atonement. Sin offerings are first mentioned in connection with the erection of the sanctuary and the installation of the priesthood. Previously, burnt offerings alone were in use. The various words used in the Bible to define and describe sin yield the following conceptions:
1. Sin is deviation from a defined standard, a violation of the law of God (1 John 3:4). If we conceive of the law as a straight line to be followed, any deviation from that path would be sin. Such turning aside may be accidental or intentional, but in either case it is sin.
2. Sin is coming short, a failure to reach the goal of perfection. Sin is like an arrow falling short of the target. The archer may have done his best, but lacks strength to bend the bow sufficiently to give the arrow power to reach the target. He comes short. “All have sinned, and come short” (Rom. 3:23).
3. Sin is disobedience. Disobedience is possible only where there is a knowledge of the law and transgression of it. There are different degrees of guilt in disobedience, and God provides for this. But all transgression is serious. The persistently impenitent will eventually commit the sin that is unpardonable.
4. Sin is an offense against God. Man may sin against man, but his first and chief offense is against God. Hence, confession must always first be made to God. The prodigal son had sinned grievously against his father, yet when he returned his first words were, “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee” (Luke 15:18). He stated the matter rightly. Great as were his transgressions against men, his first offense was against God. This is the case in all sin.
Through ignorance. That is, “unwittingly” (RSV), unintentionally, inadvertently, thoughtlessly, or carelessly.
Against any of the commandments. This refers particularly to the Ten Commandments, but includes other commands of God as well.
The entire sanctuary, including its equipment, its priesthood, and its ritual, was concerned with sin. The services revolved about man’s disobedience and need for salvation. Were it not for sin, there would be no need of an altar on which to place the victims; there would be no slaying of animals, no shedding of blood, no ministry of atonement. There would doubtless have been a place where man might meet with God, but the service would be of an altogether different nature.
The evil of sin is not necessarily or only in the thing done. Nor is the same sin committed by different persons equally sinful. Light always brings responsibility, and the identical sin committed by an ignorant savage and by a highly civilized man must be considered and judged in each case from a different point of view. God takes all of this into consideration, and in the chapter before us makes provision for it. Accordingly, there is a certain gradation in the penalties imposed for sins committed by those holding different positions. The one who has light is held more responsible than the one who is in ignorance. In this chapter, four different classes of offenders are considered, and each is treated according to his standing. The sin of a prominent person affects more people than that of one less prominent; hence, it must be dealt with more severely.
3. The priest that is anointed. All priests were anointed, but the high priest only was anointed on the head; hence, by way of pre-eminence, he is here called “the priest that is anointed” (see Ex. 29:7–9; Lev. 8:12, 13). He is designated as “the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured” (Lev. 21:10). Ordinarily he is called simply “the priest.” Only four times in the books of Moses is he called “high priest,” and in each case a literal translation would be “great priest” or “chief priest” (see Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25, 28).
According to the sin of the people. Rather, “thus bringing guilt on the people” (RSV). The high priest stood for and represented the people (see Lev. 16:15, 16; Zech. 3:1–4). In harmony with this principle the prophets always identified themselves with the sins of the people. Although as God’s messengers they rebuked the people for their transgressions, when they prayed to God they approached Him as if they were one with the people in the sins rebuked. So we find them repeatedly saying, “We have sinned,” not merely “they have sinned”; “we have sinned against the Lord”; “we have sinned against him”; “we have sinned, we have done wickedly” (Neh. 1:6; Isa. 64:5, 7; Jer. 3:25; 8:14; 14:7; Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 15).
The representative character of the high priest needs to be stressed. He was the representative man, the one who acted for the people in all things pertaining to the sanctuary. And in the high priest the whole priesthood was summed up.
When Adam sinned, “death passed upon all men” (Rom. 5:12), for “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). Adam was the representative man. Christ was likewise the representative man. Adam, the “first man,” was the head of humanity; Christ, the “second man,” the “last Adam,” “the Lord from heaven,” is the head of the new humanity (1 Cor. 15:45–47). “As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” and “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18, 19). “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).
The high priest, being in a special sense a figure of Christ, was the representative man. He stood for all Israel. He carried their burdens and sins. He bore the iniquity of the holy things. He bore the judgment of Israel. When he sinned, Israel sinned. When he entered the sanctuary, he went in on behalf of the people. And when he appeared before God, they appeared. He represented the people; he was the people. When he sinned, the people sinned, and he was required to bring the same sacrifice for his sin as when the whole nation sinned.
A young bullock without blemish. Both male and female animals could be used in sin offerings; but they must be “without blemish.” It was a young bullock the high priest offered for his sin, as for the sin of all the people (Lev. 4:14).
4. Lay his hand. This was the same ceremony as in all animal sacrifices, except where fowls were used. The laying on of the hand denoted not merely the dedication of the animal to God; but as the offerer leaned heavily upon the head of the victim, he identified himself with it, and it became his substitute (see on ch. 1:4).
The laying on of the hand was accompanied by a confession of the sin that had occasioned the bringing of the sacrifice (ch. 5:5). This principle applied to all sacrifices for sin. The act of laying on the hand was therefore significant, because the sinner in confessing his sin and leaning on the victim declared his faith in God, who provided a substitute to bear the penalty for his sin. The bringing of the sacrifice was not the penalty. The penalty was death, and this the animal paid.
6. Sprinkle of the blood. As there was no one higher in rank than the high priest, who could officiate for him, he ministered the blood himself. In the sacrifices previously considered, the blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering in the court or placed upon its horns. But when the anointed priest sinned, the blood was carried into the sanctuary itself. This was doubtless because his sin was considered more serious than that of anyone else, and of more concern to God. The priest dipped his finger in some of the blood and sprinkled it seven times before the veil, “before the Lord.” Also, he put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, which is also said to be “before the Lord” (v. 7).
It should be noted that the priest did not sprinkle the blood on the veil, but before it. It is also of interest that he used only one finger in sprinkling. Furthermore, this sprinkling was done only when the anointed priest or the whole congregation sinned. We have no record of how often the high priest sinned and brought a bullock as an offering, but it was probably not often. Again, we do not know how often the whole people sinned and had to bring a bullock, but we suppose that this was not often. That the people often sinned individually is evident, but we have few records of national sins, such as are here contemplated. The only definite record we have was when they sinned and danced about the golden calf. True, there were other national apostasies, but as the offering was only to be brought when they repented of their sins, there could not have been many instances.
The sprinkling took place with reference to the law, which was directly behind the veil. However, the blood did not reach the law; the veil intervened. In the daily service the time had not come for the sinner to face the law. That was reserved for the Day of Atonement, which, in type, was the day of judgment for Israel (see on Heb. 10:19, 20).
7. Upon the horns of the altar. Besides sprinkling the blood before the veil, the priest also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of incense. In doing so he touched each horn in turn, making a mark of blood with his finger, thus registering the fact that sin had been committed and that an offering had been brought. The blood that he placed on the horns was from an animal that bore sin, and hence was sin-laden blood. This necessitated that there should be made “an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year” (Ex. 30:10). The unused portion of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
8. The fat of the bullock. See on ch. 3:3, 5. There is no mention here of its being “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” The fact that it was permitted on the altar, however, indicates that it was pleasing to God.
12. Without the camp. The whole bullock was carried without the camp and burned in a clean place, not merely to dispose of it, nor because it was considered unclean, for it is distinctly called “most holy” (ch. 6:25). The book of Hebrews attaches a symbolic meaning to the burning of the victim without the camp. Says Paul, “Jesus also … suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:12, 13). The burning of the body without the camp was then a type of Christ, crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12). Some have seen in this the further thought that He died not for the Jews only but for the world. No sacrificial use was made of the body even though it was considered most holy. As it was not burned on the altar, no redemptive value inhered in it. It was therefore not the body that counted in the atonement, for “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11).
However, it was not the blood as such that atoned, but the blood shed and applied. No atonement could have been effected in the sacrificial service by having an animal killed and the blood poured out on the ground. It was to be caught in a vessel, after which the priest ministered it by sprinkling and otherwise. It was the sprinkled blood that effected atonement, not the unused portion of the blood later poured out on the ground (see on ch. 4:7). The atonement was made by the blood that was put on the horns of the altar, not by that which was poured out on the ground (Ex. 29:12; Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).
It is unfortunate that Christians stress the “spilt blood,” an expression not found in the Bible, and forget the “sprinkled” blood, which alone effected atonement. The spilt blood was the unused blood, that which was poured out at the bottom of the altar after the atonement was completed. Paul speaks of “the blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:24), that is, the blood that was ministered. At the institution of the Passover, Israel was commanded to slay a lamb and strike the blood on the lintel and on the two side posts (Ex. 12:7, 22, 23). God did not promise to save the first-born by virtue of the slaying of the lamb. It was only when the blood was applied that He would “pass over.”
The same principle holds good in all offerings. It is not enough to bring a victim and slay it; the blood must be applied. After His ascension Christ “by his own blood … entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12), and there as a “high priest, … a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:1–3), He ministers on our behalf. This phase of the ministry of Christ is as necessary to our salvation as was the ministry of the blood of the lamb at the time of the first Passover, and as with all offerings in which blood was shed.
The ministry of the blood on the great Day of Atonement was the high point in the yearly service. The killing of the victim was certainly important—without it there would be no blood to minister—but the climax was reached when the high priest went into the most holy with the blood of the Lord’s goat (see Heb. 9:25). Similarly, Christ “by his own blood … entered in once into the holy place” (Heb. 9:12). His death on Calvary was essential—without it He would have nothing “to offer” (Heb. 8:3)—but without the continuing ministry of the blood in the sanctuary above, the sacrifice on Calvary would be unavailing.
Most Christians neither understand nor appreciate Christ’s ministry as our great High Priest. To be sure, they believe in the shed blood; but they fail to understand that there must be a ministry, or application, of the blood to make it effective. It is time that the attention of the world, and of professed Christians in particular, be called to the work in which Christ is now engaged. Many ask why Christ tarries so long. They know He went away, but they know nothing of His mediatorial work. They have not followed the Lamb, and know not where He now is and what work He is doing. It is our duty and privilege, our appointed task as a people, to restore the old paths (see Isa. 58:12), and to present Christ to the world in His mediatorial capacity as our great High Priest. His work is nearly done, and when it is finished He will come in power and glory.
13. The whole congregation. Individuals might sin often and bring the necessary offerings. But it was seldom that the nation as a whole would sin “through ignorance” (see on vs. 2, 6).
Things which should not be done. This includes all sins, great and small, but refers chiefly to the so-called little sins. It is not the flagrant violation that is contemplated here, but the relatively minor “somewhat against any of the commandments” “which should not be done.” The doing of any of these things incurred guilt, and a sin offering must be brought to the door of the sanctuary.
14. When the sin. This presupposes ignorance that what had been done was sin (see on v. 2). Under such circumstances the “whole congregation” was to bring the same offering as that required of the high priest when he sinned. The bullock was provided by the congregation, inasmuch as all were counted guilty. The elders, selected from among the various tribes, brought the bullock to the place of sacrifice, laid their hands on it, and killed it. Nothing is here said of confession, but this is implied in the laying on of hands. Without confession the presentation of an offering would be unavailing, for there would be no transfer of sin from the sinner to the sacrifice. Furthermore, it is not the form of confession, but the fact, that is acceptable with God.
17. The blood. The ministry of the blood was the same as in the case of a priest who sinned (see v. 7). As the priest used only one finger in performing the ministry with the blood, only a small portion of the blood of the bullock was used.
19. His fat. The ritual with the blood being ended, the priest removed all the fat from the bullock, following the same procedure as in the case when the high priest had sinned (see vs. 6–8).
20. The priest shall make an atonement. In the case of the anointed (high) priest nothing is said of atonement or forgiveness. Doubtless he received pardon, as did others, when he confessed his sins. But because the high priest ministered his own sacrifice it would appear that a man could make his own atonement, and the statement is therefore omitted. But here, where the people are concerned, the priest is to make “atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.” The ritual of carrying the bullock outside the camp and burning it in a clean place was the same as when the anointed priest sinned.
22. When a ruler hath sinned. By “ruler” is meant the head of a tribe, or the head of a division of a tribe. Both civil and religious leaders are included—princes (Gen. 17:20), captains (Num. 2:3), chiefs (Num. 3:24, 32), governors (2 Chron. 1:2). The ruler had probably not been aware of his transgression. A ruler would not rank with the anointed (high) priest in his knowledge of the law; hence the offering required of him was of less value than in the case of the high priest.
24. Shall lay his hand. This follows the same pattern as the other offerings, and has the same meaning. In laying his hands upon the victim the sinner identifies himself with it, transfers his sins to it by confession, and presents it as his substitute.
25. The blood. The ministration of the blood of the goat is different from that of the bullock. The priest in this case does not carry the blood into the sanctuary, but catches it in a vessel and proceeds with it to the altar of burnt offering. There he places the blood on the horns of the altar with his finger.
26. Burn all his fat. In all cases, whether of burnt (ch. 1:8), peace (ch. 3:3), or sin offerings (ch. 4:8), the removable fat was burnt on the altar. With this, the priest completed his work on behalf of the ruler who had sinned, and he went away forgiven. There is no instruction here as to what was to be done with the body of the victim. According to ch. 6:26 the flesh was given to the priest, who was to eat it in the holy place in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
27. One of the common people. The procedure was the same as in the case of a ruler, with the exception that the common man was to bring a female rather than a male. The female was somewhat lower in the scale of value than the male, and therefore more easily acquired. The ritual of the blood and the disposal of the fat were the same as for rulers who had sinned (vs. 23–26).
31. For a sweet savour. Inasmuch as the fat was always burned on the altar it must have been acceptable to God, for nothing unclean was ever permitted on the altar.
32. A lamb for a sin offering. A lamb was even less expensive than a goat, and for this reason it was expected that a poor man would bring a lamb. The lamb was therefore considered the poor man’s offering. It is significant that Christ is repeatedly spoken of as the Lamb of God. He is the poor man’s sacrifice. The ritual was in all respects the same as that for a goat.
Provision for a graduated scale with regard to the value of the prescribed offerings reflects both the justice and the mercy of God. In the first place, the value of the sacrifice to be brought was determined by the degree of responsibility of the sinner, and in the second, by his ability to provide an offering.
27-30PP 354
1 He that sinneth in concealing his knowledge, 2 in touching an unclean thing, 4 or in making an oath. 6 His trespass offering, of the flock, 7 of fowls, 11 or of flour. 14 The trespass offering in sacrilege, 17 and in sins of ignorance.
1. If a soul sin. “If any one sins” (RSV). In the Hebrew Bible vs. 1–13 are joined to ch. 4, evidently for the reason that they deal with the same subject as ch. 4, that is, sin offerings. However, they are of a slightly different character, being borderline cases between sin and trespass offerings, partaking of the nature of both and called by both names.
The voice of swearing. Rather, “a public adjuration” (RSV). The setting is a court scene, where witnesses are called to testify. One refuses to testify and is declared guilty. There are times when unpleasant duties, ones we would prefer to avoid, must be performed.
In telling the truth, we should be careful lest we impute motives, and thus judge our brother. Care should be taken that the alleged facts are in reality facts, and not surmisings. Circumstantial evidence may point the way to the truth, but it may also be completely misleading. Let all beware of drawing unwarranted conclusions.
A case in point is that of a deacon who was seen by several members of the church on the Sabbath day hauling a small load of wood past the meetinghouse, dressed in his everyday clothes. Later he attended the service as if nothing had happened. He was promptly called in question, since the transgression was an open one, but gave no evidence of regret. There was no question as to the facts in the case, and he did not deny what he had done. The witnesses and the accused agreed on what had taken place. His action was a clear violation of the Sabbath. Then he explained.
Earlier that morning he had felt impressed to visit a widow and her two small children, whom he intended to take to Sabbath school. On arriving at the home he found the mother sick and the house without fuel. He went home, changed his clothes, and hauled a small load of wood to the needy family. This the witnesses had seen, but not knowing the circumstances they had drawn the conclusion that he was doing something on Sabbath that should not be done.
A witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He may not elaborate, he may not add, he may not detract, he may not judge the motives that prompted the act. Much injustice and sorrow would be avoided if this principle were more closely heeded.
2. Any unclean thing. People in ancient times did not have the medical knowledge now available. They had no way of knowing that by coming in contact with certain diseases they might become disease carriers. Thus the only safe principle was to avoid everything that looked suspicious. To transgress might lead to epidemics. As a health measure, this principle is still valid.
The Levitical laws were, of course, concerned primarily with moral and ceremonial “uncleanness.” At the same time, many of these regulations had a significance for men’s bodies as well as their souls. Inasmuch as the people were not prepared either to understand or to appreciate the physical aspect, fully at least, this value, though implied, is often not even mentioned. The word tame, translated “unclean,” is never used in the OT except in the setting of Levitical “uncleanness.” Here, in vs. 1 and 4, it is obvious that moral accountability is the object of concern. Inasmuch as the “uncleanness” of vs. 2 and 3 is classed with that of vs. 1 and 4, as being sin of the same type, it too must be essentially a matter of moral accountability. In the Levitical code “uncleanness” is essentially moral or ceremonial guilt, and may or may not imply actual physical “uncleanness.”
3. When he knoweth of it. A man might be ignorant and his act therefore considered excusable. But though ignorant, he might yet become a menace to others as a carrier of infection. Hence, in certain cases he might not be entirely innocent, and must be taught a lesson designed to impress him and others. Nevertheless, full guilt does not attach to one who is ignorant, unless he is willingly so, and had the opportunity of knowing better.
Some deliberately close their eyes to light, assuring themselves that, not seeing it, they are thereby relieved of responsibility for it. But in the judgment we shall all have to give an account, not only for what we know, but for what we might have known had we put forth the effort to learn.
4. If a soul swear. This does not refer to conversation but to the solemn confirmation of a promise to do or to refrain from doing certain things. When men entered into a contract or covenant there was mutual agreement, and this agreement they often confirmed with an oath. If one of the contracting parties forgets his promise, which he confirmed by an oath, or deliberately repudiates it, “when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.”
Failure to keep one’s word is a flagrant sin of our times, and appears to be on the increase. Of this Christians must beware. It is easy to fall in with the ways of the world, and to become slack in the standards God has set.
5. He shall confess. He is guilty, and knows it. A general confession will not suffice. It must be a confession of “that thing.” Nothing less will do.
6. His trespass offering. This consisted of a lamb or a kid of the goats, a female. These were offered in the regular manner, and the priest made atonement for the offerer concerning his sin.
7. Turtledoves. God is compassionate to those too poor to bring the usual sacrifice. The transgressor brought two birds to the priest, who first offered the one for a sin offering, and then the other for a burnt offering.
11. Fine flour. The guilty man might be too poor to bring either turtledoves or pigeons. But even the poorest could at least bring a small portion of flour. He was not to put oil or frankincense on it, for it would then have become a meat offering. Without these, it remained a sin offering.
The priest took a handful of the flour and burned it on the altar, in the same way as “offerings made by fire unto the Lord.” Lest it should be thought a meat offering, God repeats that it is “for a sin offering.”
Here we are confronted with an unusual situation—a sin offering without blood. But there is yet another remarkable thing about it: sin offerings, otherwise, never came on the altar. By way of emphasis, God repeats, “It is a sin offering.” How are we to explain the ritual difference God here permits?
According to Heb. 9:22, “without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin. That is the rule. Leviticus 5:11–13 presents an exception to the general rule. Not all things, but “almost all things are by the law purged with blood” (Heb. 9:22). The fact that in this case a bloodless sin offering effected atonement probably explains the “almost.”
To be sure, there can never be actual remission of sin apart from the blood of Christ. If so, Christ’s death would be in vain. But in type there were cases where remission and cleansing were effected without the immediate shedding of blood.
15. If a soul commit a trespass. The “holy things of the Lord” are the first fruits, tithes, gifts, and whatever else belongs to the service of God. The “trespass” here considered involved either withholding or diminishing, that is, paying less than was due. The offering required for this trespass was “a ram without blemish.” But this was not enough; the one who had trespassed must also make restitution and “add the fifth part thereto.” This provision was a deterrent to deliberate, if temporary, withholding. Where there was question as to the amount involved, the priest was to make an estimate. After restitution had been made, the priest made “an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering” (v. 16).
17. Things which are forbidden. The second situation is much like the first (vs. 14–16), but concerns “any of these things which are forbidden to be done.” These are things which, though not specifically mentioned, come under the displeasure of God.
God deals with principles rather than with details. The Ten Commandments deal with fundamental principles. The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” does not specify what it is that may not be taken. It is all-comprehensive. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal great things”; it does not say, “Thou shalt not steal small things.” It merely says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Similarly, in the case before us God could have gone into detail. Had He done so, some might be tempted to think the things mentioned more serious than some that were omitted. So God includes all transgression in the statement “any of these things which are forbidden.” No one might plead ignorance. This may have seemed a “hard saying,” but it was just.
18. His ignorance. Ignorance is a thing to be repented of. Ignorance is not usually thought of as transgression. God has, and we are to have, compassion on the ignorant. But we are to do all in our power to make amends for our shortcomings.
1 The trespass offering for sins done wittingly. 8 The law of the burnt offering, 14 and of the meat offering. 19 The offering at the consecration of a priest. 24 The law of the sin offering.
2. Commit a trespass. From maÔal, “to act treacherously,” “to be faithless.”
Lie unto his neighbour. A lie is here counted to be, first a trespass against God, then a sin against one’s neighbor. It is inconceivable that a man should lie to his neighbor in that “which was delivered him to keep,” and do so ignorantly. It would certainly seem that he knew he was not telling the truth when he affirmed he had never received that which had been entrusted to him. For him to lie, and in addition keep that which belonged to the neighbor, would be a double transgression; it would be both lying and stealing. The man would be guilty of deliberate sin.
In fellowship. That is, in partnership or in contract. In partnership, the Christian must exercise constant watchcare that each partner receives his share; and in a contract there must be faithful performance by both parties in the agreement. There must be no overreaching, no taking advantage of loopholes, but a jealous care for the interest of the other partner. If this is not done, the man who transgresses is guilty.
A thing taken away by violence. It would be stretching the truth far to claim that this could be done in ignorance. Some have attempted to justify this matter by claiming that the man thought the thing he took was his, and that he had a right to recover it by violence. The man is guilty and must bring his “trespass offering.”
Hath deceived his neighbour. To deceive indicates deliberate planning. Again, the man is guilty.
3. That which was lost. This is somewhat more serious than preceding cases in that the man not only lies, but confirms his lie by an oath. This may have been a legal oath, though probably not. In any case, he is guilty of swearing to a lie.
4. He shall restore. Inasmuch as all these cases require restitution, God prescribes for each an equitable penalty. First comes confession, then restitution. This is to be done “in the day of his trespass offering” (v. 5); in other words, restoration must accompany confession. It may not be delayed.
Restitution is a vital part of the program God sets before the man who would be free from the guilt of sin. Conviction of sin is not enough; sorrow for sin is not enough; confession is not enough. These are all desirable steps toward the kingdom, but they are not enough. They must be accompanied by a repentance so deep and thorough that the soul will not rest until every effort has been made to rectify mistakes that may have been made. This will in many cases include restoration, paying back with interest that which has been stolen, and making every effort to right wrongs. The fruits worthy of repentance that John the Baptist urged upon his hearers included restitution (Matt. 3:8).
“Trespasses” include questionable business transactions, fraudulent representation of values, wrong impressions without actual falsification, intentional crookedness, and any advantage taken of the poor or unfortunate. “Trespasses” include exorbitant charges of all kinds, excessive interest on loans, dishonest work for wages received. The course of many a man who boasts of his business acumen and who receives the approbation and praise of others for his skill in negotiation is not approved in heaven (see Hab. 2:6).
For these and many other things restitution must be made wherever possible. Where this cannot be done, it may be well to follow the instruction of old and “let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest” (Num. 5:8). The present-day application of this instruction would require that the money involved be given to and used in the Lord’s work.
There are times when bankruptcy proceedings may be advisable. The debtor is thus cleared legally from his obligations and is enabled to make a new start. But the Christian is bound by Heaven to consider carefully his responsibility to any who may have been deprived of that which was their due. He is to have a tender conscience, and to act honestly in the sight of God as well as of men. Worldly men have made restitution in such cases, and have been honored in so doing. Whenever possible Christians should do the same.
Lying is one of the popular sins of today, and is gradually coming to be considered respectable. In its various forms, ranging from the bold, barefaced lie to the smooth diplomatic lie or the social “white lie,” it is commonly and universally practiced. In its milder forms it is considered a necessary means of smoothing over a disagreeable situation, and is condoned as an accepted form of speech. To lie gracefully and convincingly is a high social and political attainment, and is considered a necessary accomplishment for holding certain positions.
A lie is a falsehood uttered or acted with the intent to deceive. It is a negation of truth. The father of lies is its creator, blasted reputations and ruined characters are its children. It makes white look black, and black white (Isa. 5:20); it parts husbands and wives, lovers and friends; it creates war and kills its millions; it sears the conscience, destroys confidence and faith, is the companion of thieves, gamblers, and prostitutes, and the bosom friend of rum. It pollutes all that it touches, and is the enemy of all that is noble and true and pure. He that “loveth and maketh a lie” is at last found outside the city with “dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters” (Rev. 22:15).
The Bible is plain on the subject of truth; it will tolerate nothing else. God is the “God of truth” (Isa. 65:16; Ps. 31:5; Deut. 32:4). The Son is truth (John 14:6). The Spirit is truth (1 John 5:6). The Word is truth (John 17:17). The law is truth (Ps. 119:142). All God’s works are truth (Dan. 4:37). His counsels are truth (Isa. 25:1). The judgment is truth (Rom. 2:2). Jerusalem is the city of truth (Zech. 8:3). The church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Christians are to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). Those who do not believe the truth will be damned (2 Thess. 2:12). Not only does God desire an outward conformity to truth; He desires truth in “the inward parts,” in the heart (Ps. 51:6; 15:2).
A passion for truth must activate the Christian. He is a representative of the God of truth, and must not bear false witness in any respect. He must first of all love truth, for it is this that sets him free (John 8:32). Having come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), through obedience to the truth (1 Peter 1:22), he is to be sanctified through the truth (John 17:19). The Spirit will guide him into all truth (John 16:13), and as Christ did, so will he bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). His witness to the truth will be in love (Eph. 4:15), and the love will be the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10).
A person who is filled with love of the truth will be truthful in all of life’s relations. He will hate and shun all pretension and hypocrisy; his motives will never be questionable. His yea will be yea, and his nay will be nay (James 5:12). He will not pride himself on his frankness, nor will he unnecessarily wound another’s feelings, but will in meekness instruct “those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:25). He will have the reputation of being a man whose word can be trusted.
6. His trespass offering. This is the third step. He has sinned against man; this requires restitution. But he has also sinned against God, and that requires a sacrifice.
Thy estimation. There are things whose value may be a matter of opinion, and therefore a cause of dispute. In such cases the priest shall make the valuation. In Ex. 22:1–9 a series of wrongs is enumerated in which the restitution is double, and in some cases even fourfold or fivefold. The difference in the penalties given there and here appears to be due to the fact that there the offender was forced to make restitution by “the judges” (Ex. 22:9), whereas here the acknowledgment appears to be voluntary.
7. Shall be forgiven. Forgiveness is the fourth step, and is dependent on those that precede it. Some of the things mentioned in vs. 2 and 3 are serious sins; but whatever they may be, he who makes confession and restoration “shall be forgiven.”
9. Burnt offering. Individual burnt offerings were discussed in ch. 1, and the continual burnt offering for the nation in Ex. 29:38–42. Here, additional information is given, for Aaron and his sons. The instruction applies primarily to the national morning and evening sacrifices.
10. His linen garment. The priests were required to wear their linen garments even when removing the ashes. These were the same garments they wore when offering sacrifices. All work within the sanctuary was sacred and demanded holiness of life. This in turn was symbolized by purity of garments (Zech. 3:4–7). When they left the sanctuary to carry the ashes to a clean place, they removed the linen garments.
13. Ever be burning. God Himself kindled this fire (ch. 9:24). The Jews affirm that it burned continuously until the Babylonian captivity. Some even claim that it never went out until the final destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. To keep this fire burning required an ample supply of wood. This was gathered by the priests, who once a year invited the people to assist.
14. The meat offering. This information was given to the sons of Aaron. Whenever anyone brought a “meat” (cereal) offering (see on ch. 2:1), God’s part was to be burned on the altar; the rest belonged to the priests. It must be unleavened, and whatever was eaten with it must also be unleavened. It was to be eaten in “the holy place,” which is here defined to be “the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.” The bread was “most holy,” as were the sin offering and the trespass offering. It was so holy that everyone who even touched it must be holy also.
20. The offering of Aaron. Aaron was to offer a cereal offering equal to about 2 dry qt. (2.2 l.) of flour daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. It was to be made of fine flour with oil and baked in pieces. No frankincense is mentioned. It was to be offered on the altar, and no part of it was to be eaten.
25. The sin offering. The sin offerings of both rulers and common people were to be eaten by the priests in the holy place, that is, the court. They were most holy. Whoever touched them must be holy. Even the vessel containing them was holy. In some cases the priest who offered a sacrifice had sole right to the priest’s part. But not so with sin offerings. “All the males among the priests shall eat thereof” (v. 29).
30. No sin offering. This verse deals with the principles that governed the disposition of the bodies of the sacrifices for sin. When the blood of the sacrifice was brought within the sanctuary—as when the anointed priest or the whole congregation sinned—the body was taken outside the camp and burned. When the blood was not taken into the sanctuary but placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering—as when a ruler or one of the common people sinned—the flesh was to be eaten by the priests. The reason for this is explained in ch. 10:16–20.
8-18PP 352
1 The law of the trespass offering, 11 and of the peace offerings, 12 whether it be for a thanksgiving, 16 or a vow, or a freewill offering. 22 The fat, 26 and the blood, are forbidden. 28 The priests’ portion in the peace offerings.
1. The trespass offering. Or, “the guilt offering” (RSV). In general, all offerings were holy, but that part of each sacrifice devoted to the altar or to the use of the priests was most holy (chs. 2:10; 10:12). Thus the shewbread (ch. 24:9), the incense (Ex. 30:36), the flesh of the sin and trespass offerings, were most holy (Lev. 6:17, 18; 7:1, 6; 14:13; Num. 18:9, 10; see also on Lev. 10:13–20).
3. He shall offer. The ritual followed in the case of the trespass offering was the same as that for the sin offering, but the ministration of the blood differed somewhat. The blood of the sin offering was placed upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering; the blood of the trespass offering was sprinkled on the altar round about. In both cases the fat was burned on the altar, “an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (v. 5).
6. In the holy place. That is, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Here cooking utensils were kept, and here the priests gathered for their common meal. Every priest, though he might have bodily defects that barred him from performing priestly duties, was permitted to eat “the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy” (ch. 21:22, 23).
8. The skin. Nothing is said of the disposition made of the skin of the trespass offerings or of the sin offerings, except that noted in ch. 4:11, 12, 21. The skin of the burnt offering was specifically to be given to the priest that offered it.
14. One out of the whole. That is, one out of whatever number he brought, which was usually ten. The cake was given to the priest, who was to heave it before the Lord. This was done by heaving it up and down by the altar of burnt offering, or by waving it back and forth. Thus it was first presented to the Lord and then given to the priest.
15. The same day. This command was not without good reason. It promoted sanitation, it encouraged social intercourse and liberality to the poor. Of these three reasons sanitation was most important. In a warm country it was difficult to keep perishable food wholesome for any length of time. This would be especially true when a person was away from home, as many of them would be when they came to the Temple. If the offerer attempted to keep it more than two days, putrefaction would likely set in.
It being impossible for the offerer himself to consume the flesh of an animal in one or two days, he would naturally invite others to share it with him. This was what God intended (Deut. 12:11, 12, 17, 18; 16:11). Thus the occasion was made a solemn but happy family gathering (Ps. 42:4; Isa. 30:29). The presence of the invited Levite imparted to the occasion a touch of dignity and gave him an opportunity for instruction.
The riches of the world are unevenly distributed. Some have less than they need; others have far more. God ordains that those who have shall share with those who have not (Deut. 15:7–11). Among those who had little of this world’s goods and should therefore be remembered, were the Levites (Deut. 12:19, 12). Christ’s instruction to “call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind” when “thou makest a feast” (Luke 14:12, 13) reiterates these commands of Moses, and reinforces the words of Isaiah (Isa. 58:6, 7).
20. Cut off. See on Ex. 12:15.
23. No manner of fat. This oft-repeated command is based on the explanation that “all the fat is the Lord’s” (ch. 3:16). The fat of animals that died of themselves or were torn by beasts might be used for other purposes, but not eaten (ch. 7:24).
29. Peace offerings. These were discussed at length in ch. 3. Here, certain additional facts are given.
32. The right shoulder. That is, the thigh (see on Ex. 29:27; Lev. 7:14).
35. This is the portion. The stress in ch. 7 has been on the part that belonged to the priests. God ordained liberal provision for His ministry, and intended every Israelite to understand his own responsibility in supporting it. This raised the priesthood high in the estimation of the people. Much of what they gave reverted to the priests.
11-34PP 576
26,27 2T 61
1 Moses consecrateth Aaron and his sons. 14 Their sin offering. 18 Their burnt offering. 22 The ram of consecrations. 31 The place and time of their consecration.
2. Take Aaron and his sons. Chronologically this chapter follows the last chapter of Exodus, in which the erection of the tabernacle is recorded. The seven intervening chapters contain instruction Aaron and his sons would need before they began their ministration in the sanctuary.
The first qualification for the priesthood was descent from Aaron. Genealogical registers were kept with great care (2 Chron. 31:16–19). One who could not submit legal proof of Aaronic descent was not permitted to minister in the priest’s office (Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64).
The second qualification was freedom from physical deformity. Any defect or injury was sufficient to prevent a son of Aaron from approaching the altar or even entering the sanctuary. Aaronic descent entitled him to support; he might eat of the priest’s portion of the sacrifices and receive a portion of the tithe (Lev. 21:17–23). The priest was, furthermore, to be free from any ceremonial uncleanness and to abstain from wine and strong drink (ch. 10:8–10).
The special function of the priests was to approach God on behalf of the people (Lev. 10:3; 21:17; Num. 16:5). They were to stand, as it were, between a Holy God and a sinful people. Hence, they must themselves be holy. The matter of holiness is repeatedly emphasized in the description of the work of the priests. The high priest, in whom the priesthood centered, is called the “saint of the Lord” (Ps. 106:16). On the golden plate attached to his miter were inscribed the words, “Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36), and it is expressly stated that he was to “bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts” (Ex. 28:38).
But before the high priest and his sons could begin their ministration in the sanctuary, they were to be solemnly set apart for the task. Aaron was to be anointed with the holy oil and his sons were to be sprinkled with it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, where the inauguration was to take place.
6. Washed them. This was a symbol of regeneration (Titus 3:5). They were not to wash themselves, for the purity God required of them was not something they could provide for themselves. Someone else must do the washing for them.
As the two brothers proceeded to the laver their minds must have been occupied with the significance and importance of what they were doing. This was more than an ordinary bath; it was a spiritual cleansing. Aaron could not cleanse himself from sin. Someone must do that for him.
7. Put upon him the coat. After the washing came the investiture of Aaron with the holy garments, his insignia of office. This also was a symbolic act; hence he was not permitted to clothe himself.
By this time Aaron must have felt completely helpless. Was there nothing he could do for himself? Must everything be done for him? Could he not even put on the miter himself? He could do that better than Moses. But no, Aaron must submit to the command of God. He must be made to feel his own insufficiency. He must learn that nothing he could do would be acceptable to God. He must learn the lesson of entire dependence. It was God who was fitting and preparing him for service. It was God who was clothing him with divine righteousness (Ps. 132:9).
Aaron was now fully clothed. He had on the long blue robe, with the bells and the pomegranates, the ephod with the names of the children of Israel engraved upon its 2 beautiful onyx stones, the breastplate with the 12 stones and the Urim and the Thummim, and the miter with its golden crown and the inscription, “Holiness to the Lord.”
10. Anointed the tabernacle. Before anointing Aaron, Moses anointed the tabernacle and its furniture, including the ark, in accordance with God’s command (Ex. 30:26–29).
12. He poured. Having anointed the tabernacle and its contents, Moses then anointed Aaron. This was his coronation as high priest (see Lev. 21:12; cf. Zech. 6:11–13). The anointing was so copious that the oil ran down upon Aaron’s beard and garments (Ps. 133:2).
14. The bullock for the sin offering. This sin offering was not for Aaron and his sons alone, but for the altar also. The altar had a most important function to perform in the ministry of reconciliation, and a special anointing and purification was therefore accorded it.
Throughout the consecration ritual Moses acted as priest. He took the blood and put it upon the horns of the altar; he poured out the rest of the blood at the bottom of the altar; he burned the fat upon the altar; he disposed of the bullock by burning its body outside the camp. Aaron had not yet begun his work, and Moses therefore functioned not only as priest but even as high priest. He went into the most holy to anoint the ark of the testimony (Ex. 30:26; Lev. 8:10).
22. The ram of consecration. The ceremony with the ram of consecration was the last act in the consecration of Aaron and his sons. With it the dedication was completed, and they were empowered to perform the various priestly mediatorial services.
23. Aaron’s right ear. The application of the blood to the ear signified its consecration to the service of God. Henceforth Aaron must hearken diligently to God’s commands, and must close his ears to evil. This lesson is profitable for minister and layman alike. Well would it be were it heeded, for “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).
The thumb. The placing of the blood upon Aaron’s right thumb signified that henceforth his every act should be righteous. The hand stands for the lifework, the various outward acts, the doing of righteousness. Of Christ it was written, “Lo, I come … to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). “My meat,” He said, “is to do the will of him that sent me” (John 4:34).
The great toe. Placing the blood on the toe has a similar meaning. It signifies walking in the light, running on God’s errands, standing for truth and righteousness. Every faculty of the being is to be dedicated to God.
24. The altar round about. The altar had previously been anointed with oil. The blood of the sin offering and the blood of the burnt offering had also been applied to it (ch. 8:10, 15, 19, 24). Now it was sprinkled with the blood of the ram of consecration. It received more attention than any other part of the sanctuary. This was doubtless because of its importance to the atonement. For practically every sacrifice it played an important role.
31. Eat it. This ritual meal concluded the ceremony of consecration. The eating of the flesh of the ram of consecration is in contrast to the eating of the flesh of the sin offering. The eating of the flesh of the ram was to consecrate the priest that they might eat the flesh of the sin offering and bear the sin of the people (ch. 10:17).
35. Seven days. The service for the day was ended, but Aaron and his sons were not permitted to leave until after seven days. This was a time for study, for prayer, for meditation, for going through the ritual again and again, that they should make no mistake when the time came for them to officiate.
1-3PP 359
1 The first offerings of Aaron, for himself and the people. 8 The sin offering, 12 and the burnt offering for himself. 15 The offerings for the people. 23 Moses and Aaron bless the people. 24 Fire cometh from the Lord, upon the altar.
1. On the eighth day. The seven days of consecration were past and the time had come for Aaron to offer his first sacrifice. Prior to this time he had not performed any strictly priestly service for the people. His instruction had been thorough, yet it must have been with some anxiety that he faced the day of test.
Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of the people to come with the required sacrifices and begin their work. As they did so, all the people drew near and stood before the Lord (v. 5).
8. Aaron therefore went. Without further hesitation Aaron offered for himself, his sons assisting with the blood. He did everything “according to the manner,” making no mistake.
10. As the Lord commanded. Of all this Moses was an interested observer. He was the one with whom the Lord had communicated and who had instructed Aaron and his sons in what they were to do. Now he watched to see that all things were done according to God’s instructions. It would have been a serious mistake for Aaron to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering upon the altar round about. That must never be done. The blood of the sin offering must be put on the horns of the altar. Again, it would be a serious mistake to put the blood of the burnt offering upon the horns of the altar. That must never be done. The blood of the burnt sacrifice was always sprinkled on the altar round about. The symbolism demanded that everything be done in exactly the manner God had prescribed. Aaron therefore made no mistake.
15. The people’s offering. Having finished offering the sacrifices for himself, Aaron proceeded with the ritual for the people’s offerings. The procedure was somewhat different from the one that was to be followed later, for this was the first time Aaron officiated for the people. Ordinarily, the people’s sin offering consisted of a bullock (ch. 4:14), and its blood was to be brought into the first apartment of the sanctuary (ch. 4:17, 18); but here the sin offering was a goat. And, except on the Day of Atonement, the blood of a goat was not brought into the sanctuary. Aaron had definite instruction in regard to the offering of the day, and he followed these instructions. All was done as Moses had commanded, without error.
22. Aaron lifted up his hand. The people had been interested spectators. They had seen Aaron offer for himself; they had seen him offer for them. And now Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them. It was a solemn and a happy moment, for God had accepted their offerings.
23. The glory of the Lord. Moses and Aaron went in together into the sanctuary. What took place there we are not informed, but it must have been with awe that the two brothers faced the veil separating the holy from the most holy place. We may believe that Moses instructed Aaron in regard to the lamps, the shewbread, and the candlestick, the offering of incense, the sprinkling of the blood before the veil, and the touching of the blood to the horns of the altar of incense. We are not told whether the veil was parted and Aaron received instruction as to what he was to do on the Day of Atonement. The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat was the most sacred act he would ever be called upon to perform.
Suddenly “the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people.” We are not told the exact manner of this demonstration, but it must have been a striking testimony of God’s approval of the building the people had erected for Him, and of Moses and Aaron as His servants. Aaron had been consecrated to the priesthood; now God placed His seal upon him.
24. A fire. This fire could have consumed Moses, Aaron, and all the people (ch. 10:1, 2); instead, it consumed the offerings on the altar. God had fulfilled His promise (vs. 4, 6). According to Jewish tradition the sacred fire imparted upon this occasion was preserved at least until the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, perhaps longer.
God had accepted man’s work. The sanctuary was now dedicated and consecrated. So also were the priests. All preparations were complete for the service that would continue for more than 1,400 years, and then be transferred to the sanctuary above.
1-9, 22-24PP 359
1 Nadab and Abihu, for offering of strange fire, are burnt by fire. 6 Aaron and his sons are forbidden to mourn for them. 8 The priests are forbidden wine when they are to go into the tabernacle. 12 The law of eating the holy things. 16 Aaron’s excuse for transgressing thereof.
1. Nadab and Abihu. These were two of the sons of Aaron, and hence nephews of Moses. Next to Moses and Aaron they occupied the highest positions in Israel and had many advantages and privileges. They had heard the voice of God; they had been with Moses and Aaron in the mount of God; they had seen the God of Israel, and “did eat and drink” (Ex. 24:9–11). They had been greatly favored; but had not profited by their opportunities.
Shortly before the events noted in this chapter they had spent a week in study and meditation, preparing for the day when they should begin their sanctuary service. They had assisted their father as he offered sacrifices, and had brought the blood of the victims to him (Lev. 9:9). They had witnessed the solemn service of dedication, and had themselves been sprinkled with sacrificial blood. They had been thoroughly indoctrinated, and were fully acquainted with the sacredness of God’s work. All of this only made their sin the greater. They were without excuse. When the time came for them to officiate, they did that which the Lord their God “commanded them not.”
Strange fire. Ordinary fire. It was not taken from the altar of burnt offering, whose fire God Himself had kindled and which was therefore sacred (ch. 16:12, 13). In the court of the congregation there were hearths where the priests prepared their food, and it may be that Nadab and Abihu took their common fire from thence.
2. Fire from the Lord. The effect upon the people gathered for the hour of prayer must have been profound. A few months previously Israel had witnessed the great display of God’s power at the giving of the law; then they apostatized and worshiped the golden calf. God was ready to disown them, but at Moses’ pleading they were again restored. Now they had built the tabernacle, which had been accepted, and God had shown His pleasure in the spirit of devotion it represented by sending fire to consume the offering. And now at the time of the evening sacrifice, when the people were gathered expectantly, the stroke came. Two of Aaron’s sons were dead. Rejoicing was turned into grief and perplexity. Had God forsaken them? What did this tragedy mean?
3. Then Moses said. The statement to which Moses refers is probably that of Ex. 19:22: “Let the priests … sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.” Apparently the sons of Aaron had not sanctified themselves. Consecration to the priesthood had wrought no change in their hearts; they themselves were still “common.”
Aaron’s pliant and indulgent disposition had been at the root of the difficulty. Qualms of conscience must have overwhelmed him as he thought of his own weakness a few months previously. True, God had forgiven him; God had accepted his sin offering; but the results of his weakness had not been warded off by repentance. He held his peace.
6. Neither rend your clothes. It was the custom to rend one’s garments in case of great sorrow. This was done by tearing the upper front of the garments, to expose, as it were, the sorrow of the heart. This Aaron and his remaining sons must not do, as it would appear to show displeasure at God’s judgment. Neither were they to bare their heads and present a disheveled appearance, a common Oriental demonstration of sorrow.
7. According to the word of Moses. With grief in his heart Aaron walked calmly about as he officiated at the evening sacrifice and offered incense. Not by word or gesture did he reveal that grief. As the people saw him go about his work calm and unperturbed, they knew that the tragic loss of two sons had not weakened Aaron’s faith in God. They might not understand, but Aaron’s composure calmed their own fears and restored their faith.
9. Do not drink. This prohibition suggests the cause of the transgression. It seems hardly reasonable to believe that God would issue such an edict at this time and under these circumstances except to clarify the true cause of the tragedy.
Lest ye die. Death was the most severe penalty that could be meted out, and stressed God’s attitude toward the use of strong drink. The sin of the young men was not a light matter that could be erased by the offering of a sacrifice. It was deliberate, and reflected scorn for sacred things. It was a major sin and deserved drastic punishment.
10. Put difference. Wine and strong drink can so benumb the faculties that a man fails to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean. This had led the two sons to take common fire as they entered the sanctuary; in their condition they could see no difference. And as far as men could see, there was no difference. Fire was fire, was it not? But God looked on their hearts and saw something that men could not see. There was a difference. Similarly, the first day of the week is as good as the seventh day, to human reasoning. There is no difference—except in God’s command. And that makes a vital difference, a difference between life and death.
Any form of intemperance blurs the difference between the holy and unholy, and between the clean and unclean, between the right and wrong. The use of spiritous liquors affects all the faculties and disturbs the orderly processes of the mind. He who drives and drinks is a menace to himself and to others, and a potential murderer. His mind is confused, his reflexes are slow, his sight is unreliable, and his sense of responsibility has all but vanished.
The danger is not confined to those who are actually “drunk.” Even a small amount of liquor may cause disaster. The moderate drinker is a social liability, and may do untold harm. The very fact, of which he boasts, that he can “hold” his liquor and control himself, may lead others to think they can do the same. The drunkard wallowing in his filth may disgust the onlooker and thus serve as a warning. The moderate drinker tempts others to follow him by the very fact that he stays “respectable.” Of the two, the moderate drinker, in the end, does the more harm.
Not only are the physical faculties affected by drink, but the moral as well; and this may be the worse of two evils. Assault, murder, rape, disloyalty, take on another aspect to the man who drinks. Under the influence of wine men will do what they would never consider doing were they sober. Only the judgment will reveal the sin of intoxication in its true dimensions. God’s warning to Aaron and his sons is fully applicable today. Men cannot drink and yet have a clear perception of the difference between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean (Isa. 28:7).
This instruction is particularly addressed to leaders. Teaching is more than oral instruction; it includes example as well as precept. But what if the teacher’s own sense of right and wrong is blurred, and his conduct belies his words? Of all men, those who teach others, whether in state or church, must have a constantly alert mind, ready to cope with whatever problems may come before them. As we consider some of the decisions arrived at in councils of state, and know of the liquor consumed on such occasions, we are reminded that God’s counsel not to drink wine or strong drink is present truth.
11. That ye may teach. The priests were teachers. It was their work to instruct the people in the statutes and ways of God. But how could they do this if they themselves were unable to discern the difference between right and wrong? With a befuddled brain it is impossible to teach or lead others in the way they should go.
Spoken … by the hand of Moses. To this day there are some who disparage Moses. Let such know that it was God who spoke through him, for in these words God endorsed his life and work. Christ said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. … But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47). True, some provisions were for Israel alone, and applied to local conditions. But such can easily be discerned. The eternal principles that God communicated “by the hand of Moses” are of as much force and value as ever. Let every Christian ponder the words of Christ: “If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” This pronouncement cannot lightly be put aside, for it was spoken by Christ.
13. Ye shall eat it. In the confusion that followed the death of his two sons, Aaron had omitted eating the portion of the meat offering that was his due. A tragedy had occurred, but this must not affect the prescribed ritual. The work must go on in spite of it.
14. Thy daughters with thee. This particular meat offering evidently included the peace offering, as Aaron’s daughters were to have a share in it (ch. 9:17–21). The meat offerings were most holy, and of them only the priests were to eat. Of the peace offerings the whole family, as well as other “clean” persons, might partake.
15. As the Lord hath commanded. The idea that nothing must hinder the work of God, that circumstances must not interrupt the sanctuary ritual, became deeply rooted in the mind of the priesthood as the years went by. It came to an extreme test in the final capture and destruction of the Temple under the Romans, a.d. 70. It was the time of the evening sacrifice. Jerusalem had already been taken, but the Temple still stood. Solemnly and unperturbedly the priests carried out the ritual as the Romans scaled the walls and entered the Temple precincts. The buildings were set on fire, and flames were all about. But with slowly measured steps the priests continued their work, not even looking about. Nothing must interfere with the work of God.
Royalty learns the same lesson. A bomb may explode near the royal carriage, but the king is not supposed to notice it. He must retain his composure and permit nothing to ruffle him. The parade must go on, and there must be no looking back.
Jesus’ answer to certain would-be disciples who chose to make personal matters first may appear hard and unfeeling (see Luke 9:59–62). Few duties are considered more urgent than that of caring for one’s parents. Yet even these—and they may be called sacred duties—must not stand in the way of doing the work of God. The work must go on.
16. Moses diligently sought. Moses was still in charge, making sure that all was done as God commanded. When a goat was used for a sin offering, the blood was not carried into the sanctuary but placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. According to the law, the flesh in such cases should be eaten by the priests (ch. 6:26). That day a goat had been offered as a sin offering (ch. 9:15), and since the blood was not carried into the sanctuary, the flesh should have been eaten. This had not been done; consequently, the symbolism of the service had been effectively marred.
In failing to eat the flesh Aaron also failed to bear the sins of the people. He could not make atonement for sins he did not bear. This was what made the mistake so serious. The sins that the goat bore should have been transferred to the priests, who would make atonement for them. But in this case there could be no transfer because the priests had not eaten the flesh. All the goat could do was to die. But the work of intercession remained to be done.
He was angry. Moses was noted for his meekness (Num. 12:3), but that did not prevent righteous indignation. At one time his indignation was so great that he threw down the two tables of stone and broke them in pieces, an act for which God did not rebuke him (Ex. 32:19). God Himself was angry (Ex. 32:9, 10). Moses’ anger did not immediately subside, for when he saw the golden calf he ground it to pieces and made Israel drink the water (Ex. 32:20).
There are times when righteous indignation may appropriately be displayed. It is at such times, doubtless, that Paul’s advice applies, “Be ye angry, and sin not” (Eph. 4:26). Of himself Paul says, “Who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:29). When Paul saw others mistreated, he was indignant. The word here translated “burn” means “to be set afire.” When Moses broke the tables of stone his “anger waxed hot.” For this Aaron reproached him (Ex. 32:19, 22), feeling there was no occasion for anger. But, as pointed out, the Lord agreed with Moses that there was just cause for anger. His anger was due to zeal for God and His cause, not to personal pride or vindictiveness.
19. Should it have been accepted? Though Moses had addressed Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and rebuked them, it was the father who answered. Aaron knew that eating the sin offering represented taking the sins of the offerer upon himself, as Moses had said. But with what had happened and his own responsibility, in part, for it, he did not feel that he could bear the sin of others. He had all he could do to bear his own. He could but feel grieved at the death of his sons, and may even have felt a measure of resentment. He apparently felt that in his present state of mind his service as typical sin bearer would be quite unacceptable to God.
20. Content. The word thus translated may also mean “to cause to be joyful,” or “to cause to please.” Moses saw that Aaron had not been negligent nor had he deliberately omitted a known duty, without due reason. Moses accepted Aaron’s explanation, and adjusted his own attitude accordingly.
1-20PP 359-362
1 CE 91; Ev 210; FE 409, 427; GW 20; PP 359, 399; Te 43, 65, 268; TM 356, 359, 371
1, 2 CH 82; CS 205; Te 187, 280; 3T 295; WM 290
1-37T 153
1-10Te 287
1-11CH 366
2 FE 428; GW 20; PP 359
2, 3 CE 91
3 GW 20; PP 361
6 DA 708
6, 7 PP 361
9-11PP 362; Te 44, 268, 280
17 GC 418; PP 354
1 What beasts may, 4and what may not be eaten. 9 What fishes. 13 What fowls. 29 The creeping things which are unclean.
2. These are the beasts. The principles set forth in this chapter were designed of God to protect those who love and choose to serve Him against the use, as food, of those forms of animal life that would bring injury to their bodies. In a number of instances, as will be seen, it is not yet possible to identify the animals named. Where doubt exists, that fact is noted. This measure of uncertainty, however, will not prove to be an insurmountable problem to any Christian who purposes in his heart not to “defile the temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:17) but to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). For such a person the fundamental principles as outlined here will prove to be a sufficient guide.
4. These shall ye not eat. The camel appears to be cloven-footed, but there is a ball at the back of the foot, resembling a heel. Hence it is counted unclean.
Unclean. The Jews were to “have“ all “unclean” things “in abomination,” shaqas\ (vs. 11, 13, 43). This word is also translated “detest” (Deut. 7:26) and “abhorred” (Ps. 22:24). The creatures here listed as “unclean” are hygienically unfit for human use as food (DA 617; 2T 96; see on Gen. 9:3).
5. The coney. From shaphan, a “hider.” Cony is the old English name for rabbit, but the description of the “coney” given in the Bible does not fit the rabbit. Solomon calls the conies “a feeble folk,” and adds that they make “their houses in the rocks” (Prov. 30:26). Some commentators have called them “rock badgers.” The rock badger is a kind of animal not unlike a guinea pig in size, appearance, disposition, and habitat.
6. The hare. Scientifically speaking, the hare does not chew the cud, because it is not equipped to do so. But it does chew its food in a manner of suggestive of chewing the cud, and is here counted a ruminant, that is, a chewer of the cud. It is unclean because it does not divide the hoof.
He cheweth the cud. The problem of scientific accuracy is not involved here, for the Scriptures speak in the language of the people. To their way of thinking, the hare appeared to chew the cud. When we say that the sun “sets” no one considers us scientifically in error, though, strictly speaking, the sun does not “set” at all. A whale is sometimes called a “fish,” when technically it is not a fish but a mammal. The Bible should not be criticized and called unscientific when it uses common expressions.
7. The swine. Of all animals prohibited by law, the swine was considered the most unclean (see Isa. 65:3, 4; 66:17). This is not the place to discuss at length the harm of eating swine’s flesh. For the Christian it is sufficient to stress God’s attitude toward it. There must be something unwholesome about the use of swine’s flesh, or God would not speak as He does. He created the swine and knows what they are. He prohibits their use as food.
Christ did not think highly of swine or He would not have permitted the destruction of some 2,000 of them (Matt. 8:31, 32; Mark 5:13). We do not know the monetary value of those swine. Today they would bring a considerable sum of money, and no doubt represented a large investment then. Two men had been restored in mind and body, but at the cost of 2,000 swine. Christ considered the men worth it; the people thought otherwise.
Whatever men may think of swine’s flesh as an acceptable article of diet, God here disapproves of it. God does not change His mind (Mal. 3:6); and it is certain that swine have not changed their nature. We do well to heed His counsel.
9. Fins and scales. God would have His people make use only of those foods that are best for them. Here He differentiates between the clean and unclean creatures that inhabit the waters. Those that have both fins and scales He places on one side, and those lacking either or both, on the other. By indicating those that may be eaten, He thus eliminates all others.
13. The fowls. No general rule is given for distinguishing between clean and unclean birds. Those prohibited, 20 in number, are simply named, the inference possibly being that all others are permitted. Some commentators believe, however, that the list of 20 was not intended to be exhaustive, but that it refers only to those with which the Hebrews were acquainted.
The ossifrage. This and the osprey are both birds of prey, and are therefore unacceptable as food.
14. The kite. A bird of prey belonging to the falcon family, having pointed wings and a long forked tail.
After his kind. This expression indicates all members of basic types, of each of which but one is named (see vs. 15, 16, 22).
16. The owl. Probably the ostrich, as in the margin of Job 30:29; Isa. 34:13; 43:20. It should be noted that differences of opinion exist as to the identity of some of the birds listed.
The cuckow. Probably the sea gull.
17. The little owl. From a Hebrew word different from the word translated “owl” in v. 16, and probably translated correctly here.
The great owl. Perhaps the ibis or the Egyptian eagle owl.
18. The swan. Possibly the glossy ibis or the water hen. The ASV gives it as “horned owl.”
The gier eagle. Most likely the Egyptian vulture, a bird of unclean and disgusting habits.
19. The heron. This denotes a bird of greedy habits, probably the plover.
The lapwing. This may be another variety of plover, or perhaps the “hoopoe” (LXX and RSV), a bird with a slender, curved bill.
The bat. Here classed among the birds, though it is a quadruped, probably because of its flight habits.
20. Fowls that creep. That is, “winged insects” (RSV), or creeping things that have wings.
22. The beetle. Probably the cricket or a species of locust.
The four insects here listed were commonly used as food in ancient times, as they are today, in the Orient. They were prepared in different ways. Usually they were thrown alive into boiling water with salt in it, and the heads, wings, and legs were pulled off. Then they were roasted, baked, stewed, or fried for immediate use, or were dried, smoked, and stored. They were eaten with salt, or with spice and vinegar. In some Oriental markets today dried locusts are sold by weight or by number, strung on a thread.
23. All other flying creeping things. That is, winged insects other than those specifically named. The fact that many insects carry disease accounts for the scrupulous care to be taken after coming in contact with them (vs. 23–25).
29. Creeping things. This is a miscellaneous group including reptiles, rodents, and other creatures.
The weasel. The Hebrew word thus translated designates an animal that glides or slips away, and thus fits the weasel.
The mouse. Probably what we mean by “mouse,” though it doubtless includes other small rodents, such as rats.
The tortoise. Better, the great lizard, or possibly the “land crocodile” (LXX). It is a large lizard, often 2 ft. long. Even today the Arabs make a broth of its fresh flesh. In other countries the flesh is dried and used as a charm or medicine.
30. The ferret. The word thus translated occurs here only in the OT. It probably refers to the gecko or wall lizard. It emits a plaintive wail, and its toes are equipped with vacuum cups that enable it to adhere to vertical surfaces.
The chameleon. The word thus translated means “the strong one.” Some think this refers to the frog, from the great muscular power it exhibits in leaping. Others consider it as being the land crocodile (see on v. 29).
The lizard. Probably the same as found in most countries. There are many kinds, and all are here included in the general term “lizard.”
The snail. Probably a species of “lizard” (LXX).
The mole. From tinshemeth, “lizard” or “chameleon.”
39. If any beast. The prohibition against touching a dead body applied also to the carcass of a beast whose flesh might be eaten.
40. He that eateth. It is here implied that some might eat the flesh of an animal that dies of itself. The law strictly forbade the use by anyone of “any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field” (Ex. 22:31). The priests were to eat nothing that “dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts” (Lev. 22:8). Nevertheless, there might be cases where it was eaten, perhaps unknowingly or from economic necessity. As eating it was a matter of ceremonial defilement, provision was made for ceremonial cleansing.
The prohibition against eating that which was torn of beasts or died of itself was doubtless based on the fact that in such cases the blood would largely remain in the carcass and not be drained out.
44. Ye shall be holy. Apparently there is a close connection between holiness and dietary habits. Holiness therefore includes obedience to the laws of God that relate to the physical being.
additional note on chapter 11
By some it is thought beneath the dignity of God to stoop to give directions in regard to man’s diet. Why should God be concerned about what we eat?
We might enlarge that conception by inquiring why God should be interested in man at all. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” wondered the psalmist of old (Ps. 8:4). Christ answered that question, informing us that God is interested not in man alone but in many things of even less value (Luke 12:7).
Man is made in the image of God. Sparrows are not. Man is said to be precious in the sight of God, and of more value than “fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir” (Isa. 13:12; 43:4). The measure of God’s estimate of man is shown in the fact that He identifies Himself with man. “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zech. 2:8). The further fact that God paid such a tremendous price to redeem man, is, to the Christian, indicative of the value God places on him. We may therefore be confident that anything concerning man is of interest to God.
God’s dietary laws are not, as some suppose, merely negative and prohibitory. God intends that man shall have the best of everything, the “finest of the wheat” (Ps. 81:16; 147:14). He who created all things knows what is best for the creatures He has made, and according to His knowledge He gives counsel and recommendations. “No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly” (Ps. 84:11). What God forbids is not withheld in arbitrariness, but for the good of man. Men may disdain God’s counsel, but experience and results ever demonstrate His wisdom.
God gave man a wonderful body with almost unlimited possibilities, and also with many delicate parts that must be carefully shielded from abuse if they are to function properly. In the body itself He has provided for the care and maintenance of the parts, and even for their renewal if His directions are followed. In many cases it is possible to begin a process of rehabilitation even after the body has been misused for years. The recuperative powers of nature are amazing. The moment an injury comes to any part, the life forces of the body immediately go to work to repair the damage. Physicians may assist and do much good, but they do not have healing power. All they can do in many cases is to stand aside and let God work.
Some insist that God is more interested in the soul of man than in his body, that spiritual values are superior to the physical. This is true, but it should be remembered that body and soul are closely interrelated, that the one powerfully affects the other, and that it is not always easy to tell where one begins and the other ends. Though we agree that the spiritual man is of supreme importance, we do not think that therefore the body is to be neglected. Such, indeed, was the philosophy of certain medieval “saints” who mortified the body for the benefit of the soul; but that was not God’s plan. He put body and soul together for the mutual benefit of each.
The statement that as a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7) touches the fundamental issues of life. A man is what he thinks. Is thinking a physical process? Can there be thought apart from a mechanism of some kind to do the thinking? Whatever thinking may be, it determines conduct. If a man thinks along right lines, his conduct is likely to be right. If his mind dwells on evil things, his deeds will likely be evil.
Does the body have any influence on a man’s thinking? Most decidedly. All know that the use of intoxicating liquors affects a man’s thinking as well as his actions. It warps his judgment and tends to make him irresponsible. His mind does not function as when he is sober, his faculties are not working normally, all his reactions are retarded. If he drives an automobile he becomes a menace to others, and a potential killer (see on ch. 10:9).
Most men admit that drinking has bad effects. May wrong eating habits have similar effects? Yes, even if not in the same degree as alcohol. Food affects a man’s behavior as well as his thinking. Many a boy has received a whipping because father’s toast was burned and his coffee weak or cold. Many a divorce can be traced to the culinary department of the house. Salesmen do not expect big orders from dyspeptic prospects. The shrewd lawyer knows that there is a right time to approach a venal judge for favorable consideration; and diplomats and statesmen know the value of a sumptuous banquet. If wine and food are cunningly combined, agreements may be arrived at that would never have been signed had the contracting parties been in possession of their normal faculties. Such agreements have cursed the world for generations.
Does food affect the mind? Do eating and drinking affect the spirit? Most assuredly. A sour outlook on life often comes from a sour stomach. Right eating will not necessarily produce a sweet disposition; but wrong eating makes it hard to measure up to the standard set by God.
God’s dietary laws are not arbitrary enactments that deprive man of the joy of eating. Rather, they are sound, sensible laws that man will do well to heed if he wishes to retain health, or perhaps regain it. On the whole it will be found that the food God approves is the same food men have found best, and that disagreement does not come in the things approved, but in the things forbidden.
These dietary statutes were given to Israel of old, and were adapted to their conditions. Most Jews still adhere to them, and they have served well for more than 3,000 years. The physical condition of the Jews bears witness to the fact that these rules are not obsolete and outdated, if their purpose is to produce a people singularly free from many of the diseases that plague men today. Despite the persecutions and hardships suffered by the Jews, above those suffered by any other nation on the face of the earth, and over a longer time, they are, generally speaking, a virile race. This fact is at least partly explained by their obedience to God’s dietary laws set forth in Lev. 11.
The laws imparted to Israel at Sinai dealt with all aspects of their duty toward God and man. These laws may be classified as follows:
1. Moral. The principles expressed in the Decalogue reflect the divine character, and are as immutable as God Himself (see Matt. 5:17, 18; Rom. 3:31).
2. Ceremonial. These laws were concerned with a system of worship that prefigured the cross, and accordingly expired at that time (Col. 2:14–17; Heb. 7:12).
3. Civil. These laws applied the broad principles of the Ten Commandments to the economy of ancient Israel as a nation. Though this code became inoperative when ancient Israel ceased to be a nation and has not been reinstated as such in the modern, nontheocratic state of Israel, yet the fundamental principles of justice and equity involved are still valid.
4. Health. The dietary principles of Lev. 11, together with other sanitary and health regulations, were intended by a wise Creator to promote health and longevity (see Ex. 15:26; 23:25; Deut. 7:15; Ps. 105:37; PP 378). Based as they are upon the nature and requirements of the human body, these principles could in no way be affected either by the cross or by the disappearance of Israel as a nation. Principles that contributed to health 3,500 years ago will produce the same results today.
The sincere Christian considers his body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20). Appreciation of this fact will lead him, among other things, to eat and drink to the glory of God, that is, to regulate his diet according to God’s revealed will (1 Cor. 9:27; 10:31). Thus he must, to be consistent, accept and obey the principles set forth in Lev. 11.
1-8DA 617
7, 8 CD 30, 392; CH 116; IT 206; 2T 96
1 The purification of women after childbirth. 6 Her offerings for her purifying.
1. The Lord spake. The preceding chapter dealt with uncleanness occasioned by contact with various “unclean” creatures. Chapters 12 to 15 deal with personal uncleanness, both physical and ceremonial, that does not involve moral transgression. Aaron is not mentioned here as in chs. 11 and 13.
2. A man child. This was the desire of every woman in Israel, for Messiah was to be of the “seed” of the “woman” (Gen. 3:15).
The separation for her infirmity. “Her menstruation” (RSV). The law here referred to is stated at length in ch. 15:19–33.
3. Circumcised. This was in recognition of the covenant relationship, and brought the child symbolically under the bond of the covenant. This rite was first practiced in the case of Isaac (Gen. 17:10, 11; 21:4), the son of the promise (Gal. 4:23), in token of the fulfillment of the covenant promise concerning his birth.
4. The blood. The first six days following childbirth were critical for the mother, and often there was a considerable loss of blood. After a week the crisis was supposed to be past. For 33 days the mother was not permitted to come into the sanctuary or to participate in religious ceremonies. She was not to attend any public gathering. It was the mother, and not the child, who was considered unclean.
5. A maid child. The reason for a period of uncleanness much longer than in the case of a male child is not given here or elsewhere.
6. A burnt offering. She was not to offer this herself. She only brought it to the tabernacle and gave it to the priest, who offered it for her. She was also to present a sin offering, which the priest offered for her.
This procedure was different from the usual order of early times, in which the offerer did his own slaying. There was another difference as well. When a sin offering and a burnt offering were brought, the sin offering always came first, and was followed by the burnt offering. In this case the burnt offering took precedence. Again, the sin offering was always the more prominent and expensive one. Here the reverse is true. The burnt offering came first and consisted of a lamb, whereas the sin offering came last and was the least animal offering ever brought, a pigeon or a turtledove.
Whatever man does bears the taint of sin. Hence sin offerings were prescribed in many cases where, to the uninstructed, it would seem needless to do so. This was especially apparent in the sin offerings at the dedication of the sanctuary and the installation of the priesthood, yet they deeply impressed the people with the sinfulness of sin. On the occasion of childbirth there appears to be an intentional minimum emphasis on sin, and the offering required was merely a token sacrifice. There was no confession or laying on of the hand.
7. She shall be cleansed. In ancient times the lot of woman was not a happy one. She did much of the hard work that would ordinarily fall to a man. This is the case even today in many lands, where work both in the house and in the field is done largely by women. Little consideration was given in the case of childbirth; in fact, cruel and inhuman practices were the rule.
It was under conditions such as these that God made provision for the mothers of Israel, prescribing for them a period of comparative rest and isolation lasting for some weeks. They were to enjoy rest and quiet, time in which to regain their strength.
The rules of childbirth in this chapter show God’s tender care for the mothers. Women have an honored place in the plan of God, and rightly so. Many of them have become leaders, and some, prophets. Through the trying experiences of life they have God’s protecting care, and are invited to come to Him with their perplexities (see DA 512). Let all give them due honor.
1 The laws and tokens whereby the priest is to be guided in discerning the leprosy.
2. The skin of his flesh. This expression appears only once in the Bible, and it seems to refer to the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis.
Leprosy was prevalent in Egypt in olden times. It was doubtless there that Israel first came into actual contact with it. Yet, in mercy, God promised to protect them from the diseases of Egypt should they obey Him (Ex. 15:26).
A rising, a scab. Rather, “a swelling or an eruption” (RSV). Whenever this occurred the man was to be brought to Aaron or to one of the priests for examination. The expression, “he shall be brought,” implies a man’s natural reluctance to go himself, knowing what it would mean to him and his family were he found infected. For this reason, he was to “be brought.”
The plague of leprosy. The word “leprosy” is derived from a word that means “to strike down,” “to strike to the ground.” Leprosy was therefore a “stroke.” The Jews considered a person stricken with leprosy to be smitten of God.
In the time of Israel, leprosy was considered the most terrible of all afflictions. It was thought to be a direct punishment from God for evil done. Whoever was a sufferer from it—be he prince or peasant—was excluded from society and considered worthy of little sympathy or compassion, an outcast among men.
Some critics suggest that ch. 13 treats of seven different diseases, but that the writer, not being a physician, erroneously believed them to be various aspects of the same disease, and ignorantly called them all leprosy. There is no agreement among critics, however, as to what these seven diseases are. If modern scientists wish to differentiate between varying forms and stages of the plague and give them different names, such is their privilege. The Bible was written for common people and is not particularly concerned with modern, scientific definitions. It uses common terminology designed for the common man.
The Bible gives no information concerning the origin, contagiousness, or cure of the disease. It was considered, as stated above, a punishment for sin. This, indeed, appears to be the case with Miriam (Num. 12:10–15), Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27), and Uzuriah (2 Chron. 26:16–21). But whatever the cause, the sufferer was isolated, driven from home, not permitted to enter any walled city, excluded from the sanctuary, and not allowed to attend any gathering whatever. Upon the approach of another human being, he was to cover his lips and cry, “Unclean, unclean.” Should he enter any house or dwelling, it too became “unclean,” as did anyone who touched him.
The disease in its first stages was marked only with some slight spot upon the skin, which gave no pain or other inconvenience, but it persisted stubbornly. Sometimes months and even years, often many years, intervened between the first appearance of the spots and their full development. Sometimes the symptoms would nearly disappear and give hope of recovery, only to reappear and become more active than ever. In advanced stages the person presented a loathsome sight. The nose and fingers might drop off, the eyelids disappear, the sight completely vanish, and the sufferer look more like an apparition than a living being.
His was a living death. His voice became a grunt, his breath unbearable, his contorted joints buried in or completely dislocated by tubercles, and his body covered with black-blue or leaden-colored patches of raw flesh where the disease had not yet completed its work. The affliction spread until it reached some vital organ, and then culminated in the death of the victim. No more loathsome sight than that of a leper can be conceived. Forsaken by relatives and friends, he was a pitiful spectacle in every way. No wonder men considered him forsaken of God.
One of his sons. It was not necessary that the high priest do the examining. It might be done by any of the priests. According to the Talmud, those of the Levites who were debarred from serving as priests because of bodily imperfections could serve as examiners.
3. The priest shall look. He was to examine the infected area, for it might, or might not, be leprosy. There were two signs for which he was to look, white hair in the spot and a depression in the skin—Jews ordinarily have dark or black hair. Where these two conditions were found to exist, he was pronounced unclean.
4. Deeper. That is, below the outer skin. Leprosy had a deeper cause than the outer skin, but it was there that it first manifested itself.
11. Old leprosy. There would doubtless be cases where a man had failed to present himself to the priest at the first occurrence of any questionable sign of possible leprosy, and where the family had neglected to bring him to the priest, knowing what an unfavorable report would mean. When conditions could be hidden no longer, he went or was brought to the priest. If there was a swelling in the flesh, if the hair in the spot had turned white, and there was “quick raw flesh in the rising” it was “an old leprosy,” and the priest should immediately declare him unclean. There was no need to quarantine him for further observation; he need not be shut up for later examination.
13. Pronounce him clean. This case has caused much discussion. Two views have been held in regard to it: (1) Either the person did not have leprosy at all, but some harmless eruption, or (2) he had had leprosy and was cured. The first of these considerations would seem to be ruled out by the statements, “the leprosy cover all the skin” (v. 12), and “the leprosy have covered all his flesh.” However, it may be that this case of “leprosy” bore only superficial resemblance to what we know as leprosy today (see Additional Note at close of chapter).
18. And is healed. The fourth type of suspected leprosy arose from an abscess or boil. Such a spot is peculiarly subject to infection. The procedure for diagnosis was similar to that of the first case (vs. 2–8).
24. A hot burning. The fifth type of suspected leprosy developed from a burn, which, like a boil, made the skin susceptible to infection. The inspection by the priest and the general procedure for diagnosis are the same as in the previous case (vs. 18–23).
29. Upon the head. The sixth type of suspected leprosy was in the hair or the beard.
38. Bright spots. This is merely a harmless eruption upon the skin, but is included lest some might mistake it for leprosy and so cause undue anxiety to the person and the family. The “freckled spot” is not infectious.
42. In the bald head. Baldness of the head does not constitute uncleanness. But infection may take place there as well as other places, and if a spot appears, it is to be dealt with as in the other cases. The spot in this case is reddish-white, accompanied by a swelling.
45. His clothes shall be rent. A leper wore garments of mourning, and was supposed to act as if death had already gained the victory over him. Rent garments were the customary sign of calamity and deep sorrow (Job 1:20; 2:12; Matt. 26:65). His head was to be “bare,” or rather, unkempt. The hair was neither cut nor combed, and the appearance disheveled. In the latter stages of the disease the eyelids, ears, and nose sloughed off, and the cheek bones became exposed. The victim was about as loathsome a sight as could be imagined. Should he seek refuge under a tree, anyone in the shade of the same tree was considered defiled.
The leper was to dwell alone, without the camp, and could under no circumstances enter a city. He was dependent on charity for a living. Leprosy was truly a “living death.”
47. The garment. That is, any article of clothing. The garments worn by the Israelites were mostly made of wool or linen. Under certain climatic conditions moldy spots might appear upon them.
51. Fretting leprosy. That is, “malignant leprosy” (RSV).
additional note on chapter 13
Many of the symptoms listed in this chapter for various types of “leprosy” are different from the symptoms of the disease now commonly known by that name. Furthermore, Mosaic provisions for ceremonial cleansing imply that those suffering from some forms of “leprosy” recovered in a short time. Until recently no way was known to treat true leprosy successfully.
The word translated “leprosy” is from the Heb. s\araÔ, which means to “strike down.” A person afflicted with “leprosy” was stricken down, presumably as a divine punishment for sinful acts. This was true in the cases of Miriam (Num. 12:10), Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27), Uzziah (2 Kings 15:5). In other cases mentioned in the OT it is not clear whether this principle holds true (2 Kings 5:1; 7:3). Gesenius considers that s\araÔ is interchangeable with garaÔ, and thus contains the idea of scabbiness. The Greek word lepros, from which our word leprosy comes, meant “scaly,” “scabby,” “rough.” Modern leprosy, elephantiasis graecorum, is of three kinds, lepra tuberculoides, characterized by tubercles, lepra maculosa, characterized by spots or streaks, and lepra anaesthetica, or that which affects the nervous system.
It seems most probable that the “leprosy” of Lev. 13 is a general term descriptive of various skin diseases, such as psoriasis and vitiligo, as well as true leprosy. Most of the symptoms here described more closely resemblelepra mosaica, or psoriasis. The “rising” mentioned in v. 2 may be similar to the tubercles characteristic of lepra tuberculoides or possibly lepra anaesthetica. The “bright spot” repeatedly mentioned is thought by some to resemble vitiligo, a tropical disease of which this is a distinctive symptom. In vitiligo the hairs of the affected parts turn white, as in v. 3. The disease begins as small patches, spreads, and often involves large areas of the skin. It is harmless, but disfigures the appearance, particularly of those with a swarthy complexion.
The fact that there are variations in the symptoms of the “leprosy” mentioned in this chapter, further supports the idea that several diseases which strikingly affected the skin are included under the general term “leprosy.” In a day when medical science as such did not exist it would have been a difficult thing for the priests to give a differential diagnosis of various diseases affecting the skin, when they were in many respects similar, and for which there were no specific names. Moses apparently grouped these related diseases under one general head, s\araÔ, which our English versions have translated “leprosy.”
The idea of quarantining those afflicted with contagious diseases seems to have originated with the Hebrew people, a safeguard given them by God Himself. It has been thought by some that the Biblical idea of segregating persons having “leprosy” led to the medieval practice of isolating those with true leprosy. Some commentators have held that true leprosy originated in Egypt, but its origin is unknown. Long before Israelite times it was widespread in the Far East, India, and Africa, and around the Mediterranean coasts.
The “leprosy” in the walls of houses or garments took the form of red-green streaks or spots. This seems to have been a mildew or a fungus, and although different from the “leprosy” in human beings, probably indicated that the house was not a safe dwelling place. Affected clothing might also perhaps spread a fungus disease to human beings.
45 DA 262, 776
46-52MH 278
1 The rites and sacrifices in cleansing of the leper. 33 The signs of leprosy in a house. 43 The cleansing of that house.
2. The law of the leper. The purification of a leper is given in more detail than that of the purification for any other defilement. As the leper was excluded not only from the sanctuary but from the camp, there were two ceremonies included in the restoration. The first entitled him to reenter the camp and associate with his brethren. The second, a week later, was performed in the court of the tabernacle and restored him to full fellowship and to all the privileges of the covenant relationship.
3. Out of the camp. The first ceremony, which restored the leper to the camp, took place outside the camp.
4. Two birds. Undomesticated birds, says the Talmud; possibly because a tame bird would not fly away as required by the symbolism (v. 7). Some commentators compare the two birds to the two goats used in the Day of Atonement service, the one the Lord’s goat, the other the goat for Azazel. To this there are weighty objections. There is nothing said of atonement in connection with the birds. Cleansing is mentioned, but it should be remembered that the birds were not used for cleansing. The man had been already pronounced clean. In the case of the birds there was no blood sprinkled on the altar for atonement. In fact, the ceremony did not take place at the sanctuary at all, but out in the field. The birds were not of a kind used in any sacrifice at the altar; they were wild birds. The blood used was blood mixed with water, a drop or two in a vessel large enough to hold the cedarwood, which, according to the Talmud, was one cubit long. It was therefore a very weak solution, a token solution, and apparently had no symbolic atoning properties. The birds are not said to be a sin offering, or a trespass, or burnt, or peace, or meat offering. They were, in fact, not sacrifices at all. When the ceremony was finished, the man was not permitted to go to the sanctuary. Indeed, he could not even go to his own tent. It was not until seven days later that the man was permitted to offer his meat, trespass, and burnt offerings. At that time atonement was made (vs. 18-21, 29, 31). See p. 1111.
6. Cedar wood. We are not informed as to the meaning of the cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet. Perhaps the fragrant cedarwood suggested the fragrant incense that was used only in the sanctuary. Hyssop was symbolic of cleansing (Ps. 51:7). The “scarlet” was a tongue or band of twice-dyed wool used in tying the hyssop to the cedar, since both were dipped in the blood.
7. Let the living bird loose. Before letting the bird go, however, he sprinkled seven times the person to be cleansed, and pronounced him clean. He then commanded the man to wash his clothes, to shave, and to wash himself. After that he might enter the camp. It must have been a joyful company that escorted him into the camp. But he was not yet fully restored. He had not offered a sacrifice. He had not yet been to the sanctuary. He could not even enter his own tent. But he had been found clean, and he was happy.
The ceremony constituted a beautiful picture of what God had done and would do for the leper. A wild bird is killed, and another dipped in its blood and set free. This is a picture of the leper doomed to death, and of his release. Indeed, he was already dying. But he is healed, and the healing miracle performed for him is symbolically related to blood and water. There is only a hint of blood, as it were, a drop or two, but it is sprinkled on him, and he is declared clean. The real sacrifice has not yet been made. The man has not been to the altar. The blood of the wild bird has no cleansing virtue. But presently the priest will take a lamb, and atonement will be made.
10. On the eighth day. A week after the first ceremony, outside the camp (vs. 3–8), the leper appeared at the door of the sanctuary for the final rites.
Three tenth deals. Three omers, or about 6 qt.
One log of oil. This would be approximately 6/10 pt. (0.31 l.), dry.
12. A trespass offering. It is of note that a trespass offering was required in the case of a leper’s cleansing, and also that no mention is made of a peace offering, which usually accompanied a trespass offering. The reason for requiring a trespass offering is far from clear. Such an offering was to be presented in all cases where there was restitution to be made; otherwise a sin offering would be required. The question may be asked, What had the leper done that he must make restitution for? It appears that where a trespass offering was brought instead of a sin offering, the one to be cleansed placed his hand upon the animal and confessed his sins. Although this is not mentioned here, it was doubtless done (see Lev. 5:5; Num. 5:7).
There are five points in which the trespass offering for the cleansing of a leper was distinctive: (1) The animal presented was not to be of any stipulated value, as in the ordinary trespass offering (Lev. 5:16; 6:6). (2) It was waved, whereas the ordinary trespass offering was not waved. (3) It was waved by the priest, whereas the ordinary wave offering was waved by the offerer whose hands were guided by the priest (ch. 7:30). (4) The whole animal was waved (ch. 14:12), which was true in only one other case (ch. 23:20). (5) Oil accompanied the presentation of the offering.
The reason most often advanced to account for a trespass offering instead of a sin offering is that the Lord had been deprived of the services of the leper during all the years of his sickness. But this could have been true only where the person had purposely done something that incapacitated him for service.
If a man so lives as to impair his health, he deprives God of service that he owes Him. In the nature of the case, such a man should offer a trespass offering and make restitution as far as possible. Too many give their best years to the world, and when they are old and sick they turn to God. God will accept such; but the fact remains that they have deprived God and humanity of service they could and should have rendered, had they early in life dedicated themselves to Him.
14. The tip of the right ear. This part of the ritual was similar to that of the consecration of the priest, and perhaps had the same meaning (ch. 8:23).
16. The oil. This part of the ceremony is peculiar to the rites of purification for leprosy. In no other case is oil ever sprinkled. Blood and oil are used together (ch. 8:30), but not oil alone.
19. The sin offering. After the trespass offering the sin and burnt offering followed. The trespass offering had effected atonement (v. 18). All past neglect had been forgiven. Finally, the priest offered the sin offering and the accompanying burnt offering.
21. If he be poor. A poor man might substitute two turtledoves or two young pigeons for the two lambs required for the sin offering and the burnt offering. However, there was no substitution for the lamb of the trespass offering. That must be furnished whether he was rich or poor. Also, there was a diminution in the amount of flour required, for 1/10 deal of flour (about 2 qt., or 2.2 l.) was accepted instead of 3/10, as was the case in v. 10. The log of oil remained the same.
With these exceptions the ritual was carried on as described in vs. 10–20. The man received forgiveness for all past delinquencies, and atonement was extended. He was restored to full membership in the congregation and could again participate in the various religious services.
34. I put. This may or may not imply a direct act of God. In the Bible many such expressions occur in which there is clearly no reference to an act of God. For example, God feeds the birds (Luke 12:24). When He puts a plague in a house, it may be a direct act of God, or it may be a result of the man’s failure to build wisely.
49. He shall take to cleanse the house. The house was not merely to be cleansed with the blood of the bird and with running water, but also with “cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet” (v. 52).
additional note on chapter 14
The attitude toward leprosy, leading to exclusion from the camp, doubtless has its origin in the peculiar character of the disease. True leprosy was especially associated with death, in which it ordinarily eventuated, and in its later stages was a sort of “living death,” in which various members of the body died and sloughed off. Toward the last the leper was a specter of death, and illustrated in a graphic manner the wages of sin. For this reason leprosy has throughout the ages been considered, among both Jewish and Christian commentators, a symbol of sin and its results.
One who had been placed outside the camp on suspicion of “leprosy” could call for a priest if he had the slightest indication that he was improving. It was the duty of the priest to go when he was called, but we may suppose that at times he did so with reluctance. Feeling sure that there had been no improvement, he would be tempted to become impatient and reluctant to respond. He needed patience, so as never to lose the feeling of compassion the leper so much needed. He must learn not to shun the leper, but to pity and help him. This is a lesson for the servants of God today. Like the priest of old, the minister of God today must “have compassion” (Heb. 5:2).
Leprosy was not specifically painful, but the dread and horror of it must have vitally affected the whole life of the sufferer. In like manner sin may not be felt so keenly, and a man may hardly be conscious of its malignant nature. Leprosy was corrosive, and penetrated almost unfelt and unseen until it blossomed in ulcers and raw flesh, and wasted away parts of the body. So sin also eats out all spiritual life and beauty, even though outwardly there may be no striking evidence of the condition within. Finally, the disease broke forth externally, and the man became a living skeleton, a mass of loathsome corruption. So sin at last comes to fruition, until the image of God in man is practically obliterated. As leprosy ended in death, so sin ends in death. It would seem, therefore, that leprosy is a disease especially adapted to typify sin in its various features as no other malady could.
4-7PP 275
45-47MH 278
1 The uncleanness of men in their issues. 13 The cleansing of them. 19 The uncleanness of women in their issues. 28 Their cleansing.
2. A running issue. That is, “a discharge” (RSV).
This chapter deals with various kinds of defilement, both of men and of women. These defilements did not imply moral transgression, though they defiled both the person concerned and also others who came in contact with him. Some occur in the natural course of life, such as that of a woman in “the time of her separation” (v. 25) or in an “issue” of “blood” (v. 19), or of a man during sleep (v. 16). We conclude that the other defilements mentioned do not result from sin but from normal body functions or from abnormal conditions.
3. His uncleanness. Six distinct types of cases are mentioned in this chapter: (1) Abnormal male conditions (Lev. 15:2–15; cf. Lev. 22:4; Num. 5:2). (2) Normal male conditions (Lev. 15:16, 17; cf. Lev. 22:4; Deut. 23:10, 11). (3) Normal conjugal relations (Lev. 15:18; cf. Ex. 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:5; 1 Cor. 7:5). (4) Normal female conditions (Lev. 15:19–23; cf. Lev. 12:2; 20:18). (5) Inopportune conjugal relations (Lev. 15:24; cf. Lev. 18:19; 20:18). (6) Abnormal female conditions (Lev. 15:25–30; cf. Matt. 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43).
14. Two turtledoves. In the first and sixth cases, listed in the comment on v. 3, where abnormal physical conditions exist, a sacrifice was required; in the others, none. The sacrifice specified was the least of all bloody offerings—a dove or a pigeon for a sin offering, and the same for a burnt offering (see vs. 29, 30).
31. That they die not. Whoever should venture to come to the sanctuary when thus defiled would thereby defile it also, in spite of the fact that the personal defilement was in most cases involuntary and did not require a sacrifice. These regulations indicate God’s interest in personal health and sanitation, and at the same time served to emphasize the sacredness of holy things. Ceremonial defilement was symbolic of moral defilement. In the Levitical laws the difference between actual sin and uncleanness is clearly distinguished.
God hates sin. He has seen its beginning and its outworking, and He knows what it is. He also hates uncleanness of all kinds, even though it may not be specifically called sin. God makes a difference between sin and uncleanness, and does not charge moral delinquency for that which is merely unclean. But neither does God fail to make men know that uncleanness of all kinds is displeasing to Him. This lesson should not be lost on us. God requires holiness. He requires cleanliness; He requires becoming modesty and humility; He requires that we do not benumb our sensibilities by anything whatsoever that tends to make us less aware of His voice.
4-12MH 278
1 How the high priest must enter into the holy place. 11 The sin offering for himself. 15 The sin offering for the people. 20 The scapegoat. 29 The yearly feast of the expiations.
1. The Lord spake unto Moses. Even though Aaron had been appointed high priest, God still recognized Moses as the leader and gave Aaron instructions through him.
2. That he come not. This was soon after the death of the two sons of Aaron, recorded in ch. 10. Though there were yet some months until the Day of Atonement, God instructed Aaron relative to it, that he might have sufficient time to become acquainted with the ritual.
The vail. There were two veils in the sanctuary, one leading from the court into the first apartment, the other separating the two apartments. The veil here referred to is the second veil (Heb. 9:3), the one before the mercy seat (Ex. 26:31, 32). It was before this veil that the priests stood as they offered incense upon the altar of incense, before the mercy seat. Their sight could not pierce the veil, but they knew that on the other side of it was the ark with its mercy seat, where God had promised to meet with His people (Ex. 25:22). The figures of cherubim embroidered on the veil represented to them the angels that stand before the throne of Deity. The veil shielded them from the consuming glory, and at the same time it permitted them to approach closely.
The cherubim must have brought vividly to their minds the cherubim stationed at the gate of Eden (see on Gen. 3:24). After Adam and Eve had sinned they could not pass the cherubim; neither could the priests in the sanctuary pass the symbolic cherubim and enter into the presence of God. This must have deeply impressed upon them the holiness of God. None but the high priest could enter the holy of holies to minister, and he but briefly one day in the year.
Throughout the year the blood of the victims was brought into the sanctuary and sprinkled “seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary” (Lev. 4:6, 17), in instances where the anointed priest or the whole congregation had sinned. Immediately behind the veil was the ark containing the tables of the law. It was with reference to the law that the blood was sprinkled, for in sinning, men had broken that law, and their transgressions demanded atonement. The sprinkling of the blood was an acknowledgement of the authority of the law and a symbolical token payment of its demand, either for perfect obedience or for the life of the disobedient. Obey and live, disobey and perish, was its dictum.
However, the sprinkled blood never reached the law, for the veil intervened. And even on the Day of Atonement, when the veil was drawn aside and the blood sprinkled in the holiest, the blood did not reach the law. The mercy seat covered the law, and there the blood rested. The mercy seat was a type of Christ. According to Rom. 3:25 God set forth Christ “to be a propitiation,” literally, a “mercy seat.” Christ is our “mercy seat.” By His death on the cross and His ministry in the courts above, Christ saves us by taking our place on the cross and pleading our case over the broken law. He stands between us and the law and saves us from its penalty, not by ignoring or abolishing it, but by paying its just demands, and thus acknowledging its authority and honoring it.
The priests entered the sanctuary with the blood of a slain animal, and by virtue of it. Christ, “by the power of an indestructiblelife” (Heb. 7:16, RSV), entered, not with “the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood … once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). We are invited to follow Him there by faith (Heb. 4:16). The new and living way He has opened for us and He Himself has trod, is the way of the cross, the way of obedience. There is no other way.
This gives point to the expression often used—and at times thoughtlessly—of going “all the way” with Christ. He has gone into the holiest of all, and is now there ministering for us. He went by way of the cross, the way of Gethsemane and Golgotha. And again He invites us to follow Him (Matt. 20:22, 23). Those who accept His invitation must be willing to go with Him by way of the cross. And it is those who thus follow Him here that will, in a better world, have the privilege of living in His presence.
The same lesson is presented to us in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup. Says Christ, “This is my body, which is broken for you. … This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:24, 25). As we take the cup, as we take the broken bread, we enter into a solemn covenant with God that we will go all the way, even though this may mean a broken body and the shedding of our blood in martyrdom.
It seems eminently fitting that God’s remnant church should be “time’s noblest offspring.” On them shines the light of all past ages; they have inherited not only the weaknesses of past generations but also the accumulated Biblical knowledge of the ages. To them has come light on Scripture such as has been given to no other people. They have light on the sanctuary; they have the more sure word of prophecy; to them have been entrusted the oracles of God. They understand the work that Christ is now doing in the courts above. They have been given the inestimable privilege of heralding to the world that the hour of God’s judgment is come, and that the end of all things is at hand. What manner of men ought they to be “in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11)!
The ark. In the ark, below the mercy seat, were the Ten Commandments, the very foundation of the throne of God. Here, at the ark, justice and mercy met; here, righteousness and peace “kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10); here God revealed Himself; here was the secret place of the Most High. The ark and the mercy seat were the center of the entire sacrificial service.
That he die not. The caution given Aaron is reminiscent of the disaster that had come upon his sons because of their disobedience (Lev. 10:1, 2).
In the cloud. God promised Moses to meet with him at the “door of the tabernacle” (Ex. 29:42), at the altar of incense before the veil (Ex. 30:36; Num. 17:4), and, as here, directly before the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22; 30:36). The presence of the “cloud” above the mercy seat in no way implies that the holy of holies was dark, for with the “cloud” was the glory of the Lord (1 Kings 8:10, 11; 2 Chron. 5:13, 14; Rev. 15:8). The Shekinah, the visible evidence that God was indeed with His people, abode above the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22; Ps. 80:1; Isa. 37:16). To man it might appear that God dwells in “darkness” (1 Kings 8:12; Ps. 18:11). But “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). He dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16). In revealing Himself to His people, God ever veiled His glory with a cloud, so that mortal beings might be aware of His presence, yet able to endure it (Ex. 16:10; 19:9; 24:16; 34:5; 40:34, 38).
3. The holy place. Throughout this chapter Moses calls the second apartment “the holy place”; the first apartment, the “tabernacle of the congregation.”
A sin offering. When sin offerings and burnt offerings were presented together, the sin offering was brought first, and demanded the nobler victim. Hence the sin offering was a bullock, the burnt offering a ram.
4. Holy garments. At first there were but few priests, and the high priest generally assisted the common priests in their work. As the numbers of the priests increased, he did so less frequently. Eventually, he assisted his brother priests only upon the Sabbath days, the new moons,and at the three annual feasts. The common priests were considered his deputies, and when they officiated, their ministry was accepted as if the high priest himself had performed it, except that they could not officiate in his stead on the Day of Atonement. He was the priest; and whenever he officiated he wore the glorious golden garments that pertained to his exalted office. These costly garments not only were adorned with gold and precious stones (Ex. 28:13–36) but were also embroidered with the colors of the sanctuary and with fine thread of pure gold (Ex. 28:4–6). Clad thus the high priest represented Christ in His divine glory as the Son of God.
On the Day of Atonement the high priest himself officiated in all parts of the service, assisted by the other priests. He conducted the daily morning and evening services arrayed in these golden garments. But for the unique ritual of the Day of Atonement the high priest wore the holy “linen garments” (Lev. 16:23) used exclusively upon this occasion. These “holy garments” resembled those of the common priests, except for the variegated embroidery of the latter. They were probably also of a finer texture than those of the common priests.
The high priest changed his garments several times during the day, and with each change washed his entire body. At the first light of dawn, according to the Talmud, he removed his personal clothing and attired himself in the golden garments; in these he conducted the regular morning service. This completed, he removed the golden garments and put on the “holy garments” for the special services of the day (v. 4). These he later exchanged for his golden garments, for the evening service (vs. 23, 24). At the conclusion of the evening service he changed once more to his personal clothing and retired from the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. Whereas the high priest clad in his golden garments represented Christ to the people, in his “holy garments” he typified Christ in His mediatorial capacity as a representative of the people before God (GC 422).
The spotless white of the garments of the high priest upon the Day of Atonement typified the perfection of character he and the people sought through the rites of that day. As the high priest “came forth to the waiting congregation in his pontifical robes; so Christ will come the second time, clothed in garments of whitest white” (AA 33). And as at the close of the special services of that day the people were “clean” from all their sins (v. 30), so when Christ appears before His people they will be “without fault before the throne of God” (Rev. 14:5; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22; Jude 24; Rev. 19:8).
5. Sin offering. Aaron was to take two kids of the goats of the congregation “for a sin offering.” This was unusual, for in the daily service a bullock was demanded as an offering for the people, and not a goat (ch. 4:14). But the Day of Atonement was different from all other days.
Burnt offering. The burnt offering was to be a ram, the same as for Aaron’s consecration (ch. 9:2).
6. Aaron shall offer. Aaron was not to slay the bullock at this time, but was to present it to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle for His acceptance (see v. 11). He left it standing near the altar of burnt offering, ready to offer it when the time should come.
For his house. This bullock was for himself and his family. He alone was to officiate on this solemn occasion, and must be free from every stain of sin before he could appropriately typify Christ in His mediatorial role (see John 17:19). The other priests assisted, but offered no sacrifice.
7. The two goats. Aaron was to take the two goats and present them to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle, where they stood while lots were cast for them.
8. Cast lots. This was done by placing two inscribed objects in an urn or other receptacle, and then drawing them out. Thus the selection was left to God. In early times these lots were made of wood and inscribed, one for the Lord, the other for “the scapegoat.” Later, they were made of more precious materials, even of gold. According to the Talmud, the goats were to be as nearly alike as possible. To avoid any mistake after lots were cast, a scarlet cord was placed around the horns of thescapegoat, and about the neck of the Lord’s goat. This clearly distinguished them.
The scapegoat. Some theologians think both goats are symbolic of Christ, and that they represent two phases of His atoning work. Not a few, however, believe that they represent two opposing forces, and that as the one is for the Lord, the other is for Satan. Most versions leave the Hebrew word for scapegoat, Ôazazel, untranslated, since there is no unanimity of opinion in regard to its meaning. Many modern scholars hold, with the Jews, that Azazel denotes a personal, wicked, superhuman spirit, and nearly all agree that its root meaning is, “one who removes,” “a remover,” specifically, one who removes “by a series of acts.” Others suggest that it is a combination of Ôez, “goat,” and Ôazal, “to go away,” “to depart.”
As one goat is for the Lord, a personal Being, so the other goat must also be for a personal being; and as they are evidently antithetical, the most consistent view would be that Azazel stands in opposition to the Lord, and hence can be no other than Satan.
9. The Lord’s lot. Aaron was to offer the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, for a sin offering for the people (v. 15).
10. But the goat. The contrast between the two goats is quite complete. The Lord’s goat was slain; the scapegoat was not slain. The blood of the Lord’s goat was carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled; the blood of the scapegoat was not, for the simple reason that its blood was not shed. The fat of the sin offering was always burned on the altar. This was the case with the Lord’s goat (v. 25), but not, of course, with the scapegoat. The blood of the Lord’s goat cleansed (vs. 15, 16); the scapegoat contaminated (v. 26). The contrast between the two goats is absolute (see on vs. 20, 21).
An atonement. See on v. 21.
11. Aaron shall bring the bullock. This bullock had been presented to the Lord (v. 6); now it was brought forward for sacrifice. Before Aaron was prepared to make atonement for others, he must make an atonement for himself.
12. Coals of fire. The bullock had been killed and its blood kept in a basin by one of the priests. Before entering with the blood Aaron took coals from off the altar of burnt offering and filled his censer. He took also two handfuls of incense, which he placed on the coals after entering the most holy place.
Within the vail. This was the first time Aaron officiated in the most holy place. It was also the first time he officiated in the “holy garments.” Heretofore he had worn the glorious golden garments and made atonement for others. Now he appears in the garments of humility, asking mercy for himself as well as for the people. His status has entirely changed.
According to the Talmud the high priest spent the week preceding the Day of Atonement in the room reserved for him in the priests’ quarters, engaged in prayer and meditation, and in carefully reviewing the ritual of the day. He could but wonder as to the meaning of the service in which he was about to engage. Did he begin to grasp the significance of the change of garments, and the changed status of Christ at His incarnation (see on v. 4)? Did he grasp the significance of laying aside the royal garments and passing through the veil into the presence of God? It seems unthinkable that the high priest should officiate at the most important service of the year without at least some appreciation of its true significance. To kill bullocks and rams and goats, to sprinkle their blood on the altar or in the most holy place, and not to know the meaning of these acts, would be tantamount to reducing the most solemn ceremony of the sanctuary to a pious mummery. This cannot be. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day,” said Christ; “and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). If Abraham understood, surely Aaron did also.
We may rightly conclude that Aaron thus understood in part, without, perhaps, having a complete grasp of all spiritual truth related to the plan of redemption. Some of the men of old knew more about God and salvation than do many learned men today. Of Moses, Christ said, “He wrote of me” (John 5:46). What Moses wrote was so clear that Philip and Nathanael thereby recognized the Messiah when He came (John 1:45). Paul affirmedthat he preached “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead” (Acts 26:22, 23).
13. The incense. With the inner veil drawn aside, incense alone separated Aaron from the sacred presence of God. Outside the tabernacle the prayers of the people ascended with the incense, as by faith they entered in with Aaron.
14. The blood of the bullock. Leaving the censer in the most holy place, Aaron returned to the court for the blood of the bullock. The sprinkling of its blood, first upon the mercy seat, and then seven times before it, ended his work in the holiest with its blood. He had thus made atonement “for himself, and for his household” (v. 17). Free from sin, he now became a fit representative of Christ, the sinless One, and might therefore mediate on behalf of others.
15. The goat. After the service with the bullock had been concluded, Aaron brought the Lord’s goat, which was “for the people,” and slew it. He then brought the blood within the veil and sprinkled it in the same manner as he had sprinkled the blood of the bullock, once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. Wherever the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled, there he sprinkled the blood of the goat also.
16. An atonement. Better, “thus shall he make an atonement,” or “in this manner and with this blood shall he make an atonement for the holy place.” The services of the sanctuary, from beginning to end, were essentially a work of atonement. An “atonement” for sin was made at each step in the process of dealing with it.
1. At any time during the year when a sinner presented his offering and confessed over it his sins, an “atonement” was made for him. He was “forgiven” (chs. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7). His sin was symbolically transferred to the sanctuary by the ministration of the blood of the offering and the burning of its altar portions—in some cases by the priest eating a portion of it. Nevertheless, full atonement for his sin had not been made. Though his sin was forgiven he must continue in the way of obedience. Should he fail to do so and neglect to “afflict” his soul upon the Day of Atonement (ch. 23:27–29), all of his erstwhile forgiven sins would return upon him and he must die (Eze. 18:24; 33:13). His only safety lay in enduring to “the end.” Then, and only then, could he expect to be “saved” (Matt. 24:13).
2. On the Day of Atonement—the day of final and complete atonement for all sins confessed and forgiven during the year (Lev. 16:16, 19; Heb. 10:1–3)—the blood of the Lord’s goat symbolically removed these sins from the sanctuary, making “atonement” for it also. It too was now free from sin (Lev. 16:17, 20).
On the first day of the seventh month came the blowing of trumpets, which was to call the attention of the people to the Day of Atonement, ten days later (Num. 29:1). The intervening nine days became days of heart searching, of preparation for the Day of Atonement, the day of judgment that sealed their destiny. They believed that on that day “it is sealed who shall live and who are to die” (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286, art. “Atonement, Day of”).
17. No man. During the ministration of the blood of the bullock and that of the goat in the most holy place, the veil between it and the holy place was drawn aside. For this reason any person within the holy place could see into the holiest; but this was the prerogative of the high priest alone, for he only might appear in the very presence of God. The prohibition here stated applies to vs. 12–16, which deal with the ministration of the high priest in the most holy.
The people anxiously waited to hear the bells on the high priest’s robe on the Day of Atonement. He had gone into the holiest in the white garments to sprinkle the blood and thus symbolically remove forever the record of their life’s sins. Would God accept him—and them? As he left the holiest and resumed his golden robes, and the people heard the sound of the bells, their joy and thankfulness were profound.
18. Go out unto the altar. Having purifiedthe most holy and thus completed his ministry there, Aaron was to do the same for the “tabernacle of the congregation,” that is, for the holy place (v. 16). Then he was to “go out unto the altar,” that is, the altar of burnt offering. Here he was to take some of the blood of the bullock and of the goat, and with it purify the altar from all “the uncleanness of the children of Israel” (v. 19). According to Jewish tradition the blood of the goat and the blood of the bullock were here mingled in one vessel. The fact that the two samples of blood are spoken of as “it” tends to confirm this view.
Besides putting the blood on the horns of the altar—where the blood of the sin offerings had been placed—the high priest was also to sprinkle the blood upon the altar itself, where the blood of the burnt offerings and the trespass offerings had been sprinkled, as well as the blood of the evening and the morning sacrifice. In doing this, the high priest cleansed and hallowed the altar “from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.”
We can readily understand the need of cleansing the two altars of the sanctuary on earth, for the blood of the burnt offerings and the sin offerings had been sprinkled on them (chs. 1:5, 11; 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). In the case of burnt offerings and trespass offerings the blood had been sprinkled on the altar itself (chs. 1:5, 11; 5:9); and in sin offerings it had been put on the horns (ch. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). Of the altar of incense this is said: Aaron “shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements” (Ex. 30:10). Of the altar of burnt offerings this is said: “He shall go out [of the sanctuary] unto the altar that is before the Lord …; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel” (Lev. 16:18, 19; cf. v. 20).
The temple on earth is a pattern of the temple in heaven; the cleansing on earth is merely a type of the cleansing in heaven. Of this Daniel speaks when he says that at the end of the 2300 days, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (see on Dan. 8:14). But does the heavenly sanctuary need cleansing? Has there been defilement in heaven that makes such cleansing necessary? Paul answers: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these [sacrifices of animals]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23).
20. An end of reconciling. The blood of the Lord’s goat offered on the Day of Atonement cleansed the holiest, the holy, and the altar of burnt offering, of “the uncleanness of the children of Israel” and “of their transgressions in all their sins” (vs. 16, 19). The people had previously obtained forgiveness for these same sins, when in the daily service they brought their personal sacrifices for sin. The blood was placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the penitent went away forgiven. It is stated repeatedly that “the priest shall make an atonement for him …, and it shall be forgiven him” (ch. 4:26, 31, 35). However, though the sin was forgiven, the record of the sin remained until the Day of Atonement, when it was “blotted out.” And when this had taken place there was “an end of reconciling” (see on v. 16).
21. The live goat. While the high priest made atonement with the Lord’s goat and cleansed the sanctuary with its blood, the scapegoat stood bound near the altar, having had no part in the ritual. Its part came only after the atonement with the Lord’s goat had been completed (v. 20), and “an end” had been made “of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar” (v. 20).
The high priest, having cleansed the sanctuary of sin, now went forth with these sins to the door of the tabernacle where the scapegoat waited (PP 356; GC 422). He laid his hands upon its head and confessed over it these sins, thus transferring them from the sanctuary to this goat, who bore them away into the wilderness (PP 356, 258).
In the antitype Christ will finally cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, removing the confessedand forgiven sins of His people thence, and placing them upon Satan. He will be declared guilty of all the evil he has caused them to commit, and must bear the final penalty (GC 422, 485, 658). “The sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment” (EW 178).
How fitting that the closing act of the drama of God’s dealing with sin should be a returning upon the head of Satan of all the sin and guilt that, issuing from him originally, once brought such tragedy to the lives of those now freed of sin by Christ’s atoning blood. Thus the cycle is completed, the drama ended. Only when Satan, the instigator of all sin, is finally removed can it truly be said that sin is forever blotted out of God’s universe. In this accommodated sense we may understand that the scapegoat has a part in the “atonement” (v. 10). With the righteous saved, the wicked “cut off,” and Satan no more, then, not till then, will the universe be in a state of perfect harmony as it was originally before sin entered.
Send him away. Literally, “expel him.” The word thus translated is used of divorcing a wife (Deut. 21:14; 22:19, 22; Jer. 3:8). This is a strong word. As some objectionable or repulsive beast is driven off, so the scapegoat is sent into the wilderness (Heb. midbar). It may or may not have perished there, for the Hebrews pastured flocks in the midbar, which could mean an uninhabited land where wild beasts lived. The Talmud mentions a later custom of throwing this goat over a cliff, but even then its death played no part in the sacrificial ceremony. In contrast to the Lord’s goat, the scapegoat was sent away alive; its eventual death was not in any sense sacrificial or substitutionary.
22. All their iniquities. The Israelites knew that they had sinned and come short of God’s expectation for them. But throughout this Day of Atonement they had had a visual demonstration of their complete separation from the sins they had confessed and been forgiven during the year that had now ended, and of God’s goodness in sparing their lives. They knew that they did not deserve the grace extended them. But by the shed blood of the atonement-day sacrifice the very record of their forgiven sins had been blotted from the sanctuary. Now as they watched the scapegoat depart they witnessed the last act in the drama—Satan, with all the sins he had instigated returned “upon his own head” (Ps. 7:16), going off to his doom.
23. Put off the linen garments. These garments, called also the “holy garments” (v. 4), were used only on the Day of Atonement. Aaron put them on when he went into the most holy with the incense in the morning. When the special mediatorial work was done, he removed the linen garments and put on the golden ones.
24. Wash his flesh. Aaron had come in contact with sin. This had not defiled him to the extent that he must offer a sin offering. He must bathe, however, after which he was to put on the golden garments. He then offered the usual evening burnt offering, both for himself and for the people. With this the round of ceremonies for another year began.
25. The fat. The fat of the various sin offerings earlier in the day was not burned till this time (vs. 11, 15).
26. He that let go the goat. This individual was not necessarily a priest. He might be any “fit man” (v. 21). A rope had been tied about the neck of the goat, and the man led the goat or prodded him with the staff he carried.
27. The bullock. The law required that the bodies of those beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin be burned without the camp. Paul sees in this a type of Christ, who “suffered without the gate,” and admonishes us to follow “him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:11–13).
29. A statute for ever. The Day of Atonement was the only fast day of the year, and was called “the fast” (Acts 27:9). Other fasts added later were not required or approved by God (Isa. 58:3–7; Zech. 7:3–10). In the time of Christ there were 29 fasts in addition to 2 weekly fast days.
Afflict your souls. This was more than fasting. It included soul searching, a review of one’s progress in holy living, a seeking of God, confession of sin, making amends for neglected duties, squaring accountswith God and men, thus redeeming the time.
30. That ye may be clean. This day being the Day of Atonement, it was necessary for each soul to cooperate in the work of cleansing. The priest could make atonement only as Israel confessed their sins and called upon God for help. The sins for which the high priest made atonement were the confessed sins only, the sins for which the penitent had brought offerings during the year. This day provided the annual opportunity, in type, to have sins blotted out forever; it was the accepted time.
31. A sabbath of rest. Literally “a sabbath of sabbaths,” a high day.
32. Whom he shall anoint. The priesthood and service were to continue after the death of Aaron. Another priest was then to be anointed and consecrated to the priest’s office, to put on the holy linen garments, and to conduct the service.
Leviticus 16 is one of the great chapters of the Bible. In it the plan of salvation is beautifully and impressively revealed, and some of the deep things of God are hidden within its 34 verses. The depth of meaning revealed in the ceremonies described proclaims a divine author. The mind is stretched to its utmost in the attempt to comprehend its teachings.
additional note on chapter 16
In order to understand clearly the services of the Day of Atonement, one must have some knowledge of the building in which the ritual of the sanctuary took place and some acquaintance with its surroundings. For a general description, see on Ex. 26:1; for a detailed description, on Ex. 25 to 40.
The original tabernacle built by Moses was a tent with wooden side walls (see on Ex. 26:15–26). The roof consisted of four layers of material, the inner being fine twined linen, the others various kinds of skin (see on Ex. 26:1–14). The tent itself was about 43 ft. 9 in. long and 14 ft. 7 in. wide (13.34 by 4.45 m.), with an outer enclosure called the court, about 172 ft. long and 86 ft. wide (see on Ex. 27:9–18).
The building was divided into two apartments, the first and larger called the holy, and the second the most holy. A rich curtain, or veil, divided the two rooms. As there were no windows in the building, artificial light was provided by the seven-branched candlestick in the first apartment, which gave sufficient light for the priests to perform their service there.
In the first apartment there were three articles of furniture: the table of shewbread, the candlestick, and the altar of incense. Entering the building from the front, which faced the east, one could see near the end of the room the altar of incense. To the right was the table of shewbread, to the left the candlestick. On the table were the cakes of shewbread, arranged in two piles of six each, and also the incense for the bread and the flagons for the drink offerings. There were also dishes, spoons, and bowls used in the service. The candlestick was pure gold; its bowls or lamps were fashioned like almonds.
The most important object in this apartment was the altar of incense. It was about 2 ft. 11 in. in height, and the top 1 ft. 51/2 in. square (88.9 by 44.45 by 44.45 cm.). It was overlaid with gold, and around its top was a crown of gold. On this altar the priest placed the vessel containing the coals of fire taken from the altar of burnt offering, and also the incense. As he put the incense on the coals, the smoke ascended, and as the veil did not reach to the top of the building, the incense not only filled the first apartment but penetrated into the second. It thus served the most holy place also.
In the second apartment there was only the ark, a chest about 3 ft. 8 in. long, 2 ft. 2 in. wide and high. The cover of the ark was called the mercy seat, upon which atonement was made on the Day of Atonement. Around the top of the mercy seat was a crown of gold, similar to that on the altar of incense. Inside the ark the law was written on two tables of stone with God’s own finger.
On top of the mercy seat were two cherubim of gold. Here God communed with His people (Ex. 25:22).
In the court outside the tent was the laver, a large basin made of bronze, containing water for bathing. In this laver the priests were to bathe their hands and feet before entering the sanctuary or beginning their service (Ex. 30:17-21; 38:8).
In the court, to the east of the laver, was also the altar of burnt offering, which served a most important purpose for all sacrificial offerings. The altar was about 4 ft. 5 in. (1.33 m.) in height, which necessitated a ledge upon which the priest could stand when he officiated at the altar. This also enabled the people to see him when he ministered at the altar. The top of the altar was about 7 ft. 4 in. (2.22 m.) square. It was made of wood covered with brass. At a later time this altar was greatly enlarged to accommodate the increased number of worshipers. On this altar the sacrifices were burned. Hence the name, altar of burnt offering. Here also the fat of the sacrificial victims was burned, as well as certain parts of other offerings. On the four corners of the altar were hornlike projections known as the “horns of the altar.” In certain of the sacrifices the priests touched the horns of the altar with the blood. In others, it was sprinkled round about upon the altar. At its base the surplus blood not used in the service was poured out upon the ground.
2 MH 437
7, 8 PP 355
8, 10 GC 419
13, 14 4T 124
14 GC 419
15 PP 355
16 GC 419; PP 355
17 GC 428; MH 437
19 GC 419; PP 355
21 GC 658; PP 356
21, 22 EW 178; GC 419; PP 355
22 GC 485
29-34GC 400
1 The blood of all slain beasts must be offered to the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. 7 They must not offer to devils. 10 All eating of blood is forbidden, 15 and all that dieth alone, or is torn.
3. What man soever there be. When Israel left Egypt a large group, consisting principally of Egyptians, left with them. The Bible calls them the “mixed multitude,” literally, a “numerous mingled throng” (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4). An even better word might be “rabble,” which some versions use. They were a source of constant trouble, and ever the leaders in rebellion. They were the ones who instigated the demand for flesh food, which resulted in the death of thousands (Num. 11:4–6, 18–20, 31–33). Though they daily witnessed God’s miracle in sending manna from heaven, they were unthankful and unholy. Like so many who live on the charity of others, their demands constantly increased.
It is reasonable to assume that this mixed multitude would seek to continue their pagan sacrificial feasts. In Egypt were to be found some of the most degraded forms of heathenism. Among these, devil worship was probably the worst (Lev. 17:7), in connection with which he-goats, or “satyrs” (RSV), were sacrificed. These abuses had begun to creep in among the Israelites, and a reformation was needed.
Before the establishment of the sanctuary, the father of the household was also its priest, and as such offered sacrifices. When the tabernacle was erected and the priests took charge of the offerings, a great change came about in the life of Israel. The father surrendered some of his former prerogatives to the Levites, and this may have occasioned dissatisfaction.
The thing that occasioned most difficulty was the rule that all slaughtering of animals should henceforth be done at the sanctuary, and that the feasts ordinarily celebrated in connection with slaughtering should also be held there. This would in itself cause no hardship to Israel, for the sanctuary was centrally located in the wilderness, of easy access to all. But this arrangement would automatically end the convivial feasts of the mixed multitude that many Israelites, we may suspect, had enthusiastically adopted. The lengths to which the Israelites had gone in this idolatrous worship is clear from the injunction in v. 7.
Of all the sacrifices, peace offerings lent themselves most readily to abuse. In general, the others that involved blood were either given to the priest or burned, after the blood had been sprinkled and the fat removed. In none of these cases did the offerer himself receive any part of the sacrifice. But in peace offerings the Lord received the blood and the fat, and the priest, the breast and right shoulder (ch. 7:34); the remainder belonged to the offerer and his invited guests (Deut. 27:7; see on Lev. 7:15).
From the mere human viewpoint the peace offerings had another advantage. Ordinarily a sacrifice had to be perfect to be accepted (chs. 22:21; 3:1), but a peace offering presented as a freewill offering need not be perfect. It could be used even if it had “any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts” (ch. 22:23). If a man wished to make a feast, he might select an animal that was deformedbut not diseased. Henceforth he was required to bring it to the tabernacle and present to the Lord, that is, to the priest, that which God required. Some in Israel had failed to do this. Henceforth, no Israelite might participate in any celebrations except those held within the camp. These, presumably, would be conducted in harmony with the religious and social standards implicit in the law of God.
The removal of the slaying and the festivities would accomplish other desirable results. The text seems to imply that all slaughter of animals should take place under the immediate supervision of the priests. Thus even the slaying of a beast was made a semi-religious act. The command, thus understood, would emphasize the fact that God should be acknowledged in all things, that He claims a portion of all we possess, in this case the blood and the fat. It would teach Israel to honor God with their substance, and to share with the priests the part that belonged to them. Especially would the shedding of blood, and the blood itself, take on a new meaning, for the people were to treat it with the greatest respect, and might under no circumstances eat it.
These principles are as valid now as they were then. God has a claim on all we possess. Even in eating and drinking God is to be honored. Also, God would have His people separate themselves from the mixed multitude. There are dangers for both young and old in associating with the world. Attachments are easily formed, and the results are often fatal to the faith of the believer. Attendance at worldly schools is fraught with danger. Their social functions are a snare, as are also classes and graduation exercises on the Sabbath. Whoever goes “without the camp” is in need of special protection and should first have a sure call from God to do so.
9. That man shall be cut off. Verses 1–7 present legislation intended to separate the Israelites from the contaminating influence of the Egyptians (see ch. 18:3). That God considered the matter of great importance is evident from the punishment for transgression. For certain infractions of the laws concerned with physical uncleanness God ordained the rites of purification. In other matters He required a sacrifice, and in certain cases restitution. But here He prescribes the same severe penalty of excommunication that came upon the offender on the Day of Atonement if he failed to humble himself. The “stranger” was included in this regulation (v. 8). In his case at least, to be “cut off” probably meant exclusion from the privileges of fellowship with God’s people (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15).
Israel had many things to learn, and God designed that these lessons should be learned in the wilderness. Here, they were a compact group; they neither sowed nor reaped, and could devote undivided attention to the instruction given them. For instance, their daily bread came directly from heaven, ever reminding them of their dependence upon God.
The command to slaughter all animals at the door of the sanctuary was rescinded after Israel entered Canaan (see Deut. 12:15, 20, 21). All sacrificial animals were then to be brought to the tabernacle; but if the slaying was for daily food, they might kill the animal at home. Presumably by that time Israel had learned the lesson God designed to teach; furthermore, the mixed multitude was no longer a snare to them.
To offer it. Prior to Sinai, Israel had been without an appointed priesthood. The father had been the priest of his family; but now God ordered a change, and called upon all to comply with it. Men were not merely to worship, but to worship in God’s appointed manner. They were to recognize the appointed leaders. They were to abstain from prohibited things, to honor God with their substance, and to refrain from ungodly gatherings. God did not forbid social gatherings, but such as were held must be of a character consistent with sanctuary surroundings. There must be no convivial feasts.
10. Any manner of blood. God strictly forbade both Israelite and stranger (v. 12) to eat blood. That this is not merely a Jewish ordinance is clear from two facts: (1) It was first given to Noah, progenitor of the entire human race since the Flood (Gen. 9:4). (2) The very first legislation adopted by the NT church contained theprovision, “Abstain from … blood, and from things strangled” (Acts 15:29).
11. The life of the flesh. Seven times in the books of Moses the prohibition against eating blood is repeated (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23). The reason given is that blood represents life; in fact, the blood is the life. This is true in a very literal sense. The blood carries nourishment, strength, and warmth to every part of the body, and carries away all that harms and destroys. It is the indispensible medium without which life is impossible. All other parts of the body are nourished by it. If a wound occurs anywhere, blood brings to it the needed material for healing it. Science is continually learning new facts about the blood, and every one discovered increases our wonder at its amazing qualities.
Blood holds a high place in the plan of salvation. The blood of Christ is repeatedly described as the vital element in redemption. Hence we have such expressions as “purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “redemption through his blood” (Eph. 1:7); “peace through the blood” (Col. 1:20); “sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12); “the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20); “sprinkling of the blood” (1 Peter 1:2); “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood” (1 John 5:8); “not by water only, but by water and blood” (1 John 5:6); “washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). Remove the doctrine of the blood and blood atonement from the Bible and we are left without a Saviour. He was “brought as a lamb to the slaughter,” and “with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:7, 5).
It must indeed have been a hard saying for the people and the disciples when Christ announced, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:53, 54, 60). For the sincere Christian these words have deep meaning. They call to mind the words of the new covenant, the blood covenant, the symbol of which is the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:25).
An atonement for the soul. Literally, “a covering for the soul.” It is the blood that makes atonement, because of the life that is in it. Christ’s blood makes atonement because it represents His life. Christ’s death accomplished one purpose, His life another; and the two together assure us of salvation. By His death Christ paid the penalty and satisfied the claims of the law; by His life He assures us of life (see Rom. 5:10).
12. Eat blood. The intent of the rules in regard to the eating of blood was not only that Israel might abstain from the eating of literal blood. It was all of that, but it was more. It was to instill in them a high regard for that which the blood represents, life. All life comes from God and belongs to Him. It is not to be misused or destroyed.
13. Pour out the blood. This must have provided an impressive lesson for the hunter. He is out hunting and brings down a bird. Remembering God’s injunction to treat the blood with respect, he pours it out on the ground and reverently covers it. This was not, of course, for the sake of the bird. It was to teach man the value and importance of life (see Matt. 10:29).
14. It is the life. This verse is a repetition; but in the repetition something is added. Previous statements were to the effect that the life is in the blood. This verse states that it is the blood.
Christ felt and taught compassion for one’s fellow men. In fact, entrance into the heavenly kingdom depends upon interest in, and care for, the hungry, thirsty, naked, and those in prison (Matt. 25:34–40). Their life came from Him, the Author of life, and in ministering to others they would minister to Him.
15. That which died of itself. Eating the flesh of animals that died of themselves or were torn, though not prohibited, makes a man unclean. The reason for this is supposed to be that in such cases the blood was not properly drained.
11 GC 418
1 Unlawful marriages. 19 Unlawful lusts.
3. After the doings. Having come out from the land of Egypt, Israel was to leave behind the ways of Egypt. They were on their way to Canaan, and iniquity prevailed there also. They were to shun evil, whatever its source.
4. Do my judgments. This was their only salvation. In the midst of sin and degradation, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, God wanted His people to shine forth as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15).
Some have wondered why God permitted His people to live among such conditions as prevailed in Egypt and Canaan. But though they lived in Egypt they were not to mingle with the Egyptians (see John 17:15). This is evident from the fact that He provided a separate place for them to live, the land of Goshen. Had they kept their place, had they obeyed God’s counsel, they would have remained separate from the evils that surrounded them. Instead, they mingled with the Egyptians, learned their ways, and became corrupt themselves. Their 40 years of wandering were years of education, during which God designed that they should forget the ways of Egypt and learn His ways. When the time came for them to enter the land of Canaan, the generation that departed from Egypt had all but vanished. During this interval God gave them His law from Sinai, He gave them ordinances, “which if a man do, he shall live in them”; He gave them demonstrations of His power and of His ability to provide for them under all circumstances. All this was intended to strengthen their faith. If they would but place their trust in God, all would be well.
God led Israel into the land of Canaan, knowing the temptations that awaited them there. He could have done otherwise, but in His wisdom He considered this best. Nevertheless they were not to mingle with the Canaanites nor learn their ways. The process of occupying the land of Canaan was to be a gradual one (Ex. 23:29, 30). During that process they were to have further opportunity for character development; their loyalty to God was to be tested. Had God removed all temptation immediately, there could have been no development of character.
Israel was to occupy only sufficient territory to meet their immediate needs. The plan was ideal. It would protect Israel and give them the territory needed; at the same time it would keep them from direct association with the heathen and leave a missionary field right at their door. But Israel failed to cooperate; they “entered not in” (Heb. 4:6).
6. None of you shall approach. One of the outstanding sins of antiquity was immorality, and the land of Canaan was not exempt. Marriage was held in low esteem and women were treated as cattle. This chapter gives a true picture of conditions as they were among the heathen (vs. 24–27), and against all this God warned Israel. The fact that God found it necessary to issue such a warning, with all its stark details, emphasizes the danger that confronted them and of which they must beware.
In the beginning God created one man and one woman, thus establishing ideal conditions for man’s blessing and comfort. God’s plan would preserve the home, the nation, and the chastity of both sexes. Marriage is not dishonorable; it is not sinful, a thing to be shunned, as some would have us believe. It was ordained by God Himself and is honorable (Heb. 13:4). It is a divine institution as much as is the Sabbath, and like it is to be held in high esteem. As the Sabbath demands reverence and holiness for its proper observance, so does marriage. Both can be desecrated, or both can be a blessing. Reverence for the body and its functions is the theme of this chapter, reverence for one’s own body and for the bodies of others.
21. To Molech. The obscure pagan rite described by the phrase, “pass through the fire to Molech,” is here mentioned for the first time. Other statements dealing with the same practice are found in Lev. 20:2–5; 2 Kings 23:10, and Jer. 32:35. The “Molech” of 1 Kings 11:7, who is describedas the god of the Ammonites, is probably the “Milcom” of vs. 5 and 33 of the same chapter, and of 2 Kings 23:13.
But who is Molech? Generations of theologians have been puzzled by this word. Some have thought that Molech (molek) stands for the Canaanite god Mekal, who is attested by inscriptions, and that the last two consonants have become inverted. Other scholars, however, have given the following interpretation: The word “Molech” (molek) has the same consonants in Hebrew as the word for “king” (melek). In ancient Hebrew, only the consonants were written, in this instance, mlk. The insertion of different vowels thus resulted in a different word. Therefore, according to these scholars, who reflect the ancient Jewish tradition, “Molech” was not the name of a deity, but the designation of any god, who could be called “king” in the same sense as God was called “king” by the Hebrews (see Ps. 5:2; 10:16; etc.). They also accepted the Jewish tradition that the ancient Hebrews reserved the title melek, “king,” for the true God, and pronounced the consonantal group of letters, mlk, when applied to Canaanite gods, with the vowels, “o” and “e,” as found in the word bosheth “shame,” thus creating the word molek. This title for a pagan god was thought to mean “shame-king” in contrast to the melek, the true King of heaven and earth. This explanation of the word “Molech” has been widely held in theological circles.
In 1935 O. Eissfeldt published his findings in regard to certain Punic inscriptions of Carthage in North Africa of the period from 400-150 b.c., in which the terms “molk of sheep” and “molk of man” are used to describe animal and human sacrifices (Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebra¬ischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch). Since the Punic language is closely related to Hebrew, Eissfeldt explained the Hebrew word molek to mean “vow” or “pledge.” Thus the Biblical passages usually translated, “pass through the fire to Molech,” should be rendered, “as a molech,” that is, as the fulfillment of a pledge to a pagan god.
Many scholars have been inclined to accept Eissfeldt’s explanation. However, the excavation of the city of Mari, in Mesopotamia, has furnished texts in which G. Dossin found a god named Muluk, who was worshiped in the Middle-Euphrates region in the 18th century b.c. (Revue dÕ Assyriologie, vol. 35, p. 178, [1938], n. 1). Also the gods of Sepharvaim, Adrammelech (attested in Mesopotamian inscriptions as AdadÐmilki) and Anammelech, to whom children were sacrificed by fire (2 Kings 17:31), apparently had some connection with the godMuluk, as the last half of their names reveal.
In the light of this latest evidence Molech seems to have been a particular pagan god, one to whom children were offered as burnt sacrifices, so that the traditional translation, “pass through the fire to Molech,” can be considered as correct. The name of this god, however, was later also applied as a technical term for certain animal and human sacrifices as is revealed by the Punic inscriptions of Carthage.
24. Defile not ye yourselves. The nations round about Israel were guilty of all the sins here enumerated, and were for this reason to be dispossessed. Israel therefore was to avoid similar guilt, or be cast out. The message here given is evidence of the very real danger that confronted them.
28. Spue. From qoÕ, “to vomit up” (see Lev. 18:25; Jonah 2:10). Israel held title to the Promised Land only on the basis of the covenant relationship. When they violated the covenant they forfeited their right to remain in Canaan. They would be “plucked from off the land” and scattered (Deut. 28:63, 64). Under the symbol of a “vine” Isaiah represents Israel “planted” in “a very fruitful hill.” But when the vine “brought forth wild grapes” God determined to lay the whole land waste (Isa. 5:1–7).
30. I am the Lord. The chapter ends as it began, with this affirmation, designed to remind them of the holiness of God and of the high standard He held before them.
5 PP 372
26, 27 1T 280
A repetition of sundry laws.
2. Ye shall be holy. This is the keynote of the book of Leviticus. Throughout the book stress is ever on holiness. The reason here given for the command is that God is holy.
3. His mother, and his father. Here the order commonly followed in Scripture is reversed. Some think this an accident, the words in some way transposed. But doubtless God intended it this way. This in no way detracts from the dignity and position of the father, but it does emphasize the fact that mothers are not forgotten by God, and should not be by man.
In too many homes due honor is not given the mother. Perhaps she fails to occupy her rightful place and exert the positive, constructive influence that she should. She may lower her authority in the mind of the child by telling him that father will make him obey when he comes home, thus harming the child. A mother who habitually shirks her responsibility in this way would do well to study the situation, to seek the cause for her own failure, and then take steps to rectify matters. The commandment reads, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12).
Keep my sabbaths. The fourth and fifth commandments, here named, are the two positive commandments of the law. Both inculcate reverence and respect for authority.
I am the Lord. This statement is repeated many times in the chapter (vs. 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37).
4. Turn ye not unto idols. Verse 4 points to the first and the second commandments, particularly the second. We need not bow down to idols of wood and stone to transgress this commandment. Anything honored in the place of God or preferred before Him constitutes an idol, even if it be a matter of the imagination only.
5. A sacrifice of peace offerings. This repeats, by way of emphasis, the instruction given in ch. 7:11–21. As noted in the discussion of ch. 17:1–7, the peace offerings were more easily susceptible to abuse than were the others.
9. Gleanings of thy harvest. God’s care has ever been devoted in a special way to the poor. Often poverty results from a lack of thrift, foresight, diligence, or skill. Again, there are times when it is accidental and unavoidable. But whatever the cause, God looks with pity upon all who are in need and has commissioned His people to provide for them according to their needs. Some, unable to work, are in need of an outright gift and will use it wisely. Others are able and willing to work and should be given an opportunity to do so. Gleaning is not easy, and at times its results are meager. But it is preferable to provide most people with work to do than to present them with an outright gift. It is detrimental to one’s self-respect to receive something for nothing, except in cases of genuine need. Giving people work to do accomplishes several things, both for the giver and for the receiver. It helps the giver to develop a liberal spirit, and often places him in the position of helping God answer prayer. The receiver is also helped; it leads himto give thanks to God and to appreciate those who provide him an opportunity to help himself. It tends to create the spirit of brotherhood.
11. Ye shall not steal. Stealing and falsifying are kindred sins. The latter is often necessary to the former (see ch. 6:2). There are many ways of stealing as well as of lying. Also, there are borderline cases, and these are probably the most common ones. God desires truth in the inward parts (Ps. 51:6), and anything that savors of craftiness or hypocrisy is an abomination to Him (see Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:2).
12. Not swear by my name falsely. By implication this permits the judicial oath. It is not concerned with swearing (in court) as such, but with swearing falsely. Perjury is rightly considered a most serious crime, because it perverts justice. It is a definite breach of the third commandment and merits severe punishment (Matt. 5:33–37).
13. Not defraud thy neighbour. More exactly, “oppress thy neighbor.” Verse 11 forbids injuries by craftiness; this, by violence or superior power. Some conclude that because a thing is legal, it is therefore permissible to the Christian. A thing may be lawful, yet far from expedient (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Also, the law of the land may call lawful certain courses of conduct that God frowns upon. God does not countenance legal loopholes.
The wages. Wages are to be paid promptly, as are debts when they fall due. To withhold wages agreed upon, or the payment of just debts, or to delay these unduly, is displeasing to God and is dishonest (Deut. 24:14, 15). Strict honesty requires that a person enter into no arrangements or accept no obligations unless he has every reason to believe that he can discharge his responsibilities with respect to them. Furthermore, to allow a stipulated time for settlement of an obligation to pass without making satisfactory arrangements is dishonesty of the worst sort, and marks a man as irresponsible and untrustworthy.
14. The deaf. We may not curse the deaf because he cannot hear, nor put a stumbling block in the way of the blind because he cannot see. To do so is both dishonest and cruel. Says God, “Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way” (Deut. 27:18; cf. Job 29:15). Those who are physically handicapped deserve special consideration. But let them not trade upon their impediment.
15. Shalt thou judge. To have “respect to persons” is to “commit sin” (James 2:9). The artist rightly represents justice as a woman holding a pair of scales in balance, her eyes covered so that she will not be influenced by seeing who or what is before her.
16. A talebearer. That is, of tales likely to breed mischief, because of being either untrue or detrimental to the person concerned. The rabbis taught that there were three sins that remove a man from this world and deprive him of happiness in the next—idolatry, incest, and murder—but that slander is worse than these in that it kills three persons at once: the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener. It is more effective than a double-edged sword.
Stand against the blood of thy neighbour. Preferably, “rise up against the life of thy neighbor,” either directly or by false witness (see Dan. 8:25; 11:14; 1 Chron. 21:1). The Jews interpret it to mean that he who sees anyone in danger, as from drowning, robbery, or wild beasts, is duty bound to help; or that if a man happens to witness a crime or an injustice, he is bound to go to the rescue of the individual wronged, either by personal assistance or by bearing testimony in court.
17. Hate thy brother. It is possible to hate and despise a person, and not give any outward evidence of it. Nevertheless, hatred is sin (1 John 2:9–11). He who hates hurts himself most of all.
Rebuke thy neighbour. Christ said, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him” (Luke 17:3; see also Matt. 18:15–17). Paul says, “Them that sin rebuke before all” (1 Tim. 5:20); “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:13); “rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). The last three statements refer to the responsibility of ministers, but Christ’s advice in Matt. 18:15–17 is applicable to all. It is equally wrong to entertain hatred in the heart and to withhold rebuke. The rabbis taught that he who does not reprove an offender shares in his sin, and that it would be better for him to throw himself into a burning furnace.
18. Thou shalt not avenge. It is a human weakness to desire to “get even” with one who has done us harm, but the Bible countenances no such procedure. Says Paul, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath” (Rom. 12:19). To bear a grudge is quite useless. It does no one good, and does the bearer much harm. It sours the disposition, and gives a warped view of life.
Love thy neighbour. In this injunction are summed up the last six of the commandments (Matt. 22:40). Said Christ, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:43, 44).
Even critics admit that the statement, “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” was a most unusual pronouncement for that day and age of the world. It is unusual for any age. Selfishness prevails today, as it ever has, and there is still little love for a neighbor when one’s interests conflict with his. Usually, it is every man for himself. If we can do our neighbor some good without hurting ourselves, we may approve of it. To a great extent love for one’s neighbor is but enlightened self-interest.
19. Mingled seed. In the beginning God made different species of animals and plants. He never intended that there should be amalgamation of different kinds to the confusion of all. The rule against mixing wool and linen is not clear, nor is it explained elsewhere in the Bible. Its purpose may have been to impress upon the mind the principle as it applies to living things. The idea of keeping the different “kinds” intact as God created them is for the good of all.
20. Whosoever lieth carnally. The bondmaid in this case is betrothed to a husband but has not yet been redeemed. Therefore she is not free, but is considered the property of the one she serves.
Be scourged. Literally, “an inquiry shall be held” (RSV). The Heb. biqqoreth, thus translated, contains the idea of an investigation made with the objective of determining punishment appropriate to the crime. The KJV application of biqqoreth to the woman only is not supported by the Hebrew. It applies equally to both.
21. He shall bring. In addition to whatever punishment was deemed appropriate, the man was to present his trespass offering (see on ch. 7:1). In the first he paid his debt to society; in the second he was reconciled to God. Women were not expected to present such offerings.
23. Uncircumcised unto you. A fruit tree was not considered mature until four years of age. Until that time it was considered “uncircumcised.” That is, its fruit was neither to be eaten nor presented to the Lord. In the fourth year its fruit was to be “holy to praise the Lord withal,” and therefore presented to Him.
26. Blood. Some translate this injunction, “Ye shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it.” The blood was to be drained from any animal slaughtered for food. To this day conscientious Jews observe this rule, and wherever possible have their own slaughtering houses. Elsewhere, on certain days the priest is present at the slaughtering of animals for Jewish use, to see that this and other rules are observed. Such meat is said to be “kosher,” and marked accordingly. Christians, as a rule, pay little attention to this health ordinance, forgetful that it was only on this condition that God originally permitted the use of flesh food (Gen. 9:4). The same restriction was later enjoined upon Gentile Christians (Acts 15:20, 29).
Enchantment. This probably refers to charms and incantations, which, though not in themselves immoral or licentious, tended to superstition and idolatry. It is astonishing to find that many today are still influenced by superstitious beliefs. Even reputable newspapers carry information on “lucky” and “unlucky” days. Men profess to be able to foretell the future by the position of the stars, and to advise what should or should not be done on certain days. Fortunetellers and spirit mediums flourish by the thousands, and millions are deceived by them. Some carry charms in their pockets or on their persons, nail horseshoes over their doors; others “knock on wood” lest evil befall them. Many will not begin or perform certain tasks on a Friday. The number 13 is thought to be unlucky. Some think a black cat an evil omen on a journey, and have been known to goback and begin their journey anew. Some refuse to walk under a ladder, and others again claim to cure certain sicknesses by throwing an object behind their back on a moonless night. Anciently such things were taken more seriously than they are today, and there was danger lest Israel delve further into the magic of the nations about them.
27. Corners of thy beard. The Jews took great pride in their beards, considering them the insigne of manhood and dignity. It has been suggested that a “marred” beard marked its wearer the devotee of a heathen god. That part of the beard thus cut off may have been offered to the gods. God forbade His people to follow this heathen custom. In its context (vs. 26–28) this restriction could have meaning only as a safeguard against heathen religious customs. Its application to the modern custom of shaving off the beard is entirely unwarranted.
28. Cuttings in your flesh. This was done by various ancient peoples in connection with ceremonial rites for the dead. Even today some heathen people follow such practices. Certain New Guinea tribesmen cut off a finger joint upon the death of a member of the family.
Print any marks. This may refer to tattooing, a custom not immoral in itself, but certainly unworthy of God’s people, since it tends to mar the image of the Creator.
29. Prostitute thy daughter. This was a common practice among the nations of antiquity, especially among the poor, who often sold their daughters, and sometimes their wives, into slavery and prostitution. Women were not then generally held in high repute.
30. Keep my sabbaths. Reverence is involved in both commands here enunciated. There are some who keep the Sabbath but do not show due reverence for the sanctuary. There are others who reverence the sanctuary but not the Sabbath. True religion calls for the reverencing of both, for both are holy.
31. Familiar spirits. From Õoboth, literally, “[skin] bottles,” as in Job 32:19. This is the first use of the word in the Bible. Use of the word to designate spirit mediums seems to have been due to their unnatural, indistinct, and sonorous quality of voice, such as might have been produced by speaking into a “bottle” or other receptacle. The word translated “mutter” in Isa. 8:19 means “to murmur,” “to whisper,” “to growl.” It also means “to meditate [out loud],” as when a person addresses himself in a low voice resembling a sigh (see Ps. 143:5). The word translated “peep” is froms\aphaph, a word that imitates the mumbling of a medium. In Isa. 29:4 s\aphaph is rendered “whisper,” and in Isa. 38:14, “chatter.” The LXX usually renders Õoboth as eggastrimuthoi, “ventriloquists,” implying the projection of the voice to the stomach in low and grave sepulchral tones. Ventriloquism would readily lend itself to magical purposes.
ÕOboth is feminine, suggesting that spirit mediums were usually women. A medium was said to “have” a “familiar spirit.” She was not possessed by a “familiar spirit,” but possessed the “spirit.” A literal rendering of 1 Sam. 28:7 would be, “a woman, the mistress of a familiar spirit.” Used as a noun the English word “familiar” means “an intimate,” “a companion.” “Familiar spirit” might therefore appropriately be “intimate spirit” or perhaps “companion spirit,” that is, one that consorted with the medium and might be summoned by its “mistress” and told what to do. The possessor, or “mistress,” of the Õob usually stooped while speaking as a medium, and according to Isa. 29:4 spoke as if “out of the ground.” This may account for the fact that when Saul consulted the witch at Endor, she “saw gods ascending out of the earth” (1 Sam. 28:13), and explain why Saul “stooped with his face to the ground” (v. 14) to converse, as he thought, with Samuel (vs. 15–19).
The “teraphim” of the OT (see on Gen. 31:19) seem, at times at least, to have been used by spirit mediums as “props” for pretended communication with the dead, often with the aid of ventriloquism. In Zech. 10:2 it is stated that “the teraphim utter nonsense” (RSV) when inquired of. In at least one instance the word “teraphim” refers to an image so closely resembling a human being that it deceived messengers sent by Saul into thinking thatDavid himself was lying in bed (1 Sam. 19:12–17). A ventriloquist could easily simulate conversation with an image in a manner sufficiently realistic to convince superstitious minds that the spirits of the dead were speaking. It would be only natural for the devil to control the words of a spirit medium in harmony with his own purposes.
32. The hoary head. This command amplifies the fifth commandment. Reverence and respect are fundamental virtues. Irreverence, disrespect, and lack of serious thought have ever been besetting sins. This is the day of youth. They are indeed the hope of the world and of the church. But this does not imply setting aside men of age and experience, nor disregard for their counsel.
Fear thy God. This command is always present truth. The church in our day is admonished, “Fear God, and give glory to him” (Rev. 14:7).
33. A stranger. Strangers of old were generally looked upon with suspicion. Why had the stranger left home? Had he committed some crime? Was he a fugitive from justice? Was he a runaway slave? Naturally questions arose in a day when few ventured far from their ancestral hills and valleys. The stranger was on the defensive, but God’s people were not to vex him.
34. As one born among you. It was not enough that the stranger be left alone, neither annoyed nor molested. They were to treat him with the same consideration they manifested toward one another. Christ enunciated this same standard while on earth. In fact, He quoted directly from this chapter of Leviticus when He said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39; Lev. 19:18). Lest some might conclude that by “neighbor” Christ meant a Jew, He spoke the parable of the good Samaritan. Any man in need, be he Jew or Samaritan, friend or stranger, is our neighbor (Luke 10:30–37).
Ye were strangers. It is well for us to remember that there may have been times in the past when we were among strangers and needed a helping hand or an encouraging word. This should make us more kind to those who need our help and encouragement.
35. Do no unrighteousness. God commands strict honesty in measures of length, weight, and quantity. In all exchanges, strict justice is to be observed. Says Christ, “With the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again” (Luke 6:38).
9 MH 186
9, 10 AA 337; Ed 44; PP 531
11 4T 336, 350
13 5T 350
13-153T 517
14 3T 519
17 DA 441; MB 87; 1T 214; 4T 513; 7T 260
18 COL 261, 381; PP 136, 305, 373, 424
30 ML 286; MYP 265; 5T 491
31 GC 556; PP 689
32 AH 363; Ed 244; LS 275; ML 279
33, 34 PP 507
34 DA 500
35, 36 MH 188
1 Of him that giveth of his seed to Molech. 4 Of him that favoureth such an one. 6 Of going to wizards. 7 Of sanctification. 9 Of him that curseth his parents. 10 Of adultery. 11, 14, 17, 19 Of incest. 13 Of sodomy. 15 Of bestiality. 18 Of uncleanness. 22 Obedience is required with holiness. 27 Wizards must be put to death.
1. The Lord spake. Most of the offenses mentioned in this chaper have been discussed in chs. 18 and 19. There the appeal to the people was purely on spiritualgrounds, an appeal to their sense of right. Here, the offenses are considered as crimes against the state, and hence punishable. The punishment is generally death.
2. Unto Molech. This was not merely a dedication of the child to Molech, but was an actual sacrifice of the children as a burnt offering (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35; see Jer. 7:31; 19:5; Eze. 16:21; 23:37). For a discussion of the word “Molech” see on ch. 18:21.
5. Cut him off. Literally, “cut down,” “cut asunder,” “consumed,” “destroyed.” God decreed that those who sacrificed their children to Molech should be executed, usually by stoning. If the people did not take action, but condoned the crime, God would take matters into His own hand and “cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him.” In most instances it is not clear as to the means by which sinners were “cut off” (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15). Here it can mean only death.
6. Familiar spirits. Those who sought in any way to contact the spirits or communicate with the dead were punished likewise (v. 27). As the death penalty is not mentioned in v. 6, it is supposed that in some cases it was left to the decision of the judges, according to the gravity of the offense. According to v. 27, the ordinary penalty was death. On the meaning of the term see on ch. 19:31.
7. Be ye holy. This, as has been remarked before, is the dominant note of Leviticus, and one which God wished His people ever to have in mind. The reason given is simply: “I am the Lord your God.”
8. Keep my statutes. Verse 7 inculcates sanctification. Immediately follows the injunction, “Keep my statutes”; and then the words, “I am the Lord which sanctify you.” Sanctification and the keeping of God’s statutes are here combined—as they indeed must be in real life. The claim that sanctification can be gained without obedience to the will of God is a spurious claim.
9. Curseth his father. We are not informed what was involved in this cursing that demanded the death penalty. The fact that this is not defined implies that disrespect of any kind is included.
Death seems a severe penalty for merely cursing anyone. What great responsibility this placed on the parents, so to bring up a child that he would have respect for authority. We are reminded of this when we see parents meekly submit to abuse by a child who in a tantrum not only refuses to obey, but screams, kicks, rebels, and even hits father or mother. Too late, such parents may regret that they did not take the boy in hand in time, but permitted him to pass beyond restraint. The greatest regret will come with the realization that had they acted wisely and promptly, the boy might have been saved in the kingdom.
10. Adultery. Verses 10–21 do not make pleasant reading. Nor were they intended to. The things mentioned are shameful things, wicked things. Hence the judgment is generally death.
20. Die childless. This penalty may not seem drastic today; but in ancient times it meant much. To die childless was to have no part in the hope of Israel, to be, practically, outside the covenant.
23. The manners of the nation. God desired His people to be separate from those around them, in manner, dress, morality—even in their eating. God’s ideal for His people is complete separation from the world.
25. Put difference. See on ch. 11.
26. Severed. Literally, “separated.” The same Hebrew word appears in Gen. 1:4, 6, 7, 14; Ex. 26:33; Isa. 59:2; etc. It is translated in Lev. 20:24 as “separated,” and in v. 25 as “put difference.” Israel was to be distinct from all other nations, not only in their form of worship, but in their ideals, objectives, social and recreational life, diet, and dress. God “severed” His people from all others, not simply to make them different from all others, but that they might represent in their every habit of life His own perfection of character. Thus even the heathen nations would come to recognize the superiority of the laws of God (Deut. 4:6–9).
2, 3 5T 320
6 GC 556; PP 685
7 5T 743
7, 8 CH 66, 68, 83; ML 250
23-25MH 280
27 GC 556
1 Of the priests’ mourning. 6 Of their holiness. 8 Of their estimation. 7, 13 Of their marriages_. 17 The priests that have blemishes must not minister in the sanctuary.
1. Unto the priests. The message of ch. 21 is for the priests and their families. They must keep from defilement of every kind. The people were permitted to do certain things that were forbidden to the priests. In turn, the common priests were allowed more liberties than the high priest. There was a graduated scale of conduct that became more strict according to the person’s rank. The rules that applied to the head of the household applied in some instances to their families also, with the effect thatthe misconduct of a son or a daughter might reflect on the father.
2. But for his kin. A dead body, whether of saint or sinner, was considered unclean, and a priest touching it was rendered unclean and hence could not officiate in the sanctuary. There were exceptions in case of those of near kin, such as father or mother, son or daughter, brother or sister.
4. A chief man. Literally, a “husband” (Ex. 21:22), or a married man (Ex. 21:3). It is probably used here in the latter sense, meaning that he may not defile himself for his in-laws. The priest might not follow the usual customs of mourning for the dead, but was ever to maintain the dignity of the priestly office.
6. They shall be holy. Though God does not have two standards of conduct for His people, He does expect His ministers to set an example to the church in holy living. God’s service ever requires of a man the very best. There are three things stressed in this chapter that stand out as qualifications for the priesthood:
1. Physical condition. God demanded that He be served only by men in good physical condition, without physical defects, and in possession of all the natural powers of the body. Physical perfection was representative of perfection of character, toward which all should strive.
2. Holy men. Their lives must be blameless, their families without reproach. A church may rightly be judged by the lives of its members. Another, and perhaps more exacting, test is the standard of holiness produced in the minister’s life.
3. Dedicated men. The priests of old were not permitted to let anything interfere with their service to God. The high priest must not mourn over the loss of a dear one, nor even attend to the funeral details of one dear to him (see vs. 10, 11). Nothing of any kind must come in to hinder the work of God.
9. The daughter of any priest. If a young woman of the people sin, her punishment was to be according to the gravity of the offense. But if the daughter of a priest was immoral, there was but one law—death by fire.
10. The high priest. Although the rules were strict for a priest, they were still more strict for a high priest. He alone of all the priests had been anointed upon the head with oil, he alone was consecrated to put on the golden garments. He must not uncover his head, since this necessitated removing the golden plate on which was the inscription “Holiness to the Lord.” He must not rend his garments, as was the custom when one was in great sorrow. He must not go near a dead body, not even that of his father or mother. Christ’s words to a would-be disciple seem to reflect this ideal (Matt. 8:22). Should the high priest do so, he would become unclean and so incapacitate himself for performing the duties of his sacred office.
12. Go out of the sanctuary. The common priests each served only for a short time every year; the high priest was on continuous duty. He must be available at all times, hence could not go on a journey. One priest could officiate for another in case of emergency, but no one could officiate for the high priest, though in later times he did have a substitute.
13. A wife in her virginity. The high priest was to marry a virgin. He might not marry a widow, as could the common priest, nor, of course, one of blemished reputation.
15. Profane his seed. The children of any such union as mentioned in v. 14 would be disqualified to succeed their father in office, as he himself would be disqualified by violating the law prohibiting such unions. These rules were given to preserve the priesthood as a holy order. The priests must be clean in all respects, that they might deserve the respect of the people.
17. Any blemish. As the sacrifices offered were to be perfect and without blemish, so also must be the priests who officiated at the altar. Those who had blemishes might serve in minor capacities, but must never ascend the altar (v. 21). They might be caretakers of the priests’ wardrobe. They might gather and examine the wood to be used, but not build the fire or remove the ashes. They might inspect lepers, be doorkeepers, and keep the court in order. But they could not perform any strictly priestly function (v. 23). They were not deprived of their regular priestly income, and might eat of the offerings given to the priests, both of the holy and the most holy (v. 22).The sin, trespass, and meat offerings were “most holy,” as was also the shewbread (ch. 2:3, 10; 6:17, 25, 29; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17). The heave offering and the wave offering, the first fruits, the firstlings, and things devoted were holy.
18. A flat nose. That is, “a mutilated face” (RSV).
Any thing superfluous. Literally, “anything stretched out,” “having any member too long.” Everything connected with the worship of God must be perfect.
1 The priests in their uncleanness must abstain from the holy things. 6 How they shall be cleansed. 10 Who of the priest’s house may eat of the holy things. 17The sacrifices must be without blemish. 26 The age of the sacrifice. 29 The law of eating the sacrifice of thanksgiving.
2. Separate themselves. All that served at the tabernacle must be strictly clean, ceremonially and otherwise. If any priest had become unclean, he must carefully avoid touching or even coming near any of the holy things. These included everything pertaining to the service of the sanctuary, such as the altars, with all their utensils, and also the offerings the people brought to the priests. If any did so, he was cut off from the presence of the Lord, that is, from the service of the tabernacle.
4. A leper. Most of the defilements that might come to a priest would be only temporary in nature, and exclusion from the sanctuary would last only till evening. Those, however, who contracted leprosy or had a running sore were excluded until declared clean again, however long the time might be. During the time of their separation they were supported as were the other priests, but might not eat of things offered, since that would involve the bearing of sin.
5. Any creeping thing. God ordained that all who served at the sanctuary should be absolutely clean. If a priest should as much as touch a creeping thing or another person who was not clean, he must wash, and might not serve till the next day.
7. When the sun is down. Sunset ended the day. At that time the doors of the tabernacle were shut, and there were no more services that day. Hence when a priest was unclean until evening, he could not officiate until the day following.
9. Lest they bear sin. At all times the priests must refrain from eating anything unclean, or that had been torn, or that had died of itself. Whoever did so, knowingly, would “die therefore.”
10. The holy thing. That is, the daily food of the priest and his family, most of which came from the offerings of the people. Hebrew bondservants and their families were reckoned as belonging to the family and could therefore eat of the “holy things.” A married daughter living with her husband was counted as belonging to another family, and hence might not eat of them.
14. Unwittingly. If a man who was not entitled to eat of the holy things did so unwittingly, he thereby trespassed in “the holy things of the Lord,” and came under the rule of ch. 5:15, 16. A priest must ever be on his guard to avoid infractions of this regulation. A married daughter, for instance, might be visiting her parents’ home and be given a portion of food to take home. If it was “holy” she had no right to it. A visitor might be invited to eat with the priest’s family. It might beinconvenient to prepare a separate meal for the visitor only, who must therefore choose from the common meal that which he was permitted to eat. Should he or the host make a mistake, it would constitute a transgression.
18. The strangers. That is, unnaturalized persons residing among the Hebrews. A stranger might bring an offering, but not approach the altar as could an Israelite. The priest received the sacrifice and offered it for him. Such an offering would of necessity be a freewill offering, to which the rule of ch. 1:3 would, of course, apply.
21. Peace offerings. A promise to present an animal to the Lord constituted a vow. An inferior animal was unacceptable; it must be perfect in every respect. This applied to both the Israelite and the stranger.
23. A freewill offering. If, however, his was a freewill offering, and not a vow, the offerer might bring an animal even if it had something “superfluous or lacking in his parts.” Such gifts were often used for the poor. A horn might be broken, or there might be a defect in its leg, or a scar on its skin. None of these rendered it unfit for food.
24. That which is bruised. This refers to accidentally injured animals. It seems that the deliberate mutilation of animals was forbidden.
25. Bread of your God. That is, the sacrifices brought by the people upon which the priests depended for their living.
27. Seven days under the dam. That is, with its mother. A newborn animal was not immediately acceptable as an offering (see on Ex. 22:30). There was no upper age limit for offerings, except as specifically stated. Gideon offered a bullock seven years old (Judges 6:25).
28. It and her young. We are not told why a cow and her young might not be killed the same day. This rule seems to be of the same nature as that which forbade taking from the bird’s nest both mother and young (Deut. 22:6). Perhaps these precepts were designed to teach Israel kindness and mercy, even toward dumb animals. It may also have been that heathen religious rites called for such practices. This fact in itself could provide adequate explanation for the prohibition here given (see on Ex. 23:19).
The principle of kindness toward animals holds good today. Let us not kill needlessly, but rather feel that tender, solicitous care that the Creator Himself has for the creatures of field and forest (Matt. 10:29). Even little children resent harm to their pets; let us not lose childhood’s sensitive appreciation for kindness. Cruelty of all kinds should prove revolting to us. Let physicians be on guard lest they become hardened to the sufferings of others. Let ministers not forget the frailties of humanity and the need of sympathy more than of rebuke.
29. A sacrifice of thanksgiving. Verses 29 and 30 repeat the instruction of ch. 7:15.
1 The feasts of the Lord. 3 The sabbath. 4The passover. 9 The sheaf of firstfruits. 15 The feast of Pentecost. 22 Gleanings to be left for the poor. 23 The feast of trumpets. 26 The day of atonement. 33 The feast of tabernacles.
2. Feasts of the Lord. The annual “set feasts” (Num. 29:39) are six in number: (1) the Passover (Num. 28:16); (2) the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:17); (3) the “feast of harvest,” the “feast of weeks” (first fruits), or Pentecost (Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Num. 28:26; Acts 2:1); (4) the Feast of Trumpets (Num. 29:1); (5) the Day of Atonement (Num. 29:7); (6) the “feast of ingathering,” the “feast of tabernacles” (Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:34; Num. 29:12).
With these six feasts are seven days of “holy convocation”; the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Num. 28:18, 25); the day of first fruits (Num. 28:26); the Feast of Trumpets (Num. 29:1); the Day of Atonement (Num. 29:7); the first and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:35, 36).
The word translated “feast” in this chapter is from one or the other of two Hebrew words: (1) MoÔed, an appointed meeting (used, for example, in Lev. 23:2, 4, 37; Num. 29:39). (2) Chag, a festival (used, for example, in Lev. 23:6, 34, 39, 41; Num. 28:17; 29:12). The two words are sometimes used interchangeably, though moÔed stresses the time of the feast, “set feasts” (Num. 29:39); chag, the character of the feast. Chag is derived from a verb that has, as one of its possible meanings, “to make a pilgrimage,” “to take a journey to an object of reverence.” The related Arabic word haj describes the sacred Moslem pilgrimage to Mecca. In the listing of the annual “set feasts,” chag, significantly, is used only of three, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of First Fruits, and the Feast of Tabernacles. “Three times shalt thou keep a feast [chag] unto me in the year” (Ex. 23:14). To celebrate these three feasts all males were to “appear before the Lord in the place which he shall choose” (Deut. 16:16). They were to “make a pilgrimage.”
There is therefore no contradiction between the statement in Exodus, that the Israelites were to “keep a feast” “three times” “in the year” (Ex. 23:14), and the listing, in Leviticus, of six annual feasts (see also Num. 28, 29). Each of these six feasts is described as a moÔed, but three of them are also designated chag. In other words, there were six moÔed but only three chag. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes these three as “pilgrimage festivals.”
Though the Passover may be properly listed as a separate “appointed meeting,” a moÔed, it may also be considered a part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover lamb was slain on the 14th of the first month and eaten that night, in the beginning of the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passoverand the Feast of Unleavened Bread were really two parts of one whole, and in some instances were thus considered (see Exe. 45:21). In view of this we might speak of five, rather than six, annual feasts.
3. Sabbath of rest. Literally “a sabbath of sabbath observance.” Our translation fails to convey the full force of the original Hebrew, which is variously translated a “sabbath of deep rest,” “a sabbath of complete rest,” “a perfect sabbath,” “a sabbath of solemn rest” (RSV).
The Sabbath is different from all the other feasts and holy convocations (see vs. 37, 38) in that it originated at creation (Gen. 2:1–3), whereas the annual feasts and “sabbaths” had their origin with the Jewish nation. The seventh-day Sabbath “was made for man” (Mark 2:27), and hence is of obligation for all men forever; the annual feasts were made for the Jews and ceased to be of obligation when type met Antitype at the death of Christ (Col. 2:16, 17). The seventh-day Sabbath is incorporated in the law of God, the Ten Commandments, His constitution for this world. Because it was made before sin entered, it will remain after sin is no more (Isa. 66:22, 23). On the other hand, the annual Jewish feasts were of only temporal, local, ceremonial application, fitted to conditions in Palestine, and could not be made of worldwide application.
Thus the Feast of First Fruits (of winter crops), celebrated in late spring, in May, could not be observed in the southern hemisphere till six months later. Similarly, it would not be possible for people in all lands to observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn. The Jews have found that it is not even possible for them to observe the Day of Atonement as ordered by God, except in connection with the Temple. The Passover could appropriately be observed in anticipation of a coming Redeemer, but not after His coming. All these feasts served their purpose, adapted as they were to the needs of the Jews while they lived in Palestine, prior to the coming of Messiah. They have ceased, but the seventh-day Sabbath remains.
To make sure that the Sabbath should not be considered a Jewish institution, and hence cease with the Jewish nation, Christ emphatically declared, “The sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27). He added, “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (v. 28). It belongs to Him; He is “Lord” of it. Let none tamper with it, for they have no right to do so. It is “my holy day,” says God (Isa. 58:13).
The sabbath of the Lord. This is the equivalent of, “it is the Lord’s sabbath,” and indicates proprietorship. If God should have spoken of the first day of the week as “my holy day,” or “the sabbath of the Lord,” none today would be uncertain as to what He meant. Instead, He uses these very expressions in regard to the seventh day. It is His day.
5. The Lord’s passover. The Passover was not instituted until the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 12:14, 27). It commemorated the saving power of God exercised in their behalf on that historic occasion, and was therefore for them “the Lord’s passover.” In striking contrast, “the sabbath of the Lord” became such when, at the close of creation week, God Himself rested upon that day and set it apart for the use and benefit of all mankind (Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:8–11; Mark 2:27, 28). All men owe their very existence to the creative power of God and are therefore under obligation to Him to keep ever holy His appointed day of rest.
As stated, the Passover was instituted in memory of Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage. On the 10th day of the first month a lamb was selected for each household “according to the number of the souls,” or if the household was small, two or more households could unite for one sacrifice. The lamb was kept until the 14th day, when it was killed in the late afternoon, and its blood sprinkled on the doorposts (see on Ex. 12:1–10). The same night the flesh was eaten, not boiled as usual, but roasted. Only unleavened bread could be used, with bitter herbs (v. 8). In later years there were modifications in this ritual, but it remained essentially the same.
The Passover sacrifice is distinguished by being called “my sacrifice” (Ex. 23:18; 34:25). The Passover commemorated Israel’s departure from Egypt. But it also looked forward to “Christ our Passover,” who was to be “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).In various respects the Passover fitly foreshadowed the crucifixion. At the crucifixion not a bone of Christ’s body was broken (John 19:36); not a bone of the Passover lamb might be broken (Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12). The Passover lamb was slain the 14th day of Abib and eaten the same night (Ex. 12:6–10); Christ died at Passover time (John 19:14). The sprinkling of the blood meant a “passing over” in mercy, a deliverance from death (Ex. 12:13); so through Christ’s blood there has been a passing over of sins committed and confessed (Rom. 3:25). The Passover sacrifice was a lamb (Ex. 12:3); so Christ was “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29). The lamb was to be without blemish (Ex. 12:5); Christ was without blemish (1 Peter 1:19). Its flesh was to be eaten (Ex. 12:7); likewise we must partake of His flesh (John 6:51).
The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are replete with gospel truth. In the slain lamb provision was made for saving the first-born. But the death of the lamb was not enough to assure salvation; the blood must be struck on the doorpost.
The Passover is symbolic of Christ’s death. He is our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7). On the cross He made provision for everyone to be saved. But the cross in and of itself saves no one. It only made salvation available (see John 1:12). The death of the lamb provided the means of salvation; the application of the blood made efficacious the means provided. Both were necessary. Thus for the Christian the atonement on the cross, though essential and sufficient for all, does not save any individual until there has been an individual application of the blood. The sprinkling of the blood was fully as important as the death of the lamb. Yet even this was not enough; the flesh must be eaten, and it must be eaten under the specified conditions (Ex. 12:11). And this was not enough; all leaven must be purged away. Carelessness in the least particular would be fraught with tragic results (Ex. 12:13, 19, 23).
It is one thing to be saved from death. It is another to have the means of sustaining life. This was provided positively by eating the lamb; negatively, by abstaining from leaven. Christ is “the living bread which came down from heaven,” of which a man must eat if he would “live for ever” (John 6:51). The lamb was to be roasted entire (Ex. 12:9). For each lamb there was to be a sufficient number of people so that all the flesh would be eaten (Ex. 12:4). Nothing was to be carried out of the house, and nothing left until morning. Whatever remained of those parts that could not be eaten was to be burned (Ex. 12:10, 46). Similarly, the Christian must assimilate completely the life of the One represented by the lamb. This means the entire identification of the believer with Christ. It means accepting fully the life and character of Jesus.
The NT counterpart of the Passover is found in the Lord’s Supper, the communion service. After Christ had come, there could be no more virtue in slaying the Passover lamb, which prefigured His coming. But there would be virtue in commemorating the sacrifice of Calvary and its sustaining power. For this reason our Lord instituted the symbolic meal of communion, the purpose of which is to remind us of the provision made for our salvation upon the cross. Like its prototype, it points both backward and forward—we are to remember Calvary “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26).
6. The feast of unleavened bread. Closely connected with the Passover, yet distinct from it, was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed. For practical purposes the two feasts were considered as one, and the names are often used interchangeably. But in purpose they were somewhat different. The Passover stood for deliverance (Ex. 12:13); the unleavened bread was reminiscent of the haste in which Israel left Egypt (Ex. 12:33, 39; Deut. 16:3). God was explicit as to the manner in which the Feast of Unleavened Bread should be celebrated (Ex. 12:15). Of it Paul later said, “Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8).
Leaven was to be entirely excluded. It represents malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:8), and false doctrine, as exemplified in the teachings of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians (Matt. 16:6, 12; Mark 8:15). The leaven of the Pharisees isgreed and injustice (Matt. 23:14), a dog-in-the-manger spirit (v. 13), false zeal (v. 15), wrong estimates of spiritual values (vs. 16–22), omission of justice, mercy, and faith (v. 23), vain punctiliousness (v. 24), hypocrisy (vs. 25–28), intolerance (vs. 29–33), and cruelty (vs. 34–36). The leaven of the Sadducees is skepticism (Matt. 22:23) and a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures and of the power of God (v. 29). The leaven of the Herodians is flattery, worldly-mindedness, and hypocrisy (vs. 16–21), and plotting evil against God’s representatives (Mark 3:6).
7. No servile work. The first and last days of the feast were days of holy convocation on which no “laborious work” (RSV) might be done. Each day two bullocks were offered, one ram, and seven lambs for a burnt offering, with their accompanying cereal offerings, and one goat for a sin offering (Num. 28:19–24).
10. A sheaf of the firstfruits. The presentation of the first fruits was a part of the celebration of the days of unleavened bread. The presentation took place on the “morrow after the sabbath,” the 16th of Abib (ch. 23:11). This day was neither a “holy convocation” nor a “sabbath.” But an important work was nevertheless done on that day. On the 14th day of Abib a certain portion of a field of barley was marked off to be cut down in preparation for the presentation on the 16th. Three select men cut the barley in the presence of witnesses, having already tied the sheaves together before cutting them. After being cut the sheaves were all tied together into one large sheaf and presented before the Lord as a “sheaf of the firstfruits.” In addition, a perfect male lamb, a cereal offering mingled with oil, and a drink offering were presented to God (vs. 12, 13). Not until this was done could Israel make use of the fruits of the field for themselves. This ceremony pointed to “Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:23).
14. A statute for ever. A summary of the Passover ritual lends emphasis to the great central truths of Christianity. The Passover is symbolic of the death of Christ. As the Passover lamb died, so Christ died. The blood of the lamb delivered Israel of old from the destroying angel. The blood of Christ now reconciles all who come to Him in faith.
The Passover is also symbolic of the resurrection, as typified in the wave sheaf. The lamb died on the evening of the 14th day of Abib. On the 16th, the “morrow after the sabbath,” the first fruits, previously cut, were presented before the Lord. Christ died Friday afternoon and rested in the grave over the Sabbath (Luke 23:53–56). On the morrow after the Sabbath (Luke 24:1) Christ “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20) was raised from the grave, and presented Himself before His heavenly Father (John 20:17).
The “morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) was neither “an holy convocation” nor a “sabbath,” in type or antitype, yet an important work was done on that day. When Christ arose on the first day of the week He ascended to the Father to hear the words of God’s acceptance of His sacrifice.
The Passover promoted fellowship. The eating of the Passover lamb brought families and neighbors together. It was a communal meal typifying deliverance, and deliverance called for consecration. All sin must be put aside. No leaven was to remain in the house. Every corner must be examined for traces of it. Nothing less than complete “holiness to the Lord” would be accepted (see Ps. 29:2; 96:9). The Passover was a most solemn occasion.
All this, and more, the Passover meant to Israel of old. The Lord’s Supper should mean no less to us today. There is grave danger that we forget, or fail to appreciate, the wonderful blessings God has in store for those who worthily partake of the ordinances of the Lord’s house. We would do well to study the Passover as given to Israel, that we may appreciate the more Him who is our real Passover Lamb, and whose death is commemorated in the communion service.
15. Seven sabbaths. That is, seven weeks (see v. 16).
16. Fifty days. This feast came on the 50th day after the presentation of the wave sheaf on the 16th of Abib, that is, on the 6th day of the third month—late in May or early in June. It was known as the “feastof weeks,” or “firstfruits” (Ex. 34:22). In NT times it was known as “Pentecost,” from a Greek word meaning “fifty.”
As the wave sheaf was presented at the beginning of the harvest, before any of the new yield might be used, so Pentecost marked the end of the harvest season, though some grain might remain to be harvested in the higher mountains. It was the joyous acknowledgment of Israel’s dependence upon God as the giver of all good gifts. At this time it was not a sheaf that was presented, but two wave loaves of fine flour, baked with leaven, together with seven lambs, a bullock, and two rams (Lev. 23:17, 18). These were accompanied by a goat for a sin offering and two lambs for a peace offering (v. 19).
In the Passover celebration no leaven was to be eaten or to be found in the homes of the people. At Pentecost two loaves were to be presented, “baken with leaven” (v. 17). The wave sheaf is Christ “the firstfruits” (see on v. 14). He was without sin.
Pentecost symbolizes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As the wave loaves were offered 50 days, inclusive, after the wave sheaf, so there were 50 days, inclusive, between the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Forty of these days Christ spent on earth instructing and helping His disciples (Acts 1:3). Then He ascended, and for 10 days the 11 disciples continued in prayer and supplication, until “the day of Pentecost was fully come.” With Pentecost came the fullness of the Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:4). At Pentecost the labors of the disciples were added to those of Christ, and the result was glorious for the kingdom of heaven.
These ten days were important ones for the church on earth. They were also important in heaven. When Christ “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” (Eph. 4:8). Those who had been raised at Christ’s death and had come “out of the graves after his resurrection” ascended with Him to heaven, and were then presented before the Father a kind of first fruits of the resurrection (Matt. 27:52, 53).
22. The poor. This verse repeats the instruction of ch. 19:9, 10. It seems fitting that special attention should be called to the poor and the stranger at a time when there was plenty for all—harvesttime.
24. Blowing the trumpets. On the first day of the seventh month was a sabbath; “an holy convocation” was to be held. On that day the trumpets were blown, for the Day of Atonement was near at hand, and the first nine days of the month were to be days of preparation for it. The first day of the seventh month of the religious calendar was new year’s day, the first day of the civil calendar year.
27. A day of atonement. This day was the only commanded fast (see Acts 27:9). It was a high day in Israel, and is called a “sabbath of rest” (Lev. 23:32). It was the only day, aside from the weekly Sabbath, on which all work was forbidden.
29. Be cut off. The Day of Atonement was also a day of judgment, for whoever did not “afflict” his “soul” that day was “cut off” (see on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15). Moreover, if a man worked on that day God would destroy him. For a more complete discussion of the observance of the day, see on Lev. 16.
34. The feast of tabernacles. This was the last feast of the religious year and usually came during the present month of October, after the autumn harvest was over and the fruit had been gathered in. It was a joyous occasion for all. The Day of Atonement was past; all misunderstandings had been cleared up, all sins confessed and put aside. The Israelites were happy, and their happiness found expression in the Feast of Tabernacles.
40. Branches. These were used to make booths, in which the Israelites were to live during the feast. On the Day of Atonement the people were to afflict their souls. At the Feast of Tabernacles they were to “rejoice.” It was altogether the happiest occasion of the year, when friends and neighbors renewed fellowship and dwelt together in love and harmony. In this respect it was prophetic of the time when the great ingathering of God’s people shall take place, and “many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11).
The Feast of Tabernacles was commemorative of the time when Israel lived in tentsin the wilderness during their 40 years of wandering (see Deut. 16:12–15).
It is well to remember how God has led us in times past. It is well to bring to mind His providences, for we are sometimes prone to complain at the way He leads us today. Is it not well to think of the many blessings God has bestowed upon us, and the wonderful way He has guided our lives? To do so would make us more appreciative and thankful. And thankfulness is a vital part of religion.
1-44Ed 41-43; PP 537-542
2 Ed 41
5 Ed 42; GC 399; PP 537, 539
6-11PP 539
15-17PP 540
24 PK 661
27 DA 448, 757; GC 418; 5T 520
32 1T 116; 6T 355
34 DA 447; Ed 42
34-36PK 665; PP 540
40 DA 291
40-43PP 540
1 The oil for the lamps. 5 The shewbread. 10 Shelomith’s son blasphemeth. 13 The law of blasphemy. 17 Of murder. 18 Of damage. 23 The blasphemer is stoned.
2. Pure oil olive. The instruction here given in regard to oil for the lamps of the candlestick is the same as that recorded in Ex. 27:20, 21. The oil was furnished by the congregation, as was also the flour for the shewbread and the loaves of the Feast of Weeks. Aaron was responsible for the lamps, and at first he trimmed them himself (Ex. 30:8), but later this became the work of the priests.
Ordinary oil was pressed out in an oil press, but oil for the sanctuary lamps was beaten out. The berries were carefully washed, and all impurities, leaves, and twigs removed. Then they were beaten and bruised, and the oil was allowed to seep out of itself. This produced less oil than the other method, but the result was a superior product.
Authorities do not agree as to whether the lamps burned both day and night. Verse 3 says that Aaron shall “order it from the evening unto the morning before the Lord continually,” whereas v. 2 states that the lamps are to burn continually. According to Ex. 30:8, Aaron lighted the lamps in the evening, but 1 Sam. 3:3 speaks of “the lamp of God” going out. In standard practice, however, “the lamps were never all extinguished at one time, but shed their light by day and by night” (PP 348). The various statements, while seeming to be contradictory, are thus actually harmonious. It is probable that the “lamp of God” (1 Sam. 3:3) was not the candlestick. Or it may have been that Eli was not as careful as he might have been in following the prescribed ritual. As there must always be a sacrifice on the altar and shewbread on the table, so also there must always be a lamp burning. Even in the daytime the natural light would be insufficient for the priests to perform the daily ritual, in a tent heavily covered and without windows.
5. Twelve cakes. Specific instructions are now given for the preparation and use of the shewbread, mentioned three times previously (Ex. 25:30; 35:13; 39:36). Each cake was made of 4 qt. (4.41 l.) of fine flour. Nothing is said as to whether or not the bread was to be leavened, but the fact that it was placed before the Lord in the first apartment would seem to imply that leaven was not used. Being, as it were, a continuous “meat offering” (Num. 4:7), it would come under the regulations for meat offerings, and must therefore have been made without leaven (Lev. 2:4, 11). Josephus specifically states that leaven was not used (Antiquities iii 6.6). In later times the preparation and arrangement of the cakes were considered the work of the Levites (1 Chron. 9:32).
6. Two rows. That is, piles. The word means an orderly arrangement of any kind (see Judges 6:26, margin). The size of the loaves would require stacking rather than arrangement in “rows.”
7. Frankincense. This was placed in two golden cups, and when the bread was removed the incense was burned on coals of fire as an offering to the Lord.
8. Every sabbath. The shewbread was removed weekly upon the Sabbath day by four priests, according to the Talmud, two to take out the loaves and two to take out the incense cups. As they were ready to remove the loaves and the incense cups, four other priests, of the new course for the coming week, entered, carrying the new bread and the new incense cups. Those who brought in the new bread stood at the north side, facing south; those who took away the old bread stood at the south side, facing north. As the priest on one side removed the loaves, the priest opposite him put the new on. In doing this they were careful not to take away the old till the new was ready to be put in place. Thus, bread was always on the table. The old bread was then eaten by the priests as theirportion, within the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. It was this bread that Abimelech gave to David and his men (1 Sam. 21:4–6; Matt. 12:3, 4).
This is often called the “bread of the Presence,” and typified Christ, the true Bread of Life (see John 6:51). The bread testified also to Israel’s constant dependence on God for all their needs, both spiritual and temporal (see Matt. 6:31–34). The table was always set, and its supply of bread renewed week by week. As the flame in the lamps on the candlestick rose heavenward, so the incense on the table of shewbread ascended as a sweet savor to the Giver of all good things.
It is but a short step from the table of the Lord in the sanctuary to the table of the Lord in the NT. The priests partook of the bread representative of Him who came down from heaven; we eat of the bread Christ says is His body (1 Cor. 11:24).
10. The son of an Israelitish woman. The fact that the young man was the son of an Egyptian, and that he “went out among the children of Israel,” indicates that he was not allowed within the camp proper, but entered nevertheless. Here a quarrel arose, and the young man blasphemed the name of the Lord. Since he did not belong in the camp but was counted a stranger, he was put in ward until the will of the Lord could be ascertained, that is, until they could learn how the laws of Israel applied to one who was at least in part a stranger. When he entered the camp in the first place, it had been his purpose to pitch his tent there (PP 407).
11. Blasphemed. Instead of repenting, he proved to be perversely impenitent.
22. One manner of law. The incident mentioned in vs. 10–14 gave occasion for a clarification of certain civil laws, particularly as they applied to “the stranger” (see Ex. 21:12, 24, 33). God forgives sin whatever it be, but civil crimes cannot be settled on this basis. Israel was a nation as well as a church, and God gave rules for both. If one man kills another, God in mercy will forgive him, when he repents. In fact, whatever sin a man may commit, be it ever so heinous, he is still eligible for God’s abundant mercy. God knows the heart, and hence can forgive, and even forget. But if penalty were suspended whenever a man repents, every criminal would claim repentance and save himself from the gallows! If it became known that penalty was remitted upon repentance, all prisons would soon be emptied!
Some forget that though God forgives, He does not often remove the penalty for transgression. David may sin and repent; but he does not escape the result of his sin. He suffers so long as he lives. A man transgresses the rules of life, and whatever the transgression, however deeply he has sinned, God can and will forgive. But only under most unusual circumstances does the man escape the natural consequences of what he has done. He is forgiven, but usually he also suffers for his misdeeds.
Government “is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). Civil law has its place.
Therefore God’s requirement of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is not something to be lightly disposed of as an OT ordinance. It is on this principle that government today is founded. If there were no punishment for evil, conditions would be even worse than they are now. “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?” (Rom. 13:3).
But if there is to be punishment for evil, how shall that punishment be decided? The answer is that the punishment should fit the crime. Hence, “he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.” This seems eminently fair. This is justice and equity.
5-9PP 348
10, 11 PP 407
10-16PP 408
20 MB 109
1 The sabbath of the seventh year. 8 The jubile in the fiftieth year. 14 Of oppression. 18 A blessing of obedience. 23 The redemption of land. 29 Of houses. 35 Compassion of the poor. 39 The usage of bondmen. 47 The redemption of servants.
2. The land keep a sabbath. The weekly Sabbath was made for man; now God announces a “sabbath” rest for the land also. All work on the land was to cease, and the land was to rest. What grew of itself might be used by anyone, rich or poor, including the stranger.
8. Seven sabbaths of years. That is, after 49 years. At the close of the Day of Atonement the trumpet was to be blown and the year of jubilee proclaimed.
10. The fiftieth year. Opinion has long differed as to whether the jubilee was the year following the sabbatical 49th, resulting in two successive cropless years, or whether the 50th year, counted inclusively, was the same as the 49th. One prevailing Jewish opinion is that the former was true under the first temple, and the latter afterwards. Verses 8–11 and the analogy of the Pentecost reckoning (ch. 23:15, 16), seem to imply a separate jubilee year, but vs. 20–22 are ambiguous. The only sabbatical years mentioned in history are after the exile, and they are not referred to as jubilees.
We have no historical proof of how, or whether, Israel followed these instructions before the captivity. There is little doubt that after the captivity the Jews observed at least the seventh year and that God did bless them. The best evidence of this observance is the fact that Alexander the Great, and later Julius Caesar, exempted the Jews from paying taxes in sabbatical years, on the ground that they would have no income that year (Josephus Antiquities xi. 8. 6; xiv. 10. 6).
15. Number of years. No man could sell land in perpetuity, but only until the year of jubilee. In that year all land returned to its original owner. This was no hardship to the man who had bought the property and now had to return it, for he had purchased it with a clear understanding that he must return it in the year of jubilee. Thus, if a man sold his property five years before the year of jubilee, he would not receive much for it; for there would be but a few harvests till that year.
20. What shall we eat? How could Israel subsist for an entire year, possibly two, without working their fields and garnering any harvest? God had foreseen this.
23. The land is mine. Though God had given the land of Palestine to His people, He still held title to it. The Israelites were stewards, not owners.
The sabbatical year and the year of jubilee were unique institutions without parallel in any other religion. What other religion than that of Jehovah would dare command its followers to abstain from work one year in seven and promise them God’s blessing and protection so that in the sixth year the land would yield enough for two years? Would not the failure of their God in giving them such a phenomenal increase be the undoing of their religion? Should God fail to provide, after one such experience the people would nevermore worship Jehovah.
It was at the close of the Day of Atonement in Tishri (v. 9) that the trumpets were blown and liberty was proclaimed. What a happy moment this must have been for those who had been in servitude and who had that day received atonement for their sins, and were now set at liberty. They could go home to begin life anew.
24. A redemption for the land. All property would automatically revert to the original owner in the year of jubilee, but it might be redeemed at any time by the owner, or by one of his kinsmen, upon payment of that which was due. The amount due was to be reckoned by the number of harvests between the time of redemption and the year of jubilee. The one who had bought the property paid for it according to the number of harvests until the year of jubilee—omitting of course the sabbatical years, when there was no harvest—and he was to be repaid accordingly. This provision enabled a man to recover his property at any time.
25. Thy brother be waxen poor. This legislation favored the poor and encouraged him to work for the recovery of his property. God sought to prevent some people from becoming very rich and others very poor. Had God’s original plan forthe land and for servitude been followed, extremes of poverty and wealth would have been unknown.
29. A dwelling house. Here the situation was entirely different, and a different rule applied. According to the ordinary rules of redemption, the purchaser of city property could have been dispossessed at any time. But such property could be “redeemed” only during the first year after it was sold. If it had not been redeemed within that time the buyer could retain it permanently. Inasmuch as the house had not been sold with the year of jubilee in mind, this was an outright sale, and thus not redeemable.
31. Houses of the villages. These were counted as belonging to “the fields,” and could therefore be redeemed at any time, and would return to the original owner in the year of jubilee. The Levites, however, were exempt from this provision. Their property could be redeemed at any time and would in any event revert to the owners in the year of release. The fields in the suburbs of their cities were common property, and could never be sold.
35. If thy brother. A brother, a stranger, or a sojourner in need was to be relieved. One who was comfortably situated must not take usury from a poor brother, nor make a profit on food sold to him (see on Ex. 22:25). Thus again is shown God’s care for the poor. God had delivered Israel from Egypt and was about to take them into the land of Canaan. As they had been the recipients of so much kindness, God wanted them to be kind to the unfortunate (see Matt. 10:8). Only thus could they receive God’s approval.
39. Serve as a bondservant. An Israelite who had been sold to serve another was not to be treated as a slave but as a hired servant. He was not to be treated harshly, and was to be released in the year of jubilee. It was not necessary for a servant to await the year of jubilee to be redeemed. The law provided for his release after any six years of service, if he so desired (see Ex. 21:1–6).
47. Sell himself unto the stranger. An Israelite who had become poor and sold himself into servitude could redeem himself, if able, or be redeemed, even from a non-Israelite. The price paid varied according to the years remaining until the year of release, for in that year he would automatically go out free. Thus the price paid for a servant and the price paid for his redemption were both reckoned in terms of the length of service before the year of liberty.
4 FE 323
4, 5 Ed 43; PP 531
5 PP 531
8-11PP 533
8-13Ed 43
10 MH 185
14 MH 188
17 DA 555
21, 22 PP 531
23 PP 534
23-28MH 184
25 DA 327
35 MH 186
35-37DA 555; PP 532; 1T 534
40 PP 533
47-49DA 327
1 Of idolatry. 2 Religiousness. 3 A blessing to them that keep the commandments. 14 A curse to those that break them. 40 God promiseth to remember them that repent.
3. If ye walk. This chapter of Leviticus is a conditional prophecy delineating the blessings to come upon Israel for obedience and the punishments for disobedience. Many of these prophecies were fulfilled to a striking degree.
4. Rain in due season. Palestine was peculiarly dependent on rain at the usual times, for prosperity and plenty. In Egypt, Israel had seen the regular overflow of the Nile, which watered the land and made it fruitful (see on Gen. 41:34). Palestine was “a land of hills and valleys,” and so not adapted to irrigation (Deut. 11:10–12). Israel had not been used to rain, for it seldom rains in Egypt. Now they were coming to a land where their very existence depended upon rain from heaven. To reassure them God promised to send the rains in their season, “the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil” (Deut. 11:13, 14). It was not merely rain that was needed, but rain in “season.”
God warned them, however, that rain would not fall as a matter of course, that indeed there would “be no rain” (Deut. 11:17) if they turned from Him to worship idols. This was fulfilled during the days of Ahab (1 Kings 17:1).
14. If ye will not hearken. Dire punishments were threatened should Israel fail to serve God, and turn instead to other gods. Five increasingly severe punishments are predicted, after each of the first four of which God promises to send a sevenfold worse evil upon them (vs. 18, 21, 24, 28). “Seven” here probably denotes greatly intensified punishment rather than precise mathematical increase.
The first step in the fivefold punishment for persistent rebellion appears in vs. 14-17. All Israel’s history bears witness to the fulfillment of this threat.
18. Yet for all this. The second step is described in vs. 18–20 (see also Deut. 28:23, 24). This threat repeatedly found its fulfillment in the history of Israel. In the time of Haggai, God explained to His people why He had withheld rain from them—“Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house” (Haggai 1:9–11).
21. If ye walk contrary. The third step is given in vs. 21, 22. One instance of the fulfillment of this is given in 2 Kings 17:25; another, in Judges 5:6.
23. If ye will not be reformed. The fourth step appears in vs. 23–26.
25. The quarrel of my covenant. God had entered into covenant relation with Israel, and when they failed to keep their part of the covenant He would send the sword upon them, and also pestilence. Ezekiel repeated this threat (Eze. 5:12), which was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and later by the Romans.
26. Ten women. The famine would be so intense and bread so scarce that only one oven would be needed where ten had been used before.
27. For all this. The fifth step is stated in vs. 27–33. One fulfillment of this occurred in the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:28, 29), and another in that of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:9; Lam. 4:10).
31. Make your cities waste. Samaria and Jerusalem, for example (see on v. 27).
33. Scatter you. Not only in captivity by Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, but also by dispersion over various lands. See vol. 5, pp. 59-61; vol. 6, pp. 136ff.
34. Then shall the land rest. God had commanded that the land should rest every seventh year. This seems to have been the case for a time, but the custom later fell into disuse. Doubtless some thought that they might enrich themselves by refusing to let the land rest every seventh year. But as a result they lost the land altogether. God kept account of the time during which the land had been deprived of the Sabbath rest. And when destruction came, with the arrival of the Chaldeans, the land was given “rest” to make up for the time of transgression (2 Chron. 36:21). Seventy years would suggest that for 490 years the land had not kept “her sabbaths.”
40. If they shall confess. The Jews have suffered much in centuries gone by, and the present generation has been no exception. But God has not forsaken any individual Jew who will “confess.” The nation may be rejected, but whoever turns to God may yet be saved.
Lest any Gentile Christian should boast of this and think himself in a more favored position than the Jew, let him remember that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Rom. 11:20, 21). The conditions of salvation are the same for all. God is strict, and God is merciful—to all alike.
3-6Ed 140
4-17PP 535
5, 6, 19-212T 661
21 PK 429
23, 24 1T 589; 5T 365
24 2T 154, 661
28, 33 PK 429
1 He that maketh a singular vow must be the Lord’s. 2 The estimation of the person. 9 Of a beast given by vow. 14 Of a house. 16 Of a field, and the redemption thereof. 28 No devoted thing may be redeemed. 32 The title may not be changed.
2. A singular vow. Rather, “a special vow” (RSV). A vow is solemn promise made to God to perform some service forHim, to present a gift, or to make a sacrifice. In the OT vows were often made when men were in distress or peril, or desired a favor from God. They made the vow on condition that God would fulfill their request. Thus Jacob vowed that if God would bless and prosper him and bring him safely back, he would serve God (Gen. 28:20–22). David made an unconditional vow (Ps. 132:2–5).
The ideal vow springs from a heart overflowing with love for God and possessed of a sincere desire to do something for Him, without any thought of reward. This is the spirit that prompted men of old to offer burnt offerings to God. Vows were entirely voluntary. God did not require them. “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;” but if a man did vow, God expected him to keep it (Deut. 23:21–23).
Under the stress of circumstances men sometimes make a vow that upon reflection they know they cannot keep. It is to this the wise man refers when he says, “It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry” (Prov. 20:25). This might be interpreted to mean, “It is foolish for a man to make a vow in haste and to regret it afterward.” He should have reflected on the wisdom of the vow before making it. An example of this kind of vow is that of the Jews banding themselves together “saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:12). It seems also that David was somewhat rash in vowing that he would neither enter his house nor sleep until he had found a place for God’s house (Ps. 132:2–5). Jephthah’s vow was rashly made (Judges 11:34–40).
God knew that men would make vows they could not perform. He did not wish to discourage men from making vows, nor did He wish to release them from vows already made. He therefore provided a way by which to commute the obligation. This chapter deals with the redemption of vows.
According to this plan, a vow could be redeemed by a money payment, according to a prescribed scale. If the vow concerned a sacrificial animal, it would not be commuted into money but must be offered on the altar. But all other vows could be “redeemed.”
A man might vow himself or any person or thing over which he had jurisdiction—wife, children, purchased servants, beasts, houses, fields. If the sanctuary could not receive the gift—as would be the case in many instances—the man could still fulfill his vow by paying the redemption price.
3. Thy estimation. The sum for which a person might be redeemed was set by God, and was according to a graduated scale based on sex and age. For a male it was 5 shekels for a child up to 5 years; 20 shekels, up to 20 years; 50 shekels, to 60 years; and above that, 15 shekels. For females it was approximately half these amounts. However, if the man was poor, the scale need not be adhered to strictly, but might be adjusted by the priest to fit the man’s ability to pay. It is to be noted that although there was a difference in the redemption price, the difference was based on age, not on rank. The high priest was rated no higher than the common laborer.
9. If it be a beast. When a clean beast was vowed it became “holy” and could not be exchanged or redeemed. It must be sacrificed. The man might wish to substitute the animal for a better one, or a poorer one. But neither might be done. If any were detected doing this, both animals became “holy” and both must be sacrificed.
14. Sanctify his house. When a man vowed a house the priest appraised it, and the value he named should “stand.” It could not be changed and was not subject to bargaining. The man could redeem it at the evaluated price, plus one fifth extra, and “it shall be his” (v. 15).
16. A field of his possession. If a man vowed a field, it was to be appraised according to the amount of seed needed for sowing it. In the price thus arrived at, the year of jubilee was to be taken into consideration (v. 17), for at that time it would revert to the owner.
20. Sold the field. This statement is of uncertain meaning, and many different interpretations of it have been attempted. It probably means that he had sold it to another man before he vowed it, with theresult that he had no right to vow it at all, yet wanted to receive credit for that which was not his to give. If this be the meaning of the verse, he had in principle done what Ananias and Sapphira did when they pretended to give a certain sum but in reality did not.
22. A field which he hath bought. If a person bought a field from the man who owned it, he could vow it only till the time of the jubilee year, because it would then revert to the original owner.
26. The firstling of the beasts. The first-born of all animals belonged to God, and no one could give to God what was already His. These already belonged to Him (Ex. 13:2, 12; 22:30). An unclean animal, however, might be redeemed. If he did not redeem it the animal was sold.
28. No devoted thing. The Hebrew word here used for “devoted thing” denotes a far more solemn vow than is indicated by the simple term “devoted.” It means a vow that cannot be broken or redeemed and that must be kept under pain of heavy penalties, even curses and imprecations. It was with this kind of vow that certain men bound themselves to kill Paul—“with an oath of execration” (Acts 23:12, margin). A devoted thing could not be redeemed. If it was offered to the Lord, no change or substitution could be made.
30. The tithe of the land. Already belonging to God, the tithe cannot be vowed. The tithe of grain might be redeemed, but not that of cattle (v. 33).
31. Redeem ought of his tithes. The question has been raised whether it is legitimate now to withhold the tithe if later a fifth is added to it. This question reveals a misunderstanding of the words of Scripture. It was not a matter of withholding tithe that demanded a fifth to be added. It was a question of paying the tithe in kind, in wheat, barley, or whatever produce was tithed. There might be cases in which a man needed wheat for sowing, and would rather pay in money than in wheat. Under these conditions he might redeem the tithe by having the wheat appraised and paying this sum plus one fifth. The withholding of tithe was never contemplated. As noted above, it was only grain and garden produce that could thus be redeemed. Cattle could not be redeemed or exchanged.
32. Passeth under the rod. Rabbinical writers give the following explanation: When a man was to give the tithe of his sheep or calves to God, he shut up the whole flock in one fold, in which there was a narrow door capable of letting out one animal at a time. The owner about to give the tenth to the Lord stood by the door with a rod in his hand, the end of which was dipped in vermilion or red ocher. The mothers of these lambs or calves stood without. When the door was opened the young ones ran out to join their mothers, and as they passed out, the owner stood with his rod and touched every tenth one, coloring it. Whether poor or lean, perfect or blemished, it was re-received as the legitimate tithe.
34. These are the commandments. With these words Leviticus closes, giving God as the authority for its contents.
14-164T 467
30 AA 74, 336; CS 66, 71; CSW 130; Ed 44; MYP 308; 4T 467
30, 32 Ed 138; PP 525
32 3T 546