The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Leviticus
by Samuel H. Kellogg · English · Gutenberg #42334 · 1,021,513 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Leviticus
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Leviticus
Author: Samuel H. Kellogg
Editor: Sir W. Robertson Nicoll
Release date: March 16, 2013 [eBook #42334]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42334
Credits: Produced by Colin Bell, Julia Neufeld and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE: THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS ***
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is n boldface (=bold=).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained
except in obvious cases of typographical error.
The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the
transcriber and is placed in the public domain.
Page 188: "The thought of the inspired writer appears to be this: Just
as" ... The transcriber has added the colon.
Page 337: "And in order to do this, we must" ... The transcriber has
supplied the word "do".
* * * * *
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
_Editor of "The Expositor," etc._
THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
BY THE REV
S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
_Toronto, Canada_
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MCMVI
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.
_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._
FIRST SERIES.
Colossians.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D., D.Lit.
St. Mark.
By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.
Genesis.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.
1 Samuel.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
2 Samuel.
By the same Author.
Hebrews.
By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.
SECOND SERIES.
Galatians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.
The Pastoral Epistles.
By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Isaiah I.--XXXIX.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, DD. Vol. I.
The Book of Revelation.
By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.
1 Corinthians.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D,
The Epistles of St. John.
By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.
THIRD SERIES.
Judges and Ruth.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
Jeremiah.
By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.
Isaiah XL.--LXVI.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.
St. Matthew.
By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.
Exodus.
By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.
St. Luke.
By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.
FOURTH SERIES.
Ecclesiastes.
By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.
St. James and St. Jude.
By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Proverbs.
By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.
Leviticus.
By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.
FIFTH SERIES.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.
1 and 2 Thessalonians.
By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.
The Book of Job.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
Ephesians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.
SIXTH SERIES.
1 Kings.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
Philippians.
By Principal RAINY, D.D.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Joshua.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.
The Epistles of St. Peter.
By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.
SEVENTH SERIES.
2 Kings.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
Romans.
By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.
The Books of Chronicles.
By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.
2 Corinthians.
By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.
Numbers.
By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.
The Psalms.
By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.
EIGHTH SERIES.
Daniel.
By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.
The Book of Jeremiah.
By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.
Deuteronomy.
By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.
The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.
By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Ezekiel.
By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.
The Books of the Twelve Prophets.
By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.
THE
BOOK OF LEVITICUS
BY THE REV.
S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
AUTHOR OF
"THE JEWS; OR, PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT," "THE LIGHT OF ASIA
AND THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD," ETC.
_FIFTH EDITION_
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MCMVI
_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
CONTENTS.
PART I.
_THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._
(LEV. i.-x., xvi.)
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY (i. 1) 3
The Origin and Authority of Leviticus, 5.--The Occasion and
Plan of Leviticus, 18.--The Purpose of Leviticus, 20.--The
Present-day use of Leviticus, 24.
CHAPTER II.
SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING (i. 2-4) 29
The Ritual of the Burnt-offering, 36.--The Presentation of
the Victim, 39.--The Laying on of the Hand, 41.
CHAPTER III.
THE BURNT-OFFERING [CONCLUDED] (i. 5-17; vi. 8-13) 47
The Killing of the Victim, 47.--The Sprinkling of the
Blood, 48.--The Sacrificial Burning, 50.--The Continual
Burnt-offering, 59.
CHAPTER IV.
THE MEAL-OFFERING (ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23) 63
The Daily Meal-Offering, 79.
CHAPTER V.
THE PEACE-OFFERING (iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii.
21-25) 82
The Prohibition of Fat and Blood, 99.--Thank-offerings,
Vows, and Freewill-offerings, 104.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 1-35) 109
Graded Responsibility, 120.
CHAPTER VII.
THE RITUAL OF THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 4-35; v. 1-13; vi.
24-30) 134
The Sprinkling of the Blood, 136.--The Sanctity of the
Sin-offering, 150.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GUILT-OFFERING (v. 14; vi. 7; vii. 1-7) 155
CHAPTER IX.
THE PRIESTS' PORTIONS (vi. 16-18, 26; vii. 6-10, 14, 31-36) 175
CHAPTER X.
THE CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS, AND OF THE
TABERNACLE (viii. 1-36) 181
The Levitical Priesthood and Tabernacle as Types,
184.--The Washing with Water, 190.--The Investiture,
191.--The Anointing, 201.--The Consecration Sacrifices,
204.
CHAPTER XI.
THE INAUGURATION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE (ix. 1-24) 219
The Double Benediction, 231.
CHAPTER XII.
NADAB'S AND ABIHU'S "STRANGE FIRE" (x. 1-20) 237
Mourning in Silence, 247.--Carefulness after Judgment, 250.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT (xvi. 1-34) 256
Azazel, 264.
PART II.
_THE LAW OF THE DAILY LIFE._
(LEV. xi.-xv.; xvii.-xxv.)
CHAPTER XIV.
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD
BODIES (xi. 1-47) 277
CHAPTER XV.
OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF ISSUES (xv. 1-33) 305
CHAPTER XVI.
THE UNCLEANNESS OF CHILD-BEARING (xii. 1-8) 313
The Ordinance of Circumcision, 315.--Purification after
Child-birth, 320.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY (xiii. 1-46) 327
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER (xiv. 1-32) 345
Leprosy in a Garment or House, 358.
CHAPTER XIX.
HOLINESS IN EATING (xvii. 1-16) 367
CHAPTER XX.
THE LAW OF HOLINESS: CHASTITY (xviii. 1-30) 379
CHAPTER XXI.
THE LAW OF HOLINESS [CONCLUDED] (xix. 1-37) 391
CHAPTER XXII.
PENAL SANCTIONS (xx. 1-27) 418
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS (xxi. 1-xxii. 33) 432
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE SET FEASTS OF THE LORD (xxiii. 1-44) 447
The Weekly Sabbath, 453.--Passover and Unleavened
Bread, 455.--Pentecost, 459.--The Feast of Trumpets,
461.--The Day of Atonement, 463.--The Feast of
Tabernacles, 464.--Typical Meaning of the Feasts of
the Seventh Month, 468.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW-BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER'S
END (xxiv. 1-23) 474
The "Bread of the Presence," 477.--The Penalty of
Blasphemy, 480.
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SABBATIC YEAR AND THE JUBILEE (xxv. 1-55) 487
The Jubilee, 489.--The Jubilee and the Land, 491.--The
Jubilee and Dwelling-houses, 494.--The Jubilee and
Slavery, 497.--Practical Objects of the Sabbatic Year
and the Jubilee, 502.--Typical Significance of the
Sabbatic and Jubilee Years, 510.
PART III.
_CONCLUSION AND APPENDIX._
(LEV. xxvi., xxvii.)
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE PROMISES AND THREATS OF THE COVENANT (xxvi. 1-46) 519
The Promises of the Covenant, 521.--"The Vengeance of
the Covenant," 522.--The Promised Restoration, 534.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CONCERNING VOWS (xxvii. 1-34) 541
The Vowing of Persons, 542.--The Vowing of Domestic
Animals, 545.--The Vowing of Houses and Fields,
546.--The Vow in New Testament Ethics, 549.--Exclusions
from the Vow, 553.--The Law of the Ban, 554.--The
Law of the Tithe, 559.
PART I.
_THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._
I.-X., XVI.
SECTION 1. THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS: i.-vi.
SECTION 2. THE INSTITUTION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE: viii.-x.
(1) THE CONSECRATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: vii.
(2) THE INDUCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: ix., x.
SECTION 3. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT: xvi.
CHAPTER I.
_INTRODUCTORY._
"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the
tent of meeting."--LEV. i. 1.
Perhaps no book in the Bible presents to the ordinary reader so many
and peculiar difficulties as the book of Leviticus. Even of those who
devoutly believe, as they were taught in their childhood, that, like
all the other books contained in the Holy Scriptures, it is to be
received throughout with unquestioning faith as the very Word of God,
a large number will frankly own in a discouraged way that this is with
them merely a matter of belief, which their personal experience in
reading the book has for the most part failed to sustain; and that for
them so to see through symbol and ritual as to get much spiritual
profit from such reading has been quite impossible.
A larger class, while by no means denying or doubting the original
Divine authority of this book, yet suppose that the elaborate ritual
of the Levitical law, with its multiplied, minute prescriptions
regarding matters religious and secular, since the Mosaic dispensation
has now long passed away, neither has nor can have any living relation
to present-day questions of Christian belief and practice; and so,
under this impression, they very naturally trouble themselves little
with a book which, if they are right, can now only be of special
interest to the religious antiquarian.
Others, again, while sharing this feeling, also confess to a great
difficulty which they feel in believing that many of the commands of
this law can ever have been really given by inspiration from God. The
extreme severity of some of the laws, and what seems to them to be the
arbitrary and even puerile character of other prescriptions, appear to
them to be irreconcilable, in the one case, with the mercy, in the
other, with the dignity and majesty, of the Divine Being.
With a smaller, but, it is to be feared, an increasing number, this
feeling, either of indifference or of doubt, regarding the book of
Leviticus, is further strengthened by their knowledge of the fact that
in our day its Mosaic origin and inspired authority is strenuously
denied by a large number of eminent scholars, upon grounds which they
claim to be strictly scientific. And if such Christians do not know
enough to decide for themselves on its merits the question thus
raised, they at least know enough to have a very uncomfortable doubt
whether an intelligent Christian has any longer a right to regard the
book as in any true sense the Word of God; and--what is still more
serious--they feel that the question is of such a nature that it is
impossible for any one who is not a specialist in Hebrew and the
higher criticism to reach any well-grounded and settled conviction,
one way or the other, on the subject. Such persons, of course, have
little to do with this book. If the Word of God is indeed there, it
cannot reach them.
With such mental conditions so widely prevailing, some words regarding
the origin, authority, purpose, and use of this book of Leviticus
seem to be a necessary preliminary to its profitable exposition.
THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF LEVITICUS.
As to the origin and authority of this book, the first verse presents
a very formal and explicit statement: "The Lord called unto Moses, and
spake unto him." These words evidently contain by necessary
implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which
immediately follows is of Mosaic origin: "The Lord spake unto
_Moses_;" and, secondly, that it was not the product merely of the
mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation
from Jehovah: "_Jehovah_ spake unto Moses." And although it is quite
true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that
section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the
same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive
sections,--in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven
chapters,--these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as
expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the
entire book.
We must not, indeed, put more into these words than is truly there.
They simply and only declare the Mosaic origin and the inspired
authority of the legislation which the book contains. They say nothing
as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or
whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in
Moses' time or afterward, to commit this Mosaic law to writing. They
give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book
were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses
himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day.
As to these and other matters of secondary importance which might be
named, the book records no statement. The words used in the text, and
similar expressions used elsewhere, simply and only declare the
legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be
it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and
uncompromising manner.
It is of great importance to note all this: for in the heat of
theological discussion the issue is too often misapprehended on both
sides. The real question, and, as every one knows, the burning
Biblical question of the day, is precisely this, whether the claim
this book contains, thus exactly defined, is true or false.
A certain school of critics, comprising many of the greatest learning,
and of undoubted honesty of intention, assures the Church and the
world that a strictly scientific criticism compels one to the
conclusion that this claim, even as thus sharply limited and defined,
is, to use plain words, not true; that an enlightened scholarship must
acknowledge that Moses had little or nothing to do with what we find
in this book; that, in fact, it did not originate till nearly a
thousand years later, when, after the Babylonian captivity, certain
Jewish priests, desirous of magnifying their authority with the
people, fell on the happy expedient of writing this book of Leviticus,
together with certain other parts of the Pentateuch, and then, to give
the work a prestige and authority which on its own merits or over
their own names it could not have had, delivered it to their
countrymen as nearly a thousand years old, the work of their great
lawgiver. And, strangest of all, they not only did this, but were so
successful in imposing this forgery upon the whole nation that history
records not even an expressed suspicion of a single person, until
modern times, of its non-Mosaic origin; that is, they succeeded in
persuading the whole people of Israel that a law which they had
themselves just promulgated had been in existence among them for
nearly ten centuries, the very work of Moses, when, in reality, it was
quite a new thing.
Astonishing and even incredible as all this may seem to the
uninitiated, substantially this theory is held by many of the Biblical
scholars of our day as presenting the essential facts of the case; and
the discovery of these supposed facts we are called upon to admire as
one of the chief literary triumphs of modern critical scholarship!
Now the average Christian, whether minister or layman, though
intelligent enough in ordinary matters of human knowledge, or even a
well-educated man, is not, and cannot be, a specialist in Hebrew and
in the higher criticism. What is he then to do when such a theory is
presented to him as endorsed by scholars of the highest ability and
the most extensive learning? Must we, then, all learn Hebrew and study
this higher criticism before we can be permitted to have any
well-justified and decided opinion whether this book, this law of
Leviticus, be the Word of God or a forgery? We think not. There are
certain considerations, quite level to the understanding of every one;
certain facts, which are accepted as such by the most eminent
scholars, which ought to be quite sufficient for the maintenance and
the abundant confirmation of our faith in this book of Leviticus as
the very Word of God to Moses.
In the first place, it is to be observed that if any theory which
denies the Mosaic origin and the inspired authority of this book be
true, then the fifty-six assertions of such origin and authority
which the book contains are unqualifiedly false. Further, however any
may seek to disguise the issue with words, if in fact this Levitical
ritual and code of laws came into existence only after the Babylonian
captivity and in the way suggested, then the book of Leviticus can by
no possibility be the Word of God in any sense, but is a forgery and a
fraud. Surely this needs no demonstration. "The Lord spake unto
Moses," reads, for instance, this first verse; "The Lord did _not_
speak these things unto Moses," answer these critics; "they were
invented by certain unscrupulous priests centuries afterwards." Such
is the unavoidable issue.
Now who shall arbitrate in these matters? who shall settle these
questions for the great multitude of believers who know nothing of
Hebrew criticism, and who, although they may not well understand much
that is in this book, have yet hitherto accepted it with reverent
faith as being what it professes to be, the very Word of God through
Moses? To whom, indeed, can we refer such a question as this for
decision but to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Lord and Saviour,
confessed of all believers to be in verity the only-begotten Son of
God from the bosom of the Father? For He declared that "the Father
showed unto Him," the Son, "all things that He Himself did;" He will
therefore be sure to know the truth of this matter, sure to know the
Word of His Father from the word of man, if He will but speak.
And He has spoken on this matter, He, the Son of God. What was the
common belief of the Jews in the time of our Lord as to the Mosaic
origin and Divine authority of this book, as of all the Pentateuch,
every one knows. Not a living man disputes the statement made by a
recent writer on this subject, that "previous to the Christian era,
there are no traces of a second opinion" on this question; the book
"was universally ascribed to Moses." Now, that Jesus Christ shared and
repeatedly endorsed this belief of His contemporaries should be
perfectly clear to any ordinary reader of the Gospels.
The facts as to His testimony, in brief, are these. As to the
Pentateuch in general, He called it (Luke xxiv. 44) "the law of
Moses;" and, as regards its authority, He declared it to be such that
"till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass away from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. v. 18).
Could this be truly said of this book of Leviticus, which is
undoubtedly included in this term, "the law," if it were not the Word
of God, but a forgery, so that its fifty-six affirmations of its
Mosaic origin and inspired authority were false? Again, Christ
declared that Moses in his "writings" wrote of Him,--a statement,
which, it should be observed, imputes to Moses foreknowledge, and
therefore supernatural inspiration; and further said that faith in
Himself was so connected with faith in Moses, that if the Jews had
believed Moses, they would have also believed Him (John v. 46, 47). Is
it conceivable that Christ should have spoken thus, if the "writings"
referred to had been forgeries?
But not only did our Lord thus endorse the Pentateuch in general, but
also, on several occasions, the Mosaic origin and inspired authority
of Leviticus in particular. Thus, when He healed the lepers (Matt.
viii. 4) He sent them to the priests on the ground that Moses had
commanded this in such cases. But such a command is found only in this
book of Leviticus (xiv. 3-10). Again, in justifying His disciples for
plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, He adduces the example
of David, who ate the shew-bread when he was an hungered, "which was
not lawful for him to eat, but only for the priests" (Matt. xii. 4);
thus referring to a law which is only found in Leviticus (xxiv. 9).
But the citation was only pertinent on the assumption that He regarded
the prohibition of the shew-bread as having the same inspired
authority as the obligation of the Sabbath. In John vii. 32, again, He
refers to Moses as having renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which
at the first had been given to Abraham; and, as usual, assumes the
Divine authority of the command as thus given. But this renewal of the
ordinance of circumcision is recorded only in Leviticus (xii. 3). Yet
once more, rebuking the Pharisees for their ingenious justification of
the hard-hearted neglect of parents by undutiful children, He reminds
them that Moses had said that he who cursed father or mother should be
put to death; a law which is only found in the so-called priest-code,
Exod. xxi. 17 and Lev. xx. 9. Further, He is so far from merely
assuming the truth of the Jewish opinion for the sake of an argument,
that He formally declares this law, equally with the fifth
commandment, to be "a commandment of God," which they by their
tradition had made void (Matt. xiv. 3-6).
One would suppose that it had been impossible to avoid the inference
from all this, that our Lord believed, and intended to be understood
as teaching, that the law of Leviticus was, in a true sense, of Mosaic
origin, and of inspired, and therefore infallible, authority.
We are in no way concerned, indeed,--nor is it essential to the
argument,--to press this testimony of Christ as proving more than the
very least which the words fairly imply. For instance, nothing in His
words, as we read them, any more than in the language of Leviticus
itself, excludes the supposition that in the preparation of the law,
Moses, like the Apostle Paul, may have had co-labourers or amanuenses,
such as Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, or others, whose several parts of the
work might then have been issued under his endorsement and authority;
so that Christ's testimony is in no wise irreconcilable with the fact
of differences of style, or with the evidence of different documents,
if any think that they discover this, in the book.[1]
[1] "Genesis may be made up of various documents, and yet have
been compiled by Moses; and the same thing is possible, even in
the later books of the Pentateuch. If these could be
successfully partitioned among different writers, on the score
of variety in literary execution, why may not these have been
engaged jointly with Moses himself in preparing each his
appointed portion, and the whole have been finally reduced by
Moses to its present form?... Why might not these continue their
work, and record what occurred after Moses was taken
away?"--Professor W. H. Green, _Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia_;
article, "The Pentateuch."
We are willing to go further, and add that in the testimony of our
Lord we find nothing which declares against the possibility of one or
more redactions or revisions of the laws of Leviticus in post-Mosaic
times, by one or more _inspired_ men; as, _e.g._, by Ezra, described
(Ezra vii. 6) as "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord,
the God of Israel, had given;" to whom also ancient Jewish tradition
attributes the final settlement of the Old Testament canon down to his
time. Hence no words of Christ touch the question as to when the book
of Leviticus received its present form, in respect of the order of its
chapters, sections, and verses. This is a matter of quite secondary
importance, and may be settled any way without prejudice to the Mosaic
origin and authority of the laws it contains.
Neither, in the last place, do the words of our Lord, carefully
weighed, of necessity exclude even the possibility that such persons,
acting under Divine direction and inspiration, may have first reduced
some parts of the law given by Moses to writing;[2] or even, as an
extreme supposition, may have entered here and there, under the
unerring guidance of the Holy Ghost, prescriptions which, although new
as to the letter, were none the less truly Mosaic, in that by
necessary implication they were logically involved in the original
code.[3]
[2] "If it be proven that a record was committed to writing at a
comparatively late date, it does not necessarily follow that the
essential part has not been accurately handed down."--Professor
Strack, _ibid._
[3] Something like this seems to have been the final position of
the late Professor Delitzsch, who said: "We hold firmly that
Moses laid the foundation of this codification" (of the
"priest-code" of Leviticus, etc.), "but it was continued in the
post-Mosaic period within the priesthood, to whom was entrusted
the transmission, interpretation, and administration of the law.
We admit this willingly; and even the participation of Ezra in
this codification in itself furnishes no stumbling block for us.
For it is not inconceivable that laws which until then had been
handed down orally were fixed by him in writing to secure their
judicial authority and execution. The most important thing for
us is the historico-traditional character of the Pentateuchal
legislation, and especially the occasions for (the laws) and the
fundamental arrangements in the history of the times. That which
we cannot be persuaded to admit is that the so-called Priestly
Code is the work of the free invention of the latest date, which
takes on the artificial appearance of ancient history."--_The
Presbyterian Review_, July 1882; article, "Delitzsch on the
Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch," p. 578.
We do not indeed here argue either for or against any of these
suppositions, which were apart from the scope of the present work. We
are only concerned here to remark that Christ has not incontrovertibly
settled these questions. These things may be true or not true; the
decision of such matters properly belongs to the literary critics. But
decide them as one will, it will still remain true that the law is
"the law of Moses," given by revelation from God.
So much as this, however, is certain. Whatsoever modifications may
conceivably have passed upon the text, all work of this kind was done,
as all agree, long before the time of our Lord; and the text to which
He refers as of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority, was therefore
essentially the text of Leviticus as we have it to-day. We are thus
compelled to insist that whatever modifications may have been made in
the original Levitical law, they cannot have been, according to the
testimony of our Lord, such as in any way conflicted with His
affirmation of its Mosaic origin and its inspired authority. They can
thus, at the very utmost, only have been, as suggested, in the way of
legitimate logical development and application to successive
circumstances, of the Levitical law as originally given to Moses; and
that, too, under the administration of a priesthood endowed with the
possession of the Urim and Thummim, so as to give such official
deliverances, whenever required, the sanction of inerrant Divine
authority, binding on the conscience as from God. Here, at least,
surely, Christ by His testimony has placed an immovable limitation
upon the speculations of the critics.
And yet there are those who admit the facts as to Christ's testimony,
and nevertheless claim that without any prejudice to the absolute
truthfulness of our Lord, we may suppose that in speaking as He did,
with regard to the law of Leviticus, He merely conformed to the common
usage of the Jews, without intending thereby to endorse their
opinion; any more than, when, conforming to the ordinary mode of
speech, He spoke of the sun as rising and setting, He meant thereby to
be understood as endorsing the common opinion of men of that time that
the sun actually passed round the earth every twenty-four hours. To
which it is enough to reply that this illustration, which has so often
been used in this argument, is not relevant to the case before us. For
not only did our Lord use language which implied the truth of the
Jewish belief regarding the origin and authority of the Mosaic law,
but He formally teaches it; and--what is of still more moment--He
rests the obligation of certain duties upon the fact that this law of
Leviticus was a revelation from God to Moses for the children of
Israel. But if the supposed facts, upon which He bases His argument in
such cases, are, in reality, not facts, then His argument becomes null
and void. How, for instance, is it possible to explain away the words
in which He appeals to one of the laws of Exodus and Leviticus (Matt.
xv. 3-6) as being _not_ a Jewish opinion, but, instead, in explicit
contrast with the traditions of the Rabbis, "a commandment of God"?
Was this expression merely "an accommodation" to the mistaken notions
of the Jews? If so, then what becomes of His argument?
Others, again, feeling the force of this, and yet sincerely and
earnestly desiring to maintain above possible impeachment the perfect
truthfulness of Christ, still assuming that the Jews were mistaken,
and admitting that, if so, our Lord must have shared their error, take
another line of argument. They remind us of what, however mysterious,
cannot be denied, that our Lord, in virtue of His incarnation, came
under certain limitations in knowledge; and then urge that without
any prejudice to His character we may suppose that, not only with
regard to the time of His advent and kingdom (Matt. xxiv. 36), but
also with respect to the authorship and the Divine authority of this
book of Leviticus, He may have shared in the ignorance and error of
His countrymen.
But, surely, the fact of Christ's limitation in knowledge cannot be
pressed so far as the argument of such requires, without by logical
necessity nullifying Christ's mission and authority as a religious
teacher. For it is certain that according to His own word, and the
universal belief of Christians, the supreme object of Christ's mission
was to reveal unto men through His life and teachings, and especially
through His death upon the cross, the Father; and it is certain that
He claimed to have, in order to this end, perfect knowledge of the
Father. But how could this most essential claim of His be justified,
and how could He be competent to give unto men a perfect and inerrant
knowledge of the Father, if the ignorance of His humiliation was so
great that He was unable to distinguish from His Father's Word a book
which, by the hypothesis, was not the Word of the Father, but an
ingenious and successful forgery of certain crafty post-exilian
priests?
It is thus certain that Jesus must have known whether the Pentateuch,
and, in particular, this book of Leviticus, was the Word of God or
not; certain also that, if the Word of God, it could not have been a
forgery; and equally certain that Jesus could not have intended in
what He said on this subject to accommodate His speech to a common
error of the people, without thereby endorsing their belief. It thus
follows that critics of the radical school referred to are directly
at issue with the testimony of Christ regarding this book. It is of
immense consequence that Christians should see this issue clearly.
While Jesus taught in various ways that Leviticus contains a law given
by revelation from God to Moses, these teach that it is a priestly
forgery of the days after Ezra. Both cannot be right; and if the
latter are in the right, then--we speak with all possible deliberation
and reverence--Jesus Christ was mistaken, and was therefore unable
even to tell us with inerrant certainty whether this or that is the
Word of God or not. But if this is so, then how can we escape the
final inference that His claim to have a perfect knowledge of the
Father must have been an error; His claim to be the incarnate Son of
God, therefore, a false pretension, and Christianity, a delusion, so
that mankind has in Him no Saviour?
But against so fatal a conclusion stands the great established fact of
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; whereby He was with
power declared to be the Son of God, so that we may know that His word
on this, as on all subjects where He has spoken, settles controversy,
and is a sufficient ground of faith; while it imposes upon all
speculations of men, literary or philosophical, eternal and
irremovable limitations.
Let no one think that the case, as regards the issue at stake, has
been above stated too strongly. One could not well go beyond the often
cited words of Kuenen on this subject: "We must either cast aside as
worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or we must for ever
cease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain
of the exegesis of the Old." With good reason does another scholar
exclaim at these words, "The Master must not be heard as a witness! We
treat our criminals with more respect." So then stands the question
this day which this first verse of Leviticus brings before us: In
which have we more confidence? in literary critics, like a Kuenen or
Wellhausen, or in Jesus Christ? Which is the more likely to know with
certainty whether the law of Leviticus is a revelation from God or
not?
The devout Christian, who through the grace of the crucified and risen
Lord "of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write," and who
has "tasted the good word of God," will not long hesitate for an
answer. He will not indeed, if wise, timidly or fanatically decry all
literary investigation of the Scriptures; but he will insist that the
critic shall ever hold his reason in reverent subjection to the Lord
Jesus on all points where the Lord has spoken. Such everywhere will
heartily endorse and rejoice in those admirable words of the late
venerable Professor Delitzsch; words which stand almost as of his last
solemn testament:--"The theology of glory which prides itself upon
being its own highest authority, bewitches even those who had seemed
proof against its enchantments; and the theology of the Cross, which
holds Divine folly to be wiser than men, is regarded as an
unscientific lagging behind the steps of progress.... But the faith
which I professed in my first sermons, ... remains mine to-day,
undiminished in strength, and immeasurably higher than all earthly
knowledge. Even if in many Biblical questions I have to oppose the
traditional opinion, certainly my opposition rests on this side of the
gulf, on the side of the theology of the Cross, of grace, of
miracles!... By this banner let us stand; folding ourselves in it, let
us die!"[4] To which truly noble words every true Christian may well
say, Amen!
[4] _The Expositor_, January, 1889; article, "The Old Theology
and the New," pp. 54, 55.
We then stand without fear with Jesus Christ in our view of the origin
and authority of the book of Leviticus.
THE OCCASION AND ORDER OF LEVITICUS.
Before proceeding to the exposition of this book, a few words need to
be said regarding its occasion and plan, and its object and present
use.
The opening words of the book, "And the Lord said," connect it in the
closest manner with the preceding book of Exodus, at the contents of
which we have therefore to glance for a moment. The kingdom of God,
rejected by corporate humanity in the founding of the Babylonian
world-power, but continuing on earth in a few still loyal souls in the
line of Abraham and his seed, at last, according to promise, had been
formally and visibly re-established on earth at Mount Sinai. The
fundamental law of the kingdom contained in the ten commandments and
certain applications of the same, had been delivered in what is called
the Book of the Covenant, amid thunders and lightnings, at the holy
mount. Israel had solemnly entered into covenant with God on this
basis, saying, "All these things will we do and be obedient," and the
covenant had been sealed by the solemn sprinkling of blood.
This being done, Jehovah now issued commandment for the building of
the tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might manifest His glory
and from time to time communicate His will to Israel. As mediators
between Him and the people, the priesthood was appointed, their
vestments and duties prescribed. All this having been done as ordered,
the tent of meeting covering the interior tabernacle was set up; the
Shekinah cloud covered it, and the glory of Jehovah filled the
tabernacle,--the manifested presence of the King of Israel!
Out of the tent of meeting, from this excellent glory, Jehovah now
called unto Moses, and delivered the law as we have it in the first
seven chapters of the book of Leviticus. To the law of offerings
succeeds (viii.-x.) an account of the consecration of Aaron and his
sons to the priestly office, and their formal public assumption of
their functions, with an account of the very awful sanction which was
given to the preceding law, by the death of Nadab and Abihu before the
Lord, for offering as He had not commanded them.
The next section of the book contains the law concerning the clean and
the unclean, under the several heads of food (xi.), birth-defilement
(xii.), leprosy (xiii., xiv.), and unclean issues (xv.); and closes
(xvi.) with the ordinance of the great day of atonement, in which the
high priest alone, presenting the blood of a sin-offering in the Holy
of Holies, was to make atonement once a year for the sins of the whole
nation.[5]
[5] From the note in xvi. 1 it would appear that this chapter,
so different in subject from the five preceding chapters on
"Uncleannesses," originally preceded them, and so followed x.,
with which it is so closely connected. Its exposition is
therefore given immediately after that of x.
The third section of the book contains the law of holiness,[6] first,
for the people (xvii.-xx.), and then the special laws for the priests
(xxi., xxii.). These are followed, first (xxiii.), by the order for
the feasts of the Lord, or appointed times of public holy convocation;
then (xxiv.), by a historical incident designed to show that the law,
as given, must, in several respects noted, be applied in all its
strictness no less to the alien than to the native-born Israelite; and
finally (xxv.), by the remarkable ordinances concerning the sabbatic
year, and the culmination of the sabbatic system of the law in the
year of jubilee.
[6] This name is often restricted to xviii.-xx.
As a conclusion to the whole, the legislation thus given is now sealed
(xxvi.) with promises from God of blessing to the nation if they will
keep this law, and threats of unsparing vengeance against the people
and the land, if they forsake His commandments and break the covenant,
though still with a promise of mercy when, having thus transgressed,
they shall at any time repent. The book then closes with a
supplemental chapter on voluntary vows and dues (xxvii.).
THE PURPOSE OF LEVITICUS.
What now was the purpose of Leviticus? In general, as regards Israel,
it was given to direct them how they might live as a holy nation in
fellowship with God. The key-note of the book is "Holiness to
Jehovah." More particularly, the object of the book was to furnish for
the theocracy set up in Israel a code of law which should secure their
physical, moral, and spiritual well-being. But the establishment of
the theocracy in Israel was itself only a means to an end; namely, to
make Israel a blessing to all nations, in mediating to the Gentiles
the redemption of God. Hence, the Levitical laws were all intended and
adapted to train and prepare the nation for this special historic
mission to which God had chosen them.
To this end, it was absolutely necessary, first of all, that Israel
should be kept separate from the heathen nations. To effect and
maintain this separation, these laws of Leviticus were admirably
adapted. They are of such a character, that obedience to them, even in
a very imperfect way, has made the nation to this day to be, in a
manner and degree perfectly unique, isolated and separate from all the
peoples in the midst of whom they dwell.
The law of Leviticus was intended to effect this preparation of Israel
for its world-mission, not only in an external manner, but also in an
internal way; namely, by revealing in and to Israel the real character
of God, and in particular His unapproachable holiness. For if Israel
is to teach the nations the way of holiness, in which alone they can
be blessed, the chosen nation must itself first be taught holiness by
the Holy One. A lesson here for every one of us! The revelation of the
holiness of God was made, first of all, in the sacrificial system. The
great lesson which it must have kept before the most obtuse conscience
was this, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of
sin;" that God therefore must be the Most Holy, and sin against Him no
trifle. It was made, again, in the precepts of the law. If in some
instances these seem to tolerate evils which we should have expected
that a holy God would at once have swept away, this is explained by
our Lord (Matt. xix. 8) by the fact that some things were of necessity
ordained in view of the hardness of men's hearts; while, on the other
hand, it is certainly quite plain that the laws of Leviticus
constantly held before the Israelite the absolute holiness of God as
the only standard of perfection.
The holiness of God was further revealed by the severity of the
penalties which were attached to these Levitical laws. Men often call
these harsh, forgetting that we are certain to underestimate the
criminality of sin; forgetting that God must, in any case, have
rights over human life which no earthly ruler can have. But no one
will deny that this very severity of the law was fitted to impress the
Israelite, as nothing else could, with God's absolute intolerance of
sin and impurity, and make him feel that he could not trifle with God,
and hope to sin with impunity.
And yet we must not forget that the law was adapted no less to reveal
the other side of the Divine holiness; that "the Lord God is merciful
and gracious, and of great kindness." For if the law of Leviticus
proclaims that "without shedding of blood there is no remission," with
equal clearness it proclaims that with shedding of blood there can be
remission of sin to every believing penitent.
And this leads to the observation that this law was further adapted to
the training of Israel for its world-mission, in that to every
thoughtful man it must have suggested a secret of redeeming mercy yet
to be revealed. Every such one must have often said in his heart that
it was "not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sin;" and that as a substitute for human life, when forfeited by
sin, more precious blood than this must be required; even though he
might not have been able to imagine whence God should provide such a
Lamb for an offering. And so it was that the law was fitted, in the
highest degree, to prepare Israel for the reception of Him to whom all
these sacrifices pointed, the High Priest greater than Aaron, the Lamb
of God which should "take away the sins of the world," in whose person
and work Israel's mission should at last receive its fullest
realisation.
But the law of Leviticus was not only intended to prepare Israel for
the Messiah by thus awakening a sense of sin and need, it was so
ordered as to be in many ways directly typical and prophetic of Christ
and His great redemption, in its future historical development. Modern
rationalism, indeed, denies this; but it is none the less a fact.
According to the Apostle John (v. 46) our Lord declared that Moses
wrote of Him; and, according to Luke (xxiv. 27), when He expounded
unto the two walking to Emmaus "the things concerning himself," He
began His exposition with "Moses;" and (ver. 44) repeated what He had
before His resurrection taught them, that all things "which were
written in the law of Moses" concerning Him, must be fulfilled. And in
full accord with the teaching of the Master taught also His disciples.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially, argues from this
postulate throughout, and also explicitly affirms the typical
character of the ordinances of this book; declaring, for example, that
the Levitical priests in the tabernacle service served "that which is
a copy of the heavenly things" (Heb. viii. 5); that the blood with
which "the copies of the things in the heavens" were cleansed,
prefigured "better sacrifices than these," even the one offering of
Him who "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. ix. 23-6);
and that the holy times and sabbatic seasons of the law were "a shadow
of the things to come." The fact is familiar, and one need not
multiply illustrations. Many, no doubt, in the interpretation of these
types, have broken loose from the principles indicated in the New
Testament, and given free rein to an unbridled fancy. But this only
warns us that we the more carefully take heed to follow the
intimations of the New Testament, and beware of mistaking our own
imaginings for the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Such interpretations
may bring typology into disrepute, but they cannot nullify it as a
fact which must be recognised in any attempt to open up the meaning of
the book.
Neither is the reality of this typical correspondence between the
Levitical ritual and order and New Testament facts set aside, even
though it is admitted that we cannot believe that Israel generally
could have seen all in it which the New Testament declares to be
there. For the very same New Testament which declares the typical
correspondence, no less explicitly tells us this very thing: that many
things predicted and prefigured in the Old Testament, concerning the
sufferings and glory of Christ, were not understood by the very
prophets through whom they were anciently made known (1 Peter i.
10-12). We have then carefully to distinguish in our interpretation
between the immediate historical intention of the Levitical
ordinances, for the people of that time, and their typical intention
and meaning; but we are not to imagine with some that to prove the
one, is to disprove the other.
THE PRESENT-DAY USE OF LEVITICUS.
This very naturally brings us to the answer to the frequent question:
Of what use can the book of Leviticus be to believers now? We answer,
first, that it is to us, just as much as to ancient Israel, a
revelation of the character of God. It is even a clearer revelation of
God's character to us than to them; for Christ has come as the
Fulfiller, and thus the Interpreter, of the law. And God has not
changed. He is still exactly what He was when He called to Moses out
of the tent of meeting or spoke to him at Mount Sinai. He is just as
holy as then; just as intolerant of sin as then; just as merciful to
the penitent sinner who presents in faith the appointed blood of
atonement, as He was then.
More particularly, Leviticus is of use to us now, as holding forth, in
a singularly vivid manner, the fundamental conditions of true
religion. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are no more, but the
spiritual truth they represented abides and must abide for ever:
namely, that there is for sinful man no citizenship in the kingdom of
God apart from a High Priest and Mediator with a propitiatory
sacrifice for sin. These are days when many, who would yet be called
Christians, belittle atonement, and deny the necessity of the shedding
of substitutionary blood for our salvation. Such would reduce, if it
were possible, the whole sacrificial ritual of Leviticus to a symbolic
_self_-offering of the worshipper to God. But against this stands the
constant testimony of our Lord and His apostles, that it is only
through the shedding of blood _not his own_ that man can have
remission of sin.
But Leviticus presents not only a ritual, but also a body of civil law
for the theocracy. Hence it comes that the book is of use for to-day,
as suggesting principles which should guide human legislators who
would rule according to the mind of God. Not, indeed, that the laws in
their detail should be adopted in our modern states; but it is certain
that the principles which underlie those laws are eternal. Social and
governmental questions have come to the front in our time as never
before. The question of the relation of the civil government to
religion, the question of the rights of labour and of capital, of
land-holding, that which by a suggestive euphemism we call "the social
evil," with its related subjects of marriage and divorce,--all these
are claiming attention as never before. There is not one of these
questions on which the legislation of Leviticus does not cast a flood
of light, into which our modern law-makers would do well to come and
walk.
For nothing can be more certain than this; that if God has indeed once
stood to a commonwealth in the relation of King and political Head, we
shall be sure to discover in His theocratic law upon what principles
infinite righteousness, wisdom, and goodness would deal with these
matters. We shall thus find in Leviticus that the law which it
contains, from beginning to end, stands in contradiction to that
modern democratic secularism, which would exclude religion from
government and order all national affairs without reference to the
being and government of God; and, by placing the law of sacrifice at
the beginning of the book, it suggests distinctly enough that the
maintenance of right relation to God is fundamental to good
government.
The severity of many of the laws is also instructive in this
connection. The trend of public opinion in many communities is against
capital punishment, as barbarous and inhuman. We are startled to
observe the place which this has in the Levitical law; which exhibits
a severity far removed indeed from the unrighteous and undiscriminating
severity of the earlier English law, but no less so from the more
undiscriminating leniency which has taken its place, especially as
regards those crimes in which large numbers of people are inclined to
indulge.
No less instructive to modern law-makers and political economists is
the bearing of the Levitical legislation on the social question, the
relations of rich and poor, of employer and employed. It is a
legislation which, with admirable impartiality, keeps the poor man
and the rich man equally in view; a body of law which, if strictly
carried out, would have made in Israel either a plutocracy or a
proletariat alike impossible. All these things will be illustrated in
the course of exposition. Enough has been said to show that those
among us who are sorely perplexed as to what government should do, at
what it should aim in these matters, may gain help by studying the
mind of Divine wisdom concerning these questions, as set forth in the
theocratic law of Leviticus.
Further, Leviticus is of use to us now as a revelation of Christ. This
follows from what has been already said concerning the typical
character of the law. The book is thus a treasury of divinely-chosen
illustrations as to the way of a sinner's salvation through the
priestly work of the Son of God, and as to his present and future
position and dignity as a redeemed man.
Finally, and for this same reason, Leviticus is still of use to us as
embodying in type and figure prophecies of things yet to come,
pertaining to Messiah's kingdom. We must not imagine with some that
because many of its types are long ago fulfilled, therefore all have
been fulfilled. Many, according to the hints of the New Testament,
await their fulfilment in a bright day that is coming. Some, for
instance, of the feasts of the Lord have been fulfilled; as passover,
and the feast of Pentecost. But how about the day of atonement for the
sin of corporate Israel? We have seen the type of the day of atonement
fulfilled in the entering into heaven of our great High Priest; but in
the type He came out again to bless the people: has that been
fulfilled? Has He yet proclaimed absolution of sin to guilty Israel?
How, again, about the feast of trumpets, and that of the ingathering
at full harvest? How about the Sabbatic year, and that most
consummate type of all, the year of jubilee? History records nothing
which could be held a fulfilment of any of these; and thus Leviticus
bids us look forward to a glorious future yet to come, when the great
redemption shall at last be accomplished, and "Holiness to Jehovah"
shall, as Zechariah puts it (xiv. 20), be written even "on the bells
of the horses."
CHAPTER II.
_SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING._
i. 2-4.
The voice of Jehovah which had spoken not long before from Sinai, now
speaks from out "the tent of meeting." There was a reason for the
change. For Israel had since then entered into covenant with God; and
Moses, as the mediator of the covenant, had sealed it by sprinkling
with blood both the Book of the Covenant and the people. And therewith
they had professedly taken Jehovah for their God, and He had taken
Israel for His people. In infinite grace, He had condescended to
appoint for Himself a tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might,
in a special manner, dwell among them, and manifest to them His will.
The tabernacle had been made, according to the pattern shown to Moses
in the mount; and it had been now set up. And so now, He who had
before spoken amid the thunders of flaming, trembling Sinai, speaks
from the hushed silence of "the tent of meeting." The first words from
Sinai had been the holy law, forbidding sin with threatening of wrath:
the first words from the tent of meeting are words of grace,
concerning fellowship with the Holy One maintained through sacrifice,
and atonement for sin by the shedding of blood. A contrast this which
is itself a Gospel!
The offerings of which we read in the next seven chapters are of two
kinds, namely, bloody and unbloody offerings. In the former class were
included the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, the sin-offering, and
the guilt-, or trespass-offering; in the latter, only the
meal-offering. The book begins with the law of the burnt-offering.
In any exposition of this law of the offerings, it is imperative that
our interpretation shall be determined, not by any fancy of ours as to
what the offerings might fitly symbolise, nor yet, on the other hand,
be limited by what we may suppose that any Israelite of that day might
have thought regarding them; but by the statements concerning them
which are contained in the law itself, and in other parts of Holy
Scripture, especially in the New Testament.
First of all, we may observe that in the book itself the offerings are
described by the remarkable expression, "the bread" or "food of God".
Thus, it is commanded (xxi. 6) that the priests should not defile
themselves, on this ground: "the offerings of the Lord made by fire,
the bread of their God, do they offer." It was an ancient heathen
notion that in sacrifice, food was provided for the Deity in order
thus to show Him honour. And, doubtless, in Israel, ever prone to
idolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this gross
conception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalm l. 8-15, God
sharply rebukes Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using
language at the same time which teaches the spiritual meaning of the
sacrifice, regarded as the "food," or "bread," of God: "I will not
reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt-offerings are
continually before Me.... I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor
he-goats out of thy stalls.... If I were hungry, I would not tell
thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the
flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the
sacrifice of _thanksgiving_; and _pay thy vows_ unto the Most High;
and call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee and thou
shalt glorify Me."
Of which language the plain teaching is this. If the sacrifices are
called in the law "the bread of God," God asks not this bread from
Israel in any material sense, or for any material need. He asks that
which the offerings symbolise; thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of
covenant engagements to Him, and that loving trust which will call on
Him in the day of trouble. Even so! Gratitude, loyalty, trust! this is
the "food of God," this the "bread" which He desires that we should
offer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For even
as man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it,
so God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing
its expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and
self-sacrificing service in which love manifests itself. This is to
God even as is food to us. Love cannot be satisfied except with love
returned; and we may say, with deepest humility and reverence, the God
of love cannot be satisfied without love returned. Hence it is that
the sacrifices, which in various ways symbolise the self-offering of
love and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost "the
food," or "bread of God."
And yet we must, on no account, hasten to the conclusion, as many do,
that therefore the Levitical sacrifices were _only_ intended to
express and symbolise the self-offering of the worshipper, and that
this exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of
infinite Love for this "bread of God" cannot be adequately met and
satisfied by the self-offering of any creature, and, least of all, by
the self-offering of a sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in
this, that he has fallen away from perfect love. The symbolism of the
sacrifice as "the food of God," therefore, by this very phrase points
toward the self-offering in love of the eternal Son to the Father, and
in behalf of sinners, for the Father's sake. It was the sacrifice on
Calvary which first became, in innermost reality, that "bread of God,"
which the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not
regarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as
satisfying the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of
the perfect love of the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His
becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
And now, keeping all this in view, we may venture to say even more
than at first as to the meaning of this phrase, "the bread of God,"
applied to these offerings by fire. For just as the free activity of
man is only sustained in virtue of and by means of the food which he
eats, so also the love of the God of love is only sustained in free
activity toward man through the self-offering to the Father of the
Son, in that atoning sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and in
the ceaseless service of that exalted life which, risen from the dead,
Christ now lives unto God for ever. Thus already, this expression, so
strange to our ears at first, as descriptive of Jehovah's offerings
made by fire, points to the person and work of the adorable Redeemer
as its only sufficient explication.
But, again, we find another expression, xvii. 11, which is of no less
fundamental consequence for the interpretation of the bloody offerings
of Leviticus. In connection with the prohibition of blood for food,
and as a reason for that prohibition, it is said: "The life of the
flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh
atonement,"--mark the expression; not, as in the received version,
"_for_ the soul," which were mere tautology, and gives a sense which
the Hebrew cannot have, but, as the Revised Version has it,--"by
reason of the life," or "soul" (marg.). Hence, wherever in this law we
read of a sprinkling of blood upon the altar, this must be held fast
as its meaning, whether it be formally mentioned or not; namely,
atonement made for sinful man through the life of an innocent victim
poured out in the blood. There may be, and often are, other ideas, as
we shall see, connected with the offering, but this is always present.
To argue, then, with so many in modern times, that because, not the
idea of an atonement, but that of a sacrificial meal given by the
worshipper to God, is the dominant conception in the sacrifices of the
ancient nations, therefore we cannot admit the idea of atonement and
expiation to have been intended in these Levitical sacrifices, is
simply to deny, not only the New Testament interpretation of them, but
the no less express testimony of the record itself.
But it is, manifestly, in the nature of the case "impossible that the
blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hence, we are
again, by this phrase also, constrained to look beyond this Levitical
shedding of sacrificial blood, for some antitype of which the innocent
victims slain at that altar were types; one who, by the shedding of
his blood, should do that in reality, which at the door of the tent of
meeting was done in symbol and shadow.
What the New Testament teaches on this point is known to every one.
Christ Jesus was the Antitype, to whose all-sufficient sacrifice each
insufficient sacrifice of every Levitical victim pointed. John the
Baptist struck the key-note of all New Testament teaching in this
matter, when, beholding Jesus, he cried (John i. 29), "Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Jesus Christ declared
the same thought again and again, as in His words at the sacramental
Supper: "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." Paul expressed the same thought, when he
said (Eph. v. 2) that Christ "gave Himself up for us, an offering and
a sacrifice to God, for an odour of a sweet smell;" and that "our
redemption, the forgiveness of our trespasses," is "through His blood"
(Eph. i. 7). And Peter also, speaking in Levitical language, teaches
that we "were redeemed ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ;" to which he adds
the suggestive words, of which this whole Levitical ritual is the most
striking illustration, that Christ, although "manifested at the end of
the times," "was foreknown" as the Lamb of God "before the foundation
of the world" (1 Peter i. 18-20). John, in like manner, speaks in the
language of Leviticus concerning Christ, when he declares (1 John i.
7) that "the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth us from all sin;" and even
in the Apocalypse, which is the Gospel of Christ glorified, He is
still brought before us as a Lamb that had been slain, and who has
thus "purchased with His blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and
people, and nation," "to be unto our God a kingdom and priests" (Rev.
v. 6, 9, 10).
In this clear light of the New Testament, one can see how meagre also
is the view of some who would see in these Levitical sacrifices
nothing more than fines assessed upon the guilty, as theocratic
penalties. Leviticus itself should have taught such better than that.
For, as we have seen, the virtue of the bloody offerings is made to
consist in this, that "the life of the flesh is in the blood;" and we
are told that "the blood makes atonement for the soul," not in virtue
of the monetary value of the victim, in a commercial way, but "by
reason of the life" that is in the blood, and is therewith poured out
before Jehovah on the altar,--the life of an innocent victim in the
stead of the life of the sinful man.
No less inadequate, if we are to let ourselves be guided either by the
Levitical or the New Testament teaching, is the view that the
offerings only symbolised the self-offering of the worshipper. We do
not deny, indeed, that the sacrifice--of the burnt-offering, for
example--may have fitly represented, and often really expressed, the
self-consecration of the offerer. But, in the light of the New
Testament, this can never be held to have been the sole, or even the
chief, reason in the mind of God for directing these outpourings of
sacrificial blood upon the altar.
We must insist, then, on this, as essential to the right
interpretation of this law of the offerings, that every one of these
bloody offerings of Leviticus typified, and was intended to typify,
our Saviour, Jesus Christ. The burnt-offering represented Christ; the
peace-offering, Christ; the sin-offering, Christ; the guilt-, or
trespass-offering, Christ. Moreover, since each of these, as intended
especially to shadow forth some particular aspect of Christ's work,
differed in some respects from all the others, while yet in all alike
a victim's blood was shed upon the altar, we are by this reminded that
in our Lord's redemptive work the most central and essential thing is
this, that, as He Himself said (Matt. xx. 28), He "came to give His
life a ransom for many."
Keeping this guiding thought steadily before us, it is now our work to
discover, if we may, what special aspect of the one great sacrifice of
Christ each of these offerings was intended especially to represent.
Only, by way of caution, it needs to be added that we are not to
imagine that every minute circumstance pertaining to each sacrifice,
in all its varieties, must have been intended to point to some
correspondent feature of Christ's person or work. On the contrary, we
shall frequently see reason to believe that the whole purpose of one
or another direction of the ritual is to be found in the conditions,
circumstances, or immediate intention of the offering. Thus, to
illustrate, when a profound interpreter suggests that the reason for
the command that the victim should be slain on the north side of the
altar, is to be found in the fact that the north, as the side of
shadow, signifies the gloom and joylessness of the sacrificial act, we
are inclined rather to see sufficient reason for the prescription in
the fact that the other three sides were already in a manner occupied:
the east, as the place of ashes; the south, as fronting the entrance;
and the west, as facing the tent of meeting and the brazen laver.
THE RITUAL OF THE BURNT-OFFERING.
In the law of the offerings, that of the burnt-offering comes first,
though in the order of the ritual it was not first, but second,
following the sin-offering. In this order of mention we need, however,
seek no mystic meaning. The burnt-offering was very naturally
mentioned first, as being the most ancient, and also in the most
constant and familiar use. We read of burnt-offerings as offered by
Noah and Abraham; and of peace-offerings, too, in early times; while
the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in Leviticus treated last,
were now ordered for the first time. So also the burnt-offering was
still, by Divine ordinance, to be the most common. No day could pass
in the tabernacle without the offering of these. Indeed, except on the
great day of atonement for the nation, in the ritual for which, the
sin-offering was the central act, the burnt-offering was the most
important sacrifice on all the great feast-days.
The first law, which applies to bloody offerings in general, was this:
that the victim shall be "of the cattle, even of the herd and of the
flock" (ver. 2); to which is added, in the latter part of the chapter
(ver. 14), the turtle-dove or young pigeon. The carnivora are all
excluded; for these, which live by the death of others, could never
typify Him who should come to give life. And among others, only clean
beasts could be taken. Israel must not offer as "the food of God" that
which they might not eat for their own food; nor could that which was
held unclean be taken as a type of the Holy Victim of the future. And,
even among clean animals, a further selection is made. Only domestic
animals were allowed; not even a clean animal was permitted, if it
were taken in hunting. For it was fitting that one should offer to God
that which had become endeared to the owner as having cost the most of
care and labour in its bringing up. For this, also, we can easily see
another reason in the Antitype. Nothing was to mark Him more than
this: that He should be subject and obey, and that not of constraint,
as the unwilling captive of the chase, but freely and unresistingly.
And now follow the special directions for the burnt-offering. The
Hebrew word so rendered means, literally, "that which ascends". It
thus precisely describes the burnt-offering in its most distinctive
characteristic. Of the other offerings, a part was burned, but a part
was eaten; in some instances, even by the offerer himself. But in the
burnt-offering all ascends to God in flame and smoke. For the creature
is reserved nothing whatever.
The first specification in the law of the burnt-offering is this: "If
his oblation be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male
without blemish" (ver. 3). It must be a "male," as the stronger, the
type of its kind; and "without blemish," that is, ideally perfect.
The reasons for this law are manifest. The Israelite was thereby
taught that God claims the best that we have. They needed this lesson,
as many among us do still. At a later day, we find God rebuking them
by Malachi (i. 6, 13), with indignant severity, for their neglect of
this law: "A son honoureth his father: ... if then I be a Father,
where is My honour?... Ye have brought that which was taken by
violence, and the lame, and the sick; ... should I accept this of your
hand? saith the Lord." And as pointing to our Lord, the command was no
less fitting. Thus, as in other sacrifices, it was foreshadowed that
the great Burnt-offering of the future would be the one Man without
blemish, the absolutely perfect Exemplar of what manhood should be,
but is not.
And this brings us now to the ritual of the offering. In the ritual of
the various bloody offerings we find six parts. These are: (1) the
Presentation; (2) the Laying on of the Hand; (3) the Killing of the
Victim; in which three the ritual was the same for all kinds of
offerings. The remaining three are: (4) the Sprinkling of Blood; (5)
the Burning; (6) the Sacrificial Meal. In these, differences appear in
the various sacrifices, which give each its distinctive character;
and, in the burnt-offering, the sacrificial meal is omitted,--the
whole is burnt upon the altar.
First is given the law concerning
THE PRESENTATION OF THE VICTIM.
"He shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he
may be accepted before the Lord" (ver. 3).
In this it was ordered, first, that the offerer should bring the
victim himself. There were parts of the ceremony in which the priest
acted for him; but this he must do for himself. Even so, he who will
have the saving benefit of Christ's sacrifice must himself bring this
Christ before the Lord. As by so doing, the Israelite signified his
acceptance of God's gracious arrangements concerning sacrifice, so do
we, bringing Christ in our act of faith before the Lord, express our
acceptance of God's arrangement on our behalf; our readiness and
sincere desire to make use of Christ, who is appointed for us. And
this no man can do for another.
And the offering must be presented for a certain purpose; namely,
"that he may be accepted before the Lord;"[7] and that, as the context
tells us, not because of a present made to God, but through an atoning
sacrifice. And so now it is not enough that a man make much of
Christ, and mention Him in terms of praise before the Lord, as the One
whom He would imitate and seek to serve. He must in his act of faith
bring this Christ before the Lord, in such wise as to secure thus his
personal acceptance through the blood of the Holy Victim.
[7] The usage of the common Hebrew phrase so rendered does not
warrant the translation in the old version: "of his voluntary
will."
And, finally, the _place_ of presentation is prescribed. It must be
"at the door of the tent of meeting." It is easy to see the original
reason for this. For, as we learn from other Scriptures, the
Israelites were ever prone to idolatry, and that especially at places
other than the appointed temple or tent of meeting, in the fields and
on high places. Hence the immediate purpose of this order concerning
the place, was to separate the worship of God from the worship of
false gods. There is now, indeed, no law concerning the place where we
may present the great Sacrifice before God. At home, in the closet, in
the church, on the street, wherever we will, we may present this
Christ in our behalf and stead as a Holy Victim before God. And yet
the principle which underlies this ordinance of place is no less
applicable in this age than then. For it is a prohibition of all
self-will in worship. It was not enough that an Israelite should have
the prescribed victim; it is not enough that we present the Christ of
God in faith, or what we think to be faith. But we must make no terms
or conditions as to the mode or condition of the presentation, other
than God appoints. And the command was also a command of publicity.
The Israelite was therein commanded to confess publicly, and thus
attest, his faith in Jehovah, even as God will now have us all make
our confession of Christ a public thing.
The second act of the ceremonial was
THE LAYING ON OF THE HAND.
It was ordered:
"He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and
it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him" (ver.
4).
The laying on of the hand was not, as some have maintained, a mere
declaration of the offerer's property in that which he offered, as
showing his right to give it to God. If this were true, we should find
the ceremony also in the bloodless offerings; where the cakes of corn
were no less the property of the offerer than the bullock or sheep of
the burnt-offering. But the ceremony was confined to these bloody
offerings.
It is nearer the truth when others say that this was an act of
designation. It is a fact that the ceremony of the laying on of hands
in Scripture usage does indicate a designation of a person or thing,
as to some office or service. In this book (xxiv. 14), the witnesses
are directed to lay their hands upon the blasphemer, thereby
appointing him to death. Moses is said to have laid his hands on
Joshua, thus designating him in a formal way as his successor; and, in
the New Testament, Paul and Barnabas are set apart to the ministry by
the laying on of hands. But, in all these cases, the ceremony
symbolised more than mere designation; namely, a transfer or
communication of something invisible, in connection with this visible
act. Thus, in the New Testament the laying on of hands always denotes
the communication of the Holy Ghost, either as an enduement for
office, or for bodily healing. The laying of the hands of Moses on
Joshua, in like manner, signified the transfer to him of the gifts,
office, and authority of Moses. Even in the case of the execution of
the blaspheming son of Shelomith, the laying on of the hands of the
witnesses had the same significance. They thereby designated him to
death, no doubt; but therewith thus symbolically transferred to the
criminal the responsibility for his own death.
From the analogy of these cases we should expect to find evidence of
an ideal transference of somewhat from the offerer to the victim here.
And the context does not leave the matter doubtful. It is added (ver.
4), "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." Hence
it appears that while, indeed, the offerer, by this laying on of his
hand, did dedicate the victim to death, the act meant more than this.
It symbolised a transfer, according to God's merciful provision, of an
obligation to suffer for sin, from the offerer to the innocent victim.
Henceforth, the victim stood in the offerer's place, and was dealt
with accordingly.
This is well illustrated by the account which is given (Numb. viii.)
of the formal substitution of the Levites in the place of all the
first-born of Israel, for special service unto God. We read that the
Levites were presented before the Lord; and that the children of
Israel then laid their hands upon the heads of the Levites, who were
thus, we are told, "offered as an offering unto the Lord," and were
thenceforth regarded and treated as substitutes for the first-born of
all Israel. Thus the obligation to certain special service was
symbolically transferred, as the context tells us, from the first-born
to the Levites; and this transfer of obligation from all the tribes to
the single tribe of Levi was visibly represented by the laying on of
hands. And just so here: the laying on of the hand designated,
certainly, the victim to death; but it did this, in that it was the
symbol of a transfer of obligation.
This view of the ceremony is decisively confirmed by the ritual of the
great day of atonement. In the sin-offering of that day, in which the
conception of expiation by blood received its fullest symbolic
expression, it was ordered (xvi. 21) that Aaron should lay his hands
on the head of one of the goats of the sin-offering, and "confess over
him all the iniquities of the children of Israel." Thereupon the
iniquity of the nation was regarded as symbolically transferred from
Israel to the goat; for it is added, "and the goat shall bear upon him
all their iniquities unto a solitary land." So, while in this ritual
for the burnt-offering there is no mention of such confession, we have
every reason to believe the uniform Rabbinical tradition, that it was
the custom to make also upon the head of the victim for the
burnt-offering a solemn confession of sin, for which they give the
form to be used.
Such then was the significance of the laying on of hands. But the
ceremony meant even more than this. For the Hebrew verb which is
always used for this, as the Rabbis point out, does not merely mean to
lay the hand upon, but so to lay the hand as to rest or lean heavily
upon the victim. This force of the word is well illustrated from a
passage where it occurs, in Psalm lxxxviii. 7, "Thy wrath lieth hard
upon me." The ceremony, therefore, significantly represented the
offerer as resting or relying on the victim to procure that from God
for which he presented him, namely, atonement and acceptance.
This part of the ceremonial of this and other sacrifices was thus full
of spiritual import and typical meaning. By this laying on of the hand
to designate the victim as a sacrifice, the offerer implied, and
probably expressed, a confession of personal sin and demerit; as done
"before Jehovah," it implied also his acceptance of God's penal
judgment against his sin. It implied, moreover, in that the offering
was made according to an arrangement ordained by God, that the offerer
also thankfully accepted God's merciful provision for atonement, by
which the obligation to suffer for sin was transferred from himself,
the guilty sinner, to the sacrificial victim. And, finally, in that
the offerer was directed so to lay his hand as to rest upon the
victim, it was most expressively symbolised that he, the sinful
Israelite, rested and depended on this sacrifice as the atonement for
his sin, his divinely appointed substitute in penal death.
What could more perfectly set forth the way in which we are for our
salvation to make use of the Lamb of God as slain for us? By faith, we
lay the hand upon His head. In this, we do frankly and penitently own
the sins for which, as the great Burnt-sacrifice, the Christ of God
was offered; we also, in humility and self-abasement, thus accept the
judgment of God against ourselves, that because of sin we deserve to
be cast out from Him eternally; while, at the same time, we most
thankfully accept this Christ as "the Lamb of God which taketh away
the sins of the world," and therefore our sins also, if we will but
thus make use of Him; and so lean and rest with all the burden of our
sin on Him.
* * * * *
For the Israelite who should thus lay his hand upon the head of the
sacrificial victim a promise follows. "It shall be accepted for him,
to make atonement for him."
In this word "atonement" we are introduced to one of the key-words of
Leviticus, as indeed of the whole Scripture. The Hebrew radical
originally means "to cover," and is used once (Gen. vi. 14) in this
purely physical sense. But, commonly, as here, it means "to cover" in
a spiritual sense, that is, to cover the sinful person from the sight
of the Holy God, who is "of purer eyes than to behold evil." Hence, it
is commonly rendered "to atone," or "to make atonement;" also, "to
reconcile," or "to make reconciliation." The thought is this: that
between the sinner and the Holy One comes now the guiltless victim; so
that the eye of God looks not upon the sinner, but on the offered
substitute; and in that the blood of the substituted victim is offered
before God for the sinner, atonement is made for sin, and the Most
Holy One is satisfied.
And when the believing Israelite should lay his hand with confession
of sin upon the appointed victim, it was graciously promised: "It
shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." And just so
now, whenever any guilty sinner, fearing the deserved wrath of God
because of his sin, especially because of his lack of that full
consecration which the burnt-sacrifice set forth, lays his hand in
faith upon the great Burnt-offering of Calvary, the blessing is the
same. For in the light of the cross, this Old Testament word becomes
now a sweet New Testament promise: "When thou shalt rest with the hand
of faith upon this Lamb of God, He shall be accepted for thee, to make
atonement for thee."
This is most beautifully expressed in an ancient "Order for the
Visitation of the Sick," attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, in which
it is written:--
"The minister shall say to the sick man: Dost thou believe that thou
canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? The sick man answereth,
Yes. Then let it be said unto him: Go to, then, and whilst thy soul
abideth in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone; place thy
trust in no other thing; commit thyself wholly to this death; cover
thyself wholly with this alone.... And if God would judge thee, say:
Lord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy
judgment; otherwise I will not contend or enter into judgment with
Thee.
"And if He shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say: I place
the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. If He shall
say unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say: Lord! I put the
death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and all my sins; and I
offer His merits for my own, which I should have, and have not."
And whosoever of us can thus speak, to him the promise speaks from out
the shadows of the tent of meeting: "This Christ, the Lamb of God, the
true Burnt-offering, shall be accepted for thee, to make atonement for
thee!"
CHAPTER III.
_THE BURNT-OFFERING (CONCLUDED)._
LEV. i. 5-17; vi. 8-13.
After the laying on of the hand, the next sacrificial act was--
THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM.
"And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord" (ver. 5).
In the light of what has been already said, the significance of this
killing, in a typical way, will be quite clear. For with the first
sin, and again and again thereafter, God had denounced death as the
penalty of sin. But here is a sinner who, in accord with a Divine
command, brings before God a sacrificial victim, on whose head he lays
his hand, on which he thus rests as he confesses his sins, and gives
over the innocent victim to die instead of himself. Thus each of these
sacrificial deaths, whether in the burnt-offering, the peace-offering,
or the sin-offering, brings ever before us the death in the sinner's
stead of that one Holy Victim who suffered for us, "the just for the
unjust," and thus laid down His life, in accord with His own
previously declared intention, "as a ransom for many."
In the sacrifices made by and for individuals, the victim was killed,
except in the case of the turtle-dove or pigeon, by the offerer
himself; but, very naturally, in the case of the national and public
offerings, it was killed by the priest. As, in this latter case, it
was impossible that all individual Israelites should unite in killing
the victim, it is plain that the priest herein acted as the
representative of the nation. Hence we may properly say that the
fundamental thought of the ritual was this, that the victim should be
killed by the offerer himself.
And by this ordinance we may well be reminded, first, how Israel,--for
whose sake as a nation the antitypical Sacrifice was offered,--Israel
itself became the executioner of the Victim; and, beyond that, how, in
a deeper sense, every sinner must regard himself as truly causal of
the Saviour's death, in that, as is often truly said, our sins nailed
Christ to His cross. But whether such a reference were intended in
this law of the offering or not, the great, significant, outstanding
fact remains, that as soon as the offerer, by his laying on of the
hand, signified the transfer of the personal obligation to die for sin
from himself to the sacrificial victim, then came at once upon that
victim the penalty denounced against sin.
And the added words, "before the Lord," cast further light upon this,
in that they remind us that the killing of the victim had reference to
Jehovah, whose holy law the offerer, failing of that perfect
consecration which the burnt-offering symbolised, had failed to
glorify and honour.
THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD.
"And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and
sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is at the door
of the tent of meeting" (ver. 5).
And now follows the fourth act in the ceremonial, the Sprinkling of
the Blood. The offerer's part is now done, and herewith the work of
the priest begins. Even so must we, having laid the hand of faith upon
the head of the substituted Lamb of God, now leave it to the heavenly
Priest to act in our behalf with God.
The directions to the priest as to the use of the blood vary in the
different offerings, according as the design is to give greater or
less prominence to the idea of expiation. In the sin-offering this has
the foremost place. But in the burnt-offering, as also in the
peace-offering, although the conception of atonement by blood was not
absent, it was not the dominant conception of the sacrifice. Hence,
while the sprinkling of blood by the priest could in no wise be
omitted, it took in this case a subordinate place in the ritual. It
was to be sprinkled only on the sides of the altar of burnt-offering
which stood in the outer court. We read (ver. 5): "Aaron's sons, the
priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about
upon the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting."
It was in this sprinkling of the blood that the atoning work was
completed. The altar had been appointed as a place of Jehovah's
special presence; it had been designated as a place where God would
come unto man to bless him. Thus, to present and sprinkle the blood
upon the altar was symbolically to present the blood unto God. And the
blood represented life,--the life of an innocent victim atoning for
the sinner, because rendered up in the stead of his life. And the
_priests_ were to sprinkle the blood. So, while to bring and present
the sacrifice of Christ, to lay the hand of faith upon His head, is
our part, with this our duty ends. To sprinkle the blood, to use the
blood God-ward for the remission of sin, this is the work alone of our
heavenly Priest. We are then to leave that with Him.
Reserving a fuller exposition of the meaning of this sprinkling of
blood for the exposition of the sin-offering, in which it was the
central act of the ritual, we pass on now to the burning of the
sacrifice, which in this offering marked the culmination of its
special symbolism.
THE SACRIFICIAL BURNING.
i. 6-9, 12, 13, 17.
"And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its
pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the
altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire: and Aaron's sons, the
priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order
upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: but
its inwards and its legs shall he wash with water: and the priest
shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an
offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he
shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat: and the
priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire
which is upon the altar: but the inwards and the legs shall he
wash with water: and the priest shall offer the whole, and burn
it upon the altar: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he shall rend it by
the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the
priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon
the fire: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a
sweet savour unto the Lord."
It was the distinguishing peculiarity of the burnt-offering, from
which it takes its name, that in every case the whole of it was
burned, and thus ascended heavenward in the fire and smoke of the
altar. The place of the burning, in this and other sacrifices, is
significant. The flesh of the sin-offering, when not eaten, was to be
burned in a clean place without the camp. But it was the law of the
burnt-offering that it should be wholly consumed upon the holy altar
at the door of the tent of meeting. In the directions for the burning
we need seek for no occult meaning; the most of them are evidently
intended simply as means to the end; namely, the consumption of the
offering with the utmost readiness, ease, and completeness. Hence it
must be flayed and cut into its pieces, and carefully arranged upon
the wood. The inwards and the legs must be washed with water, that
into the offering, as to be offered to the Holy One, might come
nothing extraneous, nothing corrupt and unclean.
In vv. 10-13 and 14-17 provision is made for the offering of different
victims, of the flock, or of the fowls. The reason for this permitted
variation, although not mentioned here, was doubtless the same which
is given for a similar permission in chap. v. 7, where it is ordered
that if the offerer's means suffice not for a certain offering, he may
bring one of less value. Poverty shall be no plea for not bringing a
burnt-sacrifice; to the Israelite of that time it thus set forth the
truth, that "if there first be a willing heart, it is accepted
according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."
The variations in the prescriptions regarding the different victims to
be used in the sacrifice are but slight. The bird having been killed
by the priest (why this change it is not easy to see), its crop, with
its contents of food unassimilated, and therefore not a part of the
bird, as also the feathers, was to be cast away. It was not to be
divided, like the bullock, and the sheep or goat, simply because, with
so small a creature, it was not necessary to the speedy and entire
combustion of the offering. In each case alike, the declaration is
made that the sacrifice, thus offered and wholly burnt upon the altar,
is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord."
And now a question comes before us, the answer to which is vital to
the right understanding of the burnt-offering, whether in its original
or typical import. What was the significance of the burning? It has
been very often answered that the consumption of the victim by fire
symbolised the consuming wrath of Jehovah, utterly destroying the
victim which represented the sinful person of the offerer. And,
observing that the burning followed the killing and shedding of blood,
some have even gone so far as to say that the burning typified the
eternal fire of hell! But when we remember that, without doubt, the
sacrificial victim in all the Levitical offerings was a type of our
blessed Lord, we may well agree with one who justly calls this
interpretation "hideous." And yet many, who have shrunk from this,
have yet in so far held to this conception of the symbolic meaning of
the burning as to insist that it must at least have typified those
fiery sufferings in which our Lord offered up His soul for sin. They
remind us how often, in the Scripture, fire stands as the symbol of
the consuming wrath of God against sin, and hence argue that this may
justly be taken here as the symbolic meaning of the burning of the
victim on the altar.
But this interpretation is nevertheless, in every form, to be
rejected. As regards the use of fire as a symbol in Holy Scripture,
while it is true that it often represents the punitive wrath of God,
it is equally certain that it has not always this meaning. Quite as
often it is the symbol of God's purifying energy and might. Fire was
not the symbol of Jehovah's vengeance in the burning bush. When the
Lord is represented as sitting "as a refiner and a purifier of
silver," surely the thought is not of vengeance, but of purifying
mercy. We should rather say that fire, in Scripture usage, is the
symbol of the intense energy of the Divine nature, which continually
acts upon every person and on every thing, according to the nature of
each person or thing; here conserving, there destroying; now
cleansing, now consuming. The same fire which burns the wood, hay, and
stubble, purifies the gold and the silver.
Hence, while it is quite true that fire often typifies the wrath of
God punishing sin, it is certain that it cannot always symbolise this,
not even in the sacrificial ritual. For in the meal-offering of chap.
ii. it is impossible that the thought of expiation should enter since
no life is offered and no blood is shed; yet this also is presented
unto God in fire. The fire then in this case must mean something else
than the Divine wrath, and presumably must mean one thing in all the
sacrifices. And that not even in the burnt-offering can the burning of
the sacrifice symbolise the consuming wrath of God, becomes plain,
when we observe that, according to the uniform teaching of the
sacrificial ritual, atonement is already fully accomplished, prior to
the burning, in the sprinkling of the blood. That the burning, which
follows the atonement, should have any reference to Christ's expiatory
sufferings, is thus quite impossible.
We must hold, therefore, that the burning can only mean in the
burnt-offering that which alone it can signify in the meal-offering;
namely, the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, on the
one hand; and, on the other, God's gracious acceptance and
appropriation of the offering. This was impressively set forth in the
case of the burnt-offering presented when the tabernacle service was
inaugurated; when, we are told (ix. 24), the fire which consumed it
came forth from before Jehovah, lighted by no human hand, and was
thus a visible representation of God accepting and appropriating the
offering to Himself.
The symbolism of the burning thus understood, we can now perceive what
must have been the special meaning of this sacrifice. As regarded by
the believing Israelite of those days, not yet discerning clearly the
deeper truth it shadowed forth as to the great Burnt-sacrifice of the
future, it must have symbolically taught him that complete
consecration unto God is essential to right worship. There were
sacrifices having a different special import, in which, while a part
was burnt, the offerer might even himself join in eating the remaining
part, taking that for his own use. But, in the burnt-offering, nothing
was for himself: all was for God; and in the fire of the altar God
took the whole in such a way that the offering for ever passed beyond
the offerer's recall. In so far as the offerer entered into this
conception, and his inward experience corresponded to this outward
rite, it was for him an act of worship.
But to the thoughtful worshipper, one would think, it must sometimes
have occurred that, after all, it was not himself or his gift that
thus ascended in full consecration to God, but a victim appointed by
God to represent him in death on the altar. And thus it was that,
whether understood or not, the offering in its very nature pointed to
a Victim of the future, in whose person and work, as the One only
fully-consecrated Man, the burnt-offering should receive its full
explication. And this brings us to the question, What aspect of the
person and work of our Lord was herein specially typified? It cannot
be the resultant fellowship with God, as in the peace-offering; for
the sacrificial feast which set this forth was in this case wanting.
Neither can it be expiation for sin; for although this is expressly
represented here, yet it is not the chief thing. The principal thing,
in the burnt-offering, was the burning, the complete consumption of
the victim in the sacrificial fire. Hence what is represented chiefly
here, is not so much Christ representing His people in atoning death,
as Christ representing His people in perfect consecration and entire
self-surrender unto God; in a word, in perfect obedience.
Of these two things, the atoning death and the representative
obedience, we think, and with reason, much of the former; but most
Christians, though without reason, think less of the latter. And yet
how much is made of this aspect of our Lord's work in the Gospels! The
first words which we hear from His lips are to this effect, when, at
twelve years of age, He asked His mother (Luke ii. 49), "Wist ye not
that I must be (lit.) in the things of My Father?" and after His
official work began in the first cleansing of the temple, this
manifestation of His character was such as to remind His disciples
that it was written, "The zeal of Thy house shall eat me
up";--phraseology which brings the burnt-offering at once to mind.[8]
And His constant testimony concerning Himself, to which His whole life
bare witness, was in such words as these: "I came down from heaven,
not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." In
particular, He especially regarded His atoning work in this aspect. In
the parable of the Good Shepherd (John x. 1-18), for example, after
telling us that because of His laying down His life for the sheep the
Father loved Him, and that to this end He had received from the
Father authority to lay down His life for the sheep, He then adds as
the reason of this: "This commandment have I received from My Father."
And so elsewhere (John xii. 49, 50) He says of all His words, as of
all His works: "The Father hath given Me a commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak; ... the things therefore which I speak,
even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak." And when at last
His earthly work approaches its close, and we see Him in the agony of
Gethsemane, there He appears, above all, as the perfectly consecrated
One, offering Himself, body, soul, and spirit, as a whole
burnt-offering unto God, in those never-to-be-forgotten words (Matt.
xxvi. 39), "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me;
nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And, if any more proof
were needed, we have it in that inspired exposition (Heb. x. 5-10) of
Psalm xl. 6-8 wherein it is taught that this perfect obedience of
Christ, in full consecration, was indeed the very thing which the Holy
Ghost foresignified in the whole burnt-offerings of the law: "When He
cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest
not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt-offerings
and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am
come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O
God."
[8] See Psalm lxix. 9, and compare in the Hebrew such
expressions as, "the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering;" and
Deut. iv. 24, "thy God is a devouring fire," etc., in all which
the verb signifying "to eat" is idiomatically used of fire.
Thus the burnt-offering brings before us in type, for our faith,
Christ as our Saviour in virtue of His being the One wholly
surrendered to the will of the Father. Nor does this exclude, but
rather defines, the conception of Christ as our substitute and
representative. For He said that it was for our sakes that He
"sanctified," or "consecrated" Himself (John xvii. 19); and while the
New Testament represents Him as saving us by His death as an expiation
for sin, it no less explicitly holds Him forth to us as having obeyed
in our behalf, declaring (Rom. v. 19) that it is "by the obedience of
the One Man" that "many are made righteous." And, elsewhere, the same
Apostle represents the incomparable moral value of the atoning death
of the cross as consisting precisely in this fact, that it was a
supreme act of self-renouncing obedience, as it is written (Phil. ii.
6-9): "Being in the form of God, He yet counted it not a prize to be
on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men; ... becoming obedient even
unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly
exalted Him, and gave unto Him the name which is above every name."
And so the burnt-offering teaches us to remember that Christ has not
only died for our sins, but has also consecrated Himself for us to God
in full self-surrender in our behalf. We are therefore to plead not
only His atoning death, but also the transcendent merit of His life of
full consecration to the Father's will. To this, the words, three
times repeated concerning the burnt-offering (vv. 9, 13, 17), in this
chapter, blessedly apply: it is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet
savour," a fragrant odour, "unto the Lord." That is, this full
self-surrender of the holy Son of God unto the Father is exceedingly
delightful and acceptable unto God. And for this reason it is for us
an ever-prevailing argument for our own acceptance, and for the
gracious bestowment for Christ's sake of all that there is in Him for
us.
Only let us ever remember that we cannot argue, as in the case of the
atoning death, that as Christ died that we might not die, so He
offered Himself in full consecration unto God, that we might thus be
released from this obligation. Here the exact opposite is the truth.
For Christ Himself said in His memorable prayer, just before His
offering of Himself to death, "For their sakes I sanctify (marg.
"consecrate") Myself, _that they also might be sanctified in truth_."
And thus is brought before us the thought, that if the sin-offering
emphasised, as we shall see, the substitutionary death of Christ,
whereby He became our righteousness, the burnt-offering, as
distinctively, brings before us Christ as our sanctification, offering
Himself without spot, a whole burnt-offering to God. And as by that
one life of sinless obedience to the will of the Father He procured
our salvation by His merit, so in this respect He has also become our
one perfect Example of what consecration to God really is. A thought
this is which, with evident allusion to the burnt-offering, the
Apostle Paul brings before us, charging us (Eph. v. 2) that we "walk
in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering
and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell."
And the law further suggests that no extreme of spiritual need can
debar any one from availing himself of our great Burnt-sacrifice. A
burnt-offering was to be received even from one who was so poor that
he could bring but a turtle-dove or a young pigeon (ver. 14). One
might, at first thought, not unnaturally say: Surely there can be
nothing in this to point to Christ; for the true Sacrifice is not
many, but one and only. And yet the very fact of this difference
allowed in the typical victims, when the reason of the allowance is
remembered, suggests the most precious truth concerning Christ, that
no spiritual poverty of the sinner need exclude him from the full
benefit of Christ's saving work. Provision is made in Him for all
those who, most truly and with most reason, feel themselves to be poor
and in need of all things. Christ, as our sanctification, is for all
who will make use of Him; for all who, feeling most deeply and
painfully their own failure in full consecration, would take Him, as
not only their sin-offering, but also their burnt-offering, both their
example and their strength, unto perfect self-surrender unto God. We
may well here recall to mind the exhortation of the Apostle to
Christian believers, expressed in language which at once reminds us of
the burnt-offering (Rom. xii. 1): "I beseech you, brethren, by the
mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service."
THE CONTINUAL BURNT-OFFERING.
vi. 8-13.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his
sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt
offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar all night unto the
morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereon.
And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen
breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the
ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt offering on the
altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put
off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the
ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the
altar shall be kept burning thereon, it shall not go out; and the
priest shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the
burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat
of the peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar
continually; it shall not go out."
In chap. vi. 8-13 we have a "law of the burnt-offering" specially
addressed to "Aaron and his sons," and designed to secure that the
fire of the burnt-offering should be continually ascending unto God.
In chap. i. we have the law regarding burnt-offerings brought by the
individual Israelite. But besides these it was ordered, Exod. xxix.
38-46, that every morning and evening the priest should offer a lamb
as a burnt-offering for the whole people,--an offering which primarily
symbolised the constant renewal of Israel's consecration as "a kingdom
of priests" unto the Lord. It is to this, the daily burnt-offering,
that this supplementary law of chap. vi. refers. All the regulations
are intended to provide for the uninterrupted maintenance of this
sacrificial fire; first, by the regular removal of the ashes which
would else cover and smother the fire; and, secondly, by the supply of
fuel. The removal of the ashes from the fire is a priestly function;
hence it was ordained that the priest for this service put on his
robes of office, "his linen garment and his linen breeches," and then
take up the ashes from the altar, and lay them by the side of the
altar. But as from time to time it would be necessary to remove them
from this place quite without the tent, it was ordered that he should
carry them forth "without the camp unto a clean place," that the
sanctity of all connected with Jehovah's worship might never be lost
sight of; though, as it was forbidden to wear the priestly garments
except within the tent of meeting, the priest, when this service was
performed, must "put on other garments," his ordinary, unofficial
robes. The ashes being thus removed from the altar each morning, then
the wood was put on, and the parts of the lamb laid in order upon it
to be perfectly consumed. And whenever during the day any one might
bring a peace-offering unto the Lord, on this ever-burning fire the
priest was to place also the fat, the richest part, of the offering,
and with it also the various individual burnt-offerings and
meal-offerings of each day. And thus it was arranged by the law that,
all day long, and all night long, the smoke of the burnt-offering
should be continually ascending unto the Lord.
The significance of this can hardly be missed. By this supplemental
law which thus provided for "a continual burnt-offering" to the Lord,
it was first of all signified to Israel, and to us, that the
consecration which the Lord so desires and requires from His people is
not occasional, but continuous. As the priest, representing the
nation, morning by morning cleared away the ashes which had else
covered the flame and caused it to burn dull, and both morning by
morning and evening by evening, laid a new victim on the altar, so
will God have us do. Our self-consecration is not to be occasional,
but continual and habitual. Each morning we should imitate the priest
of old, in putting away all that might dull the flame of our devotion,
and, morning by morning, when we arise, and evening by evening, when
we retire, by a solemn act of self-consecration give ourselves anew
unto the Lord. So shall the word in substance, thrice repeated, be
fulfilled in us in its deepest, truest sense: "The fire shall be kept
burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out" (vv. 9, 12,
13).
But we must not forget that in this part of the law, as in all else,
we are pointed to Christ. This ordinance of the continual
burnt-offering reminds us that Christ, as our burnt-offering,
_continually_ offers Himself to God in self-consecration in our
behalf. Very significant it is that the burnt-offering stands in
contrast in this respect with the sin-offering. We never read of a
continual sin-offering; even the great annual sin-offering of the day
of atonement, which, like the daily burnt-offering, had reference to
the nation at large, was soon finished, and once for all. And it was
so with reason; for in the nature of the case, our Lord's offering of
Himself for sin as an expiatory sacrifice was not and could not be a
continuous act. But with His presentation of Himself unto God in full
consecration of His person as our Burnt-offering, it is different.
Throughout the days of His humiliation this self-offering of Himself
to God continued; nor, indeed, can we say that it has yet ceased, or
ever can cease. For still, as the High Priest of the heavenly
sanctuary, He continually offers Himself as our Burnt-offering in
constantly renewed and constantly continued devotement of Himself to
the Father to do His will.
In this ordinance of the daily burnt-offering, ever ascending in the
fire that never went out, the idea of the burnt-sacrifice reaches its
fullest expression, the type its most perfect development. And thus
the law of the burnt-offering leaves us in the presence of this holy
vision: the greater than Aaron, in the heavenly place as our great
Representative and Mediator, morning by morning, evening by evening,
offering Himself unto the Father in the full self-devotement of His
risen life unto God, as our "continual burnt-offering." In this, let
us rejoice and be at peace.
CHAPTER IV.
_THE MEAL-OFFERING._
LEV. ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23.
The word which in the original uniformly stands for the English
"meal-offering" (A.V. "meat-offering," _i.e._, "food-offering")
primarily means simply "a present," and is often properly so
translated in the Old Testament. It is, for example, the word which is
used (Gen. xxxii. 13) when we are told how Jacob sent a present to
Esau his brother; or, later, of the gift sent by Israel to his son
Joseph in Egypt (Gen. xliii. 11); and, again (2 Sam. viii. 2), of the
gifts sent by the Moabites to David. Whenever thus used of gifts to
men, it will be found that it suggests a recognition of the dignity
and authority of the person to whom the present is made, and, in many
cases, a desire also to procure thereby his favour.
In the great majority of cases, however, the word is used of offerings
to God, and in this use one or both of these ideas can easily be
traced. In Gen. iv. 4, 5, in the account of the offerings of Cain and
Abel, the word is applied both to the bloody and the unbloody
offering; but in the Levitical law, it is only applied to the latter.
We thus find the fundamental idea of the meal-offering to be this: it
was a gift brought by the worshipper to God, in token of his
recognition of His supreme authority, and as an expression of desire
for His favour and blessing.
But although the meal-offering, like the burnt-offering, was an
offering made to God by fire, the differences between them were many
and significant. In the burnt-offering, it was always a life that was
given to God; in the meal-offering, it was never a life, but always
the products of the soil. In the burnt-offering, again, the offerer
always set apart the offering by the laying on of the hand, signifying
thus, as we have seen, a transfer of obligation to death for sin; thus
connecting with the offering, in addition to the idea of a gift to
God, that of expiation for sin, as preliminary to the offering by
fire. In the meal-offering, on the other hand, there was no laying on
of the hand, as there was no shedding of blood, so that the idea of
expiation for sin is in no way symbolised. The conception of a gift to
God, which, though dominant in the burnt-offering, is not in that the
only thing symbolised, in the meal-offering becomes the _only_ thought
the offering expresses.
It is further to be noted that not only must the meal-offering consist
of the products of the soil, but of such alone as grow, not
spontaneously, but by cultivation, and thus represent the result of
man's labour. Not only so, but this last thought is the more
emphasised, that the grain of the offering was not to be presented to
the Lord in its natural condition as harvested, but only when, by
grinding, sifting, and often, in addition, by cooking in various ways,
it has been more or less fully prepared to become the food of man. In
any case, it must, at least, be parched, as in the variety of the
offering which is last mentioned in the chapter (vv. 14-16).
With these fundamental facts before us, we can now see what must have
been the primary and distinctive significance of the meal-offering,
considered as an act of worship. As the burnt-offering represented the
consecration of the life, the person, to God, so the meal-offering
represented the consecration of the fruit of his labours.
If it be asked, why it was that when man's labours are so manifold,
and their results so diverse, the product of the cultivation of the
soil should be alone selected for this purpose, for this, several
reasons may be given. In the first place, of all the occupations of
man, the cultivation of the soil is that of by far the greatest
number, and so, in the nature of the case, must continue to be; for
the sustenance of man, so far as he is at all above the savage
condition, comes, in the last analysis, from the soil. Then, in
particular, the Israelites of those days of Moses were about to become
an agricultural nation. Most natural and suitable, then, it was that
the fruit of the activities of such a people should be symbolised by
the product of their fields. And since even those who gained their
living in other ways than by the cultivation of the ground, must needs
purchase with their earnings grain and oil, the meal-offering would,
no less for them than for others, represent the consecration to God of
the fruit of their labour.
The meal-offering is no longer an ordinance of worship, but the duty
which it signified remains in full obligation still. Not only, in
general, are we to surrender our persons without reserve to the Lord,
as in the burnt-offering, but unto Him must also be consecrated all
our works.
This is true, first of all, regarding our religious service. Each of
us is sent into the world to do a certain spiritual work among our
fellow-men. This work and all the result of it is to be offered as a
holy meal-offering to the Lord. A German writer has beautifully set
forth this significance of the meal-offering as regards Israel.
"Israel's bodily calling was the cultivation of the ground in the land
given him by Jehovah. The fruit of his calling, under the Divine
blessing, was corn and wine, his bodily food, which nourished and
sustained his bodily life. Israel's spiritual calling was to work in
the field of the kingdom of God, in the vineyard of his Lord; this
work was Israel's covenant obligation. Of this, the fruit was the
spiritual bread, the spiritual nourishment, which should sustain and
develop his spiritual life."[9] And the calling of the spiritual
Israel, which is the Church, is still the same, to labour in the field
of the kingdom of God, which is the world of men; and the result of
this work is still the same, namely, with the Divine blessing,
spiritual fruit, sustaining and developing the spiritual life of men.
And in the meal-offering we are reminded that the fruit of all our
spiritual labours is to be offered to the Lord.
[9] Kurtz, "Der Alt-testamentliche Opfercultus," p. 243.
The reminder might seem unneedful, as indeed it ought to be; but it is
not. For it is sadly possible to call Christ "Lord," and, labouring in
His field, do in His name many wonderful works, yet not really unto
Him. A minister of the Word may with steady labour drive the
ploughshare of the law, and sow continually the undoubted seed of the
Word in the Master's field; and the apparent result of his work may be
large, and even real, in the conversion of men to God, and a great
increase of Christian zeal and activity. And yet it is quite possible
that a man do this, and still do it for himself, and not for the
Lord; and when success comes, begin to rejoice in his evident skill as
a spiritual husbandman, and in the praise of man which this brings
him; and so, while thus rejoicing in the fruit of his labours, neglect
to bring of this good corn and wine which he has raised for a daily
meal-offering in consecration to the Lord. Most sad is this, and
humiliating, and yet sometimes it so comes to pass.
And so, indeed, it may be in every department of religious activity.
The present age is without its like in the wonderful variety of its
enterprise in matters benevolent and religious. On every side we see
an ever-increasing army of labourers driving their various work in the
field of the world. City Missions of every variety, Poor Committees
with their free lodgings and soup-kitchens, Young Men's Christian
Associations, Blue Ribbon Societies, the White Cross Army and the Red
Cross Army, Hospital Work, Prison Reform, and so on;--there is no
enumerating all the diverse improved methods of spiritual husbandry
around us, nor can any one rightly depreciate the intrinsic excellence
of all this, or make light of the work or of its good results. But for
all this, there are signs that many need to be reminded that all such
labour in God's field, however God may graciously make use of it, is
not necessarily labour for God; that labour for the good of men is not
therefore of necessity labour consecrated to the Lord. For can we
believe that from all this the meal-offering is always brought to Him?
The ordinance of this offering needs to be remembered by us all in
connection with these things. The fruit of all these our labours must
be offered daily in solemn consecration to the Lord.
But the teaching of the meal-offering reaches further than to what we
call religious labours. For in that it was appointed that the offering
should consist of man's daily food, Israel was reminded that God's
claim for full consecration of all our activities covers everything,
even to the very food we eat. There are many who consecrate, or think
they consecrate, their religious activities; but seem never to have
understood that the consecration of the true Israelite must cover the
secular life as well,--the labour of the hand in the field, in the
shop, the transactions of the office or on 'Change, and all their
results, as also the recreations which we are able to command, the
very food and drink which we use,--in a word, all the results and
products of our labours, even in secular things. And to bring this
idea vividly before Israel, it was ordered that the meal-offering
should consist of food, as the most common and universal visible
expression of the fruit of man's secular activities. The New Testament
has the same thought (1 Cor. x. 31): "Whether ye eat or drink, or
whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
And the offering was not to consist of any food which one might choose
to bring, but of corn and oil, variously prepared. Not to speak yet of
any deeper reason for this selection, there is one which lies quite on
the surface. For these were the most common and universal articles of
the food of the people. There were articles of food, then as now,
which were only to be seen on the tables of the rich; but grain, in
some form, was and is a necessity for all. So also the oil, which was
that of the olive, was something which in that part of the world, all,
the poor no less than the rich, were wont to use continually in the
preparation of their food; even as it is used to-day in Syria, Italy,
and other countries where the olive grows abundantly. Hence it
appears that that was chosen for the offering which all, the richest
and the poorest alike, would be sure to have; with the evident intent,
that no one might be able to plead poverty as an excuse for bringing
no meal-offering to the Lord.
Thus, if this ordinance of the meal-offering taught that God's claim
for consecration covers all our activities and all their result, even
to the very food that we eat, it teaches also that this claim for
consecration covers all persons. From the statesman who administers
the affairs of an Empire to the day-labourer in the shop, or mill, or
field, all alike are hereby reminded that the Lord requires that the
work of every one shall be brought and offered to Him in holy
consecration.
And there was a further prescription, although not mentioned here in
so many words. In some offerings, barley-meal was ordered, but for
this offering the grain presented, whether parched, in the ear, or
ground into meal, must be only wheat. The reason for this, and the
lesson which it teaches, are plain. For wheat, in Israel, as still in
most lands, was the best and most valued of the grains. Israel must
not only offer unto God of the fruit of their labour, but the best
result of their labours. Not only so, but when the offering was in the
form of meal, cooked or uncooked, the best and finest must be
presented. That, in other words, must be offered which represented the
most of care and labour in its preparation, or the equivalent of this
in purchase price. Which emphasises, in a slightly different form, the
same lesson as the foregoing. Out of the fruit of our several labours
and occupations we are to set apart especially for God, not only that
which is best in itself, the finest of the wheat, but that which has
cost us the most labour. David finely represented this thought of the
meal-offering when he said, concerning the cattle for his
burnt-offerings, which Araunah the Jebusite would have him accept
without price: "I will not offer unto the Lord my God of that which
doth cost me nothing."
But in the meal-offering it was not the whole product of his labour
that the Israelite was directed to bring, but only a small part. How
could the consecration of this small part represent the consecration
of all? The answer to this question is given by the Apostle Paul, who
calls attention to the fact that in the Levitical symbolism it was
ordained that the consecration of a part should signify the
consecration of the whole. For he writes (Rom. xi. 16), "If the
first-fruit is holy, then the lump"--the whole from which the
first-fruit is taken--"is also holy;" that is, the consecration of a
part signifies and symbolically expresses the consecration of the
whole from which that part is taken. The idea is well illustrated by a
custom in India, according to which, when one visits a man of
distinction, he will offer the guest a silver coin; an act of social
etiquette which is intended to express the thought that all he has is
at the service of the guest, and is therewith offered for his use. And
so in the meal-offering. By offering to God, in this formal way, a
part of the product of his labour, the Israelite expressed a
recognition of His claim upon the whole, and professed a readiness to
place, not this part merely, but the whole, at God's service.
But in the selection of the materials, we are pointed toward a deeper
symbolism, by the injunction that in certain cases, at least,
frankincense should be added to the offering. But this was not of
man's food, neither was it, like the meal, and cakes, and oil, a
product of man's labour. Its effect, naturally, was to give a
grateful perfume to the sacrifice, that it might be, even in a
physical sense, "an odour of a sweet smell." The symbolical meaning of
incense, in which the frankincense was a chief ingredient, is very
clearly intimated in Holy Scripture. It is suggested in David's prayer
(Psalm cxli. 2): "Let my prayer be set forth as incense; the lifting
up of my hands, like the evening oblation." So, in Luke i. 10, we read
of the whole multitude of the people praying without the sanctuary,
while the priest Zacharias was offering incense within. And, finally,
in the Apocalypse, this is expressly declared to be the symbolical
significance of incense; for we read (v. 8), that the four-and-twenty
elders "fell down before the Lamb, having ... golden bowls full of
incense, which are the prayers of the saints." So then, without doubt,
we must understand it here. In that frankincense was to be added to
the meal-offering, it is signified that this offering of the fruit of
our labours to the Lord must ever be accompanied by prayer; and,
further, that our prayers, thus offered in this daily consecration,
are most pleasing to the Lord, even as the fragrance of sweet incense
unto man.
But if the frankincense, in itself, had thus a symbolical meaning, it
is not unnatural to infer the same also with regard to other elements
of the sacrifice. Nor is it, in view of the nature of the symbols,
hard to discover what that should be.
For inasmuch as that product of labour is selected for the offering,
which is the food by which men live, we are reminded that this is to
be the final aspect under which all the fruit of our labours is to be
regarded; namely, as furnishing and supplying for the need of the many
that which shall be bread to the soul. In the highest sense, indeed,
this can only be said of Him who by His work became the Bread of Life
for the world, who was at once "the Sower" and "the Corn of Wheat"
cast into the ground; and yet, in a lower sense, it is true that the
work of feeding the multitudes with the bread of life is the work of
us all; and that in all our labours and engagements we are to keep
this in mind as our supreme earthly object. Just as the products of
human labour are most diverse, and yet all are capable of being
exchanged in the market for bread for the hungry, so are we to use all
the products of our labour with this end in view, that they may be
offered to the Lord as cakes of fine meal for the spiritual sustenance
of man.
And the oil, too, which entered into every form of the meal-offering,
has in Holy Scripture a constant and invariable symbolical meaning. It
is the uniform symbol of the Holy Spirit of God. Isaiah lxi. 1 is
decisive on this point, where in prophecy the Messiah speaks thus:
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath
anointed me to preach good tidings." Quite in accord with this, we
find that when Jesus reached thirty years of age,--the time for
beginning priestly service,--He was set apart for His work, not as the
Levitical priests, by anointing with symbolical oil, but by the
anointing with the Holy Ghost descending on Him at His baptism. So,
also, in the Apocalypse, the Church is symbolised by seven golden
candlesticks, or lamp-stands, supplied with oil after the manner of
that in the temple, reminding us that as the lamp can give light only
as supplied with oil, so, if the Church is to be a light in the world,
she must be continually supplied with the Spirit of God. Hence, the
injunction that the meal of the offering be kneaded with oil, and
that, of whatever form the offering be, oil should be poured upon it,
is intended, according to this usage, to teach us, that in all work
which shall be offered so as to be acceptable to God, must enter, as
an inworking and abiding agent, the life-giving Spirit of God.
It is another direction as to these meal-offerings, as also regarding
all offerings made by fire, that into them should never enter leaven
(ver. 11). The symbolical significance of this prohibition is familiar
to all. For in all leaven is a principle of decay and corruption,
which, except its continued operation be arrested betimes in our
preparation of leavened food, will soon make that in which it works
offensive to the taste. Hence, in Holy Scripture, leaven, without a
single exception, is the established symbol of spiritual corruption.
It is this, both as considered in itself, and in virtue of its power
of self-propagation in the leavened mass. Hence the Apostle Paul,
using familiar symbolism, charged the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 7) that
they "purge out from themselves the old leaven; and that they keep
festival, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". Thus, in this prohibition is
brought before us the lesson, that we take heed to keep out of those
works which we present to God for consumption on His altar the leaven
of wickedness in every form. The prohibition, in the same connection,
of honey (ver. 11) rests upon the same thought; namely, that honey,
like leaven, tends to promote fermentation and decay in that with
which it is mixed.
The Revised Version--in this case doubtless to be preferred to the
other--brings out a striking qualification of this universal
prohibition of leaven or honey, in these words (ver. 12): "As an
oblation of first-fruits ye shall offer them unto the Lord; but they
shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar."
Thus, as the prohibition of leaven and honey from the meal-offering
burned by fire upon the altar reminds us that the Holy One demands
absolute freedom from all that is corrupt in the works of His people;
on the other hand, this gracious permission to offer leaven and honey
in the first-fruits (which were _not_ burned on the altar) seems
intended to remind us that, nevertheless, from the Israelite in
covenant with God through atoning blood, He is yet graciously pleased
to accept even offerings in which sinful imperfection is found, so
that only, as in the offering of first-fruits, there be the hearty
recognition of His rightful claim, before all others, to the first and
best we have.
In ver. 13 we have a last requisition as to the material of the
meal-offering: "Every oblation of thy meal-offering shalt thou season
with salt." As leaven is a principle of impermanence and decay, so
salt, on the contrary, has the power of conservation from corruption.
Accordingly, to this day, among the most diverse peoples, salt is the
recognised symbol of incorruption and unchanging perpetuity. Among the
Arabs of to-day, for example, when a compact or covenant is made
between different parties, it is the custom that each eat of salt,
which is passed around on the blade of a sword; by which act they
regard themselves as bound to be true, each to the other, even at the
peril of life. In like manner, in India and other Eastern countries,
the usual word for perfidy and breach of faith is, literally,
"unfaithfulness to the salt;" and a man will say, "Can you distrust
me? Have I not eaten of your salt?" That the symbol has this
recognised meaning in the meal-offering is plain from the words which
follow (ver. 13): "Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant
of thy God to be wanting from thy meal-offering." In the
meal-offering, as in all offerings made by fire, the thought was this:
that Jehovah and the Israelite, as it were, partake of salt together,
in token of the eternal permanence of the holy covenant of salvation
into which Israel has entered with God.
Herein we are taught, then, that by the consecration of our labours to
God we recognise the relation between the believer and his Lord, as
not occasional and temporary, but eternal and incorruptible. In all
our consecration of our works to God, we are to keep this thought in
mind: "I am a man with whom God has entered into an everlasting
covenant, 'a covenant of salt.'"
Three varieties of the meal-offering were prescribed: the first (vv.
1-3), of uncooked meal; the second (vv. 4-11), of the same fine meal
and oil, variously prepared by cooking; the third (vv. 14-16), of the
first and best ears of the new grain, simply parched in the fire. If
any special significance is to be recognised in this variety of the
offerings, it may possibly be found in this, that one form might be
suited better than another to persons of different resources. It has
been supposed that the different implements named--the oven, the
baking-pan or plate, the frying-pan--represent, respectively, what
different classes of the people might be more or less likely to have.
This thought more certainly appears in the permission even of parched
grain, which then, as still in the East, while used more or less by
all, was especially the food of the poorest of the people; such as
might even be too poor to own so much as an oven or a baking-pan.
In any case, the variety which was permitted teaches us, that whatever
form the product of our labour may take, as determined either by our
poverty or our riches, or by whatever reason, God is graciously
willing to accept it, so the oil, frankincense, and salt be not
wanting. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to offer of it in
consecration to our redeeming Lord, though it be no more than parched
corn. The smallness or meanness of what we have to give, need not keep
us back from presenting our meal-offering.
If we have rightly understood the significance of this offering, the
ritual which is given will now easily yield us its lessons. As in the
case of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering also must be brought
unto the Lord by the offerer himself. The consecration of our works,
like the consecration of our persons, must be our own voluntary act.
Yet the offering must be delivered through the mediation of the
priest; the offerer must not presume himself to lay it on the altar.
Even so still. In this, as in all else, the Heavenly High Priest must
act in our behalf with God. We do not, by our consecration of our
works, therefore become able to dispense with His offices as Mediator
between us and God. This is the thought of many, but it is a great
mistake. No offering made to God, except in and through the appointed
Priest, can be accepted of Him.
It was next directed that the priest, having received the offering at
the hand of the worshipper, should make a twofold use of it. In the
burnt-offering the whole was to be burnt; but in the meal-offering
only a small part. The priest was to take out of the offering, in each
case, "a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar"; and then it is
added (vv. 3-10), "that which is left of the meal offering"--which
was always much the larger part--"shall be Aaron's and his sons'." The
small part taken out by the priest for the altar was burnt with fire;
and its consumption by the fire of the altar, as in the other
offerings, symbolised God's gracious acceptance and appropriation of
the offering.
But here the question naturally arises, if the total consecration of
the worshipper and his full acceptance by God, in the case of the
burnt-offering, was signified by the burning of the whole, how is it
that, in this case, where also we must think of a consecration of the
whole, yet only a small part was offered to God in the fire of the
altar? But the difficulty is only in appearance. For, no less than in
the burnt-offering, all of the meal-offering is presented to God, and
all is no less truly accepted by Him. The difference in the two cases
is only in the use to which God puts the offering. A part of the
meal-offering is burnt on the altar as "a memorial," to signify that
God takes notice of and graciously accepts the consecrated fruit of
our labours. It is called "a memorial" in that, so to speak, it
reminded the Lord of the service and devotion of His faithful servant.
The thought is well illustrated by the words of Nehemiah (v. 19), who
said: "Think upon me, O Lord, for good, according to all that I have
done for this people;" and by the word of the angel to Cornelius (Acts
x. 4): "Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before
God;" for a memorial in such wise as to procure to him a gracious
visitation.
The remaining and larger portion of the meal-offering was given to the
priest, as being the servant of God in the work of His house. To this
service he was set apart from secular occupations, that he might give
himself wholly to the duties of this office. In this he must needs be
supported; and to this end it was ordained by God that a certain part
of the various offerings should be given him, as we shall see more
fully hereafter.
In striking contrast with this ordinance, which gave the largest part
of the meal-offering to the priest, is the law that of the
frankincense he must take nothing; "all" must go up to God, with the
"memorial," in the fire of the altar (vv. 2, 16). But in consistency
with the symbolism it could not be otherwise. For the frankincense was
the emblem of prayer, adoration, and praise; of this, then, the priest
must take nought for himself. The manifest lesson is one for all who
preach the Gospel. Of the incense of praise which may ascend from the
hearts of God's people, as they minister the Word, they must take none
for themselves. "Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory."
Such then was the meaning of the meal-offering. It represents the
consecration unto God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, with prayer and
praise, of all the work of our hands; an offering with salt, but
without leaven, in token of our unchanging covenant with a holy God.
And God accepts the offerings thus presented by His people, as a
savour of a sweet smell, with which He is well pleased. We have called
this consecration a duty; is it not rather a most exalted privilege?
Only let us remember, that although our consecrated offerings are
accepted, we are not accepted because of the offerings. Most
instructive it is to observe that the meal-offerings were not to be
offered alone; a bloody sacrifice, a burnt-offering or sin-offering,
must always precede. How vividly this brings before us the truth that
it is only when first our persons have been cleansed by atoning blood,
and thus and therefore consecrated unto God, that the consecration
and acceptance of our works is possible. We are not accepted because
we consecrate our works, but our consecrated works themselves are
accepted because first we have been "accepted in the Beloved" through
faith in the blood of the holy Lamb of God.
THE DAILY MEAL-OFFERING.
vi. 14-23.
"And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron
shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall
take up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the
meal-offering and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense
which is upon the meal-offering, and shall burn it upon the altar
for a sweet savour, as the memorial thereof, unto the Lord. And
that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall
be eaten without leaven in a holy place: in the court of the tent
of meeting they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven.
I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire; it
is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering.
Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as a due
for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of the
Lord made by fire: whosoever toucheth them shall be holy. And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This is the oblation of Aaron and
of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when
he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a
meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half
thereof in the evening. On a baking-pan it shall be made with
oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in: in baken pieces
shalt thou offer the meal-offering for a sweet savour unto the
Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from
among his sons shall offer it: by a statute for ever it shall be
wholly burnt unto the Lord. And every meal-offering of the priest
shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten."
As there were not only the burnt-offerings of the individual
Israelite, but also a daily burnt-offering, morning and evening,
presented by the priest as the representative of the collective
nation, so also with the meal-offering. The law concerning this daily
meal-offering is given in chap. vi. 19. The amount in this case was
prescribed, being apparently the amount regarded as a day's portion of
food--"the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour," half of which was to
be offered in the morning and half in the evening, made on a baking
pan with oil, "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." Unlike the
meal-offering of the individual, it is said, "by a statute for ever,
it shall be wholly burnt unto the Lord.... Every meal-offering of the
priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten." This single
variation from the ordinance of chap. ii. is simply an application of
the principle which governs all the sacrifices except the
peace-offering, that he who offered any sacrifice could never himself
eat of it; and as the priest in this case was the offerer, the
symbolism required that he should himself have nothing of the
offering, as being wholly given by him to the Lord. And this
meal-offering was to be presented, not merely, as some have inferred
from ver. 20, on the day of the anointing of the high priest, but, as
is expressly said, "perpetually."
The typical meaning of the meal-offering, and, in particular, of this
daily meal-offering, which, as we learn from Exod. xxx. 39, 40, was
offered with the daily burnt-offering, is very clear. Every
meal-offering pointed to Christ in His consecration of all His works
to the Father. And as the daily burnt-offering presented by Aaron and
his sons typified our heavenly High Priest as offering His person in
daily consecration unto God in our behalf, so, in the daily
meal-offering, wholly burnt upon the altar, we see Him in like manner
offering unto God in perfect consecration, day by day, perpetually,
all His works for our acceptance. To the believer, often sorely
oppressed with the sense of the imperfection of his own consecration
of his daily works, in that because of this the Father is not
glorified by him as He should be, how exceedingly comforting this view
of Christ! For that which, at the best, we do so imperfectly and
interruptedly, He does in our behalf perfectly, and with never-failing
constancy; thus at once perfectly glorifying the Father, and also,
through the virtue of the boundless merit of this consecration,
constantly procuring for us daily grace unto the life eternal.
CHAPTER V.
_THE PEACE-OFFERING._
LEV. iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii. 21-25.
In chap. iii. is given, though not with completeness, the law of the
peace-offering. The alternative rendering of this term,
"thank-offering" (marg. R.V.), precisely expresses only one variety of
the peace-offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any
one word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception
of this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the familiar
term which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be made clear
in the sequel, it was the main object of this offering, as consisting
of a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial meal, to express
the conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship with God as
secured by the shedding of atoning blood.
Like the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, the peace-offering had
come down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not
explicitly named, in Gen. xxxi. 54, on the occasion of the covenant
between Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of
their covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exod. xviii. 12, where
"Jethro took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came
and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law
before God." Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the
burnt-offering, confined to the line of Abraham's seed. Indeed,
scarcely any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been
more universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially
connected with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of
this sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are told
(Exod. xxxii. 6) how the people, having made the golden calf,
worshipped it with peace-offerings, and sat down to eat and to drink
at the sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace-offering;
while in 1 Cor. x. Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as common
among the idolaters of Corinth.
It hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such
facts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than in
the general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen nations.
Rather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the expression on the
part of man of a sense of need and want, especially, in this case, of
friendship and fellowship with God; and, seeing that the conception of
a sacrifice culminating in a feast was, in truth, most happily adapted
to symbolise this idea, surely it were nothing strange that God should
base the ordinances of His own worship upon such universal conceptions
and customs, correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might
directly or indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to
speak, is thus already found existing, whether in letters or in
symbols, why should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar
symbolism, which, because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for
that reason, far less likely to be understood?
The plan of chap. iii. is very simple; and there is little in its
phraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the
offering of peace-offerings, first, from the herd (vv. 1-5); then,
from the flock, whether of the sheep (vv. 6-11) or of the goats (vv.
12-16). After each of these three sections it is formally declared of
each offering that it is "a sweet savour," "an offering made by fire,"
or "the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord." The chapter
then closes with a prohibition, specially occasioned by the directions
for this sacrifice, of all use by Israel of fat or blood as food.
The regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the
offering differ from those for the burnt-offering in allowing a
greater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a male;
though recorded instances of the observance of the peace-offering
indicate that the male was even here preferred when obtainable. The
offering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however, mentioned as
permissible, as in the case of the burnt-offering. But this is no
exception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since these were
excluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial meal, for
which, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient. Ordinarily, the
victim must be without blemish; and yet, even in this matter, a larger
liberty was allowed (chap. xxii. 23) in the case of those which were
termed "free-will offerings," where it was permitted to offer even a
bullock or a lamb which might have "some part superfluous or lacking."
The latitude of choice thus allowed finds its sufficient explanation
in the fact that while the idea of representation and expiation had a
place in the peace-offering as in all bloody offerings, yet this was
subordinate to the chief intent of the sacrifice, which was to
represent the victim as food given by God to Israel in the sacrificial
meal. It is to be observed that only such defects are therefore
allowed in the victim as could not possibly affect its value as food.
And so even already, in these regulations as to the selection of the
victim, we have a hint that we have now to do with a type, in which
the dominant thought is not so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our
representative, as Christ the Lamb of God, the food of the soul,
through participation in which we have fellowship with God.
As before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in
all, six, each of which, in the peace-offering, has its proper place.
Of these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the laying on of
the hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood,
are precisely the same as in the burnt-offering, and have the same
symbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt-offering and the
peace-offering, the innocent victim typified the Lamb of God,
presented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as an atonement for
sin through substitutionary death; and the sprinkling of the blood
upon the altar signifies in this, as in the other, the application of
that blood Godward by the Divine Priest acting in our behalf, and
thereby procuring for us remission of sin, redemption through the
blood of the slain Lamb.
In the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial
meal, the peace-offering stands in strong contrast with the
burnt-offering. In the burnt-offering all was burned upon the altar;
in the peace-offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed
directions which are given in the case of each class of victims are
intended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal
in which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for
each, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim,
the particular is added, according to King James's version, "the whole
rump;" but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected this
translation, giving it correctly as "the fat tail entire." The change
is an instructive one, as it points to the idea which determined this
selection of all the fat for the offering by fire. For the reference
is to a special breed of sheep which is still found in Palestine,
Arabia, and North Africa. With these, the tail grows to an immense
size, sometimes weighing fifteen pounds or more, and consists almost
entirely of a rich substance, in character between fat and marrow. By
the Orientals in the regions where this variety of sheep is found it
is still esteemed as the most valuable part of the animal for food.
And thus, just as in the meal-offering the Israelite was required to
bring out of all his grain the best, and of his meal the finest, so in
the peace-offering he is required to bring the fat, and in the case of
the sheep this fat tail, as the best and richest parts, to be burnt
upon the altar to Jehovah. And the burning, as in the whole
burnt-sacrifice, was, so to speak, the visible Divine appropriation of
that which was placed upon the altar, the best of the offering, as
appointed to be "the food of God." If the symbolism, at first thought,
perplex any, we have but to remember how frequently in Scripture "fat"
and "fatness" are used as the symbol of that which is richest and
best; as, _e.g._, where the Psalmist says, "They shall be abundantly
satisfied with the fatness of Thy house;" and Isaiah, "Come unto Me,
and let your soul delight itself in fatness." Thus when, in the
peace-offering, of which the larger part was intended for food, it is
ordered that the fat should be given to God in the fire of the altar,
the same lesson is taught as in the meal-offering, namely, God is
ever to be served first and with the best that we have. "All the fat
is the Lord's."
In the burnt-offering, the burning ended the ceremonial: in the nature
of the case, since all was to be burnt, the object of the sacrifice
was attained when the burning was completed. But in the case of the
peace-offering, to the burning of the fat upon the altar now followed
the culminating act of the ritual, in the eating of the sacrifice. In
this, however, we must distinguish from the eating by the offerer and
his household, the eating by the priests; of which only the
first-named properly belonged to the ceremonial of the sacrifice. The
assignment of certain parts of the sacrifice to be eaten by the
priests has the same meaning as in the meal-offering. These portions
were regarded in the law as given, not by the offerer, but by God, to
His servants the priests; that they might eat them, not as a
ceremonial act, but as their appointed sustenance from His table whom
they served. To this we shall return in a subsequent chapter, and
therefore need not dwell upon it here.
This eating of the sacrifice by the priests has thus not yet taken us
beyond the conception of the meal-offering, with a part of which they,
in like manner, by God's arrangement, were fed. Quite different,
however, is the sacrificial eating by the offerer which follows. He
had brought the appointed victim; it had been slain in his behalf; the
blood had been sprinkled for atonement on the altar; the fat had been
taken off and burned upon the altar; the thigh and breast had been
given back by God to the officiating priest; and now, last of all, the
offerer himself receives back from God, as it were, the remainder of
the flesh of the victim, that he himself might eat it before Jehovah.
The chapter before us gives no directions as to this sacrificial
eating; these are given in Deut. xii. 6, 7, 17, 18, to which passage,
in order to the full understanding of that which is most distinctive
in the peace-offering, we must refer. In the two verses last named, we
have a regulation which covers, not only the peace-offerings, but with
them all other sacrificial eatings, thus: "Thou mayest not eat within
thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the
firstlings of thy herd or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou
vowest, nor thy free-will offerings, nor the heave-offering of thy
hand: but thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the place
which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy
daughter, and my man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite
that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy
God in all that thou puttest thy hand unto."
In these directions are three particulars; the offerings were to be
eaten, by the offerer, not at his own home, but before Jehovah at the
central sanctuary; he was to include in this sacrificial feast all the
members of his family, and any Levite that might be stopping with him;
and he was to make the feast an occasion of holy joy before the Lord
in the labour of his hands. What was now the special significance of
all this? As this was the special characteristic of the
peace-offering, the answer to this question will point us to its true
significance, both for Israel in the first place, and then for us as
well, as a type of Him who was to come.
It is not hard to perceive the significance of a feast as a symbol. It
is a natural and suitable expression of friendship and fellowship. He
who gives the feast thereby shows to the guests his friendship toward
them, in inviting them to partake of the food of his house. And if, in
any case, there has been an interruption or breach of friendship, such
an invitation to a feast, and association in it of the formerly
alienated parties, is a declaration on the part of him who gives the
feast, as also of those who accept his invitation, that the breach is
healed, and that where there was enmity, is now peace.
So natural is this symbolism that, as above remarked, it has been a
custom very widely spread among heathen peoples to observe sacrificial
feasts, very like to this peace-offering of the Hebrews, wherein a
victim is first offered to some deity, and its flesh then eaten by the
offerer and his friends. Of such sacrificial feasts we read in ancient
Babylonia and Assyria, in Persia, and, in modern times, among the
Arabs, Hindoos, and Chinese, and various native races of the American
continent; always having the same symbolic intent and meaning--namely,
an expression of desire after friendship and intercommunion with the
deity thus worshipped. The existence of this custom in Old Testament
days is recognised in Isa. lxv. 11 (R.V.), where God charges the
idolatrous Israelites with preparing "a table for the god Fortune,"
and filling up "mingled wine unto (the goddess) Destiny"--certain
Babylonian (?) deities; and in the New Testament, as already remarked,
the Apostle Paul refers to the same custom among the idolatrous Greeks
of Corinth.
And because this symbolic meaning of a feast is as suitable and
natural as it is universal, we find that in the symbolism of Holy
Scripture, eating and drinking, and especially the feast, has been
appropriated by the Holy Spirit to express precisely the same ideas of
reconciliation, friendship, and intercommunion between the giver of
the feast and the guest, as in all the great heathen religions. We
meet this thought, for instance, in Psalm xxii. 5: "Thou preparest a
table before me in the presence of my enemies;" and in Psalm xxxvi. 8,
where it is said of God's people: "They shall be abundantly satisfied
with the fatness of Thy house;" and again, in the grand prophecy in
Isaiah, xxv., of the final redemption of all the long-estranged
nations, we read that when God shall destroy in Mount Zion "the veil
that is spread over all nations, and swallow up death for ever," then
"the Lord of hosts shall make unto all peoples a feast of fat things,
a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines
on the lees well refined." And in the New Testament, the symbolism is
taken up again, and used repeatedly by our Lord, as, for example, in
the parables of the Great Supper (Luke xiv. 15-24) and the Prodigal
Son (Luke xv. 23), the Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-14),
concerning the blessings of redemption; and also in that ordinance of
the Holy Supper, which He has appointed to be a continual reminder of
our relation to Himself, and means for the communication of His grace,
through our symbolic eating therein of the flesh of the slain Lamb of
God.
Thus, nothing in the Levitical symbolism is better certified to us
than the meaning of the feast of the peace-offering. Employing a
symbol already familiar to the world for centuries, God ordained this
eating of the peace-offering in Israel, to be the symbolic expression
of peace and fellowship with Himself. In Israel it was to be eaten
"before the Lord," and, as well it might be, "with rejoicing."
But, just at this point, the question has been raised: How are we to
conceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace-offering? Was it a
feast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast given
by God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast, who was
represented as host, and who as guest? Among other nations than the
Hebrews, it was the thought in such cases that the feast was given by
the worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an Assyrian
inscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at Nineveh,
says: "I filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I
called it 'the Palace which rivals the World.' Ashur, Ishtar of
Nineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it.
Victims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before them, and I
caused them to receive my gifts."
But here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive
contrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast and
the same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In the
heathen sacrificial feasts, it is man who feasts God; in the
peace-offering of Leviticus, it is God who feasts man. Some have
indeed denied that this is the conception of the peace-offering, but
most strangely. It is true that the offerer, in the first instance,
had brought the victim; but it seems to be forgotten by such, that
prior to the feasting he had already given the victim to God, to be
offered in expiation for sin. From that time the victim was no longer,
any part of it, his own property, but God's. God having received the
offering, now directs what use shall be made of it; a part shall be
burned upon the altar; another part He gives to the priests, His
servants; with the remaining part He now feasts the worshipper.
And as if to make this clearer yet, while Esarhaddon, for example,
gives his feast to the gods, not in their temples, but in his own
palace, as himself the host and giver of the feast, the Israelite, on
the contrary,--that he might not, like the heathen, complacently
imagine himself to be feasting God,--is directed to eat the
peace-offering, not at his own house, but at God's house. In this way
God was set forth as the host, the One who gave the feast, to whose
house the Israelite was invited, at whose table he was to eat.
Profoundly suggestive and instructive is this contrast between the
heathen custom in this offering, and the Levitical ordinance. For do
we not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all
of man's religion, and the Gospel of God? Man's idea always is, until
taught better by God, "I will be religious and make God my friend, by
doing something, giving something for God." God, on the contrary,
teaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact reverse;
that we become truly religious by taking, first of all, with
thankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of
friendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen
rituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also, in both, a desire for
its removal, and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former, man
ever seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by something
that he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and thus God shall
be well pleased. But God's way is the opposite! The sacrificial feast
at which man shall have fellowship with God is provided not by man for
God, but by God for man, and is to be eaten, not in our house, but
spiritually partaken in the presence of the invisible God.
We can now perceive the teaching of the peace-offering for Israel. In
Israel, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after
fellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace-offering
taught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be
realised. The first thing was for him to bring and present a
divinely-appointed victim; and then, the laying of the hand upon his
head with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the
sprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to God
in the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol expiation
had been thus made for the Israelite's sin, there could be no feast
which should speak of friendship and fellowship with God. But this
being first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness and
restoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast in His
own house.
What a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when
once pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a
dear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his
house, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are
troubled, and perhaps seek out one who is our friend's friend and also
our friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to reconcile
to us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we anxiously
await his return; but or ever he has come back again, comes an
invitation from him who was estranged, just in the old loving way,
asking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one of us would
understand this; we should be sure at once that the mediator had
healed the breach, that we were forgiven, and were welcome as of old
to all that our friend's friendship had to give.
But God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord Jesus,
His beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator; and He
has healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in offering
His own body as a sacrifice, He has ascended into heaven, there to
appear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet returned. But
meantime the message comes down from Him to all who are hungering
after peace with God: "The feast is made; and ye all are invited;
come! all things are now ready!" And this is the message of the
Gospel. It is the peace-offering translated into words. Can we
hesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent in our
acceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we are to
eat "with rejoicing."
And now we may well observe another circumstance of profound typical
significance. When the Israelite came to God's house to eat before
Jehovah, he was fed there with the flesh of the slain victim. The
flesh of that very victim whose blood had been given for him on the
altar, now becomes his food to sustain the life thus redeemed. Whether
the Israelite saw into the full meaning of this, we may easily doubt;
but it leads us on now to consider, in the clearer light of the New
Testament, the deepest significance of the peace-offering and its
ritual, as typical of our Lord and our relation to Him.
That the victim of the peace-offering, as of all the bloody offerings,
was intended to typify Christ, and that the death of that victim, in
the peace-offering, as in all the bloody offerings, foreshadowed the
death of Christ for our sins,--this needs no further proof. And so,
again, as the burning of the whole burnt-offering represented Christ
as accepted for us in virtue of His perfect consecration to the
Father, so the peace-offering, in that the fat is burned, represents
Christ as accepted for us, in that He gave to God in our behalf the
very best He had to offer. For in that incomparable sacrifice we are
to think not only of the completeness of Christ's consecration for us,
but also of the supreme excellence of that which He offered unto God
for us. All that was best in Him, reason, affection, and will, as well
as the members of His holy body,--nay, the Godhead as well as the
Manhood, in the holy mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation, He
offered for us unto the Father.
This, however, has taken us as yet but little beyond the meaning of
the burnt-offering. The closing act of the ritual, the sacrificial
eating, however, reaches in its typical significance far beyond this
or any of the bloody offerings.
First, in that he who had laid his hand upon the victim, and for whom
the blood had been sprinkled, is now invited by God to feast in His
house, upon food given by himself, the food of the sacrifice, which is
called in the ritual "the bread of God," the eating of the
peace-offering symbolically teaches us that if we have indeed
presented the Lamb of God as our peace, not only has the Priest
sprinkled for us the blood, so that our sin is pardoned, but, in token
of friendship now restored, God invites the penitent believer to sit
down at His own table,--in a word, to joyful fellowship with Himself!
Which means, if our weak faith but take it in, that the Almighty and
Most Holy God now invites us to fellowship in all the riches of His
Godhead; places all that He has at the service of the believing
sinner, redeemed by the blood of the slain Lamb. The prodigal has
returned; the Father will now feast him with the best that He has.
Fellowship with God through reconciliation by the blood of the slain
Lamb,--this then is the first thing shadowed forth in this part of
the ritual of the peace-offering. It is a sufficiently wonderful
thought, but there is truth yet more wonderful veiled under this
symbolism.
For when we ask, what then was the bread or food of God, of which He
invited him to partake who brought the peace-offering, and learn that
it was the flesh of the slain victim; here we meet a thought which
goes far beyond atonement by the shedding of blood. The same victim
whose blood was shed and sprinkled in atonement for sin is now given
by God to be the redeemed Israelite's food, by which his life shall be
sustained! Surely we cannot mistake the meaning of this. For the
victim of the altar and the food of the table are one and the same.
Even so He who offered Himself for our sins on Calvary, is now given
by God to be the food of the believer; who now thus lives by "eating
the flesh" of the slain Lamb of God. Does this imagery, at first
thought, seem strange and unnatural? So did it also seem strange to
the Jews, when in reply to our Lord's teaching they wonderingly asked
(John vi. 52), "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" And yet so
Christ spoke; and when He had first declared Himself to the Jews as
the Antitype of the manna, the true Bread sent down from heaven, He
then went on to say, in words which far transcended the meaning of
that type (John vi. 51), "The bread which I will give is My flesh, for
the life of the world." How the light begins now to flash back from
the Gospel to the Levitical law, and from this, again, back to the
Gospel! In the one we read, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your
peace-offerings before the Lord with joy;" in the other, the word of
the Lord Jesus concerning Himself (John vi. 33, 55, 57): "The bread of
God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the
world.... My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.... As
the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he
that eateth Me, he also shall live because of Me." And now the
Shekinah light of the ancient tent of meeting begins to illumine even
the sacramental table, and as we listen to the words of Jesus, "Take,
eat! this is My body which was broken for you," we are reminded of the
feast of the peace-offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the
flesh of the sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.
Let us hold fast then to this deepest thought of the peace-offering, a
truth too little understood even by many true believers. The very
Christ who died for our sins, if we have by faith accepted His
atonement and have been for His sake forgiven, is now given us by God
for the sustenance of our purchased life. Let us make use of Him,
daily feeding upon Him, that so we may live and grow unto the life
eternal!
But there is yet one thought more concerning this matter, which the
peace-offering, as far as was possible, shadowed forth. Although
Christ becomes the bread of God for us only through His offering of
Himself first for our sins, as our atonement, yet this is something
quite distinct from atonement. Christ became our sacrifice once for
all; the atonement is wholly a fact of the past. But Christ is now
still, and will ever continue to be unto all His people, the bread or
food of God, by eating whom they live. He was the propitiation, as the
slain victim; but, in virtue of that, He is now become the flesh of
the peace-offering. Hence He must be this, not as dead, but as living,
in the present resurrection life of His glorified humanity. Here
evidently is a fact which could not be directly symbolised in the
peace-offering without a miracle ever repeated. For Israel ate of the
victim, not as living, but as dead. It could not be otherwise. And yet
there is a regulation of the ritual (chap. vii. 15-18; xix. 6, 7)
which suggests this phase of truth as clearly as possible without a
miracle. It was ordered that none of the flesh of the peace-offering
should be allowed to remain beyond the third day; if any then was left
uneaten, it was to be burned with fire. The reason for this lies upon
the surface. It was doubtless that there might be no possible
beginning of decay; and thus it was secured that the flesh of the
victim with which God fed the accepted Israelite should be the flesh
of a victim that was not to see corruption. But does not this at once
remind us how it was written of the Antitype, "Thou wilt not suffer
Thy Holy One to see corruption"? while, moreover, the extreme limit of
time allowed further reminds us how it was precisely on the third day
that Christ rose from the dead in the incorruptible life of the
resurrection, that so He might through all time continue to be the
living bread of His people.
And thus this special regulation points us not indistinctly toward the
New Testament truth that Christ is now unto us the bread of God, not
merely as the One who died, but as the One who, living again, was not
allowed to see corruption. For so the Apostle argues (Rom. v. 11),
that "being justified by faith," and so having "peace with God through
our Lord Jesus Christ," our peace-offering, having been thus
"reconciled by His death, we shall now be saved by His life." And
thus, as we appropriate Christ crucified as our atonement, so by a
like faith we are to appropriate Christ risen as our life, to be for
us as the flesh of the peace-offering, our nourishment and strength by
which we live.
THE PROHIBITION OF FAT AND BLOOD.
iii. 16, 17; vii. 22-27; xvii. 10-16.
"And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of
the offering made by fire, for a sweet savour: all the fat is the
Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat
nor blood.... And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto
the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or
sheep, or goat. And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and
the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any
other service: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever
eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made
by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut
off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether
it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it
be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his
people.... And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or
of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner
of blood; I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood,
and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall
any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever
man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl
that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover
it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof
is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:
for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which dieth
of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be
homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe
himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be
clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he
shall bear his iniquity."
The chapter concerning the peace-offering ends (vv. 16, 17) with these
words: "All the fat is the Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute for
you throughout your generations, that ye shall eat neither fat nor
blood."
To this prohibition so much importance was attached that in the
supplemental "law of the peace-offering" (vii. 22-27) it is repeated
with added explanation and solemn warning, thus: "And the Lord spake
unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye
shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the
fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is
torn with beasts, may be used for any other service: but ye shall in
no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which
men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that
eateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner
of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from
his people."
From which it appears that this prohibition of the eating of fat
referred only to the fat of such beasts as were used for sacrifice.
With these, however, the law was absolute, whether the animal was
presented for sacrifice, or only slain for food. It held good with
regard to these animals, even when, because of the manner of their
death, they could not be used for sacrifice. In such cases, though the
fat might be used for other purposes, still it must not be used for
food.
The prohibition of the blood as food appears from xvii. 10 to have
been absolutely universal; it is said, "Whatsoever man there be of the
house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that
eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that
eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
The reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood, whether in the
case of the sacrificial feasts of the peace-offerings or on other
occasions, is given (xvii. 11, 12), in these words: "For the life of
the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh
atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger
that sojourneth among you eat blood."
And the prohibition is then extended to include not only the blood of
animals which were used upon the altar, but also such as were taken in
hunting, thus (ver. 13): "And whatsoever man there be of the children
of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh
in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the
blood thereof, and cover it with dust," as something of peculiar
sanctity; and then the reason previously given is repeated with
emphasis (ver. 14): "For as to the life of all flesh, the blood
thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for
the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall
be cut off."
And since, when an animal died from natural causes, or through being
torn of a beast, the blood would be drawn from the flesh either not at
all or but imperfectly, as further guarding against the possibility of
eating blood, it is ordered (vv. 15, 16) that he who does this shall
be held unclean: "Every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself,
or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a
stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and
be unclean until the even. But if he wash them not nor bathe his
flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity."
These passages explicitly state the reason for the prohibition by God
of the use of blood for food to be the fact that, as the vehicle of
the life, it has been appointed by Him as the means of expiation for
sin upon the altar. And the reason for the prohibition of the fat is
similar; namely, its appropriation for God upon the altar, as in the
peace-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings; "all the
fat is the Lord's."
Thus the Israelite, by these two prohibitions, was to be continually
reminded, so often as he partook of his daily food, of two things: by
the one, of atonement by the blood as the only ground of acceptance;
and by the other, of God's claim on the man redeemed by the blood, for
the consecration of his best. Not only so, but by the frequent
repetition, and still more by the heavy penalty attached to the
violation of these laws, he was reminded of the exceeding importance
that these two things had in the mind of God. If he eat the blood of
any animal claimed by God for the altar, he should be cut off from his
people; that is, outlawed, and cut off from all covenant privilege as
a citizen of the kingdom of God in Israel. And even though the blood
were that of the beast taken in the chase, still ceremonial
purification was required as the condition of resuming his covenant
position.
Nothing, doubtless, seems to most Christians of our day more remote
from practical religion than these regulations touching the fat and
the blood, which are brought before us with such fulness in the law of
the peace-offering and elsewhere. And yet nothing is of more
present-day importance in this law than the principles which underlie
these regulations. For as with type, so with antitype. No less
essential to the admission of the sinful man into that blessed
fellowship with a reconciled God, which the peace-offering typified,
is the recognition of the supreme sanctity of the precious sacrificial
blood of the Lamb of God; no less essential to the life of happy
communion with God, is the ready consecration of the best fruit of our
life to Him.
Surely, both of these, and especially the first, are truths for our
time. For no observing man can fail to recognise the very ominous fact
that a constantly increasing number, even of professed preachers of
the Gospel, in so many words refuse to recognise the place which
propitiatory blood has in the Gospel of Christ, and to admit its
pre-eminent sanctity as consisting in this, that it was given on the
altar to make atonement for our souls. Nor has the present generation
outgrown the need of the other reminder touching the consecration of
the best to the Lord. How many there are, comfortable, easy-going
Christians, whose principle--if one might speak in the idiom of the
Mosaic law--would rather seem to be, ever to give the lean to God, and
keep the fat, the best fruit of their life and activity, for
themselves! Such need to be most urgently and solemnly reminded that
in spirit the warning against the eating of the blood and the fat is
in full force. It was written of such as should break this law, "that
soul shall be cut off from his people." And so in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (x. 26-29) we find one of its most solemn warnings directed to
those who "count this blood of the covenant," the blood of Christ, "an
unholy (_i.e._, common) thing;" as exposed by this, their
undervaluation of the sanctity of the blood, to a "sorer punishment"
than overtook him that "set at nought Moses' law," even the
retribution of Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith
the Lord."
And so in this law of the peace-offerings, which ordains the
conditions of the holy feast of fellowship with a reconciled God, we
find these two things made fundamental in the symbolism: full
recognition of the sanctity of the blood as that which atones for the
soul; and the full consecration of the redeemed and pardoned soul to
the Lord. So was it in the symbol; and so shall it be when the
sacrificial feast shall at last receive its most complete fulfilment
in the communion of the redeemed with Christ in glory. There will be
no differences of opinion then and there, either as to the
transcendent value of that precious blood which made atonement, or as
to the full consecration which such a redemption requires from the
redeemed.
THANK-OFFERINGS, VOWS, AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS.
vii. 11-21.
"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which
one shall offer unto the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving,
then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened
cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil,
and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked. With cakes of
leavened bread he shall offer his oblation with the sacrifice of
his peace-offerings for thanksgiving. And of it he shall offer
one out of each oblation for an heave-offering unto the Lord; it
shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the
peace-offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his
peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his
oblation; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. But if
the sacrifice of his oblation be a vow, or a freewill offering,
it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his sacrifice: and
on the morrow that which remaineth of it shall be eaten: but that
which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day
shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the
sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten on the third day, it
shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that
offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth
of it shall bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any
unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.
And as for the flesh, everyone that is clean shall eat thereof:
but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of
peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his
uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness
of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat
of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that soul shall
be cut off from his people."
According to this supplemental section on the law of the
peace-offerings, these were of three kinds; namely, "sacrifices of
thanksgiving," "vows," and "freewill-offerings." The first were
offered in token of gratitude for mercies received; as in Psalm cxvi.
16, 17, where we read: "Thou hast loosed my bonds; I will offer to
Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving." The second, like these, were
offered also in grateful return for prayer answered and mercy
received, but with the difference that they were promised before, upon
the condition of the prayer for mercy being granted. Lastly, the
freewill-offerings were those which had no special occasion, but were
merely the spontaneous expression of the love of the offerer to God,
and his desire to live in friendship and fellowship with Him. It is
apparently these freewill-offerings that we are to recognise in the
many instances recorded where the peace-offering was presented in
connection with supplication for special help and favour from God; as,
_e.g._, when (Judges xx. 26) Israel supplicated mercy from God after
their disastrous defeat in the civil war with the tribe of Benjamin;
and when David entreated the Lord (2 Sam. xxiv. 25) for the staying of
the plague in Israel.
With not only the thank-offering, but all peace-offerings, as is clear
from Numb. xv. 2-4, a full meal-offering, consisting of three kinds of
unleavened cakes, was to be offered, of each of which, one was to be
presented as a heave-offering, with the heave-shoulder of the
sacrifice, to the Lord (vii. 12). For the sacrificial feast, in which
the offerer, his family, and friends were to partake, he was also to
bring cakes of leavened bread, which, however, though eaten before God
by the offerer, might not be presented unto God for a heave-offering,
nor come upon the altar (ver. 13).
From what we have already seen, the spiritual meaning of this will be
clear. Thus in symbol the Israelite offered unto God, with his life,
the fruit of the labour of his hands, in gratitude to Him, and
expressed his happy consciousness of friendship and fellowship with
God through atonement, by feasting before Him. The leavened bread is
offered simply, as Bähr suggests, as the usual accompaniment to a
feast; though regard is still had to the fact, never once forgotten in
Holy Scripture, that leaven is nevertheless an element and symbol of
corruption; so that however the reconciled Israelite may eat his
leavened bread before God, yet it cannot be allowed to come upon the
altar of the Most Holy One.
Two slight differences appear in the ritual for the different kinds of
peace-offerings. First, in the case of the freewill-offering, a single
exception is allowed to the general rule that the victim must be
without blemish, in the permission to offer what, otherwise perfect,
might have "anything superfluous or lacking" in its parts (xxii. 23);
a circumstance which could not affect its fitness as the symbol of
spiritual food. For a vow (and, we may infer, for a thank-offering
also) such a victim, however, could not be offered; evidently because
it would seem peculiarly unsuitable, where the object of the offering
was to make in some sense a return for the always perfect and most
gracious gifts of God, that anything else than the absolutely perfect
should be offered. In the case of the thank-offering, again, an
exception is made to the general regulation permitting the eating of
the offering on the first and second days, requiring that all be eaten
on the day that it is presented, or else be burnt with fire (vii. 15).
We need seek for no spiritual meaning in this. A sufficient reason for
this special restriction in this case is probably to be found in the
consideration that as this was the most common variety of the
offering, there was the most danger that the flesh, by some oversight,
might be kept too long. The flesh of the victim offered to God, the
type of the Victim of Calvary, must on no account be allowed to see
corruption; and to this end every needed precaution must be taken,
that by no chance it shall remain unconsumed on the third day.
It is easy to connect the special characteristics of these several
varieties of the peace-offering with the great Antitype. So may we use
Him as our thank-offering; for what more fitting as an expression of
gratitude and love to God for mercies received, than renewed and
special fellowship with Him through feeding upon Christ as the slain
Lamb? So also we may thus use Christ in our vows; as when,
supplicating mercy, we promise and engage that if our prayer be heard
we will renewedly consecrate our service to the Lord, as in the
meal-offering, and anew enter into life-giving fellowship with Him
through feeding by faith on the flesh of the Lord. And it is
beautifully hinted in the permission of the use of leaven in this
feast of the peace-offering, that while the work of the believer, as
presented to God in grateful acknowledgment of His mercies, is ever
affected with the taint of his native corruption, so that it cannot
come upon the altar where satisfaction is made for sin, yet God is
graciously pleased, for the sake of the great Sacrifice, to accept
such imperfect service offered to Him, and make it in turn a blessing
to us, as we offer it in His presence, rejoicing in the work of our
hands before Him.
But there was one condition without which the Israelite could not have
communion with God in the peace-offering. He must be clean! even as
the flesh of the peace-offering must be clean also. There must be in
him nothing which should interrupt covenant fellowship with God; as
nothing in the type which should make it an unfit symbol of the
Antitype. For it was ordered (vii. 19-21), as regards every possible
occasion of uncleanness, thus: "The flesh that toucheth any unclean
thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. As for the
flesh, every one that is clean shall eat thereof; but the soul that
eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain
unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut
off from his people. And when any one shall touch any unclean thing,
the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean
abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,
that soul shall be cut off from his people."
In such cases, he must first go and purify himself, as provided in the
law; and then, and then only, presume to come to eat before the Lord.
And so Israel was ever impressively reminded that he who would have
fellowship with God, and eat in happy fellowship with Him at His
table, must keep himself pure. So by the spirit of these commands are
we no less warned that we take not encouragement from God's grace, in
providing for us the flesh of the Lamb as our food, to be careless in
walk and life. If we will use Christ as our peace-offering, we must
keep ourselves "unspotted from the world;" must hate "even the garment
spotted by the flesh," remembering ever that it is written in the New
Testament (1 Peter i. 15, 16), with direct reference to the typical
law of Leviticus: "As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves
also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be
holy; for I am holy."
CHAPTER VI.
_THE SIN-OFFERING._
LEV. iv. 1-35.
Both in the burnt-offering and in the peace-offering, Israel was
taught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God
must begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But
this was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings;
neither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to
particular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never
prescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement,
not so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.
But the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more than
sin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in some
overt act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this section
of the law (iv. 1-v. 13), the sin-offering; an offering which should
bring out into sole and peculiar prominence the thought revealed in
other sacrifices more imperfectly, that in order to pardon of sin,
there must be expiation. There was indeed a limitation to the
application of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned
wilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the phrase is, "with a
high hand," there was no provision made in the law for his
restoration to covenant standing. "He that despised Moses' law died
without mercy under two or three witnesses;" he was "cut off from his
people." But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a
spirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their
guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or
inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal
by means of the atonement of the sin- and the guilt-offerings. By
means of these, accompanied also with full restitution of the wrong
done, when such restitution was possible, the guilty one might be
restored in those days to his place as an accepted citizen of the
kingdom of God.
No part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching
truth than the law of the sin-offering. First of all, it is of
consequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning
sacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance.
For so runs the general statement with which this section opens (ver.
2): "If any one shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the
Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them." And to
these are afterwards added sins committed through rashness, the result
rather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate purpose of
sin; as, for instance, in chap. v. 4: "Whatsoever it be that a man
shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him." Besides
these, in the same section (vv. 1-4) as also in all the cases
mentioned under the guilt-offering, and the special instance of a
wrong done to a slave-girl (xix. 21), a number of additional offences
are mentioned which all seem to have their special palliation, not
indeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but in the nature of the acts
themselves, as admitting of reparation. For all such it was also
ordained that the offender should bring a sin- (or a guilt-) offering,
and that by this, atonement being made for him, his sin might be
forgiven.
All this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring before
us, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures. We think
often of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes note of
every sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity in that He
notes no less carefully every circumstance that may palliate our sin.
We thankfully recognise in these words the spirit of Him of whom it
was said (Heb. v. 2, marg.) that in the days of His flesh He could
"reasonably bear with the ignorant;" and who said concerning those who
know not their Master's will and do it not (Luke xii. 48), that their
"st
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/42334