THE Greek version of the SEPTUAGINT, and the VULGATE Latin, have given the title of LEVITICUS to the third book of the Pentateuch, and the name has been retained in almost all the modern versions. The book was thus called because it treats principally of the laws and regulations of the Levites and priests in general. In Hebrew it is termed ויקרא Vaiyikra, “And he called,” which is the first word in the book, and which, as in preceding cases, became the running title to the whole. It contains an account of the ceremonies to be observed in the offering of burnt-sacrifices; meat, peace, and sin-offerings; the consecration of priests, together with the institution of the three grand national festivals of the Jews, the PASSOVER, PENTECOST, and TABERNACLES, with a great variety of other ecclesiastical matters. It seems to contain little more than the history of what passed during the eight days of the consecration of Aaron and his sons, though Archbishop Usher supposes that it comprises the history of the transactions of a whole month, viz., from April 21 to May 21, of the year of the world 2514, which answers to the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt. As there are no data by which any chronological arrangement of the facts mentioned in it can be made, it would be useless to encumber the page with conjectures which, because uncertain, can answer no end to the serious reader for doctrine, reproof, or edification in righteousness. As the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, the whole sacrificial system was intended to point out that Lamb of God, Christ Jesus, who takes away the sin of the world. In reading over this book, this point should be kept particularly in view, as without this spiritual reference no interest can be excited by a perusal of the work.
The principal events recorded in this book may be thus deduced in the order of the chapters:
Moses having set up the tabernacle, as has been related in the conclusion of the preceding book; and the cloud of the Divine glory, the symbol of the presence of God, having rested upon it; God called to him out of this tabernacle, and delivered the laws and precepts contained in the seven first chapters.
In chap. 1. he prescribes every thing relative to the nature and quality of burnt offerings, and the ceremonies which should be observed, as well by the person who brought the sacrifice as by the priest who offered it. In chap. 2. he treats of meat-offerings of fine flour with oil and frankincense; of cakes, and the oblations of first-fruits. Chap. 3. treats of peace-offerings, prescribes the ceremonies to be used in such offerings, and the parts which should be consumed by fire. Chap. 4. treats of the offerings made for sins of ignorance; for the sins of the priests, rulers, and of the common people.
Chap. 5. treats of the sin of him who, being adjured as a witness, conceals his knowledge of a fact; the case of him who touches an unclean thing; of him who binds himself by a vow or an oath; and of trespass-offerings in cases of sacrilege, and in sins of ignorance.
Chap. 6. treats of the trespass-offerings for sins knowingly committed; and of the offerings for the priests, the parts which should be consumed, and the parts which should be considered as the priests’ portion. And in Chap.
7. the same subject is continued.
Chap. 8. treats of the consecration of Aaron and his sons; their sin-offering; burnt-offering; ram of consecration; and the time during which these solemn rites should continue.
Chap. 9. After Aaron and his sons were consecrated, on the eighth day they were commanded to offer sin-offerings and burnt-offerings for themselves and for the people, which they accordingly did, and Aaron and Moses having blessed the people, a fire came forth from before the Lord, and consumed the offering that was laid upon the altar.
Chap. 10. Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, having offered strange fire before the Lord, are consumed; and the priests are forbidden the use of wine and all inebriating liquors.
Chap. 11. treats of clean and unclean beasts, fishes, birds, and reptiles. Chap. 12. treats of the purification of women after child-birth, and the offerings they should present before the Lord.
Chap. 13. prescribes the manner of discerning the infection of the leprosy in persons, garments, and houses.
Chap. 14. prescribes the sacrifices and ceremonies which should be offered by those who were cleansed from the leprosy.
Chap. 15. treats of certain uncleannesses in man and woman; and of their purifications.
Chap. 16. treats of the solemn yearly expiation to be made for the sins of the priest and of the people, of the goat and bullock for a sacrifice, and of the scape-goat; all which should be offered annually on the tenth day of the seventh month.
Chap. 17. The Israelites are commanded to offer all their sacrifices at the tabernacle; the eating of blood is prohibited, as also the flesh of those animals which die of themselves, and of those that are torn by dogs. Chap. 18. shows the different degrees within which marriages were not to be contracted, and prohibits various acts of impurity.
Chap. 19. recapitulates a variety of laws which had been mentioned in the preceding book, (Exodus,) and adds several new ones.
Chap. 20. prohibits the consecration of their children to Molech, forbids their consulting wizards and those which had familiar spirits, and also a variety of incestuous and unnatural mixtures.
Chap. 21. gives different ordinances concerning the mourning and marriages of priests, and prohibits those from the sacerdotal office who have certain personal defects.
Chap. 22. treats of those infirmities and uncleannesses which rendered the priests unfit to officiate in sacred things, and lays down directions for the perfection of the sacrifices which should be offered to the Lord. Chap. 23. treats of the Sabbath and the great annual festivals-the passover, pentecost, feast of trumpets, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles.
Chap. 24. treats of the oil for the lamps, and the shew-bread; the law concerning which had already been given, see Exodus xxv., &c.; mentions the case of the person who blasphemed God, and his punishment; lays down the law in cases of blasphemy and murder; and recapitulates the lex talionis, or law of like for like, prescribed Exodus xxi. Chap. 25. recapitulates the law, given Exodus xxiii., relative to the Sabbatical year; prescribes the year of jubilee; and lays down a variety of statutes relative to mercy, kindness, benevolence, charity, &c. Chap. 26. prohibits idolatry, promises a great variety of blessings to the obedient, and threatens the disobedient with many and grievous curses. Chap. 27. treats of vows, of things devoted, and of the tithes which should be given for the service of the tabernacle.
No Chronological Table can be affixed to this book, as the transactions of it seem to have been included within the space of eight days, or of a month at the utmost, as we have already seen. And even some of the facts related here seem to have taken place previously to the erection of the tabernacle; nor is the order in which the others occurred so distinguished as to enable us to lay down the precise days in which they took place. THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS
-Year before the common Year of Christ, 1490.
-Julian Period, 3224.
-Cycle of the Sun, 27.
-Dominical Letter, D.
-Cycle of the Moon, 9.
-Indiction, 6.
-Creation from Tisri or September, 2514.
Joseph Benson
Argument
BEN_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 442
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED
LEVITICUS.
ARGUMENT.
THIS book contains the actions of about one month. It is chiefly employed in describing the sacrifices and services of the tabernacle, to be performed by Aaron the Levite, as he is called, Exodus 4:14, and by his sons, who alone had the office of priesthood in the tribe of Levi, and is therefore termed by the Greek and Latin translators LEVITICUS: and that part of the Jewish religion which is ceremonial, is fitly denominated the Levitical law. These ceremonial services are reducible to the following heads: — I. Sacrifices. These, (from the constant and early use of them, recorded in the book of Genesis,) there is reason to think, were appointed by God himself, immediately upon the fall of man, as a temporary expedient, prefiguring that great sacrifice of his Son, whereby he had determined in his counsel to expiate the sins of the world. We find there were principally two kinds of sacrifices: the one expiatory, or atoning for sins, whereby the Saviour of the world, by whose blood alone we have remission of sins and reconciliation with God, was signified; the other eucharistical, or those which were offered by way of thanksgiving, in return for blessings and mercies received. These sacrifices had, too, a relation to spiritual worship, and pointed out several moral duties; while the whole was a typical scheme, and fit introduction to the more perfect dispensation of the Messiah, by whom both they and we were to receive our full atonement and reconciliation with God. II. Purifications from various kinds of legal uncleanness; which, though they cannot be denied to have been a troublesome branch of the Jewish religion, and one of those circumstances which denominated it an elementary institution, and a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were well able to bear, were not, however, intended to terminate in mere ritual observance. They were most apt significations of inward and substantial holiness; such as devotedness to God, and purity of heart and life. III. The solemn festivals; the observance whereof was so far from being a needless institution, that they appear to have been exceeding proper for preserving the whole nation in the practice of true, and from the corruptions of false religion. They were thankful commemorations of signal national mercies. And by their constant attendance upon these joyful solemnities, at so many stated times of the year, and at the one fixed place of national worship, they went through those courses of divine service, and such acts of kindness, generosity, and charity to each other, as tended to confirm them in the true religion, and in the love of that happy constitution. IV. As to the civil and judicial laws here prescribed, they cannot but seem to any reasonable man to be far the best body of rules that are to be found in the records of any nation; as making the surest provision for the honour of magistracy and government, and for securing the rights and properties of the people: and not only so, but for advancing that benevolence and mutual love, as well as common justice to each other, which are the strongest cements of society. V. The historical parts of this book are few, but very instructive: chiefly for creating in men a just veneration for all persons and things consecrated to the special service of God.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus.
SUT_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 301
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES,
CALLED LEVITICUS.
The LEVITICUM, which is the proper name of this book, amply describes the ceremonial law. The Hebrews called it the law of priesthood. The seven first chapters treat of the quality and variety of the sacrifices; and to the twenty third chapter, of the priests and inferior levites, and of their consecration and offices. From thence to the end of the book, the times of sacrifice, and of the feasts, are particularly named. One great reason for this splendid ritual was to draw the people to internal devotion, by tracing as far as they were able, its mystical import, which was full of evangelical glory, as is shown by the apostle’s illustrations, in his epistle to the Hebrews. The levitical sacrifices had in themselves no merit, they were merely shadows of good things to come, and were on that account acceptable to the Lord. The sacrifices were indeed diversified, the principal ones consisting of sheep and oxen, though the Hebrew word for sheep included goats, doves, and other offerings; yet all of them when offered in sacrifice, had reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts is primitive, as appears from the selection of the various animals which entered the Ark. St. Jerome regards every item of the jewish ritual as replete with evangelical significancy, and as shadowing forth the mediatorial glory of Christ.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction.
WHD_CO02.PDF, source PDF p. 7
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 10: “the latter are the קרבן, korban, from a verb”. paragraph 15: “primary meaning is sin, αμαρτια. its secondary signification is”; “the חטאת, chattath, is the sin”. source PDF page 12: “was always bloody. The חשׂאת chattath, is the sin”; “the latter are the קרבנ korban, from a verb”. Compared with WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 7, WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 12, WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 13. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 7; WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 12; WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 13; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified); Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
LEVITICUS
INTRODUCTION.
Name, Character, and Author.
(1.) The third book of the Pentateuch was denominated by the Jews the Vayikra, from the initial word, “And he called out.” Since the Seventy translated it into Greek it has been known in all the European languages by the name of LEVITICUS, from the prominent part in the sacrificial ritual performed by the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. But since the term Leviticus suggests the Levites, who are mentioned but once in the entire book, and then incidentally and proleptically, (Leviticus 25:32, 33,) in relation to the redemption of houses, we think that the Seventy applied a misnomer to this book. The Talmud, with less brevity but more truth, calls it, The Law of the Priests, and also, The Book of the Law of Offerings. It is the rubric of that minute and burdensome system of sacrifices which Jehovah, in his wisdom, devised for the spiritual culture of the Hebrews, and for prefiguring “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” The only historical portion is that relating to the consecration of Aaron and his sons, their first offering of sacrifice, the judicial death of Aaron’s two elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, (chap. 8-10:7,) and the arrest and execution of a blasphemer. Leviticus 24:10-23. The space of time covered by this book is one month. For our data compare Exodus 40:17 with Numbers 1:1. The cursory reader discovers no orderly arrangement of topics, but the patient student discovers deep underlying principles which give system and symmetry to the contents of the book. In addition to its great value in the interpretation of the New Testament, wholly written by persons of Jewish faith, and in elucidating their conception of Christian doctrine, especially the atonement, and of the exegesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is a repository of Jewish antiquities. It is, moreover, a book deeply interesting to scientists, as containing the earliest classifications of zoology and ornithology, and a minute diagnosis of the dreadful scourge of the leprosy. The commingling of facts and laws of which the events are the occasion, as in the Book of Numbers, strongly confirms the genuineness of the book and the authenticity of its statements. See Introduction to Numbers.
The Mosaic authorship of Leviticus has been less questioned by modern critics than any other book of the Law. The Documentists, while finding, or fancying they find, evidences of the composite character of the book, are candid enough to admit that the principal part bears the stamp of the Mosaic age. Says Bleek, a strong advocate of the documentary theory: “As regards the union of different laws, and short collections of laws in our book of Leviticus, De Wette made out (Einleitung, first to fourth editions) that after Genesis and Exodus were composed, the various parts of Leviticus were added, generally by different compilers. This supposition, however, according to what has gone before, is quite inadmissible, and has been tacitly retracted even by De Wette himself in the fifth and sixth editions.” This recoil of the great German critic from the extremes of daring and unfounded assumptions against the Mosaic origin of the Levitical laws is a sufficient answer to the flippant assertion of England’s arithmetical bishop: “Thus the whole of Leviticus appears to be of later origin, composed either during or after the captivity, some of the laws apparently by Ezekiel, and other portions probably by fellow-priests of the same age, who were anxious to establish a stricter ritual in Israel.” The last clause of this sentence suggests its answer. Puritan laws can be originated and enforced only in a Puritan age. The era of Moses was the Puritan age in the history of the Hebrews. The era of Ezekiel, by the admission of Colenso, was a degenerate age; and yet the prophet-priest and his associated forgers succeeded in interpolating into the fundamental constitution of their nation, out of their own fertile imaginations, the whole book of Leviticus! Of a declaration so absurd we cannot, with Horace, say, “Credat Judaeus,” for no true Jew, much less can any true Christian, so stultify himself as to give his assent to a statement so extraordinary. It involves a miracle greater than those believed by Jew or Christian. Rationalism always has been more credulous than orthodoxy. Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices.
(2.) In approaching the great sacrificial book of the Bible, it becomes necessary to survey, and briefly discuss, the sacrifices offered before the institutions of that legal code of ritualism contained in Leviticus. From Abel to Moses altars were built and victims flamed sending heavenward their “savour of sweet smell.” As the decalogue thundered forth from the summit of Sinai was not the first revelation of the moral law, so the Levitical system set up at the base of Horeb was not the first exposition of access to God by sacrifice. As the Hebrews went forth from Egypt with the moral law written on their hearts to receive it engraven upon stone, so they entered the wilderness with the vague feeling that their God was to be approached by oblations — to receive in that wilderness a minute and elaborate code of sacrificial laws to be executed by a divinely-appointed priesthood. The nature of the patriarchal sacrifices is still a question among theologians. Orthodox polemics generally deem it incumbent on them to demonstrate the expiatory character of these sacrifices, while the rationalistic school quite unanimously deny this as an unwarrantable assumption. Several evangelical writers take the same view. To neither party is there scriptural ground for dogmatism, for the sacred oracles are silent respecting the origin and nature of the early sacrificial offerings. Hence they go beyond the sacred record, who, in their zeal for orthodoxy, inform us that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because there was no blood in it, betokening his need of the death of another as a satisfaction for his sin, while Abel’s was accepted because it had that vital element, rendering it pleasing to his Creator. Sacred history not only contains no such declaration, but it plainly intimates another cause for the difference between the two offerings. God expostulates with the wrathful fratricide, and explicitly declares that the imperfection of his offering lies in the moral state of the offerer: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” In Hebrews 11:4 the writer declares that Abel’s acceptableness was because of his faith, leaving us to infer that the lack of this element was the radical defect in Cain’s oblation. If the patriarchal sacrifices were instituted by the Creator, it is reasonable to suppose that they were not positive and arbitrary requirements, with no hint of the reasons on which they were grounded — man’s dependence on omnipotent power and his exposure to offended justice. This revealed reason would involve the element of propitiation. But if sacrifices were the natural outgrowth of man’s religious nature — the expression of his deepest spiritual necessities — they must have had some reference to sin, the saddest fact in his consciousness. In either case, whether they were ordained of God or were spontaneous with man, the notion of expiation would not have been entirely absent. At the same time it is reasonable to suppose that this idea was not distinct and prominent in the minds of the patriarchs, because the holiness of God had not yet been emphatically disclosed — that bright background on which the grim deformities of sin are portrayed. To the patriarchs God always turned the benignant and merciful side of his nature. He talks with Abraham as a friend, putting him quite at ease in his presence, and his wife laughs with incredulity while hearing the words of promise from the Lord’s lips. There is no inspiration of painful awe, no putting off the sandals to stand upon ground sanctified by the tread of the most holy Jehovah. From Adam to Moses there is no specific revelation of the holiness of the Supreme One. We look in vain in the book of Genesis, the record of patriarchal life, for the words holy and holiness as descriptive of the Divine character. The hour for the revelation of this attribute did not arrive till the exiled Moses, at Horeb, turned aside from his flock to “see this great sight,” the bush burning yet not consumed. Exodus 3:3. The footsteps of the inquisitive Hebrew shepherd are suddenly arrested by the awful words, “Draw not nigh hither!” A new aspect of Jehovah’s nature is from this hour to be unfolded with ever-increasing splendour: “I am holy.” Sin having now, for the first time since the fall, its proper measure, becomes, by contrast, “exceeding sinful,” and needs to be purged from the conscience by blood distinctly expiatory.
We arrive at the same conclusion when we trace the history of man through the period in which he had only that internal sense of right and wrong called the unwritten law; which, indeed, constitutes him a subject of God’s moral government, and renders him amenable to the penalties of violated law, but is without that vivid apprehension of guilt which overwhelms his soul when that law, still legible within, takes on the form of an objective code written in stone by the finger of God amid the quakings of burning Horeb. Now, as never before, he regards himself as a sinner. “The law entered, that the offence might abound.” Romans 5:20. Now he needs relief from conscious guilt by a method of expiation bearing the unmistakable signature of his offended God. His forgiveness must be as authentically announced as his guilt has been glaringly demonstrated. Hence the provision for the typical purgation of the conscience is the logical sequence of the decalogue. Sinai has rendered the institution of the sin offering a necessity for the peace and salvation of the penitent sinner. Our conclusion, therefore, respecting the ante-Mosaic sacrifices, is, that they were the medium of intercourse with God adapted to the expression of the religious feelings of the offerer. Hence they were chiefly eucharistic, but not entirely destitute of the expiatory element. This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the occasions on which the patriarchs built their altars and offered their victims. If any feeling was predominant in the bosom of Noah when, beside the vacant ark, he reared his altar and laid thereon oblations “of every clean beast,” (Genesis 8:20,) it was one of gratitude to that mercy which had made his family the sole survivors of a drowned world. In the smoke of that great sacrifice curling up toward heaven, Ararat witnessed a thank offering rather than a sin offering, though the heart of the offerer may not have been destitute of a sense of unworthiness and sinfulness. For it is reasonable to suppose that Noah intended the effect which his sacrifice actually produced in the mind of God. That effect was clearly piacular. “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.” Genesis 8:21. Abraham offered his first victim, as we interpret the altar-building, (Genesis 12:7; 13:18, 25,) not when some unusual sense of sinfulness was felt, but when he had received for his seed the promise of Canaan. But when he is twice convicted of prevarication — first to Pharaoh and then to Abimelech — through the faltering of his faith in the protecting power of Providence, we search in vain for the sacrifices offered in atonement for these sins. The same is true of Isaac’s similar offence against the truth. Genesis 26:7-11. In that critical hour in Jacob’s history when he retired alone by the Jabbok, the very fact that he was destined on the morrow to meet his injured brother must have brought vividly to his memory that act of fraud by which he had so deeply wronged him. Yet no altar was built, no victims from his numerous flocks were selected to expiate his sin. Not till the hairy Esau had returned to the shaggy fastnesses of Mount Seir did Jacob build an altar to the El-Elohe-Israel. Genesis 33:20.
The argument of Richard Watson, (Institutes, vol. ii, p. 171,) from the ante-Mosaic distinction of clean and unclean animals, does not demonstrate the expiatory character of the early sacrifices. The argument derived from the prohibition of eating blood because it is the life of the animal, (Genesis 9:4,) together with Job’s reference in his burnt offering to the sin of his children, (Job 1:5,) renders it probable, but by no means conclusive, that the patriarchs distinctly apprehended the necessity of a vicarious atonement for sin. But we cannot, on the ground of these inferences, announce it as a positive truth; nor can we, with Keil, assert that “we never meet with any allusion to expiation in the pre-Mosaic sacrifices of the Old Testament:” for while there is no undisputed instance of forgiveness through sacrifice, there may be an allusion to expiation in the circumstances just cited.
Offerings Described and Classified.
(3.) In the Levitical ritual there are various offerings prescribed, each expressed by its appropriate term. In addition there are general terms including all offerings. Of the latter are the קרבן, korban, from a verb signifying to approach. As no inferior could approach a superior to ask a favour or to do obeisance without a gift in his hand, this gift of access was called korban. It includes all offerings, bloody and bloodless; all altar and non-altar oblations. For the abuse of this term by an ungrateful son, shirking the support of his parents, see note on Matthew 15:5. Another term, general in its primary use but specific afterwards, is the מנחה, mincha, from an old verb signifying to give. Originally it was used to express any gift, from man to man (Genesis 32:13) or man to God. Its specific meaning, especially when joined with korban, is meat offering, or food offering; in the Mosaic law, always bloodless.
The זבח, zebach, from the verb to slaughter animals, especially in sacrifice, always signifies a bleeding victim; the blood being the central and essential idea. By prefixing a letter to the same word the term altar was made, signifying, primarily, “killing place.” It is natural to connect the notion of expiation with this offering.
The term אששה, ishsheh, is also generic, including all fire-made offerings, and once the show bread, (fire baked.) Leviticus 24:7. It is used also to signify every kind of sacrifice and offering.
The special terms for sacrifices are the following: —
The עולה, olah, the whole burnt offering, in Greek generally ολοκαυτωμα, holocaust, derives its name from going up, first upon the altar, and then to heaven in the smoke. It was always bloody, the entire animal, except the sprinkled blood, being consumed by the fire. The שלם, shelem, is the peace offering, or thank offering. It is frequently joined with zebach, and then literally signifies a victim of requitals, or a slain offering of peace. It was always bloody.
The חטאת, chattath, is the sin offering. It is a law-created and bloody sacrifice to relieve the conscience from a sense of guilt. Its primary meaning is sin, αμαρτια. Its secondary signification is sin offering. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In the prophets it is used to signify punishment. The אשם, asham, is the trespass offering, law-created for particular faults or sins enumerated in the law. Gesenius says that the precise point of difference between the last two has hitherto been sought in vain. The Septuagint translates it by πλημμελεια, a false note in music, faultiness. Like the sin offering, it required the slaughter of a victim. The נסך, nesek, is the drink offering, always connected with the meat offering or the peace offering, and with the confirmation of covenants. With respect to their origin, sacrifices may be classified thus: — TRADITIONAL. LAW-CREATED.
Burnt offerings. Sin offerings.
Meat offerings. Trespass offerings.
Peace offerings.
With respect to the material of the offerings, they are thus classified: — ANIMAL. VEGETABLE.
Burnt offerings. Meat or Food offerings for the altar
Peace offerings. Incense and Meat or Food offerings in the holy place Sin offerings.
Trespass offerings. Wine of the drink offering.
As expressing the feelings of the offerer, the sacrifices fall into the following classes: —
FOR THE RELIEF OF THE CONSCIENCE
Sin offering.
FROM A SENSE OF GUILT
Trespass offering. Burnt offering.*
SELF-CONSECRATION
Burnt offering.
THANKSGIVING AND COMMUNION. Peace offering. Meat offering INTERCESSION
Incense.
[* Post-Mosaic and probably ante-Mosaic.]
In addition to these general sacrifices, others of a personal and special character were required in peculiar circumstances, such as for vows fulfilled, for purification from ceremonial uncleanness, for consecration to the priesthood, and for the healed leper. These, being too divergent in their nature to be grouped together and described in general terms, will be treated of in the commentary. The heave, wave, thank, and free-will offerings are subordinate to the principal sacrifices.
An inspection of the first three chapters will convince the reader that the altar sacrifices therein described are spoken of as already well known to the Hebrews. The three which we have called traditional were all probably known to the patriarchs. We find no record of offerings made by the Israelites in Egypt. The request of Moses to Pharaoh for permission to go out of the land to offer sacrifice without giving offence to the religious scruples of the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26) seems to imply, that, except in a furtive way, animal sacrifices had not been offered by Israel in Egypt. But the recollection of them had been cherished. Hence we call these “traditional” in distinction from the two “law-created” sacrifices — the sin and trespass offerings.
The Sacrificial Animals.
(4.) No small proof of the Divine origin of this sacrificial system is found in the kinds of animals prescribed for the altar. They were domestic, with the exception of the turtle dove, which may be styled semi-domestic. This requirement involves two important elements of sacrifice: — that of property, and of affection. Wild animals are unappropriated. No man claims them as his peculiar possession. Hence Jehovah did not appoint for his altar even such wild animals as he pronounced clean. In the Orient there was a familiarity with his flock on the part of the shepherd-owner which amounted to tenderness and love. He individualized his flock and called each sheep by name. See notes on John 10. In the case of poor men the flock was often folded beneath the same tent or roof with his children, and the lambs were family pets. Nathan, in his reproof of David, spake of no unusual circumstance when he described the little ewe lamb which grew up with the children of the poor man, eating of his own meat, and drinking of his own cup, lying in his bosom, and which was unto him as a daughter. 2 Samuel 12:3. Hence when a Hebrew led a lamb or a kid to the tabernacle or the temple, he laid more than its money value upon the altar: the affections of his heart and of his family gave to the lamb a multiplied value in the eyes of Jehovah. We who are familiar only with the customs of western nations think of an animal given to sacrifice as one taken at random from a drove of ten thousand grazing on the pasturage of the wilderness, or on the hills of Bashan. Again, the animal must be clean, and hence all the more valuable to the owner, because it was the means of life — next in value to life itself. No swine’s blood could atone for sin or be a thank offering pleasing to Jehovah, although the proud and polished Athenians crowding the Pnyx to legislate for the Demos would enter upon no business until pigs’ blood had lustrated the place.
None but clean herbivorous and graminivorous animals were acceptable to Jehovah. These symbolize innocency of heart, a quality required in all acceptable worship; while the carnivorous animals, living by destroying the lives of other animals, and fitly representing the spirit of fraud, robbery, and oppression among men, were appropriately forbidden for sacrifice. Another reason for this prohibition was, that no portion of an unclean animal could be appropriated to the priest; nor could the offering be bestowed upon the offerer, to be eaten by him and his friends, as in the peace offering. Moreover, the animals prescribed for the altar are prophetic of the future occupation of the people. Until the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world they will always be a pastoral and agricultural nation. Though living on the seacoast, they will never, so long as their ritual retains its significance, abandon the fields and become sailors. Though the great lines of traffic from Egypt and Greece pass through Canaan to Arabia and India, the Israelites will never, while residents of their own land, become a mercantile nation. Though Tyre, and Sidon, and Damascus, close upon their borders, may enrich themselves by manufactures, the religion of the Hebrew will give an agricultural cast to the nation so long as it continues to slaughter bullocks, sheep, and goats on Mount Moriah. The census of modern nations among which Jews are scattered, shows that scarcely one is engaged in tilling the soil or in the care of flocks, Since there is no need of sacrificial animals to prefigure the Lamb of God, the tastes of the whole nation have been changed from bucolies to banking and brokerage, from olive-yards to pack-peddling, throughout the world. How curious, and yet cogent, this incidental proof that the Jew now needs no other sacrifice for sin than that made on Calvary.
The turtle-dove, prescribed for the offering of the poor man, is found in amazing numbers wherever the palm-tree flourishes, every tree being a home for two or three pairs of these elegant, semi-domestic birds. A recent traveller testifies that he has frequently, in a palm-grove, brought down ten braces or more without moving from his post. We adduce this witness to answer the objection that this requirement for sacrifice could not be met by the Israelites in the wilderness. The pigeon is to this day domesticated in the East in enormous numbers. They are kept in dovecots in all the towns and hamlets of Palestine. Before King Solomon imported gallinaceous fowls from India, they were probably the only domestic poultry known to the Hebrews. The only difficulty is in the supply of pigeons in the wilderness. It has been asserted that there was no such supply unless we suppose that the Israelites fled from Egypt with dove-cages in their hands. There is nothing absurd in this supposition. The declaration of Moses, “there shall not a hoof be left behind,” is only another expression for the assurance that all their property should be brought with them out of Egypt. Exodus 10:26. The doves were the property of the poor as much as the herds and flocks were the wealth of the affluent.
Order of the Sacrifices.
(5.) At the first view there seems to be no prescribed order in which these different kinds of oblations are to be offered to Jehovah. There is a prevalent, yet erroneous, idea that this was left wholly to the option or caprice of the worshipper. But a more careful inspection discloses two key-texts which open the question of the order. The first is found in Leviticus 5:6, 7, where the law directs that the poor man may bring two fowls instead of a lamb or a kid; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest is explicitly directed to offer the sin offering first, and then the burnt offering. The second key-text is still more valuable, inasmuch as it opens to us the order of the three classes of offerings. It is found in chap. 8 — the order of offerings at the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the ram of consecration, which answers to the peace offering. In other words, the conscience of the offerer was first to be ceremonially purged from sin to render him acceptable to God before he could dedicate his entire being to him. After this the self-consecratory burnt offering is in order; then the peace offering or the meat offering may be presented, as a medium of communion with Jehovah, who gives the largest part of the peace offering back to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a joyful sacrificial feast. The beautiful correspondence of these offerings, in this order, to justification, sanctification, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints, will be pointed out in the notes.
It is remarkable that both these key-texts should have escaped the keen eye of Keil, who says that these laws “contain no rules respecting the order in which they were to follow one another, when two or more sacrifices were offered together.”
The Ceremonial Function of the Blood.
(6.) The most cursory reader of this book must be impressed with the prominence that is given to the shedding of blood, and to the vast amount of blood which must have been poured out in the service of the tabernacle and temple, making them perpetually reek with streams of gore, like a slaughter-house whose floor is ever crimsoned by the ceaseless work of death.
The directions for the treatment of the blood are very minute and often repeated. It was the centre of the whole system of sacrificial rites. There must be some deep significance in this stream of blood flowing ever fresh through all the Hebrew worship. It is found in Leviticus 17:11, correctly translated, “For the life (vpn, nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement by means of the life. (vpnb, banephesh.) In Genesis 2:7, we find that the immaterial principle breathed by Jehovah Elohim into the nostrils of the dust-made statue, constituting it a living soul, is this nephesh. Here we find the importance attached to the blood. The blood is the nephesh, and the human soul is the nephesh. The substitutional atonement, nephesh for nephesh, irrational soul for rational soul, is inevitable in the scheme of human redemption. In the treatment of the blood it was required to be sprinkled or spilled from the vessel, and cast abroad around the altar, to be scattered in drops by means of a bunch of hyssop, to be smeared with the finger upon the horns of the altar, not, as one fancifully suggests, because the horns were the highest part of the altar, and nearest to heaven, but because it was the refuge of the accidental man-slayer (Exodus 21:14,) and in clinging to the horns he must lay hold of blood. 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28. Finally, the remainder was to be poured out at the base of the great altar, from which, in the temple of Solomon, there were sewers to conduct it away into the brook Kedron. There must have been something like this in the tabernacle in the wilderness, since, in addition to the sacrifices, every animal slain for food in or near the camp was to be slain at the door of the tabernacle. The emphatic and reiterated prohibition of eating blood is expressly founded on the declaration that it is the nephesh, or animal soul. Leviticus 17:10, 11. So deeply was this interdict engraven on the heart of the Jews, that even the first Christian council in Jerusalem classify it with the violation of the law of purity contained in the seventh commandment. Acts 15:29.
Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of Sacrifices.
(7.) We propound a question of more than ordinary interest when we inquire into the precise benefit which accrued to the devout Hebrew from his faithful observance of the law of offerings. The answer to this inquiry will elucidate the important question of the nature and extent of the blessing promised to the believer in Jesus Christ, who presents him to the Father as his great sin offering. The moral delinquencies of man are of two kinds — offences against society, which are called crimes, and are punishable with temporal penalties, and offences purely spiritual, or sins, which await the fires of the judgment day. The Levitical law added, also, ceremonial offences or impurities. Under the theocracy this distinction is in a measure lost, the different kinds of offences being blended together and treated as sins. The first benefit to the sincere offerer was exemption from the temporal punishment of death. Yet all crimes could not be so expiated as to escape judicial death. Offences which disorganize and destroy society — murder, adultery, and cursing of parents, and sins especially offensive to God, as profanation of his holy day and blasphemy of his holy name — were beyond the efficacy of the sacrifices as to their power to screen the guilty from physical death. But minor offences — usually punished by the civil magistrate — if freely confessed with all possible restitution, together with ceremonial impurities, found an exemption from death in the blood sprinkled on the altar. But what did those blood sprinklings and those blazing altars do for guilty souls? Did they relieve the burdened conscience, effecting exactly such a change as penitent believers in Christ now experience in the pardon of their sins and the witness of the Spirit of adoption? There are several answers. First, that there was to the sincere Hebrew the same subjective phenomena as now attend justification by faith; the same conscious relief; and the same joy in the assurance of reconciliation: not flowing from the blood of the victim, but from the blood of its great Antitype appropriated by an anticipatory faith. But the insuperable objection to this is, that there is not in the Pentateuch the first hint of the Lamb of God, the reality of which the victim bleeding on the Hebrew altar is but the shadow. Hence there is no ground laid for faith to build upon in any objective revelation of the Sacrifice to be offered on Calvary.
The second view seems to be endorsed by Origen, Theodoret, Erasmus, and Luther, in their explanation of the term ‘Ilasthrion, in Romans 3:25. It is, that there was in the blood of animals slain in sacrifice by Divine appointment an inherent efficacy to take away the sins of the devout offerer, without any apprehension by faith of the Heaven-appointed Victim yet to pour out his blood. “As the lid of the ark of the covenant, when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and especially his death, is the security for our redemption to which we may believingly look.” To the same conclusion Bonar comes. “The sin passes away; it is an instantaneous, complete, perpetual pardon.”
THE PRETERMISSION OF SINS.
The third view is based on the explicit statements of Divine inspiration. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reiterates, in various phrases, the declaration that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sins. Hebrews 10:4. Between this assertion and the assurance given by Jehovah that “the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him,” (Leviticus 6:7,) we have a seeming contradiction, of which the best explanation is afforded by St. Paul, who, in explaining the ‘Ilasthrion, is very careful to say that “Christ Jesus is set forth to be ‘the propitiation,’ ‘the mercy seat,’ through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’s) righteousness for the passing over (paresin, the pretermission) of sins that are past (in ages gone) through the forbearance of God.” The doctrine of St. Paul is, that the atoning death of Jesus justifies God, by removing his seeming low estimate of sin, or indifference towards it, in passing over and forbearing to punish the sins of penitent, blood-offering Hebrews in past ages. See on Romans 3:25, also Alford and Bengel. The latter says, that “pretermission, (forgiveness,) in the Old Testament, had respect to transgressions until (apolutrwsiv) redemption of them was accomplished in the death of Christ. Hebrews 9:15. The object of pretermission are sins; the object of forbearance are sinners.” Says Alford, “Where sins are continually called to mind, there, clearly, the conscience is not clear from them. Very similar is the assertion of Ebrard, when speaking of the blood of bulls as incapable of taking away sins: ‘It was shed, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate [assumed need] of vicarious propitiation.’” How far this pretermission of sins applies to pious pagans is a question beyond the range of our present inquiry. See on Acts 17:30. Respecting the emotional experience attending sacrificial forgiveness as thus explained, we have no explicit statements in the Scriptures. But from such expressions as the testimony that his ways “pleased God,” given to Enoch, (Hebrews 11:5;) “blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,” (Psalm 32:1;) “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him,” (Psalm 25:14;) and from the joy that rings out its hallelujahs through the Psalms, we infer that the Holy Spirit, though not yet doing his official work as the Paraclete, the Spirit of adoption, was by his essential presence assuring obedient Israelites of the gracious forbearance of Jehovah towards them in passing over their sins. This implies that the sacrifices were not offered as a dead opus operatum, or mechanical and soulless performance, but with that devout and penitent state of heart which alone can appropriate spiritual good. When this was absent the “vain oblations” of apostate Israel became “an abomination” (Isaiah 1:11-15) to Jehovah, and he proclaims to the sinning nation, “I desired mercy (philanthropy and justice) and not (mere) sacrifice.” Hosea 6:6. This leads us to consider: — The Spiritual Import of the Sacrifices.
(8.) We must not conclude our introductory remarks without calling attention to the vital point — the central idea of the book — its spiritual meaning. “That so elaborate a ritual looked beyond itself we cannot doubt. It was a prophecy of things to come; a shadow whereof the substance was Christ and his kingdom. We may not always be able to say what the exact relation is between the type and the antitype. Of many things we may be sure that they belonged only to the nation to whom they were given, containing no prophetic significance, but serving as witnesses and signs to them of God’s covenant of grace. We may hesitate to pronounce with Jerome, that ‘every sacrifice, nay, almost every syllable — the garments of Aaron and the whole Levitical system — breathe of heavenly mysteries;’ but we cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews and not acknowledge that the Levitical priests ‘served the pattern and type of heavenly things’ — that the sacrifices of the law pointed to and found their interpretation in the LAMB OF GOD — that the ordinances of outward purification signified the truer inward cleansing of the heart and conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. One idea, moreover, penetrates the whole of this vast and burdensome ceremonial, and gives it a real glory, even apart from any prophetic significance. HOLINESS is its end. Holiness is its character. The tabernacle is holy — the vessels are holy — the offerings are most holy unto Jehovah — the garments of the priests are holy. All who approach Him whose name is ‘Holy,’ whether priests who minister to him or people who worship before him, must themselves be holy. It would seem as if, amid the camp and dwellings of Israel, was ever to be heard an echo of that solemn strain which fills the courts above, where the seraphim cry one to another, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.” — Perowne.
Arrangement and Divisions.
(9.) The order of subjects has been much criticised by those who deem themselves competent to sit in judgment even upon the style in which God should speak to men. Dr. Kalisch, with the double vail of Judaism and Rationalism before his eyes, amplifies on the “illogical arrangement” of Leviticus. It is not marvellous that a series of types should seem confused and chaotic to one who is stone-blind to the great Antitype which explains and harmonizes them all. On the other hand, Bertheau sees a regularity and exactness in the arrangement of topics which it is difficult for us to discover. His “seven groups of the laws of Moses,” each containing a greater or less number of decalogues, proceeds in some cases upon assumptions so arbitrary that we have not thought it wise to adopt it. The chief difficulty in the grouping of subjects arises from the commingling of rules of life relating to morals with those relating to mere ceremonial requirements, the Hebrew mind never having made that sharp discrimination between the ethical and the ritual which the Christian has been trained to make. Acts 15:20, 29. The division of the book into two parts adopted by Keil and Murphy, the first relating to the expiation of guilt and the second to the sanctification of the life, we have adopted, only making the division at the end of chap. x instead of chap. xvi, since the intervening chapters bear more or less directly upon sanctity of life, especially in the conception of the Hebrews. Even the day of atonement, described in chap. xvi, was not for the removal of conscious guilt at the initiation of the spiritual life, but for those “errors” (agnohmatwn,) “of the people,” (Hebrews 9:7,) which are incidental to the most advanced stages of holy living on the earth, making appropriate the daily prayer, “Forgive us our debts.”
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Book of Leviticus
CLA_LEV.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
THE Greek version of the SEPTUAGINT, and the VULGATE Latin, have given the title of LEVITICUS to the third book of the Pentateuch, and the name has been retained in almost all the modern versions. The book was thus called because it treats principally of the laws and regulations of the Levites and priests in general. In Hebrew it is termed ויקרא Vaiyikra, “And he called,” which is the first word in the book, and which, as in preceding cases, became the running title to the whole. It contains an account of the ceremonies to be observed in the offering of burnt-sacrifices; meat, peace, and sin-offerings; the consecration of priests, together with the institution of the three grand national festivals of the Jews, the PASSOVER, PENTECOST, and TABERNACLES, with a great variety of other ecclesiastical matters. It seems to contain little more than the history of what passed during the eight days of the consecration of Aaron and his sons, though Archbishop Usher supposes that it comprises the history of the transactions of a whole month, viz., from April 21 to May 21, of the year of the world 2514, which answers to the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt. As there are no data by which any chronological arrangement of the facts mentioned in it can be made, it would be useless to encumber the page with conjectures which, because uncertain, can answer no end to the serious reader for doctrine, reproof, or edification in righteousness. As the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, the whole sacrificial system was intended to point out that Lamb of God, Christ Jesus, who takes away the sin of the world. In reading over this book, this point should be kept particularly in view, as without this spiritual reference no interest can be excited by a perusal of the work.
The principal events recorded in this book may be thus deduced in the order of the chapters:
Moses having set up the tabernacle, as has been related in the conclusion of the preceding book; and the cloud of the Divine glory, the symbol of the presence of God, having rested upon it; God called to him out of this tabernacle, and delivered the laws and precepts contained in the seven first chapters.
In chap. 1. he prescribes every thing relative to the nature and quality of burnt offerings, and the ceremonies which should be observed, as well by the person who brought the sacrifice as by the priest who offered it. In chap. 2. he treats of meat-offerings of fine flour with oil and frankincense; of cakes, and the oblations of first-fruits. Chap. 3. treats of peace-offerings, prescribes the ceremonies to be used in such offerings, and the parts which should be consumed by fire. Chap. 4. treats of the offerings made for sins of ignorance; for the sins of the priests, rulers, and of the common people.
Chap. 5. treats of the sin of him who, being adjured as a witness, conceals his knowledge of a fact; the case of him who touches an unclean thing; of him who binds himself by a vow or an oath; and of trespass-offerings in cases of sacrilege, and in sins of ignorance.
Chap. 6. treats of the trespass-offerings for sins knowingly committed; and of the offerings for the priests, the parts which should be consumed, and the parts which should be considered as the priests’ portion. And in Chap.
7. the same subject is continued.
Chap. 8. treats of the consecration of Aaron and his sons; their sin-offering; burnt-offering; ram of consecration; and the time during which these solemn rites should continue.
Chap. 9. After Aaron and his sons were consecrated, on the eighth day they were commanded to offer sin-offerings and burnt-offerings for themselves and for the people, which they accordingly did, and Aaron and Moses having blessed the people, a fire came forth from before the Lord, and consumed the offering that was laid upon the altar.
Chap. 10. Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, having offered strange fire before the Lord, are consumed; and the priests are forbidden the use of wine and all inebriating liquors.
Chap. 11. treats of clean and unclean beasts, fishes, birds, and reptiles. Chap. 12. treats of the purification of women after child-birth, and the offerings they should present before the Lord.
Chap. 13. prescribes the manner of discerning the infection of the leprosy in persons, garments, and houses.
Chap. 14. prescribes the sacrifices and ceremonies which should be offered by those who were cleansed from the leprosy.
Chap. 15. treats of certain uncleannesses in man and woman; and of their purifications.
Chap. 16. treats of the solemn yearly expiation to be made for the sins of the priest and of the people, of the goat and bullock for a sacrifice, and of the scape-goat; all which should be offered annually on the tenth day of the seventh month.
Chap. 17. The Israelites are commanded to offer all their sacrifices at the tabernacle; the eating of blood is prohibited, as also the flesh of those animals which die of themselves, and of those that are torn by dogs. Chap. 18. shows the different degrees within which marriages were not to be contracted, and prohibits various acts of impurity.
Chap. 19. recapitulates a variety of laws which had been mentioned in the preceding book, (Exodus,) and adds several new ones.
Chap. 20. prohibits the consecration of their children to Molech, forbids their consulting wizards and those which had familiar spirits, and also a variety of incestuous and unnatural mixtures.
Chap. 21. gives different ordinances concerning the mourning and marriages of priests, and prohibits those from the sacerdotal office who have certain personal defects.
Chap. 22. treats of those infirmities and uncleannesses which rendered the priests unfit to officiate in sacred things, and lays down directions for the perfection of the sacrifices which should be offered to the Lord. Chap. 23. treats of the Sabbath and the great annual festivals-the passover, pentecost, feast of trumpets, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles.
Chap. 24. treats of the oil for the lamps, and the shew-bread; the law concerning which had already been given, see Exodus xxv., &c.; mentions the case of the person who blasphemed God, and his punishment; lays down the law in cases of blasphemy and murder; and recapitulates the lex talionis, or law of like for like, prescribed Exodus xxi. Chap. 25. recapitulates the law, given Exodus xxiii., relative to the Sabbatical year; prescribes the year of jubilee; and lays down a variety of statutes relative to mercy, kindness, benevolence, charity, &c. Chap. 26. prohibits idolatry, promises a great variety of blessings to the obedient, and threatens the disobedient with many and grievous curses. Chap. 27. treats of vows, of things devoted, and of the tithes which should be given for the service of the tabernacle.
No Chronological Table can be affixed to this book, as the transactions of it seem to have been included within the space of eight days, or of a month at the utmost, as we have already seen. And even some of the facts related here seem to have taken place previously to the erection of the tabernacle; nor is the order in which the others occurred so distinguished as to enable us to lay down the precise days in which they took place. THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS
-Year before the common Year of Christ, 1490.
-Julian Period, 3224.
-Cycle of the Sun, 27.
-Dominical Letter, D.
-Cycle of the Moon, 9.
-Indiction, 6.
-Creation from Tisri or September, 2514.
Joseph Benson
Argument
BEN_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 442
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED
LEVITICUS.
ARGUMENT.
THIS book contains the actions of about one month. It is chiefly employed in describing the sacrifices and services of the tabernacle, to be performed by Aaron the Levite, as he is called, Exodus 4:14, and by his sons, who alone had the office of priesthood in the tribe of Levi, and is therefore termed by the Greek and Latin translators LEVITICUS: and that part of the Jewish religion which is ceremonial, is fitly denominated the Levitical law. These ceremonial services are reducible to the following heads: — I. Sacrifices. These, (from the constant and early use of them, recorded in the book of Genesis,) there is reason to think, were appointed by God himself, immediately upon the fall of man, as a temporary expedient, prefiguring that great sacrifice of his Son, whereby he had determined in his counsel to expiate the sins of the world. We find there were principally two kinds of sacrifices: the one expiatory, or atoning for sins, whereby the Saviour of the world, by whose blood alone we have remission of sins and reconciliation with God, was signified; the other eucharistical, or those which were offered by way of thanksgiving, in return for blessings and mercies received. These sacrifices had, too, a relation to spiritual worship, and pointed out several moral duties; while the whole was a typical scheme, and fit introduction to the more perfect dispensation of the Messiah, by whom both they and we were to receive our full atonement and reconciliation with God. II. Purifications from various kinds of legal uncleanness; which, though they cannot be denied to have been a troublesome branch of the Jewish religion, and one of those circumstances which denominated it an elementary institution, and a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were well able to bear, were not, however, intended to terminate in mere ritual observance. They were most apt significations of inward and substantial holiness; such as devotedness to God, and purity of heart and life. III. The solemn festivals; the observance whereof was so far from being a needless institution, that they appear to have been exceeding proper for preserving the whole nation in the practice of true, and from the corruptions of false religion. They were thankful commemorations of signal national mercies. And by their constant attendance upon these joyful solemnities, at so many stated times of the year, and at the one fixed place of national worship, they went through those courses of divine service, and such acts of kindness, generosity, and charity to each other, as tended to confirm them in the true religion, and in the love of that happy constitution. IV. As to the civil and judicial laws here prescribed, they cannot but seem to any reasonable man to be far the best body of rules that are to be found in the records of any nation; as making the surest provision for the honour of magistracy and government, and for securing the rights and properties of the people: and not only so, but for advancing that benevolence and mutual love, as well as common justice to each other, which are the strongest cements of society. V. The historical parts of this book are few, but very instructive: chiefly for creating in men a just veneration for all persons and things consecrated to the special service of God.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus.
SUT_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 301
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES,
CALLED LEVITICUS.
The LEVITICUM, which is the proper name of this book, amply describes the ceremonial law. The Hebrews called it the law of priesthood. The seven first chapters treat of the quality and variety of the sacrifices; and to the twenty third chapter, of the priests and inferior levites, and of their consecration and offices. From thence to the end of the book, the times of sacrifice, and of the feasts, are particularly named. One great reason for this splendid ritual was to draw the people to internal devotion, by tracing as far as they were able, its mystical import, which was full of evangelical glory, as is shown by the apostle’s illustrations, in his epistle to the Hebrews. The levitical sacrifices had in themselves no merit, they were merely shadows of good things to come, and were on that account acceptable to the Lord. The sacrifices were indeed diversified, the principal ones consisting of sheep and oxen, though the Hebrew word for sheep included goats, doves, and other offerings; yet all of them when offered in sacrifice, had reference to the sacrifice of Christ. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts is primitive, as appears from the selection of the various animals which entered the Ark. St. Jerome regards every item of the jewish ritual as replete with evangelical significancy, and as shadowing forth the mediatorial glory of Christ.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction.
WHD_CO02.PDF, source PDF p. 7
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 10: “the latter are the קרבן, korban, from a verb”. paragraph 15: “primary meaning is sin, αμαρτια. its secondary signification is”; “the חטאת, chattath, is the sin”. source PDF page 12: “was always bloody. The חשׂאת chattath, is the sin”; “the latter are the קרבנ korban, from a verb”. Compared with WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 7, WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 12, WHD_CO02.PDF PDF p. 13. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 7; WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 12; WHD_CO02.PDF, PDF page 13; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified); Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
LEVITICUS
INTRODUCTION.
Name, Character, and Author.
(1.) The third book of the Pentateuch was denominated by the Jews the Vayikra, from the initial word, “And he called out.” Since the Seventy translated it into Greek it has been known in all the European languages by the name of LEVITICUS, from the prominent part in the sacrificial ritual performed by the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. But since the term Leviticus suggests the Levites, who are mentioned but once in the entire book, and then incidentally and proleptically, (Leviticus 25:32, 33,) in relation to the redemption of houses, we think that the Seventy applied a misnomer to this book. The Talmud, with less brevity but more truth, calls it, The Law of the Priests, and also, The Book of the Law of Offerings. It is the rubric of that minute and burdensome system of sacrifices which Jehovah, in his wisdom, devised for the spiritual culture of the Hebrews, and for prefiguring “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” The only historical portion is that relating to the consecration of Aaron and his sons, their first offering of sacrifice, the judicial death of Aaron’s two elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, (chap. 8-10:7,) and the arrest and execution of a blasphemer. Leviticus 24:10-23. The space of time covered by this book is one month. For our data compare Exodus 40:17 with Numbers 1:1. The cursory reader discovers no orderly arrangement of topics, but the patient student discovers deep underlying principles which give system and symmetry to the contents of the book. In addition to its great value in the interpretation of the New Testament, wholly written by persons of Jewish faith, and in elucidating their conception of Christian doctrine, especially the atonement, and of the exegesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is a repository of Jewish antiquities. It is, moreover, a book deeply interesting to scientists, as containing the earliest classifications of zoology and ornithology, and a minute diagnosis of the dreadful scourge of the leprosy. The commingling of facts and laws of which the events are the occasion, as in the Book of Numbers, strongly confirms the genuineness of the book and the authenticity of its statements. See Introduction to Numbers.
The Mosaic authorship of Leviticus has been less questioned by modern critics than any other book of the Law. The Documentists, while finding, or fancying they find, evidences of the composite character of the book, are candid enough to admit that the principal part bears the stamp of the Mosaic age. Says Bleek, a strong advocate of the documentary theory: “As regards the union of different laws, and short collections of laws in our book of Leviticus, De Wette made out (Einleitung, first to fourth editions) that after Genesis and Exodus were composed, the various parts of Leviticus were added, generally by different compilers. This supposition, however, according to what has gone before, is quite inadmissible, and has been tacitly retracted even by De Wette himself in the fifth and sixth editions.” This recoil of the great German critic from the extremes of daring and unfounded assumptions against the Mosaic origin of the Levitical laws is a sufficient answer to the flippant assertion of England’s arithmetical bishop: “Thus the whole of Leviticus appears to be of later origin, composed either during or after the captivity, some of the laws apparently by Ezekiel, and other portions probably by fellow-priests of the same age, who were anxious to establish a stricter ritual in Israel.” The last clause of this sentence suggests its answer. Puritan laws can be originated and enforced only in a Puritan age. The era of Moses was the Puritan age in the history of the Hebrews. The era of Ezekiel, by the admission of Colenso, was a degenerate age; and yet the prophet-priest and his associated forgers succeeded in interpolating into the fundamental constitution of their nation, out of their own fertile imaginations, the whole book of Leviticus! Of a declaration so absurd we cannot, with Horace, say, “Credat Judaeus,” for no true Jew, much less can any true Christian, so stultify himself as to give his assent to a statement so extraordinary. It involves a miracle greater than those believed by Jew or Christian. Rationalism always has been more credulous than orthodoxy. Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices.
(2.) In approaching the great sacrificial book of the Bible, it becomes necessary to survey, and briefly discuss, the sacrifices offered before the institutions of that legal code of ritualism contained in Leviticus. From Abel to Moses altars were built and victims flamed sending heavenward their “savour of sweet smell.” As the decalogue thundered forth from the summit of Sinai was not the first revelation of the moral law, so the Levitical system set up at the base of Horeb was not the first exposition of access to God by sacrifice. As the Hebrews went forth from Egypt with the moral law written on their hearts to receive it engraven upon stone, so they entered the wilderness with the vague feeling that their God was to be approached by oblations — to receive in that wilderness a minute and elaborate code of sacrificial laws to be executed by a divinely-appointed priesthood. The nature of the patriarchal sacrifices is still a question among theologians. Orthodox polemics generally deem it incumbent on them to demonstrate the expiatory character of these sacrifices, while the rationalistic school quite unanimously deny this as an unwarrantable assumption. Several evangelical writers take the same view. To neither party is there scriptural ground for dogmatism, for the sacred oracles are silent respecting the origin and nature of the early sacrificial offerings. Hence they go beyond the sacred record, who, in their zeal for orthodoxy, inform us that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because there was no blood in it, betokening his need of the death of another as a satisfaction for his sin, while Abel’s was accepted because it had that vital element, rendering it pleasing to his Creator. Sacred history not only contains no such declaration, but it plainly intimates another cause for the difference between the two offerings. God expostulates with the wrathful fratricide, and explicitly declares that the imperfection of his offering lies in the moral state of the offerer: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” In Hebrews 11:4 the writer declares that Abel’s acceptableness was because of his faith, leaving us to infer that the lack of this element was the radical defect in Cain’s oblation. If the patriarchal sacrifices were instituted by the Creator, it is reasonable to suppose that they were not positive and arbitrary requirements, with no hint of the reasons on which they were grounded — man’s dependence on omnipotent power and his exposure to offended justice. This revealed reason would involve the element of propitiation. But if sacrifices were the natural outgrowth of man’s religious nature — the expression of his deepest spiritual necessities — they must have had some reference to sin, the saddest fact in his consciousness. In either case, whether they were ordained of God or were spontaneous with man, the notion of expiation would not have been entirely absent. At the same time it is reasonable to suppose that this idea was not distinct and prominent in the minds of the patriarchs, because the holiness of God had not yet been emphatically disclosed — that bright background on which the grim deformities of sin are portrayed. To the patriarchs God always turned the benignant and merciful side of his nature. He talks with Abraham as a friend, putting him quite at ease in his presence, and his wife laughs with incredulity while hearing the words of promise from the Lord’s lips. There is no inspiration of painful awe, no putting off the sandals to stand upon ground sanctified by the tread of the most holy Jehovah. From Adam to Moses there is no specific revelation of the holiness of the Supreme One. We look in vain in the book of Genesis, the record of patriarchal life, for the words holy and holiness as descriptive of the Divine character. The hour for the revelation of this attribute did not arrive till the exiled Moses, at Horeb, turned aside from his flock to “see this great sight,” the bush burning yet not consumed. Exodus 3:3. The footsteps of the inquisitive Hebrew shepherd are suddenly arrested by the awful words, “Draw not nigh hither!” A new aspect of Jehovah’s nature is from this hour to be unfolded with ever-increasing splendour: “I am holy.” Sin having now, for the first time since the fall, its proper measure, becomes, by contrast, “exceeding sinful,” and needs to be purged from the conscience by blood distinctly expiatory.
We arrive at the same conclusion when we trace the history of man through the period in which he had only that internal sense of right and wrong called the unwritten law; which, indeed, constitutes him a subject of God’s moral government, and renders him amenable to the penalties of violated law, but is without that vivid apprehension of guilt which overwhelms his soul when that law, still legible within, takes on the form of an objective code written in stone by the finger of God amid the quakings of burning Horeb. Now, as never before, he regards himself as a sinner. “The law entered, that the offence might abound.” Romans 5:20. Now he needs relief from conscious guilt by a method of expiation bearing the unmistakable signature of his offended God. His forgiveness must be as authentically announced as his guilt has been glaringly demonstrated. Hence the provision for the typical purgation of the conscience is the logical sequence of the decalogue. Sinai has rendered the institution of the sin offering a necessity for the peace and salvation of the penitent sinner. Our conclusion, therefore, respecting the ante-Mosaic sacrifices, is, that they were the medium of intercourse with God adapted to the expression of the religious feelings of the offerer. Hence they were chiefly eucharistic, but not entirely destitute of the expiatory element. This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the occasions on which the patriarchs built their altars and offered their victims. If any feeling was predominant in the bosom of Noah when, beside the vacant ark, he reared his altar and laid thereon oblations “of every clean beast,” (Genesis 8:20,) it was one of gratitude to that mercy which had made his family the sole survivors of a drowned world. In the smoke of that great sacrifice curling up toward heaven, Ararat witnessed a thank offering rather than a sin offering, though the heart of the offerer may not have been destitute of a sense of unworthiness and sinfulness. For it is reasonable to suppose that Noah intended the effect which his sacrifice actually produced in the mind of God. That effect was clearly piacular. “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.” Genesis 8:21. Abraham offered his first victim, as we interpret the altar-building, (Genesis 12:7; 13:18, 25,) not when some unusual sense of sinfulness was felt, but when he had received for his seed the promise of Canaan. But when he is twice convicted of prevarication — first to Pharaoh and then to Abimelech — through the faltering of his faith in the protecting power of Providence, we search in vain for the sacrifices offered in atonement for these sins. The same is true of Isaac’s similar offence against the truth. Genesis 26:7-11. In that critical hour in Jacob’s history when he retired alone by the Jabbok, the very fact that he was destined on the morrow to meet his injured brother must have brought vividly to his memory that act of fraud by which he had so deeply wronged him. Yet no altar was built, no victims from his numerous flocks were selected to expiate his sin. Not till the hairy Esau had returned to the shaggy fastnesses of Mount Seir did Jacob build an altar to the El-Elohe-Israel. Genesis 33:20.
The argument of Richard Watson, (Institutes, vol. ii, p. 171,) from the ante-Mosaic distinction of clean and unclean animals, does not demonstrate the expiatory character of the early sacrifices. The argument derived from the prohibition of eating blood because it is the life of the animal, (Genesis 9:4,) together with Job’s reference in his burnt offering to the sin of his children, (Job 1:5,) renders it probable, but by no means conclusive, that the patriarchs distinctly apprehended the necessity of a vicarious atonement for sin. But we cannot, on the ground of these inferences, announce it as a positive truth; nor can we, with Keil, assert that “we never meet with any allusion to expiation in the pre-Mosaic sacrifices of the Old Testament:” for while there is no undisputed instance of forgiveness through sacrifice, there may be an allusion to expiation in the circumstances just cited.
Offerings Described and Classified.
(3.) In the Levitical ritual there are various offerings prescribed, each expressed by its appropriate term. In addition there are general terms including all offerings. Of the latter are the קרבן, korban, from a verb signifying to approach. As no inferior could approach a superior to ask a favour or to do obeisance without a gift in his hand, this gift of access was called korban. It includes all offerings, bloody and bloodless; all altar and non-altar oblations. For the abuse of this term by an ungrateful son, shirking the support of his parents, see note on Matthew 15:5. Another term, general in its primary use but specific afterwards, is the מנחה, mincha, from an old verb signifying to give. Originally it was used to express any gift, from man to man (Genesis 32:13) or man to God. Its specific meaning, especially when joined with korban, is meat offering, or food offering; in the Mosaic law, always bloodless.
The זבח, zebach, from the verb to slaughter animals, especially in sacrifice, always signifies a bleeding victim; the blood being the central and essential idea. By prefixing a letter to the same word the term altar was made, signifying, primarily, “killing place.” It is natural to connect the notion of expiation with this offering.
The term אששה, ishsheh, is also generic, including all fire-made offerings, and once the show bread, (fire baked.) Leviticus 24:7. It is used also to signify every kind of sacrifice and offering.
The special terms for sacrifices are the following: —
The עולה, olah, the whole burnt offering, in Greek generally ολοκαυτωμα, holocaust, derives its name from going up, first upon the altar, and then to heaven in the smoke. It was always bloody, the entire animal, except the sprinkled blood, being consumed by the fire. The שלם, shelem, is the peace offering, or thank offering. It is frequently joined with zebach, and then literally signifies a victim of requitals, or a slain offering of peace. It was always bloody.
The חטאת, chattath, is the sin offering. It is a law-created and bloody sacrifice to relieve the conscience from a sense of guilt. Its primary meaning is sin, αμαρτια. Its secondary signification is sin offering. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In the prophets it is used to signify punishment. The אשם, asham, is the trespass offering, law-created for particular faults or sins enumerated in the law. Gesenius says that the precise point of difference between the last two has hitherto been sought in vain. The Septuagint translates it by πλημμελεια, a false note in music, faultiness. Like the sin offering, it required the slaughter of a victim. The נסך, nesek, is the drink offering, always connected with the meat offering or the peace offering, and with the confirmation of covenants. With respect to their origin, sacrifices may be classified thus: — TRADITIONAL. LAW-CREATED.
Burnt offerings. Sin offerings.
Meat offerings. Trespass offerings.
Peace offerings.
With respect to the material of the offerings, they are thus classified: — ANIMAL. VEGETABLE.
Burnt offerings. Meat or Food offerings for the altar
Peace offerings. Incense and Meat or Food offerings in the holy place Sin offerings.
Trespass offerings. Wine of the drink offering.
As expressing the feelings of the offerer, the sacrifices fall into the following classes: —
FOR THE RELIEF OF THE CONSCIENCE
Sin offering.
FROM A SENSE OF GUILT
Trespass offering. Burnt offering.*
SELF-CONSECRATION
Burnt offering.
THANKSGIVING AND COMMUNION. Peace offering. Meat offering INTERCESSION
Incense.
[* Post-Mosaic and probably ante-Mosaic.]
In addition to these general sacrifices, others of a personal and special character were required in peculiar circumstances, such as for vows fulfilled, for purification from ceremonial uncleanness, for consecration to the priesthood, and for the healed leper. These, being too divergent in their nature to be grouped together and described in general terms, will be treated of in the commentary. The heave, wave, thank, and free-will offerings are subordinate to the principal sacrifices.
An inspection of the first three chapters will convince the reader that the altar sacrifices therein described are spoken of as already well known to the Hebrews. The three which we have called traditional were all probably known to the patriarchs. We find no record of offerings made by the Israelites in Egypt. The request of Moses to Pharaoh for permission to go out of the land to offer sacrifice without giving offence to the religious scruples of the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26) seems to imply, that, except in a furtive way, animal sacrifices had not been offered by Israel in Egypt. But the recollection of them had been cherished. Hence we call these “traditional” in distinction from the two “law-created” sacrifices — the sin and trespass offerings.
The Sacrificial Animals.
(4.) No small proof of the Divine origin of this sacrificial system is found in the kinds of animals prescribed for the altar. They were domestic, with the exception of the turtle dove, which may be styled semi-domestic. This requirement involves two important elements of sacrifice: — that of property, and of affection. Wild animals are unappropriated. No man claims them as his peculiar possession. Hence Jehovah did not appoint for his altar even such wild animals as he pronounced clean. In the Orient there was a familiarity with his flock on the part of the shepherd-owner which amounted to tenderness and love. He individualized his flock and called each sheep by name. See notes on John 10. In the case of poor men the flock was often folded beneath the same tent or roof with his children, and the lambs were family pets. Nathan, in his reproof of David, spake of no unusual circumstance when he described the little ewe lamb which grew up with the children of the poor man, eating of his own meat, and drinking of his own cup, lying in his bosom, and which was unto him as a daughter. 2 Samuel 12:3. Hence when a Hebrew led a lamb or a kid to the tabernacle or the temple, he laid more than its money value upon the altar: the affections of his heart and of his family gave to the lamb a multiplied value in the eyes of Jehovah. We who are familiar only with the customs of western nations think of an animal given to sacrifice as one taken at random from a drove of ten thousand grazing on the pasturage of the wilderness, or on the hills of Bashan. Again, the animal must be clean, and hence all the more valuable to the owner, because it was the means of life — next in value to life itself. No swine’s blood could atone for sin or be a thank offering pleasing to Jehovah, although the proud and polished Athenians crowding the Pnyx to legislate for the Demos would enter upon no business until pigs’ blood had lustrated the place.
None but clean herbivorous and graminivorous animals were acceptable to Jehovah. These symbolize innocency of heart, a quality required in all acceptable worship; while the carnivorous animals, living by destroying the lives of other animals, and fitly representing the spirit of fraud, robbery, and oppression among men, were appropriately forbidden for sacrifice. Another reason for this prohibition was, that no portion of an unclean animal could be appropriated to the priest; nor could the offering be bestowed upon the offerer, to be eaten by him and his friends, as in the peace offering. Moreover, the animals prescribed for the altar are prophetic of the future occupation of the people. Until the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world they will always be a pastoral and agricultural nation. Though living on the seacoast, they will never, so long as their ritual retains its significance, abandon the fields and become sailors. Though the great lines of traffic from Egypt and Greece pass through Canaan to Arabia and India, the Israelites will never, while residents of their own land, become a mercantile nation. Though Tyre, and Sidon, and Damascus, close upon their borders, may enrich themselves by manufactures, the religion of the Hebrew will give an agricultural cast to the nation so long as it continues to slaughter bullocks, sheep, and goats on Mount Moriah. The census of modern nations among which Jews are scattered, shows that scarcely one is engaged in tilling the soil or in the care of flocks, Since there is no need of sacrificial animals to prefigure the Lamb of God, the tastes of the whole nation have been changed from bucolies to banking and brokerage, from olive-yards to pack-peddling, throughout the world. How curious, and yet cogent, this incidental proof that the Jew now needs no other sacrifice for sin than that made on Calvary.
The turtle-dove, prescribed for the offering of the poor man, is found in amazing numbers wherever the palm-tree flourishes, every tree being a home for two or three pairs of these elegant, semi-domestic birds. A recent traveller testifies that he has frequently, in a palm-grove, brought down ten braces or more without moving from his post. We adduce this witness to answer the objection that this requirement for sacrifice could not be met by the Israelites in the wilderness. The pigeon is to this day domesticated in the East in enormous numbers. They are kept in dovecots in all the towns and hamlets of Palestine. Before King Solomon imported gallinaceous fowls from India, they were probably the only domestic poultry known to the Hebrews. The only difficulty is in the supply of pigeons in the wilderness. It has been asserted that there was no such supply unless we suppose that the Israelites fled from Egypt with dove-cages in their hands. There is nothing absurd in this supposition. The declaration of Moses, “there shall not a hoof be left behind,” is only another expression for the assurance that all their property should be brought with them out of Egypt. Exodus 10:26. The doves were the property of the poor as much as the herds and flocks were the wealth of the affluent.
Order of the Sacrifices.
(5.) At the first view there seems to be no prescribed order in which these different kinds of oblations are to be offered to Jehovah. There is a prevalent, yet erroneous, idea that this was left wholly to the option or caprice of the worshipper. But a more careful inspection discloses two key-texts which open the question of the order. The first is found in Leviticus 5:6, 7, where the law directs that the poor man may bring two fowls instead of a lamb or a kid; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest is explicitly directed to offer the sin offering first, and then the burnt offering. The second key-text is still more valuable, inasmuch as it opens to us the order of the three classes of offerings. It is found in chap. 8 — the order of offerings at the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the ram of consecration, which answers to the peace offering. In other words, the conscience of the offerer was first to be ceremonially purged from sin to render him acceptable to God before he could dedicate his entire being to him. After this the self-consecratory burnt offering is in order; then the peace offering or the meat offering may be presented, as a medium of communion with Jehovah, who gives the largest part of the peace offering back to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a joyful sacrificial feast. The beautiful correspondence of these offerings, in this order, to justification, sanctification, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints, will be pointed out in the notes.
It is remarkable that both these key-texts should have escaped the keen eye of Keil, who says that these laws “contain no rules respecting the order in which they were to follow one another, when two or more sacrifices were offered together.”
The Ceremonial Function of the Blood.
(6.) The most cursory reader of this book must be impressed with the prominence that is given to the shedding of blood, and to the vast amount of blood which must have been poured out in the service of the tabernacle and temple, making them perpetually reek with streams of gore, like a slaughter-house whose floor is ever crimsoned by the ceaseless work of death.
The directions for the treatment of the blood are very minute and often repeated. It was the centre of the whole system of sacrificial rites. There must be some deep significance in this stream of blood flowing ever fresh through all the Hebrew worship. It is found in Leviticus 17:11, correctly translated, “For the life (vpn, nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement by means of the life. (vpnb, banephesh.) In Genesis 2:7, we find that the immaterial principle breathed by Jehovah Elohim into the nostrils of the dust-made statue, constituting it a living soul, is this nephesh. Here we find the importance attached to the blood. The blood is the nephesh, and the human soul is the nephesh. The substitutional atonement, nephesh for nephesh, irrational soul for rational soul, is inevitable in the scheme of human redemption. In the treatment of the blood it was required to be sprinkled or spilled from the vessel, and cast abroad around the altar, to be scattered in drops by means of a bunch of hyssop, to be smeared with the finger upon the horns of the altar, not, as one fancifully suggests, because the horns were the highest part of the altar, and nearest to heaven, but because it was the refuge of the accidental man-slayer (Exodus 21:14,) and in clinging to the horns he must lay hold of blood. 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28. Finally, the remainder was to be poured out at the base of the great altar, from which, in the temple of Solomon, there were sewers to conduct it away into the brook Kedron. There must have been something like this in the tabernacle in the wilderness, since, in addition to the sacrifices, every animal slain for food in or near the camp was to be slain at the door of the tabernacle. The emphatic and reiterated prohibition of eating blood is expressly founded on the declaration that it is the nephesh, or animal soul. Leviticus 17:10, 11. So deeply was this interdict engraven on the heart of the Jews, that even the first Christian council in Jerusalem classify it with the violation of the law of purity contained in the seventh commandment. Acts 15:29.
Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of Sacrifices.
(7.) We propound a question of more than ordinary interest when we inquire into the precise benefit which accrued to the devout Hebrew from his faithful observance of the law of offerings. The answer to this inquiry will elucidate the important question of the nature and extent of the blessing promised to the believer in Jesus Christ, who presents him to the Father as his great sin offering. The moral delinquencies of man are of two kinds — offences against society, which are called crimes, and are punishable with temporal penalties, and offences purely spiritual, or sins, which await the fires of the judgment day. The Levitical law added, also, ceremonial offences or impurities. Under the theocracy this distinction is in a measure lost, the different kinds of offences being blended together and treated as sins. The first benefit to the sincere offerer was exemption from the temporal punishment of death. Yet all crimes could not be so expiated as to escape judicial death. Offences which disorganize and destroy society — murder, adultery, and cursing of parents, and sins especially offensive to God, as profanation of his holy day and blasphemy of his holy name — were beyond the efficacy of the sacrifices as to their power to screen the guilty from physical death. But minor offences — usually punished by the civil magistrate — if freely confessed with all possible restitution, together with ceremonial impurities, found an exemption from death in the blood sprinkled on the altar. But what did those blood sprinklings and those blazing altars do for guilty souls? Did they relieve the burdened conscience, effecting exactly such a change as penitent believers in Christ now experience in the pardon of their sins and the witness of the Spirit of adoption? There are several answers. First, that there was to the sincere Hebrew the same subjective phenomena as now attend justification by faith; the same conscious relief; and the same joy in the assurance of reconciliation: not flowing from the blood of the victim, but from the blood of its great Antitype appropriated by an anticipatory faith. But the insuperable objection to this is, that there is not in the Pentateuch the first hint of the Lamb of God, the reality of which the victim bleeding on the Hebrew altar is but the shadow. Hence there is no ground laid for faith to build upon in any objective revelation of the Sacrifice to be offered on Calvary.
The second view seems to be endorsed by Origen, Theodoret, Erasmus, and Luther, in their explanation of the term ‘Ilasthrion, in Romans 3:25. It is, that there was in the blood of animals slain in sacrifice by Divine appointment an inherent efficacy to take away the sins of the devout offerer, without any apprehension by faith of the Heaven-appointed Victim yet to pour out his blood. “As the lid of the ark of the covenant, when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and especially his death, is the security for our redemption to which we may believingly look.” To the same conclusion Bonar comes. “The sin passes away; it is an instantaneous, complete, perpetual pardon.”
THE PRETERMISSION OF SINS.
The third view is based on the explicit statements of Divine inspiration. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reiterates, in various phrases, the declaration that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sins. Hebrews 10:4. Between this assertion and the assurance given by Jehovah that “the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him,” (Leviticus 6:7,) we have a seeming contradiction, of which the best explanation is afforded by St. Paul, who, in explaining the ‘Ilasthrion, is very careful to say that “Christ Jesus is set forth to be ‘the propitiation,’ ‘the mercy seat,’ through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’s) righteousness for the passing over (paresin, the pretermission) of sins that are past (in ages gone) through the forbearance of God.” The doctrine of St. Paul is, that the atoning death of Jesus justifies God, by removing his seeming low estimate of sin, or indifference towards it, in passing over and forbearing to punish the sins of penitent, blood-offering Hebrews in past ages. See on Romans 3:25, also Alford and Bengel. The latter says, that “pretermission, (forgiveness,) in the Old Testament, had respect to transgressions until (apolutrwsiv) redemption of them was accomplished in the death of Christ. Hebrews 9:15. The object of pretermission are sins; the object of forbearance are sinners.” Says Alford, “Where sins are continually called to mind, there, clearly, the conscience is not clear from them. Very similar is the assertion of Ebrard, when speaking of the blood of bulls as incapable of taking away sins: ‘It was shed, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate [assumed need] of vicarious propitiation.’” How far this pretermission of sins applies to pious pagans is a question beyond the range of our present inquiry. See on Acts 17:30. Respecting the emotional experience attending sacrificial forgiveness as thus explained, we have no explicit statements in the Scriptures. But from such expressions as the testimony that his ways “pleased God,” given to Enoch, (Hebrews 11:5;) “blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,” (Psalm 32:1;) “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him,” (Psalm 25:14;) and from the joy that rings out its hallelujahs through the Psalms, we infer that the Holy Spirit, though not yet doing his official work as the Paraclete, the Spirit of adoption, was by his essential presence assuring obedient Israelites of the gracious forbearance of Jehovah towards them in passing over their sins. This implies that the sacrifices were not offered as a dead opus operatum, or mechanical and soulless performance, but with that devout and penitent state of heart which alone can appropriate spiritual good. When this was absent the “vain oblations” of apostate Israel became “an abomination” (Isaiah 1:11-15) to Jehovah, and he proclaims to the sinning nation, “I desired mercy (philanthropy and justice) and not (mere) sacrifice.” Hosea 6:6. This leads us to consider: — The Spiritual Import of the Sacrifices.
(8.) We must not conclude our introductory remarks without calling attention to the vital point — the central idea of the book — its spiritual meaning. “That so elaborate a ritual looked beyond itself we cannot doubt. It was a prophecy of things to come; a shadow whereof the substance was Christ and his kingdom. We may not always be able to say what the exact relation is between the type and the antitype. Of many things we may be sure that they belonged only to the nation to whom they were given, containing no prophetic significance, but serving as witnesses and signs to them of God’s covenant of grace. We may hesitate to pronounce with Jerome, that ‘every sacrifice, nay, almost every syllable — the garments of Aaron and the whole Levitical system — breathe of heavenly mysteries;’ but we cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews and not acknowledge that the Levitical priests ‘served the pattern and type of heavenly things’ — that the sacrifices of the law pointed to and found their interpretation in the LAMB OF GOD — that the ordinances of outward purification signified the truer inward cleansing of the heart and conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. One idea, moreover, penetrates the whole of this vast and burdensome ceremonial, and gives it a real glory, even apart from any prophetic significance. HOLINESS is its end. Holiness is its character. The tabernacle is holy — the vessels are holy — the offerings are most holy unto Jehovah — the garments of the priests are holy. All who approach Him whose name is ‘Holy,’ whether priests who minister to him or people who worship before him, must themselves be holy. It would seem as if, amid the camp and dwellings of Israel, was ever to be heard an echo of that solemn strain which fills the courts above, where the seraphim cry one to another, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.” — Perowne.
Arrangement and Divisions.
(9.) The order of subjects has been much criticised by those who deem themselves competent to sit in judgment even upon the style in which God should speak to men. Dr. Kalisch, with the double vail of Judaism and Rationalism before his eyes, amplifies on the “illogical arrangement” of Leviticus. It is not marvellous that a series of types should seem confused and chaotic to one who is stone-blind to the great Antitype which explains and harmonizes them all. On the other hand, Bertheau sees a regularity and exactness in the arrangement of topics which it is difficult for us to discover. His “seven groups of the laws of Moses,” each containing a greater or less number of decalogues, proceeds in some cases upon assumptions so arbitrary that we have not thought it wise to adopt it. The chief difficulty in the grouping of subjects arises from the commingling of rules of life relating to morals with those relating to mere ceremonial requirements, the Hebrew mind never having made that sharp discrimination between the ethical and the ritual which the Christian has been trained to make. Acts 15:20, 29. The division of the book into two parts adopted by Keil and Murphy, the first relating to the expiation of guilt and the second to the sanctification of the life, we have adopted, only making the division at the end of chap. x instead of chap. xvi, since the intervening chapters bear more or less directly upon sanctity of life, especially in the conception of the Hebrews. Even the day of atonement, described in chap. xvi, was not for the removal of conscious guilt at the initiation of the spiritual life, but for those “errors” (agnohmatwn,) “of the people,” (Hebrews 9:7,) which are incidental to the most advanced stages of holy living on the earth, making appropriate the daily prayer, “Forgive us our debts.”
Outline of Contents.
WHD_CO02.PDF, source PDF p. 22
OUTLINE OF CONTENTS.
Part I. Propitiation, chapters 1-10.
SECTION I. Ritual of the Altar, chapters 1-7.
Introductory, Leviticus 1:1-17. The Meat Offering, Leviticus 2:1-16. The Peace Offering, Leviticus 3:1-17. Ordinary Sins of Inadvertence, Leviticus 4:1, 2. Sin of a Priest, Leviticus 4:3-12. Sin of the Congregation, Leviticus 4:13-21. Sin of a Prince, Leviticus 4:22-26. Sin of a Private Person, Leviticus 4:27-35. The Trespass Offering: Sin Against Justice — Concealing Testimony, Leviticus 5:1. Involuntary Violation of Ceremonial Purity, Leviticus 5:2, 3. Inadvertency in Oaths, Leviticus 5:4, 5. Trespass Offering Therefor, Leviticus 5:6-13. Defects in Holy Things, Leviticus 5:14-19. Wilful Fraud, Leviticus 6:1-7. Ordinances Appertaining to the Priests, Leviticus 6:8-30. Additional Laws of the Trespass Offering, Leviticus 7:1-10. Laws of the Peace Offering, Leviticus 7:11-21. The Fat and Blood Forbidden to be Eaten, Leviticus 7:22-30. Portion of the Priests, Leviticus 7:11-34. Summary of Preceding Laws, Leviticus 7:35-38.
SECTION II. Consecration of the Aaronic Priesthood — First Service — Judicial Death of Nadab and Abihu, chapters 8-10.
The Investment and Unction, Leviticus 8:1-36. Aaron’s First Offering and Blessing, Leviticus 9:1-7. Aaron’s Personal Offerings, Leviticus 9:8-14. The Offerings for Israel, Leviticus 9:15-21. The Benediction and the Consuming Fire from Jehovah, Leviticus 9:22-24. Nadab and Abihu Slain by Jehovah, Leviticus 10:1-7. The Priests Forbidden Wine and Strong Drink, Leviticus 10:8-11. Eating the Most Holy Things, Leviticus 10:12-20.
Part II. Holiness, Rules for Sanctity of Life, chapters 11-27. SECTION I. External Purity, chapters 11-15.
Purity and Impurity in Animals: Concerning Beasts, Leviticus 11:1-8. Concerning Fishes, Leviticus 11:9-12. Concerning Fowls, Leviticus 11:13-19. Concerning Winged Insects, Leviticus 11:20-25. Concerning Larger Animals, Leviticus 11:26-28. Purity and Impurity in Persons, Leviticus 12:1-8. The Leper, Leviticus 13:1-59. The Ceremonial Cleansing of the Leper, Leviticus 14:1-32. Signs of Leprosy in a House, Leviticus 14:33-45. The Cleansing of a House Suspected of Leprosy, Leviticus 14:46-57. Physical Sanctification: Treatment of Issues, Leviticus 15:1-18. The Uncleanness of Women in their Issues, Leviticus 15:19-33.
SECTION II. Ceremonial Purity, chapters 16-27.
The Day of Atonement: Occasion of the Institution, Leviticus 16:1, 2. Outline of the Ceremonial, Leviticus 16:3-10. Detailed Description of Certain Rites, Leviticus 16:11-28. General Rules respecting the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16:29-34. The Sacredness of Blood, Leviticus 17:1-16. Holiness in Social Life: The Vices of Egypt and Canaan Prohibited, Leviticus 18:1-5. Prohibition of Incestuous Marriages, Leviticus 18:6-18. Unnatural Lusts Prohibited, Leviticus 18:19-30. Holiness Towards God and Righteousness Towards Men, Leviticus 19:1-37. Punishments, Leviticus 20:1-27. Holiness in the Priests: The Priests’ Mourning for the Dead, Leviticus 21:1-6. Holiness in Family Relations, Leviticus 21:7-15. Personal Disabilities for the Priesthood, Leviticus 21:17-24. Reverence for Holy Things, Leviticus 22:1-16. Acceptable Sacrifices, Leviticus 22:17-28. Miscellaneous Precepts Reiterated, Leviticus 22:29-33. Holiness in Days — Festivals Instituted; The Feasts of the Lord, Leviticus 23:1-8. The Sheaf of Firstfruits, Leviticus 23:9-14. The Feast of Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15-21. The Law of Charity, Leviticus 23:22. The Feast of Trumpets, Leviticus 23:23-25. Day of Expiations, Leviticus 23:26-32. The Feast of Ingathering, Leviticus 23:33-44. Purity in Oil and Showbread; Holiness of the Divine Name, and Sacredness of Human Life; The Illumination of the Tabernacle, Leviticus 24:1-4. Ordinance of the Showbread, Leviticus 24:5-9. The Blasphemer Stoned, Leviticus 24:10-23. The Law of Retaliation, Leviticus 24:17-23. Holiness Applied to Years: The Sabbatical Year, Leviticus 25:1-7. The Year of Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-55. Rules for the Sale of Land, Leviticus 25:14-17. Additional Legislation respecting the Sabbatical Year, Leviticus 25:18-22. The Redemption of Land, Leviticus 25:23-28. The Redemption of Houses, Leviticus 25:29-34. Mercy to the Poor Enjoined, Leviticus 25:35-43. Non-Hebrew Servants, Leviticus 25:44-46. The Hebrew Servant and the Foreign Master, Leviticus 25:47-55. Promises and Threatenings as Sanctions of the Law and Motives to Holiness. Idolatry, the Sabbath, and the Sanctuary, Leviticus 26:1, 2. Blessings Promised to Obedience, Leviticus 26:3-13. Threatenings Against Disobedience, Leviticus 26:14-39. Mercy After Judgments — Israel not Utterly Destroyed, Leviticus 26:40-46. Holiness in Promises — Vows: Persons the Objects of Vows, Leviticus 27:2-8. Animals Vowed, Leviticus 27:9-13. Houses and Fields Vowed, Leviticus 27:14-25. Firstlings and Unclean Beasts, Leviticus 27:26, 27. Things Under the Ban and Tithes, Leviticus 27:28-34.