Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 7:1
Likewise this [is] the law of the trespass offering: it [is] most holy.
(5) The Guilt-Offering. Priestly portions of other offerings (Lev 7:1-10)
The similarity between the Guilt-Offering and the Sin-Offering is very close (see Lev 7:7). Both are ‘most holy’ and to be killed in the same place (Lev 6:25, cp. Lev 7:1-2). The parts to be burned on the altar are the same (Lev 3:4; Lev 3:9-11, Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35, cp. Lev 7:3-5), but note that the word ‘food,’ Heb. lhem, of Lev 3:11; Lev 3:16 is not applied to the Guilt-Offering, and the remainder is to be eaten in the same manner (Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29, cp. Lev 7:6-7).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Chs. Lev 6:8 to Lev 7:38 [Heb 6:1-20; Heb 6:7 ]. The Second Part of the Law of Offerings
See the analysis of this portion in Appendix I ( a) where are given reasons for concluding that this group of laws is not by the same hand as the first, and that they have been collected by one who may or may not be identical with the compiler of P, in order to supplement Lev 1:1 to Lev 6:7. In the main they are concerned with priestly duties and dues.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See Lev 5:14 note. In Lev 7:2 sprinkle should rather be cast Lev 1:5. All the details regarding the parts put on the altar are repeated for each kind of sacrifice, because the matter was one of paramount importance.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 7:1-10
The law of the trespass-offering.
Lessons
1. The fatness and grossness of the carnal heart is to be removed and taken away.
2. God requires the heart.
3. Against covetousness in ministers.
4. To receive the sacraments reverently and with due preparation. (A. Willet, D. D.)
The trespass-offering
The trespass-offering may be considered as a variety of the sin-offering. The distinguishing characteristic of the trespass-offering proper was restitution. The offences for which it was offered were such as admitted of restitution, and the distinction from the sin-offering cannot be better expressed than in the words of Prof. Cave: The sin and trespass-offerings were both sacrifices for sins; but in the former the leading idea was that of atonement, the expiation of sin by a substituted life; in the latter the leading feature was that of satisfaction, the wiping out of sin by the payment of a recompense. It is well worthy of note that in the trespass-offering for sins against God, the ritual prescribed was sacrifice first, restitution following; while in those against man the order was reversed: restitution first, followed by sacrifice on the altar. The appropriateness of the difference will be readily seen. In the former case, where the sin consisted in withholding from God that which was His due, it was not really God that lost anything, it was the sinner. Giving to God is not regarded as a debt which a man must pay, but rather as a privilege which he may enjoy; and, accordingly, before a man can enjoy the privilege of which he has foolishly deprived himself, he must come and offer his sacrifice upon the altar. But when the sinner has been withholding from his fellow-man that which is his due, the delinquency is regarded in the light of a debt, and he is not allowed to go to the altar of God until he has paid his debt, and not only discharged the principal in full, but added one-fifth part thereto. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
This is the law
We find this text in many places (see Lev 6:25; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:11; Lev 7:37). What we want is just this-definiteness. There must be a line of certainty somewhere, or the universe could not be kept together. There may be ten thousand contributory lines, contingent or incidental lines, but there must be running right through the heart of things a law of definiteness and certitude; otherwise coherence is impossible, and permanence is of the nature of a dissolving cloud. We want to get upon that line. Quest in search of that line is orthodoxy. To seek after truth, what is this but to love wisdom and to pant for God? What have you? You have great information. What is the value of information? Nothing, beyond that which is merely momentary and tentative. It is the last thing to be known or that is known. But then in two hours we shall know something more. Information is never final. Hence men say, To the best of my knowledge. What a confession is in these simple words if we submit them to their last analysis! To the best of my judgment, So far as I know, According to the best advice I can get; what is all this but sand? You could not build a house upon such sand. It would never do for information to be final or complete or authoritative; it is by this kind of uncertainty that we are kept modest, it is by this kind of incertitude we are often inspired, and it is because intellectual life is a continual tumult that we grow athletically, that the brain becomes stronger. What we want to come upon is the line of law which itself is a line of progress, a line of change into ever-increasing largeness, but never a change of quality or of moral purpose. If we want to know the law we can find it. If you want to be right you can be right. To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Can we go to the law? We can do better. It is the business of the gospel minister to say how. We can not only go to the law, we can go to the Lawgiver, we can go to the living Jesus Christ. We can see Him face to face, or, better still, using the word face in its true interpretation, we Can see Him soul to soul. (J. -Parker, D. D.)
The priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering.
The skin legislated for
Why God should think of so small and base a thing as the skin, some may ask a reason; and see you the reason and tile good of it.
1. It notably confirmeth our faith in His providence, that He will never forget us and leave us destitute of things needful and good for us, seeing we are much better than the skin of a brute beast, whereof yet He hath care and thought.
2. It showed that sweet and comfortable care that the Lord then had, and still hath, of the ministry, that it should be maintained, and not defrauded of the least thing allotted to it, which still He showeth in all other particulars, urging still that they be given to the priests according to His will.
3. This care of the Lord for the beasts skin, to appoint it to one that should have it, well taught that people then, and still teacheth us ever to be careful to,prevent strife, and to take away all questions and controversies as much as we may., that every one knowing what is his may therein rest, and peace ensue. The more God hath given you, the more must be your pain this way, in your good health and perfect memory. (Bp. Babington.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VII
The law of the trespass-offering, and the priest’s portion in
it, 1-7.
As also in the sin-offerings and meat-offerings, 8-10.
The law of the sacrifice of peace-offering, 11,
whether it was a thanksgiving-offering, 12-15;
or a VOW or voluntary offering, 16-18.
Concerning the flesh that touched any unclean thing, 19, 20,
and the person who touched any thing unclean, 21.
Laws concerning eating of fat, 22-25,
and concerning eating of blood, 26, 27.
Farther ordinances concerning the peace-offerings and the
priest’s portion in them, 28-36.
Conclusion of the laws and ordinances relative to
burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, sin-offerings, and
peace-offerings, delivered in this and the preceding chapters,
37, 38.
NOTES ON CHAP. VII
Verse 1. Trespass-offering] See end of the chapter. See Clarke on Le 7:38.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1. Likewise this is the law of thetrespass offeringThis chapter is a continuation of the lawsthat were to regulate the duty of the priests respecting the trespassofferings. The same regulations obtained in this case as in the burntofferingspart was to be consumed on the altar, while the otherpart was a perquisite of the priestssome fell exclusively to theofficiating minister, and was the fee for his services; others werethe common share of all the priestly order, who lived upon them astheir provision, and whose meetings at a common table would tend topromote brotherly harmony and friendship.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Likewise this [is] the law of the trespass [offering],…. Or the various rites and rules to be observed at the offering of it: the persons for whom it was to be made are described in the two preceding chapters, Le 5:1 both such that sinned through ignorance, and knowingly, and here the place and parts of the offering, and how to be disposed of, are declared:
it [is] most holy; wholly devoted for sacred use, either to the Lord, or to his priests; there were some things the Jews call light holy things, and others most holy in the highest degree, of this sort was the trespass offering.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Law of the Trespass-Offering embraces first of all the regulations as to the ceremonial connected with the presentation.
Lev 7:2 The slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood were the same as in the case of the burnt-offering (Lev 1:5); and therefore, no doubt, the signification was the same.
Lev 7:3-7 The fat portions only were to be burned upon the altar, viz., the same as in the sin and peace-offerings (see Lev 4:8 and Lev 3:9); but the flesh was to be eaten by the priests, as in the sin-offering (Lev 6:22), inasmuch as there was the same law in this respect for both the sin-offering and trespass-offering; and these parts of the sacrificial service must therefore have had the same meaning, every trespass being a sin (see Lev 6:26). – Certain analogous instructions respecting the burnt-offering and meat-offering are appended in Lev 7:8-10 by way of supplement, as they ought properly to have been given in ch. 6, in the laws relating to the sacrifices in question.
Lev 7:8-10 In the case of the burnt-offering, the skin of the animal was to fall to the lot of the officiating priest, viz., as payment for his services. is construed absolutely: “ as for the priest, who offereth – the skin of the burnt-offering which he offereth shall belong to the priest ” (for “ to him ”). This was probably the case also with the trespass-offerings and sin-offerings of the laity; whereas the skin of the peace-offerings belonged to the owner of the animal (see Mishnah, Sebach. 12, 3). – In Lev 7:9, Lev 7:10, the following law is laid down with reference to the meat-offering, that everything baked in the oven, and everything prepared in a pot or pan, was to belong to the priest, who burned a portion of it upon the altar; and that everything mixed with oil and everything dry was to belong to all the sons of Aaron, i.e., to all the priests, to one as much as another, so that they were all to receive an equal share. The reason for this distinction is not very clear. That all the meat-offerings described in ch. 2 should fall to the sons of Aaron (i.e., to the priests), with the exception of that portion which was burned upon the altar as an azcarah, followed from the fact that they were most holy (see at Lev 2:3). As the meat-offerings, which consisted of pastry, and were offered in the form of prepared food (Lev 7:9), are the same as those described in Lev 2:4-8, it is evident that by those mentioned in Lev 2:10 we are to understand the kinds described in Lev 2:1-3 and Lev 2:14-16, and by the “dry,” primarily the , which consisted of dried grains, to which oil was to be added ( Lev 2:15), though not poured upon it, as in the case of the offering of flour (Lev 2:1), and probably also in that of the sin-offerings and jealousy-offerings (Lev 5:11, and Num 5:15), which consisted simply of flour (without oil). The reason therefore why those which consisted of cake and pastry fell to the lot of the officiating priest, and those which consisted of flour mixed with oil, of dry corn, or of simple flour, were divided among all the priests, was probably simply this, that the former were for the most part offered only under special circumstances, and then merely in small quantities, whereas the latter were the ordinary forms in which the meat-offerings were presented, and amounted to more than the officiating priests could possibly consume, or dispose of by themselves.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Trespass-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
1 Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy. 2 In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar. 3 And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, 4 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away: 5 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering. 6 Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy. 7 As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. 8 And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. 9 And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the fryingpan, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it. 10 And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
Observe here, 1. Concerning the trespass-offering, that, being much of the same nature with the sin-offering, it was to be governed by the same rules, v. 6. When the blood and fat were offered to God to make atonement, the priests were to eat the flesh, as that of the sin-offering, in the holy place. The Jews have a tradition (as we have it from the learned bishop Patrick) concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the trespass-offering round about upon the altar, “That there was a scarlet line which went round about the altar exactly in the middle, and the blood of the burnt-offerings was sprinkled round about above the line, but that of the trespass-offerings and peace-offerings round about below the line.” As to the flesh of the trespass-offering, the right to it belonged to the priest that offered it, v. 7. He that did the work must have the wages. This was an encouragement to the priests to give diligent attendance on the altar; the more ready and busy they were the more they got. Note, The more diligent we are in the services of religion the more we shall reap of the advantages of it. But any of the priests, and the males of their families, might be invited by him to whom it belonged to partake with him: Every male among the priests shall eat thereof, that is, may eat thereof, in the holy place, v. 6. And, no doubt, it was the usage to treat one another with those perquisites of their office, by which friendship and fellowship were kept up among the priests. Freely they had received, and must freely give. It seems the offerer was not himself to have any share of his trespass-offering, as he was to have of his peace-offering; but it was all divided between the altar and the priest. They offered peace-offerings in thankfulness for mercy, and then it was proper to feast; but they offered trespass-offerings in sorrow for sin, and then fasting was more proper, in token of holy mourning, and a resolution to abstain from sin. 2. Concerning the burnt-offering it is here appointed that the priest that offered it should have the skin (v. 8), which no doubt he might make money of. “This” (the Jews say) “is meant only for the burnt-offerings which were offered by particular persons; for the profit of the skins of the daily burnt-offerings for the congregation went to the repair of the sanctuary.” Some suggest that this appointment will help us to understand God’s clothing our first parents with coats of skins, Gen. iii. 21. It is probable that the beasts whose skins they were were offered in sacrifice as whole burnt-offerings, and that Adam was the priest that offered them; and then God gave him the skins, as his fee, to make clothes of for himself and his wife, in remembrance of which the skins ever after pertained to the priest; and see Gen. xxvii. 16. 3. Concerning the meat-offering, if it was dressed, it was fit to be eaten immediately; and therefore the priest that offered it was to have it, v. 9. If it was dry, there was not so much occasion for being in haste to use it; and therefore an equal dividend of it must be made among all the priests that were then in waiting, v. 10.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER SEVEN
Verses 1-6:
This text is a supplement to the Trespass Offering, see chapters 5:14 – 6:7. The blood of the Trespass Offering was not placed on the horns of the altar, as was that of the Sin Offering. It was treated in the same manner as the blood of the Whole Burnt Offering and the Peace Offering; cast against the inward sides of the altar.
“The rump” is literally “the fat tail,” see note on Le 3:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Ritual of the Sacrifices: the Peace Offering
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 7:1.Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering. More precise instructions are now added to those given in chap Lev. 5:1-13, expressly for the guidance of the priest. Every minute detail is of Divine regulation; God rules within the sanctuary, directs every particular of worship and service therein; for altar sacrifice is most holy, and man must scrupulously refrain from adding, omitting, or altering aught when he approaches Jehovah with expiation. Neither, in the Christian dispensation, is license, or caprice, or self-assertion allowed to sinful man who would propitiate God; he must implicitly follow instructions. He hath showed thee, O man, what is good.
Lev. 7:7.As the sin offering, so is the trespass offering. If any item of regulation was given for one offering which was not given in the other, then it was to be applied as equally binding in both cases. The priest was entrusted with the duty of searching out each particular and fulfilling it sedulously. It should be our study to know the Holy Scriptures, and therefore we should compare spiritual things with spiritual, searching the Scriptures daily, as did the Bereans, in order that nothing be left undiscovered, nothing unfulfilled. How careful should be our endeavour to make the written will of God our law in every particular of worship and of habit, of life and conduct.
Lev. 7:10.One as much as another [literally, a man as his brother]. In the meat offering all the sons of Aaron were to share, and the dividing was to be equal. And this law assures us, who in Christ are of the priesthood, that there is an equal participation in the merits of the sacrifice and the privileges of the Christian life for all who are sacredly related. The gracious rule of brotherhood is to be illustrated in our enjoyment of the sacramental feast at the Lords table, All ye are brethren. No assumption of superiority is permissible, no exclusive appropriation of the sacred provisions; in the Gospel feast, and at the Lords Supper, a man is as his brother. How, then, dare the Romish celebrant assume the sole right of participating? or where is the warrant for priestly superiority in the household of faith?
Lev. 7:12.Offer it for a thanksgiving. These peace offerings are of three kindsthank offerings (Lev. 7:12-15), votive offerings (Lev. 7:16), and voluntary offerings (Lev. 7:16-18). [Comp. on chap. 3.]
Lev. 7:18.Neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it. The offerer was expected to see that the entire votive or voluntary offering was eaten the same day as it was offered; a regulation this which compelled him to hospitality, to invite together a sufficient number of neighbours or poor persons to the festal board. And if through inattention to this duty of considerate and generous hospitality any part remained uneaten that same day, it must be completely consumed on the morrow, or the offerer was liable to a serious riskthe part not consumed might fall into some persons hands after the limited time; and then the efficacy of the sacrifice would be entirely disannulled and the offerer must bring another votive offering and go through the regulations of lavish hospitality again, but with more promptitude and precision. A Christian must not live to himself; his care for others must be generous; he must be hospitable to the needy; and in his enjoyment of sacred privileges he must bring in others to share with himself the feast of fat things, or his own selfish religious life becomes an abomination.
Lev. 7:20.Having his uncleanness upon him. The penalty of legal defilement was excision from the Lords people. Ye are a holy nation. Such was Jehovahs reiterated declaration; and every infringement of ceremonial sanctity was immediately stamped with disapprobation and disfranchisement. Shall not the Church of Christ be equally guarded from the presence of the unclean? Wherefore let a man examine himself, and let those charged with the care of the Church preserve her fellowship from contamination by trying the spirits As for ourselves, this is the injunction for us to heed: Wherefore come out from among them, be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.
Lev. 7:22-27.Ye shall eat no manner of fat no manner of blood. [Comp. on Lev. 3:17]. That which was the Lords man must not appropriate. What shall I render unto the Lord? Our aim should be rather to exceed His specified requirements by offering something beyond, some very precious alabastron, some free-will sacrifice of love for the great love wherewith He has loved us.
Lev. 7:30.His own hand shall bring the offerings of the Lord. Divine service could not be done by proxy. Just as at the judgment every one shall give account of himself to God, so in now seeking appeasement and acceptance every soul must come to the Lord on his own behalf. The Master calleth for thee.
Lev. 7:34.The wave breast and the heave shoulder. The spectacular movements of parts of the sacrificial victim before the altar intimated their consecration to Jehovah, and their performance was justified by the necessity of impressing on the people the supreme claims of God upon them when they brought their offerings. It was an uplifting of the sacrifice to Him who dwelt between the cherubim; a recognition of His unseen presence, a response to His solemn demands. A vivid realization of God within the sanctuary would constrain to more reverence in our offerings and actions. Who hath required this at your hands to tread My courts? (Isa. 1:12).
Lev. 7:37.This is the law of the burnt offering, etc. An enumeration of the various kinds of sacrifices, which carries the suggestion that Jehovah could omit no one from the list, that all were essential to His continued favour towards and fellowship with man, that the religious life could not be thorough if one were withheldself-consecration, fellowship, atonement, reconciliation, peace.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: INVARIABLE LAWS REGULATING SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP (Lev. 7:1-10)
With minute precision God reiterates His requirements in sacrificial worship. Thus emphasizing the conditions of mans propitiation, and his acceptance with Him. There is one law for them (Lev. 7:7). Though some diversity existed in the details, e.g., as to the disposal of the blood of the victim by the priest [comp. ch. Lev. 4:6-7, with Lev. 7:2], and the sharing of the different parts of the animal; yet amid all diversity in details, an invariable law ruled in the arrangements, and this God again emphasizes. What was that invariable law? In chap Lev. 6:27, etc, the stress of Divine injunctions is laid on the quality of the sanctity distinguishing the sin offering: and here it is reaffirmed (Lev. 7:1) it is most holy, and (Lev. 7:6) it shall be eaten in the holy place, it is most holy. Ponder that inflexible requirement and consider that there are still inevitable laws and fixed conditions of acceptable approach to God.
I. METHODS OF WORSHIP MAY VARY, BUT HOLINESS IS INEVITABLE IN ALL.
1. Moral qualities are essentially more valuable than outward rituals.
2. Modes of approaching God, though important, fail to win Divine favour, if the inmost state is alien to His will.
3. Sanctity is the most precious quality in man. Not grandeur, not punctiliousness, but holiness.
4. This holiness indicates not so much moral faultlessness and absolute perfectness in the offerer, as sincerity, humility, a right spirit, a reverence of God, and a trustfulness in His grace. [See Addenda, p. 100, True Worship.]
II. All propitiatory acts are secondary to THE SUPREME FACTDEATH FOR SIN.
1. First in order of time: the offering was to be slain (Lev. 7:2). After that was done, then began the ritual. Any attempt to draw near God until the atonement death is a realised fact is an intrusion, an anachronism.
2. First in order of consequence: the worshipper must substitute a victims life. Or he himself must die! Shielded from death by substitution, he may then seek God by propitiatory ritual or reconciliatory worship.
3. Calvary was thus the consummation of all types: Death for sin making possible mans approach to God.
III. Offerings to God must always be THE CHOICEST IN OUR POWER TO PRESENT.
1. Vast variety was allowed and ordained in the sacrificial offerings. God permits and approves our various gifts; every one bringing his distinctive offering; every life presenting its special and peculiar quality. Considerable freedom in choice is granted.
2. Yet the invariable law rulesGod must have the finest, the very best. The vital parts, the choicest of the inwards of the victim were claimed for Him (Lev. 7:3-5).
3. Each worshipper has to bring something of peculiar preciousness to God, something additional to atonement. Yes; beyond Christs death, God asks the very choicest qualities of the life of all who seek Him. [See Addenda, p. 100, Offerings for God.]
IV. ABSOLUTE CONSECRATION MARKED WHATEVER WAS PRESENTED TO THE LORD. It is most holy.
1. There might be no taking back that which had been offered. Think on Ananias and Sapphira.
2. No one might share that which pertained unto the Lord. [Comp. Lev. 7:20.]
Hence: once dedicated to the Lord we are His absolutely and always. And whatever is dedicated to the Lord none may partake with Himit is his only.
Topic: THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERING (Lev. 7:11-18)
And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the Lord, etc.
In the ritual of the Hebrews there were three great classes of offerings: the burnt offering, the sin offering, and the peace offering. The meat and drink offerings were secondary, and usually were offered in connection with other sacrifices.
The burnt offering and the peace offering were known before the giving of the law. The sin offering was instituted in connection with the law, as made necessary by it.
The law of the peace offering is given last in publication of the sacrificial arrangements, as if to declare that it naturally follows the others as a sacrifice of completeness (as expressive of restored fellowship between God and man); and also that every view of Christ is gathered into it.
I. The peace offering is a SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING.
Three forms of it are specified:
(1) The offering of thanksgiving, i.e., for some special blessing.
(2) The vow, the fulfilment of a promise to God.
(3) The voluntary offering made from a principle of gratitude, when, with no special occasion, the worshipper called upon his soul and all within him to bless and praise Gods holy name.
It was a peace offering, a national thanksgiving, which Solomon made at the dedication of the temple. It is this sacrifice so frequently referred to in the Psalms.
In connection with the Passover celebration there were two peace offerings: the former of these is continued in the Pascal supper, which is a sacrifice of peace offering, a feast of thanksgiving for Gods greatest gift to men, a service by the Church to be joyously observed. At the sacramental table we should
(1) thank God for all special exhibition of Divine goodness;
(2) should joyfully fulfil our promises to Him, those sacred covenants into which, in trial or difficulty, we have entered with Him;
(3) should make our voluntary offerings, in view of the constant mercies of God, the daily and hourly grace; not the freshet water in the stream of Divine providence, but the constant flow from the inexhaustible upper sprigs. How well do these befit all our approaches to God, how well, of all places, do they befit the sacrifice of the Communion!
II. The peace offering is a SACRIFICE OF FELLOWSHIP.
This idea lies at its centre. The peculiar feature of it was the sacrificial meal; the priests shared in what was offered; the offerer also partook; the offering was presented to God, and part thereof consumed, as if by Him, upon His altar.
1. It was an act of communion with God. He gives us back a portion from the altar. Christ is our sacrifice. At the Communion we partake of the Paschal Lamb. God gives us His flesh to eat, His blood to drink. When we came home as returning prodigals the Father set the table for us, and sat down with us: Let us eat and be merry, He said. At the Communion Christ says, Let us eat: let us drink. He sits at the table with us.
2. So also the sacred meal was an act of mutual communion. It was a social meal: the priest, the worshipper, his family, and other friends shared with him. So was it in the peace offering of the Passover; so in Solomons great feast of dedication; so it is at the Communion table. We partake of Christ together. Holy fellowship, of loftiest, tenderest experience.
What a beautiful relation of Christian to fellow Christian is here exhibited. How the fact of our having sat at Christs table together, partaken of the Lamb of God, commits us to purest brotherly love, most free from all self-seeking, alienation, suspicion, bitterness; charges us, Ye are members one of another.
How much is meant when we are exhorted to be at peace among yourselves. It is to be in fellowship in the sacrament, in offering together our offering of peace, partaking together our joyous supper at which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost unite with us. Is true communion anything less than this?
III. The basis of communion in the peace offering is SACRIFICE: and, in the sacrifice, THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD.
The shedding of blood in this particular sacrifice does not represent, as in the sin offering, the act of atoning for sin.
1. The bleeding Christ, as our Peace Offering, is not our Sin Bearer. But His blood in this offering also declares that an atonement has been made, and that the sole ground of fellowship with God is in the reconciling blood of the Lamb. But now in Christ Jesus, etc (Eph. 2:13-14).
2. We follow our sin offering with the peace offering of the sacrament, and we constantly renew our sacrament to express our joy in redemption, and our recognition of the sole ground of it, the blood of the Redeemer. The sacrament is only an act of communion with him whose sins have been washed away in the fountain filled with blood. We must make our peace offering on the basis of a previous sin offering of atonement for our soul.
3. Communion with God is impossible, on any natural basis, without the blood of Christ. You speak of enjoying communion with God and with good people; is it in the blood of the Son of God? Certain tribes in Africa have a custom which they call blood-brotherhood, the most sacred of all relationships By the mutual transference from the veins of each to the other of their blood, two become in the most binding and inevitable manner brothers. Ours is a blood-brotherhood, fellow Christians; only with us the seal of the covenant is the blood of Christ.
IV. The peace offering REQUIRES HOLINESS IN THE WORSHIPPER.
This fact is expressed in the provision that unleavened bread should be offered as a part of the sacrifice. Yeast or leaven was a symbol of corruption. The absence of leaven suggested the absence, therefore the removal, of sin.
If in your heart there is a preference for sin let it concern you. Ask yourself, how can this be, if you are a new man. [See Addenda, p. 100, True Worship.]
V. In the peace offering THE SINFULNESS OF A NATURE PARTIALLY SANCTIFIED is confessed.
With the offering of unleavened bread one of leavened bread was also to be made. This was not a part of the sacrifice, but a meat offering accompanying the sacrifice. It is particularly stated that the bread was leavened; i.e., the principle of corruption was within, and working in it.
Since our conversion we are not sinners as before; but sin is in us. We cannot make God an absolutely holy offering.
Some claim that they have no sin. They are deceived. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. We need cry to God with pangs of conscience ever keener:
Break off the yoke of inbred sin
And fully set my spirit free.
VI. In the peace offering THE WORSHIPPER WAS TO KEEP NEAR THE SACRIFICE.
1. This is suggested in the regulation that the offering was to be eaten the same day. If the offerer had been allowed to keep the offering over day after day he would be tempted to make his communion meal off unwholesome meat, less than the freshest and best. Do not let the sacrifice be abandoned, allowed to suffer neglect. Keep near God. Renew your sacrifice daily. Think not you can live on past devotionsof yesterday, of last Sabbath.
2. We tend to make religion consist of other elements to the exclusion of sacrifices. We conceal from ourselves, in attention to externals, that the life of religion is devotion, and that the life of devotion is the element of sacrifice. The early Church kept near the Sacrifice. They communed daily. The freshest offering is best. The near place is the place of fellowship; keep near Christ.
3. The suggestions of the peace offering are most practical for any one who seeks to live close to God.
(a) It is the complete offering: expressing the idea of the burnt offering, entire consecration; of the sin and trespass offerings, atonement for sin; and it expresses its own characteristic idea, the joyous communion of the soul with God and all saints.
(b) It suggests all the possible relations of Christ to the soul which sacrifice can embody. Keep we Christ ever before us in all His offices.
(c) Daily we should remember that the condition of daily communion is a daily offering.
Whosoever so approaches God, Christ is his peace. However far away sometime, daily he is now brought nigh by the blood of Christ, daily he finds the middle wall of partition broken down, and the way into the holiest place opened.Rev. Geo. R. Leavitt. [Compare Homilies on the Peace Offering, pp. 30 37 infra]
Topic: THE BELIEVERS PEACE AND PORTION (Lev. 7:29-31)
(1) There is nothing that men more require in their natural and restless condition than peace, a composed and assured state of mind. The need is, however, to be met; the amplest provision has been made for its being met; and we have only to appropriate to enjoy it.
(2) Yet there are but few who avail themselves of the provision. Instead of being restful, men are disquieted; dissatisfied instead of contented; apprehensive instead of assured. A broad gulf separates them from the Centre of their being, and from all that is serene and satisfying.
I. TO HAVE GOD IS TO HAVE PEACE: for He is the God of peace; especially as revealed and given us in Christ. But what is given may be enjoyed, as what is offered may be received. Then let the gift be accepted, and the peace you desire will keep your heart and mind, and this in all circumstances. The winds of adversity may smite you, and the waters of affliction overwhelm you; but as God is greater than these, He keeps in the perfectness of peace the minds that are stayed upon Him.
II. Such peace is FOUND IN CHRIST ALONE; not in anything done by Him, or given by Him, but in His personal indwelling. The apostles declaration is, that He is our peace (Eph. 2:14) [See Addenda, p 100, Sacred Peace.]
The knowledge of Him will illuminate, and the faith of Him will impart security; but you must have Himself to have the portion that will satisfy, and the peace you need.
III. But not only is Christ our peace, but from being the ATONER, OUR PEACE OFFERING, He gives Himself to God an offering and a sweet smelling savour, and then to us who trust in Him for deliverance and satisfaction.
The ancient Jewish sacrifice of the peace offering illustrates this.
(1) The material of which it consisted was either a bullock, heifer, lamb, or goat; but in all cases it was to be without blemish. God is entitled to the best, and will receive nothing less. Yet how often is less than what He asks offered Him! That they who so act by Him should have few answers to their prayers, and little satisfaction in their religion, can be wondered at by no one.
(2) Peace offerings were offered by persons who, having obtained forgiveness of sins, and given themselves to God, were at peace with Him. Friendship with God was the principal idea represented therein.
(3) Only a part of the peace offering was given to God; but that was the best, the part to which He was entitled, and which He claimed And it was accepted, as was shown by its consumption by fire. Offer Him your best, and though in itself small and poor, He will receive it, and make liberal acknowledgement of His approval of it.
(4) The Israelite was not at liberty to lay the fat of his offering at random, any way, or any where, on the altar. He had to lay it upon the sacrifice that was upon the wood on the altar fire. But that sacrifice was the lamb of the daily offering, which typified atonement in its fulness. There, Gods portion of the peace offering was laid, and accepted according to the value of that on which it was offered.
(5) Apart from Christ nothing is acceptable to Him. What you bring to Him may be your best, that which He asks for, and what is in itself valuable; but unless offered on the ground of atonement it is not received by Him.
(6) But that is the ground within everyones reach, and on which everything that is offered to God may be presented. There is no one by whom the name of Jesus may not be used as a plea, and His sacrifice urged as a reason for acceptance.
IV. The peace offering expressed the thought of COMMUNION AND SATISFACTION. It supplied God with a portion, and man also. It furnished a table at which both met, and where they had fellowship with one another. God fed on the fat, and man on the shoulder and breast (Lev. 7:31); and both were satisfied.
(1) But we have Christ here; and we know what the Father ever found in Him; with what pleasure He ever regarded Him, in His righteousness of walk, perfection of obedience, and beauty of character. God was supremely pleased with all that Jesus was and did, as the representative of Himself to men, and the ideal Man to the world, the indicator of holiness and the honourer of the law. Christ was, and is still, His well-beloved and His joy.
(2) But not God alone fed on the peace offering, man did that also; he ate of the breast and the shoulder. In the anti-type these typified love and strength. These, believer, are your portion in Christ. You have His heart of love and His shoulder of mightHis unchanging affection and His all-sustaining power. Enfolded in His embrace and enthroned on His shoulder of strength, you occupy a position where evil cannot harm you, nor want remain unmet.
V. No Israelite who was ceremonially UNCLEAN was permitted to partake of the peace offering, or share with God in the provision it supplied. And without holiness no man is now allowed to see God. But provision is made both for mans expiation and for his sanctifying from all impurity. The cross that separates from the guilt of sin also separates from its defilement. Christ is thus Sanctifier as well as Justifier. He gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people (Tit. 2:14).
Thus beautified with His salvation, you will find a place in His banqueting house of love, a guest at the Lords table, and satisfied with the food of which you partake (Joh. 6:57; Joh. 6:55; Joh. 6:35).
Are you satisfied with Christ? Does He appease all your yearnings, fulfil your every desire, give you rest, and prove your peace? My beloved is mine, and I am His (Son. 2:16). His resources are inexhaustible, His communications are continuous, and His glory is divine.Arranged from The Gospel in Leviticus, by James Fleming, D.D.
Topic: THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERING (Lev. 7:11-35)
A halo of gladness surrounds this sacrifice. Persons grateful for deliverances wrought and mercies received, desirous of paying vows previously made, or pledging themselves voluntarily to some new obligation, were to offer before the Lord their sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. In this law we see:
I. THAT PEACE FOLLOWS FORGIVENESS.
The expiatory sacrifices removed guilt, which is the only barrier that can exist between God and man. The peace offering admitted man into the reconciled presence of God. The offerer came not as a culprit seeking pardon, but as a forgiven child drawing near to a loving Father. Pardon is the door into the chamber of Peace. So, in the Gospel, Being justified by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Peace is the Divine legacy Christ has left to all who come to Him for rest from the burden of the ceremonial law, and guilt of sin.
II. THAT RESTORATION FOLLOWS PEACE.
In presenting the peace offerings, and feasting on the same, the worshippers would feel they were admitted into the family of God. They sat in His banqueting house, and His banner over them was love. The priests and people joined with the Lord in the divinely appointed eucharistic feast. This privilege is taught in the parable of the Prodigal Son. It would not have been enough for him to be pardoned for his rebellion and sin, he needed restoration to his fathers house and favour. Christ is our peace, He has broken down the middle wall of partition, and made us one with God.
III. THAT GRATITUDE FOLLOWS RESTORATION.
The pardoned and restored worshipper would be constrained to render to the Lord the glory due to His name. Brought into a right relationship with God, there would be the expression of right feelings towards Him. The offering waved to and fro, and heaved toward heaven, would denote the offerers gratitude to Jehovah; recognising Him as the Proprietor of all things, and as worthy of the warmest and strongest love. The gratitude was
(a) Prompt. The offering was to be made at once, none of the things provided were to be kept until the third day, all to be partaken of while memory of the blessings acknowledged was fresh.
(b) Large-hearted. The priests and people were to invite their families to join them in the feast, and to eat unsparingly.
(c) Perpetual. The statute was never to be repealed while the economy continued. The people were under obligation to be thankful, and they knew how their thankfulness might be acceptably expressed. The injunction of the Gospel is In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
IV. THAT DEVOTION FOLLOWS GRATITUDE.
The waving of the breast, the heaving of the shoulder, symbolised consecration of strength, and affection to the Lord. Everything offered was to be clean, and even the inward parts, obviously teaching the necessity of moral purity in character of those who presented the offerings. Those who dared to transgress by omitting the directions, or were in any way hypocritical, exposed themselves to the penalty of excommunication, as well as to severe reproof.
(a) The peace offering was partaken of in tents of the people. Religion is for the tent as well as the altar, for the home as well as the sanctuary Christ expects our service to spring from love, not from fear; from gratitude to Him for what He has done for us. We love Him, because He first loved us.F. W. Brown.
Topic: RECAPITULATION OF SACRIFICIAL RITUAL (Lev. 7:35-38)
Here the directions respecting sacrifices are solemnly emphasised: This is the portion, etc. Offerings and the priesthood were inseparably connected; when, and in the fulness of time, the offerings ceased, the priesthood ended. All priestly assumption under the Christian dispensation is out of place chronologically, and presumptuous religiously. Israel, by the Mosaic economy, was to become the repository of the Word of God, and the reflector of His glory. The offerings taught that man is a guilty sinner in the sight of God, that his sin fulness separates him from God, that removal of sin restores man to God. The Jewish economy was perfectly unique; the Hebrew nation stood out in distinct relief among surrounding idolatrous nations. In this recapitulation of the Levitical ritual we are taught
I. THAT GOD DOES NOT ENJOIN OBEDIENCE UPON MAN WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME FURNISHING DIRECTIONS FOR RENDERING IT.
Had directions been given that certain offerings were to be presented, and no specifications added as to how they were to be offered, the people would have been in constant uncertainty whether or not they were doing the thing that was required. As it was, the priests and people entered upon their religious observances with a full knowledge of their duties and how to discharge them. In the Gospel we are told what God requires of us under the Christian dispensation. Christ has taught us in His royal law what all the law and the prophets taught. In our worship we may observe and present all that the offerings of the Levitical economy signified. We may receive, in answer to believing prayer, the influences of the Holy Ghost, whose office it is to guide us into all truth and to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us.
II. THAT GOD DOES NOT PRESENT ALTERNATIVES TO MAN WHEN HE FURNISHES DIRECTIONS FOR OBEDIENCE.
The laws of the offerings were as emphatic as they were clear; there was no margin left for human invention, no zone of uncertainty about the things to be presented. In some offerings there were gradations, but it was in specified things; the offerer was to bring no substitute for what was divinely ordained. This exclusiveness would give assurance to the offerer that what he presented God would accept, and would prevent oscillation between rival claims. The straight line of the law was laid down, and clearly indicating finger-posts set up; the commands were unmistakable, This is the way, walk ye in it. So under the Gospel we have no alternatives in the way of salvation. No other name given, etc. The Christian religion excludes all others.
III. THAT GOD DOES NOT WITHHOLD FROM MAN INDUCEMENTS TO RENDER OBEDIENCE TO DIVINE COMMANDS.
The promulgation of the law from Sinai, and the enunciation of the ritual from the tabernacle, were associated with the most solemn sanctions. The Hebrews could have no reasonable doubt about the Divine origin and binding obligation of those enactments. With equal solemnity our duties toward the Gospel have been inculcated. Not from Sinai, but from the Mount of Beatitudes; not from Moses, but from Christ. Evidences of the Messiahship of Christ, of the supremacy of His claims, of the truth of His religion, are many and conclusive. His life was public, His miracles were not done in a corner. He that despised Moses law died, etc. (Heb. 10:28-29). In the Gospel, as on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elias meet to bear witness to His character and mission; all the rays of spread light that gave guidance to the Hebrews centre in the cross, focus on Calvary. Before Messiahs coming the ceremonies of the Jewish economy were as the swaddling bands in which He was wrapped, but after it they resembled the linen clothes which He left in the grave. Christ was in the one, but not in the other.F. W. B.
Topic: SURVEY OF THE ENTIRE ALTAR SACRIFICES; WITH THEIR PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCES (Lev. 7:37-38).
This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings, etc.
The offerings set forth Christ. We see in them how man in Christ has made atonement. We look at the sin and trespass offerings and see that the sin of man has been fully borne: at the burnt and meat offerings, and see all Gods requirements satisfied. And this is our confidence, that as Christ for us has been without the camp, as for us He has been laid on the altar, so truly do we stand in Him, even as He is; for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
We are one with Christ. In this view His offering, as our Example, sets before us the model and standard of our self-sacrifice. And, just as Christs sacrifice for us had varied aspects, as satisfying God, and as satisfying man, and as bearing sin; so will our sacrifice, in a lower sense, have these same aspects. In this way the typical offerings have an application to Christians. Thus we also are offerers; present your bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Between Christs sacrifice and ours there will, of course, be dissimilarities neither few nor small, arising from the fact that He was sinless and we are sinners. Yet the saint will be made conformable unto His death (Php. 3:10), and his rule in sacrifice will be the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.
Trace, therefore, how far the various aspects of the offering of the body of Christ may be applicable to those, who, being members of His mystical body, are called to walk even as He walked.
I. THE BURNT OFFERING. This was man satisfying GOD; man in Christ giving himself to God at His portion. We have seen how far for us [comp. pp. 8, 9 infra] this was fulfilled in Christ: we now inquire how far in us it may be fulfilled by the Spirit.
The burnt offering stands as a witness how we should yield ourselves (Rom. 6:13).
1. As to its measure. It was wholly burnt. No part was withheld from God. Entire self-surrender. It must cost us something (2Sa. 24:24). The burnt offering was Gods claim: the fulfilment of this required the life of Christ. It will demand our livesThou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart, all thy soul, all thy mind and all thy strength.
Our path after Christ must be still a sacrifice. Can we present our bodies a living sacrifice without cost, without feeling that sacrifice is still sacrifice? Christ felt His sacrifice.
2. As to its character. In the varieties of the burnt sacrifice, of bullock, lamb, and turtle dove, each brought out some distinct particular in the character of our blessed Lord. Would to God that in active, yet patient service (as the bullock), in silent, unmurmuring submission (as the lamb), in gentleness and innocency of life (as the dove), we might be conformed to Him who went before us.
Service, submission, meekness, will gain no crown for us here; nor did they for Christ. We cannot seize greatness, or secure honour in this world, by offering ourselves to God in the character these emblems signify. Christ was despised and rejected of man, as a lamb slain and none to pity. May He give us grace gladly to acquiesce in the likeness.
II. THE MEAT OFFERING. This was Christ satisfying MAN; offering Himself as mans meat. In doing this He met mans claim on Him as man. Man had a claim on man; God had ratified that claim, saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In the meat offering, Christ met and satisfied this claim, by giving Himself to God as man s portion.
1. For the measure of it is enough to say, the type shows us the whole consumed. Such is our standard.
2. For its character, the bruised corn, the oil, the salt, and the frankincense, are sufficently explicit.
How far may we be conformed to it? To answer this question let us look to other days, and see how men have conformed to it. Time was when the Church, though but a leavened cake (Lev. 23:17), was so far filled with the anointing of the Holy Ghost that the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own. But they had all things common; neither was there any that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, etc., and distribution was made to every man as he had need (Act. 8:31-35). Here was a meat offering; and costly; yet not a rare one.
In that day there were living men, who for the Gospel had lost all things (Php. 3:8), yet were willing to suffer more: Yea, if [be poured out (alluding to the drink offering which was an adjunct to the meat offering), on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you (Php. 3:17). See also concerning Onesiphorus, Epaphroditus, Philemon, Phebe.
There is yet a Church. There must yet be offerings; and we hear of sacrifices, but what is their measure, their character? Let each judge himself. But this stands, that just in measure as we are like our Master, just as we accept His words as the rule of our devotion, just so far shall we find our path a sacrifice.
III. THE PEACE OFFERING. This view of the offering shows us the offerer fed; for he, with the priest and God, partook of, i.e, found satisfaction in, the offering. The peace offering has a fulfilment, not only in Christ, but in His members.
1. Does God find satisfaction in our offerings? The answer is clear: To do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased (Heb. 13:16). So the offering sent by the Philippians to Paul was an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God (Php. 4:18). God puts value on, finds satisfaction in, the offerings of His Church. He loveth a cheerful giver (2Co. 9:7); and as our greatest gift is to give ourselves (2Co. 8:5), so the presentation of our bodies as living sacrifices is acceptable unto the Lord (Rom. 12:1).
2. The priest also fed in the peace offering. Our Priest finds joy in our offerings, poor though they be; so that even in a cup of cold water and in bread to the hungry He is refreshed and fed. I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave Me drink (Mat. 25:35). Did we but know His joy in seeing us yield ourselves an offering to Him; did we realise His gladness of soul in each work of faith and labour of love in ministering to His saints, we could not give with narrow, grudging, selfish hearts. Ye did it unto Me!
3. The peace offering fed the offerer. And surely we have been strangers to self-sacrifice if we need to be told the joy it imparts to him who sacrifices. Paul says, Yea if I be sacrificed I joy and rejoice with you (Php. 2:17); I rejoice in my sufferings for you, etc. (Col. 1:24); I count not my life dear unto me, so that I might finish my course with joy (Act. 20:24).
The very costliness of our sacrifice increases our joy when we know that He, to whom we offer, rejoices with us.
IV. THE SIN AND TRESPASS OFFERINGS. And first as to the sin offering.
1. There is a sense in which the Christian may bear sin and suffer its judgment in his mortal flesh. For lack of knowing this, many are sparing that flesh which the cross of Christ was given to crucify. Is there, then, anything to be wrought in us by the Spirit answering to the dying for sin of the sin offering? Yes; Christs death in the flesh for sin is made our example: Forasmuch, then, as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin (1Pe. 4:1). The Christian, as having been judged in the person of Christ, and knowing that for him Christ has borne the cross, follows on by that cross to judge and mortify all that he finds in himself still contrary to his Lord. The flesh in him is contrary; the flesh, therefore, must die (Gal. 6:14; Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6).
2. In the trespass offering restitution was made for wrong. And the saint in fellowship with Christ will make restitution; in acts of generosity and kindness to men; and will add the fifth, going beyond bare justice, in dealing graciously and mercifully with others.
Such is THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS. It gives but one view of Christ; yet how much is involved in it both as to our standing and walk in Him. His offering witnesses of sacrifice even to the cross. [Comp. Jukes on the Offerings.]
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 7
Lev. 7:1-10.Theme: THE TRESPASS OFFERING. This law similar to that of sin offering, with additional directions respecting the blood of the sacrifice, which was to be sprinkled round about the altar. The shedding and sprinkling of so much blood in the worship of God was doubtless intended to impress the worshipper with the repulsiveness of sin; the enormity of guilt, the absolute necessity of pardon, in order to acceptance and peace. In this law we see
I. Gods jealous regard for the strictest order in His service. The directions given in the ritual were emphatically Divine; He, to whom belong the silver and the gold, and the cattle upon a thousand hills, condescended to give minute directions about slaying a bullock, ram, and pigeon, to teach that no part of His service is beneath His notice, or may be performed carelessly. Everything we do for God is worthy of being done well, or it should not be done at all. Mankind should aim at perfectly doing Gods will, as it is done in heaven.
II. Gods generous concern for the temporal wants of His servants. All the parts of the sacrifice not burnt upon the altar were the perquisite of the priests. The offering not only provided for the spiritual needs of the people, but for the physical requirements of those who had surrendered themselves to the service of the tabernacle. The provision was suitable, liberal, and constant. As the priests with their sons partook of their ample provisions, gratitude to Jehovah and mutual good feeling would be cultivated. No one can serve God for nought. He cares for all His creatures, especially for those who trust Him; no good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly.
We are not under the law but under grace yet, we are not to conduct our religious services lawlessly. We do not obey because commanded, and from fear, but from constraint and love. One of the first questions a true believer will ask, is: Lord what wilt Thou have me to do? Duties to ourselves, our fellow-men, and God, run parallel with every privilege we enjoy and every blessing we receive. We are saved by faith in Christ. and not by works of the law; but faith without works is dead.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:1; Lev. 7:11; Lev. 7:37.Theme: RIGIDITY OF THE LAW. This is the law, etc.
Reiteration employed to indelibly Impress the statutes upon the minds of priests and people; to show their pressing and transcendant importance. The worshipper would thus be impressed with
I. THE MAJESTY OF JEHOVAH. He, God over 11, exercised in all royal supremacy. From His word there was no appeal.
II. THE PRIVILEGE, AS WELL AS DUTY, OF WORSHIPPING HIM.
They were not to draw near as slaves, but as servants and friends, and obtain the favour of the King of kings.
III. THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR WORSHIPPING HIM
It would need personal, as well as ceremonial purity to approach acceptably one so august and holy.
IV. THE BLESSEDNESS OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDS.
(a) By obedience they would bless the Lord.
(b) By obedience they would be blessed themselves.
Carelessness in preparation for service might not only lead to useless, but offensive worship. The heart needed to be in full accord with the purposes for which the offerings were instituted. Surely obedience to the commands of Christ are as binding as was obedience to the laws of Moses The ordiances of the Christian religion are the invariable accompaniments, as well as the external badges, of membership in the Christian Church.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:12.Theme: THANKSGIVING. If he offer it for a thanksgiving.
Even brutes are capable of gratitude. Israel was often rebuked by the prophets for thanklessness, and reminded that the dumb creation put them to shame. Gratitude rises naturally in our hearts towards human benefactors; shall we not be thankful to Him, in whom we live and move and have our being? Concerning thanksgiving, we observe
I. IT IS UNIVERSALLY OBLIGATORY, for
(a) We are dependent creatures,
(b) Recipient,
(c) Unworthy,
(d) Responsible.
III. IT MAY BE OCCASIONALLY VOLUNTARY. When no particular command calls for it; when no special mercy suggests or prompts it. It may rise out of a full and gladsome heart. It may be adoration for what God is in Himself and has promised to bestow; as well as for gifts received. The Giver is above and better than His gifts. Let us bless Him, and forgot not all His benefits, especially His unspeakable gift.
III. IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED BECOMINGLY.
(a) Without delay, for life is short; duty demands; God deserves; opportunity favours; delay is a slight; we are liable to forget altogether what we postpone.
(b) With freshness: nothing deteriorated, or exhausted. Beauty, vigour, sweetness, fragrance, virtue, soundness, all should be laid at His feet, offered at His throne.
(c) With generosity: Let us not withhold; and having given, let us not withdraw; The Lord loves a cheerful, an ungrudging giver.
Whoso offereth such praise gloritieth God.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:20-21.Theme: EXCOMMUNICATION That soul shall be cut off from his people.
Precaution against laxity in service carelessness in offering. Failure to comply minutely with directions, would incur Jehovahs righteous displeasure.
I. THE OFFERING WOULD BE REJECTED.
II. THE OFFERER WOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED.
The strength of the strongest chain is the weakest link, if that breaks, all fails. So, if the offerer omitted one requirement, broke one link in the chain of law, he was guilty of violating the whole. We have analogies of similar exactness in nature. There perversions, excesses, shortcomings, violations, miscarriages, etc., entail forfeiture of blessing; indeed, they convert the blessing into a bane. Men are constantly cutting themselves off from good by placing themselves voluntarily under the ban of heaven. Rigid discipline is especially needed in the infancy of the affairs connected with State, Church, Society, Family. Law is intended to be a terror to evil doers, and an encouragement to those who do well. Under the Gospel Christ is able to save to the uttermost.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:23; Lev. 7:26.Theme: RESERVED THINGS.
Ye shall eat no manner of fat.
Ye shall eat no manner of blood.
I. To beget reverence for Gods altar.
II. To preserve a sense of the sacredness of life.
III. To show that the best and richest things can be claimed righteously by God.
IV. To cultivate delicacy of feeling; check gross and savage passions.
Thus the hearts and minds of men were cultured in the elementary education of the wilderness; preparatory to the higher culture; which after ages would demand and develop.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:36.Theme: THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN
Which the Lord commanded to be given unto the children of Israel.
In heathen sacrifices, man is seeking after God; in the Hebrew sacrifices, God was seeking after man. The fixing of times, places offerings for sacrifice, showed that the Lord was anxious and ready to bless. The things which the law enjoined showed
I. THE TRANSCENDENT IMPORTANCE OF TRUE RELIGION.
Nature, conscience, convenience, choice were not sufficient. True religion must be revealed. Offerings did not explain the origin of evil, but what was more important, how it might be removed. That which God has specially revealed, in addition to His revelation in nature, must be specially important for us to know and obey.
II. THE PARAMOUNT CLAIMS OF TRUE RELIGION. The Jewish religion, promulgated from Sinai, put in the forefront of all other claim Christ commands us to seek tirst the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Religion is the one thing needful.F. W. B.
Lev. 7:37-38.Theme: SUMMARY OF THE OFFERINGS.
The laws given from the tabernacle are an expansion and enforcement of those given from Sinai. They symbolised essential spiritual truths for the Hebrew, and typified the same for the Christian Church, viz, the necessity of mental, moral, and spiritual purity in drawing near to God. Thus the foundation of true religion was laid for all ages. These laws were a protest against idolatry; a witness to the sovereignty of Jehovah; a badge of distinction for Israel; a training for further and higher service, and fuller revelation. Looking at the offerings as a whole they taught
I. THAT MAN IS A SINNER, AND NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIMSELF AS SUCH IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
A sinner by nature; by transgression of Divine law; deserving punishmentdeath; a sinner absolutely at the mercy of Him against whom the sin had been committed.
II. THAT MAN REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN IN ORDER TO APPROACH GOD ACCEPTABLY.
He must not come to God empty-handed, there must be the divinely appointed gift, the substitute, for whose sake, in some way, sin should be forgiven. Vicarious sacrifice in harmony with the law of nature.
III. THAT MAN REQUIRED PERSONAL FAITH IN THE ATONEMENT MADE ON HIS BEHALF, TO RENDER IT EFFICACIOUS FOR HIM.
Neither offering or act of any avail except representing faith and obedience of offerer. The fire that consumed the sacrifice represented the ascending consecration of the worshippers spirit.
IV. THAT MAN REQUIRED COMPLETE CONFORMITY TO GODS WILL, AND RESTORATION TO HIS FAVOUR.
The perpetual offering of sacrifices would necessitate constant remembrance of the Divine precepts; the frequent coming to God would keep alive a sense of His presence and sovereignty. Thus the chief end of man would be securedTo glorify God, and enjoy Him for ever.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 7
TRUE WORSHIP.
Deos placatos pietas efficiet et sanctitas.CICERO.
[Piety and sanctity will propitiate the gods.]
Res sacros non modo manibus attingi, se ne cogitatione quidem violari fas fuit.CICERO.
[Things sacred should not only not be touched with hands, they should not be violated even in thought].
When once thy foot enters the Church, be bare:
God is more there than thou; for thou art there
Only by His permission. Then beware,
And make thyself all reverence and fear.
Geo. Herbert.
In the temple every little ornament, even of the mighty structure that crowned the cliffs of Zion, was holy to the Lord. Not the great courts and inner shrines and pillared halls merely, but all. Not a carven pomegranate, not a bell, silver or gold, but was holy. The table and its lamps, with flowers of silver light, tent and staves, fluttering curtains and ascending incense, altar and sacrifice, breastplate and ephod, mitre and gem-clasped girdle, wreathen chain and jewelled hangingsover all was inscribed Holy, while within, in the innermost shrine, where God manifested Himself above the mercy seat, was THE HOLIEST. Thus the utter holiness of that God with whom they had to do was by every detail impressed upon the heart and conscience of ancient Israel.Grosart.
OFFERINGS TO GOD
Just as a thing looks green which is looked at through green glass, or red through a red glass, so is everything most pleasing and acceptable to God the Father which is offered through His Only Begotten Son.F. W. Faber.
SACRED PEACE
Peace is greater than all other treasures, but no philosophy can bestow it: for how can it cleanse from sin? Nor can any works: for how are they able to justify? Descend into whatever mine, shake whatever tree, knock at whatever door in the world thou wilt, the poor world cannot offer it thee. Peace is but one; One only has peace; One only can give it: know ye Him who says: These things have I spoken unto you that in Me ye might have peace? His name is the Prince of Peace.Krummacher.
As on the Sea of Galilee,
The Christ is whispering Peace.Whittier.
Happy the heart that keeps its twilight hour,
And, in the depths of heavenly peace reclined,
Loves to commune with thoughts of tender power,
Thoughts that ascend, like angels beautiful,
A shining Jacobs ladder of the mind!
Paul H Hayne.
Years ago a Christian friend had experienced a heavy and most unexpected loss, a loss which to most men in his circumstances would have been crushing. The moment the announcement of what had happened was made to him his mind turned to the believers all-sufficient and never failing portion in God, and the certainty of the unsearchable riches of Christ; and the calm of his spirit continued. The next day was the Sabbath: and he was seen in his place in the sanctuary, joining in worship with the people of God as if nothing of misfortune had overtaken him. It was a regret to him that his means of doing good were diminished, but his own peace of heart remained unbroken.Dr. Jas. Fleming.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE TRESPASS OFFERING 7:110
TEXT 7:110
1
And this is the law of the trespass-offering: it is most holy.
2
In the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the trespass-offering; and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle upon the altar round about.
3
And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof: the fat tail, the fat that covereth the inwards,
4
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away;
5
and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto Jehovah: it is a trespass-offering.
6
Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy.
7
As is the sin-offering, so is the trespass-offering; there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it.
8
And the priest that offereth any mans burnt-offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered.
9
And every meal-offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan, and on the baking-pan, shall be the priests that offereth it.
10
And every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:110
127.
At what particular place was the burnt offering slain?
128.
What additional words are found here concerning the use of the blood in the trespass offering?
129.
The instructions here concerning the fat of the trespass offering were formally given concerning other offerings (see chapters 3 and 4). Why are they here referred to the trespass offerings?
130.
Were not the people weary who heard again and again the same instructions? Discuss.
131.
What is meant by the expression one law in Lev. 7:7? To what does it refer?
132.
Of what use would the skin of the animal be to the priest?
133.
Why the need to repeat the fact that the meal or grain offering belongs to the priests?
PARAPHRASE 7:110
Here are the instructions concerning the most holy offering for guilt: The sacrificial animal shall be killed at the place where the burnt offering sacrifices are slain, and its blood shall be sprinkled back and forth upon the altar. The priest will offer upon the altar all its fat, including the tail, the fat that covers the insides, the two kidneys and the loin-fat, and the gall bladderall shall be set aside for sacrificing. The priests will burn them upon the altar as a guilt offering to the Lord. Only males among the priests may then eat the carcass, and it must be eaten in a holy place, for this is a most holy sacrifice. The same instructions apply to both the sin offering and the guilt offeringthe carcass shall be given to the priest who is in charge of the atonement ceremony, for his food. (When the offering is a burnt sacrifice, the priest who is in charge shall also be given the animals hide.) The priests who present the peoples grain offerings to the Lord shall be given whatever remains of the sacrifice after the ceremony is completed. This rule applies whether the sacrifice is baked, fried, or grilled. All other grain offerings, whether mixed with olive oil or dry, are the common property of all sons of Aaron.
COMMENT 7:110
Lev. 7:1-2 The north side of the altar of burnt offering is where all the animals were slain. The blood of the trespass offering like that of the sin offering is to be generously sprinkled on the sides of the altar. If our reader has not considered Kelloggs splendid article on the sprinkling of blood we suggest that you do so. Blood is such an important part of the worship of God. The power of forgiven sin is the power of the blood.
Lev. 7:3-6 What we learned in chapters 3 and 4 concerning other offerings is now also made applicable to the trespass offering. The priest is here especially instructed in the removal of the Lords portion to be burned upon the altar. But he is equally instructed in the eating of his portion in the holy place of the tabernacle. The words of C. H. MacKintosh are very good here: Again, my reader should seek to apprehend the meaning of the expression, all the males among the priests shall eat thereof. The ceremonial act of eating the sin offering, or the trespass offering, was expressive of full identification. But, to eat the sin offeringto make anothers sin ones own, demanded a higher degree of priestly energy, such as was expressed in the males among the priests.
Lev. 7:7 There is one law uniformly applied to both sin and trespass offerings concerning the use of the carcass after it has been killed, the blood sprinkled, the fat removed and burnedit belongs to the priests. What a wonder to contemplate the truth that our Lord as our priest offers Himself and claims His people for His own.
Lev. 7:8 We learn from this verse the source of some clothing for the priests. He was given the skin of the animals slain. The words of Bonar are almost quaint, but they speak eloquently to us. He reminds us that God Himself provided the skins for Adam and Eve in Edens garden. To get them, animals must be slain. He says, If Jesus, at the gate of Eden, acting as our Priest, appointed sacrifice to be offered there, then He had a right to the skins, as priest; and the use to which He appropriated them was clothing Adam and Eve. He has clothing for the naked soulfine raiment (Rev. 3:18)obtained from His own sacrifice. Even at the gate of Eden He began to counsel us to buy of Himself fine raiment, that we might be clothed. And this is His office still (Rev. 3:18).
Lev. 7:9-10 The use of the meal offering from the priests viewpoint does not add anything to what we learned in Lev. 2:2; Lev. 2:9. We are sure there were to be no exceptions either in the way the offering was prepared or in the use made of it by the Priest.
FACT QUESTIONS 7:110
167.
What is the power of the blood?
168.
What is significant about all the males eating of the trespass offering?
169.
What is the one law uniformly applied to both sin and trespass offerings?
170.
What was the reason for giving the skin of the animal to the priest?
171.
How does this relate to us?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
VII.
(1) Likewise this is the law . . . . Better, and this is the law:, &c. Just as Lev. 6:24-30 contains additional regulations addressed to the priest about the rites of the sin offering, so Lev. 7:1-10 gives more precise instructions about the trespass offering, supplementing Lev. 5:1-13, also designed for the guidance of the priest.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
ADDITIONAL LAWS OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING, Lev 7:1-10.
1. Trespass offering See chap. 5, introductory remarks, and Lev 7:6, note. The primary idea involved in the asham, or guilt offering, is that aspect of sin which constitutes it a debt payable unto God, and frequently to man also, to whom recompense must be made when the asham was offered.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Law of The Guilt Offering. ( Lev 7:1-7 ).
The overwhelming sense of the holiness of the purification for sin offering now carries over into the consideration of the Guilt Offering. Its holiness is immediately emphasised. And we are also now informed that the priests can partake of the meat of the guilt offering as long as it is in a holy place, as they can presumably of the purification of sin offering, for there is one law for them both.
Lev 7:1-2
‘And this is the law of the guilt offering. It is most holy. In the place where they kill the whole burnt offering shall they kill the guilt offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar round about.’
Like the purification for sin offering, the guilt offering too is killed in the place where the whole burnt offering is killed. This would seem to emphasise the priority of the whole burnt offering. That is at the head of all offerings. But the purification for sin and guilt offerings are so holy that they are carried out in the same place as the whole burnt offering.
And the blood of the guilt offering is sprinkled on the altar round about as with the whole burnt offering. This identical application of the blood confirms that the whole burnt offering is also to be seen as an atonement offering as well. But it is different from that for the purification for sin offering where purification for sin on a larger scale has primary importance.
Lev 7:3-4
‘And he shall offer of it all its fat; the fat tail, and the fat that covers the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away, and the priest shall burn them on the altar for an offering made by fire to Yahweh. It is a guilt offering.’
No animal has been identified as yet but this would seem to point to a sheep because of the fat tail (Lev 3:9). But he is clearly only summarising and therefore it probably signifies that it could alternatively be a (Lev 5:6). The point again being emphasised is that the fat and all the innards are to be offered to Yahweh on the altar, as an offering by fire to Yahweh. Thus the blood and the fat are offered in the usual way. It is then emphasised that it is a guilt offering.
Lev 7:6
‘Every male among the priests shall eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy.’
But the remainder of the guilt offering may be eaten by the priests in a holy place, but only by them for it is most holy.
Lev 7:7
‘As is the purification for sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them: the priest who makes atonement by it, he shall have it.’
Indeed it is like the purification for sin offering, as with the one, so with the other. There is one law for both of them. And they are both most holy. So the main new stress here is on the similarity between the purification for sin offering and the guilt offering, and the holiness of them both, and that the meat and skins from both go to the priests (with some exceptions).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 7:13 Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
Lev 7:13
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Of Trespass-offerings.
v. 1. Likewise this is the law of the trespass-offering: It is most holy. v. 2. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass-offering, v. 3. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, v. 4. and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, v. 5. and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; it is a trespass-offering.
v. 6. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof, v. 7. As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass-offering; there is one law for them, v. 8. And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest, shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. v. 9. And all the meat-offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan, v. 10. And every meat-offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
CONTINUATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRIESTS, RESPECTING THE RITUAL OF THE SACRIFICES.
This chapter treats of the ritual of the trespass offering and the peace offerings, as the last chapter treated of that of the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the sin offering. The LXX. version attaches the first ten verses of this chapter to Lev 6:1-30, beginning Lev 7:1-38 with our Lev 7:11.
Lev 7:1-6
Further ritual of the trespass offering (see note on Le Lev 5:14). It is to be noted that the blood of the trespass offering is not to be placed on the horns of the altar, as was the rule in the ordinary sin offering, but cast against the inner side of the altar, as in the burnt offering and peace offering. The rump in Lev 7:3 should be translated tail, as in Lev 3:9.
Lev 7:7-10
contain a general precept or note as to the priests’ portion in the sin offering, trespass offering, burnt offering, and meat offering. The officiating priest was to have the flesh of the trespass offering and of the sin offering (except the fat burnt on the altar), and the skin of the burnt offering and the cooked meat offerings (except the memorial burnt on the altar), while the meat offerings of flour and of parched grains, which could be kept longer, were to be the property of the priestly body in general, all the sons of Aaron, one as much as another. The skins of the peace offerings were retained by the offerer (‘Mishna, Sebaeh,’ 12, 3).
Lev 7:11-21
Further ritual of the peace offering (see note on Lev 3:1). There are three sorts of peace offeringsthank offerings (Lev 7:12-15), votive offerings, and voluntary offerings (Lev 7:16-18). Of these, the thank offerings were made in thankful memorial for past mercies; votive offerings were made in fulfillment of a vow previously taken, that such offering should be presented if a terrain condition were fulfilled. Voluntary offerings differ from votive offerings by not having been previously vowed, and from thank offerings by not having reference to any special mercy received. The thank offering must be eaten by the offerer and his friends, on the same day that it was offered; the votive and the voluntary offerings, which were inferior to the thank offering in sanctity, on the same day or the next. The reason why a longer time was not given probably was that the more the meal was delayed, the less would a religious character be attached to it. The necessity of a quick consumption also took away the temptation of acting grudgingly towards those with whom the feast might be shared, and it likewise precluded the danger of the flesh becoming corrupted. If any of the flesh remained till the third day, it was to be burnt with fire; if eaten on that day, it should not be accepted or imputed unto him that offered, that is, it should not be regarded as a sacrifice of sweet savour to God, but an abomination (literally, a stench), and whoever ate it should bear his iniquity, that is, should be guilty of an offense, requiring, probably, a sin offering to atone for it. The bread gift accompanying the animal sacrifice was to consist of three kinds of unleavened cakes, and one cake of leavened bread, and one out of the whole oblation, that is, one cake of each kind, was to be offered by heaving and then given to the officiating priest, the remaining cakes forming a part of the offerer’s festive meal. If any one took part of a feast on a peace offering while in a state of Levitical uncleanness, he was to be cut off from his people, that is, excommunicated, without permission to recover immediate communion by offering a sin offering. St. Paul joined in a votive offering (Act 21:26).
Lev 7:22-27
Repetition of the prohibition of eating the fat and the blood, addressed to the people in the midst of the instructions to the priests. Ye shall eat no manner of fat must be taken to mean none of the fat already specified, that is, the internal fat, and, in the case of the sheep, the tail; It is uncertain whether the law as to fat was regarded as binding upon the Israelites after they had settled in Palestine. Probably it was silently abrogated; but the prohibition of Mood was undoubtedly perpetual (Deu 12:16), and it is based on a principle which does not apply to the fat (Lev 17:11).
Lev 7:28-34
Continuation of the ritual of the peace offerings (see note on Le Lev 3:1). The equal dignity of the peace offerings with the other offerings is vindicated by the command that the offerer shall bring it with his own hands, whereas it might have been regarded as merely the constituent part of a feast, and so sent by the hand of a servant. The breast and the right shoulder were to be waved and heaved (for “heaved” does not merely mean” taken off,” as some have said). The waving consisted of the priest placing his hands beneath those of the offerer who held the piece to be waved, and moving them slowly backwards and forwards before the Lord, to and from the altar; the heaving was performed by slowly lifting the pieces heaved upwards and downwards. The movements were made to show that the pieces, though not burnt on the altar, were yet in a special manner consecrated to God’s service. The right shoulder was most probably the hind leg, perhaps the haunch. The Hebrew word is generally translated “leg” (Deu 28:35; Psa 147:10). This part was the perquisite of the officiating priest; the waved breast was given to the priests’ common stock. Afterwards an addition was made to the priests’ portion (Deu 18:3; see 1Co 9:13).
Lev 7:35, Lev 7:36
Conclusion of the section. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, may be translated simply, This is the portion of Aaron, and the portion of his sons, as the word “mischah” will bear the meaning of portion as well as of anointing. This rendering, however, is not necessary, as it was the anointing of Aaron and Ms sons that entitled them to these portions.
Lev 7:37, Lev 7:38
Conclusion of Part I. The law of the burnt offering is contained in Le Lev 1:1-17; Lev 6:8-13 : of the meat offering, in Lev 2:1-16; Lev 6:14-23 : of the sin offering, in Le Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-13; Lev 6:24-30 : of the trespass offering, in Le Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7; Lev 7:1-6 : of the consecrations, in Le Lev 6:19-23, supplementing Exo 29:1-37 : of the sacrifice of the peace offerings, in Le Exo 3:1-17; Exo 7:11-21; 28-34. Together, the sacrifices teach the lessons of self-surrender, loyalty, atonement, satisfaction, dedication, peace.
HOMILETICS
Lev 7:13
Leavened bread was not to be offered on the altar, for a reason before assigned; but, though not offered on the altar, it may yet be consecrated to God, not by burning, but by heaving. Thus there are lives which cannot be wholly devoted to God and his active service, and yet can be consecrated to him. Leavened bread was the bread commonly used, and the secular life of a man engaged daily in the occupations of politics, or of business, or of labour, may be sanctified, and, being sanctified, may be accepted by God as freely and fully as are those directly given up to his especial service.
Lev 7:19
That which is itself unclean makes whatever it touches unclean also.
So in the moral sphere, “evil communications corrupt good manners” (1Co 15:33), and “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1Co 5:6), and so with respect to the spread of heresy, “Their word will eat as doth a canker (or gangrene)” (2Ti 2:17).
On the other hand, that which is itself holy makes that which it touches to be holy (Lev 6:18). Therefore, when the Holy One was on the earth, “the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them” (Luk 6:19); and they “brought unto him all that were diseased; and besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole” (Mat 14:1-36 :85, 36). Thus the woman with an issue of blood “came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately” (Luk 8:44-47). Hence, when mankind had fallen in Adam, for the restoration of the race a new Head was found in Christ Jesus, into whom each person is baptized, and by a mystical contact with whom he may be sanctified.
Lev 7:25
To eat of the fat of which men offer an offering made with fire unto the Lord, is to rob God of his chosen offering. The injunction condemns sacrilege in all its forms. Whoever takes to his own use things dedicated to God, “eats the fat;” and” the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.”
Lev 7:34
The wave breast and the heave shoulder were to be the priests’, as well as the meat offering (Lev 7:10) and other portions. Thus is taught the lesson, enforced by St. Paul (1Co 9:13, 1Co 9:14), “Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” The adequate maintenance of the Levitical priesthood was carefully provided for under the old dispensation by means of offerings and of tithes; and “the labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luk 10:7), and “let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things” (Gal 6:6), are principles of the new dispensation likewise.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 7:1-38
Ministerial support.
cf. 1Co 9:13; 1Co 10:18. We have in this chapter a detailed account of the disposal of the offerings already referred to. The leading idea of the passage is the perquisites of the priests, and the Christian counterpart of this is ministerial support. And in this connection let us observe
I. IN ALL THE OFFERINGS THE FIRST CONCERN WAS TO ALLOCATE TO GOD HIMSELF HIS DUE. In particular he had appropriated to his own use, that is, to manifest atonement, the blood of all the sacrifices; and consequently it was never to be eaten, for this would be a profane use of such a sacred thing (1Co 10:26, 1Co 10:27). ]t is only when we come to the realities out of the types and shadows, that we find Jesus declaring, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Joh 6:54, Joh 6:55). Atoning blood can only be partaken of by faith. Moreover, the Lord appropriated the fatthe large amount of suet about the animalwhich was absolutely necessary to feed. the fire. This was to be devoted, therefore, to this sacred use and withdrawn from all profane use. There were other portions, such as the sheep’s tail, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver, which were burned always on the altar as God’s portion. The general principle, therefore, is plain of first giving unto God his fine.
Now, in this particular question of ministerial support, it is with this idea of stewardship unto God that we must begin. Men rest first realize their obligation to God above before they will do justly by his ministers. The human obligation is best enforced by emphasizing the Divine. If men give God his due, if they are faithful stewards unto him, if they keep zealously the first table of the Law, they will not wrong their neighbours by disregarding the second table; above all, they will not wrong God’s ministers.
II. AFTER GOD‘S PORTIONS WERE DEDICATED, THE BEST OF THE RESIDUE BECAME THE PRIESTS. In some cases the priest got the whole; for example, in a private sin offering or trespass offering, and when, as in the peace offerings, the remainder was shared with the person presenting the sacrifice, the priest’s portion was always the best. The wave breast and the heave leg, the “choice cuts,” as we would now call them, of the carcass, were assigned to the priests. In fact, there is peculiar generosity enjoined in supporting the officers of God.
There is a fashion in a business age of regarding the minister very much as an ecclesiastical tradesman, who is to be dealt with on business principles; that is, as ranch work is to be got out of him as possible for the minimum of pay. The sooner such poor notions cease, the better for the cause of God. “And we beseech you, brethren,” says the apostle, “to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1Th 5:12, 1Th 5:13). If ministers are rightly regarded, the people will feel it to be their duty, as Israel was instructed to do, to give them the best support they can.
III. A PROPERLY SUSTAINED PRIESTHOOD WAS IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE FAITHFUL DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH. This ministerial support chapter, as we may properly regard 1Co 7:1-40, is most particular in debarring the unclean from Church privileges. Whether we are to understand the “cutting off from the people” as death, as the Vulgate appears to do, or as only excommunication, one thing is certain, that the priesthood, assigned its true dignity and supported accordingly, were thereby encouraged to be faithful in the exercise of discipline.
And this relation of proper ministerial support to Church discipline is most important. It is when the office is degraded in men’s minds to a mere profession, and they consequently refuse it adequate support, that they are unwilling to submit to the discipline God’s ministry should wield. To the elevation of the office in the eyes of men, and to the consequent increase of its support, all wise members of the Church of Christ should devote their attention.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 7:15-18
Fidelity to precept enforced
The peace offering was essentially a tribute of gratitude and praise, it was especially suited to national festivities and family rejoicings. Cakes and bread accompanied the flesh of the sacrificial animal. Three classes of peace offering are spoken of, viz. for thanksgiving, or for a vow, or as a free-will offering. The flesh must be partaken of by the offerers (the priests having received their portion) and consumed on the first day in the case of the first-mentioned class, and by the close of the second day in the case of the others. The stress laid upon this command may set in clear light the obligatoriness of Divine instructions.
I. STRICT OBSERVANCE IS DEMANDED, EVEN THOUGH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRECEPT BE NOT PERCEIVED. Little explanation is afforded in the Law of the many ceremonies instituted. The Israelites were treated as children, whose chief virtue is unquestioning obedience. Why should the flesh be so quickly consumed? The devout Israelite might not know, yet must he rigidly conform to the order. He is not to reason, but to do. This course may be recommended to the many who wish a full explanation of the reasons for the institution of the ordinances connected with the Christian Church. Reliance may be placed upon the wisdom of the Divine Legislator, and faith rather than knowledge may glorify God. “The secret things” (the explanations, the reasons) “belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed” (the facts, the commands) “belong unto us for ever, that we may do all the words of the Law.” That Jesus Christ has ordained Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is sufficient to lead us to practice them, however confused may be our apprehension of the mysteries and principles involved. And in relation to the counsels addressed to us for the guidance of our lives, and the events that are seen to necessitate certain action upon our parts, it may stall be said, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shall know hereafter.”
II. MORE LIGHT MAY BE EXPECTED TO DAWN UPON US CONTINUALLY AS TO THE MEANING OF DIVINE ORDINANCES. Faith is not intended to exclude or supersede knowledge, but to form a basis for it, an avenue through which it may pass to the mind, an appendix by which its volume may be supplemented. Patient and prayerful study is ever rewarded with keener appreciation of the will of God. If the Israelites reflected for a moment, they would call to mind warnings against desecrating holy things, and against treating what was offered to God as if it were a portion of common food. Surely God would distinguish thus between ordinary slaughter and sacrificial victims, and would guard against that additional risk of putrefaction to which flesh is liable in a hot climate, and which, if it occurred, would be an insult to his majesty. For us at any rate the types and ceremonies of Judaism have been interpreted by Christianity. The Great Prophet has revealed the obscure, and, endowed with his Spirit, apostles have Been inspired to comment authoritatively upon the preceding dispensation. And. we need. not limit our aspirations after an intelligent perception of the meaning of Christian laws. Events as they occur, and reverent, persevering investigation, may unfold to us with increasing clearness the ways of God. But we ought not to delay observance of his precepts until their design is fully manifest. That servant is slothful who refuses to work by candle-light, and waits for the brightness of the sun.
III. PARTIAL DISOBEDIENCE NEUTRALIZES THE EFFECT OF A RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE, AND MAY APPEAR MORE OFFENSIVE THAN TOTAL NEGLECT OF THE DIVINE COMMANDS. Let the worshipper trifle with the Law and venture to eat the flesh on the third day, and he shall find to his cost that the whole of his offering is rejected; it is not pleasing to God, and will not procure him favour. His effort proves useless, it shall not be reckoned to his credit. Worse still, his offering “shall be an abomination” in the eyes of God; there shall be no grateful odour exhaled, but it shall be a stench in his nostrils. Sin has not been obliterated but augmented by the sacrifice. When the Earl of Oxford would honour King Henry VII by the presence of a large body of retainers, the king only saw in the men an infraction of the law, and could not consent to have his laws broken in his sight. Honour and dishonour are an ill-assorted pair. The partially obedient worshipper shows himself as knowing God’s will and doing it not. Total abstinence might have proclaimed him sinful through ignorance. Half-heartedness is often as productive of evil effects as fiat rebellion. It is not for us to presume to say what may be disregarded and what not. To follow the Lord fully is the path of duty and of safety.S.R.A.
Lev 7:29-34
The threefold participation.
In the case of the peace offerings, there was a recognition of rights due to God, to his priests, and to the people presenting the victims.
I. THE PORTION RESERVED FOR GOD. The fat parts and the bleed were not to be eaten by man; the former must be burnt upon the altar, the latter poured out at its foot. There are claims God will not waive. The homage man owes to his Maker can never be remitted. Full trust and unfaltering obedience can be demanded only by an Infinite Being. Life must be acknowledged as dependent upon him. “The blood is the life,” and for the Israelite to drink it is to be cut off from the congregation. The choicest portions belong to God. He will not put up with inferior parts. They mock him who fancy that a remnant of time and money and strength will suffice for his service.
II. THE SHARE ALLOTTED TO THE PRIESTS. God takes care of his chosen servants, provides amply for their wants. The priests devoted wholly to the work of the tabernacle shall not be forgotten, but considered as one with their Master, so that whenever he is honoured they shall be likewise thought of. To wear God’s uniform is to be well eared for, to receive good wages, to be sure of a pension. Once taken into his employ, our future comfort is assured. And those who preach the gospel may claim to live by it. See this principle enunciated and inculcated in 1Co 9:7-14. Variety is secured. Food to cat, skins to wear. The atonement of the priest “covered” the sinner, and the covering of the animal was naturally appropriated to the use of the officiating priest. Both flour and flesh fell to the lot of the priests. The quality shall not be inferior. Portions are selected, the breast and the shoulder, which were counted as most delicate in flavour and nutritious in substance. Why should God’s messengers yield to fear lest they should be neglected? He feedeth the ravens, clothes the lilies in splendour, and will not forsake those whom he has called to do his work in the world.
III. THE REMAINDER HANDED BACK TO THE PEOPLE. We have not to do with an avaricious, unreasonable God. He might justly have claimed the absolute disposal of all brought to his shrine as an offering, but he graciously received a “memorial” for himself and a portion for his ministers, and the rest was returned to the worshippers, consecrated, and for their festal enjoyment, Let us but acknowledge God’s requirements, and we shall find that we are not debarred from the innocent pleasures of life, but can enter upon them with sacred enhancing zest. By spending money in the purchase of ointment for the Saviour, Mary did not deprive herself of all her store, but rather increased the satisfaction with which she indulged in the customary household expenses. We are sure that the widow who cast her all into the treasury was not allowed to remain utterly destitute. She had really made a profitable investment of her little capital. Emptying her hands was only preparatory to having them filled.
How ennobling the thought of being sharers with God and his servants! We all partake of the same food, and are made “one bread and one body” (1Co 10:17). There is better sauce than hunger! It consists in previous dedication to God. Selfish exclusion of the rights of God diminishes the intensity and narrows the sphere of our delights. Not the miser, but the Christian donor, knows the joys of property.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 7:1-8
The law of the trespass offering.
This, like the other offerings, was generally considered before (see Lev 5:1-19 and Lev 6:1-7). The repetition here, according to Hebrew usage, gives emphasis and solemnity to the injunctions. The subject is reopened to show more particularly the duties and privileges of the priesthood concerning it. And we notice
I. THAT THE TRESPASS OFFERING IS DESCRIBED AS MOST HOLY.
1. It was most holy as typifying Christ.
(1) Intrinsically there could be neither sin nor holiness in the animal that was offered up. It was not a moral being. Nor could it be most holy in the sense of removing moral guilt; for it could not do this. For this purpose God never “required” it; never “desired” it (1Sa 15:22; Psa 40:6; Psa 51:16; Isa 1:11; Hos 6:6; Heb 10:1-4).
(2) But the guilt offering of Calvary can literally “take sin away,” and so accomplish the will, the desire, and the requirement of a just and merciful God (Psa 40:6-8; Heb 10:4-10). Christ is therefore indeed “Most Holy;” and the guilt offering of the Law was so called putatively as typifying him. Accordingly,
2. It was killed at the north side of the altar.
(1) “It is most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering” (Lev 7:1, Lev 7:2). But the burnt offering was killed at the north side of the altar (Lev 1:11). So was Calvary at the north side of Jerusalem.
(2) Because this is given as a reason why the trespass offering was to be accounted “most holy,” the Jews have countenance here for their tradition that the less holy sacrifices were slain at the south-west corner of the altar.
3. It was eaten in the holy place.
(1) “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy” (Lev 7:6). This was what the Jews distinguished as “the eating within the curtains,’ in allusion to the court of the tabernacle, which was enclosed with curtains.
(2) In these feastings the priests cultivated fellowship; and the fellowship was religious in proportion as they had the vision of their faith clear to look to the end of the things to be abolished. Faith is the true principle of religious fellowship.
(3) The females “among the priests” might eat of the “holy things ;” but of the things distinguished as “most holy” they had no right to eat. Since the Fall down to the coming of the “Seed of the woman,” a distinction between male and female was maintained, but now it is abolished. God’s curse upon the woman has strangely been converted into the greatest Messing to mankind. Even in anger God is love.
II. SUNDRY DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO THE PRIESTS.
1. With the blood of the guilt offering they were to sprinkle the altar.
(1) The altar was the raised platform upon which the sacrifices were offered up to God. The eminence of Calvary was, more particularly considered, the altar upon which the Great Sacrifice was offered. But in the grander sense, when the great universe is viewed, as Paul views it, as the true temple of God, the earth itself was the altar. The welfare of the universe is concerned in the death of Christ (Eph 1:10; Php 2:9, Php 2:10; Col 1:20).
(2) The sprinkling of the altar with the blood, in tiffs view, would show that the earth, the common inheritance of man, which was cursed for his sake, is redeemed with the price of the precious blood of Jesus, And being redeemed by the price of his blood, it is destined also to be redeemed by the power of his arm (see Eph 1:14; Eph 4:30). What glorious things are in reversion!
(3) The Mishna records a tradition thus rendered by Bishop Patrick: “That there was a scarlet line which went round about the altar exactly in the middle, and the blood of the burnt offerings was sprinkled round about above the line, but that of the trespass offerings and peace offerings round about below it.” But these traditions are generally refinements without authority. Let us be thankful for the “sure word of prophecy.”
2. They were to burn the fat upon the altar.
(1) Not the fat intermingled with the flesh. This was not offered upon the altar, except, of course, in the holocaust; nor was it forbidden as food. Had it been so, what embarrassments must tender consciences have suffered! There is nothing unreasonable in the service of God.
(2) The fat burnt was chiefly that found in a detached state, viz. the omentum, or caul, the fat of the mesentery and that about the kidneys, with the rump or tail of the sheep. This last was in the East so enormous that it had in some cases to be supported by a little cart fastened behind the animal (see Ludolf’s ‘History of Ethiopia,’ page 53).
3. They had the privilege of claiming the skin (Lev 7:7, Lev 7:8).
(1) This privilege probably dates from the days of Eden. Immediately after the Fall, our first parents covered themselves with the leaves of the fig, symbolically to express their sense of shame on account of their sin. In exchange for these, God graciously clothed them with skins, which we may presume were those of animals offered in sacrifice. Here, then, was the robe of an imputed righteousness to cover their sin and shame.
(2) If these skins were those of animals offered in sacrifice, then Adam must have acted as a priest, and of course by Divine appointment. As a priest, then he would receive the skins. To this hour those descendants of Adam who act as spiritual priests are those who are invested with the robe of the righteousness of Christ.J.A.M.
Lev 7:9-15
The peace offering of thanksgiving.
At the conclusion of the instructions concerning the trespass offering, we have a few directions concerning the meat offering (Lev 7:9, Lev 7:10). Whatever of it was dressed was to be given to the priest that offered it, to be consumed by himself and his family. But that “mingled with oil, and dry” was to be divided amongst the sons of Aaron. The reason appears to be economical. What was prepared would not keep, and was therefore to be consumed at once; that which would keep was to be divided, to be used according to convenience. The God of grace is also the God of providence. And his providence is especially concerned for those who seek his grace. After these notes, the law of the sacrifice of the peace offering is formally considered.
I. THE PEACE OFFERING OF THANKSGIVING.
1. There is fitness in this association.
(1) The peace offering has its name, (shelamim), from (shalem), to complete or make whole. It was instituted to express the manner in which our breaches of the covenant are made up by Christ. How the variance between God and man is composed through his atoning sacrifice!
(2) What, then, more fitting than that we should express our thankfulness to God in connection with the peace offering? Praise breaks spontaneously from the heart that is “reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (see Isa 12:1).
2. A bread offering accompanied this.
(1) One portion of this bread offering was unleavened (Lev 7:12). This portion was presented upon the altar. As leaven symbolized evil dispositions, no trace of it should be found in anything that touched God’s altar (Lev 2:11).
(2) But the other portion was leavened (Lev 7:13). This portion was eaten by the worshipper, and expressed that he had evil dispositions that needed purging out. What a difference there is between the holy God and sinful man! What a merciful provision is that of the gospel of peace, that reconciles sinners to God!
II. THE THANKSGIVING IN THE HEAVE OFFERING. (Lev 7:14, Lev 7:15.)
1. This was taken from the whole oblation.
(1) The word for oblation, (masseath), denotes that which is borne or carried, from (nasi), to bear or carry. It generally describes anything which was carried to the temple to be offered to God. It also expresses the design of all sacrifices to be the carrying or bearing of sin (see Exo 28:38; also Le Exo 10:17; Exo 16:21).
(2) In the offerings of the Law this was typical; but in the offering of Christ real.
(3) From the number of these typical sin-bearers borne to the temple, the heave offering was to be taken. It was a representative of the whole of them, and suggested that what was specifically expressed in it might be predicated of any of them.
2. It was lifted up in faith and gratitude to God.
(1) The heave offering had its name, (terumah), from (rum, to lift up), because it was lifted up, viz. toward heaven, by the priest.
(2) This action expressed thankfulness to the source whence all blessings come to us, and especially those of redemption. Christ is the “Lord from heaven,” the “heavenly gift” of a gracious Father (see Joh 3:13, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:31; Joh 4:10; Joh 6:32, Joh 6:33; 1Co 15:47; Heb 6:4).
3. It became the priest’s who sprinkled the blood of the peace offering.
(1) Those who make their peace with God through the blood of the cross not only offer thanks, but enjoy the blessings of thanksgiving. Thus a grateful heart is a” continual feast.”
(2) It was eaten the same day that it was offered. In the very act of thanksgiving to God for his blessings we are blessed. Those who in everything “give thanks” can “rejoice evermore “(1Th 5:16-18).
(3) It was shared by the priest in his own community (see Num 18:8, Num 18:11, Num 18:18, Num 18:19). Shared domestically. Shared religiously. The stranger had no part nor lot in the matter.J.A.M.
Lev 7:16-27
The sanctity of the service of God.
The peace offering may be offered for thanksgiving, in which case it has appropriate ceremonies (Lev 7:12-15). There is also the peace offering of a vow, the ceremonies of which are the same as those of the voluntary offering (Lev 7:16; also Le Lev 19:5-8). In connection with this subject, we are admonished of the sanctity of the service of God; and similar admonitions arc given in what follows.
I. WE SEE THIS SANCTITY IN THE SANCTIONS OF THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERING.
1. Consider the precept.
(1) Look at it in the letter. “It shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice.” The same day in which the fat is burnt on the altar, the flesh is consumed by the worshipper and his friends. What remains must be eaten on the morrow. If any remain over to the third day, it must not then be eaten, but burnt with fire.
(2) The first reason for this is hygienic. The flesh would, of course, be wholesome on the day it was killed, and so it would continue to be on the day following. But on the third day, in a hot climate, it would tend to corruption. The laws of health are well considered in the Levitical system, upon which account the study of that system may be commended to the votaries of social science.
(3) But there must be a deeper reason still, else the penalties would not be so formidable as they are. The peace offering was undoubtedly a type of Christ in his passion (Eph 2:13-18). Our Lord was two days in the tomb after his death without seeing corruption. Then rising from the dead on the third day, the typical sacrifices of the Law, having answered their end, were abolished, This abolition was foreshadowed in the burning of what remained of the peace offering on the third day (1Co 15:3). To eat of the typical peace offering on the third day would be therefore highly improper, as it would suggest return to the “beggarly elements” after the “bringing in of the better hope” (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:9-11, Gal 4:30, Gal 4:31; Gal 5:1-4).
(4) If the” third day” represent the Christian dispensation in which typical sacrifices are done away, how are we to view the “two days” during which they were serviceable? There were exactly two great dispensations before the Christian, in which typical sacrifices were ordained, viz. first, the Patriarchal, from Adam to Moses; and secondly, the Levitical, from Moses to Christ.
2. Consider the penalties.
(1) If the flesh of the peace offering be eaten on the third day, the sacrifice “shall not be accepted.” The reason will now be obvious. In the third, or gospel, dispensation, there is a better Sacrifice. Typical sacrifices are now out of place and worthless, since the Antitype is come.
(2) “It shall not be imputed to him that offereth it.” The typical sacrifices were useful in procuring the “forbearance of God” until the true atonement should be made; but now it is made, Christ will profit them nothing who return to the Law,
(3) “He shall bear his sin.” He shall be treated as the sacrifice was treated. He shall himself be sacrificed for his own sin.
II. THIS SANCTITY IS FURTHER SEEN IN THE PENALTIES IMPOSED IN OTHER CASES. Thus:
1. When the flesh of sacrifice is unlawfully eaten.
(1) This would happen if it had touched “any unclean thing” (Lev 7:19). Instead of being eaten, it should then be “burnt with fire.” The teaching is that an unclean thing is of no use for purposes of atonement. The sacrifice of Christ could not be accepted were he not immaculate.
(2) It would happen if the cater were unclean. “As for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof” (Hebrew, “The flesh of all that is clean shall eat the flesh”), i.e; every clean person shall eat the flesh of his peace offering. As Christ is without spot of sin, so is his flesh meat only to the holy. “But the soul” etc. (Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21). To the wicked, the very gospel becomes the savour of death (1Co 11:29; 2Co 2:15, 2Co 2:16).
2. When holy things are profaned.
(1) When the fat is eaten (Lev 7:23)the fat of such animals as were offered in sacrifice. There is no law against the eating of the fat of the roebuck or the hart. And that portion of the fat which was offered in sacrifice. The fat mingled with the flesh, which was not burnt on the altar, was not forbidden. There must be the most careful avoidance of whatever would profane the sacrifice of Christ. The fat even of an animal of the sacrificial kind, which by any accident might be rendered unfit for sacrifice, must not be eaten (Lev 7:24). The moral here is that the very appearance of evil must be avoided.
(2) When the blood is eaten. This law is universal. Blood, viz. of every description of animal, is forbidden. The Jews properly expound this law as forbidding the blood of the life as distinguished from the gravy. And the reason given for the prohibition is that the life maketh atonement for the life. Our life, which is redeemed by the life of Jesus sacrificed for us, must be wholly given to God. The highest sanctity is associated with the blood of Christ.
(3) “That soul shall be cut off from his people” (Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21, Lev 7:25, Lev 7:27). The penalty in all these cases is extreme. It means separation from religious and civil privileges, if not also death. The penalties of the Mosaic Law terminated in the death of the body; but “a much sorer punishment” is reserved for those who despise and desecrate the blood of Christ (Heb 10:28, Heb 10:29).J.A.M.
Lev 7:28-38
The service of the oblation.
In the service of the oblation of the peace offering there are two actors, viz. the offerer and the priest. These had their respective duties, which are severally brought under our notice in the text. We have
I. THE DUTY OF THE OFFERER.
1. He had to bring his oblation unto the Lord.
(1) The “oblation” here is not the “sacrifice,” but “of the sacrifice” (Lev 7:28-30). It was that portion of the sacrifice which, more especially, was claimed by God, viz. the fat prescribed to be burnt upon the altar. It included also the breast and right shoulder.
(2) This he was to bring in person. “His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire,” etc. This requisition is so express that even women, who under other circumstances never entered the court of the priests, did so when they had offerings to bring. The Hebrew name for oblation (, korban) is derived from a root (, koreb) which signifies to approach or draw near. By the introduction of our Great High Priest, we personally, under the gospel, “approach” or “draw nigh” unto God (see Heb 7:19; Heb 10:21, Heb 10:22). We cannot save our souls by proxy. We cannot acceptably serve God by proxy.
2. He had to bring the fat laid upon the breast.
(1) What our version construes “the fat with the breast” (Lev 7:30), may be better rendered, as it is by the learned Julius Bate, “the fat upon the breast,” i.e; laid upon the breast (comp. Le Lev 8:26, Lev 8:27). The breast was that appointed to be waved before the Lord; and it would appear that it was waved with the fat laid upon it. The breast was the natural symbol of heartiness and willingness. This action would, therefore, express the cheerful and grateful willingness of the offerer, and his earnest desire that his offering might be graciously accepted. What we devote to God should be heartily given (2Co 9:7).
(2) The “heave shoulder” was also brought. This was the right shoulder. It had its name from the ceremony in which it was moved tip and down before the Lord. As the “breast” symbolized affection, so the “shoulder” expressed action, and the “right” shoulder, action of the most efficient kind. Love expresses itself in deeds (Mat 22:37-40; Luk 6:46; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8).
II. THE DUTY OF THE PRIEST.
1. He had to offer up the oblation.
(1) The Mishna says this was done by the priest placing his hands under those of the offerer, upon which the wave breast was laid, and then moving them to and fro. The priest certainly had a hand in the ceremony of waving the breast (see Num 6:20). And if we regard him as a type of Christ in this, then the teaching appears to be that we should look to Jesus to sustain the fervency of our love in the offering of our oblations of prayer and praise and service.
(2) The priest in the next place, it appears, offered up the fat in the fire of the altar (Lev 7:31). Then the right shoulder was “given to the priest for an heave offering” (Lev 7:32). This, we are told, was moved up and down. Thus these motions of the wave breast and heave shoulder were at right angles, and so they formed the figure of a cross. Houbigant thinks that by this “was adumbrated the cross upon which that Peace Offering of the human race was lifted up, which was prefigured by all the ancient victims” (comp. Joh 21:18, Joh 21:19; 2Pe 1:14; together with the historical tradition concerning the crucifixion of Peter).
2. The breast and shoulder were then claimed by the priest.
(1) They had these by a Divine ordinance (Lev 7:31-34). They were first given to God, and now became God’s gift to his ministers. What is given to sustain the ministry should not be regarded by the giver as a gratuity, but as a service loyally and faithfully rendered to God (see Num 18:20-24). Ministers should receive their support as from the hand of God (see 2Co 9:11; Php 4:18).
(2) They had it by a birthright. It was given to “Aaron and his sons.” Those who were not sons of Aaron had no part nor lot in the matter. And true ministers of the gospel must be sons of Jesus; they must be spiritually born, or they are intruders into sacred functions (see Psa 1:1-6 :16; Act 1:25; Rom 1:5; 1Ti 1:12; 2Ti 4:5).
(3) They had it also by consecration. The sons of Aaron, though as their birthright were served from the altar, had no title to serve the altar until anointed for that service. So the birth of the Spirit, by which we become sons of Jesus, does not alone constitute ministers. For the ministry they must have a special vocation. Note: “Aaron presented his sons to minister unto the Lord,” in which he acted as the type of Christ, who calls and qualifies those he sends. If the harvest be plenteous and the labourers few, the more urgently should we “pray the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers.”J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 7:1-10
Emphatic truths orthings God lays stress upon.
The great particularity and the occasional repetition shown in these ordinances point to the truth that God desired his people to attach very great weight to them. His servants were to understand that he laid great stress upon
I. THE WAY IN WHICH HE WAS APPROACHED IN WORSHIP. Distinctions were drawn between different offerings, the import of which we now find it hard to trace. Though, indeed, it is stated that “as the sin offering so the trespass offering; there is one law for them” (Lev 7:7), yet there were differences in the way in which the blood was disposed of by the priests, etc. (cf. Lev 7:2 and Le Lev 4:6, Lev 4:7). Minute details were entered into respecting the disposal of the various parts of the animal (Lev 7:3, Lev 7:4, Lev 7:8). Precise directions were given regarding the eating of the offerings by the priests (Lev 7:5, Lev 7:9, Lev 7:10). It appears to us that there must have been but very faint moral significance in these arrangements to the mind of the Hebrew worshipper. But if this were so, the very particularity of the precepts indicated God’s determination that his people should show the utmost vigilance and attention in their approaches to himself. We may wisely learn therefrom that, though our Divine Master has left all details in worship to our spiritual discernment, he is far from indifferent to the way in which we approach him. We should show the utmost care:
1. To draw nigh to his throne of grace in a right spirita spirit of reverence, trust, expectation, holy joy.
2. To use those methods of approach which are most likely to foster the true spirit of worshiphaving enough of simplicity to favour spirituality of mind; having, at the same time, enough of art and effort to meet the cultivated tastes of all who take part in devotion.
II. THE FACT THAT SIN MEANS DEATH IN HIS SIGHT. The first “law of the trespass offering” (Lev 7:1) relates to the killing of the animal and the sprinkling of its blood “round about the altar” (Lev 7:2). The thing in these sacrifices is the application of the blood for atonement: no offering on the altar, no eating of the flesh, until life had been taken, until blood had been shed and sprinkled. The sinner must own his worthiness of death for his trespass, and, if he is to find acceptance, must bring a victim, whose life shall be forfeited instead of his own, whose atoning blood shall make peace with God. This is the foundation truth of Old Testament sacrifices; it is the ground truth of the sacrifice on Calvary.
III. THE TRUTH THAT OUR VERY BEST, OUR OWN SELF, IS TO BE CONSECRATED TO GOD. The best of the slain animals, the vital parts, had to be presented in holy sacrifice on the altar (Lev 7:3-5). When the atoning blood has brought reconciliation, we are to present our best, our very selves, in acceptable sacrifice to our Saviour.
IV. THE TRUTH THAT ALL WHICH IS PRESENTED TO GOD IS TO BE REGARDED AS HOLY IN HIS SIGHT. Only the priests might eat of the flesh of the offered animal, and they only “in the holy place,” for “it is most holy” (Lev 7:6). Everything became holy when brought to “the door of the tabernacle” and presented to Jehovah. When we dedicate ourselves to his service in the act of self-surrender, we yield everything to him. And then:
1. Our bodies become a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1; 1Co 6:13, 1Co 6:20).
2. Our whole lives are to be lived and spent before him as holy (1Co 10:31).C.
Lev 7:14, Lev 7:28-34
The kingdom of God: lessons from the heave offering.
The ceremony of the heave offering and wave offering was a striking incident in the rite of the peace offering. “According to Jewish tradition it was performed by laying the parts on the hands of the offerer, and the priest, putting his hands again underneath, then moving them in a horizontal direction for the waving and in a vertical one for the heaving the waving was peculiarly connected with the breast, which is thence called the wave breast (Lev 7:34), and the heaving with the shoulder, for this reason called the heave shoulder” (Lev 7:34). The main truth to which this symbolic act pointed was probably
I. GOD‘S UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY. As these parts of the animal were solemnly directed upwards and downwards and laterally, in all directions, the offerer intimated his belief that the realm of Jehovah was a boundless kingdom, reaching to the heavens above, to the dark regions below, to every corner and quarter of the earth. We do well to meditate on the truth thus pictorially presented; bat in so doing we are necessarily reminded how much more we have learned both from revelation and human science of the wide reach of his reign. We may think of his Divine kingdom as including:
1. Heaven and all its worlds and inhabitants.
2. Hadesthe grave and those who have “gone to the grave.”
3. The earth and all that is thereon:
(1) all human Beings;
(2) all unintelligent creatures;
(3) all vegetable life;
(4) all inanimate treasuregold, silver, etc.
We are reminded of the propriety of
II. OUR FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT. The Hebrew worshipper was encouraged to bring his peace offering to the altar, and then to go through this simple but suggestive ceremony, thus formally acknowledging the truth. No similar provision is made for our utterance of it; but it is open to us to declare it in sacred words and in most solemn forms:
1. In adoration. “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness and the power for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine,” etc. (` Chronicles 29:10, 11; 1Ti 1:17; Deu 10:14; Psa 24:1).
2. In praise. When we “sing unto the Lord,” there should be full and frequent ascription of everything “in the heavens above and. the earth beneath” to him as the Author and Owner and Ruler of all. We also see
III. OUR APPROPRIATE ACTION THEREUPON. The Jewish worshipper was directed to “wave” and “heave” the breast and shoulder; these joints in particular and in preference to any other, “probably from their being considered the more excellent parts.” When the fat had been burned upon the altar (Lev 7:30, these joints were reserved “unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons for ever” (Lev 7:34). We gather therefrom that we are to make practical recognition of the truth that God’s kingdom extends everywhere, and includes every one, by:
1. Dedicating our best to his service: our affections (suggested by the breast); our strength (suggested by the shoulder).
2. Bringing our offerings to his causefor the support of those who minister in holy things, and for the maintenance of those various agencies which are working for the glory of his Name.C.
Lev 7:11-18, Lev 7:30
Four thoughts on sacred service.
We gather from these words
I. THAT THERE IS A JOYOUS AND SOCIAL ELEMENT IN SACRED SERVICE. There were not only sin and burnt offerings, but also meat and peace offerings, in the Hebrew ritual. Those who were reconciled unto God might rejoice, and might rejoice together, before him. They might hold festive gatherings as his servants and as his worshippers; they might eat flesh which had been dedicated, to him, and bread, even leavened bread (Lev 7:13), and they were to “rejoice in their feast” (Deu 16:14). The prevailing tone of the true Christian life is that of sacred joy. Even at the remembrance of the Saviour’s death humility and faith are to rise into holy joy.
“Around a table, not a tomb,
He willed our gathering-place should be.
When going to prepare our home,
Our Saviour said, ‘Remember me.'”
Whether in ordinary worship, or at “the table of the Lord,” or in any other Christian festival, we are to “rejoice before the Lord.” together.
II. THAT THERE IS A SPONTANEOUS AS WELL AS A STATUTORY element in sacred service. “If he offer it for a thanksgiving then he shall offer,” etc. (Lev 7:12). “If the sacrifice be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten,” etc. (Lev 7:16). God’s Law says, “thou shalt,” but it finds room for “if thou shalt.” There are many things compulsory, and we have nothing to do but cheerfully and unquestioningly obey. There are also many things optional, and we may allow ourselves to act as devotional and generous impulses may move us. The mind which is constitutionally legal should cultivate the spontaneous in worship and benefaction; the impulsive must remember that there are statutes as well as suggestions in the Word of God.
III. THAT THERE MAY BE NOT ONLY FUTILITY BUT EVEN GUILT in connection with sacred service. Disregard of the prohibition to eat on the third day entirely vitiated the worthiness of the offering: in such case it would “not be accepted,” neither “imputed unto him that offered it;” it would be counted “an abomination,” and the soul that so acted was to “bear his iniquity” (Lev 7:18). The service we seek to render God may be:
1. Wholly vitiated so as to be entirely unacceptable, and draw down no blessing from above; or may even be:
2. Positively offensive in the sight of God, and add to our guilt, if it be
(1) unwilling, grudging;
(2) unspiritual, soulless;
(3) slovenly, careless, the offering of our exhaustion instead of our energy;
(4) ostentatious or (still worse) hypocritical;
(5) much mixed with worldly, or vindictive, or base thoughts.
IV. THAT PERSONAL SPIRITUAL PARTICIPATION IS NECESSARY in sacred service. “His own hands shall bring the offerings” (Lev 7:30). God would be approached by His people themselves, and though he had graciously granted human mediation in the form of a sacrificing priesthood, yet he desired that every Israelite who had an offering to present should bring it with his own hand to the door of the tabernacle. Religion is a personal thing. We may accept human ministry, but we must come ourselves to God in direct, immediate devotion and dedication. Every man here must bear his own burden (Gal 6:5). There is a point beyond which the most ardent affection, the most earnest solicitude, the most burning zeal cannot gofor others. They must, themselves, approach in reverence, bow in penitence, look up in faith, yield in self-surrender, present daily sacrifices of gratitude, obedience, submission.C.
Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21
Divine and human severity.
There is something almost startling in the closing words, “That soul shall be cut off from his people.” It suggests thoughts of
I. APPARENT DIVINE SEVERITY.
1. That God sometimes seems to be severe in his dealings with men. These particular injunctions must have had to the Jews an aspect of rigour. An Israelite excommunicated for one of these offenses probably felt that he had been hardly dealt with. God’s dealings have an occasional aspect of severity (see Rom 11:22). So with us. In his providence comparatively slight faults, errors, transgressions, are sometimes followed by most serious evilsdisgrace, sorrow, loss, death.
2. That the light of after-days often explains his dealing with us. We can see now that the paramount and supreme importance of maintaining the purity of Israel, its separateness from all the abominations of surrounding heathendom, made the most stringent regulations on that subject necessary and wise, and therefore kind. So with us. Looking back on the way by which we have been led, we frequently see that that very thing which at the time was not only distressing but perplexing, was the most signal act of the Divine wisdom and goodness, the providential ordering for which, above every other thing, we now give thanks.
3. That present faith should rise to the realization that, somewhere in the future, apparent severity will bear the aspect of wise and holy love. “What we know not now we shall know hereafter.” “Then shall we know,” etc. (1Co 13:12).
II. OCCASIONAL HUMAN SEVERITY.
1. That we are sometimes obliged to seem severe towards those for whom we are responsible.
(1) The statesman is obliged to introduce a severe measure;
(2) a father to take a strong and energetic course;
(3) a Church to excommunicate a member.
2. That apparent severity is sometimes the only rightful course which wise and holy love can take. It is the action which is (l) due to itself (Jas 3:17);
(2) due to the object of its affection (1Ti 1:20).C.
Lev 7:15-17
Three features of acceptable service.
We have commanded or suggested here
I. CAREFUL PRESERVATION OF PURITY. The “flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering” was to be eaten on the very day of its presentation (Lev 7:15); that of another kind of offering might be eaten partly on the day following (Lev 7:16), but on no account might anything offered in sacrifice be partaken of on the third day (Lev 7:17, Lev 7:18). It was one of the objects, probably the primary intention, of this restriction, that nothing offered to God should be allowed to become unsound. No danger was to be incurred in the way of putrefaction. Another statute in defense of purity in worship! In the service of the Holy One of Israel we must be pure in thought, in word, in act. He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil,” etc. (Hab 1:13), and can find no pleasure in any service tainted with iniquity. The connection in which this restriction occurs suggests that, especially in those religious engagements in which we find social pleasure, we should be careful to maintain purity of spirit, integrity of heart.
II. CAREFUL RETENTION OF SACREDNESS OF THOUGHT. The partaking of the flesh and the bread which had been presented to God, though these were eaten at home, was to be regarded as a sacred act. It was sacramental. Therefore it was fitting that no great interval of time should come between the act of presentation and the consumption. For the consequence would inevitably be that the sacred festival would tend to sink to the level of an ordinary meal. Sacred thoughts would be less vivid and less frequent; the engagement would become more secular and more simply social as more time intervened. We learn that we should take the greatest care to retain in our mind the sense of the sacredness of religious acts during their performance. When they become mechanical, or wholly bodily, or simply social; when the realization of the religious and the Divine element falls out, then their virtue is gone; they are no longer “an acceptable offering unto the Lord.” We must accomplish this end by:
1. Studious spiritual endeavour to realize what we are doing.
2. By wise precautions, judicious measures, which will tend to preserve sanctity and to guard against secularity of thought.
III. UNSELFISHNESS IN RELIGIOUS SERVICE. The commandment to consume everything within one or two days pointed to an increase in the number of partakers; it suggested the calling together friends and dependents; also the invitation of the poor and needy. This was not only the design but the effect of the injunction (see Deu 12:18; Deu 16:11). The Israelites, in “eating before the Lord,” showed a generous hospitality while they were engaged in an act of piety and of sacred joy. Let unselfishness be a prominent feature in our religious institutions. It is well to remember:
1. That selfishness is apt to show itself here as elsewhere.
2. That it is never so inconsistent and unsightly as in connection with the service of God.
3. That it is a painful exhibition to the Lord of love.
4. That the more generous and self-forgetting we are in sacred things, the more we approach the spirit and life of our Divine Exemplar (Php 2:4-8).C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 7:1-10
The trespass offering, burnt offering, and meat offering, affording support to the minister of the sanctuary and occasion for feasting.
I. It is the intent of true religion that those consecrated to its service should be provided for liberally.
II. Acknowledgment of sin and atonement made lead to rejoicing, and the festival life of man grows out of reconciliation with God.
III. TYPICALLY; Christ the High Priest is rewarded in the sanctification of his people “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.”R.
Lev 7:11-21
The peace offerings and thank offerings.
The unleavened bread and the leavened bread, both offered. The offerings must be quickly eaten, and all uncleanness must be avoided as iniquity. Thus are taught
I. THE DUTY OF THANKFULNESS.
1. It should be cheerful, glad, pure, speedy.
2. It should be religious, expressed towards God as the Author and Giver of every good gift.
3. It should be social, recognizing both the house of God and family life.
II. THE NECESSITY OF HOLINESS in all things and at all times. Thanksvowsvoluntary offerings;in all there must be separation to God, and from the corrupt and unclean.
1. In nothing more need of vigilance than in expressing the heart’s more joyful feelings. Possibility of prolonging the joy till it becomes corrupt. Hilarity overbalancing the soul. Intemperance in enjoyments.
2. The uncleanness of the world is apt to cling to us. We should especially watch against carrying the impure spirit into the sanctuary. The mind should be free, the heart calm, the soul hungering and thirsting alter spiritual delights, when, on the Lord’s day, we enter the courts of his house to offer sacrifice.
3. Fellowship with God’s ministers and his services. One voice, but many hearts. True mediation when all alike by faith depending on Christ.R.
Lev 7:22-27
Instructions for the people on the fat and on the blood.
The prohibition of fat was to secure the rights of Jehovah from invasion. The fat was a gift sanctified to God. The prohibition of the blood was to keep up the idea of atonement, the blood being regarded as the soul of the animal which God had appointed as the medium of atonement for the soul of man. Here is
I. THE SUPREMACY OF THE DIVINE CLAIMS.
1. The recognition by the conscience in doctrine, in the place religion holds in the life.
2. The social state should be regulated on this principle. Man must not invade God’s rights if he would retain God’s blessing. Observance of the sabbath. The law of nations rests on the Law of God.
3. The individual believer will take care that he robs God of nothing. His service demands the fat, the choicest faculties, the deepest feelings, the largest gifts.
II. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MAN. Life for life. The blood sanctified, the blood saved. On the foundation of a perfect reconciliation alone can a true humanity be preserved and developed. Mistake of the ancient Greeks in worshipping humanity unredeemed, leading to animalism, and eventually to the substitution of mere art for morality, therefore the degradation of humanity. The elevation of the soul is the elevation of the whole man; “Im ganzen, guten, schoenen resolut zu leben,” is a motto only to be adopted in the Christian sense. “He that sayeth his life shall lose it;” he that offers it up to God shall redeem it.R.
Lev 7:28-38
The wave breast and the heave shoulder
given to the priests. God’s share and his ministers’ share must be both fully given and carefully set aside and publicly offered up. Generous support of the sanctuary.
I. SERVICE OF GOD‘S HOUSE REQUIRES SPECIAL OFFERINGS; which should be:
1. Large and freely bestowed. Reciprocal blessings; those that give receive, and as they give, they receive.
2. The ministry should be so provided for that the service rendered be joyful and unrestrained.
3. The subordinate arrangements of the sanctuary should partake of the cheerfulness which flows from abundance. A festival of worship.
II. SANCTIFICATION OF GIFTS. Both by personal preparation and by systematic beneficence. Lay aside for God as we are prospered. God’s claims should precede all others. The blessing of the sanctuary overflows into common life.
III. PUBLICITY A POWERFUL STIMULUS AND A BINDING PLEDGE. Waving, and heaving represented extent and elevation, Much in example. Our gifts should not be ostentatiously published, but yet, if held up to God, and so presented as to set forth the universality of our consecration to him, they will both glorify his Name and incite others to his service.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
D.FOR TRESPASS OFFERINGS. Lev 7:1-6
Lev 7:1 Likewise [And] this is the law of1 the trespass-offering: it is most holy. 2In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall Hebrews 2 sprinkle round about upon the altar. 3And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump [the fat tail3], and the fat that covereth the inwards, 4and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with [on4] the kidneys, it shall he take away: 5and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; it is a trespass offering. 6Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the [a] holy place: it is most holy.
E.FOR THE PRIESTS PORTION OF THE ABOVE OFFERINGS. Lev 7:7-10
7As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. 8And the priest that offereth any mans burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered. 9And all the meat-offering [oblation5] that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan [pot6], and in the pan, 10shall be the priests that offereth it. And [But] every meat offering [oblation8] mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
F.FOR PEACE OFFERINGS IN THEIR VARIETY. Lev 7:11-21
11And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which Hebrews 7 shall offer unto the Lord. 12If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.8 13Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. 14And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [out of each offering9] for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priests that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. 15And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. 16But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: 17but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. 18And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination,10 and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. 19And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof. 20But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. 21Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing,11 and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
G.FOR THE FAT AND THE BLOOD. Lev 7:22-27
22And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 23Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. 24And the fat of the beast [carcase12] that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. 25For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. 26Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your 27dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
H.FOR THE PRIESTS PORTION OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS. Lev 7:28-36
28And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 29Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the Lord shall bring his oblation [offering13] unto the Lord of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. 30His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord. 31And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aarons and his sons. 32And the right shoulder [leg14] shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. 33He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder [leg30] for his part. 34For the wave-breast and the heave shoulder [leg30] have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons [35This is the portion15of Aaron and the portion31of his sons], out of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, in the day when he16 presented 36them to minister unto the Lord in the priests office; which the Lord commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute forever throughout their generations.
CONCLUSION OF THIS SECTION. Lev 7:37-38
37This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering [oblation], and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice 38of the peace offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations [offerings29] unto the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 7:9. . The Sam. has , a form which occurs in MSS. with the pointing .
Lev 7:9; Lev 7:17-18; Lev 7:22. . The Sum. and many MSS. have the later form indicated by the Masoretic punctuation. This frequent variation will not hereafter be noticed. The conjectural emendation of Houbigant, in the imperative, although expressing the sense, is unnecessary.
Lev 7:9. The suggested translation is that given by most critics; of its general correctness there can be no doubt; but the sense of (which occurs only here) may be either that of hearth, or of burning. The masculine form, (which is found only Psa 102:4 (3), and Isa 33:14), is translated in both ways in the A. V., but should have only the latter sense. The weight of authority as well as the context make hearth the preferable translation here. Knobel would make the verb to be in the imperative; but this is not sufficiently supported.
Lev 7:10. . For the suffix on a noun in the constr. Knobel refers to Lev 26:42; Exo 26:25; Jer 9:2 (Lev 8:23); 2Sa 22:33, however, reads .
Lev 7:10. The Sam. for has as in Lev 16:4, which scarcely affects the sense.
Lev 7:10. The propriety of this correction is obvious. Bp. Horsleys emendation: take up the ashes of the fire which hath consumeddoes violence to the Heb.
Lev 7:11. The Vulg. has this curious addition: usque ad favillam consumi faciet.
Lev 7:14, etc. = oblation. See Lev 2:1, Text. and Gram. Note (2). The Sam. has here the law of the oblation of the drink offerings, whence the Vulg.: lex sacrificii et libamentorum.
Lev 7:14. , Infin. Abs. as in Lev 2:6; Exo 13:3.
Lev 7:18. might be understood either as every one that, as in the A. V., or as every thing that; but as the latter is the necessary translation of the exactly parallel clause in Lev 7:27 (as in the A. V.), it is better to keep it here also.
Lev 7:20. The Syr. here has the plural.
Lev 7:20. The prep. , not in the Heb., is supplied by the Sam. and many MSS.
Lev 7:20. The paraphrase of the Sam. =between the evenings, expresses the connection of this oblation with the evening sacrifice.
Lev 7:21. a word of very doubtful meaning, but should certainly have the same translation as in Lev 7:12, where see note.
Lev 7:21. , a word . . to which different significations are attached according to its supposed derivation. Frst, deriving it from , gives the sense of the A. V. Gesenius also, deriving from , gives the sense of cooked. Others derive it from an Arabic root, and give the meaning broken. So Targ. Onk. (which points ) and the Sam.
Lev 7:27. . The sudden change of person, and the feminine suffix in reference to a masculine noun, are both avoided by the Sam. reading .
Lev 7:30. . There may be but little difference in the sense of the two renderings; but it is better to retain the same form always. Other instances of variation in the A. V. in Lev. are Lev 8:15 and Lev 16:20 only.
VII. Lev 7:1. The LXX. here has , the ram being the only victim admissible for the trespass offering.
Lev 7:2. The Sam. here uses the plural. It cannot mean that the offerer sprinkled the blood, but rather assimilates this verb to those going before on the supposition (as in Lev 1:6; Lev 1:12, etc.) that the priests also killed the victim.
Lev 7:3. . See Textual Note 4 on Lev 3:9.
Lev 7:4. =on. See Textual Note 7 on Lev 3:4.
Lev 7:9. See Textual Note7 on Lev 2:7.
Lev 7:11. The Sam., LXX. and Vulg. with two MSS. have the plural.
Lev 7:12. . There is so much difference of opinion as to the meaning that it seems unsafe to attempt any change in the A. V. Frst says: something dipped in, mingled (by moistening); Lange denies that it conveys the sense of cooked; Keil translates and roasted fine flour (see Lev 6:14) mixed as cakes with oil, i.e., cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil. Others give varying interpretations.
Lev 7:14. is to be uniformly translated offering. See Lev 2:1. The word whole in the A. V. does not express the idea that one must be taken out of each of the offerings mentioned in the two preceding verses.
Lev 7:18. occurs only here and in Lev 19:7; Isa 65:4; Eze 4:14, and is always applied to the sacrificial flesh. It is from the root , and signifies something unclean and fetid, LXX. .
Lev 7:21. For =an abominable animal (Lev 11:10; Lev 11:12-13; Lev 11:20; Lev 11:23; Lev 11:41), the Sam., six MSS. of Kennicott and of de Rossi, Targ. of Onkelos () and the Syr. read =reptiles, worms (5 Lev 11:20; Lev 11:29; Lev 11:41). This would make a more systematic enumeration of the sources of uncleanness, and is adopted by many.
Lev 7:24. . The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. The of the next clause=torn sc. of beasts, is of course a wholly different word.
Lev 7:29. The uniform translation of must be retained here also, although giving an appearance of tautology which is not in the original, his peace offerings being expressed simply by . The translation of the A. V. may have been influenced by the rendering in the Vulg.: offerat simul et sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus; but for this there is no warrant, nor is it sustained by any other of the ancient versions.
Lev 7:32. is uniformly rendered shoulder In the A. V. wherever it is applied to sacrificial animals; in all other places it is used of men (Deu 28:35; Pro 26:7; Son 5:15; Isa 47:2; also Dan 2:33, Chald.; Psa 147:10), and is translated leg, or hip, or thigh. The A. V. has hero followed the equally uniform practice of the LXX. and the Vulg. It would seem that the word should have the same sense in both cases; there is no place in which leg is inapplicable, but there are several in which shoulder is inadmissible. The testimony of Josephus (III. 9, 2, ) is explicit in favor of leg; so also Jewish tradition and the lexicons. Whether the fore or the hind leg is meant is a matter of difference of opinion; but the Heb. has a distinct word =arm for the shoulder or fore-leg (Num 6:19; Deu 18:3), and that, too, of the sacrificial animals.
Lev 7:35. . The word undoubtedly means anointing; but there is also good authority for the meaning portion which Rosenmller considers undoubtedly the right translation here, and which is so necessary to the sense that it is supplied in the A. V., which has followed the translation of the LXX. and Vulg.
Lev 7:35. The Vulg. has die qua obtulit eos Moyses ut sacerdotio fungerentur.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The remainder of Leviticus 6, with the whole of Leviticus 7, form a distinct section occupied mainly with the duties and privileges of the priests in connection with their sacrificial service. Although there is unavoidably a little repetition in thus speaking again of the same sacrifices from a different point of view and for a different object; yet the gain in clearness and distinctness in thus separating the priestly duties from those of the laymen is obvious, both for the priests and for the people. The section consists of five divine communications addressed through Moses to Aaron and his sons, as the former communication had been to the children of Israel.
It has already been noticed that in the Hebrew Bibles the chapter rightly begins with the beginning of this section. Here also begins a new Parashah, or Proper Lesson of the law, which extends to Lev 8:36. The corresponding Lesson from the prophets begins with Jer 7:21, in which God declares the vanity of sacrifice without obedience.
A. Lev 7:8-13. Instructions for the priests in regard to the burnt-offerings. This has reference to the daily burnt-offerings of a lamb at evening and at morning. There was no occasion for directions in regard to the voluntary burnt offerings as they involved no other priestly duties than those already expressed in chap. 1; in that chapter nothing has been said of the required burnt sacrifice, provided at the public cost, which is here treated of.
Lev 7:9. All night unto the morning.The slow fire of the evening sacrifice was to be so arranged as to last until the morning; that of the morning sacrifice was ordinarily added to by other offerings, or if not, could easily be made to last through the much shorter interval until the evening. The evening sacrifice is naturally mentioned first because, in the Hebrew division of time, this was the beginning of the day. It was offered between the evenings, i.e., between three oclock and the going down of the sun. The general direction for the daily burnt offerings has already been given in Exo 29:38, and is again repeated in Num 28:3. As this offering was theoretically the comprehensive type from which all other offerings were specialized, so practically it was always burning upon the altar, and all other sacrifices were offered upon it.
Lev 7:10. His linen garment.This was the long tight-robe of fine white linen, or byssus, without folds, covering the whole body, and reaching down to the feet, with sleeves, woven as one entire piece, and with forms of squares intermixed, and hence called tesalated (Kalisch). It is scarcely necessary to point out that linen, from its cleanliness, and from the readiness with which it could be washed, was selected as the priestly dress not only among the Israelites, but among many other nations also, especially the Egyptians, whose priests are therefore often described by Roman poets as linigeri. There were four parts of the priestly linen dress, of which two only are mentioned here, because all had been prescribed in Exo 28:40-43, and the girdle and the turban were of course to be understood. The priests might not minister at the altar in any other garments, nor might they wear these outside the sacred precincts.
And take up the ashes.As the priest must be in his official dress at the altar, it was of necessity that he should temporarily deposit the ashes near by, until he had finished the ordering of the altar.
Lev 7:11. And he shall put off his garments.The sacred dress was now to be laid aside as the priest must pass out of the tabernacle and out of the camp. It has been questioned whether the carrying forth of the ashes must necessarily be performed by the officiating priest himself. According to Jewish tradition it might be done by any of the priestly family who were excluded from officiating at the altar by reason of some bodily defect. The same tradition also tells us that it was only required each day to carry forth a small quantity of the ashesa shovel-fullallowing the rest to remain until the hollow of the altar below the grating was filled up, when all must be emptied and carried away.
Unto a clean place.There was a fitness too evident to require further reason, that the remains of what had been used for the holiest purposes should be deposited in a clean place.Without the camp, is a phrase belonging to the life of the wilderness, but easily modified to the requirements of the settled life in Palestine.
Lev 7:12. Shall burn wood on it.The fire was to be maintained always whether the previous sacrifice remained burning sufficiently or not, so that fresh supplies of wood were to be added. Great care was taken in the selection and preparation of this wood, and any sticks worm-eaten were rejected. And lay the burnt-offering.All was to be arranged and the fire brightly burning before the time of offering the morning sacrifice. When this was laid upon the wood, the sacrificial day was begun, and the fat of the peace-offerings and any other sacrifices that might he presented were placed upon it.
Lev 7:13. The fire shall be ever burning upon the altar.The fire upon the altar was not as is sometimes supposed, originally kindled by the fire from before the Lord (Lev 9:24), since it had been burning several days before that fire came forth; yet that fire so marked the Divine approbation of the priestly order as they entered upon their office, that a continual fire in which that was always in a sense perpetuated, was a constant symbol and pledge of the Divine acceptance of the sacrifices offered upon it. So also, in later times, with the fire from heaven at the dedication of the temple (2Ch 7:1). But besides this, It is evident that the fire burning continually, which was kept up by the daily burnt offering (Exo 29:38), had a symbolical meaning. As the daily burnt sacrifice betokened the daily renewed gift of God, in like manner did this continually burning fire denote the unceasing, uninterrupted character of the same. Similar customs with the heathen had a different signification. Among the Persians (and among the Parsees in India at this day), fire was and is the visible representative of the Godhead; the continual burning of it, the emblem of eternity. The perpetual fire of Vesta (the oldest goddess) among the Greeks and Romans, was the emblem of the inmost, purest warmth of life, which unites family and peoplethe hearth, as it were, the heart of a house or of a State. In both is shown the essential difference which existed between these and the Divine covenant religion. Von Gerlach. Perpetual sacrificial fires were common among many ancient nations.
It is obvious that during the marches of the life in the wilderness some special means must have been used for the preservation of this fire. On such occasions the altar was to be carefully cleaned and covered with a purple cloth and then with badgers skins. (Num 4:13-14). Probably the fire was carried on the march in a vessel prepared for the purpose.
B. Instructions for the priests concerning oblations. This division consists of two portions, the former of which (Lev 7:14-18) is a part of the same divine communication as the preceding division, and relates to the priestly duties connected with the oblations of the people, whether voluntary or required; while the latter, (Lev 7:19-23), forms a separate divine communication, and relates to the special oblation of the high-priests themselves in connection with their consecration.
The law of the oblation is a repetition in part of that in Leviticus 2, because it was there applied only to voluntary oblations, while here it includes all; but there are also (in Lev 7:16-18) additional particulars not given before.
Lev 7:14. The sons of Aaron shall offer it.This presentation of the whole oblation by the priests, which seems to have been an essential part of the sacrifice, has been already mentioned in Lev 2:8, while Lev 7:15 merely repeats and applies to all oblations the directions in Lev 2:2 for the private and voluntary oblation.
Lev 7:16. The following directions, which concern the duties of the priests, have not before been given. By their consuming the remainder of the oblation it became, like the sin-offering, a sacrifice wholly devoted to the Lord. See note on Lev 2:3. Only those of Aarons sons might eat of it who were ceremonially clean. This is expressed emphatically in regard to the peace offerings in Lev 7:21. The addition of the words with and bread in the A. V. singularly obscures the sense; it should be read unleavened shall it be eaten in a holy place.
Lev 7:17. I have given it.Not merely by appointment, as God is the giver of all that man enjoys; but of my offerings, as of that which peculiarly belonged to God.Most holy. See on Lev 2:3.
Lev 7:18. All the males.Because they, and they only, were in the priestly succession. It includes both those who were actual priests, and their sons yet too young to officiate, but who at the proper age would become priests; and still further, those who were of priestly family, but were hindered by bodily defect or infirmity from ministering at the altar. Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.Two senses are possible: (a) nothing shall be allowed to touch them which is not holy; (b) whatever does touch them shall thereby become holy. The latter must be considered the true sense in accordance with the analogy of Lev 7:27-28, and Exo 29:37, (comp. Hag 2:12-13), and with this sense the command, understood of inanimate objects, as Calmet suggests, presents no difficulty. The LXX. and Vulg., however, (not the Semitic versions which of course present the same ambiguity as the Heb.), like the A. V., understood it of persons, and so understood, it has occasioned much difficulty to commentators. Lange, following Theodoret, says Whoever should touch this most holy flesh offering (and more especially the meat offering) should be holy, should henceforward be considered to belong to the Sanctuary. He then gives various differing interpretations. It is better to avoid the difficulty altogether as above.
Lev 7:20. In the day when he is anointed.The new communication in relation to the high-priests oblation begins with Lev 7:19. Most commentators understand the time when this oblation was to be offered as at the end of the seven days of consecration, as the high-priest was only then qualified to officiate. The word day would then be understood as in Gen 2:4. Lange, however, says on each of the seven days, not only on the eighth day, when the consecration was finished (Lev 8:34) this was to be offered. An oblation perpetual.A few interpreters (as Kalish and Knobel) understand this of an observance to be always repeated at the consecration of each successive high-priest, and then only. More generally it is interpreted as referring to a daily oblation always to be offered morning and evening by the high-priest. Such is the uniform Jewish interpretation. It is probably this offering that is referred to in Sir 45:14; see also Philo, de Vict. Jos. Ant. iii. Leviticus 10 7. Several eminent Jewish authorities, as Maimonides and Abarbanel, have supposed that the same offering was also required of every priest at his entrance upon his office; but this opinion, as it has not been widely adopted, so it seems to have no foundation in the law. The high-priest alone is distinctly designated in Lev 7:22.
The tenth part of an Ephah.The same amount which was required for the sin offering of the poorest of the people in Lev 5:11. This amount was to be presented by the high-priest as a single offering which was to be afterwards divided and offered half in the morning and half at night.
Lev 7:23. It shall not be eaten.In other oblations all was given to God, but in part through the priest; in the priestly oblation, he could not offer it to God through himself, and therefore it must of necessity be wholly burnt.
C. Instructions for the priests concerning sin offerings.
Lange adheres to the view he has given in Leviticus 4, and makes this division include both the sin and the trespass offerings. For his reasons see Leviticus 4. He, however, calls the next division The ritual of the trespass offering.
We have here the third of the five divine communications contained in this section. The first includes the burnt offerings and oblations, while the second, as an appendix to this, is occupied with the special oblations of the high-priest; the present communication extends to Lev 7:21, and embraces the directions to the priests concerning the various other kinds of sacrifice. In the order in which they are mentioned in chs. 35. the peace offerings came before the sin and trespass offerings, while here they are placed after them; the reason for this change is well explained by Murphy, as resulting from the different principle of arrangement appropriate in the two cases. In the instructions for the people the order of the sacrifices is that of their comparative frequency, the burnt offering and oblation being constant (although not so as voluntary offerings), the peace offerings habitual, the sin and trespass offerings, from their nature, occasional; here the principle of arrangement is in the treatment of the flesh,the burnt offering, (with which the oblation is associated) was wholly consumed on the altar, the sin and trespass offerings were partly eaten by the priests, the peace-offerings both by the priests and the people.
Lev 7:25. In the place where the burnt offering.It is evident from Lev 7:30 that this whole direction refers to the sin offerings of the people, not of the high-priest or of the whole congregation. These were to be killed in the usual place of killing the smaller sacrificial animals, on the north side of the altar. See note on Lev 1:11. The sin offering for the high-priest and for the congregation, consisting of a bullock, was killed before the door of the tabernacle. See note on Lev 1:3.
It is most holy.See on Lev 2:3.
Lev 7:25. The priest that offereth it.For the exceptions see Lev 7:30. The flesh of the ordinary sin-offering belonged, not to the priests as a body, but to the particular priest that offered it. It was, however, much more than he could consume alone, and therefore in Lev 7:29 all males of the priestly family were allowed to eat of it, doubtless on the invitation of the officiating priest, or by some established arrangement.
Lev 7:27. Shall be holy.As in Lev 7:18. In regard to the peculiarly sacred character of the sin offering Lange says, the complete surrender to Jehovah is expressed in three ways: 1) Forbidding the flesh to the unclean; [But this, although to be supposed, is not mentioned here, whereas it is very emphatically commanded in connection with the peace offerings, Lev 7:20-21]. 2) Washing the garments sprinkled with blood in a holy place, or in the court. Here the regard is not for the cleansing of the garment, but for the blood,it must not be carried on the garment out of the sanctuary; 3) If the vessel in which the flesh was cooked was earthen, it had to be broken, if of copper, it had to be scoured and rinsed, so that nothing of the substance of the flesh should remain sticking to it. On the reason for the peculiar sacredness with which the flesh of the sin offering was regarded various opinions have been held. It seems unnecessary, however, to look for this reason in the supposition that the victim was regarded as bearing either the sins of the offerer, or the punishment due to those sins. The simple fact that God had appointed the sin-offering as a means whereby sinfulness might be covered, and sinful man might approach Him in His perfect holiness, is enough to invest that means, like the altar upon which it was offered, with a sacredness which needs no analysis for its explanation. The very important passage, Lev 10:17, usually referred to in this connection, will be treated of in its place.
Thou shalt wash.The second person is used because the command is addressed to the priest. The garment referred to is probably that of the offerer; it might easily happen that this would sometimes be stained by the spurting of the blood of the victim, but he was not to wash it himself; no particle of the blood might be carried out of the sanctuary, and none might meddle with it but the divinely appointed priest.
Lev 7:28. But the earthen vessel.Unglazed earthenware would absorb the juices of the flesh so that they could not be removed; hence such vessels must be broken that the flesh of the sin offering might not be profaned. The brazen pot probably stands for any metallic vessel, and these being less porous, might be perfectly freed from the flesh by scouring and rinsing. For the same reason the earthen vessel into which any of the small unclean animals when dead had fallen (Lev 11:33; Lev 11:35), must be broken; from its absorptive qualities it took the character of that which had been within it, and was unfit for other use. No direction is given for the disposition of the broken fragments. It is more likely that they were disposed of with the ashes from the altar, than that, as Jewish tradition affirms, the earth opened to swallow them up. No mention is made of any other method of cooking the flesh of the sacrifice than by boiling. From 1Sa 2:13-15, and from the allusion in Zec 14:21, it would appear that the same method was observed also in later ages.
Lev 7:29. All the males. Comp. Note on 18.
Lev 7:30. But no sin offering whereof ay of the blood is brought in the tabernacle.Comp. Lev 4:5-7; Lev 4:11-12; Lev 4:16-18; Lev 4:21; Lev 16:27. This shows that from the foregoing directions the sin offerings for the high-priest and for the whole congregation are to be excepted; for these no directions are here given, since the priest had nothing more to do with them than has already been provided for in ch.4.
D. Instructions for the priests concerning trespass offerings, Lev 7:1-6.
In the LXX. this and the next division (Lev 7:7-10) form a part of Leviticus 6. This is certainly the better division; but the A. V. has here followed the Hebrew, as in the division between chaps. 5. and 6, it followed the LXX.in both cases for the worse.
In the former directions for the trespass offering (Lev 5:14Lev 6:7) designed for the people, nothing is said of what parts are to be burned on the altar, nor of the disposal of the remainder. The directions on these points are now given to the priests. The ritual is precisely the same as for the ordinary sin-offering except in the treatment of the blood. This was to be treated as that of the burnt and of the peace offerings, viz. to be sprinkled on the sides of the altar, instead of being placed on its horns as in the sin offering. See Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13; Lev 4:6; Lev 4:30; Lev 4:34. The Codex Middoth (iii. 1) is quoted for the tradition of the Jews that there was a scarlet thread or line around the altar just at the middle of its height; and that the blood of the burnt offering was sprinkled above, and that of the trespass offering below this line. No mention is made of laying on of hands in the trespass offering, either here or in Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7 (where it would more naturally occur). Knobel argues from this omission that it was omitted in this offering; it is more likely that there is no mention of it because it was a universal law in the case of all victims and therefore did not require to be specified.
Lev 7:3. The fat tail is specified because the victim in the trespass offering must always be a ram. For other points see Leviticus 3.
E. Instructions concerning the priests portion of the above. Lev 7:7-10.
Before proceeding to those sacrifices, of which a part was returned to be consumed by the offerer, summary directions are now given in regard to all the preceding offerings, which were wholly devoted to the Lord, whether by being wholly consumed upon the altar, or partly eaten by the priests.
Lev 7:7. One law for themi.e., in respct to the matter here treated of, the disposal of their flesh. The priest that maketh atonement.The flesh of these victims did not become the common property of the priestly body, but was the peculiar perquisite of the officiating priest. He might, of course, ask others, and especially those who were hindered by bodily infirmity from officiating, to share it with him.
Lev 7:8. Shall have to himself the skin.Since this was unsuitable for burning upon the altar, and yet the victim was wholly devoted. No directions are any where given in regard to the skins of the other offerings, except those which were to be burned with the flesh without the camp. The Mishna (Sebach 12, 3) says that the skins of all victims designated as most holy were given to the priests, while those of other victims (i.e., the peace offerings in their variety) belonged to the offerer. This distinction, being in accordance with the character of the sacrifice, is probably true. Among the heathen, the skin of the sacrificial animals usually belonged to the priest, and was by them often perverted to superstitious uses. See Patrick, Kalisch, and others. Some commentators trace the origin of the custom in regard to the burnt offering back to Adam; it rather lies still further back in the nature of the sacrifice.
Lev 7:9. And all the oblation.Except, of course, the memorial, which was burned upon the altar, and which having been carefully provided for in chap. 2, did not require to be specified in this brief summary. In this verse all cooked oblations are assigned to the officiating priest; while in the next all that are uncooked are given to the priestly body equally. The former included all the oblations of Lev 2:4-10, and it is generally supposed that even these required to be consumed without delay; the latter include the oblations of Lev 2:1, and probably that of Lev 2:15; also the alternative sin offering of Lev 5:11, and the jealousy offering of Num 5:15. Only the two latter come under the class of dry, the others being mingled with oil. Thus all oblations, except that of the thank offering (Lev 7:14) and the memorial in all cases, was in one way or the other consumed by the priests. A secondary object in the assignment of these sacrifices was the support of the priests. See Eze 44:29.
“F. Instructions for the priests in regard to the peace offerings in their variety, Lev 7:11-21.
For the reason why the peace offerings are here placed last, see note on Lev 6:24.
We here enter upon an entirely different kind of sacrifice from those which have gone before, and therefore there is a different ritual. The former had reference to the means of approach to God through the forgiveness of sin; these are more closely connected with the idea of continued communion with God, and hence, so far as their object is concerned, seem to belong more properly to the second part of the book. Nevertheless, for the purpose of law, the stronger connection is, as sacrifices, with the general laws of sacrifice, and hence they must necessarily be placed here. Moreover, they are not to be considered altogether by themselves, but, as Outram has noted, as generally following piacular sacrifices, and therefore as together with them forming the complete act of worship.
The peace offerings might be of any animal allowed for sacrifice (except birds which were too small for the accompanying feast) as is provided in chap. 3. They might be of either the herd or the flock, and either male or female. No limitation of age is given in the law, although Jewish tradition limits the age of those offered from the herd to from one to three years, and of those from the flock to from one to two years complete. On the place for the killing of the victims, see note on Lev 1:11. Historical examples of these offerings are very frequent in the later books, e. g.,1Sa 1:4; 1Sa 9:13; 1Sa 9:24; 1Sa 11:15; 1Sa 16:3; 1Sa 16:5; 1Ki 8:65; 1Ch 16:3, etc. Similar sacrificial feasts among the heathen are familiar to all readers of Homer.
Three varieties of the peace offering are distinguished, or rather two principal kinds, the second of which is again subdivided(a) The thank offering, Lev 7:12-15, which included all the public and prescribed peace offerings; (b) the (1) vow, or (2) voluntary offering, Lev 7:16-18, both of which were sacrifices of individuals. The two kinds were broadly separated from one another by the length of time during which it was lawful to eat the flesh, while the sub-varieties of the second kind are only distinguished in the purpose of the offerer. There are three possible forms in which man can offer with reference to his prosperity or safety: praise and thanksgiving for experiences in the past; promising in regard to a desire in the future; expression of thankful prosperity in the present. Lange.
Lev 7:12-15. The thank offering.
Lev 7:12. The thank offering was accompanied by an oblation of three kinds, to which a fourth was added (Lev 7:13) of leavened bread, which last is perhaps to be considered as an accompaniment rather than a part of the offering, as it is doubtful whether it is included in the heave offering of Lev 7:14. Still, as none of this oblation was placed upon the altar, the leavened bread would not come under the prohibition of Lev 2:11 and of Exo 23:18; Exo 34:25. The drink offerings prescribed with this and other sacrifices in Numbers 15. (and alluded to in Lev 23:18; Lev 23:37) as to be offered when ye be come into the land of your habitation, are not mentioned here, probably because they were not easily obtained during the life in the wilderness. The abundance of bread of various kinds here required was in view of the sacrificial meal to follow. Jewish tradition affirms that with certain peace offerings of festivals (Hagigah and Sheincah) no bread was offered.
Lev 7:14. One out of each offeringi.e., one cake out of the number of each kind presented, and perhaps one from the loaves of leavened bread. An heave offering. Herein this oblation is strongly distinguished from the oblations accompanying the burnt offering. No part of them was placed upon the altar. Comp. the heave offerings of the Levites, Num 18:26-30. It must be inadvertently that Lange says one of the unleavened cakes was offered to Jehovah on His altar as a heave offering; all the rest of the meat offering fell to the share of the priest who sacrificed; for it is plain from the text that the one offered as a heave offering was not consumed, but belonged to the officiating priest, while the rest were returned to the offerer. The heave offering was waved in the hands up and down before the altar, but not placed upon it.
Lev 7:15. Shall be eaten the same day. Comp. the similar provision in regard to the Paschal lamb, Exo 12:10, and also in regard to the manna, Exo 16:19. The same command is repeated in regard to the thank offering in Lev 22:29-30; while the greater liberty allowed in the vow and voluntary offerings (Lev 7:16) is also repeated Lev 19:5-8. In both cases Jewish tradition affirms that the rule applied also to the accompanying oblations. The difference of time allowed in which the flesh of these two kinds of peace offerings might be eaten evidently marks the one as of a superior sacredness to the other. Yet it is not easy to say wherein precisely the difference consisted. The general observation is that the thank offerings were purely unselfish, offered in gratitude for blessings already received; while the vow and voluntary offerings had respect to something yet hoped for, and therefore involved a selfish element. But it is not altogether clear that this was the case with the voluntary offering. Outram (p. 131, Eng. tr.), on the authority of Maimonides and Abarbanel, makes the distinction to consist in the vow offering being generala promise to present a certain kind of victim or its value, and this re mained in all cases binding; while the voluntary offering was particulara promise to present a particular animal, which became void in case of the animals death. Under this interpretation both have respect to the future. If there were any accidental remainder of the thank offering after the first day, it was doubtless consumed (but not on the altar), as in the case of the Paschal lamb (Exo 12:10) and of the other peace offerings (Lev 7:17), and the consecration offerings (Exo 29:34). Several reasons have been assigned for the limitation of the time for eating. Outram says, The short space of time within which the victims might be eaten, seems to have been designed to prevent any corruption of the sacrifices, and to guard against covetousness, and he quotes Philo at length in support of this double reason. The incentive hereby added to the command to share these feasts with the poor, and especially the poor Levites, though entirely rejected by Keil, is made more or less prominent by Theodoret (who gives this reason only), Corn, Lapide, Kalisch, Rosenmller, and others. The recollection that in warm lands meat soon spoils, may give us the idea that the feaster was compelled in consequence to invite in the poor. Lange. It must be remembered also that the feast would rapidly lose its sacrificial associations as the interval was prolonged between it and the offering of the sacrifice.
Lev 7:16-18. The vow and voluntary offerings. The distinction between these has already been pointed out. Both were clearly inferior to the thank offering. It is to be remembered that these did not belong to the class of expiatory offerings, and hence the vow offering of St. Paul (Act 18:18; Act 21:23-26) had in it nothing inconsistent with his faith in the one Sacrifice for sins offered on Calvary. These offerings might be eaten on the two days following the sacrifice, but the remainder on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
Lev 7:18. The penalty for the transgression of this command was not only that the offering went for nothingit shall not be accepted; but further, it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. The sense is not, as many suppose, that the offering being made void, the offerer remained with his former iniquity uncleansed; for these offerings were not at all appointed for the purpose of atonement, or the forgiveness of sin; but that the offerer, having transgressed a plain and very positive command, must bear the consequences of such transgression.
The distinctions in regard to these offerings (as in the case of those which have gone before) embrace only the common sacrifices of their kind. There were other special peace-offerings (Lev 23:19-20) which were otherwise dealt with.
In later times, the place where the peace-offerings might be eaten was restricted to the holy city (Deu 12:6-7; Deu 12:11-12); at present, there was no occasion for such a command, while all were together in the camp in the wilderness. But all sacrificial animals slain for food must be offered as sacrifice to the Lord (Lev 17:3-4).
Kalisch (p. 144 ss.) says: The character of these feasts cannot be mistaken. It was that of joyfulness tempered by solemnity, of solemnity tempered by joyfulness: the worshipper had submitted to God an offering from his property; he now received back from Him a part of the dedicated gift, and thus experienced anew the same gracious beneficence which had enabled him to appear with his wealth before the altar; he therefore consumed that portion with feelings of humility and thankfulness; but he was bidden at once to manifest those blissful sentiments by sharing the meat not only with his household, which thereby was reminded of the divine protection and mercy, but also with his needy fellow-beings, whether laymen or servants of the temple. Thus these beautiful repasts were stamped both with religious emotion and human virtue. The relation of friendship between God and the offerer which the sacrifice exhibited was expressed and sealed by the feast which intensified that relation into one of an actual covenant; the momentary harmony was extended to a permanent union; and these notions could not be expressed more intelligibly, at least to an Eastern people, than by a common meal, which to them is the familiar image of friendship and communion, of cheerfulness and joy. Some critics have expressed an opposite view, contending that the offerer was not considered as the guest of God, but, on the contrary, God as the guest of the offerer; but this is against the clear expressions of the law; the sacrificer surrendered the whole victim to the Deity (Lev 3:1; Lev 3:6-7; Lev 3:12), and confirmed his intention by burning on the altar the fat parts, which represented the entire animal. The Apostle Paul says distinctly: Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar or of the Lords table?
Lev 7:19-21. The sanctity of even this inferior sacrifice is strongly guarded. Peace-offerings being representative especially of communion with the Most Holy, all uncleanness or contact with uncleanness is rigorously forbidden.
Lev 7:19. And as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof,meaning, of course, the flesh in generalthat which has not touched any unclean thing. The sense might easily be made more clear; but there is no ground for altering the translation.
Lev 7:20. Shall be cut off from his people,i.e. be excommunicated, cast out from the commonwealth of Israel. This might sometimes, as in Exo 31:14, involve also the punishment of death, but only when the offence was also a civil one. Capital punishment is not intended by the expression itself.That pertain unto the Lord.This shows plainly enough that the victim, once offered, was considered as belonging to God, and hence that they who feasted upon it were the guests of the Lord.
Lev 7:21. Unclean beast,etc. This is to be understood of the dead bodies of these animals. Uncleanness was not communicated by their touch while living; but, on the other hand, it was communicated by the touch of the body, even of clean animals which had died a natural death, or as we should say, of carrion.
Nothing is here said of the portion of the priests, that being the subject of a distinct divine communication (Lev 7:28-36).
“G. Instructions in regard to the Fat and the Blood. Lev 7:22-27. From its importance, this group of commands forms the exclusive subject of another communication, and is addressed to the people, because, while these portions were in the especial charge of the priests, it was necessary to warn the people very carefully against making use of them themselves. It comes appropriately in connection with the peace offerings, because it was only of these that the people eat at all, and hence here there was especial liability to transgress this command.
Lev 7:22. No manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.The prohibition of the eating of fat extends only to the sacrificial animals, and is to be so understood in Lev 3:17. The reason of this prohibition appears in Lev 7:25 : this fat was appropriated to burning upon the altar, and hence any other use of it was a profanation. While the Israelites were in the wilderness, all animals slain for food, which were allowed in sacrifice, were presented as victims, and their fat was burned on the altar. Afterwards, in view of the settlement in the promised land, this restriction was removed, Deu 12:15; Deu 12:21. With that permission the prohibition of blood is emphatically repeated; but nothing is said of the fat. Hence Keil argues that in such case the eating of the fat was allowable, and this opinion is strongly confirmed by Deu 32:14, enumerating among the good things to be enjoyed the fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan. Nevertheless, the language of universal prohibition is distinct in Lev 3:17, unless that is to be understood only of animals offered in sacrifice. The generality of commentators understand, in accordance with Jewish tradition, that the fat of the sacrificial animals was perpetually forbidden. In any case the prohibited fat was of course that which was burned on the altar, the separable fat, not that which was intermingled with the flesh.
Lev 7:24. That which died of itself, its blood not having been poured out, and that which was torn of beasts, was prohibited as food (Lev 22:8), and if any partook of it, he must undergo purification, and be unclean until the even (Lev 17:15). The fat of such animals therefore could no more be eaten than their flesh; but since it was also unfit for the altar, it might be used in any other use. Nothing is said of the fat of fowls as no special use was made of this on the altar.
Lev 7:26-27. The prohibition of blood is absolute and perpetual, and this for the reasons given in Lev 17:11. It has been urged that as nothing is anywhere said of the blood of fish, that is not included in the prohibition. More probably this was of too little importance to obtain particular mention, and the general principle on which blood is absolutely forbidden must be considered as applying here also, notwithstanding any tradition to the contrary.
H. Instructions for the priests portion of the peace offerings. Lev 7:28-36.
This, the final communication of this part of the book, is also addressed to the people, because the priests portion was taken from that which would otherwise have been returned to them, and it therefore concerned them to understand the law. It stands here quite in its right place: When the priests rights in all the other sacrifices were enumerated, this was omitted, because the people here took the place of the priest in respect of the flesh. When the special nature of this offering in this respect has been made prominent, a new communication is made, addressed to the sons of Israel, and directing them, among other things, to assign certain portions of the victim to the priest. Murphy.
Lev 7:29. Shall bring his offering unto the Lord.The object of this provision seems to be to secure an actual, instead of a merely constructive offering. As most of the flesh was to be consumed by the offerer, it might possibly have been supposed sufficient merely to send in the consecrated parts; but the law regards the whole as offered to the Lord, and therefore requires that it shall be distinctly presented before Him.
Lev 7:30. His own hands shall bring.Still further to guard the sacrificial character of this offering, which was more in danger of being secularized than any other, it is required that the parts especially destined for the Lords use might not be sent in by any servant or other messenger, but must be presented by the offerers own hands. Comp. Lev 8:27; Exo 29:24-26; Num 6:19-20.The fat with the breast.The construction of is as in Exo 12:8-9. Breast is that part between the shoulders in front which we call the brisket, and which included the cartilaginous breast-bone.
A wave-offering.The breast is to be a wave-offering, the right leg (Lev 7:31) a heave-offering. These two kinds of offering are clearly distinguished in the law. Both are mentioned together in Lev 7:34, and frequently (Lev 10:14-15; Exo 29:24-27; Num 6:20; Num 18:11; Num 18:18-19, etc.) as distinct offerings; the heave-offering is mentioned alone (Lev 22:12; Exo 25:2-3; Exo 30:13-15; Exo 35:5; Exo 36:3; Exo 36:6; Num 15:19-21; Num 18:24; Num 31:29; Num 31:41; Num 31:52, etc.), and so is the wave offering (Lev 14:12; Lev 14:21; Lev 14:24; Lev 23:15; Lev 23:17; Lev 23:20; Exo 38:24; Exo 38:29; Num 8:11; Num 8:13, etc.); although both apparently are sometimes used simply in the sense of offering and coupled together without distinction of meaning (Exo 35:21-24); both are here applied to the offerings of metal for the tabernacle, though the other offerings are only spoken of as heave offerings. The distinction is much obscured in the A. V. by the frequent translation of both by the simple word offering, and sometimes without any note of this in the margin. In regard to the parts of the sacrifices designated by the two terms, the distinction is clearly marked; the heave-leg belonged exclusively to the officiating priest, while the wave-breast was the common property of the priestly order. The distinction in the ceremonial between them it is less easy to make. That of the wave offering appears to have been the more solemn and emphatic, consisting in the priest placing his hands under those of the offerer (which held the offering to be waved), and moving them to and frosome of the Rabbins say, towards each of the four quarters, and also up and down. The heaving, on the other hand, appears to have been a simple lifting up of the offering. (See authorities in Outram I. 15, V.) In all cases of the wave offering of parts of animals, only the fat was burned, except in the peculiar case of the consecration of the priests commanded in Exo 29:22-26, and fulfilled in Lev 8:25-29, when the leg was also burned. In the case of the waving of the Levites (Num 8:11-19), they were wholly given up to God as the ministrants of the priests. Lange says: The breast may represent the bold readiness, the leg the energetic progress, which in the priest are always desirable.
During the sojourn in the wilderness, where all sacrificial animals that were to be eaten were offered in sacrifice, the priests portion was only the breast and the right leg; afterwards, when permission was given to kill these animals for food in the scattered habitations of the people, and thereby the perquisites of the priests were greatly reduced, there was added (Deu 18:3) the shoulder () and the two cheeks and the maw.
Lev 7:34. A statute forever.As long as the sacrificial system and the Aaronic priesthood should endure.
Lev 7:35. In the day when he presented them.At the time when God, by the hand of Moses, brought them near to minister. The verb is without an expressed nominative in the Hebrew as in the English.
The conclusion of this part of the book. Lev 7:37-38.
Lev 7:37. The enumeration in this verse is to be understood not merely of the immediately preceding section; but of the whole law of sacrifice as given in all the preceding chapters.
Of the consecrations.Lit., of the fillings sc. of the hands. Comp. Exo 29:19-28. The ordinance for the consecration of the priests has been given in full there; but still something of it has been directed here (Lev 6:19-23) so that it must necessarily appear in this recapitulation.
Lev 7:38. In Mount Sinai.That this expression is used broadly for the region of Mt. Sinai, not distinctively for the mountain itself, is apparent from the concluding clause of the verse.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. In the stress laid upon the necessity of maintaining perpetually the fire divinely kindled on the altar, is taught the necessity of the divine approval of the means by which man seeks to approach God. The only Mediator under the old Covenant as under the new, is Christ; but as the divine appointment was of old necessary to constitute the types which prefigured Him, and by means of which the worshipper availed himself of His sacrifice,so now, man may claim the benefits of Christs work for his redemption only in those ways which God has approved.
II. The priests, and the high-priest, like the people, must offer oblations and sacrifices. They were separated from the people only in so far as the functions of their office required; in the individual relation of their souls to God, they formed no caste, and stood before Him on no different footing from others. This is a fundamental principle in all the divine dealings with man; there is no respect of persons with God, (Rom 2:11, etc.).
III. In the assimilation of the trespass to the sin offering is shown how wrong done to man is also sin against God; while in the peculiar ordinances belonging to the sin offering alone, we see the peculiar sinfulness of that sin which is committed directly against God.
IV. The provision for a portion for the priests from the various offerings, and from the oblation accompanying the whole burnt offering sets forth in act the general principle declared in words in the New Testament, that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple. (1Co 9:13).
V. The peace offerings are called in the LXX. frequently sacrifices of praise ( ); by the use of the same phraseology in the Ep. to the Heb. (Lev 13:15) applied to Christ, He is pointed out as the Antitype of this sacrifice: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise ( ) to God continually; and again (Lev 7:10) We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
VI. In the oblation accompanying the peace offering leavened bread was required. This could not be admitted for burning upon the altar for reasons already given; nevertheless it must be presented to the Lord for a heave offering. Many things in mans daily life cannot, from their nature, be directly appropriated to the service of God; yet all must be sanctified by being presented before Him.
VII. In the strict prohibition to the people of the fat which was appropriated as the Lords portion was taught, in a way suited to the apprehension of the Israelites, the general principle that whatever has been appropriated to God may not rightly be diverted to any other use.
VIII. The various kinds of sacrifice here recognized as means of approach to God, and the provisions for their constant repetition, alike indicate their intrinsic insufficiency and temporary character. Otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins? (Heb 10:2).
IX. The same temporary and insufficient character attached to the peace offerings, which expressed communion with God. As Keil has pointed out, they still left the people in the outer court, while God was enthroned behind the vail in the holy of holies, and this vail could only be removed by the sacrifice on Calvary. And in general, as the office of the old Covenant was to give the knowledge of sin rather than, by anything within itself, completely to do it away; so was it designed to awaken rather than to satisfy the desire for reconciliation and communion with God. In so far as it actually accomplished either purpose, it was by its helping the faith of the worshippers to lean, through its types, upon the one true Sacrifice in the future.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
VI. Lev 7:9-13. The ever-burning fire; kindled by God, but kept alive by man; the acceptance of our efforts to approach God is from Him, but He gives or withholds it according to our desire and exertion. Quench not the Spirit. (1Th 5:19). The Spirit , but it is for us (2Ti 1:6) Wordsworth. Put on his linen garment; the inward purity required in those who are serving immediately at the altar is fitly symbolized by outward signs. Even that which is becoming in service of other kinds, as the carrying forth of the ashes, may well be replaced in duties which are more nearly related to the divine Presence.
Lev 7:14-18. The oblation. That is truly offered to God which is consumed in His service, though but the memorial of it and the frankincense, typifying prayer and praise, can be actually given directly to Him. Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy. As there is a contaminating effect in contact with evil, so is there a sanctifying effect from close contact with that which is holy. The woman in the Gospel by faith touched the holy One, and virtue went forth to heal her from her uncleanness. Origen (Horn. 4 in Lev.).
Lev 7:19-23. The high-priest must offer an oblation for himself as well as for the people. Man never reaches on earth a stage of holiness so high that he needs not means of approach to God; He alone who was without sin offered Himself for us.
Lev 7:24-30. Everything connected with the sin-offering is to be scrupulously guarded from defilement, and everything which it touches receives from it somewhat of its own character; a fit emblem and type of the true Sacrifice for sins, Himself without sin. Whoever seeks the benefit of this Sacrifice, must die unto sin, and whoever is sprinkled by His all-availing blood becomes thereby purged from sin. Yet even so, the virtue of that blood may not be carried out of the sanctuary of Gods presence; they who, having been touched by the blood shed on Calvary, would depart from communion with God, must leave behind them all the efficacy of that atonement.
VII. Lev 7:1-6. Though the sin whose prominent feature is harm done, be less than that in which the offence is more directly against God, yet for the forgiveness of one there is essentially the same law as for the other. Both are violations of the law of love, and love toward God and man are so bound together that neither can truly exist without the other (1Jn 4:20), and there can be no breach of the one without the other.
Lev 7:11-21. The peace offering was at once communion of the offerer with God and also the opportunity for extending his bounty to his fellow-men. So always there is the same connection. It was said to Cornelius, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial. To do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased (Heb 13:16). The thank offering has a higher place than the vow or the voluntary offering: that is a nearer communion with God in which the grateful heart simply pours out its thanksgivings, than that in which, with some touch of selfishness, it still seeks some further blessing. Yet both are holy. But uncleanness allowed to continue, debarred from such communion; and sin. unrepented, in its very nature now forbids it.
Lev 7:37-38. A summary of the law of sacrifice in its variety. All these sacrifices were (as elsewhere shown) types of Christ; for it was impossible that the fulness of His gracious offices could be set forth by any single type. He is at once the whole burnt offering of complete consecration of Himself, through whom also we present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God; and He is, too, the oblation, as that which man must present to God with his other sacrifices, as it is in and through Christ alone that our sacrifices can be acceptable; He is the sin offering, as it is through Him alone that our sins can be covered and effectual atonement be made for us; as trespass offering also, it is through His love shed abroad from Calvary, that we learn that love towards our fellow-men in the exercise of which only can our transgressions against Him be forgiven; and so too is He the peace offering, for His very name is Peace. His coming was peace on earth, and by Him have we peace and communion with God. No one of these alone can fully typify Christ: beforehand each of His great offices in our behalf must be set forth by a separate symbolical teaching; but when He has come, all these separate threads are gathered into one, and He is become our all in all.
Footnotes:
[1]VII. Lev 7:1. The LXX. here has , the ram being the only victim admissible for the trespass offering.
[2]Lev 7:2. The Sam. here uses the plural. It cannot mean that the offerer sprinkled the blood, but rather assimilates this verb to those going before on the supposition (as in Lev 1:6; Lev 1:12, etc.) that the priests also killed the victim.
[3]Lev 7:3. . See Textual Note 4 on Lev 3:9.
[4]Lev 7:4. =on. See Textual Note 7 on Lev 3:4.
[5]Lev 7:14, etc. = oblation. See Lev 2:1, Text. and Gram. Note (2). The Sam. has here the law of the oblation of the drink offerings, whence the Vulg.: lex sacrificii et libamentorum.
[6]Lev 7:9. See Textual Note7 on Lev 2:7.
[7]Lev 7:11. The Sam., LXX. and Vulg. with two MSS. have the plural.
[8]Lev 7:12. . There is so much difference of opinion as to the meaning that it seems unsafe to attempt any change in the A. V. Frst says: something dipped in, mingled (by moistening); Lange denies that it conveys the sense of cooked; Keil translates and roasted fine flour (see Lev 6:14) mixed as cakes with oil, i.e., cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil. Others give varying interpretations.
[9]Lev 7:14. is to be uniformly translated offering. See Lev 2:1. The word whole in the A. V. does not express the idea that one must be taken out of each of the offerings mentioned in the two preceding verses.
[10]Lev 7:18. occurs only here and in Lev 19:7; Isa 65:4; Eze 4:14, and is always applied to the sacrificial flesh. It is from the root , and signifies something unclean and fetid, LXX. .
[11]Lev 7:21. For =an abominable animal (Lev 11:10; Lev 11:12-13; Lev 11:20; Lev 11:23; Lev 11:41), the Sam., six MSS. of Kennicott and of de Rossi, Targ. of Onkelos () and the Syr. read =reptiles, worms (5 Lev 11:20; Lev 11:29; Lev 11:41). This would make a more systematic enumeration of the sources of uncleanness, and is adopted by many.
[12]Lev 7:24. . The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. The of the next clause=torn sc. of beasts, is of course a wholly different word.
[13]Lev 7:29. The uniform translation of must be retained here also, although giving an appearance of tautology which is not in the original, his peace offerings being expressed simply by . The translation of the A. V. may have been influenced by the rendering in the Vulg.: offerat simul et sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus; but for this there is no warrant, nor is it sustained by any other of the ancient versions.
[14]Lev 7:32. is uniformly rendered shoulder In the A. V. wherever it is applied to sacrificial animals; in all other places it is used of men (Deu 28:35; Pro 26:7; Son 5:15; Isa 47:2; also Dan 2:33, Chald.; Psa 147:10), and is translated leg, or hip, or thigh. The A. V. has hero followed the equally uniform practice of the LXX. and the Vulg. It would seem that the word should have the same sense in both cases; there is no place in which leg is inapplicable, but there are several in which shoulder is inadmissible. The testimony of Josephus (III. 9, 2, ) is explicit in favor of leg; so also Jewish tradition and the lexicons. Whether the fore or the hind leg is meant is a matter of difference of opinion; but the Heb. has a distinct word =arm for the shoulder or fore-leg (Num 6:19; Deu 18:3), and that, too, of the sacrificial animals.
[15]Lev 7:35. . The word undoubtedly means anointing; but there is also good authority for the meaning portion which Rosenmller considers undoubtedly the right translation here, and which is so necessary to the sense that it is supplied in the A. V., which has followed the translation of the LXX. and Vulg.
[16]Lev 7:35. The Vulg. has die qua obtulit eos Moyses ut sacerdotio fungerentur.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The same subject is continued through this chapter of the law of offerings. Here are appointments respecting the peace-offering, and the free-will offering; together with some further directions concerning the meat-offering. This chapter concludes the subject of those ordinances.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar, is still carried on through every service. I hope the Reader will therefore keep the same in view also, and see the whole in reference to him, who is our New-Testament Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice. 1Co 5:7 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“… this is the law.” Lev 7:1
We are thankful for definiteness. Again and again this word occurs in the directions given to Moses. Men are not called upon to make any vital laws for themselves. They are called upon to a kind of legislation which is either limited by momentary convenience or is expressive of an eternal law underlying the very constitution of life and society. It would be impossible, for example, to make a. law to steal. Even if the law were laid down in so many words the heart would instantly detect its wickedness, and the spirit of man, inspired by the Almighty, would rise against it in burning rebellion. Here and there a man might be found base enough to avail himself of such a law; but the great human heart would disallow and disavow so wicked a pretence. There will be no difficulty in asserting the law where the mind and the heart are free from prejudice. God always looks for the honest heart, the pure heart, the contrite heart, the broken heart; with such a heart God has no difficulty, every word of his addresses itself instantly to that heart’s necessity and pain. We are not at liberty to fix upon isolated lines in the Bible and magnify these into laws; our duty, where anything is wanting in absolute definiteness, is to compare Scripture with Scripture, and to find out the Biblical and spiritual meaning rather than the narrow letter, which by its very narrowness may fail to express the divine purpose. The way to understand the divine law is to discover it in the very spirit of the whole Bible. To find out one line of vital importance it may be necessary to read the whole Scripture through from end to end. Where does the Bible point to two Christs? Where does the Bible justify the worship of two Gods? Where does the Bible encourage the worship of God and Mammon? The Bible is always calling its readers to definiteness Of conviction and preciseness of religious homage. There is nothing merely dogmatic or narrow-minded in this. It may be made dogmatic and narrow-minded by those who pervert divine instructions; but definiteness has no necessary connection with arbitrary dogmatism. The giving of definite instructions saves time; the giving of definite instructions saves the imagination from fruitless wondering and unprofitable speculation. What doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? They who turn religion into a difficulty, or spiritual worship into a metaphysical puzzle, have in them an evil heart of unbelief, and are not to be trusted as teachers of the divine law.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
OFFERINGS
Leviticus 1-7
I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “in the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.
First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.
The word “burnt offering” is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.
The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.
Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.
The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.
The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.
Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.
Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.
What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.
Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, “O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.
The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Phi 4:18 ).
Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.
There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, “Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.
We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.
I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, “Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law.” I told him to strike out “voluntary” and strike out “known” and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.
And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.
I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, “I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “If we sin wilfully.” And he says, “Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?” I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.
The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says “No,” deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.
Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: “Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?” If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, “God forgive me,” God says, “Go and put the property back.” In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.
Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.
How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, “I did wrong,” but he says, “I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: “I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, “Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.
Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, “Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: “Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks.” “Well, but, Father,” he says, “those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?” “No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.
Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life.” The preacher says, “No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.
2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?
3. What offering precedes all others and why?
4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?
5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?
6. What is the order of these offerings?
7. What of distinction in the burning?
8. Where were they burned?
9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?
10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?
11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?
12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?
13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?
14. What was done with the blood?
15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?
16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?
17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?
18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?
19. What is the idea of the meal offering?
20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.
21. What is the object in the meal offering?
22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?
23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?
24. In the peace offering, how much burned?
25. What was the object, negatively and positively?
26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?
27. Where was the blood placed?
28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?
29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?
30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?
31. What words should be stricken from this definition?
32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?
33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?
34. What is that sin?
35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?
36. What said Shakespeare on this point?
37. What denomination insists most upon this?
38. How is this with most people?
39. How do some attempt to make restitution?
40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?
41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.
42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?
43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Lev 7:1 Likewise this [is] the law of the trespass offering: it [is] most holy.
Ver. 1. Of the trespass offering. ] Heb., Asham, Piaculum, quo peccatum expiabatur. How it differed from the sin offering is hard to determine.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 7
THE LAW OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING.
There need be no surprise that the same word of Jehovah should include the law of the Trespass’ offering and that of the Sin offering, as they are closely allied. But it embraces other regulations more widely as we shall see.
“And this [is] the law of the trespass offering: it [is] most holy. In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the trespass offering be slaughtered; and the blood shall be sprinkled on the altar round about. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof: the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that [is] on them, which [is] by the flanks, and the net above the liver which he shall take as far as the kidneys. and the priest shall burn them on the altar, a fire offering to Jehovah: it [is] a trespass offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: in a holy place shall it be eaten; it [is] most holy. As the sin offering, so is the trespass offering; one law [is] for them: it shall be the priest’s that maketh atonement therewith” (vers. 1-7).
The notion was advocated by one who was once well-known to many, and his thoughts still more widely read, that the Sin offering was for sin in the flesh, and the Trespass offering for acts of evil. But this is wholly untenable. No such distinction was meant, nor could it be in O. T. times: it was Christ Who made that difference manifest. Moral evil generally, as we have seen, was contemplated in the one case; in the other, wrongs done to Jehovah in holy things or to a neighbour, yet against Him by violation of confidence; and reparation was due accordingly.
Here, in its law, the Trespass offering is pronounced “most holy.” Granted that the offering was to meet special delinquency whether against God or against man, not moral wrong simply, but failure in their relationship before Jehovah. The more imperative that the Trespass offering should be most holy: even if in human things, it was “against Jehovah;” and it demanded adequate satisfaction in both respects. It is found perfectly and alone in Jesus Christ and Him crucified; and it produces results even now manwards as well as Godwards. See Saul the persecutor become Paul the sufferer; see the proud abusive man a lowly servant of God and of man for Jesu’s sake. And never did the holiness of God so stand out and receive so immeasurable an evidence as when God made sin for us Him Who knew no sin, yea, a curse for those accursed; that those who believe on Him should be cleared for ever.
Here therefore are given the details of the slaughter and the sprinkling, or dashing, of the blood on the altar round about. In the institution the ram was specified for the reason stated there, with the mediator’s estimation by shekels of silver after the shekel of the sanctuary, and the amends made by adding the fifth part given to the priest, none of which things is now represented. “The law” dwells on what directly, minutely, and sacrificially concerned Jehovah: whether for sin or for trespass, “most holy” is the offering. If Jesus was the Holy One of God, nowhere was it so proved as when forsaken of God on the cross; nowhere was His glorifying God so manifestly and profoundly absolute. And therefore did God glorify Him in Himself, and this straightway. The Burnt offering testified the perfect acceptance of His death; but where it was slain, were slain also the offerings for sin and trespass. And here again not in the original directions for the Trespass offerings, we have care taken to claim the offering of all the fat thereof, the fat tail, and the fat that covers the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat on them, being expressive not of the life given up, but of the inward energy that perfectly pleased God, and yielding only sweet savour when searched by His full judgment. For the priest, we are here told, was to burn this on the altar, a Fire offering to Jehovah, instead of carrying forth and burning the animal as a whole without the camp, as we may see in the great oases or in priestly eating ordinarily.
Another word is carefully laid down here, “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: in a holy place shall it be eaten.” Nothing was said on this head in Lev 5:14-19 , or 6: 1-7. So little do these added regulations lie open to any fair charge of useless repetition. Aaron’s family alone could eat of these offerings for sin or for trespass. But every male was called to eat of them, but this in a holy place only. Here again it is designated “most holy;” yet was it apt to be forgotten as a rite and command of Jehovah then, and still more its application spiritually now. For are not “holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling,” the antitype of Aaron’s sons? Are we not then privileged and responsible to eat not only the Meal offering, and our given portion of the Peace offering, but also of those for sin and trespass?
But just as Eleazar and Ithamar burnt the goat (Lev 10 ), instead of eating it in a holy place, so may we fail to make the sins of a brother our own, bearing the sin and shame before God as if we ourselves had been guilty. To condemn him is easy and natural; to identify ourselves with him in confessing and mourning the failure is the clear privilege of the priestly family, at least of “every male” i.e. of every one strong in faith whether of one sex or another, for distinction of this fleshly kind cannot be in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28 ).
THE PRIEST’S PORTION IN GENERAL
Here are given supplementary rules about the priest’s perquisite in the Burnt offering, and in the Meal offering. These Jehovah was pleased to add at this point, before entering on the law of the sacrifice of Peace offerings, where the offering priest had his prescribed part, while the high priest and his sons had theirs, and others too with unusual width, as we shall consider in its place.
”And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. sand every meal offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is prepared in the cauldron and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it; to him it shall belong. And every meal offering, mingled with oil and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as another” (vers. 8-10).
It is notorious that the commentators are here remarkably silent; or, if they speak, they bring in Jehovah Elohim clothing Adam and Eve with the goats of skins He made for them (Gen 3:21 ). Some of them add Jacob personating Esau by the kid-skins Rebekah’s craft put upon his hands and neck to deceive his dim-sighted father (Gen 27 ). Such applications cannot stand; especially as it is here no question of providing for the offerer’s nakedness or need, but of the offering priest, who as usual represents Christ in His official capacity, if we are consistent in reading the type as we surely ought to be.
In what sense then may we, according to the analogy of faith, regard Christ as the Priest receiving for Himself the skin of the Burnt offering which He had offered? It would not become one to speak boldly where the scripture of the N.T. leaves the matter simply to spiritual judgment; but it is suggested that the Priest has for Himself the memorial and the display of that which set forth beyond all other offerings His giving Himself for us to God unreservedly. To the holocaust therefore was this significant token here appended. There could be no eating in this case, as in the Meal offering and in the sacrifice of Peace offerings as well as in the common or lesser offerings for sin or trespass. And the skin of the Burnt offering seems only reserved for the priest on the occasion of “any man’s burnt offering,” i.e. in ordinary cases. But there is no hint of the priest clothing himself with it: he certainly was not naked. Yet his perquisite it was, the abiding token and remembrance to Him of His offering and sacrifice to God for an odour of sweet smell.
But the Meal offering denoted Christ in His life, not in His blood-shedding or death, yet tested no less by the supreme judgment of God in the fire that consumed and drew out nothing but a savour of rest. Here the offering priest was to have every such oblation that is baken in the oven, and all that is prepared in the cauldron (or, frying pan) and in the pan (or, flat plate). Christ in every way put to the proof here below answers to the type, not merely kept but eaten. There were trials of Christ which He only could enter into and appreciate. Even of the great temptation in the wilderness, none of the details is revealed to us. How well He knows them! But what, to take another example, did the sleeping apostles know of that in the garden of Gethsemane?
Yet we have the closing efforts of Satan, when the forty days were completed, revealed to us carefully in both Mat 4 and Luk 4 . Accordingly we learn in ver. 10 that, “every meal offering, mingled with oil and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have one as the other.” Christ and His own enjoy thus together the offering of all His life here below as an oblation to Jehovah.
THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS
The institution in Lev 3 took cognisance of the offerings, whether of the herd or the flock, the kine, the sheep, or the goat. Here we have other particulars of instructive moment, especially as to eating, the sign of communion.
“And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which [one] shall offer to Jehovah. If he shall offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, fine flour soaked. Besides the cakes, he shall offer his offering of leavened bread with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole offering as a heave offering to Jehovah; to the priest that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings it shall be. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering: he shall not leave any of it until the morning. And if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or voluntary, it shall be eaten on the day he offereth his sacrifice, and on the morrow the remainder of it shall be eaten; and the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. And if [any] of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be reckoned to him that offered it; it shall be an unclean thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, all that are clean may eat the flesh; but the soul that eateth the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that are for Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples. And if a soul touch anything unclean, the uncleanness of man or unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that are for Jehovah, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples” (vers. 11-21).
First of all comes a distinction peculiar to these offerings. Some were simply for thanksgiving; others might be for a vow, marking special devotedness, or they might be voluntary, and so quite as powerfully representing love and delight without any direct occasion to elicit them. They had therefore a deeper character than where the offering was for thanksgiving. But this will come again before us later on.
Next we see that with the sacrifice one had to present also unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, fine flour soaked. It is in substance the Meal offering. Christ is before the heart, not only sacrificed for us (without which fellowship were impossible), but also in all the perfection of what He was here below, as the One absolutely agreeable to His Father, always doing the things which pleased Him. His death had a character and result which nothing else could furnish; but He Himself was the object of continual and perfect satisfaction to the One Who had never found it before in man on earth; and this, where the Holy Spirit had the fullest operation inwardly and outwardly, is just what such an accompaniment here presented to God. But we need to say the less now on the subject, as we have had the type itself before us fully in Lev 2 .
Here however a very notable difference follows. “Besides the cakes, he shall offer his offering of leavened bread with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (ver. 13). It is the more striking, because every Israelite began the holy year with the Passover where leaven in every form was altogether prohibited; and this prohibition extended to the Meal offering in pointed terms, as the chapter devoted to it makes plain. Yet in the Peace offering for thanksgiving, as in the two loaves of the Feast of Weeks, leaven was not only allowed but prescribed. And the reason in each case was the same. Divine wisdom was providing for man and his fellowship. It was man believing and saintly. Still it took account of his nature. There was that in him which was not in Christ. In what represented Him leaven was not nor could be. But in what represented the saints and their fellowship there must be that which intimated the corruption of nature, if the account were to take the stamp of truth. Not that it was leaven at work but baked: in both cases we hear of “leavened bread (or, cakes).” Still there the leaven was and there only. One out of the whole, or of each, offering was to be presented as a heave offering to Jehovah; and this fell to the blood-sprinkling priest as his portion. Christ has and loves to have His part in our thanksgiving, He without Whom we could have none.
Then we learn the superior power of a vow or voluntary offering, representing devotedness of heart in the offerer, over simple return of thanks for blessings received, however good and right. The flesh, in the latter case, must be eaten the same day as the sacrifice. The communion was then only acceptable and sound. But if it had devotedness or spontaneity, there was a power of sustainment that lasted. The flesh was to be eaten on that day, but “on the morrow also its remainder shall be eaten.” After that there must be no eating. “The remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.” Separation from the sacrifice beyond the second day could not be allowed. Fellowship in joy and peace is encouraged, especially where Christ draws and fills the heart in the power of His sacrifice; but the feast must not be too far severed from its source. To guard from such profanity, the remainder after the second day must be burnt with fire; to eat on the third day was intolerable.
Indeed, as the danger was great of abusing holy fellowship, we find in vers. 18-21 warnings of peculiar solemnity. The attempt to prolong the appearance of communion is perilous. Not only should it not be accepted nor reckoned to the offerer, “it shall be an unclean thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” We read in 1Co 11 an analogous dealing of the Lord where His supper was taken without discerning His body and with the lack of discerning themselves. His hand lay heavily in chastening such grievous irreverence toward His body and blood. Yet it was not for “damnation” as the superstitious conceived, ignorant of His grace, but for temporal chastisement, in some cases up to death: all its measures were, that they should not be condemned, i.e. “damned,” with the world.
Holiness then is to temper, guard, and govern the joy of fellowship. “And the flesh that toucheth anything unclean shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Undue familiarity is an offence in the expression of praise and blessing. What is it to sing to God that which we know is neither true nor becoming? How solemnly we are bound that it disappear!
Again, while every Israelite was eligible to be invited and share the feast, there was an inflexible condition: he must be clean. “And as for the flesh, all that are clean may eat the flesh. But the soul that eateth the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings which are for Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples. And if a soul touch any thing unclean, the uncleanness of man or unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that are for Jehovah, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples.” If we are free by grace to enjoy the fellowship of Jehovah, and of Christ the Priest, of His priests as a whole and of the very simplest of His people; we are bound to refuse all irreverence and all iniquity. If we associate with that fellowship what is offensive to God’s nature and will, we do so at our peril before Him Who will surely vindicate Himself and His word. To be a Christian, ever so truly, does not suffice, indispensable as it is. The apostle in 1Co 11:27 does not speak of unworthy or unconverted communicants, but of eating and drinking the Lord’s supper “unworthily.”
PROHIBITION OF FAT AND BLOOD.
A fresh word comes next, specifically dealing with the fat and the blood. The Israelite is forbidden to eat of the blood absolutely, but of the fat in those parts of sacrifices devoted as a Fire offering to Jehovah, as it would seem.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat. And the fat of a dead carcase, and the fat of that which is torn, may be used in any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast of which men offer a fire offering to Jehovah, the soul that eateth shall be out off from his peoples. And ye shall eat no blood of fowl or beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatever soul [it be] that eateth any manner of blood shall be cut off from his peoples” (vers. 22-27).
This is evidently the appropriate place for inserting the prohibition before us. It follows the law of the Peace offerings, where the general rules of eating or not eating had been carefully laid down. In that sacrifice, as in the Sin offering, the utmost stress was laid on the fat, especially of the inwards, which Aaron’s sons were to burn on the altar, the food of the Fire offering for a sweet odour to Jehovah. The fat represented the intrinsic excellence and energy of what was offered in sacrifice to Jehovah. It was therefore not for the priests to use, but an odour of rest to Him Who alone could fully estimate it in the Antitype
On festive occasions, at any rate the Feast of Tabernacles, the people were taught that the day was holy to Jehovah their God, and that they were not to mourn or weep, as they did on hearing the words of the law. Joy has its privileges through His grace, as well as the sorrow that befits our shortcomings and yet deeper failures. The word therefore was, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord; neither be ye grieved, for the joy of Jehovah is your strength (or, stronghold). But the fat here allowed was not of course what was exclusively reserved for Him in the sacrificial portions. It was meet that He should have His proper delight in that which glorified Him in Christ; it was wondrous grace that we should have not merely pardon or justification but express fellowship in the same Christ, though we could not have it in the same measure or way. If God shares His joy with us in Christ’s sacrifice, all the more those that are His should heed His call to reverence and godly fear.
Nor is this forgotten in the licence where no sacrifice was in question. “And the fat of the dead carcase, and the fat of that which is torn, may be used in any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat it.” What died of itself or through another animal’s violence, as a whole, had been forbidden already in Exo 22:31 , and was to be thrown to the dogs; much more was its fat unlawful to Israelites, as they were holy to Jehovah. In any other way it might be used. “For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast of which men offer a fire offering to Jehovah, the soul that eateth shall be cut off from his peoples.”
But the blood was universally interdicted to the people who knew, as none others did of old, that life belongs to God. It mattered not what the animal might be, fowl or beast, all was forbidden absolutely. “And ye shall eat no blood, of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings: whatever soul [it be] that eateth any manner of blood shall be cut off from his peoples.” It denied the rights of God, the Creator; and if man forfeited his by sin, Jehovah maintained His title over it unimpaired. He instituted government by man in the first place to take cognisance of death by violent intent. Shed blood is its sign, and it belongs to God exclusively; man has no title to appropriate it. So we see that, long after the Holy Spirit was given, and Gentile freedom from circumcision was insisted on, eating of blood was still prohibited, as well as personal purity enjoined. The Christian is the last who should make light of a “faithful Creator.” The principles laid down for Noah are not Jewish statutes, and subsist: so the apostles decided in Act 15 .
SUPPLEMENT ON PEACE OFFERINGS
This is in no way, as has been said, a recapitulation. It conveys from Jehovah a fresh communication of moment for the entire body of the priesthood, and also for the priest ministering on each occasion of this offering. And the truth which we Christians are meant to learn thereby is of special interest.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings to Jehovah shall bring his oblation to Jehovah of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. His own hands shall bring Jehovah’s fire offerings: the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved as a wave offering before Jehovah. And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar; and the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons. And the right shoulder (or thigh) shall ye give to the priest for a heave offering out of the sacrifice of your peace offerings. He of the sons of Aaron that offereth the blood of the peace offerings and the fat shall have the right shoulder for a portion. For the breast of the wave offering and the shoulder of the heave offering have I taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons from the children of Israel, as a due portion for ever. This is [the portion] of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, from Jehovah’s fire offerings, in the day he brought them near to serve Jehovah as priests, which Jehovah commanded to be given them by the children of Israel in the day that he anointed them, as a due portion for ever throughout their generations” (vers. 28-36).
It is worthy of notice that, while all three offerings of sweet savour fell under one communication from Jehovah in Lev. 1-3, “the law” of the sacrifice of Peace offerings formed the close of the word from Jehovah as to the Sin offering and that of Trespass. We can understand a plain reason for the change of arrangement in “the law;” because there, not in the original institution, the weighty fact appears that, besides unleavened cakes mingled with oil and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, which typified the Lord’s holy humanity born of the Spirit and in His power, there were cakes of leavened bread here (Lev 7:13 ), and here only, save also in the new Meal offering at the Feast of Weeks. For there also the two wave-loaves were not only of fine flour but baken with leaven (Lev 23:16-19 ), and needed an accompanying Sin offering. For man in both cases entered; saintly man no doubt, but having still the old nature, and therefore requiring the blood that atones for sin. In Christ there was none: in us, even in our thanksgiving, it is there, even if it act not; and faith feels and owns the humbling fact that it is only through Christ’s death it is annulled. In that “law” is recognised also the “abomination” of separating the eating or the communion of the Peace offering from the sacrifice. The sacrifice of thanksgiving must be eaten the same day; even the vow or voluntary offering of greater energy could not be sustained more than the day after: beyond this, in any case, the rest must be burnt. Thus is our saintly communion closely conjoined with Jehovah’s food in the Peace offering: not only Christ sacrificed to Him for us. Here too while the liberty was large, the indispensable need of cleanness is required. To eat when defiled is peremptorily denounced for every soul (vers. 19-21).
This last truth accounts too for the separate communication that follows in Lev 7:22-27 . The Peace offering was that which alone of these offerings admitted of eating on the part of Jehovah’s people. Hence the necessity for rigidly forbidding any abuse of the privilege. To all without exception this prohibition reached. To Aaron and his sons the word came in Lev 6:24 , Lev 6:25 , stretching down to this point in Lev 7 where Moses is told to speak to the children of Israel, No fat of the sacrificial animals was to be eaten, nor of what died of itself, or was torn. And all blood was absolutely forbidden to be eaten: not only the inward energy, but the life too was sacred to Jehovah, Who would brook no meddling with His sole right and title here.
On a similar principle a fresh communication from Jehovah in vers. 28-36 claims out of the Peace offering the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder. The breast was for the whole priestly family, Aaron and his sons; the shoulder for the offering priest: both as the respective and fixed portion for ever from the children of Israel. Thus, Jehovah had His part, and the Israelite was free to enjoy, himself, his family, and any Israelite he might invite to share, provided all and only if they were clean. We find solely in this last communication, and in language of emphatic solemnity, that Jehovah reserved an especial portion, not to weaken but to deepen the fellowship. Aaron and his sons we have seen to mean Christ and His own. For us communion is altogether short which does not contemplate the Head and the body, even all saints. So if the apostle writes to the church of God which is in Corinth, to sanctified persons in Christ Jesus, saints called, he adds “with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ both theirs and ours.” And for the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus who were in Ephesus he prays, that Christ may dwell through faith in their hearts, being rooted and grounded in love in order that they may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that they may be filled to all the fulness of God.
The Heave offering was more absolute than the Wave offering, though the same offering might in cases be called by either name according to the respective aspect. The former was not the whole of what was offered, but part offered to Jehovah. The breast as a whole was waved, the right shoulder heaved, the symbols of the affections as a whole, and of strength which could best sustain the burden. Christ and His own in nearness to God enjoy the love together; He as the Priest that offered has His special joy in that which represented the support of the weak. But the fat or inward energy, as the blood, was Jehovah’s portion. Thus while all had their communion in Christ, each had what specially was due on immutable grounds and for ever. The communion of saints could not be in Israel as it is enjoyed in the church of God since redemption; but this type was a beautiful anticipation in its measure.
FINAL SUMMARY OF THE OFFERINGS.
The institution, or particularly “the law” of the Offerings, closes in verses 37, 38.
“This [is] the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings; which Jehovah commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to Jehovah, in the wilderness of Sinai” (vers. 37, 38).
Christ, the offering of Christ, is the reality in which all these shadows meet. The varied colours of each and all blend as it were into that perfect light, in which God delighted as the display of His nature in His Son, become man in grace and truth for man, who else had neither, and now by faith received both; and this in a sacrifice, which not only bore the sins of the first man but transferred to him the acceptance of the Second in a savour of rest before God.
Undoubtedly the rich grace in the work of Christ has a real and permanent, as it should have a deep, effect spiritually on the believer. We love Him because He first loved us; we hate the sins, of us and of all, the judgment of which we behold by faith, unsparingly and beyond creature thought, dealt with by God in the cross. But it is a mistake and a perversion of the word to read in the Burnt offering, or the Meal or the so called Peace offering, our own devotedness, whatever impulse the truth in them may give to our souls. Rather are we called in faith to recognise, not only our utter lack but the radical contrariety of our fallen nature to what we have learnt Christ to be in life and death, searched as He indeed was by such a test of fire as neither Adam nor any of his sons had ever known. For in every living detail He was as perfect as in the surrender of Himself to death, and this in obedience for God’s glory, no less than as bearing our sins in His own body on the tree; and as the result He brings us to enjoy communion with God, the Priest, and all the saints, whether they enter into that holy nearness or be vague, as so many of the faithful are.
Thus learnt we the Christ, as we heard Him and were taught in Him, even as the truth is in Jesus, Who is the truth. Doubtless the apostle could add not a little more, seeing that He was not only the Firstborn or Chief of all creation, but the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, yea Head of the body the church. He could bring out our having put off according to our former course the old man that corrupts itself according to the lusts of deceit; and our being renewed in the spirit of our mind; and our having put on the new man that according to God was created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Such privileges transcend what is implied in the offerings; but what is there, if rightly interpreted in the light of Christ, shines bright to faith.
The offerings for Sin and Trespass were comparatively negative and essentially occupied with the sad variety of sin in general or guilt in responsible relationship to Jehovah. They could not indeed proclaim full remission, for the blood of Jesus His Son was not yet shed to cleanse from all sins. Yet do they tell of Him Who is full of compassion and grace, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But as the sweet savour offerings proved divine love in Christ by positive and overflowing goodness, so did those for sin and guilt testify it by meeting man in his abject evil, misery and ruin. Without doubt faith and self-judgment are supposed; but the efficacy is solely in Christ prefigured by the offering. Those who rested on the form and letter got nothing that sanctified beyond cleanness of flesh; but such as looked in heart to the Messiah got spiritual blessing, and walked in all the commandments and ordinances of Jehovah without blame.
The commanding truth that appears everywhere, no matter what may be the difference of shape in the shadow of things to come, is that the body or substance is of Christ. The Holy Spirit works effectually as the Father draws. But to the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom. The world may count Him crucified to be folly; but the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. And of Him it is, that as Christ died for our sins, so we are in Christ Jesus, Who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and holiness and redemption, leaving us to boast in none but Jehovah.
This therefore casts the soul, tried by the consciousness of its unworthiness and the failure of all efforts, on Christ and His work. There only does the Spirit direct for peace; Christ made it through the blood of His cross. The believer is thus entitled to enjoy it; he rests on God’s value for it, and as this never changes, such should be his peace also. The Spirit bears witness, not only that there is no work comparable, no work therefore to share its place, but that God will never remember more the sins and iniquities of those that believe. The cleansing of their feet defiled in the miry ways of the world is needed, and never fails through Jesus the Advocate with the Father. But the propitiation abides in its constant value; and the washing of water by the word is applied whenever the need arises; not as if the worshipper once purged loses his relationship and nearness to God, but to restore the communion which has been interrupted by a sin. The one offering remains undisturbed in its blessed effect; but Christ’s advocacy works by the word and Spirit of God to conciliate the believer’s failure with that standard. God is indeed faithful; and we have in Christ a living Saviour, not His death only, immense and precious as it is: He is the all (the complete object), and in all.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
most holy. See note on Lev 6:25 and Exo 3:5.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 7
Going on into chapter seven, sort of a repetition again as God deals with the trespass offering, offering a few additions to what has already been said, and then in verse eleven as God gets into the peace offering.
The peace offering was also
for a thanksgiving ( Lev 7:12 ),
It was fellowship, but it was fellowship in thanksgiving unto God. And it was to be offered in-it talks about a heave offering. Now the heave offering is the offering that they would lift up in a heaving motion before God. The wave offering was where they would move it back and forth and wave it before God. And so you read also of the wave offerings and the heave offerings. And so the requirements and so forth for the offering of the peace offering are in chapter seven. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The law of the trespass offering is practically identical with that of the sin offering It is impossible to ponder these things without the mind turning to the great and infinite Sacrifice in which all the suggestions of the Mosaic economy were finally fulfilled.
The peace offering was pre-eminently that of communion. In the law of this offering three kinds are recognized: an offering of thanksgiving, an offering in connection with vows, and one which is purely a free-will offering to God. In all these communion is recognized. A stringent requirement in connection with this offering is that no part of them should be allowed to see corruption.
In the final section concerning the laws of dedication, certain principles of observation applicable throughout are repeated and emphasized. First, the fat and the blood were not to be eaten. Further, communion could not be maintained by proxy. Each man for himself must bring in “his own hands” the Lord’s portion. While God comes to men directly and individually, He expects to receive from them in like manner. Thus communion is more than general and sentimental. It is personal and immediate.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Laws of the Sin- and Trespass-Offerings
Lev 6:24-30; Lev 7:1-10
The peculiar sanctity of the flesh of the sin- and the trespass-offerings is clearly emphasized throughout this paragraph. Notice the repeated phrase, it is most holy. This seems intended to emphasize the holiness of our Lord, who, though He became a sin-offering for us all, knew no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. He was searched with the minutest scrutiny, but Pilate, Herod and Judas agreed in asserting that in Him there was no fault. He was holy, harmless and separate from sin.
Never was our Lord more absolutely the Holy One of God than when He was numbered with the transgressors and bare the sin of many. The Cross was the climax of His obedience. How watchful we should be against anything that might soil us in our handling of sin in its infinite ramifications. As the priests, who dealt with these offerings, were permitted to eat of the flesh, are we not reminded that we derive the richest sustenance of our spiritual life by humble, penitent and thankful meditation on the finished work of the Cross?
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
reconcile
Heb. “kaphar,” to cover. (See Scofield “Dan 9:24”) See Scofield “Exo 29:33”
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the law: Lev 5:1 – Lev 6:7, Lev 14:12, Lev 14:13, Lev 19:21, Lev 19:22, Num 6:12, Eze 40:39, Eze 44:29, Eze 46:20
it is: Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 21:22
Reciprocal: Lev 5:6 – trespass offering Lev 5:15 – in the Lev 7:37 – trespass Lev 14:54 – the law Num 18:9 – every trespass Num 18:20 – General 1Sa 6:3 – a trespass 2Ch 31:14 – the most Eze 42:13 – the most holy
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 7:1-2. Here the priests are directed in their office about the trespass- offerings, as the people had been before. The blood shall he sprinkle round about This is a different rule from that observed in the sin-offering, the blood of which was to be put upon the horns of the altar, Lev 4:25; but this was to be sprinkled round about it, as was ordered respecting the whole burnt-offerings.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 7:10. Every meat-offering, whether mingled with oil or dry, that is, not mingled, as the Vulgate very properly renders it. In later times these offerings were prepared at the foot of Mount Olivet. The priests and privileged persons ate in the temple, while suitable conveniences were made for all the worshippers, and for the gentiles to eat apart.
Lev 7:12. Thanksgiving. Jacob, after he had seen the ladder at Bethel, made a vow to devote the tenth of his increase to the Lord, if he would bless him, and bring him back again in peace. And being himself both the priest and the prince, how could his oblations of peace and thanksgiving be disposed of, but by one part being burnt, and the rest eaten in a holy feast to the Lord? So Israel followed the example of their fathers.
Lev 7:21. Any unclean thing. The next words illustrate the meaning to be, not the touching of a beast, as a horse or an ass, for this they did daily; but the uncleanness of man or of beast, contracted by assisting animals in the act of casting forth their young. All Shems race, and all the primitive families of the earth, were careful to preserve themselves ceremonially holy to the Lord, which tended at the same time to inculcate moral purity. This indeed is the substance and the end of all the divine precepts. Be ye holy, for the Lord your God is holy. Lev 20:7.
Lev 7:32. A heave-offering. The right shoulder was elevated high, as an offering to the Lord: just as the right breast was waved round with the hand, as a token of Gods omnipresence. Thus the right fore-quarter was the priests portion, that he and his family might not want bread, nor at the same time have superfluities; for whatever remained was burnt on the altar.
REFLECTIONS.
Though most of this chapter has been anticipated, yet fragments of instruction may be gathered. The Lord permitted the worshippers who had come from afar with their oblations, to feast in his presence, and with his priests, of the same oblation; but he did not allow of long feasts. The free- will offering must be eaten the same day, or the remains might he eaten the next day. This should teach us temperance in our feasts; and either to make religion and social intercourse the object of a visit, or to decline parties altogether. The time of Gods people, in their religious interviews, is not to be taken up with the news of the day, with foolish anecdotes, and tavern talk; but with spiritual edification.
In festivals of this kind, leavened bread might be eaten. Let therefore the more enlightened and advanced in religious attainments, endeavour to leaven one another with heavenly wisdom, and with an increase of divine affections. Then we shall retire from religious parties, not burdened with a consciousness of misspent time, but strengthened and animated in the Lord.
The breast and shoulder were the priests. And the breast of a minister should ever be richly stored with wisdom and piety, righteousness and truth. There the lambs should find succour, and the whole flock edification and comfort. His right arm, in like manner, should be active, and extended for the defence of the people. So may the Lords servants ever approve themselves as worthy of his altar, and of their high vocation.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 6:8 to Lev 7:38. Special Manual for Priests, given to Aaron and his sons (Lev 6:9; Lev 6:14; Lev 6:25, etc.; contrast Lev 4:2, etc.). The peace offering is here placed last. It may be noted that two sections (Lev 7:7-10 and Lev 7:22-27) seem to break the connexion; they are perhaps insertions from independent laws. None of these provisions affect laymen.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE LAW OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING (vv. 1-10)
In common with all the other offerings, the trespass offering was most holy. It was to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering. Its blood was to be sprinkled all around on the altar. The fat tail, the fat that covered the entrails, the two kidneys and the fat that was on them, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver were to be removed and burnt on the altar by the priest. These all speak of characteristics of Christ that are entirely for God’s appreciation: all are offered in fire to Him (vv. 3-5).
As with the sin offering, every male among the priests was to eat of it in the holy place, for the trespass offering was like the sin offering. The difference is only in the fact that the sin offering deals with the root principle of sin, while the trespass offering is for specific occurrences, and even the root principle is exposed by the occurrences. The priest who offered the animal was the one to receive its flesh.
A note is added in verse 8 as to the burnt offering. The flesh of it was all burned, so the priest would have nothing of this, but he was given the skin of the burnt offering.
Also the priest’s part in the meal offering is repeated here (v. 9). After the handful was removed and burned on the altar, the offering priest received the rest. So that in all of these offerings the priest (typically Christ) had some part, the burnt offering, meal offering, sin offering and trespass offering. The peace offering is not mentioned here because it was preeminently the shared offering, but it was necessary to insists that in all the offerings the priest was given some part, though no part to eat in the burnt offering only the skin. Of course there was one exclusion, for the sin offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary was totally burned outside the camp, including the skin (Lev 16:17), after the fat had been burned on the altar.
One contrast, however, is to be noted in regard to the meal offering. While the sin offering and the trespass offering were to be eaten by the offering priest, the meal offering was to be shared by all the priests to one as much as the other (v. 10).
THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERING (vv. 11-38)
We have seen in Lev 3:1-17 that the peace offering could be either a male or female: it could be of the herd (a bull or calf) or a sheep or a goat. Now we find other instructions concerning this, dealing first with the reasons for offering a peace offering.
It might be offered as a thanksgiving (v. 12), that is, some special reason for thankfulness to God gives occasion to it. For the peace offering does not merely speak of our recovery from hostility, but of the peace of true accord with the mind of God, and therefore of genuine communion with Him. In this case, along with the animal offered, a meal offering of unleavened cakes mingled with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, or cakes of blended flour mixed with oil was to be brought. One of these cakes was to be offered as a heave offering, after which it belonged to the offering priest (v. 14).
There was no question of sin in the offering, but rather of true communion with God. In this the sacrifice of Christ has a vital part, as does also the purity of His person as the sinless Son of Man permeated by the Spirit of God, or anointed by the Spirit. As such He brings His saints into the presence of God to share in the great value of His work accomplished for them. The heave offering completed the picture by its representing the Lord as risen from the dead. We commune with One who has died, but is risen! The offering for thanksgiving was to be eaten only on the same day it was offered (v. 15). For when once we have occasion to give thanks to God for some special reason, this is completed that same day. Will we not always have some occasion the next day, and indeed every day, for fresh thanksgiving?
As well as an offering for thanksgiving, the peace offering might be a vow or a voluntary offering. In both these cases the offering could be eaten both the day it was offered and the next day. The Lord Jesus has plainly forbidden us to make vows today (Mat 5:33-37), for man in the flesh has been proven untrustworthy by the law of God, and we cannot promise what we may do in the future. Yet the vow would not doubt speak of the purpose of heart to devote oneself to the Lord in obedient faith. This is right, but not an actual vow. There is energy involved in this more than in a thanksgiving, so it was eaten two days.
The voluntary offering, however, was not because of a single matter for thanksgiving, but a spontaneous appreciation of the Lord Himself. This too involved more energy than did one occasion of thanksgiving, so it could be eaten the second day; but if any remained later than the second day, it was to be burned (v. 17). If one should eat it the third day, this could not be accepted, but would be an abomination to the Lord, rendering the eater guilty (v. 18).
As to the flesh of the peace offerings, while the priest and the offerer were privileged to eat of these. yet if the flesh touched any unclean thing, it was not to be eaten (v. 19). Simply the association with uncleanness was defiling. If the flesh was clean, those who were clean could eat of it. But if one ate of this offering while he was unclean, he was to be cut off from his people (v. 20). Death may seem a harsh sentence for such a thing, but the Lord intends to press upon us the seriousness of pretending to have fellowship with Him while indulging in sinful practices.
Also, the person who touched any unclean things, whether human uncleanness or an unclean animal, or anything of an abominable unclean nature, and in that condition ate the flesh of the sacrifice, was similarly sentenced to death (v. 21). This was not a question of personal uncleanness, but simply of association with uncleanness. Thus today, in Christendom, there are innumerable cases of unclean doctrine and practice introduced, and the Christian is warned, Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you (2Co 6:17).
WARNINGS AS TO EATING FAT AND BLOOD (vv. 22-29)
Since the flesh of the peace offering could be eaten, some might be inclined to rationalize that the fat and blood should not be withheld from them. Many today rationalize in such a way, for they do not distinguish things that differ. Therefore God insists as He had done often before, that the fat of any offerings was never to be eaten. For it speaks of the energy of the Lord’s devotion to His Father, and therefore it was for God alone. Disobedience to this law was also punishable by death (v. 25).
The eating of the blood of animals or birds is also again absolutely forbidden (vv. 26-27). This prohibition was introduced at the time that animals were first allowed to be eaten as food (Gen 9:3-5). Blood was never to be eaten, and this is as true today as it was then (Act 15:28-29). As to eating fat, this was forbidden only in cases of animals being sacrificed (v. 25). But any eating of blood was punishable by death, under law (v. 27). Such a sentence is not to be carried out under grace, though eating blood is just as seriously wrong today as at any time. For the blood is the life, and we must in this matter recognize God’s rights as the lifegiver.
THE SPECIAL PORTION OF AARON AND HIS SONS (vv. 28-36)
Though this continues the law of the peace offering, it is again stated, The Lord spoke unto Moses, as was true also in verse 22. This indicates some special emphasis in both cases. While the offerer was to eat part of the peace offering, this is not mentioned here, but rather what Aaron and his sons were to share. Aaron is typical of Christ, and his sons speak of God’s saints as worshipers. When the offering was brought to the Lord, the breast was waved as a wave offering to the Lord and given to Aaron and his sons. The sacrifice of course speaks of Christ sacrificed on Calvary, but the wave breast reminds us of His exaltation in heaven, the breast indicating the warmth of His love flowing out now, which is wonderful food for true worshipers to feed upon. It is surely of Christ as glorified that we read, He will rest in His love, He will exult over thee with singing(Zep 3:17 JND).
The right thigh of the heave offering was also to be given to Aaron and his sons. The heave offering was simply to be lifted up, signifying the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, while the wave offering, being waved, symbolizes His ascension and heavenly exaltation. The right thigh speaks of strength, typically the power of Christ’s resurrection, a fitting complement to the warmth of love implied in the wave breast.
From the time Aaron and his sons were anointed as priests, they were entitled to have those parts of the peace offering (v. 36).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
7:1 Likewise this [is] the law of the {a} trespass offering: it [is] most holy.
(a) Which is for the smaller sins, and such as are committed by ignorance.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The law of the trespass (reparation) offering for the priests 7:1-10
Here we have more detail concerning the ritual involved in this offering than we read formerly (ch. 5). The procedures for slaughtering the trespass offering and sprinkling its blood were the same as for the burnt offering (Lev 1:5). The priests burned only the fatty parts on the altar (cf. Lev 3:9; Lev 4:8). They were to eat the flesh of this offering (cf. Lev 6:22).
"Ministers must assure repentant worshipers of their restitution when they seek forgiveness based on the atoning blood and show repentance by their desire to make things right." [Note: Ibid., p. 177.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE GUILT OFFERING
Lev 5:14; Lev 6:7; Lev 7:1-7
As in the English version, so also in the Hebrew, the special class of sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed, is denoted by a distinct and specific word. That word, like the English “trespass,” its equivalent, always has reference to an invasion of the rights of others, especially in respect of property or service. It is used, for instance, of the sin of Achan (Jos 7:1), who had appropriated spoil from Jericho, which God had commanded to be set apart for Himself. Thus, also, the neglect of Gods service, and especially the worship of idols, is often described by this same word, as in 2Ch 28:22; 2Ch 29:6, and many other places. The reason is evident; for idolatry involved a withholding from God of those tithes and other offerings which He claimed from Israel, and thus became, as it were, an invasion of the Divine rights of property. The same word is even applied to the sin of adultery, {Num 5:12; Num 5:27} apparently from the same point of view, inasmuch as the woman is regarded as belonging to her husband, who has therefore in her certain sacred rights, of which adultery is an invasion. Thus, while every “trespass” is a sin, yet every sin is not a “trespass.” There are, evidently, many sins of which this is not a characteristic feature. But the sins for which the guilt offering is prescribed are in every case sins which may, at least, be specially regarded under this particular point of view, to wit, as trespasses on the rights of God or man in respect of ownership; and this gives us the fundamental thought which distinguishes the guilt offering from all others, namely, that for any invasion of the rights of another in regard to property, not only must expiation be made, in that it is a sin, but also satisfaction, and, so far as possible, plenary reparation of the wrong, in that the sin is also trespass.
From this it is evident that, as contrasted with the burnt offering, which preeminently symbolised full consecration of the person, and the peace offering, which symbolised fellowship with God, as based upon reconciliation by sacrifice; the guilt offering takes its place, in a general sense, with the sin offering, as, like that, specially designed to effect the reinstatement of an offender in covenant relation with God. Thus, like the latter, and unlike the former offerings, it was only prescribed with reference to specific instances of failure to fulfil some particular obligation toward God or man. So also, as the express condition of an acceptable offering, the formal confession of such sin was particularly enjoined. And, finally, unlike the burnt offering, which was wholly consumed upon the altar, or the peace offering, of the flesh of which, with certain reservations, the worshipper himself partook, in the case of the guilt offering, as in the sin offering, the fat parts only were burnt on the altar, and the remainder of the victim fell to the priests, to be eaten by them alone in a holy place, as a thing “most holy.” The law is given in the following words: {Lev 7:3-7} “He shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy. As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it.”
But while, in a general way, the guilt offering was evidently intended, like the sin offering, to signify the removal of sin from the conscience through sacrifice, and thus may be regarded as a variety of the sin offering, yet the ritual presents some striking variations from that of the latter. These are all explicable from this consideration, that whereas the sin offering represented the idea of atonement by sacrifice, regarded as an expiation of guilt, the guilt offering represented atonement under the aspect of a satisfaction and reparation for the wrong committed. Hence, because the idea of expiation here fell somewhat into the background, in order to give the greater prominence to that of reparation and satisfaction, the application of the blood is only made, as in the burnt offering and the peace offering, by sprinkling “on the altar (of burnt offering) round about”. {Lev 7:1} Hence, again, we find that the guilt offering always had reference to the sin of the individual, and never to the congregation; because it was scarcely possible that every individual in the whole congregation should be guilty in such instances as those for which the guilt offering is prescribed.
Again, we have another contrast in the restriction imposed upon the choice of the victim for the sacrifice. In the sin offering, as we have seen, it was ordained that the offering should be varied according to the theocratic rank of the offender, to emphasise thereby to the conscience gradations of guilt, as thus determined; also, it was permitted that the offering might be varied in value according to the ability of the offerer, in order that it might thus be signified in symbol that it was the gracious will of God that nothing in the personal condition of the sinner should exclude anyone from the merciful provision of the expiatory sacrifice. But it was no less important that another aspect of the matter should be held forth, namely, that God is no respecter of persons; and that, whatever be the condition of the offender, the obligation to plenary satisfaction and reparation for trespass committed, cannot be modified in any way by the circumstances of the offender. The man who, for example, has defrauded his neighbour, whether of a small sum or of a large estate, abides his debtor before God, under all conceivable conditions, until restitution is made. The obligation of full payment rests upon every debtor, be he poor or rich, until the last farthing is discharged. Hence, the sacrificial victim of the guilt offering is the same, whether for the poor man or the rich man, “a ram of the flock.”
It was “a ram of the flock,” because, as contrasted with the ewe or the lamb, or the dove and the pigeon, it was a valuable offering. And yet it is not a bullock, the most valuable offering known to the law, because that might be hopelessly out of the reach of many a poor man. The idea of value must be represented, and yet not so represented as to exclude a large part of the people from the provisions of the guilt offering. The ram must be “without blemish,” that naught may detract from its value, as a symbol of full satisfaction for the wrong done.
But most distinctive of all the requisitions touching the victim is this, that, unlike all other victims for other offerings, the ram of the guilt offering must in each case be definitely appraised by the priest. The phrase is, {Lev 5:15} that it must be “according to thy estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary.” This expression evidently requires, first, that the offerers own estimate of the value of the victim shall not be taken, but that of the priest, as representing God in this transaction; and, secondly, that its value shall in no case fall below a certain standard; for the plural expression, “by shekels,” implies that the value of the ram shall not be less than two shekels. And the shekel must be of full weight; the standard of valuation must be Gods, and not mans, “the shekel of the sanctuary.”
Still more to emphasise the distinctive thought of this sacrifice, that full satisfaction and reparation for all offences is with God the universal and unalterable condition of forgiveness, it was further ordered that in all cases where the trespass was of such a character as made this possible, that which had been unjustly taken or kept back, whether from God or man, should be restored in full; and not only this, but inasmuch as by this misappropriation of what was not his own, the offender had for the time deprived another of the use and enjoyment of that which belonged to him, he must add to that of which he had defrauded him “the fifth part more,” a double tithe. Thus the guilty person was not allowed to have gained even any temporary advantage from the use for a while of that which he now restored; for “the fifth part more” would presumably quite overbalance all conceivable advantage or enjoyment which he might have had from his fraud. How admirable in all this the exact justice of God! How perfectly adapted was the guilt offering, in all these particulars, to educate the conscience, and to preclude any possible wrong inferences from the allowance which was made, for other reasons, for the poor man, in the expiatory offerings for sin!
The arrangement of the law of the guilt offering is very simple. It is divided into two sections, the first of which {Lev 5:14-19} deals with cases of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” things which, by the law or by an act of consecration, were regarded as belonging in a special sense to Jehovah; the second section, on the other hand, {Lev 6:1-7} deals with cases of trespass on the property rights of man.
The first of these, again, consists of two parts. Lev 5:14-16 give the law of the guilt offering as applied to cases in which a man, through inadvertence or unwittingly, trespasses in the holy things of the Lord, but in such manner that the nature and extent of the trespass can afterward be definitely known and valued; Lev 5:17-19 deal with cases where there has been trespass such as to burden the conscience, and yet such as, for whatsoever reason, cannot be precisely measured.
By “the holy things of the Lord” are intended such things as, either by universal ordinance or by voluntary consecration, were regarded as belonging to Jehovah, and in a special sense His property. Thus, under this head would come the case of the man who, for instance, should unwittingly eat the flesh of the firstling of his cattle, or the flesh of the sin offering, or the shew bread; or should use his tithe, or any part of it, for himself. Even though he did this unwittingly, yet it none the less disturbed the mans relation to God; and therefore, when known, in order to his reinstatement in fellowship with God, it was necessary that he should make full restitution with a fifth part added, and besides this, sacrifice a ram, duly appraised, as a guilt offering. In that the sacrifice was prescribed over and above the restitution, the worshipper was reminded that, in view of the infinite majesty and holiness of God, it lies not in the power of any creature to nullify the wrong God-ward, even by fullest restitution. For trespass is not only trespass, but is also sin; an offence not only against the rights of Jehovah as Owner, but also an affront to Him as Supreme King and Lawgiver.
And yet, because the worshipper must not be allowed to lose sight of the fact that sin is of the nature of a debt, a victim was ordered which should especially bring to mind this aspect of the matter. For not only among the Hebrews, but among the Arabs, the Romans and other ancient peoples, sheep, and especially rams, were very commonly used as a medium of payment in case of debt, and especially in paying tribute.
Thus we read, {2Ki 3:4} that Mesha, king of Moab, rendered unto the king of Israel “a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool,” in payment of tribute; and, at a later day, Isaiah {Isa 16:1, R.V} delivers to Moab the mandate of Jehovah: “Send ye the lambs for the ruler of the land unto the mount of the daughter of Zion.”
And so the ram having been brought and presented by the guilty person, with confession of his fault, it was slain by the priest, like the sin offering. The blood, however, was not applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering, still less brought into the Holy Place, as in the case of the sin offering; but {Lev 7:2} was to be sprinkled “upon the altar round about,” as in the burnt offering. The reason of this difference in the application of the blood, as above remarked, lies in this, that, as in the burnt offering, the idea of sacrifice as symbolising expiation takes a place secondary and subordinate to another thought; in this case, the conception of sacrifice as representing satisfaction for trespass.
The next section (Lev 5:17-19) does not expressly mention sins of trespass; for which reason some have thought that it was essentially a repetition of the law of the sin offering. But that it is not to be so regarded is plain from the fact that the victim is still the same as for the guilt offering, and from the explicit statement (Lev 5:19) that this “is a guilt offering.” The inference is natural that the prescription still has reference to “trespass in the holy things of the Lord”; and the class of cases intended is probably indicated by the phrase, “though he knew it not.” In the former section, the law provided for cases in which though the trespass had been done unwittingly, yet the offender afterward came to know of the trespass in its precise extent, so as to give an exact basis for the restitution ordered in such cases. But it is quite supposable that there might be cases in which, although the offender was aware that there had been a probable trespass, such as to burden his conscience, he yet knew not just how much it was. The ordinance is only in so far modified as such a case would make necessary; where there was no exact knowledge of the amount of trespass, obviously there the law of restitution with the added fifth could not be applied. Yet, none the less, the man is guilty; he “bears his iniquity,” that is, he is liable to the penalty of his fault; and in order to the reestablishment of his covenant relation with God, the ram must be offered as a guilt offering.
It is suggestive to observe the emphasis which is laid upon the necessity of the guilt offering, even in such cases. Three times, reference is explicitly made to this fact of ignorance, as not affecting the requirement of the guilt offering: (Lev 5:17) “Though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”; and again (Lev 5:18), with special explicitness, “The priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not”; and yet again (Lev 5:19), “It is a guilt offering: he is certainly guilty before the Lord.” The repetition is an urgent reminder that in this case, as in all others, we are never to forget that however our ignorance of a trespass at the time, or even lack of definite knowledge regarding its nature and extent, may affect the degree of our guilt, it cannot affect the fact of our guilt, and the consequent necessity for satisfaction in order to acceptance with God.
The second section of the law of the guilt offering {Lev 6:1-7} deals with trespasses against man, as also, like trespasses against Jehovah, requiring, in order to forgiveness from God, full restitution with the added fifth, and the offering of the ram as a guilt offering. Five cases are named (Lev 6:2-3), no doubt as being common, typical examples of sins of this character.
The first case is trespass upon a neighbours rights in “a matter of deposit”; where a man has entrusted something to another to keep, and he has either sold it or unlawfully used it as if it were his own. The second case takes in all fraud in a “bargain,” as when, for example, a man sells goods, or a piece of land, representing them to be better than they really are, or asking a price larger than he knows an article to be really worth. The third instance is called “robbery”; by which we are to understand any act or process, even though it should be under colour of legal forms, by means of which a man may manage unjustly to get possession of the property of his neighbour, without giving him due equivalent therefore. The fourth instance is called “oppression” of his neighbour. The English word contains the same image as the Hebrew word, which is used, for instance, of the unnecessary retention of the wages of the employee by the employer; {Lev 19:13} it may be applied to all cases in which a man takes advantage of anothers circumstances to extort from him any thing or any service to which he has no right, or to force upon him something which it is to the poor mans disadvantage to take. The last example of offences to which the law of the guilt offering applied, is the case in which a man finds something and then denies it to the rightful owner. The reference to false swearing which follows, as appears from Lev 6:5, refers not merely to lying and perjury concerning this last-named case, but equally to all cases in which a man may lie or swear falsely to the pecuniary damage of his neighbour. It is mentioned not merely as aggravating such sin, but because in swearing touching any matter, a man appeals to God as witness to the truth of his words; so that by swearing in these cases he represents God as a party to his falsehood and injustice.
In all these cases, the prescription is the same as in analogous offences in the holy things of Jehovah. First of all, the guilty man must confess the wrong which he has done, {Num 5:7} then restitution must be made of all of which he has defrauded his neighbour, together with one-fifth additional. But while this may set him right with man, it has not yet set him right with God. He must bring his guilt offering unto Jehovah (Lev 6:6-7); “a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to the priests estimation, for a guilt offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven: concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.”
And this completes the law of the guilt offering. It was thus prescribed for sins which involve a defrauding or injuring of another in respect to material things, whether God or man, whether knowingly or unwittingly. The law was one and unalterable for all; the condition of pardon was plenary restitution for the wrong done, and the offering of a costly sacrifice, appraised as such by the priest, the earthly representative of God, in the shekel of the sanctuary, “a ram without blemish out of the flock.”
There are lessons from this ordinance, so plain that, even in the dim light of those ancient days, the Israelite might discern and understand them. And they are lessons which, because man and his ways are the same as then, and God the same as then, are no less pertinent to all of us today.
Thus we are taught by this law that God claims from man, and especially from His own people, certain rights of property, of which He will not allow Himself to be defrauded, even through mans forgetfulness or inadvertence. In a later day Israel was sternly reminded of this in the burning words of Jehovah by the prophet Malachi: {Mal 3:8-9} “Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with the curse: for ye rob me, even this whole nation.” Nor has God relaxed His claim in the present dispensation. For the Apostle Paul charges the Corinthian Christians. {2Co 8:7} in the name of the Lord, with regard to their gifts, that as they abounded in other graces, so they should “abound in this grace also.” And this is the first lesson brought before us in the law of the guilt offering. God claims His tithe, His first fruit, and the fulfilment of all vows. It was a lesson for that time; it is no less a lesson for our time.
And the guilt offering further reminds us that as God has rights, so man also has rights, and that Jehovah, as the King and Judge of men, will exact the satisfaction of those rights, and will pass over no injury done by man to his neighbour in material things, nor forgive it unto any man, except upon condition of the most ample material restitution to the injured party.
Then, yet again, if the sin offering called especially for faith in an expiatory sacrifice as the condition of the Divine forgiveness, the guilt offering as specifically called also for repentance, as a condition of pardon, no less essential. Its unambiguous message to every Israelite was the same as that of John the Baptist at a later day: {Mat 3:8-9} “Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.”
The reminder is as much needed now as in the days of Moses. How specific and practical the selection of the particular instances mentioned as cases for the application of the inexorable law of the guilt offering! Let us note them again, for they are not cases peculiar to Israel or to the fifteenth century before Christ. “If anyone deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit”; as, e.g., in the case of moneys entrusted to a bank or railway company, or other corporation; for there is no hint that the law did not apply except to individuals, or that a man might be released from these stringent obligations of righteousness whenever in some such evil business he was associated with others; the guilt offering must be forthcoming, with the amplest restitution, or there is no pardon. Then false dealing in a “bargain” is named, as involving the same requirement; as when a man prides himself on driving “a good bargain,” by getting something unfairly for less than its value, taking advantage of his neighbours straits; or by selling something for more than its value, taking advantage of his neighbours ignorance, or his necessity. Then is mentioned “robbery”; by which word is covered not merely that which goes by the name in polite circles, but all cases in which a man takes advantage of his neighbours distress or helplessness, perhaps by means of some technicality of law, to “strip” him, as the Hebrew word is, of his property of any kind. And next is specified the man who may “have oppressed his neighbour,” especially a man or woman who serves him, as the usage of the word suggests; grinding thus the face of the poor; paying, for instance, less for labour than the law of righteousness and love demands, because the poor man must have work or starve with his house. What sweeping specifications! And all such in all lands and all ages, are solemnly reminded in the law of the guilt offering that in these their sharp practices they have to reckon not with man merely, but with God; and that it is utterly vain for a man to hope for the forgiveness of sin from God, offering or no offering, so long as he has in his pocket his neighbours money. For all such, full restoration with the added fifth, according to the law of the theocratic kingdom, was the unalterable condition of the Divine forgiveness; and we shall find that this law of the theocratic kingdom will also be the law applied in the adjudications of the great white throne.
Furthermore, in that it was particularly enjoined that in the estimation of the value of the guilt offering, not the shekel of the people, often of light weight, but the full weight shekel of the sanctuary was to be held the invariable standard; we, who are so apt to ease things to our consciences by applying to our conduct the principles of judgment current among men, are plainly taught that if we will have our trespasses forgiven, the reparation and restitution which we make must be measured, not by the standard of men, but by that of God, which is absolute righteousness.
Yet again, in that in the case of all such trespasses on the rights of God or man it was ordained that the offering, unlike other sacrifices intended to teach other lessons, should be one and the same, whether the offender were rich or poor; we are taught that the extent of our moral obligations or the conditions of their equitable discharge are not determined by a regard to our present ability to make them good. Debt is debt by whomsoever owed. If a man have appropriated a hundred pounds of another mans money, the moral obligation of that debt cannot be abrogated by a bankrupt law, allowing him to compromise at ten shillings in the pound. The law of man may indeed release him from liability to prosecution, but no law can discharge such a man from the unalterable obligation to pay penny for penny, farthing for farthing. There is no bankrupt law in the kingdom of God. This, too, is evidently a lesson quite as much needed by Gentiles and nominal Christians in the nineteenth century after Christ, as by Hebrews in the fifteenth century before Christ.
But the spiritual teaching of the guilt offering is not yet exhausted. For, like all the other offerings, it pointed to Christ. He is “the end of the law unto righteousness,” {Rom 10:4} as regards the guilt offering, as in all else. As the burnt offering prefigured Christ the heavenly Victim, in one aspect, and the peace offering, Christ in another aspect, so the guilt offering presents to our adoring contemplation yet another view of His sacrificial work. While, as our burnt offering, He became our righteousness in full self-consecration; as our peace offering, our life; as our sin offering, the expiation for our sins; so, as our guilt offering, He made satisfaction and plenary reparation in our behalf to the God on whose inalienable rights in us, by our sins we had trespassed without measure.
Nor is this an over refinement of exposition. For in Isa 53:10, where both the Authorised and the Revised Versions read, “shall make his soul an offering for sin, ” the margin of the latter rightly calls attention to the fact that in the Hebrew the word here used is the very same which through all this Levitical law is rendered “guilt offering.” And so we are expressly told by this evangelic prophet, that the Holy Servant of Jehovah, the suffering Messiah, in this His sacrificial work should make His soul “a guilt offering.” He became Himself the complete and exhaustive realisation of all that in sacrifice which was set forth in the Levitical guilt offering.
A declaration this is which holds forth both the sin for which Christ atoned, and the Sacrifice itself, in a very distinct and peculiar light. In that Christs sacrifice was thus a guilt offering in the sense of the law, we are taught that, in one aspect, our sins are regarded by God, and should therefore be regarded by us, as debts which are due from us to God. This is, indeed, by no means the only aspect in which sin should be regarded; it is, for example, rebellion, high treason, a deadly affront to the Supreme Majesty, which must be expiated with the blood of the sin offering. But our sins are also of the nature of debts. That is, God has claims on us for service which we have never met; claims for a portion of our substance which we have often withheld, or given grudgingly, trespassing thus in “the holy things of the Lord.” Just as the servant who is set to do his masters work, if, instead, he take that time to do his own work, is debtor to the full value of the service of which his master is thus defrauded, so stands the case between the sinner and God. Just as with the agent who fails to make due returns to his principal on the moneys committed to him for investment, using them instead for himself, so stands the case between God and the sinner who has used his talents, not for the Lord, but for himself, or has kept them laid up, unused, in a napkin. Thus, in the New Testament, as the correlate of this representation of Christ as a guilt offering; we find sin again and again set forth as a debt which is owed from man to God. So, in the Lords prayer we are taught to pray, “Forgive us our debts; so, twice the Lord Himself in His parables” {Mat 18:23-35 Luk 7:41-42} set forth the relation of the sinner to God as that of the debtor to the creditor; and concerning those on whom the tower of Siloam fell, asks, {Luk 13:4} “Think ye that they were sinners (Greek debtors,) above all that dwelt in Jerusalem?” Indeed so imbedded is this thought in the conscience of man that it has been crystallised in our word “ought,” which is but the old preterite of “owe”; as in Tyndales New Testament, where we read, {Luk 7:41} “there was a certain lender, which ought him five hundred pence.” What a startling conception is this, which forms the background to the great “guilt offering”! Man a debtor to God! a debtor for service each day due, but no day ever fully and perfectly rendered! in gratitude for gifts, too often quite forgotten, oftener only paid in scanty part! We are often burdened and troubled greatly about our debts to men; shall we not be concerned about the enormous and ever accumulating debt to God! Or is He an easy creditor, who is indifferent whether these debts of ours be met or not? So think multitudes; but this is not the representation of Scripture, either in the Old or the New Testament. For in the law it was required, that if a man, guilty of any of these offences for the forgiveness of which the guilt offering was prescribed, failed to confess and bring the offering, and make the restitution with the added fifth, as commanded by the law, he should be brought before the judges, and the full penalty of law exacted, on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!” And in the New Testament, one of those solemn parables of the two debtors closes with the awful words concerning one of them who was “delivered to the tormentors,” that he should not come out of prison till he had “paid the uttermost farthing.” Not a hint is there in Holy Scripture, of forgiveness of our debts to God, except upon the one condition of full restitution made to Him to whom the debt is due, and therewith the sacrificial blood of a guilt offering. But Christ is our Guilt offering.
He is our Guilt offering, in that He Himself did that, really and fully, with respect to all our debts as sinful men to God, which the guilt offering of Leviticus symbolised, but accomplished not. His soul He made a guilt offering for our trespasses! Isaiahs words imply that He should make full restitution for all that of which we, as sinners, defraud God. He did this by that perfect and incomparable service of lowly obedience such as we should render, but have never rendered; in which He has made full satisfaction to God for all our innumerable debts. He has made such satisfaction, not by a convenient legal fiction, or in a rhetorical figure, or as judged by any human standard. Even as the ram of the guilt offering was appraised according to “the shekel of the sanctuary,” so upon our Lord, at the beginning of that life of sacrificial service, was solemnly passed the Divine verdict that with this antitypical Victim of the Guilt offering, God Himself was “well pleased”. {Mat 3:17} Not only so. For we cannot forget that according to the law, not only the full restitution must be made, but the fifth must be added thereto. So with our Lord. For who will not confess that Christ not only did all that we should have done, but, in the ineffable depth of His self-humiliation and obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, paid therewith the added fifth of the law. Said a Jewish Rabbi to the writer, “I have never been able to finish reading in the Gospel the story of the Jesus of Nazareth; for it too soon brings the tears to my eyes!” So affecting even to Jewish unbelief was this unparalleled spectacle, the adorable Son of God making Himself a guilt offering, and paying, in the incomparable perfection of His holy obedience, the added fifth in our behalf! Thus has Christ “magnified this law” of the guilt offering, and “made it honourable,” even as He did all law. {Isa 42:21}
And, as is intimated, by the formal valuation of the sacrificial ram, in the type, even the death of Christ as the guilt offering, in one aspect is to be regarded as the consummating act of service in the payment of debts Godward. Just as the sin offering represented His death in its passive aspect, as meeting the demands of justice against the sinner as a rebel under sentence of death, by dying in his stead, so, on the other hand, the guilt offering represents that same sacrificial death, rather in another aspect, no less clearly set forth in the New Testament; namely, the supreme act of obedience to the will of God, whereby He discharged “to the uttermost farthing,” even with the added fifth of the law, all the transcendent debt of service due from man to God.
This representation of Christs work has in all ages been an offence, “the offence of the cross.” All the more need we to insist upon it, and never to forget, or let others forget, that Christ is expressly declared in the Word of God to have been “a guilt offering,” in the Levitical sense of that term; that, therefore, to speak of His death as effecting our salvation merely through its moral influence, is to contradict and nullify the Word of God. Well may we set this word in Isa 53:10, concerning the Servant of Jehovah, against all modern Unitarian theology, and against all Socinianising teaching; all that would maintain any view of Christs death which excludes or ignores the divinely revealed fact that it was in its essential nature a guilt offering; and, because a guilt offering, therefore of the nature of the payment of a debt in behalf of those for whom He suffered.
Most blessed truth this, for all who can receive it! Christ, the Son of God, our Guilt offering! Like the poor Israelite, who had defrauded God of that which was His due, so must we do; coming before God, confessing that wherein we have wronged Him, and bringing forth fruit meet for repentance, we must bring and plead Christ in the glory of His person, in all the perfection of His holy obedience, as our Guilt offering. And therewith the ancient promise to the penitent Israelite becomes ours, {Lev 6:7} “The priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.”