Chapter One<\/p>\n
Law and Holiness
\n(Zechariah 14:20\u201321)<\/p>\n
20. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the Lord\u2019s house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
\n21. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. (Zechariah 14:20\u201321)<\/p>\n
The vision of Zechariah gives us the purpose of Leviticus. As T.V. Moore noted, \u201cThe distinction between sacred and profane was introduced by sin, and would cease with its termination on the earth.\u201d The purpose of Leviticus is to give us the legal foundation of holiness in the totality of our lives in order to make all life holy. Zechariah looks ahead to the day when \u201cthere shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.\u201d The Canaanites possessed the Promised Land at the time of the conquest. Subsequently, many Canaanites continued to live in the land. Even more, many Israelites who regularly worshipped in the Temple were in their hearts Canaanites. They were Israelites by blood and by tradition, but not by faith.
\nIsaiah also gives us the same vision of world holiness as does Zechariah, declaring:<\/p>\n
6. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.\u2026
\n9. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6, 9)<\/p>\n
God\u2019s goal is the holiness of all the earth, and the reign of His justice or righteousness in every sphere. How far-reaching, encompassing even the minute, this triumph is to be is set forth in Zechariah\u2019s statement about \u201cthe bells of the horses.\u201d Again quoting T.V. Moore,<\/p>\n
The \u201cbells of the horses\u201d were those bells that were fastened to them partly for ornament and partly to make them easily found if they strayed away at night. They were not necessary parts of the harness, and trifling in value. When, therefore, it is said that even they should have the inscription that was engraved on the breastplate of the high priest, this declares the fact that even the most trifling things in this future state of the Church shall be consecrated to God, equally with the highest and holiest.<\/p>\n
The goal is a worldwide Garden of Eden beside which the original Garden will be forgotten. The first was limited, simple, and without the technology produced by dominion man. The second is worldwide, complex, and made more marvellous by man\u2019s technology and cultivation. The high priest\u2019s crown had engraved upon it the words, \u201cHoliness to the Lord\u201d (Ex. 39:30). We, having been \u201cwashed \u2026 from our sins in [Christ\u2019s] own blood,\u201d have been made \u201ckings and priests unto God and his Father\u201d by Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:5\u20136). Now the high priest\u2019s insignia describes us and all the world. This, Paul tells us repeatedly, is the goal of the Holy Spirit as He works in us (Rom. 8:1\u201339; etc.). The law is the way of holiness for us. Hence, the necessity of the law.
\nThere are ninety or more references to the word holy in Leviticus, but, apart from the word, the total concern here is holiness. It is therefore a matter of law.
\nIn the modern perspective, law is seen as a lower order of life; love and spirituality are now commonly seen as a higher order, both morally and religiously. Commentators on Leviticus routinely see its laws as obsolete; they were supposedly given by God to the more primitive Hebrews, whereas Christians now live on a higher plane. Besides being a form of Marcionism, this perspective, which is common to modernists and evangelicals alike, is evolutionary. Greek thinking came into the early church and did much harm. In the modern era, concepts of cultural evolution came into clear focus in Hegel; Darwin added biological evolution, and men received him gladly. They had been schooled into an evolutionary perspective by theologians and were thus prepared for Hegel and Darwin.
\nAn evolutionary faith is intolerant of law, because law presupposes a fixity in the nature of things which evolution cannot tolerate. A lawyer who believes in God and in God-given rules of good and evil will seek to make laws and courts alike conform more and more to true justice as set forth in God\u2019s law-word. An evolutionary lawyer will instead work to destroy and eradicate any dedication to absolute law. Evolution requires change, and hence whatever truth there may be in law rests in the fact that laws must change as circumstances change. Law cannot be correlated, for the evolutionist, with God\u2019s justice, but must instead be related to the ever-changing needs of the people and their growth: law must serve the people, rather than the people serving and obeying the law.
\nThe artist, Marcel Duchamp, expressed in art these same concepts. He hated verbal logic and the idea of words as propositional truths. In any traditional sense, Duchamp was anti-art, an innovator of junk-art because of his hatred of meaning. He questioned the validity of science, and of law in general. \u201cThe word law was against his principles.\u201d In this belief, Duchamp had with him the various arts, modern culture generally, and theology as well. Since Holmes, we must add that the world of law has largely been antinomian also.
\nNot surprisingly, Leviticus has not been popular in our time, nor has Proverbs, which gives practical summations of the law. An age given to vague and airy spirituality finds Leviticus dull and repressive. In the Bible, spiritual is a word which has reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in us. In modern usage, the word spiritual has reference also to man\u2019s own efforts to live on a \u201chigher\u201d level. This distinction is important. The devil being a spiritual creature, spirituality can be as readily demonic as it can be godly. It can be added that humanistic laws are also demonic.
\nR. K. Harrison, in his \u201cIntroduction\u201d to his commentary on Leviticus, calls attention to some important facts. Among these are, first, \u201cNot merely is God a living and omnipotent deity, but He is the essence of holiness.\u201d This requires of man a moral and spiritual life in conformity to God\u2019s holiness as expressed in His law. Second, the sacrificial system tells us that the price of sin is death, but that God provides the sacrifice and the forgiveness. Third, \u201cthere was no forgiveness for the kind of sin which constituted a repudiation of covenant mercies.\u201d We can add that modern theologies have made \u201cpossible\u201d a promiscuous and unconditional forgiveness by abandoning God\u2019s law. Fourth, \u201cno person can be his own savior and mediator.\u201d God alone can provide the sacrifice, the savior, and the mediator.
\nWe can add something more. The theme of Leviticus can best be summed up by Leviticus 19:1\u20132:<\/p>\n
1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.<\/p>\n
We are created in God\u2019s image, and to develop the implications of that image we must obey God\u2019s law with all our heart, mind, and being. In the nineteenth century, Joseph Parker noted, \u201cWe are held in bondage by a mistaken conception of personality. When we think of that term we think of ourselves.\u201d But we are persons only because we are made in God\u2019s image (Gen. 1:26\u201328), and we cannot develop our status as persons apart from God\u2019s law and Spirit. The slogan of the 1960s and early 1970s, \u201cI want to be ME,\u201d was a denial of personhood, since man is nothing in himself. Since man is totally God\u2019s creation, and is only a person because he is made in the image of God, man can only be a person under God\u2019s law. To deny God and His law is for man to deny status as a person. Quite logically, John Dewey questioned the concept.
\nAccording to the shorter Catechism:<\/p>\n
Q. 10. How did God create man?
\nA. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures. (Gen. 1:27; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24; Gen. 1:28).<\/p>\n
Man cannot develop his personhood except in terms of God and His law-word. Even as God separated man from the dust of the earth to make him a living soul (Gen. 2:7), so God summons covenant man in Leviticus to separate himself to the Covenant Lord and to become holy even as God Himself is holy. The law or justice of God is the way of holiness.<\/p>\n
Chapter Two<\/p>\n
Dedication, Atonement, and Holiness
\n(Leviticus 1:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
\n2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
\n3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
\n4. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
\n5. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron\u2019s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n6. And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
\n7. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
\n8. And the priests, Aaron\u2019s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
\n9. But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
\n10. And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
\n11. And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron\u2019s sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
\n12. And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
\n13. But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
\n14. And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
\n15. And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:
\n16. And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:
\n17. And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. (Leviticus 1:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
The first seven chapters of Leviticus give us laws concerning sacrifices. These were of four kinds: the burnt offering, the peace offering, the guilt or trespass offering, and the sin offering. F. Meyrick, using slightly different terms, described these sacrifices thus:<\/p>\n
The burnt offering, in which the whole of the victim was consumed in the fire on God\u2019s altar, signifies entire self-surrender on the part of the offerer; the meat offering, a loyal acknowledgment of God\u2019s sovereignty; the sin offering, propitiation of wrath in him to whom the offering is made, and expiation of sin in the offerer; the trespass offering, satisfaction for sin; the peace offering, union and communion between the offerer and him to whom the offering is made.<\/p>\n
This summary falls short with respect to atonement in particular, but it is a convenient statement for introducing the sacrificial laws. The first chapter of Leviticus gives us the laws of burnt offerings, sometimes translated as \u201ca whole offering\u201d because the entire animal was burnt on the altar, except for the skin, which went to the priest (Lev. 7:8).
\nFive animals are named as suitable for sacrifice: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the dove, and the pigeon. These are all clean animals, and all are domesticated ones. There are thus three conditions required in animal sacrifices: first, the only animals acceptable were those that had been specified as clean by God\u2019s law; second, they were domesticated animals which were commonly used for food; third, they were a part of the sacrificer\u2019s personal property and wealth, and thus they cost him something. Even the poor had to give a sacrifice which cost them something, a dove or a pigeon.
\nThus, in the sacrifice of atonement, nothing man does can earn his redemption: it is entirely an act of sovereign grace on God\u2019s part. At the same time, it is not costless to man.
\nThe sacrificer must put his hand on the burnt offering for it to be acceptable to make atonement for him (v. 4). The significance of this is, first, that the sacrificer identifies himself with the sacrifice, which becomes a substitute for him, to die in his place. The sacrificer thus acknowledges that in God\u2019s presence he stands condemned to death for his sins; God makes it clear that only a perfect, unblemished, and innocent substitute can effect atonement. A blemished sacrifice calls for death; only an unblemished one can make atonement. Second, by the laying on of hands, not only does the sacrificer see the sacrificed one as his substitute, but he also gives himself wholly to God. He acknowledges himself to be God\u2019s creature, required to serve God with all his heart, mind, and being (Deut. 6:4\u20139).
\nIn v. 5, we see that it is the blood which makes atonement. According to Leviticus 17:11,<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.<\/p>\n
J. R. Porter has commented on Leviticus 1:5 thus:<\/p>\n
As this verse makes clear, there is an inherent power in the blood, the \u2018life\u2019, but to expiate it must go on the altar, that is, it must be transmitted to God. So, in Leviticus, all animal sacrifices make expiation.<\/p>\n
This needs to be qualified. There is life and power only in the blood of the God-ordained substitute for man, the one who makes atonement for man\u2019s sin. While there is life in the blood of the sacrificer, it is a death-bound life and blood.
\nThe laws of sacrifice give us ritual. G. Henton Davies commented that, first, God appoints the way of approach to Him. Men cannot approach God or worship Him in terms of their ways and ideas but only through God\u2019s appointed mediator and way. Second, \u201cthe laws and the sacrifices are closely related to the divine self-predication, \u2018I am Yahweh\u2019 (11:45f.), and in the later chapters to the appearing of God (9:4\u20136, 15:31) and to the covenant relationship (2:13, 11:44f., etc.)\u201d; and, third, not only is the life in the blood, but also the blood is given to us to make atonement for us (17:11). \u201cThe \u2018given\u2019 is \u2018offered.\u2019 \u201d
\nThere is in this law a remarkable conjunction of the voluntary and the mandatory. In v. 2, we are told, \u201cIf any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord,\u201d i.e., there is only one approach to God, God\u2019s way, but we are free to reject it and go to hell Joseph Parker\u2019s comments were especially apt:<\/p>\n
\u2026 No man was at liberty in the ancient Church to determine his own terms of approach to God. The throne must be approached in the appointed way. We are now living in an era of religious licentiousness. There is a genius of worship, there is a method of coming before God. God does not ask us to conceive or suggest methods of worship. He himself meets us with his time-bill and his terms of spiritual commerce. God is in heaven and we are upon the earth; therefore should our words be few. The law of approach to the divine throne is unchanged. The very first condition of worship is obedience. Obedience is better than sacrifice, and is so because it is the end of sacrifice. But see, how under the Levitical ritual, the worshipper was trained to obedience. Mark the exasperating minuteness of the law. Nothing was left to haphazard.\u2026 So the law runs on until it chafes the obstinate mind. But man was to yield. He had no choice. His iron will was to be broken in two and his soul was to wait patiently upon God. When, however, we are in the spirit of filial obedience the very minuteness of the law becomes a delight. God does not speak to us in the gross; every motion is watched, every action is determined, every breathing is regulated; man is always to yield; he is a co-partner in this high thinking. So our inventive genius of a religious kind often stands rebuked before God. We like to make ceremonies; methods of worship seem to tempt one side of our fertile genius, and we stultify ourselves by regarding our inventiveness as an element of our devotion. We like to draw up programs and orders and schemes of service and sacrifice. What we should do is to keep as nearly as we can to the Biblical line, and bring all our arrangements into harmony with the law of heaven. The law can never give way.<\/p>\n
The burnt offering, like the peace offering, is a covenant fact. It is commonly separated from the sin and trespass offerings, because these have to do with atonement, whereas the burnt offering has to do with dedication. According to Kellogg,<\/p>\n
The reasons for this law are manifest. The Israelite was thereby taught that God claims the best we have. They needed this lesson, as many among us do still. At a later day, we find God rebuking them by Malachi (1:6, 13), with indignant severity, for their neglect of this law: \u201cA son honoureth his father: \u2026 if then I be a Father, where is My honour?\u2026 Ye have brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame, and the sick; \u2026 should I accept this of your hand, saith the Lord.\u201d And as pointing to our Lord, the command was no less fitting. Thus, as in other sacrifices, it was foreshadowed that the great Burnt offering of the future would be the one Man without blemish, the absolutely perfect Exemplar of what manhood should be, but is not.<\/p>\n
All this is very true, but the burnt offering cannot be separated from atonement. The unblemished sacrifice points to Christ. Rabbi Aaron Rothkoff stated it clearly from the perspective of Judaism: \u201cThe burnt offerings, signifying complete surrender to God, were therefore associated with sin offerings in the process of atonement.\u201d
\nBurnt offering is literally in the Hebrew the \u201coffering that goes up.\u201d Only Christ is that acceptable offering before God. The burnt offering rests on the atonement, and it sets forth the fact that our only acceptable service to God is in Christ and through His atonement. We can only be holy and render a holy service to the Father in and through the Son. The laws of Leviticus, from beginning to end, set forth the specified ways of holiness. We can only serve God in His appointed way.
\nSuch a faith goes against the modern grain. Earlier, Duchamp\u2019s hostility to law was noted. Its source needs to be noted as well. Marcel Duchamp hated not only law but also judgment in any and every sphere. He wanted to see \u201cthe concept of judgment \u2026 abolished.\u201d He sought to create a new language, as well as a new physics, enthroning chance, not God, law, or meaning. He also sought to create new units of measurement based on chance, not regularity and law. He wrote, \u201cIntuition led me to revere the law of chance as the highest and deepest of laws, the law that rises from the fundament.\u201d After Freud, he denied any law or order from God while expressing \u201cprofound faith in the unconscious nature of man.\u201d He and others held to Rimbaud\u2019s affirmation, \u201cThe poet becomes a seer by a long, enormous and reasoned derangement of all his senses.\u201d Note the emphasis on a reasoned derangement: a deliberate rejection of God and law for chance and irrationality is affirmed. However, naturally insane people were looked upon as of intense interest and a source of inspiration. Duchamp had a \u201cfear of being trapped \u2026 by \u2018beauty,\u2019 \u201d which is not surprising, since beauty evidences both order and judgment.
\nDuchamp is not an accident of history; he represents a deeply rooted trend in the modern world, a hostility to God and law. This hostility has its origin in Genesis 3:5, in the Fall. Not surprisingly, it has profound echoes in modern man\u2019s being. As a result, hostility to law is great: it means life by prescription, not by man\u2019s autonomous will. Because of this, Leviticus spells death to the modern mind, because it is, like all of Scripture, a prescriptive book. Leviticus 18:5 declares plainly, \u201cYe shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, He shall live in them: I am the Lord.\u201d Modern man prefers death (Prov. 8:36).<\/p>\n
Chapter Three<\/p>\n
Sacrifices and Conspicuous Waste
\n(Leviticus 2:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
1. And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:
\n2. And he shall bring it to Aaron\u2019s sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:
\n3. And the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron\u2019s and his sons\u2019: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.
\n4. And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
\n5. And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil.
\n6. Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering.
\n7. And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the fryingpan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.
\n8. And thou shalt bring the meat offering that is made of these things unto the LORD: and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring it unto the altar.
\n9. And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
\n10. And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron\u2019s and his sons\u2019: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.
\n11. No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.
\n12. As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour.
\n13. And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
\n14. And if thou offer a meat offering of thy firstfruits unto the LORD, thou shalt offer for the meat offering of thy firstfruits green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears.
\n15. And thou shalt put oil upon it, and lay frankincense thereon: it is a meat offering.
\n16. And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD. (Leviticus 2:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
To understand this chapter, we must understand that the term meat offering is now deceptive, the word meat now having a restrictive meaning. As originally used in the King James Version, it meant something broader, and here it meant grains. The same is true of the word corn (v. 14, 16); it here means grains. The word oblation means anything offered in worship, i.e., anything rightfully so offered. Oswald T. Allis noted that, \u201cThe smallest meal offering, one tenth of an ephah, was more than three quarts.\u201d The Hebrew text does not read meal offering, however, but minchah, meaning gift or offering.
\nAn offering of grains, the product of man\u2019s work, was required. Either the actual grain or flour could be brought to the altar, or cakes and wafers made from it. Their preparation is strictly specified: the best flour, with good cooking oil, and prepared in any one of three utensils: an oven (v. 4), a pan (v. 5), or a frying pan (v. 7).
\nThe oil, commonly olive oil, has an extensive symbolic meaning in Scripture. Samuel Clark noted:<\/p>\n
There were three principal uses of oil familiar to the Hebrews. (1) It was employed to anoint the surface of the body in order to mollify the skin, to heal injuries, and to strengthen the muscles (Ps. 104:15; 109:18; 141:5; Isa. 1:6; Mic. 6:15; Luke 10:34; Mark 6:13; James 5:14; &c); (2) it was largely used as an ingredient of food (Num. 11:8; I K. 17:12; I Chro. 12:40; Ezek. 16:13, 19; Hos. 2:5, & C.); and (3) it was commonly burned in lamps (Ex. 25:6; Matt. 25:3, &c).\u2014In each of these uses it may be taken as a fit symbol of divine grace. It might figure as conferring on each believer the strength and faculties required to carry on his work (1 Cor. 12:4); as supporting and renewing him day by day with fresh supplies of life (1 Cor. 3:16; Tit. 3:5); and as giving light, comfort, and guidance into all truth (Job. 32:8; John 14:16; 15:26).<\/p>\n
There was, however, a more basic meaning to all Hebrew worshippers. Grain as bread, thick, heavy, whole-grained bread, together with the oil which was the bread and butter of everyday life, was the \u201cdaily bread\u201d of the people. The meaning of this sacrifice thus is, first, that our daily bread, a symbol of our daily life, is laid upon the altar in surrender to the Lord. Second, nothing in this sacrifice is retained by the worshipper. The totality of the worshipper\u2019s life and work is surrendered to God. Third, giving all to God means giving in and through the atonement, thereby having access to the Father. Having received life through Him, we in return surrender our lives to Him. Fourth, we are acceptable, not because of ourselves, but because of Christ, who renews the covenant; hence, the salt can never be lacking in this offering (v. 13). Salt as a preserving agent symbolizes incorruptibility: the covenant in Christ cannot be broken. The salt, or Christ\u2019s covenant, arrested any leavening process and thus set forth \u201cthe nullification of any presence of sin.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the grain as such was offered, it was in three ways. First (vv. 1\u20133), the uncooked meal could be offered; second (vv. 4\u201311), the same meal and oil could be prepared by cooking in specified ways; and, third, (vv. 14\u201316), the best of the new ears could be parched in the fire.
\nThe grain offered had to be the firstfruits. As Porter notes,<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word for firstfruits here means literally \u201cbeginning\u201d and this indicates their significance. In Hebrew thought, the first member of a series contained all that followed (cp. 1 Cor. 15:22). So when the first produce of herds or crops was offered to God, he in fact received the whole, his rightful due as the giver of all increase, and the remainder was then available for his use. It is the same idea as that lying behind the \u201ctoken\u201d (verse 2).<\/p>\n
It should be noted that the priests were to receive much of this offering (vv. 3, 10). A fundamental premise of Scripture, as our Lord declares, is, \u201cthe labourer is worthy of his hire\u201d (Luke 10:7). Paul cites this in 1 Timothy 5:17\u201318, and refers to it in 1 Corinthians 9:4\u20135. This is applicable to the ox which treads out the grain (Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18), and it is applicable to all men, including alien workers (Deut. 24:14\u201315). Wages are a form of communication, and God judges all men for their evil communications or bad pay (Gal. 6:6\u201310). To divorce morality from economics is evil, and it incurs God\u2019s wrath and judgment. This requirement of good pay certainly applies to those in Christ\u2019s service. As Bush commented:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aaron\u2019s.\u201d In every dispensation God has evidenced a kind concern for the maintenance of those who were devoted to ministry in sacred things. Those who labor in the word are to be competently supported. \u201cDo 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.\u201d 1 Cor. 9:13\u201314.<\/p>\n
We come now to a fact often noted by critics of the Old Testament, and of the laws of sacrifice in particular. More than a few express horror over the great volume of various foods either consumed on the altar or given to the priests. In both cases, this is seen as wasteful. Some years ago, in Berkeley, California, one lecturer calculated how much food was destroyed in sacrifices per thousand families in Israel. He spoke of this as an outrage; think of how many poor people could have been fed with this food! Long before this man, the disciples had voiced like thinking:<\/p>\n
3. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
\n4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
\n5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
\n6. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
\n7. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
\n8. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
\n9. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. (Mark 14:3\u20139)<\/p>\n
Given the foods required by the sacrificial system, grains, meats, and wine, and given the number of Israelites who had to offer up sacrifices, we would have to describe the sacrificial system as, humanly speaking, an example of conspicuous waste.
\nThis \u201cwaste\u201d of food, however, is not the only form of required \u201cwaste.\u201d The \u201cwaste\u201d of time is equally notable. The required abstention from work one day in seven, and then one year in seven, plus holy days as well, means no small amount of time removed from productivity. In one sense, this can be justified. Land allowed to lie fallow increases its fertility, and men who learn to rest become more productive. All this is true, but there is another factor. To regard the sacrifices of food and time as conspicuous waste is to think humanistically, to think without God. The Bolshevik Revolution moved strongly and viciously against all such waste, and productivity declined dramatically.
\nMore importantly, such \u201cconspicuous waste\u201d is a recognition that it is not our doing and planning that prospers us, but God\u2019s government. Whatever we give to God in time, money, or goods is a recognition that we prosper most when we take hands off our lives and commit them into God\u2019s care. Mrs. Howard Taylor, in her life of William Whiting Borden (1887\u20131913), Borden of Yale,\u201909, cited words written by young Borden in a notebook in his freshman year:<\/p>\n
Lord Jesus, I take hands off, as far as my life is concerned. I put Thee on the throne in my heart. Change, cleanse, use me as Thou shalt choose. I take the full power of Thy Holy Spirit. I thank Thee. May never know a tithe of the result until Morning.<\/p>\n
By viewing life and the world as though man were an economic animal, we have warped ourselves.
\nNote the paradox. We are, first, told that \u201cthe labourer is worthy of his hire,\u201d and we are not to think in terms of the marketplace but rather in terms of communication and community in paying people. Rewards are thus given some attention. Second, material wealth is discarded by sacrifices, and time as a form of wealth is \u201cwasted\u201d in God\u2019s sabbaths. Some would regard both the Biblical requirement concerning pay as well as the sacrifice of time and goods as instances of prodigal and conspicuous waste.
\nBut man is not a creature of the free market; he is neither a political nor an economic animal. He cannot live by bread alone; he needs every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4). Man is a religious creature, and he cannot have life on his terms without disaster. As man gives himself to the author of life (John 14:6), he thrives and grows. What appears to others to be conspicuous waste is in reality evidence of life and freedom. It means giving ourselves to life rather than to death. Where men withhold themselves from giving their time, money, goods, and selves to God in Christ, we have the clearest instances of conspicuous waste.<\/p>\n
Chapter Four<\/p>\n
The Meaning of Peace
\n(Leviticus 3:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
1. And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
\n2. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron\u2019s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
\n3. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
\n4. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
\n5. And Aaron\u2019s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
\n6. And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the LORD be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.
\n7. If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the LORD.
\n8. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron\u2019s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.
\n9. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
\n10. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
\n11. And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD.
\n12. And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD.
\n13. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.
\n14. And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
\n15. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.
\n16. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD\u2019s.
\n17. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. (Leviticus 3:1\u201317)<\/p>\n
The purpose of the sacrificial system is the restoration of peace and communion between God and man, a relationship which has been destroyed by man\u2019s sin. The penalty for man\u2019s violation of God\u2019s covenant and law is death, and man cannot make atonement for his own sin. Man is a blemished offering; furthermore, his sin places him in enmity towards God, and hence hostile to peace with God. As Paul says in Romans 8:7, \u201cthe carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be\u201d (cp. James 4:4). Only with Christ\u2019s atoning sacrifice is our enmity with God broken down (Eph. 2:14\u201316; Col. 1:20). As Vos noted, first, Biblical sacrifice sets forth the fact that the gift of life to God, either in expiation or then in consecration, is necessary to restore communion. Second, because man is a sinner, a blemished being, he cannot make atonement for sin with his own person. Hence, the necessity of the sinless Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Moreover, although Christ makes atonement for us, and our atonement is entirely His work, a cost factor remains for us. The animal sacrifices which typified Christ were costly. \u201cThe sacrifice must be taken from what constitutes the sustenance of the life of the offerer, and from what forms the product of his life.\u201d Salvation from sin and communion with God impose responsibilities upon the recipients of God\u2019s grace.
\nThe laying-on of hands in the peace offering (v. 2) was accompanied, not by the confession of sins, but by praise and thanksgiving. Micklem noted that peace offerings were the most common type of sacrifice and were followed by the covenant meal of the worshippers, one with another. In Leviticus 7:15\u201336, we have the laws concerning this matter; the peace offerings and the believers\u2019 meal, and the priests\u2019 portion, are cited.
\nFat and blood are cited as forbidden foods. Harrison has noted that parasites are sometimes found in tissues of even the clean animals. In the peace offering, the priest dashed the blood against the sacrificial altar, but the worshipper killed the animal (vv. 2, 8, 13). For most modern men, this would be an unpleasant if not very distasteful task. For farmers and herders, this would be a routine matter; for them, it was a reminder of the necessity of death for peace with God. The implications of this are apparent in the episode of Phinehas (Num. 25:1\u201318).
\nTo destroy Israel, whom they could not expect to defeat in battle, the Moabites resorted to a devious method. Their religion was the worship of Baal-peor. We know very little about this particular form of Baalism, other than the two activities which accompanied Israel\u2019s part in it. First, the apostate Israelites took part in a Baalist communion service which involved not only eating but also bowing down to the gods thereof. Second, the apostates openly involved themselves in sexual acts with Moabite women. Fertility cult practices were thus an aspect of the worship of Baal-peor. God\u2019s judgment, in the form of a plague which killed 24,000 Israelites, followed. The plague was stayed when a high official, Phinehas, a grandson of Aaron, acted against a prominent Israelite, Zimri, a prince of the Simeonites, and the woman Cozbi, the daughter of a prominent Midianite. When Phinehas saw their clear defiance of God\u2019s law, he entered the tent \u201cand thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel\u201d (Num. 25:8). Psalm 106:28\u201331 celebrates this fact:<\/p>\n
28. They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.
\n29. Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.
\n30. Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
\n31. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.<\/p>\n
Phinehas, a very high ranking priest and officer, brought peace by means of death. In his act, we have an insight into the Biblical meaning of peace.
\nFor modern man, peace comes by talk and compromise. Meet with all Marxists and be compliant; talk things out with murderers and delinquents. If a person commits adultery, theft, or arson, find out what is lacking in his or her life and seek to remedy it, and so on and on.
\nPhinehas\u2019 act of judgment was a legal act. We are not asked to imitate his act but to follow him in his faithfulness. Men today believe in peace at any price and hence have no peace but instead a growing judgment. Evil cannot be reasoned, bribed, or persuaded into goodness. To assume so is to despise God\u2019s word and salvation. The peace offering tells us that our continued communion with God requires the continuing death in us of all that is contrary to His word, and the continuing death all around us of those things which are contrary to His law. The peace offering makes it clear that a continuing communion with God requires a continuing death as the precondition for a growing life. We must exercise judgment, or we shall be judged. This is the significance of Phinehas, and of the peace offering.
\nIn the peace offering, the sacrificer ate a portion, and God got the rest on the altar. There are references to peace offerings in 1 Samuel 11:15, Amos 5:22, and in Ezekiel 45 and 46. In Leviticus, it is the subject also of 7:11\u201334; 19:5\u20138; and 22:21\u201325.
\nIt is noteworthy that the peace offering excludes birds as an acceptable sacrifice. The specified animals are cattle, sheep, and goats. This sacrifice was followed by a sacred meal, and the believer was expected to share it with his family, his friends, and the needy. The use of fowl would have prevented such a sharing. This sharing is cited in Deuteronomy 16:11.
\nS. C. Gayford noted, with respect to v. 5:<\/p>\n
The \u201cfat\u201d is often used figuratively to describe the best part of anything: e.g., Nu. 18:12; Dt. 32:14 (RVm, Hebrew, \u201cfat\u201d). The expression \u201cthe fat of the land\u201d (Gen. 45:18) has passed into English. The fat of an animal was regarded as the centre and source of its life, in almost as great a degree as its blood; hence like the blood it was given to God and forbidden as human food (11, 16\u201317).<\/p>\n
The priest received portions of the meat, sin, and trespass offerings, but he was normally a participant in the peace offering meal. Pfeiffer noted,<\/p>\n
The Peace Offering is sometimes called the Thank Offering. While in all the offerings there is a recognition and consciousness of sin and the need for atonement, the Peace Offering stresses that fellowship which is the portion of the individual who is in a right fellowship with God.<\/p>\n
The Peace Offering appears to have invariably followed other sacrifices. This is true on the occasion of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8), and the services of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Those sacrifices which set forth the concept of atonement from sin logically precede those which stress the joy of fellowship in holy things.<\/p>\n
It is significant that the altar is also called in Malachi 1:7, \u201cthe table of the Lord.\u201d Communion comes through atonement and flourishes in our thanksgiving. The altar was a covenant table making possible through atonement a covenant feast.
\nThe reference in v. 9 to the \u201crump\u201d is actually to the tail of a particular variety of sheep. The tail, in the summer and fall, stores food to enable the sheep to live through the snow-bound winter months, with their limited fare. When these sheep were released to pasture in the spring, the tail was a small stump, but by autumn, it carried as much as a third of their weight. (My father, who as a boy tended such sheep on the mountain next to Ararat, said that, as the tail grew, it became necessary to put a wheel or some like device under it, attached securely to the tail.)
\nW. F. Lofthouse called attention to an important aspect of the meaning of the word translated as peace in this offering:<\/p>\n
The root of the Heb. term for \u201cpeace offering\u201d denotes not simply \u201cpeace\u201d in our sense, but \u201cbeing quits\u201d with another. In the OT generally, the peace offering is a common meal, wherein God, priests, and worshippers sit down, as it were, together, in token that there is nothing which separates them, and that all causes of displeasure on the part of God are at an end. This offering is often spoken of as \u201csacrifices\u201d par excellence (cf. I S. 11:15, I K. 1:19).<\/p>\n
Our word peace has come to mean simply a cessation of physical hostilities, or the absence thereof; such a \u201cpeace\u201d can be the occasion of subversion, hatred, and a preparation for massive retaliation, but it is still called \u201cpeace.\u201d The Biblical term here is more like our word requite, which means to repay good or evil, to make a return for good or evil. In this sense, peace is the establishment of justice. God by His grace provides the atonement; man by his response becomes separated unto the Lord, holy unto Him, keeping the covenant laws of justice. This is God\u2019s required requital.
\nPeace in the Biblical sense is thus inseparable from justice. It begins with the atonement as the satisfaction of justice; it is followed by our regeneration, so that we are now empowered to live by the laws of justice as set forth in God\u2019s law.
\nOur Lord, in speaking to His disciples of His coming death, makes it clear that, because He is leaving them, two things are being opened up to them by His atonement, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and true peace in Him:<\/p>\n
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
\n27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid (John 14:26\u201327).<\/p>\n
The politics of peace in our time is the policy of injustice and death. There is no Phinehas to stay God\u2019s judgment. Both the meaning and the fact of peace escape us. A generation and nations at peace with abortion and homosexuality are at war with God, who will not stay the plague.
\nThe meaning of Leviticus 3 is important. There is no peace where there is no grace and atonement. Peace means requital, justice, and this is impossible apart from God\u2019s law. Thus, grace leads us into faithfulness to God\u2019s law, His justice, and the result is true peace.<\/p>\n
Chapter Five<\/p>\n
Responsibility
\n(Leviticus 4:1\u201335)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
\n3. If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
\n4. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock\u2019s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.
\n5. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock\u2019s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:
\n6. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
\n7. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n8. And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
\n9. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away,
\n10. As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.
\n11. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
\n12. Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
\n13. And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;
\n14. When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n15. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
\n16. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock\u2019s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
\n17. And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail.
\n18. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n19. And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.
\n20. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
\n21. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.
\n22. When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;
\n23. Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:
\n24. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
\n25. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
\n26. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
\n27. And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
\n28. Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
\n29. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
\n30. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.
\n31. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
\n32. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
\n33. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
\n34. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:
\n35. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 4:1\u201335)<\/p>\n
The several sections of chapter 4 all deal with inadvertent sins, or, more accurately, sins of weakness and human frailty. These are not capital offenses. They are, however, serious because they are violations of God\u2019s law. Examples of such sins could include using false weights either unknowingly or in weakness and a desire for gain (Lev. 19:35\u201337; Deut. 25:13\u201316); perverting or obstructing justice out of fear (Ex. 23:1\u20132, 6\u20137); and so on. Such offenses require restitution to man, and also a sacrifice to make restitution to God.
\nThose required to make sin offerings are as follows:<\/p>\n
1. The sins of the priest, or the high priest, are noted first. Some would limit this to the high priest because v. 3 speaks of an anointed priest, but 7:36 makes it clear that all functioning priests were anointed. In vv. 3\u201312, the atonement of priests is specified.
\n2. In vv. 13\u201321, the sin of the congregation, i.e., all the covenant people as church or nation, is specified.
\n3. In vv. 22\u201326, it is the ruler whose sins are cited. These were rulers in the tribal spheres.
\n4. The ordinary people as individuals are referred to in vv. 27, 35.<\/p>\n
The offerings required for atonement are very important:<\/p>\n
1. A priest: a bull, without blemish (v. 3).
\n2. The congregation, church, or nation: a bull without blemish (v. 14).
\n3. A ruler: an unblemished male goat, a kid (v. 23).
\n4. A commoner: an unblemished female goat, a kid (v. 28).<\/p>\n
There is an obvious gradation here. The sin of a priest or religious leader is most serious in God\u2019s sight. It is in terms of this that Peter declares, \u201cjudgment must begin at the house of God\u201d (1 Peter 4:17). Our Lord says, \u201cFor unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more\u201d (Luke 12:48). Today, as in pagan antiquity, it is commonly assumed that position and power give immunity from law and consequences. God\u2019s law declares that the greater the responsibility, the greater the culpability.<\/p>\n
The sins involved in these offerings did not include capital offenses. However, as J. R. Porter noted:<\/p>\n
On the other hand, inadvertent transgressions also included occasions of ritual impurity. In the priestly theology, sin is an objective, quasi-physical thing\u2014hence, even if committed inadvertently, its consequences cannot be avoided\u2014and so not sharply distinguished from defilement or uncleanness. Thus, sin and guilt-offerings are made on occasions where \u201csin,\u201d in our usual understanding of the word, is hardly involved (cp. 5:1\u20133; 14:1\u201320; 16:16).<\/p>\n
Because our era is so materialistic, it depreciates sins which do not have physical effects, i.e., envy, hatred, jealousy, and the like. Because the spiritual is not seen as altogether real, all major sins which are spiritual are regarded as nothing. Crime has been sometimes redefined to mean physical damage or harm. Since the root of all sin is spiritual and in the heart of man, to depreciate the spiritual soon means to depreciate all crime. Environmental \u201ccauses\u201d are said to cause crime, and the willfulness thereof is denied, because man\u2019s will has been depreciated.
\nThe seriousness of the priest\u2019s sin stresses the religious and spiritual roots of sin and justice alike. The blood of the sin offering of the priest was smeared on the altar of incense (v. 7), whereas in all other cases it was smeared on the horns of the altar of the burnt offering (vv. 18, 25, 30). There was a difference also in the priest\u2019s sacrifice: it was burned outside the camp on the sacrificial ash heap (v. 12). There was an especial defilement in his sin, and hence this procedure.
\nAccording to Scripture, the fall of man and the entrance of sin and death into the world have religious roots, so that no man can understand sin and evil, justice and injustice, apart from this fact. Our Lord says,<\/p>\n
18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart: and they defile the man.
\n19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. (Matthew 15:18\u201319)<\/p>\n
To deny the religious foundations of life is to blind oneself to reality, and to court death.
\nThe sin offering also provided for a portion to be consumed by the priests (Lev. 10:17), provided it was not their own sin offering (v. 12).
\nIn the sin offering also the worshipper had to identify himself with the animal by a laying on of hands (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29). In so doing, he acknowledged that he deserved the penalty of death before God, but that God had provided an innocent substitute as his sin-bearer.
\nPfeiffer called attention to the aspects of the ritual, which involved several steps: presentation (vv. 4, 11, 23, 28); identification (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29); killing and sacrifice (vv. 4, 15, 24, 28); sprinkling the blood (vv. 6\u20137, 17\u201318, 25, 30); pouring the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering (vv. 7, 18, 25, 30); burning the fat portions on the altar (vv. 5\u201310, 19, 26, 31); and burning the remainder of the carcass in a clean place outside the camp (vv. 11\u201312, 21).
\nThe three previous offerings, the burnt offering (chapt. 1), the meat offering (chapt. 2), and the peace offering (chapt. 3), were voluntary offerings; the sin offering was compulsory. The reason for this was well stated by A. C. Gaebelein: \u201cForgiveness had to be sought and secured.\u201d As we have seen, J. R. Porter wrote of sin as \u201can objective, quasi-physical thing\u201d with unavoidable consequences (unless atonement and restitution followed). The sin offering underscored this fact: only through atonement could the inexorable consequences of sin be averted. Moreover, not only individuals but also \u201ccommunities are punished in this world.\u201d Men cannot escape their involvement in the sins of their community by any withdrawal from it; they have a continuing responsibility to God for service and action wherever they are. Neither can men escape their responsibility for the sins of their church or community by pleading that false priests or pastors misled them. Hosea 4:6\u20139 speaks to this:<\/p>\n
6. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
\n7. As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.
\n8. They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
\n9. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them for their doings.<\/p>\n
In all conditions, our personal responsibility remains. At the same time, our responsibility as members of a community makes it necessary to forsake indifference to what happens all around us. This does not mean that we are to continue in futile action. Ezekiel was told plainly that he had a duty to warn the people; having done so, he was innocent of their blood (Ezek. 33:1\u20139).
\nMoreover, the fact that rulers were specifically included as a class, like the priests, is of particular importance. They had and have always a responsibility to God and under God, to be His ministers in terms of His law (Rom. 13:1\u20134; Deut. 17:14\u201320). Bonar observed, \u201cA ruler is specially bound to be a man of God.\u201d In Proverbs, we have numerous applications of God\u2019s requirements of rulers: (3:27; 11:14; 16:10, 12, 14\u201315; 14:21, 28, 35; 19:12; 20:28; 21:7ff.; 24:6; 28:16, etc.). These requirements of civil rulers are not limited to Israel. In Isaiah, we have a series of judgments against the nations for their sins (chapts. 15\u201324). God exempts no part of the universe from His law and government. Hence, both civil and religious authorities, as well as the people as a whole, are either under the atonement or under judgment.
\nBonar gives us an excellent summation of what this atonement means:<\/p>\n
The offender comes confessing his sins, and bringing a victim to suffer in his stead. The animal is slain in his room; the man is forgiven, and retains his standing as a protected Israelite\u2014remaining under the shadow of the Guardian Cloud. The sacrifice never failed to produce this effect; but nothing else than the sacrifices ever did\u2014\u201cWithout shedding of blood there is no remission.\u201d This principle of the Divine government was engraven on the hearts of Israel, viz., whosoever is pardoned any offense must be pardoned by means of another\u2019s death. \u201cThe great multitude\u201d of the saved are all pardoned by One of infinite worth having died for them all (see 2 Cor. 5:14).<\/p>\n
Did such a faith exist in the Old Testament era among the Hebrews, or is Bonar reading the New Testament into the Old? More than a few scholars believe so. Lofthouse held that no such idea of substitution exists in Leviticus, but even his own comment condemned him, because he had to recognize that a belief in vicarious atonement preceded Moses:<\/p>\n
No idea of substitution seems to be implied though it is true that a ritual tablet from Babylonia states that idea very clearly; \u201cthe life of the kid has he given for his own life, its head for his head,\u201d etc., since the sin offering is \u201cmost holy,\u201d a term which could not be applied to the offerer; a meal offering is included, as if the sacrifice were thought of originally as an offering of good; and though the victim is always killed, and by the worshipper.<\/p>\n
This is an absurd and untenable argument. Too many scholars are prone to see primitivism throughout the Bible. To all such men, Job\u2019s words to Zophar clearly apply:<\/p>\n
1. And Job answered and said,
\n2. No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.
\n3. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these? (Job 12:1\u20133)<\/p>\n
The Scriptures were not given by God, from Moses\u2019 day through the New Testament, to become the esoteric province of Biblical scholars. They were given to the tribesmen of Israel, and to the Jews and Gentiles of first century (A.D.) Rome, to be understood and obeyed. Our Lord accuses the Pharisees, as well as the scribes, of making God\u2019s law of no effect through their traditions (Matt. 15:1\u20139). The traditions of Biblical scholarship sometimes are as deadly as those of the Pharisees, if not more so. They write without fear of God, nor in awe of Him. According to Psalm 33:8\u201312,<\/p>\n
8. Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
\n9. For he spake, and it was done: he commanded, and it stood fast.
\n10. The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
\n11. The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
\n12. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.<\/p>\n
This is not to deny that very often \u201csimple believers\u201d have erred again and again in interpreting Scripture; they have thereby provided amusement for \u201csuperior\u201d and condescending scholars. The fact remains that these \u201csimple believers\u201d have also been both very right and devoutly active for the Lord, and they have accomplished great things for Christ\u2019s Kingdom. When such \u201csimple believers\u201d are safely dead, they provide research data and subjects for ghoulish scholars; alive, they are avoided like the plague and treated with contempt, even as our Lord was by the religious leaders and scholars of his day. Our Lord speaks of this in Matthew 23:29\u201333:<\/p>\n
29. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
\n30. And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
\n31. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
\n32. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
\n33. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?<\/p>\n
They could not, and did not, nor can the experts of our day, in every sphere, who close the doors of truth with their unbelief.
\nOne further note: The difference between the sin offering of a ruler (v. 22\u201323) and \u201cone of the common people\u201d (vv. 27\u201328) is that the ruler offers a male kid (goat), and the commoner a female kid. From the modern perspective, the female is more valuable; for sacrificial purposes, it is the male. It is important to note the near equivalence of the two. In Biblical law, every free male is a ruler as the head of a household; his sphere is the basic governmental realm, and hence he stands close in significance to all civil rulers.<\/p>\n
Chapter Six<\/p>\n
Atonement, Confession, Restitution, and Freedom
\n(Leviticus 5:1\u201319)<\/p>\n
1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
\n2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
\n3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
\n4. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
\n5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
\n6. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
\n7. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
\n8. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
\n9. And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
\n10. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
\n11. But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
\n12. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
\n13. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest\u2019s, as a meat offering.
\n14. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n15. If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:
\n16. And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
\n17. And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
\n18. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.
\n19. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD. (Leviticus 5:1\u201319)<\/p>\n
In this chapter, vv. 1\u201313 continue to give laws respecting the sin offering. For Scripture, sin is not defined as going against our conscience, but as going against the law of God. \u201cSin is the transgression of the law,\u201d God\u2019s law, whether or not done deliberately or ignorantly (1 John 3:4). As Lange said:<\/p>\n
One of the plainest teachings of the sin offering is that everything opposed to the revealed will of God is sin, whether done with the purpose of transgressing it or not.<\/p>\n
In vv. 14\u201319, and 6:1\u20137, the trespass offering is given. All these sacrifices, as Calvin, cited by Lange, noted, are not only laws but also sacraments. There is a promise of grace and mercy in their observance. Without being a sacrament, there is a sacramental character to the administration of justice. Hence, when a man transgresses the law and then makes restitution, there is forgiveness and grace for him. Where men are faithful from first to last, God\u2019s grace and blessings are on them and their land (Deut. 28:1\u201314).
\nIn v. 1, we have the case of a man who has been adjured to testify in court as to what he has seen. If, through a lapse of memory or carelessness, his witness is not to the whole truth, he must bear his iniquity and make restitution towards both God and man.
\nIn this instance, we see clearly that in Scripture, taking God\u2019s name in vain means a false witness. It is a sin against God and His order, and against man. In the Ten Commandments, we see this dual aspect: \u201cThou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain\u201d (Ex. 20:7), and, \u201cThou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor\u201d (Ex. 20:16). The purpose of speech is to further God\u2019s order and truth, not to destroy it.
\nIn vv. 2\u20133, we have accidental defilement from men or animals. In a variety of ways, as God\u2019s image bearers, we are a separated and a holy people. It should not surprise us that the anti-Christian activists of the 1960s and 1970s were physically and mentally unclean in many ways.
\nIn v. 4, all idle oaths are declared sinful. A man must not swear to do what he has no intention of doing. Speech must further communication, not confusion. Thus, two of the three sins cited in vv. 1\u20134 have to do with speech, specifically with oaths. In all three of these sins, usually the sinner alone knows that he has sinned. In the case of a witness, he alone knows that he omitted to testify to some relevant fact. Because his conduct affects both God and man, he cannot keep silent. Our lives have social consequences, whether great or small.
\nIn v. 6, the sin offering is called a trespass offering, so that the two kinds of offerings are equated. The word used for \u201ctrespass\u201d is asham, guilty, or guilt offering. According to Knight, \u201cThe root of the word has to deal with the idea of restitution for any desecration of the holy, and so means something like \u2018reparation.\u2019 \u201d
\nAccording to R. J. Thompson,<\/p>\n
All that can certainly be said is that sins against the neighbour are more prominent in the \u02bfasam and those against God in the hatta\u02bet. The \u02bfasam therefore requires a monetary compensation in addition to the sacrifice. The value of the misappropriation plus a fifth is to be repaid to the wronged neighbour (Lev. 6:5), or, if he or his representative is not available, to the priest (Nu. 5:8). The sacrificial victim in the guilt-offering, usually a ram, also could be eaten by the priests as \u201cmost holy\u201d (Lv. 7:1\u20137). The same provision applies (Lv. 6:24\u201329) to the sin-offerings of the ruler (Lv. 4:22\u201326) and the common man (Lv. 4:27\u201331), but in these cases the blood is put on the horns of the altar.<\/p>\n
The trespass offerings of vv. 14\u201319 have reference to defrauding God. Such sins as v. 15 refers to include eating the firstfruits, which belong to God (Ex. 34:26), or to shearing the first-born sheep (Deut. 15:19), which also belong to God. God\u2019s property rights in us and in our possessions cannot be violated. \u201cThe holy things of the LORD\u201d cannot be touched by us without guilt, even if done unwittingly. The reference in v. 15 is thus to<\/p>\n
inadvertently keeping back the things which belong to the sanctuary, and to the service of the Lord, as for instance, the tithes, the firstfruits, or not consecrating or redeeming his firstborn (Exod. 28:38; Num. 5:6\u20138).<\/p>\n
Trespass offerings are thus concerned with 1) fraud towards God, and 2) fraud towards man. Bonar\u2019s use of the word fraud is noteworthy. The fact that the sins in question are unintentional does not eliminate the fact of fraud.
\nThe ritual required 1) the presentation of the sacrifice to the priest (vv. 15, 25); 2) restitution, plus an added fifth to the party wronged (vv. 16); and 3) the priest offers the sacrifice to make atonement. Because all sin is against God, the offerings to God are required.
\nIn all this, a central fact is commonly obscured. In all the bloody sacrifices, the worshipper identified himself with the sacrificial animal by placing his hands on the head of the sacrifice (see 3:2, 8, 13). This could be an aspect even of the firstfruits service where grain and fruit were involved; on such occasions, a confession of God\u2019s mercy and grace was required:<\/p>\n
4. And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand, and set it down before the altar of the LORD thy God.
\n5. And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.\u2026 (Deuteronomy 26:4\u20135)<\/p>\n
These words were the preface to a long confession of God\u2019s deliverance and salvation. In the bloody sacrifices, the emphasis was on the confession of sin. We have the origins of the confessional system in these sacrifices. It tells us something of the narrow tunnel vision of the commentators that this fact is not noted. Apparently they feel that the distance between Israel and the church is too great.
\nThe Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) traces confession only to the New Testament and discusses it under the title of \u201cPenance,\u201d describing it as 1) a virtue, 2) a sacrament of the New Law, 3) a canonical punishment inflicted in line with the rules of the early church, and 4) \u201ca work of satisfaction enjoined upon the recipient of the sacrament. These have as their common centre the truth that he who sins must repent and as far as possible make reparation to Divine justice.\u201d
\nA Protestant Dictionary (1904) is largely Anglican, and its main emphasis in discussing \u201cConfession, Auricular,\u201d is to deny the validity of private confession to a priest. In the course of his discussion, M. E. W. Johnson refers only in passing to Biblical law:<\/p>\n
With regard to the question of \u201cDivine command,\u201d we do not fear to examine Scripture. In the Old Testament, Lev. 5:5\u20136 and Num. 5:6\u20137 are quoted upon Rome\u2019s side. But upon comparing these together it is clear that what is spoken of is public confession to the Lord, not private confession to a priest.<\/p>\n
What concerned Johnson was to distance Anglican practice from Rome, not to understand what Scripture teaches from beginning to end. Johnson only mentions Leviticus because Leviticus 5:5\u20136 (and Numbers 5:6\u20137) specifically requires confession; he does not develop the implications of Leviticus for us today. M\u2019Clintock and Strong, in discussion of \u201cConfession\u201d and \u201cAuricular Confession,\u201d neglect the law entirely, although, under \u201cPenance,\u201d they cite some precedents in the synagogue:<\/p>\n
Penance, in the Christian Church, is an initiation of the discipline of the Jewish synagogue, or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution. Excommunication in the Christian Church is essentially the same as expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not materially different in the Jewish and Christian churches. The principal point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the Jewish economy; but in the Christian Church it affected only his relations to that body.<\/p>\n
Of course, in time the Christian Church saw civil penalties also introduced. What is clear is that Catholics and Protestants are more concerned with defending church practice than in understanding and enforcing God\u2019s law. Without going into the distinction between confession and penance, except to refer the origins of penance to the law of restitution, it is apparent that the greater faithfulness as well as the greater abuses to the requirement of confession have been on the Catholic side.
\nLooking again at Leviticus 5:5\u20136 and Numbers 5:6\u20137, we see that there is a confession at the sanctuary. It was in a public place but not necessarily before a public audience. There is a confession to God in the presence of the priest, followed by a restitution to God. At the same time, it is clear from Exodus 22 that there must be a restitution to men. The essential emphasis and meaning is not an ecclesiastical ritual but the restoration of God\u2019s order and justice. The emphasis is on the healing of the man and of society by the restoration of a just relationship of man to man and of man to God. There is a body to be healed, Christ\u2019s body and Kingdom. There is an order to be restored to the whole earth.
\nThe church\u2019s view of confession is in decay in all branches of the church, and one consequence has been the rise of humanistic confessionals in the various forms of psychotherapy. These are deadly in their effects. First, they give no true healing. Freud, in fact, denied the possibility of healing; his purpose was to enable men to understand themselves and to live with their \u201csins.\u201d Second, there are no social effects, no restitution. In fact, the various forms of psychotherapy are anarchistic in denying any social responsibility. The patient is their only concern. By becoming totally anarchistic, psychiatrists (and physicians) have warped medical ethics and thereby made it easier for the state to control them. A priest, while required to keep the confessional inviolate, can withhold absolution until justice is satisfied.
\nOne of the very important problems confronting the church is to develop a sound doctrine and practice of confession. Restitution must be closely tied to confession. Over the centuries, a variety of practices have occurred: public confessions before the congregation where a man\u2019s sin affected all, and private confessions in other instances; a personal confession to God, with pre-communion services which summoned the believer to repentance; confession to a board of deacons; and so on. These go beyond our present concern, which is to call attention to the fact that confession and restitution are required by God\u2019s law. They are for the healing of men and societies.
\nWhy does the Bible from beginning to end speak of confession and restitution? It is set forth as a religious requirement with implications in every sphere, including the civil. When the synagogue, and later the church, imposed civil penalties, it was an error of understanding, in that a civil order is incapable of providing what repentance alone can do, but they were right in recognizing that civil consequences do exist. Most consequences in the civil order are not susceptible to civil cure, and it is a fallacy of the totalitarian mind to believe that they can be cured by law.
\nMoreover, confession apart from the atonement is meaningless. If the church forgets, neglects, or undermines the meaning of the atonement, then all its rites are exercises in futility and blasphemy. We should remember that it was the church of our Lord\u2019s day which crucified Him. It is easy to call attention to many of the errors of scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, but it is also important to remember that the religious leaders then also included many men like Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea. The greatest evil of these leaders was a misplaced emphasis. The gathering which planned the death of Christ also recognized His power: \u201cthis man doeth many miracles\u201d (John 11:47). However, Christ\u2019s power was likely to create social disturbances which would arouse Rome\u2019s anger, \u201cand the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation\u201d (John 11:48). Hence, the decision made by the high priest was that \u201cit is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not\u201d (John 11:50).
\nAll too commonly, the church equates the life of faith with the life of the church; however much such an equation might be desired by many, it is not a reality, nor can the life of faith ever be limited to the life of the church. Such a belief is an example of misplaced emphasis.
\nAtonement, confession, and restitution are necessary to the life of a society. They provide deliverance from sin, death, and the past. The past is a necessary part of our lives, unless the past becomes a corpse inextricably tied to our bodies. The past is important in that it provides us with the tools for defining things. Definition is definition by the past, i.e., past performance, past history, and the like. Men are hired in terms of their \u201creferences,\u201d a file on their past. At times, the quirks of such definitions can be amusing or frustrating. One Western rancher bought a magnificent ranch, surrounded by mountains and watered by creeks, and spent over fifty years working it. All that time, it was referred to in that country by the name of its previous owner, \u201cthe old Wilson ranch.\u201d Finally, in his seventies, having had only daughters, with no sons or grandsons interested in ranching, he reluctantly sold the ranch and moved to the county seat. Now, to his disgust, the place finally took his name: it was referred to as \u201cthe old Lang ranch.\u201d This is a trifling but vivid instance of definition by the past. Whether or not we like it, or accept it, the past frames our days in a multitude of forms. All this may be good, harmless, or disastrous, as when generals fight new wars in terms of old and obsolete ways.
\nDefinition by the past is most deadly in a society with sin and without atonement. A culture which is the outcropping of sin rather than of Christian faith will be past-bound. A past-bound society sees no consequence and therefore stumbles into decay and death. Peter summarizes the attitude of all such as being, \u201call things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation\u201d (2 Peter 3:4). Men then cannot visualize judgment.
\nA past-bound society is unable to cope with the present and the future because it is governed by its past. Past-bound persons and societies carry a sense of guilt, or else a sense of self-pity if they believe life has been unfair to them. Their lives and thoughts are so tied up with self-justification that they cannot confront the problems of the present.
\nScripture forbids long-term debt; there must be a release after six years, in the seventh or sabbatical year (Deut. 15:1\u20136). We are not allowed to limit our future by eating into it by debt. The standard where possible should be no debt at all (Rom. 13:8), but, when necessary, a short-term debt only. To be debt-free is comparable to atonement, confession, and restitution: it is a release from our past into freedom to live in the present and future. Since these sacrifices required restitution, they were forms of restoring order and also freedom. Sin is described by our Lord as slavery: \u201cWhosoever committeth sin is the servant (or, slave) of sin\u201d (John 8:34). Scripture identifies debt also as slavery (Prov. 22:7). Thus, sin and debt are seen as leading to slavery and death (Prov. 8:36), whereas atonement, confession, and restitution free us for life. Churches, by limiting the scope of Scripture, have failed to proclaim the fullness of our gospel and the richness of our freedom in Christ. \u201cIf the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed\u201d (John 8:36). This freedom has relevance, implications, and impact in every area of life and thought.
\nA further note: In Biblical law, no conviction could take place on confession; confession had to be corroborated by evidence. As Otto Scott observed, guilty men feel a need to confess their crimes. Until the United States courts made confessions difficult, a very high percentage of all criminal convictions began with a criminal\u2019s confession. The inclination of criminals to confess is still with us; the courts create the problems.
\nDaniel Harris has called attention to the modern state\u2019s mandatory confessional, the Internal Revenue Service tax form which corporations, persons, and businesses have filled out routinely for some time. Confession to the state now exacts a heavy penance.<\/p>\n
Chapter Seven<\/p>\n
Atonement and Repentance
\n(Leviticus 6:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
\n3. Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
\n4. Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
\n5. Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
\n6. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
\n7. And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
\n8. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n9. Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
\n10. And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
\n11. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.
\n12. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings.
\n13. The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out. (Leviticus 6:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
According to Oehler, \u201cthe sin-offering and the trespass-offering have the common end of abolishing an interruption of the covenant relation caused by some transgression.\u201d Oehler also called attention to an important fact: \u201cThe trespass-offering presupposes \u2026 an act of defrauding, which, though chiefly an infraction of a neighbor\u2019s rights in matters of property, is also, according to the view of Mosaism, an infraction of God\u2019s rights in respect to law.\u201d Unlike other trespass offerings, these are not inadvertent sins, nor are they sins of ignorance. They are breaches of faith, acts of fraud. Three examples are cited. First, a neighbor has loaned something, a tool perhaps, or given someone a valuable item for safekeeping, and then the person seeks to deny that such a deposit has occurred, or that it was in a given degree or kind. Second, through some lie, subterfuge, or fraud, a neighbor is robbed. Third, a man loses something, and the finder deliberately keeps it and denies having found it. All such offenses are destructive of community life and the covenant fellowship.
\nThis law does not have reference to a man caught in his fraud. In such a case, conviction in court led to restitution, which was from twofold to fivefold for the guilty party (Ex. 22:1 ff.). In this instance (vv. 1\u20136), the law has reference to a man who comes forward to confess his sins before his offense is detected and legal steps are taken against him. Such a step means that the man has become aware of his offense and desires to rectify the evil he has done. As C. D. Ginsburg noted:<\/p>\n
The first thing the offender must do, when he realizes and confesses his guilt, is to make restitution of the property which he had embezzled, if he still has it, or if that be impossible, he is to pay the value of it as estimated by the authorised tribunal. Besides this, the offender is to add a fifth part of the principal, to compensate for the loss which the owner sustained during the interval. It will be seen that in Exod. 22:1\u20139, when a person was guilty of any of the offenses here specified, the offender was condemned to make a fourfold restitution, whilst in the passage before us the mulct is reduced to the restitution of the principal with the addition of a fifth part. The reason of this difference is that the law in Exodus deals with a culprit who is convicted of his crime in a court of justice by means of witnesses, whilst the law before us deals with an offender who, through compunction of mind, voluntarily confesses his offence, and to whom, without this voluntary confession, the offence could not be brought home. It is this difference which constitutes it a case for a trespass offering. (Comp. Num. 5:7.)<\/p>\n
Much earlier, Thomas Scott (1747\u20131821) made a like point. The key point which motivates the sinners in these cases is the recognition that \u201che hath sinned and is guilty\u201d and must therefore make restitution (v. 4):<\/p>\n
If the offender had been convicted, he would have been exposed to punishment by the magistrate; and must, in some of the cases, have made larger restitution to the injured person: but as he voluntarily confessed his crime, which seemed to imply repentance, he was only required to add a fifth part of the value of the defraud or robbery, according to the valuation of the priest, and give it to the injured person: he must, however, also bring a trespass-offering to the Lord. This was evidently intended to show that disobedience to God is the great evil even of those crimes which are injurious to man: and that repentance and works meet for repentance, though needful in order to be forgiven, cannot atone for sin, which can only be expiated by the blood of Christ, and pardoned through faith in his name.<\/p>\n
The trespass offering could only be brought to the altar after restitution had been made as calculated by the priest. The Berkeley Version of Leviticus 5:15 brings this out more clearly: \u201cWhen a person behaves unfaithfully and sins unintentionally in matters that are holy to the LORD, then to make matters good he shall bring the LORD a flawless ram of the flock, evaluated by you in silver coin according to the sanctuary standards; it is a trespass offering.\u201d Since this was true of unintentional sins, it was even more true of intentional ones.
\nIn vv. 8\u201313, we have the whole or burnt offerings cited. As Knight has pointed out, the word for these offerings in Hebrew is \u02bfolah, and it may be called a holocaust, in that the whole offering was to God. The fire was never allowed to die, and was kept alive for centuries, to remind Israel that sin is not a \u201csometime thing\u201d but continual in our world and lives; hence, the altar of atonement was in continual readiness (Num. 28:3\u20138; Ex. 29:38\u201342). Moreover, one symbol for God is fire. \u201cOur God is a consuming fire\u201d (Heb. 12:29). God spoke to Moses out of the fire of the burning bush (Ex. 3:1\u20136). The word peace, shalom, also means, Knight pointed out, \u201cwholeness and completeness.\u201d This offering also speaks of wholeness. It is the wholeness of God\u2019s judgment on man\u2019s sin that produces the wholeness of the new creation for man and the earth.
\nFor modern man, all these sacrifices are much ado about nothing; sin for the modern man is something to forget about. His goal is never having to say you are sorry. Modern equalitarianism is hostile to humility. The rich are certain that their superiority made them strong and hence have no humility before God. It should be noted that the essential result of equalitarian thinking is destructive to humility because it denies that anyone, including God, can be better than we are. People can be inferior to us, but not better. This eliminates the necessity for gratitude. Hence, the rich feel no gratitude towards God, and no humility. Socialized charity destroys gratitude and humility among the poor; charity becomes a right and an entitlement. In the United States today, the rich, the middle classes, and the poor are all recipients, if they choose, of various entitlements. More importantly, liberal theologies in both Protestant and Catholic variations assume that man has entitlements from God, so that entitlements have replaced grace, and natural rights have replaced heaven and hell. Man no longer feels that he needs grace; his need is for power, and his social and religious quest is for power, a quest for power from God and nature, for the power to get rich, the power to control people, sexual power, and so on.
\nJoseph Parker saw the problem a century ago, in part commenting on v. 13:<\/p>\n
We have escaped all the Jewish ceremony, all the Puritan tediousness\u2014into what liberty have we come? What is the practical result of all such escapes? A greater love of brevity, a keener sense of liberty, which really means in such lips licentiousness; we have nothing to do, nothing to give, nothing to suffer, all to enjoy, and just when we please, and as much as we please, and thus we have sunk into the idolatry of self. To suppose that discipline has ceased is to give up all that is worth living for. Our object should not be to escape discipline, but to make commandments pleasant, to turn statutes into songs in the house of our pilgrimage, to make obedience not a penalty but a delight.<\/p>\n
Turning again to the matter of restitution, Bonar said, with regard to vv. 4\u20135:<\/p>\n
The fifth part is given, in addition to the principal, justly as in the case of holy things being fraudulently withheld. It is a double tithe (two-tenths), and so is equivalent to a double acknowledgement of the person\u2019s right to the thing, of which he had been, for a time, unjustly deprived.<\/p>\n
These are cases (vv. 1\u20137) involving atonement and restitution where there is repentance. The word repentance in its Greek form and as used in the New Testament means a change of mind, heart, direction, and course of life. To repent thus means that restitution must follow. The sacrifice of atonement makes restitution to God; we must at the same time have made restitution to man. This fact is referred to in Leviticus 5:15. It is important to note also that our Lord refers to this verse in the Sermon on the Mount, to declare that God rejects our approaches to Him if our relationship to our covenant brother is morally wrong:<\/p>\n
23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
\n24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (Matthew 5:23\u201324)<\/p>\n
Restitution on the human scene is thus the prerequisite of communion with God.
\nSuch a legal requirement thus negates the modern attitude which never wants to say, \u201cI\u2019m sorry,\u201d or, \u201cI have sinned and done that which is evil.\u201d It also negates the belief that holiness is best attained by withdrawal from men and society. Leviticus is the \u201choliness code\u201d of the law. It requires us to see that holiness is attained in the context of this world, in the spheres of community life, work, and action. The Holy God has involved Himself in creation, and in the work of redemption, even to the crucifixion of God the Son. Our holiness requires our action in this world, in the work of Christ\u2019s Kingdom. \u201cSeek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness\u201d (Matt. 6:33).
\nA further note: All the offerings are by God\u2019s law to be unblemished. This has a double meaning. First, it has reference to Jesus Christ, the man without sin who is our atoning representative and substitute before God. This is a widely recognized meaning in church circles. However, not all offerings are for atonement, but all offerings must be without blemish. It is thus insufficient to cite the reference as being exclusively to Christ. There is, second, a further and associated meaning. All man\u2019s offerings to God must be unblemished. We cannot give the leftovers of our lives and substance to God without insulting His majesty. All too commonly, inferior things are done or offered with the excuse, \u201cIt\u2019s for the Lord,\u201d as though the Receiver makes the gift good when it is bad. The old hymn by Charlotte Elliott (1798\u20131871) declares:<\/p>\n
Just as I am, without one plea,
\nBut that Thy blood was shed for me,
\nAnd that Thou bidd\u2019st me come to Thee,
\nO Lamb of God, I Come! I come!<\/p>\n
What these words tell us clearly is that our salvation is God\u2019s work of grace: we bring nothing to it. If, however, we then continue to bring nothing to God, or bring blemished offerings, we insult God and incur His judgment and wrath. The unblemished atoner deserves our unblemished gifts of thanksgiving and service. Anything less is an offense against His majesty and grace.<\/p>\n
Chapter Eight<\/p>\n
The \u201cWholly Burnt\u201d Offering
\n(Leviticus 6:14\u201323)<\/p>\n
14. And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
\n15. And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD.
\n16. And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.
\n17. It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.
\n18. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy.
\n19. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n20. This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night.
\n21. In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD.
\n22. And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt.
\n23. For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. (Leviticus 6:14\u201323)<\/p>\n
For us today, because these sacrifices are no longer a part of our religious duty, they are difficult to distinguish or remember. Their meaning, however, is much more easily remembered, and it is one reason for their neglect. The sacrifices required a man\u2019s faith to be central to his life, whereas modern churchmen want their religion to settle some basic questions for them so that they can be freed for the business of life. To bring the totality of their lives and their spheres of action into and under God\u2019s jurisdiction is alien to them.
\nIn Leviticus 6:14\u201318, we have instructions to the priests concerning the meat or meal offering, which was to accompany the burnt offering. No leaven was to be used, because leaven means corruptibility, and the offering which makes us acceptable to God the Father is the sinless and eternal Christ. The priest\u2019s portion was to be eaten by the priests in the sanctuary, and hence by males, i.e., the priests. This bread of life is Jesus Christ, who declared, \u201cI am the bread of life\u201d (John 6:35). Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 10:16, \u201cThe bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?\u201d Hence the use, after Leviticus, of unleavened bread for communion.
\nAll who touched the offering (v. 18) had to be of the priestly line and must have sanctified themselves for their part in the ritual. No approach to or service for God could be casual. An unblemished offering requires unblemished service. To serve the Lord is a very great responsibility, mandatory for all His covenant people, and hence requires personal holiness. The way of holiness is not what we try to make it but what God requires, and this is the meaning of Leviticus. Some current books on physical fitness advertise the hope that ten minutes a day in prescribed exercise will make us physically fit. Leviticus makes it clear that it requires the totality of our lives to please God.
\nIn vv. 19\u201323, the meal offering for the priests is set forth. It is to be offered \u201cperpetually,\u201d or, better, regularly (v. 20). Since it is offered by the priests, they cannot eat of it; it is to be \u201cwholly burnt\u201d (v. 22\u201323). The word used is kalil, total. As Knight noted,<\/p>\n
The offering by the priest is to be kalil, total. So again it is stressed: (a) God\u2019s judgment is upon the entire people of Israel; (b) it is a total judgment; (c) therefore, because God is God and not man, his mercy can only be total also.<\/p>\n
Total judgment and total mercy are God\u2019s way, and man must live in recognition of this fact.
\nThe priest\u2019s meal offering set forth the fact that priests, like all other men, require atonement and must dedicate the totality of their lives and being to God the Lord. As Lange observed,<\/p>\n
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 dealing with man: \u201cthere is no respect of persons with God,\u201d (Rom. 2:11, etc.).<\/p>\n
The priest\u2019s function separated him from the people, but, with respect to personal status before God, his function gave him no advantage with Him. The priest\u2019s function gave him greater responsibilities and hence greater culpability. In antiquity, and again in our time, function has been replaced by status. High office is enjoyed as a status symbol in civil governments and is secondarily seen as a function, a duty, a responsibility. One state senator, familiar with both state and national scenes, has observed that almost all elected and appointed officials are more governed by peer pressure than by their constituents, or by their consciences. They are status conscious instead of responsibility conscious.
\nThe fact that the meal offering of the priests was \u201cwholly burnt\u201d is important. Leviticus 2:1\u201316 gives us more on the meal offerings, as we have seen. We there saw that, first, the meal offering signifies that our daily life in the form of our sustenance, bread, is surrendered to the Lord. Second, the totality of the offering, our lives, is surrendered to God. Third, our lives are acceptable because of God\u2019s provision of atonement. Fourth, we are thus acceptable, not because of ourselves, but because of God\u2019s Redeemer and His saving grace. The priest\u2019s offering had to be a like totality, indicating that he had no privileged status which gave him any exemption from the total need for God\u2019s grace. No status gives a private or privileged merit before God.
\nOur Lord sets forth the meaning of this in Luke 17:7\u201310, and the background of the meal offerings made His meaning obvious to His hearers, whether or not they liked it:<\/p>\n
7. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
\n8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
\n9. Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
\n10. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.<\/p>\n
The word unprofitable, achreios, useless, tells us plainly that God the Lord needs none of us, priests, prophets, or people. We are His creation, and we require His grace to have any place in His work and Kingdom. As Paul says,<\/p>\n
For who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7)<\/p>\n
The meal offering requires us to acknowledge that we are chosen by God\u2019s grace, not because of our superiority. We are acceptable only because of His atonement; hence, the meal offering was offered with the burnt offering. We are totally God\u2019s creation, and we can reserve no independent sphere. Predestination means God in His grace chooses us, in mercy, not in approval. Men have determined in their proud imagination that they are predestined and chosen for their merit. The chosen people doctrine in the hands of Jews and Christians has often become such a perversion. It has been true of pagan cultures, as with the ancient Greeks, Nazi Germans, and many, many others, including Anglo-Israelites.
\nIt is noteworthy that, despite the high function of priests and kings, they are seldom seen in a favorable light in Scripture. Their office requires a function, and, if they exalt themselves in terms of their office, they are obstructions to God\u2019s Kingdom. The Bible clearly reveals that God does not permit men to claim a glory in and of themselves.<\/p>\n
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)<\/p>\n
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:2)<\/p>\n
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
\n28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
\n29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1:27\u201329)<\/p>\n
Many other texts make it clear that God does not tolerate man\u2019s arrogance and in due time brings forth judgment.
\nThe prophets have a centrally important function in Scripture, but they are never allowed to see themselves as important apart from God\u2019s word. In 1 Kings 13, we have an account of a prophet sent to Israel and Jeroboam to proclaim God\u2019s judgment. God had strictly charged the prophet to listen to none nor to turn aside from his mission but to perform it and return. When he allowed a fellow prophet\u2019s word to carry as much and more weight than God\u2019s word, God killed the disobedient prophet. His status as prophet gave him no independence from God\u2019s word, only a greater responsibility and hence culpability. There is no reason to doubt that 1 Kings 13 was in Paul\u2019s mind, knowing Scripture as he did, and also Balaam (Num. 22\u201324), when he wrote,<\/p>\n
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
\n9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8\u20139)<\/p>\n
If the words and traditions of angels from heaven cannot be added to God\u2019s word, how much less our opinions?
\nThe total offering, \u201cwholly burnt,\u201d signifies the total judgment of God upon all, His total mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and our dependence upon His total word and sovereign grace. No flesh can glory in His presence (1 Cor. 1:29).<\/p>\n
Chapter Nine<\/p>\n
Accidental Holiness
\n(Leviticus 6:24\u201330)<\/p>\n
24. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n25. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
\n26. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n27. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
\n28. But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
\n29. All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
\n30. And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire. (Leviticus 6:24\u201330)<\/p>\n
The sin offering is dealt with briefly here. Vos\u2019s comment here is especially noteworthy:<\/p>\n
Every sin offers to God what ought not to be offered, an offense, and at the same time it withholds from God what ought to have been given to Him, obedience. If the sin-offering rectifies the former, the trespass-offering would then make restitution for the latter. In its ritual procedure it closely resembles the sin-offering, as we might expect on this view. The trespass-offering derives a unique interest from the fact that it is the only class of sacrifice with which the sacrificial death of Christ is directly connected in the O.T. In Isa. 53:10, the self-surrender of the Servant of Jehovah is designated an \u201cAsham,\u201d a trespass-offering, and this is quite in harmony with the idea, prevailing in the context, that the Servant not merely atones for the sins of the people, but gives to God what by their disobedience they have withheld.<\/p>\n
There was no communion meal after a sin offering; however, that part of the sacrifice which was not burned on the altar was eaten by the priests on the premises (vv. 26, 29). The exception to this was the priests\u2019 sin offerings, which were to be burned in the fire (v. 30).
\nIf porous pottery were used, it had to be broken, since it would absorb what properly belonged to God (v. 28). It then became too holy for common use.
\nThe priests were types of Christ, and their duty to eat of the sin offering was a serious responsibility, as we shall see subsequently. Samuel Clark said, in commenting on v. 25:<\/p>\n
The key to the subject must, it would seem, be found in those words of Moses to the priests, in which he tells them that God required them to eat the flesh, in order that they might \u201cbear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord\u201d (Lev. 10:17).<\/p>\n
If a stray drop of blood fell on any garment, it had to be washed within the sanctuary area. The holiness of the ritual was rigorously declared.
\nIn two verses, 18 and 27, we have a very important statement, namely, that anyone who touched the holy offerings \u201cshall be holy.\u201d It is necessary to understand what is meant here. It does not mean that the person is holy in the sense of being sanctified in the inner man. The word holy has a variety of implications in Scripture. In Haggai 2:12\u201314 we have a statement which gives us one facet of meaning:<\/p>\n
12. If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
\n13. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
\n14. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.<\/p>\n
Man\u2019s salvation and sanctification are acts of God\u2019s grace, not human effort. Man cannot communicate holiness, but he can communicate uncleanness, because he is both fallen and a creature.
\nHoliness means separation, not simply separation from evil but dedication to God. Holiness means morality, but not simply moralism, because it requires morality in obedience to God, not because for us it is the best policy. Things as well as persons can be set apart for God\u2019s use, and the goal is the total holiness of all creation (Zech. 14:20\u201321).
\nThe holiness of God is not to be taken lightly, \u201cfor our God is a consuming fire\u201d (Heb. 12:29). We can only approach God in His appointed way, i.e., through Christ. Since Christ restores us into the covenant, we are bound by the covenant law of holiness. Any false approach to God assumes a personal holiness or claims a God-given holiness which incurs His wrath. Thus, when the ark shook a bit when being moved by an ox-cart, Uzzah, the son of Abinadab, steadied it by taking hold of it, and God struck Uzzah down (2 Sam. 6:1\u20138). Uzzah had assumed a function which belonged only to the priests and Levites; he made himself holy, and he perished. He became holy and therefore died, because it was a holiness he had no claim to whatsoever. At a later date, King Uzziah as civil ruler attempted to function as a priest also, that is, to combine both church and state under himself. As a result, he was struck with leprosy and died a leper (2 Chron. 26:16\u201323). In Acts 5:1\u201311, we see the same kind of judgment, in this case death, strike Ananias and Sapphira when they pretended to a false holiness and, as Peter says, lied to the Holy Ghost.
\nLeviticus 6:18 and 27 give us the law concerning accidental holiness, i.e., an inadvertent touching of the sacrifices by unauthorized persons; the reference is not to deliberate cases. James Moffatt rendered the sentence in v. 18 thus: \u201cAnyone who touches these most sacred offerings shall be taboo.\u201d
\nWenham\u2019s comment is good:<\/p>\n
Certainly Leviticus underlines the dangers attendant on holiness. Judgment falls when the unclean meets the holy (cf. 7:20; 10:1\u20133).<\/p>\n
Leviticus deals in 7:20 with deliberate transgressions, and it requires that an offender be \u201ccut off from his people,\u201d which can mean excommunication and often death (7:21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9; 18:29; 19:8; 20:17\u201318; 22:3; etc.). In the case of Nadab and Abihu, they brought \u201cstrange fire before the LORD,\u201d i.e., alien fire, perhaps from a fertility cult altar, and for this they were killed.
\nWenham cites Leviticus 27, the laws for the deconsecration of people and their return to the common life. The Nazarite, for example, had to offer every kind of sacrifice except a reparation offering (Num. 6:13\u201320). Wenham adds, \u201cWhether either of these procedures was adopted in this instance, where the consecration was involuntary, is doubtful.\u201d
\nWhat is clear is that God has firm boundaries which cannot be violated. A lawless trespass on the grounds of Windsor Palace or the White House is not taken lightly by the authorities. God makes it clear that even an accidental trespass is not to be treated as unimportant, whereas a deliberate one is a very serious offense.
\nModern churchmen casually bypass this law of accidental holiness, i.e., of trespass on what belongs to God. This can be done in a variety of ways, one of which is laying hands on God\u2019s tithe, which is holy to the Lord (Mal. 3:8\u201312). Accidental holiness is not deliberate or wilful; it is a failure to recognize and strictly maintain the holiness of all that belongs to God.
\nIn our time, the wilful usurpation by the state of the God-given prerogatives of His church and Kingdom are high-handed offenses like that of Nadab and Abihu. The intrusion by the church and the state into the sphere of law-making, which is God\u2019s prerogative, is a wilful transgression of God\u2019s holiness.
\nIt is against God\u2019s law to assume a holiness which is not legitimate to our sphere and calling. If we separate ourselves to a function which is not properly ours, we have sinned by assuming a holiness which is not ours. The so-called Biblical feminists are guilty of such claims, as are men who assume that their maleness, rather than God\u2019s enscriptured word, gives them authority.
\nUzzah\u2019s holiness was not accidental but presumptuous. He assumed a freedom and a status which he had no right to claim, and the penalty was death.
\nOur age is well beyond accidental holiness. It claims prerogatives it has no right to, and it separates itself to functions which belong only to God. It will therefore experience the judgment of Uzzah and Uzziah.
\nPresumptuous holiness is the refusal to recognize God-ordained boundaries and limitations. It was this presumptuousness which destroyed Uzzah and Uzziah; each felt worthy and competent where they had no right to be. In Scripture, a thing or person can be separated, dedicated, or holy either for God\u2019s blessing, or for judgment and destruction. We are separated to something and from other things by God\u2019s word. Men and women cannot trespass on one another, nor usurp one another\u2019s ordained realms. Institutions and people have their limitations, and their boundaries are to limit their jurisdiction and power. Presumptuous holiness claims powers it has no right to, and as a result it is set apart by God for judgment rather than blessing. In Hebrew, the word holy, kawdash, means both dedicate and defile; kawdashe means a male or female prostitute in a fertility cult. In God\u2019s sight, all persons and things are set apart or dedicated to and for either God Himself, or against Him. At present, because of the Fall, all too many are set apart for and dedicated to war against the Lord. The vision of Zechariah tells us that in time all things shall be for \u201choliness unto the LORD\u201d (Zech. 14:20).<\/p>\n
Chapter Ten<\/p>\n
The Reparation Offering
\n(Leviticus 7:1\u201310)<\/p>\n
1. Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.
\n2. 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.
\n3. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards,
\n4. 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:
\n5. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering.
\n6. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy.
\n7. 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.
\n8. And the priest that offereth any man\u2019s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.
\n9. 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\u2019s that offereth it.
\n10. And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another. (Leviticus 7:1\u201310)<\/p>\n
These verses continue the laws of trespass offerings, and they also presuppose the fact of restitution. Our Lord\u2019s statement in Matthew 5:23\u201324, requiring reconciliation with a brother we have sinned against before we approach the Lord, is the requirement of all trespass offerings. Oehler\u2019s comment is pertinent here:<\/p>\n
By this grouping we are led to refer the four kinds of offerings to two principal classes,\u2014those which assume that the covenant relation is on the whole undisturbed, and those that are meant to remove a disturbance (of the people or of separate individuals) to God. The latter are offerings of atonement, under which name we may comprehend by sin- and trespass-offerings.<\/p>\n
Restitution is inseparable from atonement. Christ on the cross, as in His life of obedience and faithfulness, made restitution to God for us. All believers must therefore make restitution when they sin. The cross thus sets forth the pattern of God\u2019s justice for us to follow: it is restitution. As F. W. Grant noted, \u201cin government, God\u2019s nature must be declared,\u201d and this must be done in every sphere of government. God\u2019s covenant grace, mercy, protection, providence, and law set forth for us in life the justice declared in His law. The implications are clear: God\u2019s goal is the restoration of His order and the development of His justice in every area of life and government.
\nAs Knight has noted, these verses set forth two things: first, when a man acknowledges his guilt, makes restitution, and then comes to God with his offering, it is the holiest of offerings. We are told, \u201cit is most holy\u201d (v. 1), because man has taken steps to restore God\u2019s order. Second, because \u201cthe labourer is worthy of his hire,\u201d the priest receives the hide as his portion. A portion is burned on the altar as the Lord\u2019s, and the rest goes to the priests. According to 1 Corinthians 9:13, \u201cThey which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple.\u201d
\nThis law thus establishes the life of faith as a very responsible one. The Sermon on the Mount, and all of the New Testament, does the same. Peace with God and man means requital, restitution, something far removed from antinomianism.
\nOur Lord makes it plain how radical this requital is, stating, \u201cBut I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment\u201d (Matt. 12:36). This statement appears only in Matthew, as part of a discourse on a house divided (Matt. 12:25\u201337). Without this sentence, substantially the same comments are found in Mark 3:23\u201330 and Luke 11:17\u201323. The accounts in Matthew and Luke begin, \u201cKnowing their thoughts,\u201d and He spoke in terms of that knowledge. He first speaks of the fact that a divided house cannot stand. Second, He speaks of the unforgivable sin, to speak against or to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, i.e., to call good evil, and evil good, because the Pharisees and others had just accused Him of healing by demonic power (Matt. 12:22\u201324; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:14\u201316). Mark 3:30 makes it clear that our Lord\u2019s comment concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost had reference to this charge against Him. Third, our Lord then states that every tree is known by its fruits (Matt. 12:33\u201335; Luke 6:43\u201345; cf. Matt. 7:16\u201320). Fourth, in Matthew alone we have the additional statement that there will be a full requital for every idle word (Matt. 12:36\u201337). We are thus told how far-reaching judgment is, and to what extent the reprobates will be held accountable.
\nWe have a similar statement on requital in Matthew 5:26, requiring payment to \u201cthe uttermost farthing,\u201d also found in Luke 12:59. This is a part of our Lord\u2019s declaration of the meaning of the commandment, \u201cThou shalt not kill\u201d (Ex. 20:13); we cannot defame, defraud, or in any way harm a brother, or any other person, without the requirement of restitution exacting its payment from us.
\nIt should be noted that our Lord does not tell us to be reconciled with an unrepentant man who has wronged us. Rather, it is the sinning person who must make restitution. We must at all times return good for evil (Matt. 5:41\u201344), but returning good for evil does not mean calling evil good, or forgiving unrepentant evil-doers.
\nThe trespass offering sets forth requital, not confusion. The trespass offering restored or maintained peace between God and those persons who by His grace approached Him. Harrison refers to the trespass offerings of Leviticus 5:14\u201319 and 7:1\u201310 as a \u201creparation offering,\u201d an excellent term. Reparation has the connotation of repairing, restoring, and repaying. It thus emphasizes the fact that sin exacts a price. The reparation must be in two directions, God-ward and man-ward. The sacrifices stress the God-ward aspect and require the man-ward aspect. Christ\u2019s atonement has replaced the old sacrifices, but it has not altered the nature of requital and reparation.
\nAntinomian churches preach the death of the law and thus reduce Christianity, or their version thereof, to historical and social impotence. As a result, the life of the church and the preaching thereof is one of irrelevance. The Bible, however, makes clear the total relevance of God\u2019s revelation to all of history. The sacrifices were constant reminders that a man\u2019s faith, or his lack of faith, has social and historical consequences. No man can escape the relevance of his life. If he is not relevant in terms of God\u2019s law-word, then he is relevant in terms of fallen man\u2019s law-word, whereby he claims to be his own god and law, determining for himself what constitutes good and evil, law and morality (Gen. 3:5). When men abandon God\u2019s word for their own, God then moves in judgment against them. The reparation offering means that faith must be relevant.<\/p>\n
Chapter Eleven<\/p>\n
Grace and Peace
\n(Leviticus 7:11\u201321)<\/p>\n
11. And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD.
\n12. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.
\n13. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
\n14. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest\u2019s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
\n15. And 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.
\n16. But 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:
\n17. But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
\n18. And 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, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
\n19. 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 be clean shall eat thereof.
\n20. But 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.
\n21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, 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. (Leviticus 7:11\u201321)<\/p>\n
A question which needs to be asked when we come to the peace offerings is this: why were they necessary? Given the various sacrifices requiring atonement and restitution, was not peace gained by them? Why a further offering for peace? Before answering this question, the basic aspects of this offering need to be cited in brief.
\nThree kinds of peace offerings are cited. First, some are praise or thank offerings (v. 12\u201315). Second, there are the votive offerings. These are made to fulfil a vow or promise made to God during a time of need. Third, there are the free-will offerings (v. 16 ff.). The votive and free-will offerings are also cited together in Leviticus 22:21, Numbers 15:3, and Deuteronomy 12:6\u20137. The free-will offering was one of gratitude (2 Chron. 31:14; 35:8\u20139; Ps. 54:6). It was common at the great feasts at the Temple. In the case of a free-will offering, a perfect animal was not required (Lev. 22:23). A grain offering was to accompany the votive offering and the free-will offering (Num. 15:3\u20134). The fact that the worshipper ate much of this offering made blemishes tenable, i.e., a lame or a blind animal.
\nThis sacrifice was to be shared with the poor, and it was a joyful one, and Psalm 100 was designated for this offering:<\/p>\n
1. Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands.
\n2. Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
\n3. Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
\n4. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
\n5. For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.<\/p>\n
The church took over the use of this psalm for thanksgiving, and it appears, for example, in The Book of Common Prayer as Jubilate Deo, in Morning Prayer.
\nThe worshipper killed the animal and dressed it out. The priest sprinkled the blood around the altar; the fat was burned on the altar; and the breast, which belonged to the priest, was waved or heaved; the section of meat was waved towards the altar and away from it. The right thigh was also waved before God and given to the priests for their care (vv. 32\u201334). The rest was eaten by the worshipper and the needy who were his guests. The votive or free-will offerings did not need to be consumed on the same day but could be eaten also on the second day. Failure to observe this requirement made the sacrifice null and void. This requirement made charity a necessity; the family could not consume the animal by itself in two days.
\nF. W. Grant\u2019s comment about the peace offering was to the point:<\/p>\n
\u2026 peace with God is never merely peace. God can never be simply not at variance with His creatures; there is in His nature no indifference, no neutrality; what He is He is with His whole heart, and, of all things, He nauseates lukewarmness. So to be at peace with Him is to have His love poured out upon us,\u2014it is to be brought into His banqueting-house, and to be made to sit at His table: and thus it is pictured here. The peace-offering is the only one in which the offerer himself partakes of his own offering, and this partaking shows him not only brought into a place of acceptance, but in heart reconciled and brought nigh. That which has satisfied God satisfies him also: peace has become communion.<\/p>\n
This offering is also called a praise offering. Psalm 119:108 refers to it as a state of mind and heart as well as an offering: \u201cAccept, I beseech Thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me Thy judgments.\u201d Hebrews 13:15\u201316 speaks also of this sacrifice and its meaning:<\/p>\n
15. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
\n16. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.<\/p>\n
In other words, peace with God presupposes the atonement and then requires praise and thanksgiving from us together with doing good towards one another. The Berkeley Version renders Hebrews 13:16 thus: \u201cDo not forget the benevolences and contributions; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.\u201d
\nIn v. 19, we see the double aspect of the required holiness: the flesh must be clean, and also those who eat it. This was the only animal sacrifice which did not make atonement for sin. It furthered peace with God and man, and well-being.
\nWe can now return to our original question: since atonement brought peace with God, why were continuing offerings necessary to maintain it? There was no insufficiency whatsoever in the atonement. Restitution towards man certainly furthered peace in the community. Why then a further offering for peace?
\nHebrews has much to say about the meaning of the sacrificial system, and it concludes its comments by declaring,<\/p>\n
28. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
\n29. For our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:28\u201329)<\/p>\n
We are here told, first, that we are heirs of an unshakeable kingdom; second, that, to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear, we must have grace; third, the Kingdom shall stand forever in all its power and glory, but we face the judgment of our God, who is a consuming fire.
\nThe peace offering serves constantly to remind the worshipper of his need for grace. The praise of Psalm 100 celebrates God\u2019s grace and care.
\nLouis XIV, after the fearful defeat of his army at Ramillies, said, \u201cGod seems to have forgotten all I have done for him.\u201d Men are ready to affirm salvation by grace, and then to believe that they have now merited various blessings. Men and women marry, feeling at first privileged to have one another, and then their lives become one of expectations and demands; they expect to be loved rather than loving. Men feel elated at getting a prized position but are then resentful that they are not showered with advantages for doing their work. The economy of our lives shifts easily from grace to expectations. Since man\u2019s original sin is to believe that he can be his own god, and his own source of law and order (Gen. 3:5), all men readily forget grace and live in terms of their expectations of God and man. The peace offering, and the many psalms which echo it, requires us to live in gratitude towards God and in community with one another.
\nIn popular thought, this sacrifice came to be regarded as the central one for the covenant people. The atonement gives us salvation; praise, thanksgiving, and communion in community apply and develop the meaning of our atonement. It is sin that isolates men from God and from one another, and it is the atonement which brings them together. At the communion dinner or feast together, the covenant man and his needy friends celebrated the grace and peace of God.
\nNot surprisingly, in The Book of Common Prayer, Psalm 100, the Jubilate Deo, the peace offering song, precedes the Creed, with its great conclusion,<\/p>\n
I believe in the Holy Ghost: the holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection of the body: And the Life everlasting. Amen.<\/p>\n
The psalm and the Creed celebrate God and His grace. The peace offering, because it requires us to share God\u2019s bounty, requires those who receive grace from above to manifest grace to those below.
\nAt one time, a deacons\u2019 offering at the time of communion was more than a bland formality. Funds were raised for the parish poor, and communion, peace with God, required it. Communion with God declines as charity declines. All that remains is empty ritual.
\nRitual is basic to life, because it requires us to enact our faith, to relate faith to life. The Christian calendar, with its holy days, once governed life. Earlier in this century, almost all that remained of it was Good Friday, Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, followed by New Year\u2019s eve prayer services. Now these are largely secularized. The civil calendar then had Washington\u2019s birthday (to honor the founding father), Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and, later, Armistice Day. These were observed by schools, civic leaders, and churches, in public ceremonies which have now virtually disappeared. The civil holidays now have little of civil allegiance to them; they are occasions for play because of a long weekend.
\nThe only civil day of note now is April 15, income tax day. Individuals and business firms organize their year in terms of it. That modern American ritual is now reduced to tax day and tells us how impoverished we have become.<\/p>\n
Chapter Twelve<\/p>\n
Fat and Blood: God\u2019s Claim on Us
\n(Leviticus 7:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
22. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n23. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
\n24. And the fat of the beast 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.
\n25. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
\n26. Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
\n27. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. (Leviticus 7:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
In these verses, we come again to the introductory words, \u201cSpeak unto the children (or, people) of Israel.\u201d These words introduce the book of Leviticus in 1:2; we meet them again in 4:2; other sections thus far have been prefaced with commands to all individuals: \u201cAnd when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD \u2026\u201d (2:1); \u201cAnd if a soul sin \u2026\u201d (5:1), or \u201cIf a soul commit a trespass \u2026\u201d (5:15), and so on. It is a serious error to see Leviticus as a guidebook for priests only: it speaks to every believer. Faith is more than a matter of affirmation: it is life lived in faithfulness to the details of God\u2019s way. To be near unto God is to be near in Christ, and this nearness rests on Christ\u2019s atonement and is developed by our faithfulness. F. W. Grant commented, \u201cMan soon mistakes familiarity for nearness.\u201d Pietism is guilty of this error. We can be close to a throne, but we retain our nearness by faithfulness, not familiarity.
\nThese verses prohibit the eating of fat and of blood. The ban on fat is specified in v. 23: \u201cYe shall eat no manner of fat of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.\u201d According to Hebraic practice, three kinds of fat were involved: 1) the fat on the \u201cinwards;\u201d 2) on the kidneys; and 3) on the flanks. Fat which was a part of the muscular flesh was exempt.
\nUnder no circumstances was blood to be eaten or in any way used. The fat of animals dying a natural death, or killed by wild animals, could be used. Such usage included lighting lamps, and the like. The use or eating of blood in any form was strictly forbidden. It tells us much about our culture that this law seems to most people to be a curiosity rather than a necessity.
\nLeviticus tells us plainly, \u201cThe life of the flesh is in the blood\u201d (Lev. 17:11). Moreover, as Noth observed, \u201cThe blood, however, as the seat of the \u2018life\u2019 of the animal was God\u2019s property outright and must be given back to God before the sacrifice was offered.\u201d
\nVos, in his comment, saw the issue clearly, but held that Christians were not bound by this law:<\/p>\n
Since animals are not to devour man after a carnivorous fashion, man also is not to eat animals as wild beasts devour their living prey. He must show proper reverence for life as a sacred thing, of which God alone has the disposal, and for the use of which man is dependent on the permission of God. The Levitical law repeats this prohibition, but adds as another ground the fact that the blood comes upon the altar, which, of course, for the O.T. makes the prohibition of blood-eating absolute. Through failure to distinguish between the simple and the complicated motive this practice of absolute abstention was continued in the church for many centuries.<\/p>\n
Vos to the contrary, this is not an obsolete law. The facts are, first, that God declares that the life is in the blood, and blood is not to be eaten. Second, God is the creator and governor of all life, and no life can be taken apart from the conditions of His law-word, e.g., in war, in defending oneself, to execute men who must die according to God\u2019s law, for food, to clear the land of beasts dangerous to man, and the like. In other words, life is not ours to take: it belongs to God, our own life included. Third, since we did not create life, and we cannot take it except on God\u2019s terms, we are taught by this law to respect all life as the creation of God and as under His governance.
\nAs Noordtzij has pointed out, this law was at times violated in Israel (1 Sam. 14:32\u201334; Ezek. 33:25). This occurred in terms of apostasy. Among the pagan peoples of the Near Eastern world, it was believed that the eating of blood fortified life, and it supposedly led to ecstasy and communion with the gods. Cults in Islam to this day tear apart and devour living animals and their blood. Such practices led to excommunication in Israel.
\nLife as the gift and property of God is as much His now as in the days of Moses. We are no less bound to show reverence for the fact of life in terms of God\u2019s law than was Israel. The modern callousness for the taking of life is, like man\u2019s sin over the centuries, an aspect of his zeal to play god. Humanism has excelled in the callous treatment of life. Humanists earlier claimed that, once men knew that this life was all that they had, and that only eternal death lay past the grave, men would reverence life, end war and killing, and live in peace. Now, with God and eternity denied, humanistic men treat life as meaningless and with contempt, and the shedding of blood is a callous act\u2014unless it be criminal blood!
\nWhat Leviticus requires of us is to take life where God requires it, recognize His law and authority over all of life, and to take no life where God does not permit it. Respect for blood is the ritual and living witness of our submission to the living God. The restoration of faithfulness to this law is evidence of faith in the reality and seriousness of our God.
\nThe prohibition of eating fat is also important. There are excellent health reasons for avoiding both blood and fat, but our concern is theological at the moment. The fat of animals which had died naturally, or were killed by animals, could be used for various purposes. (Palestinian shepherds still use the fat of hogs, placed on and around the holes of vipers, to drive away or eliminate vipers by setting fire to the fat.)
\nJust as blood represents life, so, too, fat is sometimes used in Scripture to mean rich, prosperous, the best (Gen. 49:20; Neh. 9:24\u201325, etc.). In this sense, \u201cFat was also a reminder of God\u2019s blessings, which were to be offered back to Him in thanksgiving.\u201d
\nThe offering up of fat to be consumed on the altar is thus comparable to the tithe. We are taught that the best way to capitalize our future is to capitalize God\u2019s work and Kingdom. The impoverishment of Christ\u2019s realm is the impoverishment of our lives, and our children\u2019s future. By burning the best, i.e., the fat, on the altar, the worshipper made it clear that his future depended on God\u2019s work, not his own.
\nAs against this, the economics of the modern era insists that the key to a good society is the radical freedom for self-interest. Superficially, this seems to be a working theory, with no small success. The fact is, however, that the rise of the economy of self-interest was accompanied by the Protestant work ethic and the outpouring of tithes and gifts for a great variety of causes. As this Christian giving has declined, the growth of statist causes and taxation has proliferated. Self-interest has more clearly led to socialism than to freedom, and the non-statist funding of society has continued to suffer where evangelical Christianity wanes.
\nThis requirement barring fat from man\u2019s table tells us that not simply the tithe but also our fat, our richness, belongs to God and must be used for His Kingdom. The law and its intention are still valid.<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirteen<\/p>\n
Tithing and the Kingdom
\n(Leviticus 7:28\u201338)<\/p>\n
28. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n29. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings.
\n30. His 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.
\n31. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron\u2019s and his sons\u2019.
\n32. And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
\n33. He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.
\n34. For the wave breast and the heave shoulder 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.
\n35. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the priest\u2019s office;
\n36. Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.
\n37. 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;
\n38. Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai. (Leviticus 7:28\u201338)<\/p>\n
With these verses, we come to the end of the laws concerning sacrifices and begin a shorter section on the priesthood. We have here references to the wave offering (v. 30f., cf. 34), and to the heave offering (v. 32f; cf. 34). S. C. Gayford best described their meaning:<\/p>\n
The waving was a forward and return motion representing the offering of the breast to God and His handing it back to the priest for his portion. The symbolism is clear from Nu. 8:10\u201322. The Levites were offered by the congregation as a wave offering to the Lord who gave them back to Aaron (v. 19) to assist him in his ministrations. There was a difference between the wave breast and the heave thigh: the breast was given to God who handed it back to His priest; the thigh was given directly to the priest. So the priest was the guest of God in the former case and the guest of the sacrificer in the latter, and thus became the mediator between God and man in the common meal.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew text makes it clear that the breast is a dedication (v. 30), and the leg is a contribution (v. 34).
\nTo understand the meaning of the heave offering, the leg or thigh, the contribution to the priests, we must examine Numbers 18:25\u201328:<\/p>\n
25. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n26. Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.
\n27. And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fulness.
\n28. Thus ye shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereto of the LORD\u2019s heave offering to Aaron the priest.<\/p>\n
The rest of the tithe, nine-tenths of it, went to the Levites (Num. 18:29\u201332). The Levites were the instructors of Israel (Deut. 33:10), and they bore the ark of the covenant (Deut. 10:8; 31:9). They assisted in the administration of civil government (1 Chron. 23:28); they were choristers, musicians, guardians, and gatekeepers of the sanctuary (1 Chron. 9:14\u201333), and overseers (1 Chron. 23:4). Their role in music is cited in Psalm 42:1; 44:1, etc., and 2 Chronicles 20:19. They were connected with the Temple treasury, and with the royal administration (1 Chron. 9:22, 26f.; 23:4, 28, etc.). They also served as judges (2 Chron. 19:8, 11), and assisted the priests (1 Chron. 6:31ff.; 23:27\u201332; etc.). At the same time, the priests also had duties as officers of health and sanitation (Lev. chapts. 11\u201314).
\nThe primary role of the priests, however, pertained to the sanctuary and sacrifices. The Levites had a broader role, one which can be described as educational, legal, and cultural.
\nWith the New Testament, the sacrificial work ended, and the work of the ministry became levitical. Even our English word priest has no relation to the Old Testament word, and priest is a contraction of presbyter. The instructional and cultural function is thus levitical and the essence of the Christian ministry. This duty of instructional and cultural authority and leadership was basic to the medieval and early Reformation eras. Christianity could dominate society for two very practical reasons. First, it was seen as the duty of the Christian community and its leadership to exercise dominion over society in the name of Jesus Christ. Second, God\u2019s tax, the tithe, plus gifts and offerings over the tithe, were the financial mainstay of this dominion mandate.
\nIn the medieval era, a steady rebellion by princes and peoples developed against the tithe, and the church resorted to all kinds of disgraceful devices to raise money. The same happened to the Reformation churches, and again there were resorts to painfully bad practices in fund raising.
\nThe medieval church had built schools, universities, hospitals, cathedrals, charitable organizations, and more, and financed music and the arts. With time, this waned and became something barely maintained rather than a force commanding society. Among the churches of the Reformation, by the time of Johann Sebastian Bach, the same cultural force was declining. It lingered longer in America, where most universities had a Christian beginning, but here, too, it diminished in time.
\nToday, while a revival is under way, only a small minority tithe, and many tithers see the tithe as restricted to the church as a worshipping institution. This is hardly the nature of the tithe in Scripture, since nine-tenths of the tithe went to the Levites. When once tithing again finances such things as Christian scholarship, music, law, and the like, we shall see dramatic changes.
\nNote that the heave offering had to be given personally to the priest, even if through a Levite. Christ\u2019s work is done by persons; Christian institutions are groups of persons in Christ\u2019s service.
\nWe should note further that, if a people tithed faithfully, and also gave gifts over their tithe, the priests and Levites would be prosperous and effectual in their ministry. The economic status of those in Christ\u2019s service is God\u2019s barometer of the faith of a people. Poor faith means poor Levites, a quest by people for personal advantage rather than God\u2019s dominion.
\nAn evil inheritance from Neoplatonism is the equation of spirituality with poverty and a contempt for material things. Such an equation begins with a false view of spirituality which is divorced from Scripture and the Holy Ghost. It then sees poverty as a kind of virtue. There is no evidence that either poverty or wealth makes people spiritual and godly, nor is there any evidence that material wealth makes a people unspiritual and ungodly. The sin common to all the sons of Adam makes us ungodly, and wealth or poverty have little to do with it. Only the sovereign grace of God can make us a new creation, not wealth or poverty.
\nOur Lord makes it very clear that \u201cthe labourer is worthy of his hire\u201d (Luke 10:7). Those who labor worthily in Christ\u2019s calling deserve \u201cdouble honour\u201d (1 Tim. 5:17), i.e., double pay. To His disciples, our Lord says, \u201cTherefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?\u201d (Matt. 6:31). He did not mean thereby that they would always have their necessary provisions. Rather, He had in mind the law whereby, as Paul summarizes it, God\u2019s servants are \u201cpartakers with the altar:\u201d<\/p>\n
13. 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?
\n14. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:13\u201314)<\/p>\n
The health of a society in God\u2019s sight is revealed by its support of the work of Christian evangelism and dominion, by the preaching of the word, by education, scholarship, music, publications, and more. If we limit our view of what constitutes Christ\u2019s work, we limit His Kingdom, and our blessings.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fourteen<\/p>\n
The Priestly Calling
\n(Leviticus 8:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread;
\n3. And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n4. And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
\n5. And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the LORD commanded to be done.
\n6. And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.
\n7. And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.
\n8. And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.
\n9. And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n10. And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them.
\n11. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them.
\n12. And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron\u2019s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.
\n13. And Moses brought Aaron\u2019s sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Leviticus 8:1\u201313)<\/p>\n
An important and central stress in the modern world is on spontaneity. The various arts are excellent and naive examples of this. The discipline of draughtsmanship, a knowledge of paints and other materials, and apprenticeship are now decried in favor of an unplanned and emotional approach to painting. Modern avant garde dancers at the beginning of the century were hostile to the discipline of classical ballet and associated it with Russian autocracy, as part of an old order which had to go.
\nIn the churches, both notes and a written text fell into disfavor and, in some churches, could lead to the termination of a pastorate. It was held that unprepared and spontaneous utterances were somehow inspired, and that the Holy Spirit did not like the use of intelligence and study.
\nIn everyday life, a woman, instead of taking pride in the preparation required to provide very superior food for her table, will say, \u201cIt\u2019s just something I whipped up.\u201d Merit is believed to belong to spontaneity and a lack of preparation, not to intelligent work and planning.
\nNot surprisingly, the detailed ritual of preparation for the priesthood is not popular reading among churchmen! In every sphere today, people expect perfection but are ill at ease with the disciplined labor which lies behind all good work. Men prefer to ascribe excellence to \u201cgenius\u201d rather than to intelligence and work, with the result that we are overrun with poseurs.
\nThere is another aspect to these verses which brings out the difference between our times and the Biblical world. In Moses\u2019 day, despite the prevailing unbelief, men were closer to creation, the Flood, and the general revelation given by God through His servants to all men. Noordtzij has called attention to the fact that holiness in Leviticus (as in all the Bible) is \u201csomething substantive, almost something material or physical,\u201d whether it is used to describe persons or things, and the same is true of the concepts clean and unclean. We can add that, just as a man by disciplined exercise can build up his muscles and strength, so a covenant man by obeying the laws of holiness can grow in holiness. It becomes an aspect central to his life.
\nThe consecration of priests was important because the priest, first, represented the people to God. Second, the priest represented what all the people were to become, in that each in his own place was required to dedicate himself, his realm, his life, and his work to God. Earlier, God had told the people through Moses,<\/p>\n
4. Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles\u2019 wings, and brought you unto myself.
\n5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
\n6. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.\u2026 (Exodus 19:4\u20136)<\/p>\n
In Leviticus 8:6, Moses brought or presented Aaron and his sons; they were presented as a sacrificial offering to God, even as the Levites were so viewed in Numbers 3:12 and 8:16.
\nThe installation of the priests has nine aspects to it: 1) presenting, v. 6; 2) washing, v. 6; 3) clothing, vv. 7\u201313; 4) hallowing the sanctuary, vv. 10\u201311; 5) three separate sacrifices, because the priests are sinners like all other men, vv. 14\u201328; 6) a purificatory rite, v. 30; 7) a sacred meal, v. 31; 8) a period of seclusion; and, of course, 9) the anointing of Aaron, v. 12. The head alone is anointed, because the head \u201csymbolized the entire man.\u201d
\nWe see the anointing of a prophet and of a king (1 Kings 19:16), as aspects of God\u2019s dominion calling of men. These three offices of king, priest, and prophet are united in the messiah, a word derived from the root for anoint.
\nIt has been well stated, \u201cThe sinner needs a sacrifice; the believer needs a priest.\u201d The priest is necessary both for atonement and mediation. As God declares through Moses,<\/p>\n
42. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD, where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.
\n43. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.
\n44. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest\u2019s office.
\n45. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.
\n46. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God. (Exodus 29:42\u201346)<\/p>\n
These verses come at the end of a section on the consecration of priests. The purpose of the sacrifices of atonement, and the priesthood, is set forth, first, to provide the avenue whereby God will speak to His people. Second, God will dwell with His people and be their God. This is stressed in both v. 45 and 46. All this depends on a true priesthood.
\nThe function of the priest was the service of God. Hence, all the covenant people are to be \u201ca kingdom of priests\u201d (Ex. 19:6), because all must serve God. Jesus Christ is the perfect High Priest, and we are priests in Him, called to serve God in every sphere with all our being. Thus, the purpose of the priesthood, and of all of us as priests (Rev. 1:6), is to serve God and establish His rule and Kingdom. Our priestly calling is thus the development and establishment of God\u2019s order on earth, in every sphere of life, church, state, school, family, vocation, the arts and sciences, and so on.
\nThe establishment of such an order is a priestly and levitical calling. In the modern world as in antiquity, that goal has been perverted and usurped by the state. The goal of the state is order, but not God\u2019s order. Rather, it is the Tower of Babel, a world order without and in defiance of God. Parliaments, Congresses, and legislative bodies under various names, as well as a variety of rulers, represent the false priests of history, seeking a true order and the good society without God. The consequence, as with Babel, is confusion and disorder.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifteen<\/p>\n
Consecration and Investiture
\n(Leviticus 8:14\u201336)<\/p>\n
14. And he brought the bullock for the sin offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering.
\n15. And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.
\n16. And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar.
\n17. But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n18. And he brought the ram for the burnt offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.
\n19. And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.
\n20. And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat.
\n21. And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar: it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and an offering made by fire unto the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n22. And he brought the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram.
\n23. And he slew it; and Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron\u2019s right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot.
\n24. And he brought Aaron\u2019s sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about.
\n25. And he took the fat, and the rump, and all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder:
\n26. And out of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the LORD, he took one unleavened cake, and a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat, and upon the right shoulder:
\n27. And he put all upon Aaron\u2019s hands, and upon his sons\u2019 hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD.
\n28. And Moses took them from off their hands, and burnt them on the altar upon the burnt offering: they were consecrations for a sweet savour: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
\n29. And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD: for of the ram of consecration it was Moses\u2019 part; as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n30. And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons\u2019 garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons\u2019 garments with him.
\n31. And Moses said unto Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and there eat it with the bread that is in the basket of consecrations, as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it.
\n32. And that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn with fire.
\n33. And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation in seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end: for seven days shall he consecrate you.
\n34. As he hath done this day, so the LORD hath commanded to do, to make an atonement for you.
\n35. Therefore shall ye abide at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation day and night seven days, and keep the charge of the LORD, that ye die not: for so I am commanded.
\n36. So Aaron and his sons did all things which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses. (Leviticus 8:14\u201336)<\/p>\n
In this chapter, as in chapters 9 and 10, we have an historical account, which, with Leviticus 24:10\u201323, is the only historical data in Leviticus. Chapter 8 is concerned with the consecration and investiture of Aaron and his sons. The consecration sacrifices are, first, a sin offering, vv. 14\u201317; the purpose of this sacrifice is purification. Second, there is the burnt offering, vv. 18\u201321, for dedication. Third, there is a consecration offering, vv. 22\u201323, which was a peace offering (v. 31), to set forth communion. Oil and blood are used together in this instance, not separately, and the garments or vesture are included.
\nAll this is done, we are told, \u201cas the LORD commanded Moses,\u201d a recurring phrase (7:38; 8:3\u20134, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 34, 36; 9:6\u20137, 10, 21; 10:7, 13, 15). The text gives us what God requires in meticulous detail so that in all things God is meticulously obeyed. This is done to stress the necessity of precise obedience. As R. K. Harrison noted:<\/p>\n
Obedience is at the heart of both the old and the new covenants; and this, rather than love, is God\u2019s prime demand of His followers. The Christian is urged to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and to see obedience as one mark of a sanctified personality (1 Pet. 1:2).<\/p>\n
Samuel Clark rightly and perceptively noted that, because the rites of consecration lasted a week, they \u201cwere connected with the sabbatical number of the Covenant.\u201d This means that, even as the Sabbath means rest for us, rest in the Lord, so the true priesthood means rest for a people. In Judges 3:11, 30, 5:31, and 7:6, 8, while the word used for rest is not the same as sabbath (shabbaton, rest) but is shagot, still we are told that the land had rest when the people were godly. In Leviticus 8, the meaning of a week given to the consecration of Aaron and his sons means that the peace and rest of the covenant people is tied to their faithfulness. Paul tells us of Christ, that, \u201cHe is our peace\u201d (Eph. 2:14), having abolished the judgment against us and having made us to be reconciled with God.
\nWe have already (Chap. 14) cited Exodus 29:42\u201346. God there declares the purpose of His sanctuary. First, He will there meet with His people. Second, God\u2019s glory will sanctify the sanctuary, as well as the priests thereof. Third, God declares that He will dwell among His people to be their God, \u201cAnd they shall know that I am the LORD their God.\u201d Clearly, we are told that the sanctuary or the church is not as other buildings. It is set apart for a sacred purpose, and any profanation of it is a serious offense. If the Bible means what it says, God requires beauty and glory in all houses of worship dedicated to Him. He tells Haggai, centuries later, that for the people to live in lovely houses while His \u201chouse lies waste\u201d is offensive to Him (Haggai 1:4).
\nAgain, God\u2019s people are \u201choly\u201d and set apart for His purposes. How serious this is to God appears in Paul\u2019s comment to the Corinthians, namely, that even the unbelieving spouse of a Christian is \u201csanctified\u201d or separated and to a degree protected by God, and this applies also to the children (1 Cor. 7:14). Too often, Christians are unwilling to face up to the implications of this verse because they view things in terms of a person\u2019s faith and works, whereas God sees the unbelieving spouse in terms of His covenant grace and mercy. If we give priority to what man is, we forget what God is.
\nNow we come to the heart of this chapter, the consecration and investiture of the priests. We must remember that this is an historical account. As history, we must also remember that it comes after the giving of the law, and after the incident of Exodus 32, the creation and worship of the golden bull calf. As Wenham noted, \u201cAaron was not the instigator of this idea, but a very willing accessory.\u201d It was Moses\u2019 intercession that saved Israel and Aaron from God\u2019s wrath. Now this same Aaron is made high priest and sanctified. A very precise and long ceremony marks this consecration and investiture with the office of high priest. What does it mean to sanctify Aaron? Does this ceremony make him a better man? What does it mean today to ordain a clergyman, to consecrate and invest him with a pastoral task?
\nFirst, as we have already seen, in Leviticus 4, for example, the greater the calling, the greater the responsibility and the culpability. Our Lord says, \u201cFor unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more\u201d (Luke 12:48). Thus, clearly, because a priest was given a high responsibility, he was also held liable to more judgment. This is true also of churches; 1 Peter 4:17 makes it clear that \u201cjudgment must begin at the house of God.\u201d Similarly, favored and covenanted nations also bear the brunt of God\u2019s judgment if they are faithless, as was true of Israel, and many peoples in the Christian era.
\nSecond, greater responsibility and culpability is also accompanied by greater grace. Aaron was hardly deserving of his position; his later history makes it clear that he had his share of weaknesses. His hostility to Moses\u2019 marriage to an Ethiopian woman (Num. 12:1\u201315) makes clear his weakness, because he was a willing tool for his sister Miriam. Thus, consecration and investiture do not give a man exemption from human frailties, but they do give him more grace and more judgment, depending on the tenor of his life.
\nThe greater the responsibility, the greater is the grace and power given when we look to our God for it. Our Lord requires this dependence on grace, declaring to all His servants,<\/p>\n
16. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
\n17. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
\n18. And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
\n19. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
\n20. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. (Matthew 10:16\u201320)<\/p>\n
Note here that our Lord gives very practical counsel. Because they face their enemies truly unarmed, they must use wisdom. They must \u201cbeware of men;\u201d this does not mean fearing them, but it does call for the exercise of good sense. They will face brutal men and beatings. However, in this context, special grace will be given. \u201cTake no thought\u201d does not mean to be unprepared and ignorant, but rather not to be anxious or fearful about their testimony when on trial. Grace shall then be given, and the Holy Spirit shall speak in and through them.
\nThird, as Lange wrote, the Levitical priesthood was a type of Christ.<\/p>\n
Emphasis is everywhere placed upon the fact that they were appointed of God (comp. Heb. 5:4). They were in no sense appointed by the people; had they been so, they could not have been mediators.\u2026 All was from God.\u2026 The Levitical priest could be but a type of that Seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent\u2019s head.<\/p>\n
Lange held that the Christian ministry \u201cfinds its analogy, not in the priests, but in the prophets of the old dispensation, although even here the likeness is imperfect.\u201d The early church saw itself as a Levitical ministry. The prophets even more than the priests had special endowments or grace, so that Lange\u2019s point requires, as he implied, a full separation of God\u2019s ministry from one age to another, from the Hebraic covenant to the Christian covenant. The New Testament gives evidence of a continuing endowment of grace apart from the gifts of the Spirit. Paul\u2019s letters to Timothy make it clear that Timothy needs instruction and guidance. At the same time, Paul says, \u201cstir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind\u201d (2 Tim. 1:6\u20137). Very plainly, the laying on of hands carried with it certain gifts of grace, and the three which are specified are power, love, and a sound mind. At the same time, it is clear from Paul\u2019s many instructions and warnings that these gifts of grace can be neglected, forgotten, despised, or forsaken. Timothy is ordered to stir up or rekindle God\u2019s gift. It is a fire which neglect can reduce. Keil and Delitzsch commented:<\/p>\n
This investiture, regarded as the putting on of an important official dress, was a symbol of his endowment with the character required for the discharge of the duties of his office, the official costume being the outward sign of installation in the office which he was to fill.<\/p>\n
The endowment is an act of grace and is grace, and yet it is not a grace which is automatic and concomitant with the ordained man\u2019s every act. Paul refers to this consecration and summons all believers, as members of Christ\u2019s body (Rom. 12:3\u20135), to do the same with their own lives:<\/p>\n
1. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
\n2. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
Pagan priesthood had an inherent, autonomous power. Thus, the priesthood of Egypt, which culminated in the monarch, a priest-king with absolute power, was emphatically unlike the Biblical priesthood. Egypt had no law code, because the divine priest-king could not be under law, since his word was the sufficient law. God\u2019s priests, apostles, and pastors are under God\u2019s revealed law as given in His word. The sin offering makes this fact clear. \u201cPriesthood commences by self-abnegation, the confession of sin and renunciation of personal merit.\u201d This \u201crenunciation of personal merit\u201d must be accompanied by a strict obedience to God\u2019s every word (Matt. 4:4). \u201cAnd what was to be the result of this strict adherence to the word of God? A truly blessed result, indeed. \u2018The glory of the Lord shall appear unto you.\u2019 \u201d
\nFourth, because all God\u2019s people are called to be His servant priests, we are all, when we give ourselves to His service with all our heart, mind, and being, consecrated and invested by His grace to do His work. His grace summons us, and then His grace invests us.
\nIn the ritual of purification, Aaron\u2019s right big toe was smeared with blood, also his thumb, and his right ear (v. 24). His ear was first consecrated to listen always to God\u2019s word; his hands were consecrated next (the part standing for the whole, the right hand\u2019s thumb for both hands) to do God\u2019s work, and his feet to walk always in the way of holiness. Psalm 119 is a reflection on this holy duty. The psalmist declares, among other things,<\/p>\n
133. Order my steps in thy word; and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.<\/p>\n
151. Thou art near, O LORD, and all thy commandments are truth.<\/p>\n
165. Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that in Leviticus 8:10\u201311 the house of worship is also anointed, with all its furnishings. Again, it must be recognized that this is ordered by God. In our day, men are casual about God\u2019s house and its furnishings; too many see more than the barest expenditures here as \u201cwasteful,\u201d and yet these same people are often particular about attractive clothing for themselves, and desirable housing. When a woman poured \u201cointment of spikenard\u201d over our Lord\u2019s head, some of the disciples were indignant, saying,<\/p>\n
4. \u2026 Why was this waste of the ointment made?
\n5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. (Mark 14:4\u20135)<\/p>\n
Our Lord, however, rebuked the disciples and commended the woman. The description of the requirements for the tabernacle stress beauty and costly construction. The very garments of Aaron are declared not only to be \u201choly\u201d but also to be \u201cfor glory and for beauty\u201d (Ex. 28:2, 40). To assume that God wanted this to impress Israel because they were a childlike people is a childish opinion and insulting to God. His honor requires the firstfruits of our lives, abilities, and concerns. There is nothing childlike or primitive in a requirement of excellence in the physical and moral spheres, in a requirement of excellence of men and of what men build for Christ\u2019s work and Kingdom.<\/p>\n
Chapter Sixteen<\/p>\n
The Glory of the Lord
\n(Leviticus 9:1\u201324)<\/p>\n
1. And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel;
\n2. And he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD.
\n3. And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering;
\n4. Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD; and a meat offering mingled with oil: for today the LORD will appear unto you.
\n5. And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD.
\n6. And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.
\n7. And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.
\n8. Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself.
\n9. And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar:
\n10. But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses.
\n11. And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp.
\n12. And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron\u2019s sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar.
\n13. And they presented the burnt offering unto him, with the pieces thereof, and the head: and he burnt them upon the altar.
\n14. And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt them upon the burnt offering on the altar.
\n15. And he brought the people\u2019s offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first.
\n16. And he brought the burnt offering, and offered it according to the manner.
\n17. And he brought the meat offering, and took an handful thereof, and burnt it upon the altar, beside the burnt sacrifice of the morning.
\n18. He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people: and Aaron\u2019s sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about,
\n19. And the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver:
\n20. And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar:
\n21. And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD; as Moses commanded.
\n22. And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.
\n23. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.
\n24. And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces. (Leviticus 9:1\u201324)<\/p>\n
In this chapter, we have the installation of the priests, the atonement of the congregation, and the blessing of God. In v. 1, we have a reference to \u201cthe elders of Israel,\u201d in v. 3, to \u201cthe children of Israel,\u201d i.e., the covenant group, Israel. Apart from that, the references are to \u201cthe people\u201d (vv. 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 22\u201324), and in some of these verses, the word people (am) is used twice. They are not called Hebrews in this context. A racially \u201cmixed multitude\u201d (Ex. 12:38), i.e., a large number of foreigners, had left Egypt with the Hebrews. All are present here. As all these peoples stand before the Lord, they are only identified in terms of Him, as His congregation or people. We are not told what percentage of Israel was at this time Hebrew. We do know that Abraham, in his rescue of Lot, commanded 318 men from his own household. These were the fighting men, with the elderly and the young males remaining with women and female children, and the herds. This gives us about 1,000 males in Abraham\u2019s household, and, as this group continued, and was united later with Isaac and Jacob and their establishments, only two males out of 1,000, Abraham and Isaac, were of Abrahamic blood. Israel, with those of Hebraic blood increasing while a large mixed multitude was added to the various tribes, was from the beginning a religious congregation, a church, not a race. This is still true of the Jews.
\nWe have here, first, the sin offering (vv. 1\u20133). Part of this offering was burned on the altar, but the flesh and hide outside the camp (vv. 8\u201311). As Scott noted,<\/p>\n
The priests ate the sin-offerings of the people, as typically bearing their iniquity; but they could not bear their own sin; and therefore they ate no part of any sin-offerings sacrificed for themselves, but the whole was carried forth out of the camp, as taken quite away by Christ the great Antitype.<\/p>\n
There was no approach to God without atonement, and hence the necessity of the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the altar and the Tabernacle as the meeting place between God and man. The sacrifices stressed the price of sin, and more. Many years ago, a doctor in the deep South told me of his early practice in a clinic, dealing with victims of violence and venereal disease. He remarked wryly that it de-glamorized sin for him and made it clear that sin is a messy business. The bloody sacrifices emphasize this truth: sin is an ugly fact which has as its final consequence the judgment of death. Sin has no pretty conclusion.
\nSecond, we have the burnt offerings (vv. 12\u201316), in which all was consumed on the altar. This set forth the requirement of total dedication by the believer. There is a grim historical fact here. In v. 2, Aaron is required to sacrifice, for his atonement, an unblemished male calf. (The people\u2019s sin offering was a goat, v. 15.) In Exodus 32, Aaron had taken part in the worship of a golden bull calf, and now for atonement he must sacrifice a living one. Then, in the burnt offering, he set forth the requirement of total obedience and dedication, God\u2019s requirement of himself and of all. There could be no private reservations or corners where God could neither enter nor reign in any man\u2019s life.
\nThird, there followed, in logical order, the meal offering (v. 17), which meant the dedication of one\u2019s work and production to God. The burnt offering was the dedication of one\u2019s life and person, the meal offering, of his work.
\nFourth, the peace offering (vv. 18\u201321) celebrated the communion now established between God and His covenant people. The peace offering was concluded by the blessing pronounced by Aaron, apparently that which was set down in Numbers 6:24\u201326:<\/p>\n
24. The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
\n25. The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
\n26. The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.<\/p>\n
Now came fire from heaven, as well as the glory of the Lord, which \u201cappeared unto all the people\u201d (vv. 23\u201324). The same fire from heaven set forth God\u2019s acceptance of the sacrifices of Gideon (Judges 6:20\u201321), Elijah (1 Kings 18:38), and of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (2 Chron. 7:1\u20132).
\nIt was believed by the rabbis that this fire from heaven was kept alive on the altar until the building of Solomon\u2019s Temple, when it fell afresh; its history thereafter is less certain, given the periods of neglect.
\nAccording to Porter, \u201cIn the Old Testament, the word glory almost always means the visible appearance of wealth and splendour which indicates a man\u2019s importance.\u201d God\u2019s glory had already been seen as a fiery cloud (Ex. 16:10; 24:15\u201317). One can say that God\u2019s glory also appeared against Egypt as a series of plagues which destroyed it. We cannot separate God\u2019s glory from His nature and being. Hence, where God manifests His glory, we see deliverance and blessing on the one hand, and judgment and death on the other. Hence, as soon as the people are reconciled to God, God\u2019s blessings are poured out on them.
\nThe great appearance of God\u2019s glory is to come with Christ\u2019s second advent. It follows thus that Christ\u2019s return is also the Last Judgment. It is the full expression of both His covenant law and judgment and also of His grace and deliverance. It is an ugly fact that premillennialism has partially separated the return of Christ (the \u201crapture\u201d) from the Last Judgment, because the two are inseparable. The glory of God fully unveiled and revealed cannot be a secret event, nor a harmless one. Amos in his day saw the folly of antinomian expectations:<\/p>\n
18. Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD: to what end is it for you? The day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
\n19. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
\n20. Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? Even very dark, and no brightness in it? (Amos 5:18\u201320)<\/p>\n
Gideon had better sense. When he saw, on a limited basis, the glory of the Lord, in the appearance of \u201cthe angel of the Lord,\u201d he, knowing himself to be a sinner, feared that he would die (Judges 6:19\u201323). Jerusalem saw God the Son in His incarnation, rejected Him, and perished. Those who look to the \u201cany moment\u201d return of Christ in order to be raptured out of the world\u2019s sin and grief are asking for their damnation. Christ\u2019s Great Commission (Matt. 28:18\u201320) is a mandate for work, not escape.<\/p>\n
Chapter Seventeen<\/p>\n
Pharisaism and Sacrilege
\n(Leviticus 10:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
\n2. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
\n3. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
\n4. And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.
\n5. So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.
\n6. And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.
\n7. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.
\n8. And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
\n9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
\n10. And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
\n11. And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. (Leviticus 10:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
We have here an example of sacrilege. Sacrilege is theft directed against God; it is an attempt to infringe on His sovereignty and to appropriate what belongs to God for the service of man, or to commingle God\u2019s prerogatives with man\u2019s will. God not only claims our firstfruits and tithes but also ourselves and our will as His to command. We are God\u2019s property and possession; we were created for His purposes and not our own.
\nWe are not told that Nadab and Abihu did what God had forbidden, but what He had not commanded. We are given the laws of holiness, and nothing we can do or add to God\u2019s law-word can enhance our holiness; autonomy, literally self-law, only renders us unholy. Calvin noted,<\/p>\n
Their crime is specified, viz., that they offered incense in a different way from that which God had prescribed, and consequently, although they may have erred from ignorance, still they were convicted by God\u2019s commandment of having negligently set about what was worthy of great attention. The \u201cstrange fire\u201d is distinguished from the sacred fire which was always burning upon the altar: not miraculously, as some pretend, but by the constant watchfulness of the priests. Now, God had forbidden any other fire to be used in the ordinances, in order to exclude all extraneous rites, and to shew His detestation of whatever might be derived from elsewhere. Let us learn, therefore, so to attend to God\u2019s command as not to corrupt His worship by any strange inventions.<\/p>\n
The word strange (zar), as Wenham points out, can refer to people who are not priests (Ex. 30:33; Lev. 22:12; Num. 16:40) or to outsiders or aliens (Deut. 25:5). Since the golden calf cult had been a recent event, it is possible that the fire of some such fertility cult\u2019s altar was used as an \u201cecumenical\u201d step. However, such a step is not necessary here to explain the incident. What occurred may have been a single step designed somehow to improve the administration of the required ritual. Man\u2019s propensity for \u201cimproving\u201d on God\u2019s requirements is a very great one. It has, over the centuries, greatly altered the meaning of Scripture as men have labored to uncover supposedly hidden meanings. Thus, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is obviously meant to set forth the love of one\u2019s neighbor. As one clergyman has written,<\/p>\n
The Church, on the other hand, looks beyond this superficial and simplistic interpretation to provide us the faithful with a complete and comprehensive understanding of the Lord\u2019s Words.<\/p>\n
\u201cA man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho.\u201d Jerusalem sits on a hill and is the city of the Lord; Jericho, on the other hand, is in the valley and was a city of worldly pleasures. The man had turned his back on God and was slipping down into a sinful life of worldly pleasures.<\/p>\n
\u201cand he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.\u201d The wages of sin is death. Here we see how a man\u2019s sins can rob him, destroy his life and kill him. The robbers are his sins.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.\u201d Here the priest and Levite represent the Laws and the Prophets, who only are complete in the Christ. They of themselves are incapable of salvation.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine;\u201d Samaritans, although of Jewish blood, were hated by the Jews. Here the Samaritan represents our Lord, who was a Jew, but not accepted by them. Only our Savior can cure the wounds of our sins and cure us. The wine represents His life-giving Blood shed for our sins and the oil the gifts of the Holy Spirit which cures, seals and comforts.<\/p>\n
\u201cthen he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.\u201d Christ took upon Himself the care of mankind. He gave of Himself for the salvation of mankind.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, \u2018Take care of him;\u2019 \u201d The inn and innkeeper here refer to the Holy Church. The Lord has commissioned the Church to care for the soul of His people. But He also provided the Church with two (two denarii\u2014not three or more) aids in which the Holy Church should care for His children, the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition. With these two elements the Church guards and guides us for the Lord.<\/p>\n
\u201cand whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.\u201d Here is the greatest promise of all, our Lord promises to return. He shall not leave us but return to secure our care and salvation.<\/p>\n
This simple and short parable reveals Christ\u2019s love for mankind and His promise of salvation and the Second Coming. Yet it is only through the Church that the hidden truths of the Holy Scriptures become obvious to us.<\/p>\n
This interpretation comes from the Church of Armenia; it represents a type of interpretation common to Orthodox churches as well, and to Roman Catholics and Protestants. It is clever and pious, but it is not the plain word of God, but rather man\u2019s embroidered word. Examples of this are all around us. One Protestant clergyman recently preached a series of sermons on Esther with the theme of \u201cThe Authority of the Church,\u201d which he located in Haman! Another taught on the laws of diet for many weeks, supposedly proving that to be truly Christian we must eat pork!
\nAll that departs from the plain word of God is sacrilege and blasphemy, because, with the Pharisees, it substitutes man\u2019s interpretation for God\u2019s word.
\nIt needs to be recognized that the Pharisees were seeking to go beyond God\u2019s word\u2014to be more than the law requires. Nadab and Abihu may have intended to improve on God\u2019s law and add to the measure of holiness, if possible. To illustrate, Scripture does permit divorce in some instances as a remedy to evil, but some have held, Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern churches alike, that because they recognize the centrality of the family in Scripture, all divorce is wrong. Again, the Bible requires temperance, but some have tried to improve on this by opposing all alcoholic beverages. These are both sincere efforts to produce greater holiness, but when we seek a greater holiness than Scripture requires we forsake holiness for will-worship. Pharisees are sincere people, but this does not absolve them of sin. A Catholic nun of a Jewish background has sought to mitigate or explain away the guilt of the Sanhedrin for Christ\u2019s crucifixion on the grounds of their moral concern for Israel and their deep religious sincerity. However, neither anti-Semitism nor anti-Christianity are excusable on the grounds of sincerity! It is possible that Hitler was sincere in his hostility to both Jews and Christians, but this would not excuse him.
\nGod\u2019s sentence on Pharisaism is death. It was a quick sentence in the case of Nadab and Abihu, but, whether quick or slow, it is always death. For men to seek to be more holy than God is to presuppose that they are above God, and this sin has brought death ever since Adam. In v. 3, God declares through Moses that He must be sanctified among all who are His covenant people, and they must honor Him. To seek to improve on God is to dishonor Him.
\nMoses then called on Aaron\u2019s cousins, Mishael and Elzaphan, to remove the bodies of Nadab and Abihu. The high priest could not, as the servant of God and life, come into contact with death (21:10\u201312), and this requirement is extended to the successors of Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar (v. 6). The higher the office or function, the greater is the responsibility for separation and dedication to God\u2019s service; this we have already noted in Leviticus 4. It is a premise often repeated in Scripture, e.g.,<\/p>\n
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. (Amos 3:2)<\/p>\n
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:48)<\/p>\n
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)<\/p>\n
The commandment, then, to Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar in vv. 6\u20137 forbad them to do either of two things. First, whereas others were free to mourn the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, they were in no way to take part in the funeral or show any sign of mourning. Second, they were not even to leave the tabernacle during this time. Their work had to take priority over the funeral, their calling over death. As Wenham has pointed out, our Lord cites this legal requirement to show how serious is the priority of God\u2019s kingdom:<\/p>\n
59. And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
\n60. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:59\u201360)<\/p>\n
26. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
\n27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26\u201327)<\/p>\n
The family is God\u2019s basic institution, but not even the family can take priority over God\u2019s calling and purpose. Parker\u2019s comment on v. 7 was especially telling:<\/p>\n
The reason is given in the words\u2014\u201cFor the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.\u201d That oil must separate between you and the appearance of unbelief; that oil is a restraint as well as an inspiration. Is it not so now, varying the terms and the relation of things? If we could enter into the spirit of that restriction, what different men we should be!<\/p>\n
In vv. 8\u201311, we are told that the Lord speaks to Aaron. As Wenham has noted, this is the only time in Leviticus that God speaks directly to Aaron apart from Moses. Coming after his sons\u2019 misdeeds, it is a reconfirmation of Aaron\u2019s office as high priest. God commands Aaron and all priests, saying, first, that when serving as priests, they cannot drink wine or strong drink and must enter the tabernacle in sobriety. It is possible that Nadab and Abihu had been to some degree intoxicated, and hence this law. However, just as the addition to the ritual of any strange or alien element is forbidden, so the addition to man of anything such as wine and strong drinks, mind-altering drugs, or anything to \u201cimprove\u201d on one\u2019s perception, is strictly banned.
\nSecond, the reason is now given. In Wenham\u2019s translation, \u201cIt is your duty to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean\u201d (v. 10). This ability to distinguish between the sacred and the secular included both the things sacrificed, i.e., the condition of the animals, for example, and the persons sacrificing. Thus, when Eli rebuked Hannah, presuming her to be drunk, perhaps to be one of the daughters of Belial his sons consorted with, his statement was wrong with respect to Hannah, but he was right in seeking to bar hypocritical or sinful presences from the sanctuary (1 Sam. 1:10\u201316; 2:22).
\nThird, sobriety was required in order also that the clergy might more clearly teach Israel God\u2019s laws as delivered through Moses.
\nWine, we are told, can enhance joy and relieve grief (Ps. 104:15; Gen. 27:28, etc.), but it cannot enhance our teaching nor our work. Here again, the line is clear between Holiness and Pharisaism. In all its forms, Pharisaism is sacrilege; it infringes on God\u2019s sovereignty and seeks to correct or improve on God\u2019s property or word by man\u2019s way and word. It is an arrogation and a presumption to claim the wisdom to improve on God\u2019s law. Thus, fanciful, allegorical, and symbolic interpretations of God\u2019s law-word and worship are forbidden. While an originally intertestamental group gave its name to this temper, Pharisaism has existed since Eden wherever men believe that their wisdom can correct or add to God\u2019s wisdom and mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chapter One Law and Holiness (Zechariah 14:20\u201321) 20. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the Lord\u2019s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of … <\/p>\n