required payment of the \u201cdowry of virgins.\u201d The girl\u2019s father could require or reject marriage, but in either case the dowry was mandatory (Ex. 22:16\u201317; Deut. 22:28\u201329). The penalty for adultery is death for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:20\u201325; Lev. 20:10) because the society of God\u2019s Kingdom is family based, and adultery is thus treason to society. In Canaanite society, which was Baal or Molech based, adultery was not treasonable and might be religiously required. Note that the law speaks of adultery as self-defilement, or, to \u201cmake thyself unclean.\u201d Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, and also of our personal lives. Because of the centrality of the family, sins against it are seen in Scripture not only as very serious offenses, but also as self-defilement and stupidity. According to Proverbs 6:27\u201333,<\/p>\n
27. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned:
\n28. Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
\n29. So he that goeth in to his neighbour\u2019s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
\n30. Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry:
\n31. But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
\n32. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding, he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
\n33. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.<\/p>\n
Rabbi Hertz said of adultery:<\/p>\n
This prohibition is so vital to human society that it is included in the Ten Commandments, immediately after the protection of life, as being of equal importance with it.<\/p>\n
In v. 22, homosexuality is condemned, and in v. 23, bestiality. The two verses are properly one sentence and one subject. Two terms are applied to these sins: abomination and confusion. Abomination means filth, and, according to W. F. Lofthouse, confusion means \u201ca disturbance and violation of the order of nature, and therefore something repulsive.\u201d Bonar rendered the meaning of confusion as \u201caudacious depravity.\u201d
\nBoth homosexuality and bestiality are acts of chaos. Religions of chaos believe in evolution out of a primeval chaos, and hence social revitalization requires a regular return to chaos by performing acts of chaos. Herodotus spoke of witnessing, in the Mendesian district of Egypt, the public copulation of a goat and a woman. According to Gill, Strabo, Aelianus, and Plutarch reported like religious acts.
\nThe penalty for homosexuality is death (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), and also for bestiality (Lev. 20:15\u201316; Ex. 22:19). As we have noted, Lofthouse describes \u201cconfusion\u201d as the violation of the order of nature,\u201d and Porter speaks of homosexuality and bestiality as a \u201cviolation of nature.\u201d This is certainly true if we recognize the order of nature to be God\u2019s created order, but the text declares these sins to be an abomination and confusion because they violate God\u2019s law and purpose, as the natural world itself does in its fallen estate.
\nFor Knight, these laws were given to Israel \u201cto fit that stage\u201d in their education in which, because they were comparable to children, \u201cthey required clear guidelines.\u201d Ostensibly, we are more mature and do not need the law! How anyone living in the twentieth century can be patronizing of the Hebrews and assume that churchmen and non-churchmen today have a maturity which invalidates the law is amazing.
\nEven more amazing is the insistence of homosexuals that all the references to homosexuality in Scripture do not actually condemn that practice! The books written to defend this view are marvels of evasive scholarship.
\nNot only does the Bible without exception or qualification condemn the practice, but it also uses language of a particular bluntness in describing homosexuals. Sodomites are called dogs in Deuteronomy 23:18 and Revelation 22:15; the latter text declares that they are outside God\u2019s Kingdom. According to Harrison, the term dogs was applied to \u201cmale cultic prostitutes or to homosexuality generally.\u201d This means that dogs applies to sodomites and lesbians alike and has reference to activities which have a resemblance to canine practices.
\nIt is a grim fact that, not only have humanists in the twentieth century championed the \u201crights\u201d of homosexuals, but they have also given to those sodomites who have AIDS a protected status never before enjoyed by sufferers of contagious diseases. That homosexuals should seek a privileged status is understandable; all sinners want privileges. But the greater sin is on the part of those who grant them. A new hagiography has also developed to describe the deaths of these \u201csaints\u201d of sodomy. Thus, The Stockton Record, in a concluding article on a particular homosexual, described the death-bed scene sympathetically and in detail. At times the dying man spoke of the possibility that God was punishing him. He dismissed such thoughts, however, declaring, \u201cBut then again I might be interpreting it wrong. I\u2019ve always brought happiness and love to everyone I met. It\u2019s what\u2019s in your heart.\u2026 Only you know how close you are to God, and God knows, and that\u2019s it.\u201d Speaking of his \u201cflamboyant\u201d lifestyle as a homosexual in San Francisco, he said, smiling, \u201cI\u2019ve had a wonderful life.\u201d When he died, his mother said, \u201cMy baby boy has gone to God.\u201d The absurdities of some old saint\u2019s legends have been far surpassed by the now common elegies for the \u201csaints\u201d of sodomy.
\nWith his usual insight, Wenham calls attention to the statement in v. 21, \u201cneither shalt thou profane the name of thy God,\u201d which occurs also in Leviticus 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; and 22:32. To profane is to make unholy. Profaning God, not the \u201cviolation of the natural order,\u201d is the key to these laws; we cannot impose the psychiatric opinions of earlier eras, i.e., 1850\u20131950, onto Scripture. The opposite of holiness is profanity, the unclean. Leviticus 10:10 requires that we put a \u201cdifference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.\u201d According to Grayston, \u201choliness is the condition of approach to God, cleanness of intercourse with all society.\u201d While uncleanness is closely tied to sin, there is a difference. Sin essentially comes from within, whereas uncleanness comes from outside, and it is man\u2019s moral duty to avoid whatever is unclean. Cleanness is thus essential to holiness. In the law, washing purifies one from many forms of uncleanness, and baptism thus symbolizes this cleansing, i.e., \u201cthe washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost\u201d (Titus 3:5). Christ \u201cgave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar (or, unique) people, zealous of good works\u201d (Titus 2:14). These laws are given to make us holy (Lev. 19:2), and to keep us from defilement (Lev. 18:24\u201330).
\nProfanity leads to uncleanness, to blindness, and to judgment and death, as Jeremiah 6:10\u201319 makes clear.<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirty-Six<\/p>\n
The Expulsion
\n(Leviticus 18:24\u201330)<\/p>\n
24. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
\n25. And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
\n26. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
\n27. (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
\n28. That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
\n29. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
\n30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 18:24\u201330)<\/p>\n
The two key words here are to defile, or to pollute, and to spue, or to vomit. This is blunt language. What is said in these verses is amplified in Leviticus 26:14\u201338: God promises judgment for faithlessness to Him and to His covenant law. There is a double defilement: when the people defile themselves, they thereby also defile the land. Then a single vomiting takes place: the land spues out the defiling people. God clears the land of the offending people, whether they be Canaanites or Israelites, and, we must add, whether they be of the \u201cwhite, black, brown, red, yellow,\u201d or any other race. Divisions which are important to men are unimportant to God: His law is; He governs in terms of it. Israel as a nation is warned, as is everyone as an individual (v. 29). God makes it clear that Israel has no license to sin, no more than the peoples of Canaan. The covenant gives no protection in such cases, because sin is the transgression of the covenant law (1 John 3:4). All, therefore, must \u201ckeep\u201d (v. 30), obey and guard, God\u2019s law strictly.
\nWe have thus the sharp and clear statement of the relationship between man\u2019s faithfulness to God and the land around us, the weather, the soil, and its fertility. C. D. Ginsburg commented:<\/p>\n
The physical condition of the land, therefore, depends upon the moral conduct of man. When he disobeys God\u2019s commandments she is parched up and does not yield her fruit (Deut. 11:17). \u201cThe land is defiled\u201d when he defiles himself. When he walks in the way of the Divine commands she is blessed (Lev. 25:19; 26:4); \u201cGod is merciful unto his land and to his people\u201d (Deut. 32:43). Hence, \u201cthe earth mourneth\u201d when her inhabitants sin (Isa. 24:4\u20135), and \u201cthe earth is glad\u201d when God avenges the cause of His people (Ps. 96:11\u201313). It is owing to this intimate connection between them that the land, which is here personified, is represented as loathing the wicked conduct of her children and being unable to restrain them. She nauseated them. The same figure is used in verse 28; chap. 20:22; and in Rev. 3:16.<\/p>\n
Being a foreigner and an unbeliever gives no exemption from God\u2019s moral law: the law applies to \u201cany stranger that sojourneth among you\u201d (v. 26). The people to whom Moses spoke are told that the future destruction and expulsion of the Canaanites is an already accomplished legal fact before God. Therefore, they are in a very real sense declared to be witnesses of God\u2019s judgment (vv. 24\u201328). To us, an even more extensive evidence is given, and we are witnesses to God\u2019s judgments as recorded in all of Scripture and in all of history since then.
\nWe should carefully note the fact of expulsion: there are two facets to it. First, and essentially, God casts out defiled people from a land (v. 24). Second, the land itself vomits out a defiled people (vv. 25, 28).
\nIt is the land which does the vomiting. The people become a poison to the land, and the land therefore vomits out the people. This relates to a fact once common to many cultures, spoken of in earlier years by missionaries, and of which I know of only one written account, dating back to 1935. Sinclair wrote:<\/p>\n
A better explanation came from Dr. Sapara, the British trained medicine man of Lagos.<\/p>\n
\u201cPoison ordeals are old and crude,\u201d he explained. \u201cThey are backwoods behavior and yet they work. An innocent man being compelled to submit to a poison ordeal will toss off his brew quickly as something to have done with. He knows he\u2019s innocent and has faith in the attending doctor. A guilty man is in terror. He sips, but he\u2019s frightened to drink it all. What he does drink, he drinks slowly. The particular barks and herbs used have a terribly nauseating effect if taken quickly. They turn a stomach and come up at once, causing no damage. But if taken slowly they are deadly. But such things are crude, fit only for bush.\u201d<\/p>\n
Central to this fact of vomiting out a poison was innocence. This is precisely the focal point of these verses: the land is innocent. The transgression of God\u2019s covenant law is by man, and man\u2019s being is poisoned by sin. The land therefore spues out man.
\nThe land suffers because of man. In Genesis 3:17, we are told, \u201ccursed is the ground for thy sake.\u201d The sin of Adam and Eve brought the effects of sin and the fall to the earth also. The earth therefore limited its returns to man, who now had to work hard, and often to reap thorns and thistles rather than a good harvest (Gen. 3:17\u201319).
\nThe fall of man brought about his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. In Romans 4:25, and 5:16\u201318 and 20, Paul speaks of man\u2019s offense, paraptoma, a fall sideways, a deviation, a transgression. The Garden of Eden was a fenced, ordered, and disciplined place, a sinless place and a place for dominion work under God. In the fall, man turned aside from his God-appointed calling to a self-appointed calling. As a result, man was expelled from Eden, and his return was prevented. Eden had vomited out its occupants because God ordered it.
\nThe Flood was another expulsion. Because of man\u2019s sin and the defilement of the earth, a radical judgment destroyed the antedeluvial world, with its longer lifespan for man and its easier life, to bring about the earth as we know it (Gen. 6:1\u20138:22). Many expulsions have since followed, including the expulsion of the Canaanites, the exile, the fall of Jerusalem, the fall of various nations since, to our present time of judgment. It should be noted that Israel in the Biblical eras was a fertile, well-watered, and wooded land. Its present character in particular shows the devastation of many conquerors, especially the Turks.
\nThus, the judgment promised in Leviticus 18:24\u201330 is one often repeated in Scripture in word and deed. We miss the meaning of these verses if we fail to recognize that they are a common affirmation of Scripture and of history, from creation to the Second Coming and the last judgment. They are a constant emphasis of the prophets, as witness Jeremiah 6:10\u201319:<\/p>\n
10. To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.
\n11. Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.
\n12. And their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields and wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD.
\n13. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
\n14. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
\n15. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
\n16. Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
\n17. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
\n18. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
\n19. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.<\/p>\n
This judgment is further developed in Jeremiah 7:1\u201315, 8:10, and throughout Jeremiah. Houses, fields, wives, and daughters were all going to be handed over to others by the judgment of God. Because they rejected God\u2019s law, God was rejecting them. Because they had defiled themselves and the land, the Lord would cast them out of the land. Because there was a breach between God and the people, there would soon follow a breach between the land and the people. All this, like so much of the prophetic teachings, is simply the application of Leviticus 18:24\u201330. But this is not all. No one who reads with seeing eyes can fail to see that our Lord, in Matthew 24, is applying the judgment of Leviticus 18:24\u201330 to Judea.
\nToday, also, these judgments apply to an age arrogant in sin and given to making saints out of sodomites. Unless men turn to Christ to be made whole, and then become the people who hear and obey His law, they too shall be rejected and spued out.<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirty-Seven<\/p>\n
Holiness and Community
\n(Leviticus 19:1\u20138)<\/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.
\n3. Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
\n4. Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
\n5. And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
\n6. It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
\n7. And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.
\n8. Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (Leviticus 19:1\u20138)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19 is sometimes called the Old Testament Sermon on the Mount because of its many familiar laws, in particular, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself \u201c(v. 18). These laws have a strong emphasis on community life. The foundation of community life is holiness: hence the command, \u201cYe shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy\u201d (v. 2). Community life begins with communion with God. All the modern political efforts to establish the Great Community worldwide on humanistic and political foundations are thus doomed to fail. The foundation of all true community requires community with God, and it begins with our holiness. The foundations of social order are theological; attempts at social peace and unity apart from the triune God are merely repetitions of the fallacy of the Tower of Babel, and, like it, are doomed to confusion.
\nThen, because the family is the basic social unit under God, we are immediately told, \u201cYe shall fear every man his mother, and his father\u201d (v. 3). The Hebrew word fear is yare, (yawray), meaning to dread, revere, fear. In the Ten Commandments, the word is honor (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). We are not required to love our parents, because they may be unlovable, nor is this a blanket requirement of obedience, because obedience is not required of adults, nor is there any right for parents to require of children an obedience in evil. The honor, fear, or reverence is a parental due for the Lord\u2019s sake and because of the institution of the family. Parental authority is theological, and it is a sin on the part of parents to see their position in humanistic terms. In this law, as in Leviticus 20:19 and 21:2, the order of the Ten Commandments is reversed; instead of \u201cthy father and thy mother,\u201d it is mother and then father. Because we have here the law of holiness, priority is given to the mother. Holiness in Scripture is not an abstract fact but a very personal one. Hence holiness with respect to family life requires a particular honor and respect for the mother. The normal usage of the word yare is with respect to God. God is the Creator of all life, and the mother is the immediate source of our lives, and hence the common term. This is a law of holiness; it means that our conduct towards our parents is not governed by personal considerations but by God\u2019s law. Scott said of holiness, that<\/p>\n
Holiness consists in separation from sin, devotedness to God, and conformity to his moral excellences, which are also transcribed in his holy law. Without holiness we cannot walk with God, or have fellowship with him; and, though an external, or ceremonial, purity was called being \u201choly to the LORD;\u201d yet it was only an emblem of that purity of heart which was especially intended.<\/p>\n
Though \u201cthe LORD is rich in mercy and goodness,\u201d yet his perfect holiness renders it impossible that we should be happy in him, or that he should delight in us, unless we be made holy also; those therefore, whomso he especially loves, he effectually sanctifies.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that in v. 3, in a single statement, we have the requirement of reverence for parents and the observance of the Sabbath. The common theme is rest. The Sabbath is to be a day of rest, and, in Ruth 3:1, marriage is called rest. For modern man, rest means inactivity, whereas for Scripture it means, in part, being where we belong, in God\u2019s appointed place for us and under His law-word. Marriage is our rest, because it is God\u2019s plan for us. The Sabbath is a day of rest because it is a part of our relocation, the refocusing of our lives, in God\u2019s purpose. The God who made us ordained both marriage and the Sabbath in terms of our beings and requirements. Revolutionary movements have struck at both marriage and the Sabbath; the ancient Mozdakites abolished marriage, and the French and Russian Revolutions, the Sabbath, only to their own detriment.
\nIn v. 4, idolatry is forbidden. The usual interpretation of the word for idols, elilim, is that it means nothings; Wenham has suggested that it means godlings, or weaklings, a reference to the impotence of pagan gods.
\nIn vv. 5\u20138, we have a reference to peace offerings (Lev. 3:1\u201317; 7:11\u201326). The peace offering, a voluntary offering, was made at the sanctuary. It was a communal meal, shared with the Levites and with all servants and workers as well as with the members of one\u2019s family (Deut. 12:12, 18\u201319). At the same time, certain portions were given to the priest (Lev. 7:14, 30\u201336).
\nThe sanctuary thus was not only a place for sacrifice and worship, but also a place for community life, one in which God\u2019s teachers, the Levites as well as the priests, had a share.
\nAt the same time, the law very strictly forbids retaining any of the sacrificial animal to the third day. In other words, the sacrificing family could not plan on using their peace offering continuously for themselves. The lamb or bullock offered as a peace offering obviously contained food enough to satisfy a family many days, together with the bread also offered. A man going to the sanctuary could plan to make his peace with God and feast well for many days, were it not for this law. In thankfully reaffirming his peace with God, a man had to develop community with God\u2019s servants. Because all the food remaining on the second day had to be burned on the third day on penalty of excommunication (v. 8), it was much the more logical choice for a man to share his food than to burn it up.
\nThis is not a popular law with modern man, but it is a law which is sharply indicative of God\u2019s assessment of man. A regular objection to Biblical law holds, \u201cYou can\u2019t compel people to be good.\u201d This is a fallacy, because laws do precisely this, in an external yet necessary way. Laws against murder do not abolish murder, but they certainly restrain murder when well enforced. Would men be less murderous if all laws against murder were abolished? Or would men be less prone to steal if laws against theft were dropped?
\nThe U.S. Internal Revenue Service code was not set up by Congress with benevolent intentions, but, by recognizing the deductibility of religious and charitable constitutions, it has avoided impeding such gifts. Countries where no such deductions are allowed show a markedly lower rate of giving per person.
\nCommunity is a necessity to the Kingdom of God and for the business of living. God does not leave the matter up to the individual\u2019s conscience except to a limited degree. The law reads, \u201cIf ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will\u201d (v. 5). There is nothing mandatory about the peace offering except that, if we offer it, we must do so on God\u2019s terms, not ours. That condition is that we manifest our community with His servants. There is no communion without community.
\nIn other laws, as in the next two verses (Lev. 19:9\u201310), our community with the needy is required. Community begins with God, but it cannot stop there.<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirty Eight<\/p>\n
Justice and Community
\n(Leviticus 19:9\u201315)<\/p>\n
9. And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
\n10. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
\n11. Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
\n12. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
\n13. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
\n14. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
\n15. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Leviticus 19:9\u201315)<\/p>\n
The more liberal the scholar, the less respect he has for past opinions and for Christian thought. In terms of his humanism and his evolutionary faith, he holds to the kind of belief denounced by Job, namely, that wisdom was born with him and will die with him (Job 12:2). Such men believe that the Pentateuch is a collection of heterogeneous documents, basically unrelated, which were brought together by an editor. It is also \u201cobvious\u201d to them that this editor lacked their intelligence. Leviticus 19, for example, is seen as a miscellaneous collection by these men.
\nThis view is not surprising. Such men love to segregate and classify everything as though they were dealing with dead objects, and hence dissection and classification are seen as necessities. The Bible, however, is not a textbook: theology is not separated from law and history, nor are personal experiences abstracted from God\u2019s revelations to the men receiving them. The context is life, not the laboratory dissecting table.
\nThe premise in all of Scripture, as in Leviticus 19, is that God is the creator of all things, the sovereign King and Lawgiver, and that all of the aspects of life and creation must be governed by His law-word: \u201cI am the LORD\u201d (vv. 10, 14). Hence, in these seven verses, charity, honest dealings with workers and neighbors, no lying, no false swearing or witness, no abuses of the handicapped, and justice are all cited. There is always the unifying force, i.e., all of creation and life must be subject to God\u2019s law.
\nIn vv. 9\u201310, gleaning by the poor is set forth as God\u2019s requirement. This law appears again in Leviticus 23:22, and also in Deuteronomy 24:19\u201322; in this last text, it is made clear that \u201cthe stranger, the fatherless, and \u2026 the widow\u201d are to be the beneficiaries. Moreover, there is a reminder: \u201cAnd thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing\u201d (Deut. 24:22). Implicit in this reminder is the threat of another time of bondage for the neglect of God\u2019s law.
\nThe modernist, Martin Noth, saw the law of gleaning as a social law, but saw behind it a primitive, pre-Israelite motive, \u201cof leaving these remains for the fertility-spirits of the soil as their share in the crop.\u201d This undocumented statement, more revelatory of his presuppositions than anything else, does not deserve an answer.
\nJohn Gill called attention to an important aspect of the law of gleaning, and why it follows immediately after the law on peace offerings:<\/p>\n
This follows upon the peace-offering: and as Aben Ezra observes, as the fat of them was to be given to God, so somewhat of the harvest was to be given for the glory of God to the poor and stranger.<\/p>\n
In Ruth we see the generous and godly application of this law of gleaning. Recognizing Ruth\u2019s virtue, Boaz made sure that she had an extra amount of gleanings in her path (Ruth 2:1\u201323). We should note that the gleaners here worked just behind the hired harvesters. By this means, the gleaning was made personal; harvesters were conscious of the needy working just behind them and could be moved to generosity.
\nThe premise of gleaning, as of all law, is that \u201cthe earth is the LORD\u2019S\u201d (Ex. 9:29); in terms of this, God can as readily command Egypt as Israel, and His law is applicable to all.
\nThe laws of other nations, as with Roman law, stressed the protection of the ruling class. God\u2019s law speaks of the poor as our \u201cbrothers,\u201d and they are to be helped. Helping the needy was and is a religious duty, according to the law. In terms of this, some rabbis held that a person should thank the needy for giving one an opportunity to show mercy. According to Noordtzij, the word wrought in Ruth 2:19 can be rendered, favored, and he held that Ruth said, of her gleaning in Boaz\u2019s fields, \u201cThe name of the man whom I have favored is Boaz.\u201d The Hebrew word can be rendered as favored, or bestowed, but this interpretation does not seem tenable here.
\nIn vv. 11\u201312, several offenses against our fellow members in the community are cited. These are all seen as related to another one. An example is cited by Hertz: Absalom, who stole the people\u2019s good opinion of his father David by ingratiating himself with all who were impatient over the delay in justice, i.e., in the hearing of cases. Absalom\u2019s purpose was not justice but to seize power. Hence, according to 2 Samuel 15:2\u20136, Absalom stole the hearts of the people. Deception in any form is proscribed, including false oaths. William Blake\u2019s lines illustrate one facet of such deception:<\/p>\n
A truth that\u2019s told with bad intent,
\nBeats all the lies you can invent.<\/p>\n
The prohibition of theft is tied to the gleaning law. Since we and our possessions are the Lord\u2019s, neither in business nor in charity can we steal or deal falsely. The Lord requires us to help the needy. We swear falsely by God\u2019s name even when we call ourselves His people and are neither honest with other men, nor with the needy.
\nAccording to Samuel Clark,<\/p>\n
The meaning of the eighth Commandment is here expanded into the prohibition of (1) theft, (2) cheating, (3) falsehood. When the act of deception was aggravated by an oath the third Commandment was of course broken as well as the eighth. Ex. 20:7\u201315.<\/p>\n
In v. 13, we are told that God\u2019s law is a restraint upon the strong, to prevent the exploitation of the weak. Paul echoes this in his frequent comments about the weak and the strong, as does James. This is case law. The humblest form of labor was work done for a daily wage, and this was especially common in relation to farm work during the harvest. Delays could mark the premature completion of a harvest, delays due to the weather, and other factors. Whatever the circumstances, the worker hired for such occasional work had to be paid promptly and daily. He could not be kept dangling, coming back for his wages when he might be working elsewhere, or be in need of the money. Deuteronomy 24:14\u201315 declares this to be offensive to God. Bonar wrote:<\/p>\n
Far from defrauding, or withholding what is due to thy neighbour, thou shalt not even delay giving him what he is entitled to. This precept is directly pointed against incurring debt. Fraudulent bankruptcies, and pretexts for withholding payments, are condemned by it; but willingly remaining in debt to any one is also pointedly condemned. \u201cOwe no man anything, but to love one another.\u201d In James 5:4, this is spoken of as a sin of the last days.<\/p>\n
The law requires the rich to be honest, considerate, and helpful to the poor. Where this law is violated, and the needy exploited, judgment time has come (Amos 8:4\u20136).
\nIn v. 14, the abuse of the deaf and the blind is forbidden. The interpretations of this have been significant. It is a cheap and fraudulent power to mislead the blind, or to curse the deaf, but God sees and hears. Historically, and rightly so, many commentators have seen this as applying to the abuse of any absent person, or of dead parents and others. Deuteronomy 27:18 pronounces a curse on all who lead the blind astray. For centuries, even before our Lord\u2019s time, this has been understood as including misdirecting the ignorant, or the false teaching of any. It means the defamation of any who are helpless.
\nIn v. 15, we are told that justice means no respect for persons, i.e., no favoritism to the poor because they are poor, or to the rich because they are rich, nor to anyone in terms of their race or religion. Thus, while the law insists on the protection of the poor from injustice, it does not allow injustice to prevail out of partiality for them. Class justice is an untenable doctrine, but it is now the basic doctrine of socialism in all forms, and always evil. Justice is to be done to all, because justice is not a class doctrine but God\u2019s nature and His requirement of us.
\nIn order to facilitate impartiality in a trial, some Jewish authorities, especially Maimonides, held that both parties in a case, the rich and the poor, had to be dressed alike and seated alike. Bonar said:<\/p>\n
\u201cCauses must be heard, not persons,\u201d says Trappe. There must be in us no affectation of kindness to the poor, even as there must be no fawning flattery of the great. Especially in matters of judgment the judge must be impartial. The eye of God is on him; and as He is a just God, and without iniquity, He delights to see His own attributes shadowed forth in the strict integrity of an earthly judge.<\/p>\n
If these are God\u2019s holy principles, it follows that the misery and oppression and suffering of the lower classes will furnish no reason for their acquittal at His bar, if they be found guilty. Suffering in this world is no blotting out of sin. furnish no reason for their acquittal at His bar, if they be found guilty suffering in this world is no blotting out of sin. Hence we find at Christ\u2019s appearing, \u201cthe great men and the mighty men, and every bondman,\u201d cried to the rocks, \u201cFall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne\u201d (Rev. 6:15).<\/p>\n
The law cannot be man\u2019s will or purpose, but only God\u2019s word, the expression of His nature. Thus, the modern beliefs in class justice, racial justice, economic justice, and so on, are all perversions of justice and law: they enthrone man\u2019s will as law. Verse 15 sums up the preceding verses and is also a preface to the following verses of Leviticus 19.
\nNoth is right in stating that this is not simply a word to judges, but to all members of the community. Hence it is that the next verse, closely tied to v. 15, condemns slander.
\nIf these are laws of justice, then why are they interspersed with laws requiring charity? If the earth is the Lord\u2019s (Ex. 9:29), then we rob God when we do not tithe, when we do not give Him what is His rightful portion (Mal. 3:8\u201312), and we are again guilty of theft and injustice when we are not given to charity. Charity is not the poor\u2019s due in essence, but it is God\u2019s requirement of us; it is God\u2019s possession, given to those to whom He assigns it.
\nCommunity life thus has a God-centered focus. If we are in communion with God, we are in community with His people, rich and poor. In Christ we receive grace, and the grace of God must manifest itself through us to all.<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirty Nine<\/p>\n
The Love of Our Neighbor
\n(Leviticus 19:16\u201318)<\/p>\n
16. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
\n17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
\n18. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:16\u201318)<\/p>\n
The words, \u201cthou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself \u201c(v. 18), are very much used and abused by humanists. They are taken to justify statism and socialism, as though God were here commanding statist rather than personal action. The seven words, \u201cthou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\u201d are subject to many misinterpretations. We have already cited one, namely, using them to justify coercive statist action as the substitute for neighborly relationships. What the law requires of us is community. This means a covenant community, in the Lord and according to His law. Statist coercion is the death of community, and statist welfarism destroys the relationship of man to man. However, not only is the means towards the realization of this community under God subverted, but also its meaning. It must be pointed out, two, that love in Scripture is not mere emotion. It is the fulfilling, the putting into force, of the law. As Frederick Nymeyer pointed out some years ago, to love our neighbor means to obey God\u2019s commandments as they relate to him. This means, \u201cThou shalt not kill\u201d (Ex. 20:13), i.e., we respect his life. \u201cThou shalt not commit adultery\u201d (Ex. 20:14) means that we respect the sanctity of his home. \u201cThou shalt not steal\u201d (Ex. 20:15) means that his property must be respected, and \u201cThou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour\u201d (Ex. 20:16) means that we respect his name and reputation, and seek neither to kill his good name nor to rob him of his due respect. \u201cThou shalt not covet\u201d (Ex. 20:17) means that in word, thought, and deed, we avoid all that would defraud him of any of these things; whether we do it legally or illegally, it is a sin. Good emotions are not substitutes for law-abiding actions. Our Lord\u2019s brother James, echoing the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:15\u201320), spoke sharply against empty good feelings and good words:<\/p>\n
14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
\n15. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
\n16. And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; nothwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body: what doth it profit?
\n17. Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:14\u201317)<\/p>\n
The whole of the Sermon on the Mount is against such hypocrisy.
\nIn the first of these verses, we are forbidden to be talebearers. The word means slanderers; it has reference to false and malicious talk. The second half of this law is closely related to the first: \u201cneither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor.\u201d \u201cTo stand against his blood\u201d is to stand against his life. By damaging his name, both in court and in local gossip, we damage his life, i.e., we stand against his blood. Later rabbinic teaching held that slander killed three people: the one slandered, the one slandering, and the one hearing the slander. As Knight observed, slandering \u201cis a form of injustice.\u201d Without the benefit of a trial, all slander serves to give a false or unjust judgment about a person and leaves him only a negative recourse. Slander suits are difficult to win and often do as much damage in themselves as the slander does. They are also very costly. Thus, slander is striking against the blood or life of a man.
\nIt is worthy to note that the rabbis held that this law was violated if, in a trial, a man could appear as a witness for the defense and failed to do so; he was then guilty himself. Anyone in any context who remained a passive observer of evil was guilty of evil (Sandhedrin 73a). God very plainly condemns passivity as evil, and as complicity with crime. All such people are called wicked. In Psalm 50:16\u201322, we are told:<\/p>\n
16. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
\n17. Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
\n18. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.
\n19. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.
\n20. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own brother\u2019s son.
\n21. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
\n22. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.<\/p>\n
The wicked are bystanders who do nothing when crimes are committed. God indicts them for their passivity where crimes are committed and for their activity in slander. They stand by and see theft, and adultery, and do nothing, but they give their mouth to evil and deceit. Such people are covenant breakers and have no sense of community; they will slander their own relatives.
\nThe word talebearer comes from a word meaning peddler. The talebearer is a peddler of slander. In 1 Peter 4:15, we are told, \u201cBut let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other men\u2019s matters.\u201d The slanderer is commonly a busybody.
\nTwice in these three verses, and fourteen times in this chapter, God declares, \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d Because He is holy, the covenant people must be holy, and holiness manifests itself in the activities and relations of everyday life. Failure to recognize this leads to false doctrines of holiness.
\nWe come now to v. 17, which in Robert Young\u2019s literal translation reads: \u201cThou dost not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou dost certainly reprove thy fellow, and not suffer sin on him.\u201d The point here as elsewhere is missed by Biblical scholars. Their knowledge and qualifications far surpass mine, but their common weakness is their view of such texts in isolation from others; as a result, they see this statement as a sentence, not as a part of a unified body of law. In v. 17, we do not have mere advice: we have a law, and the law has a context for application. Our Lord refers to this law very plainly. In Matthew 18:11\u201314, He declares that His coming is \u201cto save that which was lost.\u201d He tells us of the shepherd with a flock of a hundred who goes hunting for the stray sheep, and concludes, \u201cEven so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.\u201d What this requires of us, He then declares:<\/p>\n
15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
\n16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
\n17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
\n18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
\n19. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
\n20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:15\u201320)<\/p>\n
This is clearly law: the legal recourse is declared. The reference is to the structure of elders over ten families, over fifty families, over hundreds, and on up to the great council. This was established before the giving of the law to settle all disputes (Ex. 18:13\u201326; Deut. 1:9\u201318). This requirement had become neglected in Judea in our Lord\u2019s day, as experts in the law took over these functions, and as the process became legalistic and unloving. The same has been the case since church courts have become harsh and legalistic; they are hostile to theonomy, but are intensely dedicated to church law. Our Lord sets forth the requirement of Leviticus 19:17 and Exodus 18:13\u201326 in the context of the Parable of the Lost Sheep. Matthew 18:15\u201317 is invalid apart from its context. That context is to save the lost, to manifest Christ\u2019s redeeming grace, and to go the extra mile to rescue the lost. Only if these terms are met, in strict faithfulness to God\u2019s every word (Matt. 4:4), and as the manifestation of God\u2019s grace and love, do Matthew 18:18\u201320 apply. Then and only then does man\u2019s judgment have the binding force of being bound in heaven, because it is in word and Spirit faithful to God\u2019s law.
\nIn the Christian era, the requirements of Exodus 18:13\u201326, Deuteronomy 1:9\u201318, and Leviticus 19:17 have had a renewed emphasis in Judaism. Again, scholars, to my knowledge, have not studied the influence of Christianity upon Judaism, but there is reason to believe that rabbinic scholars were extensively influenced; they adopted much of Christianity while rejecting Christ. The Talmud shows an awareness of Christ and His teachings. It is now known that a possibly original Hebrew version of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, with some corruption, is still embedded in a fourteenth century Hebrew treatise by Rabbi Shem-Tob Ben Shaprut. The treatise is called \u201cEven Bohan,\u201d the Touchstone. We know that over the centuries, contacts between church and synagogue were many, both hostile and friendly. It is nonsense to suppose that there was no influence of one on the other, or that the influence went only one way.
\nLuke 17:3\u20134 also echoes Leviticus 19:17, as does James 5:19\u201320. According to Luke 17:3\u20134,<\/p>\n
3. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
\n4. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.<\/p>\n
The verb rebuke is the Greek epitimeson, to rebuke or adjudge; it has a somewhat juridical reference. Its only noun form in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 2:6, epitimia, where it refers to the judicial punishment of someone and is translated as \u201cpunishment.\u201d Repent in Luke 17:3 is metanoese, and \u201cturns\u201d in Luke 17:4 is epistreke, converts. In the case of metanoese (metanoia), the meaning is to turn around, to change the course of one\u2019s life in word, thought, and deed. Epistrepho means conversion, a fundamental change and a turning to the Lord. Thus, our Lord tells us, when the offender is truly converted by means of the rebuke, he is to be forgiven. If he repeats his sin, he will make restitution and turn again to the offended. As long as he truly repents, which requires restitution, he is to be forgiven and helped as a brother in the Lord.
\nPaul again refers to this requirement of covenantal life on other occasions:<\/p>\n
23. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
\n24. And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
\n25. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
\n26. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
\n27. Neither give place to the devil. (Ephesians 4:23\u201327)<\/p>\n
19. Against an elder receive not any accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
\n20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
\n21. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. (1 Timothy 5:19\u201321)<\/p>\n
Again we have references to the same procedure of confrontation and restoration. In Ephesians, Paul sets this requirement of legal and redemptive adjudication in the context of our life in the Holy Spirit. When we are justly angry, we are not to nurse our anger, but to act at once in terms of Matthew 18:11\u201320 rather than giving place to the devil by following his course instead of God\u2019s required course of action. Among the many New Testament references to Leviticus 19:17 are the following:<\/p>\n
1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
\n2. Bear ye one another\u2019s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. (Hebrews 12:13)<\/p>\n
19. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
\n20. Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:19\u201320)<\/p>\n
The New Testament is the revelation of the redeemer, God incarnate, and a commentary on His law-word, the Old Testament, by God the Son and God the Spirit.
\nIn v. 18, we come to the familiar words of \u201clove thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d Our Lord in Matthew 5:43 deals with the perversions of this law. The perversions were very real, but it is a mistake to assume that the real meaning of Leviticus 19:18 was unknown. Another error is the common assumption that \u201cneighbour\u201d in this law meant only a fellow Israelite. In Leviticus 19:33\u201337, it is clear that these requirements apply to all. Foreigners are to receive the same justice as all Israelites. The Talmud declared, \u201cIf a man finds both a friend and an enemy in distress, he should first assist his enemy in order to subdue his evil inclination.\u201d
\nLeviticus 19:18 appears repeatedly in the New Testament, as in Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8; etc.
\nThis law has three aspects. First, bearing a grudge is banned. Our memory is to be purged and our outlook thereby altered. We view men and events in terms of our memory. In this respect, memory is an invaluable and necessary tool for learning, because our knowledge of the past gives us discernment for the present and future. Thus, where a man has repented and made restitution, we warp ourselves by continuing to harbor a grudge. This aspect of Leviticus 19:18 deals with our mind and memory.
\nSecond, before calling for the cleansing of our mind, our actions are commanded: no vengeance. Vengeance belongs to God (Deut. 32:35; Ps. 99:8; Jer. 50:15; Ezek. 25:14, 17; Nahum 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:8), and will be manifested either through His law or apart from human agencies, in time or in eternity.
\nThe third aspect of this law is the requirement to love our neighbor, to abide by God\u2019s law in relation to him, for love is the fulfilling or putting into force of the law (Rom. 13:8\u201310).
\nThe reason why we must obey this law is then given: \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d It is His prerogative to command us because it is He who made us.
\nA very interesting insight on the meaning of this verse is given by both Porter and Knight, who render the key words, \u201cyou shall love your neighbour as a man like yourself,\u201d as someone who is, like you, a creature of God, a sinner, and as much in need of grace as you are. Such an interpretation ties the meaning to the covenant, to being members one of another, and to the requirement of grace and mercy to the unconverted.
\nA commentary on the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 is given by our Lord. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is an answer to the question, \u201cAnd who is my neighbour?\u201d Our Lord defines the meaning of love in terms of action, and our neighbor in terms of all men (Luke 10:25\u201337). Calvin noted:<\/p>\n
Not only those with whom we have some connection are called our neighbours, but all without exception; for the whole human race forms one body, of which all are members. And consequently should be bound together by mutual ties; for we must bear in mind that even those who are most alienated from us, should be cherished and aided even as our own flesh; since we have seen elsewhere that sojourners and strangers are placed in the same category (with our relations;) and Christ sufficiently confirms this in the case of the Samaritan. (Luke 10:3)<\/p>\n
God\u2019s purpose through His new humanity, the covenant people, becomes clear and open. The new humanity is to include the nations of this world, with all their glory (Rev. 21:24\u201326). The beginnings of this new humanity are in God\u2019s covenant and the covenant Redeemer. As we establish His law, His government through the family and the elders, through our membership one in another, and by His grace reorder all things, so we extend the new humanity and the new creation.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty<\/p>\n
Boundaries and Confusion
\n(Leviticus 19:19)<\/p>\n
19. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)<\/p>\n
This is a law with a long and curious history. Repeatedly in history, men have recognized its truth. More than a century ago, when the first edition of Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown\u2019s A Commentary (1864\u20131870) appeared, it was noted that mingled seed had bad effects on and was injurious both to the soil and to the plants, and that garments of mingled linen and wool were unhealthy. In our own time, non-Christians have warned us of the health hazard in mingled clothing. People however, both in food and clothing, have been more governed by styles and tastes than by God\u2019s law and health considerations. This is especially noteworthy, because God promised an abundant blessing for faithfulness to His law.
\nAccording to Wenham, man \u201cmust keep separate what God created separate.\u201d This means a ban on alliances with ungodly nations, or marriages with unbelievers, and on attempts to negate the validity of God\u2019s \u201ckinds,\u201d i.e., by attempting to produce hybrid animals.
\nThe order of the world is God-created and sacred. Man must do his work within the framework of that order. It has been a constant temptation to attempt to overturn that order. Thus, about forty years ago, some men claimed that they had succeeded in breeding mules, or so one \u201ccreative evolutionist\u201d insisted. God\u2019s law, however, is against confusion. We are told in Deuteronomy 22:9\u201311,<\/p>\n
9. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
\n10. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
\n11. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.<\/p>\n
Another application of the same requirement is given in Deuteronomy 22:5:<\/p>\n
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman\u2019s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.<\/p>\n
God\u2019s fundamental order must not be despised or violated. Homosexuals, feminists, and many scientists are determined, however, that God\u2019s order must not stand.
\nMany efforts have been made over the centuries to undermine these laws. Since the law forbids the gendering of animals with a diverse kind, beginning with the rabbis and through generations of commentators, it has been held that buying and using mules is not forbidden, only crossbreeding a horse and ass to produce one. This is like saying that it is illegal to steal, but not illegal to receive stolen goods. Again, it is said that, because the high priest wore both linen and wool, priests were exempt. The law, however, forbids mingling the materials, using cloth of mingled threads.
\nThis law begins with the declaration, \u201cYe shall keep my statutes.\u201d Statutes is chuggah (Khookkaw), a decreed limit, an ordinance. It is translated as ordinance in Jeremiah 33:25. Hertz wrote that<\/p>\n
the word may mean here, as in Jer. 33:25, fixed laws which God had instituted for the government of the physical universe. The purpose of the following regulations would then be: man must not deviate from the appointed order of things, nor go against the eternal laws of nature as established by Divine Wisdom. What God has ordained to be kept apart man must not seek to mix together.<\/p>\n
Bush said of the prefix, \u201cYe shall keep my statutes,\u201d \u201cThese words are here inserted lest the ensuing ordinance should be deemed of little moment and so neglected.\u201d We tend to regard that which is unimportant to us as of minor or no importance to God. Bush noted:<\/p>\n
As to seeds, it would in many cases be very improper to sow different kinds in the same spot of ground, as many species of vegetables are disposed to mix and thus produce a very degenerate crop. Thus if oats and wheat were sown together, the latter would be injured, the former ruined. The turnip and carrot would not succeed conjointly, when either of them separately would prosper and yield a good crop; and if this be all that is intended, the precept here given is agreeable to the soundest agricultural maxims.<\/p>\n
It is ironic that from time to time men are determined to prove that such laws are mere superstition; they sow various vegetables between the rows of young vines or fruit trees, with sad results. As Scott observed,<\/p>\n
These practices might be considered, as an attempt to alter the original constitution of God in creation: and the law may not unaptly be regarded, as implying a command of \u201csimplicity and godly sincerity\u201d in all things.<\/p>\n
More than a few scholars, such as Noordtzij, treat this law with condescension. For Noordtzij, it is \u201cprimarily directed against what the Israelites considered to be unnatural associations.\u201d He concludes that this law was \u201can inheritance from a distant past, just as our society still has customs that ultimately derive from a similar mode of thought.\u201d
\nFar more discerning is Oehler\u2019s comment:<\/p>\n
The traditional division of the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and juristic laws, may serve to facilitate a general view of theocratic ordinances; but it is incorrect if it seeks to express a distinction within the law, and to claim a difference of dignity for the various parts. For in the law, the most inward commandment, \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,\u201d stands beside \u201cThou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed,\u201d Lev. 19:18, 19. That Israel must be holy, like God, is the ground alike of the command not to be defiled by eating the flesh of certain animals, 11:44 ff., and of the command to honor father and mother, 19:2 f. In fact, the ceremonial law gives special expression to the antagonism of the true religion to heathen nature-worship, by showing that while in the latter the Deity is drawn down into nature, in the former what is natural must be consecrated and hallowed to God. The whole law, in all its parts, has the same form of absolute, unconditional command. Before the making of the covenant, the people had the choice whether they would bind themselves by the law that was to be given; but after they pledge themselves, all choice is taken away. Because of this strictly objective character of the law, human judgment cannot be allowed to make distinctions between the different precepts. Whether such distinctions are to be made can be decided only by the Lawgiver, who appoints, it is true, a severer punishment for certain moral abominations, and for the transgression of such precepts as stand in immediate relation to the covenant idea (e.g., circumcision, the Sabbath, etc.) than for other transgressions. But, so far as man is concerned, the most inconsiderable precept is viewed under the aspect of the obedience demand for the whole law: \u201cCursed is he that fulfils not the words of this law, to do them,\u201d Deut. 27:26.<\/p>\n
These laws forbid the blurring of God-created distinctions. The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries. Man\u2019s original sin (Gen. 3:5) was and is his attempt to deny and obliterate the distinction between God and man. Homosexuality, bestiality, and a variety of other sexual sins have as their purpose the obliteration of all such boundaries. Many of these offenses, including bestiality and incest, have been mandated by pagan religions as the essential affirmation of man\u2019s freedom from and defiance of God\u2019s law.
\nThe violation of the boundaries set by God\u2019s law goes hand in hand with the savage insistence on obedience to man-made laws. Violations of tax laws can sometimes now lead to more severe penalties than murder.
\nAs we trivialize God\u2019s law, we see the exaltation of man\u2019s law. There is an inner logic in man\u2019s statism and lawlessness. The insistence on denying God-given boundaries has many facets. In the mid-1950s, an economic analyst, Baxter, predicted a growing emphasis on unisex. Since then, we have seen the denial of the differences between male and female, and much more.
\nGod\u2019s laws are case laws. If vegetable seeds are not to be mingled, nor an ass and a horse crossbred, then in the human realm it follows that the confusion of God-ordained boundaries is even more serious.
\nThe boundaries set by God shall stand. Those who deny them shall destroy themselves in their denial of the fundamental order of being.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty One<\/p>\n
Sexuality and Confusion
\n(Leviticus 19:20\u201322)<\/p>\n
20. And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
\n21. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
\n22. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 19:20\u201322)<\/p>\n
We come again to a very unpopular law, but an important one. Men resent the Bible\u2019s evaluation of man, and hence find the plain references to it disquieting. The law refers to a \u201cbondmaid.\u201d Bondservice in Scripture has reference to servitude to pay off a debt. Rabbi Hertz saw this law as referring to \u201cthe union with a heathen bondmaid betrothed to a Hebrew slave.\u201d There is no hint of this in the text. The term is bondmaid, shiphchah (shifkhaw); the Hebrew word comes from another, mishpachah, a family, from to spread out. The bondmaid had a place in the family, however temporary, and thus was not something to be used. Her status was legally protected. Moreover, as F. Meyrick noted,<\/p>\n
The words, she shall be scourged, should be translated, there shall be investigation, followed, presumably, by the punishment of scourging, for both parties if both were guilty, for one if the woman were unwilling. The man is afterwards to offer a trespass offering. As the offence had been a wrong as well as a sin, his offering is to be a trespass offering.<\/p>\n
Robert Young, in his Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, rendered the phrase, \u201can investigation there is.\u201d J. R. Porter translated it as \u201cinquiry shall be made.\u201d The Hebrew word, biggoreth, rendered by some as scourged, appears only once in the Bible and most likely means examination.
\nThese verses need to be considered in relationship to Deuteronomy 22:23\u201324:<\/p>\n
23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
\n24. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour\u2019s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.<\/p>\n
In both Leviticus 19:20\u201322 and Deuteronomy 22:23\u201324, we have unmarried but betrothed girls. For the free woman, the penalty is death as it is for the man; this has reference, not to rape, but to lawless sex. In the case of the bondmaid, diminished freedom means diminished responsibility on her part. The man in the case is another matter: the reference is to \u201cwhosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband.\u201d This can apply to her master, or his son, or to a male bondservant in the household, or any other man. In any of these instances, the man would have the greater responsibility and power. At any rate, an investigation was required in order to assess the penalty. In Exodus 22:16\u201317, the penalty for lawless sex with an unbetrothed maid was the payment of a dowry whether or not marriage followed, and marriage if the girl\u2019s father required it. The reduced girl could not be divorced at a later date (Deut. 22:28\u201329). In this instance, the investigation determined the penalty, which could not be death. The law regarding women prisoners of war who were married by their captors protected them from abuse or degradation; mistreatment gave them freedom, i.e., a divorce (Deut. 21:10\u201314). In terms of this, it follows that an abused bondmaid could gain both her freedom and some compensation as a result of the inquiry and the assessment of guilt. Keil and Delitzsch had this to say in part:<\/p>\n
Even the personal rights of slaves were to be upheld; and a maid, though a slave, was not to be degraded to the condition of personal property. If any one lay with a woman who was a slave and betrothed to a man, but neither redeemed nor emancipated, the punishment of death was not to be inflicted, as in the case of adultery (chap. 20:10), or the seduction of a free virgin who was betrothed (Deut. 22:23sqq.), because she was not set free; but scourging was to be inflicted, and the guilty person was also to bring a trespass-offering for the expiation of his sin against God.<\/p>\n
Their comment is erroneous in calling the bondmaid a slave; there is a difference. It is also in error in its reference to scourging, but it is correct in seeing that the law is protective of all peoples. According to the Mishnah, scourging is the punishment, but this is not what the text specifies.
\nThe reference to the bondmaid as \u201cnot at all redeemed\u201d can be better understood in modern English as not fully redeemed. Each day a bondservant worked lessened his or her redemption price. According to a Jewish tradition, no daughter of Israel could be a bondmaid. However, Exodus 21:7 deals with this possibility and fact.
\nThe trespass offering was required of the man, but it is wrong to see it as the limit of his punishment. As Lange said,<\/p>\n
Versions and authorities vary as to whether the punishment was to be inflicted on both parties, on the man alone, or on the woman alone (A.V.). The last is supported on the ground that the man\u2019s punishment consisted in his trespass offering; but this is so entirely inadequate that this view may be dismissed. Probably both parties were punished when the acquiescence of the woman might be presumed, and the man alone in the opposite case. This would be in accordance with the analogy of Deut. 22:23\u201327, and would account for the indefiniteness of the Hebrew expression.\u2026 The supposition that both were ordinarily to be punished also agrees best with the following plural\u2014they shall not be put to death.<\/p>\n
There is another aspect to this law, one which was seen in antiquity and is now disregarded. This law follows Leviticus 19:19, which prohibits cross-breeding of diverse kinds, and also mingled threads in a garment, i.e., of linen and woolen. In Leviticus 19:20\u201322, the improper mixture is of two kinds. First, it is a lawless relationship, outside of marriage and outside the protective bonds of family life and status. Second, the man and the woman are unequal in status. This does not mean that the slave girl could not be a capable and talented person. Her status did not give her anything but weakness as against the man. It was thus an exploitive relationship and hence an improper and lawless \u201cmixture.\u201d While clearly giving headship to the man, God\u2019s law is also protective of the woman so that the relationship might be covenantal, i.e., contractual and under law, rather than exploitive.
\nThe significance of the trespass offering requirement is very clearly set forth by Oehler:<\/p>\n
The trespass-offering presupposes \u2026 an act of defrauding, which, though chiefly an infraction of a neighbor\u2019s rights in the matter of property, is also, according to the views of Mosaism, an infraction of God\u2019s rights in respect to law.<\/p>\n
Reference was made earlier to the fact that laws like this one are commonly unpopular and hence neglected. Modern man is not comfortable with references to bondservice and other facts now piously disavowed in name. Kellogg\u2019s comments are thus very much in order:<\/p>\n
We live in an age when, everywhere in Christendom, the cry is \u201cReform;\u201d and there are many who think that if once it be proved that a thing is wrong, it follows by necessary consequence that the immediate and unqualified legal prohibition of that wrong, under such penalty as the wrong may deserve, is the only thing that any Christian man has a right to think of. And yet, according to the principle illustrated in this legislation, this conclusion in such cases can by no means be taken for granted. That is not always the best law practically which is the best law abstractly. That law is the best which shall be most effective in diminishing a given evil, under the existing moral condition of the community; and it is often a matter of such exceeding difficulty to determine what legislation against admitted sins and evils, may be the most productive of good in a community whose moral sense is dull concerning them, that it is not strange that the best of men are often found to differ. Remembering this, we may well commend the duty of a more charitable judgment in such cases, than one often hears from such radical reformers, who seem to imagine that in order to remove an evil all that is necessary is to pass a law at once and for ever prohibiting it; and who therefore hold up to obloquy all who doubt as to the wisdom and duty of so doing, as the enemies of truth and of righteousness. Moses, acting under direct instruction from the God of supreme wisdom and of perfect holiness, was far wiser than such well-meaning but sadly mistaken social reformers, who would fain be wiser than God.<\/p>\n
What Kellogg noted almost a century ago has proven to be totally right. Laws have been framed to replace God\u2019s law; these laws have reflected abstract goals and doctrines unrelated to the facts of man\u2019s nature and society. Laws can control men and require them to be outwardly good, but laws cannot give man a new nature, nor can they control evil if they mislocate it.
\nHumanistic laws locate evil in society, in the environment; evil is the family, or capitalism, or communism, or any number of other things which we may consider to be good or bad. Evil is not an abstraction: it is moral perversity in man. Communism as an economic system can, in abstraction, be conceived to be an ideal system and the solution to all human problems. Angels might conceivably live happily in a communist society, but men are not angels; they are sinners. As sinners, they are in nature not created for such a society as communism. Hypothetical mathematics cannot be used to build bridges, nor hypothetical economics to establish an economic order. Humanistic laws are abstract and ideal, not related to the realities of man\u2019s nature and being, and as a result they bring in social chaos.
\nGod\u2019s law is in terms of God\u2019s creation and of God\u2019s purpose for man. It furthers man\u2019s freedom and God\u2019s purpose for man and the world. The purpose of Leviticus 19:20\u201322 is to prevent confusion. Men must not use their power to destroy God\u2019s order. Homosexuality and bestiality are obvious cases of confusion, but so, too, is any unequal and exploitive relationship.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Two<\/p>\n
Circumcision, Trees, and Us
\n(Leviticus 19:23\u201325)<\/p>\n
23. And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.
\n24. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal.
\n25. And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:23\u201325)<\/p>\n
This is on the surface a simple law with respect to the care of fruit trees. As usually observed, it has meant stripping the young tree of its blossoms or its barely formed fruit. As a result, the tree grows better in the first three years of its life. This is sound practice; the tree will later bear more richly because of it.
\nThere is, however, another aspect to this law, one which points beyond farming. It is the use of the word uncircumcised. Only by keeping the tree from bearing fruit for three years is it then regarded as circumcised. This is a religious term, having reference to a covenant rite whereby the cutting of the foreskin is a representation of our death to hope in generation and our confidence in God\u2019s work of regeneration. The use of this word here is not accidental.
\nBefore God would allow Moses to begin his ministry, Moses had to see to it that one of his sons was circumcised (Ex. 4:20\u201326). Before Passover in Egypt and before Israel\u2019s deliverance, all Israelites, including their servants, had to be circumcised (Ex. 12:43\u201351). Again, a generation later, before entering the Promised Land, all the uncircumcised had to be circumcised before eating of the Passover meal and entering Canaan (Josh. 5:2\u20139). Circumcision was required before men and their families could eat the Passover offering. Both Moses and Joshua began their great tasks of leading a people, out of Egypt in the case of Moses, and into Canaan in Joshua\u2019s case, by these acts of circumcision that preceded the Passover.
\nBefore looking further into the meaning of circumcision in this context, let us turn to its application to trees.
\nIn its first three years, the fruit tree is to be regarded as comparable to a male infant during its first eight days up to the rite of circumcision: it is unconsecrated. It is noteworthy that even among the ancient Babylonians fruit trees were left unharvested until after the fourth year. Faithfulness to this law means no loss at all; in the fifth year, the harvest will, by its abundance, reward the faithful one. From the planting of the trees to the harvesting thereof, all must be done in terms of God\u2019s law: this is the law of holiness. Wenham\u2019s comment here is beautiful:<\/p>\n
Holiness involves the total consecration of a man\u2019s life and labor to God\u2019s service. This was symbolized in the giving of one day in seven, and a tithe of all produce, and also in the dedication of the firstfruits of agriculture. This principle covers not only crops (Exod. 23:19; Lev. 23:10; Deut. 26:1ff.) but also animals (Exod. 34:19\u201320; Deut. 15:19) and even children (Exod. 13:2; Num. 8:16ff.). By dedicating the first of everything to God, the man of the Old Covenant publicly acknowledged that all he had was from God, and he thanked him for his blessings. (1 Chr. 29:14).<\/p>\n
\u201cThe garden-fruit was also to be sanctified to the Lord.\u201d If the laws of holiness apply to fruit trees, how much more so to man, to us! When, after three years, the tree is harvested, the fruit, or the proceeds of its sale, must go to God. \u201cIt teaches us, as in all analogous cases, that God is always to be served before ourselves.\u201d
\nWe should note that this law, like all God\u2019s laws, has benefits in every direction. We glorify God by our obedience. The fruit trees are stronger because they are allowed to give all their strength to growth for three years. Finally, the farmer receives a better harvest in due time.
\nThese verses, like so many others, are not immune to absurd interpretations. Peake held that the fruit during the first three years may have been left for the field spirits!
\nIn laws such as this, holiness is extended to the natural world, for holiness is a total concept: there is no sphere of creation which is excluded from its requirements.
\nFour times in Leviticus (14:34; 19:23; 23:10; 25:2), as C. D. Ginsburg has noted, we are given laws looking ahead to the occupation of Canaan. The purpose of this particular law is \u201cto praise the Lord\u201d (v. 24), and the word translated as praise is derived from halal, as in hallelujah; it means to jubilate. God commands us because the earth is His, and we are His. His laws are for our prosperity in Him, and hence are to further our jubilation.
\nThis should help us to understand why an agricultural fact is described by a covenantal term. Circumcision is entrance into the covenant, as is baptism in the New Testament, and some have suggested that the word baptism could be used here.
\nIn terms of this, the circumcision-Passover relationship could be transcribed for the church as the baptism-resurrection nexus. By our baptism into Christ, i.e., our atonement and regeneration, we are the people of the new creation, of the resurrection.
\nThe matter does not end here. Scripture makes it clear that faithfulness to the Lord is the way of life, whereas unfaithfulness and unbelief is the way of death. Proverbs 8:36 declares, \u201che that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.\u201d
\nIt is not accidental that a single fact of farming which is productive of better and richer harvests is given an unusual name, circumcision. Neither is it incidental that faithfulness is blessed by a deferred but richer harvest.
\nThe people of the circumcision, of baptism, are the people of the Passover, of the resurrection. We are thereby prepared to yield a rich and enduring harvest to the Lord. We are not called to be fruitless to Christ. If we are in Christ, the Vine, we are the branches who are to bear fruit abundantly (John 15:1\u20138).
\nCircumcision is a spiritual death, as is baptism also, and a mark of a supernatural life, power, and meaning. It leads to the Passover, to resurrection, and then to the making of all things new (Rev. 21:5).<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Three<\/p>\n
Profanity
\n(Leviticus 19:26\u201331)<\/p>\n
26. Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
\n27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
\n28. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
\n29. Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
\n30. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
\n31. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:26\u201331)<\/p>\n
These are laws concerning profanity in the Biblical sense. In v. 29, the word prostitute, which appears nowhere else in the Bible (normally the word whore is used), must be translated more accurately as profane. The origin of the word prostitute is in Latin, and it comes from a root meaning \u201cto place;\u201d such a woman is placed in an exposed and vulnerable way of life and is unprotected. Profane means outside the temple, outside of God.
\nSince this verse tells us much about the entire passage, let us begin by analyzing its meaning. As it reads in modern English, it is a tautology; if a daughter is prostituted, she is made a whore; it is not a future possibility, as \u201cto cause her to be a whore\u201d would indicate. The Hebrew word profane has the meaning also of dissolve. The reference thus is to allowing a girl to do something outside of God which dissolves the God-ordained family relationship and has devastating effects on the land. How then does a man profane his daughter? The ancient rabbinic interpretation is very clear on this, and especially important in its modern relevance. To profane a daughter meant and means to allow any ungodly relationship with a man, including a non-marital sexual relationship. The rite of marriage is viewed as the sanctification of the man and the woman in their sexuality. It is in terms of God\u2019s law, the normal and godly estate; hence, if a father permits any profane or ungodly conduct by his daughter, the effects on society are far-reaching. As Hertz noted, the land would fall into harlotry and become full of lewdness, which means, \u201clooking upon the \u2018demand\u2019 for harlotry as a normal condition of things, and tolerating the consequent \u2018supply\u2019 of human beings for such a life of shame.\u201d
\nThe requirement of this law thus begins first, with the authority and the responsibility of the father. He must not condone or tolerate any ungodly or profane activity. The law speaks of daughters, being a case law, but it applies to all members of the family, sons and other members of the household included. The father\u2019s responsibility is to refuse sanction to any profane activity, and the decision must be his.
\nSecond, if sanction or permission cannot be given to any profane living, neither can an inheritance, a subsidy, or any other form of assistance. The family capital must be used to capitalize our Christian future, not profanity.
\nThird, this law stresses the social consequences of private acts. What the family does profoundly affects society. Thus, in v. 29 we see clearly the thrust of all these verses: holiness is a total concept, and profanity in any sphere has societal results.
\nThe prohibition of eating blood (v. 26) was dealt with in Leviticus 17:10ff. Maimonides wrote of the pagan rites of blood: men killed a beast, received its blood in a pot, and then drank the blood to gain the animal\u2019s power and to establish communion with spirits. In this verse, eating or drinking blood is associated with the pagan practices of divination and soothsaying. When God gives us His revelation, to seek knowledge from ungodly sources is an act of defiance and apostasy. The word enchantment is nachash, virtually the identical word as in Genesis 3:1, where it is translated as serpent. Its root meaning is to hiss or whisper, and it refers to all efforts to circumvent God\u2019s law-word. Thus, the Tempter in the Garden of Eden, Satan, is called a serpent, a whisperer, one who believes that defiant and secret words of rebellion and independence can alter God\u2019s reality. God\u2019s reality is never governed by the creature\u2019s word. The future cannot be determined apart from or in defiance of the triune God.
\nWe have in v. 27 a law now regarded as merely a curiosity. Some Jews, by allowing the sidelocks to grow long, go beyond the requirement of v. 27 to ensure their obedience. It is interesting to note that Tsar Nicholas I of Russia tried to force the Jews out of compliance with this law in order, apparently, to facilitate assimilation, whereas earlier, Maria Theresa of Austria ordered strict obedience in order to make all Jews readily identifiable. However, much of the present-day observance of this law by Jews represents the influence of Kabbalism and Hasidism rather than ancient practice.
\nThere are two aspects to this law. First, it was and still is the practice of some peoples, Arabs in particular, to shave off all the hair of the head except a dish-like tuft on the crown. Others shaved off the top of their crown to have a tonsure. The marginal readings to Jeremiah 9:26; 25:23; and 49:32 all refer to the Arabian practice. The people of God were to abstain from such practices to distinguish them from their unbelieving neighbors.
\nSecond, the beard similarly was not to be deformed in various ways. Most scholars call attention to a wide variety of pagan practices wherein various religious requirements led to deforming the natural character of head hair and beard. This is true enough, but peripheral to the basic meaning. Wenham, commenting on vv. 27\u201328, noted, with his usual insight and clarity:<\/p>\n
This law conforms to other holiness rules which seek to uphold the natural order of creation and preserve it from corruption (cf. v. 19; 18:22\u201323; 21:17ff.). God created man in his image and pronounced all creation very good (Gen. 1). Man is not to disfigure the divine likeness implanted in him by scarring his body. The external appearance of the people should reflect their internal status as the chosen and holy people of God (Deut. 14:1\u20132). Paul uses a similar line of argument in 1 Cor. 6. The body of the believer belongs to Christ, therefore, \u201cglorify God in your body\u201d (1 Cor. 6:20).<\/p>\n
The relevance of God\u2019s law is a continuing one. Unnatural styles have too often warped man\u2019s head and body.
\nIn v. 28, ornamental cuttings in the flesh or cuttings to show mourning, as still practiced by some peoples, and tattoos, practiced by virtually all, are forbidden. It is noteworthy that in the Turkish Empire, and in other nations, slaves were routinely tattooed, commonly on the forehead. Man\u2019s body is God\u2019s creation, and it is a sin to disfigure or mar it. Knight wisely noted that the word flesh in the Hebrew covers the whole being of man, his personality, soul, and body. Such disfiguring includes what is in our minds and thoughts, as well as \u201cdabbling with the occult.\u201d We are God\u2019s workmanship, and any tampering with His work is a sin and an outrage. Birth defects are aspects of a fallen world; their correction is not at all wrong. It is tampering with God\u2019s order that is condemned. God underlines the importance of this law by declaring again, \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d
\nIn v. 30, God requires Sabbath-keeping and reverence for His sanctuary, once more with the reminder, \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d The Sabbath and the Law as a whole are given by God as His love and care for man, and are to man a way of privilege and glory. Some rabbis of old held that the greater the number of commandments from God, the more man\u2019s life can be sanctified and beautified. Thus it was said:<\/p>\n
Beloved are the Israelites, for God has encompassed them with commandments.\u2026 (Men. 43b.)<\/p>\n
R. Phinehas said: Whatsoever you do, the commandments accompany you. If you build a house, there is Deut. 22:8 (battlements); if you make a door, there is Deut. 6:9 (text on door); if you buy new clothes, there is Deut. 22:11 (linsey-woolsey); if you have your hair cut, there is Lev. 19:27 (corners of beard); if you plough your field, there is Deut. 22:10 (ox and ass together); if you sow it, there is Deut. 22:9 (mixed crop); if you gather harvest, there is Deut. 22:19 (forgotten sheaf). God said, \u2018Even when you are not occupied with anything, but are just taking a walk, the commands accompany you,\u2019 for there is Deut. 22:6 (bird\u2019s nest).<\/p>\n
In v. 31, any trust in or resort to mediums and wizards (or, occultist \u201cwise-men\u201d) is strictly forbidden. To do so, as Bonar noted, is to \u201cchoose rather the fellowship of God\u2019s enemies.\u201d At issue is the source of knowledge: do we seek it under God or outside and in defiance of God? All ungodly quests for knowledge are profanity.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Four<\/p>\n
Reverence
\n(Leviticus 19:32\u201337)<\/p>\n
32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.
\n33. And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
\n34. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
\n35. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
\n36. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
\n37. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:32\u201337)<\/p>\n
Biblical law takes less space than any modern law book and yet totally covers life. It governs not only our action, but also our words, thoughts, and attitudes. We are warned not to put our \u201ctrust in princes, nor in the son of Adam, in whom there is no help\u201d (Ps. 146:3). When men turn to God to trust and obey Him, then God is our help and government, with far-reaching benefits, as Psalm 146:5\u201310 makes clear:<\/p>\n
5. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
\n6. Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:
\n7. Which executeth judgment for the oppressed: Which giveth food to the hungry. The LORD looseth the prisoners:
\n8. The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:
\n9. The LORD preserveth the strangers: he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
\n10. The LORD shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the LORD.<\/p>\n
The stranger, the fatherless, the widow, the oppressed, the hungry, the unjustly prisoned (i.e., captives), the blind, and more, are all the objects of God\u2019s care and must be cared for by us also. But this is not all: the aged must be honored, even as parents are honored (Ex. 20:12). A generation that will not honor and respect its forbears will be despised and condemned by God. The command thus is to rise up when the aged come into our presence, and it is reinforced by the notice: \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d For children to oppress their elders, and women to rule over men (Isa. 3:5, 12), is a mark of the end of a culture and its coming judgment. The modern cult of youth is not Scriptural.
\nJ. R. Porter correctly noted:<\/p>\n
Reverence for the aged is not primarily on humanitarian grounds. It is rooted in the divine ordering of society and hence is coupled with the injunction fear your God.<\/p>\n
Kellogg was right in declaring that \u201creverence for the aged\u201d in the law \u201cclosely connects \u2026 with the fear of God.\u201d
\nThe Biblical goal for us is age with wisdom and justice, and this is declared to be \u201cbeauty.\u201d Instances of this in Proverbs are the following:<\/p>\n
The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness. (16:31)<\/p>\n
The glory of young men is their strength: and the beauty of old men is the gray head. (20:29)<\/p>\n
The Biblical goal is age with wisdom and justice, or righteousness, whereas the modern goal is perpetual youth, with hedonistic pursuits and pleasures. It has not occurred to modern scholars, because of their thorough naturalism, that this depreciation of maturity and age may be one reason why so many men become impotent even in their forties.
\nCalvin noted:<\/p>\n
Many old men, indeed, either by their own levity, or lewdness, or sloth, subvert their own dignity; yet, although grey hairs may not always be accompanied by courteous wisdom, still, in itself, age is venerable, according to God\u2019s command.<\/p>\n
The Bible records only one case of open disrespect for age, by Elihu in Job 32:9, \u201cGreat men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.\u201d God rebuked Eliphaz the Temanite, and his two friends, declaring, \u201cye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath\u201d (Job 42:7\u20138). God totally ignored Elihu. God \u201caccepted\u201d Job\u2019s three friends, after they made sacrifices of repentance, and \u201cthe LORD also accepted Job\u201d (Job 42:9\u201310), but again Elihu is bypassed as a nothing.
\nUntil recent years, in more than a few cultures, all rose up when an older man or woman entered a room. This is clearly set forth in the whole of Scripture, and Paul tells Timothy that a young pastor, while having a nominal authority over older members of the church, must also exercise deference even when duty requires some comment:<\/p>\n
1. Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
\n2. The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. (1 Timothy 5:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
The placement of this law is not accidental. In v. 30, the Sabbath rest, and respect for God\u2019s sanctuary, is required. God is our Creator, sustainer, and future. In v. 31, evil attempts to read the future outside of God are condemned; the future has a causal relationship to our past and present in terms of God\u2019s law. In v. 32, respect for our past and present, our elders, is commanded as a manifestation of our fear of God.
\nIn vv. 33\u201334, we are told what the love our neighbor involves (Lev. 19:18). The law specifies strangers, aliens, and it refers to their captivity in Egypt to indicate what a godless treatment of aliens can be. Yet some commentators insist that the application of this law \u201cwas only to those who worshipped Israel\u2019s God.\u201d This is not how the text reads; only if one reads the Bible with evolution in mind is such a reading \u201ctenable.\u201d Alleman\u2019s treatment of Genesis gives reasons for regarding his view as the importation of a modern perspective into the text. Jamieson was closer to the meaning here in declaring:<\/p>\n
The Israelites were told to hold out encouragement to strangers to settle among them, that these might be brought to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and with this view they were enjoined to treat such persons, not as aliens, but as friends, on the ground that they themselves, who were strangers in Egypt, were at first kindly and hospitably received in that country.<\/p>\n
It is worthy of note that, if a culture is strong, the migrants into its boundaries seek to learn and follow its ways; they become strong proponents and defenders of it. When the culture weakens, both aliens and citizens begin to desert it.
\nHow seriously this law is regarded by God appears in Deuteronomy 27:19:<\/p>\n
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.<\/p>\n
In Matthew 25:40, our Lord says, \u201cInasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.\u201d As we treat our fellow believers in need, so we treat Christ. Paul and the apostolic fellowship declare, in Hebrews 13:1\u20132,<\/p>\n
1. Let brotherly love continue.
\n2. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.<\/p>\n
The reference here is to Genesis 18, the story of Abraham and the three strangers.
\nIn vv. 35\u201337, justice in commercial dealings is required. The ephah was the standard dry measure, somewhat more than a bushel, and the hin a liquid measure, about 1\u00bc to 1\u00bd gallons, although some authorities differ. Snaith rightly noted:<\/p>\n
These verses are against false measurements of length, weight, and quantity. Scales were used not only for weighing what was sold, but also for weighing the money paid, the coins, such as they were, being by no means standardized or secure from clipping.<\/p>\n
Money was originally weights of gold and silver, not \u201ccoins,\u201d and hence was honest money.
\nPorter wisely noted:<\/p>\n
Dishonesty in commercial transactions would be a sign of injustice throughout the whole of society, generally at the expense of the poor, so it is often condemned in the prophets and elsewhere in the Old Testament (cf. Ezek. 45:10\u201311; Amos 8:5; Deut. 25:13\u201315).<\/p>\n
Dishonesty in commerce is evidence of bad character and an absence of godliness. The alternative to such dishonesty is not a withdrawal from the world of commerce but integrity within it.
\nLeviticus 19 begins and ends with the declaration, \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d This is the Lord\u2019s word, and, if we submit to Him as Lord, we submit to His word. We cannot separate the two.
\nWe show our reverence for the triune God in the way we treat our elders, all strangers or foreigners, and all men with whom we have commercial transactions or monetary dealings. We thereby manifest whether or not we fear God.
\nFurthermore, as Harrison noted, \u201cObedience to the divine will is the key to blessing in life.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Five<\/p>\n
Molech Worship
\n(Leviticus 20:1\u20135)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
\n3. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
\n4. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
\n5. Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. (Leviticus 20:1\u20135)<\/p>\n
This law is among the less popular laws of Scripture, if we can call any law popular when it militates against man\u2019s sin. The word Molech has several forms: Moloch, Milcom, Melek, Malcam, and Malcan; it means king, or counselor. It has reference to king or state worship. Giving one\u2019s seed to Molech meant declaring the child to be the property of the civil ruler, to be used at his will. In a ceremony setting forth this fact, the child was passed over a brazier of incense, or an altar of sacrifice, to indicate the surrender and dedication of the child to the ruler. In the event of a national crisis, the child could be killed as a sacrifice.
\nThis cult was widespread in antiquity. It was also associated with the bull cult, the calf or bull being a symbol of fertility and divine kingship. The king-god was sometimes represented on seals by streams of water issuing from his body, or from a vase in his hand. Hooke concluded,<\/p>\n
As we have suggested, the interchange between the god, the king and the sacred tree seems to point to the fact that the tree, which it may not be misleading to call the tree of life, is a symbol of the life giving functions of the king.<\/p>\n
A king-god was \u201can individual who was regarded by the community as the focus and embodiment of the magical powers which were necessary for its well-being.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is easy for modern man to view Molech worship as a primitive superstition. The fact is, however, that modern man, against evidence and reason, expects the state, the modern king-god, to be a tree of life and to solve political, economic, educational, medical, cultural, and other problems. Given the long history of the messianic state, modern man seems to be far more gullible and superstitious than the men of antiquity.
\nIt should be noted that the identification of Molech with the king and his order is slighted and even questioned by some scholars. The writings of such men raise questions, render all answers fuzzy, and sometimes manifest an antipathy to the most obvious answers. Given the religious skepticism of such scholars, both truth and factuality are blurred because their vision is blurred. With the wrong glasses, our physical vision is impaired; with the wrong faith, our intellectual vision begins to suffer.
\nThe medievalist Henry Focillon called attention to the fact that at one time historians viewed the year A.D. 1000 as a time of apocalyptic fear and even terror at the supposed imminent end of the world. Focillon revised that view without eliminating the importance of the year. All too many scholars of recent generations have ridiculed the idea that the year 1000 was at all important. This, said Focillon, is because the calendar has lost its importance for us. When the Christian Church shaped culture, the calendar expressed great and exalted certainties: Christmas, Easter, Saints\u2019 days, pilgrimages, and more. Time and the year were a frame for man\u2019s action in Christ. There was thus a meaning to the calendar. Now dates are more limited and are political. For a Frenchman like Focillon, they are 1793, 1830, and 1848. Modern man\u2019s calendar has no cosmic meaning, and hence dates, men, events, and especially moral imperatives have a limited meaning.
\nLet us now turn to the text. Porter holds that \u201cthe crime is child-sacrifice to a foreign deity.\u201d We need not assume that this necessitates the actual execution of the child. The covenant child belongs to God: any alienation of the child from God is a serious offense. How seriously God regards this is apparent, not only from this law, but also from our Lord\u2019s echo of it in Matthew 18:6:<\/p>\n
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.<\/p>\n
Note that in both Leviticus 20:1\u20135 and Matthew 18:6, stones are referred to in the execution of offenders. Offenses against children are not taken lightly. They have their root in the fact that the covenant child is God\u2019s property. (This is the meaning of infant baptism.) In v. 5, it is called committing \u201cwhoredom with Molech,\u201d or, in modern versions, prostituting themselves to Molech.
\nThe primary offense against the child is religious; it means anything other than seeing the child as God\u2019s property and as an object of our stewardship. All other offenses against the child are subsidiaries to this. Hannah\u2019s words concerning her son Samuel set forth the meaning of this law:<\/p>\n
27. For this lad I prayed, and the LORD has granted me what I prayed Him for;
\n28. I have therefore handed him back to the LORD; as long as he lives he is returned to the LORD. (1 Samuel 1:27\u201328; Berkeley Version)<\/p>\n
Snaith held that this law says nothing about the burning of children as human sacrifices. It means, he said, dedicating them to temple male and female prostitution, which is a profanation of the sanctuary and God\u2019s Name. This is a possible interpretation, but what is clear is the protection of children as God\u2019s property, not the state\u2019s, nor the parents\u2019.
\nTwo kinds of penalties are cited. First, the \u201cpeople of the land,\u201d or their courts, must execute all who are guilty of various forms of child abuse. Second, God Himself moves against such people. A culture which is indifferent to child abuse has no future.
\nIn v. 5, the primary offender is seen as the father in all cases where the family is guilty. Because of his authority, the father has the greater culpability.
\nDeath by stoning was the severest penalty of the law. According to C. D. Ginsburg,<\/p>\n
The Jewish canonists have tabulated the following eighteen cases in which death by stoning was inflicted: (1) of a man who had commerce with his own mother (chap. 20:11); (2) or with his father\u2019s wife (ch. 20:1); (3) or with his daughter-in-law (chap. 20:12); (4) or with a betrothed maiden (Deut. 22:23, 24); (5) or with a male (chap. 20:13); (6) or with a beast (chap. 20:15); (7) of a woman who was guilty of lying with a beast (chap. 20:16); (8) the blasphemer (chap. 24:10\u201316); (9) the worshipper of idols (Deut. 17:2\u20135); (10) the one who gives his seed to Molech (chap. 20:2); (11) the necromancer; (12) the wizard (chap. 20:27); (13) the false prophet (Deut. 13:6); (14) the enticer to idolatry (Deut. 13:11); (15) the witch (chap. 20:17); (16) the profaner of the Sabbath (Num. 15:32\u201336); (17) he that curses his parent (chap. 20:9); and (18) the rebellious son (Deut. 21:18\u201321).<\/p>\n
According to Hebraic practice, the one sentenced to die was first exhorted to confess his sins and repent; next, he was given \u201csome stupefying draught\u201d to render him more or less insensible. It is noteworthy that v. 4 stresses the fact that the entire community must be involved in this opposition to child abuse and the separation of the child from God; the child is not man\u2019s property. Nathaniel Micklem held that the offense was \u201cthe dedication of the children to \u2018the king.\u2019 \u201d Whenever the child is seen as human property, state property, or his own lord, he is separated from God the Creator and from the protection of God\u2019s law. The culmination of the secularization of the child is his sacrifice to human or statist purposes. Thus, it is not surprising that Molech worship could end in child sacrifice (Ps. 106:37\u201338; Jer. 7:31; 19:4f; Ezek. 23:37\u201339; Micah 6:7). According to Ezekiel, such practices were common to those who made a formal profession of faith:<\/p>\n
37. They have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
\n38. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths.
\n39. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house. (Ezekiel 23:37\u201339)<\/p>\n
The Law declares repeatedly that, when a people reject God, the earth rejects them and spues them out. Children, we are told, are an inheritance from God (Ps. 127:3), and in Ezekiel 23:37, God says that children are born unto God. To reject our duty to rear children in terms of God\u2019s covenant is thus a rejection of our inheritance and our future.
\nA final point. The common hostility to this and like texts in the Law is because of the death penalty. We live in a time when the death penalty is not popular, but, even among those who favor the death penalty, the law is commonly rejected. First, the penalty applies to a covenant people directly, but, indirectly, all godless cultures are under a penalty of death. Second, many who are ready to accept the death penalty for crimes against man reject it for crimes against God. Man is more important in their thinking, and crime is reduced to offenses against mankind and its properties. Such a view is humanistic. Third, in due time, God brings radical judgment on cultures which despise the Name and honor of God, and who feel that transgressions of His law are nothing at all.
\nIn this instance, Molech worship, we have the death penalty because an oath is violated. To understand this, let us look at the word sacramentum, an old Latin word meaning a soldier\u2019s oath. Every Roman soldier took an oath, a sacramentum, never to desert the Roman eagle, the military standard. To break that oath and to run from the enemy meant death, or, at least, the decimation of the legion, every tenth man being killed.
\nIt is difficult for modern man to appreciate the meaning of an oath. The oath of office required by the U.S. Constitution, when that document was written, still had its ancient religious and Biblical meaning: it invoked the wrath of God for violation, or man\u2019s charges of impeachment or treason. We are very much under the influence of Renaissance humanism now, an attitude best summed up by Shakespeare in Hamlet. Polonius, in speaking to Laertes, declares:<\/p>\n
This above all,\u2014to thine own self be true;
\nAnd it must follow, as the night the day,
\nThou canst not then be false to any man. (Act I, scene 3)<\/p>\n
However, it is precisely when we are true to ourselves that we are false to both God and man. We then give priority to our changing whims and thoughts, with deadly results. Men cannot be true to an oath when they are true to themselves. An oath means that our vow to God takes priority over ourselves.
\nNow circumcision and baptism are both forms of an oath. In circumcising or baptizing a child, we give that child to God, and we swear before God and man to rear that child as the Lord\u2019s possession. We thereby commit the child to a rearing not for ourselves or for his own sake, but for the Lord. (In adult baptism, we make the vow for ourselves.)
\nIn giving one\u2019s seed to Molech, a man by means of this pagan sacrament or oath gave his son to the state and vowed that the child was the property of the state: Molech worship is thus very much with us, although most people fail to recognize it. It takes many forms, one of which is public or state school attendance.
\nIt is a sign of the times that many Protestant churches refuse to apply the word sacrament to baptism. This means that they refuse to see it as an oath binding themselves irrevocably to God, with the penalty of His judgment for desertion if they turn their backs on their baptismal vow.
\nThe sacrament of communion is a double oath. God the Son, in His incarnation, vowed to become the all-sufficient sacrifice for sin to redeem His people:<\/p>\n
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
\n5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
\n6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast no pleasure.
\n7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
\n8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
\n9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (Hebrews 10:4\u20139)<\/p>\n
Jesus Christ came to do away with the insufficient laws of sacrifice with His sufficient sacrifice. The words of institution in communion set forth His vow or sacrament. In receiving the sacrament, a man must examine or test himself (1 Cor. 11:28); the word used is dokimazeto, from dokimos. In the Septuagint, it is used in Proverbs 25:4 for the refining of silver by fire, the testing of its character. The word is also related to an oath, because it was used for the investigating or testing that preceded a man\u2019s installation into office. In the New Testament, the word is used with reference to church members, those under the oath of baptism. Haarbeck noted, \u201cThe passages of Scripture which speak of testing, trial, recognition and rejection are addressed only to members of the church.\u201d
\nTo return to the meaning of an oath or sacrament: to deny an oath was to die. Hebrews 6:2 speaks of the doctrine of baptism, and then continues:<\/p>\n
4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
\n5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
\n6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
\n7. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
\n8. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Hebrews 6:4\u20138)<\/p>\n
The reference here is not to sins that reveal our shortcomings, but to sins of lawlessness and of contempt for God and His law. Those who partake of the sacrament unworthily eat and drink damnation to themselves, and for this reason, Paul noted, many in Corinth were weak, sickly, or had died (1 Cor. 11:29\u201330).
\nThe modern state, like the pagan state of antiquity, is guilty of Molech worship. God promises judgment to all false gods and to all who falsely take oaths to Him and in His name.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Six<\/p>\n
Profane Knowledge and Power
\n(Leviticus 20:6)<\/p>\n
6. And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)<\/p>\n
We have in Leviticus 20:6 the condemnation of spiritualism and mediums, and of all attempts to ascertain the future outside of God. It is not an accident that this law follows the law against Molech or state worship. Both in antiquity and again in the modern era, men have sought to gain knowledge of and to determine the future apart from God. This is what modern statism is all about. The modern state seeks to replace God\u2019s predestination with statist planning and controls. Marxism is the most conspicuous example of this, but all forms of modern statism are dedicated to this same task.
\nThe alternative to predestination is chance, and a cosmos of total chance is an impossibility and is contradicted by the obvious order of creation. Ever since the Tempter advanced the goal of every man as his own god and law (Gen. 3:5), man has been trying to replace God\u2019s controls with man-made controls. For fallen man, there must be a new government, on man\u2019s shoulders, a new kind of law, a new goal to history, and a new man-made creation. Physicians thus find it, for example, far more appealing to attempt organ transplants than to teach God\u2019s laws of health; they can only play god when they attempt to set aside God\u2019s order.
\nThe temptation to seek knowledge of the future apart from God is a denial of God\u2019s law. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 tell us how to know the future. Paul tells us that \u201cthe wages of sin is death\u201d (Rom. 6:23); this is knowledge about the future. Men hope, however, that the wages of sin will prove to be life, and hence the constant recourse to humanistic forms of determination or knowledge.
\nEarly in his reign, Saul attempted to abolish all forms of necromancy (1 Sam. 28:9); later, he had recourse to the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28:10\u201325).
\nHow closely Molech worship and necromancy are related is made very clear by Deuteronomy 18:9\u201314:<\/p>\n
9. When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
\n10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
\n11. Or a charmer, or a consulter with the familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
\n12. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out before thee.
\n13. Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
\n14. For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.<\/p>\n
God judged the Canaanite nations because they sought knowledge and determination apart from God. The modern state, by means of planning, humanistic laws, and humanistic education, seeks the same thing. The law here defines all attempts at knowledge and determination apart from God as evil. By contrast, Moses declares that God will raise a Prophet, a reference to the Messiah, and all false prophets, false determiners, must be condemned.
\nThe punishment of those who resort to necromancy is left in God\u2019s hands (v. 6), whereas the necromancer himself is to be executed (v. 27). Herman Cohen\u2019s comment on this is to the point:<\/p>\n
Not to realize the vital necessity of these laws concerning witchcraft and the vital duty of its extirpation, is to fall a victim to the superstition that witchcraft was mere harmless make-believe that did not call for any drastic punishment. At the bottom of this skeptical attitude towards the laws of witchcraft is indifference towards the unique value of monotheism. In a conflict of this nature\u2014witchcraft versus monotheism\u2014there can be no hesitancy or mutual tolerance of the opposite points of view. It is a question of To be or not to be for the ethical life.<\/p>\n
Cohen\u2019s use of the word witch, which in Scripture refers to a poisoner, is out of place here, but his point is that all dabbling with the occult is dangerous to persons and to society. It also declares God to be a liar whose word is not the determining word. Moreover, God\u2019s word is not one which bypasses moral decisions for us; hence, it is not a popular word, because men want a first word all their own, and one which resolves all moral problems by decree. Man\u2019s first word becomes a substitute for morality and work, and hence its appeal to man. The word of God, to be received, requires the remaking of our lives, thoughts, and actions, and it is at best received slowly by men because of their sin. As Isaiah declares:<\/p>\n
13. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
\n14. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
\n15. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
\n16. Therefore, thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Isaiah 28:13\u201316)<\/p>\n
To the ungodly, God\u2019s truth, however patiently and slowly taught, is as no more than a childish babbling. Their trust is in their lies, their humanistic plans and determinations. They believe that their lies are a sure protection from disaster. By contrast, God declares that only His Messiah is a sure foundation, and \u201che that believeth shall not make haste.\u201d Man\u2019s attempt to bypass morality and work in creating a humanistic paradise represents haste, the attempt to recapture Eden apart from God. The believer shall not make haste. While God created the heavens and the earth in six days (Gen. 1:31), man cannot do so! Only by the slow, patient obedience of faith can man reestablish God\u2019s reign (Mark 4:28).
\nTo preserve knowledge and power outside of God is described as \u201cto go a-whoring,\u201d or to prostitute oneself (Lev. 17:7). Those who seek knowledge and determination apart from God and His law are compared to male and female prostitutes; in the realm of the mind, it is the equivalent of prostitution in the realm of the body.
\nIt is noteworthy that the judgment on such persons and nations was seen by the ancient rabbis, according to the Targum of Jonathan, as destruction by pestilence or plague.
\nThe knowledge and power sought outside of God is profane. For modern man, the only valid knowledge and power is profane of necessity, because its essential character for him must be its imagined independence from God. To declare our independence from God is, however disguised, a form of total war against Him. All such efforts are futile and suicidal.
\nIn Leviticus 20:27, we are told that the penalty for necromancy is death. Modern man has a special horror of any death penalty for offenses against God. However, the mass murder of Christians does not trouble modern man. Dr. David Barrett, the British-born editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia, reported that the annual murder of Christians in 1987 and in the years previous was 330,000 the world over. The number is rising. Of these deaths, 95 percent go unreported in the media, and those reported usually get minimal coverage. Barrett\u2019s reports stress full confirmation and thus err heavily on the side of understatement. It is significant that this continuing holocaust goes unreported and troubles none or few of our sensitive liberals. Their \u201csensitivity\u201d masks a deep callousness.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Seven<\/p>\n
Holiness and the Family
\n(Leviticus 20:7\u20139)<\/p>\n
7. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
\n8. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
\n9. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:7\u20139)<\/p>\n
These verses are repeated or echoed throughout Scripture. In v. 7, the command to sanctify ourselves and to be holy is an oft repeated one, not only in the law, but also in the New Testament (Rom. 12:1\u20132; 1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 1:4; Phil. 2:12\u201313; Heb. 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15\u201316). The God-centered emphasis is clearly stated by Paul: \u201cWhether therefore ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God\u201d (1 Cor. 10:31). The first half of v. 8, \u201cAnd ye shall keep my statutes, and do them,\u201d is clearly echoed by our Lord:<\/p>\n
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
\n20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19\u201320)<\/p>\n
Our Lord also refers to this in Matthew 7:24\u201325 and 12:50.
\nThe latter half of v. 8, \u201cI am the LORD which sanctify you,\u201d echoes Exodus 31:13; it is in mind in Deuteronomy 14:2; Ezekiel 37:28; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; and Titus 2:14; the common thread in all is that God sanctifies His covenant people, He sets them apart and hallows them for His holy purpose.
\nThe law of v. 9 first appears in Exodus 21:17; it is restated in Proverbs 20:20 and Proverbs 30:11, 17, and our Lord cites it in Matthew 15:4.
\nIt is hard for modern man to take seriously the death penalty for cursing one\u2019s parents. It should be noted that the law does not require love of one\u2019s parents, but rather honor. Parents can be evil; they can abuse children, and can be guilty of many offenses. The law does not ask us to overlook such things. What we are told is that offenses against the family are equivalent to manslaughter and murder; hence, here and in vv. 11\u201313, 16, and 27, we are told that certain forms of sexual offense, and this offense against parents, which is an offense against God, must be punished by death because they destroy society. As Wenham has pointed out, to curse is more than the utterance of angry words. \u201cIt is the very antithesis of \u2018honoring.\u2019 In Hebrew, to honor is literally to make heavy, important, glorious, and to curse is to make light of and despicable.\u201d The family is basic to godly society, and thus the authority of the family is important. To curse one\u2019s parents is not the same as disagreeing with them; it is rather the rejection of the family as the God-given order, and it is the open contempt for the family as essential to man. It is the denial of the past and an insistence on another kind of order as the life of society.
\nUntil recently, parricide, the murder of one\u2019s parent, was regarded in many if not most cultures as the most fearful offense. All lesser offenses against parents were also viewed with horror as indicative of a radically evil person. In some cultures, as in early Rome, parricides were sewn into leather sacks, along with some deadly animals at times (including a viper), and cast into the sea. Even in its degeneracy, classical Greece saw offenses against the family as devastating in their social effects. Only in periods of social decay and degeneracy do we find that the family is not zealously guarded in its integrity by law and custom. Pfeiffer was right in his analysis of the meaning of this offense of Leviticus 20:9: \u201cThe cursing of father or mother is both a grievous violation of the law and a denial of the very existence of the family which God ordained for man\u2019s good.\u201d
\nGoldberg called attention to the other aspects of this law. To curse is to invoke the power and the law of some god to accomplish something. Since our covenant God requires that the family be honored, and makes it basic to His Kingdom, to curse one\u2019s parents means invoking another god. Given the fact that other religions normally respect the family, to invoke another supernatural power in cursing one\u2019s parents means to invoke demonic, destructive forces. The curse is preceded, and also accompanied by, the denial of the covenant God. It is thus a religious act whereby the offender transfers his hope from God to Satan.
\nNoordtzij has further pointed out that such cursing is a denial of the meaning, \u201ccontent,\u201d or significance which God gives to the family. It is thus an attack on God and on God\u2019s fundamental order.
\nA culture which perpetuates and fosters this kind of attack is similarly under judgment, God\u2019s judgment. The family today is less and less protected in its life and property by the state, and it is increasingly regulated. Inheritance taxes rob widows and orphans, a clear means whereby the state curses fathers and mothers. Property laws now are also destructive of the family. In God\u2019s law, property is family community property, untaxed and belonging to the family throughout its generations. The relics of property law in the United States provide for community ownership for husband and wife, with minor variations, and the property is taxed annually and at death. This constitutes a curse against the family. Statist education promotes disrespect for the family and its authority, and so-called \u201cfamily education\u201d courses teach that sexuality is a morally neutral area, and that each person is free to work out his or her own sexual tastes and preferences. The media in its entertainment furthers this disrespect for the family. All this invokes the curse of God upon a culture. \u201cHis blood shall be upon him\u201d can be rendered into contemporary English as, \u201che has none to blame for his death except himself.\u201d
\nTurning again to vv. 7\u20138, we see that they tell us two things. First, we are to be holy, because God is holy. Holiness is not an option to be exercised by the clergy and a few others; it is mandatory for us all. Second, the way of holiness, the means to sanctification, is God\u2019s law: \u201cye shall keep my statutes, to do them.\u201d The command to be holy is given with the law, because keeping the law is the way to holiness.
\nTo imagine that man-made routines of spiritual devotions or exercises can give us holiness is foolishness. God says, \u201cI am the LORD which sanctify you,\u201d or, I am the Lord who sets you apart and makes you holy. No holiness is possible on man\u2019s terms or in man\u2019s way, only by means of God\u2019s law-word. And the family is basic to holiness.
\nA final note: It is clear that the meaning of this law has been commonly missed. When meaning is gone in a society, not only do men become empty, but their words also. As a result, for twentieth century man, to curse is simply to utter words, or use bad language. For most men, its supernatural content and religious meaning no longer exist.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Eight<\/p>\n
Good and Evil Relationships
\n(Leviticus 20:10\u201321)<\/p>\n
10. And the man that committeth adultery with another man\u2019s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour\u2019s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
\n11. And the man that lieth with his father\u2019s wife hath uncovered his father\u2019s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
\n12. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
\n13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
\n14. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
\n15. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
\n16. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
\n17. And if a man shall take his sister, his father\u2019s daughter, or his mother\u2019s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister\u2019s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
\n18. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
\n19. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother\u2019s sister, nor of thy father\u2019s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
\n20. And if a man shall lie with his uncle\u2019s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle\u2019s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
\n21. And if a man shall take his brother\u2019s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother\u2019s nakedness; they shall be childless. (Leviticus 20:10\u201321)<\/p>\n
As we have seen, Biblical culture is family based; there are no laws of treason against the state, because treason is seen as action against the peace and unity of the family. As a result, there is a penalty of death for treason against the family, whereas in modern culture treason is an offense against the state. Offenses against the family are seen as less and less important and, by many, are acts denied the status of an offense. For modern man, the Biblical law of treason is primitive and barbaric. From the perspective of Biblical law, to make treason an offense against the state is implicitly totalitarian and socially destructive. Sin in our era has been politicized. The law of treason is indicative of this: the family has been replaced by the state, and offenses against the family are being dropped by the law as a multitude of new sins against the state are invented almost daily. God has been replaced by the state. According to 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law of God, but sin is now seen as the transgression of the law of the state. Politicizing sin tells us that the state is the new god whose laws must not be transgressed. With this in mind, let us turn to the text.
\nTo see one\u2019s nakedness is a term used in these laws meaning to consummate a sexual union. Capital crimes here include 1) adultery (v. 10; Lev. 18:20; Deut. 22:22); 2) incest or sexual union with close kin (vv. 11\u201314; Lev. 18:7\u20138, 15, 17); 3) homosexuality (v. 13; Lev. 18:22); and 4) bestiality (vv. 15\u201316; Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23); in cases of bestiality, the animal was also killed. This latter was a common offense in antiquity, and often a religious act; in the 1970s, homosexual periodicals in San Francisco advertised a variety of trained animals for bestiality. The offenses cited in vv. 17\u201321 are punished by God\u2019s intervention. However, when God moves against an entire culture, the particular offenses are dealt with in the general judgment.
\nThe term abomination means offensive to God and to man, filthy, repugnant, and detestable. Wickedness here is a Hebrew word, zimmah, meaning unchastity, adultery, incest, and, as a figure of speech, idolatry. The word childless in vv. 20\u201321 comes from a root meaning \u201cstripped;\u201d it may mean stripped of posterity, having no legal son, so that children of such a union were illegitimate.
\nA curious fact in v. 17 is the word wicked, a translation of hesed. Normally, hesed means \u201cloyal kindness\u201d when it refers to human relationships. God\u2019s hesed is His covenantal relationship towards His people; it is a result of His covenant promise and oath. It is based on God\u2019s grace and represents His loyalty to His people. Hesed means loyalty, mutual aid, or reciprocal love. In cases involving people, the hesed relationship exists where God\u2019s law governs:<\/p>\n
A. Relatives by blood or marriage, related clans and related tribes
\nB. Host and guest
\nC. Allies and their relatives
\nD. Friends
\nE. Ruler and subject
\nF. Those who have gained merit by rendering aid, and the parties thereby put under obligation.<\/p>\n
Thus, where loyalty and love exist in a godly relationship which is governed by God\u2019s law, hesed has a good meaning. Where the love or loyalty is evil, as in the cases of incest cited in v. 17, then love or hesed is evil. It is then translated as wicked, or as sin, e.g., \u201cRighteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people\u201d (Prov. 14:34). Love thus can be good or evil, depending on its relationship to God\u2019s law. Loyalty and love outside of God\u2019s law are evil.
\nSexual acts without the sanction of God\u2019s law, in particular with, for example, an uncle\u2019s wife, or a brother\u2019s wife, are called uncovering the nakedness of the uncle or brother. Because the sexual act makes man and wife one flesh (Gen. 2:23), a woman\u2019s nakedness is also her husband\u2019s, and a husband\u2019s nakedness is his wife\u2019s.
\nIn some cultures, permission to use a wife or husband is regularly granted, as though marriage were no more than a personal contract between two parties. Because marriage is God\u2019s ordination for His creatures and for His purposes, no human agreement outside His law has any validity. Hence, all such unions have no legal status, nor do the children born of them. As Lange noted, \u201cObedience to God\u2019s law is required simply because it is His will.\u201d
\nThis fact points to an important distinction. In the modern era, particularly since John Locke, the primary purpose of secular, humanistic law has been to protect life and property. (In this task, the state has not been too successful and has very often been a threat to life and property.) In God\u2019s law, although life and property are protected, the primary purpose of His commandments is the Kingdom of God and our dominion under Him. God\u2019s law and man\u2019s law thus have sharply differing purposes.
\nIt is noteworthy that antinomians are usually ready to admit that the offenses of Leviticus 20:10\u201321 are sins which are radically destructive of a society; what they object to in these laws, as in most, is the penalty. Just as they want \u201cGod without thunder,\u201d so they want sin without penalties, a morally indefensible position.
\nIn v. 14, there is a reference to being burned with fire. This indicates cremation after execution, as in Joshua 7:25, in order to eliminate even the offender\u2019s body from the land.
\nIn v. 12, we are told of the act of incest, \u201cthey have wrought confusion,\u201d which has been paraphrased by some as, \u201cthey have committed an unnatural act.\u201d This rendering, however, stresses a departure from nature, whereas the text stresses the transgression of God\u2019s order. This is the key. The law protects God\u2019s life-giving order, whereas the sins which are cited lead only to death for any society. These laws do not call for a personal evaluation and judgment, but for our submission. God sets forth for us the ways of life and death and leaves us without excuse.<\/p>\n
Chapter Forty-Nine<\/p>\n
Covenant Faithfulness
\n(Leviticus 20:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
22. Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
\n23. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
\n24. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.
\n25. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
\n26. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.
\n27. A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:22\u201327)<\/p>\n
These verses are addressed to all the people directly. They are both a parenthetical statement and also a summary of God\u2019s commands. We are told that God is giving His people a rich and fertile land as their inheritance in the covenant of God\u2019s grace. The people of Canaan are being dispossessed because of their sins, because God holds all men accountable to Him in terms of His law.
\nAs the heirs of Canaan, they must keep all of God\u2019s statutes, or else the land will spue them out as a consequence of God\u2019s abhorrence for them. God stresses \u201call my statutes, and all my judgments.\u201d He stresses, as Christ does, every jot and tittle of the law (Matt. 5:18).
\nKeeping God\u2019s law is the way in which \u201cye shall be holy unto me.\u201d God has severed His covenant people from all others for His purposes.
\nHaving stressed the necessity for keeping the law, God now demands strict obedience in two areas, the dietary laws, and the death penalty for necromancers and their kind.
\nWe would have expected some major stress of the law to be cited here, but instead we see an emphasis on two matters most would regard as minor. This is not an unusual note in Scripture. The Council of Jerusalem, centuries later, in its decision for Gentile Christians, listed for obedience \u201cthese necessary things:\u201d<\/p>\n
1. abstinence from meats offered to idols;
\n2. abstinence from the eating of blood;
\n3. abstinence from the eating of things strangled; and
\n4. abstinence from fornication (Acts 15:28\u201329).<\/p>\n
Modern church councils would have a more imposing list!
\nThere is here a seeming triviality at a point of high seriousness. There is good reason for it. Man has a tendency to redefine loyalty in terms of his priorities. Thus, a man in Nevada, some years ago, who gambled away the family savings and an excellent business, was indignant that his wife objected. He said angrily, \u201cShe has no right to complain. I\u2019ve never cheated on her.\u201d Men do the same with God\u2019s law. Whatever they may have done, they feel that God should be satisfied with them if they have kept six of the Ten Commandments. At critical points in covenant history, God raises questions through His prophets about the jot and tittle of His law.
\nAs Wenham notes, in these verses, \u201cIsrael is reminded of the basis of her whole existence.\u201d Because they are a separated people, they must be separate in all their being, including their diet.
\nThe purpose of all the law is set forth in v. 26, \u201cthat ye should be mine.\u201d We are to be God\u2019s possession and property by our faithfulness to His law-word. We are not to live or \u201cwalk in the manners of the nations,\u201d or the customs of the nations (v. 23), because we are the Lord\u2019s. Too many people reduce holiness to moral purity; the dietary laws make it clear that holiness is both physical and spiritual. We are not ghosts or spirits; holiness for us involves our total way of life. Paul says, \u201cwhether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God\u201d (1 Cor. 10:31).
\nTo break God\u2019s law in any area, including those cited in these verses and regarded as trivial or nonessential by modern man, is to deny God\u2019s total right over us. As Pfeiffer noted, God\u2019s right to His people must not be challenged.
\nIn these verses, God reminds His covenant people that they are redeemed by His grace, and therefore they are under a total obligation of faithfulness and obedience. They were lost because they preferred their own will and way; they must now live by God\u2019s will and way as set forth in His covenant law. Necromancy is a trust in man\u2019s way and a belief that the spirits of the dead can give us a better vision for living than the God who created heaven and earth. God sees this as blasphemy and as an insult of the highest order, and as a form of treason. According to Scripture, there are two Adams, the first Adam, and then the second or last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:45\u201350). There are thus two humanities, the humanity of the first Adam, and the new humanity of Jesus Christ. The old humanity is in total war against the new, and it is blindness to ignore this fact.
\nThe literal reading of v. 27, according to Robert Young\u2019s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, is, \u201cAnd a man or woman\u2014when there is in them a familiar spirit, or who are wizards\u2014are certainly put to death.\u201d The reference is to spirit possession. We have an instance of this in Acts 16:16, which tells of a young woman who confronted Paul and was exorcized by him. In her case, she was a member of the old humanity and an object of conversion. In Leviticus 20:27, the law has reference to someone within the covenant who is in reality a member of the old humanity and is seeking to subvert the covenant and is guilty of treason to it. Maimonides stated that this law specifically includes women because men are prone to be less harsh in judging women; in this instance, the sin is the same for women as well as men, and no less evil.
\nThe purposes of these laws of holiness is covenant faithfulness. This means a thoroughly practical application of God\u2019s law to the practices of everyday life. In Byzantium, the main throne in the palace was occupied only by a Gospel, to indicate the kingship of Christ. In a truly faithful covenant nation, the whole word of God on the \u201cthrone\u201d would best express the meaning of the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty<\/p>\n
The Representatives of Life
\n(Leviticus 21:1\u20139)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:
\n2. But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,
\n3. And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
\n4. But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
\n5. They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
\n6. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
\n7. They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
\n8. Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.
\n9. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:1\u20139)<\/p>\n
At the conclusion of his commentary on Leviticus 20, Wenham discusses the premises of law and punishment in Biblical law with his usual ability. Because his comments are pertinent not merely to the preceding laws but also to those of Leviticus 21, let us survey them at this point. Whereas Babylonian law, and many others such as eighteenth century English law, required the death penalty for many offenses against property, Biblical law, while protecting property, reserves capital punishment for certain offenses against man, the family, and God. Wenham cited the premises and purpose of the punishment in God\u2019s law: first, the offender must receive the just penalty for his offense, and the penalty must correspond with the criminal act. Second, punishment has as its purpose to \u201cpurge the evil from the midst of you.\u201d If justice is not done, guilt rests on both the land and the people. Third, punishment must also function as a deterrent (Deut. 19:16\u201321). Fourth, punishment is a form of civil atonement to effect justice and to reconcile the offender to society. Fifth, there must be a recompense also, or restitution. Babylonian law, like modern law, imposed fines; restitution is very different, because the victim, not the state, is recompensed.
\nWenham also cites the three main types of punishment. First, the death penalty is required. Wenham holds that in some instances, such as blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking, the law cites the extreme penalty while allowing for lesser ones, depending on the case at hand (Ex. 31:13\u201317; Num. 15:32\u201336; Lev. 24:11\u201312). Second, there was \u201ccutting off,\u201d which, according to Wenham, could mean excommunication or direct intervention and judgment by God. Third, there was restitution. Imprisonment as punishment did not exist, although men guilty of involuntary manslaughter were restricted to the cities of refuge until the death of the high priest (Num. 35:26ff.).
\nAll this is clearly related to Leviticus 21:1\u20139. The preceding laws are the laws of life. We are told, in both Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25, \u201cThere is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.\u201d The law warns us against the ways of death. Death entered the world because of man\u2019s sin, and death is an ultimate insult to man\u2019s flesh and a sentence against all his pretensions. The believers are the people of life, not of death, and the priest in particular must represent life. Lange noted:<\/p>\n
But the laws which regulated the priesthood of the chosen people had a deeper basis.\u2026 They had to administer a law of life.\u2026 St. Cyril truly observes that the Hebrew priests were the instruments of the divine will for averting death, that all their sacrifices were a type of the death of Christ, which swallowed up death in victory, and that it would have been unsuitable that they should have the same freedom as other people to become mourners.<\/p>\n
Thus, mourning for the dead, except for the immediate family, was forbidden to priests, and, even then, they were to be restrained in their mourning, since they were representatives of the Lord of life. It is ironic and sad that at times the clergy, rabbis, priests, and pastors have been associated more with mourning and somberness than with the joy of life. Very early in the life of the church, Greek ascetic views led to a disapproval of the clergy\u2019s participation in wedding celebrations.
\nIt is very important for us to realize the meaning of priests here. In v. 1, we see that it is \u201cthe sons of Aaron\u201d who are addressed. However, in Ezekiel 44:15\u201325, we see that it is inclusive of the Levites. Levites are spoken of as priests in such texts as Deuteronomy 18:1. The term Levite was inclusive of teachers and scholars (Deut. 33:10), and in our times must be seen as describing ministers, teachers, writers, and scholars of the faith. They are to be a priestly class, representing life.
\nOur Lord echoes these verses and their premise in His summary statement, \u201cLet the dead bury their dead\u201d (Matt. 8:22). As Knight noted, these words of our Lord \u201ccall for an attitude to life; they are not negative, as if to say, that man should not bury his dead.\u201d
\nThe life orientation must be in every area, and marriage is a central one. As v. 7 makes clear, the priestly man cannot marry an ungodly woman, nor the guilty partner in a divorce. The marriage must not be a profane one. For Calvin, it is worthy to note, an impure or profane marriage could include marrying a girl very much younger than oneself:<\/p>\n
If a decrepit old man falls in love with a young girl, it is a base and shameful lust; besides he will defraud her if he marries her. Hence, too, will jealousy and wretched anxiety arise; or, by foolishly and dotingly seeking to preserve his wife\u2019s love, he will cast away all regard for gravity. When God forbade the high priest to marry any but a virgin, He did not wish to violate this rule, which is dictated by nature and reason; but, regard being had to age, He desired that modesty and propriety should be maintained in the marriage, so that, if the priest were of advanced years, he should marry a virgin not too far from his own age; but, if he were failing and now but little fitted for marriage on account of his old age, the law that he should marry a virgin was rather an exhortation to celibacy, than that he should expose himself to many troubles and to general ridicule.<\/p>\n
In v. 9, we have a law citing the penalty of death for any priests\u2019s daughter who, in Moffatt\u2019s rendering, \u201cdegrades herself by playing the harlot,\u201d and thereby \u201cshe degrades her father.\u201d The Bible is emphatic on this connection. The girl who degrades herself is degrading her father: this is a public and a psychological offense.
\nAt the same time, while prostitution is spoken of repeatedly in Scripture as evil, it is not the subject of legislation. The other law related to the subject is Deuteronomy 22:13\u201321, which some believe has reference to prostitutes who married and passed themselves as virgins to their husbands.
\nIn this instance, the penalty is a severe one because the act of prostitution is seen as an offense against authority. The greater the responsibility God gives us, the greater our culpability. In our Lord\u2019s words, \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).
\nIt is essential to remember the broad meaning of priest, and also that this is case law. What is said here applies to all of the family of an authority and leader in the faith: the wife, daughter, son, and grandchildren of such a person have a greater culpability before God and man for their sins. Those who are associated with the priesthood can thus more readily incur the penalty of death by harming the calling.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty-One<\/p>\n
The High Priest and His Calling
\n(Leviticus 21:10\u201315)<\/p>\n
10. And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
\n11. Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
\n12. Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God: for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
\n13. And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
\n14. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
\n15. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him. (Leviticus 21:10\u201315)<\/p>\n
We come now to rules governing the high priest, a type of Christ and one who above all others in Israel was the representative of God and of life in God. In John 14:6, Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the way, the truth, and the life. Moreover, \u201cno man cometh unto the Father, but by me.\u201d There is neither life, nor truth, nor salvation apart from Him, nor outside of Him.
\nHence, the high priest, as His forerunner and as the representative of one office of Christ, must be separated unto life. He could not take part in a funeral, because the representative of life does not recognize the power of death. Jesus Christ revealed Himself as the Great High Priest by refusing to go to Lazarus when Lazarus was deathly ill, nor did he go when the funeral was held. He went later to raise Lazarus from the dead (John 11). He also ended the funeral service of Jairus\u2019 daughter by raising her from the dead (Matt. 9:18\u201326). \u201cIn him was life; and the life was the light of men\u201d (John 1:4).
\nIn v. 10, we have three things which define a high priest. First, he is from among his brethren, or chief of them. To represent men to God, the high priest must be one of them. Hence, Christ, as our High Priest, is indeed truly man as well as truly God. Only so can He represent us, and also be totally efficacious. Second, the high priest must be called to his task and have the anointing oil poured over his head (Lev. 8:2). While he indeed must represent men, he must be called of God. Again, Christ is the perfect high priest. Third, the High Priest must then be consecrated and must make atonement for his people (Lev. 8:3\u20139, 24). Christ alone can and did make an efficacious atonement for His people.
\nHaving noted these things, we must remember that the office of high priest points beyond itself to God. Jesus made this clear concerning Himself in His incarnation: \u201cThe Son can do nothing of himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise\u201d (John 5:19). Determination is from eternity, not time. This applies in every sphere, the priestly, prophetic, and kingly. Oehler rightly observed:<\/p>\n
The administration of justice is, in virtue of the principles of theocracy, only an office of the divine judgment. \u201cThe judgment is God\u2019s,\u201d Deut. 1:17; to seek justice is to inquire of God, Ex. 18:15; he who appears in judgment comes before Jehovah, Deut. 19:17; and thus also \u2026 Ex. 21:6, and \u2026 22:8, are to be explained, whether it be that these expressions point to the God who rules in the administration of justice.\u2026<\/p>\n
What is important thus is not the office nor the officer, but the divine function under God to which men are called. To cite Oehler again:<\/p>\n
In virtue of the principles of the theocracy, all the powers of the state are united in Jehovah; even when the congregation acts, it is in His name. He is first the Lawgiver (Isa. 33:22). His legislative power He exercised through Moses. The fundamental law given through him is inviolably valid for all time. As God\u2019s covenant with His people is eternal, so also are the covenant ordinances; they are, as the expression frequently runs, everlasting laws and statutes for Israel and the future generations (see Ex. 12:14, 17, 27:21, 28:43, and many passages). The Pentateuch knows nothing of a future change in the law, nor of an abrogation of it even in part; only the attitude of the people toward the law was to be different in the last times.<\/p>\n
In vv. 11\u201312 we have a very telling aspect of this law. The high priest, on receiving word of the death of his father, usually the relative he is closest to, must not stop his work or leave the sanctuary. In brief, life must go on. Even more, the emphasis is on the necessity of his calling as against personal grief. To allow personal grief to deflect him from his task is thus lawless. God\u2019s calling must take precedence over human feelings. While the case of a high priest is an extreme but necessary instance of this fact, it has a requirement for all of us. The priority of God\u2019s calling in our lives is required of us as a royal priesthood (Rev. 1:6). Our Lord declares:<\/p>\n
37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
\n38. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me.
\n39. He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
\n40. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
\n41. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet\u2019s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man\u2019s reward.
\n42. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (Matthew 10:37\u201342)<\/p>\n
In v. 10, the phrase with respect to the high priest\u2019s hair is translated by some, including the Berkeley Version, as, he \u201cshall not let his hair hang loose.\u201d We would say, this bars a \u201chippy style.\u201d In Israel, it meant the \u201cstyle\u201d of a leper.
\nIn vv. 13\u201314, marriage is strictly governed. The high priest must be married to a virgin. His wife can have no alien loyalties, nor can she compare him to any other man. Lange summarized the matter very clearly and ably:<\/p>\n
The families of the priests were so intimately associated with their own proper personality, that something of the requirements for the priests themselves must also be demanded of them. This rests upon a fundamental principle of fitness, and is again repeated in the New Testament in regard to the Christian minister. See 1 Tim. 3:11, 12: Tit. 1:6.<\/p>\n
Julius Caesar, a notable Roman degenerate, held, \u201cCaesar\u2019s wife ought to be above suspicion.\u201d What God\u2019s law here requires of the high priest is different. The stress is not upon being beyond reproach; that is taken for granted. Rather, it is upon being a helpmeet, one who brings no alien experiences to her calling to work with God\u2019s high priest. Some have held that \u201che shall take a virgin of his own people to wife\u201d means wedding a girl of the tribe of Levi, someone reared in the culture of a holy calling.
\nThe point is a very important one. The more important a man\u2019s calling in terms of the Kingdom of God, the more essential is his wife\u2019s compatibility to that calling and to the strains, duties, and responsibilities it imposes. The importance of a wife in a marriage is determined by her husband\u2019s work and her relevance to it. Similarly, the more important a man\u2019s calling, the more deleterious a wife can become by importing alien standards and demands.
\nClosely related to this, as has been recognized, is v. 15. A man\u2019s seed, his progeny, is profaned and grows up outside a man\u2019s calling if the woman who rears his children is at odds with or indifferent to his calling. This is serious for all men, but supremely so for a high priest.
\nBecause it is the Lord who sanctifies us (v. 15), we dare not profane our seed by unsuitable marriages. The covenant man is warned against all such unions:<\/p>\n
2. A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.
\n4. A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rotteness in his bones. (Proverbs 12:2, 4)<\/p>\n
It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. (Proverbs 21:9; cf. 25:24)<\/p>\n
These verses give us an interesting perspective. The \u201cman of wicked devices\u201d is condemned by God, and the word has a legal framework: God passes judgment against such a man. This is not the case with a bad wife, i.e., God does not bring judgment on her. This is why she is so dangerous, and why God warns us against bad unions, because such a woman can profane a man\u2019s seed.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty-Two<\/p>\n
Discrimination
\n(Leviticus 21:16\u201324)<\/p>\n
16. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n17. Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
\n18. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
\n19. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
\n20. Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy or scabbed, or hath his stones broken:
\n21. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
\n22. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
\n23. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
\n24. And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. (Leviticus 21:16\u201324)<\/p>\n
In very recent years, these regulations have angered many people, and some cite them as instances of the \u201cprimitivism\u201d of the Old Testament. Just as many peoples, including some of the Greeks, exposed or killed their defective children, so, too, the \u201cprimitive\u201d Hebrews discriminated against the handicapped. This is strange criticism coming from a generation which has a policy of aborting an unborn child if its tests declare it to be of the unwanted sex, as well as when it is defective.
\nThe fact is that Biblical law legislates against all mistreatment of helpless or handicapped peoples, as we have seen.
\nThe difference between the modern view and that of God\u2019s law is this: the modern view is both sentimental and cruel. As Proverbs 12:10 tells us, \u201cthe tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.\u201d God\u2019s law is not sentimental, but it is loving and caring of the weak, of the disabled, and of widows and orphans.
\nWhat happens when this law is disregarded? The religious vocation becomes a dumping ground for the unwanted and handicapped persons. It is not surprising that in more than a few religions, a religious vocation is barred to all such people. In some denominations, the same policy once prevailed in other spheres. The cast-off mistress of local lords and noblemen were in some countries given to the clergy of the established church to marry, and the clergy could not marry without permission. In the United States, the pastor\u2019s family clothed itself with cast-off clothing given by members, and the house was furnished with cast-off furniture. All this is insulting to God. Hence these laws.
\nThe \u201cflat nose\u201d refers to a slit or a broken nose. \u201cA blemish in the eye\u201d covers a variety of serious eye defects. The disabled member of the priestly line, however, is entitled to live off the receipts of the sanctuary (v. 22). There is thus no unkindness to such people.
\nOnly the perfect specimen belongs to God, either as priest, or as a sacrifice. Thus, as we have seen, no blemished offering could be given (Ex. 12:5, etc.; Lev. 1:3, etc.; Deut. 17:1, etc.). Christ is the unblemished Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:19). Both the sacrifice which typified Him as well as the priest who represented Him had to be without blemish. He works also to make His church blemish free (Eph. 5:27).
\nThere is here an important distinction which must be made. There is a difference between blemish and infirmities on the one hand, and sin on the other. Men now are irrational about physical defects: they demand special privileges for them, but want them kept out of sight. Sin they can tolerate; physical defects upset them badly.
\nSin excludes men from God; infirmities do not. This is the Biblical perspective.
\nCastrated men were also barred from membership in the congregation (Deut. 23:1). This did not bar them from worship, nor from salvation. Membership was in terms of families, and the heads of households, men, were members and potential captains or elders over ten families, fifty, one hundred, or one thousand (Deut. 1:9\u201318). Membership was in terms of married men.
\nThe clergy were to command respect for God, for the faith, and for the sanctuary. Thus, they had to be whole men. The wholeness had to be physical and religious, because anything else would bring dishonor to God.
\nThis law has had a grim history. Within the Roman Empire, in times of persecution, the clergy were at times castrated. The Romans were aware of Biblical law at this point and, in fact, required wholeness of their priests. Canon I of the First Council of Nicea held that any clergy member castrated by the barbarians could not be distinguished; he had entered the ministry a whole man. Canon XXI of the Apostolical Canons said that such a mutilation at the hands of the enemies of Christ did not debar a man from being made a bishop.
\nIn this century, such mutilations of the clergy have taken place on a greater scale than ever before, by Turks and by Marxists. The Russian and Spanish Revolutions were especially savage in this respect.
\nCalvin, in discussing this text, said, \u201cthe analogy must be kept in view between the external figures and the spiritual perfection which existed only in Christ.\u201d The perfect holiness of Christ is to become our holiness in heaven. Just as we conform ourselves to Him, so we must work to bring about a conformity of physical and spiritual wholeness. This calls for medical study and work towards the physical aspects of that wholeness.
\nIn some cults, most notably in the worship of the Phrygian Cybele, physical mutilations, especially castration, were aspects of the highest holiness. In modern medicine, too often a contempt is shown for God\u2019s handiwork, the body of man. As against this, we are required by God to seek the holiness of our total being as our necessary task.
\nIt is worthy of note that, in ancient Israel, all the priests had to undergo physical examinations and tests to prove their wholeness. To a limited degree, this is still a requirement by some churches.
\nThe law of Leviticus 21:16\u201324 is, as has been noted, now resented as discriminatory. This should not surprise us. We have seen in the 1980s a refusal to quarantine or in any way discriminate against carriers of AIDS, a deadly disease. Together with that, there have been laws passed to prevent any discrimination against homosexuality. At the same time, the Bible and prayer are banned from state schools, while various evils are protected.
\nDiscrimination is inescapable. Life is a process of discrimination, of choosing, accepting, and rejecting. If our premises of discrimination are not from God, they will be evil.<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty-Three<\/p>\n
Reverence and God\u2019s Order
\n(Leviticus 22:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.
\n3. Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed, among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.
\n4. What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue, he shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him;
\n5. Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath;
\n6. The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water.
\n7. And when the sun is down he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things, because it is his food.
\n8. That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.
\n9. They shall therefore keep my ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.
\n10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
\n11. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
\n12. If the priest\u2019s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
\n13. But if the priest\u2019s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father\u2019s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father\u2019s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.
\n14. And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing.
\n15. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD;
\n16. Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I the LORD do sanctify them. (Leviticus 22:1\u201316)<\/p>\n
Keil and Delitzsch aptly titled this section \u201cReverence for Things Sanctified.\u201d The law, basically, is that 1) no priest who had become unclean was to eat or touch things sanctified, vv. 2\u20139; and 2) that no one could eat of things sanctified unless he or she were a member of a priestly family, vv. 10\u201316.
\nAny violation of these rules by a priest had a penalty: \u201cthat soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD,\u201d v. 3. Men demand that their own will and way be taken seriously, but God\u2019s law is taken casually. Where God\u2019s law coincides with man\u2019s wishes, as for example, \u201cThou shalt not steal\u201d (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19), men are ready to agree that the law is sensible, but, where the honor of God is concerned, men dismiss the law as trivial and unnecessary.
\nMoreover, these rules militate against ecclesiastical pride. The priests are told that they too can be defiled, and that the purity of their office does not ensure their personal purity. It is God who sanctifies, not the clergy. Giovanni Boccaccio, in The Decameron, repeatedly ridiculed the pretensions of evil priests that their office gave them virtually an inherent sanctity, an attitude also to be found in our time among some of the Protestant clergy as well. The law here protects the holiness of God from the presumptions of the clergy. To be in a holy cause does not in and of itself make a man holy. One of the horrors of war is that often the soldiers, assuming the justice of their cause, assume the justice of their own actions, and hence these actions are often lawless.
\nThe penalty for irreverence is cited in v. 9, death; this does not mean by sentence of a court, but death in the sight of God and by His judgment. How it is acted out, God reserves to Himself.
\nIn Leviticus 21:16\u201324, the involuntary, physical impediments to the priesthood are cited; there is no moral blame in them. The moral impediments do bring judgment.
\nIn vv. 15\u201316, we are told that the priests or clergy, by profaning the sanctuary and worship, have an impact on the people: they \u201csuffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass.\u201d This means that a people who will not defend the purity of the sanctuary will suffer from the tolerated sins of their clergy. By implication, God\u2019s death sentence against the clergy then becomes a death sentence against the people. Judgment begins with the clergy, then spreads to a complacent people, and then to the ungodly. Peter echoes this, declaring,<\/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
To be careless where God\u2019s honor is involved is a sin. Although it may involve the details of ritual, behind that carelessness is a contempt for the honor of God. It is important to note that here also we see the inseparable union of the physical and the spiritual. What we do with things physical, including things spiritual, is revelatory of our moral perspective. Vos commented on this, saying,<\/p>\n
This incipient spiritualizing of the ritual vocabulary is further carried out by the prophets and Psalmists. Isaiah speaks of \u201cunclean\u201d lips in an ethical sense (6:5). The earth is \u201cdefiled\u201d by transgression of the fundamental laws of God (Isa. 24:5); blood (i.e. murder) \u201cdefiles\u201d the hands (Isa. 1:15; 59:3); the temple is \u201cdefiled\u201d by idolatry (Jer. 32:34; Ezek. 5:11; 28:18); the people pollute themselves by their sins (Ezek. 20:7, 8, 43; 22:3, 29, 24). Ethical purity is symbolized by \u201cclean hands\u201d and \u201ca pure heart\u201d (Psa. 24:4). The ethical cleansing is described in terms of ritual purification (Ezek. 36:25; Zec. 13:1; Psa. 51:7).<\/p>\n
Thus, the terminology of ritual and morality is interchangeable.
\nIn vv. 10\u201316, we have the particulars of participation in the priestly allowance, and the penalty for an unwitting transgression. Such a man should pay the equivalent amount for the food, plus a fifth more, i.e., a double tithe.
\nThere is a very important emphasis in these verses which must now be cited. Lange stated it with telling clarity:<\/p>\n
The centre \u2026 of the whole Levitical system is rather the sacrifice than the priest, and the priest for the sake of the sacrifice, as is distinctly brought out in this chapter, rather than the reverse.<\/p>\n
However, in vv. 10\u201316, we see an important stress of the human side of the matter. Those who can partake of the priest\u2019s portions of the sacrifices are carefully defined in relation to the priest. There is a reason for this. Again citing Lange, here \u201cthe house appears in its full theocratic significance.\u201d For better or worse, the man defines the household. For this reason, just as judgment in a society begins at the church (1 Peter 4:17), so judgment in a family begins with the man. As our Lord tells us,<\/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
It is God who commits authority to the man in the house, and it is God who holds the man accountable. It should be noted that the qualified members of a priest\u2019s house have a right to the priest\u2019s portion; by analogy, the members of any man\u2019s house must be supported by him. The reference in v. 10 to the \u201cstranger\u201d does not mean a foreigner here, but any non-member of the family (cf. Ex. 29:33).
\nThus, this text, which requires respect and reverence for those things pertaining to God, at the same time defines the necessary privileges of family members. God, in requiring respect and reverence for Himself, does not thereby diminish the integrity and authority of the family, nor of any other order of life which He establishes. The service of God cannot be used to undermine God\u2019s order. Our Lord condemns such false piety:<\/p>\n
9. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
\n10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
\n11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
\n12. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
\n13. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9\u201313)<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty-Four<\/p>\n
The Unblemished Offering
\n(Leviticus 22:17\u201325)<\/p>\n
17. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n18. Speak unto Aaron, and his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;
\n19. Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.
\n20. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you.
\n21. And whosoever offereth sacrifices of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, and it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
\n22. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
\n23. Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a free will offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
\n24. Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.
\n25. Neither from a stranger\u2019s hand shall ye offer the bread of your God or any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you. (Leviticus 22:17\u201325)<\/p>\n
In v. 22, the sacrifices prohibited are of clean animals which are blind, disabled, mutilated, with a running sore, scab, or eruption, but in v. 23 the permission given applies to animals \u201covergrown or stunted.\u201d These latter may be used only for a freewill offering.
\nUnblemished offerings are required, first and foremost. Second, in terms of Exodus 22:30, no animal younger than eight days could be offered in sacrifice. Third, in terms of Deuteronomy 22:6\u20137 and Exodus 22:30, no bird and her young, a cow and its calf, a ewe and its lamb, or a goat and its kid could be offered together.
\nThe requirement of an unblemished offering is repeated in the New Testament with respect to the believer as a living sacrifice:<\/p>\n
14. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
\n15. That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world. (Philippians 2:14\u201315)<\/p>\n
14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. (2 Peter 3:14; the things looked for, v. 13, are new heavens and a new earth)<\/p>\n
(Concerning the unjust, the blemished)
\n12. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
\n13. And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you. (2 Peter 2:12\u201313; the reference is to the ungodly within the church)<\/p>\n
It is especially important to make note of this fact. It is very routinely noted that unblemished sacrifice represents the sinless Christ. This is very true, but we cannot stop there. It also represents, first, what our gifts and service to the Lord must be: we cannot offer a blemished gift to God. We cannot give Him our leftovers, the leftovers of our lives and substance. The blemished offering is an insult to God and thus highly offensive to Him. However, nothing is more common than blemished offerings; yet Christians expect God to bless them for their offerings: this, Paul says, is our reasonable service, not an unreasonable one:<\/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 not be 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
With v. 24, we have an uncertainty. Robert Young\u2019s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible renders it, \u201cAs to a bruised, or beaten, or enlarged, or cut thing\u2014ye do not bring it near to Jehovah: even in your land ye do not do it.\u201d Some commentators, and the ancient rabbis, have seen this as a prohibition of all emasculation of animals. Rabbi Hertz commented:<\/p>\n
The Heb. can bear the interpretations. It can mean, \u2018Ye shall not offer such mutilated animals\u2019; or it may be taken, according to the Rabbis, as a general prohibition of emasculation in men and animals.<\/p>\n
The context does not seem to indicate a general prohibition. It is very true that the law does not permit those men who have been castrated to have entrance or membership \u201cin the congregation of the LORD\u201d (Deut. 23:1). Since membership meant eldership, headship over a family, and the possibility of being a ruler over families of tens, hundreds, and thousands, only whole men could qualify. Castration was not a bar to worship or to salvation. Wenham, who sees the verse as a bar to all castration of men or animals, comments that it is because \u201ccastration damages God\u2019s good creation,\u201d and \u201cHoliness is symbolized in wholeness.\u201d Moreover, God\u2019s blessing for all living creatures was to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply\u201d (Gen. 1:22, 28; 8:17). This is an appealing and logical interpretation, and one to be receptive to. However, despite its logical impact, we still cannot see as a mandate what is not clear in the text.
\nCalvin noted, with respect to unblemished offerings,<\/p>\n
We perceive, then, that all defective sacrifices were rejected, that the Israelites might learn sincerely and seriously to consecrate themselves entirely to God, and not to play childishly with Him, as it is often the case. Elsewhere we have seen indeed that things are required for legitimate worship; first, that he who approaches God should be purged from every stain, and secondly, that he should offer nothing except what is pure and free from all imperfection. What Solomon says, that \u201cthe sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,\u201d (Prov. 15:8) is true, although it be fat and splendid. But in order that the things which are offered by the good should be pleasing to God, another point must also be attended to, viz., that the offering should not be poor, and stingy, and deficient; and again, by this symbol, as I have already said, they were directed to Christ, besides whom no integrity will anywhere be found which will satisfy God.<\/p>\n
Calvin is correct in saying that this requirement had to do with worship, and with what the worshipper brings to worship. It is a fallacy to abstract worship from the routines of life; worship is their culmination. We bring to worship that character of our everyday lives, blemished or unblemished, not ourselves abstracted from our work, family, and character. When worship is abstracted from everyday life, both in what we bring to worship and in what we take from worship into the routines of life, worship becomes sterile and offensive to God. It is blemished worship.
\nAn important aspect of this law is the preface. God says, \u201cSpeak unto Aaron, and to his sons\u201d (v. 18). The guardians of the purity of worship are the clergy. There is to be a vigilance against blemished offerings, and a necessary part of this is the teaching of the whole of God\u2019s law, and an insistence on God-centered living.
\nWe have a reference to David\u2019s concern for this law in 2 Samuel 24:24: for him, a costless offering to God was a blemished one. In Malachi, however, we see God\u2019s indictment of all who show contempt for Him with their blemished offerings:<\/p>\n
6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?
\n7. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.
\n8. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts \u2026<\/p>\n
13. Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
\n14. But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen. (Malachi 1:6\u20138, 13\u201314)<\/p>\n
The point is clear. We are unwilling to offend a human authority by giving him a defective or damaged gift, and yet we expect God to be grateful for what men would find insulting. The Lord\u2019s work and Kingdom require only our best from us; nothing second-best or second-rate is acceptable to Him.
\nOne final point. St. Paul makes it clear that an unblemished gift or service to God means that it is given without complaint, and, even though required of us, is given in thanksgiving, not because of necessity: Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)<\/p>\n
Chapter Fifty-Five<\/p>\n
The Bread of God
\n(Leviticus 22:26\u201333)<\/p>\n
26. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
\n27. When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day, and thenceforth, it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
\n28. And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.
\n29. And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.
\n30. On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD.
\n31. Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.
\n32. Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,
\n33. That brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 22:26\u201333)<\/p>\n
These laws are all a repetition of laws given previously: v. 27 repeats Exodus 22:30; v. 28 has a later appearance in Deuteronomy 22:6; v. 29 repeats Leviticus 7:12, 15; v. 31 repeats Leviticus 19:37 and is repeated again in Numbers 15:40 and expanded in Deuteronomy 4:40 with a promise of prosperity and long life; v. 32 refers to Leviticus 18:21 and 10:3 and appears in Matthew 6:9; v. 33 is a frequent reminder, as in Leviticus 11:45. The phrase \u201cI am the LORD,\u201d which appears here four times, in vv. 30\u201333, is a common refrain in the law.
\nBecause these laws are repetition, commentators tend to pass over them with brief references to their previous citations, a curious fact. When we repeat ourselves, we do so for emphasis; we want then to be particularly well heeded, not ignored. Thus, we must recognize that this repetition is not repetitious and tiresome but purposive. The emphasis given to these particular laws is important. Modern man finds what God has to say boring, unless it offers him some benefit. As a result, obvious facts are bypassed.
\nConsider what these laws require of us. They are, as Wenham noted, related to other laws which are not sentimental but theological. A calf or lamb must not be sacrificed on the same day as its mother (v. 28). The law in Deuteronomy 22:6\u20137 forbids taking the life of a bird when its eggs are being taken, or its young (apparently to be reared domestically). A kid could not be seethed or cooked in its mother\u2019s milk (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21). Trees could not be wantonly destroyed, even in war-time (Deut. 20:19\u201320). Noah was required to preserve animal life from the Flood of Genesis (Genesis 6:19\u201320; 7:2\u20133), and so on.
\nPorter\u2019s comment, while reflecting a modernist view, is on the right track:<\/p>\n
Domestic animals were part of the community and so their birth was surrounded by the same taboos as with humans (cp. 12:2\u20133).<\/p>\n
To understand the full implications of this, let us remember what Paul says in Romans 8:19\u201322:<\/p>\n
19. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
\n20. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.
\n21. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
\n22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth until now.<\/p>\n
Most commentators have avoided the full meaning of Paul\u2019s words. Calvin, however, was insistent on two things: first, \u201cbeasts, as well as plants and metals,\u201d will all share in the great restoration of all things; second, Calvin, while holding fast to this meaning, made it clear that we have no license for speculations about the details of this fact, declaring:<\/p>\n
But he means not that all creatures shall be partakers of the same glory with the sons of God; but that they, according to their nature, shall be participators of a better condition; for God will restore to a perfect state the world, now fallen, together with mankind. But what that perfection will be, as to beasts as well as plants and metals, it is not meet nor right in us to inquire more curiously; for the chief effect of corruption is decay. Some subtle men, but hardly soberminded, inquire whether all kinds of animals will be immortal; but if reins be given to speculations where will they at length lead us? Let us then be content with this simple doctrine,\u2014that such will be the constitution and the complete order of things, that nothing will be deformed or fading.<\/p>\n
The law of circumcision required that the rite be performed on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12); the law of sacrifice prohibited the sacrifice of animals before the eighth day (Ex. 22:30; Lev. 22:27). The parallel is an obvious one. While man is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26\u201328), he is still a creature.
\nThere is another important aspect to these laws. In Leviticus 22:25, all the sacrifices are called \u201cthe bread of your God,\u201d a very telling phrase. Bread is used figuratively to mean sustenance: what then is sustained? It is not God, who does not grow weak from lack of sacrifice, but rather strong in judgment. It is the covenant relationship which is sustained by sacrifice. The sacrificial system, i.e., atonement, is basic to the law, and it is the redeemed of God who are faithful and obedient. Hence, the reality of the covenant relationship, of atonement, is demonstrated by obedience, the bread of God. Note what Micah says:<\/p>\n
6. Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
\n7. Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
\n8. He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:6\u20138)<\/p>\n
Offerings in general are called the bread of God in Leviticus 21:6, 8, and 17; in Numbers 28:2; and possibly Ezekiel 44:7 and Malachi 1:7. Leviticus 3:11 and 16 uses the term for the thank-offering, and Leviticus 22:25 applies it to the burnt-offering and thank-offering together. The term \u201cthe bread of God\u201d appears again in the New Testament (John 6:32\u201335). Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the bread of God come down from heaven. The bread is the sacrifice which marks atonement and communion, communion with God. Bread is sustenance of our covenant relationship with God. It is Christ in His atonement and His care for us as His members, and it is our sacrifice of obedience. Paul therefore summons us to be \u201ca living sacrifice\u201d (Rom. 12:1) in our holiness and service to God and His covenant community.
\nIt is an interesting fact that, while a very young animal cannot be used as a sacrifice, there is no age limit on the acceptable sacrifice, only the requirement of health, i.e., an unblemished animal.
\nIn v. 32, God declares, \u201cI will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you.\u201d Hallow appears in the older versions, in such verses as Leviticus 27:16, as \u201csanctify.\u201d Its main usage now is in the Lord\u2019s Prayer (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2): \u201challowed be thy name.\u201d It means to sanctify, consecrate, dedicate, and more.
\nJewish authorities at the time of Christ held that the highest form of hallowing God\u2019s Name is martyrdom. Later, in Hadrian\u2019s day, so many Jews were ready to be martyred that for a time it imperiled the existence of the Jews. The rabbis then decreed that only with respect to idolatry, incest, and murder should death be preferred to transgression. Historians who have remarked on the readiness of many of the early Christians to be martyred seem ignorant of the Jewish background of this stance. They died to hallow God\u2019s Name by their faithfulness. To hallow God\u2019s Name by refusing to compromise with evil still goes on today. It is, however, but one aspect of what hallowing means. Micah\u2019s declaration about faithfulness and obedience gives us the broader meaning.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
required payment of the \u201cdowry of virgins.\u201d The girl\u2019s father could require or reject marriage, but in either case the dowry was mandatory (Ex. 22:16\u201317; Deut. 22:28\u201329). The penalty for adultery is death for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:20\u201325; Lev. 20:10) because the society of God\u2019s Kingdom is family based, and adultery … <\/p>\n