Leviticus · Chapter 22

Verse 1. The foregoing rules relate to the personal qualifications of priests: here follow several cautions relating to the privileges which they and their families had of eating their share of the sacrifices, from verse 1 to verse 17, which cautions served to remind them of that reverence and moral purity wherewith their worship ought to be paid to God.

V. 2. Separate themselves-When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from Leviticus 22:3,4. From the holy things-From eating of those parts of the offerings, which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat. They-The children of Israel. And it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow.

Verse 2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves] The same subject is continued in this chapter as in the preceding, with this addition, that besides the perfection of the priests, it was indispensably necessary that the sacrifices also should be perfect. In the service of God, according to the law, neither an imperfect offering nor an imperfect offerer could be admitted. What need then of a mediator between a holy God and sinful men! And can we expect that any of our services, however sincere and well-intentioned, can be accepted, unless offered on that living Altar that sanctifies the gift?

Verse 2. That they separate themselves — When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from verses 3, 4. From the holy things — This is the first caution. No priest, or other person, was to presume to eat any part of a consecrated victim, while he was under any degree of legal uncleanness. Neither were they, in that state, to eat of the first-fruits, which were also consecrated to God, Numbers 18:12. But they might eat of the tithes, which were allowed for their constant maintenance. That they profane not what they — The children of Israel; hallow — It ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people hallowed.

2. Separate themselves — They were to abstain from treating the holy things, or offerings of the people, as things unconsecrated and common. By appropriating what was sacred to Jehovah, without the warrant of an express command, like that requiring them to eat the most holy things, (Leviticus 2:3, note,) they would profane his holy name, or degrade his majesty, and tarnish his purity in the eyes of the people.

V. 3. Goeth unto the holy things-To eat them, or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest. Cut off-From my ordinances by excommunication: He shall be excluded both from the administration, and from the participation of them.

Verse 3. Goeth unto the holy things — To eat them, or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people — having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest. Cut off — From my ordinances by excommunication: he shall be excluded both from the administration and from the participation of them. Le Clerc takes it for cutting off by death.

3. That soul shall be cut off — The wilful approach to the altar to discharge the functions of the priest’s office, while conscious of ceremonial impurity, evinced such irreverence and disobedience as to call down either the severe punishment of death, by some sudden stroke, or exclusion from the sacred office, as some understand, from my presence. The latter opinion is strengthened by 2 Chronicles 26:21, while the former is strongly confirmed by verse 9.

Verse 4. Is a leper, or hath a running issue] See the case of the leper treated at large in the notes on Leviticus 13:1-14:57; and for other uncleannesses, see the notes on Leviticus 15:1-30.

Verse 4. Unclean. The injunctions in this and the following verses, though not literally binding on christians, yet the holy law from whence they emanate is not to be disregarded. Every infirmity which kept a Jew from the synagogue, does not debar a christian from the church. With regard also to bodily purity, the christian law requires every one to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.

4. A leper — Leprosy was a ceremonial defilement which excluded even the laymen from the camp; much more would it disqualify a priest for the tabernacle. See chaps. 13 and 14, notes. A running issue — This was probably limited to the gonorrhea. See Leviticus 15:2, note. Unclean by the dead — See Leviticus 21:1, note. Seed goeth from him — See Leviticus 15:16, note.

5. Any creeping thing — See Leviticus 11:29-47, notes.

V. 7. His food-His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added, to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, because his necessity craved some mitigation: tho’ otherwise the priests being more sacred persons, deserved a greater punishment.

Verse 7. His food — His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added, to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, because his necessity craved some mitigation: though otherwise the priests, being more sacred persons, deserved a greater punishment.

7. When the sun is down — The divine mercy is seen in the narrow period during which the priest is disqualified from eating the holy and the most holy things. Since these were his prescribed food, a long uncleanness would be a long fasting.

8. Dieth of itself — This is prohibited on ceremonial grounds, because the blood is in the veins, and on sanitary grounds, because the blood corrupts and poisons the flesh.

V. 9. Lest they bear sin-Incur guilt and punishment. For it-For the neglect or violation of it.

Verse 9. Lest they bear sin — Incur guilt and punishment. For it — For the neglect or violation of it.

9. Lest they bear sin — That is, the punishment of sin. See Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 9:13, notes, in the Levitical law, the boundary between ceremonial and moral impurity is very narrow. Acts 21:25.

V. 10. No stranger-Of a strange family, who is not a priest; but there is an exception to this rule, Leviticus 22:11. A sojourner-One that comes to his house and abides there for a season, and eats at his table.

Verse 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing] For the meaning of the word stranger, see the note on “Exodus 12:43”. The Jews suppose that stranger here means one who has had his ear pierced, (see the note on “Exodus 21:6”,) and that sojourner means a servant who is to go free on the Sabbatical year. Neither of these was permitted to eat of the holy things, because they were not properly members of the priest’s family, and might go out and defile themselves even with the abominations of the heathen; but the servant or slave that was bought with money, Leviticus 22:10, might eat of these things, because he was the property of the master for ever.

We see that it was lawful, under the Mosaic economy, to have slaves under certain restrictions; but these were taken from among the heathen, and instructed in the true religion: hence we find, as in the above case, that they were reckoned as a part of the priest’s own family, and treated as such. They certainly had privileges which did not extend either to sojourners or to hired servants; therefore their situation was incomparably better than the situation of the slaves under different European governments, of whose souls their pitiless possessors in general take no care, while they themselves venture to profess the Christian religion, and quote the Mosaic law in vindication of their system of slavery. How preposterous is such conduct! and how intolerable!

Verse 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing — By holy thing here is meant, that portion of the sacrifices which belonged to the priests. And by stranger is not meant one of another nation, in distinction from a native Jew, but one who was not of the priest’s own family, whether Jew, or Gentile proselyte. A sojourner — One that came to his house, and abode there for a season, and ate at his table, was not to eat of it. There is one exception, however, to this rule, in the next verse.

Ver. 10. No stranger shall eat of holy things. Nor were they allowed to make any offerings to the Lord, as in ver. 25. These regulations placed the uncircumcised in a very humiliating situation. Some have endeavoured to qualify the law, by restricting the prohibition of not eating, to the priest’s portion; but without sufficient reason.

10. No stranger — The non-Levite Hebrew is included in this term. See Numbers 1:51, note. A sojourner of the priest — This excludes the foreigner temporarily residing with the priest and his hired servant of another nation.

Verse 11. If the priest buy any soul — Either one of the Jewish nation, obliged, through poverty, to sell himself, (Leviticus 25:39,) or of another nation, (verses 44, 45,) who being proselyted to the Jewish religion, became part of the priest’s family, and so was permitted to eat of his consecrated meat.

11. If the priest buy any soul — That is, person. A mild form of servitude was allowed as a mitigation of the usages of war in those times. Otherwise the Hebrews would have slain all their captives taken in war. They shall eat of his meat — Since these constitute a permanent part of his family, they are permitted to eat the sacred things, but not the most holy. This partially relieves the difficulty of Colenso respecting the capacity of the priests to eat all the sacrifices assigned to them. See chap. vi, concluding notes.

V. 12. A stranger-To one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest’s wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the wife passeth into the name, state and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated.

Verse 12. If the priest’s daughter be married to a stranger — To one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest’s wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the wife passeth into the name, state, and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated.

12. Married unto a stranger — As above, the stranger is a non-Levite. The daughter of the priest, in this case, passes from a priestly into a common family, where she remains if she has children, even though a widow or divorced. If the family is broken up, and she is left childless, it becomes the duty of her father to support her as if she had remained a virgin. Since the daughter of a priest was not an heiress of landed estates, her marriage with a non-Levite is not prohibited by Numbers 36:8, which applies only to heiresses.

Verse 13. But if the priest’s daughter be a widow-and is returned unto her father’s house] A widow in Bengal not unfrequently returns to her father’s house on the death of her husband: the union betwixt her and her own family is never so dissolved as among European nations. Thousands of widows in Bengal, whose husbands die before the consummation of marriage, never leave their parents.-WARD.

V. 14. Unto it-Over and above the principle, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Leviticus 5:15. And shall give unto the priest the holy thing-That is, the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or to offer to God, as the nature of the thing was.

Verse 14. Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it] The holy thing of which he has unknowingly eaten shall be fairly valued, and to this value he shall add one fifth more, and give the whole to the priest.

Verse 14. The fifth part unto it — Over and above the principal, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Leviticus 5:15. And shall give unto the priest the holy thing — That is, the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or to offer to God, as the nature of the thing was.

14-16. Unwittingly — See Leviticus 4:2, note. The fifth part — To inspire caution in dealing with holy things, the innocent offender was liable to a fine, the amount of which was to be estimated by the priest, who was to value the thing eaten and then add a fifth. Not profane — The priests are required not to allow improper persons to eat the holy things, and thus cause the people to bear the iniquity of trespass. It may be that the priests are intended instead of the people, for the Hebrew is ambiguous. See Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 9:13, notes. ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICES, 17-28.

V. 15. They-The people shall not profane them, by eating them: or the priests shall not profane them, that is, suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment.

Verse 15. They — The people; shall not profane them, by eating them: or the priests shall not profane them, that is, suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment.

14-16. Unwittingly — See Leviticus 4:2, note. The fifth part — To inspire caution in dealing with holy things, the innocent offender was liable to a fine, the amount of which was to be estimated by the priest, who was to value the thing eaten and then add a fifth. Not profane — The priests are required not to allow improper persons to eat the holy things, and thus cause the people to bear the iniquity of trespass. It may be that the priests are intended instead of the people, for the Hebrew is ambiguous. See Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 9:13, notes. ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICES, 17-28.

V. 16. They-That is, the priests, shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause) suffer them-That is, the people, to bear the iniquity of trespass-That is, the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made.

Verse 16. They — That is, the priests; shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause) suffer them — That is, the people; to bear the iniquity of trespass — That is, the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made.

14-16. Unwittingly — See Leviticus 4:2, note. The fifth part — To inspire caution in dealing with holy things, the innocent offender was liable to a fine, the amount of which was to be estimated by the priest, who was to value the thing eaten and then add a fifth. Not profane — The priests are required not to allow improper persons to eat the holy things, and thus cause the people to bear the iniquity of trespass. It may be that the priests are intended instead of the people, for the Hebrew is ambiguous. See Leviticus 10:17; Numbers 9:13, notes. ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICES, 17-28.

Verses 17, 18. The Lord spake unto Moses — The following laws relate to the qualifications required in any offering made either by the Israelites or proselytes. For such proselytes as had renounced idolatry, and were proselytes of the gate, termed, verse 18, strangers in Israel — Though not circumcised, and obliged to keep the whole law of Moses, were yet permitted, in testimony of their worshipping the true God, to offer free-will-offerings at the Jewish altar, as well as proselytes to the whole Mosaic system, termed proselytes of righteousness.

V. 18. Strangers-Such as were proselytes.

Verses 17, 18. The Lord spake unto Moses — The following laws relate to the qualifications required in any offering made either by the Israelites or proselytes. For such proselytes as had renounced idolatry, and were proselytes of the gate, termed, verse 18, strangers in Israel — Though not circumcised, and obliged to keep the whole law of Moses, were yet permitted, in testimony of their worshipping the true God, to offer free-will-offerings at the Jewish altar, as well as proselytes to the whole Mosaic system, termed proselytes of righteousness.

18. Strangers in Israel — For their religious privileges, see Leviticus 1:2, note. For their civil rights, see chap. 23, note. Vows — There are exigencies in the history of every man when he is impelled to make religious resolutions. For the character of the sacrifices prescribed for the release from the vow, and also for the freewill offerings, see Leviticus 7:11, 16, notes. Burnt offering — See chapters 1 and 6:9, notes.

V. 19. A male-For a burnt-offering, which was always of that kind: but the females were accepted in peace-offerings, and sin-offerings.

Verse 19. Ye shall offer it at your own will — This is better rendered by the Seventy, the Arabic, and other versions, In order to its being accepted ye shall offer a male. And so we render the same word ˆwxrl, leratson, in the next verse. Males were required in burnt-offerings: but females were accepted in peace-offerings and sin-offerings.

19. At your own will — The better translation is, for your acceptance, or, as the R.V., “that ye may be accepted.” See Leviticus 1:3, note, and Leviticus 23:11, in the original. Without blemish — See Leviticus 1:3, note, also verses 22-24, 27.

Verse 20. Whatsoever hath a blemish] The same perfection is required in the sacrifice that was required in the priest; see on Leviticus 22:2, and the notes on the preceding chapter.

Verse 21. To accomplish a vow — It was not unusual with them to make such a vow when they undertook a journey, went to sea, were sick, or in any danger. It shall be perfect — That sacrifice was accounted perfect which wanted none of its parts, nor had any defect in any of them; so that perfect here is the same as without blemish, verse 19. The design of this law was still to remind them that they ought to offer to God the most excellent of every thing in its kind, and to guard the worship of God from falling into contempt, as it might have done, had they been allowed to offer to their Maker what men despised, Malachi 1:8. It served also to keep up a due distinction between things sacred and things common, for these same animals which were unfit to be offered to God might be used for common food.

21. Peace offerings — See chaps. 3 and Leviticus 7:11-21, notes. Sheep — Properly, small cattle, sheep and goats. See Leviticus 1:10. It shall be perfect to be accepted — God can demand nothing less without degrading his own majesty and fostering the selfishness of the worshipper. Hence this law is found among all nations that sacrifice victims to their gods. Herodotus records that the Egyptian priests carefully examined the animals brought for sacrifice. It was a law of Solon that none but select victims were to be sacrificed. These were distinguished by a mark. See Virgil’s Georgics, 3. 157, and 4:550, and AEneid, 4:57. The spiritual lesson is of great importance. See Matthew 5:48; Romans 12:1, notes; Hebrews 10:22.

22. Having a wen — Ulcerous, having an abscess or issue.

Verse 23. That hath anything superfluous or lacking] The term [wrc sarua signifies any thing extended beyond the usual size, and the term cwlq kalut signifies any thing unusually contracted; and both mean any monstrosity, whether in redundance or defect. Such things, it seems, might be offered for a freewill-offering, because that was not prescribed by the law; God left it to a man’s piety and gratitude to offer such additional gifts as he could: what the law required was indispensably necessary, because it pointed out the Gospel economy; but he that made a vow to offer such a sacrifice as the law had not required, could of course bring an imperfect offering. Some contend that the last clause of this verse should be thus read: If thou offer it either for a freewill-offering, or for a vow, it shall not be accepted. It was the opinion of the Jews, and it appears to be correct, that none of these imperfect animals were ever offered on the altar; but the person who made the freewill-offering of such things as he had, sold the animal, and gave its price for the support of the sanctuary.

Verse 23. That mayest thou offer — The Hebrew here will bear a different translation, which, indeed, seems necessary to reconcile this with the twenty-first verse, namely, Shouldest thou offer it for a free-will-offering or for a vow, it would not be accepted.

23. A freewill offering — Since this is a gift, and not a debt, an animal having a member too many or too few may be used. This is the significance of superfluous. See Leviticus 21:18, note.

Verse 24. Bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut] That is, no bullock or lamb that is injured in any of the above ways, shall be offered unto the Lord.

24. Bruised, crushed, broken, or cut — Here are four ways of castrating animals. Such victims are plainly prohibited for sacrifice, since they are not perfect. Neither shall ye make (such) in your land — This is evidently the meaning of this passage, instead of that given in the Authorized Version. The R.V. has “neither shall ye do thus in your land.” Josephus (Ant. 4:8, § 40) says, “It is not lawful to geld either men or any other animals.” He regards such as of “a monstrous nature.”

V. 25. A stranger’s hand-From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites. The bread of your God-That is, the sacrifices.

Verse 25. Their corruption is in them] Viz., they are bruised, crushed, broken, &c.

Verse 25. Neither from a stranger’s hand — From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites. The bread of your God — That is, the sacrifices.

25. Neither from a stranger’s hand — These blemished victims, whether from Israelites or foreigners, could not be acceptable to Jehovah.

Verse 27. When a bullock-is brought forth] This is a most unfortunate as well as absurd translation. The creature called an ox is a bull castrated; surely then a bullock was never yet brought forth! The original word rwv shor signifies a bull, a bullock, or indeed any thing of the neat kind: here, even common sense required that it should be translated calf; and did I not hold myself sacredly bound to print the text of the common version with scrupulous exactness, I should translate the former clause of this verse thus, and so enter it into the text: When a CALF, or a LAMB, or a KID is brought forth, instead of, When a bullock, a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, the absurdity of which is glaring.

Seven days under the dam] In vindication of the propriety of this precept it may be justly asserted, that the flesh of very young animals is comparatively innutritive, and that animal food is not sufficiently nourishing and wholesome till the animal has arrived at a certain growth, or acquired the perfection of its nature. There is something brutish in eating the young of beast or fowl before the hair and hoofs are perfect in the one, and the feathers and claws in the other. Before this period their flesh is not good for food. See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 9:1”.

27. From the eighth day… accepted — Both men and animals were unclean till the eighth day, when the child must be sealed to the Lord by circumcision, and the clean animal might be offered on the altar. The age limit was necessary, since in most sacrifices a portion was to be eaten. In many civilized states the killing for the market of a calf less than four weeks old is prohibited.

V. 28. In one day-Because it favoured of cruelty.

Verse 28. Ye shall not kill it and her young in one day] This precept was certainly intended to inculcate mercy and tenderness of heart; and so the Jews understood it. When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission, to do it.

Verse 28. The cow or ewe, and her young, in one day — This Maimonides considers as a precaution of humanity, lest the dam should be brought to the altar while she is yet mourning the loss of her young, slain perhaps before her eyes. And, indeed, there is a degree of cruelty in the very idea of imbruing the hand in the blood of both parent and offspring at the same time. Therefore Jonathan, in his paraphrase, considers this as a symbolical precept, to teach the Israelites to be merciful, as their Father in heaven is merciful.

28. In one day — This prohibition regards both the natural affection of the brute and the tender sentiments of man’s better nature. It is akin to that command which forbids “to seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The principle has higher applications.

MISCELLANEOUS PRECEPTS REITERATED, 29-33.

29. A sacrifice of thanksgiving — See Leviticus 7:12-15, notes. At your own will — For your own acceptance. See verse 19, note.

Verse 30. Leave none of it until the morrow] See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 7:15”.

30. On the same day it shall be eaten — Murphy wisely remarks: “Thanksgiving and parsimony do not go well together. To reserve any part of the thank-offering when there may be hungry mouths ready to partake of it would savour more of parsimony than of praise.” I am the Lord — The bountiful Giver ordains a thank-offering, to be conducted in harmony with his character. “Freely ye have received, freely give.”

31. Keep my commandments — We keep the commandment of God by obeying it, his word by believing it, and his promise by appropriating it. These various commands of the Levitical ritual constituted the probation of the Israelites.

V. 32. Hallowed, or sanctified, either by you in keeping my holy commands, or upon you in executing my holy and righteous judgments. I will manifest myself to be an holy God that will not bear the transgression of my laws.

Verse 32. Neither shall ye profane my holy name] God’s name is profaned or rendered common when we treat his commands as we often do those of our fellows, when they do not appear to have self-interest to recommend them. He therefore profanes God’s holy name who does not both implicitly believe and conscientiously obey all his words and all his precepts.

I will be hallowed among the children of Israel] The words children of Israel, larvy ynb beney Yishrael, which so frequently occur, should be translated either the descendants or posterity of Israel, or the people of Israel. The word children has a tendency to beget a false notion, especially in the minds of young people, and lead them to think that children, in the proper sense of the word, i.e., little ones, are meant.

Verse 32. I will be hallowed — Or, sanctified, either by you, in keeping my holy commands, or upon you, in executing my holy and righteous judgments. I will manifest myself to be a holy God, that will not bear the transgression of my laws. I am the Lord who hallow you — Who have separated you to myself as a special people.

32. I will be hallowed — “Reverence is the very basis of lofty character, and is the guarantee of the purity of society. When our worship falls, our conduct will go down along with it. The loftier the prayer, the tenderer will be the common speech of the day. If the children of God do not hallow him, the enemy never will. God, so to say, depends upon the loyalty of his own people for his position (reputation) in the world.” — Joseph Parker. I will be regarded in your hearts, and treated in your worship, as infinitely glorious and perfectly holy. A threefold motive is applied. First, the sovereignty of Jehovah, the author of the covenant and the God of salvation. Secondly, which hallow you — The calling of Israel from polytheism to monotheism, the giving of God’s holy law on Sinai, and the revelation of his own holy character as a model, were strong incentives to obedience and purity. In addition to these motives there follows a third.

Verse 33. Brought you out of the land of Egypt] By such a series of miraculous interferences, to be your God-to save you from all idolatry, false and superstitious worship, teach you the right way, lead and support you in it, and preserve you to my eternal kingdom and glory. God, infinite in his own perfections, has no need of his creatures; but they need him; and, as a source of endless felicity, he opens himself to all his intelligent offspring.

LEVITICUS

33. That brought you out of… Egypt — The interposition of Jehovah as the emancipator of Israel from the burdens and bonds of Pharaoh was a weighty reason for holiness of life. Moral obligations are impressively seen when the relations out of which they spring are exhibited to the mind. The deliverance of the justified soul from the guilt of sin affords a strong motive for “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Israel was not commanded to be holy till the yoke of Egypt was broken.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Since this chapter contains the last directions respecting sacrifices found in this book, it is appropriate to append some general remarks, showing first the difference between Hebrew and pagan sacrifices, and secondly, the significance of the Hebrew sacrifices. 1.) There is no mention of any thing preceding the slaying of the animal, except that it be of a proper age and without blemish. It was not brought decked with garlands, nor sprinkled with barley-cakes and salt, nor was wine poured upon its horns, nor was a lock of hair taken from its forehead to be cast into the fire on the altar. 2.) Nothing is said about inspecting the entrails for ascertaining the future, which was a principal object in all heathen sacrifices. 3.) All the altar-ritual is dignified, impressive, and worthy of its divine origin; indicating the sinfulness of man, the holiness of God, and the necessity of an atonement to bring man into harmony with his Maker, and to raise him to that spiritual excellence and happiness for which he was created. These sacrifices and oblations were admirably adapted to enlighten the minds of the Jews and to prepare them to appreciate “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” In respect to all that relates to the expiation of sin, the words of Jerome are not too strong, “Almost every syllable in this book breathes a spiritual sacrament.” The best comment on the Levitical sacrifices is the epistle to the Hebrews. 4.) The scriptural conception of the effect of sacrifices upon the object of worship is totally different from that of any pagan cultus. The Homeric gods smell the savour of the burning hecatombs, and are pleased and placated. True that at a later date Jehovah declares that he has no pleasure in burnt offerings, (Psalm 51:16,) but that was because of the insincerity and wickedness of the offerers. Says Epiphanius: “The people sacrificed, not because God would be pleased with the act, but because such an inveterate habit of sacrificing had been acquired in Egypt, and Jehovah, by temporary indulgence, would allure them away from idolatrous worship.” Chrysostom gives the following statement of the origin of Hebrew sacrifices: “God, in his care for the salvation of men, allowed such forms to be used in his own worship as had been employed in the worship of idols; those only which were of a positively sinful character being excluded. It was intended by this to lead men by a gradual progress to a purer and less carnal form of worship.” Says Theophylact: “God allowed them to sacrifice to himself, lest, if they were forbidden to do so, they should sacrifice to idols.” Thus also Justin Martyr and Tertullian. For strictures on Baehr, see Numbers 15, concluding note. 5.) Much objection has been made to the similarity of the Levitical ritual to that of the Egyptians, as if it was derogatory to Jehovah to employ any thing used by them. “It is altogether a natural supposition that a man like Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and whose task it was to digest a religious system for a people who, like the Israelites, had lived for centuries in Egypt, would adopt spontaneously a form of language by which those whom he wished to instruct could be reached most readily and effectively. Nor is it at all strange that he should not only use the same form of language in general, but should, besides, when trying to express, as he must often have had occasion to do, the same ideas, have had recourse to the same symbols as were employed by the Egyptians. There is nothing, necessarily, any more objectionable in this than there is in printing the Scriptures by the use of the same press and types as are employed in printing the vilest books.” — Bib. Sacra.

(2.) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICES.

1.) THE VICARIOUS THEORY. — The Mosaic sacrifices typify Christ’s death, and have exclusive reference to God. They were not designed merely to express the feelings of the worshippers, but to affect the mind of Jehovah, being vicarious punishments, and intended to accomplish the same purposes that real punishments have in view. — Outram.

2.) THEORY OF RESTORED FELLOWSHIP. — The blood of the offered animal is its life, which is offered on the altar in the place of the life of the worshipper, not as an expiation for sin, but as a surrender of selfishness, the principle of sin, thus removing sin and restoring fellowship with God. — Bahr. “One (way set before the Jews) was the way of sacrifice, by which expiation and atonement were to be made; and which was to be a type and sign of the slaying and offering up of the carnal will, the carnal nature, to God.” — Archdeacon Hare.

3.) FEDERAL THEORY. — Sacrifices are not expiations but federal rites, or festive observances, shared in at once by Jehovah and by men in token of friendship, either such as had never been broken or such as had been restored. — Dr. Sykes.

4.) GIFT THEORY. — It becomes those who, like men, have received many and great benefits from their Creator, to present him some of his own gifts in return, as an expression of gratitude and acknowledgment of dependence. Thus pious men endeavour to recommend themselves to the offended Deity. — Portall and Taylor.

5.) UNITARIAN THEORY. — Sacrifices owe their efficacy to the purity of the feeling which they represent, and not to any element of expiation. The faith required was not a faith in God, nor in any future Redeemer, but simply faith in himself — his distinct recognition of his own inward rectitude. — F.D. Maurice.

6.) THE EVANGELICAL THEORY extends the vicarious theory of Outram, and makes the sacrifice satisfactory to the justice of God as a moral Governor, and to all moral intelligences, and influential with man; thus removing all barriers God-ward and man-ward which were obstructing reconciliation.

(3.) In explanation of the variety of sacrifices, we quote from Jukes: “The fact is, that our perceptions do not grasp realities, but forms. If, therefore, what is seen is to be described, we must have many representations even of the same object; and this not only because it may be viewed on different sides, but because the amount of what is seen, even on the same side, will depend on the light and capacity of the beholder. He who made us knew this and provided for it. Hence in type and figure we have view after view of Him who was to come, not only because his offices and perfections were many, but also because we were weak and needed such a revelation. Thus in the single relation of offering, Christ is seen as burnt offering, peace offering, and sin offering, each but a different view of the same offering. In the self-same act of dying on the cross, our Lord was at the same moment a sweet-savour offering, willingly offering to God a perfect obedience, and also a sin offering, penally bearing the judgment due to sin, and as such made a curse for us.”

(4.) In the nature and order of the three great feasts we have emblems of the three stages of salvation. The feast of unleavened bread prefigures the forgiveness of sins through “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” The feast of weeks, the end of the grain harvest, fifty days after the Passover, symbolizes Christ as the source of spiritual life through the Pentecostal gift in consequence of the atonement. The feast of tabernacles is typical of the repose, the gladness, the gratitude, and the enjoyment of souls still dwelling on earth, entirely sanctified and filled with the Spirit, but it more especially foreshadows the realization of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places after the harvest of the earth has been completed.