Leviticus · Chapter 3

V. 1. A peace-offering-This was an offering for peace and prosperity, and the blessing of God, either,

1. obtained, and so it was a thank-offering, or,

Verse 1. Peace-offering] שלמים shelamim, an offering to make peace between God and man; see Clarke on “Leviticus 7:38”, and Genesis 14:18.

Verse 1. A sacrifice of peace-offering — The original word here used, µymlv, shelamim, is in the plural number, and is properly rendered peaces, pacifications, and also payments. These were offerings for peace, prosperity, and the blessing of God; either, 1st, Obtained, and then they were thank-offerings, or peace-offerings for thanksgiving, as they are termed, Leviticus 7:15. Or, 2d, Desired; and so they were a kind of supplications to God. Sometimes, again, they were offered by way of vow, (Leviticus 7:16; Proverbs 7:14,) in expectation of peace and future blessings; for peace, in the Hebrew language, signifies all manner of prosperity and happiness. In this case they were properly termed payments, namely, of the vows previously made. Sometimes they were offered without any antecedent obligation of a vow, in which case they were called free-will-offerings, Leviticus 7:11, 16. Those sacrifices which were called sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, supposed the offerer to be obnoxious to the divine justice on account of sin, and God to be displeased; and they were appointed for atonement and reconciliation. But peace-offerings supposed God to be reconciled to the offerer, and him to be at peace with God; in testimony of which reconciliation and peace, the offerer was in this case admitted to partake of the altar. For whereas, in the holocausts, or whole burnt-offerings, the altar consumed all the flesh of the sacrifice, neither the priest nor any of the people being allowed to partake; and in the sin and trespass offerings, though the priests did partake, yet the offerers had no share; in these peace-offerings the offerers themselves were allowed to partake of the sacrifice, and feast upon it. They partook of the Lord’s table, and that was a sign of favour and friendship. For eating together was always esteemed so, and was therefore used in ancient times in making covenants and agreements. Thus, when Christ becomes our peace, and being justified through his blood, we are made one with him and with his followers; through him we have communion with God, and with his people in his ordinances, finding the flesh of Christ to be meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed. Through the exercise of faith in his sacrifice, which puts away sin, love to him and each other is shed abroad in our hearts, and while we gratefully offer and dedicate ourselves to his service as a free-will-offering, we rejoice in each other’s gifts and graces, and communicate to one another’s necessities. This fellowship with the Father and the Son, and one with another, is happily shadowed forth, and seems to have been intended to be represented in this significant ceremony of the Jewish Church. Whether it be male or female — Females were allowed here, though not in burnt-offerings, because those principally respected the honour of God, who is to be served with the best, but the peace-offerings did primarily respect the benefit of the offerer, and therefore the choice was left to himself. Again, burnt-offerings had regard to God, as in himself the best of beings, and therefore were wholly burned. But peace-offerings had regard to God as a benefactor to his creatures, and therefore were divided between the altar, the priest, and the offerer.

Verse 1. Oblation, is variously rendered; sometimes an offering of any kind, sometimes, as here, a sacrifice of peace-offering. The LXX render it an offering of salutation; when a man had recovered from some affliction, or escaped some danger, this was his eucharist to the Lord.

1. Sacrifice of peace offering — Although this is not spoken of till after the giving of the decalogue, Exodus 20:24, the manner of the mention then made implies that it was a customary offering. Hence we have styled it traditional. It is chiefly eucharistic, with the subordinate notion of propitiation, as will be seen in the laying of the hand upon the victim and in the sprinkling of the blood. Hence the Seventy render it qusia swthriou, “a sacrifice of salvation,” implying that it restores peace. But since no distinct reference is made to sin or to its priestly atonement, as in the sin offering, (Leviticus 4:20,) we have called it a thanksgiving offering of one in the enjoyment of the peace afforded by a clear conscience. This is corroborated by the fact that it was to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a festive banquet. It was the vehicle of communion with Jehovah and with those who feared his name. Of the herd — See note on chap. 1:2. Male or female — The whole burnt offering, the type of Christ, was a male victim. Without blemish — See note on Leviticus 1:3.

2. desired; and so it was a kind of supplication to God. A female-Which were allowed here, tho’ not in burnt-offerings, because those principally respected the honour of God, who is to be served with the best; but the peace-offerings did primarily respect the benefit of the offerer, and therefore the choice was left to himself. Burnt-offerings had regard to God, as in himself the best of beings, and therefore were wholly burned. But peace-offerings had regard to God as a benefactor to his creatures, and therefore were divided between the altar, the priest, and the offerer.

V. 2. At the door-Not on the north-side of the altar, where the burnt-offering was killed, as also the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering, but in the very entrance of the court where the brazen altar stood, which place was not so holy as the other; as appears both because it was more remote from the holy of holies, and because the ashes of the sacrifices were to be laid here. And the reason of this difference is not obscure, both because part of this sacrifice was to be waved by the hands of the offerer, Leviticus 7:30, who might not come into the court; and because this offering was not so holy as the others, which were to be eaten only by the priest, whereas part of these were eaten by the offerer.

Verse 2. Lay his hand upon the head of his offering] See this rite explained, See Clarke on “Exodus 29:10”, and “Leviticus 1:4”. “As the burnt-offering, (chap. i.,)” says Mr. Ainsworth, “figured our reconciliation to God by the death of Christ, and the meat-offering, (chap. ii.,) our sanctification in him before God, so this peace-offering signified both Christ’s oblation of himself whereby he became our peace and salvation, (Ephesians 2:14-16; Acts 13:47; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 9:28,) and our oblation of praise, thanksgiving, and prayer unto God.”

Verse 2. He shall lay his hand on the head of his offering — Here, as in the former case, (Leviticus 1:4,) the laying on of the offerer’s hand may denote his devoting the sacrifice wholly to God. In the peace-offerings it was accompanied with solemn thanksgiving to God, and an acknowledgment of those mercies which were the occasion of it. Thus Conradus, “This laying on of hands signifies devotion and faith, with an acknowledgment of the benefits, for which we can offer nothing of our own, but only return to God what we have received; that we may understand gratitude and thanksgiving to be the greatest sacrifices.” And kill it at the door — Not on the north side of the altar, where the burnt-offering was killed, as also the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering, but in the very entrance of the court where the brazen altar stood, which place was not so holy as the other; as appears both because it was more remote from the holy of holies, and because the ashes of the sacrifices were to be laid here. And the reason of this difference is not obscure, both because part of this sacrifice was to be waved by the hands of the offerer, (Leviticus 7:30,) who might not come into the court; and because this offering was not so holy as the others, which were to be eaten only by the priest, whereas part of these was eaten by the offerer.

2. Hand… head — This impressive ceremony links the victim to the offerer, and at the same time shows his relinquishment of all claim, and his devotion of the animal to Jehovah. See note on Leviticus 1:4. Blood upon the altar — The sprinkling of blood seems to have been the very core of the sacrificial system. For the office of the blood, see Introduction, (6.)

Verse 3. The fat that covereth the inwards] The omentum, caul or web, as some term it. The fat that is upon the inwards; probably the mesentery or fatty part of the substance which connects the convolutions of the alimentary canal or small intestines.

3. The fat — The suet or sweet fat is here described. The fat diffused through the flesh it was lawful to eat. The suet was forbidden food. Leviticus 7:23. The burning of the suet is particularly specified in every kind of offering of a victim. Whatever was reserved for the priest, or to the offerer, the suet must always be burned. The reason may be, because this is the best portion. Murphy assigns another reason: “The fat is expressive of the holiness which pertains to the Substitute, as the blood is significant of the penal death which He has undertaken to suffer. The two go to make up what is called righteousness, or active and passive obedience to the law for the sinner.” We see no semblance between fat and holiness which can make one a fitting type of the other except their purity and unmingled nature. See Concluding Note.

4. The two kidneys — Professor Bush suggests that the kidneys were burned because they are “the supposed seat of some of the strongest sensual propensities,” such as fornication and uncleanness. But we fail to see why the kidneys should be burned for this reason while the very organs of impurity are spared. The kidneys (reins) are, with the Scripture writers, the inmost seat of character. Their burning signifies the purgation, by the fire of the Holy Spirit, of the inscrutable depths of the spiritual nature and the cleansing of the heart from inbred sin. “God trieth the hearts and kidneys.” Psalm 7:9. “I try the kidneys.” Jeremiah 17:10. Outside of the Pentateuch the substitution of reins for kidneys occurs in the Authorized Version thirteen times in the Old Testament. The caul above the liver — These words are found together twice in Exodus, and quite often in the sacrificial ritual of Leviticus. In physiological terms it is “the small omentum which bounds part of the liver and the stomach, and comes into the region of the kidneys, and which is itself surrounded with the tunica adiposa — a bed of fatty matter.”

V. 5. Upon the burnt sacrifice-Either,

1. Upon the remainders of it, which were yet burning; or rather,

2. After it; for the daily burnt-offering was first to be offered, both as more eminently respecting God’s honour; and as the most solemn and stated sacrifice, which should take place of all occasional oblations, and as a sacrifice of an higher nature, being for atonement, without which no peace could be obtained, nor peace offering offered with acceptance.

Verse 5. Aaron’s sons shall burn it] As the fat was deemed the most valuable part of the animal, it was offered in preference to all other parts; and the heathens probably borrowed this custom from the Jews, for they burnt the omentum or caul in honour of their gods.

Verse 5. Upon the burnt-sacrifice — Either, 1st, Upon the remainders of it, which were yet burning; or, rather, 2d, After it: for the daily burnt-offering was first to be offered, both as more eminently respecting God’s honour, and as the most solemn and stated sacrifice, which should take place of all occasional oblations, and as a sacrifice of a higher nature, being for atonement, without which no peace could be obtained, nor peace-offering offered with acceptance.

Ver. 5. The burnt-sacrifice, or holocaust, signifies not only a single beast, but often a collection of animals, slain and burnt for sin.

V. 9. The rump-Which in sheep is fat, and sweet, and in these parts was very much larger and better than ours.

Verse 9. The whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone] To what has already been said on the tails of the eastern sheep, in the note on Exodus 29:22, we may add the following observation from Dr. Russel concerning the sheep at Aleppo. “Their tails,” says he, “are of a substance between fat and marrow, and are not eaten separately, but mixed with the lean meat in many of their dishes, and also often used instead of butter.” He states also that a common sheep of this kind, without the head, fat, skin, and entrails, weighs from sixty to seventy English pounds, of which the tail usually weighs fifteen pounds and upwards; but that those of the largest breed, when fattened will weigh one hundred and fifty pounds, and their tails fifty, which corresponds with the account given by Ludolf in the note referred to above. The sheep about Jerusalem are the same with those in Abyssinia mentioned by Ludolf, and those of Syria mentioned by Dr. Russel.

Verses 9, 11. The rump — Which in sheep is fat and sweet, and in these countries was much larger and better than in ours. The food of the offering — So called, to denote God’s acceptance of it, and delight in it; as men delight in their food.

9. The whole rump — We know of no more unfortunate translation than this. Instead of rump, it should have been rendered fat tail. In the East there is a species of sheep whose tails are so large that they weigh from twelve to fourteen pounds, and the owners are obliged to fix a thin board or cart beneath the tail to ease the sheep, and to preserve the wool and fat from being torn among the bushes and stones. See Ludolph, History of Ethiopia, p. 53, and Dr. Russell, Natural History of Aleppo, p. 51. The cooks of Syria use this mass of fat instead of Arab butter.

Verses 9, 11. The rump — Which in sheep is fat and sweet, and in these countries was much larger and better than in ours. The food of the offering — So called, to denote God’s acceptance of it, and delight in it; as men delight in their food.

V. 11. Burnt it-The parts now mentioned; the rest fell to the priest, Leviticus 7:31. The food-That is, the fuel of the fire, or the matter of the offering. It is called food, Heb. bread, to note God’s acceptance of it, and delight in it; as men delight in their food.

Verse 11. It is the food of the offering] We have already remarked that God is frequently represented as feasting with his people on the sacrifices they offered; and because these sacrifices were consumed by that fire which was kindled from heaven, therefore they were considered as the food of that fire, or rather of the Divine Being who was represented by it. “In the same idiom of speech,” says Dodd, “the gods of the heathens are said, Deuteronomy 32:38, to eat the fat and drink,,the wine which were consumed on their altars.

Verses 9, 11. The rump — Which in sheep is fat and sweet, and in these countries was much larger and better than in ours. The food of the offering — So called, to denote God’s acceptance of it, and delight in it; as men delight in their food.

11. The food of the offering — Literally, this means the bread or sustenance of the altar-flame. Unto the Lord — Jehovah’s altar may be said to be the table which he spreads on the earth. Devout and willing souls bring provision to that table, and are graciously invited to sit down and share the gifts which their loyal hearts have brought, hallowed by his presence and sweetened by his blessing. Numbers 28:2. The flesh of the peace offering, of which no mention is made in this chapter, was to be eaten by the offerer and his friends on the same day or the day following. Leviticus 7:15, 16.

Verse 12. A goat] Implying the whole species, he-goat, she-goat, and kid, as we have already seen.

V. 16. Shall burn them-The parts mentioned, among which the tail is not one, as it was in the sheep. because that in goats is a refuse part. All the fat-This is to be limited, 1. To those beasts, which were offered or offerable in sacrifice, as it is explained, Leviticus 7:23,25. 2. To that kind of fat which is above-mentioned, and required to be offered, which was separated, or easily separable from the flesh for the fat which was here and there mixed with the flesh they might eat.

Verse 16. Shall burn them — The parts mentioned, among which the tail is not one, as it was in the sheep, because that in goats is a refuse part. All the fat is the Lord’s — This is to be limited, 1st, To those beasts which were offered or offerable in sacrifice, as it is explained, Leviticus 7:23,

25. 2d, To that kind of fat which is above mentioned, and required to be offered, which was separated, or easily separable from the flesh: for the fat which was here and there mixed with the flesh they might eat.

V. 17. All your dwellings-Not only at or near the tabernacle, not only of those beasts which you actually sacrifice, but also in your several dwellings, and of all that kind of beasts. Fat-Was forbidden, 1. To preserve the reverence of the holy rites and sacrifices. 2. That they might be taught hereby to acknowledge God as their Lord, and the Lord of all the creatures, who might reserve what he pleased to himself. 3. To exercise them in obedience to God, and self-denial and mortification of their appetites, even in those things which probably many of them would much desire. Blood-Was forbidden partly to maintain reverence to God and his worship; partly out of opposition to idolaters, who used to drink the blood of their sacrifices; partly with respect to Christ’s Blood, thereby manifestly signified. God would not permit the very shadows of this to be used as a common thing. Nor will he allow us, tho’ we have the comfort of the atonement made, to assume to ourselves any share in the honour of making it.

Verse 17. That ye eat neither fat nor blood.] It is not likely that the fat should be forbidden in the same manner and in the same latitude as the blood. The blood was the life of the beast, and that was offered to make an atonement for their souls; consequently, this was never eaten in all their generations: but it was impossible to separate the fat from the flesh, which in many parts is so intimately intermixed with the muscular fibres; but the blood, being contained in separate vessels, the arteries and veins, might with great ease be entirely removed by cutting the throat of the animal, which was the Jewish method. By the fat therefore mentioned here and in the preceding verse, we may understand any fat that exists in a separate or unmixed state, such as the omentum or caul, the fat of the mesentery, the fat on the kidneys, and whatever else of the internal fat was easily separable, together with the whole of the tail already described. And probably it was the fat of such animals only as were offered to God in sacrifice, that was unlawful to be eaten.

As all temporal as well as spiritual blessings come from God, he has a right to require that such of them should be dedicated to his service as he may think proper to demand. He required the most perfect of all the animals, and the best parts of these perfect animals. This he did, not that he needed any thing, but to show the perfection of his nature and the purity of his service. Had he condescended to receive the meanest animals and the meanest parts of animals as his offerings, what opinion could his worshippers have entertained of the perfection of his nature? If such imperfect offerings were worthy of this God, then his nature must be only worthy of such offerings. It is necessary that every thing employed in the worship of God should be the most perfect of its kind that the time and circumstances can afford. As sensible things are generally the medium through which spiritual impressions are made, and the impression usually partakes of the nature of the medium through which these impressions are communicated; hence every thing should not only be decent, but as far as circumstances will admit dignified, in the worship of God: the object of religious worship, the place in which he is worshipped, and the worship itself, should have the strongest and most impressive correspondence possible.

LEVITICUS

Verse 17. All your dwellings — Not only at or near the tabernacle, not only of those beasts which you actually sacrifice, but also in your several dwellings, and of all that kind of beasts. Fat — Was forbidden, 1st, To preserve the reverence of the holy rites and sacrifices. 2d, That they may be taught hereby to acknowledge God as their Lord, and the Lord of all the creatures, who might reserve what he pleased to himself. 3d, To exercise them in obedience to God, and self-denial and mortification of their appetites, even in those things which probably many of them would much desire. Blood — Was forbidden, partly to maintain reverence to God and his worship; partly, according to Maimonides, out of opposition to idolaters, who used to drink the blood of their sacrifices; partly, with respect to Christ’s blood, thereby manifestly signified. God would not permit the very shadows of this to be used as a common thing. Nor will he allow us, though we have the comfort of the atonement made, to assume to ourselves any share in the honour of making it.

Ver. 17. That ye eat neither fat nor blood. They were not to eat blood, because it is the life of the creature. But why were they forbidden to eat the fat which covereth the inwards? Because the idolaters both ate the fat and drank the blood of their victims; because the fat being extremely nutritive, it might teach them to avoid all impurity; because fat being the best portion, and fittest to burn on the altar, it was most proper to offer it up to the Lord.

17. A perpetual statute — The Hebrew word olam, here translated perpetual, is sometimes used for future duration without end, as the eternal existence of God, (Genesis 21:33,) but it often signifies an indefinite future time, conditioned by the context or by the nature of the subject. Hence it may extend to only a few years, as the servant who refused to be made free, after his ear was bored with an awl became a servant, olam, forever. Therefore the modern Jew cannot logically allege that the perpetual statutes of the Levitical law bind him to the burdensome repetition of types long since done away by the presence of the glorious Antitype in his temple on Mount Moriah, and that the everlasting covenant compels him to feed his hungry soul with the shadows of good things yet to come centuries after the substance, the living Bread, has come down from heaven. The plain meaning of the perpetual statute is, that so long as the Jewish dispensation continues, and the ceremonial law retains its significance, the requirement shall stand. Eat neither fat nor blood — The prohibition extends only to the suet, and not to the fat diffused in small particles through the flesh, and to the blood in the larger veins and arteries which flows from the animal when the jugular vein is cut. The minute globules of blood in the small veins spreading through the flesh it would be impossible to remove. The prohibition does not extend to the eating of these, since it would have been a virtual interdict of the eating of any flesh. The law relates not only to all sacrifices, but also to all animals slain for food. See notes on Leviticus 7:23, 25.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

Physiologists allege, that the prohibition of fat is the re-enactment of that law of hygiene which demands abstinence from gross animal food on the part of dwellers in hot climates, while it permits the Esquimau to drink with impunity whale oil by the quart, and to feast to surfeiting upon the fat of the white bear. So great is the demand for carbon with which to warm his system, that he would soon die if required to keep this everlasting statute which promoted the health and long life of the Hebrew. Here we have an incidental proof that Judaism was never designed to be universal. There are also intellectual and moral grounds for this statute. Fat tends to stupify the mind, and blood excites the malevolent propensities, and makes those who drink it fierce, savage, and bloodthirsty. For still higher grounds on which this prohibition rests, namely, on the typology of the fat, see note on verse 3; and of the blood, see Introduction, (6.) That the blood of the sacrificial victim prefigured the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, is too obvious to need proof. There is no doubt that the prohibition of blood as food has reference to this fact. The typical significance of the fat as representing Christ’s personal righteousness is a favourite theory with some. See Professor Murphy, quoted verse 3. It is true that the work of mediation is twofold. Says Richard Watson, “For what Christ did in obedience to the precepts of the law, and what he suffered, constitute that mediatorial righteousness for the sake of which the Father is ever well pleased in him.” It is eminently appropriate that the former as well as the latter element of mediatorial righteousness should have its distinct type in the Levitical system. We find them both in the perpetually consumed fat, and in the blood sprinkled without cessation upon Jewish altars.