“ ‘This is the law of the trespass offering: It is most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering, he shall kill the trespass offering; and its blood he shall sprinkle around on the altar. He shall offer all of its fat: the fat tail, and the fat that covers the innards, and he shall take away the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys; and the priest shall burn them on the altar for an offering made by fire to Yahweh: it is a trespass offering. Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy.
“ ‘As is the sin offering, so is the trespass offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with them shall have it.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 7 Which is for the smaller sins, and such as…
Which is for the smaller sins, and such as are committed by ignorance.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 Lev 7:1 Likewise this [is] the law of the…
Lev 7:1 Likewise this [is] the law of the trespass offering: it [is] most holy.
Ver. 1. Of the trespass offering.] Heb., Asham, Piaculum, quo peccatum expiabatur. How it differed from the sin offering is hard to determine.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv4, 6, 7 Which is by the flanks; or, and that which…
Which is by the flanks; or, and that which is, &c. So this is another fat, as may seem probable from the mention of the several parts, the
kidneys and the
Read full note →
flanks. For it seems preposterous after a plain and exact description of the very particular place of the fat, the kidneys, to add another more dark and doubtful description of it from the flanks. And the Hebrew writers, whose common practice of these things makes them the best interpreters of it, make these divers kinds or parts of fat. And so there is only an ellipsis of the conjunction copulative, which is Psa 133:3, and in many other places, as hath been already showed.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 Observe here, 1. Concerning the trespass-offering, that, being much…
Observe here, 1. Concerning the trespass-offering, that, being much of the same nature with the sin-offering, it was to be governed by the same rules, Lev 7:6. When the blood and fat were offered to God to make atonement, the priests were to eat the flesh, as that of the sin-offering, in the holy place. The Jews have a tradition (as we have it from the learned bishop Patrick) concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the trespass-offering round about upon the altar, "That there was a scarlet line which went round about the altar exactly in the middle, and the blood of the burnt-offerings was sprinkled round about above the line, but that of the trespass-offerings and peace-offerings round about below the line." As to the flesh of the trespass-offering, the right to it belonged to the priest that offered it, Lev 7:7. He that did the work must have the wages. This was an encouragement to the priests to give diligent attendance on the altar; the more ready and busy they were the more they got. Note, The more diligent we are in the services of religion the more we shall reap of the advantages of it. But any of the priests, and the males of their families, might be invited by him to whom it belonged to partake with him: Every male among the priests shall eat thereof, that is, may eat thereof, in the holy place, Lev 7:6. And, no doubt, it was the usage to treat one another with those perquisites of their office, by which friendship and fellowship were kept up among the priests. Freely they had received, and must freely give. It seems the offerer was not himself to have any share of his trespass-offering, as he was to have of his peace-offering; but it was all divided between the altar and the priest. They offered peace-offerings in thankfulness for mercy, and then it was proper to feast; but they offered trespass-offerings in sorrow for sin, and then fasting was more proper, in token of holy mourning, and a resolution to abstain from sin. 2. Concerning the burnt-offering it is here appointed that the priest that offered it should have the skin (Lev 7:8), which no doubt he might make money of. "This" (the Jews say) "is meant only for the burnt-offerings which were offered by particular persons; for the profit of the skins of the daily burnt-offerings for the congregation went to the repair of the sanctuary." Some suggest that this appointment will help us to understand God's clothing our first parents with coats of skins, Gen 3:21. It is probable that the beasts whose skins they were were offered in sacrifice as whole burnt-offerings, and that Adam was the priest that offered them; and then God gave him the skins, as his fee, to make clothes of for himself and his wife, in remembrance of which the skins ever after pertained to the priest; and see Gen 27:16. 3. Concerning the meat-offering, if it was dressed, it was fit to be eaten immediately; and therefore the priest that offered it was to have it, Lev 7:9. If it was dry, there was not so much occasion for being in haste to use it; and therefore an equal dividend of it must be made among all the priests that were then in waiting, Lev 7:10.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–7 Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering,....…
Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering,.... Or the various rites and rules to be observed at the offering of it: the persons for whom it was to be made are described in the two preceding chapters, Lev 5:1 both such that sinned through ignorance, and knowingly, and here the place and parts of the offering, and how to be disposed of, are declared:
it is most holy; wholly devoted for sacred use, either to the Lord, or to his priests; there were some things the Jews call light holy things, and others most holy in the highest degree, of this sort was the trespass offering.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 7 Further directions, concerning the trespass-offering, ver. 1-7. The burnt-offering…
Further directions, concerning the trespass-offering, ver. 1-7. The burnt-offering and meal-offering, ver. 8-10. The peace- offering, ver. 11-21. Fat and blood again forbidden, ver. 22-27. The priest's share of it, ver. 28-34. The conclusion of these instructions, ver. 35-38.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1–4 The law of the trespass-offering, and the priest's portion…
CHAPTER VII
The law of the trespass-offering, and the priest's portion in
Read full note →
it, 1-7.
As also in the sin-offerings and meat-offerings, 8-10.
The law of the sacrifice of peace-offering, 11,
whether it was a thanksgiving-offering, 12-15;
or a VOW or voluntary offering, 16-18.
Concerning the flesh that touched any unclean thing, 19, 20,
and the person who touched any thing unclean, 21.
Laws concerning eating of fat, 22-25,
and concerning eating of blood, 26, 27.
Farther ordinances concerning the peace-offerings and the
priest's portion in them, 28-36.
Conclusion of the laws and ordinances relative to
burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, sin-offerings, and
peace-offerings, delivered in this and the preceding chapters,
37, 38.
NOTES ON CHAP. VII
Verse 1. Trespass-offering] See end of the chapter. See Clarke on Le 7:38.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 7 Lev 7:1-2. Here the priests are directed in their…
Lev 7:1-2. Here the priests are directed in their office about the trespass- offerings, as the people had been before. The blood shall he sprinkle round about — This is a different rule from that observed in the sin-offering, the blood of which was to be put upon the horns of the altar, Lev 4:25; but this was to be sprinkled round about it, as was ordered respecting the whole burnt-offerings.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v1 See Lev 5:14 note. In Lev 7:2 “sprinkle” should…
See Lev 5:14 note. In Lev 7:2 “sprinkle” should rather be cast Lev 1:5. All the details regarding the parts put on the altar are repeated for each kind of sacrifice, because the matter was one of paramount importance.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On v1 Trespass. Trespasses, for which these offerings were to be…
Trespass. Trespasses, for which these offerings were to be made, were less offences, than those for which the sin-offerings were appointed. (Challoner) See chap. iv. 2. --- Delictum, trespass, answers to the Hebrew asham, and the Greek plemmeleia; (Haydock) being of a more extensive signification that the Hebrew chete, sin, as it comprises even sins against knowledge. (Parkhurst) See chap. iv. 2. --- No particular ceremonies are enjoined, (ver. 7,) only a he-goat or a ram was to be offered; if the former, the rump, &c., were to be given (ver. 3); if the latter, the fat of the intestines and the reins were to be offered, and the blood poured out at the foot of the altar. --- Victim. Septuagint, "ram." --- Holy. To be eaten by priests, and in the court of the tabernacle, ver. 6. (Calmet) --- Sins of commission, peccata, and of omission, delicta, are equally offensive to God. (St. Augustine, q. 20.) (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 D.—FOR TRESPASS OFFERINGS. Lev_7:1-6
D.—FOR TRESPASS OFFERINGS. Lev_7:1-6
Lev_7:1 Likewise [And] this is the law of1 the trespass-offering: it is most holy. 2In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall Hebrews 2 sprinkle round about upon the altar. 3And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump [the fat tail3], and the fat that covereth the inwards, 4and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with [on4] the kidneys, it shall he take away: 5and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; it is a trespass offering. 6Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the [a] holy place: it is most holy.
Read full note →
E.—FOR THE PRIESTS’ PORTION OF THE ABOVE OFFERINGS. Lev_7:7-10
7As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. 8And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered. 9And all the meat-offering [oblation5] that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan [pot6], and in the pan, 10shall be the priest’s that offereth it. And [But] every meat offering [oblation8] mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another.
F.—FOR PEACE OFFERINGS IN THEIR VARIETY. Lev_7:11-21
11And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which Hebrews 7 shall offer unto the Lord. 12If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried.8 13Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. 14And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [out of each offering9] for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. 15And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. 16But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: 17but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. 18And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination,10 and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. 19And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof. 20But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. 21Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing,11 and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
G.—FOR THE FAT AND THE BLOOD. Lev_7:22-27
22And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 23Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. 24And the fat of the beast [carcase12] that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. 25For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. 26Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your 27dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
H.—FOR THE PRIESTS’ PORTION OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS. Lev_7:28-36
28And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 29Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the Lord shall bring his oblation [offering13] unto the Lord of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. 30His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord. 31And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. 32And the right shoulder [leg14] shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. 33He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder [leg30] for his part. 34For the wave-breast and the heave shoulder [leg30] have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons [35This is the portion15of Aaron and the portion31of his sons], out of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, in the day when he16 presented 36them to minister unto the Lord in the priest’s office; which the Lord commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute forever throughout their generations.
CONCLUSION OF THIS SECTION. Lev_7:37-38
37This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering [oblation], and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice 38of the peace offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations [offerings29] unto the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev_7:9. צַו. The Sam. has צוי, a form which occurs in MSS. with the pointing צִַוִּי.
Lev_7:9; Lev_7:17-18; Lev_7:22. הוא. The Sum. and many MSS. have the later form היא indicated by the Masoretic punctuation. This frequent variation will not hereafter be noticed. The conjectural emendation of Houbigant, הוי in the imperative, although expressing the sense, is unnecessary.
Lev_7:9. The suggested translation is that given by most critics; of its general correctness there can be no doubt; but the sense of מוֹקְדָה (which occurs only here) may be either that of hearth, or of burning. The masculine form, מוֵֹקד (which is found only Psa_102:4 (3), and Isa_33:14), is translated in both ways in the A. V., but should have only the latter sense. The weight of authority as well as the context make hearth the preferable translation here. Knobel would make הוא the verb to be in the imperative; but this is not sufficiently supported.
Lev_7:10. מִדּוֹ. For the suffix on a noun in the constr. Knobel refers to Lev_26:42; Exo_26:25; Jer_9:2 (Lev_8:23); 2Sa_22:33, however, reads מדי.
Lev_7:10. The Sam. for יִלְבַּשׁ has יִהְיוּ as in Lev_16:4, which scarcely affects the sense.
Lev_7:10. The propriety of this correction is obvious. Bp. Horsley’s emendation: take up the ashes of the fire which hath consumed—does violence to the Heb.
Lev_7:11. The Vulg. has this curious addition: usque ad favillam consumi faciet.
Lev_7:14, etc. מִנְחָה= oblation. See Lev_2:1, Text. and Gram. Note (2). The Sam. has here “the law of the oblation of the drink offerings,” whence the Vulg.: lex sacrificii et libamentorum.
Lev_7:14. הַקְרֵב, Infin. Abs. as in Lev_2:6; Exo_13:3.
Lev_7:18. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר might be understood either as every one that, as in the A. V., or as every thing that; but as the latter is the necessary translation of the exactly parallel clause in Lev_7:27 (as in the A. V.), it is better to keep it here also.
Lev_7:20. The Syr. here has the plural.
Lev_7:20. The prep. לְ, not in the Heb., is supplied by the Sam. and many MSS.
Lev_7:20. The paraphrase of the Sam. בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם=between the evenings, expresses the connection of this oblation with the evening sacrifice.
Lev_7:21. מֻרְבֶּכֶת a word of very doubtful meaning, but should certainly have the same translation as in Lev_7:12, where see note.
Lev_7:21. תֻּפִינֵי, a word ἁπ. λέγ. to which different significations are attached according to its supposed derivation. Fürst, deriving it from תּוּף, gives the sense of the A. V. Gesenius also, deriving from אָפָה, gives the sense of cooked. Others derive it from an Arabic root, and give the meaning broken. So Targ. Onk. (which points תּוּפִינֵי) and the Sam.
Lev_7:27. עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּם. The sudden change of person, and the feminine suffix in reference to a masculine noun, are both avoided by the Sam. reading עליו יכבם.
Lev_7:30. לְכַפֵר. There may be but little difference in the sense of the two renderings; but it is better to retain the same form always. Other instances of variation in the A. V. in Lev. are Lev_8:15 and Lev_16:20 only.
VII. Lev_7:1. The LXX. here has ὁ νόμος τοῦ κριοῦ, the ram being the only victim admissible for the trespass offering.
Lev_7:2. The Sam. here uses the plural. It cannot mean that the offerer sprinkled the blood, but rather assimilates this verb to those going before on the supposition (as in Lev_1:6; Lev_1:12, etc.) that the priests also killed the victim.
Lev_7:3. הָאַלְיָה. See Textual Note 4 on Lev_3:9.
Lev_7:4. עַל =on. See Textual Note 7 on Lev_3:4.
Lev_7:9. See Textual Note7 on Lev_2:7.
Lev_7:11. The Sam., LXX. and Vulg. with two MSS. have the plural.
Lev_7:12. מֻרְבֶכֶת. There is so much difference of opinion as to the meaning that it seems unsafe to attempt any change in the A. V. Fürst says: “something dipped in, mingled (by moistening);” Lange denies that it conveys the sense of cooked; Keil translates “and roasted fine flour (see Lev_6:14) mixed as cakes with oil, i.e., cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil.” Others give varying interpretations.
Lev_7:14. קָרְבָן is to be uniformly translated offering. See Lev_2:1. The word whole in the A. V. does not express the idea that one must be taken out of each of the offerings mentioned in the two preceding verses.
Lev_7:18. פּגּוּל occurs only here and in Lev_19:7; Isa_65:4; Eze_4:14, and is always applied to the sacrificial flesh. It is from the root פָּגַל, and signifies something unclean and fetid, LXX. μίασμα.
Lev_7:21. For שֶׁקֶץ=an abominable animal (Lev_11:10; Lev_11:12-13; Lev_11:20; Lev_11:23; Lev_11:41), the Sam., six MSS. of Kennicott and of de Rossi, Targ. of Onkelos (רְחֵשׁ) and the Syr. read שֶׁרֶץ=reptiles, worms (5 Lev_11:20; Lev_11:29; Lev_11:41). This would make a more systematic enumeration of the sources of uncleanness, and is adopted by many.
Lev_7:24. נְבֵלָה. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. The טְרֵפהָ of the next clause=torn sc. of beasts, is of course a wholly different word.
Lev_7:29. The uniform translation of קָרְבָן must be retained here also, although giving an appearance of tautology which is not in the original, his peace offerings being expressed simply by שְׁלָמָיו. The translation of the A. V. may have been influenced by the rendering in the Vulg.: offerat simul et sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus; but for this there is no warrant, nor is it sustained by any other of the ancient versions.
Lev_7:32. שׁוֹק is uniformly rendered shoulder In the A. V. wherever it is applied to sacrificial animals; in all other places it is used of men (Deu_28:35; Pro_26:7; Son_5:15; Isa_47:2; also Dan_2:33, Chald.; Psa_147:10), and is translated leg, or hip, or thigh. The A. V. has hero followed the equally uniform practice of the LXX. and the Vulg. It would seem that the word should have the same sense in both cases; there is no place in which leg is inapplicable, but there are several in which shoulder is inadmissible. The testimony of Josephus (III. 9, § 2, κνήμη) is explicit in favor of leg; so also Jewish tradition and the lexicons. Whether the fore or the hind leg is meant is a matter of difference of opinion; but the Heb. has a distinct word זרוע=arm for the shoulder or fore-leg (Num_6:19; Deu_18:3), and that, too, of the sacrificial animals.
Lev_7:35. מִשְׁחָה. The word undoubtedly means anointing; but there is also good authority for the meaning portion which Rosenmüller considers undoubtedly the right translation here, and which is so necessary to the sense that it is supplied in the A. V., which has followed the translation of the LXX. and Vulg.
Lev_7:35. The Vulg. has die qua obtulit eos Moyses ut sacerdotio fungerentur.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The remainder of Leviticus 6, with the whole of Leviticus 7, form a distinct section occupied mainly with the duties and privileges of the priests in connection with their sacrificial service. Although there is unavoidably a little repetition in thus speaking again of the same sacrifices from a different point of view and for a different object; yet the gain in clearness and distinctness in thus separating the priestly duties from those of the laymen is obvious, both for the priests and for the people. The section consists of five divine communications addressed through Moses to Aaron and his sons, as the former communication had been to the children of Israel.
It has already been noticed that in the Hebrew Bibles the chapter rightly begins with the beginning of this section. Here also begins a new Parashah, or Proper Lesson of the law, which extends to Lev_8:36. The corresponding Lesson from the prophets begins with Jer_7:21, in which “God declares the vanity of sacrifice without obedience.”
A. Lev_7:8-13. Instructions for the priests in regard to the burnt-offerings. This has reference to the daily burnt-offerings of a lamb at evening and at morning. There was no occasion for directions in regard to the voluntary burnt offerings as they involved no other priestly duties than those already expressed in chap. 1; in that chapter nothing has been said of the required burnt sacrifice, provided at the public cost, which is here treated of.
Lev_7:9. All night unto the morning.—The slow fire of the evening sacrifice was to be so arranged as to last until the morning; that of the morning sacrifice was ordinarily added to by other offerings, or if not, could easily be made to last through the much shorter interval until the evening. The evening sacrifice is naturally mentioned first because, in the Hebrew division of time, this was the beginning of the day. It was offered “between the evenings,” i.e., between three o’clock and the going down of the sun. The general direction for the daily burnt offerings has already been given in Exo_29:38, and is again repeated in Num_28:3. As this offering was theoretically the comprehensive type from which all other offerings were specialized, so practically it was always burning upon the altar, and all other sacrifices were offered “upon it.”
Lev_7:10. His linen garment.—This was “the long tight-robe of fine white linen, or byssus, without folds, covering the whole body, and reaching down to the feet, with sleeves, woven as one entire piece, and with forms of squares intermixed, and hence called tesalated” (Kalisch). It is scarcely necessary to point out that linen, from its cleanliness, and from the readiness with which it could be washed, was selected as the priestly dress not only among the Israelites, but among many other nations also, especially the Egyptians, whose priests are therefore often described by Roman poets as linigeri. There were four parts of the priestly linen dress, of which two only are mentioned here, because all had been prescribed in Exo_28:40-43, and the girdle and the turban were of course to be understood. The priests might not minister at the altar in any other garments, nor might they wear these outside the sacred precincts.
And take up the ashes.—As the priest must be in his official dress at the altar, it was of necessity that he should temporarily deposit the ashes near by, until he had finished the ordering of the altar.
Lev_7:11. And he shall put off his garments.—The sacred dress was now to be laid aside as the priest must pass out of the tabernacle and out of the camp. It has been questioned whether the carrying forth of the ashes must necessarily be performed by the officiating priest himself. According to Jewish tradition it might be done by any of the priestly family who were excluded from officiating at the altar by reason of some bodily defect. The same tradition also tells us that it was only required each day to carry forth a small quantity of the ashes—a shovel-full—allowing the rest to remain until the hollow of the altar below the grating was filled up, when all must be emptied and carried away.
Unto a clean place.—There was a fitness too evident to require further reason, that the remains of what had been used for the holiest purposes should be deposited in a clean place.—Without the camp, is a phrase belonging to the life of the wilderness, but easily modified to the requirements of the settled life in Palestine.
Lev_7:12. Shall burn wood on it.—The fire was to be maintained always whether the previous sacrifice remained burning sufficiently or not, so that fresh supplies of wood were to be added. Great care was taken in the selection and preparation of this wood, and any sticks worm-eaten were rejected. And lay the burnt-offering.—All was to be arranged and the fire brightly burning before the time of offering the morning sacrifice. When this was laid upon the wood, the sacrificial day was begun, and the fat of the peace-offerings and any other sacrifices that might he presented were placed upon it.
Lev_7:13. The fire shall be ever burning upon the altar.—The fire upon the altar was not as is sometimes supposed, originally kindled by the “fire from before the Lord“ (Lev_9:24), since it had been burning several days before that fire came forth; yet that fire so marked the Divine approbation of the priestly order as they entered upon their office, that a continual fire in which that was always in a sense perpetuated, was a constant symbol and pledge of the Divine acceptance of the sacrifices offered upon it. So also, in later times, with the fire from heaven at the dedication of the temple (2Ch_7:1). But besides this, “It is evident that the fire burning continually, which was kept up by the daily burnt offering (Exo_29:38), had a symbolical meaning. As the daily burnt sacrifice betokened the daily renewed gift of God, in like manner did this continually burning fire denote the unceasing, uninterrupted character of the same. Similar customs with the heathen had a different signification. Among the Persians (and among the Parsees in India at this day), fire was and is the visible representative of the Godhead; the continual burning of it, the emblem of eternity. The perpetual fire of Vesta (the “oldest goddess”) among the Greeks and Romans, was the emblem of the inmost, purest warmth of life, which unites family and people—the hearth, as it were, the heart of a house or of a State. In both is shown the essential difference which existed between these and the Divine covenant religion.” Von Gerlach. Perpetual sacrificial fires were common among many ancient nations.
It is obvious that during the marches of the life in the wilderness some special means must have been used for the preservation of this fire. On such occasions the altar was to be carefully cleaned and covered with a purple cloth and then with “badgers’ skins.” (Num_4:13-14). Probably the fire was carried on the march in a vessel prepared for the purpose.
B. Instructions for the priests concerning oblations. This division consists of two portions, the former of which (Lev_7:14-18) is a part of the same divine communication as the preceding division, and relates to the priestly duties connected with the oblations of the people, whether voluntary or required; while the latter, (Lev_7:19-23), forms a separate divine communication, and relates to the special oblation of the high-priests themselves in connection with their consecration.
The law of the oblation is a repetition in part of that in Leviticus 2, because it was there applied only to voluntary oblations, while here it includes all; but there are also (in Lev_7:16-18) additional particulars not given before.
Lev_7:14. The sons of Aaron shall offer it.—This presentation of the whole oblation by the priests, which seems to have been an essential part of the sacrifice, has been already mentioned in Lev_2:8, while Lev_7:15 merely repeats and applies to all oblations the directions in Lev_2:2 for the private and voluntary oblation.
Lev_7:16. The following directions, which concern the duties of the priests, have not before been given. By their consuming the remainder of the oblation it became, like the sin-offering, a sacrifice wholly devoted to the Lord. See note on Lev_2:3. Only those of Aaron’s sons might eat of it who were ceremonially clean. This is expressed emphatically in regard to the peace offerings in Lev_7:21. The addition of the words with and bread in the A. V. singularly obscures the sense; it should be read unleavened shall it be eaten in a holy place.
Lev_7:17. I have given it.—Not merely by appointment, as God is the giver of all that man enjoys; but of my offerings, as of that which peculiarly belonged to God.—Most holy. See on Lev_2:3.
Lev_7:18. All the males.—Because they, and they only, were in the priestly succession. It includes both those who were actual priests, and their sons yet too young to officiate, but who at the proper age would become priests; and still further, those who were of priestly family, but were hindered by bodily defect or infirmity from ministering at the altar. Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.—Two senses are possible: (a) nothing shall be allowed to touch them which is not holy; (b) whatever does touch them shall thereby become holy. The latter must be considered the true sense in accordance with the analogy of Lev_7:27-28, and Exo_29:37, (comp. Hag_2:12-13), and with this sense the command, understood of inanimate objects, as Calmet suggests, presents no difficulty. The LXX. and Vulg., however, (not the Semitic versions which of course present the same ambiguity as the Heb.), like the A. V., understood it of persons, and so understood, it has occasioned much difficulty to commentators. Lange, following Theodoret, says “Whoever should touch this most holy flesh offering (and more especially the meat offering) should be holy, should henceforward be considered to belong to the Sanctuary.” He then gives various differing interpretations. It is better to avoid the difficulty altogether as above.
Lev_7:20. In the day when he is anointed.—The new communication in relation to the high-priest’s oblation begins with Lev_7:19. Most commentators understand the time when this oblation was to be offered as at the end of the seven days of consecration, as the high-priest was only then qualified to officiate. The word day would then be understood as in Gen_2:4. Lange, however, says “on each of the seven days, not only on the eighth day, when the consecration was finished (Lev_8:34) this was to be offered.” An oblation perpetual.—A few interpreters (as Kalish and Knobel) understand this of an observance to be always repeated at the consecration of each successive high-priest, and then only. More generally it is interpreted as referring to a daily oblation always to be offered morning and evening by the high-priest. Such is the uniform Jewish interpretation. It is probably this offering that is referred to in Sir_45:14; see also Philo, de Vict. Jos. Ant. iii. Leviticus 10 § 7. Several eminent Jewish authorities, as Maimonides and Abarbanel, have supposed that the same offering was also required of every priest at his entrance upon his office; but this opinion, as it has not been widely adopted, so it seems to have no foundation in the law. The high-priest alone is distinctly designated in Lev_7:22.
The tenth part of an Ephah.—The same amount which was required for the sin offering of the poorest of the people in Lev_5:11. This amount was to be presented by the high-priest as a single offering which was to be afterwards divided and offered half in the morning and half at night.
Lev_7:23. It shall not be eaten.—In other oblations all was given to God, but in part through the priest; in the priestly oblation, he could not offer it to God through himself, and therefore it must of necessity be wholly burnt.
C. Instructions for the priests concerning sin offerings.
Lange adheres to the view he has given in Leviticus 4, and makes this division include both the sin and the trespass offerings. For his reasons see Leviticus 4. He, however, calls the next division “The ritual of the trespass offering.”
We have here the third of the five divine communications contained in this section. The first includes the burnt offerings and oblations, while the second, as an appendix to this, is occupied with the special oblations of the high-priest; the present communication extends to Lev_7:21, and embraces the directions to the priests concerning the various other kinds of sacrifice. In the order in which they are mentioned in chs. 3–5. the peace offerings came before the sin and trespass offerings, while here they are placed after them; the reason for this change is well explained by Murphy, as resulting from the different principle of arrangement appropriate in the two cases. In the instructions for the people the order of the sacrifices is that of their comparative frequency, the burnt offering and oblation being constant (although not so as voluntary offerings), the peace offerings habitual, the sin and trespass offerings, from their nature, occasional; here the principle of arrangement is in the treatment of the flesh,—the burnt offering, (with which the oblation is associated) was wholly consumed on the altar, the sin and trespass offerings were partly eaten by the priests, the peace-offerings both by the priests and the people.
Lev_7:25. In the place where the burnt offering.—It is evident from Lev_7:30 that this whole direction refers to the sin offerings of the people, not of the high-priest or of the whole congregation. These were to be killed in the usual place of killing the smaller sacrificial animals, on the north side of the altar. See note on Lev_1:11. The sin offering for the high-priest and for the congregation, consisting of a bullock, was killed “before the door of the tabernacle.” See note on Lev_1:3.
It is most holy.—See on Lev_2:3.
Lev_7:25. The priest that offereth it.—For the exceptions see Lev_7:30. The flesh of the ordinary sin-offering belonged, not to the priests as a body, but to the particular priest that offered it. It was, however, much more than he could consume alone, and therefore in Lev_7:29 all males of the priestly family were allowed to eat of it, doubtless on the invitation of the officiating priest, or by some established arrangement.
Lev_7:27. Shall be holy.—As in Lev_7:18. In regard to the peculiarly sacred character of the sin offering Lange says, “the complete surrender to Jehovah is expressed in three ways: 1) Forbidding the flesh to the unclean;” [But this, although to be supposed, is not mentioned here, whereas it is very emphatically commanded in connection with the peace offerings, Lev_7:20-21]. “2) Washing the garments sprinkled with blood in a holy place, or in the court. Here the regard is not for the cleansing of the garment, but for the blood,—it must not be carried on the garment out of the sanctuary; 3) If the vessel in which the flesh was cooked was earthen, it had to be broken, if of copper, it had to be scoured and rinsed, so that nothing of the substance of the flesh should remain sticking to it.” On the reason for the peculiar sacredness with which the flesh of the sin offering was regarded various opinions have been held. It seems unnecessary, however, to look for this reason in the supposition that the victim was regarded as bearing either the sins of the offerer, or the punishment due to those sins. The simple fact that God had appointed the sin-offering as a means whereby sinfulness might “be covered,” and sinful man might approach Him in His perfect holiness, is enough to invest that means, like the altar upon which it was offered, with a sacredness which needs no analysis for its explanation. The very important passage, Lev_10:17, usually referred to in this connection, will be treated of in its place.
Thou shalt wash.—The second person is used because the command is addressed to the priest. The garment referred to is probably that of the offerer; it might easily happen that this would sometimes be stained by the spurting of the blood of the victim, but he was not to wash it himself; no particle of the blood might be carried out of the sanctuary, and none might meddle with it but the divinely appointed priest.
Lev_7:28. But the earthen vessel.—Unglazed earthenware would absorb the juices of the flesh so that they could not be removed; hence such vessels must be broken that the flesh of the sin offering might not be profaned. The brazen pot probably stands for any metallic vessel, and these being less porous, might be perfectly freed from the flesh by scouring and rinsing. For the same reason the earthen vessel into which any of the small unclean animals when dead had fallen (Lev_11:33; Lev_11:35), must be broken; from its absorptive qualities it took the character of that which had been within it, and was unfit for other use. No direction is given for the disposition of the broken fragments. It is more likely that they were disposed of with the ashes from the altar, than that, as Jewish tradition affirms, the earth opened to swallow them up. No mention is made of any other method of cooking the flesh of the sacrifice than by boiling. From 1Sa_2:13-15, and from the allusion in Zec_14:21, it would appear that the same method was observed also in later ages.
Lev_7:29. All the males.— Comp. Note on 18.
Lev_7:30. But no sin offering whereof ay of the blood is brought in the tabernacle.—Comp. Lev_4:5-7; Lev_4:11-12; Lev_4:16-18; Lev_4:21; Lev_16:27. This shows that from the foregoing directions the sin offerings for the high-priest and for the whole congregation are to be excepted; for these no directions are here given, since the priest had nothing more to do with them than has already been provided for in ch.4.
D. Instructions for the priests concerning trespass offerings, Lev_7:1-6.
In the LXX. this and the next division (Lev_7:7-10) form a part of Leviticus 6. This is certainly the better division; but the A. V. has here followed the Hebrew, as in the division between chaps. 5. and 6, it followed the LXX.—in both cases for the worse.
In the former directions for the trespass offering (Lev_5:14—Lev_6:7) designed for the people, nothing is said of what parts are to be burned on the altar, nor of the disposal of the remainder. The directions on these points are now given to the priests. The ritual is precisely the same as for the ordinary sin-offering except in the treatment of the blood. This was to be treated as that of the burnt and of the peace offerings, viz. to be sprinkled on the sides of the altar, instead of being placed on its horns as in the sin offering. See Lev_3:2; Lev_3:8; Lev_3:13; Lev_4:6; Lev_4:30; Lev_4:34. The Codex Middoth (iii. 1) is quoted for the tradition of the Jews that there was a scarlet thread or line around the altar just at the middle of its height; and that the blood of the burnt offering was sprinkled above, and that of the trespass offering below this line. No mention is made of laying on of hands in the trespass offering, either here or in Lev_5:14 to Lev_6:7 (where it would more naturally occur). Knobel argues from this omission that it was omitted in this offering; it is more likely that there is no mention of it because it was a universal law in the case of all victims and therefore did not require to be specified.
Lev_7:3. The fat tail is specified because the victim in the trespass offering must always be a ram. For other points see Leviticus 3.
E. Instructions concerning the priests’ portion of the above. Lev_7:7-10.
Before proceeding to those sacrifices, of which a part was returned to be consumed by the offerer, summary directions are now given in regard to all the preceding offerings, which were wholly devoted to the Lord, whether by being wholly consumed upon the altar, or partly eaten by the priests.
Lev_7:7. One law for them—i.e., in respct to the matter here treated of, the disposal of their flesh. The priest that maketh atonement.—The flesh of these victims did not become the common property of the priestly body, but was the peculiar perquisite of the officiating priest. He might, of course, ask others, and especially those who were hindered by bodily infirmity from officiating, to share it with him.
Lev_7:8. Shall have to himself the skin.—Since this was unsuitable for burning upon the altar, and yet the victim was wholly devoted. No directions are any where given in regard to the skins of the other offerings, except those which were to be burned with the flesh without the camp. The Mishna (Sebach 12, 3) says that the skins of all victims designated as “most holy” were given to the priests, while those of other victims (i.e., the peace offerings in their variety) belonged to the offerer. This distinction, being in accordance with the character of the sacrifice, is probably true. Among the heathen, the skin of the sacrificial animals usually belonged to the priest, and was by them often perverted to superstitious uses. See Patrick, Kalisch, and others. Some commentators trace the origin of the custom in regard to the burnt offering back to Adam; it rather lies still further back in the nature of the sacrifice.
Lev_7:9. And all the oblation.—Except, of course, the “memorial,” which was burned upon the altar, and which having been carefully provided for in chap. 2, did not require to be specified in this brief summary. In this verse all cooked oblations are assigned to the officiating priest; while in the next all that are uncooked are given to the priestly body equally. The former included all the oblations of Lev_2:4-10, and it is generally supposed that even these required to be consumed without delay; the latter include the oblations of Lev_2:1, and probably that of Lev_2:15; also the alternative sin offering of Lev_5:11, and the jealousy offering of Num_5:15. Only the two latter come under the class of dry, the others being mingled with oil. Thus all oblations, except that of the thank offering (Lev_7:14) and the “memorial” in all cases, was in one way or the other consumed by the priests. A secondary object in the assignment of these sacrifices was the support of the priests. See Eze_44:29.
"F. Instructions for the priests in regard to the peace offerings in their variety, Lev_7:11-21.
For the reason why the peace offerings are here placed last, see note on Lev_6:24.
We here enter upon an entirely different kind of sacrifice from those which have gone before, and therefore there is a different ritual. The former had reference to the means of approach to God through the forgiveness of sin; these are more closely connected with the idea of continued communion with God, and hence, so far as their object is concerned, seem to belong more properly to the second part of the book. Nevertheless, for the purpose of law, the stronger connection is, as sacrifices, with the general laws of sacrifice, and hence they must necessarily be placed here. Moreover, they are not to be considered altogether by themselves, but, as Outram has noted, as generally following piacular sacrifices, and therefore as together with them forming the complete act of worship.
The peace offerings might be of any animal allowed for sacrifice (except birds which were too small for the accompanying feast) as is provided in chap. 3. They might be of either the herd or the flock, and either male or female. No limitation of age is given in the law, although Jewish tradition limits the age of those offered from the herd to from one to three years, and of those from the flock to from one to two years complete. On the place for the killing of the victims, see note on Lev_1:11. Historical examples of these offerings are very frequent in the later books, e. g.,1Sa_1:4; 1Sa_9:13; 1Sa_9:24; 1Sa_11:15; 1Sa_16:3; 1Sa_16:5; 1Ki_8:65; 1Ch_16:3, etc. Similar sacrificial feasts among the heathen are familiar to all readers of Homer.
Three varieties of the peace offering are distinguished, or rather two principal kinds, the second of which is again subdivided—(a) The thank offering, Lev_7:12-15, which included all the public and prescribed peace offerings; (b) the (1) vow, or (2) voluntary offering, Lev_7:16-18, both of which were sacrifices of individuals. The two kinds were broadly separated from one another by the length of time during which it was lawful to eat the flesh, while the sub-varieties of the second kind are only distinguished in the purpose of the offerer. “There are three possible forms in which man can offer with reference to his prosperity or safety: praise and thanksgiving for experiences in the past; promising in regard to a desire in the future; expression of thankful prosperity in the present.” Lange.
Lev_7:12-15. The thank offering.
Lev_7:12. The thank offering was accompanied by an oblation of three kinds, to which a fourth was added (Lev_7:13) of leavened bread, which last is perhaps to be considered as an accompaniment rather than a part of the offering, as it is doubtful whether it is included in the “heave offering” of Lev_7:14. Still, as none of this oblation was placed upon the altar, the leavened bread would not come under the prohibition of Lev_2:11 and of Exo_23:18; Exo_34:25. The drink offerings prescribed with this and other sacrifices in Numbers 15. (and alluded to in Lev_23:18; Lev_23:37) as to be offered “when ye be come into the land of your habitation,” are not mentioned here, probably because they were not easily obtained during the life in the wilderness. The abundance of bread of various kinds here required was in view of the sacrificial meal to follow. Jewish tradition affirms that with certain peace offerings of festivals (Hagigah and Sheincah) no bread was offered.
Lev_7:14. One out of each offering—i.e., one cake out of the number of each kind presented, and perhaps one from the loaves of leavened bread. An heave offering.— Herein this oblation is strongly distinguished from the oblations accompanying the burnt offering. No part of them was placed upon the altar. Comp. the heave offerings of the Levites, Num_18:26-30. It must be inadvertently that Lange says “one of the unleavened cakes was offered to Jehovah on His altar as a heave offering; all the rest of the meat offering fell to the share of the priest who sacrificed;” for it is plain from the text that the one offered as a heave offering was not consumed, but belonged to the officiating priest, while the rest were returned to the offerer. The heave offering was waved in the hands up and down before the altar, but not placed upon it.
Lev_7:15. Shall be eaten the same day.— Comp. the similar provision in regard to the Paschal lamb, Exo_12:10, and also in regard to the manna, Exo_16:19. The same command is repeated in regard to the thank offering in Lev_22:29-30; while the greater liberty allowed in the vow and voluntary offerings (Lev_7:16) is also repeated Lev_19:5-8. In both cases Jewish tradition affirms that the rule applied also to the accompanying oblations. The difference of time allowed in which the flesh of these two kinds of peace offerings might be eaten evidently marks the one as of a superior sacredness to the other. Yet it is not easy to say wherein precisely the difference consisted. The general observation is that the thank offerings were purely unselfish, offered in gratitude for blessings already received; while the vow and voluntary offerings had respect to something yet hoped for, and therefore involved a selfish element. But it is not altogether clear that this was the case with the voluntary offering. Outram (p. 131, Eng. tr.), on the authority of Maimonides and Abarbanel, makes the distinction to consist in the vow offering being general—a promise to present a certain kind of victim or its value, and this re mained in all cases binding; while the voluntary offering was particular—a promise to present a particular animal, which became void in case of the animal’s death. Under this interpretation both have respect to the future. If there were any accidental remainder of the thank offering after the first day, it was doubtless consumed (but not on the altar), as in the case of the Paschal lamb (Exo_12:10) and of the other peace offerings (Lev_7:17), and the consecration offerings (Exo_29:34). Several reasons have been assigned for the limitation of the time for eating. Outram says, “The short space of time within which the victims might be eaten, seems to have been designed to prevent any corruption of the sacrifices, and to guard against covetousness,” and he quotes Philo at length in support of this double reason. The incentive hereby added to the command to share these feasts with the poor, and especially the poor Levites, though entirely rejected by Keil, is made more or less prominent by Theodoret (who gives this reason only), Corn, à Lapide, Kalisch, Rosenmüller, and others. “The recollection that in warm lands meat soon spoils, may give us the idea that the feaster was compelled in consequence to invite in the poor.” Lange. It must be remembered also that the feast would rapidly lose its sacrificial associations as the interval was prolonged between it and the offering of the sacrifice.
Lev_7:16-18. The vow and voluntary offerings. The distinction between these has already been pointed out. Both were clearly inferior to the thank offering. It is to be remembered that these did not belong to the class of expiatory offerings, and hence the vow offering of St. Paul (Act_18:18; Act_21:23-26) had in it nothing inconsistent with his faith in the one Sacrifice for sins offered on Calvary. These offerings might be eaten on the two days following the sacrifice, but the remainder on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
Lev_7:18. The penalty for the transgression of this command was not only that the offering went for nothing—it shall not be accepted; but further, it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. The sense is not, as many suppose, that the offering being made void, the offerer remained with his former iniquity uncleansed; for these offerings were not at all appointed for the purpose of atonement, or the forgiveness of sin; but that the offerer, having transgressed a plain and very positive command, must bear the consequences of such transgression.
The distinctions in regard to these offerings (as in the case of those which have gone before) embrace only the common sacrifices of their kind. There were other special peace-offerings (Lev_23:19-20) which were otherwise dealt with.
In later times, the place where the peace-offerings might be eaten was restricted to the holy city (Deu_12:6-7; Deu_12:11-12); at present, there was no occasion for such a command, while all were together in the camp in the wilderness. But all sacrificial animals slain for food must be offered as sacrifice to the Lord (Lev_17:3-4).
Kalisch (p. 144 ss.) says: “The character of these feasts cannot be mistaken. It was that of joyfulness tempered by solemnity, of solemnity tempered by joyfulness: the worshipper had submitted to God an offering from his property; he now received back from Him a part of the dedicated gift, and thus experienced anew the same gracious beneficence which had enabled him to appear with his wealth before the altar; he therefore consumed that portion with feelings of humility and thankfulness; but he was bidden at once to manifest those blissful sentiments by sharing the meat not only with his household, which thereby was reminded of the divine protection and mercy, but also with his needy fellow-beings, whether laymen or servants of the temple. Thus these beautiful repasts were stamped both with religious emotion and human virtue. The relation of friendship between God and the offerer which the sacrifice exhibited was expressed and sealed by the feast which intensified that relation into one of an actual covenant; the momentary harmony was extended to a permanent union; and these notions could not be expressed more intelligibly, at least to an Eastern people, than by a common meal, which to them is the familiar image of friendship and communion, of cheerfulness and joy.… Some critics have expressed an opposite view, contending that the offerer was not considered as the guest of God, but, on the contrary, God as the guest of the offerer; but this is against the clear expressions of the law; the sacrificer surrendered the whole victim to the Deity (Lev_3:1; Lev_3:6-7; Lev_3:12), and confirmed his intention by burning on the altar the fat parts, which represented the entire animal.… The Apostle Paul says distinctly: ‘Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar’ or ‘of the Lord’s table?’ ”
Lev_7:19-21. The sanctity of even this inferior sacrifice is strongly guarded. Peace-offerings being representative especially of communion with the Most Holy, all uncleanness or contact with uncleanness is rigorously forbidden.
Lev_7:19. And as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof,—meaning, of course, the flesh in general—that which has not touched any unclean thing. The sense might easily be made more clear; but there is no ground for altering the translation.
Lev_7:20. Shall be cut off from his people,i.e. be excommunicated, cast out from the commonwealth of Israel. This might sometimes, as in Exo_31:14, involve also the punishment of death, but only when the offence was also a civil one. Capital punishment is not intended by the expression itself.—That pertain unto the Lord.—This shows plainly enough that the victim, once offered, was considered as belonging to God, and hence that they who feasted upon it were the guests of the Lord.
Lev_7:21. Unclean beast,etc. This is to be understood of the dead bodies of these animals. Uncleanness was not communicated by their touch while living; but, on the other hand, it was communicated by the touch of the body, even of clean animals which had died a natural death, or as we should say, of carrion.
Nothing is here said of the portion of the priests, that being the subject of a distinct divine communication (Lev_7:28-36).
"G. Instructions in regard to the Fat and the Blood. Lev_7:22-27. From its importance, this group of commands forms the exclusive subject of another communication, and is addressed to the people, because, while these portions were in the especial charge of the priests, it was necessary to warn the people very carefully against making use of them themselves. It comes appropriately in connection with the peace offerings, because it was only of these that the people eat at all, and hence here there was especial liability to transgress this command.
Lev_7:22. No manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.—The prohibition of the eating of fat extends only to the sacrificial animals, and is to be so understood in Lev_3:17. The reason of this prohibition appears in Lev_7:25 : this fat was appropriated to burning upon the altar, and hence any other use of it was a profanation. While the Israelites were in the wilderness, all animals slain for food, which were allowed in sacrifice, were presented as victims, and their fat was burned on the altar. Afterwards, in view of the settlement in the promised land, this restriction was removed, Deu_12:15; Deu_12:21. With that permission the prohibition of blood is emphatically repeated; but nothing is said of the fat. Hence Keil argues that in such case the eating of the fat was allowable, and this opinion is strongly confirmed by Deu_32:14, enumerating among the good things to be enjoyed the “fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan.” Nevertheless, the language of universal prohibition is distinct in Lev_3:17, unless that is to be understood only of animals offered in sacrifice. The generality of commentators understand, in accordance with Jewish tradition, that the fat of the sacrificial animals was perpetually forbidden. In any case the prohibited fat was of course that which was burned on the altar, the separable fat, not that which was intermingled with the flesh.
Lev_7:24. That which died of itself, its blood not having been poured out, and that which was torn of beasts, was prohibited as food (Lev_22:8), and if any partook of it, he must undergo purification, and “be unclean until the even” (Lev_17:15). The fat of such animals therefore could no more be eaten than their flesh; but since it was also unfit for the altar, it might be used in any other use. Nothing is said of the fat of fowls as no special use was made of this on the altar.
Lev_7:26-27. The prohibition of blood is absolute and perpetual, and this for the reasons given in Lev_17:11. It has been urged that as nothing is anywhere said of the blood of fish, that is not included in the prohibition. More probably this was of too little importance to obtain particular mention, and the general principle on which blood is absolutely forbidden must be considered as applying here also, notwithstanding any tradition to the contrary.
H. Instructions for the priests’ portion of the peace offerings. Lev_7:28-36.
This, the final communication of this part of the book, is also addressed to the people, because the priests’ portion was taken from that which would otherwise have been returned to them, and it therefore concerned them to understand the law. It stands here quite in its right place: “When the priest’s rights in all the other sacrifices were enumerated, this was omitted, because the people here took the place of the priest in respect of the flesh. When the special nature of this offering in this respect has been made prominent, a new communication is made, addressed to the sons of Israel, and directing them, among other things, to assign certain portions of the victim to the priest.” Murphy.
Lev_7:29. Shall bring his offering unto the Lord.—The object of this provision seems to be to secure an actual, instead of a merely constructive offering. As most of the flesh was to be consumed by the offerer, it might possibly have been supposed sufficient merely to send in the consecrated parts; but the law regards the whole as offered to the Lord, and therefore requires that it shall be distinctly presented before Him.
Lev_7:30. His own hands shall bring.—Still further to guard the sacrificial character of this offering, which was more in danger of being secularized than any other, it is required that the parts especially destined for the Lord’s use might not be sent in by any servant or other messenger, but must be presented by the offerer’s own hands. Comp. Lev_8:27; Exo_29:24-26; Num_6:19-20.—The fat with the breast.—The construction of עַל is as in Exo_12:8-9. Breast is that part between the shoulders in front which we call the brisket, and which included the cartilaginous breast-bone.
A wave-offering.—The breast is to be a wave-offering, the right leg (Lev_7:31) a heave-offering. These two kinds of offering are clearly distinguished in the law. Both are mentioned together in Lev_7:34, and frequently (Lev_10:14-15; Exo_29:24-27; Num_6:20; Num_18:11; Num_18:18-19, etc.) as distinct offerings; the heave-offering is mentioned alone (Lev_22:12; Exo_25:2-3; Exo_30:13-15; Exo_35:5; Exo_36:3; Exo_36:6; Num_15:19-21; Num_18:24; Num_31:29; Num_31:41; Num_31:52, etc.), and so is the wave offering (Lev_14:12; Lev_14:21; Lev_14:24; Lev_23:15; Lev_23:17; Lev_23:20; Exo_38:24; Exo_38:29; Num_8:11; Num_8:13, etc.); although both apparently are sometimes used simply in the sense of offering and coupled together without distinction of meaning (Exo_35:21-24); both are here applied to the offerings of metal for the tabernacle, though the other offerings are only spoken of as heave offerings. The distinction is much obscured in the A. V. by the frequent translation of both by the simple word offering, and sometimes without any note of this in the margin. In regard to the parts of the sacrifices designated by the two terms, the distinction is clearly marked; the heave-leg belonged exclusively to the officiating priest, while the wave-breast was the common property of the priestly order. The distinction in the ceremonial between them it is less easy to make. That of the wave offering appears to have been the more solemn and emphatic, consisting in the priest placing his hands under those of the offerer (which held the offering to be waved), and moving them to and fro—some of the Rabbins say, towards each of the four quarters, and also up and down. The heaving, on the other hand, appears to have been a simple lifting up of the offering. (See authorities in Outram I. 15, § V.) In all cases of the wave offering of parts of animals, only the fat was burned, except in the peculiar case of the consecration of the priests commanded in Exo_29:22-26, and fulfilled in Lev_8:25-29, when the leg was also burned. In the case of the “waving” of the Levites (Num_8:11-19), they were wholly given up to God as the ministrants of the priests. Lange says: “The breast may represent the bold readiness, the leg the energetic progress, which in the priest are always desirable.”
During the sojourn in the wilderness, where all sacrificial animals that were to be eaten were offered in sacrifice, the priests’ portion was only the breast and the right leg; afterwards, when permission was given to kill these animals for food in the scattered habitations of the people, and thereby the perquisites of the priests were greatly reduced, there was added (Deu_18:3) “the shoulder (זְרֹעַ) and the two cheeks and the maw.”
Lev_7:34. A statute forever.—As long as the sacrificial system and the Aaronic priesthood should endure.
Lev_7:35. In the day when he presented them.—At the time when God, by the hand of Moses, brought them near to minister. The verb is without an expressed nominative in the Hebrew as in the English.
The conclusion of this part of the book. Lev_7:37-38.
Lev_7:37. The enumeration in this verse is to be understood not merely of the immediately preceding section; but of the whole law of sacrifice as given in all the preceding chapters.
Of the consecrations.—Lit., “of the fillings” sc. of the hands. Comp. Exo_29:19-28. The ordinance for the consecration of the priests has been given in full there; but still something of it has been directed here (Lev_6:19-23) so that it must necessarily appear in this recapitulation.
Lev_7:38. In Mount Sinai.—That this expression is used broadly for the region of Mt. Sinai, not distinctively for the mountain itself, is apparent from the concluding clause of the verse.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. In the stress laid upon the necessity of maintaining perpetually the fire divinely kindled on the altar, is taught the necessity of the divine approval of the means by which man seeks to approach God. The only Mediator under the old Covenant as under the new, is Christ; but as the divine appointment was of old necessary to constitute the types which prefigured Him, and by means of which the worshipper availed himself of His sacrifice,—so now, man may claim the benefits of Christ’s work for his redemption only in those ways which God has approved.
II. The priests, and the high-priest, like the people, must offer oblations and sacrifices. They were separated from the people only in so far as the functions of their office required; in the individual relation of their souls to God, they formed no caste, and stood before Him on no different footing from others. This is a fundamental principle in all the divine dealings with man; “there is no respect of persons with God,” (Rom_2:11, etc.).
III. In the assimilation of the trespass to the sin offering is shown how wrong done to man is also sin against God; while in the peculiar ordinances belonging to the sin offering alone, we see the peculiar sinfulness of that sin which is committed directly against God.
IV. The provision for a portion for the priests from the various offerings, and from the oblation accompanying the whole burnt offering sets forth in act the general principle declared in words in the New Testament, “that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple.” (1Co_9:13).
V. The peace offerings are called in the LXX. frequently “sacrifices of praise” (θυσίαι τῆς αἰνεσέως); by the use of the same phraseology in the Ep. to the Heb. (Lev_13:15) applied to Christ, He is pointed out as the Antitype of this sacrifice: “By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise (θνσίαν αἰνέσεως) to God continually;” and again (Lev_7:10) “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.”
VI. In the oblation accompanying the peace offering leavened bread was required. This could not be admitted for burning upon the altar for reasons already given; nevertheless it must be presented to the Lord for a heave offering. Many things in man’s daily life cannot, from their nature, be directly appropriated to the service of God; yet all must be sanctified by being presented before Him.
VII. In the strict prohibition to the people of the fat which was appropriated as the Lord’s portion was taught, in a way suited to the apprehension of the Israelites, the general principle that whatever has been appropriated to God may not rightly be diverted to any other use.
VIII. The various kinds of sacrifice here recognized as means of approach to God, and the provisions for their constant repetition, alike indicate their intrinsic insufficiency and temporary character. Otherwise “would they not have ceased to be offered, because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins?” (Heb_10:2).
IX. The same temporary and insufficient character attached to the peace offerings, which expressed communion with God. As Keil has pointed out, they still left the people in the outer court, while God was enthroned behind the vail in the holy of holies, and this vail could only be removed by the sacrifice on Calvary. And in general, as the office of the old Covenant was to give the knowledge of sin rather than, by anything within itself, completely to do it away; so was it designed to awaken rather than to satisfy the desire for reconciliation and communion with God. In so far as it actually accomplished either purpose, it was by its helping the faith of the worshippers to lean, through its types, upon the one true Sacrifice in the future.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
VI. Lev_7:9-13. The ever-burning fire; kindled by God, but kept alive by man; the acceptance of our efforts to approach God is from Him, but He gives or withholds it according to our desire and exertion. “Quench not the Spirit.” (1Th_5:19). The Spirit ζωοποιεῖ, but it is for us ἀναζωπυρεῖν (2Ti_1:6) Wordsworth. Put on his linen garment; the inward purity required in those who are serving immediately at the altar is fitly symbolized by outward signs. Even that which is becoming in service of other kinds, as the carrying forth of the ashes, may well be replaced in duties which are more nearly related to the divine Presence.
Lev_7:14-18. The oblation. That is truly offered to God which is consumed in His service, though but the “memorial” of it and the frankincense, typifying prayer and praise, can be actually given directly to Him. Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.— As there is a contaminating effect in contact with evil, so is there a sanctifying effect from close contact with that which is holy. The woman in the Gospel by faith touched the holy One, and virtue went forth to heal her from her uncleanness. Origen (Horn. 4 in Lev.).
Lev_7:19-23. The high-priest must offer an oblation for himself as well as for the people. Man never reaches on earth a stage of holiness so high that he needs not means of approach to God; He alone who “was without sin” offered Himself for us.
Lev_7:24-30. Everything connected with the sin-offering is to be scrupulously guarded from defilement, and everything which it touches receives from it somewhat of its own character; a fit emblem and type of the true Sacrifice for sins, Himself without sin. Whoever seeks the benefit of this Sacrifice, must “die unto sin,” and whoever is sprinkled by His all-availing blood becomes thereby “purged from sin.” Yet even so, the virtue of that blood may not be carried out of the sanctuary of God’s presence; they who, having been touched by the blood shed on Calvary, would depart from communion with God, must leave behind them all the efficacy of that atonement.
VII. Lev_7:1-6. Though the sin whose prominent feature is harm done, be less than that in which the offence is more directly against God, yet for the forgiveness of one there is essentially the same law as for the other. Both are violations of the law of love, and love toward God and man are so bound together that neither can truly exist without the other (1Jn_4:20), and there can be no breach of the one without the other.
Lev_7:11-21. The peace offering was at once communion of the offerer with God and also the opportunity for extending his bounty to his fellow-men. So always there is the same connection. It was said to Cornelius, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial.” “To do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb_13:16). The thank offering has a higher place than the vow or the voluntary offering: that is a nearer communion with God in which the grateful heart simply pours out its thanksgivings, than that in which, with some touch of selfishness, it still seeks some further blessing. Yet both are holy. But uncleanness allowed to continue, debarred from such communion; and sin. unrepented, in its very nature now forbids it.
Lev_7:37-38. A summary of the law of sacrifice in its variety. All these sacrifices were (as elsewhere shown) types of Christ; for it was impossible that the fulness of His gracious offices could be set forth by any single type. He is at once the whole burnt offering of complete consecration of Himself, through whom also we “present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God;” and He is, too, the oblation, as that which man must present to God with his other sacrifices, as it is in and through Christ alone that our sacrifices can be acceptable; He is the sin offering, as it is through Him alone that our sins can be “covered” and effectual atonement be made for us; as trespass offering also, it is through His love shed abroad from Calvary, that we learn that love towards our fellow-men in the exercise of which only can our transgressions against Him be forgiven; and so too is He the peace offering, for His very name is “Peace.” His coming was “peace on earth,” and by Him have we peace and communion with God. No one of these alone can fully typify Christ: beforehand each of His great offices in our behalf must be set forth by a separate symbolical teaching; but when He has come, all these separate threads are gathered into one, and He is become our “all in all.”
Footnotes:
[1]VII. Lev_7:1. The LXX. here has ὁ νόμος τοῦ κριοῦ, the ram being the only victim admissible for the trespass offering.
[2]Lev_7:2. The Sam. here uses the plural. It cannot mean that the offerer sprinkled the blood, but rather assimilates this verb to those going before on the supposition (as in Lev_1:6; Lev_1:12, etc.) that the priests also killed the victim.
[3]Lev_7:3. הָאַלְיָה. See Textual Note 4 on Lev_3:9.
[4]Lev_7:4. עַל =on. See Textual Note 7 on Lev_3:4.
[5]Lev_7:14, etc. מִנְחָה= oblation. See Lev_2:1, Text. and Gram. Note (2). The Sam. has here “the law of the oblation of the drink offerings,” whence the Vulg.: lex sacrificii et libamentorum.
[6]Lev_7:9. See Textual Note7 on Lev_2:7.
[7]Lev_7:11. The Sam., LXX. and Vulg. with two MSS. have the plural.
[8]Lev_7:12. מֻרְבֶכֶת. There is so much difference of opinion as to the meaning that it seems unsafe to attempt any change in the A. V. Fürst says: “something dipped in, mingled (by moistening);” Lange denies that it conveys the sense of cooked; Keil translates “and roasted fine flour (see Lev_6:14) mixed as cakes with oil, i.e., cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil.” Others give varying interpretations.
[9]Lev_7:14. קָרְבָן is to be uniformly translated offering. See Lev_2:1. The word whole in the A. V. does not express the idea that one must be taken out of each of the offerings mentioned in the two preceding verses.
[10]Lev_7:18. פּגּוּל occurs only here and in Lev_19:7; Isa_65:4; Eze_4:14, and is always applied to the sacrificial flesh. It is from the root פָּגַל, and signifies something unclean and fetid, LXX. μίασμα.
[11]Lev_7:21. For שֶׁקֶץ=an abominable animal (Lev_11:10; Lev_11:12-13; Lev_11:20; Lev_11:23; Lev_11:41), the Sam., six MSS. of Kennicott and of de Rossi, Targ. of Onkelos (רְחֵשׁ) and the Syr. read שֶׁרֶץ=reptiles, worms (5 Lev_11:20; Lev_11:29; Lev_11:41). This would make a more systematic enumeration of the sources of uncleanness, and is adopted by many.
[12]Lev_7:24. נְבֵלָה. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. The טְרֵפהָ of the next clause=torn sc. of beasts, is of course a wholly different word.
[13]Lev_7:29. The uniform translation of קָרְבָן must be retained here also, although giving an appearance of tautology which is not in the original, his peace offerings being expressed simply by שְׁלָמָיו. The translation of the A. V. may have been influenced by the rendering in the Vulg.: offerat simul et sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus; but for this there is no warrant, nor is it sustained by any other of the ancient versions.
[14]Lev_7:32. שׁוֹק is uniformly rendered shoulder In the A. V. wherever it is applied to sacrificial animals; in all other places it is used of men (Deu_28:35; Pro_26:7; Son_5:15; Isa_47:2; also Dan_2:33, Chald.; Psa_147:10), and is translated leg, or hip, or thigh. The A. V. has hero followed the equally uniform practice of the LXX. and the Vulg. It would seem that the word should have the same sense in both cases; there is no place in which leg is inapplicable, but there are several in which shoulder is inadmissible. The testimony of Josephus (III. 9, § 2, κνήμη) is explicit in favor of leg; so also Jewish tradition and the lexicons. Whether the fore or the hind leg is meant is a matter of difference of opinion; but the Heb. has a distinct word זרוע=arm for the shoulder or fore-leg (Num_6:19; Deu_18:3), and that, too, of the sacrificial animals.
[15]Lev_7:35. מִשְׁחָה. The word undoubtedly means anointing; but there is also good authority for the meaning portion which Rosenmüller considers undoubtedly the right translation here, and which is so necessary to the sense that it is supplied in the A. V., which has followed the translation of the LXX. and Vulg.
[16]Lev_7:35. The Vulg. has die qua obtulit eos Moyses ut sacerdotio fungerentur.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 7 ADDITIONAL LAWS OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING, Lev_7:1-10.
ADDITIONAL LAWS OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING, Lev_7:1-10.
1. Trespass offering — See chap. 5, introductory remarks, and Lev_7:6, note. The primary idea involved in the asham, or guilt offering, is that aspect of sin which constitutes it a debt payable unto God, and frequently to man also, to whom recompense must be made when the asham was offered.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 7 (5) The Guilt-Offering. Priestly portions of other offerings (Lev_7:1-10)
(5) The Guilt-Offering. Priestly portions of other offerings (Lev_7:1-10)
The similarity between the Guilt-Offering and the Sin-Offering is very close (see Lev_7:7). Both are ‘most holy’ and to be killed in the same place (Lev_6:25, cp. Lev_7:1-2). The parts to be burned on the altar are the same (Lev_3:4; Lev_3:9-11, Lev_4:31; Lev_4:35, cp. Lev_7:3-5), but note that the word ‘food,’ Heb. léhem, of Lev_3:11; Lev_3:16 is not applied to the Guilt-Offering, and the remainder is to be eaten in the same manner (Lev_6:26; Lev_6:29, cp. Lev_7:6-7).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 7 (1) Likewise this is the law . . .…
VII.
(1) Likewise this is the law . . . . —Better, and this is the law:, &c. Just as Lev_6:24-30 contains additional regulations addressed to the priest about the rites of the sin offering, so Lev_7:1-10 gives more precise instructions about the trespass offering, supplementing Lev_5:1-13, also designed for the guidance of the priest.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 7 This chapter treats of the ritual of the trespass…
CONTINUATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRIESTS, RESPECTING THE RITUAL OF THE SACRIFICES.
This chapter treats of the ritual of the trespass offering and the peace offerings, as the last chapter treated of that of the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the sin offering. The LXX version attaches the first ten verses of this chapter to chapter 6, beginning chapter 7 with our verse 11.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-6. Further ritual of the trespass offering. (see note on Lev_5:14) It is to be noted that the blood of the trespass offering is not to be placed on the horns of the altar, as was the rule in the ordinary sin offering, but cast against the inner side of the altar, as in the burnt offering and peace offering. The rump in verse 3 should be translated tail, as in Lev_3:9.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Chapter 7Ministerial support.
Cf. 1Co_9:13 1Co_10:18. We have in this chapter a detailed account of the disposal of the offerings already referred to. The leading idea of the passage is the perquisites of the priests, and the Christian counterpart of this is ministerial support. And in this connection let us observe
I IN ALL THE OFFERINGS THE FIRST CONCERN WAS TO ALLOCATE TO GOD HIMSELF HIS DUE. In particular he had appropriated to his own use, that is, to manifest atonement, the blood of all the sacrifices; and consequently it was never to be eaten, for this would be a profane use of such a sacred thing (verses 26, 27). It is only when we come to the realities out of the types and shadows, that we find Jesus declaring, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". (Joh_6:54, Joh_6:55) Atoning blood can only be partaken of by faith. Moreover, the Lord appropriated the fat the large amount of suet about the animal which was absolutely necessary to feed. the fire. This was to be devoted, therefore, to this sacred use and withdrawn from all profane use. There were other portions, such as the sheep"s tail, the kidneys, and the caul above the liver, which were burned always on the altar as God"s portion. The general principle, therefore, is plain of first giving unto God his fine.
Now, in this particular question of ministerial support, it is with this idea of stewardship unto God that we must begin. Men rest first realize their obligation to God above before they will do justly by his ministers. The human obligation is best enforced by emphasizing the Divine. If men give God his due, if they are faithful stewards unto him, if they keep zealously the first table of the Law, they will not wrong their neighbours by disregarding the second table; above all, they will not wrong God"s ministers.
II AFTER GOD"S PORTIONS WERE DEDICATED, THE BEST OF THE RESIDUE BECAME THE PRIESTS. In some cases the priest got the whole; for example, in a private sin offering or trespass offering, and when, as in the peace offerings, the remainder was shared with the person presenting the sacrifice, the priest"s portion was always the best. The wave breast and the heave leg, the "choice cuts," as we would now call them, of the carcass, were assigned to the priests. In fact, there is peculiar generosity enjoined in supporting the officers of God.
There is a fashion in a business age of regarding the minister very much as an ecclesiastical tradesman, who is to be dealt with on business principles; that is, as ranch work is to be got out of him as possible for the minimum of pay. The sooner such poor notions cease, the better for the cause of God. "And we beseech you, brethren," says the apostle, "to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work"s sake". (1Th_5:12, 1Th_5:13) If ministers are rightly regarded, the people will feel it to be their duty, as Israel was instructed to do, to give them the best support they can.
III A PROPERLY SUSTAINED PRIESTHOOD WAS IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE FAITHFUL DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH. This ministerial support chapter, as we may properly regard Le 7, is most particular in debarring the unclean from Church privileges. Whether we are to understand the "cutting off from the people" as death, as the Vulgate appears to do, or as only excommunication, one thing is certain, that the priesthood, assigned its true dignity and supported accordingly, were thereby encouraged to be faithful in the exercise of discipline.
And this relation of proper ministerial support to Church discipline is most important. It is when the office is degraded in men"s minds to a mere profession, and they consequently refuse it adequate support, that they are unwilling to submit to the discipline God"s ministry should wield. To the elevation of the office in the eyes of men, and to the consequent increase of its support, all wise members of the Church of Christ should devote their attention. R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-8. The law of the trespass offering.
This, like the other offerings, was generally considered before (see chapters 5 and 6:1-7). The repetition here, according to Hebrew usage, gives emphasis and solemnity to the injunctions. The subject is reopened to show more particularly the duties and privileges of the priesthood concerning it. And we notice
I THAT THE TRESPASS OFFERING IS DESCRIBED AS MOST HOLY.
1. It was most holy as typifying Christ.
(1) Intrinsically there could be neither sin nor holiness in the animal that was offered up. It was not a moral being. Nor could it be most holy in the sense of removing moral guilt; for it could not do this. For this purpose God never "required" it; never "desired" it. (1Sa_15:22 Psa_40:6 Psa_51:16 Isa_1:11 Hos_6:6 Heb_10:1-4)
(2) But the guilt offering of Calvary can literally "take sin away," and so accomplish the will, the desire, and the requirement of a just and merciful God. (Psa_40:6-8 Heb_10:4-10) Christ is therefore indeed
"Most Holy;" and the guilt offering of the Law was so called putatively as typifying him. Accordingly,
2. It was killed at the north side of the altar.
(1) "It is most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering" (verses 1, 2). But the burnt offering was killed at the north side of the altar. (Lev_1:11) So was Calvary at the north side of Jerusalem.
(2) Because this is given as a reason why the trespass offering was to be accounted "most holy," the Jews have countenance here for their tradition that the less holy sacrifices were slain at the south-west corner of the altar.
3. It was eaten in the holy place.
(1) "Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy" (verse 6). This was what the Jews distinguished as "the eating within the curtains," in allusion to the court of the tabernacle, which was enclosed with curtains.
(2) In these feastings the priests cultivated fellowship; and the fellowship was religious in proportion as they had the vision of their faith clear to look to the end of the things to be abolished. Faith is the true principle of religious fellowship.
(3) The females "among the priests" might eat of the "holy things;" but of the things distinguished as "most holy" they had no right to eat. Since the Fall down to the coming of the "Seed of the woman," a distinction between male and female was maintained, but now it is abolished. God"s curse upon the woman has strangely been converted into the greatest Messing to mankind. Even in anger God is love.
II SUNDRY DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO THE PRIESTS.
1. With the blood of the guilt offering they were to sprinkle the altar.
(1) The altar was the raised platform upon which the sacrifices were offered up to God. The eminence of Calvary was, more particularly considered, the altar upon which the Great Sacrifice was offered. But in the grander sense, when the great universe is viewed, as Paul views it, as the true temple of God, the earth itself was the altar. The welfare of the universe is concerned in the death of Christ. (Eph_1:10 Php_2:9, 10 Col_1:20)
(2) The sprinkling of the altar with the blood, in tiffs view, would show that the earth, the common inheritance of man, which was cursed for his sake, is redeemed with the price of the precious blood of Jesus, And being redeemed by the price of his blood, it is destined also to be redeemed by the power of his arm. (see Eph_1:14 Eph_4:30) What glorious things are in reversion!
(3) The Mishna records a tradition thus rendered by Bishop Patrick: "That there was a scarlet line which went round about the altar exactly in the middle, and the blood of the burnt offerings was sprinkled round about above the line, but that of the trespass offerings and peace offerings round about below it." But these traditions are generally refinements without authority. Let us be thankful for the "sure word of prophecy.
2. They were to burn the fat upon the altar.
(1) Not the fat intermingled with the flesh. This was not offered upon the altar, except, of course, in the holocaust; nor was it forbidden as food. Had it been so, what embarrassments must tender consciences have suffered! There is nothing unreasonable in the service of God.
(2) The fat burnt was chiefly that found in a detached state, viz. the omentum, or caul, the fat of the mesentery and that about the kidneys, with the rump or tail of the sheep. This last was in the East so enormous that it had in some cases to be supported by a little cart fastened behind the animal (see Ludolf"s "History of Ethiopia," page 53).
3. They had the privilege of claiming the skin (verses 7, 8).
(1) This privilege probably dates from the days of Eden. Immediately after the Fall, our first parents covered themselves with the leaves of the fig, symbolically to express their sense of shame on account of their sin. In exchange for these, God graciously clothed them with skins, which we may presume were those of animals offered in sacrifice. Here, then, was the robe of an imputed righteousness to cover their sin and shame.
(2) If these skins were those of animals offered in sacrifice, then Adam must have acted as a priest, and of course by Divine appointment. As a priest, then he would receive the skins. To this hour those descendants of Adam who act as spiritual priests are those who are invested with the robe of the righteousness of Christ. J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1-10. Emphatic truths or things God lays stress upon.
The great particularity and the occasional repetition shown in these ordinances point to the truth that God desired his people to attach very great weight to them. His servants were to understand that he laid great stress upon
I THE WAY IN WHICH HE WAS APPROACHED IN WORSHIP. Distinctions were drawn between different offerings, the import of which we now find it hard to trace. Though, indeed, it is stated that "as the sin offering so the trespass offering; there is one law for them" (verse 7), yet there were differences in the way in which the blood was disposed of by the priests, etc.. (cf. verse 2 and Lev_4:6, Lev_4:7) Minute details were entered into respecting the disposal of the various parts of the animal (verses 3, 4, 8). Precise directions were given regarding the eating of the offerings by the priests (verses 5, 9, 10). It appears to us that there must have been but very faint moral significance in these arrangements to the mind of the Hebrew worshipper. But if this were so, the very particularity of the precepts indicated God"s determination that his people should show the utmost vigilance and attention in their approaches to himself. We may wisely learn therefrom that, though our Divine Master has left all details in worship to our spiritual discernment, he is far from indifferent to the way in which we approach him. We should show the utmost care:
1. To draw nigh to his throne of grace in a right spirita spirit of reverence, trust, expectation, holy joy.
2. To use those methods of approach which are most likely to foster the true spirit of worshiphaving enough of simplicity to favour spirituality of mind; having, at the same time, enough of art and effort to meet the cultivated tastes of all who take part in devotion.
II THE FACT THAT SIN MEANS DEATH IN HIS SIGHT. The first "law of the trespass offering" (verse 1) relates to the killing of the animal and the sprinkling of its blood "round about the altar" (verse 2). The thing in these sacrifices is the application of the blood for atonement: no offering on the altar, no eating of the flesh, until life had been taken, until blood had been shed and sprinkled. The sinner must own his worthiness of death for his trespass, and, if he is to find acceptance, must bring a victim, whose life shall be forfeited instead of his own, whose atoning blood shall make peace with God. This is the foundation truth of Old Testament sacrifices; it is the ground truth of the sacrifice on Calvary.
III THE TRUTH THAT OUR VERY BEST, OUR OWN SELF, IS TO BE CONSECRATED TO GOD. The best of the slain animals, the vital parts, had to be presented in holy sacrifice on the altar (verses 3-5). When the atoning blood has brought reconciliation, we are to present our best, our very selves, in acceptable sacrifice to our Saviour.
IV THE TRUTH THAT ALL WHICH IS PRESENTED TO GOD IS TO BE REGARDED AS HOLY IN HIS SIGHT. Only the priests might eat of the flesh of the offered animal, and they only "in the holy place," for "it is most holy" (verse 6). Everything became holy when brought to "the door of the tabernacle" and presented to Jehovah. When we dedicate ourselves to his service in the act of self-surrender, we yield everything to him. And then:
1. Our bodies become a living sacrifice. (Rom_12:1 1Co_6:13, 1Co_6:20)
2. Our whole lives are to be lived and spent before him as holy. C. (1Co_10:31)
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-10. The trespass offering, burnt offering, and meat offering, affording support to the minister of the sanctuary and occasion for feasting.
I It is the intent of true religion that those consecrated to its service should be provided for liberally.
II Acknowledgment of sin and atonement made lead to rejoicing, and the festival life of man grows out of reconciliation with God.
III TYPICALLY; Christ the High Priest is rewarded in the sanctification of his people "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 The law of the trespass-offering.
Lev_7:1-10
The law of the trespass-offering.
Read full note →
Lessons
1. The fatness and grossness of the carnal heart is to be removed and taken away.
2. God requires the heart.
3. Against covetousness in ministers.
4. To receive the sacraments reverently and with due preparation. (A. Willet, D. D.)
The trespass-offering
The trespass-offering may be considered as a variety of the sin-offering. The distinguishing characteristic of the trespass-offering proper was restitution. The offences for which it was offered were such as admitted of restitution, and the distinction from the sin-offering cannot be better expressed than in the words of Prof. Cave: The sin and trespass-offerings were both sacrifices for sins; but in the former the leading idea was that of atonement, the expiation of sin by a substituted life; in the latter the leading feature was that of satisfaction, the wiping out of sin by the payment of a recompense. It is well worthy of note that in the trespass-offering for sins against God, the ritual prescribed was sacrifice first, restitution following; while in those against man the order was reversed: restitution first, followed by sacrifice on the altar. The appropriateness of the difference will be readily seen. In the former case, where the sin consisted in withholding from God that which was His due, it was not really God that lost anything, it was the sinner. Giving to God is not regarded as a debt which a man must pay, but rather as a privilege which he may enjoy; and, accordingly, before a man can enjoy the privilege of which he has foolishly deprived himself, he must come and offer his sacrifice upon the altar. But when the sinner has been withholding from his fellow-man that which is his due, the delinquency is regarded in the light of a debt, and he is not allowed to go to the altar of God until he has paid his debt, and not only discharged the principal in full, but added one-fifth part thereto. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
This is the law
We find this text in many places (see Lev_6:25; Lev_7:1; Lev_7:11; Lev_7:37). What we want is just this-definiteness. There must be a line of certainty somewhere, or the universe could not be kept together. There may be ten thousand contributory lines, contingent or incidental lines, but there must be running right through the heart of things a law of definiteness and certitude; otherwise coherence is impossible, and permanence is of the nature of a dissolving cloud. We want to get upon that line. Quest in search of that line is orthodoxy. To seek after truth, what is this but to love wisdom and to pant for God? What have you? You have great information. What is the value of information? Nothing, beyond that which is merely momentary and tentative. It is the last thing to be known or that is known. But then in two hours we shall know something more. Information is never final. Hence men say, To the best of my knowledge. What a confession is in these simple words if we submit them to their last analysis! To the best of my judgment, So far as I know, According to the best advice I can get; what is all this but sand? You could not build a house upon such sand. It would never do for information to be final or complete or authoritative; it is by this kind of uncertainty that we are kept modest, it is by this kind of incertitude we are often inspired, and it is because intellectual life is a continual tumult that we grow athletically, that the brain becomes stronger. What we want to come upon is the line of law which itself is a line of progress, a line of change into ever-increasing largeness, but never a change of quality or of moral purpose. If we want to know the law we can find it. If you want to be right you can be right. To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Can we go to the law? We can do better. It is the business of the gospel minister to say how. We can not only go to the law, we can go to the Lawgiver, we can go to the living Jesus Christ. We can see Him face to face, or, better still, using the word face in its true interpretation, we Can see Him soul to soul. (J. -Parker, D. D.)
The priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering.
The skin legislated for
Why God should think of so small and base a thing as the skin, some may ask a reason; and see you the reason and tile good of it.
1. It notably confirmeth our faith in His providence, that He will never forget us and leave us destitute of things needful and good for us, seeing we are much better than the skin of a brute beast, whereof yet He hath care and thought.
2. It showed that sweet and comfortable care that the Lord then had, and still hath, of the ministry, that it should be maintained, and not defrauded of the least thing allotted to it, which still He showeth in all other particulars, urging still that they be given to the priests according to His will.
3. This care of the Lord for the beasts skin, to appoint it to one that should have it, well taught that people then, and still teacheth us ever to be careful to,prevent strife, and to take away all questions and controversies as much as we may., that every one knowing what is his may therein rest, and peace ensue. The more God hath given you, the more must be your pain this way, in your good health and perfect memory. (Bp. Babington.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 Ritual of the Sacrifices: the Peace Offering
Ritual of the Sacrifices: the Peace Offering
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_7:1.—Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering. More precise instructions are now added to those given in chap Lev_5:1-13, expressly for the guidance of the priest. Every minute detail is of Divine regulation; God rules within the sanctuary, directs every particular of worship and service therein; for altar sacrifice is “most holy,” and man must scrupulously refrain from adding, omitting, or altering aught when he approaches Jehovah with expiation. Neither, in the Christian dispensation, is license, or caprice, or self-assertion allowed to sinful man who would propitiate God; he must implicitly follow instructions. “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good.”
Lev_7:7.—As the sin offering, so is the trespass offering. If any item of regulation was given for one offering which was not given in the other, then it was to be applied as equally binding in both cases. The priest was entrusted with the duty of searching out each particular and fulfilling it sedulously. It should be our study to “know the Holy Scriptures,” and therefore we should “compare spiritual things with spiritual,” “searching the Scriptures daily,” as did the Bereans, in order that nothing be left undiscovered, nothing unfulfilled. How careful should be our endeavour to make the written will of God our law in every particular of worship and of habit, of life and conduct.
Lev_7:10.—One as much as another [literally, a man as his brother]. In the “meat offering” “all the sons of Aaron” were to share, and the dividing was to be equal. And this law assures us, who in Christ are of the “priesthood,” that there is an equal participation in the merits of the sacrifice and the privileges of the Christian life for all who are sacredly related. The gracious rule of brotherhood is to be illustrated in our enjoyment of the sacramental feast at the Lord’s table, “All ye are brethren.” No assumption of superiority is permissible, no exclusive appropriation of the sacred provisions; in the Gospel feast, and at the Lord’s Supper, “a man is as his brother.” How, then, dare the Romish celebrant assume the sole right of participating? or where is the warrant for “priestly” superiority in the “household of faith”?
Lev_7:12.—Offer it for a thanksgiving. These “peace offerings” are of three kinds—thank offerings (Lev_7:12-15), votive offerings (Lev_7:16), and voluntary offerings (Lev_7:16-18). [Comp. on chap. 3.]
Lev_7:18.—Neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it. The offerer was expected to see that the entire votive or voluntary offering was “eaten the same day” as it was offered; a regulation this which compelled him to hospitality, to invite together a sufficient number of neighbours or poor persons to the festal board. And if through inattention to this duty of considerate and generous hospitality any part remained uneaten that “same day,” it must be completely consumed “on the morrow,” or the offerer was liable to a serious risk—the part not consumed might fall into some person’s hands after the limited time; and then the efficacy of the sacrifice would be entirely disannulled and the offerer must bring another votive offering and go through the regulations of lavish hospitality again, but with more promptitude and precision. A Christian must “not live to himself”; his care for others must be generous; he must be hospitable to the needy; and in his enjoyment of sacred privileges he must bring in others to share with himself the “feast of fat things,” or his own selfish religious life becomes “an abomination.”
Lev_7:20.—Having his uncleanness upon him. The penalty of legal defilement was excision from the Lord’s people. “Ye are a holy nation.” Such was Jehovah’s reiterated declaration; and every infringement of ceremonial sanctity was immediately stamped with disapprobation and disfranchisement. Shall not the Church of Christ be equally guarded from the presence of the unclean? Wherefore “let a man examine himself,” and let those charged with the care of the Church preserve her fellowship from contamination by “trying the spirits” As for ourselves, this is the injunction for us to heed: “Wherefore come out from among them, be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.”
Lev_7:22-27.—Ye shall eat no manner of fat … no manner of blood. [Comp. on Lev_3:17]. That which was the Lord’s man must not appropriate. “What shall I render unto the Lord?” Our aim should be rather to exceed His specified requirements by offering something beyond, “some very precious” alabastron, some free-will sacrifice of love “for the great love wherewith He has loved us.”
Lev_7:30.—His own hand shall bring the offerings of the Lord. Divine service could not be done by proxy. Just as at the judgment “every one shall give account of himself to God,” so in now seeking appeasement and acceptance every soul must come to the Lord on his own behalf. “The Master calleth for thee.”
Lev_7:34.—The wave breast and the heave shoulder. The spectacular movements of parts of the sacrificial victim before the altar intimated their consecration to Jehovah, and their performance was justified by the necessity of impressing on the people the supreme claims of God upon them when they brought their offerings. It was an uplifting of the sacrifice to Him who dwelt between the cherubim; a recognition of His unseen presence, a response to His solemn demands. A vivid realization of God within the sanctuary would constrain to more reverence in our offerings and actions. “Who hath required this at your hands to tread My courts?” (Isa_1:12).
Lev_7:37.—This is the law of the burnt offering, etc. An enumeration of the various kinds of sacrifices, which carries the suggestion that Jehovah could omit no one from the list, that all were essential to His continued favour towards and fellowship with man, that the religious life could not be thorough if one were withheld—self-consecration, fellowship, atonement, reconciliation, peace.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: INVARIABLE LAWS REGULATING SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP (Lev_7:1-10)
With minute precision God reiterates His requirements in sacrificial worship. Thus emphasizing the conditions of man’s propitiation, and his acceptance with Him. “There is one law for them” (Lev_7:7). Though some diversity existed in the details, e.g., as to the disposal of the blood of the victim by the priest [comp. ch. Lev_4:6-7, with Lev_7:2], and the sharing of the different parts of the animal; yet amid all diversity in details, an invariable law ruled in the arrangements, and this God again emphasizes. What was that invariable law? In chap Lev_6:27, etc, the stress of Divine injunctions is laid on the quality of the sanctity distinguishing the sin offering: and here it is reaffirmed (Lev_7:1) “it is most holy,” and (Lev_7:6) “it shall be eaten in the holy place, it is most holy.” Ponder that inflexible requirement and consider that there are still inevitable laws and fixed conditions of acceptable approach to God.
I. METHODS OF WORSHIP MAY VARY, BUT HOLINESS IS INEVITABLE IN ALL.
1. Moral qualities are essentially more valuable than outward rituals.
2. Modes of approaching God, though important, fail to win Divine favour, if the inmost state is alien to His will.
3. Sanctity is the most precious quality in man. Not grandeur, not punctiliousness, but holiness.
4. This holiness indicates not so much moral faultlessness and absolute perfectness in the offerer, as sincerity, humility, “a right spirit,” a reverence of God, and a trustfulness in His grace. [See Addenda, p. 100, True Worship.]
II. All propitiatory acts are secondary to THE SUPREME FACT—DEATH FOR SIN.
1. First in order of time: the offering was to be slain (Lev_7:2). After that was done, then began the ritual. Any attempt to draw near God until the atonement death is a realised fact is an intrusion, an anachronism.
2. First in order of consequence: the worshipper must substitute a victim’s life. Or he himself must die! Shielded from death by substitution, he may then seek God by propitiatory ritual or reconciliatory worship.
3. Calvary was thus the consummation of all types: Death for sin making possible man’s approach to God.
III. Offerings to God must always be THE CHOICEST IN OUR POWER TO PRESENT.
1. Vast variety was allowed and ordained in the sacrificial offerings. God permits and approves our various gifts; every one bringing his distinctive offering; every life presenting its special and peculiar quality. Considerable freedom in choice is granted.
2. Yet the invariable law rules—God must have the finest, the very best. The vital parts, the choicest of the inwards of the victim were claimed for Him (Lev_7:3-5).
3. Each worshipper has to bring something of peculiar preciousness to God, something additional to atonement. Yes; beyond Christ’s death, God asks the very choicest qualities of the life of all who seek Him. [See Addenda, p. 100, Offerings for God.]
IV. ABSOLUTE CONSECRATION MARKED WHATEVER WAS PRESENTED TO THE LORD. “It is most holy.”
1. There might be no taking back that which had been offered. Think on Ananias and Sapphira.
2. No one might share that which “pertained unto the Lord.” [Comp. Lev_7:20.]
Hence: once dedicated to the Lord we are His absolutely and always. And whatever is dedicated to the Lord none may partake with Him—it is his only.
Topic: THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERING (Lev_7:11-18)
“And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the Lord,” etc.
In the ritual of the Hebrews there were three great classes of offerings: the burnt offering, the sin offering, and the peace offering. The meat and drink offerings were secondary, and usually were offered in connection with other sacrifices.
The burnt offering and the peace offering were known before the giving of the law. The sin offering was instituted in connection with the law, as made necessary by it.
The law of the peace offering is given last in publication of the sacrificial arrangements, as if to declare that it naturally follows the others as a sacrifice of completeness (as expressive of restored fellowship between God and man); and also that every view of Christ is gathered into it.
I. The peace offering is a SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING.
Three forms of it are specified:
(1) The offering of thanksgiving, i.e., for some special blessing.
(2) The vow, the fulfilment of a promise to God.
(3) The voluntary offering made from a principle of gratitude, when, with no special occasion, the worshipper called upon his soul and all within him to bless and praise God’s holy name.
It was a peace offering, a national thanksgiving, which Solomon made at the dedication of the temple. It is this sacrifice so frequently referred to in the Psalms.
In connection with the Passover celebration there were two peace offerings: the former of these is continued in the Pascal supper, which is a sacrifice of peace offering, a feast of thanksgiving for God’s greatest gift to men, a service by the Church to be joyously observed. At the sacramental table we should
(1) thank God for all special exhibition of Divine goodness;
(2) should joyfully fulfil our promises to Him, those sacred covenants into which, in trial or difficulty, we have entered with Him;
(3) should make our voluntary offerings, in view of the constant mercies of God, the daily and hourly grace; not the freshet water in the stream of Divine providence, but the constant flow from the inexhaustible “upper sprigs.” How well do these befit all our approaches to God, how well, of all places, do they befit the sacrifice of the Communion!
II. The peace offering is a SACRIFICE OF FELLOWSHIP.
This idea lies at its centre. The peculiar feature of it was the sacrificial meal; the priests shared in what was offered; the offerer also partook; the offering was presented to God, and part thereof consumed, as if by Him, upon His altar.
1. It was an act of communion with God. He gives us back a portion from the altar. Christ is our sacrifice. At the Communion we partake of the Paschal Lamb. God gives us His flesh to eat, His blood to drink. When we came home as returning prodigals the Father set the table for us, and sat down with us: “Let us eat and be merry,” He said. At the Communion Christ says, “Let us eat: let us drink.” He sits at the table with us.
2. So also the sacred meal was an act of mutual communion. It was a social meal: the priest, the worshipper, his family, and other friends shared with him. So was it in the peace offering of the Passover; so in Solomon’s great feast of dedication; so it is at the Communion table. We partake of Christ together. Holy fellowship, of loftiest, tenderest experience.
What a beautiful relation of Christian to fellow Christian is here exhibited. How the fact of our having sat at Christ’s table together, partaken of the Lamb of God, commits us to purest brotherly love, most free from all self-seeking, alienation, suspicion, bitterness; charges us, “Ye are members one of another.”
How much is meant when we are exhorted to “be at peace among yourselves.” It is to be in fellowship in the sacrament, in offering together our offering of peace, partaking together our joyous supper at which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost unite with us. Is true communion anything less than this?
III. The basis of communion in the peace offering is SACRIFICE: and, in the sacrifice, THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD.
The shedding of blood in this particular sacrifice does not represent, as in the sin offering, the act of atoning for sin.
1. The bleeding Christ, as our Peace Offering, is not our Sin Bearer. But His blood in this offering also declares that an atonement has been made, and that the sole ground of fellowship with God is in the reconciling blood of the Lamb. “But now in Christ Jesus,” etc (Eph_2:13-14).
2. We follow our sin offering with the peace offering of the sacrament, and we constantly renew our sacrament to express our joy in redemption, and our recognition of the sole ground of it, the blood of the Redeemer. The sacrament is only an act of communion with him whose sins have been washed away in the “fountain filled with blood.” We must make our peace offering on the basis of a previous sin offering of atonement for our soul.
3. Communion with God is impossible, on any natural basis, without the blood of Christ. You speak of enjoying communion with God and with good people; is it in the blood of the Son of God? Certain tribes in Africa have a custom which they call blood-brotherhood, the most sacred of all relationships By the mutual transference from the veins of each to the other of their blood, two become in the most binding and inevitable manner brothers. Ours is a blood-brotherhood, fellow Christians; only with us the seal of the covenant is the blood of Christ.
IV. The peace offering REQUIRES HOLINESS IN THE WORSHIPPER.
This fact is expressed in the provision that “unleavened bread” should be offered as a part of the sacrifice. Yeast or leaven was a symbol of corruption. The absence of leaven suggested the absence, therefore the removal, of sin.
If in your heart there is a preference for sin let it concern you. Ask yourself, how can this be, if you are a new man. [See Addenda, p. 100, True Worship.]
V. In the peace offering THE SINFULNESS OF A NATURE PARTIALLY SANCTIFIED is confessed.
With the offering of unleavened bread one of leavened bread was also to be made. This was not a part of the sacrifice, but a meat offering accompanying the sacrifice. It is particularly stated that the bread was leavened; i.e., the principle of corruption was within, and working in it.
Since our conversion we are not sinners as before; but sin is in us. We cannot make God an absolutely holy offering.
Some claim that they have no sin. They are deceived. “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” We need cry to God with pangs of conscience ever keener:
“Break off the yoke of inbred sin
And fully set my spirit free.”
VI. In the peace offering THE WORSHIPPER WAS TO KEEP NEAR THE SACRIFICE.
1. This is suggested in the regulation that the offering was to be “eaten the same day.” If the offerer had been allowed to keep the offering over day after day he would be tempted to make his communion meal off unwholesome meat, less than the freshest and best. Do not let the sacrifice be abandoned, allowed to suffer neglect. Keep near God. Renew your sacrifice daily. Think not you can live on past devotions—of yesterday, of last Sabbath.
2. We tend to make religion consist of other elements to the exclusion of sacrifices. We conceal from ourselves, in attention to externals, that the life of religion is devotion, and that the life of devotion is the element of sacrifice. The early Church kept near the Sacrifice. They communed daily. The freshest offering is best. The near place is the place of fellowship; keep near Christ.
3. The suggestions of the peace offering are most practical for any one who seeks to live close to God.
(a) It is the complete offering: expressing the idea of the burnt offering, entire consecration; of the sin and trespass offerings, atonement for sin; and it expresses its own characteristic idea, the joyous communion of the soul with God and all saints.
(b) It suggests all the possible relations of Christ to the soul which sacrifice can embody. Keep we Christ ever before us in all His offices.
(c) Daily we should remember that the condition of daily communion is a daily offering.
Whosoever so approaches God, Christ is his peace. However far away sometime, daily he is now brought nigh by the blood of Christ, daily he finds the middle wall of partition broken down, and the way into the holiest place opened.—Rev. Geo. R. Leavitt. [Compare Homilies on the Peace Offering, pp. 30 37 infra]
Topic: THE BELIEVER’S PEACE AND PORTION (Lev_7:29-31)
(1) There is nothing that men more require in their natural and restless condition than peace, a composed and assured state of mind. The need is, however, to be met; the amplest provision has been made for its being met; and we have only to appropriate to enjoy it.
(2) Yet there are but few who avail themselves of the provision. Instead of being restful, men are disquieted; dissatisfied instead of contented; apprehensive instead of assured. A broad gulf separates them from the Centre of their being, and from all that is serene and satisfying.
I. TO HAVE GOD IS TO HAVE PEACE: for He is the God of peace; especially as revealed and given us in Christ. But what is given may be enjoyed, as what is offered may be received. Then let the gift be accepted, and the peace you desire will “keep your heart and mind,” and this in all circumstances. The winds of adversity may smite you, and the waters of affliction overwhelm you; but as God is greater than these, He keeps in the perfectness of peace the minds that are stayed upon Him.
II. Such peace is FOUND IN CHRIST ALONE; not in anything done by Him, or given by Him, but in His personal indwelling. The apostle’s declaration is, that “He is our peace” (Eph_2:14) [See Addenda, p 100, Sacred Peace.]
The knowledge of Him will illuminate, and the faith of Him will impart security; but you must have Himself to have the portion that will satisfy, and the peace you need.
III. But not only is Christ our peace, but from being the ATONER, OUR PEACE OFFERING, He gives Himself to God an offering and a sweet smelling savour, and then to us who trust in Him for deliverance and satisfaction.
The ancient Jewish sacrifice of the peace offering illustrates this.
(1) The material of which it consisted was either a bullock, heifer, lamb, or goat; but in all cases it was to be “without blemish.” God is entitled to the best, and will receive nothing less. Yet how often is less than what He asks offered Him! That they who so act by Him should have few answers to their prayers, and little satisfaction in their religion, can be wondered at by no one.
(2) Peace offerings were offered by persons who, having obtained forgiveness of sins, and given themselves to God, were at peace with Him. Friendship with God was the principal idea represented therein.
(3) Only a part of the peace offering was given to God; but that was the best, the part to which He was entitled, and which He claimed And it was accepted, as was shown by its consumption by fire. Offer Him your best, and though in itself small and poor, He will receive it, and make liberal acknowledgement of His approval of it.
(4) The Israelite was not at liberty to lay the fat of his offering at random, any way, or any where, on the altar. He had to lay it “upon the sacrifice that was upon the wood on the altar fire.” But that sacrifice was the lamb of the daily offering, which typified atonement in its fulness. There, God’s portion of the peace offering was laid, and accepted according to the value of that on which it was offered.
(5) Apart from Christ nothing is acceptable to Him. What you bring to Him may be your best, that which He asks for, and what is in itself valuable; but unless offered on the ground of atonement it is not received by Him.
(6) But that is the ground within everyone’s reach, and on which everything that is offered to God may be presented. There is no one by whom the name of Jesus may not be used as a plea, and His sacrifice urged as a reason for acceptance.
IV. The peace offering expressed the thought of COMMUNION AND SATISFACTION. It supplied God with a portion, and man also. It furnished a table at which both met, and where they had fellowship with one another. God fed on the fat, and man on the shoulder and breast (Lev_7:31); and both were satisfied.
(1) But we have Christ here; and we know what the Father ever found in Him; with what pleasure He ever regarded Him, in His righteousness of walk, perfection of obedience, and beauty of character. God was supremely pleased with all that Jesus was and did, as the representative of Himself to men, and the ideal Man to the world, the indicator of holiness and the honourer of the law. Christ was, and is still, His well-beloved and His joy.
(2) But not God alone fed on the peace offering, man did that also; he ate of the breast and the shoulder. In the anti-type these typified love and strength. These, believer, are your portion in Christ. You have His heart of love and His shoulder of might—His unchanging affection and His all-sustaining power. Enfolded in His embrace and enthroned on His shoulder of strength, you occupy a position where evil cannot harm you, nor want remain unmet.
V. No Israelite who was ceremonially UNCLEAN was permitted to partake of the peace offering, or share with God in the provision it supplied. And without holiness no man is now allowed to see God. But provision is made both for man’s expiation and for his sanctifying from all impurity. The cross that separates from the guilt of sin also separates from its defilement. Christ is thus Sanctifier as well as Justifier. He “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people” (Tit_2:14).
Thus beautified with His salvation, you will find a place in His banqueting house of love, a guest at the Lord’s table, and satisfied with the food of which you partake (Joh_6:57; Joh_6:55; Joh_6:35).
Are you satisfied with Christ? Does He appease all your yearnings, fulfil your every desire, give you rest, and prove your peace? “My beloved is mine, and I am His” (Son_2:16). His resources are inexhaustible, His communications are continuous, and His glory is divine.—Arranged from “The Gospel in Leviticus,” by James Fleming, D.D.
Topic: THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERING (Lev_7:11-35)
A halo of gladness surrounds this sacrifice. Persons grateful for deliverances wrought and mercies received, desirous of paying vows previously made, or pledging themselves voluntarily to some new obligation, were to offer before the Lord their sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. In this law we see:
I. THAT PEACE FOLLOWS FORGIVENESS.
The expiatory sacrifices removed guilt, which is the only barrier that can exist between God and man. The peace offering admitted man into the reconciled presence of God. The offerer came not as a culprit seeking pardon, but as a forgiven child drawing near to a loving Father. Pardon is the door into the chamber of Peace. So, in the Gospel, “Being justified by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Peace is the Divine legacy Christ has left to all who come to Him for rest from the burden of the ceremonial law, and guilt of sin.
II. THAT RESTORATION FOLLOWS PEACE.
In presenting the peace offerings, and feasting on the same, the worshippers would feel they were admitted into the family of God. They sat in His banqueting house, and His banner over them was love. The priests and people joined with the Lord in the divinely appointed eucharistic feast. This privilege is taught in the parable of the Prodigal Son. It would not have been enough for him to be pardoned for his rebellion and sin, he needed restoration to his father’s house and favour. Christ is our peace, He has broken down the middle wall of partition, and made us one with God.
III. THAT GRATITUDE FOLLOWS RESTORATION.
The pardoned and restored worshipper would be constrained to render to the Lord the glory due to His name. Brought into a right relationship with God, there would be the expression of right feelings towards Him. The offering waved to and fro, and heaved toward heaven, would denote the offerer’s gratitude to Jehovah; recognising Him as the Proprietor of all things, and as worthy of the warmest and strongest love. The gratitude was—
(a) Prompt. The offering was to be made at once, none of the things provided were to be kept until the third day, all to be partaken of while memory of the blessings acknowledged was fresh.
(b) Large-hearted. The priests and people were to invite their families to join them in the feast, and to eat unsparingly.
(c) Perpetual. The statute was never to be repealed while the economy continued. The people were under obligation to be thankful, and they knew how their thankfulness might be acceptably expressed. The injunction of the Gospel is “In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.”
IV. THAT DEVOTION FOLLOWS GRATITUDE.
The waving of the breast, the heaving of the shoulder, symbolised consecration of strength, and affection to the Lord. Everything offered was to be clean, and even the inward parts, obviously teaching the necessity of moral purity in character of those who presented the offerings. Those who dared to transgress by omitting the directions, or were in any way hypocritical, exposed themselves to the penalty of excommunication, as well as to severe reproof.
(a) The peace offering was partaken of in tents of the people. Religion is for the tent as well as the altar, for the home as well as the sanctuary Christ expects our service to spring from love, not from fear; from gratitude to Him for what He has done for us. “We love Him, because He first loved us.”—F. W. Brown.
Topic: RECAPITULATION OF SACRIFICIAL RITUAL (Lev_7:35-38)
Here the directions respecting sacrifices are solemnly emphasised: “This is the portion,” etc. Offerings and the priesthood were inseparably connected; when, and in the fulness of time, the offerings ceased, the priesthood ended. All priestly assumption under the Christian dispensation is out of place chronologically, and presumptuous religiously. Israel, by the Mosaic economy, was to become the repository of the Word of God, and the reflector of His glory. The offerings taught that man is a guilty sinner in the sight of God, that his sin fulness separates him from God, that removal of sin restores man to God. The Jewish economy was perfectly unique; the Hebrew nation stood out in distinct relief among surrounding idolatrous nations. In this recapitulation of the Levitical ritual we are taught—
I. THAT GOD DOES NOT ENJOIN OBEDIENCE UPON MAN WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME FURNISHING DIRECTIONS FOR RENDERING IT.
Had directions been given that certain offerings were to be presented, and no specifications added as to how they were to be offered, the people would have been in constant uncertainty whether or not they were doing the thing that was required. As it was, the priests and people entered upon their religious observances with a full knowledge of their duties and how to discharge them. In the Gospel we are told what God requires of us under the Christian dispensation. Christ has taught us in His royal law what all the law and the prophets taught. In our worship we may observe and present all that the offerings of the Levitical economy signified. We may receive, in answer to believing prayer, the influences of the Holy Ghost, whose office it is to guide us into all truth and to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us.
II. THAT GOD DOES NOT PRESENT ALTERNATIVES TO MAN WHEN HE FURNISHES DIRECTIONS FOR OBEDIENCE.
The laws of the offerings were as emphatic as they were clear; there was no margin left for human invention, no zone of uncertainty about the things to be presented. In some offerings there were gradations, but it was in specified things; the offerer was to bring no substitute for what was divinely ordained. This exclusiveness would give assurance to the offerer that what he presented God would accept, and would prevent oscillation between rival claims. The straight line of the law was laid down, and clearly indicating finger-posts set up; the commands were unmistakable, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” So under the Gospel we have no alternatives in the way of salvation. “No other name given,” etc. The Christian religion excludes all others.
III. THAT GOD DOES NOT WITHHOLD FROM MAN INDUCEMENTS TO RENDER OBEDIENCE TO DIVINE COMMANDS.
The promulgation of the law from Sinai, and the enunciation of the ritual from the tabernacle, were associated with the most solemn sanctions. The Hebrews could have no reasonable doubt about the Divine origin and binding obligation of those enactments. With equal solemnity our duties toward the Gospel have been inculcated. Not from Sinai, but from the Mount of Beatitudes; not from Moses, but from Christ. Evidences of the Messiahship of Christ, of the supremacy of His claims, of the truth of His religion, are many and conclusive. His life was public, His miracles were not done in a corner. “He that despised Moses’ law died,” etc. (Heb_10:28-29). In the Gospel, as on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elias meet to bear witness to His character and mission; all the rays of spread light that gave guidance to the Hebrews centre in the cross, focus on Calvary. “Before Messiah’s coming the ceremonies of the Jewish economy were as the swaddling bands in which He was wrapped, but after it they resembled the linen clothes which He left in the grave. Christ was in the one, but not in the other.”—F. W. B.
Topic: SURVEY OF THE ENTIRE ALTAR SACRIFICES; WITH THEIR PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCES (Lev_7:37-38).
“This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings,” etc.
The offerings set forth Christ. We see in them how man in Christ has made atonement. We look at the sin and trespass offerings and see that the sin of man has been fully borne: at the burnt and meat offerings, and see all God’s requirements satisfied. And this is our confidence, that as Christ “for us” has been “without the camp,” as “for us” He has been laid on the altar, so truly do we stand in Him, even as He is; “for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
We are one with Christ. In this view His offering, as our Example, sets before us the model and standard of our self-sacrifice. And, just as Christ’s sacrifice for us had varied aspects, as satisfying God, and as satisfying man, and as bearing sin; so will our sacrifice, in a lower sense, have these same aspects. In this way the typical offerings have an application to Christians. Thus we also are offerers; “present your bodies a living sacrifice” (Rom_12:1). Between Christ’s sacrifice and ours there will, of course, be dissimilarities neither few nor small, arising from the fact that He was sinless and we are sinners. Yet the saint will “be made conformable unto His death” (Php_3:10), and his rule in sacrifice will be “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.”
Trace, therefore, how far the various aspects of the offering of the body of Christ may be applicable to those, who, being members of His mystical body, are called to “walk even as He walked.”
I. THE BURNT OFFERING. This was man satisfying GOD; man in Christ giving himself to God at His portion. We have seen how far for us [comp. pp. 8, 9 infra] this was fulfilled in Christ: we now inquire how far in us it may be fulfilled by the Spirit.
The burnt offering stands as a witness how we should “yield ourselves” (Rom_6:13).
1. As to its measure. It was “wholly burnt.” No part was withheld from God. Entire self-surrender. It must “cost us something” (2Sa_24:24). The burnt offering was God’s claim: the fulfilment of this required the life of Christ. It will demand our lives—“Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart, all thy soul, all thy mind and all thy strength.”
Our path after Christ must be still a sacrifice. Can we “present our bodies a living sacrifice” without cost, without feeling that sacrifice is still sacrifice? Christ felt His sacrifice.
2. As to its character. In the varieties of the burnt sacrifice, of bullock, lamb, and turtle dove, each brought out some distinct particular in the character of our blessed Lord. Would to God that in active, yet patient service (as the bullock), in silent, unmurmuring submission (as the lamb), in gentleness and innocency of life (as the dove), we might be conformed to Him who went before us.
Service, submission, meekness, will gain no crown for us here; nor did they for Christ. We cannot seize greatness, or secure honour in this world, by offering ourselves to God in the character these emblems signify. Christ was despised and rejected of man, as a lamb slain and none to pity. May He give us grace gladly to acquiesce in the likeness.
II. THE MEAT OFFERING. This was Christ satisfying MAN; offering Himself as man’s meat. In doing this He met man’s claim on Him as man. Man had a claim on man; God had ratified that claim, saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” In the meat offering, Christ met and satisfied this claim, by giving Himself to God as man’ s portion.
1. For the measure of it is enough to say, the type shows us the whole consumed. Such is our standard.
2. For its character, the “bruised corn,” the “oil,” the “salt,” and the “frankincense,” are sufficently explicit.
How far may we be conformed to it? To answer this question let us look to other days, and see how men have conformed to it. Time was when the Church, though but “a leavened cake” (Lev_23:17), was so far filled with the anointing of the Holy Ghost that “the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own. But they had all things common; neither was there any that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, etc., and distribution was made to every man as he had need” (Act_8:31-35). Here was a meat offering; and costly; yet not a rare one.
In that day there were living men, who for the Gospel had “lost all things” (Php_3:8), yet were willing to suffer more: “Yea, if [be poured out (alluding to the drink offering which was an adjunct to the meat offering), on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you” (Php_3:17). See also concerning Onesiphorus, Epaphroditus, Philemon, Phebe.
There is yet a Church. There must yet be offerings; and we hear of sacrifices, but what is their measure, their character? Let each judge himself. But this stands, that just in measure as we are like our Master, just as we accept His words as the rule of our devotion, just so far shall we find our path a sacrifice.
III. THE PEACE OFFERING. This view of the offering shows us the offerer fed; for he, with the priest and God, partook of, i.e, found satisfaction in, the offering. The peace offering has a fulfilment, not only in Christ, but in His members.
1. Does God find satisfaction in our offerings? The answer is clear: “To do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb_13:16). So the offering sent by the Philippians to Paul was “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God” (Php_4:18). God puts value on, finds satisfaction in, the offerings of His Church. He “loveth a cheerful giver” (2Co_9:7); and as our greatest gift is “to give ourselves” (2Co_8:5), so the presentation of our bodies as living sacrifices is “acceptable unto the Lord” (Rom_12:1).
2. The priest also fed in the peace offering. Our Priest finds joy in our offerings, poor though they be; so that even in a cup of cold water and in bread to the hungry He is refreshed and fed. “I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave Me drink” (Mat_25:35). Did we but know His joy in seeing us yield ourselves an offering to Him; did we realise His gladness of soul in each work of faith and labour of love in ministering to His saints, we could not give with narrow, grudging, selfish hearts. “Ye did it unto Me!”
3. The peace offering fed the offerer. And surely we have been strangers to self-sacrifice if we need to be told the joy it imparts to him who sacrifices. Paul says, “Yea if I be sacrificed I joy and rejoice with you” (Php_2:17); “I rejoice in my sufferings for you,” etc. (Col_1:24); “I count not my life dear unto me, so that I might finish my course with joy” (Act_20:24).
The very costliness of our sacrifice increases our joy when we know that He, to whom we offer, rejoices with us.
IV. THE SIN AND TRESPASS OFFERINGS. And first as to the sin offering.
1. There is a sense in which the Christian may bear sin and suffer its judgment in his mortal flesh. For lack of knowing this, many are sparing that flesh which the cross of Christ was given to crucify. Is there, then, anything to be wrought in us by the Spirit answering to the dying for sin of the sin offering? Yes; Christ’s death in the flesh for sin is made our example: “Forasmuch, then, as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin” (1Pe_4:1). The Christian, as having been judged in the person of Christ, and knowing that for him Christ has borne the cross, follows on by that cross to judge and mortify all that he finds in himself still contrary to his Lord. The flesh in him is contrary; the flesh, therefore, must die (Gal_6:14; Gal_5:24; Rom_6:6).
2. In the trespass offering restitution was made for wrong. And the saint in fellowship with Christ will make restitution; in acts of generosity and kindness to men; and will “add the fifth,” going beyond bare justice, in dealing graciously and mercifully with others.
Such is “THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS.” It gives but one view of Christ; yet how much is involved in it both as to our standing and walk in Him. His offering witnesses of sacrifice even to the cross. [Comp. Jukes on the Offerings.]
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 7
Lev_7:1-10.—Theme: THE TRESPASS OFFERING. This law similar to that of sin offering, with additional directions respecting the blood of the sacrifice, which was to be sprinkled round about the altar. The shedding and sprinkling of so much blood in the worship of God was doubtless intended to impress the worshipper with the repulsiveness of sin; the enormity of guilt, the absolute necessity of pardon, in order to acceptance and peace. In this law we see—
I. God’s jealous regard for the strictest order in His service. The directions given in the ritual were emphatically Divine; He, to whom belong the silver and the gold, and the cattle upon a thousand hills, condescended to give minute directions about slaying a “bullock,” “ram,” and “pigeon,” to teach that no part of His service is beneath His notice, or may be performed carelessly. Everything we do for God is worthy of being done well, or it should not be done at all. Mankind should aim at perfectly doing God’s will, as it is done in heaven.
II. God’s generous concern for the temporal wants of His servants. All the parts of the sacrifice not burnt upon the altar were the perquisite of the priests. The offering not only provided for the spiritual needs of the people, but for the physical requirements of those who had surrendered themselves to the service of the tabernacle. The provision was suitable, liberal, and constant. As the priests with their sons partook of their ample provisions, gratitude to Jehovah and mutual good feeling would be cultivated. No one can serve God for nought. He cares for all His creatures, especially for those who trust Him; “no good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly.”
We are not under the law but under grace yet, we are not to conduct our religious services lawlessly. We do not obey because commanded, and from fear, but from constraint and love. One of the first questions a true believer will ask, is: “Lord what wilt Thou have me to do?” Duties to ourselves, our fellow-men, and God, run parallel with every privilege we enjoy and every blessing we receive. We are saved by faith in Christ. and not by works of the law; but “faith without works is dead.”—F. W. B.
Lev_7:1; Lev_7:11; Lev_7:37.—Theme: RIGIDITY OF THE LAW. “This is the law,” etc.
Reiteration employed to indelibly Impress the statutes upon the minds of priests and people; to show their pressing and transcendant importance. The worshipper would thus be impressed with—
I. THE MAJESTY OF JEHOVAH. He, God over 11, exercised in all royal supremacy. From His word there was no appeal.
II. THE PRIVILEGE, AS WELL AS DUTY, OF WORSHIPPING HIM.
They were not to draw near as slaves, but as servants and friends, and obtain the favour of the King of kings.
III. THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR WORSHIPPING HIM
It would need personal, as well as ceremonial purity to approach acceptably one so august and holy.
IV. THE BLESSEDNESS OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDS.
(a) By obedience they would bless the Lord.
(b) By obedience they would be blessed themselves.
Carelessness in preparation for service might not only lead to useless, but offensive worship. The heart needed to be in full accord with the purposes for which the offerings were instituted. Surely obedience to the commands of Christ are as binding as was obedience to the laws of Moses The ordiances of the Christian religion are the invariable accompaniments, as well as the external badges, of membership in the Christian Church.—F. W. B.
Lev_7:12.—Theme: THANKSGIVING. “If he offer it for a thanksgiving.”
Even brutes are capable of gratitude. Israel was often rebuked by the prophets for thanklessness, and reminded that the dumb creation put them to shame. Gratitude rises naturally in our hearts towards human benefactors; shall we not be thankful to Him, in whom we live and move and have our being? Concerning thanksgiving, we observe—
I. IT IS UNIVERSALLY OBLIGATORY, for—
(a) We are dependent creatures,
(b) Recipient,
(c) Unworthy,
(d) Responsible.
III. IT MAY BE OCCASIONALLY VOLUNTARY. When no particular command calls for it; when no special mercy suggests or prompts it. It may rise out of a full and gladsome heart. It may be adoration for what God is in Himself and has promised to bestow; as well as for gifts received. The Giver is above and better than His gifts. Let us bless Him, and forgot not all His benefits, especially “His unspeakable gift.”
III. IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED BECOMINGLY.
(a) Without delay, for life is short; duty demands; God deserves; opportunity favours; delay is a slight; we are liable to forget altogether what we postpone.
(b) With freshness: nothing deteriorated, or exhausted. Beauty, vigour, sweetness, fragrance, virtue, soundness, all should be laid at His feet, offered at His throne.
(c) With generosity: Let us not withhold; and having given, let us not withdraw; The Lord loves a cheerful, an ungrudging giver.
“Whoso offereth such praise gloritieth God.”—F. W. B.
Lev_7:20-21.—Theme: EXCOMMUNICATION “That soul shall be cut off from his people.”
Precaution against laxity in service carelessness in offering. Failure to comply minutely with directions, would incur Jehovah’s righteous displeasure.
I. THE OFFERING WOULD BE REJECTED.
II. THE OFFERER WOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED.
The strength of the strongest chain is the weakest link, if that breaks, all fails. So, if the offerer omitted one requirement, broke one link in the chain of law, he was guilty of violating the whole. We have analogies of similar exactness in nature. There perversions, excesses, shortcomings, violations, miscarriages, etc., entail forfeiture of blessing; indeed, they convert the blessing into a bane. Men are constantly cutting themselves off from good by placing themselves voluntarily under the ban of heaven. Rigid discipline is especially needed in the infancy of the affairs connected with State, Church, Society, Family. Law is intended to be a terror to evil doers, and an encouragement to those who do well. Under the Gospel Christ is able to save to the uttermost.—F. W. B.
Lev_7:23; Lev_7:26.—Theme: RESERVED THINGS.
“Ye shall eat no manner of fat.”
“Ye shall eat no manner of blood.”
I. To beget reverence for God’s altar.
II. To preserve a sense of the sacredness of life.
III. To show that the best and richest things can be claimed righteously by God.
IV. To cultivate delicacy of feeling; check gross and savage passions.
Thus the hearts and minds of men were cultured in the elementary education of the wilderness; preparatory to the higher culture; which after ages would demand and develop.—F. W. B.
Lev_7:36.—Theme: THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN
“Which the Lord commanded to be given unto the children of Israel.”
In heathen sacrifices, man is seeking after God; in the Hebrew sacrifices, God was seeking after man. The fixing of times, places offerings for sacrifice, showed that the Lord was anxious and ready to bless. The things which the law enjoined showed—
I. THE TRANSCENDENT IMPORTANCE OF TRUE RELIGION.
Nature, conscience, convenience, choice were not sufficient. True religion must be revealed. Offerings did not explain the origin of evil, but what was more important, how it might be removed. That which God has specially revealed, in addition to His revelation in nature, must be specially important for us to know and obey.
II. THE PARAMOUNT CLAIMS OF TRUE RELIGION. The Jewish religion, promulgated from Sinai, put in the forefront of all other claim Christ commands us to “seek tirst the kingdom of God and His righteousness.” Religion is “the one thing needful.”—F. W. B.
Lev_7:37-38.—Theme: SUMMARY OF THE OFFERINGS.
The laws given from the tabernacle are an expansion and enforcement of those given from Sinai. They symbolised essential spiritual truths for the Hebrew, and typified the same for the Christian Church, viz, the necessity of mental, moral, and spiritual purity in drawing near to God. Thus the foundation of true religion was laid for all ages. These laws were a protest against idolatry; a witness to the sovereignty of Jehovah; a badge of distinction for Israel; a training for further and higher service, and fuller revelation. Looking at the offerings as a whole they taught—
I. THAT MAN IS A SINNER, AND NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIMSELF AS SUCH IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.
A sinner by nature; by transgression of Divine law; deserving punishment—death; a sinner absolutely at the mercy of Him against whom the sin had been committed.
II. THAT MAN REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN IN ORDER TO APPROACH GOD ACCEPTABLY.
He must not come to God empty-handed, there must be the divinely appointed gift, the substitute, for whose sake, in some way, sin should be forgiven. Vicarious sacrifice in harmony with the law of nature.
III. THAT MAN REQUIRED PERSONAL FAITH IN THE ATONEMENT MADE ON HIS BEHALF, TO RENDER IT EFFICACIOUS FOR HIM.
Neither offering or act of any avail except representing faith and obedience of offerer. The fire that consumed the sacrifice represented the ascending consecration of the worshipper’s spirit.
IV. THAT MAN REQUIRED COMPLETE CONFORMITY TO GOD’S WILL, AND RESTORATION TO HIS FAVOUR.
The perpetual offering of sacrifices would necessitate constant remembrance of the Divine precepts; the frequent coming to God would keep alive a sense of His presence and sovereignty. Thus the chief end of man would be secured—“To glorify God, and enjoy Him for ever.”—F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 7
TRUE WORSHIP.
“Deos placatos pietas efficiet et sanctitas.”—CICERO.
[Piety and sanctity will propitiate the gods.]
“Res sacros non modo manibus attingi, se ne cogitatione quidem violari fas fuit.”—CICERO.
[Things sacred should not only not be touched with hands, they should not be violated even in thought].
“When once thy foot enters the Church, be bare:
God is more there than thou; for thou art there
Only by His permission. Then beware,
And make thyself all reverence and fear.”
—Geo. Herbert.
“In the temple every little ornament, even of the mighty structure that crowned the cliffs of Zion, was “holy” to the Lord. Not the great courts and inner shrines and pillared halls merely, but all. Not a carven pomegranate, not a bell, silver or gold, but was “holy.” The table and its lamps, with flowers of silver light, tent and staves, fluttering curtains and ascending incense, altar and sacrifice, breastplate and ephod, mitre and gem-clasped girdle, wreathen chain and jewelled hangings—over all was inscribed Holy, while within, in the innermost shrine, where God manifested Himself above the mercy seat, was THE HOLIEST. Thus the utter holiness of that God with whom they had to do was by every detail impressed upon the heart and conscience of ancient Israel.”—Grosart.
OFFERINGS TO GOD
“Just as a thing looks green which is looked at through green glass, or red through a red glass, so is everything most pleasing and acceptable to God the Father which is offered through His Only Begotten Son.”—F. W. Faber.
SACRED PEACE
“Peace is greater than all other treasures, but no philosophy can bestow it: for how can it cleanse from sin? Nor can any works: for how are they able to justify? Descend into whatever mine, shake whatever tree, knock at whatever door in the world thou wilt, the poor world cannot offer it thee. Peace is but one; One only has peace; One only can give it: know ye Him who says: “These things have I spoken unto you that in Me ye might have peace”? His name is “the Prince of Peace.”—Krummacher.
“As on the Sea of Galilee,
The Christ is whispering ‘Peace.’ ”—Whittier.
“Happy the heart that keeps its twilight hour,
And, in the depths of heavenly peace reclined,
Loves to commune with thoughts of tender power,
Thoughts that ascend, like angels beautiful,
A shining Jacob’s ladder of the mind!”
—Paul H Hayne.
“Years ago a Christian friend had experienced a heavy and most unexpected loss, a loss which to most men in his circumstances would have been crushing. The moment the announcement of what had happened was made to him his mind turned to the believer’s all-sufficient and never failing portion in God, and the certainty of the unsearchable riches of Christ; and the calm of his spirit continued. The next day was the Sabbath: and he was seen in his place in the sanctuary, joining in worship with the people of God as if nothing of misfortune had overtaken him. It was a regret to him that his means of doing good were diminished, but his own peace of heart remained unbroken.”—Dr. Jas. Fleming.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Directions to the Priests (continued)
Directions to the Priests (continued)
1-10. The Guilt Offering. Lev_7:8-10 refer to private offerings and the priest's share in them.
Read full note →
11-21. The Peace Offering. Three kinds of peace offerings are distinguished here, viz. the thank offering (Lev_7:12), and the votive and free will offerings (Lev_7:16). The former, as its name implies, would be presented after a benefit had been received; the latter, while the benefit was still expected, as an accompaniment of supplication.
12. The animal sacrifice is accompanied with a meal offering of four kinds of cakes, one of which is leavened. Of each of these one cake is heaved before the Lord (see on Exo_29:24) and appropriated by the priests, the others are eaten by the offerer along with his share of the peace offering: see intro. to Leviticus 3.
21. Shall be cut off] excommunicated: see on Exo_12:15.
22-27. Prohibition to eat fat or blood. The fat is the internal fat: see on Lev_3:3.
28-34. The Priest's share of the peace offerings. This consists of the choice portions, the breast and right thigh which are first heaved or waved before the Lord: see Exo_29:24.
35. Portion of the anointing] RM 'Portion.' Lev_7:35-38 form a conclusion to the first part of the book of Levitious, that dealing with Sacrifices.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 7 Heb. "kaphar," to cover. (See Scofield "Dan 9:24") See…
reconcile
Heb. "kaphar," to cover. (See Scofield "Dan 9:24") See Scofield "Exo 29:33"
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 Of Trespass-offerings. —
Of Trespass-offerings. —
v. 1. Likewise this is the law of the trespass-offering: It is most holy. The difference between the sin-offering and the trespass-offering may in general be said to consist in this, that the latter was required in the case of more serious offenses,
Read full note →
v. 2. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass-offering, that is, north of the altar in the court; and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar, upon its four walls.
v. 3. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, the large net of adipose membrane,
v. 4. and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, attached to the muscles in the upper part of the pelvic region, and the caul, the smaller net of adipose tissue, that is above the liver, with the kidneys, upon the kidneys, it shall he take away;
v. 5. and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; it is a trespass-offering.
v. 6. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof, as in the case of the sin-offering, Lev 6:26; it shall be eaten in the Holy Place; it is most holy.
v. 7. As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass-offering; there is one law for them, for every act that brings guilt upon a person, whether it is a sin of ignorance or a more serious transgression, is in need of atonement; the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it; not the priests on duty in a body, but the individual officiating priest received the flesh of the sacrificial animal.
v. 8. And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest, shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. The Hebrew text brings out with great emphasis the fact that the skin of the slain animal was to belong to the officiating priest. It was a part of the payment for his services.
v. 9. And all the meat-offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan, cooked in the kettle, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it, with the exception, of course, of the handful which was burned as a memorial to the Lord.
v. 10. And every meat-offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another. Thus was the distinction observed between the dry, or uncooked, meat-offering and that prepared on or in the oven. Incidentally, the people were always reminded of the fact that the laborer was worthy of his reward.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 5, 7 General Information:
General Information:
Yahweh continues telling Moses what he must tell Aaron and his sons.
Read full note →
in the place for killing it
It can be made explicit that this refers to place where the animals for the burnt offerings are killed. See Leviticus 1:10-11. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
All the fat in it will be offered
This can be translated in active form. AT: "The priest must offer all the fat in it" (See: Active or Passive)
inner parts
This is the stomach and intestines.
liver ... kidneys
See how you translated these words in Leviticus 3:4.
next to the loins
This is the part of the body on the sides of the backbone between the ribs and hipbone. See how you translated this in Leviticus 3:4.
all this must be removed
This can be stated in active form. AT: "the priest must remove all this" (See: Active or Passive)
translationWords
law, laws
guilt offering
holy
blood
altar
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v3 7:3-4 The guilt offering required the sacrifice of a…
7:3-4 The guilt offering required the sacrifice of a ram (5:18). • fat . . . tail . . . organs: The parts of the guilt offering to be burned were the same as those for the peace offering (3:3-4, 9-10, 14-15) and the sin offering (4:8-9, 26, 31, 35).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.