I LI BRARY OF PRlNCgO N 
 
 L 
 
 
 THFOLOG1CAL SEMINARY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/leviticusorthird22gard 
 
LEVITICUS: 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES. 
 
 /BY 
 
 FREDERIC GARDINER, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THE LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESATMENT 
 IN THE BERKELEY DIVINITY SCHOOL, MIDDLETOWN, CONN. 
 
 IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED 
 
 A TRANSLATION OF THE GREATER PART OF THE GERMAN 
 COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS, 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN PETER LANGE, D. D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO. 
 
LEVITICUS. 
 
 THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES. 
 
 ( N"lp*l ; Aeutnxov ; Leviticus. ) 
 
 " The Book of the Sacerdotal Theocracy, or of the Priesthood of Israel, to set forth its typical Holiness." 
 "The religious observances by which God's people might be made holy, and kept holy." — Lange. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ? 1. NAME, CONNECTION, OBJECT, AND AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The writings of Moses have reached us in a five-fold division, the several parts of which 
 have come to he commonly known by the names given to them in the Septuagint and Vul- 
 gate. In the Hebrew the whole Pentateuch is divided, as one book, into sections [Parashi- 
 yoth) for reading in the synagogues on each Sabbath of the year, and the several books are 
 called by the first word of the first section contained in them. Thus the present book is 
 N^p'2 = and he called ; it is also called by the Rabbins in the Talmud D"jrpn fnto = Law 
 of the Priests, and nij3lj^ rnin 130 = Book of the Law of offerings. In the Septuagint and 
 Vulgate this central book of the Pentateuch is called Aevtrutbv (,3ifatov) and Leviticus {liber) 
 because it has to do with the duties of the priests, the sons of Levi. The Levites, as distin- 
 guished from the priests, are mentioned but once, and that incidentally, in the whole book 
 (xxv. 32, 33). 
 
 As appears from the Hebrew name, the connection of this book with the one immedi- 
 ately preceding is very close. The tabernacle had now been set up, and its sacred furniture 
 arranged ; the book of Exodus closes with the mention of the cloud that covered it, and the 
 Glory of the Lord with which it was filled. Hitherto the Lord had spoken from the cloud 
 on Sinai ; now His presence was manifested in the tabernacle from which henceforth He 
 made known His will. It is just at this point that Leviticus is divided from Exodus. The 
 same Lord still speaks to the same people through the same mediator ; but He had before 
 spoken from the heights of Sinai, while now He speaks from the sacred tabernacle pitched 
 among His people. At the close Leviticus is also closely connected with, and yet distinctly 
 separated from, the book of Numbers. It embraces substantially the remaining legislation 
 given in the neighborhood of Sinai, while Numbers opens with the military census and other 
 matters preparatory to the march of the Israelites in the second year of the Exodus. Yet on 
 the eve of that march a number of additional commands are given in Numbers intimately 
 associating the two books together. 
 
 The w T hole period between the setting up of the tabernacle (Ex. xl. 17) and the final 
 departure from Mt. Sinai (Num. x. 11) was but one month and twenty days. Much of this 
 was occupied by the events recorded in the earlier chapters of Numbers, especially the offer- 
 ings of the princes on twelve days (Num. vii.) which must have almost immediately followed 
 the consecration of the priests and the tabernacle (Num. vii. 1 with Lev. viii. 10, 11), and the 
 celebration of the second Passover (ix. 1-5) occupying seven days, and begun on the four- 
 teenth day of the first month. All the events of Leviticus must therefore be included within 
 less than the space of one month. 
 
 1 
 
INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS. 
 
 The object of the Book is apparent from its contents and the circumstances under which 
 it was given, especially when considered in connection with the references to it in the New 
 Testament. Jehovah, having now established the manifestation of His presence among His 
 people, directs them how to approach Him. Primarily, this has reference, of course, to the 
 then existing people, under their then existing circumstances ; but as ages rolled away, and 
 the people were educated to higher spiritual capacity, the spiritual meaning of these direc- 
 tions was more and more set forth by the prophets ; until at last, when the true Sacrifice for 
 sin had come, the typical and preparatory character of these arrangements was fully declared. 
 Lange (Horn, in Lev. General) says " Leviticus appears to be the most peculiarly Old Tes- 
 tament in its character of all the Old Testament books, since Christ has entirely removed all 
 outward sacrifices. It may certainly be rightly said that the law of sacrifice, or the ceremo- 
 nial law has been abrogated by Christianity. But if the law in general, in its outward his- 
 torical and literal form has been abrogated, on the other hand, in its spiritual sense, it has 
 been fulfilled (Gal. ii. ; Eom. iii. ; Matt, v.) ; and so it must also be said in regard to the law 
 of sacrifices. The sacrificial law in its idea has only been fully realized in Christianity ;— in 
 its principle fulfilled, realized, in Christ, to be realized from this as a basis, continually in the 
 life of Christians." In the Epistle to the Hebrews the character of the sacrificial system in 
 general, and particularly of that part of it contained in Leviticus, is clearly set forth as at 
 once imperfect and transitory in itself, and yet typical of, and preparatory for, " the good 
 things to come." A flood of light is indeed thrown back from the anti-type upon the type, 
 and for this reason the Old Testament is always to be studied in connection with the New ; 
 yet on the other hand, the converse is also true, and Leviticus has still a most important 
 purpose for the Christian Church in that it sets forth, albeit in type and shadow, the will of 
 an unchangeable God in regard to all who would draw nigh to Him. Much of the New 
 Testament, and especially of the Epistle to the Hebrews, can only be fully understood 
 through a knowledge of Leviticus. To this general object of the book may be added the 
 special purposes, already necessarily involved, of preserving the Israelites alike from idolatry 
 by the multiform peculiarity of their ritual, and of saving them from indolence in their wor- 
 ship by the exacting character of the ceremonial. The Christian Fathers, as Eusebius, S3. 
 Augustine, Leo, Cyril, as well as Origen and many others, speak of the book as setting 
 forth in types and shadows the sacrifice of Christ ; while many of them also, as Tertullian. 
 SS. Clement, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others, speak of the inferior purpose just men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Of the authorship of this book there is little need to speak, because there is really no 
 room for doubt. This is not the place to combat the opinions of those critics who, like Ka- 
 lisch, hold the whole Pentateuch to have been a very late compilation from fragments of 
 various dates, and the Mosaic system to have been one of gradual human development. The 
 portions assigned by Knobel to another author than the "Elohist" are x. 16-20; xvii.-xx.; 
 xxiii., part of ver. 2 and ver. 3, vers. 18, 19, 22, 29-44; xxiv. 10-23; xxv. 18-22 ; and xxvl ; 
 but the reasons given " are too transparently unsatisfactory to need serious discussion." 
 Generally, it may be said that even those critics who question most earnestly the Mosaic 
 authorship of some other portions of the Pentateuch are agreed that Leviticus must have 
 proceeded substantially from Moses. There is really no scope in this book for the Jehovistic 
 and Elohistic controversy ; for although Knobel delights to point out the distinct portions 
 by each writer, yet the name D'H^ never occurs in Lev. absolutely, but only with a pos- 
 sessive pronoun marking the Deity as peculiarly Israel's God. (It is however once used, 
 xix. 4, for false gods). The book contains every possible mark of contemporaneous author- 
 ship, and there are constant indications of its having been written during the life in the 
 wilderness. The words used for the sanctuary are either \3m (4 times) or 1#B ^rix (35 
 times) and never any term implying a more permanent structure. For the dwellings of the 
 people, n'3 in the sense of a house, is never used except in reference to the future habitation 
 of the promised land, which is the more striking because it occurs thirty-seven times in this 
 sense, and in all of them with express reference to the future, except xxvii. 14, 15, where this 
 reference is implied; "MM. |tyn, and J1U do not occur at all ; 7r)« tent, occurs once, while the 
 
\ 2. UNITY AND CONTENTS OF LEVITICUS. 
 
 indefinite word 3tfl0 is found eight times ; H3D, which is neither house nor tent, but booth, 
 occurs four times in the commands connected with the observance of the feast of tabernacles, 
 and with especial reference to Israel's having dwelt in booths at their first coming out from 
 Egypt (xxiii. 43). The use of all these terms is thus exactly suited to the wilderness period, 
 but not to any other. The use of wn for the feminine, so frequently changed in the Sama- 
 ritan to N'H, an d so pointed by the Masorets; the use of rnj,' for the people, so common in 
 Ex., Lev., Num., and Josh., and so infrequent elsewhere ; the usual designation of them as 
 the children of Israel, a phrase so largely exchanged for the simple Israel in later writers ; 
 and many other marks point to the earliest period of Hebrew literature as the time of the 
 composition of this book. The book itself repeatedly claims to record the laws which were 
 given to Moses in Mount Sinai, or in the wilderness of Sinai (vii. 38 ; xxv. 1 ; xxvi. 46 ; xxvii. 
 34), and in one instance (xvi. 1), the time is sharply defined as after the death of Aaron's 
 two sons, and sometimes (xxi. 24; xxiii. 44) the immediate publication of the laws is men- 
 tioned. There are frequent references to the time " When ye be come into the land of Ca- 
 naan " as yet in the future (xiv. 34 ; xix. 23 ; xxiii. 10) ; and laws are given for use in the 
 wilderness, as e. g., the slaughter of all animals intended for food at the door of the tabernacle 
 as sacrifices (xvii. 1-6), which would have been impossible to observe when the life in the 
 camp was exchanged for that in the scattered cities of Canaan, and which was actually abro- 
 gated on the eve of the entrance into the promised land (Deut. xii. 15, 20-22). In this abro- 
 gation no mention is made of the previous law, but its existence is implied, and the change 
 is based on the distance of their future homes. There is frequent reference in the laws to the 
 "camp" (iv. 12, 21 ; vi. 11 ; xiii. 46 ; xiv. 3, 8 ; xvi. 26, 27, 28), so that in after times it 
 became necessary to adopt as a rule of interpretation that this should always be understood 
 in the law of the city in which the sanctuary stood. Throughout the book Aaron appears as 
 the only high-priest (although this term is never used) and provision is repeatedly made for 
 his son, who should be anointed, and should minister in his stead ; and Aaron's sons appear 
 as the only priests. The Levites have not yet been appointed, nor are they ever mentioned 
 except in one passage in reference to their cities in the future promised land (xxv. 32, 33). 
 Not to dwell further upon particulars, it may be said in a word that we have here, and hero 
 only, the full sacrificial and priestly system which is recognized as existing in the two fol- 
 lowing books of the Pentateuch, and all subsequent Hebrew literature. For an excellent 
 summary of the evidence, see Warrington's "When was the Pentateuch written ?" (London: 
 Christian Evidence Com. of Soc. P. C. A'.). 
 
 The only passage presenting any real difficulty in regard to the date of the book is xviii. 
 28, " That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that 
 were before you." For the true sense of these words, see the commentary ; but even taking 
 it as it stands in the A. V., and supposing the whole exhortation, vers. 24-30, to have been 
 added by divine direction when Moses made his final revision of the work on the plains of 
 Moab, we can easily understand the language. Already, the conquest of the trans- Jordanic 
 region was accomplished, and that of the rest of the land was to be immediately entered upon 
 with the clearest promise of success. God warns the people through Moses, when all shall 
 be done, not to follow in the ways of the Canaanites, lest they also themselves suffer as their 
 predecessors had suffered. It is simply a case of the Lord's speaking from the stand-point 
 of an accomplished work, while the work was in progress, and assuredly soon to be com- 
 pleted. It is to be noted that in the book itself the claim to Mosaic authorship is distinctly 
 made in the last verse of chap, xxvi., and again of the appendix, chap, xxvii. (comp. Num. 
 xxxvi. 13). 
 
 2 2. UNITY AND CONTENTS OF LEVITICUS. 
 
 The Book of Leviticus is marked on the surface with these elements of unity : it is all 
 centred in the newly-erected tabernacle ; and only a few weeks passed away between its be- 
 ginning and its close. There is necessarily much variety in so considerable a collection of 
 laws, and something of historical narrative in connection with the immediate application of 
 those laws ; but the main purpose is everywhere apparent and controlling — the arrangements 
 
INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS. 
 
 whereby a sinful people may approach, and remain in permanent communion with a holy 
 God. This will better appear in the following table of contents. The arrangement of the 
 book is as systematic as the nature of its contents allowed. In regard to one or two alleged 
 instances of repetition (xi. 39, 40 compared with xxii. 8, and xix. 9 with xxiii. 22) it is suffi- 
 cient to say that they were intentional (see the commentary) ; and in regard to several 
 chapters supposed to be placed out of their natural connection, (as e. g., chaps, xii. and xv.,) 
 it simply does not appear that the thread of connection in the mind of Moses was the same 
 as in that of the critic. In fact, in the instances alleged, the great Legislator seems to have 
 taken especial pains to break that connection which is now spoken of as the natural one, and 
 has thus, for important reasons, separated the purification after child-birth from all other 
 purifications which might otherwise have seemed to be of the same character. Such points 
 will be noticed in detail in the commentary. Nevertheless, it is to be remembered that Le- 
 viticus was given at Sinai in view of an immediate and direct march to Canaan, which should 
 have culminated in the possession of the promised land. When this had been prevented in 
 consequence of the sin of the people, a long time — above thirty-eight years — passed away 
 before the encampment on the plains of Moab. During this period the law was largely in 
 abeyance, as is shown by the fact that its most imperative requirement, circumcision, was 
 entirely omitted to the close (Josh. v. 5-8). After this long interval, it is not unreasonable 
 to suppose that the writings of Moses would have been revised before his death, and such 
 clauses and exhortations added as the changed circumstances might require. These passages, 
 however, if really written at that time, so far from being in any degree incongruous with the 
 original work, do but fill out and emphasize its teachings. 
 
 The contents of Leviticus are arranged in the following table in such a way as to show 
 something of the connection of its parts. 
 
 BOOK I.— Of approach to God. (Chaps. I.— XVI.). 
 
 First Part. (i. — vii.) Laws of Sacrifice. 
 
 1 1. General rules for the Sacrifices, (i. — vi. 7). 
 
 A. Burnt offerings, i. 
 
 B. Oblations (Meat offerings), ii. 
 
 C. Peace offerings, iii. 
 
 D. Sin offerings, iv. — v. 13. 
 
 E Trespass offerings, v. 14 — vi. 7. 
 
 \ 2. Special instructions chiefly for the Priests, vi. 8 — vii. 38. 
 
 A. For Burnt offerings, vi. 8-13. 
 
 B. " Oblations (Meat offerings), vi. 14-23. 
 
 C. " Sin offerings, vi. 24-30. 
 
 D. " Trespass offerings, vii. 1-6. 
 
 E " the Priests' portion of the above, vii. 7-10. 
 
 F. " Peace offerings in their variety, vii. 11-21. 
 
 G. " the Fat and the Blood, vii. 22-27. 
 
 H. " the priests' portion of peace offerings, vii. 28-36. 
 Conclusion of this Section, vii. 37, 38. 
 
 Second Part. Historical, (viii. — x.). 
 \ 1. The Consecration of the Priests, viii. 
 ? 2. Entrance of Aaron and his sons on their office, ix. 
 
 2 3. The sin and punishment of Nadab and Abihu. x. 
 
\ 3. THE RELATION OF THE LEVITICAL CODE TO HEATHEN USAGES. fi 
 
 Thikd Part. The Laws of Purity, (xi. — xv.). 
 \ 1. Laws of clean and unclean food. xi. 
 § 2. Laws of purification after child-birth, xii. 
 I 3. Laws concerning Leprosy, (xiii., xiv.). 
 
 A. Examination and its result, xiii. 1-46. 
 
 B. Leprosy in clothing and leather, xiii. 47-59. 
 
 C. Cleansing and restoration of a Leper, xiv. 1-32. 
 
 D. Leprosy in a house, xiv. 33-53. 
 B. Conclusion, xiv. 54-57. 
 
 ? 4. Sexual impurities and cleansings. xv. 
 
 Fourth Part. The Day of Atonement, xvi. 
 
 BOOK II. — Of continuance in communion with God. (Chaps. XVII. — XXVI.). 
 
 First Part. Holiness on the part of the people, (xvii. — xx.). 
 I 1 . Holiness in regard to Food. xvii. 
 I 2. Holiness of the Marriage relation, xviii. 
 
 1 3. Holiness of Conduct towards God and man. xix. 
 * 4. Punishment for Unholiness. xx. 
 
 Second Part. Holiness on the part of the Priests, and holiness of the 
 Offerings, xxi., xxii. 
 
 Third Part. Sanctification of Feasts, (xxiii. — xxv.). 
 
 2 1. Of the Sabbaths and Annual Feasts, xxiii. 
 
 I 2. Of the Holy lamps and Shew-bread. xxiv. 1-9. 
 
 § 3. Historical. The punishment of a Blasphemer, xxiv. 10-23. 
 
 § 4. Of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, xxv. 
 
 Fourth Part. Conclusion. Promises and Threats, xxvi. 
 Appendix. Of vows, xxxvii. 
 
 I 3. THE RELATION OF THE LEVITICAL CODE TO HEATHEN USAGES. 
 
 Widely divergent views have been held by different writers upon this subject. Spencer 
 (De legibus Hebrceorum) was disposed to find an Egyptian origin for almost every Mosaic in- 
 stitution. Baehr (Symbolik des Mosauchen Cultus) has sought to disprove all connection 
 between them. The a priori probability seems well expressed by Marsham (in Can. chron. 
 (Egypt-, P- 154, ed. Leips.) as quoted by Rosenmueller [Pre/, in Lev., p. 5, note). "We 
 know from Scripture that the Hebrews were for a long time inhabitants of Egypt ; and we 
 may suspect, not without reason, that they did not wholly cast off Egyptian usages, but 
 rather that some traces of Egyptian habit remained. Many laws of Moses are from ancient 
 customs. Whatever hindered the cultus of the true Deity, he strictly forbade. Moses abro- 
 gated most of the Egyptian rites, some he changed, some he held as indifferent, some he per- 
 mitted, and even commanded." Yet this legislation by its many additions and omissions, 
 and the general remoulding of all that remained became, as Eosenmueller also remarks, 
 peculiarly and distinctively Hebrew, adapted to their needs, and sharply separating them 
 from all other people. 
 
INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS. 
 
 It can scarcely be necessary to speak of what the Mosaic law taught in common with 
 the customs of all people at this period of the world's history. The aim of the law was to 
 elevate the Israelites to a higher and better standard, but gently, and as they were able to 
 bear it. Certain essential laws were given, and these were insisted upon absolutely and with 
 every varied form of command which could add to the emphasis. The unity of God, and 
 His omnipotence, were taught with a distinctness which was fast fading out from the world's 
 recollection, and which we scarcely find elsewhere at this period, except in the book of Job, 
 which may itself have been modified in Mosaic hands. So, too, the necessity of outward sacra- 
 mental observances for the whole people, whereby communion with God through His Church 
 should be maintained, were strongly insisted upon, as in circumcision and the Passover, and 
 other sacrifices. But when we come to consider the conduct of the ordinary life, we find the 
 universally received customs of the times not abrogated, but only restrained and checked 
 according to the capacity of the people. All these checks and restraints were in the direction 
 of and looking towards, the higher standard of the morality of the Gospel, as may be seen in 
 the law of revenge, where unlimited vengeance was restricted to a return simply equal to the 
 injury received; in the laws of marriage, which imposed many restrictions on the freedom 
 of divorce and of polygamy ; in the laws of slavery, which so greatly mitigated the hardships 
 of that condition. But in these, as in many other matters, their Heavenly Father dealt 
 tenderly with His people, and "for the hardness of their hearts" suffered many things which 
 were yet contrary to His will. 
 
 The same general principles apply to the retention among them of very much of Egyp- 
 tian custom and law. It is more important to speak of these because the Israelites lived so 
 long and in such close contact with the Egyptians from the very time of their beginning to 
 multiply into a nation until the eve of the promulgation of the Sinaitic legislation. Par- 
 ticular points in which this legislation was adapted to the already acquired habits and ideas 
 of the people, will be noticed in the commentary as occasion requires. It is only necessary 
 here to point out on the one hand how apparent lacuna in the Mosaic teaching may thus be 
 explained, and on the other, how largely the Egyptian cultus itself had already been modified, 
 in all probability, by the influence of the fathers of the Jewish people. By consideration of 
 the former it is seen, e. g,, why so little should have been said in the Mosaic writings of 
 immortality and the future life. This doctrine was deeply engraven in the Egyptian mind, 
 and interwoven as a fundamental principle with their whole theology and worship. It passed 
 on to the Israelites as one of those elementary truths so universally received that it needed 
 not to be dwelt upon. The latter is necessarily involved in more obscurity ; but when we 
 consider the terms on which Abraham was received by the monarch of Egypt ; the position 
 occupied at a later date by Jacob ; the rank of Joseph, and his intermarriage with the high- 
 priestly family ; and remember at the same time that the priesthood of Egypt was still in 
 possession of a higher and purer secret theology than was communicated to the people— we 
 see how Israel could have accepted from the land of the Pharaohs an extent of customs, (to 
 be purified, modified, and toned by their own Sinaitic legislation) which it might have been 
 dangerous to receive from any other people. Yet plainly, whatever of detail may have been 
 adopted from Egyptian sources, it was so connected and correlated in the Mosaic legislation 
 that the whole spirit of the two systems became totally unlike. 
 
 § 4. LITERATURE. 
 
 The ancient versions are of great value in the interpretation of the technical language 
 of the law. The Samaritan text and version (which however sometimes betray a want of 
 familiarity in detail with the ritual as practised at Jerusalem) often give valuable readings; 
 bo also the Septuagint, the Chaldee Targums, and of later date, the Syriac and the Vulgate. 
 
 The New Testament, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, supplies to a large extent an 
 inspired commentary upon Leviticus. The various treatises of Philo, and the antiquities of 
 Josephus, give also fully the ancient explanations of many single passages and views of 
 larger sections. 
 
 Since their time the literature of Leviticus is voluminous, consisting of commentaries, 
 
\ 4. LITERATURE. 
 
 of special treatises upon the subjects with which it is occupied, and of archaeological investi- 
 gations illustrating it. Of special treatises sufficient mention will be made in connection 
 with the subjects to which they relate, and it is unnecessary here to particularize works of 
 archaeology. Of commentaries the following are those which have been chiefly used in the 
 preparation of the present work : Origen : Selecta in Lev. and Horn, in Lev. Theodoret, 
 Qucest. in Lev. Augustine, Quoest. in Lev. Biblia Max. versionum, containing the annota- 
 tions of Nicolas de Lyra, Tirinus, Menochius, and Estius, Paris, 1660. Calvin, 
 in Pentateuchum. Critici Sacri, London, 1660. Poli, Sytwpsi*, London, 16S9. Michaelis, 
 Bibl. Hebr., Halle, 1720. Calmet, Wircesburgii, 1789. Patrick, London, 1842, and freq. 
 Kosenmueller, Leipsic, 1824. Of more recent date, Knobel (of especial value), Leipsic, 
 1858. Boothroyd, Bibl. Hebr., Pontefract (no date). Barrett's Synopsis of Criticisms. 
 London, 1847. Kalisch, Leviticus, London, 1872. Otto von Gf.rlach on the Pentateuch, 
 translated by Downing, London, 1860. Wordsworth, London, 1865. Keil and De- 
 LITZSCH on the Pentateuch; (Keil), translated by Martin, Edinburgh, 1S66. Murphy 
 on Leviticus, Am. Ed., Andover, 1872. Clark, in the Speaker's Commentary, New York, 
 1872. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, London, 187L To which must be 
 added, as containing much of commentary on large portions of this book, Baehr, Symbolik 
 des Mosaischen Cultus, Heidelberg, 1837-39, Ite Auflage, Erster Band, Heidelberg, 1874. 
 Outram on Sacrifices, translated by Allen, London, 1817. Hengstenberg, Die Opfer 
 des he'd. Schrift, Berlin, 1839. Kurtz on Sacrifice, Mitau, 1864. Hermann Schultz, 
 Alttestamentliche Theologie, Frankfurt a M., 1869, 2 vols. OZhler, Theologie des Alien Testa- 
 ments, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1873-74 (a translation is in the press of T. &T. Clark). Of Lange's 
 own commentary (1874) as much as possible, and it is believed everything of importance, has 
 been introduced into this work, which was already well advanced before its publication. Such 
 portions are always distinctly marked. In several of the chapters his commentary is given 
 in full; in others, nearly so. 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 
 
 Leviticus properly opens with the law of sacrifice, because this was the centre and basis 
 of the Divine service in the newly-erected tabernacle. But since sacrifices have to do with 
 the relations of man to God, they can only satisfactorily be considered in connection with 
 the established facts of those relations. Of these facts three are fundamental : the original 
 condition of man in a state of holiness and of communion with God ; the fall, by which he 
 became sinful, and thus alienated from God ; and the promise, given at the very moment of 
 man's passing from the one state to the other. The promise was that in the future the wo- 
 man's Seed should bruise the serpent's head — that in the long struggle between man and the 
 power of evil, one born of woman should obtain the final victory. This promise was ever 
 cherished by the devout in all the following ages as the anchor of their hope, and its realiza- 
 tion, as seen at the birth of Cain and of Noah, was continually looked for. The expectation 
 of a Deliverer, Redeemer, Messiah, became the common heritage of humanity, although as 
 time rolled away, it tended to become faint and obscure. Therefore there came the call in 
 Abraham of a peculiar people, in whom this hope should not only be kept alive, but, as far 
 as possible, saved from distortion and misconception. It was distinctly the blessing of Abra- 
 ham's call, the birthright renewed to his son and grandson, and the reason for the choice and 
 the care of a peculiar people. 
 
 From the circumstances under which this promise was given, and the way in which it is 
 constantly treated in Revelation, it is plain that the restoration of man to full communion 
 with God could only be brought about by the restoration of man's holiness; it was only in 
 obedience to the Divine will that man could obtain at-one-ment with his Maker. This might 
 seem to be sufficiently plain as a truth of natural religion, but it was also abundantly taught 
 in history arid in Scripture. Not only was it shown by the great judgments upon transgres- 
 sion in the deluge, in Babel, in the overthrow of Sodom, etc., but constantly the relative and 
 partial attainment of holiness, as in the case of Enoch, Noah, and others, was made the 
 ground of a relatively larger bestowal of the Divine favor. Abraham's acceptance was ex- 
 pressly grounded upon his faith — necessarily including those works without which faith is 
 dead— and so with the other heroes recounted in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. Later, 
 Moses in his parting exhortations in Deuteronomy, constantly and strongly urges the neces- 
 sity of a loving obedience springing from the heart, and this is more and more fully unfolded 
 by the prophets from Samuel down, as the people were able to bear it. 
 
 Meantime from the first, in the case of Cain and Abel, and probably still earlier, and 
 then among all nations as they arose, sacrifices were resorted to as a means of approach to 
 God. From their universality, it is plain that they were looked upon as in some way helping 
 to briDg about that restoration of communion with God which should have been reached by 
 a perfect holiness ; but since man was conscious he did not possess this holiness, sacrifices 
 were resorted to. As they never could have been offered by a sinless being, they necessarily 
 involve confession of sin. Whether sacrifice in its origin was a Divine institution, or whether 
 it sprang from a human consciousness of its propriety, is here immaterial. Lange takes the 
 latter view. It speedily received the Divine sanction and command. Theoretically the sa- 
 crifice could have had no intrinsic value for the forgiveness of sin. The author of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews (ix. 13; x. 4) has abundantly shown that while sacrifices might have in 
 themselves a certain absolute value for purposes of ceremonial purification, there was yet no 
 
 16 
 
10 LEVITICUS. 
 
 congruity or correlation between the blood of bulls and goats and the removal of human sin. 
 Hence, theoretically also, sacrifices, while they received the Divine approbation, must have 
 been a temporary institution, in some way useful to man for the time being, but looking for- 
 ward to the true atonement by the victory of the woman's Seed over evil. Thus sacrifices 
 are in their very nature typical ; having little force in themselves, and yet appointed for the 
 accomplishment of a result which can only be truly attained in the fulfilment of the primeval 
 promise. How far this true nature of sacrifices may have been more or less dimly perceived 
 by man from the outset, it is not necessary here to inquire. It is obvious that from this point 
 of view the intrinsic value of the sacrifices was entirely a secondary matter ; their whole 
 efficacy resulted from the Divine appointment or approbation of them. 
 
 The tendency of man apart from Eevelation to corruption in his ideas of God and of the 
 means of approaching Him is nowhere more marked than in regard to sacrifice. The gods 
 of the heathen were, for the most part, deifications of nature or her powers ; they represented 
 natural forces, and instead of originating are themselves governed by natural laws. This is 
 true, whether their creed were polytheistic, as that of the Greeks and Komans, or pantheistic, 
 as that of Buddhism. In Hebrew law, on the other hand, God appears " as the Creator and 
 omnipotent Ruler of the universe, a personal Lord of an impersonal world, totally distinct 
 from it in essence, and absolutely swaying it according to His will; but also the merciful 
 Father of mankind." "Therefore the sacrifices of the Hebrews have a moral or ethical, 
 those of other nations a purely cosmical or physical character ; the former tend to work upon 
 mind and soul, the latter upon fears and interests; the one strives to elevate the offerer to 
 the sanctity of God, the other to lower the gods to the narrowness and selfishness of man." 
 Kalisch. Moreover, among the heathen, God was regarded as alienated, and to be propi- 
 tiated in such ways as man could devise ; sacrifices were considered as having a certain satis- 
 fying power in themselves, as in some sort a quid pro quo, and as an opus operatum, inde- 
 pendent of the moral life of the offerer. Hence as the occasion rose in importance, the value 
 of the sacrifice was increased even to the extent of sometimes using human victims. Among 
 the Israelites, sacrifices were known to be of God's own appointment as a means of approach 
 to Him. They had a shadow, indeed, of the heathen character, as offering actual compensa- 
 tions for certain offences against the theocratic state, but this was very secondary. Their 
 main object was to bridge over the gulf between sinful man and a holy God. Although the 
 law of sacrifices necessarily stands by itself, yet the same Legislator everywhere insists upon 
 the necessity of a loving obedience to God. Hence, however costly sacrifices might be allowed, 
 and even encouraged as Free-will, and Peace, and Thank-offerings, and more numerous vic- 
 tims were required at the festivals and on other occasions for burnt-offerings, the Sin-offering 
 must (except in certain specially defined cases) be of the commonest and cheapest of the 
 domestic animals, and even this always, as nearly as might be, of a uniform value. There 
 was no gradation in the value of the offering in proportion to the heinousness of the offence ; 
 the atonement for all sins, whatever the degree of their gravity, was the same. Even the 
 morning and evening sacrifice for the whole people which, although not strictly a sin-offering, 
 yet had a somewhat propitiatory character, was still the single lamb. By this the typical 
 nature of sacrifice as a temporary and, in itself, ineffectual means, was strongly expressed. 
 
 That the ancients had the idea of sin as a moral offence against God, has indeed been 
 called in question ; but seems too certain, at least among the Egyptians, the Hindoos, and 
 the Israelites, to require proof. It is abundantly expressed in the book of Job. It may be 
 well, however, to point out some of the heads of the evidence that sacrifice was regarded as a 
 propitiation for such sin, i. e., as a means for obtaining the Divine pardon for its guilt. Pro- 
 minent in this evidence is the fact just mentioned, that there was no proportion between the 
 offence and the value of the sacrifice; since the idea of compensation was thus excluded, it 
 remains that what was sought for was forgiveness. Calvin (in Lev. i.) justly remarks that 
 the idea of reconciliation with God was connected under the old dispensation with sacrifice 
 after a sacramental fashion, as with baptism now. Historically, this idea of sacrifice as a 
 means of obtaining forgiveness is clearly brought out in the sacrifices of Job, both for his 
 children in the time of his prosperity (Job i. 5), and for his friends after his affliction (xlii. 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 11 
 
 8). Tholuck, following Scholl, has shown (Diss. II., App. Ep. Hebr.) that the idea of 
 such propitiation was prevalent throughout all antiquity ; that clean animals were changed 
 in their status on the express ground of their being "a sin-offering," "an atonement/' so 
 that the parts of them not consumed upon the altar might be eaten only by the priests, and 
 their remains must be burned, or else the whole burned, without the camp (Ex. xxix. 14; 
 Lev. iv. 11, 12, 21 ; vi. 30 ; xvi. 27, 28, etc.) ; that the idea is distinctly brought out in Lev. 
 xvii. 11, and in parallel passages. " The life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it 
 to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls;'' that in the case of a murder by 
 unknown hands (Deut. xxi. 9) the guilt of the crime must rest upon the whole neighborhood 
 until the people had symbolically transferred that guilt to a victim, and this had been 
 offered in sacrifice; and finally, that the ritual of the day of atonement necessarily involves 
 this idea. (See on chap, xvi.) " The notion of internal atonement .... formed a distinctive 
 feature of the theology of the Pentateuch." Kalisch, I. p. 161. 
 
 On passing from these more general considerations to the particular system of the Levi- 
 tical sacrifices, it needs to be constantly borne in mind that these, far from being a new 
 institution, were in fact a special arrangement and systematizing of one of the most ancient 
 institutions known to man. The change from the one to the other was strictly parallel to 
 the course of divine operations in nature. The earlier is ever the more general and compre- 
 hensive; the later the more specialized both in structure and functions. At the same time 
 the law was not merely an evolution, a normal development of Divine teaching previously 
 received, but it was distinctly " added because of transgressions until the promised seed 
 should come." We must therefore be prepared to find in it especial safeguards for the 
 chosen people against those misconceptions which became common among the heathen, and 
 also a constant relation to its final cause and its terminus when "the Seed should come." 
 
 It will help materially to a clear idea of the Mosaic sacrificial system if we examine the 
 various words used for sacrifice before and under the law, having regard also to the subse- 
 quent usage of the same words and to their various translations in the ancient versions. 
 
 The earliest word that occurs is also the most general in its original sense, though under 
 the law it acquires a strictly technical signification : nm - ?, given by the lexicographers as 
 from a root not used, nn=nn=/o distribute, to deliver, and hence to make a present of, to 
 give. In the LXX.it is" translated before the law only by the words tupov (Gen. iv. 4; 
 xxxii. 13, 18, 20, 21, etc.) and Bvcia (Gen. iv. 3, 5 only) ; in the law, where it occurs very fre- 
 quently, only by Ovaia or by the combination dapov dvaia, and this is the case also in Ezekiel 
 (although twice, Lev. ii. 13 ; Num. xviii. 9, the form is Bvoiaapa), except in the single in- 
 stance of acuidalic, Lev. ix. 4. After the books of the law both these translations are fre- 
 quently employed, and also xpoa<popa once (Ps. xxxix. 9), ?tvun> three times, and frequently 
 the Hebrew word is simply expressed in Greek letters pavai. The Vulg. translates by mu- 
 nus, munusculum, oblatio, oblatio sacrificii, and sacrificium; but in the law oblatio and sacri- 
 ficium are the terms commonly employed. In the A. V. meat-offering, or simply offering, is 
 the only translation in Ex., Lev., Num. and Ezek.; but present, gift, sacrifice and oblation 
 are used elsewhere as well as these, usually according to the sense implied by the context. 
 The word is used outside of the law in the general sense of a propitiatory gift or tribute to 
 any one, and hence of such a gift to God, or sacrifice in its most general sense. It is used 
 of the offerings of both Cain and Abel, the one unbloody, the other bloody. In the prophets 
 it is used as a word for sacrifice in general. It is used frequently in the historical books of 
 gifts or tribute from man to man as from Jacob to Esau, to Joseph in Egypt, of the Moab- 
 itea and Syrians to David, and distinctly of tribute, 2 Kings xvii. 3, 4, etc. In the law (Ex., 
 Lev., Num., to which must be added Ezek.) it has a strictly defined technical signification, 
 and is applied only to the oblation (A. V. meat-offering) except in Num. v., where it is used 
 (six times) of the unbloody jealousy-offering of barley. It is always therefore in the law a 
 bloodless offering, and being nearly always an accompaniment of a bloody offering, may be 
 regarded in its original sense of a gift to God, offered along with a sacrifice more strictly so 
 called. In the few instances in which it stands alone it never appears as offered for the pur- 
 pose of atonement. In the case of the sin-offering of flour allowed in extreme poverty (Lev. 
 
12 LEVITICUS. 
 
 v. 11-13) this is expressly distinguished from the finjlp in that the remainder should belong 
 to the priest, nmSS. 
 
 The word which comes next in the order of the record is Tnjt, derived from nSp, to 
 ascend, to glow, to burn. It means uniformly throughout the Old Testament : the whole 
 burnt-sacrifice, so specifically indeed that twice (Deut. xxxiii. 10; Ps. li. 19 [21]) r;3= 
 whole is substituted for it. In a few cases it is variously translated by the LXX. (once each 
 aSmia, av&^ams, avatpnpa, six times Ovaia, thirteen times aapTvufia, three times KapiTaatc), but in 
 the vast majority of cases by some term signifying the holocaust, 62.omp-upa (three times), 
 62.0Kuo7raai£ (eleven times), oloKavTu/ia (most frequently), 6?.oKavTaate (seventy-three times). 
 In the Vulg. the only renderings are holocaustum (seldom holoeautoma) and hostia, except a 
 very few times oblalio ; in the A. V., always either burnt-offering or burnt-sacrifice, which 
 are used interchangeably, and seem to have been intended to convey the same meaning. It 
 is first used in Gen. viii. 20 for the sacrifices offered by Noah, and throughout Gen. xxii. It 
 is also used three times in Exodus (x. 25 ; xviii. 12 ; xxiv. 5) in relation to sacrifices previous 
 to those of the Levitical system. In the law itself it occurs very frequently, and also in the 
 subsequent books. It constitutes the daily morning and evening sacrifice for the congrega- 
 tion. It was always an animal sacrifice and was wholly consumed, except the skin, upon 
 the altar. In signification it was the most general of all the sacrifices, and in fact was the 
 only unspecialized bloody sacrifice of the law. It must be regarded therefore as including 
 within itself, more or less distinctly, the idea of all other sacrifices; it was a means of ap- 
 proach to God in every way in which that approach could be expressed. It was not dis- 
 tinctly a sin-offering ; yet the fact that it should be accepted for the offerer " to make atone- 
 ment for him " p?.?"?, Lev. i. 4) is prominent in its ritual, and the same idea is distinctly 
 brought out in the (probably earlier) sacrifices of Job (Job i. 5; xlii. 8). There is a rabbin- 
 ical maxim: "the burnt-offering expiates the transgressions of Israel," and this idea is fully 
 expressed in the Targums. "The burnt-offering, as it is the most ancient, so also is it the 
 most general and important in the Mosaic cultus, apiary d'eanv >/ d?.6navrog (Philo de vict., p. 
 838)." Tholuck (Diss. II. in Hebr.). Yet Tholtjck afterwards separates this sacrifice 
 quite too absolutely from the sin-offering. The latter indeed, as specializing one feature of 
 the burnt-offering, had a different ritual, and was without the oblation; as offered only for 
 the expiation of sin, it carried with it to those who bore its unconsumed flesh a defilement 
 which could not attach^to the burnt- offering, since this included other ideas also within 
 itself. But all this by no means forbids that in its general, comprehensive character, the 
 burnt-offering should include the idea of expiation for sin which is distinctly attached to it 
 in the law. It was often offered also as a praise or thank-offering (2 Sam. vi. 17, etc.). As 
 already said, it was the one comprehensive sacrifice daily offered upon the altar of the taber- 
 nacle (Ex. xxix. 38-42) ; it was doubled on the Sabbath (Num. xxviii. 9, 10), and multi- 
 plied, with added victims of higher value, on the first of each month [ib. 11) ; and so also at 
 the great yearly festivals (ib. 16— xxix. 39). So far as the burnt-offering had a specific sig- 
 nification of its own, its meaning is generally assumed by theologians to have been that of 
 entire consecration to God. Such a meaning is certainly sufficiently appropriate; but is 
 never distinctly attributed to it in the Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament. It is 
 however constantly described in the more general sense of a means of approach to God. 
 
 rot is used not so much for any particular kind of sacrifice as for the victim for any 
 sacrifice. It is frequently coupled with some other word determining the kind of sacrifice 
 intended, especially DW rOT. When not so identified, it may mean any kind of sacrifice 
 (although most frequently used of the peace-offerings), and does not therefore require parti- 
 cular consideration. It occurs first in Gen. xxxi. 54 and xlvi. 1, and is generally rendered 
 in the LXX. and Vulg. Biaia and hostia. The verb is the technical word for slaughtering 
 animals in sacrifice, nor is it ever used in any other sense in the Pentateuch except in Deut. 
 xii. 15, 21, where permission is given to those at a distance from the sanctuary to slay sacri- 
 ficial animals simply for food. In the later hooks there are very few other exceptions to 
 this usage : 1 Sam. xxviii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 2 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 3. From this word is derived 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 13 
 
 the Hebrew name for the altar, n3irp ; not, as sometimes asserted, because sacrifices were 
 originally slain upon the altar ; but because this was the place of destination for them. 
 
 No other words for sacrifice occur until the time of the Exodus. There the various spe- 
 cialized forms of the Mosaic sacrifices are described ; but before speaking of these the word 
 HB^ must be mentioned, which is frequently rendered (chiefly in Lev. and Num.) offer or 
 sacrifice. It is not, however, properly a sacrificial term ; but merely a word of very broad 
 signification— like irofeu or do — which is adapted in sense to its connection. It first occurs 
 in the meaning sacrifice in Ex. xxix. 36. Therefore passing by this, the earliest especial 
 sacrificial term of the law is HD^, niaxa, pascha, passover. It occurs first in Ex. xii. 11, and 
 frequently afterwards, although only once in Lev. (xxiii. 5). The noun always means the 
 lamb slain by the head of each house in Israel on the 14th Nisan, and eaten by him and his 
 family the following evening, or at least the seven days' feast of which this was the begin- 
 ning, and the characteristic feature. The history of its institution is fully given in Ex. xii. 
 From the abundant references to it in the New Testament it was plainly designed as an 
 especial type of Christ. It was distinctly a sacrifice, being reckoned a J3TD in Num. ix. 7, 
 13, and slain in the place of sacrifice (Deut. xvi. 5, 6), and its blood, after the first institu- 
 tion, was sprinkled by the priests (2 Chron. xxx. 16; xxxv. 11), as affirmed by all Jewish 
 authorities; indeed, it is in connection with the Passover that the mention of the treatment 
 of the blood of sacrifice first occurs. It is classed by Outram among the Eucharistic sacri- 
 fices, and is assimilated to them by the fact that its flesh was eaten by the offerer and his 
 household ; but is distinguished from them in having nothing of it given to the priest. It 
 was really a sacrifice appointed before the institution of the priesthood in which each head 
 of the family offered, and thus it perpetuated the remembrance that, by their calling, the 
 whole nation were a holy people, chosen " to draw near to God." Its historic relations are 
 always most prominent, and it was in fact the great sacrament of the covenant by which 
 God had delivered Israel and constituted them His chosen people. Its celebration consti- 
 tuted the chief of the three great annual festivals, and was the only one of them having a 
 fundamentally sacrificial character. It thus became a fit type of the new covenant and of the 
 deliverance through Christ from the bondage of sin. 
 
 The OTJ (from D2^) or peace-offering, is first mentioned Ex. xx. 24, in reference to 
 the future offerings of the law, but in a way that seems to imply a previous familiarity with 
 this kind of sacrifice. It is rendered in the LXX. sometimes by Apifl>ix6c t but more generally 
 by auTi/pmv t and in the Vulg. by pacificus and salutare ; in the A. V. uniformly peace-offering. 
 Under the law it was separated into three varieties : the thank, the vow, and the free-will 
 offering. See under vii. 12. In Lev. vii. 12, 13, 15; xxii. 29, the thank-offering has the 
 distinct name, iTliP, which does not elsewhere occur in the law, though frequent afterwards. 
 This variety included all the prescribed thank-offerings. The idea of propitiation was less 
 prominent in this than in any other sacrifice, although the sprinkling of the blood — which 
 was always propitiatory — formed a part of its ritual; but it was especially the sacrifice of 
 communion with God, in which the blood was sprinkled and the fat burned upon the altar, 
 certain portions given to the priests, and the rest consumed by the offerer with his family 
 and friends in a holy sacrificial meal. In the wilderness no sacrificial animal might be used 
 for food except it had first been offered as a sacrifice. It naturally became one of the most 
 common of all the sacrifices, and the victims for it were sometimes provided in enormous 
 numbers, as at Solomon's dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 63). Peace-offerings were, 
 for the most part, voluntary, but were also prescribed on several occasions, as at the fulfill- 
 ment of the Nazarite vow (Num. vi. 17), and are constantly expected at the great festivals. 
 "The peace-offering was always preceded by the piacular victim, whenever any person of- 
 fered both these kinds of sacrifices on the same day. Ex. xxix. 14, 22; Num. vi. 14, 16, 17." 
 Octkam. Although the DTO is not mentioned under its distinctive name before Ex. xx. 
 24, yet it cannot be doubted that sacrifices of the same character are included in the more 
 general term, rot, at a much earlier period (see Geu. xxxi. 54; Ex. x. 25; xviii. 12), as 
 they were certainly common at all times among the heathen. In the New Testament they 
 are alluded to in Phil. iv. 18 and Heb. xiii. 15, 16. 
 
14 LEVITICUS. 
 
 nstsn (from the Pihel of KBn) in the sense of sin occurs in Gen. iv. 7 and frequently ; 
 but in the sense of sin-offering is not found before the establishment of the Levitical system. 
 The first instance of this sense is in Ex. xxix. 14, after which it is very frequent both in the 
 law and in the later books. Besides a variety of occasional translations, the usual rendering 
 in the LXX. is d/iap-ia, and in the Vulg. peceatum. In the A. V. it is variously translated 
 punishment, punishment of sin, purification for sin, purifying, sinner, sin and sin-offering ; but 
 the last two are by far the most common. It is the distinctive, technical word in the law 
 for the piacular offering for sin. For its ritual see iv.— v. 13. The sin-offerings of which 
 the blood was carried within the sanctuary, and whose bodies were burned without the camp, 
 are particularly referred to in the New Testament as typical of Christ ; but more general 
 references to Him as our Sin-offering are frequent. Sin-offerings were prescribed (a) at each 
 new moon, Num. xxviii. 15 ; (6) at each of the three great festivals, Num. xxviii. 22, 30; 
 xxix. 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38 ; (c) at the feast of trumpets on the first day of the seventh 
 month, and on the tenth day of the same, ib. 5, 11 ; (d) the sin-offering, kot' efrxfa on the 
 great day of atonement, ch. xvi. ; (e) private sin-offerings, for a woman after child-birth, xii. 
 C, 8 ; for the leper at his cleansing, xiv. 19, 22, 31 ; for a person cleansed of an issue, xv. 15, 
 30; for the Nazarite accidentally defiled, Num. vi. 11, and at the time of the fulfillment of 
 his vow, ib. 14, 16 ; and on other special occasions, Num. vii. 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, etc.; besides 
 the ordinary sin-offerings of Lev. iv. The ordinary victim was a she-goat or a ewe, replaced 
 for the high-priest or for the whole congregation by a bullock, and for a prince by a he-goat 
 for reasons given in the commentary on Lev. iv. In case of poverty, for the ordinary offer- 
 ing might be substituted turtle-doves or young pigeons, or even an offering of flour. But 
 besides regular victims, there were various others prescribed for those exceptional occasions 
 which from their nature required some such discrimination. Thus at Aaron's entrance upon 
 his sacred functions his sin-offering was a calf (Lev. ix. 1-8) ; at the end of the Nazarite's 
 vow (Num. vi. 14), and at the recovery of a leper able to bring this offering (Lev. xiv. 10, 
 19), a ewe-lamb was the prescribed victim. Though not strictly sin-offerings, yet to the 
 same general category belong the red heifer whose ashes were used for purifications (Num. 
 xix. 2-22), and the heifer to be slain in case of an unknown murder (Deut. xxi. 1-9). Yet 
 these were all peculiar and exceptional cases, and the rule remains that the ordinary sin- 
 offering was always the same. 
 
 pip is first used Lev. i. 2, occurs very frequently in Leviticus and Numbers, and is 
 neveAised elsewhere except twice in Ezekiel. (With the pointing, J3"1j?, it is also found 
 twice in Neb.) There are but one or two variations from the translation, iapov, in the LXX., 
 and donum in the Vulg. In the A. V. it is generally translated offering, but sometimes obla- 
 tion, and once (Lev. xxvii. 11) sacrifice. Its meaning is perfectly clear— that which is of- 
 fered (brought nigh) to God, whether as a sacrifice or as a dedicatory gift; if, however, the 
 thing offered be a sacrificial animal, then of course it necessarily means a sacrifice. In either 
 case, it is something given to God. 
 
 at^N, like the nearly related rWBn, has the double sense of trespass or guilt and trespass- 
 offering* It occurs once in Genesis (xxvi. 10) in the former sense, but is not found in the 
 latter earlier than Lev. v. 6. It is frequent in Leviticus, and less so in subsequent books in 
 both senses. In the LXX. and Vulg. it has a considerable variety of renderings ; but the 
 most frequent are LXX. nly/i/iaeia, and Vulg. delictum. For the distinction between this 
 and the sin-offering, see iv. 1 and v. 14. 
 
 There remains, as belonging to the list of the sacrifices, the incense, for which two words 
 are used, neither of which occur before the giving of the law. nju 1 ? first occurs Ex. xxx. 
 34, and is uniformly translated in the LXX. Vftovog (once, however, 2,ipavu T 6c), and in the 
 Vulg. thus ; it is always frankincense in the A. V. except in Isa. and Jer. where it is always 
 incense. It is " a costly, sweet-smelling, pale-yellow resin, the milky exudation of a shrub " 
 (Fuerst). roup, which first occurs Ex. xxv. 6, on the other hand, is an incense com- 
 pounded of frankincense and various sweet spices (Ex. xxx. 34). It is usually translated in 
 the LXX. and Vulg. QvyXaaa, thymiama, but sometimes aivdemc, composi.tio. In the A. V. it 
 is rendered either incense, or sweel incense, or a few times perfume. This incense was to be 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 15 
 
 burnt only within the sanctuary, twice daily on the golden altar (Ex. xxx. 7, S), and also by 
 the high-priest in the holy of holies on the day of atonement (Lev. xvi. 12, 13). The frank- 
 incense was offered by the people as a part of their oblations, and was mostly burnt in the 
 court. The burning of all incense was a strictly priestly act, and is constantly spoken of in 
 the Scriptures as symbolical of prayer (e. g. Rev. v. 8 ; viii. 3, 4). Pre-eminently does it 
 typify the intercession of the true High Priest in heaven itself. 
 
 The word 7VD$=offeringa made by fire, is not so much the name of a sacrifice as a de- 
 scription of all sacrifices burned upon the altar. It is applied to various kinds of sacrifices, 
 Lev. i. 9 ; ii. 3 ; iii. 5, etc. 1p)=drink-offering is first used Gen. xxxv. 14, and is not pro- 
 perly a sacrifice itself, but an accompaniment of other sacrifices, nsur^wave-offering, and 
 rni"iri=heave-onering, refer to particular modes of presentation of certain offerings. 
 
 The animals used for victims were either " of the flock or of the herd," or in case of 
 poverty, doves or pigeons. These were all clean animals, and were consequently among 
 those commonly used for food ; the quadrupeds were from domestic animals, and the birds 
 those most easy of capture. (Domestic fowls are said not to have been known before the 
 time of Solomon.) The ease and certainty of procuring these various victims seems a more 
 likely reason for their selection than either their tameness — which certainly does not apply 
 to the bull — or their value as property, since the cost of procuring wild animals would usually 
 have been far greater. The idea that these animals were especially appointed for sacrificial 
 victims because they were held sacred among heathen nations, and particularly among the 
 Egyptians, although often advanced, is unsatisfactory for two reasons : first, because on this 
 ground there is no reason why the number of sacrificial animals should not have been greatly 
 enlarged ; secondly, because these very animals, for the most part, were used in sacrifice by 
 the nations that also worshipped them. Whatever typical significance they may have had, 
 this can hardly be considered as the reason for their selection, since in the typical language 
 of the prophets various other animals (e. g. the lion and the eagle) are so largely used. In 
 fact the lamb seems to be the only one of the sacrificial animals typically employed in pro- 
 phecy, the dove being only an alternative victim for the poor. 
 
 The public animal-sacrifices of the Israelites may be broadly separated into three great 
 classes, according to the prominent purpose of each. I. The Burnt-offerings, or offerings of 
 approach to God. The main idea of these, in so far as they had any especially distinctive 
 idea, is geuerally considered to have been consecration to God's service as the necessary con- 
 dition of approaching Him, and yet also including in a subordinate way the idea of expia- 
 tion, without which sinful men might not draw near to God at all. This idea is represented 
 outwardly and once for all in the Christian Church by baptism, and in its continual repeti- 
 tion by the various acts of worship and efforts to conform the life to Christ's example. With 
 the burnt-offering belonged the unbloody, eucharistic oblation, together with its incense 
 symbolizing prayer. II. The sin-offering, in its various forms, expressly provided for the 
 purpose of atonement. Having no inherent efficacy, this yet clearly pointed forward to the 
 only effectual atonement made by Christ Himself upon the cross. This sacrifice, as is most 
 clearly shown in Hebrews, being efficacious for the forgiveness of all sin, can never be re- 
 peated ; yet according to Christ's own command, we are to show forth His death until He 
 come again in the Lord's supper, and thus historically the great sacrament of the Christian 
 Church points back to that which the Levitical system prefigured. The central point of 
 both dispensations is the same, but in the one case prophetic, in the other historic. III. 
 The Peace-offerings were the ordinary means of communion with God through an external 
 rite, and of expressing outwardly thanksgiving for His mercies, or supplication for His favors. 
 They are to be considered not so much as typical definitely of any one thing in the new dis- 
 pensation, but rather as meeting under the old a need which is now otherwise supplied ; yet 
 still in common with all sacrifices, they serve to set forth in shadow Him " who is our peace," 
 and on whom feeding by faith we now have peace with God. 
 
 Besides these great classes of sacrifices, there were a multitude of others, mostly for indi- 
 viduals, some of which are distinctly included under one or the other of these classes, while 
 others share the character of more than one of them, and others, like the Passover, have a 
 
16 LEVITICUS. 
 
 character peculiar to themselves. These will be treated in their appropriate places. There 
 is one of them which must be mentioned on account of its great importance — the red heifer 
 — but its treatment belongs in the following book, Num. xix. 1-10. In general it may be 
 said, that as God's works will not conform very precisely to any human classification, since 
 each creature is an individual entity to the Infinite, but always there will be characteristics 
 in one group allying the genera in which it is found to some other widely se parated group 
 so also in the works of the Divine word, we can only classify broadly and having regard to 
 the most salient features, while, in view of less important characteristics, we might often be 
 compelled to change the best classification that can be formed. 
 
 The vegetable sacrifices, or oblations, were correspondingly varied. These were usually 
 accompaniments of the animal-offerings, but sometimes were independent. This was the 
 case not only with the alternative sin-offering (Lev. v. 11), and the jealousy-offering (Num. 
 v. 15), but also with the shew-bread, the Passover sheaf of barley and the Pentecostal wheaten 
 loaves. Incense also was at times an independent offering. Drink-offerings appear exclu- 
 sively as accompaniments of the animal sacrifices, and were of wine ; but their ritual is no- 
 where prescribed. 
 
 The mineral kingdom was represented in the sacrifices only by the salt with which all 
 other offerings were to be salted. 
 
 The ritual of the various sacrifices will be treated as they occur in the text. Suffice it 
 here to say that three essential points are to be observed in all : First, that the victim should 
 be solemnly offered to God. This, as Outeam clearly shows (I. xv. 4), was accomplished 
 by presenting the living victim or the oblation before the altar, and was the act of the offerer. 
 Second, that the offerer should lay his hand upon the head of the victim thereby personally 
 identifying himself with what he did. The exceptions to this are in the case of birds, for 
 obvious reasons, and in the case of the Paschal lamb, instituted before the Levitical system, 
 and when this act was unnecessary as the offerer acted himself in some sort as priest. Third, 
 the intervention of a priest, as the mediator between God and man, who must sprinkle the 
 blood and burn the parts required upon the altar ; and in the case of the ordinary sin-offering 
 as well as of many of the oblations, he must himself, as the representative of God, consume 
 the remainder. 
 
 It appears from constant Eabbinical tradition, as well as from the probability of the 
 case, that prayer or confession on the part of the offerer always accompanied the sacrifice. 
 Indeed, this is often spoken of in particular cases in Scripture itself, and language is there 
 used in regard to the sacrifices which implies the universality of the custom. When the 
 patriarchs built altars, they "called upon the name of the Lord" (Gen. xii. 8, etc.). Con- 
 fession is required in connection with the sin and trespass-offerings (Lev. v. 5; Num. v. 7), 
 and especially with the great propitiation on the day of atonement (Lev. xvi. 21). A form 
 of prayer is prescribed for the oblation of the first fruits (Deut. xxvi. 3-10), and of the tithes 
 (ib. 13-15). Sacrificing and calling upon God are often used as equivalent terras (1 Sam. 
 xiii. 12; Prov. xv. 8, etc.), and the temple is indifferently called "the house of sacrifice" (2 
 Chron. vii. 12, etc.), and "the house of prayer'' (Isa. lvi. 7, etc.), and frequently prayer and 
 confession are mentioned in connection with sacrifice on particular occasions, or in a general 
 way as showing that the one accompanied the other as a matter of course (1 Sam. vii. 9 ; Job 
 xlii. 8 ; Ezra vi. 10 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 26 ; xxix. 10-21 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 22 ; Ps. lxvi. 13-20 ; cxvi. 13, 
 17, etc.). For further details of the ritual, and especially for the Eabbinical traditions on the 
 subject, the reader is referred to Outram, Kalisch, and other special treatises on sacrifice. 
 
 Of the purpose and design of the whole sacrificial cultus, but little need be added to 
 what has already been said. That in a theocratic state the expiatory offerings had, as an 
 incidental object, the compensation for minor offences against that state, and the doing away 
 with ceremonial hindrances to worship is undeniable ; but that they had also a farther and 
 higher object is plain both from the study of the Mosaic legislation itself and from their 
 treatment throughout the New Testament, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Besides 
 their typical value, they had a powerful educational use. " As we survey the expiatory 
 offerings of the Hebrews, which for purity stand unrivalled in the ancient world, we are 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 
 
 bound to admit that they were pre-eminently calculated to keep alive among the nation 
 those feelings on which all religious life depends, and from which it flows as its natural 
 source, the feelings of human sinfulness and the conviction of the divine holiness, by the 
 standard of which that sinfulness is to be measured; they fostered, therefore, at once humi- 
 lity and an ideal yearning ; and they effectually counteracted that sense of self-righteousness 
 natural indeed to the pride of man, but utterly destructive of all noble virtues. They were 
 well suited to secure in the directest and completest manner that singleness of life and heart 
 which is the true end of all sacrifices. * * * Though bearing the character of vicarious- 
 ness, the sin-offerings were far from encouraging an external worship by lifeless ceremonies ; 
 in themselves the spontaneous offspring of religious repentance, and thus naturally helping 
 to nourish the same beneficent feeling, they were the strongest guarantee for a life of honesty 
 and active virtue." Kalisch I., p. 187 sq. 
 
 It is, however, to be remembered that while sacrifices were abundantly provided for him 
 who sinned inadvertently, on the other hand no sacrifice was allowed for him who sinned 
 " presumptuously " (Num. xv. 30, 31 ; Deut. xvii. 12), that is, with deliberate and high-handed 
 purpose ; for the offender thus declared that he did not desire to be at one with God ; there 
 was in him no internal disposition to correspond with the outward act of sacrifice. Certainly 
 nothing could show more clearly that the efficacy of sacrifice is connected with the disposi- 
 tion of the heart. It was natural that many of the fathers, in the strong re-action of early 
 Christianity from Judaism, should have thought the Jewish sacrifices were " instituted be- 
 cause the people, having been long accustomed to such modes of worship in Egypt, could 
 scarcely have been confined to the worship of the one true God without the indulgence and 
 introduction into their religion of those rites to which they had been long habituated and 
 were exceedingly attached" (Justin Martyr, Irenoeus, Tertullian, Theodoret, Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, as referred to by Octraji). Nevertheless, they saw in them distinctly a typical 
 reference to Christ, and Origen is elsewhere quoted as showing that this belonged to all the 
 sacrifices because they all ceased with His sacrifice. 
 
 Laxge {Dogmalik in Lev.), after showing the connection between this and the prece- 
 ding book, continues: " Leviticus then is right in treating first of the sacrifice. Nothing is 
 clearer than that the sacrifice is not herein a new, positive, Divine command, but is a ground- 
 form, true of natural religion, which as such depends originally on a spiritual impulse. It is 
 said of Cain and Abel, that they offered sacrifice, but not that sacrifice was commanded them. 
 Noah in the same way sacrificed from free inclination." [Is not something more implied in 
 the command to take into the ark of the clean animals by sevens?] "It seems significant 
 that only after the performance of the sacrifice is the divine satisfaction mentioned. Thus 
 the theocratic sacrifice is the consecration of the natural sacrifice existing before. * * * 
 This then is the meaning of the symbolic sacrifice ; it is the expression of the fact that the 
 offerer, in his sin and sinfulness, feels his need of an inward resignation and confesses it with 
 the offering of the symbolic sacrifice and requests that the grace of God may supply his need, 
 i. e. may lead him by the sacrificial teaching to the completion of the sacrificial offering in 
 faith. So there lies in the idea of sacrifice, as in the law, the spring of a positive movement; 
 and as Christ is certainly the final cause of the law as the objective requirement of sacrifice, 
 so is He of the sacrifice as the subjective law of life. The law and the sacrifice come toge- 
 ther inseparably in the fulfillment which the life of Jesus Christ has brought. * * * * 
 On the various theories which concern sacrifice, compare the dictionaries, particularly Winer ; 
 also the archaeological works ; especially also the article by Oehler in Herzog's Realency- 
 clopadie, entitled Opfercultus im Allen Testament. For more detailed treatment of the sub- 
 ject, see also my Positive Dogmatik. * * * First of all, the legal sacrifices are indeed, 
 in the sacrificial system of worship, themselves real satisfactions, that is, the discharge of 
 duties and the reparation for transgressions against the social law. But the social law would 
 be entirely arbitrary if it had no higher sense; this sense is the prayer for grace to complete 
 it, for perfection. It does not come finally to a satisfactory end if it does not attain to the 
 granting of the prayer, to the peace of God, to expiation. In the first particular, the sacri- 
 fice is a real performance in the court, which can be misconceived to be self-righteousness; 
 
18 LEVITICUS. 
 
 in the second, it is a symbolic treatment of prayer as incense in the temple ; in the highest 
 particular, it is an act of the typical hope of faith, of the atonement in the holy of holies, 
 which the priest accomplished with hazard and inward resignation of his life under the fatal 
 effect of the sight of the majesty of God. 
 
 " These three particulars are displayed in the three different forms of sacrifice, eucharis- 
 tica, impetratoria, piacularia ; but so that whatever form predominates, the others are sup- 
 posed with it. The trunk-root or fundamental form, however, is furnished by the burnt- 
 offering, for which reason all sacrifices are burnt-offerings in a narrower or wider sense ; all 
 are God's fire, God's bread, on the altar ; hence, in the first case the Fire, as the symbol of 
 the Divine power, may consume the whole sacrifice ( ''73) ; in the second case the Blood 
 may signify the prevailing thought in sacrifice, as the symbol of the resignation of the soul, 
 the life; the third case is the Holy food, the sacrificial meal, as a symbol of the consecration 
 of life's enjoyment in the midst of life itself. These three particulars are found fully con- 
 nected in the Passover, which forms the general theocratic hallowing of the natural princi- 
 ple of sacrifice, and pre-supposes the symbolical new birth, i. e. the circumcision or physical 
 cleansing. So too in reference to the curse-sacrifice : cherem." * * * 
 
 The sacrifices " are themselves divided into pure and applied forms of worship. The 
 pure cultus-sacrifices are divided into universal, fixed and casual. The first are the Sabbath 
 and the Feast-day sacrifices, normal sacrifices of all Israel ; the last are those occasioned by 
 and commanded in various circumstances. Both kinds, however, are often interchanged, 
 absolutely as antitheses of the sacrifice of destruction, the Cherem. 
 
 "1. The hallowed fundamental form of the sacrifice — the Passover. 
 
 " 2. The central point of all sacrifices, the imperishable symbolical idea, the burnt-offering. 
 
 " 3. On the left hand of the burnt-sacrifice we find the sin and trespass-offerings, in 
 which also the transition-forms come into consideration (see the Exegesis) ; on the right 
 hand is the prosperity or salvation-offering — in the forms of the praise-offering, the votive 
 (the prayer) offering, and that of the simple well-being — and besides generally, the hallowed 
 slaying and the consecration of the blood. 
 
 " 4. The summit of all sacrifices, the great propitiatory sacrifice, in which the antithesis 
 of the salvation-offering with the curse-offering is rendered especially prominent in the he- 
 goat of the Azazel." [But on this see the Exegetical, ch. xvi.] 
 
 " As forms of the applied sacrifice, appear the covenant-sacrifice, the sacrifices at the 
 consecration of the priests, the various sacrifices of purification, the central sacrifice of puri- 
 fication, or the ashes of the red heifer, and in antithetical position the jealousy-sacrifice and 
 the sacrifice at the festival of a completed vow." * * * 
 
 Lange then describes the sacrificial material and /he sacrificial act, which are sufficiently 
 treated in the commentary. In conclusion, he adds : " The line of the three altars, the altar 
 of burnt-offering, the altar of incense, and the mercy-seat, is completed by still a fourth hal- 
 lowed place of sacrifice without the camp, that is, the ash-heap of the red heifer, for the 
 meaning of which Heb. xiii. 13 is a passage especially to be considered. Out beyond this 
 place lay the wilderness, also the place of death for the cherem, the curse-sacrifice. 
 
 " With the gradations of the altar, the gradations of the sprinking of the blood are 
 parallel even to the sprinkling " [before] " the mercy-seat in the holy of holies. They stand 
 in contrast to the gradations of the burning whose minimum appears in the meat-offering" 
 [which was, however, in some cases wholly consumed (Lev. vi. 22)], "and whose maximum 
 is in the burnt-offering. In the blood is expressed the entire resignation of man to death; 
 in the fire, the complete consuming power of God over man's strength of life. 
 
 " In the whole matter of sacrifice the idea of communion, of the feast of fellowship, 
 between God and man becomes prominent in many ways, and is especially represented by 
 the table of shew-bread, and by the portions of the priests. In reference to this communion, 
 however, Jehovah has exclusively reserved to Himself the blood and the fat, and has exclu- 
 sively forbidden leaven in the offering (though not in what was presented before God for the 
 use of the priests) and honey. But the people are represented, too, in the whole priestly 
 communion, and receive the whole effect of their service : the blessing of Jehovah, which also 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES. 19 
 
 rises in distinct gradations, from the absolution in the court, the light in the temple, to the vi- 
 sion of God in the holy of holies ; and thence comes back to the people under corresponding con- 
 ditions : confession, prayer, consecration by means of death ( Todeswiehe). Thus also the fur- 
 ther relations of the sacrifice are explained. The sacrifice of the heart unfolds itself in the 
 sacrifice of the lips, in prayer, and in the sacrifices of the respective death-consecrations, or 
 of the renunciation and dedication in vows by which the Nazarite was connected with 
 the priests." 
 
 In his LTomiletih in Leu., Laxge further says : " The Israelitish sacrifice is taken into 
 the care of Jehovah, is the sanctified offering, the symbol of the internal sacrifice, the 
 type of the future completed sacrifice, the instruction which prepared for the sacrifice of 
 Christ and the sacrifices of Christianity. The difference between the outward and the in- 
 ward sacrifice, between the symbol and the thought it expresses, is rendered definitely pro- 
 minent even in the Old Testament. 
 
 "Literature. — See Keil, Handbuch der biblischen Archaologie. Die goftesdienstlichen 
 Verhaltnisse der Israeliten, p. 47 ss. Das mosaische Opfcr, p. 195 ss. Baehr (see above). 
 Bramesfeld, Der alttestamentliche Gottesdienst in seiner sinndbildlichcn und vorbildlichen 
 Bedeutung. Gutersloh, 1864. Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heil. Schrift. Berlin, 1859. 
 Keil, Die Opfer des Alien Bundes (Guericke's Zeitschrifl, 1836, 37). Kliefoth, Die 
 tirsprungliche Gottesdienstordnung der deutschen Kirche. 1. Bel. Schwerin, 1858. Kurtz, 
 Der alttestamentliche Opfercultus. Mittau, 1864. Neumann, Die Opfer des Alien Bundes. 
 Oehlee, Der Opfercultus, in Herzog's Realencyclopadie.^ Sartoeitjs, Ueber den alt-und 
 neutestamentlichen Kullus. Stuttgart, 1852. Tholuck, Das Alte Testament in Neuen 
 Testament. Hamburg, 1849. Lisko, Das Ceremonial gesetz des Alten Testaments, seine 
 ErfuUung im Neuen Testament. Berlin, 1842. Wangemann, Die Opfer der heiligen 
 Schrift nach der Lehre des Alten Testaments. 2 Bde. Berlin, 1866. (Worthy of especial 
 note is the catalogue of literature, Gen. Introd. A. ? 5, B., and the statement in reference to 
 the development of the ecclesiastical idea of sacrifice, ib. I 6)." Add: Philo de Victimis. 
 Outram, De sacrificiis. London, 1677 (translated by Allen, London, 1817). Spencee, 
 De legihus Hebrceorum, Tubingen, 1732. Maimonides, De sacrificiis, London, 1683. Cud- 
 •WORTH, De Ccena Domini, Leyden, 1773 (Vol. II., translation of Intel. System, Andover, 
 1837). A. A. Sykes, Essay on the Nature, Design and Origin of Sacrifices, 1748. J. D. Ml- 
 chaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses (translated by A. Smith, London, 1814). 
 Rosenmuelleb, Excursus II. in Lev., Leipsic, 1824. Fabee, On the Origin of Sacrifice, 
 London, 1827. J. Davison, Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice 
 (Remains). Tholttck, Diss. II. in App. to Ep. to the Heb. (Trans, by Eyland, Edinh., 
 1842). F. T>. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced from Scripture, Cambridge, 1854. 
 Kalisch, Lev., Pt. I., London, 1867. Clark, Introd. to Lev. {Speaker's Com.), London and 
 New York, 1872. Also further authorities cited by Conant in Smith's Bib. Did. Art. 
 Lev., Am. Ed. 
 
LEVITICUS. 
 
 THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES. 
 
 book: i. 
 of approach to god. 
 
 Chaps. I.— XVI. 
 
 "FIRST DIVISION. — The sanctifying acts (or consecrations for God) to bring 
 about typical holiness by means of various sacrifices, universally ordained for 
 universal sin. The removal of the sinful condition incurred by inadvertence 
 (pardonable sins njJBO chaps. I. — XVI [a. positive enactments, I. — X.; b. 
 negative, XI.— XVI.]')."— Lange. 
 
 PART I. THE LAWS OF SACRIFICE. 
 
 Chaps. I.— VII. 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 
 Chaps. I.— VI. 7. 
 
 [Lange makes the division "Personal Sacrifices" Chapters I. — Vl\ 
 
 A.— BURNT-OFFERINGS. 
 
 Chap. I. 1-17. 
 
 1 And the Lord called 1 unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle' of 
 
 2 the [omit the 3 ] congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say 
 unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord,* ye shall bring your 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ter. 1. JOp^l in our text has the final X of smaller size than the other letters. The reason (leaving out of view 
 
 Cabalistic interpretations) seems to he that suggested by Kosenmiiller— that there was an ancient variation of the MSS., 
 suiue having nur present reading ; while others, omitting the fc$, read "Ip" 1 ), Fut. Apoc. Niphal of 7"Pp=and the Lord 
 
 met (or appeared to) Moses. Comp. Num. xxiii. 4, 16. 
 
 * Ver. 1. Snj? means Btrictly the covering of haircloth over the JJCfo of boards with linen curtains. Both occur 
 
 together, Ex. xl! 29. Both are translated in the A. V. alike by tent and by tabernacle, and both in the LXX. most frequently 
 byo-KTjfi}. In the oriirinal both are used to designate the structure in which the ark was placed. There is therefore no 
 sufficient reason for changing the familiar name of Tabernacle. 
 
 3 Ver. 1. ~\y)0 is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev. xxiii. 2, 4, 37, 44, etc.) of the 
 
 religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the 
 " times of tho festivals " is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which 
 
 the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called "1^*10 771N, as Jerusalem is called (Isa. 
 
 xxxiii. 20) '0 JVTp. The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speaker's Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as 
 
 referring to God's meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient 
 versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or laic). The article, however, should be omitted. 
 Nevertheless, Lange says " The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should 
 assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah." 
 
 * Ver. 2. The Masoretic pnnctuation places the Athnach on niiT >, and this is sustained by the Sam., Chald., LXX., 
 
 at :- 21 
 
22 LEVITICUS. 
 
 offerino- 5 of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock [of the cattle unto the Lord, 
 ye shall bring your offering of the herd or of the flock]. 
 
 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blem- 
 ish : he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the 
 [omit the 3 ] congregation before the Lord 6 [offer it at the door of the tabernacle of 
 
 4 congregation for his acceptance before the Lord]. And he shall put his hand 
 upon the head of the burnt offering ; and it shall be accepted for him to make 
 
 5 atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord : and the 
 priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about 
 upon' the altar that is by [before ] the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the 3 ] 
 
 6 conorecation. And he 8 shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. 
 
 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in 
 
 8 order upon the fire: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, 
 and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar : 
 
 9 but his inwards and his legs shall he 9 wash in water : and the priest shall burn all 
 on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, 10 an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour 
 unto the Lord. 
 
 10 And if his offering be of the flocks," namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a 
 
 11 burnt sacrifice ; he shall bring it a male without blemish. 12 "And he shall kill it 
 on the side of the altar northward before the Lord : and the priests, Aaron's sons, 
 
 12 shall sprinkle his blood round about upon 7 the altar. And he 1 ' shall cut it into his 
 pieces, with his head and his fat : and the priest shall lay them in order on the 
 
 13 wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar : but he shall wash the inwards and 
 the leo-s with water : and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar : 
 it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. 
 
 14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall 
 
 15 bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons. And the priest shall bring 
 it unto the altar, and wring [pinch] off his head, and burn it on the altar ; and the 
 
 16 blood thereof shall be wrung out at [pressed out against] the side of the altar : and 
 he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers [the filth thereof 16 ], and cast it beside 
 
 17 the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes : and he shall cleave it with the 
 •wings thereof, bid™ shall not divide it asunder : and the priest shall burn itupon the 
 altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire : it is a burnt sacrifice, and offering made 
 by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. 
 
 Vulg., and followed by the A. V. Houbigant suggests that it should rather be placed on the next word, rTDHSn as in 
 
 the Syr. The latter sense is followed in the commentary. 
 
 * Vcr. 2. " Offerings " in the plural is read in the Sam., LXX., Vulg., and Syr. 
 
 8 Ver. 3. rUD' 'jaS "Ui'lS. Tu e translation of the A. V. is defended by Grotius, but most interpreters follow the 
 nnanimons voice of the ancient versions in giving the sense as corrected above. Comp. Ex. xxviii. 3S ; Lev. xxii. 20, 21, etc. 
 The A. V. varies in the translation even in the same passage, as Lev. xxii. 10, 20, 21, 29. 
 
 ' Ver 5 The 6ense is, upou all the sides of the altar, not on its upper surface. 
 
 8 Ver. 6. The Sam. and LXX. by reading the verbs of this verse in the plural, apparently make the flaying and cutting 
 up of the victim the act of the priests. 
 
 6 Ver. 9. The Sam. and the LXX. here also, by the use of the plural, make the washing the act of the priests. 
 
 10 Vcr. 9. The Sam. followed by the LXX. and Syr., read N'H nSj? = this is the burnt-offering, ». c, the law of the 
 
 11 v™10?'The Sam. followed by the LXX. reads rfirvS U3"lp rh'J ?N2jn-p-DNl, the Sam. omitting the 
 
 T : - t:It t 1 -I- •: 
 subsequent p /J.\ which makes the sense clearer. 
 
 n Ver. 10. The Sum. adds— at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation shall he offer it. 
 
 is Ver. 11. The LXX. prefixes from ver. t, itai ^irifojo-ti iV \eipo si" iV ne<t>a\riv aiiTOv— which is of course to be 
 understood. 
 
 » Ver. 12. The Sam. (now followed both by the LXX. and the Vulg.) here again as in vers. 6 and 9 reads the 
 plural. 
 
 is Ver. 16. nr>S}3 (Sam. 1]"|— ~) is variously translated. In the LXX. and Vnlg., as in the A. V., it is rendered fea- 
 llicrs; in the S.miT Vers., however, the Chatd. of Onkelos, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, and in the Syr., the id. a is Ou 
 food in On crop, or the filth connected therewith, as is expressed in the margin of the A. V. By Qesemus and Puerst It 
 is translated as filth or excrement in the crop; they consider it a contracted form of Part. Niph. of Si"'- This is probably 
 
 the true sense. Lange explains it " the excrement from the crop yet to be found in the body." 
 
 i« Ver. 17. The Sam., 15 MSS., and all the versions supply the conjunction, which must of cou-se be understood. 
 
CHAP. I. 1-17. 
 
 23 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The Divine presence having now been mani- 
 fested in the newly erected tabernacle (Ex. xl. 
 34), God according to His promise (Ex. xxv. 22), 
 there reveals Himself to Moses, and makes known 
 through him His will to the people. As this was 
 the place where they were to draw nigh to Him, 
 the first commands uttered from the tabernacle 
 relate to the means of this approach, and occupy 
 the first sixteen chapters of Leviticus. Of these, 
 seven are concerned with the general laws of 
 sacrifice, of which it would appear some know- 
 ledge must have been previously communicated 
 to Moses to make the directions of Ex. xxix. in- 
 telligible to him, and also to guide him in the 
 sacrifices offered by himself, Ex. xl. 28, 29 ; but 
 now for the first time he is directed to proclaim 
 these laws to the people. The law is first de- 
 clared in regard to the people's part in the offer- 
 j n g 3 ij. — yi. 7), although this involves incident- 
 ally something also of the duties of the priests ; 
 this is followed by special instructions chiefly 
 for the priests (vi. 8 — vii. 38), although the line 
 cannot be so sharply drawn that this part shall 
 not also contain something for the people. Each 
 kind of offering is treated by itself, the first chap- 
 ter being occupied with the whole burnt-offering, 
 which must always be an animal, but might be 
 either a quadruped (2-13), or a fowl (14-17). 
 The former again, might be either " of the herd," 
 i. e., a bullock (3-9), or "of the flock," i.e., a. 
 sheep or a goat (10-13). The directions for burnt- 
 sacrifices are arranged under these three heads. 
 Ver. 1. The Lord. — Jehovah is the distinc- 
 tive Divine title throughout Leviticus ; the names 
 'J^S (occurring so frequently elsewhere), 'TO, 
 
 and the very common 7N do not occur, nor even 
 the ordinary D'ii/X, except the last joined with 
 a possessive pronoun or some other construc- 
 tion, to mark Him as in a peculiar sense the God 
 of Israel. 
 
 Out of the tabernacle of congregation. 
 — There can be no reasonable doubt that this 
 is the newly-erected tabernacle; the attempt to 
 prove that these laws were given from some 
 other tent upon the slopes of Ml. Sinai by refe- 
 rence to Lev. vii. 38, has no foundation, as the 
 parallelism of that ver. shows that mount is there 
 only another expression for the place called the 
 wilderness of Sinai. 
 
 " Ver. 2 ss. The common regulations concerning 
 all the sacrifices. The whole motive of animal 
 sacrifice is appropriately exhibited in the verb 
 3"lp to draw near; in the Hiphil to cause to draw 
 near. The sense of the word is fully shown in 
 Jer. xxx. 21. Sinful man, as such, dares not 
 draw near to Jehovah. But Jehovah forms one 
 chosen out of His people (the Messiah) for the 
 purpose of approach, until he draws nearest of 
 all to Him, touches Him, yields up himself to 
 Him, and becomes one with Him. With reve- 
 rent dread man, conscious of sin, pushes forward 
 the guiltless animal as an offering of drawing 
 near ( Korban), as a symbol of his desire to draw 
 near himself to Jehovah. As yet the sacrifice 
 was not commanded in its particulars ; but the 
 general idea of sacrifice as now necessary was 
 
 commanded, and in every case it must be of the 
 cattle, either large or small, and thus of the 
 clean domestic animals. The subsequent addi- 
 tion of pigeons and turtle-doves are as substi- 
 tutes." Lange. 
 
 If any man of you bring. — The sacrifices 
 of the first three chapters were those of indivi- 
 duals, and were purely voluntary in so far as 
 respects their being offered at all ; when, how- 
 ever, the individual had determined to offer any 
 of them, the instructions as to the selection of 
 the victim, and the manner of offering, were mi- 
 nute and peremptory. The duty of the priests 
 in regard to these offerings was simply minis- 
 terial. 
 
 Offering. — |3"?Pi always translated by the 
 LXX. Sapnv, and most frequently by the Vulg. 
 oblatio. Except in two instances in Ezek. (xx. 
 28; xl. 43), and in two of the same consonants 
 differently pointed in Neh. (x. 34 (35) ; xiii. 31), 
 its use is confined to Lev. and Num. It is the 
 technical word for an offering to the Lord, in- 
 cluding sacrifices both bloody, as here, and un- 
 bloody as in ch. ii., and also dedicatory offerings 
 for the sanctuary, as in Num. vii. 
 
 Ye shall bring. — The Rabbins infer from 
 this use of the plural that two or more persons 
 might unite in the same offering. This was un- 
 doubtedly the fact ; but does not seem to be the 
 reason for the use of the plural here, which is 
 rather required simply by the generality of the 
 law. Comp. ii. 11, 12, etc. 
 
 Of the cattle unto the Lord. — The Maso- 
 retic punctuation must here be modified in order 
 to represent the systematic arrangement in- 
 tended. See Textual Note 4. The rnH3 = 
 quadruped, is in contradistinction to the fowls 
 of ver. 14; and the direction is that if an offer- 
 ing of this kind be brought, it shall be taken 
 from the herd or the flock, not from wild ani- 
 mals. The word sometimes includes all quad- 
 rupeds, wild and tamo (Gen. vi. 7 ; Ex. ix. 25, 
 etc.), but is more commonly used, according to 
 the restriction here, of the domestic animals. It 
 includes both the herd and the flock. The range 
 of animals allowed for sacrifice was much nar- 
 rower than that of those clean for food, and far 
 narrower than among the heathen. See Knobel, 
 p. 352. The Egyptians, among other victims, 
 offered swine, and the Hindoos and Germans, 
 horses. 
 
 Vers. 3-9. The law of the burnt-offering of a 
 
 bullock, vhy = whole burnt-offering. Lange : 
 
 " The names : nSj? the going up (in a specific 
 sense, for all sacrifices were brought up on 
 the altar), 7'73 the whole, the entirely finished, 
 consumed, burned, holocaustum. Thus the burnt- 
 offering, or the fire-offering in the most especial 
 sense, which was entirely consumed in the fire, 
 forms the central point of the whole sacrificial 
 system." " The New Testament antitype of the 
 burnt-offering is expressed by Paul in Rom. xii. 
 1." See the preliminary note on sacrifices, p. 12. 
 Ver. 3. A male. — The burnt-offering, unlike 
 the sin and peace-offering, must always be a 
 male. The case of the cows offered in 1 Sam. 
 
24 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 vi. 14, was altogether exceptional, and the red 
 heifer (Num. xix. 1-10) was not burned upon the 
 altar at all. — Without blemish, LXX., a/ua- 
 /ioc. The bullock, like all other victims, (xxii. 
 19-24) except in the case of free will offerings, 
 must be free from bodily faults either of defect 
 or redundancy ; and it was provided that no 
 victim obtained by the price of a dog, or of 
 whoredom, might be offered to God (Deut. xxiii. 
 18). It was the Jewish custom to appoint a 
 priest as a special inspector of victims, to whose 
 scrutiny every animal must be subjected before 
 being offered. — At the door. — At the wide en- 
 trance of the court in which the great altar stood. 
 Lange, however, considers that the door " not 
 of the court, but of the Holy Place, is the bound- 
 ary between the holy things and the region of 
 that to be hallowed, and therefore the appropri- 
 ate point for the meeting which in the name of 
 Jehovah was obtained by the priests for the 
 people through the sacrifice." This presentation 
 of the victim before the Lord was the technical 
 offering, so essential a part of the sacrifice that 
 it is often put for the sacrifice itself. The de- 
 tails of the sacrifice were so ordered that when 
 occasion required, great multitudes of victims 
 might be offered quickly and without confusion. 
 After the erection of the temple, rings were fixed 
 in the pavement, to which the victims were se- 
 cured ; with a sharp knife the throat was then 
 cut at one stroke quite through the arteries and 
 the jugular veins, so that the blood might flow 
 rapidly into a vessel held underneath ; this ves- 
 sel was then (when there were many sacrifices) 
 passed from hand to hand by a row of priests 
 and Levites extending to the altar; meantime 
 the flaying and cutting up of the victim was go- 
 ing on ; on the north side of the altar there were 
 eight stone pillars connected by three rows of 
 beams, each bearing a row of hooks ; upon these 
 the victims were hung, the largest upon the high- 
 est hooks, the smaller upon the others. Outram 
 I., xvi., and the authorities there cited. By 
 such means an almost incredible number of vic- 
 tims are said to have been sacrificed with perfect 
 order in a short time. — For his acceptance 
 before the Lord. — It was the object of the 
 burnt-offering, as of all sacrifices, to secure to 
 the offerer the good pleasure of God. How far 
 the burnt-offering partook of a strictly expiatory 
 character has already been discussed in the pre- 
 liminary essay ; but that this, with all other vo- 
 luntary offerings, sprang from a sense of need 
 on the part of the worshipper, and a desire by 
 some means to draw nearer to God, there can be 
 no doubt. This expression, however, as Knobel 
 notes, is never used in connection with the sin- 
 offering, whose peculiar office was to obtain the 
 pardon, rather than the gracious favor of God. 
 Lange : " The sacrifices follow one another in a 
 natural sequence. The burnt-offering denotes 
 the giving up of life to God; the meat-offering, 
 the giving up of life's enjoyment. Both were 
 offered for a covering for the universal sinful- 
 ness of man. Only the expiatory sacrifices re- 
 late to particular sins." 
 
 Ver. 4. And he shall put his hand upon 
 the head. — This solemn and essential part of 
 the ceremonial is always specified when the law 
 is given in detail, not only in connection with 
 
 the burnt-offerings, but also with the peace- 
 offerings (iii. 2, 8, 13), and the sin-offerings (iv. 
 4, 15, 24, 29, 33) ; where in the brevity of the 
 description it is omitted (ver. 11, ch. v. 6, 15, 18,) 
 it is yet to be understood. Ab to the signi- 
 ficance of the act, a great variety of opinions has 
 been held ; by many, both of the ancients and 
 moderns, it has been understood to symbolize 
 the transfer of his sins from the offerer to the 
 victim, or the substitution of the victim to die in 
 his stead (Theodoret, Qusest. 61 in Ex., and 
 many others). Thisviewhas countenance from the 
 laying on of both the hands of the high-priest on 
 the head of the scape-goat on the day of atonement 
 (xvi. 21) for the express purpose of " putting all 
 their sins upon the head of the goat," that he 
 might " bear upon him all their iniquities unto 
 aland not inhabited;" but the ritual is here 
 very different, and this goat was not burned upon 
 the altar. On the other hand in the case of the 
 blasphemer who was to be stoned (xxiv, 14), all 
 the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his 
 head, clearly not for the purpose of transferring 
 their sins to him. By others the act has been 
 regarded as a surrender and dedication of the 
 offerer's property to God ; by still others as a 
 dedication of himself through the victim repre- 
 senting him ; Lange: "The laying (pressing) 
 on of the hand has the effect of substituting in a 
 typical sense the animal to be offered for the 
 
 offerer (for him 17). It denotes the transferring 
 of the individual life to the offering in a symbo- 
 lical sense, not merely the giving up of this pos- 
 session (as a gift) to Jehovah." Various other 
 views also have been advocated. None of them, 
 however, can claim exclusively the sanction of 
 Scripture, which prescribes the act, but does not 
 define its significance. Neither do any of them 
 rest upon evidence independent of preconceived 
 views, and of the doctrinal interpretation of 
 other Scriptures. This much will be generally 
 admitted: That the act connected the offerer 
 personally with the victim, and denoted that his 
 sacrifice was offered solemnly and for the pur- 
 pose of securing to himself that "covering" or 
 atonement of which mention is immediately after- 
 wards made. The connection of the two clauses 
 shows that the laying on of the hand was directly 
 connected with this atonement. It was certainly 
 an expression of faith in the use of the means 
 God had appointed for drawing near to Him, and 
 the act may be beyond the reach of a closer 
 analysis. 
 
 Accepted — the word is of the same root and 
 sense as in ver. 3. , , 
 
 To make atonement for him. — V1]J 1337. 
 This verb is not used in the Kal. In the Piel 
 the primary sense is to cover, and hence to alone 
 for. It is used sometimes simply with the accus. 
 of the thing (Ps. lxv. 4; lxxviii. 38; Dan. ix. 
 
 24), but usually with 7j£ of the thing (Ps. lxxix. 
 9; Jer. xviii. 23, etc.), or of the person (ch. 
 xix. 22), or with both (ch. v. 18) ; less frequently 
 with 7, and more rarely with 7JJ of the person 
 and P of the thing (iv. 26, etc.) ; seldom with 
 3 of the thing (ch. xvii. 11). The phrase is used 
 chiefly in reference to the sin and trespass- 
 
CHAP. I. 1-17. 
 
 25 
 
 offerings (chs. iv., v., vi. ) and but rarely in con- 
 nection with the burnt-offerings. It is here used 
 in connection with the laying on of the hand of 
 the offerer, not as in the case of the sin-offering 
 (iv. 20, 26, 35) and the trespass-offering (v. 6, 10, 
 13, 18; vi. 7, etc.), with the act of the priest, 
 although in all cases the mediatorial function of 
 the priest was, as here, necessarily involved. 
 
 Ver. 5. He shall kill.— The killing, skin- 
 ning, washing and preparation of the victim, 
 were the duty of the offerer, or, according to 
 Outram, of some clean person appointed by him. 
 Lange : " This is also an expression of the free- 
 will of the sacrificer. He must indeed slay his 
 own offering himself, just as the devout can offer 
 his will to God only in free self-determination. 
 Only false priests took the sacrifice by craft or 
 force into the court, and slew it themselves, or 
 had it slain at their command." The functions 
 of the priest were concerned with the presenta- 
 tion and sprinkling of the blood, and the burning 
 of the victim upon the altar. In the case, how- 
 ever, of national offerings, the offerer's part also 
 was undertaken by the priests assisted by the 
 Levites (2 Chr. xxix. 21, 34), apparently not in 
 consequence of their office, but as representa- 
 tives of the whole people. So also in the case 
 of the Passovers of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxx. 17) 
 and of Josiah lib. xxxv. 10, 11) the Levites 
 performed these duties on behalf of the people, 
 because many of them were disqualified by un- 
 cleanness. Hence, as appears in the ancient 
 versions, there has arisen a difference of opinion 
 as to the part performed by the offerer. 
 
 Kill. — Or\'d is a general word exactly ren- 
 dered, and is frequently used for killing in sa- 
 crifice. It does not therefore need to be changed. 
 The technical word used only for sacrifice is 
 n3T, while fi'pn = to put to death is never used 
 in this connection. 
 
 The bullock. — 1p3 [3 = lit., son of an ox, 
 applied to a calf (ix. 2) and to a mature young 
 bull (13 iv. 3, 14). 
 
 Before the Lord — ;'. e., in immediate view 
 of the place where His presence was especially 
 manifested. Knobel (in loco) notes how the 
 slaughtering of the victim where it might be con- 
 sidered iv btpfiaX/iolc tov Oeov was provided for 
 among the heathen. 
 
 And the priests. — With the blood began the 
 exclusively priestly functions. In the case of 
 very numerous sacrifices the Levites might catch 
 the blood and pass it to the priests (2 Chr. xxx. 
 16). but the "sprinkling" was always done by 
 the priests alone. 
 
 Sprinkle. — The word \>y is a different one 
 from the HIJ (more common in the Hiphil form 
 riTH) generally used of sprinkling with the finger 
 or with hyssop, and refers to the throwing of the 
 blood by a jerk against the sides of the altar from 
 the P" 1 !"? or bowl in which the blood of the vic- 
 tim was caught. Rosenmiiller shows that the 
 word cannot be translated, as some would have 
 it. by po'ir. The LXX. usually, but not always, 
 renders the former by irpoaxetv, the latter by 
 pahe/f. There seems, however, no sufficient rea- 
 son for changing the translation of the A. V. 
 17 
 
 The priest was to sprinkle the blood against all 
 the sides of the altar ; and this was doue, ac- 
 cording to Jewish tradition, by throwing it from 
 the bowl successively against the opposite cor- 
 ners of the altar, so that it sprinkled against 
 each of the adjoining sides. The same law held 
 for the peace-offerings (iii. 2, 8, 13 ; ix. 18), and 
 trespass-offerings (vii. 2) ; but not for the sin- 
 offering (iv. 5-7). Lange : " The blood is the sym- 
 bol of the spiritual life which is given up to 
 Jehovah (at the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation) but which may not be consumed 
 with the body of mortality by the fire of God's 
 appointment. As it is said that it is ' to be 
 brought up,' it follows that the slaying belougs 
 between the altar and the door of the court, 
 where the station of the sacrificer is. That it 
 must be poured out on the altar before the burnt- 
 offering can be kindled, tells us plainly that no 
 offering up of life or body is profitable unless the 
 soul has first been given to Jehovah. Hut this 
 has been given up to the God of the altar, not 
 surrendered to the altar -fire to destroy or 
 change." 
 
 Before the door of the tabernacle. — The 
 altar was in full view of the gate-way or door, 
 
 as it is expressed Ex. xl. 6 nH3 '33 7. 
 
 Ver. 6. He shall flay. — The offerer skinned 
 the animal, and the skin was (he perquisite of 
 the officiating priest (vii. 8). Kalisch, however, 
 says that " the flaying was probably performed 
 by a Levite under the directiou of the officiating 
 priest." Lange says, " With the slaying the 
 life departs, with the skin goes the old appear- 
 ance of life, under the conventionally commanded 
 division disappears also the old figure of life, in 
 the burning disappears the substance of the body 
 itself. Only the blood, the soul, does not disap- 
 pear, but passes through the purifying prot 
 of sacrifice, and goes hence into the invisible, 
 to God. The pouring out of the blood at the 
 foot of the altar round about, can in no case 
 mean 'the convenient disposal of the blood.' 
 The blood goes through the sanctified earth to 
 God." 
 
 Cut it into his pieces — i. e., properly divide 
 it according to custom. 
 
 Vers. 7-9. The priests. — We here again 
 come upon those essential parts of the sacrifice 
 which could be performed by the priests alone. 
 The direction to put fire upon the altar is under- 
 stood by Knobel and others to refer only to the 
 first sacrifice upon the newly-erected altar, as it 
 was required afterwards (vi. 13) that the fire 
 should be kept always burning upon the altar ; 
 or it may be understood of so arranging the fire 
 — when not in use, raked together — as to con- 
 sume the sacrifice. The head is especially men- 
 tioned in order that the whole animal may be 
 expressly included, since it would not be con- 
 sidered one of the "pieces" into which the ani- 
 mal was divided. The fat "H3 used only in con- 
 nection with burnt-offerings (vers. 8, 12; viii. 
 20) probably means the fat separated from the 
 entrails and taken out to wash. Boohart, adeps 
 a came sejunctus. All was to be laid in nrd-r upon 
 the wood ; everything about the sacrifice rmi-t 
 have that method and regard to propriety be- 
 coming in an act of worship. According to Jew- 
 
26 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 ish writers, the parts were so laid upon one an- 
 other as lo have the same relative positions as in 
 the living animal. Outram T. lti, \ 13. 
 
 His inwards and his legs, which were to 
 be washed, are generally understood of the lower 
 viscera and the legs, especially the hind legs, 
 beluw tlie knee: it is doubt I'ul whether the wash- 
 ing was required for the heart, tbe lungs and the 
 liver — LXX. e}noi?ua nal ol ttocUc; Vulg., intes- 
 tina el pedes. Lange: "Head and Fat. The 
 knowledge of earth and its prosperity must first 
 pas- into the fiery death; luen also the purified 
 organs of growth, nourishment, and motion." 
 
 Shall burn. — "Ctpprt = to cause to ascend in 
 smoke, as incense. The word is used only of the 
 burning of incense, of the sacred lamps, and of 
 sacrifices, and is a very different one from rpp 
 the word for common burning, which is applied 
 to the victims, or parts of victims burned with- 
 out the camp (iv. 12, 21, etc.). It connects the 
 bloody sacrifice with the incense, and shows that, 
 the object of the burning was not to destroy the 
 victim, but rather, as declared just below, to 
 cause its essence to ascend as a sweet savor unto 
 God. 
 
 An offering made by fire. — ITOX a word 
 applied exclusively to sacrifices (although some- 
 times to the parts of them eaten by the priests. 
 Dent, xviii. 1; Josh. xiii. 14), in xxiv. 7 applied 
 to the incense laid upon the shew bread. The 
 appearance of tautology, hardly to be avoided in 
 the translation, does not exist in the original. 
 The word is usually associated, as here, with the 
 phrase " a sweet savour unto the Lord" 
 (LXX. oa/u/ cvuiViac). This phrase is applied to 
 all sacrifices, hut belongs peculiarly to the burnt- 
 offering; as the phrase to make atonement 'belongs 
 peculiarly, but not exclusively, to the sin offer- 
 ing. Its intent is plainly to describe the divine 
 pleasure in the sacrifice offered. Theodoret 
 ( Qusest. 02 in Ex.) : " By human things he teaches 
 Divine. As we delight in sweet odors, so he 
 calls the sacrifice made according to the law a 
 sweet savor. But that this is not to be taken in 
 the naked letter is shown both by the Divine na- 
 ture which is incorporeal, and by the ill smell 
 of the burnt bones. For what can smell worse 
 thtin these?" Lange: "The conception is not 
 exhausted in the conception of a sweet, pleasant 
 smell. As in a pictorial sense, anger is repre- 
 sented by the snorting of the nostrils, so the re- 
 signation of self to God and His rule is called a 
 savor well-pleasing to the nose." 
 
 Vers. 10-13. Tlieburnt-offering from the flock. 
 The law here being essentially the same as for 
 the bullock is more briefly given, except in re- 
 gard to the place of slaying. The offering might 
 be either from the sheep or goats, but the former 
 were probably more esteemed. 
 
 Ver. 11. On the side of the altar north- 
 ward. — So also the table of shew-bread with 
 the continual meat-offering stood on the north 
 side of the holy place (Ex. xxvi. 35) The east 
 side of the altar was the place for the heap of 
 ashes on the Bld« towards the door by which they 
 must be carried out ; the west side would have 
 been inconvenient, being towards the holy place 
 with (he laver between; the south side had pro- 
 bably (as Josephus says was the case in the se- 
 
 cond temple, Bell. Jud. V. 5, 6, nrrd pEC-nfippiac 
 k' ahrbv avodnc) the ascent to the altar which 
 must be kept clear; so that the north side alone 
 remaiued. Lange: "Death is something be- 
 longing to the mytderious night, and belongs as 
 a night side of life, to the night-side of the earth ; 
 just as also the priestly eating of the shew-bread 
 must be considered as a night meal." In the 
 same place were also to be slain the sin-offerings 
 (iv. 24, 29, 33) and the trespass-offerings (vii. 2). 
 There being ample room in the court for the sa- 
 crifice of the smaller victims, which also required 
 less time in their preparation, they were killed 
 near the altar instead of at the door. Nothing 
 is said of the peace-offerings which, according to 
 Mislina, might he killed in any part of the court. 
 When not too numerous, however, they would 
 have been more conveniently slain in the same 
 place. 
 
 Ver 12. His head, etc. — is to be connected 
 per zeugma with he shall cut, i. p., he shall cut 
 it into his pieces and (sever) his bead and 
 his fat. 
 
 Vers. 14-17. The burnt-offering of fowls. 
 From chap. v. 7-11 ; xii. 8, it is probable that 
 this offering was for those who were unable to 
 bring the more costly offerings. It might be 
 either of turtledoves, or of young pigeons; but 
 only one bird was required. The turtledoves 
 (turtur auritus) appear in vast numbers in Pales- 
 tine early in April, and are easily captured; 
 later in the season they entirely disappear. The 
 common pigeon has been bred in the country 
 from time immemorial, and also is found wild, 
 at all seasons, in great abundance ; but when full- 
 grown is difficult of capture. It has, however, 
 in the course of the year, several broods of two 
 each, which may be easily taken on the nest. 
 Hence, in the case of the pigeon, the mention of 
 tbe age. Knobel observes that the allowing of 
 doves or pigeons in sacrifice was quite excep- 
 tional among the ancient Orientals, and distin- 
 guished the Hebrew law from others. We have 
 then in this a fresh instance of the especial care 
 for the poor in the Divine law. 
 
 Ver. 15. And the priest shall. — Tnthiscase 
 the offerer's part must be performed by the priest 
 to prevent the loss of the small quantity of blood 
 contained in the bird. No mention is made of 
 the laying on of hands which was perhaps omit- 
 ted on account of the diminutive size of the 
 victim. 
 
 Pinch off his head. — Tnl occurs only here 
 and in v, 8, and its precise meaning has been 
 much questioned. In v. 8 it is expressly limited 
 by the provision that, the head was not to be en- 
 tirely separated from the body in the case of the 
 bird to be eaten by the priest ; in regard to the 
 other bird (v. 7, 10), it. was to be treated as the 
 bird for a burnt-offering. As there is no such 
 limitation here, as it is implied that the treat- 
 ment, was different from that of the bird in v. 
 8, and as the head was to he immediately burned 
 on the altar, while something further was to be 
 done to the body, the precept must be understood 
 to require an entire separation of the head. So 
 Outram, following the Mishna and other Jewish 
 authorities. Lange, however, considers from 
 the analogy of v. 8, that the head was not to 
 
CHAP. I. 1-17. 
 
 27 
 
 be d'sjoined from the body. He translates P {?• 
 *' cleave in two, so that death is produced and the 
 blood can flow out as from a vessel. The closely 
 related TIjO means apparently to tear off; the 
 closely related nj3 means to cleave, cut into." 
 The LXX. has anoKvltytv in both places. The 
 exact sense seems best expressed hy the margin 
 of the A. V. — pinch off the head with the nail. 
 
 Pressed out against. — The small quantity 
 of bloo 1 made it practically impossible to deal 
 with it as in the case of the larger sacrifices. 
 
 The sense of 1J1 Hi-33 is that the blood of the 
 
 t : ■ 
 bird should he thoroughly squeezed out against 
 the side of the altar. 
 
 Ver. 16. His crop with its filth. The ob- 
 scure word nnYJ3 has occasioned much differ- 
 
 tt : 
 
 ence of opinion ; see Textual Notes. The ren- 
 dering here given is ably supported at length 
 by Kosenmiiller. This was to be flung on the 
 heap of ashes and refuse east of the altar. 
 
 Ver. 17. He shall cleave. — The priest was 
 to split the bird open, (by its wings, or by means 
 of its outspread wings, Lange), but so as not to 
 separate the parts ; in the same way a fowl is 
 now prepared for broiling. Lange: "The di- 
 rection was given to take the place, as far as 
 possible, of the cutting in pieces of the burnt- 
 offi'ring, i. e., the destruction of the figure of the 
 body." 
 
 A sweet savour. — The repetition of the same 
 words as in ver. tt and ver. 13, shows that this 
 humbler sacrifice of the poor was acceptable 
 equally with the more costly sacrifice of the 
 rich. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 T. The offerings mentioned in this chapter 
 were purely voluntary; yet when offered, the 
 law in regard 'o them was strict and sharply 
 defined. In this the Israelites were taught 
 a general principle of the Divine will. Who- 
 ever seeks to draw near to God must do so 
 in the way of God's own appointment. That 
 wor-hip only is acceptable to Him which is in 
 accordance with His will. Not that which may 
 seem most effective, not that which may be 
 thought best adapted to man's needs; but sim- 
 ply that which God approves may be offered to 
 Him. 
 
 II. These offerings must be "perfect," i. e., 
 without blemisb, and the most scrupulous clean- 
 liness was required in offering them. These re- 
 quirements were of course necessary in view of 
 the typical relation of the sacrifices to Christ ; 
 but they also taught the general principle that 
 in his offerings to God man m:iy not try to put 
 off upon Him what is of inferior value — the light 
 coin, or the scraps of unoccupied time. God is 
 to be served with the best that man can com- 
 mand. And in this service regard must be had 
 to the infinite purity and holiness of Him with 
 whom we have to do. 
 
 III. The sacrifice might not be completed by 
 the offerer. Man. being sinful, was unworthy 
 to offer propitiation to God for himself. The 
 priest must intervene for the sprinkling of the 
 
 blood and the burning of the victim. In view 
 of the peculiar virtue everywhere attributed 
 to blood as "the life" (Gen. ix. 4, etc.), and 
 the especial office of that "life" in connec- 
 tion with the disturbed relations between God 
 and man (ch. xvii. 10-12, etc.), and of the ap- 
 pointment of the priest to this duty, it is plain 
 that he here acts in a mediatorial capacity. As 
 Calvin (in loco) notes, "ministers of reconcilia- 
 tion must be sought, made competent to their 
 high function by Divine anointing. This points 
 to Christ not only as the Victim offered for sin, 
 but also (as is shown at length in the Ep. to the 
 Heb.) as Himself the Priest." In general it es- 
 tablishes the principle that they only may exer- 
 cise authority on God's behalf whom He has 
 commissioned for the purpose. 
 
 IV. In the provision for a less costly burnt- 
 offering, we see that while in His providence 
 God distributes unequally the means of offering 
 to Himself, He yet provides that an equally ac- 
 ceptable offering shall be within the reach of all. 
 The poor widow's two mites were greater in His 
 eyes than the costly gifts of the rich. The same 
 thing is true when the propitiatory character of 
 the offering is considered. Before God all souls 
 are alike precious, and all equally have the op- 
 portunity of drawing near to Him. 
 
 V. In the New Testament certain words and 
 phrases are applied to Christ which are the Sep- 
 tuagint translations of the technical words here 
 and elsewhere used of the sacrifices. Thus He 
 is called (Eph. v. 2) 7rpoa<t>opav koI flvaiav r£ 6e$ 
 etc oaui/v riiuSiac, and in Heb. ii. 17 He is said to 
 be ir/orbc apx^p^vc rd ~pbc, tov Veav, etc to IT.aonEG- 
 ftat rrir il/iapriai; tov ^aov, and in 1 Jno. ii. 2. and 
 iv. 10, He is described as our ilaafibc jrepi rav 
 dftapTiGv. It seems impossible to suppose that 
 the Apostles could have used these expressions 
 and others like them without intending to point 
 to Christ as the Antitype of the sacrifices, and as 
 actually accomplishing that which they had pre- 
 figured. From the work of Christ, therefore, in 
 effecting reconciliation between God and man, 
 light is thrown back upon the function of the 
 sacrifices; and that function once established, 
 we may learn again from the sacrifices something 
 of the nature of the propitiatory work of Christ. 
 
 VI. Wordsworth notes that a new Parashah, 
 or section of the law, as read in Synagogues, 
 begins at i. 1, and extends to vi. 7. "The pa- 
 rallel Haphtarah," or Section of the Prophets, 
 "is Isa. xliii. 21 — xliv. 23, where God reproves 
 Israel for their neglect of His worship, and pro- 
 mises them forgiveness of sins, and comforts the 
 church with the pledges of divine mercy. Thus 
 the ancient Jewish church, when listening to 
 the law concerning offerings for sin, declared its 
 faith in a better Covenant, and in larger out- 
 pourings of divine favor and spiritual grace in 
 Christ." 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 The course of God's dealings with man always, 
 since man's fall, is to bring about a closer com- 
 munion with Himself, as man is able to bear it. 
 The legislation from Mt. Sinai was a great ad- 
 vance; but here there is a fresh advance. The 
 Divine voice calls no longer from the Mount, but 
 
28 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 from the tabernacle in the midst of the congre- 
 gation. Thus another step is taken towards 
 God's speaking " unto us by His Son." 
 
 Provision is made in these three chapters for 
 voluntary sacrifices. The definitely prescribed 
 duties of man are always a minimum ; God re- 
 quires of man the absolute devotion of himself 
 and all that he is and has ; this is recognized in 
 the law by the provision for voluntary sacrifices 
 and free-will-offerings of every kind. 
 
 All sacrifices were types of Christ inasmuch as 
 after His sacrifice all others ceased. Origen. 
 No one sacrifice could express the manifoldness 
 of that which He wrought ; therefore the several 
 aspects of His work are adumbrated by various 
 types. In this chapter we have the whole burnt- 
 offering, the most general and comprehensive, as 
 the most ancient, of the sacrifices ; it is there- 
 fore the one which in the most general way sets 
 forth the sacrifice of Christ. In so far as it be- 
 came specialized by the introduction of other 
 kinds of sacrifice, it is thought to be a symbol 
 of entire consecration. It therefore typifies the 
 entire consecration of Christ to God, and through 
 
 Him, that of His followers, according to the allu- 
 sion in Rom. xii. 1, which probably has this sa- 
 crifice more particularly in view. 
 
 Whatever is offered to God must be perfect in 
 its kind. The offering may be varied in value 
 according to the ability of the offerer, for all 
 souls are alike precious to God, and He provides 
 that all may be able to draw near to Him. Still, 
 from the largest to the smallest offering, none 
 may be allowed with blemish or defect. 
 
 On each sacrifice the offerer must lay his 
 hands : so must man identify himself with what 
 he offers to God. Such offering is a serious and 
 a personal matter, and one may not delegate such 
 duty to another ; but must give to it personal 
 thought and care. Sinful man cannot directly 
 approach the Majesty on high, before whom he 
 Btands as a sinner; he must come through a Me- 
 diator, typified of old by the priest, and He 
 " makes atonement for him." 
 
 As the law had but "a shadow of good things 
 to come," (Heb. x. 1), so do they who now con- 
 secrate themselves to God offer that real sacri- 
 fice which the Israelites, offering various animals 
 under the law, did but prefigure. Theodoret. 
 
 B.— OBLATIONS (MEAT-OFFERINGS). 
 Chapter II. 1-16. 
 
 1 And when any [a soul 1 ] will offer a meat-offering [an offering of an oblation 2 ] 
 unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour ; and he shall pour oil upon it, and 
 
 2 put frankincense thereon : 3 and he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests : and 
 ne shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with* 
 all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the 
 
 3 altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord : and the 
 remnant of the meat-offering [oblation 2 ] shall be Aaron's and his sons' : it is a thing 
 most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. 
 
 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering [an offering of an oblation 2 ] 
 baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or 
 
 5 unleavened wafers anointed with oil. And if thy oblation be a meat-offering [otter- 
 ing be an oblation 2 ] baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled 
 
 6 with oil. Thou shalt 5 part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon : it 6 is a meat-offering 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 1. t?23.— As this word is generally rendered a soul in the A. V., especially in the similar places, iv. 2; v. 1, 2, 
 4, 15, 17; vi. 2, etc., it seems better to preserve as far as may be uniformity of translation. 
 
 2 Ver. 1. The words hero translated in the A. V. meat-offering are the same as those rendered in ver. 4 an oblation of 
 a meat-offering. In this technical language of the law it is certainly desirable to preserve a strict consistency of transla- 
 tion, even if it must sometimes cause an appearance of tautology. The word ]31p wi " therefore be rendered throughout 
 offering; gift might he in itself considered a better translation; but as it is already rendered offering twenty-nine times in 
 Lev., and almost universally (with only two exceptions) in Nnm , less change is require i to make that translation umfurm. 
 On the other hand DnjD is already always in Lev. meat-offering in the A. V., and generally so in Num.; but the sense of 
 
 meal has so generally changed since that version was made, that the term had better be replaced. In this book therefore 
 it will be always rendered oblation, as it is in the Vulg. very frequently olilatio. 
 
 3 Ver. 1. The Sam. and LXX. add ablatio est, i. e., this is the law of the oblation. 
 
 • Ver. 2. With : for a similar construction of Sr>, see Ex. xii. 8. 
 
 • Ver. 6. nin3 ; on this uso of the Infln. abs. coiap. Ex. xiii. 3; xx. 8. 
 
 • Ver. 6. The ancient form Nin is hero changed in ten MSB. and in the Sam. to the later RTI- 
 
CHAP. II. 1-16. 
 
 29 
 
 7 [an oblation 2 ]. And if thy oblation be a meat-offering [offering be an oblation 2 ] 
 baken in the frying-pan {boiled in the pot'], it shall be made of fine flour with oil. 
 
 8 And thou shalt bring the meat-offering [oblation 2 ] that is made of these things 
 unto the Lord : and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring 8 it unto 
 
 9 the altar. And the priest shall take from the meat-offering [oblation 2 ] a memorial 
 thereof, and shall bum it upon the altar : it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet 
 
 10 savour unto the Lord. And that which is left of thfi meat-offering [oblation 2 ] shall 
 be Aaron's and his sons' : it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made 
 
 11 by fire. No meat-offering [oblation 2 ], which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall 
 be made with leaven : for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering 
 
 12 of the Lord made by fire. As for the oblation [As an 9 offering 2 ] of the first-fruits, 
 ye shall offer them unto the Lord : but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a 
 
 13 sweet savour. And every oblation of thy meat-offering [offering of thy oblation 2 ] 
 shalt thou season with salt ; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of 
 thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offering [oblation 2 ] : with all thine offerings 
 
 14 thou shalt offer salt. And if thou offer a meat-offering [an oblation 2 ] of thy [the] 
 first-fruits unto the Lord, thou shalt offer for the meat-offering [an oblation 2 ] of 
 thy first-fruits, green ears of corn [grain 10 ] dried [roasted 11 ] by the fire, even corn 
 
 15 [grain 10 ] beaten out of full ears. And thou shalt put oil upon it, and lay frankin- 
 
 16 cense thereon : it 12 is a meat-offering [au oblation 2 ]. And the priest shall burn 
 the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn [grain 10 ] thereof, and part of the oil 
 thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 ' Ver. 7. jltfrm, derived (Gesenius, Fuerat) from tyrO. to boil up, and interpreted by Maimonides, Knobel, Keil 
 
 and others of a pot or kettle for boiling; — "a deep Teasel suitable for boiling flour and other substances thoroughly." 
 Kaliach. 
 
 » Ver. 8. " C?JJ in Uiph. is here used as the enhanced, second power of 3"1p in Hiph. as in Jer. xxx. 21. Lange. 
 
 9 Ver. 1_. The A. V. is singularly unfortunate; this clause plainly refers to the leaven and honey of ver. 11. 
 *> Ver. 14. Corn is in this country so generally understood of maize that it seems better to substitute the more general 
 ■word. , 
 
 u Ver. 14. Dried does not sufficiently give the sense of *\~)p^=roasUd. 
 
 It 
 12 Ver. 15. Eighteen MSS. and the Sam here again, as in ver. 6, read XTI- 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The oblation, or meat-offering, naturally fol- 
 lows next after the burnt-offering, because it 
 was usually an accompaniment of that offering. 
 That it was invariahly so has been often main- 
 tained (Outram, B'ahr, Kurtz, etc.), and in- 
 deed it was always offered, and also a drink- 
 offering, with most of the other sacrifices (Num. 
 xv. 2-13); but from this chapter with vi. 14, 
 and with Num. v. 15, it appears that the obla- 
 tion might be offered separately, although the 
 reasons given for this by Kalisch need not be 
 admitted. It is also associated with the burnt- 
 offering in the generality of its signification as 
 opposed to the more special offerings which fol- 
 low. Lange : " It signifies not so much resig- 
 nation as giving, or a return, in the sense of 
 childlike thankfulness, resignation of the sup- 
 port of life, of the enjoyment of life. Its motive 
 is not through a divine demand as the perform- 
 ance of a duty or a debt, but through an in- 
 stinctive desire of communion with Jehovah. 
 Hence it is here indeed the soul, !J3J, that 
 brings the sacrifice, not the D1X as in the burnt- 
 
 T T 
 
 offering : and in spite of the grammatical equi- 
 valence of both expressions, we must not oblite- 
 rate this distinction." The word iirU"D itself 
 
 t : • 
 
 originally means a present with which one seeks 
 to obtain the favor of a superior (Gen. xxxii. 21, 
 
 22; xliii. 11, 15, etc.); then kot' kfyxfr', what 
 is presented to God, a sacrifice. At first it was 
 used alike of the bloody and the unbloody sacri- 
 fice (Gen. iv. 3, 4) ; but under the law it is 
 restricted absolutely to bloodless offerings. The 
 full expression, as in vers. 1 and 4, is \3~}p r 
 nnjO, LXX. eSwpoK dvaia, although often either 
 Sdpov or dvaia alone. Besides the kinds of obla- 
 tion mentioned here, there were others, as the 
 shew-bread and the jealousy-offering. With 
 those enumerated in this chapter salt was always 
 to be used (ver. 13) and oil (vers. 1, 4-7, 15); 
 and with those of flour and grain, incense also 
 (vers. 1, 15). 
 
 Only a handful of these oblations was to be 
 burnt upon the altar, the rest being eaten by 
 the priests in " a holy place." The oblation of 
 unprepared flour or of flour simply mingled 
 with oil (vii. 10) was the common property of 
 the priests (ver. 3) ; while that which was cooked 
 belonged to the officiating priest (vii. 9, 10). 
 
 " While the bloody sacrifice is to be purified 
 of its unclean portions, the unbloody sacrifice is 
 to be enriched by the addition of oil, incense 
 and salt; i. e. the enjoyment of life becomes en- 
 riched and preserved clean through spirit and 
 through prayer, and especially through the salt 
 of the covenant — through the hard spiritual dis- 
 cipline which keeps pure the divine fellowship. 
 In its nature the "meat-offering" [oblation] is 
 closely related to the salvation (or peace) offer- 
 
30 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 ing; yet the latter has reference to the enjoy- 
 ment or desire of uncommon prosperity, while 
 the former relates to the enjoyment of usual and 
 quiet existence. The meat-uifering culminates 
 in the shew-bread (Ex. xxv. 30; Lev. xxtv. 5)." 
 Lange. "In all these cases the sacred charac- 
 ter of the offering was conveyed not only by the 
 admixture of oil, the type of holiness and sanc- 
 tification, the addition of frankincense, the em- 
 blem of devotion, and the use of salt, the agent 
 of preservation, and therefore called 'the salt 
 of the covenant;' but more decidedly still by 
 the rigid prohibition of honey and leaven, rep- 
 resenting fermentation and corruption, by the 
 portion devoted to God and burnt in His honor 
 as a 'memorial' to bring the worshipper to His 
 gracious remembrance, and lastly by the injunc- 
 tion to leave to the priests the remainder as 
 most holy." Kalisch. 
 
 Three kinds of oblation are here mentioned, 
 the second of which had three varieties : I. Fine 
 flour with frankincense (vers. 1-3); II. Cakes 
 or pastry: (a) of unleavened cakes mixed with 
 oil and baked in an oven (ver. 4), or (A) of thin 
 cakes, also unleavened, baked and then broken 
 up and oil poured over them (vers. 5, 6), or (c) 
 of fine flour boiled iu oil (ver. 7) ; the directions 
 common to all these varieties occupy vers. 8-10, 
 while those concerning all oblations are in vers. 
 11-13; III. Parched kernels of the first-fruits 
 of grain with frankincense. 
 
 I. The first kind of oblation. Vers. 1-3. 
 
 Ver. 1. A soul=a person, any oue of either 
 sex. 
 
 Fine flour — j*V,D, a word of uncertain deri- 
 vation, but clearly meaning fine flour, whe- 
 ther as separated from the bran, or a3 sifted 
 from the coarser particles. The Syr. here 
 renders purnm, aud in Gen. xviii. 6 it is 
 put in apposition with nop E'KO. It is proba- 
 ble that this flour was generally of wheat (see 
 Ex. xxix. 2), and the LXX. always translate it 
 aeuiSaXtc. The Vulg has similia. Tv)b does not 
 occur in connection with the jealousy-oblation 
 of barley, Num. v. 15. 
 
 Put frankincense thereto. — The incense 
 was not mixed with the flour and oil, but so 
 added that, it might be wholly removed with the 
 "handful" which was taken to be burned with 
 the incense upon the altar. Frankincense was 
 "a costly, sweet-smelling, pale yellow resin, 
 the milky exudation of a shrub, used for sabred 
 fumigations" (Fuerst), and also for purposes 
 of royal luxury (Cant. iii. 6). It is considered 
 to have been a product of Southwestern Arabia. 
 Its use in the oblations presented with the ani- 
 mal sacrifices must have been important. Mai- 
 monides (More Neborh., lib. III., c. 46): Ele- 
 gitque ad emu thus, propter bonitiitem odoris fumi 
 ipstus in Mis locis, ubi J'ozlor est ex carnibus com- 
 bustis. 
 
 Ver. 2. And he shall take.— The A. V. 
 like the Ileb. leaves the antecedent of the pro- 
 noun somewhat uncertain ; but the Targ. Ouke- 
 los and the Vulg. are undoubtedly right in re- 
 ferring it to the priest, see vi. 15, and comp, 
 also v. 12. The transfer of the handful from 
 
 the offerer to the priest who was to burn it 
 would have been inconvenient. 
 
 Handful.— Plainly what the hand could hold, 
 and not, as the Rabbins have it, with the thumb 
 aud little finger closed, leaving three fingers 
 open. 
 
 Memorial. — TTOtX, applied only to that 
 part of the oblation which was burnt upon the 
 altar (vers. 9, 16; vi. 15). to the corresponding 
 part of the sin-offering of flour (v. 12), of the 
 jealousy-offering (Num. v 26), and also to the 
 frankincense placed upon the shew-bread (xxiv. 
 7), which last was also burnt upon the altar. 
 The LXX. render by hvtju6ovvov, and the figura- 
 tive application of that word to the prayers and 
 alms of Cornelius (Acts x. 4) throws light upon 
 the significance of the oblation. 
 
 An offering made by fire, of a sweet 
 savour unto the Lord. — The same expression 
 as is applied to the burnt-offering, i. 9, 13, 17. 
 
 Ver. 3. And the remnant, etc. — So far as 
 the offerer was concerned, the oblation was as 
 wholly given to the Lord as the burnt-offering; 
 nothing of it was restored to him. There was a 
 difference in the method by which it was given: 
 the burnt-offering was wholly burned except 
 the skin, which was given to the priest; the 
 oblation had only an handful burned, together 
 with all the incense, and the bulk of it was con- 
 sumed by the priests. 
 
 A thing most holy. — D'UHp Bhp, lit. holy 
 of holies. This term is applied to all sacrificial 
 gifts which were wholly devoted to God, yet of 
 which a part was given to Him by being given 
 to His priests. It is not applied to the burnt- 
 offerings, nor to the priestly oblations (vi. 19- 
 23), nor to any other sacrifices which were 
 wholly consumed upon the altar. All sacrifices 
 were holy, and the phrase most holy is not to 
 mark those to which it is applied as holier than 
 the others; but is used only in regard to those 
 which, having been wholly devoted, might pos- 
 sihly be perverted to other uses. Thus it is 
 used of the oblations (vers. 3, 10; vi. 17; x. 
 12) of such of the sin aud trespass-offerings as 
 were not burned without the camp (vi. 25, 29; 
 vii. 1, 6; x. 17; xiv. 13; Num. xviii. 9), and 
 of the shew-bread (xxiv. 9). Its use is similar 
 when applied to other things than sacrifices; 
 thus, Ex. xl. 10, it is used of the altar in con- 
 tradistinction to the tabernacle which is called 
 holy (ver. 9), because the altar was thus to be 
 guarded from the touch of the people, while 
 there was no danger in regard to the tabernacle 
 proper, since they were forbidden to enter it at 
 all (comp. Ex. xxix. 37); so the term is applied 
 to the sacred incense (Ex. xxx. 36), and to all 
 objects devoted by vow, whether man or beast 
 or field (xxvii. 28). The parts of all "most 
 holy" sacrifices which were not placed upon 
 tin' altar must be eaten by the priests themselves 
 in " a holy place" (vi. 26; vii. 6; x. 17, etc.): 
 and this "holy place" — not the sanctuary itself 
 — is more particularly described (vi. 26) as "in 
 the court of the tabernacle of the congregation," 
 and " beside the altar " (x. 12). Whereas the 
 priests' portion of other sacrifices might be 
 eaten with their families iu any "clean place" 
 (x. 14). 
 
CHAP. II. 1-16. 
 
 31 
 
 II. The second kind of oblation. Vers. 4-13. 
 
 This inc'uded several varieties of cakes or 
 pastry all prepared from fine flour and with oii, 
 but without frankincense. 
 
 (a) The first variety, ver. 4. 
 
 Ver. 4. Baken in the oven. — lUrl > s an 
 oven of any kind, but must here mean a porta- 
 ble oven, or rather a large earthen pot or jar, 
 such as is still in use in the East for baking 
 cakes, such as is mentioned in xi. 35 as capable 
 of being broken; this was heated by a fire 
 inside. 
 
 Cakes. — flOn from Tin— to be perforated. 
 A thick kind of cake pierced with holes after 
 the fashion of our bakers' biscuit. These were 
 mixed up with oil before baking. 
 
 Wafers — from pp_^=to beat or spread out thin, 
 This denotes a kind of cake well described by 
 wafer. It is often cooked by the Arabs ou the 
 
 outside of the same vessel in which the j"lwn 
 are baked at the same time. The oil was ap- 
 plied to these after they were baked. 
 (A) The second variety, vers. 5, 6. 
 
 Ver. 5. In a pan.— nsrnri-^. Authori- 
 ties differ as to whether this is to be understood 
 a9 in the text of the A. V. of a frying pan, or as 
 in the marg n of a flat plate. The LXX. render 
 T'jyavnv which seems to be equally perpetuated 
 in the iron frying-pans of the Cabyles of Africa, 
 and the earthen plates of the Bedouins of the 
 East, both being called taj'en. The distinction 
 of this variety of oblation from the former will 
 be more marked if we may understand it of 
 fried cakes, according to the translation of the 
 A. V. in 1 Chrou. xxiii. 29. This was both to 
 be made up with oil. and to have oil poured on 
 it after it was cooked and broken into pieces. 
 
 (c) The third variety, ver. 7. 
 
 Ver. 7. Boiled in a pot. — This is another 
 variety made up with oil and boiled, perhaps 
 also boiled in oil. Lange notes that with each 
 successive advance in the form of the oblation 
 "the addition of the oil seems to rise, as if the 
 varying grade of spiritual life was distinguished 
 by the consecration of life's enjoyment. (See 
 Keil, ICnobel, 363.) But throughout the oil of 
 the Spirit is the peculiar or appropriate vital 
 essence of the offering, especially in the burnt- 
 offering and the thank-offeriug, and above all in 
 the sacrifice of the priests." 
 
 Directions common to both these varieties of 
 oblation. Vers. 8-10. These scarcely differ from 
 the directions in vers. 2, 3, except in the omis- 
 sion of incense which was not used with the 
 cooked oblation. The ]"p D'^n in ver. 9 has 
 the same sense with the JO |"Op °f Ter - 2 
 (comp. iii. 3 with iv. 8, 31, 35; and iv. 10 with 
 iv. 31, 35), and means simply to lift off the part 
 to be burned. It does not denote, as the Rab- 
 bins and others assert, any special waving cere- 
 mony. 
 
 Vers. 11-13. General directions concerning all 
 oblations. 
 
 Ye shall burn no leaven, nor any 
 honey. — These were strictly prohibited as of- 
 ferings to be laid upon the altar, but not for 
 those offered to God by being given to Ilia 
 
 priests; thus they are allowed in ver. 12. Lea- 
 vened bread is also required in the peace-offer- 
 ing to be used as a heave-offering (vii. 13, 14), 
 and in the Pentecostal loaves to be waved before 
 the Lord (xxiii. 17, 20), and honey is expressly 
 enumerated among the first-fruits offered under 
 Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxi. 5). The reason for 
 the exclusion of these from the altar was un- 
 doubtedly their fermenting property (for honey 
 was anciently used in the preparation of vinegar, 
 Plin. Nat. Hist. xi. 15; xxi. 48); fermentation 
 has ever been recognized " as an apt symbol of 
 the working of corruption in the human heart" 
 (Clark) both in Scripture (Luke xii. 1; 1 Cor. 
 v. 8; Gal. v. 9), and among the ancients gene- 
 rally (Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. x. 15), and hence 
 was unsuitable for the altar of Jehovah, although 
 as abundantly shown by Bochart {Hieroz. Ed. 
 Rosen. III., p. 394 sq.) continually offered to 
 the heathen deities. Honey was also by the 
 aucient interpreters generally connected with 
 the delieise carnis so destructive of the spiritual 
 life. " The leaven signifies an incongruous fel- 
 lowship with the world, easily becoming conta- 
 gious, which must be excluded from the priestly 
 fellowship with Jehovah. The honey, on the 
 other hand, signified in contrast with the leaven, 
 the dainty enjoyment of children, or especially 
 infants (Isa. vii. 15), and was no food for the 
 communion of priestly men with Jehovah." 
 Lange. 
 
 Ver. 12. As an offering.— The sense ia 
 plainly that while leaven, i. c. anything made 
 with leaven, and honey might not be burned 
 upou the altar, they were yet allowable as offer- 
 ings of first-fruits to be consumed by the priests. 
 Ver. 13. This verse gives directions applica- 
 ble to all oblations, and in fact to all sacrifices. 
 The salt of the covenant of thy God. — 
 A covenant of salt is a perpetual covenant, 
 Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chron. xiii. 5; and this ex- 
 pression is said to be still in use among the 
 Arabs at this day. Salt in its unalterable and 
 preserving property is the opposite of leaven 
 and of honey. Its symbolical meaning is there- 
 fore plain; the purifying and preserving prin- 
 ciple must never be wanting from any offering 
 made in covenant-relation with God. 
 
 With all thine offerings. — From the con- 
 nection of this clause it might, with Knobel, be 
 taken as applicable only to oblations; but a9 
 salt was used with all offerings (Ezek. xliii. 24: 
 Mark ix. 49), not only among the Hebrews, but 
 other nations also (Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxi. 41 in 
 sacris . . . nulla eonficiuntur sine mola salsa), and 
 as on account of this universally recognized 
 usage no other direction is anywhere given 
 about it in the law, it seems better to take the 
 words as a parenthetical clause meaut to apply 
 to all offerings of every kind. 
 
 III. The third kind of oblation. Vers. 14-16. 
 This kind of oblation is separated from the others 
 probably because it was not like them offered in 
 connection with the bloody sacrifices, but by 
 itself, like the same kind of offering mentioned 
 in Num. xviii. 12, 13. That offering, however, 
 was obligatory, while this was voluntary. 
 Lange, however, considers that "this direction 
 looks back to ver. 12, completing it. It is true 
 that the leavened loaves of the first-fruits might 
 
S2 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 not he brought to the sacrificial fire; but it is 
 not. on that account to be said that in general 
 the first-fruits were not to be offered. Accord- 
 ingly the form is now prescribed." These pre- 
 cepts are of course to be understood of private 
 and voluntary oblations of first-fruits; both the 
 time (on the morrow after the Passover-Sabbath, 
 xxiii. II) and the material (barley — for this only 
 was ripe at that time) of the public and required 
 oblation grain were prescribed. 
 
 Ver. 14. Green ears of grain. — Ears freshly 
 gathered of the maturing grain scarcely yet 
 quite ripe. Stalks of wheat with the ears, 
 gathered before they are entirely ripe, roasted 
 by the fire, and the kernels of grain then beaten 
 out. is still a favorite food in the East. 
 
 Vers. 15, 16. Oil and frankincense were 
 to be added, and the oblation treated as that in 
 vers. 2, 3. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. As the burnt-offerings were of such domes- 
 tic animals as were used for food, and yet not 
 from every kind of them ; so the oblations were 
 of certain kinds of farinaceous food in common 
 use — not indeed of all kinds, but of a sufficient 
 variety to place the material of the offering 
 always within easy reach. Both kinds of offer- 
 ings, which were entirely voluntary, were thus 
 made easily accessible to the people, and they 
 were taught that the things of the daily life 
 were to be sanctified by offerings to God. As 
 the perfect animal was required for the burnt- 
 offering, so the fine flour was demanded for the 
 oblation ; that which is given to God is to be of 
 the best man has. 
 
 II. That which is once absolutely given to 
 God may not. afterwards be turned aside to any 
 other use. However voluntary the gift, when it 
 has once been stamped "most holy," it belongs 
 to Him alone. The principle is recognized in 
 the N. T. in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. 
 Yet what is given to God must often, as in the 
 oblation, be largely consumed by those who 
 minister on His behalf, and by secondary instru- 
 mentalities generally. This is recognized by 
 St. Paul in 1 Cor. is. 13, 14, and must necessa- 
 rily be true of the great mass of the gifts in the 
 Christian Church given to God for the uphold- 
 ing and advancement of His kingdom on earth. 
 
 III. In the exclusion from the oblation of all 
 ferment and I he requirement of the salt of purity 
 and preservation is plainly taught that approach 
 to God must be free from contamination of " the 
 leaven of hypocrisy," and must have in it both 
 purity and steadfastness. 
 
 IV. In the oblation, recognizing as a whole 
 that man gives back to God of that which God 
 has given to him, the use of the oil seems to 
 have a more special significance. As an article 
 of food it meant also what was meant by the 
 fine flour; but inasmuch as oil is constantly in 
 Scripture the emblem of Divine grace given 
 through the Spirit, it was perhaps intended by 
 
 its use in the oblation to signify also the ac- 
 knowledgment that spiritual gifts are from God 
 and belong to Him. 
 
 V. Much of the ritual of the oblation is ap- 
 plied in the N. T. to Christian duties and affec- 
 tions, sometimes in what is common to this with 
 other offerings, sometimes in what belonged to 
 this alone. Several such passages have already 
 been pointed out ; others may be added: Matt. 
 xvi. 6, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees 
 and Sidducees: Mark ix. 49,50, Every sacrifice 
 
 shall be salted with salt Have salt in 
 
 yourselves, and have peace one with another; 
 1 Cor. v. 7, 8; Col. iv. 6, Let your speech be 
 alway with grace, seasoned with salt; Heb. xiii. 
 15, through Christ, Let us offer the sacrifice of 
 praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our 
 lips giving thanks to His name. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 The oblation to God, though unbloody and 
 among the least of the sacrifices, must still be 
 the best of its kind, of fine flour. It must have 
 upon it the oil of an act of the Spirit, and the 
 sweet frankincense of prayer. That it may be 
 truly a gift to God, and acceptable, it is only 
 necessary that a mere handful of it be actually 
 burned upon His altar; the rest is still a gift to 
 Him, although consumed by those who minister 
 in His Bervice. "It is joined with the burnt- 
 offering like blessing with faithful discharge of 
 duty." Lange. 
 
 Every variety of food, fit for the altar, must 
 be sanctified by an oblation. We ever ask: 
 " Give us this day our daily bread," and re- 
 ceiving it, we are called upon to acknowledge 
 the Giver by giving to Him an offering of that 
 which is His own. Even the leaven and the 
 honey, which, from their fermenting properties, 
 may not go upon the altar, may yet be offered 
 as first-fruits. There is none of God's gifts 
 which we may use ourselves, with which we 
 may not show our gratitude to the Giver. 
 
 In the worship of God "we may not adopt 
 our own inventions, though they may be sweet 
 and delicious as honey to our own palates. . . . 
 Honey is good in its proper place, and heaven 
 itself is typified by 'a land flowing with milk 
 and honey ' (Ex. iii. 8 ; xiii. 5) ; but if God for- 
 bids it, we must abstain from it, or we shall not 
 come to that heavenly Canaan." Wordswonh. 
 
 That, seasoning of salt which the apostle re- 
 quires for our conversation (Col. iv. b), may not 
 be wanting from our gifts to God. They are not 
 to be insipid, but having "that, freshness and 
 vital briskness which characterizes the Spirit's 
 presence and work." Alford. 
 
 Of first-fruits especially is an oblation to be 
 brought. Not only should we give to God as 
 He blesses us all along; but especially with 
 each new harvest received from His bounty 
 should a first portion be laid aside for His ser- 
 vice. 
 
CHAP. III. 1-17. 33 
 
 C— PEACE-OFFERINGS. 
 Chap. III. 1-17. 
 
 1 And if his oblation [offering 1 ] be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if he offer it of the 
 herd ; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the 
 
 2 Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the 
 door of the tabernacle of the [om. the 2 ] congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests 
 
 3 shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. And he shall offer of the 
 sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord ; the fat that 
 
 4 covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, 
 and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, 
 
 5 with [on s ] the kidneys, it shall he take away. And Aaron's sons 4 shall burn it on 
 the altar upon the burnt-sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire : it is 
 an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. 
 
 6 And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offering unto the Lord be of the flock ; 
 
 7 male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. If he offer a lamb [sheep 5 ] for 
 
 8 his offering, then shall he offer it before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand 
 upon the head of his offering, and kill it before 6 the tabernacle of the [om. the 2 ] 
 congregation : and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon 
 
 9 the altar. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made 
 by fire unto the Lord ; the fat thereof, and the whole rump [fat tail'], it shall he 
 take off hard by the back-bone : and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the 
 
 10 fat that is upon the inwards, and the two' kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, 
 which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on 3 ] the kidneys, it shall 
 
 11 he take away. And the priest shall burn it upon the altar : it is the food of the 
 offering made by fire 8 unto the Lord. 
 
 12, 13 And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the Lord. And he 
 shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the [om. 
 the 2 ] congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon 
 
 14 the altar round about. And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering 
 made by fire unto the Lord ; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that 
 
 15 is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is 
 by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on 3 ] the kidneys, it shall he take 
 
 16 away. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar : it is the food of the offer- 
 ing made by fire for a sweet savour : all the fat is the Lord's [as food of an offer- 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Ver. 1. |3*^p=ofFering, as in ch. ii. 
 ' Ver. 2. See on i. 3, Text. Note ». 
 8 Ver. 4. 7_^* must here be translated on, not ieitk, since the kidneys have just been mentioned. 
 
 < Ver. 5. The Sam., LXX. and one MS. add the priests. So also the LXX. and one MS. in ver. 8, and the Sam. and 
 XXX. in ver. 13. 
 
 6 Ver. 7. 3t93— H33, according to Bochart (Bieroz. I. 33), a sheep of intermediate age between the rnU=' amb 
 
 and the TX of three years old. It is, however, often applied to the sheep of one year in which case the age is mentioned, 
 
 as xiv. 10; Nnm. vii. 15, 17, 21, etc. In Prov. xxvii. 26 it is described as yielding wool. In the A. V. the form fc?33 is 
 
 uniformly rendered lamb, except in Ex. xii. 5, while the other form is translated sheep nine times, and Unnb four times. 
 There is no ground for this distinction. 
 
 6 Ver. 8. The locality fir killing the victim is made more definite by the insertion in one MS. and in the Syr.: "be- 
 fore the Lord at the door of." The LXX. makes the same insertion in ver. 13. 
 
 7 Ver. 9. TV 7X, according to all interpreters the fat tail of the ovis laticaudata, a variety common in Arabia and 
 
 Syria, but in modern Palestine "aid to be the only variety. The tail is described a* of rich marrowy fat, of the width of 
 the hind quarters, and often trailing on the ground. The wor I occurs only in this connection (Ex. xxix. 22; Lt-v. vii. 3; 
 viii. 25; ix. 19), and is rendered by all the ancient versions, except the LXX. (oaifjiiO, tail. So also Jos. Aut. iii. 9. 2. 
 
 e Ver. 11. The sense is expressod by the addition in 2 MSS. and in the LXX of the words from i. 9, 13, 17, ninp~n'"1 
 (=.a Bweet-soielling savor.) 
 
34 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 17 iug made by fire for a sweet savour, shall all the fat be the Lord's 9 ]. It shall be a 
 perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat 
 neither fat nor blood. 
 
 ' Ver. 16. The A. V. seems unnecessarily complicated, as there are but two clauses in this verse. After "savour" the 
 Sam., LXX , and some ilSS. add " to the Lord. ' 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Tbe peace-offering, like the offerings of the 
 preceding chapters, is spoken of as already in 
 common use, and the law is given for its proper 
 regulation. The offerings of this, as of the pre- 
 vious chapters, were voluntary. The peace- 
 offering differed from the oblation in being ani- 
 mal, and from the burnt-offering in not being 
 wholly consumed, but after a small portion had 
 been burned, and a portion given to the priest, 
 the remainder reverted to the offerer for a sac- 
 rificial in . al (vii. 11-21); a further difference is 
 in that the burnt-offerings were only male, the 
 peace-offerings either male or female; and still 
 further, doves were not allowed iu the peace- 
 offerings, because they were too small for the 
 necessary division, and for the sacrificial feast. 
 
 The full form D'VJ'd 113! used here, is nearly 
 always employed in Leviticus; but the peace- 
 offering is probably intended by the simple fQi 
 of xxiii. 37 (vii. 16, 17 does not, and xvii. 8 
 may not mean peace-offering), and it certainly 
 
 is by O'V^p in ix. 22. The latter, as the de- 
 termining word, is frequently used elsewhere 
 alone, as Ex. xx. 24; xxxii. 6; Deut. xxvii. 7; 
 Josh. viii. 31, <•(<•. The word is variously de- 
 rived and has various shades of signification 
 attached to it: (1) Thank-offering, Gesenius, 
 Fiirst, Luther, Rosenuiiiller, Winer, Biihr, 
 etc., flnoia x a P laT VP la i J°s. Ant. iii. 9, 2; (2) 
 Meat-offering, Zunz; (3) Salvation- offer ini/, aurrii- 
 pirn; LXX. most frequently («'. e. in the Tent., 
 Josh.. Judges, Chron., Ezra, Amos), Piiilo; 
 (4) Peace-offering, e'lpnvmuc, LXX. (in Samuel, 
 Kings, Prnv.), Aq., Sym., Theod., Vulg., A. V. 
 The last two senses are very similar; the first 
 seems less appropriate, partly because the 
 strictly than], i ng appears as a special variety 
 of this more general class (vii. 11, 12); partly 
 
 because the G"y~*'d were offered not only in 
 thanks for benefits received, but also in times 
 of distress and in supplication for the divine 
 help (Judg. xx. 20; xxi. 4; 1 Sam. xiii. 9; 2 
 Sam. xxiv. 25). Outram says : Sacrificia salu- 
 taria in eacris. Uteris shelamim dicta, ut ante semper 
 de rebut proiperis fieri solerent, impetratii utique, 
 aut impetrandit. Lange brings together the 
 several meanings in the name Beiltopfer, salva- 
 tion or saving offering "in the common sense 
 of blessing or prosperity-offering." In English 
 the already accepted peace-offering seems to ex- 
 press sufficiently the same sense, and is there- 
 fore retained. The law (vii. 12-1C) distinguishes 
 three kinds of peace-offerings — thanksgiving, 
 vow and free-will offerings; the only difference 
 in their ritual being in the length of time during 
 which their flesh might be eaten. 
 
 The peace-offerings are not called "most 
 
 holy" like the oblation, but only "holy," and 
 the priests' portion might be eaten by their 
 families in any " clean place" (vii. 31 with x. 
 14; xxiii. 20). The portion which reverted to 
 the offerer to be eaten as a sacrificial feast 
 might be partaken of only by those who were 
 legally "clean" (vii. 20, 21). The peace-offer- 
 ings were prescribed on a variety of occasions, 
 and as they were the necessary offerings of sac- 
 rificial feasts, and hence of all solemn national 
 rejoicings, they were the most common of all 
 sacrifices. From Num. xv. it appears that, like 
 the burut-offeiiag, they were always accompa- 
 nied by the meat and the drink-offering. — 
 Lange : " The peace-offering refers to prosperity 
 as Jehovah's free gift in past, present, and future. 
 As regards the past, it is a simple praise and 
 thank-offering (an Eben Ezer, Amus v. 2.). In 
 reference to a happy present, it is a content- 
 ment, joy, or feast-offering. As it relates to a 
 future to be realized, to au experience of salva- 
 tion yet to come, to a deliverance or an exhibi- 
 tion of mercy that is prayed for with a vuw, it 
 is a votive offering. The prescriptions in regard 
 to the various kinds are different. Here it is 
 said, that the animal to be s'ain may be either 
 male or female, only it must be without blemish. 
 In eh. vii. 15 sq. nothing of the praise-offering 
 might be left over until the next day, whereas 
 the vow, or free-will offering might be eaten also 
 on the next day, but not on the third day." 
 Lange then points out that in the casi of those 
 vow, or free-will offerings which were to be 
 burnl-ufferings, a male was required, xxii. 19, 
 without blemish. " Eveu an abuornial forma- 
 tion of the victim, too long or too short legs of 
 the animal [vii. 22, 23] was enough to make it 
 unsuitable for the vow-offering, but still not for 
 tue free-will offering. So every kind of pros- 
 perity was to be hallowed to the Lord."* 
 
 Sacrificial feists were at lea-t as old as tho 
 time of Jacob (Gen. xxxi. 51), and became com- 
 mon among all nations; but the distinctive 
 name of peace-offering first appears when .Moses 
 came down with the law from Mt. Sinai (Ex. 
 xxiv. 5). The thing signified, however, must 
 have been already familiar to the people, for 
 the word recurs in connection with the idola- 
 trous sacrifice of Aaron when .Moses had again 
 gone up into the Mount (Ex. xxxii. G). 
 
 Two kinds of victims were allowable: of the 
 "herd," or of the "flock." 
 
 Vers. 1-5. The peace-offering of the herd, i. e. 
 a bullock or a cow. 
 
 * In rotrard to the question whether the i- 1 ' II -offering 
 embraces also the eupplicatory offering, Lange suys: "It is 
 underatood that the vows themselves ftew supplications, 
 iron which the accompanying offering might also be railed 
 a supplicatory offering; but a peculiar supplfcub n off. ring 
 to strengthen tbe supplication would ha e been prejudicial 
 
 to tho lr lorn of tin- divine beeriug. It Blinws i tine dls- 
 
 hin'i no tlml tin- life pruiso una. thank-utTering* tThbda), 
 which were preceded by no vows, were exulted above the 
 vow-offerlugd ami free-will offering-", ina much as tuese lat- 
 ter might be accompanied by a selri.h feeling." 
 
CHAP. III. 1-17. 
 
 35 
 
 Ver. 1. The victim both in this and in the 
 other kind (ver. 6) might be of either sex. Ac- 
 cording to Herodotus, this was directly contrary 
 to the Egyptian law, which forbade offering the 
 female in sacrifice: dnltiae ov c6i l^errrt P'uetv (ii. 
 41). As in the case of other offerings, the vic- 
 tim must be "without blemish." There was 
 ordinarily no restriction of age, although in 
 some special cases yearling lambs are mentioned 
 (xxiii. 19; Num. vii. 17). 
 
 Ver. 2. The laying on of the offerer's hand 
 and the sprinkling of the blood by the priest are 
 the same as in the case of the burnt-offering; 
 hence no signification can be attached to these 
 acts in the one case which will not apply in the 
 other also, except of course in so far as an act 
 of essentially ihe same meaning might be some- 
 what modified by its connections. 
 
 Vers. 3, 4. There were four parts to be burned 
 upon the altar: (1) the fat that covereth 
 the inwards, ?'. e. the large net, omentum, Jos. 
 iii. 9, 2, kiriir'Aovc, caul, or adipose membrane 
 found in mammals attached to the stomach and 
 spreading over the bowels, and which in the 
 ruminants abounds with fat; (2) all the fat 
 ■which is upon the inwards, i. e. the fat 
 attached to the intestines, and which could be 
 peeled off; (8) the two kidneys, and the 
 fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, 
 or loins, i. e. the kidneys and all the fat con- 
 nected with them; the kidneys are the only 
 thing to be burned except the fat ; (4) the smaller 
 net, omentum minus, or caul above the liver, 
 which stretches on one side to the region of the 
 
 kidneys, hence on the kidneys, 7^=by them, 
 not with them, they having been just before 
 mentioned. The word tVVjf occurs only in Ex. 
 (twice) and Lev. (nine times) always in connec- 
 tion with 133=the liver; it is described as 
 above or upon the liver, and hence is not to be 
 understood, as has often been done, of the liver 
 itself, or of a part of it. These four include all 
 the separable fat in the inside of the animal 
 (and in addition to these was the fat tail in the 
 case of Ihe sheep), so that, ver. 16, they are 
 called "all the fat," so also iv. 8, 19, 26, 31, 35; 
 vii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 5. Aaron's sons shall burn. — The 
 burning on the altar, and the sprinkling of the 
 blood (ver. 2), being the acts by which the sac- 
 rifice was especially offered to God, were always 
 and in all sacrifices the priestly function. 
 
 Upon the burnt sacrifice. — This rendering 
 is quite correct, and is in accordance with the 
 ancient versions. The sense given by Knobel 
 " according to " or " in the manner of the burnt- 
 offering" is inadmissible. iP may sometimes 
 bear this sense (Ex. xii. 51; Ps. ex. 4); but it 
 is rare, and not likely to he the meaning here. 
 As a matter of fact, peace-offerings ordinarily 
 followed especial burnt-offerings, and always 
 the daily burnt-offering, which would so seldom 
 have been entirely consumed when the peace- 
 offering was offered, that the fat might naturally 
 be described as placed upon it. 
 
 Vers. 6-16. The peace-offerings of sheep or 
 goats. 
 
 The ritual for the second kind of peace-offer- 
 ing is the same as for the first ; it is repeated in 
 case the victim should be a sheep (vers. 6-11), 
 and in case it should be a goat (vers. 12-16). 
 Only in the case of the sheep, on the principle 
 of burning all the separable fat, the tail (see 
 Textual, ver. 9) must also be laid upon the 
 altar. 
 
 Ver. 11. (Clomp, ver 16.) The food of the 
 offering made by fire unto the Lord. — 
 This is a common expression applied to sacr.fiees 
 generally ( " my bread," Num. xxviii. 2 ; " Bread 
 of God," ch. xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22; xxii. 25); 
 yet especially mentioned only in connection 
 with the peace-offerings. It is used only of the 
 portions of the victim burned upon the altar, 
 and is expressly distinguished from the portion 
 eaten by the priests (xxi. 22). By a natural 
 figure, the whole victim being food, the part of 
 it given to Jehovah by burning upon the altar is 
 called the food of Jehovah, and shows the com- 
 munion between Him and the worshipper brought 
 about by the sacrifice. It is not necessary, 
 however, to realize this figure by attributing to 
 the Hebrews the thought — belonging to the later 
 heathen — that God actually required food; such, 
 a notion was foreign to their whole theology. 
 
 Ver. 16. All the fat—/. «., nil that has been 
 enumerated — all the separable fat of the victim. 
 
 Ver. 17. Throughout all your dwellings. 
 — This applies to the life in the wilderness when 
 all sacrificial animals slain for food were re- 
 quired to be offered as peace-offerings before the 
 Lord (xvii. 3-7) ; whether it applies also to the 
 subsequent life in the land of promise, when this 
 restriction was to be removed (Deut. xii. 15 ; xiv. 
 •11, 23 : xv. 22, 21), has been much de haled. In 
 the passages removing that restriction, mention 
 is made only of the blood which must be poured 
 out, and in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxti. It), 
 the "fat of lambs" is especially mentioned among 
 the blessings to be enjoyed. 
 
 Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood. — The 
 
 prohibition of the separable fat (27n in contra- 
 distinction to the ptfO or [0$ (lie fat mixed 
 with the flesh which might be eaten, Neh. viii. 
 10) for food springs immediately from the fact 
 that it was especially consecrated to God, and 
 therefore not to be used by man. If we seek the 
 reason of this consecration it is not to be sought 
 on hygienic grounds (Rosenmiiller), but ra- 
 ther in its contiection with the animal economy. 
 As blood is described as "the life" of Ihe ani- 
 mal, so is the fat a stored-up source of life, 
 drawn upon for sustaining life whenever, in de- 
 ficiency of food or other exigency, it is required. 
 It thus stands more nearly related in function to 
 the blood, and became naturally the appropriate 
 portion for the altar. Its proper development 
 was also a mark of perfection in the animal. It 
 is further to be borne in mind that the fat was 
 considered the choice portion, and henc the 
 word was figuratively used of excellence (Gen. 
 xxvii. 28; xlv. 18, etc.) and thus the fat, as the 
 best, was reserved for God's portion. The pro- - 
 hibiiion is repeated with still stronger emphasis, 
 vii. 23-25. but with the exception that the fat of 
 animals dying of themselves may be applied to 
 other uses (ver. 24). It has always been under- 
 
36 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 stood by the Jews that the prohibition respects 
 only the fat of animals that might be offered in 
 sacrifice. Comp. vii. 23. 
 
 Nothing is here said of the disposal of the flesh 
 of the victim, the law of this being given in de- 
 tail, vii. 11-36. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. As all vegetable food was sanctified by the 
 oblation, so all animal food was by the peace 
 offering. In the wilderness this was literally 
 carried out by the presenting of all animals fit 
 for sacrifice as offerings, sprinkling their blood 
 and burning their fat upon the altar ; later, when 
 in Palestine this became impossible on account 
 of the distances, the idea was kept up in the 
 prohibition of the blood for food. The ge- 
 neral principle thus expressed for all time is that 
 God's gifts to man are to be acknowledged as 
 from Him, and due return made to Him, or other- 
 wise they are profaned. 
 
 II. In the expression "Food of the Lord," 
 although figurative, we recognize the idea of 
 communion between God and man, expressed by 
 a part of the sacrifice burned on the altar, and 
 called by this name, while another part was 
 eaten by the offerer at the sacrificial feast. Simi- 
 larly the Eucharist is spoken of in 1 Cor. x. 21 
 as the " Lord's table." In this respect the peace- 
 offering under the old dispensation signified the 
 same thing as the Eucharist under the new — the 
 communion of the devout worshipper with God. 
 It was eminently a feast of love towards God and 
 man ; the worshipper communicated with God 
 by feasting on the sacrifice offered to Him, and 
 by the portion eaten by the priests as His repre- 
 sentatives, and with man by feasting with his 
 friends on the remainder. It is happily de- 
 scribed by Wordsworth as " an Eucharist cou- 
 pled with an offertory." 
 
 III. All sacrifices were necessarily typical of 
 Christ, and each of them had in this respect its 
 peculiar significance : with the peace-offering He 
 is especially connected by the prophecy of Isaiah 
 (liii. 5) " the chastisement of our peace was upon 
 Him," and by the frequent application of this 
 word to Him and to His sacrifice in the New Tes- 
 tament, (Rom. v. 1 ; Eph. ii. 14-16 ; Col. i. 20, 
 etc.). 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 " The Peace-offering is the expression of the 
 
 feeling that man might receive or ask only a 
 pure prosperity from God, and might offer it to 
 Him again." Lange. In this offering " God, 
 the Master and Judge, was merged in God, the 
 Benefactor and Rescuer." Kalisch. In the 
 feasting of the offerer with his friends upon the 
 flesh of the sacrifice was expressed clearly the 
 idea of communion with God; yet even in this 
 offering, the blood must be sprinkled upon the 
 altar ; — in the nearest approach of sinful man to 
 God, there must still be propitiation. 
 
 In the peace-offering any sacrificial animal, of 
 either sex, and of any age was allowable ; God 
 gives man the largest latitude of choice in the 
 ways of expressing his gratitude. He also sanc- 
 tifies as a means of communion with Him what- 
 ever He has appointed as the means of ap- 
 proaching Him in any way. The Christian may 
 commune with God in work, in prayer, in sacra- 
 ments, in study of His word. 
 
 In this sacrifice the fat was burnt upon the 
 altar, and certain choice parts given to the 
 priests to be eaten with their families ; so in our 
 thanksgivings, first let the Giver of all good be 
 recognized, and the best of all be given back to 
 Him ; and then let a portion be given also to 
 those who maintain His service, that the main 
 part which remains may be enjoyed by us with 
 a holy joy. 
 
 The sacrifice for sin (see ch. iv.) was limited 
 to that which was prescribed, nothing more was 
 allowed ; the peace-offerings might be unlimited 
 in number and in value : so man now may seek 
 forgiveness only in the way God has provided, — 
 he can add nothing to its efficacy ; but to the ex- 
 pression of his thankfulness, and to his desire 
 for communion with God, no bounds are set. He 
 may go as far as he can, and his offerings will 
 be looked upon with approbation as " a sweet 
 savor unto the Lord." 
 
 The feast upon the sacrifice of peace-offerings 
 might include all the members of the offerer's 
 family. Thus was the joyous family feast, like 
 every other human relation and condition, 
 brought by the Levitical law into relation with 
 duties to God, and sanctified by His blessing and 
 by symbolical communion with Him. 
 
 A true sacrifice of praise is offered by those 
 who glorify God in their lives. This constitutes 
 the Christian peace-offering of communion with 
 God in its highest form — that of thanksgiving 
 for His inestimable benefits showed forth in a 
 sincere obedience to His commands. Origeu. 
 
 D.— SIN OFFERINGS. 
 
 Chapters IV. 1-35— V. 1-13. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord, spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance [inadvertence 1 ] against any of the 
 
 1 Vor. 2. rtJ}H3 from JJE> ■ 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 : njL7 = SOl!/ = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. 
 
 It includes not only sin- 
 
 ning unawares, through Ignorance (vers. 18, 922, 27 ; v. 17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (v. 1, 4) ; but also un- 
 intentional las (like thai ol manslaughter without malieS, Num. xxxv. 11, 15, 22), and therefore sins arielogfrom human 
 Infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sins— sins " with a high hand"— for which no sacrifice was allow- 
 
CHAP. IV. 1-35— V. 1-23. 37 
 
 commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall 
 do [omit against 2 ] any of them : 
 
 3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people [to the 
 guilt of the people 3 ] ; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young 
 
 4 bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. And he shall bring the 
 bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation before the 
 Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before 
 
 5 the Lord. And the priest that is anointed 4 shall take ot the bullocks blood and 
 
 6 brino- it to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: and the priest shall dip 
 his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, be- 
 
 7 fore the vail of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon 
 the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle 
 of the [omit the] congregation ; and shall pour all the [other] blood of the bullock 
 at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the taber- 
 
 8 nacle of the [omit the] congregation. And he shall take off from it all the fat ot 
 the bullock for the sin offering ; the fat that covereth the 6 inwards, and all the fat 
 
 £ that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which 
 is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on 8 *] the kidneys, it shall he 
 
 10 take awav, as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings; 
 
 11 and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin 
 of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, 
 
 12 and his dung, even the whole bullock shall he 7 carry forth without the camp unto 
 a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fare : 
 where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt. 
 
 13 And if the whole congregation 8 of Israel sin [err 9 ] through ignorance [inadver- 
 tence 1 ], and the thing be hid 10 from the eyes of the assembly, 8 and they have done 
 somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which 
 
 14 should not be done, and are guilty ; when the sin, which they have sinned against 
 it is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock 11 for the sin [a sin 
 offering 1 '] and bring him before the 13 tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 
 
 able (Nam. xv. 27-31). The LXX. has imnnriw, the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) ^tf 3 = through error, so also 
 
 the Syr The nil Italic has impndmttr. Aquila reads iv ayvoia, and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that 
 
 • \ „] - came to read per ig M lranli„m, which has been perpetuated in the A V. ; hut ,„ Hellenistic Greek aveem and 07- 
 
 l^(Hel,.ix.7)bearrall,, .h- " e given al Bee Scbleua. Lex. in LXX. Through gomg «.r,.y might better ex- 
 
 press the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the s 
 
 3 Ver. 2. njm fMIXO- The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same ; 
 but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient ver- 
 sions. Tne JO in both clauses is to be taken partitively. 
 
 3 Ver. 3. naE?8S Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun — to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient ver- 
 sions and the modern expositors generally. 
 
 * Ver 5 To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers, add who* hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition. 
 
 6 Ver. 7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to Dl, while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bulla, L 
 
 « Ver. 8. 3-ipn J 7;'. This is translated in the A. vJand in the ancient versions as if it were '•TV/IN as in Ui. 14. 
 So it must be translated, and such is actually the rending in the Sam. and many MSS. 
 
 7 Ver 12 The Sam and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but 
 is said to do that which he caused to ho done, according to common usage of all languages. 
 
 s» Ver. 9. On. See iii. 4, Textual Note 8. 
 
 8 Ver. 13. rn;- l 73 (congregation) Snp (assembly) the two words used here, and Tt/lD Num. xvi. 2 and freq. havo 
 no difference in signification which ran be Recognized in translation. They are nsed in apposition. 
 
 » Ver. 13. H yj. In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of KBIT This being the only exception, should bo 
 
 TT T T 
 
 changed.^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ thfi ^ here and ta y % 4 Accor ding to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing " that 
 every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh. if the guttural was 
 to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph." Comp. -|E>sn_Gen. xlvi. 29 j Ex. xiv. 6, D'/tyP (according to 
 
 Bome copies) Ps. x. 1. 
 
 11 Ver. 14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the " without blemish " so frequently expressed, and always to be un- 
 derstood. 
 
 12 Ver. 14. nxanS. The word is used in both senses— a sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter hi re. 
 
 t - : 
 It has no article. 
 
 13 Ver. 14. The LXX. anl Vulg. add the door of, which is implied. 
 
LEVITICUS. 
 
 15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bul- 
 lock before the Lord : and the bullock shall be killed [one shall kill the bullock' 4 ] 
 
 16 before the Lord. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood 
 
 17 to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation : and the priest shall dip his finger 
 in some of the blood, and sprinkle if seven times before the Lord, even before the 
 
 18 vail. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar 16 which is 
 before the Lord, that is in the taberuacle of the [omit the] congregation, and shall 
 pour out all the [other] blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which 
 
 19 is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. And he shall take 
 
 20 all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. And he shall do with the bul- 
 lock as he aid with the bullock for a [the 17 ] sin offering, so shall he do with this: 
 and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 
 
 21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned 
 the first bullock: it 18 is a sin offering for the congregation. 
 
 22 When a ruler [prince 19 ] hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance [in- 
 advertence 1 ] against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning 
 
 23 things which should not be done, and is guilty ; or if [if perhaps 20 ] his sin, wherein 
 he hath sinned, come to his knowledge ; he shall bring his offering, a kid [a buck 21 ] 
 
 24 of the goats, a male without blemish : and he shall lay his hand upon the head of 
 the goat, and kill 22 it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the 
 
 25 Lord : it is a sin-offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering 
 with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall 
 
 26 pour out 23 his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall 
 burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings : and 
 the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be 
 forgiven him. 
 
 27 And if any one of the common people [any soul of the people of the land 24 ] sin 
 through ignorance [inadvertence 1 ] whilehvdoeth somewhat against any ofthecommaiid- 
 
 ?8 rnentsof the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty j or li [if 
 perhaps 20 ] his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall 
 brin Ais offering, a kid of the goats [a she-goat 26 ] a female without blemish, for his 
 
 29 sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin 
 
 30 offering and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the 
 priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns ol 
 the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the 
 
 M Ver. 15. Tbe subject of OUVJ is one of the elders. 
 
 15 Ver 17 The ellipsis supplied by U in the A. V. is filled out in the Sum, in one MS., and in the Syr bv " of the 
 Wool- cJl\lr^TZXh^Z^ are Ailed out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding 
 paragraph. 
 
 16 Ver. 18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify " altar of incense." 
 
 17 Vir. 20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest. 
 
 18 Ver. 21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form XT]- 
 
 w Ver. 22. R'frj. This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and rufer, occurs in Lev. 
 
 only her,, but very'frequentlv in Num., where it is translated captain .in ch. ii. (1! ■ «"»«j.„^j n c a h n s , "h h "- j u ^"""it 
 once r«A xiii. 2, and prince throughout the rest of the book ,42 times) as well as *™£XuStantSlv the' fame rank 
 fi ,u'r tirnee uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these p aces ,t refers to ^^'^"^i^^aD^lpXd 
 and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform It '""^ 8 lite " *' "?,"_%' ,™ '„p.n r, t of 
 to the b< ad of a tribe, or other lar^e division of the people, whether of Israel or of other natrons • ^'"» e ' , V V and 
 ' tie bribe i hi, ftain." referring to Num. iii. 24. A, prince is on the whole the most common rendenng of the A. V., and 
 expresses very well the eens*-, it is retained here. -rvv 
 
 > Ver. 23. The conjunction IN should be rendered if perhape, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by ,/, the LXX. 
 
 ""'• ZyifiKvjltl - a n^oat, generally understood of one older than tbe Wg or youug he-goat used in the burnt 
 
 and peace-offeringiWnt, Knobel). It is often rendered Win the A. V It is ^""S^,^^V-^£.*S«: 
 
 '.I. r, f.r. ,,,, is to the Idolatroue worship of the goat f,.r goat-like de.ty and '"'« "'^^^"^^^Vo Keil. 
 
 It is the kind of (coat used in tbe sin-offering generally. Hochart supposes it to mean a goat ol a peculiar 
 
 a Ver 21. The Sam. pats tbe verb In the plural; so also in ver. 33. 
 
 » Ver.26. The LXX. and* MSB. have all his blood, as in the other places retained so tar a» "people <f 
 
 from tbe priests (in this case probably from tbe high-priest) and tlie rulers. 
 
 » Ver 28. Jll'l'tf iB simply the feminine of the word discussed uuder ver. 23. 
 
 « Ver. 80. Two H88., ft. Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add "of burnt-offering." The Sam. and the LXX. make 
 
 the h nil-" addition ut thu cud of vtr. 34, 
 
CHAP. IV. 1-35— V. 1-13. 39 
 
 31 bottom of the altar. 26 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken 
 away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings ; and the priest shall bum it upon the 
 altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord ; and the priest shall make an atonement for 
 him, and it shall be forgiven him. 
 
 32 Aud if he bring a lamb [a sheep 27 ] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female 
 
 33 without blemish. Aud he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, 
 
 34 and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And 
 the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon 
 the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood 
 
 35 thereof at the bottom of the altar : aud he shall take away all the fat thereof, as 
 the fat of the lamb [sheep 27 ] is taken away from the sacrifice of the pence offerings ; 
 and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to [upon 28 ] the offerings 
 made by fire unto the Loud : and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin 
 that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. 
 
 Chap. V. 1. And if a soul sin, and hear [in that he hear 29 ] the voice of swearing 
 [adjuration 30 ], and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it ; if he do not 
 
 2 utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or it' 81 a soul touch any unclean thing, 
 whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, 3 " or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the 
 carcase of unclean creeping things, and (Jit be hidden from him; he also shall be 
 
 3 unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever unclean- 
 ness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him ; when he kuow- 
 
 4 eth of it, then he shall be guilty. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing [speaking idly 32 ] 
 with to lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce 
 [speak idly 32 ] with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then 
 
 5 he shall be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty" in one 
 
 6 of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall 
 bring his trespass offering [bring for his trespass 3 *] unto the Lord, tor his sin which 
 he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats [a sheep 27 or 
 a she-goat 25 ], for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him 
 concerning his sin. 
 
 7 And if he be not able 35 to bring a lamb [sheep 27 ], then he shall bring for his tres- 
 pass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the 
 
 8 Lord; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. And he shall 
 bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, 
 
 9 and wring [pinch] off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder : and 
 he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar ; and the 
 rest of the blood shall be wrung [pressed 36 ] out at the bottom of the altar : it is a 
 
 27 Ver. 32. t!733 = a sheep, see Text, note 6 under iii. 7. 
 
 » Ver. 33. 't^H Sj'. The sense is here as in iii. 5 upon. These heing special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would 
 
 always have been upon the altar before them, aud even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression " upon " it 
 could still be natural iy used. 
 
 s» CnAr. V. Ver. 1. " Particula 1 ante ru'3l? hie usurpatur oinoAoyticii, estque vertenda juut, ta quod, ut Gen. xxvi. 
 
 "r : It 
 12; Deut. xvii. 16. ' Rosenmueller. 
 
 *> Ver. 1. n^N- Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the fliph. 
 
 is translated o 'jure in 1 Sam. xiv. 24. See Exeg. Com. The Hob. has no word for adjuration as dis tinct from swearing. It 
 is expressed in the LXX. bv opxtn-juoO. 
 
 81 Ver. 2. The full form would bo "liJ/K '3; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix 'S here and add VJX 
 
 in ver. 4. SIa Ver. 2. . See note t on xi. 2. 
 
 M Ver. 4. N£3D7, NOT, V"k "%, <"" 'U-aduisedbj. Comp. 0aTToAoys'w, Matt. vi. 7. 
 
 33 Ver. 5. For DCfX" the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute KBIT- 
 
 3t Ver. 6. DHN, like flNDR is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave 
 
 the question between them open. The Vulg. haB simply agat penilmtiam, LXX. ola-et irept wy e77ATj/nfxe'A>](re Kvpiui, while 
 the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators uie div.ded, but the weight of opinion 
 
 accords with the Exe£. Com. At the end of the vers., the Sam. and t e LXX. have the fuller foim, " aud the prie. t shall 
 make an atonement for him, for his sin which be bath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him." 
 
 85 Ver. 7. IT J* 1 * Ji™\ X7~DN1 lit. // his hand cannot acquire. The Bense is well expressed by the A. V. 
 
 56 Ver. 9. riV^ the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be trausl ited pretted 
 
 .. T . 
 
 in i. 15, it Beems better to preserve uniformity. 
 
40 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 10 sin offering. 3 ' And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the 
 manner [ordinance] : and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin 
 ■which he hath sinned, aDd it shall be forgiven him. 
 
 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that 
 sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin 
 offering : he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon : 
 
 12 for it is a sin offering. 57 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall 
 take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according 
 
 13 to [upon 38 ] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord : it is a sin offering. 3 ' And the 
 priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in 
 one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, 
 as a meat offering [an oblation 39 ]. 
 
 87 Vers. 9, 11, 12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun X'H. 
 
 33 V-^r. 12. Si* = »po», as Hi. 5 ; iv. 35. 
 
 39 Ver. 13. Oblation. Comp. ii. 1, Textual Note -, and Eseg. at beginning of ch. ii. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The formula by which this chapter is intro- 
 duced — And the LORD spake unto Moses 
 — answering to i. 1, 2; v. 14; vi. 1 ; vi. 8, etc., 
 marks this passage as a distinct, portion of the 
 law. The offerings of chaps, i. — iii., when 
 brought by individuals, were all voluntary, and 
 are recognized as already familiar; but in chaps. 
 iv., v. sacrifices are appointed (no longer volun- 
 tary) for certain offences, and these sacrifices 
 now for the first time receive names from the 
 purposes for which they were commanded — Sin 
 and Trespass offerings. These specialized sacri- 
 fices were a creation of the Mosaic law, and are 
 therefore naturally placed after the more gene- 
 ral sacrifices of chaps, i. — iii. Lange says also: 
 "The former class of sacrifices refer to innate 
 sinfulness, and in so far forth to the general par- 
 ticipation in guilt of the offerer (on which ac- 
 count throughout a "133, a covering of the offerer, 
 takes place) ; but does not have reference to pe- 
 culiar personal transgressions to be atoned for by 
 the sin and trespass offerings." In the present 
 section we have to do only with the sin offering 
 (iv. 1 — v. 13) ; yet this and the trespass offering 
 are closely related, and are distinguished only 
 as the sin or the trespass comes into the fore- 
 ground, so that the line of separation is not al- 
 ways strongly marked, and in particular cases 
 might even be difficult to trace. "Sin is the 
 transgression of the law," and may involve no 
 further harm, and requires expiation only for its 
 own guilt; while trespass is wrong done to ano- 
 ther (whether God or man), and involves not 
 only sacrifice for its sin, but also amends for its 
 harm. With neither were oblations or drink- 
 offerings allowed; and when, in case of extreme 
 poverty, flour was permitted as a sin-offering, it 
 must be without oil or frankincense (v. 11). 
 
 Lange takes a somewhat different view of the 
 relation of these two offerings, and consequently 
 of the proper analysis of this whole passage, iv. 
 1 — vi. 7. The substance of his views may be ga- 
 thered from the headings of his several sub- 
 divisions as follows: The Sin offering and the 
 Trespass offering (iv. — vi. 7). (</) The Sin-of- 
 fering and the little Sin and Trespass offering 
 (iv.— v. 18). 1. The Sin offering (iv. 1-21). 2. 
 
 The little Sin offering (iv. 22-35). (J) The 
 Trespass offering. 1. The little Sin and Tres- 
 pass offering, or the uncleanness of the common 
 people (v. 1-13). 2. The great Trespass offer- 
 ing, or guilt offering (v. 14 — vi. 7). Accordingly 
 he says: "The following considerations may 
 serve somewhat to disentangle the question how 
 the sections of the sin offering and the trespass 
 offering are to be separated from one another, 
 and whether v. 1-13 treats of the sin offering or 
 of the trespass offering. There is, certainly, no 
 question that all sin is at the same time guilt, a 
 deed which has made itself into an actual state 
 of things which must be atoned for, or has be- 
 come liable to punishment. And there is also no 
 question that guilt in general is also sin, although 
 as participation in guilt, it may be widely sepa- 
 rated from the centre of sinfulness, as far as the 
 disappearing minimum, even until it is said of 
 the guiltless Messiah in Isa. liii. that He would 
 give his life as a trespass offering — Asham; and 
 from this arises also the possibility that two 
 classes may be formed in which the one empha- 
 sizes sin as such, while the other emphasizes 
 more the state of guilt. The state of guilt may 
 be very trifling, as being accessory to a guilty 
 principal, or very evil as an original offence ; in 
 all cases it requires a proportionate penance 
 (not expiation) or satisfaction. From the inde- 
 terminate character of the antithesis, it also 
 comes that there may be a transitional form be- 
 tween the sin and the trespass offerings — a form 
 of sin offerings which, at the same time, becomes 
 elevated as a trespass offering. There are forms 
 of the predominating participation in guilt, and 
 one such we find in the section chap. v. 1-13. 
 On the other hand, in the strict trespass offer- 
 ings which follow further on, we shall take up 
 all cases in which the offence against the holy 
 places and rights of Jehovah, or in regard to the 
 property of a neighbor, amount to an offence 
 that is a violation of right, which must be atoned 
 for by restitution, punishment and sacrifice. 
 
 "In chap. iv. 3 the sin of the High Priest 
 brings guilt on the people — that is, the guilt of 
 participation in guilt. Luther translates 
 Di'n IVOC'N 1 } that he scandalizes the people — a con- 
 ception not very different from our own — viz.: 
 that he brings upon them liability of penalty and 
 punishment. So it is also with the congregation 
 
CHAP. IV. 1-35— V. 1-13. 
 
 41 
 
 of Israel: it becomes guilty through its sin 
 (ver. 13). So also with the noble (ver. 22). So 
 too, at last, with the common Israelite (ver. 
 27). Ought now the section chap. v. 1-13 to be 
 (as Knobel) only an example to illustrate the 
 foregoing transaction in the case of the sin offer- 
 ing of the common Israelite? Ver. 6 says: 
 And he shall bring his trespass offering 
 unto the LORD for his sin." [This is pro- 
 bably the key to the whole view of Lange. If, 
 however, Di>'N be here considered as standing 
 
 T T 
 
 not for trespass offering, but for trespass (see 
 Text, note 34 on verse 6), the view before given 
 seems preferable.] "It is true that both vers. 
 11 and 12 repeat the statement that his offering 
 is a sin offering. But according to the context, 
 the meaning of this is that this sacrifice must be 
 treated entirely after the analogy of the sin of- 
 fering. No incense nor oil are to be added to 
 this sacrifice. The same rule is applied to the 
 great trespass offerings that follow, chap. v. 
 14 sq. The first instance, chap. v. 1, has pecu- 
 liarly the character of participation in guilt. 
 The properly guilty person in this case is the 
 blasphemer; the participation in guilt comes 
 from a soul hearing the curse and not cleansing 
 itself from defilement by giving information. 
 The view of the Heidelberg Catechism, that "by 
 6ilence aud looking on one may become a parti- 
 cipant in such fearful sins," appears here. So 
 the touching a corpse is set with the unclean 
 states of men by its natural connection, and the 
 rash swearing, by traditional and common cus- 
 tom. That which is spoken of in the special 
 greater crimes, as they are raised into a class by 
 themselves by the introduction in ver. 14, is the 
 gross violation of the law. Here, then, rightly 
 appear the actions in which a man is guilty 
 against Jehovah, i. e., against His holy things or 
 His law. The fraud of which the sinner has at 
 last become conscious must be atoned for in 
 most cases by a restitution which was increased 
 by one-filth of the whole amount. But legal 
 restitution alone was not enough ; it must be 
 preceded (without mentioning the trespass offer- 
 ing elsewhere prescribed) by a costly sacrifice 
 of a ram worth two shekels. As religious atone- 
 ment was of little value alone, when social resti- 
 tution was directed, so also restitution, as a sup- 
 plementary payment, was of little worth without 
 religious atonement. 
 
 "Now, on the one hand, we must not mistake 
 the fact that the section chap. v. 14 sq. draws a 
 distinction between those faults which at the 
 same time have become debts or relate to customs 
 (mostly legal transgressions of right, as viola- 
 tions of the rights of property), and the purely 
 religious faults in which throughout (with the 
 exception of the case in chap. v. 17-19) the sin- 
 ner has only to deal with God, and so far the 
 newer division must be considered right, as in 
 Knobel aud Keil (and so also in Kurtz and 
 others). But, on the other hand, it must not be 
 overlooked that the subject has already been 
 about the offering of the Asham in the section v. 
 1 sq. [?], and this is in favor of the older opinion 
 which may be found in the headings of Stier's 
 translation. There is also no question that to 
 reduce the whole guilt-idea to legal transgres- 
 18 
 
 sions will obscure very much the guilt-idea in 
 the present case, as when Knobel wishes to 
 leave out of consideration the passage Isa. liii. 
 
 10, when he says "Di^N can be no actual tres- 
 
 T T 
 pass offering." According to Knobel, the 
 
 Asham arises from the rights of neighbors. But 
 here evidently it arises from the rights of Jeho- 
 vah, which Keil also emphasizes, and Knobel 
 states indirectly. But we should rather say that 
 it arises from the absolute right which is consi- 
 dered to be uuder Jehovah's protection, in hea- 
 ven and earth, and which has been completely 
 confused with the guilt-idea itself in the theology 
 of the day, in which justice in its many forms is 
 travestied by "Good disposition " (the substan- 
 tive and the adjective are allowed to evaporate 
 into the adverb). It would have been better to 
 have found the key to the conception of guilt in 
 Isa. liii. For just as the guilt of a sinner can 
 extend over a community, so also the exculpation 
 wrought by the Redeemer. The Dty'N expresses 
 that man has become guilty, liable to puuish- 
 ment, towards Jehovah or towards his fellow- 
 man ; and the emphasis lies so strongly on the 
 liability to punishment that the same word de- 
 notes at the same time satisfaction; and con- 
 versely, the Hiphil means not merely to give sa- 
 tisfaction, but also to bring over others the ban 
 of guilt as a penalty. As concerns the varying 
 distinction between the respective sections, we 
 must especially notice that one must proceed 
 from the distinction between the universal guilt 
 idea and the conception of a legal fault, falling 
 into the theocratic judicial sphere. If this dif- 
 ference be held to, we can certainly establish 
 the newer division ; for in the ritual of sa- 
 crifice the distinction between the sin and 
 trespass offerings is not to be mistaken. Kno- 
 bel has stated this difference accurately, p. 394 
 sq. It is properly made prominent that the 
 trespass-offeriug — as a religious offence makes 
 the forgiveness of God necessary — may also be 
 a sin-offering, so that it is frequently cited as a 
 sin-offering. "The trespass-offering, it may 
 then be said, was always available only for the 
 single Israelite, and was the same for all ; while 
 the sin-offering served also for the whole people, 
 arid varied according to the standing of the sin- 
 ner in the Theocracy ; the trespass-offering con- 
 sisted always of sheep, while in the sin-offering 
 all sacrificial animals were allowed ; the tres- 
 pass-offering must be worth a definite price, and 
 was not modified, in the case of those who were 
 unable to offer it, to a pair of doves or a meat- 
 offering, as was the sin-offering ; in the trespass- 
 offering, as in the burnt-offering and thank- 
 offering, the blood was sprinkled on the side of 
 the altar of burnt offering (vii. 2) ; in the sin- 
 offering, on the other hand, departing from the 
 custom in all other sacrifices, it was brought 
 before God (iv. 5); the flesh in the trespass- 
 offering always belonged to the priest (vii. 6), 
 while in the more especial sin-offerings it was 
 burned." Then the distinction of the occasions 
 may he expressed as follows: 1) Dishonesty 
 against the revenues of the priests, as against 
 the holy things of Jehovah. 2) Dishonesty in 
 the due fidelity towards a neighbor (in a trust, 
 in a deposit, in property found). 3) Dishonest 
 
42 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 use of authority over a maid betrothed to ano- 
 ther man (six. -0). 4) Defrauding in regard 
 to the preference of the daughters of Israel over 
 heathen women (Ezra x. 19). Besides these, 
 the violation of the Ark of the Covenant by the 
 Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 3) ; imperilling the con- 
 gregation by the contagious leprosy (xiv. 1:2) : 
 defilement of the Nazarite, as weakening the 
 inviolability of his vow (Num. vi. 12). "Ac- 
 cording to these examples the trespass-offering 
 is distinguished from the sin-offering in the fol- 
 lowing manner: it arises from the right of a 
 neighbor, and rests upon a violation of this 
 right." But Jehovah too claims satisfaction, 
 "since He has fixed the rights of those pertain- 
 ing to Him." Or also the right simply claims 
 satisfaction: a particular instance is the case 
 of a guilty person who has gone astray, through 
 oversight or heedlessness, in a way that is 
 known to no one but himself; who afterwards 
 has an uneasy conscience, and then feels him- 
 self burdened by his misdeed, and becomes con- 
 scious of his guilt (v. 17, 18). Otherwise in- 
 deed, he would be unable to atone, for instance, 
 for his false oath. With the former division 
 one could with propriety reverse the designa- 
 tions, and term the sin-offering the trespass- 
 offering, and the trespass-offering for the most 
 part the sin-offering, the offering for real and 
 ideal transgressions of right. In this confusion 
 of ideas the manifold differences are not too 
 prominent as they are cited in Knobel, p. 396, 
 Keil, p. (53) 316, Winer (Schuld und Siindop- 
 fer) and others. If we go back briefly to the 
 ideal distinctions: sin, as sin, is indeed guilt, 
 (car' £fo,v r >, the particular evil deed ; guilt, as 
 such, on the contrary, is the entire effect of sin 
 in its cosmic sphere from the bad conscience 
 even to death, to Sheol, to Hell. Guilt, as such, 
 falls within the circle of evil, although the axiom 
 " guilt is the greatest of evils" refers to sin. 
 The sinfulness in guilt is the temptation to fur- 
 ther sinfulness: it has, however, also a natural 
 influence, according to which it reacts upon sin. 
 See the article '• Schuld" in Herzog's Real- 
 enrgclopadie. Guilt rests in the legal effect, there 
 must be satisfaction for it ; in the ethical effect, 
 evil conscience, false position towards God, 
 temptation to new sin; in the social effect, it lies 
 as a burden upon the sphere of life that sur- 
 rounds the sinner, whether he be high or low ; 
 in the generic effect, it is visited upon the chil- 
 dren of the fathers, and becomes a universal 
 might, a cosmic evil. Sin is solitary, guilt is 
 common ("forgive us our trespasses"). It is 
 obvious that sin in all cases is originally guilt ; 
 but guilt in distinction from sin is, in many 
 cases, only participation in sin — accessoriness. 
 Even in the section of the great trespass-offer- 
 ing, the force of participation in guilt may not 
 be entirely wanting, for the severity of the Le- 
 vitical relations, the temptations which adhered 
 to the church goods and lands, to property, 
 come into consideration. Under the law the 
 ignorant man is touched on all sides, and is thus 
 constituted in some measure a sinner, an acces- 
 sory through greater sinners who made the law 
 necessary. Sin is like a stone cast into a lake; 
 guilt like the wave-circles which go out from it, 
 the circumference of that cv il centre. Sin, in 
 
 its consequences, is ideally an infinitum, enmity 
 against God; guilt, in itself considered, is a 
 Belf-consuming finitum, so far as it is not changed 
 into a curse by its constant reciprocity with sin. 
 Sin can only be done away through the reconci- 
 liation of person to person; it requires repent- 
 ance. Guilt is to be done away by means of 
 atonement (voluntary penance, not expiation), 
 personal or vicarious restitution; for, on the 
 one hand, this of course is preliminary to the 
 completed reconciliation, and, on the other 
 hand, that breaks the way for expiation. See 
 the history of Jacob: the vision of the heavenly 
 ladder preceded the wrestling at the Jabbok. 
 Keil says Bomewhat differently : "As in the 
 sin-offering the idea of expiation or atonement 
 for sin, indicated in the sprinkling of blood, 
 comes forward, bo in the trespass-offering we 
 find the idea of satisfaction for the purpose of 
 restoring the violated rightful order." 
 
 In what follows, the views previously pre- 
 sented will be followed, since the rendering of 
 Di/'X by trespass rather than by trespass-offering 
 in v. 6 renders it unnecessary to enter upon 
 much of the nice distinctions here drawn by 
 Lange, and enables us clearly to separate the 
 sections of the sin and the trespass-offering. 
 
 Lange continues: "Ch. iv. 1. Sin, HNQn, 
 ° T 
 
 as missing, is in Leviticus more particularly 
 missing in regard to the holy fellowship with 
 the holy God through transgression of His com- 
 mand or violation of the reverence due Him. 
 It must, as debt, be paid for by punishment. 
 It makes the sinner unclean, so that he cannot 
 appear in God's fellowship, and hence unclean- 
 uess is a symbolic representation of sin, and the 
 unclean needs, when cleansed, a sin-offering for 
 a token and sign of his cleanness. It is under- 
 stood that the sin offering that was introduced 
 into the law by Moses preceded the given law ; 
 and so it is easily to be supposed that voluntary 
 sin-offerings from compulsion of conscience 
 most probably must be as old as the sacrifice 
 in general, as certainly in the Passover the 
 force of the sin offering may be plainly recog- 
 nized." — [Lange must mean that the more gene- 
 ral sacrifices of old often included within them 
 the idea of the sin offering, as they did of every 
 other sacrifice; but the specialized sin offering 
 itself, as already pointed out, is not mentioned 
 before Ex. xxix. 14, nor is there any evidence 
 that it was used or known at an earlier date.] — 
 "On the extra-theocratic sin offering see Kno- 
 bel, p. 386. But it is not correct to see with 
 Knobel in the death of the sacrificial animal an 
 actual satisfactio vicaria of the sinner, or to find 
 in the death of the animal the expression that 
 the offerer had already deserved death. In 
 regard to the first point, the sacrificial animal 
 furnishes only in the symbolical se?ise what the 
 offerer ought to furnish personally, but cannot. 
 And as to the second point, the death-punish- 
 ment, in the peace-offering, it is self-evident, 
 that the reference could not be to the punish- 
 ment of death, and also in the sin-offering the 
 difference between the Cherem" [D^n=- a curse, 
 a thing devoted to destruction] "and the propi- 
 tiation through the sacrifice must be considered. 
 That tht divine Justice should have punished 
 
CHAP. IV. 1-35— V. 1-12. 
 
 43 
 
 an inadvertence, njjD'3, with death is an over- 
 
 tt : * 
 
 straining of the confession (with which the sac- 
 rificer appeared before God), that by this over- 
 sight or going astray he had entered the paths 
 of death,* as .this idea indeed belongs to par- 
 donable sin. Otherwise an arbitrary distinction 
 would have to be drawn between sin with up- 
 lifted hand, and sin from inadvertence, under 
 which head must, be understood not only sins of 
 ignorance and precipitation, but also natural 
 weakness and heedlessness. The turning point 
 of these sins lay in contrition. But the sacri- 
 ficer could in reality hardly satisfy the theocratic 
 order by his sacrifice; on the religious side his 
 sacrifice was thus a confession of his inability 
 to satisfy, an appeal for mercy; and hence the 
 sacrifice became a typical prophetic movement 
 towards the future satisfaction." 
 
 The sins for which sin offerings were to be 
 presented were offences against the Divine law 
 much more in its moral than in its ceremonial 
 aspect. Great offences against civil society, such 
 as involuntary manslaughter (Num. xxxv. 10-15; 
 Deut. xix. 1-10), did not come within the scope 
 of these sacrifices ; and minor breaches of the 
 ceremonial law, such as uncleanness from contact 
 with the dead bodies of animals (Lev. xi. 24, 28 
 or men (Num. xix. 1 1,10,20), were otherwise pro- 
 vided for. The sin offering had relation much 
 more to the individual conscience than to the 
 theocratic state or the peculiar Hebrew polity. 
 In Num. xv. 29 its privileges are expressly ex- 
 tended to the " stranger." But it was not allowed 
 to be offered in cases where no true penitence 
 could be supposed to exist, and it was therefore 
 not permitted in the case of presumptuous or 
 defiant sins (Num. xv. 30, 31). 
 
 The idea of vicarious satisfaction necessarily 
 appears more clearly in this specialized offering 
 for sin than in other sacrifices which were either 
 more general in their character, or specialized 
 for other purposes. (The word ilNUn occurs 
 several times in Genesis in the sense of tin, but 
 never in the sense of sin offering, before Ex. xxix. 
 14). Hence, in view of the intrinsic insufficiency 
 of animal victims to atone for moral offences, this 
 sacrifice was emphatically typical of the true 
 Sacrifice for sin to come. The object of all the 
 divine dealings with man has been his restora- 
 tion to communion with God by the restoration 
 of his holiness; and the first step to this end 
 was necessarily the putting away of his sin. 
 Under the old dispensation, therefore, the typi- 
 cal sin offering was the culmination of its whole 
 system, presented in the most emphatic form on 
 the great day of atonement (chap, xvi.); just as 
 under the new dispensation the culmination of 
 Christ's work for the redemption of His people 
 was His atoning sacrifice of Himself upon the 
 Cross of Calvary. 
 
 Unlike the preceding sacrifices, the victim in 
 the sin offering varied according to the offender's 
 rank in the theocracy. The ground of this is to 
 be sought in the conspicuousness of the offence, 
 not at all in its grossness. Here, as elsewhere, 
 
 * "It is also a straining of the text to render the words: 
 " in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," 
 as meaning <: thou shalt actually die the death." Religio- 
 moral death realizes itself gradually. Indeed, the principle 
 of death is the germ of death itaeLf." 
 
 there was no correlation between the value of 
 the victim aud the magaitude of the sin. Every 
 Bin, great or small, of the same class of persons 
 was expiated by the same means; a victim of 
 higher value was only required in consequence 
 of official responsibility and position, and the 
 consequently greater strain which offences 
 brought upon the theocracy. There was no 
 such gradation in the Trespass offering, which 
 was related more to the harm done than to the 
 sin committed. Four grades are prescribed: 
 for the sin— (1) of the high-priest (3-12); |2) 
 of the whole congregation (13-21); (3) of a 
 prince (22-26); (4) of any of the people of the 
 land (27-35). After this follows an enumeration 
 of special sins for which confession should be 
 made and sin offerings offered (v. 1-6), with the 
 allowance of inferior offerings in case of poverty 
 (7-13). 
 
 Vers. 1, 2. The general condition of the sin 
 offering. 
 
 Ver. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel. 
 — -It is always to be remembered that these laws 
 are given to a people already in covenant rela- 
 tion to God, and the essential point of that cove- 
 nant was the promise of the final victory over 
 sin in the person of "the seed of the woman." 
 The laws given until He should come are therefore 
 necessarily based upon His coming, and look 
 forward to Him. 
 
 Any of the commandments. — ^30 in a 
 partitive sense. At the close of this verse must 
 be understood some such clause as he shall briny 
 an offering for his sin. The actual apodosis of the 
 verse is the whole following chapter, and not 
 ver. 3, which relates only to the high-priest. 
 
 Vers. 3-12. The sin offering of the high-priest. 
 Lange here says : " It must be noticed that the 
 high-priest could become the most, guilty of all, 
 which the haughtiness of the hierarchy never 
 thought of enough ; that the whole congregation 
 was rated as one personality equal in rauk to 
 him ; that the prince was only considered slightly 
 greater than the common man (the difference is 
 he goats, she goats, or an ewe) ; and that for the 
 poor, in the section v. 1-13, there were two more 
 peculiar modifications." 
 
 Ver. 3. The priest that is anointed. — 
 LXX.: apxiepsvc, 821 Wn2_ = high-priest, Tar- 
 gums. The high-priest is so called by reason 
 of the peculiar authority by which he alone was 
 consecrated to his office (Ex. xxix. 7; chap. viii. 
 12). The anointing of all the priests was indeed 
 expressly commanded (Ex. xxviii. 41; xl. 151, 
 and is recognized as having taken place vii. 36; 
 x. 7 ; Num. iii. 3 ; yet in the account of the con- 
 secration, chap, viii., no other anointing of the 
 common priests is mentioned than that Moses 
 sprinkled both them and Aaron with "the an- 
 ointing oil" and the blood from the altar. Ac- 
 cording to the best Jewish authorities, however, 
 the priests were anointed with the finger upon 
 the forehead. Outram places the distinction in 
 the fact that each successive high-priest was per- 
 sonally anointed, while the others were only an- 
 ointed once for all in the persons of Aaron's im- 
 mediate sons. Whatever may be the truth in re- 
 gard to these things, the high-priest is evidently 
 regarded in a peculiar sense as anointed, and is 
 
44 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 generally designated in Lev. (iv. 5, 1G; vi. 22; 
 xvi. 32) as the anointed priest. He is also 
 
 called the Vnjri 'y\27\_=great priest (xxi. 10 ; 
 Num. xxxv. 25. 28 bis: Josh. xx. 6), and in later 
 times the head or chief priest (2 Kings xxv. 18; 
 2 Chr. xix. 11), or simply Me priest, /car' cjo.rtyK 
 (1 Kings ii. 35, etc.). 
 
 Do sin. — Origen (Horn. II. in Lev. gl) ob- 
 serves that inadvertence is not specified in the 
 case of the high-priest. It must, of course, be 
 supposed in view of the general principles on 
 which sacrifices were allowed at all; but it pro- 
 bably was not written in the law that the in- 
 firmity of the high-priest might not be made too 
 prominent. . 
 
 To the guilt of the people, DJ'H nntfSO— 
 t. e., to bring upon the people the guilt of his own 
 transgression. It is an undue restriction of the 
 sense of these words to limit them to the sins 
 committed by the high-priest in his official capa- 
 city. Such sins, of course, did brinj guilt upon 
 the people (Lev. x. 17; Mai. ii. 7, 8); but over 
 and above this, nothing can be clearer in his- 
 tory, both under the old covenant and in the 
 world at large, than that God had so constituted 
 men with a federal as well as individual relation, 
 that the sins of the head, whether of the nation, 
 the community, or the family, entail suffering 
 upon its members. The high-priest as the head 
 of the theocracy could not sin, but that the whole 
 body of Israel should feel its effects. The dis- 
 tinction may indeed be made between natural 
 and moral consequences, between earthly and 
 future punishments ; still the two things are so 
 intimately connected, a debasing of the moral 
 sense of the community is so much the effect of 
 the unfaithfulness of its head that the spiritual 
 condition of the Israelites, following the general 
 law, was largely affected by that of their high- 
 priest, so that his sins did indeed "bring guilt 
 upon the people." 
 
 A young bullock •without blemish. — 
 The high-priest's sin offering was the same as 
 that of the whole congregation (ver. 14), not 
 merely because of the conspicuousness of his po- 
 sition and of the gravity of sin in one who should 
 be the leader to all holiness; but especially (see 
 ver. 3) because of his representative character 
 and his federal headship mentioned above. Ac- 
 cording to Jewish tradition, if the bullock of the 
 high-priest and the bullock of the congregation 
 stood together ready for sin offerings, the former 
 had the preference in every way. There was a 
 careful gradation of the victims for the sin offer- 
 ing : the high priest and the whole congregation 
 offered a male — a young bullock; the prince of- 
 fered also a male, but of the goats (ver. 23); 
 the people offered a female of either the goats 
 (ver. 28) or the sheep (ver. 32). There was also 
 a corresponding gradation, but with fewer 
 steps, in the ritual in regard to the blood, and 
 also in the disposition of the flesh. See below. 
 
 Ver. 4. The presentation, laying on of hands, 
 and slaughtering, were the same (vers. 4. 14, 
 15, 23, 24), as in the case of other sacrifices 
 (i. 3-5). 
 
 VerB. 5-7. And the priest that is anointed 
 shall take. — At the pointof the treatment of the 
 blood the difference between the ritual of the sin 
 
 offerings and the other sacrifices begins, and this 
 treatment differs somewhat in the several sin of- 
 ferings themselves. In this case, the high- 
 priest, who was himself the offerer, brought 
 some of the blood to the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation; afterwards the person officiating is 
 designated simply the priest. From this it has 
 been argued that, as the high-priest was the one 
 whose sin was to be atoned for, the service was 
 here taken up on his behalf by another priest; 
 but there is precisely the same change at the 
 same point in the following offering for the 
 whole congregation (vers. 16, 17), and the high- 
 priest certainly officiated throughout on the great 
 day of atonement (chap. xvi. ); moreover, the 
 fact of his offering the sin offering for himself as 
 well as for the people is established by Heb. 
 v. 3. 
 
 Ver. 6. Sprinkle of the blood. — The word 
 n'n is different from p"H used for sprinkle in 
 chaps, i. and iii. in view of the much smaller 
 quantity of blood used here. It is difficult to 
 express this in English translation, though the 
 difference is observed in the LXX. and Vulg. 
 
 Seven times. — The seven-fold sprinkling of 
 blood is frequently commanded (ver. 17: xvi. 17, 
 19; Num. xix. 4) always in connection with sin 
 offering, or (xiv. 7, 27) with the purification of 
 leprosy. In consecrations, too, there was a 
 seven-fold sprinkling of oil (viii. 11; xiv. 16), and 
 frequently the number seven is designated for 
 the victims in sacrifice (xxiii. 18; Num. xxiii. 
 1,4,14.29; xxviii. 11, 19, 27; xxix. 2, 8, 13, 
 3(3). The same number also appears in many 
 other particulars connected with the divine ser- 
 vice, and has always been considered as symbo- 
 lical of completeness and perfection. The num- 
 ber is so frequent in the divine word, as well as 
 in the ordering of nature, that it must be thought 
 to have its foundation in some unfathomable 
 heavenly relations. Its use in connection with 
 the sin offering is plainly to give emphasis to the 
 typical completeness of the propitiation. 
 
 Before the veil of the sanctuary. — There 
 is a variety of opinion as to precisely where the 
 blood was sprinkled. The LXX.: Kurd to Kara- 
 -haaua, and the Vulg.: contra velum, seem to 
 have supposed it was upon the veil itself. It 
 is more probable that the high-priest, dipping 
 his finger in the blood at the entrance of the 
 sanctuary, sprinkled it before him towards the 
 veil as he advanced to the altar of incense. The 
 object was "plainly the presenting of the blood 
 before Jehovah, the manifestation of whose pre- 
 sence was on the ark just within the veil. " The 
 ohjective point was not the veil, but the ark of 
 the covenant." Lange. 
 
 Ver. 7. Upon the horns of the altar of 
 sweet incense — the golden altar which stood 
 immediately before the veil. It was only in the 
 case of the sin-offerings for the high-priest and 
 for the whole people (ver. 18) that the blood was 
 brought to this altar — doubtless on account of 
 the especial gravity of the sins to be atoned for; 
 in case of the other sin offerings the blood was 
 put on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, 
 (vers. 25, 30, 34) which stood in the court with- 
 out. It was to be put in either case upon the 
 horns of the altar because in these the signifi- 
 cance of the altar culminated, and in the sin 
 
CHAP. IV. 1-35— V. 1-13. 
 
 45 
 
 offering, as has already appeared, and will still 
 more fully appear, the utmost emphasis was to 
 be given to every part of the ritual of propitia- 
 tion. 
 
 Shall pour all the blood. — But very little 
 of the blood had thu3 far been used ; the re- 
 mainder — all the blood — was to be poured out at 
 the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, the place 
 to which all blood of the sacrifices not otherwise 
 required was to be brought; it had no sacrificial 
 significance. During the life in the wilderness 
 the blood of the comparatively small number of 
 sacrifices was here absorbed by the earth ; later, 
 in the temple conduits were arranged by which 
 it was carried off into the valley of the Kedron. 
 
 Vers. 8-10. The fat of the sin-offering was 
 to be treated in the same way as that of the 
 peace offering, only that it is not said that it 
 shall be burned "upon the burnt offering" since 
 when both were offered the sin offering came 
 first (xvi. 11, 15, 24) ; neither is the burning 
 of the fat described as " an offering made by 
 fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord." 
 
 Vers. 11, 12. The disposition of the rest of 
 the victim, i. «., of the whole animal except 
 the blood and the fat, was the same in the 
 sin offering of the high-priest and of the whole 
 congregation (vers. 20, 21). The difference in 
 the treatment of the flesh of these from that of 
 other sin offerings is determined by the treat- 
 ment of the blood (vi. 30). When the blood had 
 been brought within the sanctuary, the flesh 
 must be wholly burned ; yet not burned as a sa- 
 crifice, the word 'pt? being never used in that 
 sense. 
 
 Without the camp. — No flesh of a sin-offer- 
 ing might be burned upon the altar, because the 
 nature of the offering was purely propitiatory, 
 and it did not admit of being so used as to be 
 called " the food of the offering made by fire 
 unto the Lord " (see on iii. 11). It is described 
 as " most holy" (vi. 25), and unlike the flesh of 
 any other sacrifice, affected everything with 
 which it came in contact (vi. 26-28) ; whatever 
 it touched must either be destroyed or specially 
 purified. This was the law for all sin-offerings, 
 and a further law comes into play in regard to 
 those sacrifices (that of the high-priest and that 
 of the whole congregation) whose blood was 
 brought within the sanctuary (vi. 30). Their 
 flesh was strictly forbidden to be eaten ; and it 
 remained that it must be destroyed in some other 
 way. Hence the command that it should be 
 "burned without the camp." Yet this was not 
 a mere convenience, resorted to because there 
 was nothiog else to be done with it. The burn- 
 ing without the camp had a deep symbolical 
 teaching of sufficient prominence to be referred 
 to in Heb. xiii. 11, 12, and applied to Christ. 
 The ground of the law seems to be that the flesh 
 of all sin offerings was in a peculiar sense "holy" 
 — devoted, under the ban — because they were 
 for the propitiation for sin ; yet a gradation was 
 to be observed between them in this as in other 
 respects. Their blood had been offered before 
 the Lord, but when the blood had been offered 
 in a more peculiar and emphatic way by bring- 
 ing it within the sanctuary itself; a correspond- 
 ing emphasis must mark the treatment of the 
 
 flesh by carrying it forth to burn without the 
 camp. The red heifer, whose ashes were to be 
 used for purification, (Num. xix.) was to be 
 burned in the same way. The sinfulness of sin 
 and the importance and sacredness of everything 
 connected with its propitiation were thus set be- 
 fore the people in the strongest light. 
 
 Unto a clean place — not carelessly any- 
 where, lest it might happen to be to an "un- 
 clean place" (xiv. 40) ; but -where the ashes 
 are poured out, which was not merely "clean," 
 but being used only in connection with sacred 
 things, had itself acquired a certain sacred as- 
 sociation. The word t 0ff, as already noted, in- 
 dicates that the burning itself was not sacrificial. 
 The same word is used for the burning of the 
 red heifer, Num. xix. 5. No especial sin offer- 
 ing is provided for the ordinary priest. It was 
 the spirit, of the law to have as little as possible 
 of the caste relation about the priests, and in all 
 matters in which they were not necessarily se- 
 parated by their official functions, to treat them 
 as ordinary citizens. Their sin-offering was 
 doubtless the same with that of "any one of the 
 people of the land." 
 
 Vers. 13-21. The sin-offering of the whole 
 congregation. 
 
 If the whole congregation of Israel sin. 
 — Prominent among the ways in which a whole 
 congregation might sin are these : The civil 
 ruler might do that which involved the nation in 
 sin, and brought down punishment upon it, as 
 in Saul's slaughter of the Gibeonites, or David's 
 numbering of the people ; a single individual by 
 an act which caused a breach of the divine com- 
 mands given to the whole people, might bring 
 sin upon them all, as in the case of Achan, Josh, 
 vii. 1 ; or the people generally might commit 
 some special sin, as in 1 Sam. xiv. 32, or fall 
 inio some habitual neglect of the divine com- 
 mands, as in regard to the Sabbatical year (2 
 Chr. xxxvi. 21), and the neglect of tithes and 
 offerings for which they are so frequently re- 
 proved by the later prophets. 
 
 Through inadvertence. — There were two 
 kinds of such sin : first, inadvertence of conduct, 
 where the sinfulness of the act would be ac- 
 knowledged when attention was called to it ; and 
 secondly, inadvertence of the law, when the act 
 would not be known to be sinful until the law 
 had been explained. In either case there would 
 be no consciousness or intention of sin, and the 
 thing would be hid from the eyes of the 
 assembly. 
 
 And are guilty. — Every transgression of the 
 divine law brought guilt, whether through a 
 faulty heedlessness of conduct, or a criminal 
 ignorance of the law which had been given. 
 This principle is abundantly recognized in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Vers. 14-21. The ritual of the sin offering for 
 the whole congregation is the same as that for 
 the high-priest. The victim prescribed here is 
 a bullock ; in Num. xv. 24 a kid in addition is 
 required for sins of inadvertence of the congre- 
 gation. Either the law was modified, which 
 seems unlikely, or else the two requirements 
 have reference to some distinction in the occa- 
 sion or character of the sin, such as in one case 
 
46 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Bins of omission, in the other of commission. 
 There was also another and very peculiar sin- 
 offering for the congregation prescribed on the 
 especial occasion of the great day of atonement 
 (xvi. 5). The high-priest's sin offering is there 
 unchanged ; but that for the people is highly 
 altered in view of the especial purpose of the 
 day. 
 
 Ver. 15. The elders — since the congregation 
 could only perform the acts required of the of- 
 ferer by means of their representatives. 
 
 Ver. 20. And the priest shall make an 
 atonement for them, and it shall be for- 
 given them. — This naturally was not said in 
 regard to the high-priest's own sin offering, but 
 is repeated in connection with those that follow 
 (vers. 26, 31, 35; v. 6, 10, 13), and elsewhere in 
 the same connection (Num. xv. 25, 28) ; also in 
 connection with the trespass offering (v. 16, 18; 
 vi. 7; xix. 22). It is also used in connection 
 with the purificatory offerings, the change being 
 made from forgiveness to cleansing as the result of 
 the atonement (xii. 7, 8; xiv. 20, 53; Num. viii. 
 21). The use of the simpler form "make atone- 
 ment for him" in connection with the burnt- 
 offering has already been noticed. The priest 
 in these cases unquestionably acted, and was un- 
 derstood by the people to act, in a mediatorial 
 capacity. 133. as noticed under i. 4, means 
 literally, to cover, to put out of sight, to hide. What 
 is promised here is of course not that God will 
 cause to be undone the wrong that has been 
 done ; but that He will so put it out of His sight 
 that the sinner may stand without fault in His 
 presence. See the various expressions to this 
 effect in the prophets, e.g., Ps. lxxxv. 2; eiii. 
 12; xxxviii. 17; xliii. 25; xliv. 22; Jer. xxxi. 
 34; Ezek. xviii. 22; xxxiii. 16: Mic. vii. 18,19, 
 etc. This atonement was thus effectual in re- 
 moving the guilt of all transgression (other than 
 wilful) against the divine law. Hence the effi- 
 cacy of the sin-offering could only have been de- 
 rived from its typical relation to Him who was 
 the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 
 (1 Jno. ii. 2). 
 
 Vers. 22-26. The sin offering for a Prince. 
 
 The ritual in this case differs from that iu the 
 previous cases, first in the selection of the vic- 
 tim, which must now be a he-goat instead of a 
 bullock; and secondly, in that the blood was not 
 presented within the sanctuary, which involved 
 consequently a difference ia the disposition of 
 the flesh; 
 
 Ver. 24. In the place 'where they kill the 
 burnt offering — i.e., the burnt -offering "of 
 the flock," on the north side of the altar, i. 11. 
 
 Ver. 26. The horns of the altar of burnt 
 Offering. — In this and the following cases, as 
 the sin was less extensive in its effects, so the 
 ritual was far more simple. There was no 
 sprinkling of blood before the veil, and the great 
 altar in the court was substituted for the altar 
 of incense within the sanctuary. The fat was 
 burned as before; on the disposition of the flesh, 
 see vi. 26-29. 
 
 Vers. 27-35. The sin offering for one of the 
 pcopli'. 
 
 In this case the victim is changed to a female, 
 but the ritual remains the same in all respects 
 
 as in the sin offering of the prince. An option 
 was allowed as to the victim whether it should 
 be of the goats, which seems to have been pre- 
 ferred (vers. 28-31), or of the sheep (vs. 32-35). 
 
 Chap. v. 1-13. Certain specified sins and the 
 sin-offering for them. 
 
 There is a difference of opinion among com- 
 mentators as to whether this section should be 
 connected with the sin-offerings which precede, 
 or with the trespass offerings which follow. See 
 Lange's discussion under iv. 1. The chief ar- 
 gument for the latter is from the use of the 
 word lOi^X, ver. 6 (see below), which, however, 
 rightly understood, does not bear out the infer- 
 ence. On the other hand, these verses are dis- 
 tinctly a part of the same divine communication 
 begun iv. 1, while another begins at v. 14; the 
 word sin-offering is expressly used throughout 
 (vers. 6, 7, 9, 11); and the idea of compensation 
 for the harm done, prominent in the trespass 
 offering (especially ver. 16), only slightly ap- 
 pears (ver. 6) in these offerings. They are 
 reckoned with the sin offerings by Knobel and 
 Keil. They may perhaps be considered as some- 
 what intermediate between the ordinary sin 
 offering and the trespass offering, yet belougiug 
 iu the category of the former. The sins for 
 which they were to be offered were of a less 
 flagrant character than those of eh. iv. 
 
 Four particular cases of inadvertent sins are 
 first mentioned, vers. 1—4 (for vers. 2 and 3 are 
 clearly to be distinguished) ; and then confession 
 (ver. 5) and an offering (vers. 6-13) is required 
 for each. The normal offering is prescribed in 
 ver. 6, a substitute allowed in case of poverty, 
 vers. 7-10, and a further substitute in case of 
 extreme poverty, vers. 11-13. Only in regard to 
 these substitutes is the ritual given, that for the 
 normal sin offering having been already de- 
 scribed in ch. iv. 
 
 Ver. 1. The case here specified is that of a 
 witness put upon oath who withholds testimony 
 as to that which is within his own certain know- 
 ledge — 1J? XsTll. It is the omission, according 
 to our phraseology, " to tell the whole truth." 
 It may cover also the case of neglect to testify 
 when a public demand for information has been 
 made with an adjuration; St. Augustine (Quest, 
 in Lev. I.) and Theodoret extend it also to the 
 case of hearing testimony, known to be false, 
 given under oath. The case of giving positive 
 false witness is quite a different one, and is 
 treated in Deut. xix. 16-19. 
 
 Adjuration. — In the forms of Jewish trial, 
 the witness did not himself utter the oath, or 
 express his assent to it, but was adjured by the 
 magistrate. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 63 ; 2 Chron. 
 xviii. 15. 
 
 Whether he hath seen or known. — This 
 covers both the cases of eye-witness and of 
 knowledge derived from any other source. 
 
 Bear his iniquity. — Until purged in the 
 way herein provided. The expression is a very 
 common one in the law (vii. 18; xvii. 16; xix. 
 8; xx. 17; xxiv. 15; Num. v. 31; ix. 13; 
 xiv. 33, 34, etc.), and means that he shall endure 
 the punishment of the sin, whether in its natural 
 consequences or in positive inflictions. It is 
 used both with refereuce to capital sins and also 
 
CHAP. IV. 1- 
 
 -V. 1-13. 
 
 47 
 
 to those which might be expiated by sacrifice. 
 If the sacrifice were not offered, the sinner mast 
 bear the consequences of his sin. In this case 
 confession (ver. 5) was a necessary condition of 
 the sin-offering; therefore if he do not utter 
 it, for without this there could be no desire to 
 be again at one with God. and hence no place 
 for the offering of sacrifice. 
 
 Ver. 2. The second case is that of uncleanness 
 from touching the carcase of any unclean ani- 
 mal, and was a sin of a ceremonial character. 
 
 It be hidden from him. — For the unclean- 
 ness of this and the following verse simple and 
 speedy forms of purification were provided in 
 case immediate action were taken (xi. 24, 25, 28, 
 SB, 40; xv. 5, 8, 21; Num. xix. 22); but if it 
 were neglected or unobserved, the defilement 
 still actually existed, and as the offender was in 
 danger of communicating his own uncleanness 
 to others, anil also of constant violation of the 
 precepts of the law, it must be expiated by sac- 
 rifice. On the connection between uncleanness 
 and sin, see preliminary note to ch. xi. 
 
 Ver. 3. Orif he touch the uncleanness of 
 man. — A special case is made of this in order, 
 as everywhere in the law, to emphasize the dis- 
 tinction between man and the lower animals. 
 Thus while observed impurity from contact with 
 the carcase of an unclean animal was removed 
 at even after washing the clothes (xi. 24, etc.), 
 and neglected might be expiated by the sin- 
 offering, the impurity from contact with the 
 human dead body continued seven days, and 
 required repeated purifications (Num. xix. 11- 
 16); and neglected, the offender defiled the 
 tabernacle, and must "be cut off from Israel." 
 The various kinds of uncleanness in man are 
 detailed in chs. xi.-xv. 
 
 When he knoweth of it. — This expression 
 is to be taken in connection with the " it be hid- 
 den from him" of ver. 2. Of course while the 
 defilement was "hidden" there could be no 
 consciousness of guilt, nor of moral sin; yet the 
 transgression of the law was an existing fact, 
 and entailed its consequences. When it was 
 brought to the offender's knowledge, then he 
 was guilty in the further sense that he was 
 bound to remove the already existing guilt by 
 confession and sacrifice. 
 
 Ver. 4. The fourth and last case specified is 
 that of careless or forgotten oaths, not embra- 
 cing the breach of the third commandment; but 
 the neglect or forgetfulness to perform an oath 
 (such as might be uttered in recklessness or 
 passion). — To do evil, or to do good.— That 
 is to do anything whatever. Comp. Num. xxiv. 
 13 ; Isa. xli. 23. 
 
 Ver. 5. And it shall be, when. — A form 
 to introduce the apodosis to each of the previous 
 verses. 
 
 He shall confess. — This applies to the par- 
 ticular sins mentioned in the foregoing verses, 
 not to the sin-offering in general. It is also 
 required in the case of the trespass offering, 
 Num. v. 6, 7. According to Jewish tradition a 
 prayer and confession accompanied the laying 
 on of the hand in all offerings. This is a dis- 
 tinct acknowledgment of the particular fault, 
 apparently before presenting the victim. 
 
 Ver. b\ Bring for his trespass. — The He- 
 
 brew being exactly the same as in the following 
 verse, it seems better to give the same transla- 
 tion. The A.V. has also the same translation in 
 vers. 15 and 25 (vi. 0). The phrase is thus parallel 
 to, and in apposition with, for his sin which 
 he hath sinned. The sacrifice for this is 
 expressly called a sin offering in this verse and 
 vers. 7, 11, 12. By this rendering the sin and 
 the trespass offerings are kept distinct as they 
 were certainly intended to be. 
 
 A female from the flock. — The victim and 
 the ritual are precisely the same as in the sin 
 offering for " one of the people of the land," 
 and probably vers. 1-4 are intended to apply 
 only to sins committed by them. 
 
 Vers. 7-10. The alternative offering of the 
 poor. 
 
 As in the case of the voluntary burnt offering 
 (i. 14-17), so in this of the required sin offering, 
 the poor are allowed to bring pigeons or turtle- 
 doves. 
 
 One for a sin offering, and the other for 
 a burnt offering. — The two together evidently 
 constitute the full sin-offering; but they are 
 called by these names because the treatment of 
 the two birds was different, and each after the 
 analogy of the offering from which it is named. 
 The bird being too small to admit of its parts 
 being disposed of as a sin offering, two were 
 required, oneof which was undoubtedly (although 
 this is not expressed) to be eaten by the priest, 
 as is stated in the Mishna, after the fashion of 
 the flesh of the Bin offering (vi. 26, 29; vii. 7); 
 the other was to be burned on the altar like the 
 fat of that sacrifice. 
 
 Ver. 8. Pinch off the head. — See under i. 
 15. In this case the head was not to be entirely 
 separated, but pinched off enough to allow the 
 blood to flow and to kill the bird. 
 
 Ver. 9. Sprinkle of the blood. — This was 
 not done in the case of the bird for the burnt- 
 offering. It could easily be accomplished by 
 swinging the bleeding bird against the side of 
 the altar. 
 
 Pressed out at the bottom. — Where the 
 blood of the other sin offerings was poured. In 
 the burnt offering this blood (i. 15) was pressed 
 out against the side of the altar. 
 
 Ver. 10. The ritual of the second bird was to 
 be the same as when birds were offered for a 
 burnt offering (i. 15-17). The two birds toge- 
 ther constituted a complete sin offering. From 
 the fact, however, that two were required, it is 
 plain that the part of the offering not required 
 to be consumed upon the altar was still essential 
 to the sacrifice. 
 
 Vers. 11-13. The second alternative for the 
 extremely poor. 
 
 This was allowed, on account of the absolute 
 necessity of the sin offering, in order to put it 
 within the reach of all. Lange notes that the 
 sins specified in this section are, for the most 
 part, sins arising from the lowness and rudeness 
 of the inferior people: the law seeks to refine 
 them. Still it is to be remembered that this 
 alternative offering was not only for the sins 
 mentioned v. 1-13, but for all sins reached by 
 the sin offering. The fact that it was unbloody 
 is not opposed to the general significance of the 
 sheddiug of blood in connection with the remia- 
 
48 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 sion of sin (neb. ix. 22), since this alternative 
 was altogether of an exceptional character and 
 allowed only in case of necessity. It was also 
 supplemented by the general sin offering on the 
 great day of atonement. 
 
 The tenth part of an Ephah. — The Ephah 
 according to Josephus was about 1 1-9 bushels ; 
 according to the Rabbins, rather less than half 
 that amount. The tenth of an Ephah (called an 
 Omer, Ex. xvi. 36) was therefore, according to 
 the lower and more probable estimate, very 
 nearly three pints and a half. 
 
 He shall put no oil upon it. — The sin- 
 offering of flour was sharply distinguished from 
 the oblation of the same (ii. 5) by the absence 
 of the oil and frankincense, just as the other 
 sin offerings were marked by t lie absence of the 
 oblations. In both cases, the difference indi- 
 cates that the offerer stood in a different rela- 
 tion toward God, not that of one in communion 
 with Him, but of one seeking atonement for the 
 sin which separated from Him. 
 
 Ver. 12. On the "handful" and "memorial" 
 see on ii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 13. In one of these. — As in ver. 6, 
 one of the sins specified, vers. 1-4. 
 
 As an oblation, i. e. as most holy. Comp. 
 under ii. 3. The character of the sin offering 
 in its two parts is still preserved in this its 
 humblest form. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. One of the plainest teachings of the sin 
 offering is that everything opposed to the re- 
 vealed will of God is sin, whether done with the 
 purpose of transgressing it or not. Butler has 
 shown that this is in perfect accordance with 
 the divine law in nature. St. Paul considered 
 himself the chief of sinners, because he "perse- 
 cuted the Church of God;" yet as he obtained 
 mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief 
 (1 Tim. i. 13-15), so the sin-offering was pro- 
 vided for those who put themselves in opposition 
 to the divine will without intending to do so. 
 It was on this principle that Jesus could pray 
 for those who nailed Him to the cross: " Father, 
 forgive them for they know not what they do" 
 (Luke xxiii. 34). The great mass of human sin 
 is incurred not for the sake of sinning, but in 
 heedlessness, or through wrong judgment, or 
 under the impulse of passion. It comes under 
 the head of sins of inadvertence; but, as of old, 
 needs the intervention of the blood of the atone- 
 ment before the sinner can be restored to com- 
 munion with God. 
 
 II. In the law of the sin offering it appears 
 clearly that under the old dispensation as well 
 as the new the character of the sin was deter- 
 mined by the animus of the sinner. For high- 
 handed and defiant sin no sacrifice was allow- 
 able ; he who committed this put himself out of 
 the pale of reconciliation. But he who commit- 
 ted sins — which might in themselves be far worse 
 — " through inadvertence " might bring his of- 
 fering and have " an atonement made for him." 
 An excellent historical illustration may be found 
 in comparing the stories of the lives of Saul and 
 of David; and the distinction between the two 
 kinds of sin is expressed in the psalm of David 
 (xix. 12). 
 
 III. In the sin offering the offerer must have 
 already been in a state of mind which led him to 
 desire the forgiveness of his sin, as is shown by 
 his very act of bringing his victim to the priest ; 
 he was also ready to confess his sin ; yet still 
 the offering was required. By this was taught 
 in outward symbol to the people of the old dis- 
 pensation what is so clearly proclaimed in the 
 Gospel, that, for the forgiveness of sin there must 
 be some propitiation outside and beyond the sin- 
 ner himself; mere penitence, though an essen- 
 tial prerequisite, cannot alone avail to restore 
 the disturbed relations to God of one who has 
 transgressed His law. 
 
 IV. The iuherent inefEcacy of these sacrifices 
 to atone for sin has been already repeatedly no- 
 ticed ; moreover, this inefEcacy was constantly 
 brought to the mind of the worshipper by the 
 repetition of the sin offerings, as is especially 
 noted in regard to the sacrifices of the day of 
 atonement in the Ep. to the Heb. (ix. 6-8) ; 
 still the sin offering is insisted upon in the law 
 with an emphasis greater than belongs to any 
 other sacrifice. Most clearly, therefore, does it 
 point to the " Lamb of God that taketh away the 
 sin of the world." 
 
 V. In the extension of the privileges of the 
 sin-offering in Num. xv. 29 to "the stranger" 
 one of those many intimations is given, scattered 
 everywhere throughout the Old Test., which the 
 Israelites were so slow to understand, that the 
 blessings of forgiveness and of approach to God 
 were intended for all people, and that the nar- 
 rowness of restriction to the children of Abra- 
 ham after the flesh was only a temporary provi- 
 sion "because of transgressions" until the 
 promised Seed should come. But even while the 
 restriction continued the stranger in Israel might 
 present his sin offering, and Israel's priests must 
 make atonement for him. 
 
 VI. The sacramental va'ue of the sin offering 
 is happily expressed by Calvin in Lev. iv. 22. 
 "In truth they hold not the first rudiments of 
 the faith who do not recognize that the legal ce- 
 remonies were sacraments. But in all sacra- 
 ments, at least those which are regular in the 
 church, there is a spiritual promise annexed. It 
 follows therefore that, forgiveness was truly pro- 
 mised to the Fathers who reconciled themselves 
 to God by the victims offered; not that the 
 slaughter of sheep could expiate sins, but be- 
 cause this was a symbol, certain and impossible 
 to deceive, in which pious souls might rest so 
 that they could dare to appear before God in 
 calm confidence. In fine, as sins are now sacra- 
 mentally washed away by baptism, so under the 
 law also sacrifices were expiations, although in 
 a different fashion ; Bince baptism sets before us 
 Christ immediately, who was only obscurely sha- 
 dowed forth under the law. Improperly indeed 
 is that transferred to the signs which belongs to 
 Christ alone, in whom is set forth to us the truth 
 of all spiritual good, and who finally did away 
 sin by His single and perpetual sacrifice. But 
 since the question is not what the sacrifices 
 availed in themselves, let it suffice that they testi- 
 fied of the grace of God of which they were 
 figures." 
 
 VII. The ritual of the sin offering was the 
 most solema of all the sacrifices, and the blood 
 
CHAP. V. 14— VI. 7. 
 
 49 
 
 of this (except in case of the alternative doves) 
 was always to be placed at least on the horns of 
 the altar, while that of the greatest burnt or 
 peace-otfering was only sprinkled on its sides; 
 thus the forgiveness of sin is shown to be the 
 most fundamental and necessary part of the 
 whole approach to God. 
 
 VIII. No sin offerings, although some of them 
 were "burned without the camp," were ever 
 wholly burned upon the altar, and the common 
 expression in regard to other sacrifices, " the 
 food of the Lord " is never applied to these. 
 Frankincense and oil were not allowed with the 
 vegetable, nor an oblation with the animal sin 
 offering. The whole ritual was stern and severe, 
 until by the sacrifice itself propitiation had been 
 made. By this symbolism is set forth the atti- 
 tude of the Infinite in holiness towards sin ; and 
 thus is seen what must have been the conse- 
 quences to the sinner, except for the Propitiation 
 that is in Christ Jesus. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 The " exceediug sinfulness of sin" is shown 
 in every possible symbolical way by this offering. 
 It has in it nothing of the oil of gladness, or the 
 fragrance of frankincense ; it has nothing of 
 festive joy, or of communion between the wor- 
 shipper and God. Yet dark as the shadow of 
 sin is hereby shown to be, it appears on all oc- 
 casions when man comes into the presence of 
 God. The sin offering was presented for "the peo- 
 ple, on all the great festivals and days of solemn 
 convocation, on Passover, the Feast of Weeks, 
 and the Feast of Tabernacles, on the Day of Me- 
 morial, on the first day of the seventh month, 
 
 and on the Day of Atonement " (Kalisch) and on 
 many other public occasions. Besides all these, 
 it was offered continually by individuals as the 
 sins of their own lives were brought to their con- 
 sciousness. So must man's approach to God ever 
 be with the plea, "Have mercy upon me, a sin- 
 ner." Coming in this temper, propitiation is 
 provided for all. There was none so poor but 
 that a sin offering was within his reach. And 
 so the word of the great Propitiation is, "Him 
 that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." 
 " He is able to save unto the uttermost them that 
 come unto God by Him." 
 
 Yet for high-handed and defiant sin, for sin that 
 sets itself in opposition to the Divine way of salva- 
 tion, there is no other way of forgiveness, " there 
 remains no more sacrifice." Comp. Heb. x. 26. 
 
 For the sin of the high-priest a higher victim 
 was commanded, and with a higher ritual, be- 
 cause he " sinned to the guilt of the people." 
 Only for the sin of the whole people collectively 
 the same offering was required. So it must ever 
 be with those in positions of influence and au- 
 thority ; when they sin, they drag others with 
 them into guiltiness. There is ever a federal, 
 as well as an individual relation between man 
 and God, and though the latter may determine 
 his final condition, yet his individual relation 
 itself is largely affected by his federal. 
 
 Sins of omission are regarded as sins equally 
 with those of commission. 
 
 No one is so humble that the means of propi- 
 tiation is not provided for him. Under the law. 
 this could only be symbolized by alternative of- 
 ferings of different degrees, showing forth the 
 freeness under the Gospel of the offer of the 
 waters of life to all that are athirst. 
 
 E.— TRESPASS OFFERINGS. 
 Chaps. V. 14— VI. 7. 
 
 Note.— In the division of chapters in the Hebrew Bible this section is rightly all included in Chap. V. 
 
 14, 15 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul commit a trespass [do a 
 wrong 1 ], and sin through ignorance [inadvertence 2 ] in [taking from 3 ] the holy things 
 of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without 
 blemish out of the flocks, with [according to'] thy estimation by shekels of silver, 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 15. I]!j3 7J.'0r\ The word being different from the Di^N so frequently recurring in this chapter in a tech- 
 nical sense, it is better to change the translation. Otherwise commit a trespass is a sufficiently good translation, as no Eng- 
 lish word embodies the idea of secrecy or stealth conveyed by the original. 
 
 8 Ver. 15. njJU'3 =» through inadvertence. See Note 1 on iv. 2. 
 it: ■ 
 Ver. 15. «■" 'C?"1p3 a constructio priegnans -> taking, or diminishing from the holy things. 
 
 4 Ter - ls - 'P'll'S- The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word 
 but one) Beems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to 
 be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., 
 and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, 
 while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to ; they also neglect to translate the It = thy. 
 
50 LEVITICUS. 
 
 16 after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering ; and he shall make amends 
 for the harm that he hath done [sin that he hath committed 5 ] in the holy thing, 
 and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest : and the priest shall 
 make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be 
 forgiven him. 
 
 17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done 
 by the commandments of the Loed ; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and 
 
 18 shall bear his iniquity. And he shall briug a ram without blemish out of the 
 flock, with [according to 4 ] thy estimation, fjr a trespass offering, unto the priest : 
 and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance [inadver- 
 
 19 tence"] wherein he erred and wist it not, aud it shall be forgiven him. It is a tres- 
 pass offering : he hath certainly trespassed against the Loed. 
 
 Chap. VI. 1, 2. And the Loed spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit 
 a trespass [do a wrong'] against the Loed, aud lie unto his neighbour, in that [and 
 deny to his neighbor that G J which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship [or a 
 pledge'] or in [omit in] a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived [op- 
 
 3 pressed 8 ] his neighbour ; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning 
 it [denieth it 6 ] and sweareth falsely : in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning 
 
 4 therein : then it shall be, because he hath sinned, aud is guilty, that he shall re- 
 store that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully 
 [oppressively 8 ] gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing 
 
 5 which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely ; he shall even re- 
 store it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto 
 
 6 him to whom it appertained, in the day of his trespass offering. 9 And he shall 
 bring his trespass offering unto the Loed, a ram without blemish out of the flock, 
 
 7 with [according to 4 ] thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest : and the 
 priest shall make an atonement for him before the Loed : and it shall be forgiven 
 him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein. 
 
 6 Ver. 16. This is the only place in Lev. in which NUn « rendered by any other word than sin in the A. V. This 
 should be conformed to the osage. 
 
 6 Chap. VI. Ver. 2. U/n3 construed with a double 3 of the person and of the thing, = to deny a thing to a person. 
 The word means to lie (xix. 11, etc.), but the other rendering expresses more exactly the sense here, and is the more usual. 
 
 7 Ver. 2. T rWr^TC"lX = a thing given in pledge, apawn, different from the trust just before. The construction is 
 with the same verb, and is sufficiently expressed without the special translation of 3, so that the in of the A. V. may be 
 omitted throughout, 
 
 » Ver. 2. p'C!V lit. to press, to squeeze, hence to oppress. A new verb being here introduced the construction with the 
 series of 3 ends. The derived noun pVp, ver. 4, bears the same sense — that which has been oppressively obtained. 
 
 s Ver. 5. The Heb. word meaning either trespass or trespass offering, the marg. of the A. V. is hardly accurate in writing 
 u Heb. in the day of his trespass." 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CEITICAL. 
 
 The general distinction of the trespass from 
 the sin offering has already been pointed out: in 
 
 any .alternative offerings allowed in case of po- 
 verty. The reason for the last provision results 
 necessarily from the nature of the offering. 
 Elsewhere we find the same trespass offering 
 prescribed for unchastity with a slave (xix. 20- 
 
 lUe Sill Olieilllg 11113 illieuujt Uccu ]iuiu'tu vm . ... f..~uv--~ j .._-__ _ v _ 
 
 the trespass offering the idea of the harm done \ 22), and in later times offered by those who, on 
 was more prominent, in the sin offering that of ' 
 the sin committed. Accordingly the trespass of- 
 fering was usually accompanied by "amends for 
 the harm"— a fifth (a double tithe) being added 
 as penalty. In case the person against whom 
 1 he wrong was done was already dead without a 
 kinsman to receive the compensation, the amends 
 and penalty were to be paid to the priest (Num. 
 v. 8). The ritual differed in several respects 
 from that of the sin offering: the blood was 
 treated as in the burnt and peace offerings; the 
 only victim hero allowed was a ram; there was 
 no gradation either in the victim or the ritual 
 according to the rank of the offender; nor were 
 
 the return from the captivity, had taken strange 
 wives (Ezra x. 19); the same also (not a "he- 
 lamb," as in the A. V.) is commanded with a 
 somewhatdifferent ritual on occasion ofdeclaring 
 the cleansing of a leper (xiv. 12, 21), and also 
 with a ram of a year old for the victim in case 
 of unintentional defilement by a dead body during 
 a Nazarite vow (Num. vi. 9-12). 
 
 Three cases are specified which demand a 
 trespass offering — the first two having reference 
 more directly to wrong done towards God (v. 
 15-19), and the third, including several varieties 
 of offence, having reference to wrong done to men 
 (vi. 2-7). 
 
CHAP. V. 14— VI. 7. 
 
 51 
 
 Ver. 14. And the LORD spake.— This for- 
 mula marks a fresh communication and distinctly 
 separates the trespass offering from the sin offer- 
 ing which has occupied the whole of the previous 
 communication from iv. 1. The whole law of the 
 trespass offering is not, however, contained in 
 this communication, but only that part of it re- 
 lating to wrongs done toward God. Wrongs 
 done toward man are the subject of a separate 
 communication (vi. 1-7). 
 
 Vers. 16-17. The first case of the trespass 
 offering. 
 
 Ver. 13. Through inadvertence, as in iv. 
 2, 13, 22. 
 
 In taking from the holy things. — See 
 Textual note 3. The holy things were the first- 
 fruits, tithes, or gifts of any kind connected with 
 the service of the sanctuary or the support of its 
 priests, by the withholding of which the Lord is 
 said to suffer loss. The restitution and penalty 
 are mentioned xxii. 14 without mention of this 
 offering, which is presupposed. 
 
 A ram. — The invariable trespass offering 
 (except in the special cases xiv. 12 ; Num. vi. 12) 
 which does not at all appear in the list of victims 
 for the sin offering in iv. 1 — v. 13. 
 
 According to thy estimation. — See Text- 
 ual note 4. — The pronoun thy must be considered 
 as used impersonally; or if it be taken person- 
 ally, then it is addressed to Moses, and of course 
 to any one to whom this duty should afterwards 
 belong in his place. 
 
 Shekels. — The Vulg. and many commentators 
 understand the plural to stand for two, as the 
 A. V. has explained the plural in Ezek. xlvii. 13 ; 
 others, as Aben-Ezra, Abarbanel, etc., understand 
 it less definitely as meaning at least two shekels. 
 The notion of Oehler (p. 478) and Keil (in loc.) 
 that the value of the ram was purposely left in- 
 definite, that there might be room to vary it ac- 
 cording to the gravity of the trespass, although 
 advocated by Michaelis (Art. 244), is clearly 
 wrong. It is opposed to the fundamental idea 
 of all sacrifice, which excludes such correlation; 
 and is entirely unnecessary, since the compensa- 
 tion and forfeit (ver. 16) were separately re- 
 quired. Moreover, the variation in the value of 
 the ram would be very small in comparison with 
 the variation in trespasses. The text was in- 
 tended to fix the lowest limit of the value of a 
 ram that could be allowed, and the estimation 
 was for the purpose of determining whether he 
 came up to the standard. "The plural is plainly 
 to be understood as meaning two shekels, or at 
 least two shekels." Knobel. 
 
 Shekel of the Sanctuary. — See Ex. xxx. 
 13 ; xxxviii. 24, etc. 
 
 Ver. 16. And he shall make amends. — He 
 shall give the first-fruits or tithes, or whatever 
 he had withheld or taken from sacred dues, or its 
 value. And shall add the fifth part thereto 
 as a penally or forfeit. — Theodoret here refers to 
 the example of Zaccheus. The justice of such ad- 
 ditional payment is everywhere recognized in the 
 Hebrew and all other laws. It is in this, and not 
 in the ram, that, the penalty is proportioned to the 
 offence. This having been done, and reparation 
 made, then, with the ram, the priest shall 
 make an atonement. 
 
 On the ritual of this sacrifice see vii. 1-6. 
 
 Vers. 17-19. The second case of the trespass 
 offering. . 
 
 This second case probably differed from the 
 first as sins of commission differ from those of 
 omission. The formula by which the trespass is 
 expressed is substantially the same as in iv. 22 
 and 27 in regard to the sin to be expiated by the 
 sin offering. From its connection, and from ita 
 being expiated by the trespass offering, it is sup- 
 posed to include all those transgressions against 
 the theocratic law which could be compensated 
 by money or other payment; yet in this case 
 alone no mention is made of compensation, partly 
 because it was evident from the foregoing that 
 it was required when it could be given, and 
 partly because it included also cases in which 
 pecuniary compensation could not be given, but 
 punishment must be inflicted in some other way. 
 (See xix. 20.) Lauge, however, urges that this 
 omission is a serious difficulty against the view 
 of the trespass offering which has here been 
 given. He considers that the trespass offering 
 relates to participation in guilt in contradistinc- 
 tion to an original offence, and thinks this is in- 
 dicated by the description of these sins as "sins 
 of ignorance." He says "these sins of ignorance 
 belong specifically to the category of participation 
 in guilt." It must be remembered, however, that 
 all sins for which any offering was allowed were 
 "sins of ignorance," or rather of inadvertence. 
 
 VI. 1-7. The third case of the trespass 
 offering. 
 
 From the formula of ver. 1 this appears as a 
 separate divine communication, on account of 
 the different character of the sins enumerated. 
 All sin is indeed against God, yet those which 
 follow belong to that class of offences against Him 
 which also work harm to men. 
 
 The first three verses contain an enumeration 
 of specific wrongs ; vers. 4 and 5 provide for 
 amends for the harm done with the added pe- 
 nalty ; and vers. 6 and 7 for atonement by means 
 of the trespass offering. This communication 
 bears the same relation to the foregoing which 
 v. 1-13 bears to chap. iv. 
 
 Ver. 2. If a man deny to his neighbor 
 that which -was delivered him. — "111P3 
 is a deposit, a thing entrusted to be kept. The 
 sin in this case would consist either in denying 
 the receiving it at all, or denying that it was re- 
 ceived in trust, or refusing to restore it. 
 
 A pledge. — This differs from the former in 
 not being simply a trust, but a security, a pawn. 
 It is not separately mentioned in ver. 4. 
 
 Ver. 3. Sweareth falsely. — When he denies 
 that he has found a lost thing, and is put upon 
 
 his oath, he swears to his He, 1pt5~7j£. This 
 false swearing refers also to all the wrongs men- 
 tioned before, and the guilt of the false oath, 
 added to the wrong done, brings the offence into 
 the category of sins against the Lord. 
 
 Ver. 5. In the day of his trespass offering. 
 — The amends for the wrong done was to be 
 made to the person wronged at the same time 
 that the offender sought the divine forgiveness. 
 The penalty for the wrong and the ritual of the 
 offering are the same as in chap. v. 
 
 In Ex. xxii. 1-9 a series of wrongs is enume- 
 rated much like those here mentioned with the 
 
52 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 general law that the restitution should be dou- 
 ble (vers. 4, 9), while in particular cases it rose 
 to four and five-fold. The distinction between 
 the penalty as given there and here appears to 
 lie in the fact that there the offender was only 
 brought to any restitution by a conviction "be- 
 fore the judges" (ver. 9); while here, although 
 it is not distinctly so declared yet, every thing 
 implies that the acknowledgment of the wrong 
 is voluntary. There is no mention of conviction, 
 and the whole connection is with sins of inad- 
 vertence or impulse which were afterwards ac- 
 knowledged, and for which forgiveness was 
 sought by the offender. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. From the law of the trespass offering it is 
 clear that guilt was not removed by the mere act 
 of compensation (with penalty added) for the 
 harm done; nor, on the other hand, could an 
 atonement be offered for that guilt until such 
 compensation had been made. Here are brought 
 out the two principles which everywhere, under 
 the old and the new dispensation alike, are con- 
 cerned in the forgiveness of transgression. 
 There must be both the desire, as far as possible, 
 to make amends for the harm done; and there 
 must be also the sacrifice divinely appointed for 
 "the covering" of the sin. Neither of these can 
 avail alone, because both are essential to that 
 state of holiness, that conquest over the evil, by 
 which alone man can be at one with God. The 
 sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient for the forgive- 
 ness of sin; but the sinner can only avail him- 
 self of its benefits when, Christ-like, he himself 
 seeks to conquer the evil. 
 
 II. Wrong done to man is itself sin against 
 God. It is impossible to separate the command 
 to love God from that of loving our neighbor also. 
 1 Jno. iii. 20, 21. 
 
 III. In those sins against others for which 
 atonement was provided in the trespass offering, 
 there was the additional sin of a false oath. This 
 was certainly a moral offence — a sin in the full 
 sense of the word. In view of this, it is impos- 
 sible to look upon the offences for which sacri- 
 fices were appointed as mere ceremonial or theo- 
 cratic offences. They everywhere appear as 
 true Bins, moral transgressions, and this is most 
 clearly shown by including the false oath among 
 them. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 There is no true repentance for wrong done to 
 man which is not accompanied by restitution — 
 and none for having taken from the things of the 
 Lord, or for having failed to give all that should 
 have been given to Him, except in restoring it in 
 overflowing measure; yet while this may make 
 amends for the harm don?, forgiveness of the sin 
 must still be sought through propitiation. 
 
 In the trespass offering the ritual of the blood 
 was like that of the burnt or the peace offering — 
 inferior to that of the sin offering. This shows 
 that while wrong must of necessity involve sin, 
 yet it does not, in itself considered, stand on the 
 same footing as sin; the moral element in trans- 
 gression is always the more important. One 
 cannot indeed really offend against man without 
 also offending against God ; yet the offence which 
 has God directly for its objective point must ne- 
 cessarily be more serious, since it involves a 
 deeper tort than that which is directed only 
 against man. 
 
 The sin offering was lessened by successive 
 stages for the poor, and the very poor, that it 
 might be brought within the reach of all; for all 
 must have propitiation for sin; but the trespass 
 offering is unvaried, the same for all; because 
 if one cannot make amends for the wrong he has 
 done, it must be let alone, — an inferior gift can- 
 not set things right. 
 
 Wrong, like sin, may be committed through 
 inadvertence. Still it must be atoned for. Good 
 intentions will not repair the wrong. 
 
 For sin done "with a high hand," presump- 
 tuously, no sacrifice was provided, because the 
 offender deliberately set himself in opposition to 
 God ; but for offences against man, such as those 
 here enumerated, some of which must have been 
 done deliberately, a sacrifice is allowed, because 
 even such intentional wrongs do not constitute 
 the same attitude of opposition to God. They 
 may be done, through passion or covetousness, 
 without reflection upon their moral bearings. 
 Therefore, on repentance, restitution, and propi- 
 tiation, they may be forgiven. 
 
 Origen applies the law of trespass in abstract- 
 ing from sacred things to the faithfulness re- 
 quired of the Christian minister in regard to 
 gifts for holy use3 committed to his trust; and 
 then further to the hearing of God's word as a 
 sacred gift, for the use of which men are re- 
 sponsible, and for the misuse of which they be- 
 come guilty. 
 
CHAP. VI. 8— VII. 38. 53 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 Special Instructions chiefly for the Priests. 
 
 Chap. VI. 8— VII. 38. 
 
 "Standing Sacrificial Rites and Duties— especially of the Priests." — LANGE. 
 
 A.— FOR BURNT OFFERINGS. 
 
 Chap. VI. 8-13. 
 
 8, 9 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command 1 Aaron and his sons, say- 
 ing, This is the law of the burnt offering: It 2 is the burnt offering, because of the 
 burning upon the altar [This, the burnt offering, shall be upon the hearth upon the 
 altar 3 ] all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. 
 
 10 And the priest shall put on his* linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put 5 
 upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt 
 offering [ashes to which the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering 6 ] on the altar, 
 
 11 and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and 
 put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean 
 
 12 place.' And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in [on] it; it shall not be 
 put out : and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt 
 offering in order upon it : and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings. 
 
 13 The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar ; it shall never go out. 
 
 B.— FOR OBLATIONS (MEAT OFFERINGS). VI. 14-23. 
 
 14 And this is the law of the meat offering [oblation 8 ] ; the sons of Aaron shall 
 
 15 offer 9 it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful, of 
 the flour of the meat offering [oblation 8 ], and of the oil thereof, and all the frank- 
 incense which is upon the meat offering [oblation 8 ], and shall burn it upon the 
 
 16 altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord. And the remain- 
 der thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat : with [om. with] unleavened bread [om. 
 bread] shall it be eaten in the [a] holy place ; in the court of the tabernacle of the 
 
 17 [om. the] congregation they shall eat it. It 2 shall not be baken with leaven. I 
 have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire ; it is most 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 9. IV- The Sam. has ^lV. a form which occurs in MS3. with the pointing ^V. 
 
 2 Ver«. 9. 17, 18, 22. X1D. The S.im. and many MSS. have the later f. rm XTt indicated by the Hasoretic pnnotna- 
 tion. This frequent variation will not hereafter bo noticed. The conjectural emendation of Uoubigant, 'in iu the impe- 
 rative, although expressing ihe sense, is unnecessary. 
 
 3 Ver. 9. Th a suggested translation is that given by most critics ; of its general correctness there can be no doubt ; but 
 the sense of mplO (which occurs only here) may be either that of hearth, or of burning. The masculine form, "lplO 
 
 (which is fouu i only Ps. cii. 4 (3), and Isa. xxxiii. 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 preterable translation here. Knobel would 
 make Xin the verb tti be in the imperative; but this is not sufficiently supported. 
 
 * Ver. 10. nQ. For the suffix on a noun in the coustr. Knobel refers to xxvi. 42; Ex. xxvi. 25; Jer. ix. 2 (viii. 23); 
 
 2 Sam. xxii. 33, however, reads '"I'D. 
 
 5 Ver. 10. The Sam. for 1^3*7^ has :|'7y as in xvi. 4, which scarcely affects the sense. 
 
 6 Ver. 10. The propriety of tins correction is obvious. Ep. Horsley's emendation : take up the ashes of the. fire which hath 
 consumed — does violence to the Heb. 
 
 ' Ver. 11. The Vulg. has this curious addition : usipie adfaviUam cansumi faciei. 
 
 8 Ver. 14, etc. ntlJD— oblation. See ch. ii. 1, Text, and Gram. Note (2). The Sam. has here "the law of the oblation 
 t : ■ 
 of the drink offerings," whence the Vulg. : lex sacrificii et tibamentorum. 
 
 • Ver. 14. 3"lpn, Iufin. Ahs. as in ii. 6; Ex. xiii. 3. 
 
54 LEVITICUS. 
 
 18 holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. All the males among the 
 children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations 
 concerning the offerings of the Lord made by fire : every one that [whatsoever 10 ] 
 toueheth them shall be holy. 
 
 19, 20 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This is the offering of Aaron and 
 of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when he 11 is anointed ; 
 the tenth part of an ephan of fine flour for 12 a meat offering [an oblation 6 ] perpetual, 
 
 21 half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. 13 In a pan it shall be made 
 ■with oil ; and when it is baken [fried 14 ], thou shalt bring it in : and the baken 15 
 pieces 15 of the meat-offering [oblation 8 ] shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the 
 
 22 Lord. And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it : it is 
 
 23 a statute forever unto the Lord ; it shall be wholly burnt. For every meat-offer- 
 ing [oblation 6 ] for the priest shall be wholly burnt : it shall not be eaten. 
 
 C— FOR SIN OFFERINGS. VI. 24-30. 
 
 24, 25 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, 
 saying, This is the law of the sin offering : In the place where the burnt offering is 
 
 26 killed shall the sin offering be killed belbre the Lord : it is most holy. The priest 
 that offereth it for sin shall eat it : in the [a] holy place shall it be eaten, in the 
 
 27 courtof the tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh 
 thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any 
 garment, thou 16 shalt wash that w : hereon it was sprinkled in the [a] holy place. 
 
 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken : and if it be sodden in 
 
 29 a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. All the males among 
 SO the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And [But] no sin offering, whereof 
 
 any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation to 
 reconcile [make atonement"] withal in the holy place, shall be eaten : it shall be 
 burnt in the fire. 
 
 D.— FOR TRESPASS OFFERINGS. Chap. VII. 1-6. 
 
 Chap. VII. 1 Likewise [And] this is the law of 18 the trespass-offering : it is most 
 
 2 holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass 
 offering : and the blood thereof shall he 19 sprinkle round about upon the altar. 
 
 3 And he shall ofier of it all the fat thereof; the rump [the fat tail 20 ], and the fat that 
 
 4 covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is 
 by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with [on 21 ] the kidneys, it shall 
 
 5 he take away: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made 
 
 6 by fire unto the Lord; it is a trespass offering. Every male among the priests 
 shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the [a] holy place: it is most holy. 
 
 1( > Vcr. 18. "lu'X 12 might be understood either as every one that, as in the A. V., or as every thing thai; but as the 
 
 latter is the necessary translation of the exactly parallel clanse in ver. 27 (as in the A. V.), it is better to keep it here also. 
 
 11 Ver. 20. The Syr. here has the plural. 
 
 12 Ver. 20. The prep. S, not in the Heb., is supplied by the Sam. and many MSS. 
 
 13 Ver. 20. The paraphrase of the Sam. D'S^'H V^=bettveen the evenings, expresses the connection of this oblation 
 
 with the evening sacrifice. 
 
 H Ver. 21. r03"0, a word of very doubtful meauing, but should certainly have the same translation as in vii. 12, 
 
 where see note. 
 
 is Ver. 21. Tan, a word iir. Aey. to which different significations are attached according to its supposed derivation. 
 
 Fiirst, deriving it from flip, gives the sense of the A. V. Gesenius also, deriving from HDX, gives the sense of cooled. 
 
 Others derive it from an Arabic root, and give the meaning broken. So Targ. Onk. (which points 'J'fiNpi) and the Sam. 
 
 i° Vor. 27. D33H iT/l'- The sudden change of person, and the feminine suffix in reference to a masculine noun, 
 •■- : t •/ t i 
 
 axe both avoided by the Sam. reading 033^ V 7^- 
 
 1? Ver. 30. IS^S. There may be but little difference in the sense of the two renderings ; but it is better to retain 
 the same form ahraya Other instances of variation in the A. V. in Lev. are viii. 15 and xvi. 20 only. 
 
 18 VII. Ver. 1. The I.XX. here lias 6 1'dpios toO /tpioC, the ram being the only victim admissible for the trespass offering. 
 
 ™ Ver. 2. Tli.' Sun. here us™ the plural. II cannot mean that the offerer Bprinliled the blood, but rather assimilates 
 this v.-rli to those pnriL; before on tli« supposition (as in i. 6, 12, etc.) that the priests also killed the Victim. 
 
 » Ver. :i. rrSsn. See Textual Note « on iii. 9. 
 
 " Ver. 4. h]?— on. See Textual Note ' on iii. i. 
 
CHAP. VI. 8— VII. 38. 55 
 
 E.— FOR THE PRIESTS' PORTION OF THE ABOVE OFFERINGS. VII. 7-10. 
 
 7 As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass offering : there is one law for them : the 
 
 8 priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. And the priest that offer- 
 eth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the 
 
 9 burnt-offering which he hath offered. And all the ineat-offering [oblation 8 ] that is 
 baken in the oven, and all that is dressed iu the frying-pan [pot 2 -], and in the pan, 
 
 10 shall be the priest's that offereth it. And [But] every meat offering [oblation 8 ] 
 mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another. 
 
 F.— FOR PEACE OFFERINGS IN THEIR VARIETY. VII. 11-21. 
 
 11 And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he 23 shall offer unto 
 
 12 the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice 
 of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed 
 
 13 with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of Cue flour, fried. 24 Besides the cakes, he 
 shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his 
 
 14 peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [out of each 
 offering 25 ] for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priest's that 
 
 15 sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his 
 peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered ; he 
 
 16 shall not leave any of it until the morning. But if the sacrifice of his offering be 
 a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his 
 
 17 sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: but the re- 
 mainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. 
 
 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the 
 third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offer- 
 eth it : it shall be an abomination, 26 and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his 
 
 19 iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten ; it 
 shall be burnt with fire : and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof. 
 
 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain 
 unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off 
 
 21 from his people. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the 
 uncleanness of man, or any uaclean beast, or any abominable unclean thinr/, 21 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. VII. 22-27. 
 
 22, 23 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 
 24 saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the fat 
 of the beast [carcase 28 ] that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with 
 
 25 beasts, may be used in any other use : but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For who- 
 soever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto 
 
 22 Ver. 9. See Textual Note ' on it. 7. 
 
 23 Ver. 11. The Sum., LXX. acid Vulg. with two MSS. have the plural. 
 
 24 Ver. 12. r03"1?3. There is bo much difference of opinion as to the meaning: that it seems unsafe to attempt any 
 
 change in the A. V. Fiirst says : " ttomelltinfl dipped in, mingled (by moistening) ;" Lange denies that it conveys the sense 
 Of cooked; Keil translates "and rotated finejtour (see Ti. 14) nu i"i(h oil, i. e., cakes made of fine flour roasted 
 
 with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil." Others give varying interpretations. 
 
 26 Ver. 14. \2~)p is to be uniformly translated offering. See ii. 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. 
 
 26 Ver. 18. ;U3 occurs only here and in xix. 7; Isa. lxv. 4; Ezek. iv. 14, and is always applied to the sacrificial flesh. 
 It is from the root 7J3, and signifies something unclean and fetid, LXX. niaa/j-a. 
 
 B Ver. 21. For V ptjf—nn abominable animal (xi. 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41), the Sam., six MSS. of Kennicott and of de Rossi, 
 
 Targ. of Onkelos ($rp) an d the Syr. read yiW^reptUes, worms (v. xi. 20, 20, 41). This would make a more systematic 
 
 enumeration of the sources of uncleanness, and is adopted by many. 
 
 18 Ver. 24. nSDJ. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. The D31t3 of the next clause—torn sc. of 
 t •■ : t ■■ : 
 
 beasts, is of course a wholly different word. 
 
56 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 26 the Lord, even the soul that eateth U shall be cut off from his people. Moreover 
 ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your 
 
 27 dwellings. 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. VII. 28-36. 
 
 28, 29 ^ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the Lord shall 
 bring his oblation [offering 29 ] unto the Lord of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. 
 
 30 His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire, the fat with the 
 breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before 
 
 31 the Lord. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall 
 
 32 be Aaron's and his sons'. And the right shoulder [leg 30 ] shall ye give unto the priest 
 
 33 for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. He among the sons of 
 Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right 
 
 34 shoulder [leg 30 ] for his part. For the wave-breast and the heave shoulder [leg 30 ] 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 
 
 35 among the children of Israel. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and 
 of the anointing of his sons [This is the portion 31 of Aaron and the portion 31 of his 
 sons], out of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, in the day when he 32 presented 
 
 36 them 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 be anointed them, by a 
 statute forever throughout their generations. 
 
 CONCLUSION OF THIS SECTION. VII. 37-38. 
 
 37 This 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 sacri- 
 
 38 fice of 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 [offerings 29 ] 
 unto the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai. 
 
 29 Ver. 29. The uniform translation of |21p must be retained here also, although giving an appearance of tautology 
 
 I t : I t i 
 
 which is not in the original, his peace offerings being expressed simply by VO llj- The translation of the A. V. may have 
 
 tt : 
 been influenced by the rendering in the Vu'g. : qfierat simul et sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus; but for this there is no 
 warrant, nor is it sustained by aoy other of the ancient versions. 
 
 30 Ver. 32. pY£l is uniformly rendered shoulder in the A. V. wherever it is applied to sacrificial animals; in all other 
 
 places it is used of men (Pent, xxviii. 35; Prov. xxvi. 7 ; Cant. v. 15; Isa. xlvii. 2 ; also Dan. ii. 33, Chald.; Ps. cxlvii. 10), 
 and is translated leg, or hip, or thigh. The A. V. has here followed the equally uuiform practice of the LXX. and tbe Vnlg. 
 It would Beem that the word should have the same sense iu 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, g 2, Kvriixn) 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 opi- 
 nion ; but the Heb. has a distinct word y)~)]=arm for the shoulder or fore-leg (Num. vi. 19 ; Deut. xviii. 3), and that, too, 
 ol the sacrificial animals. 
 
 31 A'er. 35. rifli^- The word undoubtedly means anointing ; but there is also good authority for the meaning portion 
 
 which Rnsennniller considers undoubtedly the risht translation here, and which is so necessary to the sense that it is sup- 
 plied iu the A. V., which has followed the transition of the LXX. and Vulg. 
 
 32 Ver. 35. The Vulg. has die qua oblulil eos Moyses ul saccrdotio fungereutur. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The remainder of ch. vi M with the whole of 
 ch. vii., form a distinct section occupied mainly 
 with the duties and privileges of the priests in 
 connection with their sacrificial service. Al- 
 though there is unavoidably a little repetition in 
 thus speaking again of the same sacrifices from 
 a different point of view and for a different ob- 
 ject ; 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 di- 
 
 vine communications addressed through Moses 
 to Aaron and his sons, as the former commu- 
 nication had been to ths children of Israel. 
 
 It has already been noticed that in the Hebrew 
 Bibles the chapter rightly begins with the begin- 
 ning of this section. Here also begins a new 
 Parashah, or Proper Lesson of the law, which 
 extends to viii. 36. The corresponding Lesson 
 from the prophets begins with Jer. vii. 21, in 
 which " God declares the vanity of sacrifice 
 without obedience." 
 
 A. Vers. 8-13. Instructions for the priests in 
 regard to the burnt -offerings. This has refe- 
 rence to the daily burnt-offerings of a lamb at 
 
CHAP. VI. 8— Til. 38. 
 
 evening and at morning. There was no occa- 
 sion for directions in regard to the voluntary 
 burnt offerings as they involved no other priestly 
 duties than those already expressed in chap. i. ; 
 in that chapter nothing has been said of the re- 
 quired burnt sacrifice, provided at the public 
 cost, which is here treated of. 
 
 Ver. 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 natu- 
 rally mentioned first because, in the Hebrew di- 
 vision 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 Ex. 
 xxix. 38, and is again repeated in Num. xxviii. 
 3. As this offering was theoretically the com- 
 prehensive 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." 
 
 Ver. 10. His linen garment. —This was 
 " (he long tight-robe of fine white linen, or bya- 
 bus, 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" (Ka- 
 lisch). It is scarcely necessary to point out tint 
 linen, from its cleanliness, and from the readi- 
 ness with which it could be washed, was selected 
 as the priestly dress not only among the Israel- 
 ites, but among many other nations also, espe- 
 cially 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 Ex. xxviii. 40-43, and the 
 girdle and the turban were of course to be un- 
 derstood. 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 oflicial dress at the altar, it was of ne- 
 cessity that he should temporarily deposit the 
 ashes near by, until he had finished the ordering 
 of the altar. 
 
 Ver. 11. And he shall put off his gar- 
 ments. — -The sacred dress was now to be laid 
 aside as the priest must pass out of the taber- 
 nacle and out of the camp. It has been ques- 
 tioned 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 tradi- 
 tion 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. 
 
 19 
 
 — Without the camp, is a phrase belonging 
 to the life of the wilderness, but easily modified 
 to the requirements of the settled life in Pales- 
 tine. 
 
 Ver. 12. Shall burn wood on it.— The fire 
 was to be maintained always whether the pre- 
 vious 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. Wheu 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. 
 
 Ver. 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" (ix. -1), 
 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 (2 Chr. vii. 1). But 
 besides this, " It is evident that the fire burning 
 continually, which was kept up by the daily 
 burnt offering (Ex. xxix. 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 un- 
 ceasing, 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 god- 
 dess ") among the Greeks and Romaus, 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 ex- 
 isted between these and the Divine covenant re- 
 ligion." 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. iv. 13, 14). Pro- 
 bably the fire was carried on the march in a ves- 
 sel prepared for the purpose. 
 
 B. Instructions for the priests concerning ob- 
 lations. This division consists of two portions, 
 the former of which (vers. 14-18) is apart of the 
 same divine communication as the preceding di- 
 vision, and relates to the priestly duties con- 
 nected with the oblations of the people, whether 
 voluntary or required ; while the latter, (vers. 
 19-23), forms a separate divine communication, 
 and relates to the special oblation of the high- 
 priests themselves in connection with their con- 
 secration. 
 
53 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 The law of the oblation is a repetition in part 
 of that in ch. ii., because it was there applied 
 only to voluntary oblations, while here it in- 
 cludes all ; but there are also (in vers. 10-18) 
 additional particulars not given before. 
 
 Ver. 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 ch. ii. 8, while ver. 15 merely repeats and ap- 
 plies to all oblations the directions in ii. 2 for 
 the private and voluntary oblation. 
 
 Ver. 16. The following directions, which con- 
 cern 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 ii. 3. Only those of Aaron's sons might eat 
 of it who were ceremonially clean. This is ex- 
 pressed emphatically in regard to the peace 
 offerings in vii. 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. 
 
 Ver. 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 ii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 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 touch- 
 eth them shall be holy. — Two senses are pos- 
 sible : (a) nothing shall be allowed to touch 
 them which is not holy; (b) whatever does 
 touch them Bhall thereby become holy. The 
 latter must be considered the true sense in ac- 
 cordance with the analogy of vers. 27, 28, and 
 Ex. xxix. 37, (comp. Hag. ii. 12, 13). and with 
 this sense the command, understood of inanimate 
 objects, as Calmet suggests, presents no diffi- 
 culty. The LXX. and Vulg., however, (not the 
 Semitic versions which of course present the 
 same ambiguity as the Heb.), like the A. V., un- 
 derstood 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 be- 
 long to the Sanctuary." He then gives various 
 differing interpretations. It is better to avoid 
 the difficulty altogether as above. 
 
 Ver. 20. In the day when he is anointed. 
 — The new communication in relation to the high- 
 priesl's oblation begins with ver. 19. Most com- 
 mentators understand the time when this obla- 
 tion 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. ii. 4. Lange, how- 
 ever, says "on each of the seven days, not only 
 on the eighth day, when the consecration was 
 finished (ch. viii. 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 conse- 
 cration of each successive high-priest, and then 
 only. More generally it is interpreted as refer- 
 ring to a daily oblatiou always to be offered 
 morning and evening by the high-priest. Such 
 is the uniform Jewish interpretation. It is pro- 
 bably this offering that is referred to in Ecclus. 
 xlv. 14; see also Philo, de Vict. Jos. Ant. iii. ch. 
 10 (S 7. Several eminent Jewish authorities, as 
 Maimonides and Abarbauel, 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 
 ver. 22. 
 
 The tenth part of an Ephah. — The same 
 amount which was required for the sin offering 
 of the poorest of the people in v. 11. This 
 amount was to be presented by the high-priest 
 as a single offering which was to be afterwards 
 divided and offered half m the morning and half 
 at night. 
 
 Ver. 23. It shall not be eaten. — In other ob- 
 lations 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 ch. 
 iv., and makes this division include both the sin 
 and the trespass offerings. For his reasons see 
 ch. iv. He, however, calls the next division 
 " The ritual of the trespass offering." 
 
 We have here the third of the five divine com- 
 munications 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 vii. 21, and 
 embraces the directions to the priests concerning 
 the various other kinds of sacrifice. In the or- 
 der in which they are mentioned in chs. iii. — v. 
 the peace offerings came before the sin and tres- 
 pass offerings, while here they are placed after 
 them; the reason for this change is well ex- 
 plained by Murphy, as resulting from the differ- 
 ent principle of arrangement appropriate in the 
 two cases. In the instructions for the people 
 the order of the sacrifices is that of their com- 
 parative frequency, the burnt offering and obla- 
 tion being constant (although not so as voluntary 
 offerings), the peace offerings habitual, the sin 
 and trespass offerings, from their nature, occa- 
 sional ; 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 tres- 
 pass offerings were partly eaten by the priests, 
 the peace-offerings both by the priests and the 
 people. 
 
 Ver. 25. In the place where the burnt 
 offering. — It is evident from ver. 30 that this 
 whole direction refers to the sin offerings of the 
 people, not of the high-priest or of the whole 
 oongregation. These were to be killed in the 
 usual place of killing the smaller sacrificial ani- 
 mals, on the north side of the altar. See note 
 
CHAP. VI. 8— VII. 38. 
 
 59 
 
 on i. 11. The sin offering for the high-priest 
 and for the congregation, consisting of a bullock, 
 was to be killed (i. 3) where the bullock for 
 burnt offering was killed " before the door of 
 the tabernacle." See note on i. 3. 
 
 It is most holy. — See on ii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 25. The priest that offereth it. — For 
 the exceptions see ver. 30. The flesh of the or- 
 dinary sin-offering belonged, not to the priests 
 as a body, but to the particular priest that of- 
 fered it. It was, however, much more than he 
 could consume alone, and therefore in ver. 29 
 all males of the priestly family were allowed to 
 eat of it, doubtless on the invitation of the offi- 
 ciating priest, or by some established arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 Ver. 27. Shall be holy. — As in ver. 18. In 
 regard to the peculiarly sacred character of the 
 sin offering Lange says, " the complete surren- 
 der to Jehovah is expressed in three ways: ]) 
 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, vii. 20, 21]. 
 " 2) Washing the garments sprinkled with blood 
 in a holy place, or in the court. Here the re- 
 gard 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 vari- 
 ous opinions have been held. It seems unneces- 
 sary, however, to look for this reason in the sup- 
 position 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, ch. x. 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 car- 
 ried out of the sanctuary, and none might med- 
 dle with it but the divinely appointed priest. 
 
 Ver. 28. But the earthen vessel. — Un- 
 glazed 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 (xi. 33, 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 me- 
 thod of cooking the flesh of the sacrifice than by 
 boiling. From 1 Sam. ii. 13-15, and from the 
 allusion in Zeeh. xiv. 21, it would appear that 
 the same method was observed also in later ages. 
 
 Ver. 29. All the males. — Comp. Note on 
 ver. 18. 
 
 Ver. 30. But no sin offering whereof any 
 of the blood is brought in the tabernacle. 
 —Comp. iv. 5-7, 11. 12. 16-18, 21 ; xvi. 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. iv. 
 
 D. Instructions for the priests concerning 
 trespass offerings, vii. 1-6. 
 
 In the LXX. this and the next division (vii. 7- 
 10) form a part of ch. vi. This is certainly the 
 better division ; but the A. V. has here followed 
 the Hebrew, as in the division between chaps. 
 v, and vi., it followed the LXX. — in both cases 
 for the worse. 
 
 In the former directions for the trespass offer- 
 ing (v. 14 — vi. 7) designed for the people, no- 
 thing 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 treat- 
 ment 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 iii. 2, 8, 13 ; iv. 6, 30, 34. 
 The Codex Middoth (iii. 1) is quoted for the 
 tradition of the Jews that there was a scarlet 
 ill read or line around the altar just at the middle 
 of its height; and that the blood of the burnt 
 ottering 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 v. 14 — vi. 7 (where it 
 would more naturally occur). Knobelargues 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 
 vietims and therefore did not require to be spe- 
 cified. 
 
 Ver. 3. The fat tail is specified because the 
 victim in the trespass offering must always be a 
 ram. For other points see ch. iii. 
 
 E. Instructions concerning the priests' por- 
 tion of the above, vii. 7-10. 
 
 Before proceeding to those sacrifices, of which 
 a part was returned to be consumed by the of- 
 ferer, summary directions are now given in re- 
 gard 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. 
 
 Ver. 7. One law for them — i.e., in respect 
 to the matter here treated of, the disposal of their 
 flesh. The priest that maketh atonement. 
 
60 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 — 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. 
 
 Ver. 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 ihe 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 super- 
 stitious uses. See Patrick, Kalisch, and others. 
 Some commentators trace the origin of the cus- 
 tom in regard to the burnt offering back to 
 Adam; it rather lies still further back in the 
 nature of the sacrifice. 
 
 Ver. 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, ii., 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 ii. 4-10, and 
 it is generally supposed that even these required 
 to be consumed without delay ; the latter include 
 the oblations of ii. 1, and probably that of ii. 15; 
 also the alternative sin offering of v. 11, and the 
 jealousy offering of Num. v. 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 (vii. 14) and 
 the "memorial" in all cases, was in oneway or 
 the other consumed by the priests. A secondary 
 object in the assignment of these sacrifices was 
 the support of the priests. See Ezek. xliv. 29. 
 
 P. Instructions for the priests in regard to 
 the peace offerings in their variety, vii. 11-21. 
 
 For the reason why the peace offerings are 
 here placed last, see note on vi. 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 con- 
 tinued communion with God, and hence, so far 
 as their object is concerned, seem to belong more 
 properly to the second part of the book. Never- 
 theless, for the purpose of law, the stronger con- 
 nection is, as sacrifices, with the general laws 
 of sacrifice, and hence they must necessarily be 
 placed here. Moreover, they are not to be con- 
 sidered altogether by themselves, but, as Outram 
 has noted, as generally following piacular sacri- 
 fices, and therefore as together with them form- 
 ing 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 pro- 
 vided in chap. iii. 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 i. 11. Historical examples 
 of these offerings are very frequent in the later 
 books, e.g., 1 Sara. i. 4; ix. 13, 24; xi. 15; xvi. 
 3, 5; 1 Kings viii. 05; 1 Chron. xvi. 3, etc. Si- 
 milar sacrificial feasts among the heathen are fa- 
 miliar to all readers of Homer. 
 
 Three varieties of the peace offering are dis- 
 tinguished, or rather two principal kinds, the 
 second of which is again subdivided — (a) The 
 thank offering, vers. 12-15, which included all 
 the public and prescribed peace offerings; (4) 
 the (1) vow, or (2) voluntary offering, vers. 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-varie- 
 ties of the second kind are only distinguished in 
 the purpose of the offerer. " There are three 
 possible forms in which man can offer with re- 
 ference to his prosperity or safety : praise and 
 thanksgiving for experiences in the past; promi- 
 sing in regard to a desire in the future; expression 
 of thankful prosperity in the present." Lange. 
 
 Vers. 12-15. The thank offering. 
 
 Ver. 12. The thank offering was accompanied 
 by an oblation of three kinds, to which a fourth 
 was added (ver. 13) of leavened bread, which 
 last is perhaps to be considered as an accompani- 
 ment rather than a part of the offering, as it is 
 doubtful whether it is included in the "heave 
 offering" of ver. 14. Still, as none of this ob- 
 lation was placed upon the altar, the leavened 
 bread would not come under the prohibition of 
 ii. 11 and of Ex. xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25. The 
 drink offerings prescribed with this and other 
 sacrifices in Num. xv. (and alluded to in 
 Lev. xxiii. 18, 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 wilder- 
 ness. 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 (Ilagigah and 
 Sheincah) no bread was offered. 
 
 Ver. 14. One out of each offering — i. e., 
 one cake out of the number of each kind pre- 
 sented, 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. xviii. 
 26-30. It must be inadvertently that Lange says 
 "one of the unleavened cakes was offered to Je- 
 hovah 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 of- 
 ferer. The heave offering was waved in the 
 
CHAP. VI. 8— VII. 38. 
 
 61 
 
 hands up and down before the altar, but not 
 placed upon it. 
 
 Ver. 15. Shall be eaten the same day. — 
 Comp. the similar provision in regard to the 
 Paschal lamb, Ex. xii. 10, and also in regard to 
 the manna, Ex. xvi. 19. The same command is 
 repeated in regard to the thank offering in xxii. 
 29, 30; while the greater liberty allowed in the 
 vow and voluntary offerings (ver. 16) is also re- 
 peated xix. 5-8. In both cases Jewish tradition 
 affirms that the rule applied also to the accom- 
 panying oblations. The difference of time al- 
 lowed in which the flesh of these two kinds of 
 peace offerings might be eaten evidently marks 
 the one as of a superior sacreduess 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 re- 
 ceived ; while the vow and voluntary offerings 
 had respect to something yet hoped for, and 
 therefore involved a Belfish 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 Abar- 
 banel, 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 Pas- 
 chal lamb (Ex. xii. 10) and of the other peace 
 offerings (ver. 17), and the consecration offerings 
 (Ex. xxix. 34). Several reasons have been as- 
 signed 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 en- 
 tirely rejected by Keil, is made more or less pro- 
 minent by Theodoret (who gives this reason 
 only), Corn, a Lapide, Kalisch, liosenniuller, 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 as- 
 sociations as the interval was prolonged between 
 it and the offering of the sacrifice. 
 
 Vers. 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 of- 
 ferings, and hence the vow offering of St. Paul 
 (Acts xviii. 18 ; xxi. 23-26) had in it nothing in- 
 consistent 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. 
 
 Ver. 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 ini- 
 quity. The sense is not, as many suppose, that 
 the offering being made void, the offerer re- 
 maiued 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 conse- 
 quences 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 
 (xxiii. 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 (Deut. xii. 6, 7, 11, 12) ; at present, 
 there was no occasion for such a command, 
 while all were together in the camp in the wil- 
 derness. But all sacrificial animals slain for food 
 must be offered as sacrifice to the Lord (xvii.3,4). 
 
 Kalisch (p. 144 ss.) says: "The character of 
 these feasts cannot be mistaken. It was that of 
 juyfulness 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 bid- 
 den at once to manifest those blissful sentiments 
 by sharing the meat not only with his house- 
 hold, 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 friend- 
 ship and communion, of cheerfulness and joy. 
 . . . . Some critics have expressed an opposite 
 view, contending that the offerer was not consi- 
 dered 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 (iii. 1, 6, 7, 12), and confirmed his inten- 
 tion by burning on the altar the fat parts, which 
 represented the entire animal. . . . The Apos- 
 tle Paul says distinctly : 'Are not they who eat 
 of the sacrifices partakers of the altar' or 'of 
 the Lord's table?' " 
 
 Vers. 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. 
 
62 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Ver. 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. 
 
 Ver. 20. Shall be cut off from his people, 
 t. e. be excommunicated, cast out from the com- 
 monwealth of Israel. This might sometimes, as 
 in Ex. xxxi. 11, 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 belong- 
 ing to God, and hence that they who feasted 
 upon it were the guests of the Lord. 
 
 Ver. 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 di- 
 vine communication (vers. 28-30). 
 
 G. Instructions in regard to the Fat and the 
 Blood. Vers. 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 neces- 
 sary to warn the people very carefully against 
 making use of them themselves. It comes ap- 
 propriately in connection with the peace offer- 
 ings, because it was only of these that the peo- 
 ple eat at all, and hence here there was especial 
 liability to transgress this command. 
 
 Ver. 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 ani- 
 mals, and is to be so understood in ch. iii. 17. 
 The reason of this prohibition appears in ver. 
 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 wa9 burned on the altar. 
 Afterwards, in view of the settlement in the 
 promised land, this restriction was removed, 
 L>eut. xii. 15, 21. With that permission the 
 prohibition of blood is emphatically repeated; 
 but nothing is said of the fat. Hence Keil ar- 
 gues that in such case the eating of the fat was 
 allowable, and this opinion is strongly confirmed 
 by Deut. xxxii. 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 ch. iii. 17, unless that is to be understood 
 only of animals offered in sacrifice. The gene- 
 rality of commentators understand, in accord- 
 ance with Jewish tradition, that the fat of the 
 sacrificial animals was perpetually forbidden. 
 In any case the prohibited fat wa9 of course 
 that which was burned on the altar, the separa- 
 ble fat, not that which was intermingled with 
 the flesh. 
 
 Ver. 24. That which died of itself, its blood 
 not having been poured out, and that which was 
 torn of beasts, was prohibited as food (xxii. 8), 
 and if any partook of it, he must undergo puri- 
 fication, and "be unclean until the even" (xvii. 
 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 tat 
 of fowls as no special use was made of this oa 
 the altar. 
 
 Vers. 26, 27. The prohibition of blood is ab- 
 solute and perpetual, and this for the reasons 
 given in xvii. 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 ob- 
 tain particular mention, and the general princi- 
 ple on which blood is absolutely forbidden must 
 be considered as applying here also, notwith- 
 standing any tradition to the contrary. 
 
 H. Instructions for the priests' portion of the 
 peace offerings. Vers. 28-36. 
 
 This, the final communication of this part of 
 the book, is also addressed to the people, be- 
 cause the priests' portion was taken from that 
 which would otherwise have been returned to 
 them, and it therefore concerned them to under- 
 stand the law. It stands here quite in its right 
 place : " When the priest's rights in all the 
 other sacrifices were enumerated, this was omit- 
 ted, 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. 
 
 Ver. 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. 
 
 Ver. 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 offer- 
 er's own hands. Comp. viii. 27; Ex. xxix. 
 24-26 j Num. vi. 19, 20.— The fat with the 
 breast. — The construction of Sv>_ is as in Ex. 
 xii. 8, 9. Breast is that part 'between the shoul- 
 ders 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 {ver. 31) a heave- 
 offering. These two kinds of offering are 
 clearly distinguished in the law. Both are 
 mentioned together in ver. 34, and frequently 
 (x. 14, 15; Ex. xxix 24-27; Num. vi. 20; xviii. 
 11, 18, 19, etc.) as distinct offerings; the heave- 
 
CHAP. VI. S— VII. 38. 
 
 63 
 
 offering is mentioned alone (xxii. 12; Ex. xxv. 
 2, 3; xxx. 13-15; xxxv. 5; xxxvi. 3, 6; Num. 
 xv. 19-21; xviii. 24 ; xxxi.29,41, 52, etc.), and so 
 is the wave offering (xiv. 12, 21, 24; xxiii. 15, 
 17, 20; Ex. xxxviii. 24, 29; Num. viii. 11, 13, 
 etc.); although both apparently are sometimes 
 used simply in the sense of offering and coupled 
 together without distinction of meaning (Ex. 
 xxxv. 21-24); both are here applied to the offer- 
 ings 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, con- 
 sisting 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 sim- 
 ple lifting up of the offering. (See authorities 
 in Outraru I. 15, (j V.) In all cases of the wave 
 offering of parts of animals, only the fat was 
 burned, except in the peculiar case of the con- 
 secration of the priests commanded in Ex. xxix. 
 22-26, and fulfilled in viii. 25-29, when the leg 
 was also burned. In the case of the " waving" 
 of the Levites (Num. viii. 11-19), they were 
 wholly given up to God as the ministrants of the 
 priests. Langesays: " The breast may repre- 
 sent the bold readiness, the leg the energetic 
 progress, which in the priest are always desi- 
 rable.'' 
 
 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 (Deut. xviii. 
 3) "the shoulder (>'"!!) and the two cheeks and 
 the maw." 
 
 Ver. 34. A statute forever. — As long as the 
 sacrificial system and the Aaronic priesthood 
 should endure. 
 
 Ver. 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 He- 
 brew as in the English. 
 
 The conclusion of this part of the book. Vers. 
 37, 38. 
 
 Ver. 37. The enumeration in this verse is to 
 be understood not merely of the immediately pre- 
 ceding section : but of the whole law of sacrifice 
 as given in all the preceding chapters. 
 
 Of the consecrations. — Lit., "of the fill- 
 ings" se. of the hands. Comp. Ex. xxix. 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 (vi. 19-23) so that it 
 must necessarily appear in this recapitulation. 
 
 Ver. 38. In Mount Sinai.— That this ex- 
 pression 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 thediviue 
 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 in- 
 dividual relation of their souls to God, they 
 formed no caste, and stood before Him on no dif- 
 ferent footing from others. This is a funda- 
 mental principle in all the divine dealings with 
 man ; " there is no respect of persons with God," 
 (Rom. ii. 11, etc.). 
 
 III. In the assimilation of the trespass to the 
 sin offering is showu how wrong done to man is 
 also sin against God ; while in the peculiar or- 
 dinances 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 tem- 
 ple." (1 Cor. ix. 13). 
 
 V. The peace offerings are called in the LXX. 
 frequently "sacrifices of praise " (thiaicu rijc al- 
 veadjc) ; by the use of the same phraseology in 
 the Ep. to the Heb. (xiii. 15) applied to Christ, 
 He is pointed out as the Antitype of this sacri- 
 fice : " By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacri- 
 fice of praise (Bvaicv alv(oeac) to God continu- 
 ally;" and again (ver. 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 ser- 
 vice 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 ap- 
 prehension of the Israelites, the general princi- 
 ple that whatever has been appropriated to God 
 may not rightly be diverted to any other use. 
 
64 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 VIII. The various kinds of sacrifice here re- 
 cognized as means of approach to God, and the 
 provisions for their constant repetition, alike 
 indicate their intrinsic insufficiency and tempo- 
 rary character. Otherwise *' would they not 
 have ceased to be offered, because that the wor- 
 shippers once purged should have had no more 
 conscience of sins ?" (Heb. x. 2). 
 
 IX. The same temporary and insufficient cha- 
 racter attached to the peace offerings, which ex- 
 pressed 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 any- 
 thing 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 
 cither 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. Vera. 9-13. The ever-burning fire ; kin- 
 dled by God, but kept alive by man ; the accept- 
 ance 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." 
 (1 Thess. v. 19). The Spirit {.uoiroiel, but it is 
 for us rira^uiTvpclv (2 Tim. i. 6) Wordsworth. Put 
 on his linen garment ; the inward purity re- 
 quired 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. 
 
 Vers. 14-18. The oblation. That is truly of- 
 fered to God which is consumed in His service, 
 though but the " memorial " of it and the frank- 
 incense, typifying prayer and praise, can be ac- 
 tually 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 uucleanness. 
 Origen (Horn. 4 in Lev.). 
 
 Vers. 19-23. The high-priest mu«t offer an ob- 
 lation 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. 
 
 Vers. 24-30. Everything connected with the 
 sin-offering is to be scrupulously guarded from 
 defilement, and everything which it touches re- 
 ceives 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 who- 
 ever is sprinkled by His all-availing blood be- 
 comes 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. Vers. 1-6. Though the sin whose promi- 
 nent 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 viola- 
 tions of the law of love, and love toward God and 
 man are so bound together that neither can truly 
 exist without the other (1 Jno. iv. 20), and there 
 can be no breach of the one without the other. 
 
 Vers. 11-21. The peace offering was at once 
 communion of the offerer with God and also the 
 opportunity for extending his bounty to his fel- 
 low-men. So always there is the same connec- 
 tion. 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. xiii. 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 thanks- 
 givings, 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. unrepeuted, in its very nature now forbids it. 
 Vers. 37, 38. A summary of the law of sacri- 
 fice 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 conse- 
 cration of Himself, through whom also we "pre- 
 sent our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accept- 
 able 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 fel- 
 low-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 sym- 
 bolical teaching ; but when He has come, all 
 these separate threads are gathered into one, 
 and He is become our "all in all." 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 65 
 
 PART SECOND. HISTORICAL. 
 
 Chapters VIII.— X. 
 
 " The Sacrificing Priesthood: Its Consecration and its Typical Discipline shown by the Death of 
 
 Nadab and Abihu." — Lange. 
 
 The law of sacrifices having now been given, and the duties of the priests in regard to them appointed, all necessary 
 preparation has been made for carrying out the consecration of the priests as commanded in Ex. xxix. This historical sec- 
 tion follows, therefore, in its natural order, and takes up the thread of events at the close of the book of Exodus, where it 
 was broken off that the necessary laws might be announced. There is, first, the consecration of the priests (chap, viii.l, oc- 
 cupying seven days; then the record of the actual entrance of Aaron and his 6ons upon the discharge of their functiona 
 (chap, ix.); closing with the account of the transgression of two of those sons in their first official act, and their consequent 
 punishment, together with certain instructions for the priests occasioned by this event (chap. x.t. To enter understandingly 
 npon the consideration of these chapters, it is necessary to have in mind the origin, nature, and functions of the priest- 
 hood. These will be briefly discussed in the following 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 In the early days of the human race such 
 priestly functions as were exercised at all were 
 naturally undertaken by the head of the family, 
 and hence arose what is called the patriarchal 
 priesthood, of which the Scripture patriarchs are 
 standing illustrations. When, however, families 
 were multiplied and formed into communities or 
 nations, the former provision was manifestly in- 
 sufficient, and we meet with instances of priests 
 for a larger number, as Jethro, "the priest of 
 Midian" (for priest seems here to be the proper 
 
 rendering of ]!"I3). The chief priestly office was 
 sometimes, and perhaps generally, associated 
 with the chief civil authority, as in the case of 
 
 "Melchisedec, king of Salem the priest 
 
 of the Most High God" (Gen. xiv. 18), and 
 among the heathen, Balak, who offered his sacri- 
 fices himself (Num. xxiii.); a trace of this custom 
 may perhaps be preserved in the occasional use 
 
 of JH3 for prince (Job xii. 19; 2 Sam. viii. 18; 
 xx. 26?). But in large nations the actual func- 
 tions of the priestly office must necessarily have 
 devolved chiefly upon inferior priests. In Egypt 
 the Israelites had been accustomed to a numerous, 
 wealthy, and powerful body of priests, at the 
 head of which stood the monarch. It is unneces- 
 sary to speak of these further than to note a few 
 points in which they were strongly contrasted 
 with the priests of Israel. In the first place, al- 
 though the monarch was at the head of the whole 
 priestly caste, yet as the popular religion of 
 Egypt was polytheistic, each principal Divinity 
 had his especial body of priests with a high- 
 priest at their head. In contrast with this, mo- 
 notheism was distinctly set forth in the Levitical 
 legislation, by the one body of priests, with its 
 single high-priest at its head. The Egyptian 
 priests maintained an esoteric theology, not com- 
 municated to the people, in which it would ap- 
 
 pear that the unity of the Self-existent God and 
 many other important truths were taught; in 
 Israel the priests were indeed the keepers and 
 guardians of the law (Deut. xxxi. 9, etc.), but 
 they were diligently to teach it all to the people 
 (Lev. x. 11), to read the whole of it every seventh 
 year to all the assembled people (Deut. xxxi. 
 10-13), to supply the king with a copy for him- 
 self to write out in full (Deut. xvii. 18, 19), and 
 in general to teach God's judgments to Jacob and 
 His law to Israel (Deut. xxxiii. 10). While, 
 therefore, from the nature of their occupation, 
 they might be expected to have a more perfect 
 knowledge of the law than the generality of the 
 people, this knowledge was only more perfect as 
 the result of more continued study, and might be 
 equalled by any one who chose, and was actually 
 shared by every one as far as he chose. The 
 Egyptian priests were, moreover, great landed 
 proprietors (besides being fed from the royal 
 revenues, Gen. xlvii. 22), and actually possessed 
 one-third of the whole territory of Egypt; the 
 priests of Israel, on the contrary, were expressly 
 excluded from the common inheritance of the 
 tribes, and had assigned to them only the cities 
 with their immediate suburbs actually required 
 for their residence. The priesthood of Egypt 
 culminated in the absolute monarch who was at 
 their head, and in whose authority they in some 
 degree shared ; in Israel, on the other hand, the 
 line between the civil and the priestly authority 
 and functions was most sharply drawn, primarily 
 in the case of Moses and Aaron, Joshua and 
 Eleazar, generally in the time of the judges (al- 
 though in that troubled period this, like all other 
 parts of the Mosaic system, was sometimes con- 
 fused), and finally under the monarchy. It is 
 indeed sometimes asserted that the kings, by 
 virtue of their prerogative, were entitled to exer- 
 cise priestly functions; but for this there is no 
 real ground. The instances relied on are either 
 
06 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 manifest cases of sacrifice offered at the coramaud 
 of the monarch (1 Kings iii. 15; viii. 62-64) ; or 
 of the simple wearing of an ephod (2 Sam. vi. 
 14), which by no means carried with it the 
 priestly office; or else are misinterpretations of 
 a particular word (1 Kings iv. 2, 5 — see the 
 Textual notes there; 2 Sam. viii. 18 — the only 
 case of real difficulty — comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 17). 
 There are but two definite instances of the as- 
 sumption of priestly functions by kings, and 
 both of them were most sternly punished (1 
 Sam. xiii. 10-14; 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21). There 
 was also the intrusion of Korah and his compa- 
 nions on the priestly office and their exemplary 
 punishment (Num. xvi.). In the later abnormal 
 state under the Maccabees, it was not the kings 
 who assumed priestly functions, but the priests 
 who absorbed the royal prerogative. With these 
 contrasts, it is plain that there was little in com- 
 mon between the Egyptian and Levitical priest- 
 hood, except what is necessarily implied in the 
 idea of a priesthood at all, and is found in that 
 of the nations of antiquity generally. They 
 were, however, both hereditary (as was also the 
 Brahminical priesthood) ; both were under a law 
 of the strictest personal cleanliness, and there 
 was a resemblance between them in several mat- 
 ters of detail, as linen dress, and other non-es- 
 sential matters. 
 
 When the Israelites came out of Egypt, they 
 were a people chosen — on condition of faithful- 
 ness and obedience — to be "a kingdom of priests 
 and an holy nation" (Ex. xix. C), and in accord- 
 ance with this the paschal lamb was sacrificed 
 by each head of a household, and eaten by him- 
 self and his family (Ex. xii. 6), and the same 
 idea was retained in this sacrifice always. Never- 
 theless, the people were unprepared for so high a 
 vocation, and soon after we find the existence of 
 certain persons among the people recognized as 
 priests "which come near to the Lord" (Ex. 
 xix. 22, 24), although they did not receive the 
 Divine sanction necessary to the continuauce of 
 their office. We have no knowledge of the na- 
 ture of their functions, nor of their appointment. 
 However this may have been, the people cer- 
 tainly shrank from that nearness of approach to 
 God implied in the office of priest (Ex. xx. 19, 
 21; Deut. v. 23-27), and sacrifices were offered 
 by "young men" appointed by Moses, lie re- 
 serving to himself the strictly priestly function 
 of sprinkling the blood (Ex. xxiv. 5-8). Such 
 was the state of things at the time of the ap- 
 pointment of the Aaronic order; there was no 
 divinely authorized priesthood, and the need of 
 one was felt. 
 
 Meantime, in the solitude of Sinai, God di- 
 rected Moses to take Aaron and his sons for an 
 hereditary priesthood (Ex. xxviii. 1), and gave 
 minute directions for their official dress, for 
 their consecration and their duties (Ex. xxviii., 
 xxix.). Emphasis is everywhere placed upon 
 the fact that they were appointed of God (comp. 
 Heb. v. 4). They were in no sense appointed by 
 the people; had they been so, they could not 
 have been mediators. It has been seen that the 
 Levitical system makes prominent the fact that 
 the sacrifices had no efficacy in themselves, but 
 derived their whole value from the Divine ap- 
 pointment ; so also in regard to the priesthood. 
 
 The priests appear as themselves needing atone- 
 ment, aud obliged to offer for their own sins; 
 yet by the commanded unction and dress they 
 are constituted acceptable intercessors and me- 
 diators for the people. All was from God ; and 
 while this gave assurance to the people in their 
 daily worship, at the same time the priests' own 
 imperfection showed that the true reconciliation 
 with God by the restoration of holiness to man 
 had not yet been manifested. The Levitical 
 priest could be but a type of that Seed of the 
 woman who should bruise the serpent's head. 
 
 Before the directions concerning the priest- 
 hood, given to Moses alone in the Mount, could 
 be announced, occurred the terrible apostasy of 
 the golden calf, when, at the summons of Moses, 
 " who is on the Lord's side?" the whole tribe 
 of Levi consecrated themselves by their zeal on 
 God's behalf (Ex. xxxii. 25-29). Subsequently 
 (Num. iii. 5-10, 40-51), the Levites were taken 
 as a substitute for all the first-born Israelites 
 (who, under the patriarchal system, would have 
 been their priests, and who had been spared iu 
 the slaughter of the Egyptian first-born) to mi- 
 nister to the chosen priestly family. Of these 
 nothing is said iu this book, except t lie modifica- 
 tion in their favor of the law concerning the sale 
 of houses in xxv. 32-34) (see Com.). They may 
 therefore be here wholly passed by with the 
 simple mention that they never had sacerdotal 
 functions, and were not therefore a part of the 
 sacerdotal class. It is, perhaps, for the purpose 
 of making this distinction emphatically that no 
 mention is made of them in this book where it 
 might otherwise have been expected. As. how- 
 ever, they constituted the tribe from which the 
 priests were taken, the latter are often called by 
 their name, and thus we frequently meet with 
 the expression in the later books, "the priests, 
 the Levites," or even with "Levites" alone, 
 meaning Levites, nar' h^oxtjv, or priests. 
 
 But while there was an evident necessity that 
 a much smaller body than the whole tribe of Levi 
 should be taken for priests; and while Aaron, 
 the elder brother, and appointed as the "pro- 
 phet" of Moses (Ex. iv. 14—17), and associated 
 with him in the whole deliverance of the people 
 from Egypt, was evidently a most suitable per- 
 son for the office, the law that I he office should 
 be hereditary must rest on other grounds. If 
 we seek for these in any thing beyond the sim- 
 ple Divine good-pleasure, we should readily fiud 
 them in the general fact of the whole Mosaic 
 system being founded upon the principle of heir- 
 ship leading on to the fulfilment of the Messianic 
 promise ; and in the more special one that it was 
 by this means the priesthood was in the main 
 kept true to God during long periods of Israel's 
 apostasy and sin. 
 
 It is to be carefully observed that this heredi- 
 tary office did not make of the priests a caste; in 
 all things not immediately connected with the 
 discharge of their functions, they were fellow- 
 citizens with the other Israelites, subject to the 
 same laws, bound by the same duties, and ame- 
 nable to the same penalties. When not engaged 
 in official duty, they wore the same dress, and 
 might follow the same vocations as their fellow- 
 citizens. They were only exempt from the pay- 
 ment of tithes because themselves supported by 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 67 
 
 them. In all this is manifest a striking con- 
 trast, not only with heathen priesthoods of an- 
 tiquity, but also with the hierarchy of the Me- 
 dieval Christian Church. 
 
 The especial function of the priesthood was 
 to come near to God (vii. 35; x. 3; xxi. 17; 
 Num. xvi. 5, etc.). They were to stand in the 
 vast gap between a sinful people and a holy 
 God, themselves of the former, yet especially 
 sanctified to approach the latter. " Hence their 
 chief characteristic must be holiness, since they 
 were elected to be perpetually near the Holy 
 One and to serve Him (Num. xvi. 5) ; they were 
 singled out from the rest o f their brethren ' to 
 be sanctified as most holy.' To hallow and to 
 install as priests are used as correlative terms 
 (Ex. xxix. 33; comp. vers. 1, 44: xxviii. 41; 
 xl. 13). By neglecting what contributes to their 
 sanctity they profane the holiness of God (Lev. 
 xxi. 6-8) ; and the high-priest is himself the 
 'Holy One of the Lord' (Ps. cvi. 16)." Kalisch. 
 They sustained a distinct mediatorial character 
 between God and His people. This appears in 
 every part of the law concerning them. The 
 gollen plate inscribed "holiness to the Lord," 
 which the high-priest wore upon his brow, ex- 
 pressly meant, that he should "bear the iniquity 
 of the holy things which the children of [arael 
 shall hallow" (Ex. xxviii 38); and the flesh of 
 the sin offerings was given to the priests " to 
 bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make 
 atonement for them before the Lord" (Lev. x. 
 17). Of course this could be done by human 
 priests only symbolically, as they were types of 
 the great High Priest to come ; and His all- 
 sufficient sacrifice having once been offered, 
 there could be thereafter no other priesthood in 
 this relation to the people, or discharging this 
 mediatorial function. The Christian ministry 
 finds its analogy, not in the priests, but in the 
 prophets of the old dispensation, although even 
 here the likeness is very imperfect. Still, while 
 the priests were required to preserve and teach 
 the written law. it was left to the prophets to 
 unfold its spiritual meaning, and to urge regard 
 to it by argument and exhortation. It is a 
 striking fact that the Greek word for priest, 
 iepei'c, and its derivatives in the New Testament, 
 while frequently applied to the priests of the 
 old covenant aud to Christ Himself, their Anti- 
 type, are never used for any office in the Chris- 
 tian Church, except for the general priesthood 
 of the whole body of believers ; TTf>o<ptjrnc=pro- 
 phet, however, aud its cognates are thus used 
 with great frequency. It is to be borne in mind 
 that priest, in the Levitical sense of the word, 
 and sacrifice are correlative terms; sacrifice 
 pre-supposes a priest to offer it, and a priest 
 must needs have "somewhat also to offer" 
 (Heb. viii. 3). From these points flow all the 
 duties of the priests, and in view of these their 
 qualifications, and the other laws concerning 
 them are fixed 
 
 The first and chiefe«t of all their duties was 
 the offering of sacrifice, as this was the especial 
 instrumentality by which men sought to draw 
 near to God. No sacrifice could be offered with- 
 out the intervention of the appointed priest; 
 for the sacrifices having no virtue in themselves, 
 and deriving their value from the Divine ap- 
 
 pointment, must necessarily be presented in the 
 way and by the persons whom God had author- 
 ized. Hence it is that in the ritual of the sacri- 
 fices an emphasis is always placed upon the 
 declaration that the priests "shall make atone- 
 ment." The apparent exceptions to this, in the 
 case of Samuel and Elijah, are really but illus- 
 trations of the principle, they being prophets 
 directly charged from on high to do this very 
 thing. In this, including the burning of in- 
 cense, the priests were undoubtedly typical of 
 the one true High Priest and Mediator. They 
 stood, as far as was possible for man, between 
 God and the people, and by their acts were the 
 people made — at least symbolically — holy, and 
 brought near to God. The acts of sacrifice 
 which were essential, and which therefore could 
 only be performed by the priests, were the 
 sprinkling or other treatment of the blood, and 
 the burning of such parts as were to be con- 
 sumed upon the altar. In the sin aud trespass 
 offerings, as well as in the oblations, which must 
 be wholly consecrated to God. they were to con- 
 sume the parts which were not burned. 
 
 From this essential duty naturally were de- 
 rived a variety of others. To the priests be- 
 longed the care of the sanctuary and its sacred 
 utensils, the preservation of the fire on the 
 brazen altar, the burning of incense on the 
 golden altar, the dressing and lighting of the 
 lamps of the golden candlestick, the charge of 
 the shew-bread, and other like duties. They 
 were necessarily concerned in all those multitu- 
 dinous acts of the Israelites which were con- 
 nected with sacrifices, such as the accomplish- 
 ment of the Nazarite vow, the ordeal of jealousy, 
 the expiation of an unknown murder, the deter- 
 mination of the unclean and of the cleansed lep- 
 rous persons, garments and houses ; the regula- 
 tion of the calendar; the valuation of devoted 
 property which was to be redeemed ; these and 
 a multitude of other duties followed naturally 
 from their priestly office. They were also to 
 blow the silver trumpets on the various occa- 
 sions of their use, and in connection with this 
 to exhort the soldiers about to engage in battle 
 to boldness, because they went to fight under 
 the Lord. They were also, from their own 
 familiarity with the law, appropriately appointed 
 as the religious teachers of the peopie. From 
 their priestly office they were charged to bless 
 the people in the name of God; and from their 
 privilege of consulting God especially through 
 the Urim and Thummim, they were made arbi- 
 ters in disputes of importance : "by their word 
 shall every controversy and every violence be 
 tried" (Deut. xxi. 5). All these secondary du- 
 ties flowed from their primary one in connection 
 with the sacrifices. Hence the influence and 
 importance of the priests in the Hebrew com- 
 monwealth varied greatly with the religious 
 earnestness and activity of the nation. Nega- 
 tively, it is important to note that the priests 
 did not, in any considerable degree, discharge 
 towards the people the office of the Christian 
 pastor, the spiritual guide, comforter and assist- 
 ant of his flock. It is possible that if the people 
 and the priests themselves had been prepared 
 for it, something more of this relation might 
 have resulted from the provisions of the law. 
 
68 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Still, they were not individually the priests of 
 particular communities; but rather, as a body, 
 the priests of the whole nation. From this it 
 resulted that their connectiou with the people 
 was little more than simply official and ministe- 
 rial. In so far as the need of the pastor was 
 met at all under the old dispensation, as already 
 said, it was by the prophet rather than by the 
 priests. 
 
 The same thing is also true of their revenue. 
 This was chiefly derived from the "second 
 tithe," or the tenth paid to them by the Levites 
 from the tithes received by them from the peo- 
 ple. Tithes were stringently commanded; but 
 no power was lodged with any one for their 
 compulsory collectiou. Their payment was left 
 absolutely to the conscientious obedience of the 
 people. The priests' support was supplemented 
 by their share of the sacrifices, first-fruits, and 
 other offerings of the people. Very ample pro- 
 vision appears to be made for them in the law ; 
 the Levites, who were much less than a tenth of 
 the people, were to receive the tenth of all their 
 increase ; and the priests, who appear to have 
 numbered still much less than the tenth of the 
 Levites, were to receive the tenth of the income 
 paid to them. Practically, during the far greater 
 part of the Hebrew history, their support ap- 
 pears to have been precarious and insufficient, 
 and we know that large numbers of them de- 
 clined to return from the captivity of Babylon, 
 and many of the descendants of those who did 
 return did not exercise their priestly office or 
 claim their priestly privileges. 
 
 The qualifications for the priesthood were 
 first, Aaronic descent; to secure this genealogi- 
 cal registers were kept with great care (2 Chrou. 
 xxxi. 16, 17, etc.), and any one who could not 
 find his descent upon them was not allowed to 
 minister in the priest's office or to receive its 
 emoluments (Ezra ii. 62 ; Neh. vii. 64). Secondly, 
 they must be perfect physically, free from any 
 bodily defect or injury; otherwise, they might 
 eat of the priests' portion, and receive his tithe, 
 but they were forbidden to approach the altar, 
 or enter the sanctuary (Lev. xxi. 17-23). Fur- 
 ther, during the time of their ministrations, 
 they must be entirely free from any form of 
 legal uncleanness (xxii. 1-7), and must practice 
 frequent ablutions, especially on entering the 
 sacred precincts (viii. 6; Ex. xl. 30-32), and 
 they must carefully abstain from wine and strong 
 drink (ch. x. 8-10); at all times they must 
 maintain an especial symbolic purity, and particu- 
 larly must never be defiled by the contact of a 
 dead body, except in the case of the very near- 
 est relatives (xxi. 2-4), even this exception 
 being denied to the high-priest (ib. 10-12). No 
 limit of age either for the beginning or the end 
 of their service is fixed in the law; but in the 
 absence of such limitation, the age appointed 
 for the Levites would probably have been gene- 
 rally regarded as fitting. In later times there 
 was great laxity in this respect, and Aristobulus 
 was appointed high-priest by Herod the Great 
 when only seventeen. In addition to these out- 
 ward qualifications, exemplary holiness of life 
 is everywhere required of the priests, and even 
 in their families, violations of virtue were visited 
 with more severity thau among others (xxi. 9). 
 
 In marriage the priests generally were only 
 restricted in their choice to virgins or widows 
 of any of the tribes of their nation (xxi. 7); 
 later, marriage within the Aaronic family seems 
 to have been preferred, and by the prophet 
 Ezekiel (xliv. 22) the marriage with widows 
 (except of priests) was forbidden them. 
 
 They were originally inducted into their office 
 by a solemn consecration, and were sprinkled 
 with the sacrificial blood and the holy anointing 
 oil (ch. ix.); but, except for the high-priest, 
 this one consecration sufficed for all their de- 
 scendants, and was not repeated. 
 
 While on duty in the sanctuary they were 
 arrayed in robes of linen which might never 
 pass beyond the sacred precincts ; and they 
 must minister at the altar unshod. 
 
 In the small number of priests at first, it was 
 probably necessary that all of them should be 
 constantly on duty; but when in later times 
 they had greatly multiplied, they were divided 
 by David into twenty-four courses, each with a 
 chief at its head, who should minister in turn 
 (1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 4). This arrangement was 
 maintained ever after, although on the return 
 from the captivity, some of the courses were 
 wanting from the returning exiles (Neh. xii, 1- 
 7; 12-21). 
 
 The whole order of the priests was concen- 
 trated, so to speak, in the high-priest. His office 
 was also hereditary, but not with the same 
 strictness. We find in the time of Eli that the 
 high priesthood had passed to the house of 
 Ithamar (Aaron's younger son), and from his 
 descendants it was again by divine direction 
 transferred back to the elder branch. The du- 
 ties and responsibilities of the high-priest were 
 far more solemn than that of the ordinary priests. 
 "Pity and sympathy also, according to the Ep. 
 to the Hebr., enter into the idea of the high- 
 priest." Lange. There could be only one high- 
 priest at a time, although a second, in some de- 
 gree at least, seems to have been permitted 
 during that abnormal period during the reign 
 of David when the ark and the tabernacle were 
 separated. The high-priest was restricted in 
 marriage to a Hebrew virgin; his official robes 
 were of the utmost splendor, and on his breast 
 he wore the precious stones on which were en- 
 graved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, 
 while on the golden plate on his forehead was 
 inscribed " holiness unto the Lord ;" he was 
 originally consecrated by a more ample anoint- 
 ing than his brethren, and this was repeated for 
 each of his successors, so that he is described 
 as having " the crown of the anointing oil of his 
 God upon him " (xxi. 12), and, as we have seen, 
 is often designated simply as " the anointed 
 priest;" he must have succeeded to his office at 
 whatever age his predecessor died or became 
 incapacitated, and continued in it to the end of 
 his own life, which formed a civil epoch (Num. 
 xxxv. 28, 32); no especial provision is made in 
 the law for his support, and history shows that 
 it was unnecessary to do so, as he was always 
 amply provided for; the high-priest was forbid- 
 den the contact with the dead and the customary 
 marks of sorrow even in those few cases which 
 were permitted to other priests (xxi. 10-12), and 
 that on the express ground of the peculiar com- 
 
CHAP. VIII. 1-36. 
 
 69 
 
 pleteness of bis consecration. But his chief 
 distinction lay in his being the embodiment, as 
 it were, of the whole theocracy, and the media- 
 tor between God and the whole people. This 
 was signified by manifold symbols on his robes ; 
 it was shown by his duty of offering the sin 
 offering for himself and for the whole people 
 (the same victim being required for each); and 
 especially by his most solemn duties on the 
 great day of Atonement (ch. xvi.). From his 
 position and religious duties necessarily flowed 
 many others, as in the case of the ordinary 
 priests, only that in the one case as in the other 
 
 those of the high-priest were far higher and 
 more important. In the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 he is singled out not only as the representative 
 of the whole priestly system, but as peculiarly 
 the type of Christ, the one great High-Priest, 
 Who alone could make effectual atonement, once 
 for all, for the sins of all people. A " second 
 priest," or vice high-priest, is mentioned Jer. 
 Hi. 24, and such an office is recognized by the 
 later Jews. Literature: Kalisch, Preliminary 
 Essay on Lev. VIII., and many of the works 
 already mentioned under Sacrifices. Kceper, 
 Das Priesterthum des Alien Bundes, Berlin, 1865. 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 
 The Consecration of the Priests. 
 
 Chap. VIII. 1-36. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take Aaron and his sons 'with him, 
 and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a [the 1 ] bullock for the sin-offering, 
 
 3 and [the 1 ] two rams, and a [the 1 ] basket of unleavened bread : and gather thou all 
 the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congre- 
 
 4 gation. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him ; and the assembly [con- 
 gregation 2 ] was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] 
 
 5 congregation. And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the 
 Lord commanded to be done. 
 
 6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed [bathed 3 ] them with water. 
 
 7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him 
 with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious 
 
 8 [cwious*] girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith. And he put the 
 breastplate upon him : also he pub in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim. 
 
 9 And he put the mitre upon his head ; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, 
 did he put [and upon the mitre upon his forehead did he put 5 ] the golden plate, 
 
 10 the holy crown ; as the Lord commanded Moses. And Moses took the anointing 
 oil, and anointed the tabernacle [dwelling-place 6 ] and all that was therein, and 
 
 11 sanctified them.' And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and an- 
 ointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them. 
 
 12 And he poured of 8 the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanc- 
 
 13 tify him. And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Vcr. 2. The Heb. has the article in all those cases, and it should be retained as referring to the commands given in 
 Ex. xxix. 
 
 2 Ver. 4. rniTt The word being precisely the same as in ver. 3, should certainly have the same translation. The 
 
 T ■• T 
 Yulg. and Syr. prefix all, as in ver. 3. 
 
 3 Ver. 6. Vrp'V See Textual Note =» on xiv. S. 
 
 * Ver. 7. 2tyn means simply girdle, and there is nothing in the Hob. answering to curious, yet as this word is used 
 
 only of the girdle of the Ephod. while there are several other words for the ordinary girdle, and as the A. V. has uniformly 
 rendered it curimu girdle, it may be well to retain the adjective as the readiest way of marking in English the peculiarity 
 of the girdle. It should, however, be in italics. 
 
 6 Ver. 9. The A. V. is unnecessarily complicated. For the second Di£ f, l the Sam. reads TjTI. 
 
 • Ver. 10. jaiyrj. See Textual Note 8 on xv. 31. 
 
 1 Ver. 10. Three MSS., followed by the LXX., read it in the singular. 
 8 Ver. 12. One MS., followed by the Vulg., omits the partitive Q. 
 
70 LEVITICUS. 
 
 them with girdles [a girdle 9 ], and put [bound] bonnets upon them ; as the Lord 
 commanded Moses. 
 
 14 And he brought the bullock for the sin offering : and Aaron and his sons laid 10 
 
 15 their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering. And he slew it ; 
 and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with 
 his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, 
 
 16 and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it [to atone for it 11 ]. And he took 
 all the fat that was upou the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two 
 
 17 kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burnt it 12 upon the altar. But the bullock, and 
 his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp ; as the Lord 
 
 18 commanded Moses. And he brought 13 the ram for the burnt offering : and Aaron 
 
 19 and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. Aud he killed it; and 
 
 20 Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about. And he cut the ram into 
 
 21 pieces ; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat. And he washed 
 the inwards and the legs in water ; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar : 
 it 14 was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and [omit and] an offering made by fire 
 
 22 unto the Lord ; as the Lord commanded Moses. And he brought the other ram, 
 the ram of consecration : and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head 
 
 23 of the ram. And he slew it; and Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon 
 the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, aud upon the 
 
 24 great toe of his right foot. And he 15 brought Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the 
 blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs [thumb 16 ] of their right 
 hands, aud upon the great toes [toe 16 ] of their right feet : and Moses sprinkled the 
 
 25 blood upon the altar round about. And he took the fat, and the rump [the fat 
 tail 1 '] and all the fat that teas upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and 
 
 26 the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder [leg 18 ] : and out of the basket 
 of unleavened bread, 19 that was before the Lord, he took one unleavened cake, and 
 a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat, and upon the right 
 
 27 shoulder [leg 19 ] : and he put all upon Aaron's hands, and upon his sons' hands, 
 
 28 and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord. And Moses took them from 
 off their hands, and burnt theni® on the altar upon the burut offering : they were 
 consecrations for a sweet savour : it 21 is an offering made by fire unto the Lord. 
 
 29 And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord : for 
 of the ram of consecration it was Moses' part ; as the Lord commanded Moses. 
 
 30 And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which vm upon the altar, 
 and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upou his garments, and upon his sons, and upon 
 his sons' garments with him ; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, aud his sons, 
 and his sons' garments with him. 
 
 31 And Moses said unto Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the 
 tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation 22 : and there eat with the bread that is in 
 the basket of consecrations, as I [am 23 ] commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons 
 
 32 shall eat it. And that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn 
 
 • Ver. 13. B33N in tho sing. (The ancient versions, however, have the plural). An entirely different word from 
 ydU of ver. 7. 
 
 '» Ver. 14. The Heh. verb TOD'l is in the sing. In the corresponding clause in ver. IS it is plural, and so it is made 
 here alsn by the Sam. and Syr. 
 
 » Ver. 15. 1 ,1 7J7 "133 1 ?. It is better here, as in vi. 30 (23), and xvi. 20, to retain the almost universal rendering of 
 
 "133 in the A. V. These three places are the only exceptions in Ex., Lev., or Num. The Bense is clearly for it, rather 
 
 than upon it, and it is so rendered in the corresponding passage. Ex. xxix. 30, comp. 37. 
 I 2 Ver. 16. The missing pronoun is supplied in one MS. aud the Arab. 
 « Ver. IS. For nip'l tho Sam. reads tjrj'V 
 
 M Ver. 21. Five MSS., the Svr. and Vulg., omit tho pronoun. 
 
 is Ver. 24. The I.XX. says, Muses brought. 
 
 i« Ver. 24. The singular, which is the Ueb. form, is quite as accurate and expressive. 
 
 1? Ver. 25. See Text. Note ' on iii. 0. 
 
 18 Ver. 25. See Text. Note '■" on vii. 32. 
 
 19 Ver. 20. The LXX. here reads airo too Kavov Trjs TeAeiwo-eci>?. 
 
 20 Ver. 28. The pronoun is supplied by one MS., the l.XX., and the Syr. 
 
 21 Ver. 2S. This pronoun is wanting in two MSS., tho Vulg. and Arab. 
 
 22 Ver. 31. Tho Sam. and LXX. add ev tottw a-yt'o). 
 
 " Ver. 31. The A. V. follows tho Masoretic punctuation 'JVWi but the LXX., Vulg. aud Syr., that of ver. 35 WW. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 1-36. 
 
 71 
 
 33 with fire. And ye shall not go out of the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] 
 congregation in seven days, until the days of your consecration be at an end : for 
 
 34 seven days shall he consecrate you. As he hath done this day, so the Lord hath 
 
 35 commanded to do, to make an atonement for you. Therefore shall ye abide at the 
 door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation day and night seven day3, 
 
 36 and keep the charge of the Lord, that ye die not : for so I am commanded. So 
 Aaron and his sons did all things which the Lord commanded by the hand of 
 Moses. 
 
 EXEQETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 In the chapters of this section we have the 
 only prolonged narrative in Leviticus, in fact 
 the only historical matter at all except the pun- 
 ishment of the blasphemer in xxiv. 10-23. 
 
 Ver. 1. The LORD spake. — A special com- 
 mand to carry out now the command already 
 given minutely in Ex. xxviii., xxix., and xl. 
 
 Vers. 2-5 contain the preliminary arrange- 
 ments. Moses takes Aaron and his sons, and 
 the various things previously provided for their 
 consecration, and brings them into the court of 
 the tabernacle. The four sons of Aaron were 
 brought, and the language would also include 
 his grandsons, if there were any at this time of 
 Buitable age. The fact, however, that Eleazar 
 entered the promised land, would make him less 
 than twenty-one at this time, and therefore too 
 young to have sons of sufficient age, and no sons 
 of Nadab and Abihu are ever anywhere men- 
 tioned. The people were also gathered about 
 the wide opening of the court, probably repre- 
 sented by their elders in the nearest places, and 
 the mass of the men generally standing upon the 
 surrounding heights which overlooked the taber- 
 nacle. Lange: "This is the ordinance: first, 
 the persons; then the garments as symbols of 
 the office: the anointing oil, the symbol of the 
 Spirit ; the bullock for the siu offering, the sym- 
 bol of the priest favored with the entrusted 
 atonement, aud yet needing favor ; the ram for 
 the burnt offering, the symbol of the sacrificial 
 employment ; the ram for the sacrifice of conse- 
 cration, the symbol of the priestly emoluments 
 in true sacrifices of consecration ; and the basket 
 of unleavened bread, the symbol of life's enjoy- 
 ments of the priests, sanctified in every form by 
 the oil of the Spirit." 
 
 Ver. 2. The basket, according to Ex. xxix. 2, 
 3, 23, contained three kinds of bread all un- 
 leavened, the loaf, the oil bread, and the wafer 
 anointed with oil. 
 
 Vers. 3, 4. The consecration was thus public, 
 not only that Aaron might not seem "to take 
 this honor unto himself;" but also that by their 
 presence, the people might be assenting to the 
 consecration of him who was to minister among 
 them and for them. 
 
 Vers. 6-13. The washing, anointing, and in- 
 vestiture. 
 
 Ver. 6. And bathed them with water. — 
 Not merely their hands and their feet, which 
 Moses must have already done for himself, and 
 which was always done by every priest who en- 
 tered the tabernacle, or who approached the 
 altar (Ex. xl. 31, 32) ; but doubtless an ablu- 
 tion of the whole body as seems to be intended 
 in Ex. xxix. 4, and as was practised on the great 
 
 day of atonement (ch. xvi. 4). This washing 
 was obviously symbolical of the purity required 
 in those who draw near to God, and is applied 
 spiritually to the whole body of Christians, 
 " made priests unto God " in fieb. x. 22. With 
 this comp. Christ's receiving of baptism (Matt, 
 iii. 13-15) before entering upon His public min- 
 istry. 
 
 Vers. 7-9. The robing of Aaron comes first, 
 then the sanctification of the tabernacle and all 
 it. contained, especially of the altar, then the 
 anointing of Aaron, and finally the robing of his 
 sons. Neither here nor in Ex. xxix. 5 is there 
 any mention of the " linen breeches " of Ex. 
 xxviii. 42; xxxix.28 probably because these were 
 simply " to C')ver their nakedness," and were 
 not considered a part of the official costume. 
 As Kalisch suggests, Aaron and his sons proba- 
 bly put them on themselves immediately after 
 their ablution. On the remaining articles of 
 apparel see Ex. xxviii. Briefly, the coat was 
 the long tunic of fine linen worn next the skin. 
 According to Josephus (Ant. III. 7, \ 2), it 
 reached to the feet, and was fastened closely to 
 the arms. It was to be "embroidered" (Ex. 
 xxviii. 39), i. e., woven, all of the same material 
 and color, in diaper work. From Ex. xxviii. 40, 
 41 ; xxxix. 27, this garment appears to have 
 been the same for the high-priest and the com- 
 mon priests. The girdle next mentioned is not 
 the "curious girdle" of the Ephod (3iyn), but 
 the 033X described by Josephus (loc. cit.) as a 
 long sash of very loosely woven linen, embroi- 
 dered with flowers of scarlet, and purple, and 
 blue, which was wound several times around the 
 body and tied, the ends hanging down to the 
 ankles ordinarily, but thrown over the shoulder 
 when the priest was engaged in active duty. — 
 The robe (Ex. xxviii. 31-35), wholly of blue, 
 was woven without seam, apparently without 
 sleeves, with a hole whereby it was put over the 
 bead. It is supposed to have reached a little 
 below the knees, and to have been visible below, 
 and also a little above, the Ephod. The hem at 
 the bottom was ornamented witli " pomegranates, 
 blue, and purple, and scarlet," with golden bells 
 between them, which should sound as the high- 
 priest went in and out of the holy place. Over 
 this was the Ephod (Ex. xxviii. 6, 7: xxxix. 
 2-4), a vestment whose construction is imper- 
 fectly understood. The word etymologically, 
 means simply a "vestment," and a simple "lin- 
 en Ephod" was worn by the common priests (1 
 Sam. xxii. 18), as well as by others engaged in 
 religious services (1 Sam. ii. 18; 2 Sam. vi. 14; 
 1 Chr. xv. 27). The "vestment" or Ephod of 
 the high-priest here spoken of, however, was a 
 very different and much more gorgeous affair. 
 
 Its material was B^ =fine linen (of which also 
 
72 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 the tunic mentioned above was made), while that 
 of the other Epbods was "13 or common linen of 
 which the " linen breeches " were made. (The 
 latter word, however, as the more general, is 
 sometimes used for both, Lev. vi. 10 (3) ; xvi. 
 4, 23, 32). The Ephod of the high-priest ap- 
 pears to have been made in two parts, one for 
 the back and one for the breast, joined at the 
 shoulders by two onyx stones set in gold, upon 
 which were engraved the names of the tribes of 
 Israel. To these stones were attached chains of 
 pure wreathen gold for the support of the breast- 
 plate. According to Josephus (loc. cit., $ 5), it 
 had sleeves and a place left open upon the breast 
 to be covered by the breast-plate. It was woven 
 with gold thread and colors " with cunning 
 work," and with its attachments was one of the 
 chief parts of the high-priest's attire. Upon it, 
 wrought of the same costly and gorgeous mate- 
 rials, was the curious girdle of the Ephod, 
 woven on to one of the parts, and passing round 
 the body, holding them both together. On this 
 was put the breast-plate (Ex. xxviii. 15-30), a 
 separate piece of cloth woven of tlie same mate- 
 rials, so that when folded it was "a span" 
 square. By gold rings it was attached to the 
 chains from the onyx stones on the shoulder, 
 and by other gold rings it was tied with bands 
 of blue lace to corresponding rings on the Ephod. 
 To this breast-plate were attached by settings of 
 gold, twelve precious stones, on each of which 
 was engraved the name of one of the tribes of 
 Israel. — Also he put in the breast-plate 
 the Urim and the Thummim. — On these 
 words many volumes have been written, and we 
 can only here refer to the note on Ex. xxviii. 30. 
 From the way in which they are spoken of both 
 there (comp. vers. 15-21) and here, they appear 
 to have been something different from the pre- 
 cious stones before spoken of, and to have been 
 placed, not on, but in the breast-plate, i. e., in 
 the receptacle formed by its fold, although a 
 great variety of authorities might be cited for 
 the opposite view. There is nowhere any direc- 
 tion given for their preparation, and from the use 
 of the definite article with each of them, it is 
 likely that they were things already known. 
 They were used as a means of ascertaining the 
 will of God (Num. xxvii. 21; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, 
 etc.) ; but by precisely what process is not 
 known, and there are now no means of ascer- 
 taining. The many conjectures concerning them 
 are conveniently arranged by Clark (Speaker's 
 Com.) under three heads: (1) that the Divine 
 will was manifested by some physical effect ad- 
 dressed to the eye or ear ; (2) that they were a 
 means of calling into action a prophetic gift in 
 the high-priest; (3) that they were some contri- 
 vance for casting lots. The Urim and Thum- 
 mim were here formally delivered to Aaron, and 
 parsed on to his successors ; but the last re- 
 corded instance of their use is in the time of Da- 
 vid, and they seem to have passed into disuse as 
 revelations and teachings by prophets became 
 more frequent. It is certain that they had dis- 
 appeared, or their use had been lost, after the 
 return from the captivity (Ezra ii. 63; Neh. 
 vii. 66). 
 
 And he put the mitre upon his head. — 
 (Ex. xxviii. 37-39). The word mitre is here used 
 
 in its etymological sense, of a twisted band of 
 fine linen around the head, which might now be 
 described as a turban. The golden plate, the 
 holy crown, — a plate of pure gold having en- 
 graved on it holiness to the Lord. This was 
 attached to a " blue lace," whereby it was fast- 
 ened to the mitre. It was the crowning glory 
 of the high-priest's official dress, and its sym- 
 bolism is fully expressed in the command for its 
 preparation (Ex. xxviii. 38), "that Aaron may 
 bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the 
 children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy 
 gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, 
 that they may be accepted before the Lord." 
 This completed the investiture of Aaron, and it 
 is added as the LORD commanded Moses, 
 both to show that the command had been ful- 
 filled, and also that only that which was com- 
 manded had been done. In this matter nothing 
 was left to human device; every particular was 
 expressly arranged by minute Divine directions ; 
 for everything was symbolic and intended gra- 
 dually to teach Israel spiritual truths, which as 
 yet they were only prepared to learn by these 
 sensible images. 
 
 Vers. 10-12. The anointing of the sacred 
 things and of Aaron. 
 
 The composition of the anointing oil, and the 
 careful restriction of its use had been minutely 
 commanded (Ex. xxx. 22-33). The Rabbis say 
 that the art of compounding it was lost after the 
 captivity, and hence from that time its use was 
 necessarily discontinued. The things to be an- 
 ointed had all been made "after the pattern 
 shown in the Mount " (Ex. xxv. 40 ; Heb. ix. 23) 
 and expressly for their sacred uses; yet there 
 was a fitness, such as has always been recog- 
 nized by the sense of mankind, that they should 
 first be especially set apart by a solemn ceremo- 
 nial for their holy purpose. The tabernacle 
 and all that was therein. — In Ex. xxx. 26- 
 28, many of the things are specially mentioned, 
 showing that Moses with the anointing oil must 
 have passed not only into the holy place but into 
 tlu' holy of holies itself. 
 
 Ver. 11. He sprinkled thereof upon the 
 altar seven times. — This refers to the brazen 
 altar in the court, as is shown by the things enu- 
 merated with it. On the seven-fold sprinkling 
 see on iv. 6. And anointed the altar. — As 
 this is a different act from the sprinkling, so 
 does this special sanctifying of the altar seem 
 appropriate to its use in the sacrifices. 
 
 Ver. 12. He poured of the anointing oil 
 upon Aaron's head. — Comp. Vs. cxxxiii. 2. 
 "The anointing with oil was a symbol of en- 
 dowment with the Spirit of God (1 Sam. x. 1,6; 
 xvi. 13, 14; Isa. lxi. 1) for the duties of the 
 office to which a person was consecrated," Keil. 
 The A. V. is quite accurate in marking the more 
 abundant anointing of Aaron by the word 
 poured. The symbolism of anointing is abun- 
 dantly recognized in the New Test, as applied to 
 Christ (Luke iv. 18; Acts x. 38, etc.). There 
 has been much question whether the sons of 
 Aaron were also here anointed. On the one 
 hand, it. had been commanded that they should 
 be anointed (Ex. xxviii. 41 ; xl. 15) "thou shall 
 anoint them as thou didst anoint their father," 
 and they are always recognized as having been 
 
Cn.VP. VIII. 1-36. 
 
 73 
 
 anointed (vii. 36 ; x. 7) : and on the other hand, 
 there is no mention here of this having been 
 done (which could hardly have been omitted had 
 it taken place) ; and 39 Aaron was first robed, 
 and then anointed, while his sons were not yet 
 robed, it seems necessary to consider their unc- 
 tion as having been confined to the sprinkling 
 with mingled oil and blood of ver. 30. This 
 would be quite in accordance with the recogni- 
 tion of the high-priest alone as the anointed 
 priest and with all those passages in which his 
 anointing is spoken of as something peculiar. 
 (The word as in Ex. xl. 15 cannot, of course, be 
 pressed — as Kalisch insists — to mean an exactly 
 similar form of anointing). 
 
 Ver. 13. Next comes the robing of Aaron's 
 sons, all in accordance with the commands so 
 often referred to. The bonnets were also a 
 sort of turban, but it may be inferred from the 
 difference in the Heb. word that they were pro- 
 bably differently fashioned from that of the high- 
 priest. 
 
 Vers. 14-30. The sacrifices and accompanying 
 ceremonies. 
 
 In the order of the sacrifices the sin offering 
 comes first, then the burnt offering, lastly the 
 peace offering; this, the normal order, is al- 
 ways observed (unless in certain exceptional 
 cases) where the several kinds of sacrifice come 
 together, as was evidently fitting in view of the 
 special object of each. 
 
 The victim and the ritual of the sin offering 
 are the same as that appointed for the sin offer- 
 ing of the high-priest in ch. iv. 3-12, except that 
 the blood was not brought into the sanctuary 
 nor sprinkled "before the vail." The reason 
 commonly assigned for this is that, the offering 
 was not for any particular sin, but only for a 
 general state of sinfulness. So Lange. But it 
 is to be "borne in mind that this sacrifice was not 
 for Aaron alone, but for him and his sons toge- 
 ther; also it was not for an already consecrated 
 liigh-priest, but for one who was in the very act 
 of being consecrated and not yet entitled to dis- 
 charge the functions of the high-priest. In view 
 of what he was to be, the victim might well be 
 the same as that appointed for the ordinary sin 
 offering of the high-priest; in view of what he 
 actually was, it was fitting that there should be 
 a difference in the ritual as regards the blood. 
 Moses took the blood and put it upon the 
 horns of the altar round about with his 
 finger, as was done in all sin offerings, only 
 here the object of the act seems to have been, in 
 part at least, the altar itself. This had been 
 already sprinkled and anointed; now by the 
 blood it is still further purified, and also sanc- 
 tified, and atonement made for it. On the ne- 
 cessity of the blood in addition to the oil, see 
 Heb. ix. 21, 22. The application of this to the 
 altar was for the same general reasons as in case 
 of the tabernacle and its contents, only that there 
 was especial emphasis in regard to the altar on 
 account of its peculiar use. As all things in 
 heaven and earth are reconciled unto God by 
 the blood of the cross (Col. i. 20), so must these 
 typical things be reconciled by the blood of the 
 typical sacrifice. 
 
 In all this service Moses, by a special Divine 
 commission, acts as the priest. Hence he is 
 20 
 
 spoken of in Ps. xcix. 6 as " among His priests," 
 and Philo culls him a high-priest. He did not, 
 however, wear the priestly garments, and strictly 
 he was not a priest at all. He had hitherto acted 
 as priest (Ex. xl. 23), although he had not be- 
 fore offered a sin offering ; but now he was both 
 lees and more than a priest. Less, in that with 
 this consecration his priestly functions abso- 
 lutely ceased ; more, in that he now acts on God's 
 behalf as the Mediator of the Old Covenant (Gal. 
 iii. 19). The Aaronic priesthood was continued 
 with its powers by hereditary succession ; but 
 all chains must have a beginning, and all au- 
 thority must have a giver. Here the first link 
 of the chain, the beginning of all priestly autho- 
 rity, is given by Moses acting under an express 
 commission for this purpose, from the Almighty. 
 It is to be remembered that all these sacrifices 
 were consumed by fire kindled in the ordinary 
 way, the fire "from before the Loed ' (ix. 24) 
 not having yet come forth. 
 
 Vers. 18-21. The burnt offering differed in 
 nothing from the ordinary burnt offering, al- 
 though the victim was of a kind less commonly 
 selected. 
 
 Vers. 22-30. The peace offering, or ram of 
 consecration. Any sacrificial animal might be 
 offered in the ordinary peace offerings ; but a 
 ram, as here, was required along with a bullock 
 for the priestly peace offering immediately after 
 their consecration (ix. 4-8), and a ram alone at 
 the fulfilment of the Nazarite vow (Num. vi. 14, 
 17). and this also formed a part of the varied 
 peace offerings of the princes after the dedica- 
 tion of the altar and tabernacle (Num. vii. 17, 
 23. etc.). 
 
 Ver. 22. The ram of consecration, lit. 
 " the ram of the fillings," i. e. with which the 
 hands of Aaron and his sons were to be filled 
 for the wave-offering, ver. 27, and by this phra- 
 seology is the idea of consecration usually ex- 
 pressed according to the Hebrew idiom (comp. 
 the verb in Judg. xvii. 5, 12; 1 Kings xiii. 33; 
 Ezek. xliii. 26, etc.). The LXX. renders it 
 Kpiiiv -e/-etuaeoc=the ram of perfecting, inasmuch 
 as this was the completion of the consecration, 
 and signified that the priest was now enabled 
 henceforth to offer sacrifice to God. Words- 
 worth aptly compares it to the delivery of the 
 Bible to one being ordained to the ministry in 
 the early Christian Church to signify that he 
 was now entitled to exercise his office of dispen- 
 sing God's word to the people. Lange gives 
 another view of the sense: "The fact that 
 Aaron too, and his sons, belonged to the congre- 
 gation, and with it must bring offerings of their 
 fulness towards the support that they received 
 from it, is expressed in the command that they 
 shall offer a second ram as a sacrifice of Ful- 
 nesses." And further: " Knobel gives Ordina- 
 tion offering; Keil, Peace offering. The peace or 
 thank offering, however, was not brought until 
 the eighth day, and all the particulars in this 
 chapter belong to ordination offerings. It is 
 then the offering of the fulness of his emolu- 
 ments, which indeed belongs to the true priestly 
 character.'' 
 
 Ver. 24. Upon the tip of their right ear. 
 — Whether the upper or the lower extremity of 
 the ear is meant is disputed, and is immaterial. 
 
74 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 "lie touched the extreme points, which repre- 
 sented the whole, of the ear, hand, and foot on 
 the right, or more important and principal side: 
 the far because the priest was always to hearken 
 to the word and commandment of God; the 
 hand, because he was to discharge the priestly 
 functions properly ; and the foot, because he 
 was to walk correctly in the sanctuary. Through 
 this manipulation the three organs employed in 
 the priestly service were placed, by means of 
 their tips, en rapport with the sacrificial blood." 
 Eeil (quoted in part by Lange). By the subse- 
 quent sprinkling of the same blood upon the 
 altar all was associated especially with sacrifice, 
 the pre-eminent priestly function. It is notice- 
 able that the same parts of the cleansed leper 
 were in the same way to be touched with the 
 blood of his trespass offering (xiv. 14). In re- 
 gard to the choice of the members on the right 
 side, Theodoret (Qu. 8 in Lev.) significantly 
 notes that "there are also left-handed actions 
 and obedience of condemnation." 
 
 Vers. '25-28. The ritual of the wave offering 
 is the same as in ease of the ordinary peace 
 offerings; only Aaron and his sons are here the 
 offerers, and hence the portions waved were 
 burned upon the altar, instead of being eaten 
 by the priests. Lange says: " The command is 
 to be particularly noticed, that the prophet 
 should take this offering of the priests from 
 their hands, and burn it upon the altar. The 
 prophetical spirit must support the priesthood 
 in the swinging and upheaving from the earth 
 without which it is lost." 
 
 Ver. 29. Moses took the breast. — This 
 also he 'waved for a wave offering, but not 
 on Aaron's hands. This was done by special 
 command, and was not the part belonging ordi- 
 narily to the officiating priest himself, but to 
 the priestly order generally. The parts belong- 
 ing to the officiating priest were burned upon 
 the altar : as if to show that Moses, by thus offi- 
 ciating for the moment under a peculiar author- 
 ization, did not become actually a priest, alt hough 
 he might be in some sense connected with the 
 priestly order. 
 
 Ver. 30. The sprinkling of Aaron and his sons 
 and their garments once more, and now with 
 the oil mingled with the blood of the sacrifice, 
 completes the consecration service of this and 
 each succeeding day. Lange : " The combina- 
 tion of the anointing oil and the blood of the 
 sacrifice, of the life of the Spirit and the joyful- 
 ness of death, poured out over everything that 
 was priestly, is here the typical ground-idea." 
 This is the only unction of the sons of Aaron 
 that is recorded ; but it seems quite enough to 
 constitute them anointed priests. 
 
 Ver. 81. Of the flesh of this sacrifice Aaron 
 and his sons must eat; but no one else might 
 share with them (Ex. xxix. 33), not even Moses. 
 In this it was sharply distinguished from the 
 ordinary peace offering; and this distinction 
 was further marked by the command that it 
 should be eaten within the court of the taberna- 
 cle, and that only on the same day, and in its 
 accompanying oblation there was no leavened 
 bread. It was a priestly peace offering, and 
 was to be eaten by Aaron and his sons as incho- 
 ate priests. 
 
 Ver. 34. Rosenmiiller notes that "the verb 
 TKty is here to be taken passively, as often 
 "nX T and !Op. See 1 Sam. xxiii. 22; Gen. 
 
 - T TlT 
 
 xvi. 14." 
 
 Vers. 32-35. Lange: "Seven days they were 
 to pass in holy seclusion in the court, seven 
 days they were to bring the appointed sacrifices 
 and to live on their sacrifice of consecration; 
 what remained of it might, not be devoted to 
 common uses, but must be burned. So for seven 
 days they were to keep holy watch, the watch 
 of Jehovah in the court of the tabernacle, under 
 the penalty of death. Moses makes particularly 
 prominent the symbolic force of this divine 
 watch; it is Jehovah's express commandment. 
 Keil makes plain, however, that they might still 
 go out in certain emergencies." 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The whole matter of atonement, both in 
 the sacrifices and in the priesthood, depended 
 upon the Divine appointment ; neither of them 
 had any virtue or power to do away with human 
 sin in themselves. Hence they could have been 
 but types (since the Divine government is ever 
 a reality), and looked forward to a Sacrifice 
 which should have value, and a Priest who 
 should have power, to accomplish in reality that 
 which is here foreshadowed, and restore man to 
 communion with God by giving him that holi- 
 ness which is an essential prerequisite, and yet 
 which of himself he can never attain. 
 
 II. By the fact that none could be a priest 
 except by Divine appointment was taught under 
 the old dispensation the truth so much empha- 
 sized in the new, that salvation is wholly of 
 God's free grace. No sacrifice for sin cou'd 
 bleed, no priest could sprinkle the blood, except 
 as God Himself allowed and commanded. 
 
 III. Moses, who was not a priest, who had 
 never been anointed, consecrated Aaron, and by 
 Divine command communicated to another that 
 which he did not himself have. This illustrates 
 the fact that God is not Himself limited by the 
 limitations He has placed upon man. He can 
 use for a priest one to whom the priesthood, ex- 
 cept for this u-*e, has not been communicated. 
 
 IV. Although God appointed, and Moses mi- 
 nistered, yet must all the people be summoned 
 to witness the consecration of the priests, and 
 by their presence give their assent. This as all 
 other parts of the Lfivitical system was of the 
 nature of a covenant. God alone could pro- 
 claim the laws; but it is of the people to pro- 
 mise obedience: God alone could constitute men 
 priests ; but it is for the people to accept aud 
 avail themselves of their mediation. 
 
 V. Lange on ver. 13: "And now first are the 
 assistants spoken of. The whole priesthood is 
 concentrated in the anointed priest, the head 
 priest, the high-priest: a symbol which has 
 been fulfilled in Christ, but not a second time in 
 an inferior symbol." 
 
 VI. In this chapter of Leviticus and the cor- 
 responding one of Exodus the consecration of 
 Aaron is frequently expressed in the LXX. by 
 the verb Tefciou and its derivative Ttleiuaie ; and 
 correspondingly, with express reference to this 
 
CHAP. VIII. 1-36. 
 
 75 
 
 law, the same word is applied to the consecra- 
 tion of Christ in Heb. ii. 10; vii. 28. He was 
 consecrated in the sufferings of the cross, and 
 thenceforward continues our high-priest and 
 intercessor for evermore. 
 
 VII. The washing of Aaron and his sons, the 
 linen drawers, and the linen tunic express as 
 clearly and emphatically as is possible to sym- 
 bolism the absolute necessity of inward purity 
 in those who would draw near to God. 
 
 VIII. The culmination of the high-priest's 
 vestments was in the golden plate on his fore- 
 head, and on this was inscribed "holiness to 
 the Lord." This then was the culmination of 
 the Levitical, as of every other dispensation ; the 
 one point towards which all lines of precept and 
 of ceremony, of plain Divine command and of 
 symbolical teaching converge is " Holiness to 
 the Lord." 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 As Moses by Divine appointment was able to 
 consecrate Aaron, so may any one, in the power 
 of God, become to another the channel of grace 
 which he himself may not possess; one's own 
 deficiencies are then no sufficient bar to work 
 for others. Moses summoned all the people : 
 there are none without interest in the means 
 provided for the atonement for sin. The Sept. 
 here (vers. 3, 4) used the word 'ncKXrjoii^u (var. 
 lect. imiXriaia), and this is the first place where 
 that word or iKiCkqaia occurs ; Cyril of Jerusa- 
 lem hence notes that the Church is thus presented 
 to us first when Aaron, the type of Christ, is 
 invested with the high-priesthood. Aaron was 
 first washed, then vested ; Origen thereupon 
 remarks (Horn. 6 in Lev. $2) that except the 
 Christian be washed from his sins, he cannot 
 put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Comp. Rev. i. 5, 
 6. "So our great High Priest was publicly 
 inaugurated in the presence of a large multitude 
 
 by Hi3 baptism So all Christians, who 
 
 "are made priests to God" in Christ, are initi- 
 ated into their priesthood in baptism." Wordsw. 
 With the symbolical setting apart for holy uses 
 of the sacred vessels compare the expressions in 
 the N. Test, "chosen vessel" (Acts ix. 15), ves- 
 sels to honor and to dishonor, and vessels of 
 wrath (Rom. ix. 21-23), etc. " The ephod bear- 
 ing the onyx stones on the shoulder straps, with 
 the breast-plate containing the Urim and the 
 Thummim, is symbolic of the priestly function. 
 
 . . . . The holy crown, with its legible and in- 
 telligible motto, indicates the holiness and au- 
 thority which appertain to the royal Priest. 
 And in their correlation, the stones on the 
 shoulder especially denote the priestly, those on 
 the breast-plate the prophetic, and the golden 
 plate on the forehead the kingly, function of the 
 Mediator." Murphy. As Aaron and his sons 
 must be anointed to become priests, so, says St. 
 John, has Christ- communicated an unction to 
 the Christian which "abideth" in him (1 John 
 ii. 20, 27). The three sacrifices of the consecra- 
 tion, the sin, the burnt, and the peace offering, 
 as they together represent the three-fold fulness 
 of the one sacrifice of Christ, so do they point 
 out the three-fold duty by which Christians may 
 obtain the benefits of that sacrifice, and thereby 
 become "priests unto God," viz. death unto sin, 
 fulness of obedience, and communion with God. 
 Aaron was consecrated by these sacrifices to be 
 a priest " offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, 
 which can never take away sins;" but "Christ, 
 "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for- 
 ever," "hath perfected (reTeketuicev, hath con- 
 secrated as priests) forever them that are sanc- 
 tified " (Heb. x. 14). Wordsworth. When Moses 
 had gathered the people, he explained to them 
 what he was about to do (ver. 5), that they 
 might be intelligent witnesses; so is the service 
 of God ever a reasonable service. Aaron's ear, 
 hand and foot were touched with the anointing 
 oil as well as himself sprinkled ; so must each 
 single faculty of those who have "the unction 
 from the Holy One" be especially sanctified and 
 consecrated to God's service, as well as the 
 whole body soul and spirit be generally devoted 
 to Him, for the general only becomes con- 
 cretely real in the particulars. In the mingling 
 of the blood and oil (ver. 30) for the anointing 
 seems to be taught that not sacrifice for sin alone 
 suffices; but that with this must be joined the 
 unction of the Holy Spirit. If only sin is put 
 out without anything being taken in, the house 
 is but swept and garnished for its old occupant. 
 With the watch of the now partially consecrated 
 priests seven days in the court of the tabernacle, 
 compare the waiting of the Apostles in Jerusa- 
 lem after our Lord's ascension until endued at 
 Pentecost with power from on high. And with 
 this, too, compare the life-long watch of every 
 Christian; he has already received an unction 
 from on high, but waits in this earthly taber- 
 nacle until he shall be called at last to enter into 
 the Holy of holies. 
 
76 LEVITICUS. 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 Entrance of Aaron and his Sons on their Office. 
 Chap. IX. 1-24. 
 
 1 And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, 
 
 2 and the elders 1 of Israel ; and he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young [bull'*'] calf 
 for a siu offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them 
 
 3 before the Lord. And unto the children 1 of Israel thou shalt speak, saying, Take 
 ye a kid [buck 3 ] of the goats for a sin offering ; and a calf and a lamb [sheep 4 ] 
 
 4 both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering : also a bullock and a 
 ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the Lord ; and a meat onering [an 
 oblation 5 ] mingled with oil : for to-day the Lord will appear uuto you. 
 
 5 And they brought that which Moses commanded before 6 the tabernacle of the 
 congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood before the Lord. 
 
 6 And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do :' 
 
 7 and the glory of the Lord shall appear unto you. And Moses said uuto Aaron, 
 Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an 
 atonement for thyself, and for the people : 8 and offer the offering of the people, and 
 make an atonement for them : as the Lord commanded. 
 
 8 Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin offering, which 
 
 9 was for himself. And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him : and he 
 dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured 
 
 10 out the blood at the bottom of the altar : but the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul 
 above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar : as the Lord com- 
 
 11 manded Moses. And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp. 
 
 12 And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, 
 
 13 which he sprinkled round about upon the altar. And they presented the burnt 
 offering unto him, with [according to 9 ] the pieces thereof and the head : and he 
 
 14 burnt them upon 10 the altar. And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt 
 them upon the burnt offering on the altar. 
 
 15 And he brought the people's offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offer- 
 ing for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin [a sin offering 11 ], as the first. 
 
 16 And he brought the burnt offering, and offered it according to the manner [ordi- 
 
 17 nance 12 ]. And he brought the meat offering [oblation 5 ], and took an handful 
 thereof, and burnt it upon the altar, beside the burnt sacrifice of the morning. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 I Ver. 1. For *JpT the Sam. and LXX. read y }2, but change the reading in the opposite way in ver. 3. Rosenmiil- 
 
 ■■I :• •• : t 
 
 ler considers these elders as the same with the 7"ni* and the 771p of ch. viii. 
 , t •• t It 
 
 8 Ver. 2. 1p3-[3 TIM, lit. calf son of a bnH=a bull calf, or yearling bull. 
 
 3 Ver. 3. D , ij; "V^'ty. See note ^ on iv. 23. 
 
 4 Ver. 3. Bee note & on ii. 7. 
 
 6 Ver. 4. Oblation. See note 2 on ii. 1. The Vulg. adds in suigvlo sacrtficiorum, for each of the sacrifices. 
 
 6 Ver. 5. The A. V. more exactly expresses the Sam. *J3 / (comp. vers. 2, 4) tban the Ileb. *JD - 7N. 
 
 7 Ver. G. Ilorsley would here change the punctuation and read — which the Lord commanded: Do it, and the glory, 
 etc.; but this would require also the insertion of a pronoun. 
 
 8 Ver. 7. For thepeqple the LXX. reads tou oIkov trov. 
 
 • Ver. 13. n*nnj 7=according to ita pieces (into which the burnt offering was divided, i. 6). So the Ancient Versions 
 x v t : - 
 generally. So Enobel and Keil. 
 
 10 Ver. 13. The preposition 7J» is wanting in the Sam. 
 
 I I Ver. 16. The word of course bears either ser.3e; but the context here clearly requires that of sin-offering. 
 
 12 Ver. 1G. U^l*^ 3. The margin is clearly better than the text of the A. V. The ordinance has been given in ch. i. 
 
CIUP. IX. 1-21. 
 
 77 
 
 18 He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was 
 for the people : and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled 
 
 19 upon the altar round about, and the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump 
 [fat tail 1 '], and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul 
 above the liver : and they 1 * put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon 
 the altar : and the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering 
 before the Lord ; as Moses 15 commanded. 
 
 And Aaron lifted up his hand [hands 16 ] toward the people, and blessed them, 
 and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace 
 offeriugs. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the [pm. the] congre- 
 gation, and came out and blessed the people : and the glory of the Lord appeared 
 unto all the people. 
 
 And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar 
 the burnt offering and the fat : which when all the people saw," they shouted, and 
 fell on their faces. 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 13 Ver. 19. Fat tail. See note 7 on iii. 9. 
 
 1* Ver. 20. Tlie S;im. h:is the sing., he put. . . „ , , «, 
 
 is Ver. 21. The Sam., LXX., Targ. Ont. and 30 5IS3. DUO ilX HliT HIV— as the Lord commanded Moses. 
 
 i« Ver. 22. The k'ri has VT in the plural, according with the Vowel points; so 20 MSS. and all the ancient versions 
 
 TT 
 
 except the Sam. The plural is probably correct. 
 
 it Ver. 24. The Heb. verb is singular; but the Sam. has the plural. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 It is noticed by Nicholas de Lyra, that this 
 chapter has three essential parts: (1) the com- 
 mands (vers. 1-7) ; (2) the execution of them 
 (vers. 8-22) ; (3) the Divine approbation of what 
 was done (vers, 23, 24). The second part may 
 be subdivided into Aaron's offerings for himself, 
 vers. 8-14 ; and his offerings for the people, vers. 
 15-21. Here begins a new Proper Lesson of the 
 law for reading in the Synagogue extending 
 through ch. xi. ; the parallel Proper Lesson from 
 the Prophets being 2 Sam. vi. 1 — vii. 17, which 
 gives the account of David's bringing up the ark 
 to Mt. Zion and his purpose to build a temple 
 for it there. 
 
 Ver. 1. On the eighth day, inz., from the 
 beginning of Aaron's consecration. That had 
 occupied seven days, and his entrance upon his 
 office now immediately followed on the next day, 
 there being no cause for delay, and every reason 
 why the priesthoood should be in the active ex- 
 ercise of its duties at once. His priesthood was 
 still somewhat iuchoate, for he had yet dis- 
 charged none of its functions, and had not en- 
 tered into the sanctuary. This affects the cha- 
 racter of the sacrifices prescribed. On the first 
 day of the first month the tabernacle had been 
 set up (Ex. xl. 17), and the Passover was kept 
 on the fourteenth day (Num. ix. 2, 5) ; the seven 
 days' consecration came between, and there re- 
 mained therefore but a few days before the pre- 
 paration for the Passover. We have no data for 
 determining the day of the week. The elders 
 of Israel are now summoned because they have 
 to act officially in presenting the offerings for 
 the people ; but doubtless the mass of the people 
 were also, as far as might be, witnesses of the 
 entrance of Aaron upon his office (ver. 5, comp. 
 ver. 24). 
 
 Ver. 2. Take thee. — Aaron is to furnish his 
 own victims at his own proper cost. The victim 
 for the Bin offering was to be a bull calf, or 
 
 quite young bullock, an inferior offering to that 
 prescribed for the high-priest in iv. 3. For this 
 various reasons have been assigned : as that this 
 was not for any particular sin, but for general 
 sinfulness (Poole and others) ; that it had refe- 
 rence to Aaron and the people's siu in the golden 
 calf (Ex. xxxii.), and was designed to remind 
 him and them of it (Maimonides, Patrick, Nich. 
 de Lyra, and others); that the greater sin offer- 
 ing was unnecessary, as Aaron and his sons had 
 spent the whole previous week in services of 
 atonement and of holiness: but the more im- 
 portant reason is that given by Kalisch, "Not 
 even on the eighth day had Aaron's dignity 
 reached its full independence and glory ; it still 
 remained, to a certain degree, under the control 
 of Moses, who gave commands to his brother, as 
 he had received them from God. Therefore 
 Aaron was not permitted to pass beyond the 
 court; he was not yet qualified to appear in the 
 immediate presence of God." In a word, the 
 inchoateness of his priesthood was marked in 
 the victim and its ritual. A ram for a burnt 
 offering. — Any male sacrificial animal was al- 
 lowed for a burnt offering, but here the most 
 impressive kind is not chosen for the reason just 
 given. No peace offering is prescribed for the 
 priests, because their share in the offerings of 
 the people was quite enough for so small a com- 
 pany, and sufficed for the common feast of com- 
 munion with God. The order of the offerings, 
 the sin offering first, the peace offering last, has 
 been noticed in the previous chapter. 
 
 Ver. 3. Thou shalt speak. — Moses now 
 passes over to Aaron the duty of directing the 
 people in their sacrifices as their appointed and 
 consecrated high-priest. The offerings for the 
 people are : first, the sin offering, which is not 
 that prescribed for the sin of the whole people 
 (iv. 14), but for the Bin of a prince (iv. 23), the 
 reason for which generally given is that this was 
 not for a particular sin, but only for general sin- 
 fulness ; but it seems fit that this sin offering 
 should have been reduced in proportion to 
 
7S 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Aaron's, and for the same reason. Second, the 
 burnt offering, which was to consist of two vic- 
 tims, and yet was much less than on occasions 
 of special solemnity (Num. xxviii. 11, 27, etc.). 
 Third, the peace offering, which was just enough 
 for the purpose of the symbolical sacrificial feast, 
 but yet too small for any considerable festivity 
 in view of the solemn manifestation to follow 
 (vers. 4, G, 24). 
 
 Ver. 6. Moses, as before, explains what is to 
 be done that thus the people may be intelligent 
 witnesses. He announces beforehand the ap- 
 pearance of the glory of the LORD (see ver. 
 23), showing that he did all this by appointment, 
 and when it appeared it thus established his au- 
 thority ; and also that the people, by these sa- 
 crifices, might be prepared for this manifestation. 
 " The crown of this typical worship was to consist 
 in this: To-day the LORD will appear to 
 you ; and again, this is the thing which the 
 LORD hath commanded that ye should do, 
 and the glory of the Lord shall appear to 
 you." Lange. 
 
 Ver. 7. Go unto the altar. — Aaron is now 
 to enter upon his office, and for the first time 
 ascend the slope of the altar. Make an atone- 
 ment for thyself and for the people.— This 
 is distinct from the atonement for the people in 
 the sacrifice of their sin offering, mentioned in 
 the next clause, and finds its explanation in that 
 guilt brought upon the people by the sin of the 
 Ligh-priest (iv. 3). So Keil rightly. For this 
 Aaron was to atone in making his own atone- 
 ment, and then afterwards to offer for their own 
 sins. Lange says, " The subsequent command 
 in regard to these offerings has this import : with 
 his especial sacrifice Aaron should atone for 
 himself and for the people as a whole (DJ?H), 
 but with the sacrifice of the congregation, he 
 should atone for each single member of the con- 
 gregation." 
 
 Vers. 8-11. Aaron first offers his own sin of- 
 fering, his Bons assisting him in those duties 
 which were afterwards assigned to the Levites. 
 The ritual is the same as that provided in ch. 
 iv., except that the blood is not brought into the 
 Sanctuary (into which Aaron had not yet en- 
 tered, comp. ver. 23), for the reasons given un- 
 der ver. 2; but the flesh and hide is neverthe- 
 less burnt without the camp as required in iv. 
 11, 12, the victim is slain by Aaron, — -either by 
 himself, or by his assistants, — (ver. 8) as in the 
 other high -priestly sin offerings (iv. 1,2,4) and the 
 blood is put with his finger upon the horns of 
 the altar as in case of the other regular sin offer- 
 ings (iv. 25, 30, 34). 
 
 Vers. 12-14. The burnt offering for Aaron and 
 his sons was offered in the regular way accord- 
 ing to the ordinance of ch. i. After being divided 
 the pieces were presented to Aaron, one by one, 
 by his sons to be laid upon the altar. No men- 
 tion is made of an oblation with this sacrifice, 
 either because it is supposed as of course, or 
 else because it actually was not brought, the law 
 of Num. xv. 4 not having yet been given. 
 
 Vers. 15-21. The sacrifices for the people fol- 
 low in the same order. In regard to all the pre- 
 vious offerings it is expressly said that Aaron 
 burnt them ; the same thing is also said (ver. 20) 
 
 of the parts of the peace offering that were des- 
 tined for the altar, and it is clearly implied in 
 regard to the others by the expression as the 
 first (ver. 15) in regard to the sin offering ; and 
 in regard to the burnt offering, both by the 
 statement of ver. 16, and by the mention of the 
 burning of the accompanying oblation in ver. 
 17. These were all therefore burned at first by 
 fire kindled by ordinary means. It would, how- 
 ever, thus have taken many hours to consume 
 them in the ordinary way, and the miracle of 
 ver. 24 refers to their being immediately con- 
 sumed by the " fire from before the Lokd." The 
 LXX., however, in vers. 13 and 17, instead of 
 burnt renders laid, and this seems to have been 
 in the mind of Lange when he says "Aaron has 
 laid all the pieces rightly upon the altar of burnt 
 offering, and blessed the people from the elevated 
 position of the steps (stiege) of the altar. The 
 sacrifice is ready, this is the part of the priestly 
 body ; but the fire must come from the Lokd." 
 In regard to the burning instead of eating the 
 flesh of the sin offering, see x. 16-20. 
 
 Ver. 17. The burnt sacrifice of the morn- 
 ing. — Was this the regular morning sacrifice of 
 the lamb offered by Aaron after the sacrifices for 
 himself and before those for the people, but not 
 otherwise mentioned because it was of course' 
 Or is it identical with the lamb of the burnt of- 
 fering for the people, so that the morning sacri- 
 fice to be offered ever after is here inaugurated, 
 as is argued by Murphy ? The former view 
 seems the more probable both because the offer- 
 ing of the morning sacrifice had already been 
 begun by Moses (Ex. xl. 29) upon the first erec- 
 tion of the tabernacle and before Aaron's conse- 
 cration ; and because the lamb of this offering 
 is evidently spoken of (ver. 3) as a part of the 
 special burnt offering for the people on this oc- 
 casion. 
 
 Ver. 22. Lifted up his hands. — In pro- 
 nouncing a blessing upon an individual it waa 
 customary to lay the hands upon his head (Gen. 
 xlviii. 14, etc.) ; but this being impossible in the 
 case of a multitude, the custom was to lift the 
 hands, as was also often done in other prayers, 
 and this custom has been most scrupulously pre- 
 served in the Jewish usages to the present day. 
 Hands rather ih&\xhand\s the more probable read- 
 ing, and is also accordant with the Jewish tradi- 
 tion. No command had been given for this act, 
 but it was a natural sequence of the entrance of 
 Aaron upon his office, a part of which was to 
 bless the people in the name of the Lord. The 
 blessing was pronounced while Aaron stood upon 
 the elevated slope (not steps, Ex. xx. 26) of the 
 altar. In the following words, came down 
 from offering, we have a further evidence that 
 the victims hail been actually laid upon the fire. 
 
 Ver. 23. Went into the tabernacle. — 
 Moses enters, not as priest, but to complete the 
 initiation of Aaron into his duties; for the latter 
 had not yet entered the sanctuary. Much of 
 the priestly duty, the burning of incense, the 
 trimming of the sacred lamps, the ordering of the 
 shew-bread, etc., was hereafter to be within the 
 tabernacle, and it was necessary that Aaron 
 should be exactly instructed in all these matters. 
 According to the Targum of Jonathan, they went 
 in to pray for the promised manifestation of the 
 
CHAP. IX. 1-24. 
 
 79 
 
 glory of the Lord ; and it is not unlikely that 
 the two brothers, the one the leader and lawgiver 
 of Israel, now entering the sanctuary for the last 
 time, and the other the appointed high-priest 
 now entering for the first time, should then have 
 united in solemn prayer for God's blessing upou 
 the people. On their return, Moses laying down 
 his temporary priestly functions, aud Aaron 
 taking up his permanent office, jointly blessed 
 the people. (Comp. 2 Chron. vi. 3). In Numb. 
 vi. 24-2ti is prescribed the exact form of priestly 
 benediction used ever afterwards; but there is 
 no evidence that this form was now employed. 
 One tradition makes the form like that of Ps. xc. 
 17: I lie Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem 
 give the following: "The Word of the Lord re- 
 ceive your offering with good pleasure, and may 
 He overlook and pardon your sins." 
 
 And the glory of the Lord appeared. — 
 This is sometimes considered as included in the 
 fire of the following verse, but more generally 
 and more probably is looked upon as some glo- 
 rious manifestation in the cloud which covered 
 the tabernacle (comp. Ex. xl. 34, 35), out of 
 which came forth the fire. So Lange. 
 
 Ver. 24. There came a fire. — Similarly was 
 the Divine approbation of sacrifices several times 
 expressed in after ages, in the fire from the rock 
 consuming Gideon's sacrifice; in the fire which 
 fell upon the sacrifice of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 
 38) ; in the answer to David's prayer at the 
 threshing floor of Oman by fire from heaven upon 
 his altar (1 Chr. xxi. 26); and in the like fire 
 consuming the sacrifices at Solomon's dedication 
 of the temple (2 Chr. vii. 1). According to Jew- 
 ish tradition the fire thus kindled was kept ever 
 burning (whether by natural or supernatural 
 means, (he Rabbis differ) until the temple was 
 built ; then again kindled in the same way, it 
 continued to burn until the reign of Manasseh. 
 But it is to be remembered that the fire was not 
 now first kindled upon the altar, but had already 
 been burning there more than a week. How- 
 ever fully therefore it expressed the Divine ap- 
 probation, and however reasonably the Israel- 
 ites might wish to perpetuate such a fire, there 
 is yet, as Keil justly remarks, no analogy be- 
 tween this and the legends of the heathen about 
 altar fires kindled by the gods themselves. See 
 the references in Knobel : Serv. ad (En. 12, 200 ; 
 Solin. 5, -■'>; Pausao. 5, 27, 3; Sueton. Lib. 14; 
 Ainm. Marc. 23, 6, 34. It is possible that this 
 coming forth of the fire may have had a further 
 object. In the Pantheistio philosophies of the 
 East, fire was regarded as the universal principle 
 of the Cosmos, and as inherent in all things. It 
 is not likely that the Israelites, at this stage of 
 their hist iry, were brought into contact with 
 this philosophy ; but by this act they were taught 
 that fire itself was sent from the Lord, and were 
 thus guarded beforehand against these Pantbe- 
 t heist ic notions, which at a later period they 
 mu*t encounter. 
 
 Consumed upon the altar the burnt of- 
 fering and the fat. — Patrick argues that this 
 must have been at the time of the evening sacri- 
 fice, at which time also he shows that all the 
 other instances of fire from heaven upon the sa- 
 crifice probably occurred, and that the burnt 
 offering consumed was the lamb of the evening 
 
 sacrifice. But the phraseology, the burnt of- 
 fering and the fat, seems unmistakably to 
 point to the burnt offering for the people aud the 
 fat of the peace offering already burning upon 
 the altar. With the evening sacrifice there was 
 no offering of fat apart from the lamb itself. 
 
 They shouted in wonder, thanksgiving and 
 praise, and fell on their faces to worship with 
 joyful awe as in 2 Chron. vii. 3. 
 
 The views of Lange upon this verse are ex- 
 pressed in the following extract: "And now 
 comes Fire from the Lord, that is, still out of the 
 tabernacle of the Covenant, and blazes upou the 
 altar and consumes the offering. So speaks the 
 primitive energetic faith, in which the medium 
 of the Divine operation merges itself in the ope- 
 randi of God. It is the essential thing in the 
 hierarchical, literal faith that every medium 
 should be supposed to be away. Hence is the 
 stone of the first tables of the law and the imme- 
 diate writing of God ; and we come on the path 
 of priestly tradition down to the Easter fire in 
 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. 
 On the other hand, the medium is everything to 
 the critical, negative, literal faith ; for it, the 
 matter is legend. But the primitive, religiously- 
 inclined people, saw in the shining figures of 
 Moses and Aaron, who came back out of the 
 Sanctuary, and in the flaming up of the sacrifi- 
 cial fire, the glory of the Lord whose appearance 
 from the Holy of Holies Moses and Aaron had 
 besought. It was the first lifting up of the highly 
 significant fire flame in their worship, whose 
 typical prefiguration should be fulfilled in the 
 atoning fiery operation over the cross of Christ, 
 and — not frightened — but joyously, all the peo- 
 ple fell on their faces." 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. In Aaron's sin offering for himself and his 
 eons, immediately after his consecration, and as 
 his first priestly act, is shown most strikingly 
 the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood. 
 "This offering was probably regarded not so 
 much a sacrifice for his own actual sins, as a ty- 
 pical acknowledgment of his sinful nature and 
 of his future duty to offer for his own sins and 
 those of the people " (Clark). " The law maketh 
 men high-priests which have infirmity ; but the 
 word of the oath, which was since the law, 
 maketh the Son, who is consecrated forever- 
 more." Heb. vii. 28. 
 
 II. If this was true of the high-priest, a fortiori, 
 it was true of all other provisions of the Leviti- 
 cal law. " If, according to this, even after the 
 manifold expiation and consecration which Aaron 
 had received through Moses during the seven 
 days, he had still to enter upon his service with 
 a sin offering and a burnt offering, this fact 
 clearly showed that the offerings of the law could 
 not ensure perfection (Heb. x. 1 sqq.)." Keil. 
 
 III. The commentary upon this chapter bring- 
 ing out its doctrinal significance, is to be found 
 especially in the Ep. to the Heb. As other 
 points are there brought out strikingly, so is this: 
 "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, 
 but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So 
 also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an 
 high-priest." Heb. v. 4, 5. 
 
80 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 IV. In the appointment, in the consecration, 
 and in the entrance of Aaron upon his official 
 duties, his mediatorial functions are every where 
 distinctly recognized. Thus is the necessity set 
 forth of a Mediator between God and man, and 
 as distinctly as was possible under a typical sys- 
 tem is foreshadowed the office of Him who came 
 to be man's true mediator with God. 
 
 V. In every possible way, by dress, by ablu- 
 tions, by inscriptions on Aaron's frontlet, by 
 varied sacrifice, the necessity of holiness in 
 mau's approach to God is declared. Yet this 
 could only be typically attained by sinful m in. 
 Very plainly therefore did Aaron and his office 
 point forward to that Seed of the woman who 
 should bruise the serpent's head, and obtain the 
 fiual victory in man's long struggle with the 
 power of evil. 
 
 VI. In the order of the offerings of Aaron both 
 for himself and the people is clearly expressed 
 the order of the steps of approach to God ; first, 
 the forgiveness of sin, th^n the consecration 
 completely to God, and after this communion 
 with Him, and blessing from Him. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Moses, the great leader and law-giver of Is- 
 rael, retires from his temporary priestly func- 
 tions, and delivers them over to Aaron without 
 a murmur, content to fulfil the Divine will. So 
 John the Baptist found his joy fulfilled in that 
 
 he must decrease while his Master increased 
 (Jno. iii. 30). Moses did not seek to retain an 
 office to which God had not called him, comp. 
 Num. xvi.; Acts xix. 13-15 ; Heb. v. 4 ; Judell. 
 
 The " glory of the Lord " appeared, and was 
 also manifested in Solomon's temple ; the second 
 temple was without it, and yet it was promised 
 (Hag. ii. 9) that the glory of the latter temple 
 should be greater than of the former. This was 
 fulfilled when He whose glory was " as of the 
 Only Begotten of the Father" appeared in His 
 temple. And again, after the consecration of 
 the Great High-Priest on Calvary, and His en- 
 trance by His ascension into the true sanctuary, 
 the glory of the Lord was manifested at Pente- 
 cost. Wordsworth. 
 
 As Aaron after the sacrifice blessed the people 
 before entering the sanctuary ; so Christ, after 
 His sacrifice upon the cross, blessed His disci- 
 ples (Luke xxiv. 50) before passing into the 
 heavens to continue there our Priest and Inter- 
 cessor forevermore. 
 
 The glory appeared and the fire came forth 
 after the consecration of the high-priest, and 
 after his sacrifice, and after he had entered the 
 sanctuary ; even as the fire of Pentecost came 
 after Christ's consecration in His sacrifice of 
 Himself, and after He had passed into the hea- 
 vens. And as the fire in the tabernacle showed 
 the Divine approbation of the Levitical system, 
 so that of Pentecost expressed His good pleasure 
 in the Christian. 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 The Sin and the Punishment of Nadab and Abihu, with Instructions founded upon 
 
 that Event. 
 
 Chapter X. 1-20. 
 
 1 And Nadab and Abihu, the 1 sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and 
 put fire therein, 2 and put incense thereon, 2 and offered strange fire before the Lord, 
 
 2 which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and 
 
 3 devoured them, aud they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, 
 This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh 
 
 4 me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. And 
 Moses called Mishael and Elzaphau, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and 
 said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of 
 
 5 the camp. So they went near, and carried 3 them in their coats out of the camp ; 
 as Moses had said. 
 
 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazer and unto Ithamar, his' sons, Un- 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 1. Throe MSS., followed by the Vat. LXX.. r»ad "the two sons." 
 
 2 Ver. 1. In the Heb. the first pronoun, ;n3, is plural, while the 6econJ, n'7>'. is singular. 16 MSS., the Sam. LXX. 
 
 I ■■ T T V T 
 
 and Syr. have the latter in the plural. 
 
 s Ver. 5. ONCH. The fuller form DPX Wtifl is g' ven in the Pam. 
 
 — T" T 
 
 « Ver. 6. One MS., followed by the LXX. and Syr. specifies " his remaining sons." 
 
CHAP. X. 1-20. 
 
 81 
 
 cover 5 not your heads, neither rend your clothes ; lest ye die, and lest wrath come 
 
 upon all the people : but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the 
 7 burning which the Lord hath kindled. And ye shall not go out from the door of 
 
 the tabernacle of the congregation, last ye die : for the anointing oil of the Lord 
 
 is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses. 
 8, 9 And "the Lord spake unto Aaron, 6 saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, 
 
 thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go iuto the tabernacle of the congregation, 
 
 10 lest ye die : it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations : and' that ye 
 may put difference between holy and unholy [common 8 ], aud between unclean and 
 
 11 clean : and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord 
 hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. 
 
 12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that 
 were left, Take the meat offering [oblation 9 ] that remaineth of the offerings of the 
 Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar : for it is most holy : 
 
 13 and ye shall eat it in the [a] holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons' due, 
 
 14 of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire : for so I am commanded. And the wave 
 breast and heave shoulder [leg 10 ] shall ye eat in a clean place ; thou, and thy sons, 
 and thy daughters with thee : for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which&re given 
 
 15 out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. The heave shoul- 
 der [leg 10 ] and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of 
 the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord; and it shall be thine, aud 
 thy sons' 11 with thee, by a statute for ever ; as the Lord hath commanded. 
 
 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was 
 burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, which rvere 
 
 17 left alive, saying, Wherefore have ye not eateu the sin offering in the holy place, 
 seeing it is most holy, aud God hath given 12 it you to bear the iniquity of the con- 
 
 18 gregation, to make atonement for them 13 before the Lord? Behold, the blood of 
 it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the 
 
 19 [a"] holy place, as I 16 commanded. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day 
 have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord ; and 
 such things have befallen me : and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should 
 
 20 it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord ? And when Moses heard that, 
 he was content. 18 
 
 6 Ver. 6. 1£^3j"\~7N- The A. V., ye shall not uncover w quite correct, and is the sense given in most of the ancient 
 
 versions ; but the Targ. of Onkelos, followed by several Jewish and other commentators, gives the very different sense yt 
 shall not let your hair aroie, del ivtd from the use of >'"*:}• Num. vi. 5 = hair. 
 
 • Ver. 8. Eight MSS. substitute the name of Moees for that of Aaron. The variation is unimportant ; for, as Boothroyd 
 suggests, the communication toAaroo may have been made through Moses. 
 
 I Ver. 10. The ami at the beginning 01 ver. 10 is omitted m the Sam. and all other ancient versions except the Vulgate. 
 
 8 Ver. 10. ^hn is in contrast to t*/"ipn and means simply that which is not especially consecrated. The word com- 
 mon conveys the sense better than unholy. 
 
 * Ver. 12. Oblation. See Textual Note 2 on ii. 1. 
 10 Vers. 14, IS. Leg. See Text. Note " on vii. 32. 
 
 II Ver. 15. The Sam. and LXX. add and thy daughter**, as In ver. 14. 
 18 Ver. 17. The Syr. reads in the 1st person, / have given. 
 
 *3 Ver. 17. Thirteen MSS. read for yea in the 2d person. 
 
 14 Ver. 18. The Masoretic punctuation of t2"lp3 here indicates the article ; it would seem proper, however, to omit it 
 
 according to invariable usage. All the versions make a distinction between the sanctuary, into which the blood had not 
 been carried, and the court where the flesh should have been eaten, We can only express this by a change of the article. 
 1& Ver. 18. Most of the versions have the passive, M 1 unu command! J, and the LXX, ov rpo-nov jioi o-vvera^n Kepios. 
 
 15 Ver. 20. Rosenmuller notes that "^O'TI scribilur hie dvo^iaAws pro 2D"!"!-" 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 "We Bhoulcl expect here immediately the 
 description of a great thank offering feast of 
 the people. But instead of this we are told of 
 a great misfortune which closes a sacrificial 
 feast disturbed in the very beginning. The 
 story is not of the thank offering feast of the 
 people, the festal meal of the installation of the 
 priests. The joy of the people was very soon 
 destroyed by anxiety and fear ; for the inade- 
 
 quacy of the typical sacrifice has soon come to 
 light." Lange. 
 
 The events of this chapter occurred on the 
 same day as those of the preceding (see ver. 19), 
 that is on the day after their consecration when 
 Aaron and his sons first entered upon the dis- 
 charge of their priestly functions. Moses there- 
 lore still appears here, as in ch. ix., in a pecu- 
 liar relation as introducing the new-made priests 
 to their duties, taking care that all things should 
 be rightly done, and communicating to them 
 further instructions (vers. 3, S, 12, llij. 
 
82 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Vers. 1—5. The sin, death and burial of Nadab 
 and Abihu. 
 
 Ver. 1. Nadab and Abihu, being mentioned 
 first in the genealogies (Ex. vi. 23; Num. xxvi. 
 60), are supposed to have been Aaron's eldest 
 sons. They had beeu selected to accompany 
 Moses and Aaron and the seventy elders in the 
 beatific vision of Ex. xxiv. 1, 9. Wordsworth 
 suggests that "perhaps they were 'exalted 
 above measure through the abundance of their 
 revelations' (2 Cor. xii. 7), and were tempted 
 to imagine that they were not bound by ordinary 
 rules in the discharge of the duties of the 
 priest's office." 
 
 His censer. — Wiim. This is the first time 
 
 T : - 
 
 the word is translated censer in the A. V., be- 
 cause it has occurred before only in conned ion 
 with the golden candlestick (Ex. xxv. 38; 
 xxxvii. 23), or as a pan for receiving the ashes 
 from the brazen altar (Ex. xxvii. 3; xxxviii. 3). 
 There can be no doubt, however, that it is 
 rightly translated here in a sense in which it 
 frequently occurs afterwards; but the fact that 
 there is no previous mention of censers adds to 
 the probability of some unrecorded command 
 having already been given in regard to the 
 offering of incense. The word rntDDip for cen- 
 ser is much later, occurring only 2 Chron. xxvi. 
 19; Ezek. viii. 11. 
 
 Put incense thereon. — Incense was to be 
 burned upon the golden altar twice daily ; in 
 the morning, when the lamps of the golden can- 
 dlestick were trimmed, and in the evening when 
 they were lighted (Ex. xxx. 7, 8). It does not 
 certainly appear from the narrative at what 
 time the act of Nadab and Abihu occurred; but 
 from the abundance of events that had already 
 occurred on this day, it. is not unlikely that the 
 latter time was at hand. The unseasonableness 
 of the time assigned by many commentators 
 (Keil and others) as a part of their sin cannot 
 therefore be maintained. — And offered strange 
 fire. — The sin of Nadab and Abihu is always 
 described in the same terms (Num. iii. 4; xxvi. 
 61); but in precisely what it consisted has been 
 the occasion of much difference of opinion. By 
 many (Kurtz and others) it is supposed to have 
 consisted in the offering of incense not prepared 
 according to the directions given in Ex. xxx. 34 ; 
 but this would rather have been called "strange 
 incense" as in Ex. xxx. 9, and it does not seem 
 likely that the new priests, who had now been 
 eight days in the court of the tabernacle, would 
 have had ready access to any other incense, 
 whereas other fire than that of the altar must 
 have been in the court for cooking the flesh of 
 the sacrifices. By others (as Keil) the sin is 
 supposed to have been in offering the incense at 
 a time not appointed; but it does not appear 
 why such a fault should have been described as 
 "strange fire," and moreover, as shown above, 
 it seems not unlikely that it was actually the 
 proper time for the burning of the evening in- 
 cense. Knobel thinks that Nadab and Abihu 
 proposed, of their own motion, to prepare an 
 incense offering to accompany the shouts of the 
 multitude as they saw the Divine fire fall upon 
 the sacrifice — which may or may not have been 
 the fact, as there is no evidence upon the point. 
 
 Another supposition of Knobel must be abso- 
 lutely rejected as at variance with the tenor of 
 the narrative: "or, frightened by the consu- 
 ming fire, ix. 24, they considered an appeasing 
 of God necessary." It is better to follow the 
 general opinion, and take the expression just as 
 it is given, making their sin to have consisted 
 in offering strange fire, that is fire other than 
 that commanded. "The chief thing is that the 
 strange or common fire forms a contrast to the 
 fire of the Sanctuary." Lange. So Rosenmiiller, 
 Outram (1. xvi. 13), and others. In vi. 12 it is 
 required that the fire should be always burning 
 upon the altar, and as this fire was for the con- 
 sumption of the sacrifices, it would naturally be 
 understood for the burning of the incense; in 
 xvi. 12 it is expressly prescribed for the incense 
 on the great day of atonement, and it became a 
 part of the symbolism of the sanctuary service 
 (Rev. viii. 6). The fact that no command on. 
 this point of detail is anywhere recorded does 
 not preclude the supposition that such a com- 
 mand had been given. At all events, the gene- 
 ral principle of exact conformity to the Divine 
 commands should have prevented Nadab and 
 Abihu from offering "strange " or uncommanded 
 fire before the Lord. 
 
 As to the causes which led them to commit 
 this sin, the narrative is equally silent ; but the 
 connection of the precept in ver. 9 with this 
 event seems to imply that there had been some 
 violation of it. (See Targ. Hieros., Nic. de Lyra, 
 Patrick, etc.) This might have concurred with 
 already existing spiritual pride and self-will, 
 or have temporarily produced them. " From 
 vers. 8, 9, it is likely that they had lost their 
 soberness in the feast which had begun." 
 Lange. But however this may have been, Von 
 Gerlach's remark is in place: "By this connec- 
 tion is taught, that as no external event was to 
 depress with grief the priest, so ought he to ap- 
 ply no artificial means to his senses to produce 
 exhilaration: his whole thoughts and attention 
 are to be directed to the sacred offices which 
 are commanded him. We are reminded of the 
 antithesis, Eph. v. 18." In the expression 
 ■which he commanded them not, Rosen- 
 miiller notes a /jeiuoic of frequent occurrence, 
 meaning " which He forbade." 
 
 Ver. 2. Fire from the LORD.— Plainly a 
 miraculous fire as that which consumed the sac- 
 rifice (ix. 24). It did not consume their bodies, 
 or even their clothes (ver. 5), and it must have 
 been by an inadvertence that Lange says: "If 
 they came thus strongly excited with their 
 glowing fire into the half darkness of the sanc- 
 tuary, they may have set themselves a-fire, by 
 which they were destroyed." 
 
 The severity of this judgment may be com- 
 pared with that upou Uzza (2 Sam. vi. 7 ; 1 
 Chron. xiii. 10), upon the Sabbath-breaker 
 (Num. xv. 32-36), or in the New Testament with 
 that upon Anania-s and Sapphira. In all these 
 cases the punishment was not determined so 
 much by the aggravation of the offence itself as 
 by the necessity of vindicating God's majesty 
 and by a signal judgment on the first occasion, 
 preventing a repetition of the offence. In such 
 cases it is very necessary to separate the tem- 
 poral from the thought of eternal punishment. 
 
CHAP. X. 1-20. 
 
 83 
 
 Philo (as quoted by Calmet) undoubtedly pushes 
 this too far when he says: "The priests Nadab 
 and Abihu died that they might live, receiving 
 an incorruptible for their mortal life, and pass- 
 ing from creatures to their Creator;" but yet 
 we may not argue from temporal punishment to 
 eternal doom, and the recollection of this may 
 often serve to remove much of the inscrutable- 
 ness of the Divine. judgments. 
 
 Ver. 3. This it is that the LORD spake 
 — not in precisely these words, but again and 
 again in their substance. See Ex. xxix. 44; 
 xix. 22 ; Lev. viii. 33. Yet the very words may 
 have been spoken, although not recorded, as in 
 Ex. xxxiii. 12. Priests are continually desig- 
 nated as those that "come nigh" to God (e.g. 
 Ezek. xlii. 13). — I will be sanctified. — Comp. 
 Ex. xix. 4, 5. " The law of the sanctuary is 
 proclaimed to mean: that all approach to Jeho- 
 vah of those who draw near to Him, of the 
 priests in the holy acts of sacrifice, has the pur- 
 pose of showing forth Jehovah in His holiness, 
 !. e. in His pure and strict and all-folly-abhor- 
 ring personality; and this hallowing of His 
 name in highest solitude should have the result 
 of revealing Him before all the people in His 
 majesty, in the glory of His manifestation. The 
 pure and brilliant exterior of the Cultus depends 
 in its puriiy and chasteness upon the most per- 
 fect interior purity and truth. But when Moses 
 applies this law to the present mishap, it ex- 
 presses the truth that it is fulfilled not only in 
 the pure service of God of good priests, but also 
 in the unclean service of evil priests. Should 
 these, for example, bring before the Lord, in 
 passion or excitement, strange fire, fire of the 
 intoxication of extravagance, fire of fanaticism, 
 they should be seized and consumed by that fire 
 changed, as it were, into the fire of the judgment 
 of Jehovah ; and also by such judgments on such 
 priests Jehovah should be glorified before all 
 His people — as it has always clearly been, espe- 
 cially to-day. How many a Protestant zealot 
 has screamed himself dead in the sanctuary ! 
 But the mediaeval priests began to burn them- 
 selves when they kindled the flames of the pyres." 
 Lange. 
 
 Aaron held his peace means not only that 
 he abstained from the customary wails and cries 
 of the mourner; but that he uttered no murmur 
 against the judgment of God, or remonstrance 
 against the law as set forth by Moses. This 
 may perhaps have been made easier to him by 
 the stunning effect of so great and sudden a 
 bereavement. 
 
 Ver. 4. The sons of Uzziel. — From Ex. vi. 
 18 it would appear that Uzziel was the youngest 
 of Aaron's three uncles. Brethren is used, as 
 so frequently in Scripture, in the sense of kins- 
 men. Elzaphan was the "chief" of his father's 
 house, Num. iii. 30. — From before the sanc- 
 tuary. — Notwithstanding the Jewish tradition 
 that they perished within the sanctuary, it ap- 
 pears'from this expression that the Divine judg- 
 ment fell upon them while they were still in the 
 court. " They buried the dead in their linen 
 coats: these priestly garments had been defiled 
 with the dead bodies, and were buried with 
 them. There is nothing else degrading in the 
 form of burial. The burial without the camp 
 
 was common for all corpses. The buriers were 
 also reminded that the dead were their breth- 
 ren." Lange. This was now the eighth day of 
 the mouth ; the Passover lamb was to be slain 
 on the 14th. Mishael and Elzaphan were there- 
 fore unable to keep the Passover on account of 
 their defilement by a dead body, for this lasted 
 seven days (Num. xix. 11-13). In view of these 
 facts Blunt suggests ( Undesigned Coincidences, I. 
 14) that it was the case of these Levites which 
 was considered and provided for by the law of 
 the Passover of the second mouth, Num. ix. 6-12. 
 
 Vers. 6, 7. All signs of mourning are forbid- 
 den to the priests. By a subsequent enactment 
 these were in all cases perpetually forbidden to 
 the high-priest (xxi. 10-12), but in moderation 
 allowed to the ordinary priests for those nearest 
 of kin (ib. 1-6). Here, however, they are abso- 
 lutely forbidden to both, doubtless because "any 
 manifestation of grief on account of the death 
 that had occurred would have indicated dissatis- 
 faction with the judgment of God" (Keil); "be- 
 cause, from their office, they were especially 
 concerned as consecrated priests in outwardly 
 
 maintaining the honor of Jehovah The 
 
 people, on the other hand, as not formally stand- 
 ing so near to Jehovah, were permitted to 
 bewail the burning which the Lord had 
 kindled" (Cook). 
 
 Uncover not your heads. — This is the 
 sense of the LXX. and Vulg., and means that 
 they were not to remove their priestly turbans, 
 as they were still to go directly on with their 
 priestly functions. The word means literally to 
 set free, and it may therefore have here the added 
 sense, "do not go about with your hair dishe- 
 velled, or flowing free and in disorder (xiii. 45)." 
 Keil. Both this and the rending of the clothes 
 were among the most common signs of mourning 
 among the Jews. 
 
 Lest wrath come upon all the people. — 
 They were to observe this precept not only for 
 their own sake — lest ye die — but also for the 
 people's. It has already been shown (iv. 3) that 
 the sin of the high-priest, as their theocratic 
 head, brought guilt upon the people, and in- 
 volved them in the consequent punishment ; in 
 this case emphatically it must do so, because 
 Aaron and his remaining sons were now the sole 
 appointed mediators with God, and any mark 
 of dissatisfaction with His judgments would 
 have placed them in an attitude of opposition to 
 God. 
 
 Though the priests might not turn aside from 
 their sacred functions, yet Nadab and Abihu 
 were not to go unmourned. The whole house 
 of Israel were to bewail the burning — not 
 indeed as murmuring against the Divine judg- 
 ment, but yet as recognizing that a sad calamity 
 had befallen them. 
 
 Ver. 7. Ye shall not go out — viz.: for the 
 purpose of accompanying the remains of the 
 slain priests to their grave, and in any way 
 ceasing from their sacred functions on their ac- 
 count. A like command is made of perpetual 
 obligation upon the high-priest in xxi. 12. The 
 reason is given — for the anointing oil of the 
 LORD is upon you; consecrated wholly to 
 His service, they might not turn aside from it 
 for any purpose. Comp. Matt. viii. 22. 
 
84 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Ver. 8. Spake unto Aaron.— Either through 
 Moses (see Textual note 6); or else Aaron, being 
 now fully constituted high-priest, and having 
 shown his submission in what had just occurred, 
 was made directly the recipient of a Divine com- 
 munication concerning the duties of the priests. 
 
 Vers. 9-11. Strong drink. — Ileb. "Otf used 
 apparently in Num. xxviii. 7 as a synonym for 
 wine, but generally taken for an intoxicating 
 drink prepared from grain or honey, or espe- 
 cially from palms. The prohibition of wine and 
 strong drink to the priests is only in connection 
 with their service in the tabernacle. For the 
 present this must have amounted to an almost 
 absolute prohibition, as the service of Aaron and 
 his two sons could have been little less than con- 
 tinuous; but as the priesthood multiplied, of 
 course the time of service for each of them was 
 reduced. The connection of this precept with 
 what goes before and what follows seems almost 
 necessarily to imply that it was called forth by 
 some violation of it on the part of Nadab and 
 Abihu. This supposition, Lange says, "is made 
 probable by the otherwise unexplained command 
 here given, and thus indeed the outward strange 
 fire was only the symbol of the inner strange fire 
 of wine-produced enthusiasm, which so often can 
 mingle itself in pious and animated speeches and 
 poems, by which indeed holy and unholy things 
 are confused." The object of the command is 
 expressed in vers. 10, 11: that the mind of the 
 priests might be clear in the exercise of their 
 own duties, and in the instruction of the people 
 in regard to theirs. 
 
 Vers. 12-15. The oblation that remaineth 
 
 from the sacrifices of the day mentioned in ix. 
 17. Eat it in a holy place — as has been so 
 often before commanded in regard to those things 
 which might be eaten only by the priests — not in 
 the sanctuary, but in a place provided for the 
 purpose in the court — LXX. : h t6-l> dylu. Af- 
 ter this followed the holy meal upon the priests' 
 portion of the peace offerings (vers. 14, 15), eat- 
 en with their families without the court, in any 
 clean place. 
 
 Vers. 16-18. The goat of the sin offering 
 
 had indeed been offered for the whole congrega- 
 tion (ix. 3), but its blood had not been brought 
 within the sanctuary. Under these circumstances 
 Moses emphatically declares, and Aaron tacitly 
 acknowledges, that its flesh should, under ordi- 
 nary circumstances, have been eaten by the 
 priests, instead of being burned. Origen cha- 
 racterizes it as being in consequence an imper- 
 fect sacrifice. This shows distinctly that the law 
 for the burning of the sin offering for the whole 
 congregation (iv. 19, 12) turned upon the treat- 
 ment of the blood, as Moses shows in ver. 18, and 
 not upon the fact that it was offered for all the 
 people. It is said that Moses was angry with 
 Eleazar and Ithamar, while Aaron is not 
 mentioned ; doubtless because the fault was with 
 them as the ordinary priests, to whom this duty 
 belonged, and not to the high-priest. Lange : 
 "Eleazar and Ithamar also, the two remaining 
 eons of Aaron, have apparently made an error in 
 form ; that is, they ought to have eaten this flesh 
 of the goat of the sin offering (not their own, but 
 that of the people) in a holy place as being a 
 
 most holy thing. This they had neglected; still 
 more, they had burnt the goat. But if they 
 would thus treat the sin goat of the people, as if 
 the ritual for the sin offering of bullocks was to 
 be applied, they ought also to have brought its 
 blood into the sanctuary; but they had not done 
 this, and thus had violated the ritual in two 
 ways" [i.e., in one or other of the two ways; 
 but as they had treated the blood exactly as they 
 were commanded, their fault consisted only in 
 the wrong treatment of the flesh]. " In other 
 words: since the blood had been poured out at 
 the altar in the court, they must also in conse- 
 quence eat the flesh of the sin offering, since it 
 was given them as a right from Jehovah, as a 
 recompense because they had as priests to bear 
 the misdeeds of the congregation, and to make 
 atonement before Jehovah. But at this reproach 
 of Moses, Aaron knew how to excuse himself anj 
 his sons. In the first place, his sons had done 
 their duty in regard to their own sin and burnt 
 offering. In the second place, this fearful acci- 
 dent had happened to him and them, and made 
 them incapable of eating. He appeals to feel- 
 ing: would it please Jehovah if he should eat in 
 such a frame of mind? This time Aaron has 
 conquered Moses. The first violation of the law 
 proceeded from gross disrespect of the law in 
 carnal conduct; this second violation proceeded 
 from a righteous spiritual elevation above the 
 letter which even Moses must allow." 
 
 Ver. 17. To bear the iniquity of the con- 
 gregation. — This expression, however difficult 
 it may be to define the exact limits of its mean- 
 ing, certainly makes two points clear: first, that 
 the eating of the flesh of the ordinary sin offering 
 by the priests was an essential part of its ritual; 
 and second, that the priests, in receiving the 
 sacrifice and undertaking to make expiation for 
 sins, did act in a mediatorial capacity. "The 
 very eating of the people's sin offering argued 
 the sins of the people were in some sort laid upon 
 the priests, to be taken away by them." Patrick. 
 This eating, however, does not constitute with 
 the sprinkling of the blood "a double atone- 
 menent," to which Lange rightly objects; but is 
 simply a lesser part of the one atonement of 
 which the blood was the more essential portion. 
 The office of the priests, receiving the victim at 
 the people's hands, was with it to make an atone- 
 ment or "covering" for the people's sins. 
 Having undertaken this, the responsibility for 
 those sins in a certain sense rested upon them; 
 they must bear the iniquity of the congre- 
 gation. — This was only possible to do by a strict 
 observance of the Divine appointment, since the 
 sacrifice could have no inherent efficacy. They 
 must both sprinkle the blood and eat the flesh. 
 Without the latter, "the sacrifice was imperfect 
 and the sin remained." Origen. 
 
 Ver. 19. In Aaron's excuse that "spiritual 
 elevation above the letter" which Lange has 
 noted becomes very plain. It is striking to find 
 this not only in the law, but in regard to the 
 very centre of the law, the sin sacrifice, and 
 that, too, in the very first moment of its insti- 
 tution. On Aaron's unfitness now to eat this 
 offering comp. Hos. ix. 4. 
 
 Ver. 20. He was content. — " Moses admit- 
 ted Aaron's plea, but it is not stated whether he 
 
CHAP. X. 1-20. 
 
 85 
 
 was conscious tbat he had himself spoken hastily 
 and now conceded the point at issue (as we find 
 him doing on another occasion in reference to 
 tbe settlement of the two tribes and a half. Num. 
 xxxii. 6), allowing that the priests had done 
 what was in itself right, as S. Augustin, the later 
 Targums, Kurtz, and others, interpret the pas- 
 sage; or whether he yielded out of sympathy 
 with Aaron's natural feelings. The latter alter- 
 native is perhaps the more probable one." 
 Clark. But neither alternative is necessary. 
 Both here and in the case cited from Numbers 
 (parallel to which also is Josh. xxii. 10-31) 
 Moses remonstrated against an apparent disre- 
 gard of the command of God ; he was appeased 
 when assured that no disregard was intended, 
 and that in this case the act was exceptional un- 
 der entirely exceptional circumstances. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. Self-chosen service (kfie~Ao6f>7]aneia, Col. ii. 23) 
 is displeasing to God, as a substitution of what 
 He has not commanded for what He has com- 
 manded. It is of the nature of rebellion and is 
 so regarded by Him. " The symbolical meaning 
 of this history is very deep and comprehensive. 
 Every gift to God, every sacrifice for Him, every 
 act of zeal in His service, however it might 
 otherwise outwardly be right, is displeasing to 
 the Lord so soon as the fire of self-denial ceases 
 to originate from the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. xiii. 3." 
 0. von Gerlach. 
 
 II. Nadab and Abihu were honored with being 
 "brought near" to God. and were the appointed 
 persons to burn incense in the proper way. 
 They perverted their office and abused their pri- 
 vilege, and they perished. So generally God's 
 gifts perverted work harm to him who perverts 
 them, and this harm is intensified in proportion 
 to the greatness of tbe gift, 2 Cor. ii. lii. 
 
 III. Hence comes the general principle that 
 religious responsibility is proportioned to reli- 
 gious privilege (ver. 3) — a principle often in- 
 sisted upon in our Lord's teaching. 
 
 IV. Under the old covenant, death, a9 the fruit 
 of sin, brought defilement by its touch. Even 
 father and brothers might not touch the dead 
 bodies of the fallen, lest they should be defiled. 
 Under the new covenant, sin has been conquered 
 by Him who knew no sin, and death by Him who 
 rose from the grave. "No longer, therefore, 
 under the Gospel, is death an unclean thing. 
 "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord," 
 Rev. xiv. 13. The Levitical law, by its treatment 
 of death ami burial, shows us our condition by 
 nature in contrast with the blessings given by 
 Him who is "the Resurrection and the Life." 
 Wordsworth. 
 
 V. It was required of the Levitical priests that 
 in their service in the sanctuary they should 
 drink neither wine nor strong drink. Similarly 
 St. Paul provides (1 Tim. Hi. 2, 8) that the 
 Christian ministry must be "not given to wine," 
 and when requiring it for his infirmities, should 
 use it moderately (ib. v. 23). Theodoret. The 
 service of God must be "a reasonable service," 
 with faculties unimpaired, and not disturbed by 
 artificial stimulants. 
 
 VI. When the priests are said (ver. 17) to 
 
 bear the iniquity of the congregation, the 
 
 temporary and typical character of the Levitical 
 system is at once manifest. It was plainly im- 
 possible for men, who yet had to offer sacrifices 
 for their own sins, to bear the sins of others, and 
 so present them as holy before God, except as 
 they represented something else, viz.: the great 
 High Priest who should atone for the sin of the 
 world. 
 
 VII. The burning, instead of eating, the flesh 
 of the sin offering, finally acquiesced in by 
 Moses, is instructive doctrinally as showing eveu 
 in the most rigid part of the Levitical law, "a 
 certain freedom in the arrangement of the minor 
 details, while the substance of the rules is kept 
 inviolate. It is one of the examples we occa- 
 sionally meet of a distinction being judiciously 
 and honestly made between the letter and the 
 spirit of a law." Murphy. Under the Old Tes- 
 tament as under the New, God desires "mercy 
 and not sacrifice" (Hos. vi. 6; Matt. ix. 13; 
 xii. 7). 
 
 HOJIILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 In this chapter, instead of the expected festi- 
 vities consequent upon the inauguration of the 
 new priesthood, we find a fearful judgment; so 
 the sin of man ever comes in to mar the good 
 work of God and turn to wormwood His cup of 
 blessing. By this fearful example all will-wor- 
 ship is shown to be displeasing — all attempt to 
 serve God in opposition to the ways of His ap- 
 pointment. " They also offer a strange fire, who 
 offer any thing of their own to God without truly 
 and humbly acknowledging that they have re- 
 ceived all from God." Estius. "When we bring 
 zeal without knowledge, misconceits of faith, 
 carnal affections, the devices of our will-wor- 
 ship, superstitious devotions into God's service, 
 we bring common fire to His altar. These flames 
 were never of His kindling; He hates both al- 
 tar, fire, priest, and sacrifice." Bp. Hall. 
 
 The greatness of the punishment was in pro- 
 portion to the appointed nearness to God of 
 those who had offended. Privilege always 
 brings responsibility. The judgment on Chora- 
 zin and Bethsaida must be heavier than upon 
 Sodom and Gomorrha. Compare Heb. ii. 3 ; 
 xii. 25. 
 
 God may use the same means for showing His 
 love and His anger. He consumed the sacrifice 
 by fire ; He slew Nadab and Abihu by fire. Tbe 
 result, to us of His action depends on our attitude 
 towards Him. The same Gospel is a "savor of 
 life unto life" and of "death unto death." 
 Again : He often uses for man's punishment the 
 very instrument of man's sin; these men sinned 
 by fire and perished by fire ; so also the compa- 
 nions of Korah, Num. xvi. 35. So under the 
 laws of His Providence are men's passions made 
 the means of punishing them, and often the ob- 
 jects of unlawful ambition or desire, when at- 
 tained, become the very scourges of those who 
 sought them. 
 
 Aaron held his peace, as the righteous must 
 needs do before the judgments of God, however 
 distressing. See Job i. 22; Ps. xxxix. 9. There 
 can be no hope and no comfort in the world if we 
 may rightfully murmur at the doings of "the 
 Judge of all the earth." 
 
LEVITICUS. 
 
 The touch of the dead communicated defile- 
 ment, but the touch of the Giver of life caused 
 him who was borne out upon the bier to arise 
 (Luke vii. 14), and the damsel who slept in 
 death to arise and walk (Mark v. 42). Words- 
 worth. Thus does the Antitype excel the type. 
 
 Aaron and his surviving sons might not leave 
 the sanctuary to mourn those who had fallen, but 
 all Israel might bewail them; so is the immedi- 
 ate service of God more pressing than all else ; 
 what may be right at another time, or to other 
 persons, must be foregone by those who have a 
 duty to God with which it interferes. His ser- 
 vice is the prime object to which all other things 
 must conform themselves. 
 
 The priests' fervor is not to come of wine or 
 strong drink. In the service of God they who 
 
 draw near to Him have need of all the calmness 
 and clearness of their minds, lest they do Him 
 dishonor while they profess to serve Him. The 
 excitement of worship, which comes of the abuse 
 of His gifts, though showing itself in eloquence 
 or in more than natural zeal, is not pleasing to 
 Him. 
 
 From the fault of the priests in not eating the 
 flesh of the sin offering, Theodoret thus reasons 
 of the duty of the Christian minister : " Hence we 
 learn that we who eat of those things which are 
 offered by the people, and do not live according 
 to the law, nor diligently pray to God for them, 
 will bring down punishment from God;" and 
 Origen says that it behooves the priest first to 
 ma ke himself acceptable to God before he presumes 
 to seek from Him acceptance for the people. 
 
 PART THIRD. THE LAWS OF PURITY". 
 
 Chapters XI. — XV. 
 
 " The Preliminary Conditions of Sacrifice : the Typical Cleanness 
 and Purifying." — Lange. 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE ON CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS— AND ON 
 DEFILEMENT BY CONTACT. 
 
 There has been no little debate as to the origin 
 and ground of the distinction between clean and 
 unclean animals. Such a question can only be 
 settled historically. In Gen. vii. 2 Noah is di- 
 rected to take into the ark "of every clean beast 
 by sevens, the male and his female," while "of 
 beasts that are not clean by two, the male and 
 his female." There was then already a recog- 
 nized distinction, and this distinction had no- 
 thing to do with the use of animal food, since 
 this had not yet been allowed to man. After the 
 flood, when animal food was given to man (Gen. 
 ix. 3), it was given without limitation. ''Every 
 moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; 
 even as the green herb have I given you all 
 things." It may therefore be confidently af- 
 firmed that this distinction did not have its ori- 
 gin and ground in the suitableness or unsuitable- 
 ness of different kinds of animal food, as has 
 been contended by many. Neither could it pos- 
 sibly have been founded in any considerations 
 peculiar to the chosen people, since it is here 
 found existing so many ages before the call of 
 Abraham. Immediately after the flood, how- 
 ever, we have a practical application of the dis- 
 tinction which seems to mark its object with suf- 
 ficient plainness: "Noah builded an altar unto 
 
 the Lord ; and took of every clean beast, and 
 of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings 
 on the altar" (Gen. viii. 20). The original dis- 
 tinction must therefore be held to have been be- 
 tween animals fit and unfit for sacrifice (comp. 
 Calvin in Lev. xi. 1). On what ground the se- 
 lection was originally made for sacrifice is wholly 
 unknown ; but it is altogether probable that the 
 same kind of animals which were "clean" in 
 the time of Noah were included in the list of the 
 clean under the Levitical law. Many of the lat- 
 ter, however, were not allowable for sacrifice un- 
 der the same law, nor is it likely that they ever 
 were; on the other hand, all were admissible for 
 food in Noah's time, while under the Levitical 
 law many are forbidden. While, therefore, the 
 original distinction must be sought in sacrificial 
 use, it is plain that the details of this distinction 
 are largely modified under the Levitical law pre- 
 scribing the animals that may be allowed for 
 food. 
 
 When inquiry is now made as to the grounds 
 of this modification, the only reason given in the 
 law itself is comprehensive (Lev. xi. 43-47; xx. 
 24-20; Deut. xiv. 21): "For I am the Loed your 
 God ; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and 
 ye shall be holy ; for I am holy." " I am tha 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. 
 
 87 
 
 Lord your God, which have separated you from 
 other people." This points plainly to the sepa- 
 ration of the Israelites by their prescribed laws 
 of food from other nations ; and it is indisputa- 
 ble that the effect of these laws was to place al- 
 most insurmountable impediments in the way of 
 familiar social intercourse between the Israelites 
 and the surrounding heathen. When this sepa- 
 ration was to be broken down in the Christian 
 Church, an intimation to that effect could not be 
 more effectively conveyed than by the vision of 
 St. Peter of a sheet let down "wherein were all 
 manner of four-footed beasts, and .creeping 
 things, and fowls of the air," with the com- 
 mand, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat" (Acts x. 
 13). The effectiveness of the separation, how- 
 ever, is to be sought in the details, not in 
 the general character of the distinction, as it 
 is now well known that the ordinary diet of the 
 Egyptians and other nations of antiquity was 
 substantially the same with that of the Israel- 
 ites. Various reasons given by the fathers and 
 others, with replies showing their fallacy, may 
 be found in Spencer, de Ug. Ilebr. I. c. vii., \ 1, 
 what he considers the true reasons (seven in 
 number) being given in the following section. 
 Comp. also Calvin in Lev. xi. 1. 
 
 It is to be observed that the distinction of 
 clean and unclean animals has place only at 
 their death. All living animals were alike clean, 
 and the Hebrew had no scruple in handling the 
 living ass or even the dog. The lion and the 
 eagle, too, as has been well observed by Clark, 
 were used in the most exalted symbolism of pro- 
 phetic imagery. But as soon as the animals 
 were dead, a question as to their cleanness 
 arose; this depended on two points: a) the 
 manner of the animal's death; and b) the na- 
 ture of the animal itself. All animals whatever 
 which died of themselves were unclean to the 
 Israelites, although they might be given or sold 
 to "strangers" (Deut. xiv. 21), and the touch 
 of their carcasses communicated defilement 
 (Lev. xi. 39, 40). This then was one broad di-t- 
 tinction of the law, and was evidently based 
 upon the fact that from such animals the blood 
 had not been withdrawn. 
 
 But a difference is further made between ani- 
 mals, even when properly slaughtered. In a 
 very general way, the animals allowed are such 
 as have been generally recognized among all 
 nations and in all ages as most suitably forming 
 the staple of animal food ; yet the law cannot 
 be considered as founded upon hygienic or any 
 other principles of universal application, since 
 no such distinction was recognized in the grant 
 to Noah. Moreover, the obligation of its obser- 
 vance was expressly declared to have been abro- 
 gated by the council at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 
 The distinction was therefore temporary, and 
 peculiar to the chosen people. Its main object, 
 as already shown, was to keep them a separate 
 people, and it is invested with the solemnity of 
 a religious observance. In providing regula- 
 tions for this purpose, other objects were doubt- 
 less incidentally regarded, such as laws of health, 
 elc, some of which are apparent upon the sur- 
 face, while others lie hidden in our ignorance 
 of local customs and circumstances. 
 
 Before closing this note it is worthy of remark 
 that the dualistio notions which formed the basis 
 of the distinction between clean and unclean 
 animals among the Persians were absolutely 
 contradicted by the theology of the Israelites. 
 Those animals were clean among the Parsees 
 which were believed to have been created by 
 Ormuzd, while those which proceeded from tho 
 evil principle, Ahriman, were unclean. The 
 Hebrews, on the contrary, were most emphati- 
 cally taught to refer the origin of all things to 
 Jehovah, and however absolute might be the 
 distinction among animals, it was yet a distinc- 
 tion between the various works of the one Cre- 
 ator. 
 
 The general principles of determination of 
 clean animals were the same among the Israel- 
 ites as among other ancient nations; in quadru- 
 peds, the formation of the foot and the method 
 of mastication and digestion; among birds, the 
 rejection as unclean of birds of prey ; and among 
 fish, the obvious possession of fius and scales. 
 All these marks of distinction in the Levitical 
 law are wisely and even necessarily made on 
 the basis of popular observation and belief, not 
 on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the 
 people would have been continually liable to 
 error. Scientifically, the camel would be said 
 to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew 
 the cud. But laws for popular use must neces- 
 sarily employ terms as they are popularly un- 
 derstood. These matters are often referred to 
 as scientific errors ; whereas they were simply 
 descriptions, necessarily popular, for the under- 
 standing and enforcement of the law. 
 
 Defilement by contact comes forward very 
 prominently in this chapter, as it is also fre- 
 quently mentioned elsewhere. It is not strange 
 that in a law whose educational purpose is 
 everywhere so plain, this most effective symbol- 
 ism should hold a place, and the contaminating 
 effect of converse with evil be thus impressed 
 upon this people in their spiritual infancy. It 
 thus has its part with all other precepts of cere- 
 monial cleanness in working out the great spi- 
 ritual purposes of the law. But beyond this, 
 there is here involved the great truth, but im- 
 perfectly revealed under the old dispensation, 
 that the body, as well as the soul, has its part 
 in the relations between God arid man. Tho 
 body, as well as the soul, was a sufferer by the 
 primeval sentence upon sin, and the body, as 
 well as the soul, has part in the redemption of 
 Christ, and awaits the resurrection of the just. 
 The ascetic notions of the niedireval ages re- 
 garded the body as evil in a sense entirely 
 incompatible with the representations of Scrip- 
 ture. For not merely is the body the handmaid 
 of the soul, and the necessary instrument of tho 
 soul's action, but the service of the body as well 
 as the soul is recognized in the New Testament 
 (e. g., Rom. xii. 1) as a Christian duty. On its 
 negative side, at least, this truth was taught 
 under the old dispensation by the many laws of 
 bodily purity, the series of which begins in this 
 chapter. The laws of impurity from physical 
 contact stand as an appendix to the laws of food 
 and as an introduction to the other laws of 
 purity, and form the connecting link between 
 them. 
 
LEVITICUS. 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 
 Laws of Clean and Unclean Food. 
 
 "The Cleanness of the Sacrifice — or the Contrast of the Clean and Unclean Animals" — Lange. 
 
 Chap. XI. 1-47. 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto 
 the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts [animals 1 ] "which ye shall eat 
 
 3 among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is 
 cloven footed [and completely separates the hoof 2 ], and cheweth the cud, among 
 
 4 the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that 
 chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth 
 
 5 the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the coney, 3 be- 
 cause he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 
 
 6 Aud the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean 
 
 7 unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed [and 
 completely separates the hoof 4 ], yet he cheweth not the cud ; he is unclean to you. 
 
 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch ; they are un- 
 clean to you. 
 
 9 B These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters : whatsoever hath fins and scales 
 
 10 in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have 
 not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, 
 and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto 
 
 11 you: they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, 
 
 12 but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 6 Whatsoever hath no fins nor 
 scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 
 
 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they 
 shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, 7 and the ossifrage, 8 and the 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 2. rmn is a different ■word from nOHS in the followiDg clause, and the difference should be recognized in 
 
 t t ■• : 
 
 the translation, as it is in the Semitic versions. The former is the more general term, the latter (comp. Gen. i. 24) refers to 
 the quadrupeds included in this section (vera. 1-S) iu contradistinction from birds ami reptiles. 
 
 2 Ver. 3. PD"^D pDIJ PVDt&'l- The idea is that of not merely partially (like the camel), but completely dividing 
 the hoof. The Sam., LXX., Syr. and nine MSS. make this still more indefinite by inserting ^pi\y=two before the last 
 
 word. 
 
 3 Ver. 5. |2tyrb The animal is indicated hero as one that chews the cud (or appears to do so), in Vs. civ. IS; Prov. 
 
 I T T — 
 
 xxx. 26, as living in the rocks, and in the latter as being very weak. It occurs elsewhere only in the parallel place. Bent, 
 xiv. 7. Here the LXX. renders it fiaowovs, Aq. Aayiuos; in Dent. xiv. 7, the LXX. has ^oipoypv\Xto<;^briitty orrotiaZ, 
 ■which is adopted by the Vulg. in both places. The Sam. translates it Yabr y the Hyrax Syriacus, which is said to be st 11 
 called tsofwn in Southern Arahia. Furstbays: "The Targ. points to the same animal when it translates NTltt, NODD. 
 
 t: - t : - 
 NT3l0 (leaper) since the Voir goes by leaps." The Duke of Argyle (Reign of Law, p. 264) speaks of a specimen of it iu the 
 
 Zoological Gardens, and states that in the structure of the teeth and the foot it is assimilated to the rhinoceros. Cuvier 
 Classed it with the pachyderms. The Rabbins understood it to be a rabbit, and were followed by Luther and the A. V. in 
 the old word Coney. Bocbart (Hieroz. Lib. III., c. 33 > understands it of the Jerboa or bear-mouse, and so Geseniua, Geddes 
 and others. Although the word in the A. V. is certainly wrong, yet as it is obsolete, it seems unnecessary to make a change 
 which could only he either to the Heb. word, or to the scientific name. 
 
 * Ver. 7. The construction is the Bame as in ver. 3. See note 2 . 
 
 6 Ver. 9. The Sam , one MS., the LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction ). 
 
 • Ver. 12. The same, with fourteen MSS., here prefix the conjunction. 
 
 7 Ver. 13. 1£?J is uuiformly translated eagle in the A. V., dero? in the LXX., aud aquila in the Vulg. Kalisch says 
 
 this " is beyond a doubt." The same meaning is given by Fiirst and Gesenins, although both would include also the sense 
 of vulture. Clark's proposed emendation, the great mlture, seems therefore unnecessary. 
 
 8 Ver. 13. D*^2 JTJTV- Both, by preponderance of authority, species of eagles, and the former sufficiently welt 
 
 T : t 
 described l-y omfrage ; the latter Bpeciea is not certainly identified, the word occurring only here and in tho parallel, Dent, 
 xiv. 12. The LXX. renders aAiai€T09=8ett eagle. Fiirst prefers Valeria, the black eagle. Kalisch prefers the sense vulture. 
 Gesen. (Thceaur.;, black eagle. 
 
CHAP. XI. 1-47. 89 
 
 14, 15 ospray, 8 and the vulture, 9 and the kite 10 after his kind; "every raven after his 
 
 16 kind; and the owl [ostrich 12 ], and the night hawk [owl 13 ], and the cuckow [gull 1 *], 
 
 17 and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, 15 and the cormorant, and the great 
 18, 19 owl, 16 and the swan, 17 and the pelican, and the gier eagle [vulture 18 ], and the 
 
 stork, 19 the" heron 21 after her kind, and the lapwing [hoopoe 1 ' 2 ], and the bat. 
 
 20 All 11 fowls that creep [all winged creeping things 23 ], going upon all four, shall he 
 
 21 an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing 
 that goeth upon all four, which have 24 legs above their feet, to leap withal 15 upon 
 
 22 the earth ; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald 
 locust 26 after his kind, and the beetle 26 after his kind, and the grasshopper after his 
 
 23 kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abo- 
 
 9 Ver. 14. nXI, a word, d*. \4y. In the parallel passage, Dent. xiv. 13, it is HSO- Its etymology indicates a rave- 
 
 T T T T 
 
 nous bird of swift flight. LXX. yv\p=v»Uurc t Vulg. mHvus=kite. Bochart considers it a species of hawk or falcon. So 
 Kalisch. In Deut. xiv. 13 there is mentioned also iT*L making twenty-one varieties of birds; but that word in Deut. is 
 
 T ' 
 
 omitted by the Sam. and fonr MSS. 
 
 10 Ver. 14. 7VN is only to be identified by the fact that it here stands for the name of a class — after his kind, and that 
 
 T - 
 
 in Job xxriii. 7 it is spoken of for its great keenness of sight. The LXX renders here kite, in Deut, and Job vulture. Clark 
 makes it milrui regalia. 
 
 11 Ver. 15 and ver. 20. The 8am., many MSS. and versions prefix the conjunction. 
 
 12 Ver. 16. n^i**'"' AS- LXX. arpovdos. The word is uniformly rendered owl in the text of the A. V. ; but in the 
 
 marg. of Job xxx. 29; Isa, xiii. 21; xxxiv. 13; xliii. 20,it is rendered ostrich in accordance with the Targ., LXX., Vulg. 
 
 1 ., and there can be no doubt that this is the true sense. The fem. stands for the 
 Rosen.: " Vox, j"Y3, apposita est ex more quodam Orientuliuiu, qui nomina pater ^ mater, filius, jilia, animation! qnorundam 
 
 nominihns prrcfiirere solent sine respectu aetata ot sexna.' 1 Bochart, however, thinks it means distinctively the female. 
 
 1 3 Ver. lti. DOnn (.from DOn» to do violence), interpreted by Bocbar;, and others on bis authority, of the male 
 
 t : - - t 
 
 ostrich; but this is now generally rejected. The Targ. Onk. has XVV, and Targ. Jems. {< J 1*SL3n=s«'a"o?o. Others 
 
 t • t ■ : - 
 
 (Knobel i consider it the cuckoo ; but the rendering of the LXX. and Vulg., oicl, is now adopted more generally thanai 
 
 h Ver. 10. ^inty occurs only here and in Deut. xiv. 10. Knobel understands it of a speciet, of hawk trained in i 
 
 for bunting gazelles, etc. ; but most other interpreters understand it of a sea bird, whether the stormy petrel (Bochart) or 
 more generally the sea gull alter the Vulg. mid LXX. Kdpos. 
 
 15 Ver. 17. D13- There seems no sufficient reason to question the accuracy of the A. V., which is substantially that 
 of the ancient versions. Tristram identifies it with the Athene meridionals common in Syria. Bochart, however, would 
 render Pelican, and Rigffs Aight-hawk. 
 
 1G Ver. 17. The A, V. is probably right. The I.W., Vulg. and Targ. Onk. have Ibis, which seems to have arisen from 
 a misplacement of the words of the text, rather than from a different translation of c Hty'j\ They aro followed bj B 
 
 and others. 
 
 17 Ver. IS. n!3tyjj"V The same word i ua d, rer, 30, for mole (probably chameleon): here it refers to a bird, and it is 
 
 likely that this is the won] for which This stands in the LXX. and Vulg. But it is not probable thnt the Israelites would 
 liiivc iMini' min'ii in conn r_-t with the n 'is. The preponderance of authority feee Fiirst) is for si me varii ty of owl, aci ord- 
 ing to the < lhald., Syr. and Sum. ; but there dues not appear to be sufficient certainty to warrant a change in the I 
 the A. V, 
 
 W Ver. IS. On*V LXX. rendering doubtful. The best authorities agree that some species of vulture is meant 
 
 T T 
 
 senilis (thesaur.) would make it a very small species, of the size of a crow. Others consider it most probably the 
 Egyptian vulture, Ne/q pterus. Perhaps something of this kind was meant by gier eagle, Kul. ■ I 
 
 only by the ordi r of the birds, would translate pelican. 
 
 m Ver. 19. ni'On, LXX., Aq., Symm., TneoiL, heron, but LXX. in Job xxxix. 13 dork. Either bird answers well 
 
 T * ~: 
 
 1 enough to the etymology and to the passages when it occurs, and stnrk is as likely to be right as heron. 
 
 -■' \ i (9. ii Sam. and sixteen DISS, prefix the conjunction which is found in the parallel place in Pent. For tho 
 wanl ol ii Knobel would connect the word with the preceding as an adjective ; but it seems better to consider it as au acci- 
 d otal omission. 
 
 - 1 \ er. 19. ("13jX. The meaning of the rendering in Targ. Onk. is unknown, Syr. retains the Heb. word, LXX. \apa- 
 t t— : 
 Bptos, a bird chiefly remarkable for its greediness. The Heb. etymology is uncertain. Clark identifies it with tho 
 
 licnemus). Fiirst defines it r i Gesen, Bochart, following the etymology of the B 
 
 <■ if the angry bird, and considers it some species of eagle. It Beems probable that the A. V. is wrong, but difficult to 
 
 -ritute. 
 — Ver. 19. r\£T^~b The bird intended has not been certainly identified; but the authority of the LXX., eiroiroj and 
 
 Vulg., npupa, is here followed. The Arab, adopts it, and it is followed by Riggs. Bochart would render mountain cock 
 after the Cliold. 
 
 23 Ver. 20. niJ'H V*^U* /i). The idea of fowls that creep is not less strange and grotesque in Heb. than in English. 
 The word V^E? by its etymology means those creatures that multiply abundantly, swarm, whence it came to bo applied 
 
 to very much the same creatures as wo mean by vermin. It can hardly be better exprepsed than by creeping things. 
 (■oilier, upon all four does not nece&sarilj mean having just lour feet, but going with the body in a horizon! 
 
 tion. j 
 
 -* Ver. 21. For the X"? of the text the I.'n has 1 7, and so the 8am. and many MSS. So it must necessarily be under- 
 stood, as ii [s in the versions. 
 
 » Ver. 21. For ?H3 the Sam. and thirty-seven MSS. have DH3. 
 
 I •• T "T 
 
 * Ver. 22. Beetle is certainly wrong; for this, like the rest, must have been one of the leaping in- iro no 
 
 means of identifying these four varieties. Each of them stands for a class "after his kind." Two of them, the" D1T7D ;i,1,i 
 
 the /J^n, do not occur elsewhere. The others ore of frequent occurrence, and are uniformly translated in the A. V. tho 
 
 first locust, the la=t grasshopper. It would pr bably be better in the other cases to follow the example of the older English 
 and most modern versions in givi-ig simply the Hebrew names without attempting transla.iou. 
 
 21 
 
90 LEVITICUS. 
 
 24 ruination unto you. And for these ye shall be unclean : "whosoever toucheth the 
 
 25 carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. And whosoever beareth ought of 
 the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, aud be uucleau until the even. 
 
 26 TJie carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, 
 nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you : every one that toucheth them 27 shall be 
 
 27 unclean. And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beastV 7a that 
 go on all four, those are unclean unto you : whoso toucheth their carcase shall be 
 
 28 unclean until the even. And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his 
 clothes, and be unclean until the even : they are unclean unto you. 
 
 29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon 
 the earth ; the weasel, 28 and the mouse, and the tortoise [the great lizard 29 ] after 
 
 30 his kind, and the ferret [gecko 30 ], and the chameleon [strong lizard 31 ], and the 
 lizard [climbing lizard 32 ], and the snail [lizard 33 ], and the mole [chameleon 34 ]. 
 
 31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when 
 
 32 they be dead, shall be unclean until the even. And upon whatsoever any of them, 
 when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel [thing 35 ] 
 of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel [thing 35 ] it be, wherein 
 [wherewith 35 ] any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean 
 
 33 until the even ; so it shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessel, whereinto any 
 
 34 of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; aud ye shall break it. Of 
 all meat [food" 6 ] which may be eaten, that on which such [am. such 3 ' 1 ] water cometh 
 shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be 
 
 Co unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be 
 unclean ; ivhether it be oven, or ranges 38 for pots, they shall be broken down : for 
 
 36 they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. Nevertheless a fountain 39 or pit, 
 wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which 40 toucheth their 
 
 27 Ver. 2G. Six MSS. and the LXX. specify, what is sufficiently plain, their carcases. ** Ver. 27. See note 1 on ver. 2. 
 
 28 Ver. 29. "ntl occurs nowhere else. The A. V. seems justified in following the LXX. and Targ., although Bochart 
 
 would render mole* which is still called Chuld bv the Araba. 
 
 29 Ver. 29. 2¥, a word iu this sense, air. Aty. There seems no doubt that this and all the names following in ver. 30 
 
 T 
 
 indicate various species of lizard. So Rigg*. This particular one is called by the LXX. 6 icpoKo'SuAos 6 ^epo-aio9='anrf 
 Crocodile, and so St. Jerome. Bochart considers it a kind of large lizard abounding iu J^yria, often two feet long. Tiistain 
 identifies it with the ttromasttj: tyii.ijjes. The translation proposed by Clark, the great lizard, is probably as good as can 
 
 be had. . 
 
 30 Ver. 30. HpJS* in this sense only here. LXX. u.vydAr)=$hrcw mouse ; Onk. *j*=hedr/e hog; the other oriental ver- 
 
 Itt— : _ -T 
 
 sions by vaMous names of lizard. Almost all the authorities concur in making it some variety of lizard. Knobel is cer- 
 tainly wrong in ideniif- ing it with the Lacerta NUotica, an animal lour feet long. Fiirst only so far defines it as "a reptile 
 with a long narrow neck." The translation of Itosentuuller, lacerta gecko, Beenis as probable as any. 
 
 81 Ver. 30. fl3, a word of frequent occurrence for strength, power, but as a name of an animal occurring only here. 
 
 The etvmology seems to indicate a characteristic of strength (although Furst makes it the sh'my), and the connection, 
 Borne variety of lizard. The translation chameleon is derived from the LXX., and is probably wrong. Keil 6hows that Kuo- 
 LM (followed by Clark) is in error in translating by frog. The uncertainly is !■• • ;_reat to substitute another word lor that 
 of the A. V., which yet must be changed, because the last name belongs to the chameleon. The etymology simply is there- 
 fore indicated, , 
 
 W Ver. 30. HNDa another word, an. Aty. LXX. KaAap^TT]?, Vulg. stellio. Knobel makes it a crawliug, and Fuerst a 
 t t : 
 climbing lizard. The latter is adopted as a probable sense in order to avoid confusion in the test. 
 
 33 Ver. 30. Dorii a^o a7r - ^y. LXX. o~avpa, Vulg. lacerta, and so also the Syr. The A. V. comes from the Targ. 
 
 Jens, and Rabbinical authorities. Otherwise there is a general agreement with Borhart that it should be rendered 
 lizard 
 
 34 Ver. 30. n*0UO.n has already occurred, ver. 18, as the name of a bird. Here it is some variety of lizard, und from 
 
 v t : • 
 its etymology — Q£J 'J, to breathe, to draw in air — there is a good degree of unanimity in understanding it of the chameleon, 
 
 - T 
 
 either as inflating itself, or as popularly supposed to livo on air. 
 
 35 Ver. 32. ,l 73 is evidently here used, as in Ex. xxii. 6 (7), in its most comprehensive Beuse. It is only limited by 
 the clause wherewith any work is done. This change of course makes it necessary to translate DH3, where- 
 
 V T 
 
 vith. instead of wlierein. 
 
 38 Ver. 34. 73X means any kind of food, especially cereal. The English meal is now so altered in sense that it is bet- 
 
 fcer t" change it. 
 
 37 Ver. 31. The word such is unfortunately inserted in the A. V. The idea is (comp. ver. 3$) that all meat prepare 1 
 With water Bbonid be rendered unclean by the falling of any of these animals upon it. 
 
 33 Ver. 85. □'1*3 occura ouly here, aud there is much question as to its meaning. According to Keil it "can only 
 
 s'gnify, wh"n uspd in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts!, i". e. a pan or pot with a lid.'' So Knobel and the T.irgutns ; 
 othi re a support for the pot like a pair of bricks, LXX. \upt6ttous; others, as Ftirttt, "a cooking furnace^ probably consisting 
 el two ranges of atones which met together in a .sharp angle." 
 
 39 Ver. 30. The Sim. and LXX. add of waters. 
 
 ■»" V. • ;r |; .. uraflller, Ke I, an. I others understand this in the muscutino, /**• who, viz. in removing the carcase, Tim 
 meaning, bowerar, a cms to bu more geueial ; the ^er^un or the thing touching lb- carcase, in removing it oi otherwise. 
 
CnAP. XI. 1-47. 
 
 91 
 
 37 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 41 
 42 
 
 carcase shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcase fall upon any 41 sowing 
 seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. But if any water be put upon the seed, 
 and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it sfiall be unclean unto you. 
 
 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die ; he that toucheth the carcase there- 
 40 of" shall be unclean until the even. And he that eateth of the carcase of it 42 shall 
 wash his clothes, aud be unclean until the even : he also that beareth the carcase 
 of it 42 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. 
 
 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination ; 
 it shall not be eaten. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, 43 and whatsoever goeth 
 upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep 
 
 43 upon the earth, them ye shall not eat ; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not 
 make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall 
 
 44 ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I 
 am the Lord your God : ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be 
 holy ; for I am holy : neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creep- 
 
 45 ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord" that bringeth you 
 up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God ; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am 
 holy. 
 
 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature 
 that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth : 
 
 47 to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast 45 
 that may be eaten and the beast 45 that may not be eaten. 
 
 « Ver. 37. The Sam., two MSS., and Yulg. omit any; but two MSS. and the LXX. insert it before seed in the follow- 
 ing ViT-e. 
 
 <- Vers. 39 and 40. Several MSS. and the LXX. have the plural In these places. 
 
 *3 Ver. 4-2. The letter 1 in prU=°etfy is printed in larger type in the Ueb. Bibles to indicate that it is the middle let- 
 ter of the Pentateuch. 
 
 « Ver. 45. The Sam., two M^S. and the Syr. add, as in ver. 44, your God. 
 
 c Ver. 47. See note on ver. 2. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The whole of Lange's "Exegetieal" is here 
 given in full, the remarks of the translator being 
 added in square brackets. 
 
 "Cleanness as a condition of the sacrifices — 
 (he cleanness of the sacrificial animals, and the 
 cleanness to be regained through the purification 
 of men and of human conditions. Chap, xi.-xv. 
 'These are regarded in the law as defiling: the 
 use of certain animals, and the touching a car- 
 case (chap, si.); the confinement of a woman 
 (chap, xii.); the leprosy (chap, xiii., xiv.): the 
 issue of seed of a man (eh. xv. 1—15) ; the invo- 
 luntary emission of semen (ib. 15, lb) ; the car- 
 nal conjunction of the sexes [ib. 18) ; the menses 
 of a woman (ib. 19-24) ; and the lasting issue 
 of blood of the same (ib. 25-30); to which Num. 
 xix. 11-22 adds the touching the dead; but the 
 things meutioned do not all give the same un- 
 cleanness,' etc. Knobel, p. 432. The priests 
 were to administer the laws of cleanness and of 
 purification, so to speak, as the religious district 
 physicians of the theocracy. On the laws of the 
 Gentiles about cleanness, see Knobel, pp. 43G- 
 40; on the animals, pp. 443 ss. (the detailed pre- 
 sentation)." 
 
 "Chap. xi. The cleanness of the sacrifice, or 
 the contrast of the clean and unclean animals. 
 The clean sacrificial animal is marked out from 
 the four-footed beasts by two characteristics: 
 cleaving the hoof and chewing the cud. The 
 cloven hoof distinguishes the slow-moving, tame 
 animal, naturally adapted to domestication, from 
 
 the single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, although 
 sometimes capable of being tamed. The rumi- 
 nation characterizes quiet, dispassionate, grami- 
 nivorous animals, as opposed to the carnivorous 
 beasts of prey, and the unclean omnivorous 
 beasts." 
 
 " Thu9 especially are the one-hoofed excluded, 
 although they chew the cud ; the camel, and (as 
 stated) the rock badger, the hare. And so with 
 those that cleave the hoof and do not chew the 
 cud — the swine. And, of course, the four-footed 
 creatures which lack both characteristics." 
 
 " In regard to all unclean animals, the use of 
 their meat and the touching of their carcase is 
 forbidden. That they certainly might not 
 be offered in sacrifice is therewith presupposed. 
 Vers. 1-8." 
 
 [From this general view of the chapter, and 
 from several of. the particulars, a dissent must be 
 expressed. Although, as has been shown in the 
 preliminary note, the original distinction between 
 clean and unclean animals was in regard to their 
 fitness or unfitness for sacrifice; yet here there 
 is no immediate reference to sacrifice at all, and 
 the animals are classified solely in relation to 
 their being allowed or forbidden for food. Again, 
 in the detail, while among the animals reared by 
 man it may be true that "the cloven hoof dis- 
 tinguishes the slow-moving tame animal;" yet 
 this certainly could not apply to the gazelle and 
 other kinds of deer, which are equally included 
 among the clean animals. Probably Lange's re- 
 mark was made because his mind was already 
 fixed upon the classification of animals for sacri- 
 fice, although even then it would but imperfectly 
 
92 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 apply to the goat. Also, on the other side, "the 
 single-hoofed animal, naturally wild, but some- 
 times capable of being tamed," is quite insuffi- 
 cient in its description, for the single-hoofed 
 horse is quite as much a domestic animal as the 
 bull or the goat, and it fails altogether to include 
 the many-toed domestic cat and dog, which were 
 eminently unclean. 
 
 [The first and larger half of this book is con- 
 cerned with the means of approach to God. 
 First of all came the laws of sacrifice, chaps, i. — 
 vii.; then followed the consecration of the priests 
 by whom the sacrifices were to be offered, with 
 an account of their entrance upon their office, 
 and the connected events, cbaps. viii. — x.; now 
 follow the laws of purity, chaps, xi. — xv., and 
 of these first, the laws of clean and unclean food, 
 contained in the present chapter. In this con- 
 nection also the uncleanness produced by contact 
 with the dead bodies of animals unclean for food 
 is emphatically set forth, and thus this chapter 
 is intimately connected with the laws of purifi- 
 cation in the following chapters. "In all the 
 nations and all the religions of antiquity we find 
 the contrast between clean and unclean, which 
 was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in 
 many of the religious systems, but had its pri- 
 mary root in the corruption that had entered the 
 world through sin. This contrast was limited in 
 the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israel- 
 ites, to contact with dead animals and human 
 corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and 
 diseases that are associated with decomposition." 
 Keil. 
 
 [Vers. 1-8 are concerned with the larger 
 quadrupeds. The distinction is so made among 
 these that the Israelites might be in no mistake 
 about them. To an anatomist it might have been 
 enough to say either parteth the hoof, or 
 cheweth the cud; but since several animals 
 apparently had one of these characteristics with- 
 out the other, or were popularly supposed to 
 have them, for the sake of clearness both are 
 given, and also some animals are excluded, as 
 the camel, which apparently lacked one of them, 
 although anatomically it might be considered as 
 possessing both. 
 
 [Ver. 1. Both Moses, as the lawgiver, and 
 Aaron, as the now fully consecrated high-priest, 
 to whom would especially pertain the enforce- 
 ment of the laws of purity, are now addressed 
 together. 
 
 [Ver. 3. No enumeration is here made of the 
 animals possessing these qualifications ; but there 
 is such an enumeration in the parallel passage, 
 Deut. xiv. 4, 5. 
 
 [Ver. 4. The camel has a ball behind the cleft 
 of the foot on which it treads. It comes, there- 
 fore, under the class of those with hoofs not 
 completely cloven. So also the swine in ver. 7 
 is spoken of as dividing the hoof, because he 
 does so in all common acceptation, and is so 
 spoken of at this day, although anatomically he 
 has four toes. Correspondingly in vers. 6, 6 
 animals are spoken of which appear to the eye 
 to chew the cud, although they do not really; 
 because otherwise the people, guided by the ap- 
 pearance, would be led into transgression. All 
 these animals, it is needless to say, were eaten 
 
 among surrounding people, some by one nation, 
 some by another. — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 9-12. "The clean aquatic animals are 
 distinguished likewise by two characteristics — 
 they must have fins and scales. All aquatic ani- 
 mals, on the other hand, which have not these 
 characteristics, should be not only unclean to 
 them, but an abomination. The fish nature must 
 thus appear distinctly marked. Of fitness for 
 sacrifice, nevertheless, nothing is said here" 
 [obviously because fish were not included among 
 sacrificial animals at all] ; " as food for fast days, 
 fish could not possibly have been used by the Jeivs." 
 [In this, as in the preceding law, the marks of 
 distinction are to be understood of obvious ones: 
 fins and scales that were apparent to the eye. 
 As the law covers all that are in the waters, 
 the Crustacea, lobsters, crabs, etc., and the mol- 
 lusks, oysters, etc., are wholly forbidden. — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 13-19. "With reference to birds, the 
 unclean varieties are named at length : eagles, 
 hawks, fish-hawks, vultures, kites, and every 
 thing of that kind, all kinds of ravens, the 
 ostrich, the night-owl, the cuckoo, the kinds of 
 sparrow-hawk, the eared owl, the swan, the 
 horned owl, the bat, the bittern, stork, heron, 
 jay, hoopoe, swallow. The clean kinds are not 
 named; they are limited to a few examples. 
 Pigeons and turtle-doves, however, were more 
 especially made use of for sacrifice." ["Pigeons 
 and turtle-doves" were the only birds used for 
 sacrifice, but they are not mentioned here, be- 
 cause this chapter is not concerned with sacri- 
 fice. For the birds intended by this list of 
 twenty Hebrew names, see the Textual notes. 
 All the birds mentioned, so far as they can bo 
 identified, feed more or less exclusively upon 
 animal food ; but no general characteristic is 
 given. The list is probably only meant to in- 
 clude those prohibited birds with which the 
 Israelites were likely to come in contact. All 
 not included in it, however, would have been 
 lawful under a strict construction of the law. 
 The bat is included in the prohibited list on the 
 general principle of this whole nomenclature ; it 
 was popularly regarded as a bird. — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 20-25. "A remarkable exception is made 
 by the varieties of locusts appended to the birds 
 (locusts, crickets, grasshoppers, green grasshop- 
 pers). It is as if these animals were to be an 
 important object of game for the theocracy." 
 [It is evident that they did, as in the case of John 
 the Baptist, become an important item of food 
 for the poorer classes, and as they are still in the 
 desert regions adjoining Palestine. — F. G.] 
 "But besides these, all winged (four-footed) in- 
 sects are described as things to be avoided (not 
 abominable)." [This is a general prohibition 
 of all small flying creatures, having more than 
 two feet. Creeping things in the original 
 means also "things that swarm " or multiply in 
 great numbers. Going upon all four seems in- 
 tended, in contrast to birds which have only two 
 feet, to include all that have more than two feet, 
 and consequently creep in a horizontal position. 
 It is so understood by Jewish writers. From 
 this general prohibition the saltaloria are ex- 
 cepted, which are still, as they have always 
 been, used as an article of food by the poorer 
 classes in the East. Tccse have, like the common 
 
CHAP. XI. 1-47. 
 
 93 
 
 grasshopper, very long hind legs for leaping. 
 With this exception, this whole class of creatures 
 is described in vers. 23-25 as abominable. Yet 
 the living animal communicated no uncleanness 
 by contact — only its dead body. This is a decla- 
 ration immediately afterwards (vers. 27, 28) ex- 
 tended also to the bodies of unclean quadrupeds, 
 and also (vers. 39, 40) to the bodies of even clean 
 animals that have died of themselves. Washing 
 of the clothes (vers. 25, 28) required of those 
 who bore their carcases was evidently because 
 contact with the clothes could hardly be avoided 
 in doing this. — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 26-28. "Once more the characteristics 
 are enjoined — to which, however, the definition 
 is added that also all beasts which go on paws 
 (the stealthy-going beasts of prey) are to be con- 
 sidered unclean." 
 
 Vers. 29-38. " Moreover there is still a crowd 
 of little animals named in which there is no at- 
 tempt at a natural history classification, as a re- 
 semblance has already appeared in tho four- 
 footed flying creatures. Mammalia: mole and 
 mouse; amphibia: the lizard, the Egyptian li- 
 zard, the frog, the tortoise, the snail, the chame- 
 leon. This division of various animals is more 
 especially prominent because the individuals that 
 compose it could easily make clean objects un- 
 clean. First, the dead body of all these crea- 
 tures is, and makes, unclean ; secondly, the wa- 
 ter with which one has purified either himself or 
 any object from them ; thirdly, utensils, meats 
 and drinks which these creatures" [i. e., their 
 dead bodies] "have touched, vers. 29-35. On 
 the other hand, these animals cannot, defile the 
 spring, the cistern, or the seeds intended for 
 sowing. The case is different with seed intended 
 for food when wet with water, vers. 36-38." 
 [The names of these creatures have already been 
 treated in the Textual notes. It appears that, 
 except the first mentioned weasel (or mole) and 
 the mouse, they are all of the lizard family. But 
 in vers. 32-38 the uncleanness produced by con- 
 tact with their dead bodies is carried much fur- 
 ther than in regard to the animals previously 
 named, doubtless for the reason suggested by 
 Lange that there was more likelihood of contact 
 from them. Any thing of which use was made 
 in doing work (ver. 32) must be soaked in water. 
 Skin included in the list refers to the skins used 
 for churning, for holding wine and other liquids, 
 and for a variety of purposes. The earthen ves- 
 sel (ver. 33) into which any of their bodies fell 
 must be broken on the same principle, but with 
 an opposite application, as in vi. 28. The ground 
 in both cases is the absorbent character of 
 unglazed earthenware; there it must be broken 
 lest what it had absorbed of the "most holy offer- 
 ing" should be defiled ; here lest the defilement 
 it had itself absorbed should be communicated. 
 In vers. 34 and 38 it is provided that if their 
 carcase fell upon any food or seed in a dry 
 Btate. it should not communicate defilement ; but 
 if these were wet, they should be defiled. The 
 reason of the distinction is evident — the moisture 
 would act as a conveyor of the defilement. In 
 ver. 35 the strong contaminalion of these dead 
 bodies is still further expressed ; but in ver. 36 
 an exception is made in favor of any large col- 
 lection of water in fountains or cisterns, on the 
 
 general principle that God " will have mercy ra- 
 ther than sacrifice." — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 39, 40. " Finally comes into considera- 
 tion the carcase of the clean animal that has died 
 a natural death. This also makes unclean (a) 
 by contact, (6) by unconscious using thereof, (c) 
 through carrying and throwing it away. The 
 one defiled must wash his clothes and hold him- 
 self unclean until evening." [Vet from vii. 24 it 
 is evident that this precept applied to the dead 
 body as a whole, not to the fat, or probably to 
 the skin, when it had been separated. The rea- 
 son for the uncleanness of the carcase was evi- 
 dently that its blood had not been poured out, 
 but was still in the veins and arteries, and spread 
 about in the flesh. This would not apply to the 
 separate fat, nor to the skin, when properly 
 cleaned. The provision for purification of one 
 who had eaten of the flesh may apply not only to 
 unconscious eating (Lange), but also to eating in 
 cases of necessity. It did not constitute a Jtn, 
 but only a ceremonial defilement, for which 
 purification was provided. — F. G.] 
 
 Vers. 41, 42. "At last the true vermin are 
 spoken of. Every thing that crawls, that goes 
 on the belly (in addition to the division already 
 given), four-footed vermin, and those having 
 more than four feet (beetles)." [It was a curi- 
 ous conceit, adopted from Miinster by some of 
 the older writers, that flies and worms living 
 upon fruit and vegetables are not here prohibited 
 because they do not "creep upon the earth." 
 The text evidently intends to forbid all creep- 
 ing things, and is especially comprehensive in 
 ver. 43. The Talmudists also exclude from the 
 operation of the law all the minute creatures 
 supposed by them to be spontaneously generated 
 in vegetables, fruits, cheese, etc., ami all the mi- 
 nute parasitic animals. It is plain enough, how- 
 ever, that the law, making its distinctions by ob. 
 vious and popularly recognized marks, does not 
 enter at all into minutix of this sort.] 
 
 Vers. 43-45. [Ye shall not make your- 
 selves abominable. — Lit.] "Ye shall not 
 make your souls an abomination — a strong ex- 
 pression, but the key to this legislation. From 
 the educational standpoint of the law for this 
 morally infant people, purification must be made 
 from all beastly conditions by a strong exclusion 
 of all the lower animal forms, and the people 
 thus be elevated to a consciousness of personal 
 dignity. Therefore it is also further said that 
 this is in conformity with the character of Jeho- 
 vah your God. Ye shall therefore sanctify 
 yourselves, and ye shall be holy — i. c, be- 
 come sanctified personalities; for I am holy — 
 i.e., the absolute sanctified Personality. They 
 could thus, by the defilement of their body, de- 
 file also their souls. This also is made promi- 
 nent: that Jehovah bringeth you up out of 
 the land of Egypt, the country defiled by ani- 
 mal worship." 
 
 Vers. 46, 47. "This is the law. — Although 
 it is not specifically extended over the whole ani- 
 mal kingdom, it is still a general regulating prin- 
 ciple according to which the distinctions are to be 
 made. In principle, with this, the distinction is 
 also introduced in regard to the vegetable king- 
 dom, the contrast of edible and inedible plants. 
 
94 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Yet the application of this to the manner of 
 living, to the usages, is left untold." 
 
 "In regard to the law of clean animals, we 
 have to distinguish different classes : the speci- 
 fically clean, or cleanest animals, are those used 
 in sacrifice — old and young cattle, sheep and 
 goats, turtle-doves, and (young) pigeons. These 
 animals form the common food of Jehovah and 
 His people ; the symbolical food of Jehovah, and 
 the actual food of the Israelites — a mark of the 
 divine dignity of man, and of his designation as 
 the image of God. Of the vegetables : with this 
 animal centre correspond the cereals, especially 
 barley and wheat, incense, wine, and oil; of the 
 mineral kingdom, salt. The second class is 
 made up of the clean animals which men were 
 allowed to eat, but which were not fitted 
 for sacrifice. The third class is made up of 
 the unclean animals, the touch of which, — 
 80 long as they are living, — does not make 
 men unclean, but of which they are not al- 
 lowed to eat, and whose carcase defiles them, 
 (not the fat of the slain animals). In the fourth 
 class, finally, are the repulsive animals, which 
 even while living are repulsive at least to men, 
 the creeping and crawling animals. That this 
 classificatiou was to be symbolic of spiritual 
 conditions is shown to us very clearly in the vi- 
 sion of Peter in Acts x. ; but that the ordinary 
 symbolism is limited by extraordinary symboli- 
 cal requirements is shown to us by the appear- 
 ance of the eagle in the forms of the Cherubim. 
 With the New Testament this symbolism gene- 
 rally has reached its end, that is, face to face 
 with Christian knowledge. Cut yet, condition- 
 ally, it remains in the New Testament era pro- 
 portionately through the Christian national cus- 
 toms, as this can be deduced from the prohibition 
 of the eating of blood, and of things strangled 
 (Acts xv.). The condition of natural abhor- 
 rence towards all repulsive objects certainly re- 
 mains more or less ineradicable, although even 
 in this respect, necessity can break iron." 
 
 " We should distinguish here most carefully 
 between the theocratic teleological rules, which 
 have a divine and ideal force, and their exem- 
 plification, which belongs to the Jewish sensits 
 communis, and its product, popular usage ; as is 
 shown here, particularly by the exampte of the 
 unruminating animals, the badger and hare 
 (which seemed to the people to ruminate to some 
 extent). Obstinacy in valuing the literal inspi- 
 ration would certainly make here an irrecon- 
 cilable conflict between theology, or even nomi- 
 nal belief, and natural science, and the hare 
 would become the favorite wild game of negation 
 as Balaam's ass is its favorite charger." 
 
 " In regard to the animals mentioned here, we 
 must refer to the detailed treatmeut of Knobcl 
 and Keil, the quoted literature of the latter, and 
 the natural history of Calwer and others." 
 
 [It is to be observed that there is no defile- 
 ment whatever produced by the contact with any 
 living animal. The distinction between animals 
 which are attractive and those which are repul- 
 sive to man is not at all recognized ; nor indeed, 
 judging from the habits of different nations, 
 would it be easy to draw any line of distinction 
 on this ground. The law simply prescribes what 
 
 animals shall be, and what shall not be used for 
 food — between the beast that may be 
 eaten and the beast that may not be eaten, 
 
 ver. 47. The distinction is nevertheless symbo- 
 lical, as the line of separation is plainly so taken 
 as to exclude from the list of the clean all carni- 
 vora, except in the case of fish whose habits are 
 to a great extent hidden under the waves from 
 common observation. But while no living ani- 
 mal defiled, the bodies of all dead animals, not 
 properly slaughtered, did defile. The peculiar 
 care with which defilement is guarded against 
 in the case of the carcasses of certain of the 
 smaller animals (vers. 29-88), seems to be due 
 to the greater liability to contact with them. The 
 degree of uncleanness occasioned by contact with 
 the dead body of any animal which died of itself, 
 was the same in all cases, vers. 25, 28, 31, 40, even 
 in that of animals otherwise fit for food. The only 
 exception is in case of sacrificial or food ani- 
 mals when properly slaughtered, an exception 
 obviously necessary unless sacrifices and auimal 
 food were to be prohibited. The Apostle has 
 expressly taught "that there is nothing unclean 
 of itself" (Rom. xiv. 14); and we must look 
 therefore for the ground of the distinctions made 
 in this chapter, not directly to anything in the 
 nature of the various animals themselves, but to 
 the educational object of the law. That educa- 
 tional object, however, was of course best sub- 
 served by having regard to such characteristics 
 of the animals as should make the lessons to be 
 taught most impressive and most easily appre- 
 hended.— F. G.]. 
 
 DOCTRINAL, AXD ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The doctrinal significance of the distinction 
 between animals clean and unclean for food, must 
 be considered in view of two facts: first, that as 
 far as food is concerned, this is distinctly a part 
 of that law which was "added because of trans- 
 gressions." It limited an earlier freedom, and 
 it passed away when the law was superseded by 
 a higher revelation. Secondly, that for the time 
 while the law was in force — the whole period of 
 Israel's national existence — these precepts were 
 elevated into distinctly religious duties, resting 
 upon the holiness which should characterize the 
 people of a holy God (vers. 44, 45). These two 
 facts can only be brought into harmony in view 
 of the educational purpose of the law. The peo- 
 ple, in their spiritual infancy, could only be 
 taught purity by sensible symbols, and among 
 these there was nothing which entered more tho- 
 roughly into all the arrangements of daily life 
 than the selection of food. By this, therefore, 
 they were taught to keep themselves pure from 
 all defilement which God had forbidden. 
 
 II. The evil consequences attending a neglect 
 of the precepts in this chapter are represented 
 in a twofold aspect : First, there was sin in dis- 
 obedience to these as to any other divine com- 
 mands, and this is described as making your- 
 selves abominable, (ver. 43). This phrase 
 precisely is applied only to the eating of creep- 
 ing things, but is implied in regard to the 
 others (vers. 11, 13, 23). It carries with it the 
 idea that he who offended in these matters put 
 himself in that relation towards God in which 
 
CHAP. XI. 1-47. 
 
 9-3 
 
 these things intended to stand towards man: — 
 he had sinued by transgression, and thus made 
 himself an abomination. The other aspect is 
 thai of the violation of the theocratic order, and 
 here the penalty is very light. TUe kind of uu 
 cleanness conlracied in any of these instances 
 found a sufficient purification in any case by the 
 washing of the clothes and remaining unclean until 
 the evening. In cases of a secondary defilement 
 of other things, they also must be similarly pu- 
 rified, or be destroyed. Even the eating of a 
 clean animal which had died a natural death re- 
 quired no deeper purification. Here, then, the 
 line is very distinctly drawn between ceremonial 
 defilement and moral sin, even when both were 
 incurred by the same act. 
 
 III. All commands to holiness, whether ex- 
 pressed by symbolical act, or to be wrought out 
 in the efforts of the spirit, rest upon the same 
 
 ground, For I am the Lord your God 
 
 I am holy.— This is the teaching alike of the 
 Old and the New Testaments, and again brings 
 out in a striking way the impossibility of any 
 true communion between G"d and man except on 
 the basis of man's restoration to holiness. This 
 teaching has been already seen to be the object 
 of the Levitical law in regard to sacrifices, and 
 it is here none the less so when the law enters 
 into the details of man's daily life. 
 
 IV. While the uncleannesses here enumerated 
 were purged simply and speedily if attended to 
 at once, if neglected, they required (v. 2) the 
 more serious expiation of tbe sin offering. Such 
 is the nature of sin; like leaven, it is ever prone 
 to spread and intensify its effects. 
 
 V. " The cleanness of the animals for sacrifice 
 and the purification of the sacrificer. Chaps, 
 xi. — xvi." 
 
 "Through sacrifice Israel is made holy, i. <•., 
 they become in the fellowship of a personal God, 
 a people of personal dignity belonging to God. 
 The preliminary condition of sanctification by 
 fire is the purification especially produced by 
 water and blood. Only clean, or rather, purified 
 men can serve as sacrifioers in the presentation 
 of clean animals." 
 
 "Clean men must be circumcised, sanctified 
 by the symbol of circumcision to the new birth 
 under the power of Jehovah, and thus especially 
 taken out from the confusion of the unclean 
 world ; and so, too, the clean animals, as animals 
 of civilization, form a contrast to the unclean 
 creation, as the elite of domestic animals, some 
 of which are too human, too sympathetic (horse, 
 ass, and dog), while swine are too brutally un- 
 clean to become domestic animals for the Is- 
 raelites." 
 
 " Cleanness is thenegative side of holiness, and 
 so purification is the negative side of sanctifica- 
 tion." Lauge, Dogmalik zum Lev. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 The homiletical teachiog of this chapter may 
 be briefly summed up in the weighty words of 
 the Apostolic proverb (1 Cor. xv. 33) " Evil com- 
 munications corrupt good manners." It is easy 
 to deceive ourselves here. It is easy to work 
 out plausible reasons why particular divine com- 
 mands may not be founded in the nature of 
 
 things, and hence may not be of binding force 
 upon us. But all God's commands are binding, 
 and he who chooses to violate them, however 
 unimportant they may seem to him to be, incurs 
 the risk of making himself an abomination. 
 
 Sins in matters of little importance, intrinsi- 
 cally and inadvertently committed, may, through 
 the means which God has provided, be readily 
 put away on repentance, and a true seeking of 
 restored communion ; but if neglected, or passed 
 over because they seem of little moment, they 
 lead to a heavier guiltiness. 
 
 The defiling effect of personal contact with 
 that which is unclean is set forth in this chapter. 
 Origen, in treating of it, calls attention to the 
 corresponding effect of contact with that which 
 is holy as illustrated by the restoration to life 
 of the body of the man which touched the bones 
 of Elisha"(2 Kings xiii. 21), and of the woman 
 whose issue of blood was staunched when she 
 had touched the hem of the Saviour's garment 
 (Matt. ix. 20). Both serve to show the influence 
 exerted upon us by our associations; the spirit, 
 as surely as the body is defiled by contact with 
 the unclean, and elevated by association with the 
 pure. 
 
 Certain moral qualities of men are commonly 
 described by reference to the animal creation. 
 As this is frequently done in the New Testament 
 (Matt. vii. 15; x. 16; xxiii. 33; Luke xiii. 32; 
 Phil. iii. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 22, etc.), so it appears al- 
 ways to have been common among mankind. 
 Therefore, in the classification as clean, of those 
 animals associated with excellent qualities, and 
 as unclean of those associated with evil qualities, 
 a praise of virtue and a condemnation of evil was 
 introduced into the domestic associations of tbe 
 daily life. The necessity of such teaching has 
 passed away with the coming of the clearer light 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 Parting the hoof and chewing the cud are two 
 marks of the clean animal which go together, 
 and must both be found : though one may be 
 apparently possessed, yet if the other is wanting, 
 the animal is unclean. This Origen applies to 
 one who meditates upon and understands the 
 Scriptures, but does not order his life in accord- 
 ance with their teaching. So it may be applied 
 to faith and works ; neither can truly exist with- 
 out the other, and the semblance of either alone 
 is unavailing. 
 
 Positive Divine laws, simply as laws, and even 
 without regard to their immediate object, have 
 a high moral value from their educationary 
 power. From the garden of Eden down, man 
 has been always subjected to such laws. As 
 disobedience to them has resulted in harm, and 
 placed the transgressor in an attitude of opposi- 
 tion to God ; so has the faithful effort to obey 
 them resulted in blessing, and brought, those 
 who have undertaken it into nearer relations 
 to God. Whether the ground of the com- 
 mand could be understood, or whether the 
 act enjoined or forbidden might seem to man 
 morally colorless, yet the simple habit of obe- 
 dience ha9 always had a most salutary effect. 
 "A law, the fitness and utility of which we 
 cannot discover by our natural reason, is more 
 a test of the spirit of obedience than a moral re- 
 quirement that commends itself to our judgment 
 
93 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 as good and proper; because our compliance 
 with the latter may be but a compliment to our 
 own intelligence, and not at all an act of defer- 
 ence to the divine authority." Hallam. The 
 multitude of daily demands made upon the 
 obedience of the Israelites offered to them a 
 great opportunity of blessing, and is repeatedly 
 declared to have been a test whether they had a 
 heart to do God's will or no. Under the higher 
 
 dispensation of the Gospel we are allowed to see 
 more clearly the grounds of the Divine com- 
 mands; nevertheless, the opportunities of ren- 
 dering obedience, simply as obedience, without 
 seeing the grounds upon which the command 
 rests, is by no means entirely withdrawn from 
 the Christian. Such opportunities improved are 
 means of blessing, and become to us one of the 
 many ways in which we " walk by faith and not 
 by sight." 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 " The purification and cleanness of the human conditions of the offerers. The lying-in women. The 
 leprosy in men, in garments, in houses. Sexual impurities and purifica- 
 tions. Chaps. XII. — XV." — Lange. 
 
 Laws of Purification after Childbirth. 
 Chapter XII. 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying, If a woman have conceived 1 seed, and born a man child, then she shall be 
 unclean seven days ; according to [as 2 ] the days of the separation for her infirmity 
 
 3 shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be cir- 
 
 4 cumcised. And she shall then continue in 3 the blood of her purifying three and 
 thirty days ; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until 
 
 5 the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall 
 be unclean two weeks, as in her separation : and she shall continue in the blood of 
 
 6 her purifying threescore and six days. And when the days of her purifying are 
 fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb [sheep*] of the first 
 year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, 
 
 7 unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest : who shall offer 
 it before the Lord, and 6 make an atonement for her ; and she shall be cleansed 
 from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a 
 
 8 female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb [one of the flock 6 ], then she shall 
 bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the 
 other for a sin offering : and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she 
 shall be clean. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 2. JTITil. The Sam. hero has the Niphal. Comp. Gen. i. 11 for similar use of Hiphil. 
 
 2 Yer. 2. *ryil. The text iustitutes a comparison, saying that the one is the same as the other, rather than makes one 
 the law for the oth>-r. 
 
 3 Ver. 4. 7M. There is no distinction in the A. V. between this and the preposition of the preceding verse. Two MSS. 
 read here also *0^2 as iQ ver. 4. 
 
 * Ver. 6. b23- See Textual Note 6 on iii. 7. 
 
 ' Ver. 7. One JIS., the Sam., LXX., and Syr., here snpply the word priest, which is necessarily understood from the 
 connection. 
 
 < Ver. 8. HD a different word from that in ver. C, and used either of sheep or goats, but according to FUr;t, only of the 
 
 young of either. 
 
 The previous chapter was addressed to Moses 
 and Aaron conjointly, and so is the following, 
 t lie latter part of ch. xiv. (beginning at ver. 33), 
 and ch. xv. ; the present chapter and the earlier 
 part of ch. xiv. are addressed to Moses alone. 
 The reason of this difference seems to lie in the 
 fact that the parts addressed to Mn?es alone ar-j 
 simple commands given to him as the legislator. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Here begins a new paraihah of the law extend- 
 ing to xiii. fift ; t lie parallel section of the pro- 
 phets is 2 Kings iv. 4'2 — v. in, a prominent sub- 
 ject of which is the cleansing of Naaman from 
 his leprosy. 
 
CHAP. XII. 1-8. 
 
 97 
 
 requiring no exercise of judgment in their appli- 
 cation ; while those addressed to both called for 
 more or less of a discrimination which was 
 entrusted by the law to the priests. 
 
 The previous chapter treated of uncleanness 
 of men arising from the lower animals which, 
 if attended to promptly, in no case required 
 more for its purification than ablutions, and 
 continued only until evening. This and the 
 three following chapters treat of uncleauness 
 arising from the human body, in most cases 
 requiring expiatory sacrifices with various, and 
 often prolonged, periods before the purification 
 became complete. The various sources of this 
 defilement are: child-bearing (xii.); leprosy 
 (xiii., xiv.); and certain secretions (xv.); to 
 these is added in Num. xix. 11-16 the most in- 
 tense of all defilements, that arising from con- 
 tact with a human corpse. The omission of a 
 vast mass of other sources of impurity, and 
 restriction of rites of purification to these few, 
 certainly indicates (as Keil has shown) that 
 these are not simply regulations for the promo- 
 tion of cleanliness, or of good morals and de- 
 cency, but had a higher symbolical and educa- 
 tional meaning. The defilement of child-bearing, 
 which occupies the present chapter, is placed 
 first not only because birth is the natural start- 
 ing point for the treatment of all that concerns 
 the human body, but also plainly to prevent any 
 possible confusion between this defilement and 
 those mentioned in ch. xv. 19-30. There is in- 
 deed a certain degree of connection between the 
 two, and this made it all the more necessary 
 that this should be treated by itself, as being a 
 different thing and resting upon different 
 grounds. 
 
 In regard to purifications in general, Kalisch 
 Bays: "Next to sacrifices, purifications were 
 the most important part of Hebrew rituals. 
 Whenever both were prescribed together, the 
 latter appeared indeed as merely preparatory to 
 the former, since sacrifices were deemed the 
 main agency of restored peace or holiness; but 
 purification?, like offerings, were frequently 
 ordained as separate and independent acts of 
 worship: closely entwined with the thoughts 
 and habits of the Hebrews, they formed an 
 
 essential part of their religious system 
 
 The Hebrews ' purified,' or, as they understood 
 the term, sanctified themselves, whenever they 
 desired to rise to the Deity, that is, before 
 solemn ceremonies and seasons, as sacrifices and 
 festivals (Gen. xxxv. 2-4; 1 Sam. xvi. 5; comp. 
 2 Chron. xxx. 17); or whenever they expected 
 the Deity to descend to them by some superna- 
 tural manifestation, as a disclosure of heavenly 
 wisdom, or a deed of miraculous power and help 
 (Ex. xix. 10, 14, 15; Josh. iii. 6; vii. 13). 
 Therefore, when in a state of impurity, they 
 were forbidden to enter the sanctuary, to keep 
 the Passover, and to partake of holy food, whe- 
 ther of sacrificial meat, of sacred offerings and 
 gifts, or of shew bread, because the clean only 
 were fit to approach the holy God and all that 
 appertains to Him (Lev. vii. 19-21 ; xxii. 3 ss. ; 
 Num. ix. 6 ss. ; xviii. 11, 13; 1 Sam. xxi. 5)." 
 Later he adds: " If compared with the purifica- 
 tory laws of other nations, those of the Penta- 
 teuch appear in a favorable light They 
 
 exhibit no vestige of a dualism ; in every detail 
 they are stamped by the monotheistic creed; 
 God alone, the merciful, wise and omnipotent 
 Ruler, sends trials and diseases ; and no evil 
 genius has the power of causing uncleanness. 
 They are singular in the noble principles on 
 which they are framed — the perfection and holi- 
 ness of God ; and they are thereby raised above 
 frivolity and unmeaning formalism. Moreover, 
 it would be unjust to deny that they were un- 
 derstood as symbols, or as means of sanctifica- 
 tion ; to defile oneself and to sin, and also to 
 cleanse and to hallow, are frequently used as 
 equivalents. They must be pronounced simple 
 if considered Bide by side with those of the Par- 
 sees, the Hindoos, the Egyptians, or the Tal- 
 mud." 
 
 The connection here hinted at between un- 
 cleanness and sin, between purity and holiness, 
 is a very important one. It rests partly on a 
 symbolism which finds place in all languages, 
 and is abundantly recognized in the diction of 
 the New Testament ; and partly upon that actual 
 connection existing between the soul and the 
 body (spoken of in the last chapter), whereby 
 the one is deeply affected by the state and con- 
 dition of the other. In both respects the edu- 
 cational value of the Levitical laws of purity to 
 a people in their spiritual infancy were of the 
 utmost value. The importance of the symbolism 
 was further enhanced by the broad distinction 
 made between defilements arising from human 
 and those from other sources, and connecting 
 the sin offering only with the former. 
 
 This chapter consists of two parts: vers. 1-5 
 relate to the time of seclusion, vers. 6-8 to the 
 means of purification. The following are Lange's 
 Exegetical Notes on the chapter in full : 
 
 " The origin of life makes man unclean in 
 regard to his theocratic right of communion; 
 just as death, or the touch of the dead, and no 
 less that which impairs life — sickness, especially 
 as it is represented by the leprosy, and so also 
 every disturbance of the springs of life. But 
 this surely does not mean that finite life itself 
 was thought of as unclean, and that it must 
 therefore be reconciled to the universal life 
 (Eaehr II., p. 461, opposed to which Sommer 
 and Keil) ; and it also does not mean that ori- 
 ginal sin alone has produced all this darkening 
 of life, although the natural condition appears 
 here throughout laden with sinfulness; since 
 we find directions for the purification of lying- 
 in women among the most different nations (see 
 Knobel, p. 466)." [The following brief sum- 
 mary of some of these is given by Clark: " The 
 Hindoo law pronounced the mother of a new- 
 born child to be impure for forty days, required 
 the father to bathe as soon as the birth had 
 taken place, and debarred the whole family for 
 a period from religious rites, while they were 
 to 'confine themselves to an inward remem- 
 brance of the Deity :' in a Brahmin family this 
 rule extended to all relations within the fourth 
 degree, for ten days, at the end of which they 
 had to bathe. According to the Parsee law, the 
 mother and child were bathed, and the mother 
 had to live in seclusion for forty days, after 
 which she had to undergo other purifying rites. 
 The Arabs are said, by Burckhardt to regard 
 
98 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 the mother as unclean for forty days. The 
 ancient Greeks suffered neither child-birth nor 
 death to take place within consecrated places: 
 both mother and child were bathed, and the 
 mother was not allowed to approach an altar 
 for forty days. The term of forty days, it is 
 evident, was generally regarded as a critical 
 one for both the mother and the child. — The day 
 on which the Romans gave the name to the 
 child, the eighth day for a girl, and the ninth 
 for a boy, was called lustricus dies, ' the day of 
 purification,' because certain lustral rites in 
 behalf of the child were performed on the occa- 
 sion, and some sort of offering was made. The 
 Amphidromia of the Greeks was a similar lustra- 
 tion for the child, when the name was given, 
 probably between the seventh and tenth days 
 (Menu v. 62; Ayeen Akbery, Vol. II., p. 556; 
 Zend Avesta, ap. Bahr ; Thuoid. III. 104; Eurip. 
 Iph. Taur. 382; Callim. Hym. ad Jov. 16, llijm. 
 ad Del. 123 ; Censorin. De Die Nat. c. xi., p. 51 ; 
 Celsus, II. 1 ; Festus, s. Lustrici Dies with the 
 note in Lindemann, II. 480; Smith, Diet, of 
 Antiq. s. Amphidromia)." — F. G.] — "But, in 
 general, by this establishment of the unclean- 
 ness of the natural processes of birth and death, 
 the truth was expressed, that the ideal life of 
 man was already a kind of immortal life, which 
 had to raise itself above the natural conditions 
 of human life — the natural side of his being — 
 and set itself in opposition thereto." 
 
 " If now any one says that all these regula- 
 tions are not to be considered under the aspect 
 of sanitary or dietetic, but only of typical or 
 religious precepts, we must hold this antithesis 
 to be thoroughly false ; there are plain indica- 
 tions that always, from the tree of knowledge 
 down, especially from the circumcision, the one 
 particular was joined with the other." 
 
 " Ver. 2 ss. In regard to the uncleanness of 
 lying-in women, in the first place there are two 
 conditions to be distinguished: first, the time 
 of their especial sickness; secondly, the time 
 of their recovery through the blood (the issue 
 of blood) of their purification. These times dif- 
 fer according as she has borne a sou or a daugh- 
 ter. If the child be a boy, the time of her espe- 
 cial sickness is fixed at seven days, exactly like 
 the regulation in regard to the monthly courses. 
 Then on the eighth day the circumcision of the 
 boy was to follow, and from that time for thirty- 
 three days — the eighth day reckoned in — she 
 was to remain at home with the boy, engaged 
 in a constant process of recovery and purifica- 
 tion. But why are the seven days of her espe- 
 cial uncleanness doubled to two weeks by the 
 birth of a girl? It is said that this has its 
 foundation in the belief of antiquity that "the 
 bloody and watery issues last longer after the 
 birth of a female than of a male" (see the cita- 
 tions from Hippocrates [op. ed. Kiihn. i. p. 
 393], Aristotle [Hut. anim. vi. 22; vii. 3], and 
 Burdach [Physiologic III., p. 34] in Keil). 
 Whether this view formed a natural reason for 
 the above regulation or not, there was certainly 
 also a theocratic reason of in ports nee: i he hoy was 
 circumcised — the girl was not ; for this- the twice 
 seven days might form an equivalent. The girl was 
 BO far a Jewess, but not yet an Israelitess " [i. e. 
 a descendant of Abraham after the flesh, but not 
 
 yet incorporated with the chosen people. — F. G.]. 
 " It was now moreover the proper consequence 
 that the thirty-three days of recovery were 
 doubled to sixty-six days, wherein, indeed, the 
 law of circumcision is still more strongly re- 
 flected. The totality of the forty days of purifi- 
 cation at the birth of a boy corresponds to the 
 former explanation of the forty days in the life 
 of Moses and Elijah : it is the symbolical time 
 of purification, of exclusion from the world, as 
 it was extended for the whole people to forty 
 years. And the doubling of the forty days in 
 the case of the new-born girl explains itself, if 
 forty days are reckoned for the girl and forty 
 for the mother; a doubling which could not be 
 applied to the circumcised boy. Moreover, the 
 cooperation of the physical view, already noticed, 
 may be also taken into consideration." [It is 
 particularly to be noticed that the uncleanness 
 continued only seven or fourteen days. During 
 this time it appears from the analogy of xv. 19- 
 24, the woman was unclean in the sense that 
 every person and thing touched by her became 
 itself unclean and capable of communicating de- 
 filement. After this period, the woman was no 
 longer unclean, but might perform at home all 
 the ordinary duties of domestic life; only she 
 was forbidden to approach the sanctuary (i. e., 
 the court of the tabernacle) until the time of her 
 purification. The suggestion of Lange (which 
 was also the opinion of Calvin) that the differ- 
 ence in the length of time for the uncleanness 
 and the purification at the birth of a boy or a- 
 girl was due to the fact of the boy's being for- 
 mally received into the visible Church of God 
 by circumcision, is a complete and satisfactory 
 solution of a long-vexed question; but this so- 
 lution necessarily carries with it the determina- 
 tion that the law had respect to the child as well 
 as to the mother. To this two objections«are pro- 
 posed : first, the case of still-born children ; but 
 this was so exceptional that there was no occa- 
 sion to provide for it in the law. When it did 
 occur — if the principle above given is correct — 
 there being no child for whom purification was 
 required, the time would probably have been re- 
 duced to that which was considered necessary 
 for the mother alone. The other objection arises 
 from the necessity of including the infant Jesus 
 in the purification of the Virgin Mary, Luke ii. 
 22 (where it is very observable that the Evange- 
 list docs not hesitate to say tov Ka6apia/iov av- 
 rav*), but this is easily disposed of on the prin- 
 ciple announced by Himself in regard to His 
 baptism that "thus it becometh us to fulfil all 
 righteousness" (Matt. iii. 15). This is the view 
 taken by S. Augustine (Qusest. in Hept. L. III. 
 40).— F. G.]. 
 
 " Ver. 6. The equalization of girls with boys 
 appears again in the appointed completing sacri- 
 fice." [That is, in the time at which it was of- 
 fered ; there was no distinction in the sacrifice 
 itself. — F. G.]. "And in this there is not first 
 a sin offering brought, and then a burnt offering, 
 as in the trespass offerings ; but first a costly 
 burnt offering, as the expression of the conse- 
 cration of the new life ; — namely, a year old 
 lamb, and then a sin offering small in propor- 
 
 * Id note on Luke ii. 2'2 the viow taken by Oosterzee is 
 that the plural refers to Mary aui Joseph. 
 
CHAP. XII. 1-8. 
 
 99 
 
 tion, a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove." [This 
 order of tbe offerings is a remarkable deviation 
 from the general principle that when the two of- 
 ferings came together, the sin offering always 
 preceded. The reason of this exception appears 
 to lie in the fact that at the birth of a child feel- 
 ings of joy and gratitude are naturally upper- 
 most ; the thought of the child's heritage of sin- 
 fulness comes afterward. — F. G.]. "Only in 
 case of necessity was the burnt offering reduced 
 and made the same as in the sin offering." [This 
 necessity seems to have been liberally interpre- 
 ted by custom, and the smaller offering to have 
 been allowed generally to the humbler classes 
 of society. Comp. Luke ii. 22-24. The time of 
 the offering also could not be before the fortieth 
 or the eightieth day, but only a very strict con- 
 struction of the law could forbid its being defer- 
 red to a later period for those living at a distance 
 from the sanctuary, as appears to have been 
 done at the birth of Samuel, 1 Sam. i. 22-25. — 
 F. G.]. " That bearing and being born, as well 
 as being unclean through sickness and touching 
 the dead, could not be thought of without human 
 complicity in sin, or at least in guilt, was set 
 forth by this law ; but how gently was this judg- 
 ment expressed ! If it is now said of this sacri- 
 fice from one point of view: for a son, for a 
 daughter [ver. 6], and then again so she shall 
 be clean [ver. 8], so again is the time, jusl as 
 much as the sacrifice of purification, designated 
 as common for mother and child. Keil is thus 
 incorrect when he supposes that the woman did 
 not require purification for the child, but only 
 for herself. According to the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the Levitical law, it could not be con- 
 ceived that a clean child lay on the breast of an 
 uuclean mother. In this very community of the 
 Levitical uncleanness, this inner fellowship be- 
 tween mother and child is raised above the sup- 
 posed separation in their condition. It is evi- 
 dent that the thing here treated of is indefinite 
 sinfulness, but not " sins becoming known indi- 
 rectly in the corporeal manifestation of them." 
 
 " Upon the laws of purity among other nations 
 in regard to women in childbed, see Knobel, p. 
 4G6, and so too on the circumcision, p. 407." 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. " The theocratic law is joined throughout 
 with the sanitary law, without giving up its pre- 
 dominating and symbolical Levitical signification. 
 In the law of lying-in women there comes espe- 
 cially into notice the connection or unity between 
 mother and child, and the difference between 
 tbe man-child and the woman-child. See the 
 Exegetical." Lange. 
 
 II. " The doctrine, echoed in a hundred 
 creeds, that 'Purity is, next to life, the highest 
 boon of man,' was among them also [the Isra- 
 elites] a truth and a reality." Kalisch, 
 
 III. " The fall casts a shade of impenetrable 
 darkness over the birth of a child of man. All 
 that reason can say is, that this is another child 
 
 of sin and heir of death. . . . The mother in Is- 
 rael is here taught that while there is impurity 
 and guilt connected with the bearer and the born 
 of the fallen race, yet there is a propitiation on 
 which she may rely for herself and for her off- 
 spring, and a purification which she has for her- 
 self, and may confidently expect for her child, 
 while she traius him up in the way he should 
 go." Murphy. 
 
 IV. This chapter shows clearly in the differ- 
 ence between the times of uncleanness and of 
 purification at the birth of a boy and of a girl, 
 the difference in relation to the ancient church 
 brought about by circumcision. The Christian 
 church has taken the place of the Jewish, and 
 baptism has taken the place of circumcision ; the 
 same relation therefore may be expected to hold 
 between these. 
 
 V. Inasmuch as a sin offering was to be pre- 
 sented conjointly for the mother and the new- 
 born child, the doctrine of original tin is plainly 
 taught in this law. Origen (Horn. viii. in Lev., 
 \ 3) draws the same conclusion from the fact 
 that baptism is appointed "for the remission of 
 sins," and yet is administered to infants. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 As the primeval curse on sin fell, for the wo- 
 man, on child-bearing, bo in child-bearing she 
 becomes by the law unclean, and must present 
 for her purification a tin offering. That curse 
 remains and still clings to every child of sin 
 coming into the world; for purification resort 
 must be had to that true Propitiation for sin 
 of which the sin offering was a type. 
 
 "As the mother and her child emerge out of 
 the impurity, she learns to hope for the day when 
 both will emerge out of the bondage and corrup- 
 tion of sin; as the child is circumcised on the 
 eighth day, the confiding parents pray and wait 
 and watch and work for the circumcision of the 
 heart, which is hopefully foreshadowed by the 
 outward rite ; as the mother offers her burnt 
 sacrifice and sin sacrifice she rejoices in the 
 knowledge that there is a propitiation that is 
 sufficient for her, and for her children, and fir 
 her children's children to all generations." 
 Murphy. 
 
 " The priestly people of God have always a war 
 to wage with the defilements of the natural life. 
 Even the uncleanness which belongs to the na- 
 tural vigor of a lying-in woman, and to a new- 
 born child, must be taken away and atoned for." 
 Lange. 
 
 In accordance with this law, " on the fortieth 
 day after His birth from the Blessed Virgin's 
 womb, Christ, the second Adam, our Emmanuel, 
 was presented in the substance of our flesh ; and 
 on the fortieth day after His resurrection, or 
 birth from the grave (Col. i. 18; Rev. i. 5), He 
 was presented in our flesh in the heavenly sanc- 
 tuary, and we were presented in Him in the 
 dress of a cleansed and glorified humanity." 
 ^Yol•dsworth. 
 
100 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 Laws Concerning Leprosy 
 
 Chaps. XIII., XIV. 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE. 
 
 The disease of leprosy has happily become so 
 rare in modern times in the better known parts 
 of the world that much obscurity rests upon its 
 pathology. The attempt will only be made here 
 to point out those matters which may be consi- 
 dered as fixed by common consent, but which 
 will be found sufficient for the illustration of the 
 more important points in. the following chapters. 
 
 In the first place, then, it appears indisputable 
 that leprosy is a broad name covering several va- 
 rieties of disease more or less related to one 
 another. These are separable into two main 
 classes, one covering the different forms of Ele- 
 phantiasis (tuberculated and anaesthetic) ; the 
 other, the Lepra vulgaris. Psoriasis, Syphilis, etc. 
 It is the former class alone with which Leviticus 
 has to do as a disease. At the present time the 
 tuberculated variety is said to be the more com- 
 mon in those countries in which leprosy still ex- 
 ists to any considerable extent, while the anaes- 
 thetic was probably more prevalent in the time 
 of Moses. The latter is described by Celsus un- 
 der the name of ?.evKn, and Keil maintains that 
 the laws of Moses in regard to leprosy in man 
 relate exclusively to this. Clark, however, has 
 shown " that the two in a great number of cases 
 work together, and as it did in the days of 
 Moses, the disease appears occasionally in an 
 ambiguous form." Wilson has recorded a num- 
 ber of cases in detail, showing the interchange 
 of the two forms in the same patient. The symp- 
 toms of the disease intended by Moses sufficiently 
 appear in the text itself, and if these symptoms 
 cover what would now appear in medical no- 
 menclature as different diseases, then all those 
 diseases, classified under the general name of 
 leprosy were intended to be included in the Le- 
 vitical legislation. 
 
 Nothing whatever is said in the law either of 
 the origin, the contagiousness, or the cure of 
 t!i" disease. In modern experience it seems to 
 have been sufficiently proved that it is heredi- 
 tary, but only to the extent of three or four gen- 
 erations, when it gradually disappears; neither 
 is it in all cases hereditary, the children of le- 
 pers being sometimes entirely unaffected by 
 leprosy, and on the other hand the disease often 
 appealing without any hereditary taint. In its 
 first appearance it is now often marked only by 
 some slight "spot" upon the skin, giving no 
 pain or other inconvenience, but obstinately re- 
 sisting all efforts at removal, and slowly but ir- 
 resistibly spreading. Sometimes months, some- 
 times years, even to the extent of twenty or 
 thirty years, intervene between the first appear- 
 and of tho " spots " and their development. It 
 
 is not improbable that in the course of many 
 centuries a considerable modification in the ra- 
 pidity of its progress may have taken place in a 
 disease which is found gradually to die out by 
 hereditary transmission. The question of its 
 contagiousness is still much mooted among the 
 medical faculty. The better opinion seems to be 
 that it is not immediately contagious, but is pro- 
 pagated by prolonged and intimate intercourse 
 in the case of susceptible persons. At least it 
 is certain that in all known instances of the pre- 
 valence of the disease one of the most important 
 of the means of control has been the segregation 
 of the lepers, and where this precaution has 
 been neglected, the disease has continued to pre- 
 vail. After the leprosy has once acquired a cer- 
 tain degree of development, there is no known 
 means of cure. Everything hitherto attempted 
 has been found to rather aggravate than miti- 
 gate the disorder. It is asserted that, it yields 
 to medical treatment in its earliest stages when 
 the "spots" first appear, and a number of dis- 
 tinct cases of cure are recorded ; but the doubt 
 will always remain whether the disease which 
 yields is really leprosy, or whether something 
 else has not been confounded with an undevel- 
 oped stage of the true disease. However this 
 may be, it is certain that after it has once be- 
 come developed to any considerable extent it is 
 incurable by any remedies at present known, 
 although spontaneous cures do sometimes occur. 
 The reliance for its control is more upon diet, 
 cleanliness, and general regimen, than upon spe- 
 cific antidotes. 
 
 Medical observations upon the disease in mo- 
 dern times have been made in the island of Gua- 
 daloupe, where it broke out about the middle of 
 the last century, and was very carefully investi- 
 gated by M. Peyssonel, a physician sent out by 
 the French government for the purpose. An ac- 
 count of the result of his examination, as well as 
 of other investigations of English, French, and 
 German physicians in other islands of the West 
 Indies whither it had been imported from Africa, 
 and in other parts of the world is given by Mi- 
 chaelis (Laws of Moses, Art. 208, 210). Also of 
 especial importance is a " Report on the leprosy 
 in Norway by Dr. Danielssen, chief physician of 
 the leper hospital at Bergen, and Prof. Boeck " 
 (Paris, 18-48). The subject of late years has 
 considerably interested physicians, and the Lon- 
 don " College of physicians " have published a 
 report upon it, based upon a series of questions 
 addressed to nearly all parts of the world where 
 the disease now prevails. Many other authori- 
 ties are cited by Clark in his preliminary note 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON LAWS CONCERNING LEPROSY. 
 
 101 
 
 (o these chapters. A particularly valuable dis- 
 cussion of the disease may be fouud in Wilson, 
 Diseases of the skin, ch. xiii. (5th Am. Ed., pp. 
 300-314 and 333-381). The disease appears to 
 have been more or less common in Western Eu- 
 rope from the eighth century down, but received 
 a great extension at the time of the crusades. 
 At one time a partial enumeration by Dugdale 
 mentions eighty-five leper bouses in England 
 alone, six of which were in London, and it con- 
 tinued to linger in Scotland until the middle of 
 the last century. It still exists to a considerable 
 extent in Iceland and Norway, and in all the 
 countries bordering the Eastern shores of the 
 Mediterranean, especially Syria and Egypt, 
 where it has found a home in all ages, in some 
 parts of Africa, Arabia, and India. 
 
 The characteristics of the disease are the ex- 
 ceedingly slight symptoms at its first appear- 
 ance : its insidious, and usually very slow pro- 
 gress, the horribly repulsive features of its later 
 stages when the face becomes shockingly disfi- 
 gured, and often the separate joints of the body 
 become mortified and drop off one by one ; and 
 its usually sudden and unexpected termination 
 at the last, when the leprosy reaches some vital 
 organ, and gives rise to secondary disease, often 
 dysentery, by which life is ended. Meanwhile, 
 during the earlier stages, generally very pro- 
 longed, there is no suffering, and the ordinary 
 enjoyments of life are uninterrupted. 
 
 Leprosy, with these characteristics, especially 
 its hidden origin, and its insidious and resistless 
 progress, has always seemed a mysterious dis- 
 ease, and among the heathen as well as among 
 the Jens, has been looked upon as an infliction 
 especially coming from God. In fact in Hebrew 
 history it was so often employed in Divine judg- 
 ments, as in the case of Miriam, of Gehazi, and 
 of Uzziah, and was also so often healed by mi- 
 raculous interposition, as in the case of Miriam 
 also, and of Naaman, as to give some reason for 
 this belief; while the peculiar treatment it re- 
 ceived in the law tended still further to place 
 leprosy in a position of alienation from the theo- 
 cratic state, and actually included the leper in 
 that "uncleanness " which was utterly excluded 
 from approach to the sanctuary. The disease 
 thus became a vivid symbolism of sin, and of the 
 opposition in which this stands to the holiness 
 of God ; while at the same time its revolting as- 
 pect in its later stages made it such an image, 
 and indeed a beginning, of death itself that it is 
 often most appropriately described by Jewish as 
 well as other writers as " a living death." Much 
 of the association with death and the body in 
 the corruption of death, thus attached to leprosy 
 and the corruption at work in leprosy. It is not 
 necessary here to speak of the prevailing He- 
 brew notion that all suffering was the conse- 
 quence of individual sin, and was proportioned 
 in severity to the degree of that sin ; for how- 
 ever deeply seated such ideas may have been in 
 the minds of many of the Israelites, and however 
 much they may have increased the popular dread 
 and abhorrence of leprosy, they find no shadow 
 of encouragement whatever in the law. 
 
 In regard to what is called "leprosy" in 
 houses, m textile fabrics, and in leather, it is 
 not necessary to suppose that the name is in- 
 
 tended to convey the idea of an organic disease 
 in these inanimate things. The law will still be 
 sufficiently clear if we look upon the name as 
 merely applied in these cases to express a kind 
 of disintegration or corruption, such as could be 
 most readily and popularly described, from cer- 
 tain similarities in appearance, by the figurative 
 use of the word. In the same way the terms out 
 of joint, sick, and others have come among our- 
 selves to be popularly used of inanimate things, 
 and such words as blistered, bald, and rotten, have 
 a technical figurative sense almost more common 
 than their original literal one. These modes of 
 disintegration have been often investigated with 
 great learning and labor; but it is not surprising 
 that at this distance of time, and after such pro- 
 found changes in the arts and the habits of men, 
 the result of all such investigations should re- 
 main somewhat unsatisfactory. Just enough 
 has been ascertained to show that inanimate 
 things, of the classes here described, are sub- 
 ject to processes of decay which might be aptly 
 described by the word leprosy ; but precisely 
 what the processes were to which the Levitical 
 law had reference it is probably impossible now 
 to ascertain definitely. The most satisfactory 
 treatment of the subject from this point of view 
 is to be found in Michaelis (ubi supra. Art. 
 211). He instances in regard to houses, the 
 formation of saltpetre or other nitrous salts 
 upon the walls to such an extent in some parts 
 of Germany as to become an article of com- 
 mercial importance, and to be periodically 
 scraped off for the market. By others the exist- 
 ence of iron pyrites in the dolomitic limestone 
 used for building in Palestine has been suggested 
 as leading in its decomposition to precisely the 
 appearances described in the law — hollow streak3 
 of the green ferrous sulphate and the red of fer- 
 ric sulphate — upon the walls of the houses af- 
 fected ; but proof is wanting of the existence in 
 that stone of pyrites in sufficient abundance to 
 produce the effects contemplated in the law. 
 Both these explanations, however, are suggestive 
 of methods of disintegration which might have 
 occurred, but for the determination of which we 
 have not sufficient data. It is the same with the 
 explanation of Michaelis in regard to woolen 
 fabrics, — that the wool itself is affected by dis- 
 eases of the sheep upon which it has grown. 
 The fact itself does not seem sufficiently well au- 
 thenticated; nor if it were, would it be applica- 
 ble to garments of linen. Nevertheless, this is 
 suggestive of defects in the materials, — which 
 were in all cases of organic production — arising 
 either from diseased growth, or from unskilful- 
 ness in the art of their preparation, which would 
 after a time manifest themselves in the product, 
 much in the same way as old books now some- 
 times become spotted over with a "leprosy" 
 arising from an insufficient removal of the chemi- 
 cals employed in the preparation of the paper 
 pulp. 
 
 But whatever the nature and origin of this sort 
 of "leprosy," it is plainly regarded in the Levi- 
 tical law as is no sense contagious, or in any way 
 calculated to produce directly injurious effects 
 upon man. It is provided for in the law, it 
 would appear, partly on the general ground of 
 the inculcation of cleanliness, and partly from 
 
102 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 association with the human disease to which it 
 bore an external resemblance, and to which the 
 utmost repugnance was to be encouraged. Even 
 the likeness aod suggestion of leprosy was to be 
 held unclean in the homes of Israel. 
 
 No mention has thus far been made of a theory 
 of this disease adopted by many physicians, and 
 which, if established, might really assimilate the 
 leprosy in houses and garments and ekins to that 
 in the human body, and explain the origin of all 
 alike by the same cause. According to this 
 theory, the disease is occasioned by vegetable 
 spores, which find a suitable nidus for their de- 
 velopment either in the human skin or in the 
 other substances mentioned. If this theory 
 should be accepted, the origin and effects of the 
 disintegrating agencies would be the same in all 
 cases. The late eminent physician, Dr. J. K. 
 Mitchell, in his work upon the origin of mala- 
 rious and epidemic fevers (Five Ussays, pi ?4), 
 after quoting the law in relation to leprosy, 
 Bays : " There is here described a disease whose 
 cause must have been of organic growth, capable 
 of living in the human being, and of creating 
 there a foul and painful disease of contagious 
 character, while it could also live and reproduce 
 itself in garments of wool, linen, or skin; nay 
 more, it could attach itself to the walls of a 
 house, and there also effect its own reproduction. 
 Animalcules, always capable of choice, would 
 scarcely be found so transferable ; and we are 
 therefore justified in supposing that green or red 
 fungi so often seen in epidemic periods, were the 
 protean disease of man, and his garment, and 
 his house." He further quotes from Hecker 
 statements corroboratory of his views in regard 
 to the plagues of 786 and 959. This theory, how- 
 ever, has not here been urged, partly because it 
 yet needs further proof, partly because no theory 
 at all is necessary to account for the Levitical 
 legislation in view of the facts presented in the 
 law. 
 
 For the literature of the subject, besides the 
 reference above given, see the art. by Hayman, 
 Leper, Leprosy, in Smith's Bibl. Diet., and the 
 Preliminary note on these chapters in Clark's 
 Com. on Lev., together with the appended notes 
 to the same. 
 
 At the opening of his "Exegetical" Lange 
 has the following, which may be appropriately 
 placed here : " First of all, it must be made pro- 
 minent that the leprosy, under the point of view 
 taken, and the sentence of uncleanness, is placed 
 as a companion to the uncleanness of birth, as 
 the representative of all ways of death, of all 
 sicknesses. It is unclean first in itself, as a death 
 element in the stream of life — in the blood — -even 
 as the source of life appears disturbed in the re- 
 lations of birth ; but still more it is unclean as 
 a sickness spreading by transmission and con- 
 tagion. 
 
 "Hence it appears also as a polluting element 
 of physical corruption, not only in men, but also 
 through the analogy of an evil diffusing iteelf, in 
 human garments and dwellings. The analogous 
 evils of these were, on this account, called lep- 
 rosy. 
 
 " In this extension over man and his whole 
 sphere it is, in its characteristics, a speaking 
 picture of sin and of evil the punishment of sin ; 
 
 it is, so to speak, the plastic manifestation, the 
 medical phantom or representation of all the 
 misery of sin. 
 
 " Accordingly the leprosy, and the contact 
 with it, is the specific uncleanness which ex- 
 cluded the bearer of it from the theocratic com- 
 munity, so that he, as the typically excommuni- 
 cated person, must dwell without the camp. 
 
 " Nothing is here said of the application of 
 human means of healing in reference to this evil. 
 The leper was left with his sickness to the mercy 
 of God and to the wonderfully deep antithesis of 
 recovery and death ; the more so, since leprosy 
 in a peculiar sense is a chronic crisis, a progres- 
 sive disease, continually secreting matter, whe- 
 ther for life or for death. Mention is made of 
 external counteraction only in regard to leprosy 
 in garments and houses. Hence, from its na- 
 ture, it is altogether placed under the supervi- 
 sion of the priest. The priest knew the charac- 
 teristics of the leprosy, and the course of its 
 crises; he had accordingly to decide upon the 
 exclusion and upon the restoration of the sick, 
 and to express the latter by the performance of 
 the sacrifice of purification brought for this pur- 
 pose by the convalescent. 
 
 "Thus in conformity to the spirit of Oriental 
 antiquity, the priest here appears as the physi- 
 cian also for bodily sicknesses, as a watchman 
 over the public health. But for the cosmic evils 
 he was still less a match than for those of the 
 body; against such the prophet must reveal mi- 
 raculous helps, e. g., against the bitterness of 
 the water, and against the bite of the fiery ser- 
 pents. 
 
 " The great contrast between the Old and the 
 New Testaments is made prominent in the fact, 
 that in the Old Testament the touch of the leper 
 made unclean, — apparently even leprous: — while 
 Christ by His touch of the lepers cleansed them 
 from their leprosy. But it continued to be left 
 to the priest, as the representative of the old co- 
 venant, to pronounce the fact. See Comm. S. 
 Matt,, p. 150." 
 
 "The name Leprosy, Al'^¥ is derived from 
 Hyi to strike down, to strike to the ground; the 
 leprosy is the stroke of God. Gesenius distin- 
 guishes the leprosy in men, the leprosy in houses 
 (probably the injury done by saltpetre), and the 
 leprosy in garments (mould, mildew). On this 
 chronic form of sickness, fully equal to the acute 
 form of the plague, comp. the article Leprosy 
 (Aussatz) in the dictionaries, especially in Her- 
 zog's Eeal-encyclopiidie, and in Winer. Four 
 principal forms are distinguished, of which three 
 are particularly described by Winer: 1) The 
 white leprosy, Barras, Xsvn>). " This prevailed 
 among the Hebrews (2 Kings v. 27, etc.) and has 
 hence been called by physicians lepra Mosaica. 
 See the description in Winer, I. p. 114. 2) The 
 Elephantiasis, lepra nodosa, or tuberculosa, tuber- 
 cular leprosy, Egyptian boil, thus endemic in 
 Egypt. " The sickness of Job was commonly 
 considered in antiquity to have been this kind 
 of leprosy." 3) The black leprosy or the dark 
 Barras. Later medical researches (to which the 
 articles in Bertheau's Conversations-lexicon, and 
 Schenkel's Bibel-lexicon refer) show the differ- 
 ences between the various kinds as less defined; 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 103 
 
 the contagious character is called in question by 
 Furrer (in Schenkel). In this matter indeed, it 
 is a question whether the rigid isolation of the 
 
 leprous has not hindered, in a great degree, the 
 examples of contagion." For a catalogue of 
 the literature, see Knobel, p. 469 and beyond. 
 
 A.— EXAMINATION AND ITS RESULT. 
 Chapter XIII. 1-46. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, When a man shall have 
 in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of the 
 flesh like the plague [a spot 1 ] of leprosy ; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the 
 
 3 priest, or unto one of his sous the priests : and the priest shall look on the plague 
 [spnt 1 ] in the skin of the flesh : and ichen the hair in the plague [spot 1 ] is turned 3 
 •white, and the plague [spot 1 ] in sight be deeper than the skin 2 of his flesh, it is a 
 plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy : aud the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him 
 
 4 unclean. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not 
 deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned' white ; then the priest 
 
 5 shall shut up him that hath the plague [shall bind up the spot*] seven days : and 
 the priest shall look on him the seventh day : and, behold, if the plague [spot 1 ] in 
 his sight be at a stay, and the plague [spot 1 ] spread not in the skin ; then the 
 
 6 priest shall shut him up [shall bind it up 4 ] seven days more: and the priest shall 
 look on him again the seventh day : aud, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark 
 [spot 1 be somewhat faint 5 ], and 6 the plague [spot 1 ] spread not in the skin, the priest 
 shall pronounce him clean : it is but a scab : and he shall wash his clothes, and be 
 
 7 clean. But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, after that he hath been 
 
 8 seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again : and if the 
 priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pro- 
 nounce him unclean : it is a leprosy. 
 
 9 When' the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto 
 10 the priest ; and the priest shall see him : and, behold, if the rising be white in the 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 Note. — A free translation of tbis chapter in terms of modern medical science may be fourd in Wilson, p. 377. 
 
 1 Ver. 2. T*J J, a word of very frequent occurrence in these two chapters where it is uniformly translated in the A. V. 
 
 (except xiii. 42, 43, sore) plague, as it is also in Gen. xii. 17 ; Ex.xi.l; T>eut. xxiv. S (in reference also to Ieprnsyt; 1 Kings 
 \i:i. 37, 33; PS. xci 10. Elsewhere the renderings of the A. V. are very various: sore, stroke, - By far th% 
 
 most comni' n rendering in the LXX. U aCjri=tartus, ictus. The idea of the word is a stroke or blotr, aud then tb i t I of 
 this in a wound or spot Clark therefore would translate here stroke, which meets well enough the meaning "f the word 
 bul does uot in all cases convey the sense in English. It is perhaps impossible to find one word in English whi li 
 ran be used in all cases; but that which seems hist adapted to Leviticus is the one given by Horsley and Lee, aud adopted 
 here: spot. So Keil, Wilson and others. There is no article in the Heb. 
 
 2 Ver. 3. The sense is here undoubtedly (he tear/ ddn (Clarl . the cuticle, in contradistinction to the cutis, the true skin 
 below. So Wilson, who says: "This distinction in realitv conetitut s one of the most important points of diu^nnsis between 
 real leprosy and affections of the skin otherwise resembling leprosy." But as we have in Heb. only the one word -)17/ for 
 both (except the air. Aey. "17J, Job xvi. 15), there does not seem to be warrant for changing the translation, especially ae 
 
 in English shin answers to either with the same indefiniteness. 
 
 3 Ver. 4. The coustructiou in vers. 3, 4 and 10 is without a preposition ; in vers. 16 and 17 it is with the preposition 
 
 7, as is expressed in the A. V. 
 
 * Vers. 4, o, etc. According to Rosenmtlller and Gesenins, y}) is used by metonymy for the person upon whom it is. 
 
 This view is adopted by Langn. It apneara in the Targ. of Onk. and in the Vulg., and has been followed by the A. V. F.ir 
 better is the rendering of the Sam., LXX. and Syr. : the priest shall bind up the spot, or sore. This is the exact translation of 
 the II- l», and is advocated by Horsley, Boothroyd, and many others. Fuerst does not recognize the sense by metonymy. 
 'lb ■ sain' change should perhaps also be mado in ver. 12. See Exegesis. In the case of shutting up the leprous house 
 (xiv. 3S) the word house is distinctly expressed in the Heb. 
 
 6 Ver. 6. nn2=di'm. pale, faint, weak, dying. The idea is that of something in the process of fading away, disappear- 
 
 T '* 
 
 ing. LXX. inavpa., Vulg. ohseurinr. 
 
 6 Ver. 6. It does not appear why the conjunction in the A. V. should be printed in italics; it is, however wanting in 
 18 MSS., the Sam., aud LXX. 
 
 7 Ver. 9. The conjunction is wanting in the Heb., but is supplied in th» Sam. and versions. 
 
 8 Vers. 10 and 24. H'TTD, according to Rosenmueller and Fueret an indication, aud this is the sense given in Targ., 
 Ouk. and the Syr., and apparently also in the Vulg. The LXX. renders ana rob vyiovt ttjs oapubs rijs c"wot)s e» r;; ouAjj, 
 
104 LEVITICUS. 
 
 skin, and it have turned 3 the hair white, and there be quick [a mark of 8 ] raw flesh 
 
 11 in the rising ; it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pro- 
 nounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up [bind it up 4 ] : for he is unclean. 
 
 12 And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the 
 skin of him that hath the plague [spot 1 ] from his head even to his foot, wheresoever 
 
 13 the priest looketh ; then the priest shall consider : and, behold, if the leprosy have 
 covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague [pronounce 
 
 14 the spot 1 clean 4 ] : it [he 9 ] is all turned white: he is clean. But when raw flesh 
 
 15 appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and 
 
 16 pronounce him to be unclean : for the raw flesh is unclean : it is a leprosy. Or if 
 the raw flesh turn [change 10 ] again, and be changed [be turned 10 ] unto white, he 
 
 17 shall come unto the priest ; and the priest shall see him : and, behold, if the plague 
 [spot 1 ] be turned into [unto 11 ] white ; then the priest shall pronounce him clean 
 thai hath the plague [pronounce the spot 1 clean 4 ] : he is clean. 
 
 18 The flesh also, in which, 12 even in the skin thereof, was a boil, 14 and is healed, 
 
 19 and in the place of the boil 14 there be a white rising, or a bright spot, white, and 
 
 20 somewhat reddish [and glistening 13 ], and it be shewed to the priest ; and if, when 
 the priest seeth it, behold, it be in sight lower than the skin, and the hair thereof 
 be turned white ; the priest shall pronounce him unclean : it is a plague [spot 1 ] of 
 
 21 leprosy broken out of the boil. 14 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be 
 no white hairs therein, and if it be not lower than the skin, but be somewhat dark 
 
 22 [faint 5 ] ; then the priest shall shut him up [shall bind it up 4 ] seven clays : and if 
 it spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean : 
 
 23 it is a plague [spot 1 ]. But if the bright spot stay in his place, and spread not, it 
 is a burning boil [a scar of the boil 15 ] ; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. 
 
 24 Or if there be any flesh, in the skin whereof there is a hot burning [a burn by 
 fire 16 ], and the quick flesh that burneth [the mark of the burn 8 ] have a white bright 
 
 25 spot, somewhat reddish [glistening 13 ], or white: then the priest shall look upon it: 
 and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and it Be in sight deeper 
 than the skin ; it is a leprosy broken out of the burning : wherefore the priest shall 
 
 26 pronounce him unclean : it is the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy. But if the priest look 
 on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than 
 the other [omit other'] skin, but be somewhat dark [faint 5 ] ; then the priest shall 
 
 27 shut him up [shall bind it up 4 ] seven days : and the priest shall look upon him 
 the seventh day; and if it be spread much abroad in the skin, then the priest shall 
 
 28 pronounce him unclean: it is the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy. And if the bright spot 
 stay in his place, and spread not in the skin, but it be somewhat dark [faint 5 ] : it 
 is a rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean : for it is an 
 inflammation [a scar 15 ] of the burning. 
 
 taking the 3 as a preposition, and understanding it, as the Rabbins, of a spot of proud flesh in the midst of the cicatrice. 
 The margin of the A. V. is the quickening of lining flash; scar would express the seDse, but this is appropriated to rmV, 
 
 vers. 23, 28, and mark gives the exact rendering of the Hebrew, and meets the requirements of the context. 
 
 Ver. 13. The pronoun should obviously refer to the man rather than the Bpot. 
 
 1" Ver. 16. 7|3nj- This being the Bame verb as is used in vers. 3, 4, 17, in the same sense, the rendering should cer- 
 tainly he the same. The alteration in the A. V. was evidently on account of the previous translation of JIU?' by turn. 
 
 It is better to put the new word there. 
 
 11 Ver. 17. The preposition is the same as in the previous verse, and the change in the A. V. may have been simply 
 accidental. 
 
 u Ver. 18. The word 13 soemB redundant, and is wanting in 4 MSS. and the Sam. 
 
 18 Ver. 19. J10"10"1X. The reduplication of the letters in Ileb. always intensifies the meaning (see Bochart, 27Mrae.Pt. 
 
 II.. lib. V., c. vi.. Ed. Rosen. HX, p. 612 ssl; if therefore this be translated red at all, it must be very red, which would be 
 iii Hot willi t> •■ previous isMfe. This obvious inconsistency has led the ancient versions into translations represented 
 by Hi- tmu what reddish of lie- A. V., and frequently to rendering the previous conjunction nr. But as there is I "junc- 
 tion at Ml iii the lb I... it Beems belter to follow the suggestion of Pool, Patrick and others, and understand the word as 
 meaning eery bright, thining, glistening. Comp. the description of leprosy, Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; 2 Kings v. 27. 
 
 » Vers. 1» ibis). 211, 23. rniy, burning ulcer, would perhaps be a better, becauso a more gonoial word; but boil was 
 probably understood with snfflcient latitude. 
 
 IS Vers. 23 and 28. rnt7n rO"lV, 71131371 Of, Rosenmueller, cirutrU vlcvris. So all tho ancient versions, and so 
 I • : - v T T : • - 
 
 Gesenins. So also Ooverdttle and Oranmer, and so Uigsrs. Fuerst, howevor, inflammation. 
 
 i« Ver. 24. The margin of the A. V. is better than the text. This paragraph (vers. 24-2S) is plainly in relation to lep- 
 rosy developing from a bum on the skin. So Uesuu, i'uerst, Pool, Patrick, etc. So the LXX. and Vulg. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 105 
 
 29, 30 If a man or -woman have a plague [spot 1 ] upon the head or the beard ; then 
 the priest shall see the plague [spot 1 ] : and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the 
 skin ; and there be in it a [omit a] yellow thin hair ; then the priest shall pronounce 
 
 31 him unclean : it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or beard. And if the 
 priest look on the plague [spot 1 ] of the scall, and, behold, it be not in sight deeper 
 than the skin, and that there is no black" hair in it ; then the priest shall shut up 
 him that hath the plague of the scall [shall bind up 4 the spot 1 of the scall] seven 
 
 32 days : and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague 18 [spot] : and, be- 
 hold, if the scall spread not, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the scall be not in 
 
 33 sight deeper than the skin ; he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave ; 
 and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall [shall bind up the scall' 1 ] seven 
 
 34 days more : and in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall : and, behold, 
 if the scall be not spread in the skin, nor be in sight deeper than the skin ; then 
 the priest shall pronounce him clean : and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 
 
 35, 36 But if the scall spread much in the skin after his cleansing ; then the priest 
 shall look on him : and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall 
 
 37 not seek for yellow hair; he is unclean. But if the scall be in his sight at a stay 
 and that there is black hair grown up therein ; the scall is healed, he is clean : and 
 the priest shall pronounce him clean. 
 
 38 If a man also or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white 
 
 39 bright spots ; then the priest shall look : and, behold, if the bright spots in the 
 skin of their flesh be darkish [faint 5 ] white ; it is a freckled spot 13 that groweth in 
 the skin ; he is clean. 
 
 40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald ;• yet is he clean. 
 
 41 And he that hath his hair fallen ofl' from the part of his head toward his face, he 
 
 42 is forehead bald: yet is he clean. And if there be in the bald head, or bald fore- 
 head, a white reddish sore [glistening 13 spot 1 ] ; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald 
 
 43 head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it : and, behold, if 
 the rising of the sore [spot 1 ] be white reddish [glistening 13 ] in his bald head, or in 
 
 44 his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh ; he is a leprous 
 man, he is unclean : the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean ; his plague 
 [spot 1 ] is in his head. 
 
 45 And the leper in whom the plague [spot 1 ] is, his clothes shall be rent, and his 
 head bare, 21 and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip [his mouth 22 ], and shall 
 
 46 cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague [spot 1 ] shall be in him he 
 shall be defiled : he is unclean : he shall dwell alone [apart 23 ] ; without the camp 
 shall his habitation be. 
 
 B.— LEPROSY IN CLOTHING AND LEATHER. 
 Chapter XIII. 47-59. 
 
 47 The garment also that the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen 
 
 48 garment, or a linen garment ; whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of 
 
 W Ver. 31. Tbe meaning of ^f"\iy=black is established. The LXX., yellow, can therefore only be considered as an 
 emendation of the text, substituting 3715, and this is followed by Luther, Knobel, Keil, Murphy and others; it is, how- 
 
 T 
 
 ever, sustained by no other ancient version nor by any MS., and tbe change in the LXX. must be considered as simply an 
 effort to avoid a difficulty. Keil and Clark propose, as a less desirable alternative, the omission of tbe negative particle. 
 There is, however, no real difficulty in the text as it stands. See Exegesis. 
 18 Ver. 32. The Sam. here substitutes pPJ, scull, for ^'JJ, «po(. 
 
 10 Ver. 30. p713, a word an- Ae'y. according to Gesen. a harmless eruption of a whitish color which appears on the 
 
 dark skiu of the Arabs, and is still called by tbe same name. 
 
 20 Ver. 40. nip. used here apparently for the bacifc of the head in contradistinction to n3X (he fron\ which occurs 
 
 only here (but its derivative, j"in3J» is found vers. 42 ti.s, 43 and 55). n^pi however, is elsewhere baldness in general. 
 
 Comp. Dent. xiv. 1. 
 
 21 Ver. 45. Comp. Textual Note 5 on x. 6. 
 
 22 Ver. 45. D3t£'. There is some doubt as to the true meaning. It is translated beard in the A. V., 2 Sam. xix. 24 
 
 T T 
 
 (2R), and so Fuerst and Gesenius would render it here, guided by tbe etymology. All the ancient versions, hoM v 
 
 late it 'ii tie] moui l or lips, and a word etymologically signifying beard (or rather tbe sprouting place of hair) would e.is.iy 
 
 come to have this sense in use. It is a different word from the tpJ=oeard of ver. 29. 
 
 23 Ver. 40. T13. The alone of the A. V. would ordinarily be a good enough translation, but is liable to be misuuder- 
 
 T T 
 
 stood. The leper was simply to dwell apart from the clean Israelites, but might and did live with other lepers. 
 
 22 
 
106 LEVITICUS. 
 
 49 \roollen ; whether in a skin, or in anything made of shin ; and if the plague [spot 1 ] 
 be greenish or reddish [very greeo or very red-*] in the garment, or in the skin, 
 either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin ; it is a plague [spot 1 ] of 
 
 50 leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest : and the priest shall look upon the 
 plague, and shut up it that hath the plague [spot, 1 aud bind up* the spot 1 ] seven 
 
 51 days : and he shall look on the plague [spot 1 ] on the seventh day : if the plague 
 [spot 1 ] be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, 
 or in any work that is made of skin ; the plague [spot 1 ] is a fretting leprosy; it is 
 
 52 unclean. He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen 
 or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague [spot 1 ] is: for it is a fretting 
 
 53 leprosy ; it shall be burnt in the fire. And if the priest shall look, and, behold, 
 the plague [spot 1 ] be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, 
 
 54 or in anything of skin; then the priest shall command that they wash the thing 
 
 55 wherein the plague [spot 1 ] is, and he shall shut [bind 1 ] it up seven days more: and 
 the priest shall look on the plague [spot 1 ], after that it is washed : and, behold, if 
 the plague [spot 1 ] have not changed his color, and the plague [spot 1 ] be not spread ; 
 it is unclean ; thou shalt burn it in the fire ; it is fret inward, whether it be bare 
 
 56 within or without. 25 And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat 
 dark [the spot 1 be somewhat faint 5 ] after the washing of it ; then he shall reud it 
 
 57 out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof: and. 
 if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything 
 of skin ; it is a spreading plague [omit a and plague'] ; thou shalt burn that wherein 
 
 58 the plague [spot 1 ] is, with fire. And the garment, either warp, or woof, or what- 
 soever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague [spot 1 ] be departed 
 from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean. 
 
 59 This is the law of the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, 
 either in the warp, or woof, or anything of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pro- 
 nounce it unclean. 
 
 C— CLEANSING AND RESTORATION OF A LEPER. 
 Chapter XIV. 1-32. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the 
 
 3 leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: and 
 the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if 
 
 4 the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy be healed in the leper; then shall the priest command 
 to take 26 for him that is to be cleansed two birds 2 ' alive and clean, and cedar wood 
 
 5 and scarlet, and hyssop : and the priest shall command that one of the birds be 
 
 6 killed in an earthen vessel over running [living 28 ] water : as for 29 the living bird, 
 he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip 
 them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running 
 
 7 [living 28 ] water: and he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the 
 leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird 
 
 8 loose into the open fields. And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, 
 and shave off all his hair, and wash [bathe 30 ] himself in water, that he may be 
 
 ** Ver. 49. p^pV- The reduplication of the letters intensifies the meaning. Comp. note '» on ver. 19. rra"131N, 
 
 too, as noted above, may here mean either very red, or, as before, glistening. There is so little knowledge about the fact 
 that neither of them can be certainly decided upon ; but as in this case we have the disjunctive (as also in xiv. 37), it seems 
 more probable that two distinct colors were intended. 
 
 25 A'er. 55. The margin of the A. V. gives the literal rendering of the Heb. bald in the head thereof, or in till forehead 
 there'/, andSthere can be no doubt that these are terms figuratively applied to the cloth or skin for the right and wrong 
 Bide, as in the text. 
 
 '-« Chap. XIV. Ver. 4. The Sam., LXX. and Syr. here read the verb in the plural, expressing the fulfillment of the 
 command. 
 
 27 Ver. 4. The margin of the A. V. reads ttparroxes, for which there Beems to be no other authority than the Vulg. The 
 Heb. does not define the kind of bird at all. 
 
 28 Ver. 5. Better, living water, which is the exact rendering of the Heb. Ordinarily living water is a figure for running 
 ■water; but here the water is contained in a vessel, aud had therefore simply been filled from a spring or ruuuing stream. 
 
 29 Ver. C. FIX- The conjunction which seems to be needed at the beginning of this verse is supplied in the Sam. and 
 
 6 MSS. There is nothing in Heb. answering to the at for of the A. V. 
 
 *> Ver. 8. I'nl is applied only to the washing of' the surface of objects which water will not penetrate. Comp. i. 9, 
 
 13 ; ix. 14, etc. It is a different word from 22 of the previous clauBe, which is used of a more thorough washing or full- 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 107 
 
 clean : and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of 
 his tent seven days. 
 9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head 
 and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall 
 wash his clothes, also he shall wash [bathe 50 ] his flesh in water, and he shall be 
 clean. 
 
 10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs [two young rams 31 ] without 
 blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals 
 of fine flour for a meat offering [an oblation 32 ], mingled with oil, and one log of oil. 
 
 11 And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made 
 clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the con- 
 
 12 gregation : and the priest shall take one he lamb [ram 31 ], and offer him for a tres- 
 pass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord : 
 
 13 and he 33 shall slay the lamb [ram 31 ] in the place where he 33 shall kill the sin offer- 
 ing and the burnt offering, in the holy place : for as the sin offering is the priest's, 
 
 14 go is** the trespass offering: it is most holy: and the priest shall take some of the 
 blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right 
 car of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon 
 
 15 the great toe of his right foot: and the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and 
 10 pour it into the palm of his own left hand : and the priest shall dip his right finger 
 
 in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven 
 
 17 times before the Lord : and of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest 
 put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb 
 of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood 15 of the 
 
 18 trespass offering: and the remnant of 36 the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall 
 pour [put 37 ] upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make 
 
 19 an atonement for him before the Lord. And the priest shall offer the sin offering, 
 and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleauness ; and 
 
 20 afterward he shall kill the burnt offering: and the priest shall offer the burnt 
 offering and the meat offering [oblation 3 -] upon the altar : 38 and the priest shall 
 make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean. 
 
 21 And if he be poor, and cannot get so much : then he shall take one lamb [ram 31 ] 
 for a trespass offering to be waved, to make an atonement for him, and one tenth 
 
 22 deal of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering, and a log of oil ; and two 
 turtle doves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get ; and the one shall be 
 
 23 a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering. And he shall bring them on the 
 eighth day for [of 39 ] his cleansing unto the priest, unto the door of the tabernacle 
 
 24 of the congregation, before the Lord. And the priest shall take the lamb [ram 31 ] 
 of the trespass offering, and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a 
 
 25 wave offering before the Lord : and he shall kill the lamb [ram 31 ] of the trespass 
 offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and 
 put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the 
 
 ing. The English is unable in all cases to preserve the distinction ; but it should be done as far as possible, and VTll is 
 frequently translated bathe in the following chapter (xv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 27) and elsewhere. 
 
 31 Ver. 10. D'D'33~' , 3lV. See Textual Note 6 on iii. 7. The age is not exactly specified in the Heb.; bat the Sam. 
 
 ■ t : ■■ : 
 and LXX. add of the first year, as in the following clause. 
 
 32 Ver. 10. See Textual Note "- on ii. 1. 
 
 33 Yer. 12. The Sam. and LXX. have the plural. Probably the sing, of the Heb. is not intended to have the prieBt for 
 its nominative, but to be impersonal. 
 
 34 Ver. 13. One MS., the Sam , LXX. and Yulg. supply the particle of comparison, 3. 
 
 85 Ver. 17. Two MSS., the LXX. and Vulg. here read, as the Heb. in ver. 28, upon the place of the blood. 
 
 86 Ver 18. For j^u'3 three MSS. and the Syr. read T*Dt^n~TO, as in ver. 16. On this use of 3, however, see Fuerst, 
 Lex. "3, 3, o. V- Gesen. Lex. A. 2. 
 
 37 Ver. 18. jrY is better translated put, both as more agreeable to the meaning of the word itself, and because the oil 
 remaining in the left hand could hardly suffice for pouring. 
 
 38 Ver. 20. The Sam. and LXX. add before the Lord. 
 
 39 Ver. 23. The preposition is here so liable to be misunderstood that it is better to change it. It has reference to the 
 eighth day appointed for his cleansing (as the Vulg.), not to the sacrifices for his cleansing (as the LXX). So Geddes and 
 Boothroyd. In ver. 10 the difficulty does not occur. 
 
108 LEVITICUS. 
 
 26 thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot : and the priest 
 
 27 shall pour of the oil into the palm of his own 10 left hand : and the priest shall 
 sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times 
 
 28 before the Lord: and the priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand upon the 
 tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right 
 hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the place of the blood of the 
 
 29 trespass offering : and the rest of 41 the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put 
 upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, to make an atonement for him before 
 
 30 the Lord. And he shall offer the one of the turtle doves, or of the young pigeons, 
 
 31 such as he can get ; even such as he is able to get, the one for a sin offering, and 
 the other for a burnt offering, with the meat offering : and the priest shall make 
 an atonement for him that is to be cleansed before the Lord. 
 
 32 This is the law of him in whom is the plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy, whose hand is 
 not able to get that ivhich pertaineth to his cleansing. 
 
 D.— LEPROSY IN A HOUSE. 
 Chapter XIV. 33-53. 
 
 33, 34 And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, "When ye be come 
 into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague 
 
 35 [spot 1 ] of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession ; and he that owneth 
 the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were 
 
 36 a plague [spot 1 ] in the house : then the priest shall command that they empty the 
 house, before the priest go into it to see the plague [spot 1 ], that all that is in the 
 house be not made unclean : and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house : 
 
 37 and he shall look on the plague [spot 1 ], and, behold, if the plague [spot 1 ] be in the 
 walls of the house with hollow strakes, 42 greenish or reddish [very green or very 
 
 38 red 43 ], which in sight are lower than the wall ; then the priest shall go out of the 
 
 39 house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days : and the priest 
 shall come again the seventh day, and shall look : and, behold, if the plague [spot 1 ] 
 
 40 be spread in the walls of the house ; then the priest shall command that they take 
 away the stones in which the plague [spot 1 ] is, and they shall cast them into an 
 
 41 unclean place without the city : and he 44 shall cause the house to be scraped within 
 round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city 
 
 42 into an unclean place : and they shall take other stones, and put them in the place 
 of those stones ; and he 44 shall take other mortar, and shall plaister the house. 
 
 43 And if the plague [spot 1 ] come again, and break out in the house, after that he 44 
 hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is 
 
 44 plaistered ; then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague [spot 1 ] 
 
 45 be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean. And 
 he 44 shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all 
 the mortar of the house ; and he 44 shall cany them forth out of the city into an 
 
 46 unclean place. Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut 
 
 47 up shall be unclean until the even. And he that lieth in the house shall wash his 
 clothes ; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes. 45 
 
 48 And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague [spot 1 ] 
 hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered : then the priest shall 
 
 49 pronounce the house clean, because the plague [spot 1 ] is healed. And he shall take 
 
 50 to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop : and he 
 
 *> Ver. 26. |n3n ^"bt*, an expression understood by Houbigant to mean tbat one priest should pour into the 
 hand of another; the sense given in the A. V. following the Vulg. is, however, doubtless correct. 
 
 * l Ver. 29. The Sam. here reverses its change of reading in ver. IS, and has 3 for TO. 
 
 « Ver. 36. n'H'TJ'ptf, a word air. Aey., but its meaning sufficiently well ascertained. The A. V. foUows the LXX., 
 Chald. and Vulg., and the same sense is given by Roseum., Fuerst and Gcsen, though by each with a different etymology. 
 
 « Ver. 37. See Notes " on xiii. 10, and « on ver. 49. 
 
 * Ver. 41. All the ancient versions except the Vulg. chance (be causative form of the verb to the plural, as the follow- 
 ing verb is plural. Alrfu in vers. 4"Z, ■!:;, 45, 'f.', they baVO the plural. 
 
 4* Ver. 47. Tho LXX. here ad'N, what is of course implied, and he unclean until the even. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 
 
 109 
 
 51 shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: and he shall 
 take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip 
 them in the blood of the slain bird, and 46 in the running [living 28 ] water, and sprin- 
 
 52 kle the house seven times: and he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, 
 and with the running [living 28 ] water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar 
 
 53 wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet : but he shall let go the living bird 
 out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house : and it 
 shall be clean. 
 
 E. — CONCLUSION. 
 Chap. XIV. 54-57. 
 
 54, 55 This is the law for all manner of plague [spot 1 ] of leprosy, and scall, and for 
 
 56 the leprosy of a garment, and of a house, and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a 
 
 57 bright spot: to teach when it is unclean, and when it U clean: this is the law of 
 leprosy. 
 
 w Ver. 51. The LXX. has dip tittm in tlie blood of the bird that has been killed over the living water, and thia is doubtless 
 the sense- of the text. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 A. The Examination and its result. 
 
 The indications of the disease. Vers. 1-8. 
 
 Ver. 1. This communication is addressed to 
 Moses and Aaron conjointly because it requires 
 examinations and determinations entrusted to the 
 priests. 
 
 Vers. 2-8. The first case, of symptoms like lep- 
 rosy. Ver. 2. Man is of course used generically 
 for a person of either sex. No stress is to be 
 laid upon the fact that the expression skin of 
 his flesh is found only in this chapter ; for the 
 word skin occurs here nearly as often as in all 
 the rest of the Scripture put together, and very 
 similar expressions do occur elsewhere, e.g. Ex. 
 xxxiv. 29, 30, 35, " the skin of his face," and 
 the skin is often spoken of as covering the flesh, 
 e. g. Ezek. xxxvii. 6, 8, etc. — A rising, a scab, 
 or a bright spot, are different indications of 
 incipient leprosy; the disease itself was more 
 deeply seated, but it betrayed itself, as it does 
 still, by these marks. The last two terms are 
 only used in connection with this disease, and 
 the first is only elsewhere used figuratively of 
 dignity or excellency. " The name leprosy 
 JTJHV is derived from yyS = to strike down, to 
 strike to the ground: the leper is he who has been 
 smitten by God." Lange. For the examination 
 of the leper one of the ordinary priests was suf- 
 ficient as well as the high-priest ; the Talmudists 
 assert, that priests debarred by physical imper- 
 fection from ministering at the altar were com- 
 petent to the examination of lepers. The priests 
 were expected, if occasion required, to consult 
 with experts, but the formal sentence rested with 
 them alone. 
 
 Ver. 3. These marks, however, might exist 
 without having been caused by leprosy. Two 
 distinguishing characteristics are now men- 
 tioned, and if both these concurred, there could 
 be no doubt about the case — the priest was at 
 once to pronounce him unclean ; (a) if the 
 hair growing upon the spot had turned white. 
 The hair of the Israelites was normally black ; 
 if it had turned white upon the spot it be- 
 trayed a cause at work beneath the surface of 
 
 the skin, (b) If the spot was in appearance 
 deeper than the skin. " These sigus are re- 
 cognized by modern observers (e. g. Hensler) ; 
 and among the Arabs leprosy is regarded as cu- 
 rable if the hair remains black upon the white 
 spots, but incurable if it becomes whitish in co- 
 lor." Keil. Judgment was of course required in 
 the application of the second test ; but if the in- 
 dications were clear, the case was decided, and 
 the duty of the priest was to declare the exist- 
 ing fact. 
 
 Vers. 4-8. The determination of cases in which 
 the indications are not decisive. First, vers. 4- 
 6, the case in which the suspicion of leprosy 
 should prove unfounded. If there were suspi- 
 cious looking spots, but yet they appeared on 
 examination to be merely superficial, and there 
 was no change in the color of the hair growing 
 in them, either of two things might be possible : 
 the spots might be the effect of true leprosy not 
 yet sufficiently developed to give decisive indi- 
 cations : or they might be a mere eruption upon 
 the skin, of no importance. To ascertain which 
 of these was the fact, the priest was to bind up 
 the spot seven days. — -At the end of that time 
 a second examination was to be made; if then 
 the indications were favorable, the same process 
 was to be repeated. If at the end of this time 
 the indications were still favorable, and espe- 
 cially if the suspicious spot had become faint, 
 tending to disappear, the priest was to pro- 
 nounce the man clean. Yet still the very suspi- 
 cion, unfounded as it proved to be, had brought 
 some semblance of a taint upon the man, and he 
 must wash his clothes. These two periods 
 of seven days each are usually looked upon as 
 periods of a sort of quarantine, during which the 
 man himself was to be secluded, and this view 
 has been incorporated into the A. V. here and 
 throughout these chapters. It is not, however, 
 required by the Hebrew, and in view of the great 
 hardship it would impose upon those who were 
 in reality entirely free from the disease, it seems 
 more likely that the simple rendering of the He- 
 brew gives the true sense. The extreme slow- 
 ness with which leprosy is oftentimes developed 
 has been considered a difficulty in the way of a 
 determination in reality, in so short a time ; 
 
110 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 however, the two things are not at all incompa- 
 tible. A fortnight was quite long enough to de- 
 termine the character of any ordinary eruption; 
 if it was none of these, and yet possessed the 
 characteristics of leprosy, then it must be de- 
 cided to be leprosy, although months or years 
 might pass before the disease showed much fur- 
 ther progress. Vers. 7, 8, however, show that 
 even the leprous spots themselves did not re- 
 main quite unchanged during this time. On the 
 second examination the priest could ascertain if 
 the spots had begun to spread. If not, the dis- 
 ease, although it might possibly already exist, 
 was not pronounced; but if they had spread, all 
 doubt was at an end ; the priest shall pro- 
 nounce him unclean. Another view is taken 
 of ver. 7. Kosenmiiller says that in the word 
 
 'liTinoi the 7 is to be taken for postquam as in 
 
 tt: t : : ■* p 3 
 
 Ex. xix. 1 ; Num. i. 1 ; 1 Kings iii. 18 ; this 
 
 sense is followed in the Vulg. and Luther, and 
 adopted by Vatablus, Patrick, and other com- 
 mentators. According to this the law would re- 
 late to the breaking out of the leprosy afresh at 
 gome time after he had been pronounced clean 
 by the priest. The translation of the A. V., 
 however, which is here followed, seems more ex- 
 actly the sense of the Hebrew. 
 
 Vers. 9—11. The second case is one in which 
 ulceration has already begun. Either it is a 
 long-standing case in which the command for 
 inspection has been neglected, or else one in 
 which sentence of cleanness has been pronounced 
 on insufficient grounds. With the appearauce 
 of a mark of raw flesh in the rising, in com- 
 bination with the other indications, all doubt 
 was removed ; it must be an old leprosy, and 
 the priest shall at once pronounce him un- 
 clean. 
 
 Vers. 12-17. The third case is looked upon ac- 
 cording to differing medical views, either as a 
 different disease, the lepra vulgaris, which 
 "scarcely affects the general health, and for the 
 most part disappears of itself, though it often 
 lasts for years" (Clark); or as a case of the true 
 leprosy in which " the breaking out of the lep- 
 rous matter in this complete and rapid way upon 
 the surface of the whole body was the crisis of 
 the disease ; the diseased matter turned into a 
 scurf, which died away and then fell off" (Keil). 
 Patrick compares it to the eruptious in measles 
 and small pox, when there is safety in their full 
 development. The suspected person thus either 
 had a harmless disease, or he had had the leprosy 
 and was cured. In either case sentence of clean- 
 ness was to be pronounced. But (vers. 14, 15) 
 if ulceration appeared (it would seem either at 
 the moment or afterwards) he was at once to be 
 declared unclean. This ulceration, however, 
 might proceed from some other cause ; therefore, 
 although the man must be declared unclean in 
 view of so suspicious an indication, yet if it af- 
 terwards passed away, the sentence might be 
 reversed, and the man pronounced clean without 
 further investigation. 
 
 Vers. 18-23. The fourth case is that of a sus- 
 pected leprosy arising from an abscess or boil 
 which had been healed. Such disturbed condi- 
 tions of the surface were peculiarly apt to be- 
 come the seat of disease. The indications are 
 
 much the same as in the other cases, the terms 
 first mentioned here being equally applicable to 
 the others. Reliance is again placed (ver. 20) 
 upon the depth of the spot and the change in the 
 color of the hair. If these indications were clear, 
 as in ver. 3, the priest should at once pronounce 
 the man unclean ; if they were doubtful, he was 
 to proceed as in ver. 4, and be guided by the re- 
 sult of a second examination at the end of seven 
 days. In such a case a single interval of a week 
 appears to have been sufficient, and no further 
 examination is provided for. After one week it 
 could be certainly determined whether it was 
 merely the scar of the ulcer, or whether leprosy 
 had really broken out in it. 
 
 Vers. 24-28. The fifth case is that of suspected 
 leprosy developing from a burn, another of those 
 injuries favorable for the development of the 
 disease. The indications and the procedure are 
 precisely the same as before. In ver. 2G the A. 
 V. has inserted the word other unfortunately. 
 
 Vers. 29-37. The case of leprosy suspected in 
 an eruption upon the hairy part of the head, or 
 upon the beard. Although this is spoken ex- 
 pressly in regard to both men and women, yet 
 the indications are so dependent upon hair that 
 it is not proper to substitute here chin for beard, 
 as is done by Keil. The word used Jpl is a dif- 
 ferent one from the D3ty of ver. 45, which is 
 
 T T 
 
 often translated beard; the Ancient Versions, 
 however, give beard here, and either mouth or lips 
 there. Pliny (Xat. Hist. lib. xxvi. 1) speaks of 
 such a disease imported into Italy from Asia in 
 the reign of Tiberius, neither painful nor fatal, 
 "yet any death preferable to it." In ver. 30 
 the A. V. has unnecessarily modified the symp- 
 toms by inserting the indefinite article before 
 yellow thin hair. The word Tj'i' is collec- 
 tive, as in ver. 3, and freq. In this form of the 
 disease the natural hair seems to have been sup- 
 planted by thin, yellow (2TYS=golden, shining) 
 hair. This is declared to be p;"U, translated in 
 the A. V. dry scall, and immediately explained 
 as a leprosy upon the head or beard. The 
 word occurs only in these chapters. The indi- 
 cations given in vers. 29, 30, were not absolutely 
 decisive. It would seem from ver. 31, that in 
 the coming on of true leprosy the effect upon the 
 hair was only gradually produced, part of the 
 hair remaining for a time of its natural color; 
 while in the case of other harmless cutaneous 
 eruptions, of more rapid progress, all the hair 
 on the affected spot was speedily changed. Hence 
 the entire absence of black hair at the first was 
 a favorable symptom. In this view the text is 
 consistent enough with itself as it stands, and 
 Keil is wrong in saying " there is certainly an 
 error in the text." In case of this favorable 
 symptom the priest should bind up the spot for 
 two periods of a week, making a further exami- 
 nation at the end of each of them. The favo- 
 rable indications were that the spot did not 
 Bpread, did not appear to be deep-seated, and the 
 yellow hair disappeared. If this was the case 
 at the end of the first period, the person was to 
 be shaven with the exception of the spot, and at 
 the end of the second pronounced clean, and to 
 wash his clothes. — If, however, (vers. 35, 3ii) 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57 
 
 111 
 
 the trouble afterwards spread, the person was to 
 be again examined by the priest, and being sa- 
 tisfied of this single fact, the priest must pro- 
 nounce him unclean. Yet if this spreading was 
 only temporary, he might finally be pronounced 
 clean (ver. 37) provided the natural hair grew 
 again in the spot. 
 
 Vers. 38, 39. This is the case of a harmless 
 eruption in the skin termed pH2, LXX. a?.ci6c. 
 It is still known among the Arabs and called by 
 the same name, bohak, " It is an eruption upon 
 the skin, appearing in somewhat elevated spots 
 or rings of unequal sizes and a pale white color, 
 which do not change the hair; it causes no in- 
 convenience, and lasts from two months to two 
 years." Keil. It is placed here, because it 
 might be, without proper examination, mistaken 
 for leprosy, and its appearance was probably 
 most nearly assimilated to the symptoms last 
 mentioned. The sufferer by it was at once dis- 
 charged as clean, without further ceremony. 
 
 Vers. 40-44. The baldness of the head, whether 
 on the front or back, constitutes no uncleanness ; 
 yet leprosy might be developed in the bald parts, 
 and then was to be dealt with as in other cases. 
 The reason for speaking of baldness at all in this 
 connection is probably that the color of the hair 
 has been made of so much importance in deter- 
 mining the symptoms of leprosy, that the legis- 
 lator would cut off all opportunity for cavil in 
 suspected cases. 
 
 Vers. 45, 46. The law for the pronounced 
 leper. The leper was in the first place to put on 
 the signs of mourning (comp. Ezek. xxiv. 17, 22), 
 some say "for himself as one over whom death 
 had already gained the victory " (Clark) ; but it 
 may have been merely as a mark of great afflic- 
 tion, and some of the signs were also signs of 
 shame (comp. Mic. iii. 7). And shall cry, 
 Unclean, unclean, as a warning to any passers 
 by. This command is not, as sometimes asserted, 
 to guard against the danger of communicating 
 the disease; but rather to avoid making others 
 ceremonially unclean by contact with a leper. 
 The Rabbins carried this sort of defilement so 
 far as to assert that "by merely entering a 
 house, a leper polluted everything without it." 
 (Mishna, Kelini i. 4; Negaim xiii. 11, as cited by 
 Keil). All the days.— The law constantly 
 keeps in view the possibility of the recovery of 
 the leper; but it is uncertain whether this indi- 
 cates that the true leprosy was then less incura- 
 ble than now, or whether it has regard to the 
 possibility of error in the determination of the 
 disease. In either case, while the symptoms 
 continued for which he had been pronounced 
 unclean, and until by the same authority he was 
 again formally declared clean (xiv. 1-32), he 
 was to dwell apart ; without the camp. 
 Comp. Num. v. 2-4; xii. 14, 15; 2 Ki. xv. 5; 
 Lk. xvii. 12. The Jews say that there were three 
 camps from all of which the leper was excluded: 
 that of God (the tabernacle), that of the Levites, 
 and that of Israel. After the settlement in the 
 Holy Land the camp was considered in this, as 
 in other commands, to be represented by the 
 walled city. Vet af'er the erection of syna- 
 gogues'lepers were allowed to enter a particular 
 part of them set apart for their use, (Mishna 
 ubi supra). 
 
 B. Leprosy in clothing and Leather, xiii. 
 47-59. 
 
 Only three materials for clothing are here 
 mentioned: wool, linen, and skins. The two 
 former were the usual materials among the an- 
 cient Egyptians and Greeks, and only these are 
 mentioned Deut. xxii. 11; Prov. xxxi. 13; Hos. 
 ii. 9. It is a dispute among the Talmudisls 
 whether garments of camel's hair are included 
 or not. Woolen and linen were forbidden by the 
 law (six. 19) to be mixed in the same garment. 
 On the nature of the leprosy here described, 
 see the preliminary note to this chapter. 
 Ver. 48. Whether it be in the warp or 
 woof has occasioned much unnecessary per- 
 plexity on account of the supposed difficulty iu 
 one of these remaining uuaffected in the cloth 
 by any disintegration occurring in the other; 
 and Keil would translate " the flax and the wool;" 
 Clark, De Wette, Knobel and others, (with whom 
 Keil also seems to concur) explain it of yarn 
 prepared for warp and yam prepared for woof. 
 There is really however, no difficulty in the mat- 
 ter, if the trouble is supposed to arise from some 
 original fault in the material or in the processes 
 of its preparation. Whichever was made of such 
 material would first show the defect, and it could 
 be seen in the cloth that the trouble arose from 
 either the warp or the woof, as the case might 
 be. The same sort of thing is sometimes ob- 
 served in cloth now when the proper proportion 
 has not been observed between the strength of 
 the two kinds of thread, so that the cloth will 
 tear with undue ease in one direction but not in 
 the other; or when, in cloth woven of different 
 colors, one set of threads has been injured in the 
 dyeing. A distinction is made between a skin 
 and any thing made of skin. The former 
 were whole skins, as sheep skins dressed with 
 the wool on for a sort of cloak for the poor, or 
 for mats, etc., and also made into leather for 
 bottles and other uses; the latter the endless 
 variety of smaller articles made of leather. Ver. 
 49. A strong green or red spot was prima facie 
 evidence of leprosy, and subjected that in which 
 it appeared to priestly examination. According 
 to Maimonides (cited by Patrick) the spot must 
 be "as broad as a bean," and if smaller than 
 this was of no consequence. Ver. 50. Bind up 
 the spot — Here as in ver. 4, etc., the usual in- 
 terpretation is that of the A. V., shut up it that 
 halh the spot; but the Hebrew in all these places 
 only means necessarily the binding up of the 
 spot itself, not a sort of quarantine upon the 
 person or thing on which it is. See Textual note 
 4. In this case there is not the same hardship 
 involved in the other rendering as in the case 
 of the human subject: but still the rendering is 
 objectionable as implying much more strongly 
 than the law itself the idea of contagiousness. 
 Vers. 51-58 describe the appearances by which 
 the priest must determine whether the suspicious 
 spots were really leprosy or not. These turn 
 upon whether the spot increased. If it did, then 
 he was at once to burn that garment. The 
 expresssion in vers. 52, and 58, whether warp 
 or woof, and in ver. 56 out of the warp or 
 out of the woof is to be understood of the 
 cloth in which the disease has appeared in either 
 the warp or the woof. Fretting, vers. 53, 52 
 
112 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 (Bochart, lepra exasperata), is equivalent to cor- 
 roding. If however, the spot had not increased 
 at the examination made at the end of a week, 
 the suspected article was to be washed and the 
 process repeated. If at the end of another week 
 after the washiug there was no change in the 
 color of the spot, the thing was to be condemned 
 and burned, although there was no apparent 
 spreading. In such case it is fret inward, 
 i. e., the material itself was faulty and unfit for 
 use. Whether it be bare within or with- 
 out ; lit. bald in the head thereof, or in the 
 forehead thereof, (Margin A. V. See Texual 
 note 20). As the disease itself is figuratively 
 named from its resemblance to the human lep- 
 rosy, so these terms are used in the same way, 
 and are generally considered to mean the right 
 or the wrong side of the cloth or skin. On the 
 other hand, if at the end of the week after the 
 washing the spot had become less distinct (ver. 
 56 |, it was to be torn out of the garment or skin. 
 If it reappeared (ver. 57) the thing was to be 
 burned ; but otherwise (ver. 58) to be washed a 
 second time and then pronounced clean. Ver. 
 59 is simply the usual conclusion, stating that 
 the foregoing is the law for the cases specified. 
 
 C. Cleansing and restoration of the leper, 
 xiv. 1-32. 
 
 This communication was addressed to Moses 
 alone, because there were no questions to be 
 determined by priestly examination; it simply 
 directs what is to be done in the case of a per- 
 son already pronounced clean by the priest. 
 Vers. 1—20 prescribe the normal course, vers. 
 21-31 allow certain modifications for the poor, 
 and ver. 32 is the conclusion. 
 
 A new Proper Lesson of the law begins here, 
 and extends to the close of the following chap- 
 ter; the parallel lesson from the prophets is 
 2 Ki. vii. 3-20, containing the account brought 
 into Samaria by the four lepers of the flight of 
 the besieging army of the Syrians. 
 
 Lange : " a. The theocratico-political atone- 
 ment, or the taking again of the person pro- 
 nounced clean into the camp, i. e., into the con- 
 gregation of the people. Hence this first act 
 of atonement took place without the camp (later, 
 before the gate of the city). The leper was to 
 be represented by two birds, living and clean. 
 They must be wild birds, since the tame turtle 
 doves or the young pigeons would not have flown 
 away when released. Since these birds repre- 
 sent the maximum of free motion, we may cer- 
 tainly find this thought indicated: want of free 
 motion was a chief cause of the leprosy." [This 
 inference, however, it is to be remembered, is 
 only an inference, not a part of the law which 
 carefully abstains from any mention of the 
 causes]. "One of these birds was slain over a 
 vessel in which there was already some fresh 
 spring or river water. It is not to be understood 
 that in this the purification by water was indi- 
 cated together with the atoning blood, since the 
 washing follows farther on; on the contrary, in 
 the fresh water the thought of living motion is 
 again brought out. The blood of the slain bird 
 dropped into this water; the few drops of blood, 
 in and of themselves, would not suffice for the 
 sprinkling. Nevertheless also, the blood of the 
 slain bird considered as typically sick, through 
 
 death became fresh again in its signification. 
 The living bird, which was to remain alive, was 
 dipped in the augmented blood of the dead bird. 
 Cut very note-worthy are the allegorical accom- 
 paniments which jointly serve to illustrate the 
 living bird, and were therefore dipped with it in 
 the blood; a piece of cedar wood, as a symbol 
 of the endurance of life ; a piece of scarlet, as a 
 symbol of the freshness of life; some hyssop, as a 
 symbol of the purity of life through constant puri- 
 fications of life." (See Keil, p. 106, [trans., p. 
 385 «.]). After the living bird with these accom- 
 paniments had been dipped in the blood, the 
 person to be cleansed was sprinkled seven times 
 with this blood. No further mention is made of 
 the dead bird, since its flesh was not a sacrifice ; 
 but the living bird, hallowed by the blood of the 
 dead, is set free. We may rightly see in the 
 two birds the double position of the leper in his 
 leprosy: in the slain bird he appears as he had 
 fallen into death ; in the one that is set free, 
 on the contrary, he appears as by God's mercy 
 he is recovered to unrestrained motion. But we 
 might also in this contrast find the thought, that 
 the leprosy, as it falls upon one part of the com- 
 munity, keeps the other part all the more free; 
 or, that health and disease are separated as 
 opposite poles in regard to the common national 
 life. In any case, it is a fact that, in regions 
 where Cretinism prevails, which is analogous to 
 leprosy, the freshest and strongest forms occur 
 near the sick. Meanwhile, the person sprinkled 
 with the blood must complete this purification in 
 several ways: first, by washing his clothes; 
 secondly, by cutting off all his hair from his 
 whole body, (whether also his eyebrows and 
 eyelashes?); thirdly, by bathing himself. Then 
 he might go into the camp, but must yet add 
 seven days more on the outside of his tent. 
 Why ? Keil answers with the Chaldee et non 
 accedal ad latus uxoris suie. But the law would 
 not have been too modest to say so. With this 
 id to be noticed that this same direction is 
 applied to several analogous cases. He who is 
 healed of a running issue, must wait seven days 
 after the recognition of his healing before he can 
 bring his sacrifice (xv. 13). The same applies 
 to the woman with an issue of blood [ib. 2S). So 
 too, for the Nazarite in whose presence a man 
 had died (Num. vi. 10). Particularly weighty 
 is the direction of the seven days' waiting 
 which, according to viii. 35, must introduce the 
 final consecration of the priests. We cannot say 
 that during these seven days the priest was yet 
 unclean ; but he had not indeed become fully 
 clean for the service of the priesthood. When 
 we look back at the ordinance of the second 
 seven days in reference to one who has been 
 recognized as clean — the leprous man, or gar- 
 ment, or house, — there appears a distinction of 
 cleanness of a first and second grade, a negative 
 and a positive cleanness, which latter was a kind 
 of priestly consecration. Every Israelite, in his 
 degree should have this priestly consecration ; 
 but espe»ially near to it stood the Nazarite, and 
 next to him we place the cleansed leper. In the 
 new covenant, the highly favored sinner st nds 
 higher than the Christian of less experience of 
 salvation; the son, who was lost and found, 
 higher than the elder brother; Mary Magdalene 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 
 
 113 
 
 nigher than a common maiden." [It must be 
 always borne in miuil, however, that this supe- 
 riority does not rest upon any advantage in 
 having sinned, but upon the earnestness of love 
 on the part of him who has been forgiven. See 
 Lk. vii. 47. F. G.]. "This fact appears to have 
 been typically represented in the Old Testament 
 by the restoration of the cleansed leper to the 
 worship of the congregation." [It was repre- 
 sented, that is to say, in the very full ceremonies 
 and sacrifices accompanying the restoration, but 
 not in any higher position of the cleansed leper 
 after his restoration was accomplished. — F. G.]. 
 
 " 6. The theocratico-religious atonement. The 
 offering obligatory upon the leper was very ex- 
 tensive ; two he-lambs, one ewe-lamb, three tenth 
 parts of wheaten flour mingled with oil, and a 
 log of oil. The trespass offering formed the be- 
 ginning of the offering, for the leper has by the 
 connection with his people come into its guilt." 
 [Nevertheless, it is hard to see how this could 
 have been the reason, when the leper had been 
 absolutely separated from his people, and was 
 now to be restored to his connection with them. 
 But see under ver. 12.— F. G.]. " The blood of 
 this trespass offering was first treated like the 
 blood of the trespass offering of the priest; it 
 was put on the tip of the right ear, on the thumb 
 of the right hand, and on the thumb or great toe 
 of the right foot, all with the same meaning as 
 in the consecration of the priests. In addition 
 to this, the oil comes into use, which indeed, as 
 being common oil, is different from the anointing 
 oil of the priests, but is still a symbol of the 
 spiritual life. With this oil in minute measure, 
 the priest, with a finger of his right hand dipped 
 in the oil which had been poured into the hollow 
 of the left, executed a seven-fold sprinkling be- 
 fore the Lord,!, e., towards the sanctuary. Then, 
 with the rest of the oil, the three parts of the 
 body were anointed which had been smeared 
 with the blood of the trespass offering. The 
 blood baptism preceded, as the negative conse- 
 cration : the oil baptism must follow, as the po- 
 sitive atonement. The head of the leper was 
 also anointed with the oil. He was thus to be 
 Wade a man of the Spirit in each way, by his 
 tribulation, and his deliverance. Then followed 
 the sin offering, for which, in accordance with 
 iv. 28, 32, the ewe-lamb was to be used. In this 
 place the addition is made: he shall make an 
 atonement for him that is to be cleansed 
 [xiv. 31]. Plainly his sin is assumed in this to 
 be individual guilt, in contradistinction from his 
 share in the common guilt. It is rightly pre- 
 supposed that the leprosy in each one stands in 
 connection with his individual sinfulness; how- 
 ever light, it has for its result, sins of ill-will, 
 of bitterness, of impatience, of self-forgetfulncss, 
 of prejudice toward the community. Now firstcan 
 the presentation of the burnt offering follow, with 
 the other he-lamb, and with the meat offering." 
 
 " The ordinance may be modified in case the 
 person to be purified is poor. The direction for 
 the sacrifice itself is indeed almost analogous to 
 the direction in the case of the poor woman in 
 child-birth; only here the lamb for the trespass 
 offering, the tenth deal of wheaten flour sprin- 
 kled with oil for a meat offering, and the log of 
 oil for anointing, could not be dispensed with by 
 
 the bringing of two doves or young pigeons. 
 Moreover, the trespass offering, as well as the 
 oil, is directed to be made a wave-offering before 
 Jehovah. It is the same ritual as the wave or 
 the consecration offering at the consecratiou of 
 the priests (viii. 22,27). Thus this waving here 
 also can only signify a peculiar consecration of 
 the leper, which is more strongly expressed in 
 the case of the poor leper who must be shaken 
 free with his gift, must be brought to a swinging 
 up. or heave offering (Aufschwung)." 
 
 Some points in the above will be found differ- 
 ently treated below. 
 
 Vers. 1-3. The starting point for the following 
 directions is the priestly inspection of the leper 
 supposed to be healed. This must take place 
 without the camp, and if it resulted favorably, 
 then the following directions were to be observed. 
 (The expression JD K3^J, as Keil notes, is a 
 " const, prsegnans, healed away from, i. e., healed 
 and gone away from "). 
 
 Vers. 4-8. The restoration to the camp. This 
 was formally accomplished by a very full and 
 significant ritual, proportioned to the abhorrence 
 in which leprosy was to be held, and the rigid- 
 ness of the exclusion of the leper from the so- 
 ciety of his people. There was no sacrifice, since 
 the person to be cleansed was not yet in a con- 
 dition to offer sacrifice, nor was anything offered, 
 or even brought by him, nor was anything placed 
 upon the altar. The ceremony was, however, a 
 purification which is always related to sacrifice 
 as a symbolic step towards a restoration to fel- 
 lowship with God. 
 
 For the significance of the things used in this 
 ceremony, Abarbanel is quoted by Patrick to the 
 following effect: the living birds signify t hat the 
 leper's dead flesh was restored to life and vigor ; 
 the cedar Kood restoration from putrefaction ; the 
 scarlet (wool, or thread, or a bit of cloth) resto- 
 ration of the color of health to the complexion ; 
 the h/ssop (which was fragrant) restoration from 
 the exceedingly ill odor of the disease. 
 
 An earthen vessel was taken — probably 
 that after this use it might be broken up and de- 
 stroyed — and partly filled with water from a 
 spring or brook, and one of the birds killed over 
 it in such a way that its blood should fall into 
 and be mingled with the water. In this the 
 living bird was to be dipped with the other 
 things, and then the person to be cleansed was 
 sprinkled with it with that sevenfold sprinkling 
 prescribed on occasions of peculiar solemnity 
 (see iv. 6) ; and the person was then to be pro- 
 nounced clean. After this the living bird was 
 let loose into the open field. In attempting 
 to estimate the significance of this rite, it is to 
 be remembered that precisely the same ritual is 
 prescribed for the cleansing of the leprous house 
 (vers. 40-53), and the cedar, scarlet and hyssop, 
 were also burned with the red heifer, whose 
 ashes, placed in water, were to be used for pu- 
 rifications (Num. xix. 6). The water, the blood, 
 the cedar and the scarlet are mentioned in the 
 Ep. to the Ileb. (ix. 10, 20) as having been used 
 by Moses iu sprinkling the Book of the Covenant 
 and the people (see Ex. xxiv. 0-8), and generally 
 hyssop was used in various forms of sprinkling. 
 Except therefore in regard to the birds, I o sig- 
 nificance can be attributed to these things which 
 
114 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 is not common to other purifications besides 
 those of the leper, and even in regard to the 
 birds, none which is not common to the cleansing 
 of the leprous man and the leprous house (ver. 
 53). In view of this, and of the analogy of the 
 scapegoat (xvi. 21, 22), the living bird let loose 
 must be considered as bearing away the unclean- 
 ness of the leper (Von Gerlach), and not as sig- 
 nifying the social resurrection of the leper in his 
 restoration to the congregation. Of this last, 
 the bird flying away to return no more could 
 hardly have been a symbol. On the natural his- 
 tory of the cedar (Juniperus oxycedrus), and the 
 hyssop, see Clarke. The scarlet is said in the 
 Mishna to have been used for tying the other 
 things to the living bird when they were dipped 
 together in the water mingled with blood. No- 
 thing is said of the disposal of all these things 
 after they had fulfilled their purpose. After this 
 ceremonial, the symbolical cleansing was still 
 further set forth (ver. 8) by the leper's washing 
 his clothes, and shaving off all his hair, and 
 bathing himself. He might then enter the camp, 
 but not yet his own tent. This remaining re- 
 striction seems designed to still further impress 
 upon the mind the fearful character of the dis- 
 ease from which the leper had recovered : and still 
 more, to postpone the full restoration of the leper 
 to his family until he had first, by the prescribed 
 sacrifices, been restored to fellowship with God. 
 
 Ver. 9. After an interval of a week, the re- 
 stored person was to be again shaved com- 
 pletely, to again wash his clothes, and again 
 bathe himself. He wa8 now prepared to offer 
 the prescribed sacrifices on the following day ; 
 for he was now clean. 
 
 Vers. 10-20. The restoration to fellowship 
 with God, and admission to the sanctuary. Now 
 for the first time the cleansed leper brings him- 
 self the things necessary for the completion of 
 his cleansing. Three victims are to be offered ; 
 for a trespass, for a sin, and for a burnt offering. 
 With these also he brought the prescribed obla- 
 tion and the oil for his anointing; the oil was to 
 be waved with the trespass offering (ver. 12) as 
 its consecration to God, and the whole oblation 
 (although three tenth d.'als seem to be required 
 with reference to the three sacrifices) was to be 
 offered upon the altar with the burnt offering 
 (ver. 20). The flour amounted to nearly six 
 quarts, the separate oil to about half a pint. 
 Ver. 12. Offer him for a trespass offering. — 
 The offering thus designated was not required 
 to be of a definite value, as in the ordinary tres- 
 pass offerings, and it was altogether peculiar in 
 its ritual, bring waved with the oil for a wave 
 offering before the Lord. — This was never 
 done with any part of the ordinary trespass of- 
 fering (v. 14-vi. 7) : only in the sacrifice of xxiii. 20 
 was the whole victim ever waved ; as still another 
 peculiarity, the wave offering was placed in this 
 case, not in the hands of the offerer, but in those 
 of the priest. What, then was here the signifi- 
 cance of the waving? Keil, Clark, and others, 
 consider it as a consecration of the cleansed le- 
 per represented by the victim. It is true that 
 there was, in tho ritual as a whole, a kind of 
 consecration of the person to his restored posi- 
 tion as one of the people of the Lnnn ; but this 
 can scarcely have been the meaning of this par- 
 
 ticular ceremony. When the Levites were con- 
 secrated to the service of the Lord by a wave 
 offering, they were themselves waved (Num. viii. 
 11 ; Heb. A. V. marg.) ; when the priests were 
 consecrated, the wave offering was placed in 
 their hands, and consisted of certain parts, not 
 of a trespass offering, but of their "ram of con- 
 secration " (viii. 2-5-28) ; when portions of the 
 ordinary peace offerings were consecrated by 
 waving, they were always placed in the hands 
 of the offerer. From all these the waving of the 
 whole ram of the leper's trespass offering essen- 
 tially differs ; nor does it seem possible that it 
 could signify his consecration, unless it were in 
 some way placed in his own hands. More pro- 
 bably, this part of the ritual was simply de- 
 signed to distinguish the leper's from the ordi- 
 nary trespass offering ; that while it was still to 
 be classed generically with that offering, it was 
 yet specifically distinct from it. A consideration 
 of this fact will remove, partially at least, the 
 difficulty of understanding why a trespass offer- 
 ing should have been required of the cleansed 
 leper. The reason given by Oehler and others, 
 that it was a kind of fine, or satisfaction ren- 
 dered for the fact, that during the whole period 
 of his sickness, in consequence of his exclusion 
 from the camp, the leper had failed to per- 
 form his theocratic duties, is shown by Keil 
 to be entirely untenable, since no such offer- 
 ing was required in parallel cases of persons 
 excluded from the sanctuary when affected with 
 diseased secretions; to this it may be added, 
 that no penalty was required, as in the case of 
 trespass offerings for such offences. Nor is the 
 reason above given by Lange quite satisfactory. 
 The true idea in this offering seems to be that 
 the leper, by his very sickness, had been in the 
 condition of an offender against the theocratic 
 law of purity ; yet that this was, in his case, not 
 an actual, but only a quasi trespass, is shown by 
 the omission to require it to be of definite value 
 and by the ritual directing it to be made also 
 into a wave offering. The leper had not merely 
 failed to present his required offerings in conse- 
 quence of his exclusion from the camp, but he 
 had actually lived in a condition of extremest 
 theocratic uncleanness (far more so than in 
 the case of the secretions), and consequently in 
 symbolic opposition to the Head of the theocracy. 
 He must therefore present a trespass offering ; 
 but as all this had been done not only involun- 
 tarily, but most unwillingly, the offering was 
 distinguished by being waved. Ver. 13. For as 
 the sin offering is the priest's, so is the 
 trespass offering. — This, already known as 
 the general law (vii. 7), is here repeated, be- 
 cause otherwise the peculiarity of this trespass 
 offering might seem to make it an exception. 
 It is most holy. See on ii. 3. 
 
 In regard to the order of the various offerings: 
 here the sin offering (ver. 19) precedes the burnt 
 offering according to the general rule; but the 
 trespass offering comes before them both. The 
 reason above given why the trespass offering 
 should have been offered at all, explains also 
 why it should have been offered first. In the 
 case of the reconsecration of tho defiled Nazarite 
 (Num. vi. 11, 12), the condition of the offerer 
 was different; he was already in full standing 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 
 
 115 
 
 as a member of the theocracy, and offered the 
 pin-offering first, and then the trespass offering. 
 Here the healed leper must present the trespass 
 offering first, as the mark of his restoration to the 
 privileges of the theocratic community, before 
 he offers any other sacrifice. 
 
 The restored leper was touched with the bleed 
 of the victim (ver. 14) in the same way as the 
 priests with the blood of the ram of consecration 
 (viii. 23), and doubtless with the same general 
 symbolical meaning. Next comes the use of the 
 oil. It was first employed in a seveufold sprink- 
 ling towards the sanctuary (ver. 16), and then 
 touched with the finger of the priest upon all the 
 points which had already been touched with the 
 blood of the victim, " which seems to have been 
 a token of forgiveness by the blood, and of heal- 
 ing by the oil." Patrick. With the remnant of 
 the oil in his hand, the priest was to anoint the 
 head of him that is to be cleansed. In all 
 this then there appears with sufficient plainness, 
 a kind of consecration ; but it was a consecra- 
 tion, not to any peculiar position or privilege, 
 but simply to his becoming again one of the 
 chosen people — the nation who werg by their 
 calling " a kingdom of priests," — from whom he 
 had been temporarily excluded. This is suffi- 
 ciently shown by the following clause, to make 
 an atonement for him before the LORD. 
 The unction was not as a propitiation for his 
 gin. in the ordinary sense of the word — that is 
 provided for by the same expression in connec- 
 tion with the sin offering in the following verse 
 (ver. 19); but it was to cover over the gulf by 
 which he had been separated, to make an at-one- 
 ment for him who had been alienated and sepa- 
 rated by b in leprosy. Then follows the sin 
 offering with its proper atonement. There need 
 be no question here of the propriety of the sin 
 offering; it was always in place for sinful man, 
 but especially for one who had been so long 
 debarred from bringing it to the altar. Lastly, 
 came also (ver. 'JO) the burnt offering with its 
 atonement. With the last was offered a three- 
 fold oblation; for although the oblation might 
 not be offered with the trespass and sin offering, 
 yet in this case these were so peculiar in their 
 use that they were able each to pass on an addi- 
 tional oblation, as it were, to the burnt offering. 
 
 Vers. 21-31. The alternative offering of the 
 poor leper. In this case all things proceed as 
 before with the same offerings and the same 
 ritual, except that for the sin and burnt offerings, 
 turtle doves or young pigeons are allowed, and 
 the oblation is reduced to the normal oblation 
 for the burnt offering (Num. xv. 4) of one tenth 
 deal of fine flour mingled with oil. 
 
 It will be seen that the restoration of the 
 healed leper thus consisted of several stages. 
 First, he was examined by the priest, and satis- 
 factory evidence being found that the disease 
 was cured, he was then purified without the camp 
 by a solemn and significant ceremonial, which 
 yet was not a sacrifice. After this he was ad- 
 mitted to the camp, but must still remain a week 
 without entering either his own tent or the sanc- 
 tuary. At the end of this time he offered a sin- 
 gularly full and solemn sacrifice, consisting of a 
 modified trespass offering, together with a sin 
 and burnt offering. He was touched with the 
 
 Wood of his offering and anointed with oil. 
 Each stage of his restoration was marked by 
 lustrations. Thus at last was he once more re- 
 stored to full communion with God and full fel- 
 lowship with the covenant people. 
 
 D. Leprosy in a house. Vers. 33-53. 
 
 The communication on this subject is again, 
 addressed to Moses and Aaron conjointly, since 
 here again the exercise of the priestly functions 
 of examination and determination is called into 
 play (ver. 33), and it all looks forward distinctly 
 to the future, when ye be come into the 
 land of Canaan (ver. 34), for in the wilder- 
 ness, of course, they had no houses. The whully 
 prospective character of this part of the law 
 explains why it is placed last of all. 
 
 "This regulation is plainly concerning keep- 
 ing the houses clean, — the sanitary police as re- 
 gards the houses; — just as the Jewish poor-law 
 (see Winer, Art. Arme etc.) is a striking proof 
 of the humanity of the Mosaic legislation. One 
 may well say : — the tender care for the superin- 
 tendence of health and of the poor, which here 
 appears in Israel in typical and legal form, still 
 in the Christian commonwealth comes far short 
 of the true spiritual realization. Trouble of 
 dwellings and poor troubles, bad dwellings and 
 faulty superintendence of the poor, are a chapter 
 which our time has first taken into the circle of 
 its activity." Lange. That the "leprous" houses 
 were unhealthy, does not yet seem established 
 on sufficient proof; so far as this law is con- 
 cerned, it may be that the legislation rests en- 
 tirely on other grounds. At the same time, the 
 view of Lange may be true. 
 
 Ver. 34. I put the spot of leprosy in a 
 house. — "Thus also these evil conditions in 
 houses are decrees of Jehovah. As the house is 
 the enlarged human family, so the decree upon 
 the house is an enlargement of the decree upon 
 man." Lange. "Jehovah here speaks as the 
 Lord of all created things, determining their 
 decay and destruction, as well as their produc- 
 tion ; comp. Isa. xlv. 7." Clark. Abundant quo- 
 tations from Jewish authorities are cited by 
 Patrick, showing that they looked upon this 
 infliction (from which, however, they considered 
 Jerusalem to be exempted) as a special and 
 direct divine judgment. Certainly, as Keil notes 
 in opposition to Knobel, the expression here 
 excludes the idea that the leprosy was commu- 
 nicated to houses by infection from man; and 
 this hecomes still more certain from the fact 
 that the people who had been in the house are 
 regarded as clean. 
 
 When notice had been sent to the priest'(ver. 
 35) of a suspicious appearance in the house, he 
 was first to order it to be "cleared (ver. 36), 
 lest everything in it should become unclean. 
 Consequently, as what was in the house became 
 unclean only when the priest had declared the 
 house affected with leprosy, the reason for the 
 defilement is not to be sought for in physical 
 infection, but must have been of an ideal or 
 symbolical kind." Keil. The rules guidiDg the 
 priestly examination, and the course to be pur- 
 sued in conseqnence of his decision (vers. 37—47), 
 are as nearly as possible like those given in the 
 case of cloth aud of skin. First: If on the pre- 
 liminary examination there seemed to be good 
 
116 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 ground for suspicion, the house was to be shut 
 up for a week (ver. 38) ; it was then re-examined, 
 and if the grounds of suspicion were confirmed 
 by the spread of the trouble, the affected stones 
 Were to be taken out, the inside of the house 
 scraped, and the stones and dirt to be carried 
 without the city unto an unclean place. 
 Then other stones were to be put in their place, 
 and the house plastered with other mortar, 
 (ver. 42). This ended the matter, if no fresh 
 ground of suspicion arose. But if the trouble 
 reappeared, the priest must examine the house 
 once more, and if he found that the leprosy had 
 broken out afresh, he must command the entire 
 demolition of the house, and the carrying forth 
 of its material to an unclean place (ver. 45). 
 Any one entering the house while shut up became 
 unclean till evening; and if he ate or slept in 
 the house, he must also wash his clothes (vers. 
 40, 47). From what has been said before, it is 
 clear that the ground of this provision was not 
 any supposed danger of infection, but to pre- 
 vent the contraction of symbolical uncleanness. 
 
 Vers. 48-53. The ceremony of purification. 
 In case the leprosy did not spread in the house 
 afterjthe means used for its cure, the priest was to 
 pronounce it clean, and then to perform purifi- 
 catory rites exactly like those used for the leper 
 without the camp. In reference to the views 
 expressed there, Lange says, here "One may 
 indeed ask whether the allegorizing there spoken 
 of would also be proper here. The contrast 
 between the living bird, which flies free, and the 
 dead bird, seems here to illustrate the contrast 
 between the healthy sojourn under God's free 
 heaven, and the harmful sojourn in musty, dis- 
 eased houses. But the fact is also here well 
 worthy of note, that there is not the least men- 
 tion made of any atoning worship." In ver. 53 
 it is said that the priest shall make an atone- 
 ment for the house. This is often spoken of 
 as figurative; but in fact it is better to take it 
 quite literally. According to the primary mean- 
 ing of the Hebrew word "he shall cover," ('. e., 
 he shall, by this ceremony, put out of sight the 
 uncleanness of the house; or in its derived and 
 customary sense, he shall make an at-one-ment, 
 i. e., he shall restore the house from its tainted 
 character, shut up and forbidden to be used, to 
 its proper relations and purposes. On leprosy in 
 garments and houses, see preliminary note. 
 
 E. Conclusion, Vers. 54-57. 
 
 These verses simply form the conclusion of 
 the whole law of leprosy contained in chapters 
 xiii. and xiv. Although these chapters are 
 made up of no less than three separate divine 
 communications (xiii. 1 ; xiv. 1 ; 38), yet they 
 constitute altogether but one closely connected 
 series of laws. The summary is in the usual 
 form : but in ver. 56 the names of the symptoms 
 of various foims of leprosy are repeated from 
 xiii. 2. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETniCAL. 
 
 I On leprosy in clothes: "The alternative, 
 according to which the Levitical regulations are 
 to have either a religious typical meaning alone, 
 or a dietetic sanitary purpose alone, is here 
 shown with especial clearness to be incorrect. 
 
 The typical point, indeed, is not to be mistaken: 
 even the attire of men was not to be infected 
 with plague spots of sinful corruption. But not 
 less prominently, the point of the moral duty of 
 cleanliness is brought forward upon a religious 
 basis." Lange, Exeg. 
 
 II. On leprosy in man : " We must distinguish 
 between the horror of death of the Grecian spi- 
 rit, and the theocratic antipathy against the signs 
 of death in life, aud the remains of the living in 
 the corpse. The act of dying was ethical for the 
 Hebrews in a bad, or in a good sense. Even the 
 Old Testament knows an ethical Euthanasia op- 
 posed to the death of despair. But in a sphere 
 where all is founded upon immortal life, a being 
 for life and not for death, all signs of decay must 
 be put aside." Lange, Exeg. 
 
 III. The peculiar defilement of leprosy, lead- 
 ing to exclusion from the camp, or in other 
 words, to excommunication from the ancient 
 church, evidently has its foundation .in the pe- 
 culiar character of the disease. It was espe- 
 cially associated with death, usually ultimately 
 resulting in death, and being in its later stages, 
 a sort of living death — a death already begun in 
 the members — and presenting a fearful ima^e of 
 death. But death was the sentence upon sin, 
 and hence leprosy and its treatment have always 
 been understood as symbolizing sin and its treat- 
 ment, both by Jewish and Christian commenta- 
 tors. 
 
 IV. The examination and determination of 
 leprosy was intrusted to the priests, not on ac- 
 count of their being supposed to possess superior 
 medical knowledge, but only in view of its theo- 
 cratic relations. Any other treatment of the 
 leper might properly be undertaken by physi- 
 cians when any were to be had ; but the exclu- 
 sion of the leper from, or his restoration to the 
 commonwealth of Israel, the communion of the 
 church of God, was properly a priestly act. It 
 is to this alone that the law applies. This was 
 indeed, in strictness the province of God Him- 
 self; but as He committed the administration of 
 His church in general to human hands, so also 
 particularly in this matter. The sentence of the 
 priests was final, and admitted of no appeal : the 
 authority had been Divinely committed to them, 
 and although they might perhaps sometimes de- 
 cide wrongly, there was no other redress than 
 a further examination when there seemed to be 
 occasion for it, by the same authority. Thus 
 was the priestly authority to bind and loose in 
 the ancient church confirmed in heaven. Of 
 course their decrees of exclusion from the earthly 
 church did not determine anything concerning 
 the leper's salvation. 
 
 V. By the extension of the term leprosy to gar- 
 ments and houses, and the similar treatment of 
 them when thus affected, it seems to be taught 
 that there is not merely an analogy, but a cer- 
 tain sympathy between man and the inanimate 
 things by which he is surrounded. (Comp. Rom. 
 viii. 22). They are to be associated in his mind 
 with his own state and condition, and are to be 
 so treated as to bring home to him in a lively 
 way the things that concern himself. The Rab- 
 bins consider the trouble in houses as confined to 
 the land of Canaan, and Divinely sent as a warn- 
 ing to the people against their sinfulness. If 
 
CHAP. XIII. 1— XIV. 57. 
 
 117 
 
 this warning were unheeded, then the leprosy 
 passed lo their clothes, and finally to their per- 
 sons. However this may be, it is noticeable that 
 the leprosy here treated is only, as suggested by 
 Lange, in the various habitations of the human 
 spirit ; in the body, which is indeed an actual 
 partof the man himself, but which is often looked 
 upon and spoken of as the tabernacle of the soul ; 
 in the clothing, which was a still more outer co- 
 vering ; and finally in the house, the outermost 
 dwelling. Not a word is ever spoken of leprosy 
 in animals. 
 
 VI. In the ceremonial for the purification of 
 leprosy, so much more full than for any other 
 defilement, it is seen how the purificatory rites 
 rise in importance as the uncleanness becomes a 
 more striking symbol of the impurity of sin. 
 This symbolism reached its climax in the leper, 
 and in his purification ; but yet it was only sym- 
 bolism ; for as the defilement of sin lies deeper, 
 so must the sacrifice for its removal be higher. 
 
 VII. Calvin observes that the final cleansing 
 of the leper was appointed for the eighth day af- 
 ter his entrance into the camp. As his circum- 
 cision, or first admission into the church of God 
 was on the eighth day after his birth into the 
 world ; so now he was, on the corresponding day, 
 to be born again into the church after his ex- 
 clusion. Another parallel, too, may be here 
 carried out between first entering into commu- 
 nion with God, and being restored to it by re- 
 pentance after having been alienated by sin. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 "The priestly people of God have always a 
 war to wage with the defilements of the natural 
 life. . . . Especially is the uncleanness of leprosy, 
 and in it of all diseases, to be combated ; so also 
 all the unhealthy conditions of houses and 
 clothes are an object of the priestly battle, of the 
 wrestling after an ideal moulding of all the condi- 
 tions of life. How much these costly types still 
 lack of their complete fulfillment in the Christian 
 community has already been pointed out." Lange. 
 
 Leprosy defiled all who came in contact with 
 it; a lively image of the contaminating effect 
 of sin. See 1 Cor. xv. 33. Tet it did not defile 
 the priests, who were to make a close and care- 
 ful inspection of it, because this was their com- 
 manded duty; so neither does sin contaminate 
 those who, in the fear of God and as duty to Him, 
 strive to the utmost to recover and save the sinner. 
 
 As the priest for the purification of the leper 
 went without the camp, and there stayed and 
 held converse with the leper for his cleansing, so 
 Christ left His dwelling-place in heaven and 
 came among sinners that He might purify them 
 from their sin. Hesychius. " It is remarkable 
 how well even the Jewish teachers themselves 
 understood the symbolical meaning of this regu- 
 lation "' [concerning the exclusion of the leper 
 from the camp] ; "for thus speaks one of them 
 on this place: ' If a man considers this, he will 
 be humbled and ashamed on account of his sin ; 
 since every sin is a leprosy, a spot upon his soul. 
 And, as it is written of the leper, his clothes 
 shall be rent, etc. ; in like manner, the defilement 
 on his soul, which is far removed from the holi- 
 ness on high, shall equally separate him from 
 
 the camp of Israel. And if a man turns to re- 
 pentance in order to be cleansed from his spots, 
 behold he is clean from his leprosy, but other- 
 wise the leprosy remains clinging to his soul ; 
 and in this world, and in the world to come, he 
 is far removed from the whole camp there above 
 until he has become cleansed.' The law instructs 
 how to know leprosy, pronounces the leper un- 
 clean, shuts him out from the congregation, but 
 it has not power to heal him ; this was reserved 
 for the Son of God, to cleanse bodily in figure, 
 and spiritually also, as the true Redeemer from, 
 sin and its consequences." Von Gerlach. 
 
 "Ceremonial uncleanness involves ceremonial 
 guilt, and demands an atonement. So moral im- 
 purity involves moral guilt, which requires a 
 propitiation. The uncleanness and the guilt 
 mutually imply each other; yet they are totally 
 distinct, and must be removed by totally differ- 
 ent means. The Spirit of God by the truth of 
 Revelation removes moral impurity ; the Media- 
 tor, by His undertaking for the guilty, relieves 
 
 him from the consequences of his guilt 
 
 The symbols of purification and propitiation 
 come together in the ceremonial connected with 
 the leper's re-entrance into communion with 
 God. The water and the blood meet in the ini- 
 tial sacrifice ; the oil and the blood are associated 
 in the final one." Murphy. 
 
 As the cicatrices left by ulcers and burns were 
 points where leprosy was peculiarly likely to be 
 developed, so Origen, following the allegorical 
 interpretation, notes that the wounds upon the 
 soul, though healed, are peculiarly liable to be- 
 come the occasion for the development of sin. 
 The integrity of purity once lost, there is a dan- 
 gerous spot in the heart which needs the care 
 of the great Physician of souls. 
 
 The Christian Fathers generally give a spiri- 
 tual interpretation of the two birds used in the 
 purification of the leper or the leprous house. 
 Thus Theodoret (Qti. 19) : " They contain a type 
 of the Passion of salvation. For as the one bird 
 was slain and the other, dipped in its blood, was 
 set free; so our Lord was crucified for leprous 
 humanity, the flesh indeed receiving death, but 
 the Divinity appropriating to itself the suffering 
 of the humanity." This thought is quite com- 
 mon in the Fathers. The two birds typify the 
 two natures of Christ, and the purification of the 
 sinner is accomplished only by their union in Him. 
 
 The Fathers also consider the leprous house 
 symbolical of Israel. (See e. g. Theodoret, Qu. 
 18) : Israel was examined and purified, and the 
 evil stones of its building removed by the many 
 judgments upon the nation, and especially by 
 the carrying away "without the camp " to Ba- 
 bylon. But at last when its incurable sin broke 
 out afresh in the crucifixion of the Lord of life, 
 the whole house was pulled down and its stones 
 cast out into an unclean place. 
 
 Blood and water are constantly joined toge- 
 ther in the purifications of the law, as in this of 
 leprosy, so in all other cases. Whatever may be 
 the underlying truth on which this symbolism 
 rests, the symbolism itself culminates in the 
 reality of the purification for sin accomplished 
 by Christ upon the cross, out of whose side 
 flowed the blood and the water for the cleansing 
 of the world. See Jno. xix. 34; 1 Jno. v. 6, 8. 
 
118 LEVITICUS. 
 
 FOURTH SECTION. 
 
 Sexual Impurities and Cleansing s. 
 
 Chapter XV. 1-33. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying, Speak unto the children 
 of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, 
 
 3 because of his issue he is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue : 
 whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, 1 it is his 
 
 4 uncleanness. Every bed, whereon he lieth that hath the issue, is unclean : and 
 
 5 every thing, whereon he sitteth, shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth his 
 bed shall wash his clothes, aud bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the 
 
 6 even. And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat that hath the issue shall 
 
 7 wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And 
 he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue shall wash his clothes, and 
 
 8 bathe himself in water, aud be unclean until the even. And if he that hath the 
 issue spit upon him that is clean ; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself 
 
 9 in water, and be unclean until the even. And what saddle soever he rideth upon 
 
 10 that hath the issue shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth any thing that was 
 under him shall be unclean until the even : and he that beareth any of those things 
 shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 
 
 11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in 
 water, 2 he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until 
 
 12 the even. And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be 
 
 13 broken: and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. And when he that 
 hath an issue is cleansed of his issue ; then he shall number to himself seven days 
 for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and 
 
 14 shall be clean. And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtle doves, or two 
 young pigeons, and come before the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the 
 
 15 congregation, and give them unto the priest : and the priest shall offer them, the 
 one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make 
 an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue. 
 
 16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his 
 
 17 flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, 
 whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until 
 the even. 
 
 18 The woman also with whom man 3 shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall 
 both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. 
 
 19 And if a woman have an issue, and 1 her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be 
 put apart seven days : and 5 whosoever toucheth her shall be uuclean until the even. 
 
 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean : every 
 
 21 thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her 
 bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 
 
 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and 
 
 23 bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or 
 on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the 
 
 24 even. And if any man 3 lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall 
 be unclean seven days ; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 8. Tho Sam. aud LXX. hero add the clause " lie is uuclean during all the time hia issue runneth or is stopped. " 
 
 2 Ver. 11. According to the Syrlac, thia washing of tho bunds was to be the act, uot of tbe unclean person himself, but 
 of him whom lie touched. 
 
 a Vera. 18 mid 24. The Sam. nrMa the possessive pronoun making this " her husband." 
 
 * Vet. 19. Thi' Siiln mid 10 MSS. supply tin- missing run jure lion. 
 
 & Ver. l'J. The conjunction here is omitted by many HSS-, the LXX. aud Vulg. 
 
CHAP. XV. 1-33. 
 
 119 
 
 25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her 
 separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation ; all the days of the issue 
 of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation : she shall be unclean. 
 
 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed 
 of her separation : and whatsoever she'sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the unclean- 
 
 27 ness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things 6 shall be unclean, and 
 shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 
 
 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and 
 
 29 after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two 
 turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the 
 
 30 tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation. And the priest shall offer the one far a sin 
 offering, and the other far a burnt offering ; and the priest shall make an atone- 
 ment for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness. 
 
 31 Thus shall ye separate 7 the children of Israel from their uncleanness ; that they 
 die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle [dwelling place 8 ] that 
 is among them. 
 
 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, 
 
 33 and is defiled therewith ; and of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that 
 hath an issue, of the man and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is 
 unclean. 
 
 « Tor. 27. D3 5 JISS. read D3 toucheth her. 
 
 » Ver. 31. For DIWTffi = ye^shaU separate, the Sam.. 4 3ISS., LXX., and Tnlg. read Dj~Hn*n = ye "hart nam ; but 
 there seems no sufficient reason for the change. 
 
 8 Ver. 31. J3C'3 properly signifies dwelling-place, and although always rendered tabernacle in Ex. and Lev. in the A. 
 V., needs to he distinguished from the 777K. Comp. note on viii. 10. 
 
 side: touching the bed of the unclean person, 
 his seat, his body, his saddle ; being smeared 
 with his spittle, touching anything that passes 
 from him ; — all makes unclean in the first degree 
 for one day, and requires a washing of the 
 clothes, and a bath. The purifying quarantine 
 lasts for eight days. Timidly he must approach 
 the sanctuary with two turtle-doves, or young 
 pigeons, one of which was appointed for a sin 
 offering, and the other for a burnt offering. This 
 disease not only contaminated, but extended its 
 contaminating power to whatever it touched. 
 In Num. v. 2, it is provided that the person so 
 affected should be excluded from the camp." [It 
 does not seem altogether certain that the affec- 
 tion here described was gonorrhoea, although it 
 is so translated in the LXX., vers. 4, 5, G, 8, 9, 
 etc. That the word flesh is not an euphemism 
 (Knobel) for the organ of generation is evident 
 from vers. 7 and 13 ; still, that the latter is in 
 view as the seat of the issue, is more than pro-, 
 bable from the analogy of the woman in ver. 19, 
 But in regard to the character of the issue itself 
 nothing is said. It could hardly have been 
 hemorrhoidal, since there is no mention of blood ; 
 it is not likely to have been syphilitic (gonnrrlioea 
 virulenta), notwithstanding the opinion of ,JIi- 
 chaelis, (laws, art. 212), both because it is more 
 than doubtful if this disease was known in an- 
 tiquity, and because, if it existed, its presence 
 would betray cause for more severe measures 
 than are here prescribed; it may have been a 
 gonorrhoea arising from weakness, according to 
 the view of Lange, and as supposed by Jerome 
 and the Rabbins; but it is noticeable that 
 there is no mention whatever made of semen in 
 connection with it, and in xxii. 4, this is distin- 
 guished from "a running issue." Or it may have 
 been " more probably, simply blennorrhea urethrse, 
 
 EXEGETICAL AXD CRITICAL. 
 
 The whole of Lange's Exegetical explanations 
 under this chapter are here given. " 1. In his 
 sacrificial law, Moses has throughout translated 
 moral conditions into ritual forms ; and he has 
 done this, under the spirit of revelation, truly 
 witli wonderful safety, striking precision, and 
 delicacy. Accordingly he here shows the subtle, 
 contagious effects in evil in legal pedagogic 
 images of the sexual impurities, as they incur 
 guilt, or are more or less innocent, in connection 
 with original sin. In so far as our chapter 
 refers back, it forms the climax of the preceding 
 conditions of guilt; but in its reference to the 
 following chapter, it forms the foundation for 
 the idea of a general atonement for the people, 
 still necessary after all the definite single atone- 
 ments." 
 
 " 2. The law carries with it the conse- 
 quence that all men are placed, by virtue of 
 their manifold connections and contacts, under 
 the sentence: Ye are unclean — unclean even 
 after all more definite atonements. Haggai has 
 drawn out this thought fully ; John the Baptist 
 brought it into application (Hag. ii. ISss., see 
 Com. Matt. p. 68). Hence the great day of atone- 
 ment must follow all the more special sin offer- 
 ings, and even this can only suffice for pardona- 
 ble sins; while the unpardonable sins were sent 
 into the desert upon the he-goat designated for 
 Azazel. The idea of the Trapeaic: Rom. iii." 
 
 " 3. The cases of sexual impurity which are 
 detailed here are the following:" 
 
 "Vers. 1-15. Latent flowing of semen, gonor- 
 rhoea. In this sense it is called a running 
 issue out of his flesh. This uncleanness of 
 the highest degree, as such, is defiling on every 
 
120 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 a discbarge of mucus arising from a catarrhal 
 affection of the mucous membrane of the urethra 
 (urethritis)." Keil; so too, Kalisch. Iu ver. 3, 
 a distinction is noticed in the character of the 
 disease which, however, was of no consequence 
 for the purpose in hand; the issue might be 
 continuous, or it might be temporarily retained. 
 In either case the disease was there, and its 
 subject was unclean. Eosenmiiller would un- 
 derstand fleth in ver. 7 to be an euphemism as 
 in ver. 2, and the law to cover especially the case 
 of the physician. In ver. 11 a provision is 
 made that the person affected might prevent the 
 communication of uncleanness by his touch, by 
 first rinsing his hands in water ; thus showing 
 that the uncleanness communicated was of a 
 symbolical character. Vers. 14, 15 provide for 
 a sin offering and burnt offering, of the humblest 
 kind indeed, but yet here, as everywhere in the 
 law, sufficient to keep alive the association be- 
 tween uncleanness and sin. It is declared that 
 the priest shall make an atonement for 
 him before the LORD for his issue, thus dis- 
 tinctly declaring his uncleanness to have been 
 the ground of an alienation from God, to be re- 
 moved by a propitiatory sacrifice. — F. G.]. 
 
 "Vers. 16, 17. A single emission of seed was 
 treated as a single uncleanness." [It is proba- 
 ble that the law had in view an involuntary act ; 
 but it would, nevertheless, apply in all cases, 
 and thus its importance in checking the fearful 
 evil of self-pollution needs no comment. — F. G.]. 
 
 "Ver. 18. So too was the result of a man and 
 woman sleeping together." [This euphemism 
 may possibly be misunderstood. The unclean- 
 ness resulted only in case of sexual intercourse, 
 and hence abstinence from such intercourse was 
 a necessary part of preparation for occasions 
 especially requiring cleanness. Ex. xix. 15; 
 1 Sam. xxi. 5, 6, etc. The law must have ope- 
 rated as an important check upon sensual pas- 
 sions. For proof that the same custom was 
 common among other nations, see Knobel. It is 
 always to be remembered, however, that this 
 defilement is connected with the general sinful 
 condition of man, and did not pertain to his 
 original state. See Gen. i. 28. — F. G.]. 
 
 " Vers. 10-24. The menstruation was defined 
 as an uncleanness for seven days." [The actual 
 duration is not normally more than tour or five 
 days ; but the period of a week seems to be fixed, 
 partly to fully cover all ordinary cases, partly 
 "on account of the significance of the number 
 seven." Keil. During all this time the woman 
 communicated uncleanness to every person she 
 touched: but especially (ver. 24) whoever had 
 sexual intercourse with her (for Keil shows that 
 this must be the meaning) became unclean for 
 the full term of her uncleanness, 6eveu days. 
 In xx. 18 it is provided that in case of sucli in- 
 tercourse both parties should be "cut off from 
 among their people," as having committed an 
 abominable act. The case here provided for 
 must therefore be that of the sudden and un- 
 expected coming on of menstruation, so that the 
 man became unintentionally defiled. But while 
 uncleanness was thus strongly communicated to 
 periom, it. only affected among things those on 
 which the woman sat or lay down. She was thus 
 
 not debarred from the fulfillment of her ordinary 
 domestic duties. 
 
 [It has already been noticed under chap. xii. 
 that the provisions of the law in regard to child 
 birth are intentionally separated from the pre- 
 sent law in order to mark birth distinctly and 
 emphatically as a subject by itself. The two 
 things may be closely connected naturally ; but 
 when there has occurred another beginning of 
 human life, the entrance upon the world of 
 another immortal and accountable being, the 
 event has a gravity and importance which re- 
 quires its distinct treatment apart from the 
 ordinary, frequently recurring conditions of 
 life.— F. G.]. 
 
 "Vers. 2-5—30. The woman diseased with a 
 bloody issue was place! under the same regula- 
 tion as the man with a flow of semen." [Blood 
 seems to be used here (as throughout this chap- 
 ter) for that which has the general appearance of 
 blood, and is popularly called by that name. 
 Hence what is here referred to is an issue of a 
 menstrual character, either out of its proper time, 
 or prolonged beyond its time. This being ab- 
 normal required the Bame treatment, the same 
 exclusion from the camp (Num. v. 2), and the 
 same offering for its "atonement" as in the case 
 of the man. Ordinary menstruation required 
 no sacrifice. — F. G.]. 
 
 " Ver. 31. The supplement, Thus shall ye 
 separate the children of Israel, etc, shows 
 that these regulations are not merely typical, 
 but also sanitary; that they aim at the duty of 
 sexual purity, both in moral, and in bodily rela- 
 tion. The lying of a man with an unclean 
 woman, vers. 33 and 24, is to be distinguished 
 from the sexual intercourse (ch. xviii. 19; xx. 
 18"). [But see under vers. 19-24.— F. G.]. 
 
 " That of all the impurities the sexual are ren- 
 dered so prominent, shows the earnest consecra- 
 tion wherewith the law places the sexual foun- 
 tain of the natural life of man under the law of 
 chastity and holiness. So also it abhors exceed- 
 ingly profanations or defilements of this fountain. 
 On this side the rudeness of heathenism spreads 
 through all the centuries of the Christian era 
 like a dark shadow, while the consecration of the 
 sex life was already announced iu the centre of 
 Israel in presage of ideal nuptials." [On the 
 existence of similar ordinances ami customs 
 among other nations, see Knobel, B'abr, and 
 the various articles in the Bible Dictiona- 
 ries. — F. G.]. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. All the defilements in this and the preceding 
 chapters are here presented on their theocratic, 
 not on their natural side. Nothing is anywhere 
 said in them of means of cure. The attitude 
 of the priest toward them is not that of the 
 physician, aiming at their removal ; but rather 
 of the guardian of the sanctuary, first determin- 
 ing their existence, and then when they have 
 been removed, undertaking the purifications by 
 which the polluted person may be restored to 
 his forfeited privilege of approaching God iu 
 His sanctuary, and again mingling with the 
 holy people. 
 
 II. The object of the laws of purity is mani- 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 121 
 
 festly mainly moral. They may also have inci- 
 dentally a hygienic purpose, but this is entirely 
 subordinate. The main object is the mainte- 
 nance of the majesty of God. Nothing impure 
 may appear in His presence, and hence all those 
 bodily conditions which are associated with, and 
 suggestive of impurity, are marked as unclean, 
 and not only the persons affected by them are 
 excluded from the sanctuary, or even from the 
 camp, but all contact with them is to be avoided 
 by the holy people. 
 
 III. Very much is often said of the extreme 
 frequency of these defilements, as if the Israelites 
 must, under the operation of these laws, have 
 lived in au almost perpetual state of ceremonial 
 uncleanness. But it is to be remembered that 
 we have in these chapters a collection of the 
 cases of uncleanness provided for, which has 
 upon the mind of the reader something of the 
 effect of the perusal of a medical book ; finding 
 so many diseases enumerated, he is apt to sup- 
 pose a state of disease far more common than it 
 really is. Uncleanness, notwithstanding its ap- 
 parent frequency when the account of all its 
 varieties is collected together, was still an ab- 
 normal state, and in the great majority of cases 
 continued only a short time, being limited by 
 the approaching "evening" at whatever time 
 in the day it may have occurred. 
 
 IV. In the Levitical legislation the difference 
 between actual sin and uncleanness which was 
 merely symbolical of sin, is made to appear very 
 clearly. In this chapter particularly, four cases 
 of uncleanness are mentioned, two of which 
 (2-15, and 2o-30) were simply diseases, and the 
 other two (1G-24) entirely natural and sinless; 
 yet not only did the disease make unclean, but 
 also that natural act or condition, which accord- 
 ing to the Divine constitution is necessary for 
 the perpetuation of the race in accordance with 
 His own command. In all this there can be 
 nothing sinful in itself; but as man's whole con- 
 dition is sinful, so are these things constituted 
 unclean, thereby to symbolize, and impress upon 
 the mind of man the character of his whole re- 
 lation to God who is perfect in holiness. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 The laws of this chapter impose many re- 
 straints upon the intercourse of the sexes; that 
 was the will of God shown of old by definite 
 educational precepts. It remains His will still, 
 no longer embodied in such precepts, but an- 
 nounced in general principles. See 1 Tliess. iv. 4. 
 That the defilements here spoken of were cere- 
 monial and symbolical only, is shown by the fact 
 (ver. 12) that the earthen vessel was to be broken, 
 while the wooden one (which is also absorptive) 
 was only to be rinsed with water. Had the de- 
 filement been actual, the law must have been 
 the same for both. Theodoret. 
 
 The especial object of the laws of uncleanness 
 is declared (ver. 31) to be lest " they defile 
 my tabernacle." Many things which are 
 natural and right in this our earthly life, are 
 yet unsuitable for the immediate presence of 
 God. Man may, nay, under the Divine consti- 
 tution of his nature, must do many things which 
 yet are so far apart from the spirituality of the 
 Divine Nature that they evidently need to be 
 widely separated from acts of worship. Yet 
 they are not thereby condemned as sinful, but 
 only there is brought into prominence the infinite 
 distance by which man is separated from God. 
 
 " Not only cleanness, but cleanliness also, had 
 its meaning, embodied in religious customs, as 
 the loth chapter shows, in the most striking fea- 
 tures under the law. Uncleanness may exist, 
 even with a considerable measure of religious 
 feeling and good-will in the forms of negligence, 
 of false artlessness, and even of a wild geniality. 
 In the delineation of the endlessly fine and 
 subtle contagious power of uucleanness, there 
 comes into view the whole mysterious connec- 
 tion of mankind in sinfulness, as it has been 
 shown by the prophet Haggat (ch. ii.), and as it 
 lies as the foundation for the baptism of John 
 the Baptist. Thus also this idea of the immea- 
 surable and inscrutable contagion, and of the 
 totality and universality of its guilt, leads to the 
 need and the establishment of the universal and 
 common atonement. It presages an express, 
 great, and single Divine institution." Lauge. 
 
 PART FOURTH. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 "The Annual, Universal, National Feast of Purification. The Great Day of Atonement, and the 
 
 Great Propitiation? ' — Lange. 
 
 Chap. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 1 And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when 
 
 2 they offered 1 before the Lord, and died; ami the Lord said unto Mose3, Speak 
 
 TEXTVAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 ' Ver. 1. The LXX., the Targs. of Onk., Jon. and Jerus , the Yul£. and Syr. here insert the words strange fire, as is 
 obviously implied. 
 
 23 
 
122 LEVITICUS. 
 
 unto Aaron thy brother, that lie come not at all times into the holy place within 
 the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark ; that he die not : for I will 
 
 3 appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. Thus [With this 2 ] shall Aaron come 
 into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt 
 
 4 offering. He shall put on the [a 3 ] holy linen coat, and he shall have the [omit 
 the 3 ] linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and 
 with the [a 3 ] linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore 
 
 5 shall he wash [bathe 1 ] his flesh in water, and so put them on. And he shall lake 
 of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids [bucks 5 ] of the goats for a 
 sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. 
 
 6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the siu offering, which is for himself, and 
 
 7 make an atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, 
 and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the [om. the] con- 
 
 8 gregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats ; one lot for the Lorp, 
 
 9 and the other lot for the scapegoat [for Azazel 6 ]. And Aaron shall bring the goat 
 10 upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on 
 
 which the lot fell to be the scapegoat [for Azazel 6 ], shall be presented alive before 
 the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat [for 
 Azazel 6 ] into the wilderness. 
 1 L And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and 
 shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock 
 
 12 of the sin offering, which is for himself: and he shall take a [the 7 ] censer full of 
 burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of 
 
 13 sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: and he shall put the in- 
 cense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the 
 
 14 mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not : and he shall take of the 
 blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon 8 the mercy seat eastward 
 [on the east side 9 ] ; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with 
 his finger seven times. 
 
 15 Then shall be kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring 
 his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the 
 
 16 bullock, and sprinkle it upon 8 the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: and ho 
 shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the chil- 
 dren of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins : and so shall he 
 do for the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, that remaiueth among them 
 
 17 in the midst of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle 
 of the [omit the] congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy 
 place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his 
 
 18 household, and for all the congregation of Israel. And he shall go out unto the 
 altar that is before the Lord, ami make an atonement for it ; and shall take of the 
 blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the 
 
 19 altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his fingers seven 
 times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. 
 
 20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling [making atonement for 10 ] the 
 holy place, and the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and the altar, he 
 
 2 Ver. 3. J1XT3- There seerus no reason why the Hen. should not be rendered literally. 
 
 3 Ver. 4. The articles are not in the Heb., and should be omitted fis mHearfincr. 
 
 * Ver. 4. VfP, see Textual Note 3° on x.v. 8. Tut' Saul, and 1.XX. luaer. the word all before hUJUih. 
 
 R Ver. 5. 'TUt?, see Textual Note ^ on iv. 23. The same word is used also vers. 7, 8, etc. ; but it seems unnecessary 
 
 to alter the translation throughout, as this is the only place in which the sense is affcted. 
 
 6 Vers. 8, 10 (bis), 26. 7TNTJ". The word occurs only he. e, and in the wide difference of opinion existing as to its 
 
 mesninir, it seems far better to retain the Heb. word unchanged, as is done in many modern critical trauslations. It 
 occui--' in :i 1 i-iM-ri without the nr icle. Fur rlie meaning, Bee exegesis. 
 
 I Vi i. U. It is hotter to retain the deliuite article, us expressed in the Heb. 
 
 8 Vers. M, lfi. For 7j?— upon, the Sam. reads 7X='"/'"''', imoardt. 
 
 • Ver. 14. T[T\p='trnmrd the east is to he connected with the mercy seat, and not with sprinlde. The high priest 
 
 looking west, faced tie- mercy seat, and sprinkled it on the side next to him, i. e. the Bide toward the east. This cannot 
 I,, clearly expressed in Bnglisn without a slight mndincntion of the phrase. 
 10 Vor. 20. 133*3, Bee Ii xiu.u Mote " on vi. 3U I.23J. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 123 
 
 21 stall bring [offer 11 ] the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands 12 upon the 
 head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel, and all their trangressions in [according to 13 ] all their sins, putting them 
 upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit 14 man into 
 
 22 the wilderness : and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land 
 not inhabited : 15 aud he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. 
 
 23 Aud Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and 
 shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, 
 
 24 and shall leave them there: and he shall wash [bathe*] his flesh with water in the 
 holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth and offer his burnt offering, 
 aud the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for 
 
 25 the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar. 
 
 26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat [for Azazel 6 ] shall wash his clothes 
 
 27 and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. And the bullock 
 for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in 
 to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp ; and 
 
 28 they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung. And he 
 that burnetii them shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and after- 
 ward he shall come into the camp. 
 
 29 Aud this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the 
 tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether 
 
 30 it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: for on 
 that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may 
 
 31 be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto 
 
 32 you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. And the priest, whom 
 he [one 16 ] shall anoint, aud whom he [one 16 ] shall consecrate to minister in the 
 priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the 
 
 33 linen clothes, even the holy garments : and he shall make an atonement for the 
 holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the [omit 
 the] congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, 
 
 34 and for all the people of the congregation. And this shall be an everlasting sta- 
 tute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins 
 once a year. 
 
 And he did as the Lord commanded Moses. 
 
 u Ver. 20. yipH, the same word as is used of the other goat in ver. 9, and the common word for sacrificial 
 offering. 
 
 12 Ver. 21. For the IT of the text, 35 MSS. read l'T, as in the k"ri. 
 
 TT TT t 
 
 5 5 Ver. 21. According to is both a better translation of the prep. 7 and gives a better sense. 
 
 H Ver. 21. 'HJJ, air. Aey., according to Foerst existing or appointed at a convenient time. LXX. crotjtio?, Vulg. paratus. 
 The sense of appointed wonld probably bettter express the neb. than fit (so Targ. Jon., and so Hosenmneller) ; but there is 
 neither sufficient certainty nor sufficient difference to make the change. 
 
 15 Ver. 22. PPH. LXX. aftarov, Vulg. solitariam, Onk. uninltaOitable, Jon. desolate, Syr. uncultivated. Lit. a land cut 
 off. The A. V. sufficiently expresses the sense. 
 
 19 Ver. 32. Th -se verbs must either be rendered impersonally, or else taken in the passive, as the Heb. idiom very 
 well allows. 
 
 EXEQETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Here a new Parashah of the law begins, ex- 
 tending through ch. xviii. Amos ix. 7-15 forma 
 the parallel Proper Lesson from the prophets. 
 That prophecy is cited by St. James at the 
 Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 16, 17), and ap- 
 plied to the building up of the Gentiles into the 
 Church of Christ. Wordsworth suggests that 
 he may have selected that particular prophecy 
 because it was associated in his mind, through 
 the public readings in the synagogues, with the 
 passage before us "which displays, in a figure, 
 the work of Christ, our great High Priest, en- 
 
 tering into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and 
 reconciling the world to God by His own blood 
 (Heb. ix. 7-12, 24-28)." 
 
 This chapter forms the culmination of all that 
 has gone before, of the laws both of sacrifices 
 and of purity, and therefore forms the fitting 
 conclusion of the whole portion of Leviticus 
 concerned with the means of approach to God. 
 The significance of its symbolical ritual is dwelt 
 upon in the 9th ch. of the Ep. to the Heb. The 
 Holy of Holies was entered only on the day and 
 with the sacrifices here prescribed, and this day 
 was the only day of fasting appointed in the 
 Mosaic law. The ritual of its sacrifices was 
 peculiar and impressive, and the goat for Azazel 
 
124 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 is something so unlike any thing else in the Levi- 
 tical system as to have occasioned the utmost per- 
 plexity to expositors. In xxiii. '27 (Heb.) the Jay 
 is called "the day of atonements (in the plural), 
 as if this included in itself all other atonements, 
 or at least was the most exalted and important 
 of them all. In ver. 31 (Heb.) it is spoken of as a 
 "Sabbath of Sabbaths," and by the later Jews 
 it was commonly called simply "Joma,"=day, 
 as the day of all days. It is probably intended 
 by St. Luke in the expression " the fast," Acts 
 xxvii. 9. See Com. there. The high-priest 
 alone could officiate, and this he must do in a 
 peculiar dress worn only on this day. By t lie 
 ritual of this day, the imperfection and insuffi- 
 ciency of all other sacrifices was brought pro- 
 minently into view, while yet its own imperfec- 
 tion was necessarily involved in its yearly repe- 
 tition. 
 
 The chapter consists of two portions, of which 
 the first (vers. 2-28) contains directions for this 
 great annual expiation; and the second (vers. 
 29-34), the command for its yearly celebration. 
 The whole of Lange's Exegetical Notes are here 
 given. 
 
 " 1. It is first of all to be noticed that the 
 yearly feast of atonement is mentioned twice in 
 the Levitical law of worship, viz. once here as 
 the culminating point of the laws and expiations 
 of purifications; and again in ch. xxiii. in the 
 midst of the feasts of the Lord for the positive 
 sanctification of the land and the people, as a 
 solemn prelude to the most festal and joyous of 
 all the feasts, the feast of tabernacles. The 
 point of unity of both lines is the thought: that 
 Israel can then only attain to the full joys of the 
 feast of tabernacles, when, on the great Sabbath 
 of the seventh month — the single exclusive day 
 of expiation and regular fast day of the year — 
 it has humbled and purified itself before Jehovah 
 with the confession, that all its legal atonements 
 had not brought full purification; that the in- 
 struments of atonement, priests and altar, must 
 themselves be atoned for ; that not even by these 
 comprehensive general supplications and general 
 atonements could complete atonement be made ; 
 that a guilt remaining in secret must be sent 
 home to Azazel as inexpiable under the traptaic 
 of Jehovah (Rom. iii. 25) — an act with which 
 the Levitical atonement sweeps out beyond itself 
 to a future and real atonement. 
 
 "2. Corresponding to the thoughts that have 
 been mentioned, we have: 
 
 " a. The prevailing unapproachableness of 
 the holy God, only momentarily suspended 
 tli rough a hypothetical, typically accomplished 
 power of approach, as the idea of a future 
 perfect atonement. This law was enforced 
 by the fact that the two eldest sons of 
 Aaron had died through approaching pro- 
 fanely, and by the threat that he too should 
 die if he went behind the curtain of the Holy of 
 holies, where Jehovah was manifested in a cloud 
 over the mercy-seat (Jer. xxx. 21), otherwise 
 than according to the stated conditions, once a 
 year. (Heb. ix. 7). Vers. 1, 2." [The historical 
 connection of this chapter with the death of Na- 
 dab and Abihu does not exclude the logical con- 
 nection with the legislation of the rest of the 
 book. The provision for the day of atonement 
 
 was necessary in any case to the completeness 
 of the Levitical system, but the command for its 
 observance was immediately occasioned by their 
 unauthorized act. There are no data to show the 
 length of the interval between their death and 
 the Divine communication contained in this 
 chapter; but it was probably short. Ver. 2. 
 Within the vail — which separated the holy 
 place, the outer part of the sanctuary where the 
 priests daily ministered at the altar of incense, 
 from the holy of holies which was never to be 
 entered by man except as provided for in this 
 chapter. On the significance of this arrange- 
 ment see Doctrinal remarks below. The custom 
 of having peculiarly sacred parts in the heathen 
 temples is well known. The mercy-seat. — 
 
 j"H33 LXX. 'i?.aarfipiov,Y\l\g.,propitiatorium, and 
 so the other ancient versions. The LXX. word 
 is twice used in the N. T., being translated mercy- 
 seat in Heb. ix. 5, but propitiation in Rom. iii. 25. 
 The word occurs only in Ex., in this chapter, 
 and in Num. vii. 89, and 1 Chr. xxviii. 11. It 
 is evident from Ex. xxv. 22; xxx. 6; and Num. 
 vii. 89, that it was the place appointed for the 
 peculiar manifestation of the presence of Go 1 ; 
 and from this chapter, that it was the objective 
 point of the highest propitiatory rites known to 
 the law. The English word only partially con- 
 veys the sense. I will appear in the cloud. 
 — -There has been much question whether this 
 means the light-giving cloud which overshadowed 
 and at certain times filled the tabernacle, and 
 which according to the Jewish authorities, was 
 afterwards represented by the Shcchinah above 
 the ark ; or whether it refers simply to the cloud 
 of incense arising from the censer of the high- 
 priest as he passed within the vail. The subject 
 is ably and fully discussed by Ruhr (Symb. I. c. 
 V. \ 2, IV. 2d aufi., pp. 471-481) who concludes 
 in favor of the latter. See the authorities there 
 cited. The determination in reality involves 
 two separate questions : first, whether the pro- 
 mise of the text is personal to Aaron, or whether 
 ii is given in perpetuity to him and his success- 
 ors in the high-priesthood; and second, whe- 
 ther, after the cessation of the wanderings in the 
 wilderness, there ever was such a Shechinah. 
 In regard to the latter question, later Jewish 
 tradition, from the time of the Targums down, 
 is certainly sufficiently emphatic in the affirma- 
 tive ; but for so remarkable and perpetual a mi- 
 racle, higher authority is required. Bahr has 
 shown that Philo and Josephus, as well as the 
 Christian Fathers to the time of S. Jerome, knew 
 nothing of it, and it is never mentioned in the 
 Scriptures, or in the Jewish Apocryphal books. 
 Nevertheless, the incense is not spoken of until 
 ver. 12, and it seems unlikely that the cloud 
 from it should be intended here. God had 
 hitherto manifested His presence to Mo«es and 
 to the people in the cloud which covered the 
 tabernacle, and that in various localities; it 
 would not be strange that He should now 
 promise a similar manifestation to Aaron by the 
 same instrumentality. That this Bhould take 
 place upon the mercy-seat was a consi quenoe 
 of Aaron's coming before it in this highest act 
 of propitiation. Of course this would giv i.o 
 ground to suppose that sue 1 ! a manifes ation 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 125 
 
 continued there perpetually, or at any other 
 time than that on which it is here especially 
 promised. Rosenmiiller, Keil, and most other 
 commentators, however, accept the Jewish tra- 
 dition of the Shechinah. — F. G.]. 
 
 " 6. He must next protect himself with a great 
 sacrifice; for he is directed to take a young 
 bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a 
 burnt offering. By these the great faults of 
 the priesthood on the one side, and the great 
 duties on the other side are signified," ver. 3. 
 [Come into the holy is sometimes understood 
 in relation to Aaron's entrance into the taberna- 
 cle merely, because these offerings were offered 
 before he passed beyond the court at all; but as 
 the point of the whole ritual is the entrance into 
 the holy of holies, the word3 are more fitly in- 
 terpreted in relation to this. Full account is 
 given of the ritual of tbe sin offering in vers. 
 11-14 and 27, 28; the sacrifice of the priestly 
 burnt offering was at the same time with that 
 of the people at the conclusion of the other 
 sacrifices (ver. 24]. — F. 0.]. 
 
 " c. After this, he is to make himself the 
 atoner for the collective priesthood. All the 
 high-priestly ornaments were laid aside, and he 
 was clothed with a linen coat over linen drawers, 
 and girt with a linen girdle. The linen cap 
 completed the attire. Even this enrobing must 
 be preceded by a religious lustration" (ver. 4)." 
 [This clothing is called the holy garments, 
 vers. 4 and 32 ; and it is separated from that of 
 the common priests by a white linen girdle in 
 place of the ordinary priestly girdle wrought in 
 needle-work with " blue and purple and scarlet" 
 (Ex. xxxix. 29). The high-priest is thus to lay 
 aside his ''golden garments" of authority, and 
 to be clad in pure white as symbolical of holi- 
 ness. This symbolism was increased by his 
 bathing himself before putting on these gar- 
 ments, and again when he exchanged them 
 (ver. 24) for his official robes. These bathings 
 were not the mere ordinary bathings of the 
 hands and feet, but of the whole body. — F. G.]. 
 
 " d. Only in such guise can he receive the 
 means of atonement for the congregation in- 
 volved with him in guilt, the two he-goats, 
 which in the more general sense, are appointed 
 for a sin offering. In the presentation of the 
 burnt offering, however, the congregation was 
 equalized with the high-priest himself. But how 
 inconsiderable is the he-goat in comparison with 
 the young bullock, ver. 5." [He shall take 
 of the congregation. — Inasmuch as these 
 sacrifices were for the people, the victims were 
 supplied by them, as the former ones had been 
 by Aaron. The fact that the two goats together 
 constitute the sin offering is to be particularly 
 noted. The high-priest's sin offering was a 
 bullock, as provided in iv. 3, and the ordinary 
 sin offering for the whole congregation was the 
 same (ib. 14) ; here it is changed to two goats to 
 meet the particular ritual provided, but they 
 together constitute a single sin offering. In the 
 same way two birds were required for the puri- 
 fication of the leper (xiv. 4), or to " make atone- 
 ment for the leprous house (ib. 53) one of which 
 was set free; and so also in the sin offering of 
 the poor (v. 7), two doves were required which 
 were differently treated, but together made up a 
 
 single sacrifice. The burnt offering, both for 
 the high-priest and for the congregation, was 
 not a bullock, but an inferior victim was pre- 
 scribed, probably to avoid withdrawing the at- 
 tention from the other sacrifices, and thus to 
 bring out with greater force the significance of 
 the whole work of the day as an atonement for 
 sin.— F. G.]. 
 
 "e. Now follows the ordinance for the atone- 
 ment in a shorter statement. The sin offerings 
 were placed together before the sanctuary, pre- 
 sented before the Lord ; the bullock and the 
 two he-goats ; since the guilt is indeed different, 
 but yet also common." [The text, however, dis- 
 tinctly separates the presentation of Aaron's 
 bullock (ver. 6) from that of the he-goats for the 
 people (ver. 7); and this is in accordance with 
 the order of the actual sacrifice which follows. It 
 seems also necessary to the idea that Aaron must 
 first make an atonement for himself and for 
 his house before proceeding to offer for the 
 people. — F. G. ]. "But now the mysterious act 
 was performed : the lot was cast over the two 
 he-goats, while the lot of the one was called for 
 Jehovah, that of the other for Azazel. On 
 the various significations of this, see below. 
 Meantime, only the directions which belong to 
 both are spoken of. Vers. 9 and 10." [0-10. 
 
 The nSy used in vers. 9, 10 of the lots refers to 
 
 T T 
 
 the coming up of the lot out of the urn. Keil. 
 Aaron's bullock is now offered, not sacrificed, for 
 this comes afterwards, ver. 11; the same is true 
 also of the other sin offerings. According to 
 Jewish tradition, this offering was accompanied 
 by the high-priest's making a solemn confession 
 of sin, the form of which is given in Massecket 
 Joma c. 3, \ 8 (Patrick). His house is not his 
 immediate, personal family, but the whole order 
 of priests, and perhaps it. also included the Le- 
 vites after they were separated from the congre- 
 gation. —The two goats of ver. 7 were to be, 
 according to Jewish tradition, of the same size, 
 color, and value, and as nearly alike in every 
 way as possible. Both of them alike Aaron was 
 directed to present before the Lord, but the 
 word used for this act (TDJjri) is a different one 
 from that used of Aaron's offering of the bullock 
 (3'Tpn), and does not appear to be used in a sa- 
 crificial sense. The lots were then cast, and only 
 the one upon which the LORD'S lot fell 
 was Aaron at present to offer (3"^pn) for a sin 
 offering (ver. 8) as he bad already done with 
 his own bullock ; the other, on which the lot 
 fell for Azazel was to be presented alive 
 
 Cn-irjtT) before the Lord (ver. 10). This dif- 
 _ T:T \ 
 
 ference in the treatment of the two goats from 
 the outset is too important to be overlooked ; but 
 subsequently the other was also offered (ver. 20), 
 and it is expressly said that Aaron should make 
 an atonement with him. — Thus it is clear 
 that the goat for Azazel, while forming part of 
 the one sin offering and used for the purpose of 
 atonement, was yet offered to the Lord, in the 
 sacrificial sense, separately from the other. — 
 F. G.J. 
 
 "/. The sacrificial acts follow these prepara- 
 tions. Aaron must slay the sin offering of the 
 priesthood in the court. Then he first brings a 
 
126 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 large offering of incense (both bands full of 
 sweet incense) into the holy of holies, a cloud 
 of the fulness of prayer, which coTers the whole 
 ttercy-seat, as this covers the law, the evidence 
 of the guilt of sin. With this preparatory en- 
 trance only is made possible the principal en- 
 trance for fulfilling the priestly atonement, with- 
 out Aaron's dying in that entrance. Then he 
 comes back, brings the vessel of blood, and first 
 sprinkles with his finger blood upon the mercy- 
 seat on its front side, as if to express the thought 
 that there is an atonement in the blood ; then he 
 sprinkles before the Kaporeth" [mercy-seat] 
 "with his fingers (plural) seven times, as if to 
 express the whole historical work of the blood 
 of martyrdom which the blood-sprinkling of the 
 Kaporeth" [mercy-seat] "crowned." [Vers. 
 11-14. It is important to the understanding of 
 this day to keep the order of its rites distinctly 
 in view. They have been clearly stated above: 
 (1) the high-priest slew the bullock for the 
 priestly sin offering; (2) then he entered the 
 holy of holies with the golden censer (comp. Heb. 
 ix. 4) full of burning incense; (3) taking the 
 blood of his own sin offering, he again entered 
 the holy of holies and sprinkled the blood, first 
 upon the front side of the mercy-seat, and then 
 seven times before it ; (4) he again came out to 
 slay the goat for the sin offering of the people 
 (ver. 15). — F. G.]. "Now first follows the atone- 
 ment for the people. Aaron takes the vessel of 
 blood of the people's atonement, and performs 
 the two sprinklings in the holy of holies as be- 
 fore. Here also the distinction is made upon the 
 mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat. But 
 as Aaron does not make atonement for his private 
 guilt, of which mention was made in chap, iv., 
 but for the faults in his sacrificial service itself, 
 bo is it also with the atonement for the people. 
 For their private sins they have brought their 
 sacrifices during the course of the year; now 
 they have, in conned ion with the priesthood, to 
 atone generally for the subtle sins in all their 
 atonements and offerings." [Yet it would give 
 an imperfect view of the purpose of the great day 
 of atonement to suppose it restricted simply to 
 atoning for defects in the various sacrifices of the 
 past year, nor probably does Lange mean to be 
 so understood. It was rather an expression of 
 the inherent insufficiency of those sacrifices; an 
 acknowledgment that, notwithstanding all those 
 propitiations, I here still remained an alienation 
 between a sinful people and a perfectly holy God. 
 It was the design of this day to acknowledge 
 this, and by the most solemn and expressive 
 types, symbolically to remove it; yet in the pro- 
 vision for its annual repetition, its own insuffi- 
 ciency to this end stands confessed, and with 
 especial clearness it points forward to the only 
 true remedy in Him who should really obtain 
 the victory over the power of evil. — F. G.] "So 
 first atonement was made for the sanctuary of 
 the Temple" [or Tabernacle] "in the holy of 
 holies (which indeed had itself remained unap- 
 proachable for sin as well as the Binner), and 
 then from the holy of holies outward, for the 
 tabernacle of congregation, which had 
 been particularly exposed to defilement in the 
 midst of the impurities of the people. That by 
 the tabernacle of congregation is meant the 
 
 court, is shown by the command that no one 
 should enter it while he accomplishes the atone- 
 ment." [On the other hand, Keil understands 
 "the holy place of the tabernacle" in contra- 
 distinction to the "holy of holies," which is 
 called throughout this chapter simply " the 
 holy." So also Rosenmiiller and others. And 
 there shall be no man in the tabernacle 
 of congregation — The object of this was not 
 to guard the privacy of the ceremony, but sim- 
 ply because all were regarded as defiled and to 
 be atoned for, and every thing defiled must be 
 excluded during the process of atonement. — F. G.] 
 " The whole religion of the people appears as in 
 abeyance while the high-priest was consum- 
 mating the atonement. And fitly were these 
 atoning acts so named. Alter the high-priest 
 had completed the atonement in the holy of ho- 
 lies, he went back into the sanctuary, and there 
 sprinkled the altar of incense. Iu a manner 
 entirely analogous to the sprinkling upon the 
 mercy-seat, he first sprinkled the horns of the 
 altar of incense, and then the altar itself seven 
 times." [The analogy is still more completely 
 carried out by the change of words in the Heb. 
 put it (|JTJ) upon the horns of the altar. . . . 
 he shall sprinkle (Hiri) of the blood upon 
 it. — F. G.] "Only in this sprinkling, the blood 
 of the bullock is joined with the blood of the he- 
 goat, as indeed the prayers of both priest and 
 people rise together to God, and in like manner 
 also their faults in prayer. It is remarkable 
 that the act of sprinkling in the court (at the 
 altar of burnt offering) seems to follow the act 
 of sprinkling in the holy of holies, and not till 
 then the sprinkling of the altar of incense in the 
 temple" [tabernacle], "which is here called 
 par excellence the altar. In this connection the 
 passage Ex. xxx. 10 is worthy of note. Accord- 
 ingly the atonement for this altar was the last 
 act of sacrifice, and thereby the atonement for 
 the theocratic prayer became the last point in the 
 atonement, as indeed it had certainly been the 
 basis for the first." [The ceremonies of propi- 
 tiation began by carrying the burning incense, 
 symbolizing prayer, within the vail; then the 
 blood was sprinkled upon the instruments of pro- 
 pitiation, the mercy-seat and the brazen altar, 
 and finally upon the altar of incense itself which 
 was connected with the symbolism of prayer. — 
 F. G.] "This ordinance seems to be connected 
 with the thought tnat the altar of incense in its 
 relation to Jehovah (the altar that is befora 
 the LORD) was reckoned as belonging to the 
 holy of holies, as also the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 seems to understand. After all this comes the 
 treatment of the living he-goat, designated 
 for Azazel. This goat was brought into the 
 court. Here the high-priest must lay both his 
 hands (his hand in the singular was said of the 
 offerer i. 4: iii. 2; iv. 4; iv. 24) upon the head 
 of the goat and confess upon it all the mis- 
 deeds (nj'lJT) of the children of Israel, and all 
 their breaches of allegiance (deadly sins, crimes) 
 'O'H'F'dn), which belong to all their sins, which 
 are not included either in the sins to be atoned 
 for, or which have already been atoned for 
 
 (DrWi3n-737), and shall lay these upon the head 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 127 
 
 of the goat, and shall send it away (hunt it 
 away) into the wilderness by means of a man 
 who stood ready for that purpose (therefore in- 
 stantly). The object, however, is that the he- 
 goat shall bear away all the sins, as if they had 
 been laid upon him, into a desolate place. So 
 shall he send him away into the wilderness, pro- 
 perly speaking, into a complete solitude, into a 
 bare place in the midst of the wilderness, to the 
 most desolate spot. So fearful indeed is the 
 burden of guilt of this beast, that the man who 
 has driven away the goat must first, outside the 
 camp, wash his clothes and bathe himself before 
 he may come hack again into the camp. This is 
 the contagious power of the deadly Bins. It is 
 to be considered that sins done with uplift'd hand 
 could not be removed by Levitical sacrifice." 
 
 " But further, they could not all be discovered 
 and blotted out by the penalty of death, the Che- 
 rem. Thus there remained, after all the atone- 
 ments and penalties, an unatoned and unpar- 
 donable residue, the hidden guilt of Israel, which 
 crept on in darkness through its history until 
 the crucifixion of Christ (Rom. iii. 2-i). From 
 this the congregation of Israel could only be 
 freed by a symbolical act, in which they hunted 
 away this burden of guilt with the sin-goat of 
 double power, to him to whom this guilt be- 
 longed, to the Azazel in the wilderness. That 
 the solitude inside the pasturage of the wilder- 
 ness was considered as a region of evil spirits is 
 plain from passages of the Old and New T 
 ments (Isa. xiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 14 ; Matt. xii. 43 s".) ; 
 that further, the dismissing of the unpardonable 
 eins could be considered as a giving over of the 
 sinner, with his sin, to its author, is shown by 
 the act of excommunication of Paul (1 Cor. v. 5). 
 and that the idea or conception of a diabolical 
 opposing spirit was handed, down from patriar- 
 chal times, is plain, backwards, from Gen. iii., 
 and forwards, from the position of Satan in Job, 
 and other places. The name Azazel corresponds 
 throughout to this conception. 'Whether the 
 
 7iNi>' be derived from 711*, it means (from the 
 .. T ~. _^ T ' v 
 
 verb in Pihel) the one that is always hiding, se- 
 parating himself; or from SiX, the one that 
 is always removing himself, the escaping 
 one, the old one every where and nowhere; 
 and one can only say simply that the va- 
 rious explanations which are most divergent 
 from this conception are only to be accounted for 
 from the want of understanding the undoubtedly 
 very obscure and solemn idea of the text. Thus 
 Enobel finds himself authorized by the text and 
 the grammar to explain "our author considered 
 Azazel as an evil being in the wilderness." To 
 be sure, it is his purpose to assert iu this con- 
 nection that the devil does not appear in the old 
 Hebrew books, and was not a dweller in the 
 wilderness. [Similarly Kalisch argues, upon 
 the same grounds, that this book must be later 
 than the time of Zechariah !" — F. G.] That the 
 teaching concerning the devil has only been 
 gradually developed from the obscurest forms ; 
 that the devil appears in Scripture in connection 
 wiih subordinate demons; that further, he is 
 described in the New Testament as a dweller in 
 
 the wilderness;* that finally, the conception of 
 natural or spectral " Desert fiends" would be a 
 dualistic one, contravening the spirit of the Old 
 Testament — all this is overlooked in his skilfully 
 prepared antithesis. But when Merx, in oppo- 
 sition to the interpretation of the passage of Sa- 
 tan, declares that the Old Testament conscious- 
 lie-? is never dualistic, he has not learned to 
 distinguish dualism from the biblical teaching in 
 regird to Satan ; and, as regards the further ex- 
 position, that the idea of Satan was foreign to 
 the Old Testament, it is a pure assumptiou, with 
 which he sets himself in opposition to the best 
 recognized passages. The lately advanced pro- 
 position, " this thought does not appear any 
 where else in Scripture," denies the conception 
 of «Tof feydfieva, and can only he described as 
 ha I Herrueneutics, without mentioning that we 
 have here nothing to do with a a-a; feydpevov. 
 Into what adventurousness Exegesis was brought 
 when it passed to the thought, that the abso- 
 lutely or relatively (for the Old Testament eco- 
 nomy) inexpiable sins were given over to the 
 kingdom of darkness for earlier or later judg- 
 ment, is shown by the interpretations that are 
 given: — Azazel signifies a locality in the wilder- 
 ness; a desolate place ; a mountain (while it is 
 forgotten that the people journeyed from station 
 to station) ; or the buck goat itself (from ij£ and 
 
 71^', caper emissarius, "the scapegoat" [der ledige 
 Bockf) according to Luther) ; or Azazel is a de- 
 mon, to whom this goat is brought as a sacrifice; 
 or the word is an abstraction, and signifies the 
 whole sending away, like the characteristic hesi- 
 tation of the LXX. between azo-ou-ij and a~o- 
 
 / if, in which two different expositions are 
 brought out." [In regard to the meaning of 
 Azazel : in the great variety of etymologies given 
 for the word by scholars of the highest standing, 
 it may be assumed as certaiu that nothing can 
 be positively determined by the etymology. See 
 the Lexicons and Bochart, ITicroz. I., lib. II. c. 
 51 (Tom. I., p. 74o seq. ed. Rosen.); Spencer, de 
 leg. L. III. Diss. 8, Sect. 2 (p. 1011 s. ed. Tu- 
 bing.). Not only the roots themselves are va- 
 ried, but their signification also, and still further 
 the signification of the compound. Little light 
 can be had from the Ancient Versions. The 
 Sara., and the Targs. of Ouk., Jon., and Jerus., 
 retain the word unchanged ; so also does the 
 Syriac, but in Walton's Polyglott this is paren- 
 thetically translated Deus fortissimus, for which, 
 however, there seems to be no more authority 
 than in the Hebrew; the Vulg. has caprus i 
 sarins ; the LXX. renders in ver. 8, ru i-n-o/i- 
 -aiu (which Josephus also uses), in ver. 10 fie 
 
 irojroy - . in ver. 26 tuv x'l'apov -bv Siea- 
 Ta?ifiivov elc aipeaiv ; Symm. a7repx6p£voc ; Aq. 
 
 * [This statement is probably founded upon two facta — 
 li -t. that uf our Lord's bavins been lid into the wilderness 
 '• to !"■ tempte 1 of the Devil;" but this does not imply til a 
 Me- Iievil is in any especial sense a dweller in the wilder- 
 ness, inn only that this was a favorable situation for him to 
 ply his temptations ; and second, that certain men possessed 
 of evil spirits sought solitary places, oilier passages of the 
 N. T. certainly present the Devil as eminently cosmopolitan. 
 — F. <i. 
 
 t "Killer indeed thinks, that the scape-goat (der ledige 
 Bock) signifies that the people are set tree by the expiation; 
 only since they could not have let it run free in Jerusalem, 
 they sent it into the wild' rnesal" 
 
128 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 a7To?tcAv/ihoc (or, according to Theodoret, awo- 
 /iv//m'i>c; Theod. afiifievoc. All these versions, 
 it will be observed, either retain the word un- 
 changed, or else refer it to the goat itself in the 
 general sense of Luther, and the A. V. scape-goat. 
 The old Italic, too, has ad dimissionem. The Jewish 
 authorities differ, R. Saadias Gaou being quoted 
 by Spencer, and Kimchi by Minister and others 
 for the interpretation rough mountain of God, 
 but many of them explaining the word of the 
 Devil. Of the Christian Fathers, Origen [contra 
 Cels. 6), and a Christian poet cited by Epiphauius 
 (Hieres. xxxiv.) from Irenasus, identify Azazel 
 with the Devil; on the other hand, Theodoret 
 (Qu. xxii. in Lev.) and Cyril [Glaph.) concur 
 with the interpretation of Jerome. Suidas and 
 Hesychius make the LXX. enrono/iiTr/ — cnroTpcm!] — - 
 averruncus, the averter of evil. (See Suicer Then. 
 S. V. airoTTfrrralog.) The great majority of modern 
 commentators agree with Spencer and Rosen- 
 miiller in interpreting the word itself of the 
 Devil, although B'ahr, Winer, and Tholuck con- 
 tend for the sense complete removal. The Book 
 of Enoch, so called, uses the name, or one so like 
 it as to be evidently meant for the same, several 
 times (viii. 1; x. 12; xiii. 1), in a way that 
 shows the author understood by it the Devil; 
 but this book, being an apocryphal composition, 
 probably of the second century, (see Excursus 
 II. in my com. on S. Jude), can add nothing to 
 the authorities already cited. The writers who 
 adopt this sense differ very widely in regard to 
 the object of the goat for Azazel, some consider- 
 ing him as a sacrifice to appease the evil spirit, 
 others as sent " to deride and triumph over him 
 in his own dominion," and others as simply 
 " sent away to him as to one banished from the 
 realm of grace." (Clark.) See the dissertations, 
 among others, by Spencer and one by Heugsten- 
 berg in his Egypt and the Books of Moses. 
 
 In this great variety of interpretation of the 
 word and of the meaning of the ritual, we are 
 fairly remanded to the text itself with ihe con- 
 viction that nothing is certain except what is 
 positively stated there. These points at least, 
 are clear: (1) the two goats together constitute 
 one sin offering, ver 5; and also in ver. 10, the 
 goat for Azazel is expressly said to be presented 
 before the LORD to make an atonement 
 
 with him. VI)) ^3D7 according to invariable 
 
 usage, denotes the object of the expiation; "to 
 expiate it, i. e., to make it the object of expiation, 
 or make expiation with it." Keil.) Neverthe- 
 less a distinction is observed in the text in the 
 purpose of the expiation effected by each of the 
 goats. The blood of the one that was slain is 
 used only for making atonement for the holy 
 places, vers. 15-19 ; after this it is expressly 
 said, and when he hath made an end of 
 making atonement for the holy place, 
 etc. The expiation for these was then finished, 
 and as yet no expiation had been made for the 
 sins of the people. Then follows, he shall 
 bring the live goat, and on his head the high- 
 priest lays the sins of the people to be borne 
 away. The two goats then constitute one sin 
 offering, but one is used to expiate the holy 
 places, the other to bear away the sins of the 
 people. (2) The two goats were not offered to- 
 
 gether in the sacrificial sense, but only caused 
 to stand before the Lord for the purpose of cast- 
 ing lots, ver. 7 ; afterwards the goat for sacri- 
 fice was offered (ver. 9) by himself, and the goat 
 for Azazel (ver. 20J was offered by himself. (8) 
 The lot was cast by Aaron as the officiating high- 
 priest, and was plainly intended to place the 
 choice of the goats entirely in the hands of 
 the Lord Himself. (4) The preposition used is 
 precisely the same in regard to both the goats: 
 
 for (7) the Lord, for Azazel ; in view of this it 
 
 is impossible to understand Azazel as in any way 
 designating the goat itself, so that the interpre- 
 tation of the LXX. Vulg. and A. V. is untenable 
 as a literal translation, although as a paraphrase, 
 it very well expresses the sense. On the other 
 hand, this by no means implies, as so often 
 assumed, that Azazel must be a personal being. 
 It would be perfectly consonant to the usage of 
 language that one goat should be for the Lord, 
 and the other for anything, or place, or " ab- 
 straction;" for the knife, for the wilderness, for 
 the bearing away of sin. (5) The word Azazel 
 is elsewhere unknown to the Scriptures, and 
 there is no satisfactory evidence that, except as 
 taken from this passage, it ever was a word 
 known to any language. (6) Finally it. is to be 
 borne in mind that this is not the only case in 
 which two victims, treated with different ritual, 
 constituted together a single sin offering. The 
 same thing occurred in the two birds of the sin 
 offering of the poor (v. 7-10), of which one 
 was treated according to the ritual of the sin 
 offering, and the other according to that of the 
 burnt offering, yet both together constituted the 
 sin offering. Another analogy is in the two birds 
 for the purification of the leprous man or house, 
 one killed, the other set free. These last, how- 
 ever, were not a sacrifice. 
 
 In view of these facts why may it not be sup- 
 posed that the word Azazel was somewhat vague 
 and indeterminate in its signification to the 
 ancient Israelites themselves, just as Redemption 
 is to the Christian? So far as our sinful condi- 
 tion is concerned, nothing can be plainer or more 
 vitally important; but when the question is 
 asked, " To whom is this redemption paid?" no 
 certain and satisfactory answer has been, or can 
 be given. May it not have been in the same 
 way with this word to the Israelites? That 
 their sins were borne away was most clearly 
 taught; but looking upon these sins as concrete 
 realities, the question might arise, "Whither 
 were they carried?" The answer is in the first 
 place to the wilderness, " to the place of banish- 
 ment from God;" and then further to Azazel. 
 It was not necessary that the word should be 
 clearly understood ; in fact the more vague its 
 meaning, the more perfect tile symbolism. The 
 typical system could not explain further. The 
 main point is well brought out in the translations 
 of the LXX.. the Vulg. and the A. V., After every 
 other part of the atonement for the holy places 
 had been completed (ver. 20) this goat was ap- 
 pointed for the symbolic bearing away of the 
 sins of the people, first into the wildtrness, a 
 wide, indefinite place, and then further to Azazel, 
 a wide, indefinite word. All this very emphati- 
 cally symbolized to the people the utter removal 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 129 
 
 of the burden of their Fins, without attempt- 
 ing to define precisely what became of them. 
 The only danger that could be supposed of 
 similar vagueness entered into the New Testa- 
 ment account of the great Sacrifice for sins, to set 
 at rest the endless theories which aim in vain 
 at explaining the modus operandi of the Divine 
 atonement — except that whatever that term had 
 been, learning and ability would have been 
 hopelessly devoted to ascertain its meaning, 
 as has already been the case with Azazel. 
 — F. G.] 
 
 "After the atoning sacrifice was completed in 
 the way described, Aaron must prepare to pre- 
 sent the burnt offering. It is very significant 
 that he had to lay aside in the court the linen 
 garments, the garments of expiation, and bathe 
 his flesh with water, and then only, in his own 
 high-priestly robes, present his burnt offering 
 and that of the people, a ram for himself, and a 
 ram for the people. Moreover, when it is said, 
 he shall both make an atonement for him- 
 self, and for the people (ver. 24), it is cer- 
 tainly implied in the expression that the typi- 
 cal burnt offering signified only a typical Interim 
 for the real Burnt offering (Rom. xii. 1), pro- 
 vided the expression is not to be considered as a 
 final recapitulation. The contrast between the 
 he-goat which had been slain as a sin offering to 
 Jehovah, and the goat of the Azazel is also ex- 
 pressed in this: that the fat of the first came 
 upon the altar with the burnt offering, while 
 even the man who drove away the Azazel goat 
 had to undergo a lustration." [Aaron's bathing 
 himself (ver. 24) seems also to be connected 
 with his having symbolically laid the sins of 
 the people upon the head of the goat. The 
 same lustration was also required of him who 
 burnt the flesh of the other goat and of 
 the bullock without the camp (ver. 28), as is 
 noticed by Lange below. The object of these 
 requirements is evidently to express by every 
 possible symbolism the defiling nature of sin. 
 In ver. 27 the word for burning is iPtf, which 
 as noted under iv. 12, is never used of sacrificial 
 burning. — F. G.] " The sin offerings indeed, 
 the bullock and the goat, in their remainder of 
 skin, flesh and bones, were carried without the 
 camp, and there burned; as was to be done with 
 the sin offerings of the high-priest and of the 
 congregation according to ch. iv. 1-21, as if 
 these pieces were considered a Cherem." [The 
 law required that the flesh of all sin offerings 
 whose blood was brought within the sanctuary, 
 should be burned without the camp. See on x. 
 18. — F. G.] "But it has certainly this mean- 
 ing: that these pieces were here neutralized 
 and removed with a becoming reverence for 
 their signification. On account of this impor- 
 tant idea, the fulfiller of this work was also sub- 
 jected to a lustration, ver. 28." 
 
 "As a supplement, partly a repetition, it is now 
 said, that tlie children of Israel shall on this 
 (lay afflict their souls; that this law shall be an 
 everlasting law; the day a great Sabbath on 
 which all work shall be stopped; that it shall 
 be Israel's atonement from all their sins which 
 the high-priest should execute, and that once a 
 
 year. It also remains not unnoticed that the 
 ordinance in regard to this was observed at that, 
 time. 
 
 "For the literature, see Keil, p. 113, 14," etc. 
 [Trans, page 398. See also the authorities in 
 Smith's Bib. Vict. art. Atonement, Day of, and 
 in Winer, art. YersohnungsUiy. — F. G.] 
 
 [Ver. 29. In the seventh month of the 
 ecclesiastical year, which according to Joscphus 
 (I. 3, (S 3), was the first of the civil year. The 
 old Hebrew name for this month was Ethanim, 
 the post-captivity name Tisri. On the first day 
 of this month was appointed the Feast of Trum- 
 pets (xxiii. 24), celebrated as a Sabbath and by 
 "an holy convocation;" on the teuth was the 
 great Day of Atonement, provided for in this 
 chapter, and again mentioned xxiii. 26-32; and 
 on the fifteenth day began the feast cf taberna- 
 cles, lasting for a week (xxiii. 33-43). The 
 deportment required of the people on the Day 
 of Atonement is more fully expressed in ch. 
 xxiii. Here it is simply described as a day in 
 which ye shall afflict your souls, i. e. devote 
 yourselves to penitence and humiliation. This 
 would of course include fasting; but the dis- 
 tinctive word for fasting, D-li* or D'llf, so com- 
 mon afterwards, does not occur in the Penta- 
 teuch or Joshua. It was further provided that 
 the people should do no work at all, not 
 merely no servile work, as was provided for on 
 various other occasions, but absolutely no work. 
 And this ordinance was extended to the stran- 
 ger that sojourneth among you. Various 
 laws were made obligatory upon the stranger, 
 as the observance of the fourth commandment, 
 Ex. xx. 10; the abstinence from blood, Lev. 
 xvii. 10 ; certain laws of sexual purity, xviii. 26 ; 
 the law against giving of one's seed to Molech, 
 xx. 2; and against blasphemy, xxiv. 16. These 
 were all laws so essential to the Hebrew theoc- 
 racy that every one who came within the sphere 
 of their exercise was bound to respect them. 
 They apply to every one staying for however 
 long or short a time within the bounds of Israel, 
 and it is a mistake to restrict them (Clark) to 
 those of other races permanently domiciled 
 among the Israelites, as will at once appear 
 from a consideration of the character ofseveral 
 of these laws. Ver. 34. He did as the LORD 
 commanded Moses, i". e. in announcing the 
 law. Perhaps also the expression may include 
 the observance of the day when the time came 
 round which could only have been several 
 months later, the Israelites having departed 
 from Mount Sinai on the twentieth day of the 
 second month (Num. x. 11), while all the legis- 
 lation in Leviticus was given during their so- 
 journ there (ch. xxvi. 46; xxvii. 34). — F. G.] 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The vail shutting out the Holy of Holies 
 set forth, in speaking symbol, the unapproacha- 
 bleness and unknowableness of God. Even the 
 high priest, entering once in the year, must 
 obscure his view in the vety cloud of incense 
 with which he approached. The same truth 
 
130 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 was more feebly taught iu the arrangements of 
 the heathen temples, and was set. forth in the 
 speculations of heathen philosophy. In the 
 Jewish Scriptures it is declared with the utmost 
 emphasis and clearness. In the New Testament 
 too, we are taught that He can be revealed to 
 man only by Him who is both God and man. 
 Thus the latest conclusion of modern philosophy, 
 that behind all that can be discovered of nature 
 there is an " Unknowable," a "power inscruta- 
 ble to the human intellect" is taught in Scrip- 
 ture from beginning to end. Even when the 
 vail was rent asunder at the crucifixion of Christ, 
 and a new and living way was consecrated for 
 us into the holy of holies, it became a way to 
 the knowledge and apprehension of God rather 
 practically and spiritually than intellectually. 
 The finite and the Infinite can meet only in Him 
 who is both. 
 
 II. The high-priest was warned to enter within 
 the vail only in the way and at the time pre- 
 scribed, lest he die. His official and symbolic 
 holiness did not make him personally holy, so 
 that he could bear to enter as he pleased the 
 presence of the holy God, but only covered his 
 official service. This was not prevented or ren- 
 dered unavailing by his own personal unworthi- 
 ness. So here is taught the great principle that 
 "the unworthiness of ministers hinders not the 
 effect of the sacraments;" that the grace of 
 God accompanies the acts of those whom He hag 
 appointed in that which He has given them to 
 do, alihough this treasure be placed "in earthen 
 vessels." 
 
 III. The dress of Aaron when he passed within 
 the vail was evidently significant. Ordinarily, 
 when he ministered as high-priest and in the 
 presence of the people, his robes were of the 
 utmost, splendor, symbolizing his high office as 
 the typical mediator between God and the con- 
 gregation; but now in the highest act of that 
 mediation, when alone before God, these are to 
 be laid aside, and the whole purpose of the dress 
 is to symbolize that perfect purity with which 
 only he may enter the presence of the imme- 
 diate dwelling-place of God. 
 
 IV. In Aaron's first offering of a sin offering 
 for himself is very strongly set, forth the imper- 
 fection of the Levitical law. The one on whose 
 mediation the people must depend for forgive- 
 ness must yet first make propitiation for him- 
 self. And in the provision for the annual repe- 
 tion of this day, its insufficiency is apparent, 
 see Heb. x. 1-3. Here then again, as so con- 
 stantly in every part of its provisions, the law 
 of sacrifice proclaims itself as but a temporary 
 institution until that which is perfect should 
 come. 
 
 V. By the goat for Azazel again, the same 
 thing is taught. "It is not possible that the 
 blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
 sins " (Heb. x. 4) ; therefore after all symbolism 
 had been exhausted in the sacrifice of bulls and 
 of goats, the sins were yet laid upon the head 
 of the goat for Azazel, and sent away into t lie 
 wilderness. The eins thus sent away are not to 
 he looked upon as different sins from those for 
 which propitiation was offered, nor as a residue 
 of these unatoned for; but as the same sins, as 
 all the sins of the children of Israel (ver. 21). 
 
 Atonements had been made for these through- 
 out the year ; a further and higher atonement 
 had at this moment been made ; but that all 
 these were inherently ineffectual was now shown 
 by the goat for Azazel. 
 
 VI. The Christian Fathers, with that instinct 
 which often seizes upon a truth without recog- 
 nizing accurately the process by which it is 
 reached, generally considered the goat, for Aza- 
 zel as a type of Christ, some of them in one 
 way, some in another. Cyril thought him a 
 type of the risen Christ, ami the wilderness to 
 which he was sent, a type of heaven. Theodoret 
 makes him a type of the Divine nature of Christ, 
 which was necessary to the perfection of His 
 atonement, and yet incapable of Buffering. The 
 type seems really to consist in this: that the 
 sins for which all the Levitical sacrifices were 
 unable really to atone, were symbolically borne 
 away by the goat; even as our iniquities are 
 truly laid upon Christ, and He has borne them 
 away. Isa. liii. 4-6. 
 
 VII. The incense formed a prominent and 
 essential part of the ritual of the day of atone- 
 ment. This is not to be forgotten in its relation 
 to the antitype. It is not on Christ's sacrifice 
 alone that we depend for the forgiveness of our 
 sins, but upon His intercession also. 
 
 VIII. On the day of atonement no work what- 
 ever was to be done: the propitiation for sin 
 was not only the paramount duty, taking the 
 place of everything that interfered with it; but 
 it was to be all-absorbing. The people had no 
 duties to perform directly in connection with 
 the service of atonement; but still they must do 
 no work. The propitiation for sin must be the 
 one thing on that day done in all the camp of 
 Israel; and meanwhile the whole congregation 
 were to " afflict their souls." Though the pro- 
 pitiation of sins be wrought for us, and not by 
 us, yet must it bring to us the lowliness and 
 humiliation of repentance. 
 
 IX. Aaron was to make an atonement (ver. 20) 
 for the holy of holies, for the tabernacle, and for 
 the altar; but these had already heen sanctified 
 at their first consecration, and the atonement 
 now made must be perpetually repealed year 
 by year. It is plain from this that there was no 
 effective remedy for the inherent weakness and 
 sinfulness of man, which contaminated even his 
 most holy things, until the coming of that Son 
 of man who should be without sin. The high- 
 priest entered the holy of holies, and thus ap- 
 proached the symbolic dwelling-place of God; 
 but he did not thereby open the way to others, 
 or even to himself except for this same typical 
 entrance, "the Holy Ghost this signifying, that 
 the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made 
 manifest" (Heb. ix. 8); the only atonement 
 which could really open the way for man to 
 heaven itself must be offered before the throne 
 of Jehovah by Him who alone could offer an all- 
 sufficent sacrifice for the sin of the world. 
 
 X. "The rites were not in any proper sense 
 supplemental, but were a solemn gathering up, 
 as it were, of all other rites of atonement, so as 
 to make them point more expressively lo the reve- 
 lation to come of God's gracious purpose to man, 
 in sending His Son to be delivered for our 
 offences, and to rise again for our justification 
 
CHAP. XVI. 1-34. 
 
 131 
 
 to be our great High Priest for ever after the 
 order of Melchisedec, and to enter for us within 
 the vail (llom. iv. 25; Heb. vi. 20). The day 
 of atonement expanded the meaning of every sin 
 offering, in the same way as the services for Good 
 Friday and Ash Wednesday expand the meaning 
 of our Lilany days throughout the year, and 
 Easter Day, that of our Sundays." Clark. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 The day of atonement "forma a contrast to 
 the defilement of the sanctuary by the sons of 
 Aaron, their rash intrusion, their strange fire, 
 their moral death and fearful destruction. (Ch. 
 xvi. 1). It depends — as far as concerns the un- 
 derstanding — upon a great dread, a great world- 
 historic preparation, and earnest religious pray- 
 ers and actions. It is performed for the whole 
 people, and this means for all humanity. But it 
 points also, by its several particulars out from 
 the Old Testament and into the New. The high- 
 priest is not yet clean, not yet the righteous ; he 
 must first offer for himself (see the Ep. to the 
 Heb.). He is not one with his sacrifice and sa- 
 crificial blood, although he must represent the 
 approximation to this unity in the disrobing 
 himself of his high-priestly majesty. But even 
 the sin offering availed only for sins of weakness 
 (xxiv. 16; .Num. xv. 30), and not for sins of ma- 
 lice, of rebellion, of outrage with a high hand. 
 These were everywhere, when they were disco- 
 vered, punished with death. But since all were 
 not discovered, a deadly sin steals through the 
 life of Israel, and accumulates — as a token of 
 which the goat of the sin offering is sent, through 
 the goat, of the Azazel, into the wilderness as a 
 curse offering to the author of the demon-like 
 Bin." [The same application may be made of 
 the different views given of the sins borne away 
 by the goat, and of Azazel in the Exegetical. — 
 F. G.]. "Thus the law lightens the darkest 
 night-side of Israel and of the human race. But 
 Christ has shown the chain and tradition of 
 these secret faults in His denunciation, Matt, 
 xxiii. 30 ss., and Paul has shown (Rom. iii.) how 
 Christ, before the tribunal of God. has also 
 atoned for these hitherto inexpiable sins (on the 
 distinction between ndpeotc and dcjeaic see Coc- 
 ceius), and has moreover no scruple in declaring 
 that Christ also has become a curse offering for 
 us (Gal. iii. 13)." [The Kardpa of Gal. iii. 13 
 may well be compared with the duapriav i-xoincev 
 of 2 Cor. v. 21. It cannot possibly denote that 
 Christ became a " curse offering" in the sense 
 which Lange attributes to the Azazel-goat (al- 
 though something approaching even this view of 
 the atonement was held in Christian antiquity. 
 SeeOxenham's Cath. doct. of the Atonement, 2d ed., 
 pp. 114-124); but rather means that he took 
 upon Himself the curse which belonged to us. — 
 F. G.]. " The New Testament atonement is in- 
 deed conditioned on faith in its objective appli- 
 cation to individual men, although in its universal 
 objective force it is absolutely unconditioned. Of 
 itself also, the shadowy representative of this 
 great future atonement produced in Israel a calm, 
 
 thankful, and festive disposition, the foundation 
 for the joyous feast of Tabernacles. The Old 
 Testament sanctuary itself, in all its parts (ver. 
 33), was again expiated and cleansed, in a typi- 
 cal way, by this atonement. As the ground for 
 this lies the thought : that without such purifi- 
 cations from time to time, a priestly institution 
 is in danger of sinking into the deepest and most 
 corrupting corruption. The acts for sanctifying 
 the holy people extend to the end of ch. xvi. ; in 
 ch. xvii. follow the sacred observances." Lange. 
 The congregation of Israel were wholly ex- 
 cluded from even the typical holy of holies, yet 
 were they required to be holy; when on one day 
 of the year their high-priest passed within the 
 vail, they must •'afflict their souls" aul do no 
 manner of work; but for us, our Great High- 
 Priest has passed within the vail, and opened a 
 new and living way for us to follow ; " let us 
 then draw near with a true heart " (Heb. x. 22). 
 The hope of thus entering the true holy of holies 
 at the end of his pilgrimage brings with it to the 
 Christian a closer communion with God on his 
 journey thither; for that is not reserved for the 
 end, but in spirit even now he has " bo'dness to 
 enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus " (ib. 
 19). Only all depends upon ihe Propitiation 
 which the day of atonement typified. 
 
 The fearful contagion of sin is shown by the 
 purification of those who had to do with the pro- 
 pitiation for sin; even Aaron must bathe him- 
 self and change his robes, and the men who took 
 charge of the two goats of the sin offering, who 
 led into the wilderness the one for Azazel, or 
 burnt the flesh of the one slain 'n sacrifice, must 
 wash their clothes and bathe their flosh before 
 they could return to the camp. Hereby is sha- 
 dowed forth the exceeding pollution of sin. 
 
 The sacrifices of this day were performed by 
 the high-priest alone, and especially when he 
 made atonement for the holy places no man might 
 be within the court. " Thus the high-priest pre- 
 figured Christ, who accomplished the work of 
 atonement 'alone, and of the people there was 
 none with Him; His own arm brought salvation' 
 (Isa. lxiii. 5)." Wordsworth. 
 
 The holy of holies was never entered by any- 
 one except at this time; yet (ver. 16) atonement 
 must be made for it because of the unclean- 
 ness of the children of Israel. — Upon this 
 Calvin (in ver. 10) remarks, "Moses distinctly 
 says that the sanctuary must be purified not from 
 its own uncleannesses, but from those of the 
 children of Israel. Now the reality of this figure 
 is to be regarded for our advantage. God ap- 
 pears to us in His only Begotten Son through 
 baptism and the holy supper : these are the 
 pledges of our sanctification : but such is our 
 corruption that we do not cease, as far as in us 
 lies, to profane these instruments of the Spirit, 
 by whioh God sanctifieth us. But since no flocks 
 may be slain, it beoomes us to mourn, and ear- 
 nestly to pray that our uncleanness, by which 
 baptism and the holy supper are vitiated, Christ 
 may wash away and cleanse by the sprinkling 
 of His own blood." 
 
132 LEVITICUS. 
 
 book: II. 
 OF CONTINUANCE IN COMMUNION WITH GOD. 
 
 Chapters XVII.— XXVI. 
 
 "The keeping holy of the consecrated relations of the life of Israel, of the -whole 
 round of sacrifice, and of the round of typical holiness, by the putting aside 
 of the sins of obduracy (Cherem). Chaps. XVII. — XXVII." — Lange. 
 
 PART I. HOLINESS ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 Chaps. XVII.— XX. 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 
 " The keeping holy of all animal slaughter as the basis of all sacrifice, of the Hood as the soul of all sacri- 
 fice, and of animal food as the foundation of all food, of all feasting." — LANGE. 
 
 Holiness in Regard to Food. 
 
 Chapter XVII. 1-16. 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his 
 sons, and unto all the children cf Israel, and say unto them : This is the thing 
 
 3 which the Lord hath commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house 
 of Israel 1 that killeth an ox, or lamb [sheep 2 ], or goat, in the camp, or that killeth 
 
 4 it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the [om. 
 the] congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle [the 
 dwelling place 3 ] of the Lord ;* blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath 
 
 5 shed blood ; and that man shall be cut off from among his people : to the end that 
 the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer [sacrifice 5 ] in the 
 open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the 
 tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace 
 
 6 offerings unto the Lord. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar 
 of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation, and bum 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Yit. ?,. The LXX. hero, as in the text in vers. 8, 10, inserts the clause or of the strangers which sojourn among you. 
 
 ■ Ver. 3. Dii'3. See Textual Note 6 on iii. 7. 
 
 8 Ver. 4. \2r)r). See Textual Note 8 on xv. 31. There ia especial reason for a change in the rendering here as the 
 T*'l^ 771X haa just occurred in the previous clause. 
 
 < Tier" I. TIim ver. is largely interpolated in the Sam. and LXX'. " to offer a burnt offering or a peace offering [for your 
 atonement Sam. acceptable unto tl"- Lord f ir an odor of a Bwnet savor. And whosoever shall kill without, and shall not 
 bring it to Hi.- floor >ftli" tabernacle of testimony, tint he may offer an off ring to the Lord before the tabernacle of the 
 Lord; blood shall be," efc. The purpose of this interpolation is supposed to In- to bring tins passage into harmony with 
 Leut. xii. 26 ; Lint the difficulty, if any can be considered to exist, is not avoided by this repetition. 
 
 8 Ter. 6. DTI3T DD Ti^X DDTO!- The same word occurring twice in the same clause should 6urely have the 
 
 same translation. n2T 'S the technical word for killing in sacrifice, and although in the later books it is rarely used for 
 
 Slaughtering in the more general sense, it is never applied in the Pentateuch to anything else than sacrifice. See prelimi- 
 nary note on sacrifice. It cannot, therefore (with Clark; be here takeu of simply slaughtering for food. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 1-16. 133 
 
 7 the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. And they shall no more offer [sacrifice*] 
 their sacrifices unto devils [demons 6 ], after whom they have gone a whoring. This 
 shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. 
 
 8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, 
 or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacri- 
 
 9 fice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the [pm. the] congregation 
 to offer it unto the Lord ; even that man shall be cut off from among his people. 
 
 10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that so- 
 journ among you, that eateth any manner of blood ; I will even set my face against 
 
 11 that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the 
 life [soul 7 ] of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the altar 
 to make an atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that maketh an atonement 
 
 12 for [by means of 8 ] the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul 
 of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat 
 blood. 
 
 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that 
 sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast 8 * or fowl that may be 
 
 14 eaten ; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is 
 the life [of it is the soul 8 ] of all flesh : the blood of it is for the life [soul 7 ] thereof: 
 therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner 
 of flesh: for the life [soul 9 ] of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it 
 shall be cut off. 
 
 15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with 
 beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his 
 clothes, and bathe It imself in water, and be unclean until the even : then shall he 
 
 16 be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh ; then he shall bear his 
 iniquity. 
 
 « Ver. 7. D"V#t?S lit. to buck-goats- See Exeg. The A. V. has, however, undoubtedly expressed the sense, except 
 
 that here, as frequently in the New Testament am! sometimes in the Old (as in the translation of the same word ln2Cbron. 
 xi. 15). it uses the plural devils; but one Sid3oAot is recognized m Scripture, and evil spirits in the plural are expressed by 
 &aifj.oves or Sai/iofta. It is better therefore to substitute demons. Vulg. d&mones, LXX. jaarotoi. Id the A. V. In Isa ii. 
 
 ■Jl and xxxiv. 14 it is rendered Satyrs. 
 
 1 Vers. 11 and 14. C?33 is here equivalent to if vxi and is so rendered in the LXX. In English the Tift of the A. V. 
 
 may be understood in the same way, but so also may soul, and it is better in this very important passage to keep B uniform 
 rendering of tli>' Heb. word. All tiie ancient versions retain the same rendering throughout, 60 do several modern versions 
 and almost all recent expositors. 
 
 s Ver. 11. 13D' iyS33 = maketh an atonement by means of the soul. "3 with 1£J3 has only a local or instru- 
 mental signification (ch. Vi. 23 ; xvi. 17,27; also vii.7: Ex. xxix. nri; Num. v. 8). Accordingly, It was not the bl I as 
 
 such, but the blood as the vehicle of the soul, which possessed expiatory virtue." Keil, following Knot" 1. Similarlj Bftbr, 
 Kurtz, and others. So also Von Gerlach and Clark. The A. V. is singularly infelicitous in that it refers the final !}'3J to 
 
 ul of man, instead of to the soul of the victim ; nevertheless, it follows the LXX., the Targums, and the Vulg.; and 
 so also Luther. ^ Ver. 13. See note 1 on xi. 2. 
 
 9 Ver. 14. Comp. ver. 11. $23 occurs three times in this verse, each time rendered in the A. V. life, hut the uniform 
 
 translation soul is better. In the expression the blood of it is the soul thereof, " ii?233 is to ho taken as a 
 
 ] itein it ; in' suing, introduced with hnh essential?. It is only as so understood that the clause supplies a res m al 
 
 all in harmony with the context." Keil. With this most modern commentators coucur, as well as the ancient and ret al 
 recent versions. 
 
 EXEGETICAL, AXD CRITICAL. 
 
 The whole of Lange's " Exegetical " is here 
 given. " 1. With our chapter begins the second 
 half of the Book of Leviticus. The hook a9 a 
 
 the other hand, must place the backsliding 
 Israelite under the law of purification, which 
 has found its culmination in the holiness of 
 Israel through the great sacrifice of atonement. 
 
 " How much this organic completeness of the 
 whole book can be mistaken, Knobel shows most 
 
 whole treats of the priestly presentation of the remarkably when he says: ' The section has, in 
 
 typical holiness of Israel, of the people of the 
 holy Jehovah. In the first part, ch. i.-xvi., the 
 various forms of the purification or sanctifica- 
 tion of the impure and unholy people are set 
 forth; in the second part, from ch. xvii. to the 
 
 ts expression, much in common with the Elohist, 
 but yet it cannot have come from him, since («) 
 he would have attached it to ch. i.-vii., where it 
 fits best(!); or, on account of ver. 15, at least 
 to ch. xi.-xv. ; but would not have placed it 
 
 end, the various ways of keeping holy the people here, beyond the law of the Day of Atoue- 
 
 and their common life are now prescribed, and 
 that too by the punishment of Cherem, as far as 
 the profanations are wittingly committed (with 
 uplifted hand). Profanations from impulse_ on 
 
 ment, etc' 
 
 [This chapter, like all the Divine communica- 
 tions in the remainder of Leviticus, is addressed 
 to Mosos; indeed this is the case tlu-uujjnoiii, 
 
134 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 the whole book, except when Moses and Aaron 
 are addressed together in regard to acts which 
 depended upon an exercise of priestly judgment, 
 and also except the single instance (x. 8-11) in 
 which the prohibition of the priestly use of 
 strong drink is addressed to Aaron alone. Still, 
 several of these communications to Moses are to 
 be immediately communicated by him, as in the 
 present chapter, unto Aaron, and unto 
 his sons, and unto all the children of 
 Israel, as alike binding upon them all. A slight 
 difference in the arrangement of this portion 
 of Leviticus is occasioned by treating the con- 
 cluding chapter (xxvii.) as an appendix, which 
 seems to be required by the formula of conclu- 
 sion at the end of ch. xxvi. The other ten chap- 
 ters are arranged as follows: xvii.-xx., holiness 
 in matters which concern the people generally, 
 the last chapter (xx.) being occupied chiefly 
 with the punishments for the violation of this 
 holiness; xxi., xxii., holiness in matters con- 
 cerning the priests and offerings; xxiii. — xxv., 
 sanctification of the various feasts, including 
 also that of the holy lamps and shew-bread 
 (xxiv. 1-9), and a short historical section giving 
 the account of the punishment of a blasphemer 
 (xxiv. H 1—23) ; xxvi. forms the conclusion of the 
 whole book, consisting of promises and threats; 
 and to this is added an appendix (xxvii.) on 
 vows. This portion of the law of Leviticus is 
 arranged, therefore, in the same systematic way 
 as the former portion, and the two parts stand 
 also in systematic relation to one another. "As 
 the former part relates to the birth of the na- 
 tion as a spiritual commonwealth, so the present 
 part relates to the progress of their social life as 
 the people of God." Murphy. Necessarily there 
 are details common to both portions, and this 
 sometimes occasions certain slight repetitions; 
 but such repetitions were unavoidable if the 
 systematic character of the legislation above 
 pointed out was to be preserved. Thus the pre- 
 sent chapter, on a superficial view, might seem 
 as Knobel has suggested, to be connected witli 
 the law of sacrifice; but on examination it will 
 be at once seen that the subject here is the sanc- 
 tification of animal food, and to this sacrifice, 
 although generally necessary, is only incidental. 
 Or, as Knobel also suggests, it might seem to be 
 connected with the laws of clean and unclean 
 food of ch. xi.; but the purpose is wholly differ- 
 ent, — there the question is what may be eaten; 
 here, how it shall be eaten. In both cases, the 
 former chapters have for their main point, the 
 laying down of the conditions under which 
 Israel may enter into communion with God; 
 these that follow deal with the conduct of the 
 daily life, by means of which they may continue 
 iu that communion. The eating of animal food 
 naturally conies first into consideration, as the 
 act which must be continually repeated and 
 continually thrust upon the attention. — F. G.]. 
 
 "2. Our section begins with the most inti- 
 mately connected ways of preserving holiness: 
 (a) of the slaying, (&) of the blood, (c) of the 
 use of the flesh. 
 
 "3. Every slaying of a clean animal designed for 
 food must take place before the door of the ta- 
 bernacle of congregation quite without excep- 
 tion, whether the slayer was within or without the 
 
 camp. That is every slaying of an animal was 
 put in relation with the peace offering, and thus 
 also was a sort of sacrifice." [It does not ap- 
 pear from the text that the slaying itself took 
 place at the door of the tabernacle, but only the 
 offering, 'as in the case of all other sacrifices. 
 The animal was probably slain where the other 
 victims were slain, this being passed over in the 
 text as already provided for in the law of sac- 
 rifice. These slayings for food were in every 
 particular, not merely like, but actual peace 
 offerings, unless a distinction should be sought 
 in the fact that there is here no especial pro- 
 vision forgiving a portion to the priests; but 
 that, like the place of slaying, has already been 
 provided for in the law of sacrifice. That the 
 meaning of this passage is, that all sacrificial 
 animals killed for food must first be offered as 
 victims in sacrifice, is plain from the removal 
 of the restriction in Deut. xii. 15, 20, 21. It is 
 also shown by the use of DPIiV instead of Vi2\ in 
 
 ver. 3, a distinction carefully observed in the 
 killeth of the A. V. From S. Augustine and 
 Theodoret down, however, there has always been 
 a difference of opinion upon this point among 
 interpreters; most modern commentators, how- 
 ever (as Rosenmuller, Knobel, Keil, Kalisch, 
 Clark, etc.) agree that the law must relate to all 
 killing of animals for food. Not much animal 
 food was used in the wilderness, as is evidenced 
 by the various murmurings of the people, the 
 manna forming their chief support. It is to be 
 remembered that this part of the law, as far as 
 ver. 7, is made obligatory only upon the Israel- 
 ites, and even for them was in force only du- 
 ring the life in the wilderness ; while the rest 
 of the chapter includes also "the stranger" 
 in its requirements. — F. G.]. "The offering, 
 indeed, consisted in this, that the animal was 
 brought to the Tabernacle of congregation, and 
 placed before the priest, and that the priest 
 sprinkled the blood of the same on the altar, 
 and burned the fat for a sweet savour. 
 The same rule was obligatory for the strangers 
 not of Israel, if they wished not only to slay, 
 but with their slaying to bring also a burnt or 
 peace offering — they might offer only before the 
 door of the tabernacle of congregation; for the 
 public worship of false gods was forbidden in 
 Israel (Ex. xxiii. 32, 33)." [This law, in regard 
 to sacrificing, is made obligatory upon the 
 strangers, as well as upon the house of 
 Israel in vers. 8, 9; but the previous part of 
 the law (vers. 1-7) applies only to the Israelites. 
 Both were restrained from offering sacrifices 
 elsewhere; but only the latter were obliged to 
 make offerings of all animals slain for food. — 
 F. G.] "The opposite, which was at the same 
 time to be avoided by the Israelites, reads thus: 
 they shall no more sacrifice their sacri- 
 fices to the he-goats (Luther: the field- 
 devils), as to those which they who are in the 
 snare whore after. Thus we understand the 
 expression in reference to this, not as a reproach : 
 which they whore after hitherto, or are inclined 
 
 to whore after." [The Heb. is D'JT DH 1UW 
 Dronx, which seems sufficiently well expressed 
 in the A. V., and this is sustained (either in lue 
 
CHAP. XVII. 1-16. 
 
 135 
 
 present or the past tense) by all the ancient 
 versions. — F. G.] " Rightly the Egyptian wor- 
 ship of the he goat was remembered, which was 
 a deification of the generative desire, and con- 
 sequently of sensuality, and the biblical expres- 
 sion to whore after applies in this connection 
 with double force. It can thus be perceived 
 that the offering of the slain flesh, besides the 
 religious idea, had also the moral purpose of 
 hindering unrestrained luxury. But with the 
 sacrifice of the slain animal, the fact was at the 
 same time declared, that in truth every animal 
 enjoyed in the fear of God was offered to the 
 L'ird ; that the man who must offer himself to 
 Jehovah must also place, his slaying of an ani- 
 mal under the aspect of giving it up to Jehovah, 
 if lie wished to keep it holy. Therefore also the 
 transgression is treated as a blood-guiltiness, 
 and would be visited upon them by Jehovah as 
 a murder. Since man has the right to shed the 
 blood of an animal only from Jehovah, and in 
 relation to Jehovah (to whom everything, with 
 this, must revert as a sacrifice), a reckless slay- 
 ing of an animal appears in the text as the be- 
 ginning of a criminal blood-shedding, which on 
 a descending path, may end in the murder of 
 man." [Vers. 1-7. Ver. 4. Blood shall be 
 imputed unto that man ; he hath shed 
 blood. This does not mean that murder is to 
 be imputed to the offender, but that the blood 
 of the animal which he has actually shed is to 
 be reckoned to his charge. The reason of both 
 this precept and that against the eating of blood 
 is given in ver. 11: Blood had been divinely 
 appointed as a means of atonement. If now the 
 animal slain was one allowable for sacrifice, and 
 its blood was not used for atonement, the offen- 
 der was guilty of a misuse of that which God 
 had appointed for this purpose, and he must be 
 held responsible for the wasted blood. By ana- 
 logy, the blood of animals that were not sacrifi- 
 cial (vers. 13, 14) must also be treated with 
 respect. It is important to note this meaning 
 of the passage, for nowhere in Scripture is any- 
 thing ever said to be imputed to a man by God 
 which does not really belong to him. — That 
 man shall be cut off from among his peo- 
 ple. — The slighting of the Divinely appointed 
 means of atonement was a sin which struck so 
 deeply at the root of the theocratic and typical 
 law that it was inconsistent with membership 
 among the holy people. The offender must be 
 excommunicated. Ver. 5. A further reason is 
 here given for the law of ver. 4. It is only 
 applied to peace offerings, for this was the only 
 kind of sacrifice that could be used by the peo- 
 ple for food, the subject of this paragraph. 
 This reason is further developed in ver. 7. It 
 would seem that the Israelites, very lately come 
 out of Egypt, were more or less in the habit, so 
 common among all nations of antiquity (eorap. 
 1 Cor. viii. ; x. 25-28), of consecrating all ani- 
 mal food by first offering the animal to the 
 Deity ; and this custom, if allowed to be carried 
 out by the people at their own pleasure, would 
 become, and indeed had already become (ver. 
 7) a fruitful source of idolatry. Entirely to cut 
 off this, it is provided that all such offerings must 
 be brought first unto the door of the taber- 
 nacle, the place of the sole worship of Jehovah ; 
 
 and second, unto the priest, as His represent- 
 ative, and the mediator between Him and the 
 people. The custom of sacrificing in the open 
 field also prevailed among the nations of classic 
 antiquity, and was so inveterate among the 
 Israelites as to be spoken of by both Hosea 
 (xii. 11) and Jeremiah (xiii. 27). Ver. 7. 
 Unto demons. — The Hebrew word, as noted 
 under Textual, is the same as that for he-goats, 
 Q'y^'U'. Onkelos has J'TBf, the same word as 
 is used in Deut. xxxii. 17, meaning demons. 
 It is doubtful whether the word is used of an 
 actual worship of a false god under the form of 
 a goat, or only figuratively. Certainly at a 
 later date there was in Thmuis, the capital of 
 the Mendesian nome in lower Egypt, and there- 
 fore near the residence of the Israelites, a hor- 
 rible and licentious worship of the fertilizing 
 principle in nature, represented by a he-goat 
 (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 7: Herod, ii. 42, 46; Diod. 
 Sic. i. 18; Strabo, lib. xvii. c. 19, 802; c. 40, 
 813) : it may be doubted whether this, in its full 
 development, existed as early as the time of 
 Moses ; but very likely it may have already 
 been known in its germ, and have been commu- 
 nicated to the Israelites (comp. Heugstenberg 
 Eg. and the Books of Moses, Am. Ed., p. 216). 
 The strong tendency of the Israelites to adopt 
 idolatrous forms of worship borrowed from 
 Egypt had already been shown in the instance 
 of the golden calf; and we find again (2 Chron. 
 xi. 15) this very worship of the he-goat (A. V. 
 ) mentioned along with the calves of Jero- 
 boam, who had sojourned so long in Egypt be- 
 fore ascending his throne. — This shall be a 
 statute forever does not refer to the sacri- 
 ficing of animals designed for food, which was 
 revoked with the termination of the life in the 
 wilderness; but to the worship of demons, 
 which is the immediate subject. — F. G.] 
 
 " Knobel thinks this statute forever was 
 abolished later, when the animals were no longer 
 brought to the Tabernacle or to the Temple; 
 but the principal thought is the consecration to 
 Jehovah, the religious slaying, and in this the 
 statute (the husk of an idea) remains among the 
 Jews continually, even to this day. But the 
 idea itself remains continually in the Christian 
 community. From this type it follows also that 
 that use of animal food was sacrilegious in which 
 the distinction between the nature of man and 
 of animals was obliterated." 
 
 "4. Most solemnly is the use of blood forbid- 
 den. There follows immediately the menace of 
 punishment in the strongest terms for the 
 stranger as well as for the Israelite: I 1)7111 
 even set my face against that soul that 
 eateth blood, and will cut him off from 
 among his people [ver. 10]. The reason is 
 this: the soul or life of the flesh, its soul-like 
 life-principle, is in the blood. But the blood 
 belongs, as does all life, to Jehovah, and He ha3 
 given it to the Israelites only for a definite pur- 
 pose, that they may with it atone for, or cover, 
 their souls. The blood is the atonement tor the 
 life, since in the blood the life is given over to 
 the judgment of Jehovah for deliverance and for 
 pardon. Therefore the prohibition is here re- 
 peated, as it has also been already expressed. 
 
136 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Even to the blood of beasts that man slays in 
 the chase, to the very birds, this prohibition 
 applies, although this blood was not offered ; it 
 was to be poured out and covered with earth — 
 it was to be buried. The burial is generally 
 analogous to the sprinkling of the blood upon 
 the altar, as the earth is an altar in the widest 
 sense — it is a symbol of the atonement of the 
 life, which lies in the resignation of the life. 
 As physiology confirms the proposition that the 
 blood is the especial source of life in living 
 creatures, so do justice and the philosophy of 
 religion confirm the proposition that death atones 
 for the guilt of life — so far as it is on this Bide 
 of death (Rom. vi. 7). And the use of blood 
 must appear wicked as long as blood was the 
 means of atonement. But the analogue for this 
 guilt, for all times, is the making common of* 
 life, of death, of blood, the self-willed invasion 
 of the destiny of man." [Vers. 10-14. Lange 
 has not here called attention especially to vers. 
 8, 9, which show that the stranger was allowed 
 to offer both the burnt offering and the sac- 
 rifice (i. e. the peace offering) ; only in so doing 
 he must conform to the law in offering it at tin- 
 door of the tabernacle. This command is given 
 here because the previous statute being only 
 applicable to the Israelite, and the stranger nut 
 being required to offer as sacrifices the animals 
 he might kill for food, he might have claimed 
 the liberty also of offering sacrifices at his own 
 pleasure. The penalty of ver. 9, since it applies 
 equally to the stranger, cannot be restricted to 
 excommunication, but must be understood either 
 of banishment from the land or else of the pun- 
 ishment of death. The object, as already no- 
 ticed, and as is evident from the amplification 
 of the law in Deut.. xii., was at once to prevent 
 idolatrous sacrifices, and also to keep up the 
 idea of the sacrifice as having only a typical 
 and not an intrinsic efficacy, since it could only 
 be allowed at all when its blood was sprinkled 
 on the altar by the appointed priest. The other 
 injunctions that follow in this chapter, equally 
 with the present one, are applicable to strangers 
 as well as Israelites. In ver. 10 the expression 
 set my face against means that God will take 
 the punishment of the offence into His own 
 hands ; He will oppose and reject the offender. 
 In ver. 11 the vicarious character of the atone- 
 ment effected by means of the sacrifices is very 
 clearly brought out ; the soul, the i\niX'U the prin- 
 ciple of animal life, is in the blood, and for that 
 reason the " soul " of animals was given to man to 
 make an atonement for his own "soul;" by the 
 giving up of the life of the animal the life of man 
 was spared. Nothing is said here of the higher 
 spiritual principle in man, because — even if the 
 people could have understood such a distinct ion — 
 there was nothing answering to this in the brute. 
 Nothing in the victim could be a vicarious sub- 
 stitute for this; that want could be met only by 
 the sacrifice of Calvary. Meantime, however, 
 this was symbolized and set forth, as far as the 
 nature of the case allowed, by the substitution 
 of the animal life of the victim for the animal 
 life of man. The blood, therefore, maketh an 
 atonement by means of the soul which is 
 in it. See Textual note 8. The statement is not 
 here, that the blood makes atonement for the 
 
 soul, as in the A. V.; this idea has already been 
 expressed in the previous clause, and row is 
 added the statement of how this is effected, lest 
 there should seem to be a virtue in the mere 
 blood itself as such. With this exposition of the 
 meaning of the passage itself must be connected 
 the whole typical significance of sacrifice; and 
 in view of this there is truth in the explanation 
 of Theodoret, of the Jewish expositors, and of 
 the great mass of commentators, that the animal 
 life of the victims was accepted in place of the 
 rational soul of man; the former died that the 
 latter might live. But that this sense can only 
 be held in view of the connection of the type 
 with the Antitype was long ago seen by St. Au- 
 gustine (Qusest. 57 in llept.). In ver. 13 the 
 particular is put for the general ; as during the 
 life of" the wilderness most animals used tor food 
 which were not sacrificial were taken in the 
 chase, this stands for all such animals. Hut af- 
 terward (Deut. xii. 15, 16, 22-24) the same di- 
 rection of pouring out the blood upon the earth 
 is applied to all animals slain for food. The ob- 
 ject of the command to cover the blood was pro- 
 bably double ; first, simply to prevent the dese- 
 cration of the blood as the vehicle of the animal 
 soul; second, to avoid any abuse of it to super- 
 stitious and idolatrous uses. Ver. 14 once more 
 repeats with emphasis the prohibition of the 
 eating of the blood, and for the same reason — 
 because the blood is the soul, i. e., the vehicle of 
 the animal life.- — F. G.] 
 
 5. " The use of unclean flesh (ver. 15) could not 
 be placed on an equality with the foregoing sins, 
 since it might take place through many forms 
 of thoughtlessness ; but nevertheless it was pre- 
 vented through the natural loathing. Hence the 
 offender, in the first instance, fell only into the 
 first grade of the law of purification ; but if he 
 neglected this, he had to make expiation for his 
 misdeed. 
 
 " Keil (following Baumgarten) entitles the 
 section chap. xvii. — xx. the holiness of the daily 
 life of the Israelites, and chap. xvii. particularly 
 the holiness of food. Certainly the sanctificalion 
 of the eating of flesh leads to the sanctification 
 of food generally. On ' the oneness of soul and 
 blood,' see Keil, p. 126." [Trans, pp. 409-10. 
 See also Clark's note II. at the end of this chap- 
 ter. The prohibition of flesh that had not been 
 properly slaughtered evidently rests on the fact 
 that its blood had not been poured out. Still, as 
 even in this case most of the blood would be col- 
 lected in the larger vessels of the body, and 
 would not appear as blood in the flesh that was 
 eaten, there is less stringency in the prohibition. 
 The defilement, however, was still considerable, 
 and involved alike for the Israelite and the 
 stranger, the washing of the clothes and the 
 bathing of the person, and remaining unclean 
 until the evening (ver. 15). That which died 
 of itself, or that which was torn, are here 
 classed together, as also in chap. xxii. 8. In 
 Ex. xxii. 31 the latter is commanded to be given 
 to the dogs, and in Deut. xiv. 21 the former is 
 allowed to be given to the stranger, or sold to an 
 alien. There appears to have been a certain 
 degree of distinction between the two, although 
 both are forbidden to the Israelite. That which 
 died of itself was also forbidden to the stranger 
 
CHAP. XVII. 1-16. 
 
 137 
 
 during the intimate association of Israelite and 
 stranger in the camp life of the wilderness, but 
 this law was relaxed in Deuteronomy in view of 
 the better separated life in the land of Canaan. 
 Such food, however, was always considered 
 polluting to the Israelite (Ez. iv. 14; xliv. 31), 
 and its touch, as has already been seen (xi. 39) 
 communicated defilement. At the council of Je- 
 rusalem (Acts xv. 29) the prohibition of "things 
 strangled" is still continued in connection with 
 the prohibition of blood. — F. G.] 
 
 DOCTEINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The command that all sacrifices should be 
 offered in one place was plainly a part of that 
 educational law which had been added because 
 of transgressions. There had been no such re- 
 striction laid upon the patriarchs; and under 
 the law itself, it was often dispensed with by 
 Divine command, or with the Divine approval, as 
 in the case of Samuel, of David, of Solomon, and 
 of Elijah. Its purpose was to teach symbolically 
 the Divine unity, and to prevent the worship of 
 false gods. When this lesson had been suffi- 
 ciently taught came the hour " when neither in 
 this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem,'' men should 
 "worship the Father" (Jno. iv. 21). 
 
 II. When the Israelites sacrificed otherwise 
 than at the tabernacle, though the idols to which 
 they professed to offer might be nothing, yet 
 really they sacrificed to demons. So St. Paul 
 teaches it was with the sacrifices of the heathen 
 in his time (1 Cor. x. 19, 20), and he warns 
 Christians that by partaking of those sacrifices 
 they came into fellowship with demons, and this 
 was incompatible with partaking of "the cup 
 of the Lord." The same consequences must in 
 all ages attend the offering of the homage of the 
 heart elsewhere than to God. 
 
 III. This unfaithfulness to God is represented 
 here, as so constantly in the later Scriptures, 
 by conjugal infidelity. As husband and wife 
 are no longer twain, but one flesh, so are the 
 faithful united to their Head in one body, and 
 any giving of superior allegiance to another is as 
 the sin of marriage unfaithfulness. 
 
 IV. The blood and the soul, or animal life 
 WSi), are here connected together, and the same 
 word is used of the sacrifice of Christ, Isa. liii. 
 10, and the corresponding Greek word ( 
 repeatedly by our Lord Himself (Matt. ss. 28; 
 Jno. x. 11, etc.). He gave His life (V"',f)) for us. 
 In view of the connection established in this 
 chapter between this and the blood, a fresh sig- 
 nificance attaches to His words of institution of 
 the Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi. 27, 28). The 
 drinking of the cup which lie gave, is the com- 
 munion m His sacrifice for the remission of Bins. 
 
 IIOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : " That animal food as used by man, 
 was to be kept holy by a religious consecration 
 and slaying, excludes the use of flesh that is un- 
 hallowed or lias been offered to demons. Man 
 was to have a feeling for the suffering of the ani- 
 mal, for the sacrificial particular of the act of 
 Blaying, for the religio-moral duty of thankful 
 and moderate use of flesh. Hence there is an 
 21 
 
 element of truth also in the dogma of the vege- 
 tarians. But all blood must be reserved as an 
 offering to Jehovah ; for Jehovah alone is the 
 Author of life, the God of all souls, and it is a 
 crime to encroach greedily upon His domain. 
 But how does the eating of blood in Christendom 
 agree with this, as the council of the Apostles 
 (Acts xv.) have forbidden it, and as it is still 
 forbidden in the Oriental Church? The New 
 Testament thought is the holiness and inviola- 
 bility of everything living in itself, since a cre- 
 ative breath of life dwells in it. If man, without 
 an object, sheds blood or destroys life, he de- 
 stroys the sanctuary of Divine goodness. The 
 outline of the legal prescription disappears be- 
 hind these thoughts. Men may be very careful, 
 as in Byzantium and in Russia, to avoid the eat- 
 ing of blood, and still be in many ways crimi- 
 nally careless with life, even with the life of 
 man. Connected with the eating of flesh, the 
 eating of the flesh of an animal that has died of 
 itself, or been torn by wild beasts, is also forbid- 
 den, even if in a slighter degree. In the fact 
 that such a use of flesh has in itself something 
 savage, and is a source of many sicknesses, lies 
 the permanent thought of this legal command." 
 
 Calvin notes that the command to sacrifice in 
 one place was to avoid corruption of the sacri- 
 fices, and the direction to bring the offering to 
 the priest was to direct the people to the One 
 Mediator to come. Thus everywhere.the law is 
 our school-master to point us to Christ. No of- 
 fering acceptable to God can be offered except 
 through Him, and all enjoyment, of daily life must 
 be made holy through His mediation. 
 
 God does not impute to man the fault which is 
 not his; but the fault which is really his may 
 bo far more serious than he supposes. The kill- 
 ing of an animal otherwise than God allowed, 
 was the shedding of blood — of blood which had 
 been given for man's atonement ; and so now, 
 many sins which seem upon the surface mere 
 sins of frivolity and thoughtlessness, will prove 
 on closer examination to be deep offences against 
 the love of Him who shed His blood for us on 
 the cross. 
 
 Any offering of sacrifice otherwise than in the 
 way of God's appointment, became to the Isra- 
 elites a sacrificing to demons; so any giving to 
 other objects of the supreme affection He re- 
 quires for Himself, becomes to us idolatry. Comp. 
 Eph. v. 5; Col. iii. 6. 
 
 Strangers must in many respects come under 
 the laws given to the people of God. Men do 
 not escape the responsibility of obedience by re- 
 fusing to acknowledge allegiance, and to be num- 
 bered with His people. 
 
 In the treatment of the blood of the wild ani- 
 mal is taught the general principle of oongruity 
 in matters which are not the subject of direct 
 precepts. Man should order all his ways in har- 
 mony with the conduct which in certain things 
 is directly commanded. Especially under the 
 Christian dispensation is this principle of wide 
 application. Here principles are given rather 
 than detailed precepts, to guide our conduct, and 
 we must largely be governed by the congruity 
 and fitness of things, and their harmony with 
 » liat which is commanded. 
 
138 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 SECOND SECTION.. 
 
 / 
 
 Holiness of the Marriage Relation. 
 Chapter XVIII. 
 
 " The keeping holy of marriage, of all sexual relations, and of all the relations of life in general." 
 
 Chapters XVIII.— XX. 
 
 A— "THE KEEPING HOLY OF MARRIAGE AND OF ALL SEXUAL RELATIONS UNDER 
 THE PENALTY OF THE CHEREM."— Lanoe. 
 
 Chapter XVIII. 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE. 
 
 On the "Prohibited Degrees" and on 
 
 The law declaring under what conditions sex- 
 ual intercourse is forbidden is given in the pre- 
 sent chapter ; the punishment of disobedience in 
 the several cases is declared in xx. 10-21. The 
 latter is naturally less full, leaving the punish- 
 ment in some instances to be inferred from ana- 
 logy ; and in one case it is considered by some 
 commentators that there is a slight extension of 
 the law here given. See on xx. 20. The law 
 covers all sexual intercourse whether by formal 
 marriage or by simple concubinage; and when 
 the wives of various persons are mentioned, the 
 term includes their wives when living, and their 
 widows when they were themselves dead. It is 
 remarkable that it makes no exception in favor 
 of such marriages as had occurred among the 
 ancestors of the Israelites, as in the case of Ja- 
 cob, from which they were themselves descended. 
 (The marriage of Abraham with Sarah was pro- 
 bably with his niece, the word skier allowiug of 
 this latitude). 
 
 The whole law is expressed in reference to the 
 man, since the inception of such relations rests 
 with him ; but it would be a mistake to suppose 
 that a precisely parallel list might be drawn up 
 also for the woman. Differences are introduced 
 by the law of the Levirate marriage (an institu- 
 tion much more ancient than the time of Moses, 
 see Gen. xxxviii.), and by the general relation 
 of protector and protected; the law therefore 
 applies to the woman only in the case of those 
 relationships in which the man is forbidden to 
 have intercourse with her. Some of the degrees 
 which are prohibited implicitly are not expressly 
 mentioned : thus connection with a daughter is 
 not mentioned by itself, although necessarily in- 
 volved in the prohibition of intercourse with a 
 woman and her daughter in ver. 17 ; that with 
 a step-mother is included in ver. 8, and is espe- 
 cially mentioned as the subject of one of the 
 
 the Marriage Laws of the Heathen. 
 
 curses in Deut. xxvii. 23 ; that with a grand- 
 mother is not mentioned at all, either because it 
 was considered unnecessary to do so, or else be- 
 cause it was sufficiently implied by the other pro- 
 hibitions. The whole law is expressly grounded 
 (vers. 2, 3, 24-27) upon the duty of avoiding the 
 abominable customs of the Egyptians and the 
 Canaanites, so that there was the less necessity 
 for express mention of anything which was not 
 practised by them. 
 
 The principle on which the prohibitions rest 
 (ver. 6) is expressly declared to be nearness of 
 relationship ; and although the Hebrew expres- 
 sion employed for this (lit. flesh of bis flesh) 
 might in itself apply only to blood relations, yet 
 it is distinctly extended in the law to relations 
 by affinity also, though not always to the same 
 degree. In the remoter degrees the relationship 
 is affected by other considerations, so that in 
 parallel cases, sometimes one connection is for- 
 bidden while the other is not mentioned. Gene- 
 rally, the whole list might be included in the 
 single prohibition that no man might be connec- 
 ted with a woman who stood, or who might come 
 to stand to him in the position of a ward ; no one 
 who could be included in the family of which he 
 was head. In this connection the LXX. trans- 
 lation in ver. 6 is to be noted : avdpuxos Trpof 
 navra o'tKEla capubt; avrnv ov KpoGE?*£VG£Ta.L. Such 
 a description, however, would not be quite ac- 
 curate, since the niece is not included in the list 
 of prohibited degrees ; and there are two pro- 
 hibited cases which would not come under the 
 description. These are the maternal aunt, who 
 would form a part of the wife's father's or bro- 
 ther's family; and the wife's sister, forbidden 
 only during the life-time of the wife. 
 
 The prohibited degrees may be conveniently 
 arranged under the three following heads : 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE PROHIBITED DEGREES OF THE HEATHEN. 139 
 
 1. Mother, ver. 7. 
 4. Daughter, ver. 17. 
 
 6. Mother-in-law, ver. 17. 
 
 9. Step-grand-daughter, ver. 17. 
 
 a. Relations by Blood. 
 
 2. Aunt on either side, vt>rs. 12, 13. 
 6. Grand-daughter, vera. 10. 
 
 3. Sister and half sister, vers. 9, 1L 
 
 b. Direct Relations by Affinity. 
 
 7. Step-mother, ver. 8. 8. Step-daughter, ver. 17. 
 
 c. Indirect Relations by Affinity. 
 
 10. Father's brother's wife, ver. 14. 11. Brother's wife, ver. 16. 12. Daughter-in-law, ver. 15. 
 
 In addition to these there is a temporary pro- 
 hibition of the wife's sister during the wife's 
 own life. 
 
 Among the heathen these relationships were 
 very differently regarded. Marriage with a sis- 
 ter was permitted among the Egyptians by ex- 
 press law in consequence of the legend in their 
 mythology of the marriage of Osiris with his 
 sister Isis (Diod. Sic. i. 27; Philo de Sp. Legg. 
 near beginning), and this custom continued, at 
 least in the royal family, quite down to the titno 
 of their conquest by the Romans (Dio. Cass. xlii. 
 p. 205, E. ed., Hanover, 1606). With regard to 
 marriage with a mother, direct evidence is want- 
 ing in regard to the Canaanites, but among tho 
 Medea and the Persians it was practised from 
 the earliest times, as also among the Indians and 
 the Ethiopians. (See the authorities in Knobel), 
 and all these nations appear to have permits d 
 also marriage .with a daughter. Marriage with 
 a sister, however, was unknown among the Per- 
 sians until the time of Cambyses, (Herod, iii. 
 31). Marriage with a step-mot Iter seems to have 
 b<;en universal among Oriental monarchs, and 
 the inheritance of the father's seraglio one of 
 the marks of succession to his throne. Hence 
 Solomon's treatment of Adonijah is to be ex- 
 plained when he sought to have Abishag given 
 to him (1 Kings ii. 13-25). Marriage with a 
 wife's step-mother, however, is not forbidden, 
 and a notable instance of it is in David's inhe- 
 riting the wives of his father-in-law Saul, spoken 
 of as a mark of the Divine favor, 2 Sam. xii. 8. 
 
 The marriages here forbidden are spoken of 
 as crimes in the Canaanites for which they were 
 about to be punished. While it is not necessary 
 to extend this to each particular, still it must be 
 recognized that the prohibited degrees generally 
 were such as could be understood by the light 
 of nature or such dim tradition of the Diviuo 
 will as might have been accessible to the Ca- 
 naanites. Accordingly, it is well known that the 
 prohibited degrees among the Greeks and Ro- 
 mans were for the most part the same as in the 
 laws of Moses. Solon indeed permitted mar- 
 riage with a half-sister by the father only, and 
 Lycurgus with a half-sister by the mother only 
 (Philo de Sp. Legg., pp. 601, F. Ed., Geneva, 
 1613) ; but the early Roman law went even far- 
 ther than the Levitical in forbidding marriages 
 between uncles and nieces, and between cousins 
 german, which was only relaxed in the 2d cent, 
 before our era (Liv. xlii. 34 ; Cicero Cluent. V. 
 quoted by Clark). Similar laws, too, might be 
 quoted from other nations, showing that those 
 of the Egyptians and Canaanites were simply a 
 
 license to passion, contrary to what they might 
 have known to be right. 
 
 Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is 
 clearly allowed under the Levitical law, not 
 merely by not being prohibited ; but being pro- 
 hibited during the lifetime of the sister first taken 
 to wife, it becomes doubly certain that it was 
 permitted afterwards. It is even made still mor^ 
 clear by the reason assigned: the relations of 
 two wives of the same mau arc not apt to be 
 friendly, and Mo=es would not allow either that 
 the natural affection of sisters should be sub- 
 jected to this strain, or that the inevitable ani- 
 mosities of the harem should be increased b^ 
 the previous familiar relation of sisters. On the 
 other hand, the marriage with a brother's widow 
 was forbidden, evidently because she became 
 the ward of the surviving brother ; and because 
 also if the brother had died childless while she 
 remained his wife, the survivor was bound to 
 lake her by a Levirate marriage. In either case 
 
 her children were to he reck 1 I" t he d a-ed 
 
 In-other, and hence the penalty for violating this 
 precept in xx. 21 is that they shall be childless, 
 i. c, that any children born to such a union 
 should be reckoned in tho genealogies, not to 
 them, but to the deceased brother. The law 
 therefore in this case must be considered as bs I 
 upon questions of civil polity and not upon affi- 
 nity. Hence it does not apply to the parallel 
 case of the deceased wife's sister; for she could 
 never have formed a part of her brother-in-law's 
 household under the family system of the He- 
 brews. In the punishments denounced, in ch. 
 xx. against the sins here prohibited, it will be 
 found that a distinction is made in the degree 
 of guilt. One, and the larger class, is to be ca- 
 pitally punished (in one case even tho bodies of 
 both parties are to be burnt), while in the other 
 class the penalty is simply that "they shall be 
 childless." It cannot be supposed t lint a per- 
 petual miracle was to be maintained through all 
 the ages of Israel's history ; but the meaning 
 evidently is that the children of such marriages 
 should be reckoned not to their actual father. 
 but to the former husbund of the woman. In the 
 strong feeling of the Israelites in regard to pos- 
 terity, this penalty seems to have been sufficient. 
 (An instance of this use of the word childless is 
 to be found in Jer. xxii. 30 compared with 1 
 Chr. iii. 17, 18). It is not to be supposed that 
 the more remote of the prohibited degrees were 
 among the abominations for which the Canaan- 
 ites were to be cut off; but on the other hand 
 adultery and the other horrible sins mentioned 
 in vers. 20-23 were undoubtedly among their 
 customs. 
 
140 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Literature. — Michaelis, Laws of Moses ; Ab- 
 kandlung fiber die Ehegesetze 3Iosis ; Saalscbutz, 
 Mos. Recht ; Selden, uxor ebr. See also the 
 
 numerous references in Calmet on this chapter. 
 Also, John Fry, The cases of marriage between 
 near kindred, etc. London, 1756. 
 
 Chapter XVIII. 1-30. 
 
 1, 2. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 
 3 and. say unto them, I am the Lord your God. After the doings of the land of 
 Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do : and after the doings of the laud of 
 Canaan, whither I bring 1 you, shall ye not do : neither shall ye walk in their ordi- 
 
 4 nances [statutes 2 ]. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances [statutes 2 ], 
 
 5 to walk therein : I am the Lord your God. Ye shall therefore keep 3 my statutes, 
 and 3 my judgments : which if a man do, he shall live in them : I am the Lord. 
 
 6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin 4 to him, to uncover their 
 
 7 nakedness : I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father, or [even 5 ] the naked- 
 ness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover : she is thy mother ; thou shalt not 
 
 8 uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover : 
 
 9 it is thy father's nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy 
 father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born 6 at home, or born abroad, 
 
 10 even their' nakedness thou shalt not uncover. The nakedness of thy son's daugh- 
 ter, or of 'thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover : 
 
 11 for their's is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, 
 begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 
 
 12 Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister : 8 she is thy father's 
 
 13 near kinswoman. 4 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister : 
 
 14 for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 4 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of thy father's brother, 9 thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 
 
 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's 
 
 16 wife ; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the naked- 
 
 17 ness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover 
 the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's 
 daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness ; for they are her 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 3. "N^^. Introducturus mm. Present for the future." Rosenmuller. 
 
 2 Ver. 3. DTTnpnD 1 !- HpT"! is variously and apparently arbitrarily rendered in the A. V. ordinance and statute, 
 
 beside the occasional renderings, custom, manner and rite. There is no reason why the translation should not bo uniform, 
 and as statute is the more common, and hitherto iu Lev. the uniform, rendering, this is adopted. 
 
 8 Ver. 5. One MS. and the LXX. insert twice the word all At the end of the verse the LXX. adds your God. 
 
 * Ver. 6. 1T^'3 HNLy - ^ - ^, lit- to any flesh of his flesh. The distinction between "V^'3 and "1N# is not under- 
 t : ■• : t t t -■ : 
 
 stood. The derivative of the latter, n^Xl!?, is used iu ver. 17 (where only it occurs) of blood relationship. The margin 
 
 T — : — 
 of the A. V. gives " Heb. remainder of his flesh " according to the pointing, IXtV. In vers. 12, 13, INEZ is used alono of 
 
 near blood relationship. 
 
 6 Ver. 7. That the copulative 1 ought not to he rendered disjunctively as in the A. V. is evident from the latter part 
 
 of the verse. LXX. has *cat, Vulg. et. 
 
 Ver. 9. fnVlO, according to the Masoretic punctuation, ia Hiphil, and must therefore be taken as active, agreeing 
 with mother, and mean " who hath borne children whether at home or abroad." The A. V., however, in common with all 
 the ancient versions, has taken it as passive, mS*0, agreeing with daughter. For the rightfulness of this, Michaelis 
 earnestly contends (Laws of Moses, Art. 114, 115). See Comment. 
 
 ' Ver. 9. The Sam., 18 MSS. and the Syr. have the pronoun in the sing. The Vulg. omits it. 
 
 8 Ver. 12. In the same construction in the following verse ^3=for is supplied; it is found here also in 1 MSS. and in 
 the vorsions generally. 
 
 Vor. 11. The expletive conjunction 1 is here supplied in the Sam., in 25 MSS., and some ancient vorsions. 
 
r CHAP. XVIII. 1-SO. 
 
 HI, 
 
 18 near kinswomen : it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, 10 
 to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. 
 
 19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long 
 
 20 as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with 
 
 21 thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not let any of thy 
 seed pass through the fire to Molech [thou shalt not dedicate any of thy seed to 
 
 22 Molech 11 ], neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God : I am the Lord. Thou 
 
 23 shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind : it is abomination. Neither shalt 
 thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith : neither shall any woman stand 
 before a beast to lie down thereto : it is confusion. 
 
 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : for in all these the nations are 
 
 25 defiled which" I cast out 13 before "you : and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit 
 
 26 the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself voniiteth 13 out her inhabitants. Ye 
 shall therefore keep 12 my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of 
 these abominations ; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourn- 
 
 27 eth among you: (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which 
 
 28 were before you, and the land is defiled ;) that the land spue not you out also, when 
 ye defile it, as it spued 13 out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall 
 commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut oft" 
 from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit 
 not any one of these abominable customs [statutes], which were committed before 
 you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein : I am the Loed your God. 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 1° Ver. 18. There can be here no qnestion of the exact literalness of the rendering of the text of the A. V. ; that of the 
 margin is not a translation, tint a more than doubtful interpretation. It would be an absolute prohibition of polygamy, 
 which is here out of the question, aniens stress were laid, as Poolu has done, upou the purpose of such marriage, to vex; 
 
 but the word TixS=-ft>J>r«M> to bind together, will not justify this. 
 
 u Ver. 21. For T31TI 1 ?, Sam. and LXX. read T3Vi"0— to reduce to servitude. A similar idea, to dedicate, may be 
 
 given to the Heb. word as it stands. Vnlg. ut conseeretur, and similarly all the ancient versions. So the word is used, Ex. 
 xiii. 12. As this is the first mention of Molech, and there is no word for fire, it is better to keep strictly to the original 
 and translate dedicate. Rosenmuller, traducas. The corresponding expressions in xx. 2, 3, 4, have simply [HJ— to give, 
 
 without the following verb. According to the Masoretic punctuation Molech is always (except 1 Kings xi. 7) written with 
 the article "iVs!"!, and is rendered here and xx. 2, 3, 4, 5, by the LXX. ipx">", hut Jer. xxxii. (Gr. xxxix.) 35, 6 MoAbx 
 (SaciAevt, 1 Kings xl. 7 (Or. 6), Bimply o pairiAevs, and 2 Kings xxiii. 10, o MoAe*. 
 
 i= Ver. 20. The Heb. has here the pronoun D,1N in addition to the verbal suflix. It is omitted in the Sam. and in 3 
 
 MSS 
 
 i* Vers. 24, 25, 28. In ver. 24 nSci3 is the Hiphil Part.= I am casting out, and in accordance with this the preterites 
 
 Npnl (which has the 1 conversivc) of ver. 25 and PINp WN3 of Ter - 28 are to be understood. 
 
 EXEGETTCAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 This chapter consists of an introductory ex- 
 hortation, vers. 2-5; the laws against incest, 
 vers. 6-18; the prohibition of other kind of 
 unchastity and unnatural crimes, vers. 19-23 ; 
 and a concluding exhortation, vers. 24-30. 
 "The whole marriage law, as a holy limitation, 
 marks two mutually opposite extremes or forms 
 of excess : first, sins against the blood relation- 
 ship, or against the fear of desecrating the com- 
 mon source of life, the community of blood, 
 vers. 1-18 ; secondly, eins of the dissolute dispo- 
 sition, the horrible passing over the life-line of 
 pure marriage, or the new relationship, into the 
 various forms contrary to nature, vers. 19-30." 
 Lange. 
 
 Vers. 2-5. This exhortation opens with re- 
 minding the people I am the LORD your 
 God, and closes with the abbreviation of the 
 same formula: I am the LORD. The same 
 expression occurs again in the midst of it (ver. 
 4), and also at the opening of the law itself 
 (ver. 6), in the midst of the third division of the 
 
 chapter (ver. 21), and again at the close of the 
 whole. It is designed to impress most strongly 
 upon the minds of the Israelites that the obser- 
 vance of this law is a matter of covenant obliga- 
 tion. And this is enforced by the contrast (ver. 
 3) with the doings of the land of Egypt 
 from which they had been delivered, and the 
 doings of the land of Canaan whose nations 
 were about to be cast out to make room for them. 
 It closes with the promise that if a man do the 
 Divine statutes and judgments, he shall live 
 in them. Not merely, he shall not be cut off 
 by the punishments denounced against the trans- 
 gression of these laws in ch. xx. ; hut he shall 
 gain that true life of communion with God which 
 accompanies the obedience to His commands. 
 Comp. Ezek. xx. 11, 13, 21 ; Luke x. 28. "This 
 whole legislation bears on its front the name of 
 Jehovah, the God of Israel, ver. 2, in the more 
 definite signification that the Israelites should 
 keep themselves holy in their personality, i. e. 
 true to themselves, suitably to their personality, 
 as Jehovah is holy (xix. 2). But the legislation 
 took its occasion in this : that Israel, as the 
 people hallowed by God, should form an instruo- 
 
142 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 tive and rebuking contrast to the shameful sexual 
 life of the land of Egypt, whence they had just 
 come out, and that still more shameful of the 
 land of Canaan, whither they were going under 
 the leadership of Jehovah. . . . That this legis- 
 lation was not able in later days to prevent 
 transgressions, e.g. in the family of David itself, 
 is explained even from the essential nature of 
 law. From this a careful critic would decide 
 for the high Mosaic age of the law rather than 
 for the contrary. 
 
 " That a most highly living intelligence per- 
 vades the section results from the various signi- 
 ficant expressions: the judgments and sta- 
 tutes of Jehovah. (ver. 4) become for the people 
 the statutes and judgments (first law, and 
 only afterwards the idea (ver. 5)." [Patrick 
 says: "The Gemara Babylonica, mentioning 
 these words, saith, it is a tradition of their doc- 
 tors that by D'DDU'p are to be understood such 
 natural laws as all mankind are bound to ob- 
 serve, though there were no written commands 
 for them, such as those against idolatry, and 
 those about uncovering the nakedness of such 
 near relations as are here mentioned, and mur- 
 der, etc. And by nipn such laws are meant 
 as depended only on the pleasure of God, and 
 obliged none but those to whom they were given, 
 such as those about meats and garments and 
 leprosy, etc." F. G.] "That which is contrary 
 to nature in the marriage of relations consists 
 in this: that the man by his family life, which 
 should be the foundation of new bonds of love 
 and new families, mingles again egotisticallly 
 
 with his own flesh (^"ISM INtf-V.3 W) ; and 
 that by profane conduct he exposed the obscure 
 and hallowed origin of his own life (uncovered 
 the shame), and thus repeated the sin of Ham (for 
 the shame of the wife of near kin is also the shame 
 of the father, xx. 11). Therefore also it is neces- 
 sary to explain the saying which if a man do, 
 he shall live in them in its particular connec- 
 tion : all these directions tend to the furtherance 
 of life, especially of the higher life, while the con- 
 trasted sexual relations produce death. 
 
 "The case of adultery is not considered, 
 since the reference is to widows when connec- 
 tions with those who havebeen married before are 
 
 considered The determining principle is 
 
 that of community of blood (INij). But this is 
 itself determined by the fundamental idea that 
 man and wife are one. Hence it follows that 
 the shame of the father's wife is also the shame 
 of the father himself (vers. 7, 8). The shame 
 of a grand-daughter was looked upon, since she 
 was a descendant, as the shame of the grand- 
 father himself (ver. 10). The shame of the sis- 
 ter-in-law was thus also looked upon as the 
 Bhame of the brother. 
 
 "As to the guilt and punishment, the death- 
 penalty stands according to xx. 11 sqq. for the 
 carnal intercourse (not. merely the marrying) 
 with a father's wife, with a daughter-in-law, with 
 a half-sister" [and hence of course with a full 
 sister] ; " the punishment was, indeed, death by 
 fire when one took a woman and her daughter 
 together (that is HOt)." [This necessarily in- 
 cludes the case of a daughter, and of a wife'" 
 
 mother. Michaelis (Laws, Art. 102) considers 
 TTSI as a forensic term used to express those 
 forms of incest in which the woman is under the 
 guardianship of the man, and derives the word 
 from the Arabic in which " Zimm means mar- 
 riage, and Zimma the state of guardianship (Cli- 
 entela), from the word Zamm, to connect." This 
 sense is indeed appropriate for the very few 
 places in which it occurs in the law (Lev. xviii. 
 17 ; xix. 29 ; xx. 14 bis), but elsewhere it is used 
 for any abominable wickedness (as Job xxxi. 11) 
 especially lewdness (Judg. xx. 6). See Gesen. 
 Thes. — F. G.]. "It is said indefinitely of the 
 intercourse with a sister of the father or of tbe 
 mother, they shall bear their iniquity (jU')." 
 [xx. 19. Michaelis (Art. 112, 2) observes iu re- 
 gard to these and the following kinds of pro- 
 hibited marriages, that Moses tolerated " their 
 continuance, if once consummated. At least he 
 nowhere enjoins a separation of the parties." It 
 might be argued, indeed, that a forbidden mar- 
 riage was utterly void, and therefore that its sin 
 was constantly renewed as long as the parties 
 continued to sustain towards each other the mar- 
 riage relation; but certainly the penalty in the 
 two following classes presupposes that they con- 
 tinued to live together. — F. G.}. "In contrast 
 with this, it is said of him who slept with his 
 father's brother's wife, they shall bear their 
 sin (DNUn) ; they shall die childless" [xx. 
 201. " So also of the case when any one takes 
 his brother's wife, that is mj (Levitical unclean- 
 ness), they shall be childless" [xx. 21]. 
 " Thus the social punishment is not wholly ab- 
 sent here also, but the principal thing was the 
 threat of the Divine punishment of these con- 
 nections with childlessness." [On the meaning 
 of this punishment, see the preliminary note. — 
 F. G.]. '■ Since in all these cases the willingness 
 on the woman's side is assumed, the threat of the 
 penalty is for both sides alike. It is worth while 
 to notice also the circumstance that the penal 
 statutes which refer to the marriage of relations 
 are mingled with other penal statutes (xx. 13, 
 15, 16), a proof that here in chap. xx. another 
 point ofview is brought forward. But if in re- 
 gard to the prohibition of the marriage with a 
 brother's widow childlessness was threatened, 
 while later the prohibition could be changed re- 
 latively into a command in the ordinance of the 
 Levirate marriage " [the Levirate marriage took 
 place only in case the brother died childless — 
 F. G.] ; " still there is made definitely prominent 
 a principal end of the legislation in the manifold 
 threat of childlessness, which evidently extended 
 also over the greater transgressions or reached 
 the Cherem : marriage was to be protected, ob- 
 served, and kept holy as the nursery for the 
 raising of children, for new families, and truly 
 for pure and hallowed families (comp. Com. on 
 Jno.. p. 47" [Am. Ed., p. 111]). 
 
 " It is well known that in the treatment of 
 these prohibited degrees of marriage various 
 motives have been given, among others the fol- 
 lowing: the diminution and prevention of fami- 
 lies in the marriage of relations. This motive 
 comes out strongly here. Also in the expression 
 in ver. 5, he shall live by them." [A broader 
 meaning may be given, as above, to ver. 5, and 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 1-30. 
 
 143 
 
 the threat of childlessness hag already been ex- 
 plained (prel. note) as referring to the legal reck- 
 oning of the children. If childlessness could be 
 proved to be a natural penally of the inter-mar- 
 riage of near blood relations, it would yet wholly 
 fail to apply to cases of simple affinity, to which 
 alone the penalty is attached in the law. Very 
 striking is its inapplicability to the marriage with 
 a brother's wife, for if such a natural law existed, 
 the Levirate marriage would have been wholly 
 useless. — F. G.]. "But no less is there another 
 motive here implied : the respect of kinship, 
 (respectia parentelse), and even the forcible ex- 
 pression uncover the nakedness only brings 
 out strongly the impiety which, in such cases, 
 uncovers the fountains of its own life, which have 
 been hitherto concealed by natural respect." 
 [See this point discussed at length in Michaelis 
 (Art. 107) who decides that it had no influence 
 in the Mosaic legislation. — F. G.]. "And it is 
 plain, that with this unnatural going back of 
 men to the roots of their own existence in this 
 perversion of marriage, which is the specific 
 school of the future, into a retrogressive move- 
 ment, it must immediately follow that family ego- 
 ism will be at the same time ever more and more 
 cherished ; whereas the Theocracy, as the reli- 
 gion of the future, seeks to establish marriage 
 on the basis of ever new conditions of love, for 
 the purpose of building up a most intimate fel- 
 lowship in the human family."* [See this mo- 
 tive also discussed and rejected by Michaelis, 
 Art. 106.— F. G.]. 
 
 " It is well known that the hierarchy and its 
 theology has not only not explained ideally the 
 law of the marriages of relations, has not only 
 brought it over unchanged into the new covenant ; 
 but has also stiffened it still more by another cal- 
 culation of the degrees of relationship, by the 
 addition of spiritual relationships, and by the 
 prohibition to marry the sister of a deceased 
 sisterf [wife]. In regard to heathen marriage 
 customs, see Knobel, p. 502 sqq. 
 
 " That these marriage laws of Leviticus form 
 a great and sharp contrast to the immoral cus- 
 toms of the Egyptians and the Canaanites ex- 
 presses the very cause of this legislation. More 
 in regard to the immorality of the heathen may 
 be found in Knobel, p. 502 sqq., in Keil, p. 127 
 sqq." [Trans, p. 413 note, p. 418], "and espe- 
 cially in the Jlklorisch-politiachen Brie/en of I. v. 
 Raumer, p. 29 sqq. It is particularly worthy 
 of notice that the Arabian morals have the great- 
 est resemblance to these morals of the law, which 
 may perhaps be explained from their Semitic 
 character." [But the legislation of the Japhetic 
 Greeks and Romans, and of the Hindoos for the 
 higher castes was even more strict, as noted by 
 Laiiire below ; and the doom pronounced upon 
 the Canaanites certainly implies that their sins 
 were such as might be recognized in any nation 
 by the light of nature. — F. G.]. " The lascivious 
 service of lust of the Egyptians, illustrated by 
 
 * Comp. Win?r, Art. Eke. Herzog's Renl-Enct/dopadii>, Elie 
 bei dt " SebrSsrn u. a. Lerica. H. Spoudlin, Ueber das Ehe- 
 verbtit wegen verwandtMcha.fi und das verbrechen des Incestes, Zu- 
 rich, l s 44. The same, p. i3: "die richtige Begmndttng von An- 
 
 t " Here comes into notice the illiberal article in the Eng- 
 lish law, which baa already produced many tragic occur- 
 rences." 
 
 Ptolemy's marriage with his sister, and by the 
 history of Cleopatra, would appear the more re- 
 markable since the Egyptian customs and reli- 
 gion on all sides admonished of death ; but per- 
 haps, indeed, this fact depends upon a connection 
 between sexual pleasure and the thought of death, 
 as e. g., in war and camp life, such a connection 
 is to be observed. Besides the Arabian customs, 
 the harsher character of the Hindoo and of the 
 Roman legislation is to be particularly noticed." 
 Lange. 
 
 Vers. 6-18. The phrase uncover the naked- 
 ness continued to be used to express sexual in- 
 tercourse through many ages. Comp. Ezek. xvi. 
 36 ; xxiii. 18. The list of prohibited degrees 
 begins appropriately with the mother. Her na- 
 kedness is described as the nakedness of thy 
 father, since husband and wife constitute "one 
 
 flesh," Gen. ii. 24. " Strictly speaking m^' H7j 
 is used only with reference to the wife ; but in 
 the dishonoring of his wife the honor of the hus- 
 band is violated also, and his bed defiled, Gen. 
 xlix. 4." Keil. Comp. ver. 8. Rosenmiiller ex- 
 plains the phrase as meaning the nakedness which 
 is (or was) under the control of the father. The 
 Targ. of Jonathan assumes an ellipsis, and ren- 
 ders " a woman shall not cohabit with herfather, 
 nor a man with his mother," which is neither 
 agreeable to the Hebrew, nor consistent with the 
 fact that the whole law is addressed to the man. 
 Aben Ezra, as quoted by Rosenmiiller, well ex- 
 presses the arrangement: " He begins with the 
 father, who precedes the son, and declares for- 
 bidden all nakedness of the father and mother ; 
 the mother is placed first, theu the nakedness of 
 the wife of the father who is not the mother, 
 then the sister who is the daughter of the father 
 or of the mother." In ver. 8 thy father's wife 
 refers to another wife than the mother of the 
 person addressed, and the term wife is of course 
 broad enough to include the concubine. The 
 sinfulness of this act, as in the case of Reuben 
 (Gen. xxxv. 22; xlix. 3, 4) was understood long 
 before the giving of the Mosaic law, and conti- 
 nued to be held in abomination among the Gen- 
 tiles in Apostolic days (1 Cor. v. 1 ) ; neverthe- 
 less it was one of the crimes of which Absalom 
 was deliberately guilty (2 Sam. xvi. 22), and as 
 already noticed, it was regularly practised by 
 themonarchs of Persia. — Thy father's naked- 
 ness is used in the same sense as in ver. 7. 
 Connection with a half-sister on either side being 
 forbidden in ver. 9, that with a full sister, since 
 she might be described as a half-sister on both 
 sides, is doubly forbidden. The expression born 
 at home or born abroad has been variously 
 interpreted. The true sense is undoubtedly 
 that given by Rosenmiiller, "agister in what- 
 ever way she may be a sister, whether of the 
 same or of different parents, whether legiti- 
 mately or illegitimately born." Thus are in- 
 cluded the daughter of either father or mother 
 by either a previous or a subsequent marriage 
 (and these cases would have been much more 
 frequent under laws allowing of divorce and re- 
 marriage), or the daughter of the father by an- 
 other wife; also illegitimate children of either. 
 The marriage of Abraham and Sarah is often 
 referred to as an instance in opposition to thia 
 
144 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 law ; but it is more probable that the word sister 
 is there used in the broader sense, and that Sa- 
 rah was really the niece of Abraham. Ver. 10. 
 Theirs' is thine own nakedness. — Because 
 of their direct descent, intercourse with them 
 would involve a sort of incest with one's self. 
 Of course this would apply (1 fortiori to the case 
 of a daughter which is not specifically men- 
 tioned, but is included in ihe prohibition of ver. 17. 
 The prohibition of ver. 11 of the half-sister on the 
 father's side seems already included in the broader 
 one of ver. 9. Various explanations have been 
 given to mark a difference between them, among 
 which perhaps the best is that of Keil : that ver. 
 9 treats of the connection of a son by a second 
 marriage with a daughter by a first marriage, 
 while ver. 11 applies to the connection of a Bon 
 by a first marriage with a daughter by a subse- 
 quent marriage ; but this seems an undue limi- 
 tation of ver. 9. Probably there was at the time 
 some technical use of the terms which constitut ed 
 a distinction which is now lost. According to 
 Selden ( Uxor Hebr. L. I. c. 4) ver. 11 admits of 
 the translation " The nakedness of thy father's 
 wife's daughter (but she who is begotten of thy 
 father is thy sister) thou shalt not uncover ;" 
 thereby meaning to forbid connection with the 
 daughter of a step-mother, and marking this as 
 a distinct prohibition from that of the half-sister. 
 Intercourse with an aunt on either the father's 
 or the mother's side is forbidden in vers. 12, 13, 
 on the principle of near blood relationship; but 
 there is no prohibition of marriage with the cor- 
 responding relation of niece. The reason of this 
 distinction is not apparent. According to Ex. 
 vi. 20, Moses was himself the offspring of the 
 marriage of Amram with Jochebed, his paternal 
 aunt. This would indicate that this prohibited 
 degree is a matter of the Divine statute rather 
 than of natural law, and was not therefore ne- 
 cessarily extended to the niece. In ver. 14 the 
 prohibition is extended to the wife of the pater- 
 nal uncle, as having become an aunt by her union 
 with the uncle. It would not however follow 
 from this that the law forbade the marriage of a 
 woman with the husband of her aunt, since in 
 consequence of the dependence of the family upon 
 the male in the Hebrew polity, the correspond- 
 ing relations upon the mother's side stood in a 
 less intimate relation than those upon the fa- 
 ther's. In the reverse order, however, the pro- 
 hibition is more stringent upon the woman than 
 upon the man, since a woman is hereby forbidden 
 to marry her husband's nephew, while the man 
 is not forbidden to marry his wife's niece. The 
 application of this principle to ver. 15 would 
 Beem at first sight to lead to the permission of 
 the abominable marriage of a woman with her 
 son-in-law ; but this is guarded against by ver. 
 17. The prohibition of intercourse with a bro- 
 ther's wife in connection with the more ancient 
 custom of the levirate marriage has already been 
 explained in the preliminary note. It is parti- 
 cularly to be observed that the levirate marriage 
 only took place in case the brother had died 
 childless, and she was still his wife at his death, 
 and that even then it was not so much a fresh 
 marriage, as a sort of continuance of the mar- 
 riage of the deceased by his nearest surviving 
 representative. The prohibitions of ver. 17 have 
 
 already been seen to complement several of the 
 other prohibitions, and the principle which for- 
 bids the connection with both a mother and a 
 daughter is extended also to the grand-daughter. 
 On ver. 18 see preliminary note. 
 
 " Keeping the seed sacred to its purpose, is as 
 has been said the fundamental thought of our 
 section. Hence over against the physico-spiritual 
 sins against nature of marriage of blood relations 
 is placed, as the other extreme, the violation of 
 nature in desecrating the blood with beasts or 
 demons. The first sin is, indeed, a violation of 
 nature which can take place in marriage itself, 
 the transgressing the unapproachableness of a 
 woman in her sickness. But a sickness in sexual 
 relation is certainly the condition of menstru- 
 ation, ver. 19." [After the list of prohibited 
 degrees, whether of consanguinity or of affinity, 
 naturally follows the prohibition of other unlaw- 
 ful conditions of sexual intercourse. First is 
 mentioned that of which there was the greatest 
 danger of violation. The feminine unclean- 
 ness here named is the mj, including both the 
 monthly uncleanness (xv. 33) and the unclean- 
 ness after childbirth (xii. 2). The violation of 
 this is enumerated by Ezek. (xviii. 6 ; xxii. 10) 
 among sins of a most serious character. Next 
 comes adultery (ver. 20), then the giving of the 
 seed to Molech (ver. 21), and finally sodomy 
 (ver. 22), and bestial sins (ver. 23).— F. G.]. 
 " The second sin is adultery : it defiles a man in 
 three and four ways, since he commits treason 
 against the teleology of his seed, against his per- 
 sonal dignity, against the sacrifice of his plea- 
 sure, and against his betrayed neighbor. On 
 the punishment of adultery see Knobel, p. 506." 
 [Both parties were to be put to death, xx. 10; 
 Deut. xxii. 22; Comp. Jno. viii. 5. Knobel fur- 
 ther notes that other nations of antiquity were 
 less rigorous ; they generally punished the adul- 
 terer with a fine (Diod. 12, 21), but also more 
 severely. Among the Egyptians the adulterer 
 must submit to a thousand blows and have 
 his nose cut off (Diod. 1, 78) ; among the Indians 
 both pecuniary and bodily punishment, as well 
 as exile and death were commanded (Manu 8, 
 352 ss.) ; among the Greeks, the woman suffered 
 repudiation and infamy, while the adulterer could 
 be put to death or receive from the court a se- 
 vere bodily punishment (Wachsmuth II. 1, p. 
 272). Knobel further mentions the punishments 
 among the Moslems and Ihe modern Orientals. — 
 F. G.j. "The third sin is the sacrifice to Mo- 
 lech, here manifestly infanticide and falling away 
 from the name of Jehovah at once. Knobel : 
 " By this is meant not a mere lustration by 
 means of fire, but an actual burning. See Mo- 
 vers, Phonizitr I., p. 328 sqq. On the Molech 
 sacrifice, see the same, p. 500. Opposed to this, 
 the deductions of Keil, that the expression here 
 indicates only a lustration or a februation (P. 
 130, 131 [Trans, p. 416, 417]) can hardly be 
 maintained." [The precise purport of this pro- 
 hibition is very uncertain. In Deut. xii. 31, it 
 is mentioned as a sin of the Canaanites that 
 " even their sons and their daughters they have 
 burnt in the fire to their gods," and the Israel- 
 ites are warned against imitating them. It is 
 generally assumed by commentators that the 
 deity there intended is Molech, and that by seed 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 1-30. 
 
 145 
 
 in our passage is meant children, and that thus 
 both refer to the same thing. But here we have 
 no mention of fire (see Textual Note 9), and it is 
 at least doubtful if seed here means offspring. 
 Although explanations are offered by the com- 
 mentators of such an ahrupt change of subject, 
 yet it is far more in accordance with the context 
 and the general purpose of the chapter to un- 
 derstand seed here simply of the semen. Too 
 little is now known of the worship of Molech at 
 this very ancient date to determine precisely the 
 meaning of the expression. It is noticeable, 
 however, that there is no other prohibition of 
 the foul habit of masturbation, for which there 
 seems to be need ; may it not be conjectured that 
 this act was known as " giving one's seed to Mo- 
 lech," and was associated with the practices of 
 idolatry ? The sin, whatever it was, connected 
 itself with the worship of a fals« god as is shown 
 by the clause neither shalt thou profane the 
 name of thy God. It was not only itself to 
 be punished with death by stoning; but punish- 
 ment was also denounced against any one who saw 
 the sin committed and did not expose it (xx. 2- 
 6). If the above conjecture is right, it was very 
 natural that in after times this custom should 
 have advanced, as it did, to the actual burning 
 of children as a sacrifice to Molech (2 Ki. xxiii. 
 10; Ezek. xvi. 20, 2!, etc.), though even this is 
 explained by many of merely passing the chil- 
 dren between two fires. — P. G.]. " The fourth 
 sin is the especially abominable sin of Sodom, 
 Pcederastia, for which the Canaanites at last re- 
 ceived the sentence, that their land should "spue 
 them out;" nature herself could no more endure 
 them. See 1 Kings, Commentary p. 56" [Trans. 
 p. 75 ?] " The fifth sin is the acme of abomina- 
 bleness, conjunction with a beast, and yet this 
 was something that occurred, or else the law 
 would not have spoken of it. According to He- 
 rodotus and Pindar, women at Mendes let them- 
 selves be mounted by a he-goat (Herod. 2, 46, 
 etc.)." Knobel. See similar examples given by the 
 same." [The fearful prevalence of Sodomy, 
 (which takes its name from a Canaanitish city), 
 in the Rome of Apostolic days is evident from 
 Rom. i. 24, 27, as well as from the classic au- 
 thors. The practice of it seems to have been 
 inveterate among the Hebrews, 1 Kings xiv. 24. 
 " Ver. 22. The ancient Persian law sternly con- 
 demned this offence ( Vendid. viii. 10 ap, Knobel). 
 Also the Hindoo law (Menu xi. 174, 175), and 
 the Koran, vii. 78-80. Ver. 23. The story of 
 Pasiphse may furnish proof that the early Greeks 
 abhorred this offence. The Hindoo law punishes 
 it severely Menu xi. 17, Gentoo laws, p. 280. The 
 Moslem law condemns it, Hedaya II., p. 27." 
 Clark. — F. G.]. " The following inculcation of 
 these prohibitions, vers. 24-30, contains the most 
 expressive apology for the conquest of Canaan 
 on the part of the Israelites; and that this was 
 no partiality of Jehovah, is plain from the fact 
 that He threatens the Israelites with entirely tke 
 same punishment in case they should sin in the 
 same way, and moreover, that He enacts the 
 death penalty for the single offender." Lange. 
 
 The poetic representation of the land as vomit- 
 ing out its inhabitants is founded upon a truth 
 which required that the laws of this chapter 
 should be made binding upon the stranger that 
 
 sojourneth among you as well as upon the 
 Israelites themselves (ver. 26). The land which 
 the ancestors of Israel were not allowed to pos- 
 sess, " because the iniquity of the Amorites was 
 not yet full" (Gen. xv. 16), had now become 
 filled with a mass of festering moral corruption. 
 Its inhabitants were to be cast out and the holy 
 people planted in their stead. It could not be 
 allowed that "the stranger" should again intro- 
 duce the pollutions which were now being so se- 
 verely punished. 
 
 The only punishment here threatened for the 
 violation of these precepts is first the national 
 one, in case the sins became national, of being 
 treated as their predecessors had been ; and se- 
 condly, the individual punishment for individual 
 offenders (ver. 29), they shall be cut on" from 
 among their people. They were to be ex- 
 communicated as violators of the holiness re- 
 quired of the covenant people. Israel, however, 
 constituted a state as well as a church, and later, 
 in ch. xx., the civil punishment of these crimes 
 is fully prescribed. Here the legislator speaks 
 of the sin rather than of the crime, and conse- 
 quently of the spiritual rather than the civil 
 penalty. 
 
 The preterites of ver. 25 XJXjrt (A. V. vomit- 
 eth out) and ver. 28 i"INp (A. V. spued out) 
 must necessarily be determined in their sense by 
 the whole context, and especially by the rnt^O 
 = lam casting out, of ver. 24. The whole trans- 
 action is represented as one in progress, as in 
 xx. 23 (where the same participle is used), and 
 from any fair consideration of these chapters in 
 themselves it would be impossible to infer that 
 the casting out of the Canaanites was already an 
 accomplished fact. It is therefore quite unne- 
 cessary to speak of these preterites (Keilj, as 
 prophetic. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. We have here set forth (ver. 5) the prin- 
 ciple which St. Paul declares (Rom. x. 5; Gal. 
 iii. 12) to be the fundamental principle of the 
 whole law, — that salvation depends upon obedi- 
 ence. On this ground he shows that man can 
 never attain justification, since it is impossible 
 for him to offer a perfect obedience. The law 
 by a practical demonstration of this fact becomes 
 " our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." Ne- 
 vertheless, " the law is holy, and the command- 
 ment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. vii. 12), 
 and the faith which leads to salvation is dead 
 without the earnest effort at obedience. Hence 
 God sets forth His laws as that -which if a man 
 do he shall live in them, and it has ever 
 proved that the path of obedience is the path of 
 life in every sense. 
 
 II. " The family relationship is itself ordained 
 by God. It is the birthplace of the children of 
 God — the first school, and generally the source 
 of all chastity and good manners. Any injury 
 inflicted on it would undermine the temporal and 
 eternal welfare both of individuals and of the 
 people. In this lies the abomination of incest. 
 This is the reason of that natural horror of it 
 which God has implanted in us. This is the rea- 
 son that, among all nations, marriage within cer- 
 
146 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 tain degrees was forbidden, although the laws 
 of the most moral nations wavered in respect to 
 the exact boundaries. . . . Because this was the 
 reason of the prohibited degrees, we see also why, 
 in the family of the first men, when there was 
 no difference between family and people, bro- 
 thers and sisters might marry without sin." 0. 
 von Gerlach. 
 
 III. The Canaanites were to be punished for 
 their offences against the marriage law. But 
 they would not have been guilty if they had had 
 no knowledge that what they did was wrong, 
 (Rom. iv. 15; v. 13). It is therefore evident 
 that there must be a natural law or a tradition 
 of primeval revelation which should have en- 
 abled them to recognize the sinfulness of their 
 customs. 
 
 IV. Although the Mosaic legislation recognizes 
 polygamy and divorce on trivial grounds, yet 
 Bt ill it cannot be arrayed as in opposition to the 
 higher law of Christian purity. On the con- 
 trary, like the laws of revenge and many others, 
 these laws were restrictions leading the people 
 as they were able to bear it towards the higher 
 law of the Gospel. That they fell short of this 
 was simply because God suffered it to be so tem- 
 porarily "because of the hardness of men's 
 hearts." 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 "The chapter about the forbidden degrees of 
 marriage has in its immediate form a much 
 greater meaning for dogmatics, morals, and the 
 legal and ecclesiastical ordinance of marriage, 
 than it has for homiletics. The New Testament 
 explanation and application of this law is so 
 great a subject and work, that here we must re- 
 fer to the literature relating thereto. But indi- 
 rectly, these laws are a treasury also for homi- 
 letics. By the prohibition of the marriage of 
 relations, God ever forms new sets of relation- 
 ships. By this He brings to view the universal 
 relationship which lies upon the foundation of 
 human mauifoldness and diversity. He mani- 
 fests harmony in the contrasts of genealogies. 
 He freshens anew the duty of love in a thousand 
 ways ; and freshens, too, marriage in a thousand 
 ways through love. Sexual love, in its dignity, 
 
 is here hallowed through the law. Strangers 
 and aliens become, by this divine ordinance, re- 
 latives, brothers and friends; a holy web of 
 love, in spite of single desecrations, spreads from 
 town to town, from laud to land, from people to 
 people. The egoism of family, rank, and class, 
 is a kind of heathenism which this law combats 
 with a prefigurative force, and Christianity meets 
 by its consecration of the state of betrothal on 
 the foundation of Christian brotherly love and 
 universal philanthropy. The expression of these 
 prohibitions of marriage designates the trans- 
 gressions without any anxious fear except to op- 
 pose with strong words the lack of fear in life, 
 and to create a holy fear before the sources of 
 life, the mysterious darkness of the continuous 
 creation of man. When the ideality of the legal 
 life fails, there is made prominent the marked 
 unhallowed nakedness and rudeness of the sexual 
 relations. The various forms aud degrees of 
 guilt are to be noticed. Over against the offences 
 against the family life in too near relationship, 
 come the horrors of the sexual crimes against 
 nature (ver. 21 sqq. Comp. Rom. i.). The fla- 
 grant violation of nature is emphasized by the 
 threat that the violated nature, the horrified 
 land, would itself undertake the punishment, 
 and spue out such sinners. But the positive 
 punishments also were not to be omitted (chap, 
 xx.). And it must not be overlooked that Jeho- 
 vah introduces and closes these commands with 
 the explanation of His name Jehovah, His holy 
 personality. The establishment of personal dig- 
 nity in a kingdom of true personal continuance 
 in love, is the purpose of the law." Lange. 
 
 Besides its moral and social bearings, the Le- 
 vitical law has another and most important as- 
 pect. It has been found historically that all 
 great deviations from the faith bear fruit, sooner 
 or later, in sensual sins; and conversely, all re- 
 laxation of the law of sexual purity has sustained 
 itself by the denial or perversion of fundamental 
 doctrine. The Levitical law was therefore a 
 safeguard of the truth, and herein men received 
 an essential part of their training, not merely 
 for the high morality, but also for the high reli- 
 gious truth of the Gospel. We see at Corinth 
 how danger to the one went hand in hand with 
 danger to the other. 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 Holiness of Conduct towards God and Man. 
 Chap. XIX. 1-16. 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation 1 or 
 the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy : for I the Lord your 
 God am holy. 
 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, 2 and his father, and keep my sabbaths : I 
 am the Lord your God. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 2. rHl? ■= congregation is omitted by 3 MSS. and the LXX. 
 
 » Ver. 3. In the LXX., Vulg., and Syr., the order ia reversed to his father and his mother. The Sam and Onk. follow the 
 Hebrew. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 1-37. 147 
 
 4 Turn ye not unto idols, 3 nor make to yourselves molten gods : 1 am the Lord 
 your God. 
 
 5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at 
 
 6 your own will [offerings, unto the Lord ye shall offer it for your acceptance 4 ]. It 
 shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow : and if ought remain 
 
 7 until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire. And if it be eaten at all on the 
 
 8 third day, it is abominable ; it shall not be accepted. Therefore every one that 
 eateth 5 it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of 
 the Lord : and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 
 
 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the cor- 
 10 ners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou 
 
 shalt not glean thv vineyard [fruit garden 6 ], neither shalt thou gather every grape 
 [the scattered fruit'] of thy vineyard [fruit garden 6 ] ; thou shalt leave them for 
 the poor and stranger : I am the Lord your God. 
 11,12 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye 
 shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy 
 
 13 God : I am the Lord. Thou shalt not defraud [oppress 8 ] thy neighbour, neither 9 
 rob him : the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until 
 the morning. 
 
 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but 
 shalt fear thv God : I am the Lord. 
 
 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment :'° thou shalt not respect the person 
 of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty : but in righteousness shalt thou 
 judge thy neighbour. 
 
 16 thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people :" neither 12 
 
 17 shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour : I am the Loud. Thou shalt 
 not 'hate thy brother in thine heart : thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, 
 
 18 and not suffer sin upon him [and not bear sin on his account 13 ]. Thou shalt not 
 avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lorl. 
 
 19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse 
 kind : M thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled [diverse 15 ] seed : neither shall a 
 garment mingled [a diverse garment 15 ] of linen and woollen 16 come upon thee. 
 
 * Ver. 4. D'VSx = inania numina, Rosen. It is formed from 7X with a termination expressive of contempt. 
 4 Ver. 5. DDJil; = for your acceptance. See Textual Note 6 on i. 3. 
 
 6 Ver. 8. Th'e'Heb.has the plural form 1'SjN, hut the Sam. and other versions have the sing, as in the following verb 
 
 t : 
 and noun. 
 
 « Ver. 10. D"0 is generally a vineyard, but also (Judg. jv. 7) an olive yard. It is " a field or yard of the nobler plants 
 
 and trees, cultivated in the manner of a garden or orchard," Qesen. It is doubtless here used in its broadest sense, and the 
 vineyard of the A. V. is therefore too restricted. _ 
 
 ' Ver. 10. 012 = <*"< which " scattered, and hence meaning here both the fallen fruit (Chald., 1 ulg., Syr.), and also 
 
 the single berries if the olive and the vine not gathered with the harvest. 
 
 8 Ver. 13. pitfj?n. Ver. 11 forbids sins of craft and falsehood against one's neighbor ; this, sins of violence and open 
 oppression. The translation given is that of the A. V. in Dent. xxiv. 14. 
 
 • Ver. 13. The Heh. xS is without the conjunction which is supplied in 40 MSS. in the Sam. and the LXX. 
 10 Ver. 15. The conjunction 1 is prefixed in 7 MSS., the Sain., LXX., and Syr. 
 
 u Ver. 16. TQ»3. The Sam. and 68 MSS. omit the \ 
 
 IS Ver. 16. Here again the Heb. omits the conjunction which is supplied in 40 MSS., and in the Syr. 
 
 " Ver. 17. NOn I'Vj? NtyjVxSl is a clause the meaning of which has been much questioned. It seems certain, 
 
 however, that Xt^J cannot mean suffer, (permit) as in the A. V., but must mean bear as in the margin. The marginal for 
 
 him is ambiguous, and it is better therefore to use the more explicit on his account. For instances of precisely the same 
 sense of these words, see xxii. 9; Nnm. xviii. 32, and comp. also the very similar expression in Pa. Ixix. 8. 
 
 » Ver. 19. 3 MSS., the Sam., LXX., and Syr., prefix the conjunction. 
 
 n> Ver. 19. B'xS3 (dual from nS3 = separation) occurs only in this verse (three times) andin the parallel Dent. xxii. 
 
 9, but is frequent in 'the Talmud. It signifies of tm l-inds, heterogeneous. The translation of the A. V. at its first occurrence 
 in the ver. diverse, is good, and should by all means be retained in the other clauses, both for consistency's sake, and for the 
 force of the command. All the Semitic versions preserve the uniformity. 
 
 " Ver. 19. \iOV\V occurs only here and in Deut. xxii. 11, where it is explained " of woolen and linen together. Its 
 
 etvmology is obscure. See the Lexicons and Bochart, Jliernz. I., lib. LT., c. 35, p. 545, ed. Rosen. It is probably an Egyp. 
 tmn word', although not yet satisfactorily explained. The Chald. retains the word, and the LXX. translates ki^SijAok = 
 tpurious, adulterated, probably by a mere conjecture. Rosenmuller quotes Forster as explaining it <•! a o.-tly 1,-yptiau 
 dress woven in various figures of plants and animals in colors, having a symbolical idolatrous signification. See Com. 
 
148 LEVITICUS. 
 
 20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed 1 ' to 
 an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her ; she shall be scourged 
 [there shall be punishment 18 ], they shall not be put to death, because she was not 
 
 21 free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the 
 
 22 tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest 
 shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the 
 Lord for his sin which he hath done : and the sin which he hath done shall be 
 forgiven him. 
 
 23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of 
 trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised : 19 three years 
 
 24 shall it be as uncircumcised to you : it shall not be eaten of. But in the fourth 
 
 25 year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise 20 the Lord withal. And in the fifth 
 year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield 21 unto you the increase 
 thereof: I am the Lord your God. 
 
 26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood : 22 neither 23 shall ye use enchantment, 
 
 27 nor observe times. ^Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt 
 
 28 thou 24 mar the corners of thy" beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your 
 flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you : I am the Lord. 
 
 29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore ; lest the land fall to 
 whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. 
 
 30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary : I am the Lord. 
 
 31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards to be de- 
 filed by them : I am the Lord your God. 
 
 32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, 
 and fear thy God : I am the Lord. 
 
 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee 25 in your land, ye shall not vex [oppress 26 ] him. 
 3-4 But [omit but 27 ] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born 
 
 among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land 
 of Egypt : I a»)i the Lord your God. 
 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in mea- 
 
 1T Ver. 20. J13^nj Niph. from rpn = to bar off, to set apart. There seems no doubt of the correctness of the test of 
 the A. V., and the margin is therefore unnecessary. 
 
 18 Ver. 20. PITin j"np3. This word is off. Key., but there seems little doubt of its meaning, investigation, and then 
 punishment. Authorities are much divided on the question whether both partiee, or only the woman, was to be scourged. 
 The LXX., Vulg., and Syr., are clear for the former, while the Sam. applies it only to the man. In the uncertainty it is 
 better to retain the indefiniteness of the Heb.asin the marg. of the A. V. The Sam. reading is remarkable 17 (THD j"np3 
 
 = he shall be punished, and then, in the 6ing. .TVDV N 7 = he shall not die. This gives a sense agreeing excellently with 
 the reason assigned because she was not free, and hence the act did not legally constitute adultery which was 
 punishable with death. 
 
 » Ver. 23. " The singular suffix in ljlSlt' " [and also in V13] " refers to 73, and the verb 7~\j,' is a denom. from 
 i t : t : ■ 
 
 ri7"l>*, to make into a foreskin, to treat as uncircumcised, i. e., to throw away as unclean or uneatable." Keil. The LX X . 
 
 v : t 
 rendering nept.Kadapi.elTe rnv aKaOapaiav ouTou = ye shall purge auay its uncleanness expresses very well the general 
 sense. , , 
 
 30 Ver. 24. □ , 7l7H occurs only here and in Judg.ix. 27. In the latter place it seems to mean merry-making feasts to 
 
 idols, and Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 19) understands the law to be that the fruit of the fourth year should be carried to the pla<-e 
 ..I th. Sum tuury, and there used in a holy feast with friends and the poor. But the following verse seems so clearly to 
 forbid the owner's partaking of it before the fifth year that it would be unsafe to change the translation. The marg. of 
 the A. V. holiness of praises to the Lord does not convey any distinct idea. The idea of Murphy a praise offering is hardly 
 sustained by the text. The true sense is probably that incorporated into the Targ. Onk. it shall he consecrated to those offer- 
 ing praises before the Lord, i. e., it was to be given to the Lord through Uis priests, and used by them in leasts. 
 
 21 Ver. 25. For fl"D'inS that it may yield, the Sam., followed by the Vulg., reads n'DSn ' f or eolltcting (in 
 storehouses) the produce. 
 
 22 Ver. 2G. □in~Sl*. The LXX. must have read *1 instead of 1 to sustain the version hrl tCiv opcW, and some 
 critics would adopt this to avoid the peculiarity of the construction of 7J>, considering it justified by the frequency of the 
 practice in connection with Idolatrous feasts (comp. nos. iv. 13). But a mis-reading of the LXX. is not a sufficient ground 
 for a change of the text ; for the construction of 7T? see Ex. xii. 8, and comp. Textual Note * on ii. 2. 
 
 23 Vers. 26, 27. In both places the Sam., one or two MSS., and the LXX., supply the conjunction. 
 
 ! * Ver. 27. The Sam. and most of the Ancient Versions put the verb and the pronoun in the plural in accordance with 
 the previous clause. 
 
 25 Ver*. 33. The Sam. and versions have the plural. 
 
 2« Ver. 33. The marg. of the A. V. expresses the sense of IJin better than the text. 
 
 17 Yer. 34. There is no occasion for the insertion of the but of the A. V. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 1-37 
 
 149 
 
 36 sure. Just balances, just weights, 29 a just ephali, and a just hin, shall ye have : I 
 
 37 am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore 
 shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the 
 Lord. 
 
 » Ver. 36. The marg. of the A. V. stones is unnecessary, that being merely the primary sense of px, while weight is 
 the fully established derivative sense. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 With this chapter begins a new Parashah of 
 the law extending to n. 27. The parallel 
 Haplilarah from the prophets is Ezek. xx. 2-20, 
 recounting the disobedience of Israel in the wil- 
 derness to the commands of this chapter and 
 their consequent, punishment; and the close of 
 Amos ix. 7-15, denouncing the punishment and 
 foretelling the final restoration of God's people 
 — a prophecy applied by S. James (Acts xv. 16, 
 17) to the gathering in of the Gentiles to the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 " This remarkable chapter is perhaps the 
 most comprehensive, the most varied, and in 
 seme respects the most important section of 
 Leviticus, if not of the Pentateuch; it was by 
 the ancient Jews regarded as an epitome of the 
 whole Law ; it was adopted and paraphrased by 
 the best gnomic writers, such as Pseudo-Phocy- 
 lides; and it has at all times been looked upon 
 as a counterpart of the Decalogue itself." Ka- 
 lisch. 
 
 It treats of the holiness in the daily life and 
 conversation which must characterize the cove- 
 nant people of a holy God. This basis of the 
 commands given is prominently brought forward 
 at the opening and continually kept in mind by 
 the phrase I am the Lord throughout. This 
 expresses at once the basis of the command, and 
 the goal towards which the Israelite must strive. 
 It is as difficult to arrange these laws systemati- 
 cally as to do so with the duties of the daily 
 life, and an arrangement which would be sys- 
 tematic from one point of view would not be bo 
 from another. The following analysis of the 
 chapter, from Murphy, presents a somewhat 
 different view from that given by Lange below: 
 "They are in communion with God (1-8), in 
 the communion of saints (9-22), and are about 
 to be in a land of holiness (23-32), and visited 
 by strangers (33-37). And each of these rela- 
 tions brings out a series of duties peculiar to 
 itself." 
 
 Lange says: "We hold that this section, as 
 being the summing up of the laws of the theo- 
 cratic humanity, is quite in place, as a contrast 
 to the characteristics of the heathen inhumanity 
 which the foregoing chapter has displayed ; and 
 in so far forth comprises in no part anything 
 repeated, varying, or in the more restricted 
 sense religious. It gives the characteristics of 
 the consecrated human personality in the theoc- 
 racy, and of its conduct as it should correspond 
 with the holy personality of Jehovah, and hence 
 it is said again and again: I am Jehovah. 
 From this constant refrain a liturgy of religious 
 humanity could be unfolded. First, in three- 
 fold distinctness : Ye shall be holy, ;'. e. hal- 
 lowed personalities, for I Jehovah your God 
 am holy, and ever again I am Jehovah your 
 God (vers. 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 30), or I am 
 
 Jehovah (vers. 12, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37). 
 Evidently these statements together, as the cha- 
 racteristics of the private human conduct, stand 
 in connection with the legislation for the social 
 humanity in the section, Ex, xxi.-xxiii. 
 
 "Disposition: vers. 1, 2. The principle of 
 humanity: Jehovah the Holy One. Vers. 3-8. 
 True and false piety. Vers. 9-18. Inwardly 
 grounded humanity. Vers. 19-32. Observance 
 of the moral laws of nature. Vers. 33-37. Ob- 
 servance of hospitality and the duties of trade. 
 
 " The first theocratic law of humanity is the 
 root of all that follow, the law of piety. And 
 here it is not said: 'Father and mother,' but 
 mother and father ; for the mother precedes 
 the father in the duty of mankind." Words- 
 worth says in reference to this order: "In the 
 former chapter God had displayed the evils con- 
 sequent on the abuse of woman, and here He 
 inculcates reverence towards her, as the founda- 
 tion of social happiness." This is the fifth com- 
 mandment of the Decalogue (Ex. xx. 12), and is 
 clearly necessary to be called to mind here : for 
 as the family is the basis of all social organiza- 
 tion, so is reverence to parents the first necessity 
 of family order. Next follows the reiteration 
 of the fourth commandment (Ez. xx. 12) as the 
 first duty of man beyond the immediate respect 
 due from him to those from whom he derives 
 his being. The great prominence everywhere 
 given in Scripture to the observance of the Sab- 
 bath (comp. e. g. Ez. xx. 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24, 
 being the portion from the prophets read in the 
 synagogue in connection with this chapter), and 
 the universality of its obligation as grounded 
 upon the Divine rest, show how deeply this must 
 enter into all excellent social organization. 
 These two precepts are here coupled together as 
 they are in the Decalogue, and they are the only 
 commands given there in positive form. They 
 " express two great central points, the first be- 
 longing to natural law, and the second to posi- 
 tive law, in the maintenance of the well-being 
 of the social body of which Jehovah was the 
 acknowledged king." Clark. It is noticeable 
 that the same generality which is given to the 
 command in Ex. by the use of the sing, is here 
 attained also by the use of the plural; for the 
 plural is not to be understood as used (Kalisch) 
 tor the purpose of including other festivals than 
 the weekly day of rest. 
 
 Ver. 4. This precept includes the two first 
 commands of the Decalogue. The order of com- 
 mands in this chapter, in so far as the commands 
 themselves are the same, is different from that 
 in the Decalogue, because there the starting 
 point is from God Himself; here from man in 
 his family and social relations. In regard to 
 this precept, Lange says: "If the heart of man 
 becomes benumbed to the use of images of false 
 gods of any kind, he sinks down to the idols 
 which are his ideals, and becomes as dumb and 
 
150 
 
 LEVITICCS. 
 
 unspiritual as they are, ver. 4. All gods of the 
 heathen are Elilim, nothingnesses, Ps. xcvi. 6; 
 cxv. 8; cxxxv. 18; Isa. xl. 18; xliv. 10, etc." 
 Comp. also Deut. xxvii. 15. It was a notion of 
 the Rabbins that this word was compounded of 
 
 7X,=no(, and 7X=6W. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 4; 
 x.19. 
 
 Vers. 6-8. The Legislator now turns to the 
 especial outward act of communion wilh God in 
 the peace offering. His object is not to speak 
 of sacrifices in general, nor even of any special 
 kind of peace offering; therefore the distinc- 
 tions of vii. 11-21 are not referred to. The 
 reference is rather to xvii. 3-7, according to 
 which, during the wilderness life, all food of 
 sacrificial animals was to be sanctified by the 
 peace offering. So here all holy feasting of 
 communion with God must be based upon a sac- 
 rifice for their acceptance, and must be treated 
 according to the commands already given. The 
 order of the precepts is therefore perfectly 
 natural: first, filial duty; then the observance 
 of the fundamental divine institution for society; 
 next, negatively, the entire turning away from 
 everything that could come into rivalry with 
 God ; and now the keeping holy of the appointed 
 means of communion with Him. After this 
 come (9-18) various precepts to guard the holi- 
 ness of conduct toward one's neighbor, especially 
 the poor and distressed, illustrated by one com- 
 mand of detail after another until the all inclu- 
 ding principle is announced, thou shalt love 
 thy neighbor as thyself. 
 
 Vers. 9, 10. The gatherer of his harvest, out 
 of the abundance which God had given him, 
 must have a generous care for the poor and the 
 stranger; the poor, as those unable to cultivate 
 their own land, or who had been obliged to sell 
 it until the next year of Jubilee ; and the stran- 
 ger, as those who by the organization of the 
 Hebrew commonwealih could have no possession 
 of land in their country. The LXX. and the 
 Syr. interpret stranger of proselytes, and are 
 followed by some Jewish commentators ; but 
 such restriction is plainly at variance with the 
 whole spirit of the command. The same precept 
 is repealed, in regard to the grain harvest, in 
 connection with the feast of weeks (xxiii. 22), 
 and more generally in Deut. xxiv. 10-22 with a 
 reminder of the privations and bondage they 
 had themselves endured in Egypt. The story 
 of Ruth is a beautiful exemplification of the ope- 
 ration of this statute. 
 
 Vcr. 11. This and the following precepts take 
 the usual negative form of statutory law. The 
 eighth commandment is here joined with the 
 offences recounted in vi. 2-5 of falsehood and 
 fraud towards others. St. Augustine here (Qu. 
 08) enters at length into the casuistical question 
 of the jusiifiableness of lying under certain pe- 
 culiar circumstances, citing the example of Ra- 
 hab among others. He concludes that it was 
 not her lying, as such, which received the 
 divine approbation, but her desire to serve God, 
 which indeed prompted her lie. However this 
 may be, it is plain that the law here has in view 
 not extraordinary and exceptional cases, but the 
 ordinary dealings of man with man. Such law 
 ia of universal obligation. Comp. Col. iii. 9. 
 
 Ver. 12 is of course covered by the third com- 
 mandment, but is not coextensive with it, since 
 the point of view here is that of conduct towards 
 one's neighbor. Comp. ch. vi. 5- 
 
 Vers. 13-17 relate to social offences of different 
 kinds, common enough in all ages and lands, 
 but all inconsistent with the character of a holy 
 people. Ver. 13 deals with faults of power, 
 " the conversion of might into right." The par- 
 ticulars mentioned are oppression (comp. xxv. 
 17—43), robbing, and undue retention of wages. 
 The last is spoken of more at length Deut. xxiv. 
 14, 15. Comp, Jas. v. 4. Ver. 14 mentions 
 crimes of mean advantage. Comp. Deut. xxvii. 
 18. The sense is, thou shalt not curse the 
 deaf, for though he hears not, God will hear 
 and avenge; and so of the blind, God sees and 
 cares for him. Job remembered wilh satisfac- 
 tion that in his prosperity he had been *' eyes to 
 the blind" and "feet to the lame" (Job xxix. 
 15). The precept in its literal sense belongs to 
 all times, and so also does its obvious spiritual 
 application, Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 9-13. 
 Lange characterizes this verse as the "sanctifi- 
 cation of the human dignity of the infirm.'' Ia 
 ver. 15 the Legislator turns to official wrong, 
 guarding against personal influence in judgment 
 from whatever source. — Respect the person 
 of the poor has reference not only to pity for 
 him, but to that instinctive tendency to sympa- 
 thy with the weaker side which still has such 
 powerful influence with the modern jury in the 
 perversion of justice. On the other hand, 
 honoring the person of the mighty repre- 
 sents the opposite perversion, perhaps almost 
 equally common, but less creditable to humanity. 
 Vers. 16 and 17 forbid offences of a meaner 
 kind. On ver. 16 Lange says: "Sanctity 
 of a neighbor's good name, and especially of his 
 life and blood. Casting aside of all inhumane 
 conduct, all ill-will, as manifested in malicious 
 belittling, blackening, and slandering, and espe- 
 cially in attempts against the life of a neighbor, 
 whether in court or in private life." The Rab- 
 bins, equally with the Hindoo laws, are particu- 
 larly severe upon the crime of tale-bearing. 
 The Targ. Jonathan paraphrases the clause, "Do 
 not go after the talc-benring tongue, which is 
 harsh as a sword, slaying with both its edges." 
 The latter clause of ver. 16 is sometimes other- 
 wise interpreted; "most of the recent Jewish 
 versions follow the Talmud in giving another 
 sense to the words, which it appears the Hebrew 
 will bear: Thou slialt not stand by idly when thy 
 neighbor's life is in danger. So Zunz, Luzzato, 
 Herxheimer, Leeser, Wogue." Clark. Ver. 17. 
 Lange: "Observance of good-will towards one's 
 neighbor. Blameworthiness of hate, and also 
 of the bitter keeping back of the reproof which 
 one owes to his neighbor. It is a fine reminder 
 that one may become a sharer in a neighbor's 
 fault by a lack of openness, and by a holding 
 back of required reproof." On the last clause, 
 see Textual, and on the whole verse comp. Prov. 
 xxvii. 5; Matt, xviii. 15-17. 
 
 In the close of ver. 18 all is summed up in the 
 royal law — thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 thyself. This is twice quoted by our Lord 
 Himself (Matt. xix. 19; xxii. 39), and, next to 
 love to God, is made the great commandment of 
 
CHAP. XIX. 1-37. 
 
 151 
 
 the law. It ia repeatedly referred to by the 
 Apostles as the fulfilling of the whole law to- 
 wards one's neighbor (Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; 
 Jas. ii. 8). It may be (hat at the lime it was 
 given it was too far above the spiritual condition 
 of the people, who must first be trained by the 
 detailed precepts going before. Nevertheless, it 
 is imbedded in the law as the expression of the 
 divine will, and that it might be reached by such 
 as were able to receive it. Such passages as 
 Prov. xxiv. 17, 18; xxv. 21, 22, show that it did 
 not fail of exerting an influence upon the na- 
 tion, and in later times the Rabbins abundantly 
 recognized it as the very summary of all duty 
 toward's one's neighbor. That the precept has 
 no narrow limitations to their own people is 
 shown by ver. 34, in which il is expressly ex- 
 tended to "the stranger." 
 
 The second series of commands, vers. 19-32, is 
 introduced with the formula. Ye shall keep 
 my statutes, in which, says Kalisch, the word 
 "statutes must be taken in its original and 
 most pregnant sense as that which is 'engraven' 
 and unalterably ordained: you shall not deviate 
 from the appointed order of things, nor abandon 
 the eternal laws of nature as fixed by Divine 
 wisdom." Ver. 19. Lange : " Observance of the 
 natural system, or of the simple laws of nature, 
 symbolically expressed in reference to the ten- 
 dency to allow the interbreeding of different 
 species of animals, to mix various seeds in the 
 field, and to wear garments made of mixed stuffs. 
 When it is said in regard to these things. Ye 
 shall keep my statutes, the laws of nature 
 are plainly meant as the laws of Jehovah, and 
 we must distinguish between the symbolical ex- 
 emplification of the law and such mixings as 
 nature herself or the necessities of life compel, — 
 to say nothing of the purpose of investigation." 
 This law is repeated in Deut. xxii. 9-11. It is 
 clearly to be looked upon as one of those many 
 educational laws given to train the Israelites to 
 the observance of the natural order and separa- 
 tion of things, to a sense of fitness and con- 
 gruity ; and hence, when the underlying princi- 
 ple has come to be comprehended, the pari icular 
 details by which it was enforced cease to be ob- 
 ligatory. As to the allegation that this command 
 was violated in the high-priest's dress, which i-< 
 said to have been woven of linen and wool, it is 
 unnecessary to say more than that the difficulty 
 arises entirely from a misapprehension in taking 
 the word scarlet to mean scarlet wool, instead of 
 as a simple designation of color. 
 
 Vers. 20-22. The punishment for adultery was 
 death for both parties (xx. 10). and the same in 
 case of the seduction of a free virgin who was 
 betrothed (Deut. xxii. 23, 24); and it was still 
 death to the man in case the act might be pre- 
 sumed to have been by violence [ib. 25—27). 
 These laws were inapplicable in their full force 
 in the case of a slave, since she could not, legally 
 contract marriage. Still, the moral offence ex- 
 isted, and therefore there must be punishment. 
 Versions and authorities vary as to whether the 
 punishment was to be inflicted on both parties 
 (LXX., Vulg., Syr.), on the man alone (Sam.), 
 or on the woman alone (A. V.). The last is sup- 
 ported on the ground thai the man's pun- 
 ishment consisted in his trespass offering; but 
 
 this is so entirely inadequate that this view 
 may be dismissed. Probably both parties were 
 punished when the acquiescence of the woman 
 might be presumed, and the man alone in the 
 opposite case. This would be in accordance 
 with the analogy of Deut. xxii. 23-27, and would 
 account for the indefiniteness of the Hebrew ex- 
 pression. See Textual note 18. The supposi- 
 tion that both were ordinarily to be punished 
 also agrees best with the following plural — they 
 shall not be put to death. In the form of 
 sacrifice to be presented by the man, the trespass 
 offering (comp. v. 14 — vi. 7), the violation of the 
 rights of property of which he had also been 
 guilty is recognized. 
 
 Vers. 23-25. " Treatment of nature, in the case 
 of the culture of plants, after their analogy with 
 the life of man. Symbolic practice: the fruits 
 of trees for the first three years were to be con- 
 sidered as the foreskin of the tree, and were not 
 to be harvested nor eaten. The trees were to 
 be allowed to grow strong by having their fruit 
 hang on them. The fruit of the fourth year was 
 to be hallowed to Jehovah, and thus by a theo- 
 cratic consecration, (he fruit of the following 
 years should be a consecrated food, analogous to 
 the food of the flesh that was slaiu before the 
 door of the Tabernacle. First, the fruits of the 
 trees were, so to speak, heathen ; then they were 
 hallowed in a priestly way; and then finally be- 
 came fruits to be enjoyed by the theocracy." 
 Lange, It is noticeable that this command, like 
 so many others, is wholly prospective, — when 
 ye shall come into the land, — one of the 
 constantly recurring evidences that this legisla- 
 tion was aotually given during the life ia the 
 wilderness. 
 
 Vers. 26-28 forbid several heathen customs, 
 some of thera associated with idolatrous or su- 
 perstitious rites, and all of them unbecoming the 
 holy people of God. "To the consecration of 
 the use of fruit is added for completeness once 
 more the consecration of the use of flesh, and in- 
 deed with a more strict prohibition of the use 
 of the blood: ye shall not eat anything 
 with the blood.' Lange. "These words were 
 not a mere repetition of the law against eating 
 blood (xvii. 10). but a strengthening of the law. 
 Not only were they to eat no blood, but no flesh 
 to which any blood adhered." Keil. Patrick, 
 quoting from Maimonides and others, makes it 
 very probable that this has reference lo a heathen 
 custom of eating flesh over the blood of the ani- 
 mal from which it had been taken as a means 
 of communion with demons who were supposed 
 (o feast upon the blood itself. See Spencer, lib. 
 II., c. 15. Neither shall ye use enchant- 
 ment. — This is a different sin from that forbid- 
 den in ver. 31 ; for in the parallel prohibitions, 
 Deut. xviii. 9-12, the two are distinguished. 
 On}, primarily to whisper, to mutter, covers all 
 kinds of magical formulas, all attempts to secure 
 a desired result otherwise than by natural means 
 or the invocation of divine aid. The LXX. ovk 
 oiuvtelaBe: and Syr. interpret it of augury by 
 means of birds; but while the form of the He- 
 brew seems to connect the act primarily with the 
 serpent, its sense in use is certainly more gene- 
 ral. Comp. Gen. xliv. 5, 15. Nor observe 
 
152 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 times. — }J\i\ according to some authorities, a 
 denom. verb from |Ji>=a cloud, and this sense has 
 
 It t 
 
 been followed by the A. V.; according to Rab- 
 binical authorities, however, it is from V]}_=the 
 ei/f, and means to bewitch with an evil eye. In 
 either case the general sense is in accordance 
 with the preceding clause: to rely upon occult 
 arts for the accomplishment of one's purposes. 
 Lange : "To the prohibition of the unhallowed 
 sensual use of nature is added the prohibition 
 of the demoniacal misinterpretation of nature, 
 of an impious desire to enter the spirit-world by 
 breaking through the opposing limits of nature ; 
 the prohibition of soothsaying and Borcery, 
 whereby, in all their forms, natural things were 
 misused, ver. 26. In the same connection be- 
 longs the disfiguring of the natural appearance 
 of one's own personal form, especially of the 
 head and the beard, ver. 27. And in this law 
 the Christian world might have cause to see it- 
 self reflected, with their unnatural forms of every 
 kind: crinolines, trains, high-heeled shoes, chig- 
 nons, and hats that are only lids to the forehead. 
 Only the law of customs must be remembered : 
 the taste of the women is the taste of the men." 
 Theodoret (Qu. 28), followed by many moderns, 
 understands the things here forbidden of heathen 
 customs connected either with idolatrous usages 
 or with mourning for the dead. Ver. 28. For 
 the dead.—" '03i=m V32, xxi. 11 ; Num. vi. 
 6; or fID, Deut. xiv. If so again [the same form 
 as here is used] in xxii. 4; Num. v. 2; ix. 6, 7, 
 10." Keil. Lange: "This opposition to nature 
 was increased by cutting marks in their flesh in 
 remembrance of the dead, as the Jews must have 
 seen done in the cultus of the dead among the 
 Egyptians. With this belongs the cutting in of 
 written characters, every kind of tattooing, of 
 profaning the human dignity in the human 
 form. Ver. 28. On similar heathen customs see 
 Keil, p. 130 [Trans, p. 424] ; Knobel, p. 513." 
 Comp. xxi. 5; Deut. xiv. But notwithstanding 
 the law, the custom appears to have continued a 
 familiar one, see Jer. xvi. 6; xlviii. 37. "Any 
 voluntary disfigurement of the person was in it- 
 self an outrage upon God's workmanship, and 
 might well form the subject of a law." Clark. 
 
 Ver. 29. "The common natural disposition 
 becomes especially unnatural when the father 
 of a family gives away his daughter, or allows 
 her to go away, to become a whore. One result 
 of this is that the land or people itself begins to 
 fall to whoredom also in the religious sense. 
 "The religious immorality is here meant, as it 
 was joined with many worships, Num. xxv. 1," 
 etc. Knobel. The heathen religious service of 
 last existed among the most different nations, the 
 Babylonians, for example, and the Indians of the 
 present day." Lange. Keil argues that the re- 
 ference here can be only "to fleshly whoredom, 
 the word iTDI being used only in this connec- 
 tion." But see Ezek. xvi. 27, 43, 58, etc. Ne- 
 vertheless, the context here requires that the 
 carnal sin should be understood, and certainly 
 that is the primary sin in Num. xxv. 1. 
 
 Ver. 30. Lange: "The spirit of reverence for 
 the institutions of the church is also a character- 
 istic of true humanity, and the corresponding ir- 
 
 reverence, a characteristic of barbarism, even 
 if the barbarism be occasionally in the garments 
 of the higher culture." History has abundantly 
 shown that the keeping holy of the Lord's day 
 and reverence for His sanctuary runs hand in 
 hand with the highest national development. 
 Throughout this " social and domestic life is per- 
 vaded by the fear of God and characterized by 
 chasteness and propriety." Keil. In His re- 
 peated cleansing of the temple (Jno. ii. 14-16; 
 Matt, xxi.12, 13) our Lord has shown that the lat- 
 ter duty at least is one of permanent obligation. 
 
 Ver. 31. Lange: "Also the passive supersti- 
 tion which, instead of asking of Jehovah, espe- 
 cially on His days of rest and in His holy place, 
 asks of the conjurors of the dead and of wizards, 
 or of any ungodly oracle of any kind, and thus 
 breaks through the limits of the consecrated hu- 
 manity, which leaves it to God to rule and trusts 
 in God." Them that have familiar spirits. 
 — The Heb. 31N is used both for the divining 
 spirit, the foreboding demon itself, as here and 
 in xx. 27 ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, 8, etc.; and also for 
 the person in whom such a spirit was supposed 
 to dwell, Isa. xxix. 4. The LXX. usually render 
 it by eyyaorpipvBoL— ventriloquists, since among 
 the ancients ventriloquism and magical arts were 
 wont to be associated together. 'Wizard. — 
 *JJ?T — lit. the knowing one ; 8ymm. yvuarijc ; Aq. 
 yvupioTtjc, is always associated with 31N, and 
 means plainly one who pretends to more than 
 mortal knowledge. The chief means used by 
 both these classes of persons was the consulting 
 with the spirits of the departed. While this fur- 
 nishes an incidental testimony all along to the 
 belief of the Israelites in the life beyond the 
 grave, it is self-evident that all such attempts 
 to secure knowledge which God has not put it in 
 the power of living man to acquire are a resist- 
 ance to His will, and a chafing against the bar- 
 riers He has imposed. It is remarkable that 
 such attempts should have been persisted in 
 through all ages and in all lands. In ver. 32 
 the outward marks of respect to old age are con- 
 nected with the fear of God. The commendation 
 of this virtue is frequent in Scripture, and its 
 practice appears to have been universal among all 
 ancient nations, as it is still among the Orientals. 
 
 Vers. 33, 34. Lange: " Humanity towards the 
 stranger, who is not a Jew, who thus certainly 
 might dwell as a private man in the future in- 
 heritance of Israel. He was to be treated ex- 
 actly as an inhabitant in human intercourse. 
 Thou shalt love him as thyself. — With this 
 the remembrance is still preserved that the 
 Israelites had been strangers in the land of 
 Egypt." The royal law of ver. 18 is here ex- 
 pressly extended to the stranger, and notwith- 
 standing the national narrowness necessary to 
 preserve the true religion in the world, the ge- 
 neral brotherhood of mankind is hereby taught 
 as far as was possible under the circumstances. 
 
 Vers. 35, 36. Lange: "Integrity, correspond- 
 ing to the humanity, is now made especially pro- 
 minent and sharp, as if in prophetic foresight in 
 regard to the occupation of the Israelites in 
 trade, and with reference to all forms of bu- 
 siness. 
 
 " In this mirror of humanity net only Judaism 
 
CHAP. XX. 1-27. 
 
 153 
 
 may see itself reflected, not only mediaeval fana- 
 ticism, hut also modern culture." 
 
 The Ephah i3 mentioned as the standard of 
 dry, and the Ilin of liquid measure. Pre- 
 cisely how much each contained is in dispute. 
 The Hiu was the sixth part of the Ephah; and 
 the latter, according to Josephus (Ant. III. 3, 
 \ 4; VIII. 2, §9), contained rather more than 
 eight and a half gallons. But the Rabbins make 
 the capacity only about half this, which is more 
 probable. However this may be, it is clear that 
 equity in the affairs of the daily life is here 
 made to rest upon the foundation of duty to- 
 wards God. 
 
 In ver. 37 all duties enumerated in this chap- 
 ter are placed upon the same ground — the only 
 ground, as experience has abundantly shown, 
 sufficiently strong to withstand the temptations 
 and vicissitudes of the world. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The foundation of the law here, as every- 
 where, is the holiness of God. Because He is 
 holy, therefore the people who would live in 
 communion with Him must be holy too. This 
 principle is of universal application to all times, 
 and to all occupations of human life. 
 
 II. In the human development of holiness filial 
 reverence must always occupy the first place, and 
 next to that comes reverence for the outward in- 
 stitutions of divine appointment. 
 
 III. The fulfilling of our whole duty towards 
 our neighbor, under the old dispensation as un- 
 der the new, culminates and is comprehended in 
 the law — Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 thyself. With a clearness that seems to belong 
 to the teaching of the Gospel, "neighbor" is 
 made to comprehend the stranger as well as 
 one's own compatriots. 
 
 IV. In the general exhortation to holiness are 
 included all details of the daily life. There is 
 nothing so insignificant that one may allow him- 
 self in unholy conduct in relation to it; because 
 he would theroby violate the fundamental prin- 
 
 ciple of communion with God. This is particu- 
 larly applied in the law to matters of business 
 and trade. 
 
 V. All attempts to arrive at, more than mortal 
 knowledge by consultation with the spirits of the 
 dead are especially and emphatically forbidden. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : "The foundation of these laws is an- 
 nounced in the most emphatic declaration of the 
 name of Jehovah and His holiness, again and 
 again, as the sanction of the commands. Ye 
 shall be holy, for I am holy — i. «., ye shall 
 keep your personality pure, for your Jehovah, 
 your covenant God, the absolute Personality, re- 
 pels all uncleanness, all confusion with the 
 world, either in (he heads of Pantheists or in the 
 hearts and morals of the servants of sin, or in 
 the rites of the priests. The personality is dis- 
 honored with every act of idolatry and every 
 idolatrous worship (see Isa. xliv. 9sqq.; Acts 
 xvii. ). There follow the outlines of holy thanks- 
 giving festivals, holy harvest festivals and vint- 
 ages, holy ways of thought and action, holy 
 oaths, etc. Continually new features of the con- 
 secration of life by a humane conduct are made 
 prominent; and truly they are fine and thought- 
 ful features." 
 
 Each precept of this chapter has a homiletical 
 value so clear that no amplification of the text 
 itself is necessary. Holiness is made to consist 
 not merely in the avoiding of sin and in the 
 fulfilment of certain prescribed duties, but in a 
 general course of life prompted by genuine love. 
 The wants of the poor are to be regarded, the 
 weak and defenceless are to be respected, justice 
 is to be unwarped by either personal sympathies 
 or influence, tale-bearing avoided, all magical 
 arts and efforts to attain forbidden knowledge 
 are to be shunned, and, in a word, man is to con- 
 duct himself in all things as one who is in com- 
 munion with God, and therefore seeks to have 
 His will carried out in all the length and breadth 
 of his own daily life. 
 
 FOURTH SECTION. 
 Punishment for TJnholiness. 
 
 "Keeping Holy the Holy Congregation by Cutting off Irreparable Transgression." — Lange. 
 
 Chapter XX. 1-27. 
 
 I, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children 
 
 of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn 
 
 in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech ; he shall surely be put to death: 
 
 ! the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against 
 
 that man, and will cut him off from among his people ; because he hath given of 
 
 t his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profaue my holy name. And 
 
 if the people of the land do any ways hide 1 their eyes from the man, when he giveth 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 • Ver. 4. On the dagktah in dS^'H and 13'^^, Bee Text. Note ■« on iv. 13. 
 
 25 ' : ~ 
 
154 LEVITICUS. 
 
 5 of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not : then I will set my face against that man, 
 and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, 
 
 6 to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. And the soul that 
 turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after 
 them, I will even set my face against that soul, 2 and will cut him off from among 
 
 7 his people. Sanctity yourselves therefore, and be ye holy : for I am the Lord 
 
 8 your God. 3 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them : I am the Lord which 
 sanctify you. 
 
 9 For* every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death : 
 he hath cursed his father or his mother ; his blood 5 shall be upon him. 
 
 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that 
 commiteth adultery with bis neighbor's wife, 6 the adulterer and the adulteress shall 
 
 11 surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath unco- 
 vered his father's nakedness : both of them shall surely be put to death ; their 
 
 12 blood 5 shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of 
 them shall surely be put to death ; they have wrought confusion ; their blood 6 shall 
 
 13 be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both 
 of them have committed an abomination : they shall surely be put to death ; their 
 
 14 blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wick- 
 edness : they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they ; that there be no wicked- 
 
 15 ness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death : 
 
 16 and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie 
 down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put 
 
 17 to death ; their blood 5 shall be upon them. And if a man shall take his sister, his 
 father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his 
 nakedness ; it is a wicked thing ; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their 
 people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he' shall bear his ini- 
 
 18 quity. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover 
 her nakedness ; he hath discovered [uncovered 6 ] her fountain, and she hath unco- 
 vered the fountain of her blood : and both of them shall be cut off from among 
 
 19 their people. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, 
 nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their 
 
 20 iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his un- 
 
 21 cle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin ; they shall die childless. And if a man 
 shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing : he hath uncovered his bro- 
 ther's nakedness : they shall be childless. 
 
 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them : 
 
 23 that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye 
 shall not walk in the manners [statutes 9 ] of the nation, 10 which I cast out before 
 
 24 you : for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I 
 have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to pos- 
 sess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Lord your God, which 
 
 25 have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between 
 clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean : and ye shall not 
 make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living [omit 
 living 11 ] thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as 
 
 s Ver. 6. C/333. Four MSS. and Onk. read t^'JO, which Do Rossi prefers on account of the following \fi\&. For 
 
 the last, however, the Sam. reads HnN- 
 
 3 Ver. 7. The Sam., 4 MSS. and LXX. read: for I, the Lord your God, am holy. 
 
 4 Ver. 9. 'l—for is omitted in two MSS., the LXX. and Vulg. 
 
 ' Vers. 9, 11, 12, 1C. On the plnral form for Weed, corap. Gen. iv. 10; Ex. xxii. 1. 
 
 11 Ver. In. 1 hree of Keonicott's MSS. omit the first clause of this verso. Kos»nmiiller considers that the repetition 
 involves adistinction for the sake of emphasis, making ^H in the second clause=relation, ao that there is a prohibition, 
 
 flr-l of adnltery in general, then specifically of adultery with the wife of a relative. For this sense of the word he refers 
 to H 'lit. xiii. 7 : 2 .Sun xiii. 3. S. Augustine {Qii. 73 in Ilept.) takes the same view. 
 
 ' Ver. 17. Tie- LXX., Syr. and Vulg. have the plural. 
 
 8 Ver. IS. The same word should receive the same translation iu both clauses. 
 
 » Ver. 23. gtalula. See Text Note * on xviii. 3. . .. 
 
 '0 Ver. 23. The Sam. reails rj'ljrt, and so one MS. fol'owed bj all the ancient versions, as seems to bo required by the 
 following they committed. It is not unlik-lv that □ in <y have dropped out of the text. 
 
 11 Ver. 28. There is nothing to express the word lu-ing in the Ueb., and it is better omitted, as the referencs is wholly 
 to the dead bodies of these animals. 
 
CHAP. XX. 1-27. 
 
 155 
 
 26 unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me : for I the Lord am holy, and have 
 
 27 severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. A man also or woman 
 that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death : they 
 shall stone them with stones : their blood shall be upon them. 
 
 the third, of the carnal nature, unruly, vers. 
 17-21. 
 
 First Class. 
 
 "1. The Baerifice to Molech. It is to be 
 understood that the stranger was included with 
 the Israelite under this prohibition ; for if, in 
 general, no sacrifice to false gods were allowed 
 in the land, so certainly not the sacrifice to Mo- 
 lech. The Jew, however, would become more 
 wicked by such an offering than a heathen. It 
 is also here plain that what is spoken of is the 
 giving up of children to death." [The expres- 
 sions used here, vers. 2, 3, 4, are an abbreviated 
 form of that in xviii. 21. It may be doubted 
 whether they refer to children at all, or if so, to 
 putting them to death. See Textual Note and 
 Comm. on xviii. 21. — F. G.] 
 
 " In regard to this, it sounds like a charge to 
 execute immediate judgment on the spot: the 
 people of the land shall stone him with 
 stones, properly, bury him under thrown 
 stones." [Doubtless in a primitive state of 
 society all punishment was somewhat summary, 
 and this particular punishment is often provided 
 for in the law, ver. 27; xxiv. 14; Num. xv. 35, 
 36; Deut. xiii. 10; xvii. 5; xxi. 21; xxii. 21, 
 24, etc. But, nevertheless, it wa3 only to be 
 administered on sufficient evidence, and with 
 due forms of law, Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15, etc.— 
 
 F. 6.] "In this case the avenging is God's 
 
 personal affair: Jehovah sets Mis face against 
 him to consume him out of Jehovah's people; 
 for his sin is a three-fold one: he has given his 
 seed to Molech, and therein has judged himself; 
 he has defiled the sanctuary of Jehovah, that is, 
 the land hallowed by His sanctuary; and he 
 has profaned Jehovah's holy name, and dese- 
 crated the religion of His name. And even 
 if the people should let him go unpunished 
 in the last case, Jehovah Himself will pur- 
 sue him and even his race with His judg- 
 ment, until He has exterminated all who are 
 associated in his guilt. So strongly rules the 
 absolute Personality against all behaviour 
 that opposed personality. The judgment is in 
 this case as immanent in the guilty as a consu- 
 ming fire. One might also suppose that " the 
 face of Jehovah," in a construclio prmgnans , here 
 signified the Angel of His presence, and thin 
 expressed the thought that the spirit of the 
 revealed religion would exterminate the abomi- 
 nations mentioned together with their authors. 
 There were two grades, however, in complicity 
 in this guilt: in the first grade, it is an apos- 
 tasy to these men (as e.g. in the case of heathen 
 wives)- in the second grade, through this 
 to Molech. Ver. 5."— [It is noticeable that 
 while the prohibition of the sin in vers. 1-5 
 extends to the stranger on the ground that such 
 abomination was not to be tolerated at all in 
 the consecrated land; yet the extension of the 
 penalty to complicity in the sin by concealment 
 is applied only to the people of the land 
 ( ver , 4)_that is, to native Hebrews (comp. iv. 
 
 EXEGETTCAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The whole of Lange's Commentary on this 
 chapter is here given. 
 
 " Our section forms a completion of the pro- 
 hibitions which have preceded in ch. xviii., 
 while it still further joins the punishment of 
 death to several of the very sins there mentioned. 
 Yet this is certainly no mere appendix, but pro- 
 ceeds from an entirely new point of view. 
 There the fundamental idea was : the sexual 
 relations, particularly, the theocratic seed, must 
 be kept holy ; here the fundamental idea is: the 
 holy land must be kept holy, it must not be out- 
 raged or stirred up to reaction and revolt 
 through an abomination which might determine 
 it to spue out the Israelites also (as a person 
 spues out something nauseous from his mouth), 
 ver. 22. Ch. xviii. 28 had already expressed 
 this thought, but from the point of view that 
 the land would be thereby desecrated. It is 
 also here clearly brought out that the land 
 would be taken away from the Canaanites on 
 account of their constant abominations, and 
 given to the people of Israel; but that the like 
 punishment should befall them also, if they did 
 not keep the land clean by executing the penalty 
 of death upon the offenders. In the conception 
 of the sickened land and the revolted nature 
 lies evidently the idea of the people consumed 
 by unnatural sins." [A simpler view of the 
 relation of this to chs. xviii. and xix. is given 
 by Clark : " The crimes which are condemned 
 in those chapters on purely spiritual ground, 
 the absolute prohibition of Jehovah, have here 
 special punishments allotted to them as offences 
 against the well being of the nation." In ch. 
 xix. there is no mention at all of punishment 
 except in the single case of the betrothed slave 
 (vers. 20-22) ; in ch. xviii. there is no specific 
 punishment attached to each offence, but only 
 the general statement (vers. 28-30) of the penalty 
 to fall upon the trangressor of any of the sta- 
 tutes and upon the land as a whole. For the 
 purpose of civil government, therefore, the pre- 
 sent chapter is a necessary supplement. — F. G.] 
 
 "Already (schon frilher) has the decree of the 
 death-penalty been brought forward for sins 
 that were committed, HOT T3 (Num. xv. 30). 
 By this we can only understand stubborn or 
 arrogant sins ; therefore not every conscious 
 sin, as opposed to the unconscious, but every 
 sin which was maintained in opposition to the 
 theocratic jurisdiction. Single sins might always 
 prove to be such; but the abominations here 
 mentioned were, for the most part, deadly sins, 
 those most befitting the Cherem, as blaspheming 
 the name of Jehovah, ch. xxiv. 11, and dese- 
 crating the Sabbath, Num. xv. 32. 
 
 " But also we have here different grades of 
 punishment with the different grades of offence. 
 The first class of sins is devilish, vers. 1-7 ; the 
 second class brutal, even beastly, vers. 10-16 ; 
 
156 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 27), and also to them alone (ver. 2) is committed 
 the execution of the penalty. — F. G.] 
 
 " 2. Also the soul that turneth after such 
 as have familiar spirits (necromancers) and 
 after wizards (LXX. iyyaa-pifiv0oi=veatvi\o- 
 quists, i-aoithi = singing magic charms, both 
 not exegetically exhaustive) to go a 'whoring 
 after them — i. e., to engage in apostasy 
 from Jehovah to dark forms of supersti- 
 tion, — therefore against these also Jehovah 
 will set His face. It helps them nothing if they 
 remain unpunished of men; they fall before the 
 more searching sentence upon presumptuous 
 wickedness. Jehovah pursues them even to 
 their extermination, for they are not to corrupt 
 His people for Him. 
 
 " In regard to these sins it is said, on the 
 other hand: Sanctify yourselves therefore, 
 and be ye holy: raise yourselves to the dig- 
 nity of theocratic personalities, for your God is 
 in Jehovah, the absolute, pure Personality. 
 While they observe the ordinances of this Holy 
 Being, they must understand that it is He who 
 is training them to be a holy people. 
 
 Second Class. 
 
 "First Case. — Next the text speaks of the 
 unnatural and profligate child that curseth his 
 father or his mother. He shall be surely 
 put to death. And herewith commences the 
 new class. But since the expression begins with 
 for ("3), it gives to the clause at the same time 
 a symbolic character in reference to the former 
 class : profaning the name of Jehovah is like this 
 sin of cursing father or mother, since He, as the 
 Holy One, creates for Himself His holy people. 
 But for the second class the expression is cha- 
 racteristic, his blood shall be upon him, or 
 upon them, vers. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16. It is to be 
 observed that ver. 14 brings out an increase in 
 regard to this form of punishment; but ver. 15 
 certainly falls under one category with ver. 16. 
 The ordinance of punishment, equalizing the 
 guilt of the unnatural curser with that of the 
 shedding of blood, brings upon him the penal 
 retribution of the latter. Ver. 9. 
 
 "Second and Third Cases. — The crime 
 of adultery with a neighbor's wife, and the crime 
 of incest with a father's wife (a step-mother) are 
 equalized under the sentence of blood-guiltiness 
 which incurred death, and this for both man and 
 woman alike. Vers. 10, 11. 
 
 "Fourth Case. — The same applies to incest 
 
 with a daughter-in-law, v^FI (mixing, confusion, 
 defilement). [Ver. 12.] 
 
 " Fifth Case. — Paederasty, moreover, is desig- 
 nated as an abomination, as contrary to nature, 
 a revolting crime; and the punishment of death 
 is here expressly made prominent. This sin is 
 called nsyin (abomination, horror). [Ver. 13.] 
 
 "Sixth Case. — The double incest is made 
 most particularly prominent when a man lies 
 both with a mother and her daughter. They 
 were to be burnt with each other (without doubt, 
 their bodies after they had been stoned). This 
 
 sin is called iT3t (a refined or unheard of deed 
 
 T • * 
 of shame. The law brings out prominently that 
 
 such moral enormities should not exist in Israel). 
 The same penalty was, moreover, imposed upon 
 the daughter of a priest who became a whore, 
 because she had put her father to shame, xxi. 9. 
 So Achan was first stoned in the valley of Achor, 
 then burned, since he had brought a curse, a 
 corrupting complicity in guilt upon Israel, Josh, 
 vii. But Josiah set burning against burning, the 
 theocratic burning against the burning to Mo- 
 lech, when he burned the bones of the priests 
 upon their altars, and thereby purified Judah 
 and Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxxiv. 5; comp. 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 10). With this appears the embryo of the 
 Gehenna, as it comes out in symbolic form in the 
 Old Testament, Isa. lxvi. 21. The Gehenna is 
 thus a representation of the fire of Molech, and 
 over it also the fire of judgment has at last come. 
 Ver. 14. The Old Testament fire penalty was 
 only symbolical, and involved no unnatural tor- 
 ture, like the mediaeval mimicry of the flames of 
 hell. In tbis case, the offender was first put to 
 death; and the same is true of the Old Testament 
 hanging. 
 
 "Seventh and Eighth Cases. — Copu- 
 lation with a beast, either by a man or a woman. 
 With the beastly human being, the beast itself 
 was also to be destroyed. For examples, see 
 Knobel, p. 507. [Vers. 15, 16.] 
 
 Third Class. 
 
 " First Case. — Copulation with a half-sister." 
 [This also, as in xviii. 9, necessarily covers the 
 case of a full sister, for she was both the daugh- 
 ter of the father and the daughter of the mother. 
 — F. G.] "They shall be cut off in the 
 sight of their people. — Thus they should form 
 a warning spectacle." Here the crime is de- 
 scribed as "IDn and p,J> disgrace and misdeed, 
 [Ver. 17.] 
 
 "Second Case. — He that lay with a menstru- 
 ous woman, who in such wise uncovered the 
 fountain of her blood — so to speak — exposed 
 her life-spring. The penalty of death is for 
 both. The sentence sounds with a more gentle 
 expression: destruction out of the midst of the 
 people." [Ver. 18. The punishment here refers 
 to the act knowingly committed; in xv. 24 the 
 light penalty is given for the same act uninten- 
 tionally committed. — F. G.] 
 
 "Third Case. — Intercourse with an aunt on 
 either the father's or the mother's side. They 
 shall bear their iniquity. — Thus sounds the 
 sentence indefinitely, in transition to the follow- 
 ing. [Ver. 19.] 
 
 "Fourth Case. — If one takes the wife of his 
 brother, it is iTU (it induces the curse of the 
 first degree); The penalty is childlessness, and 
 is thus entirely a divine dispensation (ver. 21). 
 Here, as has been said, the prohibition can, in 
 the case of the Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 5- 
 10), become a command — an evidence of the 
 nicety of the law." [On the meaning of the pe- 
 nalty of childlessness see the preliminary note 
 to ch. xviii. It would be entirely out of analogy 
 with the Divine dealings with man to suppose a 
 perpetual special interposition through all the 
 ages of Israel's history in every case of violation 
 
CHAP. XX. 1-27. 
 
 157 
 
 of this law, and there is nothing in the character 
 of the forbidden relation to induce childlessness 
 under those ordinary Divine appointments which 
 we call natural laws. It is also much more in 
 accordance with the general character of this 
 chapter that the penalty should be understood 
 of something inflicted by statute law, — the reck- 
 oning of the issue of such marriages to another 
 than the actual father. So rightly S. Augustin, 
 Qu. 76 in Hept. It is a striking fact that this 
 penalty was still carried out in the one case of 
 the prohibited degrees, when the prohibition was 
 changed to a command. In the Levirate mar- 
 riage no heirs were begotten to the actual fa- 
 ther, but they were reckoned to the deceased 
 brother.— F. G.] 
 
 " In conclusion, another exhortation follows 
 which, in the first place, marks out the ordi- 
 nances as judgments (ideas) ; secondly, ex- 
 presses the incongruity between the unnatural 
 behaviour and the nature of the land of God, for 
 which even Israel could be spued out from it ; 
 and this brings out, iu the third place, that for 
 such very things the heathen were thrust out of 
 the land. To this threat a promise is appended 
 in conclusion. [Ver. 24.] And with this is 
 connected a noble idea : in the separation of clean 
 beasts from the unclean, the separation of Israel 
 from the heathen is to be symbolically mirrored 
 forth. The closing sentence [ver. 27] would be 
 unintelligible as a repetition (from chap. six. 
 31); evidently it is the germ of the prohibition 
 of false enthusiasm and prophecy in Israel itself 
 (see Deut. xix. 11 sqq.)." [In xix. 31, in ac- 
 cordance with the general character of chaps, 
 xviii. and xix., we have simply the prohibition 
 on the spiritual ground of the opposition to God's 
 will, without mention of specific punishments; 
 here we have throughout civil penalties attached 
 to the various offences as against the theocratic 
 state. Accordingly those that have familiar spi- 
 rits or are wizards require to be mentioned agaiu 
 in order that the death penalty may be denounced 
 against them. — F. G] 
 
 "Ver. 25 is particularly important, since it 
 contains the key to the understanding of the Le- 
 vitical distinction between clean and unclean 
 animals. Men have sought for physiological 
 reasons for this distinction, and quite lately an 
 Israelitish author has referred to the discovery of 
 the Trichina as the foundation of the prohibition 
 of swine's flesh. In regard to many of the un- 
 clean animals, there is indeed the reason of the 
 physiological unhealthiness of the flesh, or of the 
 physical aversion to their hateful appearance ; to 
 which may be added, as connected, something of 
 the physical effect of the blood of wild beasts. 
 Also the limitation of Israel to the use and sacri- 
 fice of domestic animals must have an economic 
 significance, and be, so to speak, for the benefit of 
 (he State, since it worked agaifrst the dissipa- 
 tions of the ancient hunting and the luxury of the 
 heathen, and with the cultivation of the land, 
 furthered at the same time domestic simplicity 
 and contentment." [This must be understood to 
 apply only iu a limited degree to the Israelites; 
 for they were allowed freely to hunt and eat all 
 clean wild animals, as the " roebuck and the 
 hart" (Deut. xii. 15, etc.). In regard to all 
 physiological and other reasons, it is always to 
 
 be remembered that no animals are intrinsically 
 unclean; none were excepted from the grant to 
 Noah, and none from the Christian abrogation 
 of the distinction. The law was wholly tempo- 
 rary, added "because of transgressions," to 
 constitute Israel a peculiar people. — F. G.] 
 " But the symbolic meaning of the animal world, 
 as a representation of Israel among the Gent ilea, 
 is here expressly brought out as the religious 
 main reason. Israel was to have a constant re- 
 presentation of its separation from the heathen 
 world in the separation of the clean animals, and 
 thus also the heathen world, by which it was 
 surrounded, and from which it was to understand 
 that it differed in religion and in morals, was 
 to be represented in the sphere of the unclean 
 animals. The sacred observance of the laws of 
 food was thus a constant reminder for Israel of 
 its theocratic sanctity and dignity. Thus it is 
 plain that the old distinction between clean and 
 unclean animals must fall away after the bound- 
 ary between Israel and the heathen has fallen. 
 But it is also to be recollected that Judaism 
 clung very strongly to the old distinction, as it 
 did no less to the prohibition of the use of blood; 
 and the Apostolic ordinance in regard to the last 
 particular and cognate subjects is explained to 
 mean that these laws, which had been ended as 
 religious dogmas, must yet continue for a time as 
 Christian customs for the sake of a united Chris- 
 tian fellowship. The shadowing forth of the 
 heathen world in the world of unclean beasts, 
 which is here expressly brought out, is denied by 
 Keil, in opposition to Kurtz, without reason (p. 
 95)." [Much as we may admire the beauty and 
 force of the symbolism here presented by Lange, 
 it is difficult to see how it "is here expressly 
 brought out," or even in any way alluded to in 
 the text. Certainly the observance of the dis- 
 tinction among animals is placed upon a religious 
 ground, and this observance would contribute to 
 make of Israel that separate people which God 
 had called them to be. Naturally then might 
 the Israelites themselves have compared tho 
 heathen to unclean animals; but so far is such 
 an idea from finding countenance in the word of 
 God that it is only recognised to be removed, 
 and the heathen are first represented as un- 
 clean animals in the vision of St. Peter (Acts x. 
 10-10) at the moment when such distinctions 
 were forever to be done away. The object of 
 the law was to make the distinction of animals 
 fixed and unalterable; but in regard to the 
 heathen, to encourage them to offer sacrifices 
 and partake in the worship of God, and thus to 
 be drawn into ever increasing nearness of rela- 
 tion to Him. — F. G.] 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 I. In chap, xviii. the law is given simply as 
 the will of God. Here punishments are attached 
 to disobedience as to civil offences against the 
 theocratic state. There seems no reason why 
 these two chapters should have been separated 
 except to mark this distinction emphatically. 
 Obedience to God's law is required simply be- 
 cause it is His will, and this is set forth by it- 
 self; afterwards and separately, punishments 
 are provided for those among His people who re- 
 fuse to be guided by Him. 
 
153 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 IT. In the frequent expression his or their 
 blood shall be upon him or them is a plain 
 intimation that the offender alone is responsible 
 for the evil that comes upon him. The divine 
 law, whether natural or revealed, is inexorable, 
 and he who thrusts himself across its path neces- 
 sarily incurs its penalties. There is no occasion 
 for a Divine interposition to punish, and there is 
 no room for the charge of severity ; the offender 
 braves an irresistible will, and in doing this 
 must himself alone be held responsible for the 
 result. 
 
 III. The beast involved in the guilt of man or 
 woman must be put to death with them. There 
 could be no moral guilt on the part of the beast, 
 because there was no moral responsibility; but 
 yet he must perish because he had been associated 
 in human siu. Whether this was in order to re- 
 move the tool of sin from sight simply, or whe- 
 ther it was because of the association of human 
 sin with the beast; in either case it is plain that 
 it was commanded not for the sake of the beast, 
 but of man. Here we have one of the many in- 
 stances in the law in which human associations 
 and feelings are cared for and protected, and 
 used also as means for the advancement of ho- 
 liness. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange: "The chapter of the great theocratic 
 rigor (chap, xx.) forms a contrast to the chapter 
 
 of the great theocratic mildness and purity of 
 life. Here the various measures of punishment 
 come into consideration. Burning with fire, as 
 a symbolical addition to the punishment of death, 
 is only connected with the dead body which has 
 been put to death by stoning. Then follows the 
 particular capital punishment; and next to this in- 
 definite forms of punishment, he shall bear his 
 iniquity ; and finally the punishment of child- 
 lessness, in which also we are certainly to sup- 
 pose a physical basis. The conception of the 
 abominations is the conception of that which is 
 against nature (Rem. i.), of that which, even 
 according to natural instinct, is perverse, hor- 
 rible, and a revolt against the moral law in man's 
 nature; but in regard to this, indeed, nature it- 
 self comes to the judgment like a spirit of retri- 
 bution." 
 
 The law of this, as of many other chapters, is 
 enforced on the ground that the Israelites were 
 called to be a holy people. With how great ad- 
 ditional force must this apply to Christians. Not 
 only the Israelite, but the stranger also, defiled 
 God's sanctuary and profaned His holy name by 
 sin. The same thingmustbe truealways; there 
 is no escape from responsibility because one 
 chooses not to acknowledge allegiance to God. 
 The Divine commands still rest upon him. Only 
 he has less help and support in keeping them 
 while he remains aloof from the commonwealth 
 of Israel. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 Holiness on the Part of the Priests and Holiness of the Offerings. 
 
 " The sacred observance of the priestly position, of the sacrifice, and of the priestly calling." — Lange. 
 
 Chapters XXI., XXII. 
 
 A.— "THE DESECRATION OF THE PRIESTLY POSITION AND 
 THE PRIESTLY CALLING."— Lange. 
 
 Chapter XXI. 
 
 1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and 
 
 2 say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people : but for 
 his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his 
 
 3 son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, that is 
 
 4 nigh unto him, which hath had no husband ; for her may he be defiled. But [omit 
 but] he shall not defile himself, being a chief man 1 among his people, to protane 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Ver. 4. V?DT*3 7^*3 X^ET fcw- Tlie interpretation of this obscure clause is very various. The LXX., mistaking 
 
 • T - : t - • 
 
 7173, read ou niavQrio-erai cf ajriva iv tio Aaui auTou, meaning that the priest shall not defile himself rashly or lightly. 
 
 The Syr. and Vulg. have transferred the preposition 3 from VD^ to 7_r>3 and read but he shall 7iot be defiled for a prince, 
 
 etc., a BenRo adopted by several expositors. The A. V. has followed the Tnrix. of Onk. and tb« Arab., which is interpreted to 
 mean that the priest, as occupying a high official position, head of a family, etc., should not defile himself; if this sense can 
 
 be sustained, it throws some light upon the occasional use of \T\2 for prince. It is adopted by many expositors, as Von 
 
 Gerlach and Kcil. The Targ. Jonathan, and several Jewish expositors (Kalisch also, and Knobel) understand 7^3 to 
 
 mean husband, a sufficiently well-established meaning of the word, and one which is followed in the margin of the A. V. ; 
 
CHAP. XXI. 1-24. 
 
 159 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 himself. They 2 shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave 
 off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be 
 holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God : for the offerings of 
 the Lord made by fire, and [omit and 3 ] the bread of their God they do offer: there- 
 fore they shall be holy.* 
 
 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane : neither shall they take a 
 woman put away from her husband : for he 5 is holy unto his God. Thou shalt 
 sanctify him therefore ; for he offereth the bread of thy God : he shall be holy unto 
 thee : for I the Lord, which sanctify you, 6 am holy. And the daughter of any 
 priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father : she 
 shall be burnt with fire. 
 
 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing 
 oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover 
 his head, nor rend his clothes ; neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile 
 
 12 himself for his father, or for his mother ; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, 
 nor profane the sanctuary of his God ; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God 
 
 13, 14 is upon him : I am the Lord. And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A 
 widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or 1 an harlot, these shall he not take: but 
 he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed 
 among his people: for I the Lord do sanctify him. 
 
 17 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whoso- 
 ever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not ap- 
 proach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blem- 
 ish, he shall not approach : a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or 
 
 19, 20 any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crook- 
 backt, or a dwarf, 8 or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or 
 
 21 hath his stones broken ; no man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest 
 shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire : he hath a blemish ; 
 
 22 he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of 
 2j his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the 
 
 vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not 
 24 my sanctuaries : 9 for I the Lord do sanctify them. And Moses told it unto Aaron, 
 and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 bnt this requires .for his infe to be supplied, for which there is no warrant, and it al«o seems highly improbable that mourn- 
 ing should be permitted for the relations mentioned in vers. 2, 3, and forbidden for the wife. HicnaeUa understands the 
 
 high-priest to be intended by 71*3 ; but his conduct is the special subject of vers. 10-12. On the whole, no other interpre- 
 tation s«ems sufficiently well-established to take the place of that in the A. V., although even that can hardly be considered 
 as satisfactory. In any case it is better to omit the interpolated but at the beginning of the ver-e. 
 
 2 Vers. o. The KYi ^PHp" 1 indicated by the Masoretic punctuation of the text nrpp" is sustained by the Sam. and 
 
 all the versions. 
 
 3 Ver. 6. The sense is rather obscured than helped by the interpolated and, which is better omitted. 
 
 ■* Ver. 6. The Heb. has l^Tp in the sing., doubtless to be understood as an abstract term. The Sam. and all the ver- 
 sions have the plural. 
 
 5 Vera. 7, B. The enaUage of numbers creates a slight obscurity, bnt the A. V. faithfully follows the Heb. 
 
 • Ver. 8. The Sam., LXX., and Vulg., have the pronoun in the third person 
 
 * Ver. 14. The missing conjunction is supplied in the Sam. and the versions. 
 
 8 Ver. 20. pi signifies something small or thin. The text of the A- V., seems preferable to the margin, as it is scarcely 
 
 to be supposed that the case of the dwarf would bo omitted. Fuerst, however, renders it consumjrtive ; Vnlg., hi far-eyed, 
 and so Onk., and apparently the LXX. e^ijAos. Syr. = little. 
 
 9 Ver. 23. The LXX. has the sing, to dyiov. The plural is generally understood to signify the holy placo and the holy 
 of holies ; some interpreters, however, (Boothroyd, Bosenmueller) would translate my hallowed things. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Lange : u The symbolic side of the Levitical 
 law, which was brought out so powerfully at the 
 close of the last chapter, is likewise not to be 
 mistaken in the commands for keeping holy the 
 priestly calling. Owing to the symbolic mean- 
 ing of these commands they are connected by 
 manifold analogies with heathen laws and cus- 
 toms enacted to secure the priestly dignity. 
 Compare the references on this subject in Kno- 
 
 bel, p. 517 sqq. ; Keil, p. 141." [Trans, p. 430, 
 432. " The testimonies which Knobel and seve- 
 ral of the older commentators have collected to 
 show that the priests of the Egyptians, Greeks, 
 Romans and other nations avoided funerals and 
 contact with the dead, afford but an imperfect 
 parallel to these Levitical laws concerning 
 
 the priests Wherever this feeling 
 
 was recognized in a ceremonial usage, the priest, 
 from his office, would naturally be expected to 
 observe the highest standard of purity. But the 
 laws which regulated the priesthood of the chosen. 
 
160 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 people had a deeper basis than this. They had 
 to administer a law of life. ... St. Cyril truly 
 observes that the Hebrew priests were the in- 
 struments of the divine will for averting death, 
 that all their sacrifices were a type of the death 
 of Christ, which swallowed up death in victory, 
 and that it would have been unsuitable that they 
 should have the same freedom as other people to 
 become mourners. Glaphyra in Lev., p. 430." 
 Clark.— F. G.]. 
 
 " In the first, p'ace it is to be noticed that there 
 is here brought out a gradation of the symbolism 
 that the laws in regard to dignity are stronger 
 in the case of the high-priest than in the case 
 of the sons of Aaron, the common priests. While 
 these, who were at first Aaron's sons, were ele- 
 vated above the common people (as this also out- 
 ranked the heathen in its sanctity), so the high- 
 priest again was raised above his sons ; he 
 formed the symbolical centre and summit of the 
 personal sanctity towards God, and of exclusion 
 as respects the unclean or that which was Levi- 
 tically ' common.' " Lange. 
 
 With this chapter begins a new Parashah, or 
 Proper Lesson of the law extending through 
 ch. xxiv. " The parallel Ilaphtarah, or Proper 
 Lesson of the Prophe.s, is Ezek. xliv. 15-31, 
 which contains ordinances for the priests, and 
 is the best commentary on the present chapter." 
 Wordsworth. 
 
 The purity and holiness required of the priest- 
 hood in this chap, is evidently a necessary con- 
 sequence of the peculiar relation in which they 
 stood to God and the people. It is substantially 
 the same as that required of all the holy people, 
 but is emphasized and extended somewhat be- 
 yond that which the people generally were able 
 to bear, because it especially devolved upon them 
 to " draw nigh unto the Lord." For the same 
 reason still more strict obligations are laid upon 
 the high-priests. In vers. 1-6 they are forbidden 
 to defile themselves by touching the dead, or by 
 signs of mourning ; in 7-9 they are required to 
 contract a spotless marriage and maintain purity 
 in their families; in 10-15 the same duties, some- 
 what exteuded, are still more emphatically re- 
 quired of the high-priest; and in conclusion, 
 vers. 16-24, the physical impedimeats to the ex- 
 ercise of the priestly office are detailed. 
 
 Vers. 1—4. The priest may not defile himself 
 on account of a dead person (ffSJ lit, a soul), 
 with an exception however in the case of the 
 very nearest of kin. The virgin sister, as yet 
 unbetrothed, is included in the list; but after 
 her betrothal or marriage, she passed into the 
 family of another, and the exemption ceases. 
 The principle of the exception seems to be sim- 
 ply a regard for human feelings. The fact that 
 the tent or house was defiled, ipso facto, by the 
 presence of a dead body, and therefore the priest 
 could not avoid defilement in such cases (Keil) 
 forms no sufficient explanation of the exception ; 
 for this would be true when a slave died in the 
 house, which is not included, and would often 
 not be true in the case of a father, which is in- 
 cluded. It is remarkable that there is no men- 
 tion of the wife — the Rabbins say because she 
 and her husband were "one flesh." Lange (see 
 below) makes a distinction between a passive 
 
 defilement which was inevitable in the case of a 
 death in the house, and which is too self-evident 
 to require especial mention ; and the active de- 
 filement of proclaiming one's grief, using the 
 customary marks of mourning and burying the 
 dead, which he considers were forbidden to the 
 priest, as belonging to the class of the chief men, 
 on occasion of the death of his wife. It seems 
 more probable that the instances mentioned in 
 ver. 2 are of the nature of limitations, and that 
 the marriage relationship is not mentioned be- 
 cause it is nearer thau any of them, and there- 
 fore included within them all. Notwithstanding 
 the permission in the eases mentioned above, the 
 priest, by contact with the dead, still became 
 defiled for seven days, and was then required to 
 offer a sin offering (see Ezek. xliv. 25-27). No 
 penalty is provided for a violation of this law. 
 On ver. 4 see Textual Notes. 
 
 Vers. 5, 6. The prohibition to the priests of 
 the marks of mouruing for the dead, customary 
 among the surrounding nations, is extended in 
 Deut. xiv. 1 to the whole body of the people. 
 The command to the priests is expressly made to 
 rest upon their official duties. On the expres- 
 sion bread of their God see on iii. 11. avh 
 is indifferently rendered in the A. V.food, bread, 
 and meat, Ouly the last is objectionable on ac- 
 count of the change in the use of the English 
 word. 
 
 Vers. 7-9. The marriage of the priests and the 
 life of their families likewise must, not be allowed 
 to present a contrast to their holy calling. They 
 might marry any reputable woman, whether Is- 
 raelite or foreigner, excepting of course women 
 from those idolatrous tribes of the Canaanites 
 which were forbidden to all the people. Exod. 
 xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 3. In after times this law 
 was made more stringent, Ezek. xliv. 22. They 
 might not take to wife a common prostitute, nor 
 one profane, i. e., a woman who had fallen, or 
 as some Jewish authorities hold, one of illegiti- 
 mate birth. Briefly, their wives must be of un- 
 blemished and spotless character, and hence they 
 were forbidden to take one already repudiated. 
 In ver. 8 the change of person is generally held 
 to indicate a change of address to the people of 
 Israel; but this is unnecessary. It is simply 
 the ordinary form of direct command. Because 
 it was the priest's office to offer the bread of 
 thy God, therefore his life and surroundings 
 must be in harmony with his holy calling. The 
 priest's family, also, by a propriety felt in all 
 ages, must, be ordered in accordance with his 
 sacred duties, and the outrageous violation of 
 this in his daughter's becoming a prosi itute must 
 not only be punished with death, but the dead 
 body be visited with the symbolical punishment 
 of burning. 
 
 Vers. 10—15. The same commands are applied 
 with greater emphasis, and with some extension, 
 to the high-priest. He is described by the pecu- 
 liar fulness of the anointing he had received 
 (vers. 10, 12), and by his being consecrated 
 to put on the garments, viz., those appointed 
 for the official costume of the high-priest, in 
 which Aaron had been arrayed at his consecra- 
 tion; and which descended to his successors. To 
 him the accustomed marks of mourniug, and all 
 
CHAP. XXI. 1-24. 
 
 161 
 
 contact with a dead body, even that of the near- 
 est relative, are forbidden. He must not go out 
 of the sanctuary for this purpose (not that 
 the sanctuary was to be his constant abode, Bllhr 
 and Baunigarten), nor profane the sanctuary 
 by this defilement of his person. He was also 
 restricted in marriage to a virgin of Israel, ver. 
 14; by any other marriage he would profane 
 his seed. 
 
 Lange : "Whatever may belong to the defile- 
 ment by the dead, it is certainly to be noticed 
 that nothing is here said in any way of dying 
 persons, or of death itself, but of dead bodies. 
 The recollection of Egypt, especially of the Egyp- 
 tian cultus of dead bodies conies here into the 
 foreground. The defilement by the dead in- 
 cluded not merely the touching in itself, which 
 is so natural to excited grief, but also the parti- 
 cipation in the burial, and the customs of mourn- 
 ing. But that which among the heathen was an 
 expression of horror, so that it was said even of 
 Apollo himself, Let him shun the scenes of death, 
 appears here rather as a prelude of the subli- 
 mity of the Christian view of death. The hor- 
 ror would indeed appear strongest at the sight 
 of the dead body of a blood relative, yet here 
 humanity places itself on the opposite side as a 
 limit of the symbolism, and allows the defilement 
 in the case of the nearest family relations with 
 the exception of the married sister who now be- 
 longs to another family circle. Ver. 4 certainly 
 appears to say that a man as a husband shall 
 not defile himself for the dead body of his wife, 
 as the foregoing specification and determination 
 concerning the married sister might already in- 
 timate. Concerning this, see below/' [above 
 under ver. 4]. " The reason is well expressed 
 in ver. 6 : for the offerings of the LORD 
 made by fire, the bread of their God they 
 do offer. — Since they know, or at least have 
 some idea of what the sacrifice signifies — an en- 
 tire resignation to the living God, — they cannot 
 mourn and despair as those who have little or 
 no hope, without strengthening the delusion of 
 despair, by which the Israelites would dishonor 
 the name of their God, Jehovah. There is an 
 extravagance of lamentation which takes the ap- 
 pearance of a resentment and contention with 
 God in regard to the dead ; among the people of 
 God this should be excluded by the feeling of 
 reverence : — the Lord has done it. 
 
 " Three kinds of women are excluded from 
 the priestly marriage: the whore, the profane, 
 the divorced. To the high-priest the taking 
 of a widow is also forbidden. We call to mind 
 Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, who be- 
 came ancestors in Israel (Matt. i. ), and it is thus 
 plain thaUhe subject is here a purely Old Tes- 
 tament regulation of symbolical signification. 
 By the marriage of the priest with a virgin is 
 signified that the theocratic marriage could and 
 should be consecrated to the rearing up of the 
 hereditary blessing (see Jno. i. 13, 14). Thus 
 also he was to appear to the people as a conse- 
 crated personality. But the dark contrast is the 
 ruined priestly family,* and the saddest instance 
 is the ruined priest's daughter; if she has only 
 
 * "Or also the family of a pnator. In a poem by Heine it 
 is depicted with dark touches." 
 
 begun to be a whore, she has fallen under the 
 judgment of fire. 
 
 *' The third division treats of the sons of the 
 priests having bodily defects, or afflicted with 
 corporeal blemishes (wherein spiritual reasons 
 are evidently included). Here also the prevail- 
 ing symbolical purpose is not to be mistaken. 
 The sacrificers must appear as the type of per- 
 fection, as also the sacrifice in the following sec- 
 tion. Hence the blind and lame, the sons of 
 Aaron with misshapen noses and limbs, having 
 some bodily defect in hand or foot, etc. (vers. 18- 
 20) correspond to the faulty sacrificial animals, 
 ch. xxii. 23-25. The strong exclusion demanded 
 by the cultus for the sake of its symbolism was 
 compensated by the compassionate provision 
 that they should have their portion of all sacri- 
 ficial food of the active priests, whereby they are 
 in some sort to be compared with Emeritus offi- 
 cials who draw their full salary. They do not 
 offer the bread of their God, as the offerings 
 are collectively called, inasmuch as these culmi- 
 nated in the shew-bread ; but yet they eat the 
 bread of their God, as well of the most holy 
 as of the holy, i. e., not only of the wave offer- 
 ings, firstlings, etc. (Num. xviii. 11, 19, and 26- 
 29) but also of the peculiar priestly portion of 
 the sacrifices, the oblations, etc. See Keil, p. 34 
 [Trans, p. 433]. But if the priestly access unto 
 the vail and unto the altar is denied them, 
 it appears that this is here spoken of their offi- 
 cial functions. Moreover it is emphasized that 
 Moses communicated these commands not only 
 unto Aaron and to his sons ; but unto all 
 the children of Israel who ought to know how 
 their priests should conduct themselves." Lange. 
 
 A death in a dwelling defiled every thing in 
 the dwelling, and every one who entered it. 
 Deaths, however, must necessarily occur in 
 priestly families beyond the limits of the allow- 
 able cases of defilement, and also in the house 
 of the high-priest to whom no defilement what- 
 ever was allowed. Lange therefore well says, 
 "A distinction must be made between passive 
 sorrow and defilement, which might happen even 
 to the high-priest in his own house, and active 
 uucleanness which came about by the rending 
 of the clothes and going to the dead body." 
 Accordingly the prohibition to the high-priest is 
 couched in terms (vers. 10-12) indicating the ac- 
 tive defilement. 
 
 Vers. 16-24. These directions concerning the 
 descendants of Aaron who should have any bodily 
 defect are founded upon the general principle, 
 appearing in every part of the law, that what- 
 ever is devoted to the service of God should be 
 as perfect as possible in its kind. "As the spi- 
 ritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily 
 form, only a faultless condition of body could 
 correspond to the holiness of the priest; just as 
 the Greeks and Romans required, for the very 
 same reason, that the priests should be bld^r/poi, 
 integri corporis (Plato de legg. 6, 759 ; Seneca ex- 
 cerpt, controv. 4, 2; Plutarch gusest. rom. 73). 
 Consequently none of the descendants of Aaron 
 in their generations, i. e., in all future gene- 
 rations (see Ex. xii. 14), were to approach the 
 vail, i. e., enter the holy place, or draw near to 
 the altar (in the court) to offer the food of Jeho- 
 vah, viz., the sacrifices." Keil. Persons thus in- 
 
162 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 capacitated for the exercise of the active duties 
 of the priesthood are yet especially allowed to 
 partake of the priests' portion of the sacrifices 
 (ver. 22), and doubtless received their share of 
 the tithes for the support of the priests. By 
 custom they were employed in many duties per- 
 taining to the priesthood which did not require 
 the prohibited approach to the altar or entrance 
 into the holy place ; such as the examination of 
 leprous persons, houses, and things, the carrying 
 of the ashes without the camp, and many duties 
 of a similar character. 
 
 At the beginning of the chapter Moses is di- 
 rected to make this communication to the 
 priests the sons of Aaron; at the end (ver. 
 24) we read that he told it not only to them, but 
 unto all the children of Israel. This is in 
 accordance with the whole character of the law. 
 Each particular communication is immediately 
 addressed to those whose duties it concerns; but 
 at the same time, no part of the law was to be 
 the exclusive possession, or under the exclusive 
 guardianship of any class. Every part of it was 
 to be diligently taught to every Israelite. The 
 Divine law was the common heritage of all, and 
 all were interested inseeing thatit was observed. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. All the precepts of this chapter tend to a 
 single point— the peculiar purity and symbolical 
 holiness required of those who ministered before 
 God. From the centre of the absolute Divine 
 holiness spread out ever-widening circles, and to 
 each is attached a minimum of symbolical holi- 
 ness without which it cannot be entered. The 
 heathen in the outermost circle, as human beings, 
 still had the light of nature and conscience; 
 these laid upon them duties for the violation of 
 which they were cast out of their homes and de- 
 stroyed ; the people of Israel formed an inner 
 circle of higher obligations ; but those chosen 
 from them to draw nigh to God on their behalf, 
 must come under a still stricter rule. All this 
 points unmistakably to the holiness of Him who 
 is the centre of all, and shows that the partaking 
 of His holiness is the necessary condition of ap- 
 proach to Him. 
 
 II. The families of the priests were so inti- 
 mately associated with their own proper person- 
 ality, that something of the requirements for the 
 priests themselves must also be demanded of 
 them. This rests upon a fundamental principle 
 of fitness, and is again repeatedly insisted upon 
 in the New Testament in regard to the Christian 
 minister. See 1 Tim. iii. 11, 12; Tit. i. 6. 
 
 III. The absolute holiness required of those 
 who presented offerings to God could be only 
 symbolical ; but the fact that it was symbolical 
 points to One who fulfilled the symbolism, even 
 to Christ, who was alone perfect in holiness ; 
 therefore through Him alone can any acceptable 
 gifts be offered to God. 
 
 V. Physical blemishes, because they symbo- 
 lized spiritual defects, hindered the priests from 
 ministering before God on man's behalf; yet 
 these did not prevent their eating of the sacri- 
 fices, thus at once receiving their own support, 
 and representing Ood in the receiving of that 
 which the sacrificer offered. Thus is brought 
 out the two-fold relation in those who minister 
 
 for the people toward God : on the one hand they 
 may only draw nigh to Him on the basis of per- 
 fect holiness, and for sinful man this can be ac- 
 complished only through the mediation of Christ ; 
 on the other, the grace proceeding from Him is 
 not hindered by the unworthiness of those 
 through whom it comes. Always we must "have 
 this treasure in earthen vessels." The feeble 
 stream from man to God would be turned back 
 by the obstacles in its chaunel but for the all- 
 availing efficacy of the intercession of Christ; 
 but the full flow of God's mercies in Christ is 
 powerful enough to sweep by all such barriers. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 "The person, life and house of the'priest must 
 especially be kept holy. For this, the law of 
 God knows a more human way than the law of 
 the Pope (xxi. 13). The features of the symbo- 
 lical consecrated state of the priest are spiritu- 
 ally explained. The fearful picture of a dese- 
 crated, profane, or very vicious priestly house. 
 How far also can the sacrifice be designated as 
 the bread of God ? In reference to the Being of 
 God Himself, the true sacrifice is an object of 
 His good pleasure. In reference to the power 
 of God, it is the noblest and most fitting means 
 of drawing near to His fire. In reference to the 
 idea of God in the world, it is a perpetual means 
 of freshening, deepening, and strengthening it." 
 Lange. 
 
 The priestly requirement of holiness, symbo- 
 lical of old for those whose office it was to draw 
 near to God, must rest now in its literal force 
 upon all Christians, " a royal priesthood," who 
 must ever draw near by the new and living way 
 consecrated for them. As the headship of the 
 priest over his household required that they also 
 should present no striking contrast to his purity ; 
 so, on the same principle, it must be incumbent 
 upon all men that those over whom they have 
 influence and control should be so ordered in 
 their lives as not to present to the world a con- 
 trast to the principles they themselves profess. 
 
 Excessive mourning is forbidden to the priests; 
 all mourning is restricted to the circle of the 
 nearest relations, and to the high-priest is for- 
 bidden altogether. Thus is clearly shown that 
 however on earth something may be conceded to 
 the weakness of sorrowing humanity, yet sorrow 
 for the departed is not the proper garb in which 
 to draw near to God. This is more fully de- 
 clared through Him who is the Resurrection and 
 the Life, and the Christian cannot sorrow for 
 those who sleep in Him as men without hope. 
 Thus the reproof of excessive indulgence in sor- 
 row, so plainly brought out under the new dis- 
 pensation, is here foreshadowed by the laws 
 of the Mosaic covenant. . 
 
 In ver. 24 we see that, although the priests 
 were separated from the people by their special 
 divine appointment, the laws for their govern- 
 ment were yet communicated to all the people 
 that they might be under the observation of the 
 whole community in their conduct. So it must 
 ever be if the ministry is to be preserved in its 
 purity ; and the germs of decay are already sown 
 in that body which refuses to recognize its re- 
 sponsibility to the public opinion of the Chris- 
 tian community. 
 
CHAP. XXII. 1-33. 163 
 
 B.— "KEEPING HOLT OF THE SACRIFICE, OR OF WHAT HAS BEEN HALLOWED."— 
 
 Lange. 
 
 Chapter XXII. 1-33. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, 
 that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and 
 that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me : I 
 
 3 am the Lord. Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your 
 generations, that gocth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow 
 unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from 
 
 4 my presence: I am the Lord. What man soever of the seed of Aaran is a leper, 
 or hath a running issue ; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. 
 And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed 
 
 5 goeth from him ; or whosoever toucheth any 1 creeping thing, whereby he may be 
 made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, 2 whatsoever uncleanness 
 
 6 he hath; the soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and 
 
 7 shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash [bathe 3 ] his flesh with water. And 
 when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; 
 
 8 because it is his food. That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall 
 
 9 not eat to defile himself therewith : I am the Lord. They shall therefore keep 
 mine ordinance,* lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it : I 
 the Lord do sanctify them. 
 
 10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing : a sojourner of the priest, or an 
 
 11 hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. But if the priest buy any soul with 
 his money, he shall eat of it, and he 5 that is born in his house : they shall eat of 
 
 12 his meat [food 6 ]. If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she 
 
 13 may not cat of an offering of the holy things. But if the priest's daughter be a 
 widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as' 
 in her youth, she shall eat of her lather's meat [food 6 ] : but there shall no stranger 
 
 14 eat thereof. And if a man cat of the holy thing unwittingly [inadvertently 8 ], then 
 he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the 
 
 15 holy thing. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, 
 
 16 which they offer 9 unto the Lord; or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, 
 when they eat [or, lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating 10 ] 
 their holy things : for I the Lord do sanctify them. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 5. The Sam. and LXX. Bupply the word unclean. According to the law, tho "creeping thing" cotlld only com- 
 municate uncleanness when dead. 
 
 2 Ver, o.jRosenmuller translates : or a man who may be unclean on account of it, sc. the creeping thing. He refers the 
 pronoun in V? to y^iy. 
 
 3 Ver. 0. ym. See Textual Note » on xiv. 8. 
 
 * Ver. 9. , J1*1DB'D — TW ^*10C/. The want of an appropriate verb and noun from tho same root in English makes it 
 • : - : • v : t 
 impossible to give the full force of this phrase so often impressively repeated. See Gen. xxvi. 5; Lev. viii. 35; Num. iii. 
 7 ; ix. 10. Lange uses a paraphrase : Vnd sie soUen beobachten, was gegen mich ztt beobachten ist. 
 
 6 Ver. 11. The Sam., LXX. and Chald. have the plural. 
 
 « Ver. 11. l'Sn 73- See Com. on xxi. 6. On the daghesh in the see Textual Note » on iv. 13. 
 
 7 Ver. 13. Sixteen MSS. for the particle of comparison 2 have 3- 
 
 8 Ver. 14. rUJn3. See Textual Note 1 on iv. 2. 
 
 " tt : • 
 Ver. 15. $0*V, lit. which they heave or lift up; but evidently the reference is more general than to the heave-offer- 
 
 • T 
 
 ings. and the off r of the A. V. is by all means to be retained. 
 
 10 Ver. 16. The sense of this verse is doubtful. The A. V., Patrick, Pool, Keil and others refer the pronouns them and 
 they to the people, and understand the precept that the priests should prevent the people from eating of the holy things 
 which it belonged to the priests to eat; on the other hand, tho margin of the A. V., Calvin, Knobel. Zunz, Riggs and Lange 
 understand it as meaning lade themselves icilh the iniquity of trespass in their eating. The latter is more in accordance with 
 the general subject of the chapter, and is preferable. So the LXX. understood by the use of e'avToiiy. So Houbigant. 
 
164 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 19 
 20 
 
 17, 18 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, 
 and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the 
 house of Israel, or of the strangers" in Israel, that will offer his oblatiou [offering 12 ] 
 for all [any of] his vows, and for all [any of J his free-will offerings, which they 
 will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering ; ye shall offer at your own will [for 
 your acceptance 13 ] a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the 
 goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer : for it shall not be 
 
 21 acceptable for you And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the 
 Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep [of the flock 14 ], 
 
 22 it shall be perfect to be accepted : there shall be no blemish therein. Blind, or 
 broken, or maimed, 15 or having a wen [or ulcerous 16 ], or scurvy, or scabbed, ye 
 shall not offer these unto the Lord, nor make au offering by fire of them upon the 
 
 23 altar unto the Lord. Either a bullock or a lamb [one of the flock 17 ] that hath 
 anything superfluous 18 or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill 
 
 24 offering ; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. Ye shall not offer unto the Lord 
 that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut ; neither shall ye make any 
 
 25 offering thereof [make such 1 *] in your land. Neither from a stranger's 20 hand shall 
 ye offer the bread of your God of any of these ; because their corruption is in them, 
 and blemishes be in them : they shall not be accepted for you. 
 
 26, 27 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, When a bullock, or a sheep, or a 
 goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam ; and from the 
 eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto 
 the Lord. And whether it be cow or ewe [female of the flock 21 ], ye shall not kill 
 it and her young both in one day. 
 
 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at 
 
 30 your own will [for your acceptance 13 ]. On the same day it shall be eaten up ; ye 
 shall leave none of it until the morrow : I am the Lord. 
 
 Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them : I am the Lord. 
 Neither shall ye profane my holy name ; but I will be hallowed among the chil- 
 dren of Israel : I am the Lord which hallow you, that brought you out of the land 
 of Egypt, to be your God : I am the Lord. 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 
 11 Ver. 18. The Sam., 14 MSS , and all tbe ancient versions supply that sojourn, 
 13 Ver. 18. imp. See Textual Note - on ii. 1. 
 I t : It . 
 
 13 Ver. 19. DJJi"l7- See Textual Note * on i. 3. Comp. also Ter. 21. 
 
 14 Ver. 21. |Xi'3 includes both sheep (A. V.) and goats (marg.). It is better therefore to use the ordinary comprehen- 
 sive term. 
 
 15 Ver. 22. On the precise sense of V^nn, the authorities differ. LXX. yXwavoT fj.riTQv=having the tongue cut; Targ. 
 
 Jon.=havin<i the eyelids torn; Jerome, eicatricem habens. The A. V. has followed the Targ. Onk. in a sense which may be 
 considered as sufficiently general to include all the others. 
 
 16 Ver. 22. H /3\ adj. fern, from S^^fo floxc. It is an-. Key., but there seems no doubt of its meaning. 
 
 W Ver. 23. J"|iy ia neither specifically a lamb (A. V.) nor a hid (marg.), but may be either. See Textual Note 14 on 
 ver. 21. Gesen. : "a noun of unity corresponding to the collect. TX3f» a flock, so. of sheep or goats." 
 
 18 Ver. 23. J,*}"")^ is an animal which has an inequality between the corresponding parts, as the two legs, or two 
 
 eyes, so that one of them is longer or larger than it should be; while Oi/p> °Q the other hand, signifies one having such 
 
 It 
 part smaller than its normally developed fellow. 
 
 19 Ver. 24 According to all authorities the preceding clause refers to the four ways of castration practised among the 
 ancients (see Aristot. hid. an. ix. 37, 3, and the other authorities cited by Knobel and Keil); the latter clause contains, inci- 
 dentally, an absolute prohibition of such customs in the land, and has DOthing to do with sacrifice, there being no word 
 for offering in the Neb. Such is the interpretation of Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and of the Jewish authorities generally. 
 So also tbe LXX., the Targs., and the Vulg. The sense of the A. V., however, is found in the Syr.* and is sustained by 
 Knobel and Lontce, who says expressly: "It is particularly to be noticed that castration of animals was not universally 
 forbidden in I&rsiel, only no castrated animals might be offered in sacrifice." 
 
 20 Ver. 25. "13J-J3, a different word from the IT of ver. 10 and the "lj of ver. 18, and probably referring to a for- 
 
 T" Iv t 
 
 eigner, not even Bojonrning in the land.. 
 
 21 Ver. 28. See Note " on ver. 23. 1j2~riX1 IjIX in masc. form ; but Rosenmuller notes that in regard to brute ani- 
 mals, the verbs, as well as the nouns and adjectives, take no note of Bex. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Tbe analysis of this chapter given by Keil is 
 a very clear one. "Vers. 1-16. Reverence 
 for things sanctified.— The law on this mat- 
 
 ter was (1) that no priest who had become un- 
 clean was to touch or eat them (vers. 2-9), and 
 (2) that no one was to eat of them who was not 
 a member of the priestly family (vers. 10-16). 
 Vers. 17-33. Acceptable Sacrifices." Lange 
 introduces the chapter thus: "The keeping 
 
CHAP. XXII. 1-33. 
 
 165 
 
 holy of the sacrifice was to correspond to the 
 keeping holy of the priesthood, since this is 
 indeed at the bottom an expression of keeping 
 the priesthood holy. It was most strongly in- 
 sisted upon." The centre, however, of the 
 whole Levitical system is rather the sacrifice 
 than the priest, and the priest is for the sake of 
 the sacrifice, as is distinctly brought out in this 
 chapter, rather than the reverse. Certainly the 
 sacrifice was earlier, and the necessity for it 
 more fundamental. The symbolical holiness of 
 the priesthood must therefore be considered as 
 an essential requirement in order to their offer- 
 ing of acceptable sacrifices. Lange thus ana- 
 lyzes the chapter: "a. In relation to the con- 
 duct of the priest, vers. 3-9. b. In relation to 
 the conduct of the laity, vers. 10-16. c. In 
 relation to the condition of the sacrificial ani- 
 mals, and especially to the fact that everything 
 defective was excluded, vers. 17-25; but also 
 that every proper offering was to be offered to 
 the Lord in the right way, or to be eaten as a 
 thank-offering, vers. 26-33." 
 
 The chapter consists of three Divine commu- 
 nications, all given to Moses, the first (vers. 
 1-16) to be communicated to Aaron and his sons, 
 prescribing under what conditions the priests 
 are not to touch the offerings (1-0), and who 
 beside the priests might partake of them (10-16) ; 
 the second (17-25) is to be communicated not 
 only to Aaron, but unto all the children of 
 Israel, determining the quality of the victims ; 
 while the third (26-33) is to Moses alone, pre- 
 scribing certain conditions to be observed with 
 all victims, and concluding the chapter. 
 
 Vers. 1-9. For his view of the difficult passage 
 in ver. 2, Lange refers to his translation, which 
 runs thus: that they profane not my holy- 
 name — even they, -who have it in charge 
 to keep holy for Me," thus referring the 
 relative "*£'X to the name. Other commenta- 
 tors refer it to the holy things of the chil- 
 dren of Israel, as in the A. V., LXX. and 
 Vulg. (Rosenmiiller, Knobel, Kalisch, Murphy, 
 Keil, Clark, etc.). The sense of the whole verse 
 is certainly that the priests should not profane 
 the holy gifts of the people by approaching them 
 when themselves in a condition unlawful for 
 priestly ministrations. The expression sepa- 
 rate themselves from the holy things is 
 clearly to be understood as meaning under the 
 circumstances mentioned below. ""ljin with 
 ]D, to keep away, separate one's self from any- 
 thing, ;'. e. not to regard or treat them as on a 
 par with unconsecrated things." Keil. The 
 Divine acceptance of the sacrifices was expressed 
 by the priests' eating certain parts of them as 
 the representatives of God. These were allowed 
 to be eaten by those who were permanently dis- 
 qualified by physical defects from offering the 
 sacrifices (xxi. 22); but if consumed by those 
 in a state of uncleanness, would be a profanation 
 of the name of the Lord. The prohibition ex- 
 tends not only to the eating, but to the touching 
 them at all. Ver. 3. Shall be cut off from 
 my presence is considered by Rosenmiiller 
 and others as equivalent to the expression " shall 
 be cut off from the midst of his people." A bet- 
 ter interpretation (Knobel, Clark) is that it 
 
 means: " shall be excluded from the sanctuary" 
 — deprived of his priestly office. Lange, how- 
 ever, interprets it that " the penalty of death is 
 pronounced upon every one of the priestly family 
 who approaches the holy things in a state of 
 uncleanness, whether it be to offer or to eat the 
 priestly sacrificial food." But he afterwards 
 adds : " With the positive death penalty is con- 
 nected at the same time a mysterious destiny 
 of death, which Jehovah reserves to Himself. 
 The legislation has as yet no idea of the ruder 
 forms of desecration of the sacrifice in the future 
 as e. g. 1 Sam. ii. 12 sqq." This was the pe- 
 nalty attached to the violation of any of the pre- 
 cepts in this paragraph. The uncleannesses 
 mentioned in vers. 4-0 have already been treated 
 in their appropriate places. They are only 
 mentioned here as showing that they excluded 
 the priest from contact with holy things. Vers. 
 6, 7, prescribe for the priest, as for the people 
 in similar cases, the simplest forms of purifica- 
 tion, and when these are observed, limit the 
 time of the uncleanness to the going down of the 
 sun. In accordance with the considerate cha- 
 racter of the Divine legislation, it then allows 
 him to eat of the sacrifice, because it is his 
 food. In ver. 8 the eating of that which had 
 not been properly slain, and was therefore still 
 contaminated with the blood, is forbidden with 
 especial emphasis to the priests whose othce was 
 to make atonement with the blood. This had 
 already been forMdden to all the people (xi. 39, 
 40) with but a slight penalty for transgression. 
 Here the transgression for the priest comes 
 under the heavier sentence of ver. 3. Calvin 
 notes that such a special prohibition was needed 
 lest the priests might think themselves, in virtue 
 of their office, exempt from the laws binding 
 upon the rest of the people. Ver. 9. Lest 
 they bear sin for it, and die therefore, 
 gives the penalty in general of a priestly ne- 
 glect to keep God's ordinance, but is not 
 necessarily to be understood of the penalty for 
 the breach of each particular precept mentioned. 
 The command herei as everywhere, is made to 
 rest upon the consideration, I the LORD do 
 sanctify them. 
 
 Vers. 10-16. This forms the second part of 
 the first Divine communication, and prescribes 
 who beside the priests themselves might or might 
 not eat of the holy things. It has nothing to do 
 with the most holy things which could be eaten 
 only by the priests themselves. "The IT is 
 the stranger relatively ; accordingly those who 
 are not Israelites, not Levites, not relatives; 
 here, those who are not priests. He might not 
 eat of the holy food of the offerings, however 
 near he might stand to the priest as a neighbor, 
 or a day laborer; but on the other hand, the 
 purchased slave, since he had become by cir- 
 cumcision an Israelite and one of the household 
 of the priest, might certainly eat of it, together 
 with those born in the priest's house. And here 
 again the house appears in its full theocratic signifi- 
 cance. (Comp. Com. on Matt., p. 146.) It re- 
 sults from this, that the married daughter of 
 a priest is excluded; she belonged to another 
 house (if it were a priestly house, she might of 
 course eat there with them). Her right revives 
 
166 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 again, however, if she comes back to her father's 
 bouse as a childless widow or divorced ; but if 
 she had children, she formed with the children 
 another house. If one who had no right ate of 
 the holy things by mistake, he must make resti- 
 tution to the priest for what he had eaten, and 
 add a fifth part thereto. " The verse refers only 
 to something unimportant, for in the case of 
 greater things he was commanded, moreover, to 
 offer a trespass offering (eh. v. 15)." Knobel. 
 The difference is in this, that here the subject is 
 the transgression of eating the priestly portion 
 of the heave offering ; there, of heedless injury 
 done to the sanctuary in regard to the portion 
 hallowed to Jehovah. : ' [It seems more proba- 
 ble that the case here referred to is exactly 
 included under that in v. 15, 16, and that the 
 trespass offering is not expressly mentioned here 
 because it is only necessary to show that this 
 case comes under the category of those for which 
 the trespass offering was required. Calvin well 
 observes that this prohibition was necessary to 
 prevent the "holy things being regarded as 
 common food." — F. G.] " Here too the law is 
 led back to I the LORD do sanctify them. 
 The history of David (1 Sam. xxi.) and the New 
 Testament explanation of it (Matt. xii. 3) show 
 that necessity provided exceptions to this rule. 
 But the rule rests upon the truth that religion 
 must be kept holy, in the strongest sense, even 
 in its sacrifices, otherwise guilt will accumulate 
 upon the people who profess the religion (ver. 
 16). When deceit is practised against Jehovah 
 in any way, e.g. by feigned fasts, by asceticism, 
 joined with secret sins, by fanatic faith joined 
 with a life of plunder, the manliness itself of 
 the natural man is buried more and more, and 
 the intercourse of the people loses more and more 
 of its saving salt of moral truth — not to speak 
 of the refiuing fire of the spirit of the new birth. 
 — When they eat their holy things.— That 
 which as holy things belonged to them no long- 
 er." Lange. On the meaning of the last clause 
 see Textual Note 10. The provision in regard 
 to the purchased servant in ver. 11 is of impor- 
 tance as showing how completely such servants 
 became identified with the house of their mas- 
 ters. The command was given only about a 
 year after the Exodus when the tribes of Israel 
 doubtless included a large number of the cir- 
 cumcised descendants of the servants of the 
 patriarchs ; but there can be no stronger iden- 
 tification than is here given in allowing the pur- 
 chased servants of the priests from whatever 
 nation, in contradistinction to a servant hired 
 from any other family in Israel, to eat of the 
 priestly portion of the holy things. 
 
 Vers. 17-25. Moses is directed to convey this 
 communication unto all the children of 
 Israel, because it was important to have them 
 all entirely familiar with the conditions neces- 
 sary to an acceptable victim. They were to 
 know all the laws ; but their attention would 
 naturally be more fixed upon those which were 
 immediately addressed to them. The law in 
 regard to the victims necessarily applies to all 
 cases, whether they were offered by persons of 
 the house of Israel, or of the strangers 
 (ver. 18), because it prescribes what was re- 
 quired in the victim itself in order to its accept- 
 
 ance. The burnt offering is first treated of 
 (vers. 18-20), and then the peace offering. Vow 
 and free-will offerings might be made of either 
 kind of sacrifice ; but the regulations concern- 
 ing the victim differed. If it was a burnt offer- 
 ing, it must be a male, as well as without 
 blemish, according to the law of the burnt 
 offering in i. 3, 10; if it was a peace offering, 
 there was no law concerning the sex of the vic- 
 tim ; but it was still required (ver. 21 i there 
 shall be no blemish therein. The rigidness 
 of the law was, however, somewhat relaxed in 
 case of the free-will offering (ver. 23), so that 
 for this purpose a victim was allowed to have 
 some thing superfluous or lacking in his 
 parts. For the distinction between the vow 
 and the free-will offering, see Com. on vii. 15. 
 The other kind of peace offering, the thank 
 offering, is not mentioned here; being the high- 
 est of all, it of course required the perfect vic- 
 tim. Among the Gentiles also a sense of natural 
 fitness generally required that the victim should 
 be integrum and Tekeioc. See abundant references 
 in Rosenmiiller and Knobel here, in Outram L. 
 I. c. 9, and Bochart Hieroz. I. L. II. c. 46. Ver. 
 21 absolutely prohibits the offering in sacrifice 
 of any castrated animals. See Textual Note. 
 Lange; "The minute, precise definition of this 
 defect requires the perfect fitness for breeding 
 in the male animals, without which it lost in a 
 great degree its signification of a worthy resig- 
 nation." In ver. 25 the priests are forbidden 
 to accept even from a stranger's hand victims 
 marked with any of the defects that have been 
 enumerated, because their corruption is in 
 them, i. e. because these defects render them 
 unfit for sacrifice. The bread of your God 
 "must be derived from a perfect victim to rep- 
 resent that which is acceptable to God, which 
 in moral things is perfect righteousness." Mur- 
 phy. 
 
 Vers. 26-33. The final communication made 
 to Moses alone. Lange: "Even in the case of 
 sacrificial animals without blemish, there yet 
 appear particular conditions of accept ableness 
 for the offerers. First, the victim must be eight 
 days old; it must be kept seven days under 
 the dam to enjoy the full pleasure of existence." 
 See the same law in Ex. xxii. 30 in regard to 
 firstlings. " The reason for this was, that the 
 young animal had not attained to a mature and 
 self-sustained life during the first week of its 
 existence." Keil. It is noticeable that the age 
 at which the animal became admissible for sac- 
 rifice is the same as that at which man was 
 received into covenant relation by circumcision. 
 At this age, too, the animal first began to be 
 eatable, and this fact doubtless had its signifi- 
 cance in the laws for the symbolical food of 
 Jehovah. Similar restrictions of age were in 
 use among the Romans, Pliny Nat. Hist. viii. 77. 
 The prohibition in ver. 28 of killing both dam 
 and offspring on the same day is analogous to 
 the thrice repeated precept: "Thou shalt not 
 seethe a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. xxiii. 
 19; xxxiv. 26; Deut. xiv. 21), and rests upon 
 the same principle as the prohibition to take 
 from a bird's nest the mother together with the 
 young (Deut. xxii. 6, 7). All these precepts 
 were of an educational character and imposed 
 
CHAP. XXII. 1-33. 
 
 167 
 
 upon the Israelites the duty of keeping sacred, j 
 even among the lower animals, the relation | 
 which God has established between parent and 
 offspring. The law could not have been for the 
 sake of the brute, but was altogether for man's 
 sake ; he must not allow himself to violate the 
 finer susceptibilities implanted in his nature, 
 even when mere utilitarian reasoning could see 
 no use in the command. The Targ. Jon. pre- 
 faces the command with the words: "As our 
 Father is merciful in heaven, so be ye merciful 
 on earth." The connection here applies the 
 precept especially to killing for sacrifice ; but it 
 is noticeable that the word used is the more 
 general OUU, as if the command was meant to 
 apply to all killing whatever. In ver. 30 the 
 law for eating the thank offering on the same 
 day on which it is presented is repeated from 
 vii. 15. Such repetitions, if not of necessity, 
 are yet at least highly desirable in a lengthened 
 code of laws. The conclusion, vers. 31-33, is 
 like that of chapters xviii. and six., and rests 
 upon the fact that He who gives the commands 
 is Jehovah — Jehovah who sanctifies them, and 
 who ha3 brought them up out of the land of 
 Egypt. Lange: "I am Jehovah is said 
 again to seal this command, and the following 
 explanation shows plainly the educational view: 
 that Jehovah seeks to bring them up to be a 
 holy people of God by means of these fixed 
 directions. The educational idea is negative: 
 only certainly no kind of dishonor, or deceit, or 
 faithlessness is allowable iu matters of reli- 
 gion." 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. "The symbolical and definite thought of 
 the whole chapter has the highest meaning for 
 every form of religion, but particularly for the 
 Christian Church. It seeks a faultless, normal 
 priesthood, a priesthood which does not darken, 
 but glorifies religion, the Bervice of God. When 
 we think of the sad fact that priests have often 
 altogether, or in a great degree, corrupted their 
 religious community, or are now corrupting it, 
 that so many spiritual and hierarchical cripples 
 of every kind darken and disfigure so many 
 congregations, the contents of our section will 
 give us a strong witness against a laxity and 
 untruth which is guilty especially of the corrup- 
 tion of the religious life. The church training 
 was to be before all things self-training, the 
 ladder of the churchly life. How many reflec- 
 tions in regard to the choice of the theological 
 profession, the tests, the ordinations, and the 
 ecclesiastical visitations belong to this chapter. 
 Also the family circumstances of spiritual per- 
 sons are here estimated according to their sig- 
 nificance." Lange. 
 
 II. The relation of the priests to the people is 
 here again distinctly brought out. They were 
 tinder precisely the same laws as others, became 
 unclean from the same causes, and were to be 
 purified in the same way ; in short, they were 
 fully citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. 
 
 But inasmuch as they had also special duties 
 toward God, they were incapacitated for their 
 performance by this uncleanness. 
 
 III. The identification of the household with 
 its head, always strongly marked in the Hebrew 
 polity, appears in the case of the priest with 
 especial clearness. The family is the unit of 
 the Hebrew commonwealth and the basis of the 
 Mosaic legislation. On this see Maine's Ancient 
 Law. 
 
 IV. The law of the conditions of the accepta- 
 ble victim was precisely the same for the Israel- 
 ite and the stranger. The law thus intimates 
 not obscurely that in their approach to God all 
 men stand on precisely the same footing. 
 " There is no distinction of persons." 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange: "Chap. xxii. is concerned with the 
 pure conduct of the priests face to face with the 
 sacrifice of the congregation ; observances of 
 cleanness of the most varied kind, and especially 
 of sacrifices according to their spiritual mean- 
 ing." 
 
 As symbolical cleanness was required of those 
 who partook of the sacrifices which typified the 
 death of Christ, so is spiritual cleanness neces- 
 sary in those who feed upon the memorial of 
 the same. See 1 Cor. xi. 28, etc. Wordsworth. 
 The whole house of the priest was sanctified 
 through him to partake of the holy things; so 
 is the whole house of the Great High Priest 
 sanctified through Him, even His body, the 
 blesseU company of all faithful people. 
 
 But to be partakers of the table of this Great 
 High Priest men must not be merely sojourners 
 in His house, or serving Him as hired servants 
 for gain, but truly identified with Him, and 
 forming an actual part of His household. Words- 
 worth. 
 
 Again and again the law insists that the vic- 
 tim tor the acceptable sacrifice must be without 
 blemish. Whatever is offered to God must be 
 of the best; especially must the offering of the 
 heart be perfect and complete. Christ Himself 
 is described as having offered Himself " without 
 spot," and the Church which lie presents unto 
 Himself must "be holy and without blemish." 
 Eph. v. 27. 
 
 By forbidding the Israelites to kill on the 
 same day the dam and its offspring God taught 
 them, and through them the church in all ages, 
 to be merciful ; not only merciful to those who 
 can understand and appreciate it, but to exer- 
 cise this virtue for its own sake — to be merciful 
 always and everywhere, even as our Father in 
 heaven is merciful. 
 
 Calvin draws from the often repeated and 
 here extended precept that the sacrifice must be 
 perfect and without blemish, this lesson: that 
 whatever we offer to God must be whole-hearted 
 and true. We cannot serve God and mammon. 
 He applies this to prayers in which the heart is 
 not engaged, and a multitude of other things in 
 which man may undertake to offer an imperfect 
 and divided, and therefore unacceptable service. 
 
168 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 Sanctification of the Feasts. 
 
 "Keeping holy the theocratic times and places, the feasts and their culttis, the most holy name 
 of the covenant God and His holy land." — Lange. 
 
 Chaps. XXIII.— XXV. 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 Of the Sabbaths and Annual Feasts. 
 
 " The Holy Seasons, Laws of the Feasts. Sabbath, Easter, Pentecost, the Seventh Neiv-Moon or Sabbath 
 of the Year, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles." — Lange. 
 
 Chap. XXIII. 1-44. 
 
 PRELIMINARY NOTE. 
 
 The following, under Lange' s Exegetical, may 
 properly be placed here. " The foundation of 
 these developed ordinances for the feasts has 
 already presented itself in Ex. xx. 8-11 and xxxi. 
 14 " [add Ex. xxiii. 14-19 ; xxxiv. 21-26, and in 
 regard to the Passover, the full account of its 
 institution, Ex. xii. 3-27, 43-50,— F. G.] ; "the 
 section, Num. xxviii. xxix., contains more spe- 
 cific directions about the sacrifices which were 
 to be offered on the feast days." [The three 
 great festivals are also described in Deut. xvi. 1- 
 17, and the reading of the law required at the 
 feast of tabernacles in the Sabbatical year, Deut. 
 xxxi. 10-13. — F. G.]. "Here the treatment is 
 of the organic appearance of the whole festivity 
 of Israel in the unity of its collective holy feasts, 
 with the ordinance of the festal cultus (" Feast- 
 calendar," Knobel says, which is set aside by 
 Keil) ; in the Book of Numbers the sacrifices are 
 plainly specified as the requirements of the the- 
 ocratic state, an indication that they were not 
 the principal things in the ideas of the cultus. 
 
 " Upon this important section the article Feste 
 in Winer and others, is to be compared, as well 
 as the rich literature in Knobel, p. 541, to which 
 add Kranokl, commentatio de anno Hebrseorum Ju- 
 bilseo. Gottingae, Dietrich, 1838." [See also 
 Philo TiSju T;/f 'E/3d6finc; Baehr, Si/mbolik'bk. 
 iv.; Ewald Alterthiimer; Kalisch on Ex. xx., 
 etc. ; Michaelis Laws of Moses, Art. 74-76, 194- 
 201 ; Eochart, Hkroz. ; and the appropriate 
 articles in Smith's Bible Diet., Kitto's Cyclop, 
 of Bib. lit., Herzog's Real-Encykl, and the vari- 
 ous literature cited in these. — F. G.]. 
 
 " The Hebrew festivals are to be regarded es- 
 pecially in a two- fold aspect: 1. The holy sea- 
 sons (rflST ^j/lD). 2. The ideas of the differ- 
 ent feasts, the holy convocations ('N^p? 
 
 "The holy seasons are, according to their 
 prevalent fundamental number, the number 
 seven, collectively, memorial feasts of the cre- 
 ation ; the Sabbath, as the seventh day ; Pente- 
 cost, as the feast of the seventh week ; the se- 
 venth new moon, with its following Day of 
 atonement and feast of tabernacles, as the feast 
 of the seventh month ; the Sabbatical year, as 
 the festival of the seven Sabbath years ; and the 
 Praise year or year of Jubilee ; the 50th year, 
 as the festival of the completed seven, the seven 
 times seven, the prophetic festival of the new 
 eternal festal season, (ch. xxv.). 
 
 " Even through the single feasts the number 
 seven runs again : seven days of unleavened 
 bread, seven days in tabernacles, and no less in- 
 deed is it reflected in the sevenfold number of 
 the festal sacrifices. 
 
 " The datum, however, from which the whole 
 construction of the festal season proceeds, on 
 which the whole building rests, is the datum of 
 the typical deliverance of Israel (ver. 15). The 
 line of feasts culminates indeed in a festival 
 [Tabernacles, the last feast of the year] which 
 plainly, as a symbol of the completed deliverance 
 stands over against the [Passover as a symbol 
 of the] beginning of deliverance." [From an- 
 other point of view the Passover (which, as such, 
 is not mentioned in this chapter) is generally 
 regarded as a memorial of the deliverance from 
 Egypt in its totality, and in its typical signifi- 
 cance it points forward to the deliverance from 
 sin through the death of Christ ; and this again 
 has its memorial in the Lord's Supper, pointing 
 forward to the feast of the Lamb in heaven. The 
 feast of tabernacles, on the other hand, was ex- 
 pressly commemorative of the very temporary 
 dwelling in booths (ni3Q = huts made of 
 branches; the H3D is to be distinguished from 
 
CHAP. XXIII. i-44. 
 
 169 
 
 the 7HX = tent, the comparatively permanent 
 dwelling of the wilderness) see vers. 42, 43, and 
 comp. Ex. xii. 37; xiii. 20.— F. G.]. * * * 
 
 "With regard to the natural aspect of the Is- 
 raelitish feasts, they are divided into pre-Mosaic, 
 Mosaic (for that the feasts here appointed belong 
 to the original Mosaic legislation is admitted 
 by Knobel), and later feasts. 
 
 " In the first class, however, can only be placed 
 with certainty a tradition of the Sabbath, the 
 feast of the new moon, and the harvest fca=t. 
 Upon the heathen festal seasons see the full 
 notes of Knobel, p. 537 sqq. 
 
 " It is however in the highest degree note- 
 worthy, that the Israelitish ordering of the feasts 
 forms an unmistakable contrast to the heathen 
 customs. At the time of the Spring feast the 
 Jewish Easter was kept, which, in connection 
 with its unleavened bread, expresses a very so- 
 lemn meaning, and is not at all to be judged by 
 the Christian Easter. At the time of the autum- 
 nal equinox, however, when the Syrians (and 
 the Egyptians) mourned over the death of Ado- 
 nis the summer sun (like the Germanic Baldur), 
 the Jews kept their most joyful feast, and freely 
 used the green branches of summer before they 
 faded."' [The contrast would bear to bo even 
 more strongly expressed, for the feast of Taber- 
 nacles occurred more than a month later than 
 the autumnal equinox. — F. G.]. "It was as if 
 they had wished to celebrate the triumph of the 
 theocratic spirit over the natural sadness for the 
 death of beautiful nature ; as they certainly ac- 
 cent the blessing of God and His judgment in 
 this present life in contrast to the dark Egyp- 
 tian necromancy with its prophecy inspired i bis 
 side the grave, and in contrast to the melancholy 
 cultus of the world of death beyond the grave. 
 
 "As to the explanation of the apparently su- 
 perfluous days in the seven day feasts, the eighth 
 day of unleavened bread, and the eighth day of 
 the feast of Tabernacles (a question which also 
 concerns the 50th week of the 50th year as a year 
 of Jubilee), it is certainly sufficient to say, that 
 the festal close of such great days or weeks and 
 years was to be particularly emphasized. (Comp. 
 Knobel, p. 549). 
 
 "The second Easter day as the feast of the 
 first beginning of the harvest, the beginning of 
 the barley harvest, the feast of the ears (Abib, 
 ear-month), corresponds to the completed wheat 
 harvest which was celebrated at the feast of Ta- 
 bernacles (later, Pentecost because fifty days 
 were reckoned from Easter to its celebration), 
 and both these harvest feasts, of the necessities 
 of life and of the abundance of life, form a con- 
 trast to the harvest feast of joy [feast of Taber- 
 nacles] for ihe refreshing and comforting gifts 
 of God, the fruit, the oil and the wine. 
 
 "A strikingly isolated position is given to the 
 feast of Pentecost between the other feasts. Since 
 as the chief harvest feast it seems to be only a 
 natural feast, there was sought, and later, there 
 was also found, in addition to its natural aspect, 
 a holy and theocratic aspect also, in that this 
 feast has been described as the feast of the law 
 (since Maimonides. See on the other hand Keil, 
 p. 151 ") [Translation p. 444, note]. * * * 
 
 " The increased sacrifices of the yearly feasts 
 26 
 
 must form a symbolical expression of the self- 
 surrender of the nation to Jehovah, renewed by 
 the feasts, as it was elevated by the thanksgiving 
 for His gifts, — the ever new gifts of creation, the 
 ever new gifts of atonement and of deliverance. 
 
 "That which makes feasts to be feasts is as 
 follows : 1) They are high seasons appointed by 
 God, seasons of the fulfilment of Divine promise 
 and of human hope. 2) Seasons in which the 
 union of God and man, as well as of men with 
 one another, and thus fellowship with God and 
 brotherhood with man was celebrated. 3) Sea- 
 sons in which nature, together with man, ap- 
 pears in the dress of theocratic sanctification. 
 4) In which the highest happiness of human 
 fellowship arises from the highest joyfulness of 
 sacrifice to Jehovah. 6) Seasons which have a 
 great sequence, and form a chain from the feast, 
 of deliverance in the night of judgment and of 
 fear (Passover) to the feast of holy freedom and 
 joy (Tabernacles)." Lange. 
 
 In regard to the times of the festivals, it is to 
 be remembered that God in His dealings with 
 man always shows a tender regard for the na- 
 ture with which He has constituted man. The 
 Hebrew festivals were therefore so arranged as 
 to combine the most important religious memo- 
 rials and types with the occasions of national 
 and social need. The Passover was the greatest 
 of all the annual festivals of the Hebrews, and 
 was the only one resting upon a distinct histo- 
 rical and miraculous event, and the only one, 
 too, the neglect of which was accompanied with 
 the penalty of excision (Num. ix. 13). The ob- 
 ligation to observe it was so urgent upon every 
 adult circumcised Israelite, that alone of all the 
 feasts it had attached to it a second observance 
 at the same time in the following month for those 
 who were prevented from keeping it by absence 
 on a journey, or by defilement from contact with 
 a dead body — the only causes winch interfered 
 with t lie eating of the paschal lamb. Histori- 
 cally, it was far more generally observed than 
 either of the other festivals. Attached to this, 
 and often included in the general name of Pa-^- 
 over, was the week of unleavened bread ; but 
 the strictness of the command for the observance 
 of the Passover itself did not apply to this. See 
 Deut. xvi. 7. The Passover was celebrated iu 
 the month Abib or Nisan ; and this mouth, as tho 
 month of the great national deliverance from 
 Egypt, became the first of the ecclesiastical year. 
 Just at this time occurred the beginning of the 
 barley harvest, and the festival for this was ac- 
 cordingly so associated with the Passover, that a 
 sheaf of the first-fruits was to be waved before 
 the Lord on the morrow after the Sabbath. The 
 time of the feast of weeks, or Pentecost, was de- 
 termined by the Passover, from which it. was 
 distant just fifty-two days, as we still reckon from 
 Good-Friday to \Yhitsunday ; for seven weeks 
 complete, or forty- nine days were reckoned from 
 "the morrow after the Sabbath," or the second 
 day after the eating of the Paschal lamb itself, 
 making fifty-one days, and then the feast was to 
 be held on the following day. The symbolism 
 of the sevens is therefore to be sought rather in 
 the means of computing the time than in the re- 
 lation of the festivals to one another. Pentecost 
 occurred at the close of the grain harvest, and 
 
170 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 was celebrated as a thanksgiving, with especial 
 liberality to the poor and needy in remembrance 
 that the Israelites themselves had been bondmen 
 in Egypt. (Deut. xvi. 9-12). This feast con- 
 tinued but a single day, and its distinguishing 
 rite was the waving before the Lord of two lea- 
 vened loaves prepared from the first fruits of the 
 wheat. 
 
 With the coming in of the seventh month the 
 civil year began. Of the existence of this year 
 as distinguished from the ecclesiastical year, 
 there can be no reasonable doubt. It has indeed 
 been called in question ; "but the form of ex- 
 pression in Ex. xii. 2, the commencement of the 
 Sabbatical and Jubilee years in the month 
 Ethanim, or Tisri, the tradition of both the rab- 
 binical and Alexandrian Jews, and the fact that 
 the new moon festival of Tisri is the only one — 
 not excepting that of Nisan — which is distin- 
 guished by peculiar observance, seem to bear 
 sufficient testimony to a more ancient computa- 
 tion of time than that instituted by Moses in 
 connection with the Passover. Another argu- 
 ment is furnished by Ex. xxiii. 16." Clark. 
 Accordingly, as generally in all times and among 
 all nations, the New Year was ushered in by a 
 special observance. Among the Hebrews this 
 took the form of " the Feast of Trumpets." This 
 was marked by " an holy convocation ;" but at- 
 tendance upon it was not obligatory. On the 
 tenth day of the same month occurred the solemn 
 fast of the Day of Atonement already treated in 
 ch. xvi. Both these continued but a single day. 
 On the fifteenth day of the same month (which 
 was thus far more marked by religious solemni- 
 ties than any other), began the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles, continuing for seven days with "an holy 
 convocation" following on the eighth day. The 
 attendance obligatory at this would naturally 
 have led to a large presence of the people on 
 the Day of Atonement, only five days before. 
 It was the great harvest festival at the close of 
 the agricultural season, corresponding to our 
 Thanksgiving day, and was very joyfully cele- 
 brated. It was also connected with the theo- 
 cratic system hy the injunction to dwell in 
 booths in memory of the Exodus from Egypt. 
 
 With all these, and pervading them, was the 
 weekly Sabbath, a remembrancer in its recur- 
 rence of God's rest from the work of creation 
 (Ex. xx. 11), and in its determination to the 
 seventh day of the week of the deliverance from 
 Egypt (Deut. v. 15). 
 
 In regard to the detail of these several festi- 
 vals, see the Exegetical. 
 
 The Jews were prohibited by the law from all 
 work only on the fifty-two weekly Sabbaths and 
 on tlie Day of Atonement ; they were also pro- 
 hibited from all servile work on the days of holy 
 convocation, viz. two each in connection with 
 the I'assover and the Feast of Tabernacles, one 
 at the Feast of Pentecost, and one at the New 
 Moon of Tisri, the seventh month. There is no 
 prescription in the law in regard to cessation 
 of work on the other New Moons; but. from 
 Amos viii. 5 they appear to have been, at least 
 in later limes, observed as Sabbaths. These 
 would make in all seventy days, which would be 
 reduced somewhat by the occurrence of some of 
 
 the other days, and especially of the festival 
 Sabbaths, one year with another, upon the 
 weekly Sabbath ; but on several of these days 
 the prohibition extended only to servile work, 
 and the feasts were probably largely used like 
 European fairs, for purposes of trade. See a 
 slightly different computation in Michaelis, 
 Laws, Art. 201. 
 
 The three greater festivals, Passover, Pente- 
 cost and Tabernacles, were required to be ob- 
 served by the assembling of the whole adult 
 male population at the place of the sanctuary. 
 This was doubtless fully carried out during the 
 life in the wilderness, but does not appear to 
 have been ever completely observed in subse- 
 quent history. All these festivals were, how- 
 ever, attended by large numbers, and the de- 
 vouter part of the people went up co the sanctu- 
 ary at least once in the year (1 Sam. i. 3, 21; 
 Luke ii. 41, etc.), which appears to have been 
 most commonly at the Passover. The women 
 were not obliged, but were allowed to attend, 
 and frequently did so, as well as partake of the 
 Paschal lamb. 
 
 Besides these annual feasts, there were the 
 Sabbatical years, when the land was required to 
 lie fallow, and all fruits were common property. 
 This command could hardly have been complied 
 with at all until after the return from the cap- 
 tivity (see 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21), and the exist- 
 ence of such an unobserved law is a strong 
 proof of the genuineness of the Mosaic legisla- 
 tion. There was also the Year of Jubilee, the 
 fiftieth year, which as it affected the tenure of 
 land that had been sold, is likely to have been 
 more continuously observed. It certainly was 
 recognized in the days of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxii. 
 6-15). On the question whether it had conti- 
 nued to be observed in the intervening time, see 
 Maimonides and Ewald in the affirmative, Mi- 
 chaelis (Laws, Art. 76) and Winer (sub voce), 
 who are in doubt, and Kranold (p. 80) and Hup- 
 feld (pt. iii., p. 20), who confidently deny that 
 the provisions for this year ever came into actual 
 operation. 
 
 Precisely what was meant by an holy con- 
 vocation we have no means of ascertaining, 
 except from the word itself. Doubtless in the 
 wilderness life it would have meant a general 
 assembling of the people for the purposes of the 
 day, and the same sense may be held to apply 
 to the three great festivals when all males were 
 required to appear at the place of the sanctuary, 
 but this cannot be true, after the settlement in 
 Canaan, of the weekly Sabbath and of the Day 
 of Atonement. Probably there were on these 
 days gatherings for religious edification accom- 
 panied with rest from work in the various towns 
 ami villages throughout the land, just as there 
 were in the Synagogues after the return from 
 the Captivity. There were also probably such 
 gatherings at the time of the Convocations of the 
 greater festivals of those who did not go up to 
 tue Sanctuary. 
 
 Besides the weekly Sabbaths, there were in 
 all seven Convocations in the year: the first and 
 last days of the feasts of unleavened bread, and 
 of Tabernacles, the days of Pentecost and of 
 Atonement, and the Feast of Trumpets. 
 
CHAP. XXIII. 1-44. 171 
 
 Chapter XXIII. 1-44. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to 
 be holy convocations, even these are my feasts [unto them, The appointed times of 
 the Lord which ye shall proclaim as holy convocations, these are my appointed 
 times 1 ]. 
 
 3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day r'^the sabbath of rest, 2 an holy 
 convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all 
 your dwellings. 
 
 4 These 3 are the feasts of the Lord, even [These appointed times' of the Lord are] 
 holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons [appointed times 1 ]. 
 
 5, 6 In the fourteenth day' of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. And 
 on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the 
 
 7 Lord : seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have 
 
 8 an holy convocation : ye shall do no servile 5 work therein. But ye shall offer an 
 offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days : in the seventh day is an holy con- 
 vocation : ye shall do no servile work therein. 
 
 ' 9, 10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 and say unto them, "When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and 
 shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf 6 of the firstfruita of your 
 
 11 harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be ac- 
 
 12 cepted for you : on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And ye 
 shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb [a ram'] without blemish 
 
 13 of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. And the meat offering [ob- 
 lation 8 ] thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering 
 made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour : and the 9 drink offering thereof 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Ver. 2. The word *1}?13 according to all authorities means primarily afixed, appointed time (Gen. xxi. 2 ; Jer. viii. 7, 
 
 etc.) and it is so translated in ver. 4 in their Masons. Thence it came to lip used fur the festivals occurring at Bel 
 
 Besides these meanings the word hue the divided signification of the assembly which came togetheral these 
 i id then the assembly or congregation generally (whence the expression Tabernacle of congregation!, and then also 
 the place of the assembly. The derivative significations are here out of the question. It occurs in this chapter five times, 
 and is not elsewhi re used in Lev. except in the phrase Tabernacle of congregation. With the same exception, it is uni- 
 formly translated tone it n oson (set or appointed) in Gen. and Ex., and generally in Num. The translation four times by 
 feasts in this chap, is therefore exceptional and supported only by a few instances in Num. [tisbetter therefore 
 form the translation here to the usage. There is a difficulty with either translation in the fact that n lioly Convoca- 
 tion was not proclaimed on the Day of Atonement; — that is broadly applied to all, which was strictly true of nearly all 
 the particulars mentioned. Hat feasts labors under the further disadvantage that the Day of atonement was a last. 
 
 1 Ver. 3. The translation necessarily fails to convey the full force of the Heh. pr\3t^ H3l^ a very strong expression 
 used only of the days and years of rest appointed in the Mosaic legislation. 
 
 ' Ver. 4. The Heb. has nSx, the Sam. prefixes 1. According to Uoubigant the former refers to what has preceded, 
 the latter to what follows. In this case the Sam. reading is preferable. 
 
 * Ver. 5. The missing QV is supplied in 15 MSS. and the Sam. 
 
 6 Ver. 7. " mi^ j"ON 70, occupation of a work, signifies labor at some definite occupation, e. j., the buildingof the 
 tabernacle, Ex. xxxv. 24 ; xxxvi. 1, 3; hence occupation in connection with trade or one's social calling, such as agricul- 
 ture, handicraft, e(e. ; whilst rotwD is the performance of any kind of work, e. g., kindling fire lor cooking food (Ex. 
 
 t t : 
 xxxv. 2, Ii." Keil. 
 
 * Ver. 10. 1QI?. The A. V. is probably rijjrlit in translating here sheaf, which according to the lexicographers is the 
 
 primary meaning of the word. See Deut, xxiv. 19 : "Ruth ii. 7. L5, etc Tt is bo translated by the I.XX, Vnlg., and Lother, 
 as well us by Gesen., Ftlrst, Lee, and others. On tin- other han : josephus I Lnt, iii lo. .'. >, and th- Uiahiia, take it in its de- 
 rived and I sense of all Owr, ri:., of the floor from the grain, offered with oil and frankincense as an oblation. 
 
 Perhaps in later times the omer of the flour was substituted for the original sheaf of the grain. 
 " Ver. 12. '^'22. See Textual Note 6 on iii. 7. Here the sex is indicated. 
 
 8 Ver. 13. lr^njO- See Textual Note - on ii. 1. The pronoun is masc. with reference to the sex of the sacrifice. 
 
 t : 
 
 9 Ver. 13. The A. V. here and in the previous clause substitutes the def. art. for the masc. pronoun. The Ueb. text 
 Ti3DJ is pointed in accordance with the v'rt 00} which is also the Sam. reading. 
 
172 LEVITICUS. 
 
 14 shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor 
 parched corn [grain], nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought 
 an offering unto your God : it shall be a statute for ever throughout your genera- 
 tions in all your dwellings. 
 
 15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day 
 that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ; seven sabbaths 10 shall be complete : 
 
 16 even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath 10 shall ye number fifty days ; and 
 
 17 ye shall offer a new meat offering [oblation 8 ] unto the Lord. Ye shall bring out 
 of your habitations two wave loaves 11 of two tenth deals : they shall be of fine flour ; 
 
 18 they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Loed. And ye 
 shall offer with the bread seven lambs [rams'] without blemish of the first year, 
 and one young bullock, and two [full-grown 12 ] rams : they shall be for a burnt of- 
 fering unto the Loed, with their meat offering [oblation 8 ], and their drink offer- 
 
 19 ings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Loed. Then ye shall 
 sacrifice one kid [buck 13 ] of the goats for a sin offeriug, and two lambs [rams'] of 
 
 20 the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest shall wave them 
 with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the Loed, with the two 
 
 21 lambs [rams'] : they shall be holy to the Loed for the priest. And ye shall pro- 
 claim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye sball 
 do no servile work therein : it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings 
 throughout your generations. 
 
 22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance 
 of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any glean- 
 ing of thy harvest : thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger : I am 
 the Lord your God. 
 
 23, 24 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sab- 
 bath [a sabbath rest 14 ], a memorial of blowing of trumpets, 15 an holy convocation. 
 
 25 Ye shall do no servile work therein : but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto 
 the Lord. 
 
 26, 27 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Also on the tenth day of this seventh 
 month there shall be [only the tenth of this seventh month is 16 ] a day of atonement : 
 it shall be an holy convocation unto you ; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer 
 
 28 an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same 
 day : for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord 
 
 29 your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, 
 
 30 he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth 
 any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. 
 
 31 Ye shall do no manner of work : it shall be a statute for ever throughout your ge- 
 l's Ver. 15. Some critics (Keil, Clark, and others) would render here and in xxv. 8 seven weehs, in accordance with the 
 
 use of r\2TJ in the Talmud, and of adpfiarov in the N. T. The word seems to be used here, however, rather by a figure of 
 
 T~ 
 
 Bpeech as in xxv. 2, 4, etc., and the definite meaning of week to be of later origin. The rjQ'Dn on which Keil relies, 
 
 agrees with the main idea. . 
 
 11 Ver. 17. The Sam. here supplies the word rVl vn which is uniformly translated calces in the A. V., and may indicate 
 
 the kind of bread used. 
 
 12 Ver. 18 07'K indicates strong and full-grown rams of maturer age than the Q'^'^S of the first clause. The Sam. 
 
 ... T ; 
 
 3 MSS. and LXX. add "without blemish." 
 
 « Ver. 10. CTjr-Yi'V!'. See Textual Note => on iv. 23. 
 
 14 Ver. 24. T^rOK? here Btands by itself without the ri3$ used in ver. 3. When thus used by itself Rosenmuller says 
 I t- t- 
 
 " de lis tantnm feriis dicitur, quee non in septimum hebdomadia diem, qui ri3C, cessatio ab opere icar' Z$oxyv dicitur, in- 
 
 T - 
 
 cidit." It should therefore be rendered by another term, and the one suggested by Clark is adopted. 
 
 16 Ver. 24. There is nothing in the Heb. corresponding to the words of trumpets, which should therefore be in italirs. 
 Tli-* Ii'-l'. reads simply ni'liri li"OT = a memorial ofajoyful noise. 7\V^Pi is frequently used in connection with va- 
 
 t I : ■ t : 
 
 rioiis kinds of trumpets and other instruments (Num. xxxi. 6 ; Lev. xxv. 9 ; Ps. cl. 5\ denoting the clangor of those instru- 
 ments, but it is also quite as frequently used without reference to an instrument of any kind (Num. xxiii. 21 ; Job viii. -1J; 
 xxxiii. 20 ; Kara iii. 11, 13, etc.). The silver trumpets of the temple were however blown on all the festivals, including the 
 new moons (Num. x. 10), and there is no reason to question the tradition that on "the feast of trumpets" horns or cornets 
 of some kind were blown generally throughout the land. The LXX. has hvihioovvov aaXwiyyuty, the Vulg. memorials 
 clangenlibus tnbis. 
 
 w Ver. 2T. ^K Is a particle of limitation, and thus in this case of emphasis. It is better to omit the italicised words 
 
 there shall be, and translato according to the usual construction of a Ileb. clause ending with X3rt 
 
CHAP. XXIII. 1-44. 
 
 173 
 
 32 nerations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest,' and ye shall 
 afflict your souls ; in the ninth day of the month at even," from even unto even, 
 shall ye celebrate your sabbath [your rest 18 ]. 
 
 33, 3-4 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for 
 
 35 seven days unto the Lord. On the first day shall be an holy convocation : ye shall 
 
 36 do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto 
 the Lord : on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you ; and ye shall 
 offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord : it is a solemn assembly, 19 and ye 
 shall do no servile work therein. 
 
 37 These are the feasts [appointed times 1 ] of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to 
 be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt of- 
 fering, and a meat offering [an oblation 8 ], a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every 
 
 38 thing upon his day: beside the sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts, and 
 beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 39 Also [Only 16 ] in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered 
 [at your gathering in 20 ] in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord 
 seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a 
 
 40 sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs [fruit 21 ] of goodly 
 trees, 22 branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, 23 and willows of the 
 
 41 brook ; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. And ye shall 
 keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever 
 
 42 in your generations : ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in 
 
 43 booths seven days ; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths : that your 
 generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when 
 I brought them out of the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your God. 
 
 44 And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts [appointed times 1 ] of 
 the Lord. 
 
 " Ver. 32. The word 311*3 — at even is omitted in one MS., LXX., and Vulg. 
 
 . .■ T 
 
 is Ver. 32. The margin of the A. V. is more correct than the text. The Heb. is D3P3ty VuVfti 
 
 w Ver. 36. rni\T is ft w °rd the signification of which has been much questioned. The translation of the LXX. efdSicV 
 
 €<ttl, meaning the'dose of the festival, is defended by Fiirst, and adopted by Patrick ; so also Theodoret, referring not only 
 to this l'-ni, bat to the whole cycle of feasts, to reAo? tCiv iopruv, and so alsoKeil. Michaelis, using an Arabic etymology, 
 interprets it of pressing out the grapes. Tiie sense of the margin of the A. V. day of restraint is paid u< be advocated l.v Ikon 
 in a special dissertation (Con. Ikenii DisserlaU. Ludg. Ritav. 1749) and is adopted by Abarbanel and other Jewish writers. 
 The text of the A. V. assembly is defended by Rosenmullcr (3d Ed.), advocated by Gesenius. and iB that given by Onkelos, 
 the Vnig., and Syr. The LXX. also elsewhere translates the word iravjiyvpts (Amos. v. 2) and onii-o6ov [ Jer. ix. 2). The 
 word occurs but ten times, in rive of which it refers f.. the last day of one of the great feasts, and iu one ether (Jer. ix. 2 |1J) 
 it clearly means assembly. Josephos { Ant. iii. 10, t'.i applies it as a customary phrase to the feast of Pentecost. It is the 
 day referred to in Jno. vii. 37 as " the last day, that great day of the feast." 
 
 20 Ver. 39. D3DDX3- It is better to preserve the indefiniteness of the original which does not determine whether the 
 harvest was already fully gathered. Clark thinks that this could rarely have been the case. 
 
 «i Ver. 40. The Heb., as noted in the margin of the A. V., is /mil, and it is better to retain the word even ifit l 
 plained (Keil) of "the shoots and branches ,1 He. ti.es." According to the most ancient traditions, however, it was cus- 
 tomary at this feast to carry in one hand some fruit, and the word is retained in all the ancient versions, 
 
 » Ver. 40. 1171 ¥S, lit. ornamental trees, a generic word including the various kinds specified just below. So the 
 
 XT • •' 
 
 Sam., LXX., Syr., and Vulg., the lexicons, and most interpreters. Jewish tradition, however, incorporated into the Tar- 
 gums and Josephus (Ant. xiii. 13, 5) understauds it specifically of the Citron. 
 
 z> Ver. 40. |i3J>~y>'- The rendering of the A. V. is sustained by almost all authorities, meaning treeB of various 
 
 kinds having thick foliage. The Targums all interpret it specifically of myrtles, which cannot be right, as in the account 
 of the celebration of this feast iu Neh. viii. 15 the wjrUe and the thick trees are distinguished. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 This chapter consists of five Divine communi- 
 cations to Moses, beginning respectively with 
 vers. 1, 9, 23, 26 and 33, all of which, except 
 that concerning the day of Atonement, ver. 26, 
 he is directed to speak unto the children 
 of Israel. The first of these (1-8) relates to 
 the weekly Sabbath, the Passover, and the fol- 
 lowing feast of unleavened bread ; the second 
 (9-22) to the wave sheaf in connection with the 
 
 last feast, and the feast of weeks, or Pentecost ; 
 the third (23-25) to the civil New Year, or the 
 New Moon of the seventh month of the ecclesi- 
 astical year; the fourth (26-32) to the great 
 Day of Atonement ; the last (33-44) to the feast 
 of tabernacles. 
 
 Ver. 2 forms the heading or introduction to 
 the whole chapter. This is a full list of all 
 those days and years, all the appointed times 
 which the Lord had marked out as to be sepa- 
 rated and distinguished from the ordinary course 
 of the daily life ; yet it does not include the 
 
174 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 ordinary new moons on which special sacrifices 
 were also to be offered. Num. xxviii. 11-16. 
 
 Ver. 3. First of all comes the weekly Sabbath, 
 a day to be observed by a total cessation from 
 all work and by an holy invocation. On 
 the last, expression see the close of the prelimi- 
 nary note. The weekly Sabbath is placed in 
 the same way before the annual appointed 
 times in Ex. xxiii. 12-17 ; Num. xxviii. 9 — 
 xxix. No reason is here given for this obser- 
 vance. It was certainly pre-Mosaic, and in the 
 fourth commandment is made to rest upon the 
 example of the Divine cessation from the works 
 of creation. But this refers only to the obser- 
 vance of rest in a proportionate part of the 
 time — one day in every Beven, and therefore has 
 no bearing upon the actual length of the crea- 
 tive work. In the repetition of the command- 
 ments in Deut. v., the observance of this rest on 
 the particular day of the week, Saturday, is 
 grounded on the deliverance from Egypt, that 
 great mark of the Divine favor and national 
 birth-day which enters more or less into nearly 
 all the feasts. 
 
 A great part of Lange's Exegetical under this 
 chapter has been already given in the prelimi- 
 nary note. All that follows what is given there 
 will be found below. 
 
 "1. The Sabbath.— The six days of work 
 are the foundation and the condition of the rest 
 of the seventh day. The prohibition not only 
 
 of servile labor (iTUJPJ, but also of the higher 
 and freer business (DDS/p), forces the nobler 
 sort of men directly to look in upon themselves, 
 to devotion, and so to celebrate the feast. The 
 Sabbath Sabbathon (the Sabbath feast) has, how- 
 ever, been here already appointed for the as- 
 sembling in the Sanctuary, a thing which was 
 possible in the desert journeys, and later in 
 Canaan, was fulfilled by the substitution of the 
 synagogues (see Winer, Synagogen), and thus 
 was the germ of all festivals." Lange. On the 
 interval of nearly a thousand years between the 
 desert journeys and the institution of Syna- 
 gogues, see preliminary note. 
 
 The weekly Sabbaths are in a sense included 
 among the appointed times of ver. 2, but 
 yet are distinguished from them by the fresh 
 heading of ver. 4 and by vers. 37, 38. They 
 were indeed appointed times, but appointed 
 from the creation of man, not first prescribed 
 by the Mosaic law. The expression at the close 
 of the verse in all your dwellings is inter- 
 preted by the Jewish writers to mean everywhere, 
 in or out of the Holy Land. Certainly it is thus 
 comprehensive; but the expression is more im- 
 portant as distinguishing the convocation of 
 these days from those of the annual festivals. 
 These were to be celebrated at home, in each 
 town and village and hamlet, and thus "kept 
 alive the knowledge and piety of the sioiple yeo- 
 man in all the land This single verse 
 
 affords an interesting prospect of the unwritten 
 history of Israel's rural piety." Murphy. 
 
 Vers. 4-8. Ver. 4 is simply the heading in 
 substance of ver. 2 repeated to distinguish the 
 annual from the weekly festival. Vers. 6-8 
 relate to the Passover and the feast of unleavened 
 
 bread, which are here, as in Ex. xii. and Num. 
 xxviii. 16, 17, clearly distinguished from each 
 other. The same distinction is observed by 
 Josephus (Ant, III. 10, 5), but both names came 
 to be used interchangeably as in the New Test., 
 especially in St. John. Of all the annual festi- 
 vals the Passover came first in the cycle of the 
 ecclesiastical year, first in the great historic 
 event it commemorated, first in its obligation, 
 and first in its spiritual and typical significance. 
 The Paschal lamb was to be slain on the 14th 
 Nisan "between the evenings," and eaten in the 
 following evening, i. e. according to the Hebrew 
 division of the days, on the beginning of the 
 15th. Eut with the 16th began the first day of 
 holy convocation, so that the two feasts were 
 thus actually blended into one. Lange: "2. 
 The feast of unleavened bread.. — With this 
 begin the feasts in the more peculiar sense, 
 which were proclaimed, and in Canaan are also 
 feasts of convocation of Israel at the sanctu- 
 ary (for the male youth and men) The 
 
 15th day is particularly the feast of Mazzoth, 
 which lasts seven days, but in such wise that 
 only the first and last day are in the more strict 
 sense festival days which exclude all business. 
 To these two feasts was appended in a certain 
 sense as a third the preliminary feast of the 
 harvest. It speaks for the antiquity of the text 
 that this feast was postponed to the future. 
 Not until they came into Palestine could Israel 
 gather in harvests and offer sheaves of the first 
 fruits. The first sheaf cut from the first field 
 produce is meant, viz. barley (on the barley 
 harvest in Palestine, see Keil, p. 148)." [Trans., 
 p. 439. Keil refers to Philo and Josephus for 
 the statement that the sheaf was of barley, and 
 says this is not expressly mentioned because it 
 was a matter of course. "In the warmer parts 
 of Palestine the barley ripens about the middle 
 of April, and is reaped in April or the beginning 
 of May, whereas the wheat ripens two or three 
 weeks later (Seetzen; Robinson's Pal. ii. 263, 
 278)." F. G.] "The sheaf was to be waved 
 before Jehovah. Does this mean: hallowed in- 
 deed to Jehovah, but given' to the priest ? So 
 it seems from ver. 20. But according to Ex. 
 xxix. 24, 27, that which was waved was in part 
 brought to the altar and in part designated as 
 for Moses [t. e. for Aaron and his sous]. So 
 the sanctification to Jehovah was to be the prin- 
 cipal idea of the waving, but certainly with the 
 secondary idea that it was only ideally offered 
 to Jehovah for the use of the priest. The first 
 day of the Mazzoth was reckoned as a Sabbath, 
 and the sheaf of the first fruits was presented 
 on the second of the seven days. That day was 
 distinguished by a festal sacrifice. But the sac- 
 rifice is small, for the year is yet poor — of less 
 value than the later sacrifices: one lamb for the 
 burnt offering, two tenths (of an Ephah) of 
 wheat flour moistened with oil for the oblation, 
 to which was added the fourth part of an 
 hin for a drink offering. Under this condition 
 only was Israel acceptable in its preliminary 
 feast of the harvest, and the prohibition is a 
 very prominent thing: before Jehovah has re- 
 ceived His sheaf of the first fruits nothing of the 
 new bread can be eaten. A law for posieriy ! 
 says the legislation in the wilderness." [The 
 
CHAP. XXIII. 1-44. 
 
 175 
 
 first Divine communication of this chapter closes 
 with ver. 8. It contains the command for the 
 observance of the Sabbath, of the Passover, and 
 the general direction for the observance of the 
 feast of unleavened bread. Here it ends, and a 
 new communication begins with ver. 9, and ex- 
 tends to ver. 22 containing the commands for 
 the wave sheaf, which was a part of the feast 
 of unleavened bread, and for the feast of Pente- 
 cost. The reason for this apparent dislocation 
 of the logical arrangement is obvious: what 
 was directed in the first communication was to 
 be immediately observed during the wilderness 
 life, while the wave sheaf and Pentecost, could 
 not be, and were not intended to be observed 
 until the entrance upon the land of Canaan. 
 There is here therefore an incidental, but very 
 strong evidence of the date of this legislation. 
 At any other time than during the wilderness- 
 life, all the precepts for the feast of unleavened 
 bread would certainly have been arranged in 
 the same paragraph. Ver. 11. On the mor- 
 row after the Sabbath. — Various opinions 
 have been held in regard to this Sabbath. Ac- 
 cording to the Boethoseans (see Lightfoot on 
 Luke vi. 1) the beginning of the ecclesiastical 
 year was so arranged that the Passover always 
 fell on the Sabbath, and consequently "the 
 morrow after the Sabhath " and the feast of 
 Pentecost were always observed on the first day 
 of the week. This opinion has been adopted by 
 several modern authorities, as Hitzig, Hupfeld, 
 Knobel, Kurtz The two former of these think 
 that the sheaf was waved after the conclusion 
 of the feast on the 22d of the month ; the two 
 latter, on the loth, the first day of holy convo- 
 cation. It has been confuted by Biihr and 
 Weiseler, and is rejected by Keil and Clark on 
 the ground that such an arrangement would in- 
 volve a broken or partial week almost invariably 
 at the close of the year, which is of course inad- 
 missible. It may be added further that [he first 
 day and the seventh day of the feast could not 
 possibly have both fallen upon the weekly Sab- 
 bath, and that the provision for both is the 
 Eame (vers. 7, 8) forbidding only servile work. 
 Another opinion is that the Sabbath was that 
 weekly Sabbath which must occur on one of the 
 days of the feast. This was the view of the 
 Sadducees and of the Karaite Jews, but while it 
 rests upon no positive support, seems sufficiently 
 refuted by the argument of Keil (note, p. 440) 
 that "if the Sabbath was not fixed, but might 
 fall upon any day of the seven" days' feast of 
 Mazzoth, and therefore as much as five or six 
 days after the Passover, the feast of Passover 
 itself would be forced out of the fundamental 
 position which it occupied in the series of an- 
 nual festivals (comp. Ranke, Pentateuch II. 108)." 
 The better view is that found in the LXX., 
 Philo, Josephus, the Targums, and the Rabbini- 
 cal writers generally, and which seems most 
 iu accordance with the text itself, that the Sab- 
 bath was simply the festival Sabbath, the loth 
 Abib, on whatever day of the week it might 
 happen to fall. So Lange below. The sheaf 
 of first fruits was then waved on the 16th. and 
 from that day the time was reckoned to the 
 t sasl of Pentecost. "By offering the sheaf of 
 first fruits of the harvest, the Israelites were to 
 
 consecrate their daily bread to the Lord their 
 God, and practically to acknowledge that they 
 owed the blessing of the harvest to the grace of 
 God." Keil. The offerings of vers. 12, 13, were 
 especially connected with the wave sheaf, and 
 were additional to the regular feast day sacri- 
 fices prescribed in Num. xxviii. 19-24. The ob- 
 lation was doubled (see Ex. xxix. 40; Num. xv. 
 4; xxviii. 21) as was appropriate to a harvest 
 festival ; but the drink offering (which in Le- 
 viticus is mentioned only here and in vers. 18, 
 37) remained as usual. Ver. 14. Bread .... 
 parched grain .... green ears are the three 
 forms in which grain was commonly eaten, and 
 the expression is equivalent to forbidding its use 
 in any form whatever before the waving of the 
 sheaf of first-fruits. — F. G.]. 
 
 " 3. The Feast of Weeks. . [Vers. 15-22]. De- 
 termination of the time : From the second day 
 of the Mazzoth seven Sabbaths were counted, i. e., 
 forty-nine days. The following day, the fif- 
 tieth, is the feast of weeks (njjplff JH). The 
 leading thought is the new oblation which was 
 brought to Jehovah from the completed grain 
 harvest. It was to be brought out of all dwell- 
 ings, and thus not out of the regular templo re- 
 venues: two wave loaves of two-tenths (of 
 an Ephah) of fine wheaten flour. The baked 
 bread must be leavened, which shows that leaven 
 does not, in and of itself, signify the evil (comp. 
 Comm. on Matt. p. 197) [xi. 33, Am. Ed., p. 245]. 
 This was the first-fruits of the whole grain har- 
 vest which must be hallowed to Jehovah before 
 the bread from the new harvest might be eaten." 
 [This is not stated in the Text, and while it was 
 undoubtedly true in regard to the wheat, must 
 not be understood to include also the barley 
 which it became lawful to use immediately after 
 the offering of the wave sheaf during the feast 
 of unleavened bread. — F. G.]. "The year has 
 now become richer, and hence seven lambs must 
 be offered for a burnt offering besides a young 
 ox (bullock) and two rams, and with all these 
 the proportionate drink offerings. Besides these 
 there was a he-goat for the sin offering — hardly 
 with reference to the unleavened bread (accord- 
 ing to Keil, p. 151), but certainly with reference 
 to the sins which were wont to accompany the 
 harvesting." [The precise remark of Keil, 
 (trans, p. 443) is as follows : " The sin offering 
 was to excite the feeling and consciousness of 
 sin on the part of the congregation of Israel, that 
 whilst eating their daily leavened bread they 
 might not serve the leaven of their old nature, 
 but seek and implore from the Lord their God 
 the forgiveness and cleansing away of their sin." 
 It is to be observed that this sin offering was 
 neither that required for a definite sin of the 
 whole congregation, a bullock (iv. 14), nor yet 
 that for an individual, a she-goat (i'6. 28), but 
 was the same as that required for a prince («6. 
 23). The reason for it is to be sought, not in 
 any especial and definite sin, but in that general 
 and continual sinfulness which the chosen people 
 were commanded to recognize on all occasions 
 of especial solemnity.— F. G.]. " Finally two 
 lambs as a peace offering, or thank offering, 
 closed the feast. These peace offerings were 
 waved with the loaves of first-fruits, i. e., were 
 
176 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 sanctified to Jehovah, and then fell to the priest. 
 A principal direction for even this day is that it 
 was proclaimed as a convocation of the sanc- 
 tuary, and that on it even domestic work itself 
 was forbidden as well as servile labor." [The 
 text however (ver. 21) contains only the prohi- 
 bition of servile work. It is noticeable that 
 this Pentecostal offering of two young rams was 
 the only peace offering required of the whole 
 congregation in the Mosaic ritual. — F. G.]. 
 " With this memorable religious command is 
 connected the humane one, that the reaper of 
 the harvest must let some remain in the borders 
 of the field, and that gleaning was forbidden in 
 favor of the poor (comp. Ruth). It is plainly 
 said again with this command : I am the Lord 
 your God." [This feast, was not to be observed 
 until ye be come into the land which I give 
 unto you, and Theodoret (Qu.32 in Lev.), says 
 that it then "renewed the memory of the en- 
 trance into the land of promise." Since Maimo- 
 nides (see Lange above) it has been customary 
 to connect it with the giving of the law. Nei- 
 tiier of these associations, however, rest on any 
 sure foundation. In Ex. xxxiv. 22 this festival 
 is more particularly described, as indeed is im- 
 plied here, as the first-fruits of the wheat har- 
 vest. The loaves differed from all ordinary ob- 
 lations in being leavened, as an offering from the 
 people's daily bread to the Lord who had blessed 
 the harvest (comp. ii. 11, 12), but in accordance 
 with the general law, they were not to be placed 
 upon the altar. " The injunction out of your 
 habitations is not to be understood, as Calvin 
 and others suppose [so also Corn, a Lapide, 
 and Lange above], as signifying that every house- 
 holder was to present two such loaves ; it sim- 
 ply expresses the idea, that they were to be 
 loaves made for, the daily food of a household, 
 and not prepared expressly for holy purposes." 
 Keil. A moment's reflection upon the immense 
 mass of bread that would be required from tbe 
 GOO.OuO men of Israel, to be eaten only by the 
 priests and their families, is sufficient to show 
 that Keil's explanation must be right. The vic- 
 tims to be offered, according to vers. 18, 19, differ 
 from those prescribed in Num. xxviii. 28-31 for 
 the same occasion in two particulars: there is 
 no mention there of the peace offerings required 
 here (ver. 19), but this is merely a difference in 
 the- particularity of the command which fre- 
 quently occurs ; and there two young bullocks 
 and one ram are required, while here it is oneol 
 the former and two of the latter, the offering's in 
 all other respects being the same. On this ac- 
 count many commentators have supposed that 
 the offerings in Num. were simply a festival en- 
 largement of the daily burnt offering, while those 
 here commanded were additional sacrifices ac- 
 companying the special rites of the festival. It 
 can hardly, however, be considered a rash con- 
 jecture that in one place or the other the nu- 
 merals may have changed places in the hands of 
 the scribes. Josephus (Ant. iii. 10, 5) follows 
 the statement in Num. Vers. 19, 20. The sin 
 and peace offerings were to be waved. Accord- 
 ing to Jewish tradition this was accomplished 
 by leading the animals backwards and forwards 
 according to an established custom. With the 
 waving of the sin offering comp. the waving of 
 
 the leper's trespass offering, xiv. 12. The flesh 
 of both these offerings, unlike the ordinary peace 
 offerings, was to belong to the priest, Ver. 21. 
 On the selfsame day. The feast of weeks is 
 distinguished from the two other great festivals 
 in lasting but a single day; but it is said to have 
 been the custom in later times to give a festal 
 character to the six days following, and to con- 
 tinue to offer abundant sacrifices upon them. 
 The feast is only described here as an holy 
 convocation, and is called the feast of harvest 
 in Ex. xxiii. 16, the feast of weeks, of the first- 
 fruits of whrat harvest, Ex. xxxiv. 22 ; Deut. xvi. 
 10, day of the first-fruits Num. xxviii. 26. The 
 name Pentecost belongs to a later time, and ap- 
 pears in the Apocrypha (Tobit ii. 1 ; 2 Mace, 
 xii. 32), and in the N. Test. (Acts ii. 1 ; xx. 16 ; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 8). By Jewish writers it is fre- 
 quently called rn.X# (see Text. Note 19 on ver. 
 36), Gr. 'Aaapdi. As in nature the ripening of 
 the later grain was connected with that of the 
 earlier, so in the law the time of the festival for 
 the one was made dependent upon that of the 
 other; just as when the type was absorbed in 
 the Antitype the descent of the Holy Ghost was 
 dependent upon the Resurrection of Christ, the 
 First-fruits from the dead on the morrow after 
 the Sabbath of the Passover ; and the commemo- 
 ration festival of Whitsunday has ever been ob- 
 served by the Christian Church in dependence 
 upon Easter. In ver. 22 the command already 
 given in xix. 9, 10, is appropriately repeated in 
 connection with the harvest feast, and this is 
 again reiterated in Deut. xxiv. 19 in connection 
 with precepts of kindness to the needy. 
 
 Vers. 23-25. Here begins a fresh Divine com- 
 munication (the third of this chapter) because 
 the present feast was, like those of the first, to 
 come into immediate use. Lange: "4. The 
 feast of Trombones, or the new-moon feast of 
 the seventh day of the first month." [This is 
 apparently a slip of the pen for the first day of 
 the seventh month. — F. G.]. "The lesser new 
 moon feasts are not mentioned here : they be- 
 long more to the ordinary life of the people and 
 to the State (hence Num. xxviii. 11). Also the 
 seventh new moon is here only very briefly men- 
 tioned, and significantly described as Sabbathon 
 Zilcron, as a feast Sabbath which was to be a 
 Sabbath of memorial. The festal remembrance, 
 however, had respect to the new holy season 
 which dawned with the seventh month. Thus 
 as the first feasts — Easter, Mazzoth, and First- 
 fruits— form a trilogy, so the great new moon 
 feast makes also a trilogy with the following Day 
 of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles. It is a 
 feast of joyous sounds (njNiri) to awaken a na- 
 tional festal disposition by means of a festival 
 blowing, not however with 'trumpets' which 
 were not ordered till Num. x., and with their 
 clear piercing tone were fitted for the march of 
 the army of God; but with the deep droning of 
 horns, trombones, which like bells, rather affect 
 deeply than arouse." There is nothing said in 
 the text of any instrument, see Textual Note 15 
 on ver. 24; but as the silver trumpets were to 
 be blown on all the new moons, and on all other 
 festal occasions (Num. x. 10), they must have 
 been blown also on this new moon, whatever 
 
CHAP. XXIII. 1-44. 
 
 177 
 
 other instruments may have been used besides. 
 " In the modern service of the Synagogue, Ps. 
 Ixxxi. is used at the feast of Trumpets." Clark. 
 The general view of the Rabbinists is said to 
 have been that it was a commemoration of the 
 creation when " all the sons of God shouted for 
 joy," Job xxxviii. 7. Other commemorations, 
 equally fanciful, have been proposed, but it is 
 unnecessary to look beyond the fact that it was 
 New Year's day. This being a feast when it was 
 not required that all the people should appear 
 at the Sanctuary, the "holy convocation" was 
 probably observed, like the weekly Sabbath, in 
 each town and village throughout the land. Ne- 
 vertheless a special burnt offering (ver. 25) was 
 to be offered at the Sanctuary, and this is spe- 
 cified in Num. xxix. 1-6, as consisting of a bul- 
 lock, a ram, and seven lambs, with their obla- 
 tions and drink offerings. 
 
 Vers. 26-32. A new communication is made 
 in regard to the Day of Atonement, not for the 
 reasons given before, but to mark the import- 
 ance of the day. This subject has been so fully 
 treated in ch. xvi. that little need be said here. 
 It was on this day and not on the first of the 
 month that the year of Jubilee was to be pro- 
 claimed (xxv. 9). On this day also the peo- 
 ple were not required to assemble at the Sanc- 
 tuary, and the holy convocation must have 
 been kept at their homes. Lange : "5. The 
 Day of Atonement. It is a noticeable anomaly 
 that it falls upon the tenth day. Ten is the 
 number of the closed history, the reckoning up 
 of the double five, the well-used or badly-used 
 freedom, the number of judgment. The Day of 
 Atonement forms the climax as a day of purifi- 
 cation, ch. xvi. ; here it is an introduction, a 
 preliminary condition for the great feast of Ta- 
 bernacles (this relation is shown by the }X ver. 
 27." [" By the restrictive ^X, the observance 
 of the day of atonement is represented a priori 
 as a peculiar one. The ^X refers less to the 
 tenth day, than to the leading directions re- 
 specting this feast." Keil]. Num. xxix. 7 sup- 
 plies still a third meaning, as a social or political 
 fast day. It was named the day of expiation 
 (D"}33n). Ye shall afflict your souls; Lu- 
 ther translates arbitrarily : ' Ye shall afflict your 
 body, mortify your body, mortify your bodies.' 
 Certainly from the expression of the original 
 text, the fast is meant in Isa. lviii. 3, etc. In or- 
 der that the neglect might be visible and could 
 be punished, and that the limits might be fixed, 
 it is said: from even unto even. For this 
 feast also, as well as the former one, every busi- 
 ness (not only labor) was forbidden." [This 
 cannot be meant of the new moon of the seventh 
 month, on which only servile work (ver. 25) was 
 forbidden. — F. G.]. " The great rigor is to be 
 noticed with which the penalty of death was 
 threatened for every transgression against the 
 rest of the Sabbath and against the fast." 
 
 Vers. 33-36. The ordinance for the feast of 
 Tabernacles is given in a separate communica- 
 tion since this was not to be observed until the 
 entrance into the land of Canaan. Lange: "6. 
 The feast of Tabernacles (ni3pn JH). The feast 
 is made prominent by being celebrated upon the 
 15th and not on the 14th day." [Just as the 
 
 feast of unleavened bread began on the 15th of 
 the first mouth. — F. G.]. " And .moreover, by 
 being completed by an eighth day (rHXJ?), the 
 closing festal assembly, see Jno. vii. 37." [There 
 is here also an analogy to the feast of unleavened 
 bread, the seven days of which were preceded 
 by the day of the Passover. In strictness the 
 eighth day was not a part of the feast which, iu 
 vers. 34 and 40, is declared to be of seven days, 
 and in Deut. xvi. 13-15, and Ez. xlv. 25, there 
 is no mention at all of the eightti day ; and it is 
 also distinguished from the days of the feast pro- 
 per by the much smaller number of the victims 
 to be offered in sacrifice, Num. xxix. 36. More- 
 over on this day among the Hebrews the booths 
 were dismantled and the people returned to their 
 houses. — F. G.]. "The first and eighth days 
 are holy Sabbaths which exclude every kind of 
 work." [The text, however, vers. 35, 36, only 
 forbids servile work. — F. G.]. " But every- 
 thing else which distinguishes the feasts of the 
 Lord, burnt offerings, oblations, etc., (vers. 37, 
 38) distinguish this feast abundantly." [These 
 offerings are specified in Num. xxix. 12-38. They 
 consisted of a he-goat for a sin offering and a 
 burnt offering on each day. The latter included 
 two rams aud fourteen lambs on each of the 
 days, with a varying number of bullocks. Be- 
 ginning with thirteen on the first day, they were 
 diminished by one on each successive day, until 
 on the seventh only seven were offered. The 
 burnt offering of the eighth day was only one 
 bullock, one ram, and seven lambs. In all se- 
 venty-one bullocks were wholly consumed upon 
 the altar, together with fifteen rams and one 
 hundred and five lambs. — F. G.]. "It is also 
 again a double feast : in the first place the feast 
 of the garnered harvest, the third harvest, which 
 includes both the former ones, and especially 
 hallows to the Lord the noblest produce of the 
 land: the inspiriting fruits, for the children 
 (fruit), for the old (wine), and for the priests 
 (oil)." [The fruit, the oil, and the wine, were 
 however all alike used by all classes in the com- 
 munity. — F. G.]. "And then, in the second 
 place, it was the feast of the memorial of the 
 booths in which Israel had dwelt in the wilder- 
 ness. The sojourn in the wilderness must have 
 been a hardship during a great part of the year, 
 and they usually dwelt in tents ; but then came 
 the Spring and Summer time, when they could 
 build booths, and such a time would be particu- 
 larly festive, a picture of a paradisaical life of 
 nature. And it is plain that here the subject 
 must be neither the lasting sufferings of the wil- 
 derness nor the settlement in Canaan. Hence 
 also the tents must be made from goodly trees." 
 [The feast of Tabernacles did not itself occur in 
 the Spring or Summer, but late in the fall, a 
 month or more after the autumnal equinox. No 
 evidence is adduced to show that the Israelites 
 in the wilderness at any time lived otherwise 
 than in tents, and indeed during a large part 
 of their wanderings the construction of booths 
 would have been impossible from the scarcity of 
 trees. The reference to the booths (surcot/i) 
 seems to be rather to the first encampments of 
 the Exodus (comp. Ex. xii. 37; xiii. 20), when 
 they must have been as yet very imperfectly sup- 
 plied with tents.— F. G.J. " So the feast of ta- 
 
178 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 bernacles was the highest feast in Israel (a 
 bright contrast to the feast of Purim introduced 
 afterwards, which was darkened by fanaticism), 
 and was a type of the highest and most beautiful 
 Christian popular feasts. Upon the single feast 
 comp. the Lexicons, also Keil (p. 153 [Trans, p. 
 446]), and Knobel (p. 549). That this feast 
 could readily bring in peculiar temptations is 
 shown by the story of the adulteress, Jno. viii." 
 [This inference must depend upon the decision 
 that the passage referred to is a genuine part of 
 the Gospel, and is found in its proper place. It 
 is also further to be noticed that the women of 
 Israel were not required to dwell in the booths. 
 — F. G.]. "But we may see also partially from 
 Jno. vii., how it had been in the course of time 
 endowed with the richest symbolism, as a preach- 
 er-feast, as a fountain-feast, as a feast of 
 lights, the culmination of the Old Testament fes- 
 tival seasons." [It is noticeable that this feast 
 was the time chosen by Solomon for the dedica- 
 tion of the temple, 1 Kings viii. 2. — F. G.]. 
 
 " Upon the observance of the line of feasts in 
 the sabbatical year and year of Jubilee, see ch. 
 xxv. On the later Jewish feasts, see Bibl. Wor- 
 terbuch far das Christl. Volk under the article 
 Feste. So too the feasts of the later Jews in 
 Herzog's Eeal-Encyclopadie.'" For additional 
 matter concerning this feast, see under verses 
 39-42. 
 
 In vers. 37, 38, is a summary distinctly speci- 
 fying that these appointed times, with their of- 
 ferings, are additional to the weekly Sabbaths 
 mentioned in ver. 3, and their offerings. Be- 
 Bide the Sabbaths is comprehensive, including 
 both the day and the sacrifice offered upon it. It 
 means beside them in regard to the other ap- 
 pointed days, and beside their offerings as re- 
 gards the offerings belongiag to these. 
 
 Vers. 39-43 contain additional directions for 
 the feast of Tabernacles. Nothing has been said 
 in the previous verses of the dwelling in booths, 
 as the object there was only to treat of it as an 
 appointed time with its days of holy convoca- 
 tion. Here, however, this is introduced by it- 
 self, as a necessary direction, yet so as not to 
 disturb the singleness of view in which the whole 
 cycle of feasts has been presented. There is no 
 occasion, therefore, to suppose that this is a dis- 
 tinct document subsequently added. As this 
 precept has reference simply to the dwelling in 
 booths, there is no repetition of the command 
 for the holy convocations, or for the sacrifices, 
 and no mention of the eighth day, on which they 
 returned to their houses. It was pre-eminently 
 a joyous festival (ver. 40), as comported with its 
 character as a harvest feast. On the Sabbatical 
 year at this time the law was to be publicly read 
 in the hearing of all the people of all classes, in- 
 cluding the " strangers," Deut. xxxi. 9-13 ; Neh. 
 viii. 18. 
 
 In later times two significant customs were 
 added to the daily observances of the feast. At 
 the time of the morning sacrifice on each day a 
 priest drew water from the pool of Siloam in a 
 golden pitcher and bringing it in to the altar 
 poured it out with the libation of wine. This 
 probably suggested the words of our Lord in 
 Jno. vii. 37, 38. Also in the evening the men 
 and women assembled together in the court of 
 
 the women to rejoice over the ceremony of the 
 morning, the occasion being marked by great 
 hilarity. At this time two tall stands were set 
 up in the court, each bearing four lamps of large 
 size, the wicks being made of the cast off gar- 
 ments of the priests, and the oil supplied by the 
 sons of the priests. Many of the people also 
 carried flambeaux, and the light is said to have 
 been cast over nearly the whole city. This ce- 
 remony seems to have called forth our LoiJ's 
 words in Jno. viii. 12, "I am the Light of the 
 world." During both these ceremonies the 
 choirs of Levites chanted appropriate psalms, 
 and the people participated by carrying in their 
 hands green branches and fruit. There is a cu- 
 rious contrast between the cycle of annual festi- 
 vals in the Jewish and in the Christian Church ; 
 in both of them the festivals extend through 
 about six months, but in the former, in which 
 earthly blessings are everywhere prominent, it 
 began with the 14thNisan, and extended through 
 the summer; in the latter, in which the thought 
 is more directed to spiritual blessings, it begins 
 with the early winter and extends round to the 
 summer. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The weekly Sabbath is the beginning and 
 foundation of all the festivals, for herein God is 
 acknowledged as the Creator of all things and 
 of man. By that the people were joined to God, 
 and so made ready for keeping the other festi- 
 vals of His appointment. This was fixed for the 
 older church upon the seventh day, in memorial 
 of their deliverance from Egypt, the era of their 
 national existence; just as for the Christian 
 Church it is fixed upon the first day in memorial 
 of Christ's resurrection, on which rests the whole 
 existence and constitution of that Church. 
 
 II. By the offering of the first-fruits to God 
 the whole harvest was sanctified, comp. Rom. xi. 
 16. Until this had been done, no Israelite might 
 partake of the harvest at all. God's gifts are 
 freely bestowed upon men; but they may not, 
 lawfully appropriate them to their own use until 
 they have acknowledged the Giver. 
 
 III. In the three harvest festivals the domi- 
 nion of God over nature is emphatically asserted. 
 It is asserted in opposition alike to that Pan- 
 theism which underlay so much of the ancient 
 heathen mythology, and which would worship 
 the earth itself as the giver of its fruits, while 
 here the homage is rendered to the Lord of the 
 earth as distinct from and infinitely exalted 
 above the earth; and it is asserted in opposition 
 to Deism, which would so separate the Deity from 
 His works as to make them in a sense indepen- 
 dent of Him, while here He is recognized as 
 their immediate Ruler and the Author of every 
 earthly blessing. 
 
 IV. Leaven, which is for the most part for- 
 bidden in oblations, and altogether prohibited 
 from coming upon the altar, is here commanded 
 for the wave offering of the first-fruits of the 
 wheat harvest, very plainly for the express ob- 
 ject of teaching that the ordinary food of the 
 people is to be sanctified by an offering to God, 
 and thus in all things He is first of all to be re- 
 cognized. 
 
CHAP. XXIV. 1-9. 
 
 179 
 
 V. The peculiarity of a peace offering from 
 the whole congregation marks the Pentecostal 
 feast alone. At the beginning of the wheat har- 
 vest, the principal harvest of human food, it was 
 peculiarly appropriate that it should be marked 
 by the sacrifice of communion with God. 
 
 VI. In connection with the feast of the har- 
 vest comes again into prominence the care for 
 the poor in the prohibition of gleaning. God 
 leaves the poor always with us that man may 
 learn through them to imitate Himself in giving 
 freely to those who need out of the abundance 
 He has given to us. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : " The feasts of the Lord and the festal 
 ordinances (ch. xxiii.). Their double basis: 1) 
 the work, 2) the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the 
 end of the trouble of labor, as Sunday is the be- 
 ginning of festal work. The Old Testament 
 feasts in the light of the New Testament. The 
 Jewish Passover is a double feast; a type of 
 Christmas and of Easter. The Jewish and the 
 Christian Pentecostal feast. The Jewish feast 
 of Atonement and the Christian Ascension-Day 
 (comp. Heb. is. 24). The Jewish feast of Ta- 
 bernacles and the Christian harvest feast. The 
 threefold Jewish harvest feast, Easter, Pentecost 
 and Tabernacles, a threefold type of the Divine 
 blessing in the kingdom of nature, and in the 
 kingdom of grace (the first-fruits, the daily bread, 
 the festival wine). The great Day of Atonement, 
 as a day of repentance, and as a day of the Gos- 
 pel. Comparison between the Day of Atonement 
 and Good- Friday, between Christmas and the 
 feast of Tabernacles. How all feasts by their 
 historical significance are linked with one an- 
 
 other, and by their spiritual significance play 
 into one another. The feast is made gay with 
 green boughs." 
 
 As the Sabbath is made the foundation of all 
 festivals, so must the sanctificatiou of the weekly 
 day of rest ever be the condition of all accepta- 
 ble consecration of "appointed times" to the 
 Lord. The days on which no work at all might 
 be done are only the weekly Sabbaths and the 
 Day of Atonement; but the additional days on 
 which no servile work might be done were nearly 
 half as many more. These last therefore were 
 days of rest to the slave and the hired laborer. 
 The law would have days when the hard labor 
 of life must cease without suspending its activity 
 altogether, and gives its most numerous days of 
 rest to those who must be employed in life's 
 drudgery. 
 
 The rejoicing before the Lord which is here, 
 ver. 40, and in Deut. xvi. 11 commanded with 
 especial reference to the feasts of Tabernacles 
 and of Pentecost, is elsewhere made into a more 
 general duty, Deut. xii. 12, 18; xxvii. 7. If joy 
 was a commanded duty under the Old Dispensa- 
 tion, how much more under the Christian. See 
 Phil. iv. 4, etc. 
 
 The three great festivals were occasions of 
 gathering all the males of Israel together, and 
 promoting the sense of their common brother- 
 hood. The effect in this regard of united wor- 
 ship is very plain. But especially at the feast 
 of Tabernacles, all were required to dwell in 
 booths, and for the time distinctions of rank and 
 social position were levelled. Thus, as every- 
 where under the Old Dispensation, principles of 
 the Gospel were taught by symbolical acts, and 
 the brotherhood of all the people of God pre- 
 sented in sensible type and act. 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 Of the Holy Lamps, and the Shew Bread. 
 
 Chapter XXIV. 1-9. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel, that 
 they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn 
 
 3 continually. Without the vail of the testimony, iu the tabernacle of the [omit the] 
 congregation, shall Aaron 1 order it from the evening unto the morning before the 
 
 4 Lord continually : it shall be a statute for ever iu your generations. He shall 
 order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before the Lord continually. 
 
 5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals 
 
 6 shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows [piles 2 ], six on a row 
 
 7 [pile 2 ], upon the pure table before the Lord. And thou shalt put pure frankin- 
 cense 8 upon each row [pile 2 ], that it may be on* the bread for a memorial, even an 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 
 1 Ver. 3. The Sam. and LXX. here insert und hi* sons from Ex. xxvii. 21. 
 
 2 Vers. 6, 7. The Heb. rD*1>*0> referring etyniologically to au orderly arrangement, means either « row or a pile, and 
 
 Is used in both senses. The size of the loaves, however, containing each about six pounds and a quarter of flour, as com- 
 pared with the size of tho table, two cubits long by one btoad. makes it more probable that pile was intended here. Jose- 
 plius (Ant. III. 6, 0; 10, 7) expressly says, that this was the arrangement. 
 
180 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 8 offering made by fire unto the Lord. Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the 
 Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. 
 
 9 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons' ; and they shall eat it 5 in the holy place : 
 for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpe- 
 tual statute. 
 
 3 Ver. 7. The LXX. adds and Bait, which ia probably to be understood in accordance with ii. 13, or the salt may have 
 been used in making up the loaves. 
 
 * Ver. 7. 0n^?7- The force of the preposition is questioned. Both the senses on and for are true in themselves. The 
 
 incense was placed upnn the piles, according to JosephuB {ubi sup.) in golden cups, and it was also burned for the bread aa 
 a memorial. Thelatter sense, however, is sufficiently expressed by the worls for a memorial. 
 6 Ver. 9. The pronoun, wanting in the Heb., is supplied in the Sam. and in 8 MSS. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 The commands for the holy lights and the 
 shewbread here follow in a special communica- 
 tion, to complete the provisions for the typical 
 holiness of the Hebrew cultus. The former has 
 already been given, almost verbatim in Ex. xxvii. 
 20, 21, prospectively in connection with the pro- 
 visions for the whole service of the sanctuary. 
 Now the command is actually given, and in Num. 
 viii. 3 its fulfilment is recorded. The phrase- 
 ology of ver. 2, Command the children of 
 Israel that they bring, with that in ver. 8, 
 taken from the children of Israel, shows 
 that both the oil and the flour for the shewbread 
 were of the nature of oblations, gifts to the Lord 
 from the people continually. Vers. 2-4 relate to 
 the oil and the lamps; vers. 5-9 to the shew- 
 bread. 
 
 Ver. 2. Pure oil olive beaten — pure in 
 being freed before the berries were crushed from 
 all leaves, twigs, dust, etc.; and beaten in con- 
 tradistinction to pressed in the oil-presses. By 
 this beating the oil of the best quality flowed out 
 nearly colorless. Continually, ver. 3, refers 
 to the perpetuity of the ordinance, not to the un- 
 interrupted burning of the lamps ; for according 
 to the previous part of the verse, Aaron was to 
 order it from the evening unto the morn- 
 ing, and according to Ex. xxx. 7, 8, he was to 
 dress the lamps in the morning and to light them 
 at even. The pure candlestick of ver. 4, like 
 the pure table of ver. 6, refers to the pure gold 
 with which they were made, and which was of 
 course kept free from all stain. 
 
 Vers. 5-9. Fine flour always means of wheat. 
 The frankincense, as a gift from the people, 
 must necessarily be the natural gum, and is to 
 be distinguished from the compound incense 
 ■which was burnt daily upon the altar of incense. 
 Lange (see below) is inclined to admit the opi- 
 nion of Knobel that the loaves of shewbread 
 were leavened; Josephus, however (Ant. 111. 6, 
 6; 10, 7), distinctly asserts the contrary and 
 nearly all Jewish and other authorities agree 
 with him. " Since the bread was brought into 
 the Holy place (which was not the case with the 
 Pentecostal bread) it almost certainly came un- 
 der the general law of the meat offerings, which 
 excluded the use of leaven (ii. 11)." Clark. It 
 niay be added that the shewbread was changed 
 only once a week, and leavened bread, exposed 
 to I lie air, could hardly have been kept in condi- 
 tion for eating so long. The loaves were twelve 
 in accordance with the number of the tribes of 
 Israel. They were most holy, so that when 
 
 removed from the table they might, be eaten only 
 by the priests in a holy place. The action of 
 Abimelech therefore in giving them to David (1 
 Sam. xxi. 4-6) was a clear violation of the law, 
 and is justified by our Lord (Matt. xii. 4) on the 
 principle that there are cases of urgency which 
 override the technical provisions of the statute. 
 
 Lange : " The holy candlestick, with the shew- 
 bread, here makes the tabernacle the inner cen- 
 tre of all consecrations, the holy place /car' s^oxfiv, 
 which moves forth and spreads far into the holy 
 land ; and the innermost principle of this centre 
 is the name of Jehovah which comes to be 
 spoken farther on. 
 
 " On the holy candlestick see the particular 
 directions, Ex. xxv. 30; xxxvii. 17, and Num. 
 viii. 2; ccfnip. Zech. iv. 2. But it is mentioned 
 here the second time, not. because according to 
 the first command only Aaron was fitted for the 
 function ; but because it here forms the soul of 
 the cultus, as farther on, in Num., it becomes 
 the very climax of the theocratic political life, 
 the light of the nation. Even less here than be- 
 fore can one speak of the lamp of good works. 
 There is a strange propensity to place human 
 attributes in place of Divine in the very house 
 of God, even as far as to the Cherubim in the 
 holy of holies.* The candlestick is the seven- 
 fold figure of the revelation of Jehovah, the type 
 of the Seven Spirits, Rev. i. But it must be no- 
 ticed that the congregation had to furnish the 
 anointing oil" [Salbol, i. e., the oil for this sa- 
 cred use, not the oil for anointing the priests, 
 — F. G.], " for the congregation was to be the 
 substratum of all illuminations, not the priest- 
 hood alone. In like manner is the command 
 significant that the lamps were to be lit forever 
 and ever. 
 
 " The shewbread is called ' bread of the pre- 
 sence,' ' of my presence ' (Ex. xxv. 30) in that 
 they lay before the presence of Jehovah, who, 
 in a symbolical sense, here holds a meal with 
 His priests (see Rev. iii. 20) as they in the first 
 place represent the twelve tribes of the holy 
 people. On this account, then, the loaves were 
 twelve, and since they were arranged in two or- 
 dered rows of six opposite six loaves (differing 
 from the twelve precious stones of the breast- 
 plate) they were called also the loaves of the 
 ranging together, the table of the succession and 
 similarly. Keil, p. 158." [Trans, p. 452. Keil 
 
 * Keil : "This Bervioa consisted in the fact, that in the oil 
 of the lamps of 1 1 1 «- seven branched candlestick, which burned 
 before Jehovah, the nation of Israel manifested itself as a 
 congregation which caused its light to shine in the darkness 
 of this world ; and that in tie- shewbread i' offered Inn fruits 
 of its labor Oi lb" field of the kingdom of God, as a Bpintual 
 sacrilice to Jehovah." [Trans, p. 451J. 
 
CHAP. XXIV. 1-9. 
 
 181 
 
 thinks that the loaves were placed in rows, but 
 does not mention these names. On the arrange- 
 ment, see Textual Note 2 on ver. 6. — F. G.]. 
 " And since it is known that leaven in itself con- 
 tains nothing evil, although like honey it might 
 not be placed upon the altar, the supposition of 
 Kuobel (Keil to the contrary) has nothing hazar- 
 dous, that the shewbread was leavened. Un- 
 doubtedly it is to be considered that among the 
 later Jews they were unleavened; but against this 
 must be weighed the fact that they formed an im- 
 portant constituent of the food of the officiating 
 priests who ate them as a most holy thing, after 
 they were carried out, and that these loaves 
 were never actually offered, but only hallowed 
 to Jehovah, while their offering was signified by 
 the incense which went with them as a memo- 
 rial (ver. 7, Azkara). The view that the in- 
 cense was not strewed upon the bread, but placed 
 beside it in golden shells, is certainly strength- 
 ened by the purpose of incense, which was 
 burned as an offering made by fire unto Jeho- 
 vah. It is the sacrifice of prayer which is espe- 
 cially associated with the priestly communion, a 
 "Grace" said before the Lord in the highest 
 sense. 
 
 "The supposition of Knobel and others that 
 the table, with shewbread and kindred things, 
 represented the house of God as au imitation of 
 a human house, is a flat travesty of the holy 
 house into that which is common ; it rests upon 
 a misunderstanding of the religious symbolism 
 of the house of God, and in it the sleeping cham- 
 ber, e. g., the bed, and similar things must be 
 missed." [To define the exact boundaries be- 
 tween anthropomorphic language and representa- 
 tions on the one hand, and pure statements of 
 truth and pure symbolism on the other, is ex- 
 tremely difficult, and will probably always re- 
 main impossible, while man is still compelled to 
 use so much of anthropomorphic terms even in 
 the most abstract and philosophical discussion 
 of Divine things. Undoubtedly the Hebrew mind 
 was gradually led up to the conception of Di- 
 vine realities by the exaltation of human expres- 
 sions, and hence occur such forms as " the food," 
 •' the table," " the house of the Lord ;" in grosser 
 minds these would have been associated with 
 grosser ideas, while for those of higher spiritual 
 elevation, there was just enough of symbolism in 
 these terms to enable them, by their means, to 
 rise above them to more spiritual and exalted 
 couceptions. To this it was essential that the 
 human imagery should be imperfect and wanting 
 in many particulars. — F. G.]. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The symbolism of the seven-branched can- 
 dlestick is applied in the Apocalyose to the Holy 
 
 Spirit. Meantime in its perpetual burning du- 
 ring the night there is also the subordinate 
 teaching that from the worship of God all dark- 
 ness and obscurity are to be banished by the in- 
 fluence of that Spirit. To this the people are 
 themselves to contribute by bringing the purest 
 oil for the feeding of the lamps. The Holy Spirit 
 ever works upon man through that which is in 
 man, and man may receive the Divine Guest in 
 his heart, or may grieve Him and quench His 
 holy influence. 
 
 II. In the shewbread, as the culmination of 
 all oblations, is expressed on the one hand the 
 consecration to God of all that belongs to man 
 by placing bread, the staff of human life, con- 
 tinually before His presence; and on the other, 
 the condescension of God to communion with 
 man in making these loaves the food of His 
 priests. The incense, burned as a memorial, 
 represented the Divine acceptance of the gift, 
 and, as Lange has suggested, symbolized the 
 prayer with which the priests must draw near to 
 this communion. It is further to be noted that 
 this was not the sacred incense of the sanctuary, 
 but the frankincense of the people's offering. As 
 the loaves represented the twelve tribes, so this 
 frankincense represented the people's prayers; 
 and in this symbolic act of communion, the 
 priests on God's behalf pratook of the food, as in 
 the case of the sin offering. 
 
 i 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : " The proper maintenance for the can- 
 dlestick in the house of God. The table of the 
 Lord in the Old Testament and in the New Tes- 
 tament forms. The Lord at His table: l)asthe 
 Bread of heaven ; 2) as the Host ; 3) as the 
 Guest." 
 
 In the worship of God light and clearness are 
 ever to take the place of darkness and obscurity. 
 The clear shining of the Holy Spirit's direction 
 is always to be sought in all approach to God, 
 and to this end the pure oil is to be furnished by 
 the people for the lamps; an honest and good 
 heart is to be prepared for the Spirit's dwelling. 
 
 Through the grace of God man becomes a par- 
 taker of the table of the Lord. This must be ac- 
 companied with the incense of prayer. It was 
 to be a statute for ever, a perpetually recurring 
 act of communion with God. 
 
 Origen : The light of the Jews grew dim as the 
 oil of their piety failed ; the foolish virgins were 
 excluded from the marriage when their lamps 
 were gone out for the want of oil ; so Christians 
 must furnish the oil of earnest effort after holi- 
 ness, that the flame of the Spirit may burn in 
 their hearts, so that men may see their good 
 works, and that their lamps may be burning 
 when the Master comes. 
 
182 LEVITICUS. 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 Historical. — The Punishment of a Blasphemer. 
 
 "The keeping holy of the Theocratic Religion, and of the Name of Jehovah, by means of an explicit 
 
 example." — Vers. 10-10. 
 
 " The keeping holy of punishnent, and of the distinction of punishment, whose 
 culmination is stoning." Vers. 17-23. — Lakge. 
 
 Chapter XXIV. 10-23. 
 
 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out 
 amono- the children of Israel : and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of 
 
 11 Israef strove together in the camp ; and the Israeliiish woman's son blasphemed 1 
 the name of the LORD [omit of the LORD 2 ], and cursed. And they brought him 
 unto Moses : (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the 
 
 12 tribe of Dan:) and they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be 
 shewed them. 
 
 13, 14 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed 
 ' without the camp ; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and 
 
 15 let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of 
 
 16 Israel, saying.^Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blas- 
 phemeth the°name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the con- 
 gregation shall certainly stone him : as well the stranger as he that is born in the 
 land, when he blasphemeth 1 the name of the LORD [omit of the LORD'] shall be 
 put to death. 
 
 17 18 And he that killeth 3 any man shall surely be put to death. And he that kill- 
 19' eth 3 a beast shall make it good ; beast 3 for beast. 3 And if a man cause a blemish 
 
 20 in his neighbour ; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him ; breach for breach, 
 eye for eye, tooth for tooth : as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be 
 
 21 done to him again. And he that killeth 3 a beast, he shall restore it : and he that 
 
 22 killeth 3 a man, he shall be put to death. Ye 4 shall have one manner of law, as 
 well for the stranger as for one of your own country : for I am the Lord your God. 
 
 23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that 
 had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel 
 did as the Lord commanded Moses. 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Vera. 11, 16. 3p 1 according to all the best critical authorities, means to revile, to blaspheme ; the LXX. and Targums, 
 however, interpret it as" meaning to utter distinctly, tiros embodying the Jewish tradition of the unlawfulness of uttering the 
 name ol jWlk See "-Jjf^, „ better omiUed| allowing th „„ t0 8tanil exactly as in the Heb and all .be 
 Ancient Versions where the Name evidently means the Name «ar i{o X r,v, the name of Jehovah, In ver. 16 the aiticle 
 " '^^ViSi^SStS^SaS^t m very freely, as is in part indicated in the marginal readings of the 
 A. V. Translating U?3J <oul, vers. 17, 18 will read literally, And be that smiteth the soul of any man shall die the death, 
 »nd he that smiteth thVsoul of a beast shall make it good ; soul for soul. Similarly in ver. 21. A few MSS. omit the tfflj 
 
 bef Tver?^! VbeSam a ha 8 2 the sing. Seven MSS. of that version, however, follow the plural form of the Ueb. 
 
 tainly in this place ought to stand the principle 
 
 of all consecrations, the name of Jehovah, and it 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. fi(g ; Q with the higu i m p 01 . ta nce of keeping this 
 
 The whole of Lange's Exegetical is here given. Name holy that tho law, in its genesis, should be 
 "According lo Knobel the foregoing section introduced with a fearful example. .Similarly 
 stands disconnectedly in this place. But cer- the history of the Sabbath-breaker is introduced. 
 
CHAP. XXIV. 10-23. 
 
 183 
 
 Num. xv. 32." [Of course the immediate reason 
 for the introduction of the narrative is that the 
 event, actually occurred just at this point in 
 the communication of this legislation to the 
 people, and it thus constitutes one of the 
 strong incidental marks of the time when 
 that legislation was given. Lange shows 
 that its mention was the very reverse of inop- 
 portune. It is noticeable that the patronymic 
 Israelite is found elsewhere only in 2 Sam. xvii. 
 25 ; and the adjective Israelitish occurs only here. 
 It is used in opposition to Egyptian as the two 
 terms are likely to have been used at the time 
 in the camp. So in 2 Sam. xvii. 25 it is used of 
 a man of the ten tribes in opposition to the two. 
 — F. G.]. 
 
 " The son of an Israelitish woman and an 
 Egyptian man went out into the midst of the 
 Israelites, i. e., he betook himself to the camp 
 of the latter. He belonged to the strangers who 
 journeyed with Israel (Ex. xii. 38). As an 
 Egyptian, he dwelt certainly somewhat removed, 
 since he was not a member of the congregation 
 of Jehovah ; for only in the third generation was 
 an Egyptian to be taken iu (Deut. xxiii. 8)." 
 [Although this law had not yet been announced, 
 Lange's supposition is altogether probable, and 
 the man doubtless formed one of the "mixed 
 multitude" who lived on the outskirts of the 
 camp, comp. Num. xi. 1, 4. — F. G.]. "The Is- 
 raelites encamped according to the houses of 
 their tribes" (Num. ii. 2). In the camp a strife 
 arose ; " a quarrel sprang up between him and 
 the Israelitish man, that is, between him and the 
 men of Israel" (Knobel). Against the very ap- 
 propriate view that H'K stands collectively, see 
 the grammatical note of Keil, p. 158. 
 
 " The history certainly tells us how the Egyp- 
 tian offended in an ascending scale, even up to 
 the blaspheming Jehovah. The text, ver. 10, 
 shows that the Egyptian man had come in with 
 a certain degree of impudence into the midst of 
 the camp of Israel, where he did not belong. 
 From this it is also to be concluded that he ex- 
 cited here a religious quarrel, and it could only 
 have been with one, as the issue proves." [In 
 the entire absence of reliable knowledge of the 
 cau*e of this quarrel the tradition embodied in 
 (lie Targs. of Jerus. and Jon. may be noted. Ac- 
 cording to these the Egyptian was the son of an 
 Egyptian who had Blain an Israelite in the land 
 of Egypt and then had gone in to his wife. She 
 had borne the child among the Israelites, being 
 herself of the tribe of Dan. In the desert this 
 man claimed the right to pitch his tent with the 
 tribe of Dan, and the right being resisted by a 
 man of that tribe, they took the case before the 
 judge, where it was decided against the Egyp- 
 tian. On coming out under this adverse judg- 
 ment, he committed his offense. — F. G.]. "Thus 
 his insolence rose to blaspheming "the Name." 
 This expression: the Name, absolutely, raises 
 the name of Jehovah above all names, and blas- 
 phemy against it was not only blasphemy against 
 the God of Israel, but also against the religion 
 of His revelation, against the covenant with Je- 
 hovah, and thus against the holy Source of all 
 consecrations. So he was led before Moses. 
 That he was put in 'ward shows that the mea- 
 sure of punishment for this unheard of trans- 
 
 gression had not yet been made clear. And it 
 had not been settled for the reason that he did 
 not belong to the commonwealth of Israel in the 
 stricter sense. Hence the punishment was made 
 known to Moses by an especial revelation from 
 Jehovah. The greatness of the crime is shown 
 by the following particulars : 
 
 " 1. The punishment of stoning was to be so- 
 lemnly performed by the whole congregation, 
 because the blasphemy rested, like a curse, upon 
 the whole congregation. 
 
 " 2. All who had heard the blasphemy must 
 lay their hands on the head of the criminal be- 
 fore the execution. Until this expiation they 
 are contaminated with a complicity in guilt (see 
 ch. v. 1), which they must discharge from them- 
 selves upon the guilty head." [Keil refers to 
 the washing of hands in Deut. xxi. 6 as analo- 
 gous. Knobel, however, considers that the com- 
 mand is connected with Deut. xvii. 7, requiring 
 the witnesses to throw the first stones. They 
 were in either case thus to make themselves re- 
 sponsible for the truth of the accusation. — F. G.]. 
 
 "3. The greatness of the guilt is in the first 
 place to be compared with the lesser guilt of a 
 man's cursing his God, i. e., his Elohim in His 
 peculiar relation to him, wherein he might mean, 
 e. g. that this Elohim had done him wrong. This 
 
 77p may have very different degrees, even to 
 speaking evil ; therefore he shall bear his sin : 
 in the first place, his evil conscience; then his 
 sentence according to the judgment of the theo- 
 cratic tribunal." [As this particular offender 
 was an Egyptian, and as the law (ver. 16) in- 
 cludes the stranger generally, many commen- 
 tators have understood the expression his God 
 to mean the Deity whom he is accustomed to 
 worship. In confirmation of this it is urged that 
 penalty for him that curseth his God in ver. 
 15 is only that he shall bear his sin ; while in 
 ver. 16 he that blasphemeth (or revileth, a 
 feebler expression than curseth) the name of 
 the LORD, he shall surely be put to death. 
 For the last reason, others have maintained that 
 
 Q'iwX does not here signify God at all, but hu- 
 man magistrates. The reason, however, is of 
 little weight. In ver. 15 is given the general law 
 with the indefinite penalty; in ver. 16 it is re- 
 peated for the sake of emphasis, with definite- 
 ness in regard to every particular, the sin, the 
 punishment, the executioners, and the applica- 
 tion of the law to the stranger as well as the na- 
 tive. The reference of ver. 15 to the gods of 
 the strangers is peculiarly unfortunate. It can- 
 not be imagined that the law of Jehovah should 
 thus provide for the honor of those false gods 
 whom it aims to bring into contempt. — F. G.]. 
 
 "4. This punishment of stoning should apply 
 to the strang-r as well as to the Israelite, be- 
 cause in the first place, he entered the congre- 
 gation of Israel as a blasphemer of its name-; 
 and in the second place, proved thereby that he 
 did not do it unconsciously, but had an idea of 
 the signification of this name. 
 
 " 5. If then the object of the ordinances for 
 punishment next following was that the penal 
 law of the Israelites should also apply to the 
 stranger who sojourned in their community; 
 
184 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 yet the immediately following degrees of punish- 
 ment form a scale which gives one a clear idea 
 of the greatness of the blasphemer's crime against 
 Majesty. The death penalty for the murderer 
 forms a basis. Behind this follow the various 
 degrees, severe according to the law of compen- 
 sation (Ex. xxi. 23), but yet the blasphemer 
 stands pre-eminent, far above the murderer. 
 The principal reason for this arrangement lies 
 indeed in this : that the capital punishment of 
 the Egyptian might easily excite a fanatical con- 
 tempt and misusage of the stranger ; therefore 
 it is here most fittingly made prominent that the 
 Jews [Israelites] and strangers, stand under the 
 same law, and that the murdering of the stranger 
 must also be punished with death. With the 
 elevation and hallowing of the punishment here 
 appointed above all partisan fanaticism, it be- 
 came self-evident that the same punishment must 
 fall upon the Jews [Israelites]. How proper is 
 it that the name of Jehovah should be again in- 
 serted for the purpose that the stranger might 
 have equal administration of justice with the 
 Jew [Israelite]. Manifold misunderstanding 
 has attached itself to this legislation. The Jew- 
 ish misinterpretation of 2p_l (in the sense of 
 to name, instead of to revile, to blaspheme) has had 
 for its consequence the Jewish superstition that 
 man may not pronounce the name of Jehovah, 
 and the after effect no less that in the LXX. the 
 name Kvptoc is in the place of Jehovah, and also 
 the placing of the name Lord in the German Bi- 
 ble " [and in the English, but here distinguished 
 by small capital letters — E.G.], " also indirectly 
 that the name Jehovah is now translated with 
 the Jews : the Eternal. 
 
 " The Mediaeval misinterpretation drew over 
 into the New Testament time the penal justice 
 touching it, and the reflection thereof still shows 
 itself in the history of the Church of Geneva. 
 The mention of the mother of the blasphemer, 
 Shelomith (the peaceable), daughter of Dibri 
 (my word), of the tribe of Dan appears to be 
 only a mark of definite remembrance. A com- 
 munity which suffers the reviling of the prin- 
 ciple of their community without reaction, is mo- 
 rally fallen to pieces. This holds good also of 
 the religious community. The reaction of the 
 theocracy could not and should not transplant 
 itself into the Church ; but since it was outstrip- 
 ped by the middle ages, there has come in more 
 recent time, over against this extreme, a fearful 
 relaxation, which misses the dynamic reaction 
 against the impudent and the blasphemers of 
 the principle of the community." 
 
 This chapter is founded upon the fact that 
 among the Hebrews the child followed the con- 
 dition of the father and not of the mother. It is 
 probably only one of a multitude of instances of 
 children born in Egypt of parentage of different 
 nations, and many of the "mixed multitude" 
 who followed the Israelites may have had Isra- 
 elitish mothers. The doubt arising as to the 
 punishment of a blasphemer who was not one 
 of the covenant people, led to Moses' asking for 
 Divine direction. In answer, not only this par- 
 ticular case is settled, but the Hebrew law gene- 
 rally is made applicable to the sojourner. In 
 connection with the penalty for killing cattle is 
 
 announced in express terms (vers. 18, 21), that 
 which had only been implied before (Ex. xxi. 
 33-3b). The law for the punishment of blas- 
 phemy in ver. 16 is perfectly clear ; it was from 
 a wrong conception of the fact, not of the law, 
 that the Jews Btoned St. Stephen, and would 
 gladly have stoned our Lord Himself. The ca- 
 pital punishment of the murderer in vers. 17, 21, 
 is not to be considered as a part simply of the 
 lex talionis, but rather as a positive Divine com- 
 mand given in accordance with Gen. ix. 6. The 
 lex talionis on the other hand, of vers. 19, 20, is 
 permissive and restrictive, like so much else in 
 the Mosaic legislation. The fundamental prin- 
 ciple which should govern man's conduct tow- 
 ards his neighbor is given in xix. 18; but as the 
 people were so little able to bear this, the an- 
 cient indulgence of unlimited revenge is re- 
 stricted at least to the equivalent of the injury 
 suffered. After the announcement of these gen- 
 eral laws, the people carried into execution the 
 sentence pronounced upon the Egyptian blas- 
 phemer. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The fundamental moral laws apply equally 
 to all mankind. No one can be exempted from 
 them on the ground that he is not in covenant 
 relation with their author, or does not acknow- 
 ledge himself to be bound by them. 
 
 II. Blasphemy against God is a crime of the 
 deepest character, and demands the severest 
 punishment. 
 
 III. Exact justice demands the restoration to 
 one's neighbor of the precise equivalent of any 
 harm done to him, and in case this is a personal 
 injury, of a corresponding injury to the offender. 
 The law of love comes in to forbid the exaction 
 of this penalty on the part of him who is injured; 
 but the same law should lead the offender to re- 
 store in more ample measure. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : " Blasphemy against the name of Je- 
 hovah as the great mortal offence in Israel. Cul- 
 mination of the revelation of salvation in Chris- 
 tianity ; wherefore here especially the death 
 penalty must fall away. The accusation of 
 Christ, that He blasphemed God. The blas- 
 phemy in the New Testament era, above all 
 others, a blasphemy against the grace of God in 
 Christ. The name of Jehovah is the witness of 
 His covenant truth. — The fearful decree of death 
 which lies in this blasphemy itself." 
 
 The evil of marriages with the ungodly is here 
 apparent; also the influence of an ungodly fa- 
 ther upon the life and character of his child. 
 The law requires every accusation to be sub- 
 stantiated by the most solemn act of the accu- 
 ser ; no one has the right to bring a charge 
 against another to the truth of which he cannot 
 positively testify, and which he is not prepared 
 to support in such wise that, if untrue, guilt 
 must recoil on his own head. The equality of 
 all men before the law of God is here, as every, 
 where in the law, made very prominent. In the 
 sufferance of the law of revenge, we see that 
 God's will is not always to be known by what 
 
 
CHAP. XXV. 1-55. 185 
 
 He may permit to sinful man ; He suffers many 
 things " for the hardness of their hearts." All 
 these commands, and all commands given toman 
 rest upon the ultimate ground I am the LORD 
 your God. 
 
 But little is said in the New Testament of 
 blasphemy, God's displeasure at this sin having 
 been expressed so plainly in the Old, and His 
 will remaining always unalterably the same. 
 
 FOURTH SECTION. 
 
 Of the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years. 
 
 "Tlie keeping holy of the hallo-wed territory, the holy land, by the Sabbatical year ; of the consecrated 
 inheritance by the Jubilee year, and thus also of those who had become impoverished, the Israel- 
 ites who had fallen into servitude; the keeping holy of the outward appearance of the holy land 
 (streets and ways) ; of the public Sabbath feast and of the Sanctuary of the religion of the land. 
 Ch. xxv. i — xxvi. 2." — Lange. 
 
 Chapter XXV. 1-55. 
 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the chil- 
 dren of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, 
 
 3 then shall the laud keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six years thou shalt sow thy 
 field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard [fruit garden 1 ], and gather in 
 
 4 the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, 
 a sabbath for the Lord : thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard 
 
 5 [fruit garden 1 ]. 2 That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt 
 not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed : 3 for it is a year of rest 
 
 6 unto the land. And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you ; for thee, and 
 for thy servant,* and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger 
 
 7 that sojourneth with thee, and for thy cattle, and for the beasts [animals 6 ] that are 
 in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be meat. 
 
 8 Aud thou shalt number seven sabbaths 6 of years unto thee, seven times seven 
 years ; and the space of the seven sabbaths 6 of years shall be unto thee forty and 
 
 9 nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound [cause the 
 sound of the cornet to go through the land''] on the tenth day of the seventh 
 month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout 
 
 10 all your laud. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty 
 throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile 8 
 unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Vers. 3, 4. 013- See Textual Note • on xix. 10. 
 s Ver. 5. Tlie Sam., LXX. and Syr. prefix the conjunction. 
 3 Vers. 5, 11. "VTJ means primarily the separated (see Gen. xlix. 26 ; Dent, xxxiii. 16), then the consecrated. Except in 
 
 the passages referred to, and in this chap , it is always used of the Nazarite. It is applied to the vine either as for this year 
 consecrated, so LXX. ayuio>aTos a-ov ; or bj a figure of speech, thy Kazarile vine, as having its branches unpruoed like the 
 unshorn lock-" of tlie Naznritc. The latter is generally preferred by the commentators. See Keil who refers to the Latin 
 Hindis coma, Tlbull. i. 7, 34; Propert. ii. 15, 12. Ten MSS , the Syr. and Vulg. read the word in Uie plural. 
 
 * Ver. 0. The S:im. and Syr. read this and the three following words in the plural. 
 5 Ver. V. rrnSl. See Textual Note « on xi. 2. 
 
 • Ver. 8. Sabbath is used here as in xxiii. 15 (see note there) rather in a figurative way than with the definite sense of 
 week*. ■ 
 
 ' Ver. 3. The word 131'— Jubile of ver. 10 does not occur in this verse, and there is no occasion for its insertion. The 
 
 ni'lin "131*1^ > 3 ,he loU(1 sound, clangor, of an instrument usually translated trumpet in the A. T, but occasionally (1 
 
 Chron. xv. 2S; 2 Cliron. xv. 14; Ps. xcviii. 6, etc.) more correctly cornet It was either the horn of an animal (according 
 to the Mishna, of chamois or wild ^.oat), ur maue of metal in the fashion of a horn. The LXX. renoera adAniyt, tbe Vulg. 
 buccina. L . . 
 
 e Vers. 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. 72V is translated throughout this chapter and ch. xxvii , jubile. So also Num. xxxvi. 4. 
 
 In Ex. xix. 13 it is rendered trump t (tnarg. cornet), and in the orly other places where it occurs. Josh, vi. 4. 5, G, 8, 13, 
 hornt. Outside of the Bible the wold ia always spelt juh,lie, but being here speltjuoile, CUrk considers that it was ' 
 to be pronounced ns a dissyllable, making a close hint iti"ii of the Ileb. word. Authorities differ as to its sense etymologi- 
 cally. See the • ubj ct discussed in llocbart, Hicroz. I. c. 43 (vol. I., pp. 463-466 ed. Risen.), an! Oosen. Thej. «. o. I he 
 LXX. renders a^eo-is with relation to what was to be done iu this year rather than as a translation of the Heb. word. 
 
 27 
 
186 LEVITICUS. 
 
 11 return every man unto his family. A jubile" shall that fiftieth year be unto you : 
 ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the 
 
 12 grapes in it of thy vine undressed. 3 For it is the jubile; 8 it shall be holy unto 
 you : ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. 
 
 13 In the year of this jubile 8 ye shall return every man unto his possession. 
 
 14 And if thou sell' ought unto thy neighbor, or buyest ought of thy neighbor's hand, 
 
 15 ye shall not oppress [overreach 10 ] one another : according to the number of years 
 after the jubile 8 thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number 
 
 16 of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee : according to the multitude of years 
 thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou 
 shalt diminish the price of it : for according to the number of the years of the fruits 
 
 17 doth he sell unto thee. Ye shall not therefore oppress [overreach 10 ] one another; 
 but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the Lord your God. 
 
 18 Wherefore ye shall do my statutes and keep my judgments, and do them; and 
 
 19 ye shall dwell in the land in safety. And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye 
 
 20 shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety. And if ye shall say, What shall 
 we eat the seventh year ? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: 
 
 21 then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring 
 
 22 forth fruit for three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old 
 fruit until the ninth year ; until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store. 
 
 23 The land shall not be sold for ever : u for the land is mine ; for ye are strangers 
 
 24 and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a 
 
 25 redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some 
 of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that 
 
 26 which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be 
 
 27 [has become 12 ] able to redeem it ; then let him count the years of the sale thereof, 
 and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it : that he may return 
 
 28 unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is 
 sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile: 8 
 and in the jubile 8 it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession. 
 
 29 And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it 
 within a whole year after it is sold ; within a full year [a term of days 13 ] may he 
 
 30 redeem it. And if it be not redeemed with the space of a full year, then the house 
 that is in the walled city shall be established for ever to him 14 that bought it 
 
 31 throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the jubile. 8 But the houses of 
 the villages which have no wall round about them shall be counted 15 as the fields 
 of the country : they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubile. 8 
 
 32 Notwithstanding [But concerning 16 ] the cities of the Levites, and [omit and] the 
 
 33 houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time. And 
 if a man purchase of the Levites," then the house that was sold, and [in 18 ] the city 
 
 Josephus (Ant. ITT. 12, 3) uses the Heb. word i<u/3»}Aof, which he explains as meaning liberty, e\rv$epiav Be cnjiiaiVei rovvona. 
 The Vulg. liuajubileue. In Ezek. xlvi. 17 it is called "VlllD t\i\S=the year of liberty, from which Josephus probably 
 
 derived his interpretation. This accords well with the context in ver. 11, and also with the derivation from 7y=to flaw 
 
 freely. 
 
 » Ver. 14. The Heb. has the verb in the plural ; but the Sam. has the sing, in accordance with the sing, pronouns fol- 
 lowing. The word buy, DJp, i 8 fnC aba., aa in Gen. xli. 43. 
 
 '0 Ver. 14. lj\n~?|t The verb PIV in the Hiph. applies especially to that sort of civil oppression brought about 
 
 *- TT 
 
 by fraud, which is best, expressed in English by the word overreach. 
 
 » Ver. 23. TITOi?, lit./er cutting otf (as in marg. A. V.), viz. from all hope of redemption. In modern phrase, in per- 
 petuity. 
 
 » Ver. 26. The marg. his hand hath attained and found sufficiency exactly renders the Heb. ; but the text of the A. V. is 
 a sufficiently good translation except in failing to bring out the idea that tho ability to redeem has come about since the 
 Bale took place. The Jewish interpretation was accordingly correct, that the right of redemption annul 1 only accrue in 
 ruse the ability to re-purchase was gained after the sale had taken place; a merely voluntary sale must hold until the Jubi- 
 lee year. . 
 
 W Ver. 29. lrPNJ iTnfl D'D\ MX. day t shall its redemption be, i. e. the right of redemption shall continue for a 
 
 definite time and no lunger, which time has been explained in the previous clause t" be a year; it is better, however, to 
 let the trauslutlun follow the Hub. than to paraphrase so much as has been doue in the A. V. 
 
 » Ver. 30. Tli- k'ri lS for the text X^ ' 8 "' 80 'he reading of the Sam. and of thirteen MSS. 
 
 16 Ver. 31. 3tVrV is Slug. The Sam , LXX. and Syr. have the plural. 
 .. T .. 
 
 i« Ver. 32. On this use of the [.article 1 see Nordheimi-r's Jtcb. Gr. g 10H3, 6, c, h. It is evident that there is nothing 
 
 iiaid bcui th ■ redemption of the cities, which the fi.rm of the A. V. wou.d seem to imply, but only if the bouses in them. 
 
 •- '• - 1 1 T' . r >■ , i. ,|m ,.r-iiv of nnfnlon as to the nieauiug of this clause. The text of tho A. V. id supported by 
 
CHAP. XXV. 1-55. 187 
 
 of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile: 8 for the houses of the cities of 
 
 34 the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel. But the field of the 
 suburbs of their cities may not be sold ; for it is their perpetual possession. 
 
 35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee ; then thou 
 shalt relieve him : yea, though he be a stranger [poor, and his hand trembles by 
 thee, thou shalt hold him upwa stranger 19 ], or a sojourner ; that he may live 20 
 
 36 with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase : but fear thy God ; that thy 
 
 37 brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor 
 
 38 lend him thy victuals for increase. I am the Lord your God, which brought you 
 forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, arid to be your God. 
 
 39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; 
 
 40 thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant : but as an hired servant, and 
 as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 3 
 
 41 and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall 
 return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 
 
 42 For they are mv servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they 
 
 43 shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor ; but shalt 
 
 44 fear thy God. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, 
 shall be" of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen 
 
 45 and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among 
 you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat 
 
 46 in your land : and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an 
 inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
 be your bondmen for ever : but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall 
 not rule one over another with rigor. 
 
 47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by 
 him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or 21 sojourner by thee, or to the stock 
 
 48 of the stranger's family : after that he is sold he may be redeemed again ; one of his 
 
 49 brethren may redeem him ; either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, 
 or any that is nigh of kin 22 unto him of his family may redeem him ; or if he be 
 
 50 able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him 
 from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile : 8 and the price of 
 his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an 
 
 51 hired servant shall it be with him. If there be yet many years behind, according 
 unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that 
 
 52 he was bought for. And if there remain but few years unto the year of jubile, 8 
 then he shall count with him, and according unto his years shall he give him again 
 
 53 the price of his redemption. And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him : 
 
 54 and the other shall not rule with rigor over him iu thy sight. And if he be not 
 redeemed in these years [by these means"], then he shall go out in the year of jubi- 
 
 the LXX. and by the Targuma, and ia defended by Keil. A difficulty arises from the use of the word 7X T^redeem ; but 
 
 Keil maintains on the authority of the Rabbins, that this is used in the sense of njp=<0 buy. He groundB the usage on 
 
 tIt 
 the fart that the Levitict] cities were originally assigned to the tribes as a part of their inheritance; they relinquished the 
 houses, or a part <•! the houses in them (together with pasture grounds) to the Levites tor dw- lhng-pla' i s. When therefore 
 one of another 'rile- pur. based of a Levite, lie was in tact redeeming the inheritance of his tribe. So Murphy. On theother 
 hand, the reading: r/one of the Levita redeems a lumxe in the city (according to the niarg. of the A. V.), is preferred by Chirk 
 following Rusenmiilier, De* Wette. Kranold, rlerxheimer and others. The meauing will tb> u be, that if a Levite haa snld 
 
 a house to one of another tribe, and another Levite redeem it, then in the .Jubilee year it mnBt revert to ita original | 
 
 sessor. But it is more than questionable whether the Levites had any such general right of redemption on behalf of their 
 fell w Levites as this would suppose. The Yulg. inserts a negative, Si redempta (sc. cedes) non ftterint, and ibis is sustained 
 bv Houbigant, and preferred by Woide, Kwalrl, Bunsen and Knobel. It is adopted by L;tnge in the translation and exege- 
 sis; lint it is a Berious objeetion that it would require a change in the Ueb. On the whole, the text of the A. V. seems heat 
 sustained, and gives the clearest sense. 
 
 18 Ver. 33. On the use of 1 in the figure Bendiadys see Gesen. s. v. 1, b. 
 
 19 Ver. 35. The particle as is inserted here by the LXX., Yulg , Targums, Luther, etc, and is recognized as to he sup- 
 plied by many commentators, as Keii, Clark and others. So also Riggs. On the other hand the Syr. gives just the opposite 
 sense : thou shalt not hold him for a sojourner or foreigner; but he shall live with thee. Others, as Lange, adopt the sense 
 expressed in the A. V. 
 
 20 Ver. 35. 'Ill according to Keil, an abbreviation for 'fll occurring only here. 
 
 21 Ver. 47. The missing conjunction is supplied iu ten MSS., the LXX. and Syr. 
 
 22 Ver. 49. See Textual Note * on xviii. 6. 
 
 23 Ver. 54. The Heh. does not express the noun at all. That supplied by the roarg. of the A. V. ia clearly more agree- 
 able to the context than that in the text. So Lange, following the Sjr. The other ancient versions do not supply the 
 ellipsis. 
 
188 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 55 le, 8 both he, and his children with him. For unto me the children of Israel are 
 servants ; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt : I 
 am the Lord your God. 
 
 the Sabbath-month, and the Sabbath-year, and 
 lastly to a great Sabbath-period of years. And 
 all these institutions were associated with ideas 
 admirably calculated to foster both a sense of 
 dignity and humility, both zeal in practical pur- 
 suits and spiritual elevation, both prudeuce and 
 charity." Kalisch. 
 
 '• The fundamental thought is: Jehovah is the 
 Lord of the land of Jehovah, with all its bless- 
 ings, with its soil and its harvests, with its inhe- 
 ritances and its dwellings, with its rich and its 
 poor, with its free and its slaves, its roads and 
 its bye-ways, its holy seasons, the Sabbaih days 
 and its central holy place, the Tabernacle." 
 Lange. 
 
 Vers. 1-7. In mount Sinai clearly means 
 in the region about the mountain, as in vii. 38; 
 xxvi. 46; xxvii. 34, etc. " Mount Sinai is em- 
 phasized to allow the immediately following or- 
 dinance to come into prominence as a prophecy 
 of the distant future." Lange. Neither the Sab- 
 batical nor the Jubilee year were to be observed 
 until the settlement of the people in the premised 
 land. On ver. 4 Lange quotes Keil as follows : 
 " The omission of sowing and reaping presup- 
 posed that the Sabbatical year commenced with 
 the civil year, in the autumn of the sixth year 
 of labor, and not with the ecclesiastical year, on 
 the first of Abib (Nisan), and that it lasted till 
 the Autumn of the seventh year, when the culti- 
 vation of the land would commence again with 
 the preparation of the ground and the sowing of 
 the seed for the eighth year; and with this the 
 command to proclaim the jubilee year *on the 
 tenth day of the seventh month ' throughout all 
 the land (ver. 9), and the calculation in vers. 21, 
 22, fully agree." On the expression Sabbath 
 Sabbathon of ver. 4, see Textual Note 2 on xxiii. 
 3. In vers. 4-7 all agricultural labor is forbid- 
 den for the Sabbatical year. Two queslions 
 arise: how were the wants of the people to be 
 provided for during the year? and how was the 
 time thus freed from its usual employments to 
 be spent? In regard to the first, reference ia 
 usually made to the great productiveness of the 
 land, and to the fact that there would be a con- 
 siderable spontaneous growth of grain, while the 
 fruit trees and the vine would of course bear 
 nearly as usual. Greater use would also have 
 been made of animal food by those who pos- 
 sessed cattle, or were able to purchase it. and 
 the uncropped fields would have allowed of the 
 support of herds and flocks in unusual numbers. 
 These facts lessen the difficulty, and indeed re- 
 move it altogether for the wealthy and for the 
 poor also during several months of the year; all 
 this spontaneous produce was common property, 
 and might be gathered by any one for immediate 
 use but not stored. Undoubtedly during the 
 time of the ripening of the various cereals there 
 would thus be abundant provision for the wants 
 of the whole population. But after all, the main 
 reliance must have been upon the stores laid up 
 previously in view of the coming on of the Sab- 
 batical year, and this is pointed out in vers. 20, 
 21. It is also to be noticed that only agricul- 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CPwITICAL. 
 
 This chapter, with the first two verses of the 
 following one, forms another Parashah. or proper 
 lesson of the law ; the parallel lesson from the 
 prophets is Jer. xxxii. 6-27, concerning Jere- 
 miah's redemption of Hanameel's field in Ana- 
 thoth. This and the following chapter, which is 
 the conclusion of the book proper, form a single 
 Divine communication. " The institution of the 
 jubilee years corresponds to the institution of 
 the day of atonement (ch. xvi.). Just as all the 
 sins and uncleannesses of the whole congrega- 
 tion, which had remained unatoned for and un- 
 cleansed in the course of the year, were to be 
 wiped away by the all-embracing expiation of 
 the yearly recurring day of atonement, and an 
 undisturbed relation to be restored between Je- 
 hovah and His people; so, by the appointment 
 of the year of jubilee, the disturbance and con- 
 fusion of the divinely appointed relations, which 
 had been introduced in the course of time through 
 the inconstancy of all human or earthly things, 
 were to be removed by the appointment of the 
 year of Jubilee, and the kingdom of Israel to be 
 brought back to its original condition." Keil. 
 The systematic character and correspondence of 
 the two great divisions of Leviticus are thus 
 brought into view. 
 
 The institution of the Sabbatical year occu- 
 pies the first seven verses, and that of the year 
 of Jubilee, with its effects upon rights and pro- 
 perty, the remainder of the chapter. The latter 
 may be subdivided into the institution itself 
 (vers. 8-12); the legal return of every man to 
 his own land, and the effect of this on contracts 
 (vers. 13-34) ; and finally the emancipation of 
 the Hebrew slave with its consequences (vers. 
 35-55). "The Sabbatical year and the year of 
 Jubilee belong to that great Sabbatical system 
 which runs through the religious observances of 
 the law. They were solemnly connected with 
 the sacred Covenant." Clark. They are there- 
 fore appropriately placed immediately after the 
 "appointed seasons" of the previous chapter; 
 yet they are also somewhat separated from these, 
 as " they were distinguished by no religious ce- 
 remonies, they were accompanied by no act of 
 religious worship. There were no sacrifices, 
 nor Holy Convocations belonging to them." Al- 
 though forming a part of the Hebrew ecclesias- 
 tical system, they were yet chiefly marked in 
 their effects by their civil and social relations. 
 As the whole civil polity of Israel was funda- 
 mentally theocratic, so were these remarkable 
 provisions in their national life placed upon a 
 religious basis. 
 
 " There are perhaps in the whole ancient world 
 no institutions bearing comparison with the He- 
 brew year of release and of Jubilee, either in 
 comprehensiveness or in loftiness of principle. 
 It is impossible to appreciate too highly the 
 wonderful consistency with which the Sabbath 
 was made the foundation of a grand series of 
 celebrations extending from the Sabbath-day to 
 
CHAP. XXV. 1-55. 
 
 189 
 
 tural labor was suspended, and that the com- 
 merce of the cities went on as usual. In regard 
 to the employment of the time: the command is 
 given in Deut. xxxi. 10-12, that at the feast of 
 Tabernacles in this yeir the law should be read 
 in the hearing of all the people, including not 
 merely the men who were alone required in other 
 years to assemble at the feast, but also the wo- 
 men and children. This provision, joined with 
 the analogy of the seventh day, shows that the 
 leisure of the Sabbatical year was to be improved 
 in acquiring a knowledge of the Divine law, and 
 doubtless in renewing family ties and associa- 
 tions. It is distinguisbe! not as an idle year, 
 but as a year of intellectual and moral, rather 
 than of minual occupation. Other passages in 
 the law on this subject are Ex. xxiii. 10, ll, and 
 Deut. xv. 1-18. The latter is the most detailed 
 of a'l, and provides for the release in that year 
 of all debts due from Israelites, and of all Isra- 
 elites in bond service. The Sabbatical year 
 was doubtless provided for the sake of man 
 and its bearing upon his spiritual welfare ; 
 yet when the law pronounces (ver. 2) the land 
 shall keep a Sabbath unto the LORD, 
 we are forced to see a symbolical significance in 
 the very rest of the land itself. '• The earth 
 was to be saved from the hand of man exhaust- 
 ing its power for earthly purposes as his own 
 properly, and to enjoy the holy rest with which 
 God had blessed the earth and all its productions 
 after the creation. From this, Israel, as the na- 
 tion of God, was to learn, on the one hand, that 
 although the earth was created for man, it was 
 not merely created for him to draw out its pow- 
 ers for his own use, but also to be holy to the 
 Lord, and participate in His blessed rest; and 
 on the other hand, that the great purpose for 
 which the congregation of the Lord existed, did 
 not consist in the uninterrupted tilling of the 
 earth, connected with bitter labor in the sweat 
 of his brow (Gen. iii. 17, 19), but in the peaceful 
 enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, which the 
 Lord their God had given them, anil would give 
 them still without the labor of their hands, if 
 they strove to keep His covenant and satisfy 
 themselves with His grace." Keil. The law of 
 the Sabbatical year was not to come into opera- 
 tion until after the completion of the conquest 
 It is hardly probable that it was actually ob- 
 served until the Captivity, see 2 Chron. xxxvi. 
 21, unless possibly a few times in the very be- 
 ginning of the settlement in Canaan. Later, 
 " there are found several historical notices which 
 imply its observance. The Jews were exempted 
 from tribute in the Sabbatical year by Alexander 
 the Great (Jos. Ant. xi. 8,6), and by Julius 
 Cassar (i'6. xiv. 10, 6). The inhabitants of Beth- 
 sura could not stand out when besieged by An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes, because they had no store of 
 provisions owing to the Sabbatical year (1 Mace. 
 vi. 49), and the inhabitants of Jerusalem suf- 
 fered from a like cause when they were besieged 
 by Herod (Jos. Ant. xiv. 16, 2; xv. 1, 2)." 
 Clark. Tacitus also mentions the Jewish " sev- 
 enth year given to indolence" (Hist. v. 2, 4), 
 and St. Paul (Gal. iv. 10) charges the Judaizers 
 with observing years as well as days and mouths. 
 Vers. 8-12. The institution of the year of Ju- 
 bilee. The present chapter contains the whole 
 
 literature of the Jubilee year to be found in the 
 Pentateuch, except the discussion of its effect 
 upon fields dedicated to the Lord in xxvii. 16- 
 2-5, and except also the allusion in the case of 
 the daughters of Zelophehad, Num. xxxvi. 4. 
 Lange: "The relation of the last Sabbatical 
 year to the Jubilee year itself creates a special 
 difficulty. If the people did not sow or reap 
 during two years, there would result a stoppage 
 of four years." [This seems to overlook the 
 fact that the Jubilee was proclaimed on the 10th 
 Tisri, when the whole work of the agricultural 
 year had been rounded oat and completed, so 
 that the break of two years, serious as this was, 
 did not extend either forward or backward in 
 its effects beyond those years themselves. — F. 
 G.]. " On this account it has indeed been sup- 
 posed that the 49ih year itself was the Jubilee 
 year (see Keil, p. 162 [Trans, p. 458]. Art. 
 Sabbath and Jobcljahr in Herzog's Real encyclo- 
 padie)." [This view was first advocated by R. 
 Jehuda, and has been adopted by Scaliger, Usher, 
 Peiavius, Rosenmiiller, and others, and hesita- 
 tingly by Clark in his commentary. It is en- 
 tirely rejected by Keil as contradictory to the 
 plain language of the text, and by Clark in his 
 Art. Jubilee in Smith's Bibl. Diet. The text 
 (vers. 8-11) is perfectly plain, usiug the same 
 forms of language as in regard to the feast of 
 Pentecost after the completion of the seven weeks, 
 between which and this Pentecostal year there 
 is a clear analogy. Notwithstanding the autho- 
 rity of the critics above referred to, it must be 
 considered as certain that the Jubilee fallowed 
 the seventh Sabbatical year, and that thus once 
 in every half century two fallow years were to 
 occur together. The provisions for food were 
 the same in the one case as in the other: no 
 agricultural labor was to be performed, but the 
 spontaneous productions of the earth were the 
 common property of the whole population. Large 
 reliance must therefore have been placed upon 
 food previously stored and, perhaps, on foreign 
 commerce. — F. G.] " We see from the book of 
 Jeremiah that tins feast was poorly kept in Is- 
 rael, not on account of apprehended need, but in 
 consequence of tho hardening effect of proprie- 
 tary relations, and the h ird-heartedness of the 
 powerful and great ( Knobel, p. 563. Jer. xxxiv. ). 
 l!ul the year uf Jubilee formed the culmination 
 of the ideal relations of Israel which the law 
 aimed at without actually reaching. . . . Itis 
 most full of significance that on the 10th of the 
 7th mouth (at the end of the seven Sabbatical 
 years on the great day of Atonement, without 
 doubt immediately after the full accomplishment 
 of the propitiation) the trombone was to sound 
 through all the land to announce the year of Ju- 
 bilee as a year of freedom (11YI), the highest 
 feast of the laborer, and of nature, the redemp- 
 tion of lost inheritances, the ransom of the en- 
 slaved, the year of the restoration of all things 
 ( [sa. lxi.). The instrument of the announcement 
 is the trombone, the horn ("131C/), the sound of 
 
 which 73V had proclaimed also the feast of the 
 covenant of the law." After the solemn quiet 
 of the day when all the people must " afflict their 
 souls," and when the great rites of the annual 
 propitiation had been completed, probably at the 
 
190 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 time of the evening sacrifice, the sudden burst 
 of sound proclaiming the year of Jubilee must have 
 been peculiarly impressive. The proclamation of 
 freedom was most appropriate just after the great 
 reconciliation of the people with God had been 
 symbolically completed. The chief allusions to 
 this year in the prophets are Isa. lxi. 1, 2; Jer. 
 xxxii. 6-15; Ezek. vii. 12, 13; xlvi. 16-18. 
 
 Vers. 13-34. In the year of Jubilee every man 
 was to return to his inherited possession. The 
 principle on which this law is based is given in 
 ver. 23 : The land was the absolute possession 
 of Jehovah alone; He had allotted it to the fa- 
 milies of Israel as strangers and sojourners 
 with Him, and however these allotments might 
 be temporarily disturbed in the exigencies of 
 life, in the Jubilee they must all be restored 
 again. Ver. 14. Sell aught refers only to land 
 and houses in the country. Personal property 
 (except slaves) was not affected by the Jubilee 
 as debts were by the Sabbatical year (Deut. xv. 
 1-11). The price of the laud was determined 
 (vers. 15, 16) by the value of the harvests re- 
 maining until the Jubilee. "In the valuation 
 of the harvest there was always opportunity for 
 fraud ; therefore the earnest warning not to op- 
 press [overreach] one's neighbor." Lange. 
 Vers. 20-22 relate in terms to the sabbaticalyear, 
 but only in regard to the supply of food. This 
 is, of course, equally applicable to the Jubilee 
 year, and thus both cases are covered. The 
 question arises in connection with the latter, but 
 needs also to be answered for the form-r, and is 
 therefore arranged with reference to that as the 
 more frequently recurring. The verses stand 
 therefore quite in their proper place; if placed, 
 as various critics would have them, just after 
 ver. 7, the Jubilee year could only be provided 
 for by a repetition. Vers. 23-28. Lange: "The 
 land shall not be sold even to defeasance, i, e., 
 comple ely. It shall also not be sold absolutely ; 
 the form is not an hereditary lease, once for all, 
 but a temporary lease for a course of years.— 
 For the land is Mine. Jehovah says, an 1 ye 
 are strangers and sojourners -with Me. — 
 Therefore tue soil throughout the whole land was 
 placed under the law of redemption. Also re- 
 demption could take place before the 50ih year 
 if the nearest Goel or redeemer of the impover- 
 ished man stepped in and bought back for his 
 benefit that which had been alienated. If the 
 redeemers (relatives, according to their degrees 
 of relationship, having the ability and the will) 
 failed, then the case was conceivable that the 
 impoverished man himself might come into the 
 possession of means before the 50th year, and 
 then the redemption was reserved to him accord- 
 ing to the usufruct of the yet remaining years." 
 If neither of these means of redemption were 
 availed of, then the law of reversion absolutely 
 and without consideration came into play in the 
 Jubilee year. There could never be injustice in 
 this, as all purchases had been made with a full 
 knowledge of the law. The law, if thy bro- 
 ther be waxen poor, throughout presupposes 
 that no Israelite would sell his inheritance ex- 
 cept under the pressure of poverty. Comp. 1 
 Kings xxi. 3. 
 
 Vers. 29-34. The alienation and redemption 
 of houses (a) of the people generally, vers. 29- 
 
 31; (b) of the Levites, vers. 32-34. (a) Lange: 
 "A dwelling-house within a walled city could 
 be redeemed within the space of the first year, 
 but not afterwards. The law could not be 
 brought to bear upon the more fixed relations 
 of cities without prejudice to justice and order. 
 Tho reason certainly is not that the houses in 
 the cities belonged " to the full proprietorship 
 of their possessors." The possessors themselves 
 wero really tenants of Jehovah." [The law of 
 redemption relates to land, and is based upon 
 the original division of the land among the fami- 
 lies of Israel. In cities the original value of 
 the land constituted but a small part of the value 
 of a house; the rest was the creation of human 
 industry. The property represented by the ori- 
 ginal value of the land is recognized in the right 
 of redemption for a year, which also concurred 
 with the general purpose of the law in checking 
 the sale of real estate; but beyond this the 
 house in the city was justly treated as of the 
 nature of personal property. Calvin also ob- 
 serves justly that there was not the same objec- 
 tion to the falling of city houses into the hands 
 of the wealthy as of those in the country. On 
 the one hand, the expense of maintaining them 
 was greater, and could be better borne by the 
 wealthy; and on the other, the possession of a 
 house was not at all as necessary to a poor man 
 in the city as in the country where he could 
 scarcely otherwise find shelter. — F. G.] " But 
 the houses in open places were put, as an appur- 
 teuance to the farm, under the law of redemp- 
 tion within the fiftieth year, or of reversion at 
 the end of that period." (6) See the Textual 
 Notes on vers. 32, 33. Lange, in his translation 
 and exegesis of ver. 33, follows the Vulgate, and 
 objects to the view of Keil as too subtle, and as 
 inapplicable to the clause: and the City of 
 his possession. The latter objection is re- 
 moved by considering this as a henrtiad'/*, and 
 translating in the city. Lange considers that the 
 clause "has something like these the senses: even 
 houses of the Levites fall back again, even if 
 they were the whole city. Or again: only by 
 this means the Levidcal cities remain guaranteed 
 as such." The pasturage of the Levites was 
 absolutely inalienable, even temporarily (ver. 
 34), and the reason for extending the law of 
 redemption to their houses in the cities is evi- 
 dently that they had no other inheritance, and 
 it was therefore necessary in this to assimilate 
 them to the rest of the people that they might 
 enjoy the same safeguards against hopeless 
 poverty with their brethren. This provision 
 applied to the priests also, who constituted one 
 family of the Levites, and were in the same situ- 
 ation as their brethren in regard to landed pro- 
 perty. It is noticeable on the one hand that 
 this is the only mention of the Levites in this 
 book; and on the other, that the provision of 
 cities for them had not yet been announced. 
 Both facts admit of the easy explanation that 
 the whole legislation had been communicated to 
 Moses in the Mount, so that any part of it may 
 presuppose another; but that he was to an- 
 nounce it to the people in the order best adapted 
 to their needs. The Levites are not therefore 
 spoken of in this book, except thus incidentally 
 in order to keep them distinct from the priests; 
 
CHAP. XXV. 1-55. 
 
 191 
 
 and the law in regard to the redemption of their 
 houses in their cities is given to complete the 
 law of Jubilee ; but the assignment of the cities 
 themselves is reserved to the directions for the 
 division of the land. 
 
 Vers. 35-55. The emancipation of the Hebrew 
 slave with its consequences. The main subject 
 is still the law of Jubilee; but in connection 
 with the effect of this upon the Hebrew slave, 
 the treatment of the poor generally is spoken 
 
 f, And if thy brother, i. e. an Israelite, 
 
 be waxen poor, lie was not to be treated as 
 an outcast, but with the consideration shown to 
 a resident foreigner, who also had no lauded 
 possession. Vers. 36, 37, forbid the taking of 
 usury of him, or increase. In the latter 
 verse this is applied also to the furnishing of 
 food. It is entirely clear that the prohibition is 
 not simply of what is now commonly called usu- 
 rious interest, but of any interest whatever. 
 There was no law regulating the amount of in- 
 terest ; no interest was allowed to be taken of a 
 Hebrew brother, and no limitation was put upon 
 that which might be demanded of a foreigner. 
 Lange, however, considers the words : a stran- 
 ger or a sojourner (ver. 35) as in apposition 
 with the pronoun him, and taking the view ex- 
 pressed in the A. V., says: " It is very noticea- 
 ble that this holds good also of the foreigner." 
 See Textual Note 19. Lange adds: "Jehovah 
 says this, the great Benefactor, who has deli- 
 vered His Israel out of Egypt, and purposes to 
 give him the whole land of Canaan, in order to 
 make him, through thankfulness, like-minded 
 with his God." (Ver. 38.) Vers. 39-43. He- 
 brew servants to Hebrews. The law provides 
 that such servants shall not be treated as ordi- 
 nary slaves entirely dependent upon the will of 
 their master, but rather as simply under a con- 
 tract, like a hired servant. In Ex. xxi. 1-4 it 
 has already been provided that the term of ser- 
 vitude for the Israelites should not extend be- 
 yond six years, and in the seventh they should 
 go out free; it is now further provided, as an 
 almost necessary supplement to that law, that, 
 whatever the number of years he might chance 
 to have served, he should go free in the Jubilee 
 when the land of his inheritance reverted to 
 him, and would need his care. "Through this 
 principle slavery was completely abolished, so 
 far as the people of the theocracy were con- 
 eerned." Oehler. In Ex. the freedom of his 
 wife and children is also assured, unless the 
 wife be one given him by his master, and there- 
 fore his slave. In that case the wife and chiU 
 dren remained the master's, and the same quali- 
 fication is doubtless to be understood of ver. 41 
 here. In Ex. xxi. 5, 6, provision is made for 
 the case of a slave who preferred to continue 
 with his master ; it would have been unneces- 
 sary at any rate to mention this unusual excep- 
 tion here; but probably it applied only to the 
 ordinary release in the seventh year of service, 
 and was not intended to take place also at the 
 Jubilee. If the slave freed at the Jubilee chose 
 to go back to his master, he could of course do 
 so, but could only devote himself to perpetual 
 servitude after another six years' service. Vers. 
 42,43. Lange: " The Israelites were not allowed 
 to become men's slaves, because they were God's 
 
 slaves. The Jews could misinterpret these noble 
 words in arrogance in opposition to the heathen 
 (Jno. viii.) ; but Christian industry has read 
 them too little." Vers. 44-46. Heathen slaves 
 of Hebrew masters. The Israelites, in common 
 with all nations of their time, were permitted to 
 hold heathen slaves. It was a patriarchal cus- 
 tom of long standing, and the supply was kept 
 up by natural descent, by purchase from for- 
 eigners, and by captives taken in war. The 
 people were not yet prepared for the abrogation 
 of this, and in consequeuce the Mosaic law per- 
 mits its continuance, but in many ways mitigates 
 its rigor (see Ex. xxi. 16, 21, 26, 27), especially 
 by providing that the slave might adopt the reli- 
 gion of his master, and be circumcised, and thus 
 eutitled to all the privileges of a Hebrew servant 
 (comp. Ex. xii. 44). This had certainly been 
 done with all the slaves of Abraham, and proba- 
 bly with those of Isuac and Jacob. It is likely 
 that no inconsiderable portion of the Israelites 
 of the time of Moses were the descendants of 
 slaves thus manumitted. Vers. 47-55. Hebrew 
 servants to foreign masters. By this addition 
 all possible cases of servitude are covered. 
 Lange: "The prohibition of oppressive power 
 against an Israelite brother occurs again ver. 
 43, and again ver. 46. So strongly were the 
 Israelites now bound to charitableness and to 
 the fostering of freedom ; so strongly also was 
 the power of the stranger and foreigner coming 
 into Israel limited in relation to heathen en- 
 croachments upon the Jewish right of freedom. 
 If an impoverished Jew sold himself or his house 
 to a foreigner, any one of his kindred might be- 
 come his redeemer, the brother, tho uncle, the 
 uncle's son, or any blood relation ; also he might 
 redeem himself, if he had laid by enough for the 
 purpose. Everything breathed the tendency to 
 
 fr lorn; but it was conditioned by law. The 
 
 price of the redemption was fixed according to 
 the years which he had yet to serve to the year 
 of Jubilee, and according to the usual wages. 
 In case there was no redemption, he was set 
 free in the year of Jubilee. At the close occurs 
 yet once more the solemn sanction of the law, 
 ver. 55." This law evidently contemplates the 
 acquisition of wealth by foreigners residing in 
 Israel, and their living in undisturbed prosper- 
 ity. The Hebrew slave of a Hebrew was released 
 without redemption after six years of service, 
 and also in the year of Jubilee whenever that 
 might occur ; but apparently the law of Ex. xxi. 
 does not apply to foreign masters, and here 
 nothing is said of release, except by redemption, 
 until the Jubilee. This would be a strong in- 
 ducement to an impoverished Hebrew to sell 
 himself to an Israelite rather than a foreigner, 
 and concurs with the general tendency of the 
 law to discourage any subjection to foreigners. 
 
 Lange connects the first two verses of the fol- 
 lowing chapter with this section as is done in 
 the Jewish Parashnh. They seem, however, to 
 belong to the general conclusion of the book 
 contained in the following chapter. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. Lange (under Exegetical): "The chosen 
 land, seen from a distance, appears as a paradi- 
 
192 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 saical world, inexhaustible in fruitfulnes9. . . . 
 But it is to be particularly noticed that the pre- 
 scribed Sabbath rest of the land forced the peo- 
 ple back again to the inexhaustible source of 
 food in the breeding of cattle, and so far to sim- 
 ple Idyllic relations ; the breaking the hardness 
 of purchase aud property relations would fur- 
 ther the return of Idyllic simplicily, soften the 
 differences of rank, and above all, avert the so- 
 called proletarian relations, and glorify Jehovah 
 as the gentle sovereign Lord and manor Lord 
 of the families of Israel joined together in bro- 
 therhood. By this also comfort was brought to 
 the cattle, and even to the wild animal. In later 
 times the turbulent, restless pressing on of in- 
 dustry is not appeased by voluntary or legal 
 times of rest and years of remission, but indeed 
 by commercial crises, civil catastrophes and 
 extraordinary helps in necessity ; but the proper 
 ideas or ideal of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years 
 have not yet come to be clearly seen in the 
 Christian consciousness of the time." What is 
 noted by H. Spencer as the rythmic flow of all 
 things in the universe is provided for in regard 
 to human activity in this wonderful legislation; 
 the disastrous consequences attending its absence 
 are noted above by Lange. 
 
 II. Lange (also under Exeg.): "The limita- 
 tion of human proprietary right to the soil has 
 also its permanent ideal significance. God chal- 
 lenges to Himself the royal right over terrestrial 
 nature, as a clear idea of this is given indeed in 
 the winter storm over the sea, the Alpine glacier 
 and the deserts. Man is inclined, in his ego- 
 tistical industry, to harass nature as his beast." 
 
 III. " Looking at the law of Jubilee from a 
 simply practical point of view, its operation 
 must have tended to remedy those evils which 
 are always growing up in the ordinary condi- 
 tions of human society. It prevented the per- 
 manent accumulation of land in the hands of a 
 few, and periodically raised those whom fault 
 or misfortune had sunk into poverty to a posi- 
 tion of competency. It must also have tended 
 to keep alive family feeling, and helped to pre- 
 serve the family genealogies But in its 
 
 more special character, as a law given by Jeho- 
 vah to His peculiar people, it was a standing 
 lesson to those who would rightly regard it, on 
 the terms upon which the enjoyment of the land 
 of Promise had been conferred upon them. All 
 the land belonged to Jehovah as its supreme 
 Lord, every Israelite as His vassal belonged to 
 Him." Clark. 
 
 IV. The law of slavery as understood among 
 ancient, nations generally is here essentially 
 modified and softened, the Levitical precepts 
 tending in the same direction with those of the 
 Gospel which, after so long a time, have now 
 nearly effected its abolition throughout the civi- 
 lized world. But in regard to the Hebrews 
 themselves, the law went much further, and 
 substantially aholished slavery at once, reducing 
 it to a six years' service, and even this inter- 
 rupted by the year of Jubilee, and subject to 
 many restrictions. It is still further to be re- 
 membered that any foreign slave might be ad- 
 
 mitted to the privileges of the Hebrew, by 
 becoming an Israelite through the reception of 
 circumcision. Thus strongly did the law set its 
 face against the institution of slavery. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange (under Exeg.) : " The Sabbath year is 
 the germ of the Jubilee year, as this is a type 
 of the New Testament time of deliverance, resto- 
 ration and freedom (Isa. lxi. ; Luke iv. 18), and 
 further, a prelude and a prophecy of the hea- 
 venly and eternal Sabbath itself (Heb. iv.)." 
 
 Lange (Eomiletik): "The year of Jubilee of 
 the theocratic land. The great year of rejoicing 
 in the theocratic community. Ideals which 
 have been scantily and scarcely fulfilled in the 
 letter in Israel, but which in Christianity are 
 continually being realized in the spirit. And 
 this indeed in the commendable care of the fields 
 and forests; in the dread of a gross profit out 
 of nature; in the limitation of the proprietary 
 right of individuals over nature; in customs of 
 gentleness; in the consecration of the social 
 right of fellowship; the right of the poor, the 
 right of the laboring man, the right of rent and 
 purchase. The later dismal caricatures of these 
 ideals. Seven years a period after which the 
 administration of nature required a new revi- 
 sion; forty [fifty] years a period after which 
 the arrangements of business required a revi- 
 sion. The neglect of reform a source of revolu- 
 tion. The Jubilee year a type of the Gospel 
 time of deliverance (Isa. lxi. ; Luke iv. lti). 
 The true preaching of the Gospel always a pro- 
 clamation of the true Jubilee 3'ear. The Jewish 
 and the Christian emancipation from slavery : 1 ) 
 its common foundation, 2) its greater differ- 
 ence, 3) its unceasing development in the world." 
 
 As the law provided for a redeemer for the 
 poor, so, says Wordsworth, Christ became the 
 Redeemer for the spiritually poor, reinstating 
 us in our lost estate, and delivering us from the 
 bondage of sin ; and this He was entitled to do 
 because by His incarnation He took our nature 
 and became our Kinsman. 
 
 By the prohibition of sowing and harvesting 
 in the Sabbatical and Jubilee years was again 
 taught that principle which the Israelites learned 
 from the manna in the wilderness, and which 
 the words of Christ make of perpetual validity, 
 that "man doth not live by bread alone, but by 
 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of 
 the Lord." 
 
 Very full and striking are the provisions of 
 this chapter for the loving care of the poor, not 
 for the sake of the poor only, but for the sake 
 of him who should show them kindness. That 
 the blessing of this lesson might not cease with 
 the Mosaic dispensation, God has provided that 
 we shall have the poor always with us, and our 
 Lord has elevated our ministrations to them into 
 ministrations to Himself. Similarly kindness 
 and consideration towards those who labor for 
 us is taught by Moses, and is ever made one of 
 the prominent practical duties of Christianity. 
 See Eph. vi. 9, etc. 
 
CHAP. XXVI. 1-46. . 193 
 
 PART FOURTH. 
 
 Conclusion. — Promises and Threats. 
 Chapter XXVI. 1-46. 
 
 1 Ye shall make you no idols' nor graven image,' neither rear you up a standing 
 image, 3 neither shall ye set up any image of stone 4 in your land, to bow down unto 5 
 
 2 it : for I am the Lord your God. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my 
 sanctuary : I a?ra the Lord. 
 
 3,4 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; then 
 will I give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the 
 
 5 trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the 
 vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time : and ye shall eat your 
 
 6 bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, 
 and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid : and I will rid evil beasts 
 
 7 [animals 6 ] out of the laud, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye 
 
 8 shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five 
 of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to 
 
 9 flight : and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. For I will have re- 
 spect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, aud establish my cove- 
 
 10 nant with you. And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth [clear away'] the old 
 
 11 because of the new. And I will set my tabernacle [dwelling-place 8 ] among you: 
 
 12 and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your 
 
 13 God, aud ye shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, which brought you 
 forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen : and I have 
 broken the bands' of your yoke, and made you go upright. 
 
 14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; 
 
 15 and 10 if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Ver. 1. dVSx. See Textual Note » on xix. 4. 
 
 * Ver. 1. 702, from 703 to carve, is ustd of an imago of any material, but is here taken, as in lea. xliv. 15, 17 ; xlv. 
 
 - T 
 
 20, of an imac" Of wood. 
 
 3 Ver.l. nOi'O lit. anything tet up. DeDce used of a memorial stone, Gen. xxviii. 18-22; III T. 14; ba.xlx.19; an- 
 
 swering to the Aiflapoi Atirapoi of the ancients. As these came to he used Tor idolatrous purpose the word obtained I'a 
 i y aeuae as in the text (Ex. xxiil. 24 ; 2 Ki. iii. 2, etc.). The marg. of the A. V. follows the LXX. arv\r)v. The Vulg. 
 has titulii'ii. 
 
 * Ver.l. jV3tyO does not elsewhere occnr in connection with !0N, hut its meaning by itself figure, imagery, is suffi- 
 ciently well sptth-'i. The only question here is whether the phrase denotes an image of stone (A. V BO K I . or a stone icith 
 
 iti V. V. mare;. R**en.). The latter ta probably the m i i >rr I Yiew, but not sufficiently certain to 
 warrant a cb inge In the text. LXX. \i$ov atcon'ov apparently in the Benae "f a propnytocfi ry, and of this the Vulg. lapi- 
 dtm insignem may br) a translation. Targ. Onk., and jun. and Syr. stone of adoration ; Targ. Jerue. stone «f error. 
 
 6 Ver. 1. The construction of 7J» here has somewhat perplexed the critics. Oeddes contends that as it never elsewhere 
 
 precedes the object of adoration, it must here signify at, by. or upon. Kelt explains it " on the ground that the worshipper 
 
 of a stone image rises above it (for 7y in tbiB sense, see Gen. xviii. 2)." But this fact is, at the least, very doubtful ; and 
 
 the ordinary meaning of 7^» as signifying motion towards, ini, seems to be all that the connection requires. 
 
 • Ver. 6. rVTl. See Textual Note > on xi. 2. 
 
 I Ver. lf>. ItVXifl is exactly rendered by the A. V., but the sense intended is better conveyed by the suggested emeu. 
 
 dation of Clirk. 
 
 » Ver. 11. 'JOCTD- See Textual Note 8 on xv. 31. 
 
 • Ver. 13. " 7y nbb, ?■'(. the poles of the yoke (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 27), i. A, the poles which arc laid upon the necks 
 of beasts of burden [Jer. xxvii. 2] as a yoke." B>il. For S^' the Ram. and many MSS. have the fuller form 7lJ?- 
 
 i" Ver. 15. The conjunction is wanting in 6 MSS., the Sam., Vulg., andSyr. 
 
191 LEVITICUS. 
 
 16 will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant : I also will do 
 this unto you ; I will even appoint over you terror," consumption, and the burning 
 ague [wasting away, and the burning fever 12 ] that shall consume the eyes, and cause 
 sorrow of heart [the soul to pine away 13 ] : and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your 
 
 17 enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain 
 before your enemies : they that hate you shall reign over you ; and ye shall flee 
 
 18 when none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then 
 
 19 I will punish you seven times more for your sius. And I will break the pride of 
 
 20 your power ; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass : and 
 your strength shall be spent in vain : for your land shall not yield her increase, 
 
 21 neither shall the trees of the land 14 yield their fruits. And if ye walk contrary 
 unto me, and will not hearken unto me ; I will bring seven times more plagues 
 
 22 upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts [animals 6 ] among 
 you, which shall rob you of your children [make you childless 15 ], and destroy your 
 
 23 cattle, and make you few in number ; and your high ways shall be desolate. And 
 if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me ; 
 
 24 then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for 
 
 25 your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of 
 [omit the quarrel of 16 ] my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within 
 your cities, I will send a pestilence among you ; and ye shall be delivered into the 
 
 26 hand of the enemy. [;] And [omit And} when I have broken the staff of your bread, 
 ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread 
 
 27 ao-aiu by weight : and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all 
 
 28 this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me ; then I will walk contrary unto 
 
 29 you also in fury ; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And 
 ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. 
 
 SO And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, 17 and cast your 
 
 31 carcases upon the carcases of your idols, 18 and my soul shall abhor you. And I 
 will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries 19 unto desolation, and I will 
 
 32 not smell the savour of your sweet odours. And I will bring the laud into desola- 
 
 33 tion: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And I will 
 scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you ; and your land 
 shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 
 
 34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in 
 
 35 your enemies' land ; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabb iths. As 
 long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because [all the days of its desolation it shall 
 
 « Ver. 16. For ilSrtS — terror the Sam. reads nSn3 = ntdmas as a general term including the specifications that 
 follow. The word i* rendered in the A. V. of Jer. xv. sYs 'here, and in Ps. lxxviii. 33 ; Isa. lxv. SB, trouble. It does not 
 occur elsewhere. The idea is that of " mens' heart* f.iilmg them for fear," Luke xxi. i.6. 
 
 12 Ver. 16. n-JTTu? — watting away is well expressed by the consumption of the A. V. in its etymological sense, but is in 
 daneer of being m'i nn lerstood of the soecific dis ase of that name which is rare in Palestine and Syria. The LXX.. how- 
 ever, has ^pa*. nmp, LXX. nvperos, according to all authorities should be burning Jever. levers are the mo.t com- 
 mon of all diseases hfsyria and the neighboring countries. These words occur only in the parallel, Deut. xxviii. 22. 
 
 13 Ver. 16. H3J rij'TJ. The literal translation is more expressive than the paraphrase of the A. V. 
 M Ver. 20. For VlNn 21 MSS. and the LXX. read HIUTI. 
 
 15 Ver. 22. D^HX H^i?. The literal rendering is sufficient. 
 
 w Ver. 25. JT^-Dp^ fOpj '''• "avenging the covenant vengeance." As this cannot be expressed in English the 
 Qp] is better left uiitrausiated'th'an rendered by quarrel, which it does not mean. 
 
 " Ver. 30. DZH'Sn. In most other places where the word occurs (2 Chr. xiv. 5 (4); xxxiv. 4; Isa. xvii. 8; Ezek. 
 vi 4) the marc, of 'the A. V. has tun-imaqe,. Such was undoubtedly the original meaning of the word; hut Gesenius (Th>,.) 
 shots thettb, • wor.1 was applied to images of I! ,al and Asta.te as the deities of the sun and moon. The word indicates 
 "idols of tue Oanaanitish nature-worship." KeiL 
 
 18 Ver. 30. D'Sbj = umxthing to be rolled about, a contemptuous expression for idols. The Heb. had three different 
 
 words which are rendered VrfoMn the A. V., and seven which are rendered image. ,«.._„ 
 
 10 Ver 81. More than 60 MSS., the Sam. and the Syr., have the stag. The pnral refers to « the holy things of _the wor- 
 ship "r .lehovah, the tabernacle and temple, with tleir altars, and tin, rest of their holy lurmture.as in Pa. lxvm. 36, lxxiv. 
 6," Keil ; and not to the sanctuaries of talse gods (Rosen, and others). 
 
 » Ver. 35. Here also it is better to keep to the literal rendering of the Heb. OJ1 *lt?X HX rt3OT HSCfn BY" '^f 
 The land should rest not merely because, but it should actually rest the time which it had not rested. 
 
CHAP. XXVI. 1-46. 
 
 195 
 
 36 rest that which 20 ] it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. And 
 upon them that are left alive of you t will send a faintness 21 into their hearts in the 
 lands of their enemies ; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them ; and they 
 
 37 shall flee, as fleeing from a sword ; and they shall fall when none pursueth. And 
 they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth : 
 
 38 and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And ye shall perish 
 
 39 among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. And they that 
 are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity' 22 in your 23 enemies' lands; and also 
 in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. 
 
 40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their 
 trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary 
 
 41 unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them 
 into the land of their enemies ; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and 
 
 42 they then accept 24 of the punishment of their iniquity : then will I remember my 
 covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with 
 Abraham will I remember ; and I will remember the land. 
 
 43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth 
 desolate without them: and they shall accept 24 of the punishment of their iniquity : 
 because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred 
 my statutes. 
 
 44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast 
 them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my 
 
 45 covenant with them ; for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sakes re- 
 member the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of 
 Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God : I am the Lord. 
 
 46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between 
 him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses. 
 
 ° Ver 36. ^p*D ojt. Aey. LXX. SeiAt'a, Vulg. pavnr. It "signifies that inward anguish, fear, and despair, which rend 
 
 the heart and destroy the lite." K. il. Comp. Dent, xxviii. P". 
 
 22 Ver. 39. T'ty is either iniquity (ad here twice and in the next Terse twice), or the punishment (/iniquity (as in ver. 41). 
 
 The phrase " perish in one's iniquity " is however sufficiently common, and there is no occasion to change the translation 
 here. The Di~tX = with thorn at the close of the verse refers to the iniquities. 
 
 S3 Ver. 39. For your D2 - more than 80 MSS. read theii DT\~, so also the Sam., LXX., Sym., Theod., Vulg. and Syr. as 
 the text in ver. 41. 
 
 ** Vers. 41, 43. 1ST. The same word as is used in vers. 34, 43, the land shall enjoy her sabbaths. The 
 
 literal rendering is perhaps too hold for our version ; hut the meaning is really this. " The land being desolate shall have 
 the blessing of lest, and they having repented shall have the blessing of chastisement. So the LXX. and Svriac." Clark. 
 Comp. Isa. xl. 2. fljlj; r)X"U- 
 
 sequent history of the nation is had in view. The 
 chapter contains: first, promises upon their obe- 
 dience (3-13) ; it then describes the consequences 
 of disobedience (14-39), which are put hypolhe- 
 tically, but evidently contemplated as likely to 
 occur; and finally, looks forward to the resto- 
 ration of the covenant ui the repentance of the 
 people (40-44), which is also put hypothetically, 
 but is evidently prophetic. Ver. -40 forms the 
 conclusion of this whole series of legislation. 
 
 Objection has been made to the Mosaic origin 
 of this chap, by rationalistic critics on account 
 of its prophetic character. Certainly it is pro- 
 phetic, and if this be objected to any portion of 
 Scripture, the objector must be met on other 
 than merely exegetical grounds, but here the ra- 
 tionalistic argument may be fully met in a dif- 
 ferent way. It is impossible to conceive that 
 the author of the remarkable legislation con- 
 tained in this book, possessed of as intimate 
 knowledge as he must have been of the people 
 under his charge, should not have foreseen that 
 they would fail to maintain the standard of holi- 
 ness here required, and that consequently God, 
 
 EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 
 
 Lange here again insists that vers. 1 and 2 are 
 properly the close of the foregoing section. It 
 was already too late to adopt his division when 
 his work appeared; but independently of this 
 the connection with the present, chap, is prefer- 
 red. The verses reiterate the most fundamental 
 requirements of the law, and thus form an ap- 
 propriate introduction to these concluding pro- 
 mises and threats. 
 
 The whole precepts and prohibitions of the 
 Book of Leviticus have now been given, and here 
 the people are incited to their faithful observance 
 by promises of blessings on their obedience and 
 curses upon their disobedience. This arrange- 
 ment is both natural in itself, and is in accord 
 ance with the analogy of the warnings and pro- 
 mises (Ex. xxiii. 29-33) at the close of the " Book 
 of the Covenant," (Ex. xx. 22 — xxiii. 19) and in 
 the parting exhortations of Moses (Deut. xxix., 
 xxx. ). The passage in Exodus, however, relates 
 to the conquest of the laud, while here the sub- 
 
196 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 whose holiness and majesty it has been his ob- 
 ject to set forth, would visit them for their 
 transgressions. It is but a step beyond this to 
 look forward to the effect of chastisement and 
 humiliation in producing repentance, and when 
 this had been effected, his knowledge of the 
 mercy and loving-kindness of God assured him of 
 the restoration of the people to His favor. See this 
 point admirably treated by Keil in a note on p. 468. 
 
 Lange : " The germ of this whole setting forth 
 of blessing and curse already lies in the deca- 
 logue itself (Ex. xx. 5, 12), but especially as a 
 conditional promise of blessing in the section 
 Ex. xxiii. 23-33. It is appropriate to the pur- 
 pose of Leviticus that this germ now comes here 
 to its development, that by the side of the pro- 
 mise of blessing on the keeping of the covenant 
 comes out very explicitly the threatening of curse 
 on the breach of the covenant; for the contrast, 
 of blessing and curse goes forth from the reli- 
 gious behaviour or misbehaviour towards the law 
 of God as a whole, as all particular commands 
 
 are Dummed up therein It must not be 
 
 overlooked that the subject is here always Israel 
 in its totality, the nation as a whole. The date 
 of this section is thereby shown to be very an- 
 cient ; for it would have been otherwise from the 
 days of Messianic prophecy. Then the contrast 
 comes forward very strongly: the apostate Is- 
 rael, and the Israel reforming itself; also the 
 contrast : the Israel of the mass, and the Israel 
 of the poor, of the humble, of the purified rem- 
 nant. For this reason it would be a false infer- 
 ence to consider the conditional prediction of our 
 section as apodictical, or indeed to suppose that 
 the curse would fall upon every individual of the 
 nation of Israel. The apostasy of Israel has 
 often been treated as if the flower of its elect had 
 fallen under the curse, although history declares 
 that the Gentile church was grafted upon the 
 stock of the Jewish, and Paul can designate the 
 unbelieving portion of the Jews as " some," not- 
 withstanding its numerical majority, in contrast 
 to the dynamical majority whose central point is 
 Christ Himself. The national curse has then 
 been fulfilled only in a conditional degree in 
 contrast to the dynamical blessing overmastering 
 all curse ; but. nevertheless in a degree which 
 has shown in fearful majesty the reality of the 
 threatening of the curse. It is a vain attempt 
 when one s pits to intimate, like Knobel, that 
 our prophecy looks back upon that which has 
 already occurred in isolated particulars; at all 
 events, this creates no prejudice against its Mo- 
 saic origin, for its fulfilment has been progress- 
 ing even to the present day, and is not yet fully 
 accomplished. Yet even at the present day the 
 emphasis falls upon the fearful realization of the 
 curse upon the nation; upon individuals, how- 
 ever, as such, only in proportion as they trans 
 mil. the fanatical or unbelieving spirit of the 
 community, 
 
 "Our section, moreover, is characterized as a 
 prophetic word in that it brings into view in 
 grand outlines a future which it cannot and will 
 not describe with verbal definiteness. Yet a 
 progress consonant to nature is to be observed 
 in the gradations of the curse, which one might 
 enjoy as a physiological picture of development. 
 
 "If wc suppose that one may speak of the Di- 
 
 vine government or word blamelessly if the sec- 
 tion before us is invested with a less mysterious 
 aspect, we overlook the fact that the course of 
 things immanent in life remains the same al- 
 though the prophetic character of the word be 
 Bet aside; that the chapters of calamity remain 
 the same although one seek to erase the super- 
 scription from the punishment and from the judg- 
 ment. Strange that one should think the world 
 will thereupon cheer up when he traces back the 
 dark destiny of a people to a gloomy fate, instead 
 of to the justice of the living God. It is the very 
 nobility of apostate Israel that its Jehovah is, 
 and has been, jealous with such burning jealousy 
 over its fall ; and it would even seem worthy of 
 contempt if it were considered as the football of 
 a gloomy destiny — its sorrows without reason, 
 without proportion, and without purpose. Cer- 
 tainly also the continuing motive for the rejec- 
 tion of Israel itself is its ill-will-againsl Jehovah, 
 or indeed against the Gentiles, in return for 
 which it must acknowledge in its history its well 
 deserved visitation 
 
 " That the bearing of God towards Israel was 
 an impartial bearing, which could only be ob- 
 scured through the idea of a national God, is 
 proved even by our section with its threatenings 
 in presence of the development of the history of Is- 
 rael itself: they have been brought out of Egypt, 
 and Canaan must become their land; but when 
 they apostatize, they must lose Canaan and must be 
 scattered among the heathen (Keil, p. 169 [Trans, 
 p. 468]). Not. only the impartiality indeed, but 
 the jealousy of Jehovah must be made manifest 
 in this. The idea or key of the whole history 
 and destiny of Israel is: vengeance of the cove- 
 nant. The people could fall so low because they 
 stood so high, because they were the first-fruits, 
 the first-born sou, the favorite of God (Jcshu- 
 ruu). But for this reason especially the pro- 
 mise of their restoration is bound up with the 
 prophecy of their curse (Isa., Jer., Ezek., Hos., 
 etc., Rom. xi ). Knobel gives prominence to the 
 peculiarly elevated language of this section ; it 
 cannot he explained by the ordinary mechauicism 
 of 'Elohistic and Jehovistio documents.' " 
 
 This chapter forms a part of the same Divine 
 communication with the preceding one. 
 
 Vers. 1, 2. These verses include substantially 
 the first table of the decalogue, and by this short 
 summary the whole duty of the Israelites tow- 
 ard God is called to mind and made the basis of 
 the following promises and warnings. On ver. 
 1 see the Textual Notes. Ver. 2 is a repetition 
 verbatim of xix. 30. Here, at least, it must be 
 understood to include the whole of the "ap- 
 pointed seasons " as well as the weekly Sabbaths. 
 
 A. The Blessing. Vers. 3-13. 
 
 With ver. 3 a new Parashah of the law begins, 
 extending to the close of Leviticus. The paral- 
 lel proper lesson from the prophets is Jer. xvi. 
 19 — xvii. 14. " The subject here is not the iso- 
 lated good conduct of individuals, but the keep- 
 ing of the Covenant of the people as a whole and 
 its general tendency to blessing ; the contrast to 
 which, the breach of the Covenant, is moulded 
 into the tendency to curse." Lange. 
 
 Ver. 4. Lange: "Rain in its season appears 
 here as the first gift of Jehovah. When He gives 
 
CHAP. XXVI. 1-46. 
 
 197 
 
 the rain from heaven, the earth gives its produce 
 and the fruit-trees give their fruit ; there is 
 formed a chain of gifts whose beginning lies in 
 the mysterious hand of God. " The allusion here 
 is to the showers which fall at the two rainy 
 Beasons, and upon which the fruilfulness of Pa- 
 lestine depends, viz., the early and latler rain 
 (Deut. xi. 14). The former of these occurs after 
 the autumnal equinox, at the time of the winter- 
 sowing of wheat and barley, in the latter half of 
 October or beginning of November. It generally 
 falls in heavy showers in Nov. and Dec, and 
 then after that only at long intervals, and not so 
 heavily. The latter, or so-called latter rain, 
 falls in March before the beginning of the har- 
 vest of the winter crops, at the time of the sow- 
 ing of the summer seed, and lasts only a few 
 days, in some years only a few hours (see Ro- 
 binson, Pal. ii., pp. 97 sqq.)." Keil. [Also 
 Robinson, Phys. Geoff, of the H. I,., p. 263.] 
 " In consequence of these rains the land should 
 yield so rich an increase that your threshing 
 shall reach unto the vintage, and the vin- 
 tage shall reach unto the sowing time 
 (for the next year). [Ver. 6. Comp. Amos 
 ix. 13.] 
 
 " Ver3. 6-8. The second yet higher gift of 
 blessing is peace in the land, and that in relation 
 to wild beasts" fniH TVX\, an evil animal, for a 
 
 L T T T 
 
 beast of prey, as in Gen. xxxvii. 20. Keil] "as 
 well as to war; therefore they shall lie down 
 as a herd which no beast of prey and no robber 
 shall affright. Yet more : neither shall the 
 sword go through your land, because they 
 should drive back triumphantly from their bor- 
 ders the enemies who should make any attack. 
 The aggressor should fall by the sword upon 
 the border." On the language in ver. 6 comp. 
 Job xi. 19; Ps. cxlvii. 14; Ezek. xxxiv. 25-28. 
 Ver. 8 is " a proverbial mode of expression for 
 superiority in warlike prowess." Comp. Dcut. 
 xxxii. 30; Josh, xxiii. 10; Isa. xxx. 17. 
 
 Vers. 9,10. Lange: "The third blessing is 
 fruilfulness : increase upon increase of the peo- 
 ple, and the strengthening of the Covenant under 
 the special support of Jehovah." The multipli- 
 cation of the people was a part of the covenant 
 promise (Gen. xvii. 4-6), and its fulfillment 
 established the covenant (ib. 7); not merely 
 preserved it, but became the means by which it 
 should be extended ever farther and farther. 
 In view of this increase the promise of ver. 10 
 becomes more emphatic: so far from a dearth 
 beiog caused by the multitude, the new store 
 should be reached before the old could be con- 
 sumed. This constitutes the fourth particular 
 of the blessing. 
 
 Vers. 11-13. Lange: "The fifth blessing is 
 the highest: the flower of their religion and 
 religiousness. Jehovah will establish His dwell- 
 ing (His living habitation) among them. — And 
 I will walk among you, etc. — This promise 
 touches typically even upon the height of the 
 Christological incarnation. Jno. i. 14." [As this 
 whole chapter has in view their residence in 
 Canaan, so this promise in particular does not 
 refer to God's leading His people in their wan- 
 derings, but to His continual manifestation of 
 Himself in their midst in their settled home. — 
 F. G.] "For these promises, spiritually and 
 
 dynamically understood, Jehovah, the personal 
 God of Israel, makes Himself security ; and He 
 has given them their deliverance from Egypt as 
 a proof and pledge. They shall not become the 
 slaves of men through distress, but shall stand 
 upright as the servants of God." That is, the 
 yoke of bondage which bowed down their heads 
 as beasts of burden had been broken, and God 
 had made them in consequence walk upright. 
 
 B. The Curse. Vers. 14-33. 
 Vers. 14, 15. Lange: "The breach of the 
 Covenant. He begins with the external con- 
 tempt of the ordinances of the covenant, and 
 goes on to the internal scorn and rejection of 
 the covenant law, a transgression therefore of 
 the commands in their totality." This is care- 
 fully to be borne in mind in regard to these 
 warnings. These "judgments are threatened, 
 not for single breaches of the law, but for con- 
 tempt of all the laws, amounting to inward con- 
 tempt of the Divine commandments and a breach 
 of the covenant (vers. 14, 15) — for presumptuous 
 and obstinate rebellion, therefore, against God 
 and His commandments." Keil. Single sins, or 
 sins of individuals, are not the subject, but the 
 general apostasy of the nation. 
 
 Vers. 16, 17, contain what Lange describes as 
 " the punishment in the first grade;" it is the 
 warning of visitation upon apostasy alone be- 
 fore it has become complicated with the added 
 guilt of obdurate persistency. Three punish- 
 ments are mentioned which are to be sent, toge- 
 ther, and not singly as they were offered to the 
 choice of David after his sin in numbering the 
 people (2 Sam. xxiv. 12-14) — disease, famine 
 and defeat. It is easy to see how all these might 
 (and historically did) come upon Israel as a 
 natural consequence of their neglect of the 
 Divine law; but they were none the less judg- 
 ments of Him who had commanded that law and 
 ordained that nature itself should protect it. 
 Lange justly says: "One must not overlook the 
 spirit of the Divine action; it is called visita- 
 tion (ver. 16), and henceforth this is the prin- 
 cipal thought and purpose which pervades all 
 the punishments. It is also of a deeper meaning 
 here that Jehovah will set His face against 
 them; for their enemies are His instruments, 
 and they will be smitten." Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 
 27-29. 
 
 Vers. 18-20. According to Lange, "the pun- 
 ishment in the second grade," or the first of the 
 more severe measures to be visited upon obdu- 
 rate disobedience. Here, and in each of the 
 three remaining stages (vers. 18, 21, 24, 28), 
 the expression seven times is used. It is at 
 once the number of perfection, indicating the 
 full strength of the visitation, and also the sab- 
 batical number, reminding the people of the 
 broken covenant. Comp. Gen. iv. 15, 24; Ps. 
 lxxix. 12; Prov. xxiv. 16; Luke xvii. 4. 
 " There are five degrees in the ever seven times 
 more severe punishment. God punishes so, that 
 He always in wrath remembers mercy, and gives 
 time far repentance. But no punishment is so 
 great that a greater cannot follow it." Von Ger-' 
 lach. 
 
 Vers. 21, 22. Lange: "The punishment in 
 the third grade. The godlessuess becomes ag- 
 
10S 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 gressive : they walk inimically towards Jehovah, 
 the apostasy advances to bolder idolatry and 
 contempt of God. But meanwhile, Jehovah yet 
 stands still, and only sends against them the 
 forerunners of His vengeance: ravaging beasts 
 — a symptom of falling into decay : robbers of 
 children, calamities among live stock, depopu- 
 lation, desolated highways. The beasts may 
 here be understood not merely literally." Comp. 
 Judg. v. 6; Isa. xxxiii. 8; Ezek. v. 17; xiv. 
 15. " Dj? '"lp ^[771 (to go to a meeting with a 
 person, i. e.., to meet a person in a hostile man- 
 ner, to fight against him) only occurs here in 
 vers. 21 and 23, and is strengthened in vers. 24, 
 
 27, 28, 40, 41, into DJT "1M rfm, to engage 
 in a hostile encounter with a person." Keil. 
 
 Vers. 23-20. Lange: " The punishment in the 
 fourth grade. Now Jehovah also becomes ag- 
 gressive and acts inimically towards them, as if 
 Ho would destroy them. Now the breach of the 
 covenant is decided, and the sword comes over 
 them as the avenger of the covenant. Pictu- 
 resque delineation of the three dark riders, Rev. 
 vi., only that here the plague goes before the 
 famine." The idea of the text is clearly that 
 by the inroads of the enemy Israel would be 
 shut up in their cities, and while besieged there, 
 would be visited with pestilence and famine. 
 Such calamities were repeatedly experienced, 2 
 Kings vi. 24-29, etc. Comp. Isa. iii. 1 ; Jer. 
 xiv. 18; Ezek. iv. 16; v. 12, and especially the 
 story of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. 
 To break the staff of bread is a frequent prover- 
 bial expression for the infliction of extreme 
 scarcity. One oven should suffice for the bread 
 of families ordinarily baked in ten, and in its 
 scarcity it should be dealt out by weight. 
 
 Vers. 27-33. Lange: " The punishment in the 
 fifth grade. Now Jehovah moves against them 
 verily in fury, and the last catastrophes follow : 
 despair even to madness; the eating of their 
 own children (Knobel, Keil, and the Jewish 
 history) [comp. Deut. xxviii. 63; 2 Kings vi. 
 
 28, 29; Jer. xiv. 12; Lam. ii. 20: iv. 10; Ezek. 
 v. 10. Also Jos. Bel. Jud. v. 10, 3.— F. G.]; 
 overthrow of their idolatrous cultus, in the sar- 
 castic conception that the dead bodies of men 
 fall down on the mock dead bodies of their idols, 
 carcases upon carcases" [comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 
 16; Ezek. vi. 4. The high places refer to 
 places of idolatrous worship as in use among 
 the Canaanites and most other nations, and 
 which must have been already sufficiently fami- 
 liar to Moses and his people. — F. G.]; "over- 
 throw of even the real historical sanctuary; 
 repudiation of the sacrificial cultus, ver. 31" 
 [comp. 2 Kings xxv. 9; Ps. lxxiv. 6, 7] ; "de- 
 solation of the land, so that even the enemies 
 settling therein recognize the dismal footprints 
 of punitive justice, deportations of the people 
 (one after another, comp. the Jewish history 
 from Alexander to Hadrian)." Comp. Jer. ix. 
 16-22; xviii. 16; xix. 8; Ezek. v. Also Deut. 
 iv. 27, 28; xxviii. 37, 64-68. 
 
 Effects of these Visitations. Vers. 34-39. 
 
 Vers. 34, 35, express the restorative effect 
 
 accomplished by the punishment itself. The 
 
 laud must needs enjoy its Sabbaths while it lay 
 
 desolate. In regard to the kingdom of Judah, 
 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 expressly fixes the length of 
 the Babylouish captivity with reference to the 
 number of unobserved Sabbatical years. These 
 constituted the Sabbaths of the land, the weekly 
 Sabbath of one day being too brief for effect 
 upon the soil. Vers. 36-39 describe in fearful 
 terms the effect of the Divine visitation upon 
 the remnant who should escape immediate de- 
 struction. On the language of ver. 38 comp. 
 Num. xiii. 32 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 13. 
 
 C. The Restoration of the Covenant. 
 
 Vers. 40-45. 
 
 Lange: " The first thing is the acknowledg- 
 ment and confession of guilt. But the repent- 
 tance would be thorough only in case the 
 misdeeds of the fathers were acknowledged 
 along with their own misdeeds, see Ps. Ii. 
 The view that Jehovah has interposed, con- 
 tending against them because they contended 
 against Him, is the second thing, ver. 41. — 
 (Repeated declaration in regard to the cause 
 of the punishments.) The humiliation under 
 the judgment of their having an uncircumcised 
 heart, i. e., of their being heathen in a spiritual 
 sense, is the third. Yes, they come now to bless 
 the punishments of their misdeeds, to rejoice 
 over them, since God has visited them in this 
 manner (li'V). Keil accepts the translation of 
 the LXX. evdonhaovaiv rac d/zaprlac avruv, "they 
 will take pleasure, rejoice in their misdeeds, 
 t. e., in the consequences and results of them." 
 We hold with Luther to the idea of J11J (see 
 Gesen.) as sufficient punishment; the paradox 
 itself O feliz culpa could not be translated: they 
 have pleasure in their misdeeds. But to salute 
 the cross is a proof in action of a deeper reli- 
 giousness, which here already germinates." 
 [See, however, Textual Note 24. — F. G.] 
 
 "Ver. 41. In a religious sense the divine par- 
 don is the cause, in a moral sense the conse- 
 quence of the repentance of the people ; the 
 remembrance of the Covenant with Jacob and 
 Isaac and Abraham, •". e. an ever-deepening, 
 inward remembrance of the old love, appears to 
 awake in Jehovah, for it does awake in t he con- 
 sciousness of the people. The holy land itself, 
 which cannot be forgotten and is kindly, receives 
 now a peculiarly affecting form. The land 
 whose mourning is changed to feasts, and the 
 people whose penitence is changed to feasts, 
 accord so affectingly with Jehovah, that, so to 
 speak, He reveals Himself again as justifying: 
 because, even because they despised my 
 judgments, and because their soul ab- 
 horred my statutes. And yet for all that — 
 their pardon is approaching : viz. the restoration, 
 and that truly entirely according to the analogy of 
 the restoration from the land of Egypt. That this 
 promise is effective for the nation of Israel, but is 
 not to be understood of the spiritual Israel a9 
 such, needs no argument. At the close again, 
 niiV 'JN." [The promise of mercy upon Israel 
 when Ihcy should repent and turn to the Lord, 
 was certainly a promise to the covenant people, 
 and was repeatedly fulfilled in their history, 
 especially in the restoration from the captivity 
 
CHAP. XXVI. 1-46. 
 
 199 
 
 of Babylon. But tbe promise (Jer. xxxi. 31-34) 
 was that in tbe days to come God would make a 
 new covenant with His people of a more spirit- 
 ual character, and in the Ep. to the Heb (viii. 
 10-12; x. 15-18) we are told that this has been 
 accomplished in the Christian Church springing 
 from the bosom of the Jewish. The continued 
 faithfulness of God to His people according to 
 the promises of this section, must therefore be 
 now looked for after a Christian and spiritual, 
 rather than a Jewish and temporal fashion. — 
 F. G.] 
 
 "And thus it is conformable to the truth of a 
 personal God Hint He should attach the utmost 
 importance to afflicting the personal life of His 
 people, und then reanimating it again. If it is 
 said ; What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain 
 tbe whole world, and lose his own soul? so is it 
 likewise said: What shall it harm a man, if he 
 shall lose the whole world, and his soul thereby 
 be delivered ? Would a philosophy in opposi- 
 tion to this, which has sunk the personal life in 
 impersonal things, be a higher wisdom? 
 
 " It is to be understood that the principles of 
 this Divine government over Israel apply, ac- 
 cording to their modifications, to His govern- 
 ment over every nation." 
 
 At the beginning of this chapter Lange says: 
 " It cannot be concluded from ver. 4*3 that Levi- 
 ticus should properly end with this section; 
 ver. 46 much rather looks back to ver. 3, and 
 makes it clear that the subject here is the Cove- 
 nant bond between Jehovah and the people of 
 Israel." Ver. 46 undoubtedly looks back imme- 
 diately to xxv. 1, the beginning of the Divine 
 communication of which this is the end ; but as 
 it also forms the close of ch. xxvi., so we cannot 
 but regard this chapter itself as closing the 
 Book of Leviticus proper. The analogy of this 
 with other portions of the law has already been 
 pointed out, and the reasons for regarding ch. 
 xxvii. as an appendix will be mentioned in the 
 treatment of that chapter. 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. The warnings and promises of this chapter 
 show it was foreseen that much of the Mosaic 
 legislation was likely to be neglected by the 
 people. Nevertheless God gave it. The same 
 is true of much of Christian duty, both in regard 
 to definite observances as baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper, and still more in regard to the standard 
 of Christian life and character. But because 
 man does not come up to its requirements, the 
 law is not thereby foiled of its purpose; its re- 
 quirements were not lowered to the level of 
 human weakness and sinfulness, but rather de- 
 signed to set forth so much of the Divine holi- 
 ness and purity as would be instrumental in 
 raising man to a higher level. " It was not like 
 the legislation of ordinary states, intended pri- 
 marily to meet the exigencies of existing facts 
 and to keep offenders in order. Its purpose was 
 to help- and instruct the best of the people, not 
 merely to chastise the worst. Other legislators 
 have taken their starting points from human 
 facts: Moses took his from the character and 
 purpose of God." Clark. And in this, to the 
 thoughtful man, is a really powerful evidence 
 of the Divine authorship of the legislation. 
 
 II. In vers. 39, 40, the iniquity of their 
 fathers is made a part of the sin for which the 
 people were to suffer, and on the confession of 
 which they were to be forgiven. As this is 
 God's revealed word, so does all history show 
 that it is in accordance with His government of 
 nature that in nations, as in individuals, the 
 sins of the fathers are visited upon the children; 
 but all this is nevertheless under the law that 
 the sincere repentance of the children shall 
 avert from them the punishment of their fore- 
 fathers' sins as well as of their own. 
 
 III. Illustrative of ver. 41 is 2 Cor. vii. 10 
 and Heb. xii. 11. The punishments of God 
 loading to repentance, however grievous they 
 may seem, are yet truly occasions of rejoicing 
 in view of their higher object. 
 
 IV. In ver. 46 the covenant legislation of Mt. 
 Sinai is expressly said to have been given by 
 the hand of Moses. This fact is sufficiently 
 patent throughout the whole story of the legis- 
 lation; but its emphatic mention here has a 
 double use: first, in showing that this book 
 claWM a contemporary origin ; and second, in 
 bringing out the fact of the necessity of a medi- 
 ator between man and God. If Moses was only 
 a human mediator, especially strengthened and 
 authorized for this purpose ; yet he points for- 
 ward typically to the one true Mediator from 
 whom alone man may know the will of God, and 
 through whom alone he may draw near to Hi8 
 inapproachable majesty. 
 
 V. Although it is abundantly evident from 
 the warnings of this chapter that man is unable 
 so to keep God's commandments as to claim any 
 reward as of merit; yet it is also clear from its 
 promises, and especially from these as contrasted 
 with the warnings, that He does look with favor 
 upon and will bless and reward the honest effort 
 to do His will. These things are spoken of 
 Israel as a nation, and are true of all nations in 
 all time; but nations are made up of individuals, 
 and the principles of the Divine bearing towards 
 man are as true of the component elements as 
 of the mass in its totality. 
 
 IIOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange: " The great contrast of blessing and 
 of curse which lies in the law — which the law 
 strengthens. Tbe law speaks not only of curse, 
 as many imagine; it speaks also of blessing. 
 For it is one thing to be occupied with the 
 works of the law and to seek righteousness 
 through the law and by means of works (ac- 
 cording to Gal. iii. 10 fqq.), and another thing 
 to stand under the law in the true fear of God, 
 and to strive after its righteousness until one 
 comes to the righteousness which is of faith 
 (according to Rom. vii.). The law of Jehovah 
 ever stands under the protection of the Law- 
 giver. It is the rule of His power; it is the 
 spirit of tbe world's history; it is the voice of 
 conscience (Rom. ii.), and the disposition if the 
 heart. The blessings of fidelity to the law: the 
 piety of a people, the fruitfulness of the land, 
 peace, victory, etc, etc. (xxvi. 1 sqq.). The 
 fearful gradations of the curse. Particular 
 blessings. Particular curses. The final pro- 
 mise of the restoration of Israel out of the state 
 
200 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 of the cur9e. Jehovah will remember His cove- 
 nant for all those who reform themselves." 
 
 " There is a marvellous and grand display of 
 the greatness of God in the fact, that He holds 
 out before the people, whom He has just deli- 
 vered from the hands of the heathen and gathered 
 round Himself, the prospect of being scattered 
 again among the heathen, and that, even before 
 the land is taken by the Israelites, He predicts 
 its return to desolation. These words could 
 only be spoken by One who has the future really 
 before His mind, who sees through the whole 
 depth of sin, and who can destroy His own 
 work, and yet attain His end. But so much the 
 more adorable and marvellous is the grace, 
 which nevertheless begins its work among such 
 sinners, and is certain of victory notwithstand- 
 ing all retarding and opposing influences." 
 Auberlen. 
 
 God promises in vers. 11, 12, that He will set 
 His tabernacle and will walk among His people 
 — a typical promise, fulfilled in Christ who 
 
 tabernacled in us (John i. 14), and through 
 whom we become Temple9 of God the Holy 
 Ghost (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 19), and God will 
 "tabernacle for ever" with us (Rev. vii. 15; 
 xxi. 3). Wordsworth. 
 
 Origen deduces from this chapter a commen- 
 tary on 2 Timothy ii. 5: " If a man strive for 
 masteries, yet is he not crowned except he strive 
 lawfully." Our efforts to obtain God's blessing, 
 our hope of avoiding His wrath, must be in the 
 way of His commandment. We oan only please 
 Him by seeking to do His will, and He has made 
 it known to us. 
 
 There is ever a due relation between the tem- 
 poral and the spiritual, and these promises show 
 that the rewards held out before the Israelites 
 were of a spiritual as well as a temporal charac- 
 ter; so it is to be remembered that along with 
 the more spiritual rewards of the Christian reli- 
 gion, it has the "promise of the life that now 
 I is," as well as of that which is to come. Calvin. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Of Vows. 
 
 Chap. XXVII. 1-34. 
 1, 2 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and 
 say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for 
 the Lord by thy estimation [special 1 vow, the souls shall be to the Lord according 
 
 3 to an 2 estimation]. And thy 2 estimation shall be of the male from twenty years 
 old even unto sixty years old, even thy 2 estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, 
 
 4 after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy 2 estimation shall 
 
 5 be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then 
 thy 2 estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 
 
 6 And if it be for a month old even unto five years old, then thy 2 estimation shall be 
 of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy 2 estimation shall be three 
 
 7 shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, 
 
 8 then thy 2 estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. But 
 if he be poorer than thy 2 [be too poor to pay the 2 ] estimation, then he shall present 
 himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him : according to his ability 
 that vowed shall the priest value him. 
 
 9 | And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord, all that any 
 
 10 man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy. He shall not alter it, nor change 
 it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good : and if he shall at all change beast for 
 
 11 beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy. And if it be any unclean 
 beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice [an offering 3 ] unto the Lord, then he 
 
 TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 
 1 Ver. 2. " T1J N' 7371 doea not mean to dedicate or net apart a vow, but to make a epecial vow." Keil. 
 8 Vers. 2, 3, 5, C, 7, 8, e'c. ''Tbe second 3 in n3"^'3 is formative of the noun, by reduplication of the third radical : 
 It i'b not the pronominal suffix." Iloraley. "The Ileb. subst. "p^t, estimation or value, ia never found in Scriptnre, but with 
 
 the pronoun i f tin- second i"" son joined to it; and which is an expleliv, having no use but to diBtinpuish it from the ro<*nn. 
 
 in j <if rdinaoce, <>r laying In order." D-'Ig;ido. According to Furst " the stiff, refers to the person valued." Tbe I , XX , 
 
 Onk., Vulg. ami Syr. omii the pronoun altogether. 
 » Ver. 11. t3"lp- See Textual Note ' on ii. 1. 
 
CHAP. XXVII. 1-34. 201 
 
 12 shall present the beast before the priest: and the priest shall value [estimate 4 ] it, 
 whether it be good or bad : as thou valuest it, who art the priest [according to the 2 
 
 13 estimation' of the priest], so shall it be. But if he will at all redeem it, then he 
 shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy 2 estimation. 
 
 14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord, then the 
 priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad : as the priest shall estimate it, 
 
 15 so shall it stand. And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall 
 add the fifth part of the money of thy 2 estimation unto it, and it shall be his. 
 
 16 And if a man shall sanctify nnto the Lord some part of a field of his possession 
 [inheritance 6 ], then thy 2 estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer 
 
 17 of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver. 6 lf he sanctify his field from 
 13 the year of jubile, according to thy 2 estimation it shall stand. But if he sanctify 
 
 his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according 
 to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated 
 
 19 from thy 2 estimation. And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem 
 it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy 2 estimation unto it, and it 
 
 20 shall be assured to him. And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the 
 
 21 field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more. But the field, when it 
 goeth out in the jubile, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted; the pos- 
 
 22 session [inheritance 5 ] thereof shall be the priest's. And if a man sanctify unto the 
 Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession 
 
 23 [inheritance 5 ] ; then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy 2 estimation, 
 even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine 2 estimation in that day, 
 
 24 as a holy thing unto the Lord. In the year of the jubile the field shall return 
 unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession [inheritance 5 ] 
 of the land did belong. 
 
 25 And all thy 2 estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary : 
 twenty gerahs shall be the shekel. 
 
 26 Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the Lord's firstling, no man 
 shall sanctify it ; whether it be ox, or sheep [one of the flock'], it is the Lord's. 
 
 27 And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem [free 8 ] it according to thine 2 
 estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it 
 shall be sold according to thy 2 estimation. 
 
 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of 
 all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be 
 
 29 sold or redeemed : every devoted thing u most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, 
 which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed [freed 8 ], but shall surely be put 
 to death. 
 
 30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of 
 
 31 the tree, is the Lord's : it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will at all redeem 
 ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. 
 
 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth 
 
 33 under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whe- 
 ther it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then 
 both it and the change thereof shall be holy ; it shall not be redeemed. 
 
 34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the chil- 
 dren of Israel in mount Sinai. 
 
 4 Ver. 12. Valuation is quite as good a translation of "Yip ; but as the A. V. has estimation in all other places in this 
 chapter, it should be retained here. 
 
 6 Ver. 16. lj~UnX=;>os«ess!on here means possession by inheritance, and it is better to mark this in the translation as 
 pnrchased fields (ver. 22) come under another law. 
 
 « Ver. 17. A conjunction is here supplied by the Sam., 16 MSS., the LXX., Chald. and Syr. 
 
 ' Ver. 26. riE>. See Textual Note s on xii. 8. 
 
 8 Vers. 27, 29. 7M2)=free or deliver. It iB a different word from the 7XJ of the second clause of Ter. 27 and of both 
 
 T T -T 
 
 clauses of ver. 20, and should be differently translated. 
 28 
 
202 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 EXEGETICAL AKD CRITICAL. 
 
 The question of the relation of this chapter to 
 the rest of the book is partly a matter of form, 
 and partly to be determined by the contents. 
 As to the former, the preceding chapter of pro- 
 mises and warnings is an appropriate close of 
 the legislation, and its last verse certainly has 
 the air of the subscription to a finished work. 
 The present chapter also closes with an abbre- 
 viated form of the same subscription. It may 
 be compared to the close of John xx., after 
 which ch. xxi. follows plainly as an addition. 
 A8 to the subject matter: our chapter is very 
 clearly distinguished from the rest of the book 
 in that it treats of special voluntary consecra- 
 tions to the Lord ; and yet it is connected with 
 the foregoing, in that these also are to be brought 
 under the same general law of sacred fidelity. 
 The chapter therefore constitutes precisely what 
 is understood by an appendix, appropriate to the 
 book. Lange's objection to this seems based 
 upon a different idea of the word, and his argu- 
 ments go to show only that it is appropriate. 
 He says, "1. With our section corresponds Num. 
 vi.; xxx.; Deut. xxiii. 21 ; Judges xi. 35 [34-40] ; 
 Eccl. v. 5. According to Keil this section 
 should be an appendix — contrary to the declara- 
 tion at the close of ver. 34. He gives as his 
 reason : " The directions concerning vows follow 
 the express termination of the Sinaitic law-giving 
 (xxvi. 40), as an appendix to it, because vows 
 formed no integral part of the covenant laws, 
 but were a freewill expression of piety common 
 to almost all nations, and belonged to the modes 
 of worship current in all religions, which were 
 not demanded, and might be omitted altogether, 
 and which really lay outside the law, though it 
 was necessary to bring them into harmony with 
 the demands of the law upon Israel." Accord- 
 ing to this apprehension, however, much of the 
 Mosaic legislation must stand in an appendix; 
 indeed, it may be said of the sacrifices, that they 
 are the theocratic regulation of a primeval sac- 
 rificial custom, and not originally theocratically 
 commanded. We accept then the view that the 
 prescriptions of this section are attached to the 
 foregoing chapter as a law of keeping the cove- 
 nant in particulars, viz. in relation to the pledged 
 word, or as a law of particular and individual 
 duties under the law of keeping the covenant 
 as a whole." [We cannot see that this could be 
 better defined than by the word Appendix. — 
 F. G.] "The superscription of this section 'Of 
 vows' is not truly congruous with the whole. 
 The unity is : of special consecrations, or of the 
 keeping holy of special covenant duties in rela- 
 tion to their remissibleness or their irremissi- 
 bility, and indeed 1) of voluntary and remissible 
 vows or consecrations, vers. 1-27; 2) of the 
 extraordinary, but commanded and irremissible 
 consecration, or of the ban, vers. 28, 29; 3) of 
 the consecrated holy first-fruits, or of the tithes, 
 partly redeemable and partly unredeemable. 
 Vers. 30-33 (34). 
 
 2. " The religious fundamental thought of the 
 section. Cursorily considered, it appears a kind 
 of regulation for the remissible and irremissible 
 special duties of the covenant, and in particular 
 
 it assumes the external character of a tax; the 
 ideal germ of the whole, however, is again the 
 keeping holy of the personal life in relation to 
 the personal Jehovah, the manliness of indivi- 
 dual piety ; one might say : the keeping pure of 
 the religious vow, of the word given to God; the 
 Divine ordinance of the ban ; the holy fruit-tax 
 which is appointed for the maintenance of the 
 priests and Levites in the same way as the tem- 
 ple-tax for the support of the temple and the 
 
 sacrifice 
 
 " 3. The vows. On the meaning and the na- 
 ture itself, comp. the lexicons, especially both 
 the articles in Herzog's Real-encyklop'ddie. Wri- 
 tings on this subject of Weise and others." [See 
 also the archaeologies, Art. vows in Smith's Bib. 
 Diet., and important observations scattered in 
 Michaelis' laws. Art. 73, 83, 124, 145.— F. G.]. 
 " We distinguish promissory vows and vows of 
 renunciation, .... bo that it may be not with- 
 out meaning that the vows are spoken of here, 
 as efficient Levitical consecrations; the renun- 
 ciations, or Nazarite vows, on the other hand, in 
 the book of Numbers, the book of the social re- 
 lations of the commonwealth. Samson was qua- 
 lified as a Nazarite for a theocratico-political ac- 
 tion ; Paul's Nazarite vow also was devoted to 
 ecclesiastical politics (Acts xxi.) ; and James the 
 Just had consecrated himself as a Nazarite to the 
 deliverance of his nation. The religious vows, 
 as such, form a parallel to the peace offerings and 
 partly indeed were connected with them. The 
 ethics of the Old Testament vows consists in this: 
 first, that they are not commanded but volun- 
 tary, Deut. xxiii. 22-24 (consequently not the 
 object of the mediseval so-called consilia evange- 
 lica) ; and secondly, that as a pledged word they 
 must be held inviolable (Prov. xx. 25; Eccl. v. 
 3, 61, yet not literally, since equivalents for their 
 discharge were legally prescribed; thirdly, that 
 the neglect of their fulfilment is to be expiated 
 with a sin offering (v. 4-6). The vows were for- 
 mal promises given to God for the benefit of the 
 Sanctuary ; they had for their object not only 
 cattle, houses, and lands, but also persons, of 
 course, dependent children and slaves. The ex- 
 amples of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 14) and others, 
 show how significantly the vows of the Old Tes- 
 tament operated. The superstitious misinter- 
 pretation of the vow of Jephthah, according to 
 the corrections of Hengstenberg, P. Cassel, and 
 others previously, appears yet capable of being 
 held tolerably righteous. It is indeed one of the 
 exegetical prejudices in which, from different 
 motives, literal orthodoxy and negative criticism 
 come together." [The question of the actual 
 sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter has always di- 
 vided opinion in ancient as well as modern times. 
 Jewish tradition is decided for the actual sacri- 
 fice as an unrighteous act. There are several 
 reasons why it is not likely to have taken place: 
 no priest could have been found to offer it ; nor 
 could it possibly have received the Divine ac- 
 ceptance; and it is contrary to the most pro- 
 bable interpretation of the closing verses of the 
 story (Judg. xi. 37-40). Moreover it is unlikely 
 that Jephthah would have committed such an act 
 when he was not bound to it by his vow; the 
 vow was an alternative one, — that he would de- 
 dicate what met him to the Lord, ok offer it as a 
 
CHAP. XXVII. 1-34. 
 
 203 
 
 sacrifice. That this is the true sense of 1 and 
 not and, as in the A. V., is plain, for even the 
 most rash of men must have remembered the 
 great improbability that the first thing he met 
 on his return would be either one "of the flock 
 of the herd," or a pigeon, the only animals admis- 
 sible in sacrifice. There is therefore in the exe- 
 cution of the vow of Jephthah no just ground for 
 the absurd charge of the allowance of human 
 sacrifices among the Israelites.— F. G.]. "There 
 is no question that the vows, on account of their 
 legal character, belong more to the Uld than to 
 the New Testament; although they still have 
 their place in the New Testament time also, but 
 certaiuly not in the sense of the mediaeval, ava- 
 ricious priesthood." 
 
 The general principle on the subject of vows 
 is clearly laid down in Deut. xxiii. 21-24: they 
 were not obligatory, and no sin was incurred by 
 not making them ; but once made they were to 
 be conscientiously kept, and their neglect (ch. 
 v. 4-G) required the expiation of the sin offering. 
 It appears from this chapter that nothing could 
 be made the subject of a vow which was already 
 marked out by the law as belonging to God; but 
 anything else might be, and having been vowed, 
 might be redeemed, with the exception of the 
 sacrificial animals, and except also things or per- 
 sons devoted, vers. 28, 29. The subject of this 
 chapter is the ordinary vow, and has no refe- 
 rence to the vow of the Nazarite, Num. vi. 1-21. 
 The exceptional conditions under which the vow 
 was not binding are detailed in Num. xxx. 
 
 Vers. 1-25. regulate the commutation of vows; 
 vers. 28, 29 declare the incommutability of things 
 devoted ; vers. 30-33 declare what tithes and 
 under what conditions may be commuted: while 
 ver. 34 closes the whole. Under the first head, 
 vers. 2-8 relate to the commutation of persons; 
 9-13, of cattle; 14, 15, of houses; 16-25, of land. 
 Vers. 2-8. Lange: "According to Knobel the 
 consecration of persons means that one allots 
 himself, or another of whom he has the disposal, 
 to the Bervice of the Sanctuary. He cites as ex- 
 amples the consecration of Samuel, the Gibeon- 
 ites, the augmentation of the temple slaves by 
 David and Solomon, Ezra ii. 58 ; viii. 20; Neh. 
 vii. 60 ; xi. 3 (p. 583). Keil, on the other hand, 
 asserts that in every vow of a person redemption 
 must take place according to the value, with re- 
 ference to the Mishna (see p. 179). [Trans, p. 
 480 and note. Keil also cites Saalschutz, and 
 thinks Oehler wrong in referring to 1 Sam. ii. 
 11, 22, 28, in proof of the opposite view. — F. G.]. 
 "But the appointed valuation little accords with 
 this. It is inconceivable why in this case old 
 men and old women should have been redeemed 
 at a smaller cost than men and women in their 
 vigor. Keil himself makes prominent that the 
 valuation was conformed to the vitality and skill. 
 Besides the diversity of the valuation, it was en- 
 trusted to the priest to value a poor man less, 
 from which it does not follow that lie mustbe re- 
 deemed, but only that he might be. The fact that 
 children under five years of age could not be 
 consecrated, points also to the ability to serve." 
 In regard to the difference of valuation, Lange's 
 argument does not seem to be a determining one ; 
 on either theory the valuation would naturally 
 be based upon what might be called the aotual 
 
 worth of the person ; but there would be no ob- 
 ject in a valuation at all except for the purpose 
 of redemption, and it is expressly provided that 
 all persons who had been vowed must be valued. 
 The diminished valuation of a poor man was a 
 merciful provision analogous to the alternate sin 
 offering in case of poverty. Notwithstanding 
 Lange's view, it seems to point very strongly to 
 the universality of redemption ; otherwise there 
 would be no reason why the poor man should 
 not have worked out his vow, or why he should 
 have been redeemed at a lower rate than others 
 whose services were of the same intrinsic value. 
 In saying " that children under five years could 
 not be consecrated," Lange must have overlooked 
 ver. 6, which expressly provides a valuation for 
 those vowed from one month to five years. The 
 form of expression in ver. 2, moreover, seems to 
 contemplate redemption in all cases of personal 
 vows. The objection to this view is that a per- 
 sonal vow thereby becomes only a roundabout 
 and awkward way of consecrating the amount 
 of the redemption money to the Lord; but the 
 moral effect appears to have been different, and 
 with the personal vow there is to be supposed a 
 sense of spiritual consecration to God which was 
 not removed by the payment of the redemption. 
 Kalisch speaks very strongly : " To our author 
 vowing a person to God meant neither offering 
 him up as a sacrifice, nor dedicating him to the 
 service of the temple, and much less selling him 
 as a slave, but simply redeeming him by money 
 in favor of the sacred treasury ; so foreign were 
 the two former alternatives to his mind, that he 
 utterly ignored them, and stated the third as a 
 matter of course, and the only one to be con- 
 sidered." 
 
 Vers. 9-13. Vows of animals. The right of 
 redemption in this case depended upon the na- 
 ture of the animal ; if it was one suitable for sa- 
 crifice (vers. 9, 10), after being once vowed, it 
 could not be redeemed or exchanged, and the 
 result of an attempt at exchange was that both 
 animals should belong to the Lord. It does not 
 follow that the animals were to be immediately 
 sacrificed, but they may have been put into the 
 herd from which the public sacrifices were taken. 
 The case of animals of the sacrificial kinds, with 
 blemishes which unfitted them for the altar, is 
 not especially mentioned; but after the analogy 
 of ver. 33, these probably went to the support 
 of the priests. If, on the other hand, the ani- 
 mal was unclean (vers. 11-13), it must be valued 
 by the priest; then it might be redeemed by 
 adding one-fifth to its value, or else it belonged 
 to the sanctuary. Keil thinks it was then sold 
 for the benefit of the sanctuary: but in this case 
 the original owner would have had no occasion 
 to redeem it at a higher price since he could 
 have bought it at its estimated value. It is more 
 likely therefore that such animals were retained, 
 at least for a time, for the use of the priests and 
 Levites. Keil considers that the Heb. J'3 .... 
 VD means "'between good and bad,' i. e., neither 
 very high as if it were very good, nor very low 
 as if it were bad, but at a medium price." The 
 A. V., however, is in accordance with the an- 
 cient versions, and is sustained by Gesenius. 
 Vers. 14, 15. The law for houses is the same 
 
204 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 as for unclean animals. It relates probably only 
 to houses in the cities, as those in the country 
 would come under the following law for land. 
 
 Vers. 16-24. Lange: " Lands, a. Inheritances. 
 If they were not redeemed they lapsed in the 
 year of Jubilee to the Sanctuary. If they were 
 redeemed, the price was determined partly ac- 
 cording to the money value of the seed for the 
 land, partly according to ihe number of sowings 
 or seed years to the Jubilee year, and a fifth 
 part of the amount must be added besides. These 
 ordinances applied also to the purchaser (the 
 under tenant). A field was taken for the mea- 
 sure of valuation which yielded until the year of 
 Jubilee one Homer (223 pounds, or two bushels 
 of seed)." [The expression (ver. 16) accord- 
 ing to the seed thereof is generally under- 
 stood to mean, according to the seed required to 
 bow it; but the difference is immaterial; it is 
 merely an expression of the measure of valuation, 
 and the proportion will remain the Bame what- 
 ever it be. The value of the homer of barley, 
 however (estimated by Thenius at 225 pounds), 
 is so great, amounting probably to about twenty - 
 Beven dollars, that it is necessary to understand 
 it, as Lange has done, not of the single homer, 
 but of a homer annually during the forty-two 
 years (omitting the seven Sabbatical years) in- 
 tervening between two Jubilee years. This 
 would make the money value of the single homer 
 of barley about 64 cts.; but it is to be remem- 
 bered that on the average it was to be paid many 
 years in advance, so that we cannot estimate 
 from this the actual price of the barley. Others 
 however (as Clarke and Keil) think it was an 
 annual payment as it accrupd. The meaning of 
 the expression, ver. 20, if he have sold the 
 field to another man is uncertain. Accord- 
 ing to Knobel it means "if he has fraudulently 
 Bold the field to another, and taken the price to 
 himself, after having vowed it to the sanctuary." 
 In this case the confiscation of the field to the 
 Lord would be the penalty upon his trickery and 
 deceit. Keil rejects this view, and supposes that 
 the owner continued to cultivate the land him- 
 Belf, paying a yearly rent to the sanctuary; in 
 such a case the ba--is of sale would be the pos- 
 sible surplus of the produce above the yearly 
 rental, and the fault of the seller " consisted simply 
 in Ihe fact that he had looked upon the land 
 which he vowed to the Lord as though it were 
 his own property, still and entirely at his own 
 disposal, and therefore had allowed himself to 
 violate the rights of the Lord by the sale of his 
 land." Wordsworth, following Jarchi, suggests 
 another interpretation; that the pronoun he is 
 used impersonally, and the expression means, if 
 the field had been sold by the treasurer for the 
 benefit of the sanctuary. The object would then 
 be to make the title given by the sanctuary in 
 all cases perfect. A simpler explanation is to 
 understand have sold in a pluperfect sense= 
 had sold — viz.: before making his vow. In this 
 case he would have no claim upon it until after 
 the Jubilee (except by redemption), and there- 
 fore his vow could only be accomplished by the 
 land falling to the sanctuary at the Jubilee. 
 The reason for the same result in case of refusal 
 to redeem is apparently based upon the persist- 
 ent wish of the owner. He might redeem at any 
 
 time up to the Jubilee; and if he did not, he 
 showed that he wished absolutely to give the 
 field to the Lord. It does not appear that the 
 lauded possessions of the sanctuary ever grew 
 large in this way. — F. G.]. "4. Purchased pos- 
 sessions. Since these must fall back in the Ju- 
 bilee year to the heir, they could only become 
 the subject of vows in a very limited sense." 
 The vow of a purchased field required (ver. 23) 
 the immediate payment of its full valu3 (without 
 addition) to the year of Jubilee. In this case 
 the actual occupation and usufruct of the land 
 undoubtedly remained with the one who had 
 made the vow, subject to the ordinary law of re- 
 demption (xxv. 23-28). The requirement here 
 of immediate payment does not imply that in the 
 former case (ver. 19) the payment was annual 
 (so Keil, Clark, and others), but only that here 
 the money must be immediately paid down as 
 the only security for its payment at all. 
 
 Ver. 25 simply provides that the standard of 
 all valuations must be the shekel of the 
 sanctuary — a silver coin estimated at 51 cents. 
 It was divided into 20 gerahs of 2.7 cts. each. The 
 LXX. uses the word 6i5paxua, which is employed 
 in Matt. xvii. 24 for the Aa//-shekel, the Alexan- 
 drian dpaxu'/ being double the Attic. 
 
 Vers. 26, 27. The positive law concerning 
 vows is now completed. It remains to treat ne- 
 gatively of certain things which were not al- 
 lowed to become the subject of vows. First, all 
 the first-born of animals are excluded as already 
 belonging to the Lord, and therefore incapable 
 of being given to Him either by vow or in any 
 other way : no man shall sanctify it. A 
 firstling of an unclean beast, however, might 
 be redeemed by adding a fifth to its valuation — 
 otherwise it was to be sold for the benefit of the 
 sanc'uary. The reason for its peremptory sale 
 in this case, instead of its retention for use, was 
 doubtless the tender age of the firstlings, so that 
 if they were retained they must have occupied 
 much time and care. Lange: "Keil remarks 
 'By this regulation the earlier law, which com- 
 manded that an ass should either be redeemed 
 with a sheep or else be put to death (Ex. xiii. 
 13 ; xxxiv. 20) was modified in favor of the re- 
 venues of the sanctuary and its servants.' 
 Comp. Winer, etc. We cannot consider this cor- 
 rect. Concerning the first-born of an unclean 
 beast, the law was peremptory. And how should 
 the law-giver here come back once more to the 
 unclean beast? Nevertheless, a special ordi- 
 nance concerning the first-born might certainly 
 be met with which had dropped out through a 
 defect under the law of unclean animals." 
 Keil, Clark and others must have overlooked the 
 fact that the law of Exodus is only a special law 
 concerning the o<s, but making no mention of 
 other unclean animals ; while here the law is a 
 general one which, as often in general laws, does 
 not mention the already known and established 
 exception. It had been but a ypar since the law 
 for the ass was first given in Exodus, and less 
 than this since its repetition in Ex. xxxiv. 20. 
 The time is too short, therefore, for the reason 
 given by Keil and Clark for its modification. 
 
 Vers. 28, 29. From redeemable vows is also 
 to be excepted every devoted thing, whether 
 of man, or beast, or land. This is the first in- 
 
CHAP. XXVII. 1-34. 
 
 205 
 
 stance of the use of the word D^.n, and it occurs 
 afterwards in the law but seldom (Num. xviii. 
 14; Deut. vii. 26, bis ; xiii. 17). It is introduced 
 as a term already familiar. It is translated by 
 various words in the A. V. (as curse, accursed, 
 dedicated, devoted, appointed to utter destruction, 
 etc.), but etymologically and by usage always 
 means irrevocably cut off from all common use — 
 in the case of persons, devoted to destruction — in 
 the case of things entirely surrendered to the 
 Lord to be disposed of at His will. "What 
 was devoted could never be offered in sacri- 
 fice; but in all places where mention is else- 
 where made of the ban laid on any thing (Num. 
 xviii. 14; xxxi. ; Deut. ii. 34; xiii. 12-18; xxv. 
 19; Josh. vi. 17-19; Mai. iv. 6) this appears as 
 a dedication to destruction, as a fulfilling of the 
 Divine vengeance, as an honoring of God on 
 those in whom He cannot show Himself holy and 
 glorious." Von Gerlach. In regard to inani- 
 mate objects the meaning is therefore clear 
 enough ; but the expression which shall be 
 devoted of men (ver. 29) has been the occa- 
 sion of some diCBculty. This much is certainly 
 plain: that the sentence of cherem once pro- 
 nounced was absolutely irrevocable, and in 1 
 Sam. xv. 21, 33, we have an instance of the pro- 
 phet's indignant rebuke of the attempt to set it 
 aside. Beyond this, the only instances of the 
 cherem in Scripture are those which rested upon 
 an express Diviue command. Jephthah's vow 
 does not come under this category at all, for that 
 was a vow either to offer a burnt offering, or to 
 devote to the Lord ; but the cherem is not treated 
 as a vow at all, and is separated from ordinary 
 vows by being irredeemable. The general sense 
 of the passage, historically interpreted, is there- 
 fore that man may not interfere to thwart the 
 purpose of the Almighty : Jehovah's sentence of 
 destruction must always be unflinchingly carried 
 out. Ver. 28, however, clearly asserts that an 
 individual man might devote persons belonging 
 to him in the same way that lie could his ani- 
 mals or fields, while ver. 29 requires that any 
 one so devoted must be put to death. The mean- 
 ing of this very mysterious provision must be 
 gathered from the historical instances of the che- 
 rem. It could have applied only to the devoting 
 of those who were already manifestly under the 
 ban of Jehovah— those guilty of such outrageous 
 and flagrant violation of the fundamental law of 
 the covenant that they manifestly came under 
 the penalty of death. Such persons, instead of 
 being tried and condemned, might be at once 
 devoted and put to death. Lange's exegesis 
 is as follows: " That which had been placed un- 
 der the ban was absolutely irredeemable. No ob- 
 ject was banned, however, or consecrated to Je- 
 hovah by an irrevocable reversion (for the use 
 of the Sanctuary in the case of impersonal things, 
 or for death instead of capital punishment in the 
 case of persons) through any private will ; only 
 Jehovah, or the community in His service, exe- 
 cuted the ban. The various particulars of the 
 ban are explained by Knobel, p. 588." See also 
 Selden de Jure Gent. IV., vi.-xi.; Waterland 
 Scripture vindicated, Works IV., p. 226-229. 
 
 Vers. 30—33. Tithes also are to be excluded 
 from the possible subjects of vows, since they 
 already belonged to the Lord; in certain cases, 
 
 however, they might be redeemed like vows. 
 The tithe, like the thing devoted, is referred to 
 as something already familiar. From Abra- 
 ham's tithe to Melchizedec (Gen. xiv. 20) and 
 Jacob's vow (Gen. xxviii. 22), and probably from 
 still far earlier times, it had been immemorially 
 an essential part of the worship of God. The 
 tithe is here spoken of, therefore, not for the 
 purpose of enjoining it, but to exclude it from 
 vows, and to prescribe how far and under what 
 conditions, like vows, it might be redeemed. In 
 Num. xviii. 20-32; Deut. xii. 6, 11 ; xiv. 22, di- 
 rections are given as to the use and the collec- 
 tion of the tithes. "According to Kabbinical 
 tradition, the animals to be tithed were enclosed 
 in a pen, and as they went out, one by one at 
 the opening, every tenth animal was touched 
 with a rod dipped in vermilion. Comp. Jerem. 
 xxxiii. 13; Ezek. xx. 37." Clark. The tithe was 
 applied, of course, only to the increase of the 
 flock and the herd, i. e., to animals which had 
 never been tithed before. Lange : " It must not 
 be overlooked that the tithes were a ground-rent 
 in favor of the hierarchy, primarily of the Le- 
 vites, who again must themselves pay tithes to 
 the priest; and were also a perpetual theocratic 
 civil tax which could not properly be maintained 
 in Christian times by the side of other taxes, 
 notwithstanding the strong Old Testament dispo- 
 sition of the middle ages in this matter. It is 
 easy to see that at the present day, by the side 
 of the modern forms of voluntary and involun- 
 tary taxes, ecclesiastical and secular, tithes can 
 only be claimed by an overstrained literal zeal." 
 The law (32, 33) absolutely forbade the redemp- 
 tion or exchange of the tithe of sacrificial ani- 
 mals, as in case of a vow ; other tithes were also 
 under the same law as the vow, and might be 
 redeemed by the payment of their value with one- 
 fifth in addition. 
 
 Ver. 34 closes this appendix, and forms, as it 
 were, a second close to the whole book of Levi- 
 ticus, the aim and object of which has been holi- 
 ness — holiness to be typically acquired by the 
 sacrificial system prescribed to point to " the 
 Lord our righteousness ;" and to be preserved by 
 those many legal enactments superadded to the 
 great law of faith, " because of transgressions, 
 until the promised seed should come." 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 
 
 I. In the law for the redemption of personal 
 vows is again brought out very strongly the 
 equality of all men before God. Differences were 
 made according to sex and age, but none accord- 
 ing to social position and rank. The redemption 
 for the high-priest himself was precisely the 
 same as for the day-laborer. 
 
 II. In the prohibition of vows of the first-born, 
 of tithes, etc., which already belonged to the 
 Lord, the general principle is taught that man 
 may not make that a matter of extraordinary 
 piety which already forms a part of his ordinary 
 duly. In a sense this would absolutely exclude 
 all vows, since the Christian requirement is that 
 we should devote ourselves with all that we have 
 to Him who gave Himself for us, and indeed ihe 
 highest standard of the Christian life, making 
 
206 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 of that life itself one perpetual vow, necessarily 
 supercedes all minor vows ; but nevertheless 
 practically, special dedications of ourselves and 
 ours may be made, and when made are to be sa- 
 credly kept. See Eccl. v. 4, 5. 
 
 III. Here as elsewhere Moses is made only 
 the channel and instrument by whom the laws 
 are given ; their authorship is expressly referred 
 to the Lord Himself. Accepting this as a truth, 
 the wonderful character of this legislation occa- 
 sions no difficuliy ; but if with the negative cri- 
 tics, it be denied and the legislation be referred 
 to human authorship, we have in this book the 
 impossible phenomenon of a legislation wholly 
 occupied with the promotion of holiness, and 
 yet stamped with fraud and deliberate forgery 
 upon its very front. We have also a legislation 
 far superior to that of any nation of antiquity, 
 and indeed morally superior to any that has 
 ever existed except under the influence of Chris- 
 tianity, proceeding from a people whose history 
 shows them to have been unfitted for the concep- 
 tion, much more the enactment of even a very 
 inferior code. 
 
 HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 
 
 Lange : " The religious observance of vows. 
 Before all things man must not be willing to 
 cheat Jehovah; also he must be thoroughly ho- 
 nest and true in his vows, his professions, his 
 fasts, his devotion, and his religious duties gen- 
 erally." 
 
 Also under exegetical : " The importance of 
 
 these prescriptions is that tbey oppose all un- 
 manliness in relation to a pledged word, confir- 
 mation vows, marriage vows, ordination vows, 
 false discharge of fasting that has been vowed 
 by fish-eating and the like; the removal of all 
 evasions of criminal justice and of churchly dis- 
 cipline, and finally, of all frauds in regard to 
 the duties which one owes to the cultus and to 
 the religious rights of the community. The or- 
 dinance concerning the irremissibility of various 
 actions shows clearly that there can be a true 
 freedom within this obligation. The sanctifica- 
 tion of manliness — thus might the whole section 
 be entitled." 
 
 Also under the same : " It is an old story that 
 worldliness, cunning, and impiety, very willingly 
 put obstructions in the way of religious, theo- 
 cratic, and ecclesiastical discharge of duty, and 
 the complaints of the Old Testament of the want 
 of manliness in this matter, which was connected 
 with dimness of faith in the Omniscient, have 
 been continually repeated even to the present. 
 But here Jehovah, who deals faithfully and re- 
 liably with His holy people, approaches with the 
 demand in regard to them, that they should hold 
 themselves holy, and faithful, and trustworthy 
 in all their business in regard to Him. If moral 
 laxity begins first in concealments in relation to 
 God and His institutions, it will diffuse itself 
 more widely until it completes its process of dis- 
 solution in religious and moral deceptions, espe- 
 cially in the province of all religious and moral 
 vows." 
 
 THE EInTXJ. 
 
GEORGE SMITH'S NEW STANDARD WORKS. 
 
 ^Ijf djljfllbFfln JSufronnf of (Jpnpsis. 
 
 CONTAINING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CREATION, THE FALL OF MAN, THE DELUGE, 
 THE TOWER OF BABEL, THE TIMES OF THE PATRIARCHS. AND NIMROD : BABYLONIAN 
 FABLES. AND LEGENDS OF THE GODS FROM THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS. 
 By GEORGE SMITH, 
 
 Of the Department of Oriental Antiquities. British Museum, Author of " History of AssurbanifHil" 
 
 . riatt Discoz'eries" Etc. 
 
 Willi iiuim rous Illustrations. 1 vol., Sro $4.00. 
 
 Mr. Smith's first volume, Assyrian Disccn-eries, attracted wide attention from all Biblical student-, bw ause 
 of the important bearing of the discoveries it recorded upon the accuracy of the narrative of ihe creation, .is 
 rehearsed in Genesis. Here Mr. Smith summarizes the results of still later and more comprehensive rcs^rches. 
 The inscriptions which he has deciphered cover a wide range of subjects, as will be seen from the title of the 
 volume, and are of the most marked significance and of the highest importance. 
 
 FROM THE ENGLISH REVIEWS. 
 
 "A step, the importance of which cannot be overlooked, has been made in a study which has a rejig 
 well as a literary value." — Times. 
 
 "The work Mr. Smith has here given us is the most interesting and the fullest we have yet had from his 
 
 pen In concluding these remarks, we heartily commend Mr. Smith's work to the attention of every one who, 
 
 .iccepling the general course of Biblical story, would wish t<> learn all that can be at present told of the collateral, 
 though not contemporaneous, history of Chaldea and Babylonia." — Atkenetum. 
 
 " Probably no single volume of its kind was ever published that contained more singular and deeply interesting 
 matter." — Nonconformist. 
 
 A NEW EDITION NOW READY OF 
 
 j&ussgriflii UlisrofiFriFS. 
 
 An Account of Explorations and Discoveries on the Site of Nineveh during 
 
 1873 and 1874. 
 
 Bv GEORGE SMITH, 
 
 Of the Department of Oriental Antiquities, British Museum. 
 
 With Maps, Wood-Cuts, and Photographs. One vol., 8vo, cloth, S4.0U. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 From the N. Y, Daily Tribune. 
 "Mr. Smith appears to have engaged in his work with equal ardor, perseverance, and good judgment. His 
 habits as a scholar have not impaired his efficiency as a practical man. The recital of his experience is marked by 
 frankness, modesty, and great intelligence." 
 
 From the St. Louis Demoerat. 
 
 '"The book reveals much of the hitherto hidden history of the Assyrian empire, and shows that its people were 
 wise in many things. The maxims translated from the records, and the curious devices and pictures brought to 
 the earth's surface, give us a clearer knowledge of the character of the people that inhabited that nation than we 
 have gained from any other source. * * * It is a work of great importance, and will be welcomed by all 
 scholars and antiquaries." 
 
 From the N. Y. Evening Post. 
 
 "Mr. Smith's book is in clearness and accuracy all that could be wished; himself a great authority on 
 Assyrian antiquities, he has prepared a work which no person who has *tudied or intends to study this fascinating 
 subject should fail to read.' 1 
 
 From the Cincinnati Commercial. 
 
 " It is in the hope that these rich, first fruits of investigation will stimulate inquiry, and induce the British 
 Government to take hold of the matter, and bring its influence to bear in such a manner upon the Ottoman 
 Government as to secure its cooperation in prosecuting a thorough system of investigation, that we close Mr. 
 Smith's absorbingly interesting book."' 
 
 From the Watchman and Reflector, 
 
 "His book is a simple, straightforward record of what he accomplished, written not to catch the applause of 
 the ignorant, but to inform the wise and the thoughtful. The narrative o( personal experience is interesting, with- 
 out trace of straining for sensational effect. But the chief value of the work is for its account of things accom- 
 plished." 
 
 Eithe ■ of the above will be sent, prepaid \ upon receipt of price, by 
 
 SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO., 
 
 743 & 745 Broadway New York. 
 
Lange's Commentary, 
 
 Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. 
 
 TRANSLATED, ENLARGED, AND EDITED 
 
 ■BY- 
 
 PHILIP SCHAFF, D. D., 
 
 Professor in the Union -theological Seminary, Neu; Tork. 
 
 This great work is rapidly approaching completion. The New Testament Part 
 is finished. The Old Testament Part is more than half done. 
 
 The German work, on which the English edition is based, is the product ol 
 about twenty distinguished Biblical scholars, of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, 
 and enjoys a high reputation and popularity wherever German theology is studied. 
 
 The American edition is not a mere translation (although embracing the whole 
 of the German), but to a large extent, an original work ; about one-third of the 
 matter being added, and the whole adapted to the wants of the English and Ameri- 
 can student. 
 
 The press has been almost unanimous in its commendation of Lange's Com- 
 mentary. It is generally regarded as being, on the whole, the most useful Commen- 
 tary, especially for ministers and theological students — in which they are more likely 
 to find what they desire than in any other. It is a complete treasure of Biblical 
 Icnowledge, brought down to the latest date. It gives the results of careful, scholarly 
 research ; yet in a form sufficiently popular for the use of intelligent laymen. The 
 Homiletical department contains the best thoughts of the great divines and pulpit 
 orators of all ages on the texts explained, and supplies rich suggestions for sermons 
 -md Bible lectures. 
 
 The following are some of the chief merits of this Commentary : 
 
 1. It is orthodox and sound, without being sectarian or denominational. It 
 fairly represents the exegetical and doctrinal consensus of evangelical divines of the 
 [■resent age, and yet ignores none of the just claims of liberal scientific criticism. 
 
 2. It is comprehensive and complete — giving in beautiful order the authorized 
 Knglish version with emendations, a digest of the Critical Apparatus, Exegetical 
 Kxplanations, Doctrinal and Ethical Inferences and Reflections, and Homiletical 
 ind Practical Hints and Applications. 
 
 3 It is the product of about forty American (and a few British) Biblical 
 Scholars, from all the leading denominations and Theological and Literary institutions 
 of the United States. Professors in the Theological Seminaries of New York, 
 Princeton, Andover, New Haven, Hartford, Cambridge, Rochester, Philadelphia, 
 Cincinnati, Alleghany, Chicago, Madison, and other places, representing the Pres- 
 tyterian, Episcopal, Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Reformed 
 Churches, have contributed or are engaged now in contributing to this Commentary. 
 It may, therefore, claim a national character more than any other work of the kind 
 ?>er publisher 1 in this country. 
 
 V»r Name* of Contributor*, Folumtt iitued, etc., «e« Mart J»f*> 
 
LIST OF AMERICAN CONTRIBUTORS 10 
 
 LANGE'S COMM ENTARY. 
 
 Prof PHILIP SCHAFF, D. D., general EDITOR, Union Theo'l Sem'y, N. Y 
 
 Prof. CHARLES A. AIKEN. D. D.,. Presbyterian,. . .Theo'l Seminary, Princeton, N.J 
 
 Rev. S. R. ASBURY, Episcopalian, Moorestown, N. J 
 
 Prof. GEORGE BLISS. D. D., Baptist Lewisburg University, Fa 
 
 Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS Presbyterian Roselle, N. J 
 
 Prof. JOHN A. BROADUS, D. D.,. . Bapt.,. .. Greenville Theo'l Sem'v, South Carolina 
 
 Rev. T . W. CHAMBERS, D. D Reformed New York. 
 
 Rev. THOS. C. CON A NT, D. D Baptist Brooklyn, L. I 
 
 Rev. E. R. CRAVEN, D. D Presbyterian Newark, N.J. 
 
 Prof GEORGE E. DAY, D. D., Congregational Yale College, New Haven, Ct. 
 
 Prof. CHAS. ELLIOTT, D. D., Presb., N. W. Theo'l Sem'y, Chicago, Ills. 
 
 Prof. L J. EVANS, D. D., Presb Lane Theo'l Seminary, Cincinnati, O. 
 
 Prof. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D. D.,.Presb Prin. Free College, Glasgow, Scotland 
 
 Prof. JOHN FORSYTH, D. D Reformed, Chapl'n Mil'y Acad., West Point, N.Y. 
 
 Prof. FRED. GARDINER, D. D.,...Epis Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Ct. 
 
 Rev. A. GOSMAN, D. D Presbyterian, Lawrenceville, N.J. 
 
 Prof. W. H. GREEN, D. D Presbyterian,. ..Theo'l Seminary, Princeton, N. J. 
 
 Prof. H. B. HACKETT, D. D Baptist Rochester University, N. Y. 
 
 Rev. E. HARWOOD, D. D Episcopal New Haven, Ct. 
 
 Prof. W. H. HORNBLOWER. D. D., Presbyterian Theo'l Sem'y, Alleghany, Pa. 
 
 Prof. J. F. HURST, D. D., Methodist Drew Theo'l Sem'y, Madison, N. J. 
 
 Prof. A. C. KENDRICK, D. D„ Baptist Rochester University, N. Y. 
 
 Rev. JOHN LILLIE, D. D Presbyterian (Deceased.} 
 
 Rev. J. FRED. McCURDY, Presbyterian, Princeton, N.J. 
 
 Prof. C. M. MEAD, D. D., Congregational Theo'l Sem'y Andover, Mass. 
 
 Rev. J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D. D, Episcopal, Dresden, Germany. 
 
 Miss EVELINE MOORE Presbyterian Newark, N.J. 
 
 Prof. MURPHY, D.D Presbyterian,. ..Queen's College, Belfast, Ireland. 
 
 Prof. J. PACKARD, D.D., Episcopal Theo'l Sem'y, Alexandria, Va. 
 
 Prof. D. W. POOR, D. D Presbyterian, San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Prof. M. B. RIDDLE, D. D., Reformed,... Theological Seminary, Hartford, Ct. 
 
 Prof. CH. F. SCHAEFFER, D. D.,..Luth., Lutheran Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Prof. W. G. T. SHEDD, D. D., Presbyterian Union Theo'l Sem'y, New York. 
 
 Rev. C. C. STARBUCK Congregational, Berea College Ky. 
 
 Prof. P. H. STEENSTRA Episcopal, Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 Prof. CALVIN E. STOWE, D. D.,. .Congregational, formerly of Andover, Mass. 
 
 Prof. J AS. STRONG, D. D Methodist, Drew Seminary, Madison, N. J. 
 
 Prof. W. G. SUMNER Episcopal, Yale College, New Haven, Ct. 
 
 Prof. TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., Reformed, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 
 Prof. C. H. TOY, D.D. Baptist, Greenville Sem'y. South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. E. A. WASHBURN, D. D., Episcopal, Rector Calvary Church, New York. 
 
 Prof. WILLIAM WELLS Methodist, Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 
 Rev. C P. WING, D. D., Presbyterian, Carlisle, Pa. 
 
 Rev. E. D. YEOMANS, D. D., Presbyterian, (Deceased.) 
 
 There have been thus far issued of LANGE'S COMMENTARY, NINE Volumes on the Old 
 Testament, and TEN on the New Testament, as follows : 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMES. 
 
 I. Genesis. 
 II. Exodus and Leviticus. 
 
 III. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 
 
 IV. Acts. 
 V. Job. 
 
 VI. Psalms. 
 VII. Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesi- 
 
 astes. 
 VIII. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 
 IX. The Minor Prophets. 
 
 In preparation.— Numbers and Deuteronomy ( I vol.): I. and II. Samuel (i vol.): Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
 Esther ft vol.) ; Isaiah (i vol.); Kzckiel and Daniel (i vol.). 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT VOLUMES. 
 
 VII. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
 and Colossians. 
 VIII. Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Phil- 
 emon. Hebrews. 
 IX. James. Peter, John, and T' 7 de. 
 X. Revelation. With an Index to New 
 Testament Vols. 
 
 It ivill be observed that the AVro Testament portion is complete. 
 
 2a:h one to!. 8vo. Price per vol. in half calf, $7.50 ; in Sh.3ep, $5.50 ; in Cloth, $5.00. 
 An. ■: all the volumes of Lange's Commentary sent, post or express charges paid, to any 
 re :ipt of the price. 
 
 SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO., NEW YORK. 
 
 I. 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 II. 
 
 Mark and Luke. 
 
 III. 
 
 John. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Acts. 
 
 V. 
 
 Romans. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Corinthians. 
 
JST-A-T^ID^JFLID WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO. 
 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 
 
 By GEORGE P. FISHER. D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale College, author of " I"he Su- 
 pernatural Origin uf Christianity," &c. One vol. 8vo, cloth $3 00 
 
 This is a concise but complete History of the Reformation, as a whole, and in all the countries to which it 
 extended, embracing a full account of its causes, events, characters, and consequences. It is lucid and grapi it 
 In style, and, as Professor Fisher has made the Reformation the study of his life, the work displays throughout- 
 a thoroughness uf research which must make it a standard authority upon the important movement to the hwor* 
 of whirh it is devoted. 
 
 JOWETT'S DIALOGUES OF PLATO. 
 
 Four « .*.. crown Bvo cloth, per set, cheaper edition SB 00 
 
 This work, by Prof. Jowett, is one of the most splendid and valuable gifts to Literature and Philosophy ihar 
 have for a long time been offered. Its first or most obvious excellence is the perfect ease and grace of the t-;ms- 
 La:ion, wmch is thoroughly English, and yet entirely exempt from any phrase or feature at variance with rhe 
 Hellenic character. Very few translations, other than the Bible, read like an original ; but this is one of them. I I 
 has other and more recondite excellences. It is the work, almost the life-labor, we believe, of a profound sch .lar, 
 a thoughtful moralist and metaphysician, and a most successful instructor of youth; and it is manifest thai the 
 complete success that has attended his execution of the task is itself the means of concealing the diligenre. in-lu-iry, 
 and ability with which philological and interpretative difficulties must have been solved or overcome.— Blue A wo'-i' i 
 Magazine, 
 
 FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Complete in Twelve Volumes^ Croivn Octavo. 
 
 THE CHELSEA EDITION. Half roan, gilt top, per set $21 0C- 
 
 THE POPULAR EDITION. Twelve vols., cloth 15 0<" 
 
 "The style is excellent: sound, honest, forcible, singularly perspicuous English; at times, with a sort of pictur- 
 esque simplicity, pictures dashed off" with only a few touches, but perfectly alive We have never read 
 
 a passage twice We see the course of events day by day, not only of the more serious and" important 
 
 communications, but the gossip of the hour If truth and vivid reality be the perfection of history, 
 
 auch is to be said in favor of this muae of composition." — London Quarterly. 
 
 FROUDE'S HISTORY OF IRELAND. 
 
 THREE VOLUMES NOW READY. On tinted paper, cloth V *> 
 
 FROUDE'S SHORT STUDIES. 
 
 FIRST AXD .SHCOXI) SKKIHS. 
 
 POPULAR EDITION. Two vols., doth J3 Oft 
 
 CHELSEA EDITION. Two vols., half Ruxunri;. Kill to|i. * On 
 
 MOMMSEN'S HISTORY OF ROME. 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE REVISED LONDON EDITION. Four vols, crown 8vo. Per set «8 00 
 
 "A work of the very highest merit; its learning is exact and profound; us nanative full of genius and skill. 
 Its descriptions of men arc admirably vivid. We wish to place or. record our opinion that Dr. Momnisen's is b> 
 Ear the best history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Commonwealth." — London Times. 
 
 CURTIUS' HISTORY OF GREECE. 
 
 Printed upon Tinted Paper, uniform with Mommsen's History op Rome, and the Library Edition of 
 
 FruL'UE'S HlSTOKV UK ENGLAND. 
 
 Five volumes crown Svo, per vol $2.30 
 
 '* Prote»sor Curtius' eminent scholarship is a sufficient guarantee for the trustworthiness of his history, while 
 the skill with which he groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them, combine to render it nu le^s re.id 
 able than sound. Professor Curtius everywhere maintains the true digi.ity and impartiality of history, an., it i» 
 tvident his sympathies are on the side of justice, humanity, and progress." — London Athetueum. 
 
 "We can not express our opinion of Dr. Curtius' book better than by >aying lhat it may be fitly ranked with I'IicjcIo* 
 Mommsen's gTeat work." — London Spectator. 
 
 Hm &•©*» tent post-paid^ upon receipt of the price, by the publislwr*. 
 
 SCRIBNER, ARMSfRONG & CO., NEW YORK. 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 MH» ■»«*"*»' 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *e*44g 
 
 Bn* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDIN U.S.A. 
 
 1B4B2YH 1077 J 
 
 07-10-03 32180 MC W 
 
Princeton