PRINCETON, N. J. Division J^^^^l.Umit^^ O Section. ..\ Ia VC? 3 1 SAel/.. Ntimber,. "^^ THE Mosaic + Sacrifices IN Leviticus i-viii BY THE REV. W. M. RODWELL. "tlbtnl? not tbat % am come to Destroy tbe law or tbe propbets: % am not come to C)estrog but to fulfil." — S. Matth. V. 17. GRIFFITH, FARRAN, OKEDEN, and WELSH, London, and Sydney, N.S.W. GEORGE WATERS, MACHINE PRINTER, STONE STREET, CRANBROOK. 1889. **3n promptu est %cviticxxs libcVf in quo stnoula sacrificia, immo stnaul^ pene s^llab^, et vestes Haron, et totus orOo Xevtticus spirant coelestia Sacramenta." — S. Jerome. All the Books of the Pentateuch are named by the Jews in accordance with their initial words. Thus, Genesis is called Bereschith, since it begins with that word ; Exodus, Veelleh Shemoth ; Numbers, Vayedabber ; Deuteronomy, Elleh Hadde- bartm. The present book is called Vayikra. It is also called Thorah Cohe^ian, i.e., " The Law of the Priests," and so it is designated in the Arabic and Syriac Versions. In the Septuagint it is called Leuiticon^ and in our version Leviticus, since it treats of the sacrifices, the priesthood of Aaron, and various other rites and ceremonies, the due performance of which belonged strictly to the tribe of Levi, as being especially dedicated to the service of the sanctuary. The author of this Book was Moses : a fact which is not only admitted by the Jews, but which is confirmed by the authority of the New Testament in several places, e.g., compare S. Matthew viii. 4 with Lev. xiv. 4, 10: S. John viii. 5 with Lev. XX. 10, Deut. xxii. 22, etc. The Book of Leviticus may be divided into four principal parts : — I. — Various laws concerning the sacrifices to be offered by the Israelites, and certain other rites connected with them. E.g., the burnt offering: the meal offering: the peace offering : the sin offering : the trespass offering. Chap, i.-vii. 11. — rhe Institution of the xVaronic priesthood. This part contains an account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to their office : the first offerings of Aaron : the descent of fire from Heaven : the sin of Nadab and Abihu in offering strange fire, and their punish- ment. Chap, viii.-x. ii. INTRODUCTION. III. — Various laws concerning" food, and the purifications both of priests and people. E.g., the living creatures that might, and that might not, be eaten : the tokens whereby the priest was to be guided in discerning leprosy : the rites in the cleansing" of the leper : the scape-goat : the Day of Atonement : divers laws relat- ing to priests : Feasts of the Lord. Chap, xi.-xxiii. IV. — Various laws concerning Festivals, Blasphemy, the Year of Jubilee, Vows, and Tithes. Chap, xxiv.-end. The connection between the Christian Religion and the Mosaic dispensation is clearly marked by Heb. i. i. We are there told that " God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." The times there spoken of reach from the first to the last prophecy, and the maimers refer to the types, prophetical characters, and typical deliverances with which the Old Testament abounds. It is clear that in the judge- ment of the sacred writer, a certain plan and purpose pervades the whole of the Old Testament, viz. : — that it points forward to a coming Saviour and His Church. From the first promise of the woman's Seed in Genesis iii., to the announcement of the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus Christ in Mai. iii., this plan may be clearly traced in each of the sacred Books, whether historical, or prophet- ical, or (like the Psalms) devotional. But Leviticus is strictly a ritualistic and ceremonial Book. It points forward, not so much to the Person as to the Work, the Sacrifice, the Atonement, which the Messiah when He came, would work out, and the duties, both of minister and people in regard to It. The religious services, however, which are prescribed in this Book are principally the different kind of sacrifices typical of the Sacrifice of Christ, as the climax and grand feature of His work on earth. These sacrifices, of course, could not be offered without the shedding of blood : and this institution of animal sacrifices had continued from patriarchal days down to the giving of the Law by Moses, no other offering but that of animals being recorded in Holy Scripture, except in the case of Cain, when the offering was rejected, and for this reason, that Cain, by merely offering the fruits of the earth, did not own himself a sinner : but it was this which Abel did, and hence he is said to have offered in faith, Heb. xi. 4, and his sacrifice, therefore, was the earliest type and foreshadowing of the Sacrifice of the Cross. INTRODUCTION. iii. We see from the first chapter of Leviticus, that the blood of the victim was always to be sprinkled, and the victim itself consumed by fire. This clearly teaches us (as the Epistle to the Hebrews shews) that the merits of the Saviour will be of no avail to us, unless they be applied to the soul by individual faith : and that our sins deserve, and must have incurred, the wrath of Him, Who is a "consuming fire," Heb. xii. 29, if our Great Sacrifice had not endured it in our stead. The same may be said of all the other sacrifices, especially that of the Passover, which from first to last was in every particular a type of the Sacrifice of Christ. Then, besides the sacrifices, the Book of Leviticus prescribes a number of ceremonies, all of which were purifications from uncleanness, and all of which in different ways were intended to teach reverence towards God's House, His worship, and all holy things connected with His Service — the necessity of inward purity of heart, and life and principles — the difficulty of rooting out evil habits, the leprosy of sin, from the mind — the danger of sinful affections in such as worship the true God — and the duty of thank- fulness. The ritual, therefore of the Old Church was not only binding upon its members, but was full of spiritual teaching, as may also be truly said of the ritual of the Catholic Church now. But the great value of the Book of Leviticus consists in the clear view it gives of the Sacrifice of Christ. As in each of the Holy Gospels we find some special attribute of the Office of Christ laid down more clearly than in the others, so the various sacrifices enumerated in this Book bring out the various phases of the one great Sacrifice offered by our Saviour. That Sacrifice could not be represented by any one sacrifice : to gain, therefore, an insight into the fulness of the Atoning Sacrifice of our Master, we must study each of the Levitical sacrifices separately, and by itself. These sacrifices, be it remembered, could only be offered by the duly constituted Jewish Clergy. This taught the Jews (and teaches us) the necessity of a settled ministry. The Jewish threefold order of High Priest, Priest, and Levite, finds its counterpart in the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon of the Christian Church. These are they whom S. Paul tells us to obey, and these alone may minister at the Altars of the Church. This brief Introduction may fitly be concluded in the words of the learned Bishop Wordsworth who says : — ■" It is not too much to assert . . . that no one can hope to have a clear view of the iv. INTRODUCTION. sinfulness of Sin, and of the true character of the Atonement, and also of the Holy Eiicharist, except by a diligent study of Leviticus." And again : — " This, therefore, is certain, that Leviticus is designed for the edification of the Christian Church, and that its true meaning is to be sought in the Gospel : and perhaps there is no portion of the Old Testament which demands more careful attention from the Christian student, or which will repay his labour with more abundant fruit than Leviticus." And once more : — '* If therefore the Christian student desires to have a clear view of the various phases, and divers effects of the One Great Sacrifice offered once for all on the Cross : if he would comprehend its composite universality, and analyze its distinct offices and benefits : if he would understand the spiritual organism of each of its parts, and admire the harmonious symmetry and Divine fulness of the whole : and if he would rightly apprehend how that One Sacrifice is continually represented in the Christian Church, and how its virtue is ever communicated to the faithful in the Holy Eucharist, he will have his desires fully satisfied, and his labours amply rewarded, in reading the Book of Leviticus by the light of the New Testament, and with the help of those expositions which have been handed down from primitive times." — Introduction to Leviticus, pp. 1,3. The following abbreviations are used in this work I Heb. = Hebrew Version. 2 Sept. = Septuagint. 3 V. = Vulgate. 4 Syr. = Syriac Version. 5 R.V. = Revised Version. 6 A.V. = Authorized Version. 7 T.O. = Targum of Onkelos. 8 T.J. = Targum of Jonathan. 9 J.T. = Junius and Tremellius. All quotations from the Targums are taken from Etheridge's translation, Ed. 1865. THE Daily Burnt Offering. ExOD. xxix. 38-43. THE DAILY BURNT OFFERING. EXOD. CH. xxix. 38-43. 38. IFI0W tbis is tbat wbicb tbou sbalt offer upon tbe altar ; two lambs of tbe first ^ear &ay bp Da^ continually?. 39. TTbe owz lamb tbou sbalt otter \\\ tbe morning ; an& tbe otber lamb tbou sbalt otfer at even : 40. Hub witb tbe oxkz lamb a tentb Deal q>1 flour minale& witb tbe fourtb part of an \i\\\ Qt beaten oil ; an& tbe tourtb part qI an bin of wine for a &rinli offering. 4X. Hnt) tbe otber lamb tbou sbalt offer at even, an^ sbalt ^o tbereto accorMng to tbe meat offering of tbe morning, an& accorMng to tbe &rinn offering tbereof, for a sweet savour, an offering ma^e b^ fire unto tbe Xort). 42. Ubis sball be a continual burnt offering tbrougbout pour generations at tbe &oor of tbe tabernacle of tbe congregation before tbe OLorD : wbere % will meet pou, to speal? tbere unto tbee. Before proceeding to consider the various voluntary and private offerings which were such prominent features in the re- ligious life of the ancient people of God, it is necessary to prefix some remarks on the solemn and important offering enjoined in the above passage. To this all the other offerings were subordinate, and with this they were, so to speak, inseparably linked. iV clear conception of the greater, therefore, must precede, and will afford valuable help in, the study of the less. To have a thorough knowledge of the ceremonial details and of the Christology of the voluntary offerings, and yet not to have a distinct comprehension of the powers and functions of the great daily obligatory offering, would be to have a very imperfect knowledge of the subject. As he who would intelligently consider the sublime doctrines of Chris- THE DAILY BURNT OFFERING. tianity must do so in connection with, and based upon, the great fact of the Incarnation, so must the student of the Levitical volun- tary offerings consider them in connection with, and based upon, the daily national burnt offering. Two principal points at once present themselves for consider- ation : I . The position of the daily burnt offering among the other sacrifices; 2. its perpetual nature. The position assigned to this solemn offering was unique. It was the central sacrificial rite of the Jewish Church in its corporate capacity. It was the cornerstone which bound together the whole sacrificial structure, the centre round which all other sacrifices were grouped, and in immediate dependance upon which they were offered and accepted. " To secure inherence," says Arch. Freeman, " in that one sacrifice was the object of all other sacrifices, sprinklings, religious feastings, washings, forbearance from particular kinds of food ; of all ceremonies, precautions, and remedies whatsoever." As the sun is the centre of the solar system, and controls all the bodies which belong to it, so the daily burnt offering was the centre of the Jewish sacrificial system, and controlled and kept in due disposition all other ceremonies and sacrifices. That a close and intimate connexion existed between it and the voluntary offerings is evident from the fact that such portions of the latter as were to be burnt before Jehovah were laid upon the embers of the continual sacrifice, Ex. xxix. 13, Lev. iii. 5, etc. : nor can we doubt that the pious Israelite was by this pro- vision intended to learn that his offering was to be united with, and accepted by Jehovah through, the one great national, all containing sacrifice which day and night was slowly and silently burning on the Altar. Another important point to notice is that the daily offering was a continual offering. Nothing was allowed to stand in the way of its daily performance. In Numbers xxviii. and xxix. the injunction is no less than thirteen times expressly repeated that, however numerous the other offerings might be, they were to be " beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, and his drink offering." For this nothing could be substituted, with this nothing might interfere. Its smoke was perpetually to rise from the Altar, and enter the presence of Jehovah as an odour of rest and refreshment. This was one of its distinguishing features that it was an offering continually presented and never ceasing. Having thus noticed the central position and perpetual nature of the daily sacrifice we must now notice its great ac- THE DAILY BURNT OFFERING. companiment. This was the sacred incense, compounded from a divinely given formula, and which might only be used in the service of the sanctuary, Exod. xxx. 34, sqq. This fact need only be noticed here as it will be found duly annotated in ch. ii. i. The point to be observed now is the object and office of the incense. Here may be quoted the telling words of the above learned author on this point. Of the incense he says that " Its function was to carry the great covenant Sacrifice into the covenant Presence .... The incense itself was intended to penetrate into the Holy of Holies. And in it the whole of the sacrificial powers which gathered round the Altar of burnt offering were summed up. By it the covenant people were at length brought, in profoundest mystery, into the very Presence Itself." That to the sacred incense were committed powers of an extraordinary nature is evident from such passages as ch. xvi. 13 and Numb. xvi. 48, where we read that by its means the plague was stopped. Not that the incense per se had any mar- vellous powers ; whatever might or virtue it possessed was derived from the fact of its union with, and of its " summing up " in itself the whole of the sacrificial powers of the great national offering. Moreover, that the incense and the sacrifice were closely connected is shewn by the fact that the offering of both took place as nearly as possible simultaneously. It must also be observed that to the daily incense, as to the daily sacrifice, the same term " perpetual " was applied. Exod xxx, 8. We now proceed to examine the typical nature of the offer- ing under consideration. What was foreshadowed by the offering itself? What by its central position ? What by its ** perpetual " nature .? The sacrifice of the lamb day by day was a clear type of that One Sacrifice which in the fulness of time was to be offered by Him who is " the Lamb as it had been slain " upon the Altar of the Cross. That was the type, this the glorious reality. The original type was the sacrifice of the beloved son of Abraham, the daily sacrifice was a continuance of that type, the antitype was the One, all-atoning, perfect Sacrifice of the beloved Son of God. The Levitical offerings were devoid of intrinsic efficacy : they were but figures of the reality to come. They exhibited in type and shadow the Death and work of Christ, but in themselves they were ineffi- cacious. It was from that Sacrifice of which they were typical that the Jewish offerings derived by anticipation their efficacy, as it is to that Sacrifice that the virtues of all Christian ordinances are to be referred. THE DAILY BURNT OFFERING. The unique position also held by the daily burnt offering is most significant. As it was the central offering of the Elder, so That of which it was the type holds a similar position among the religious ordinances of the New Covenant. The Sacrifice of Calvary is the centre around which all revolves, on which all de- pends, the source of all efficacy whatsoever. As all the portions of the sacrificial animal to be consumed by fire were to be laid upon the embers of the daily sacrifice, to be consumed with and by them, so all our service is to be offered in union with, and accepted through, and, as it were, laid upon the Sacrifice of our Divine Master; so that, whatever virtue that service may possess is wholly derived from its dependance on His Sacrifice. It is to that One central offering that the eye of faith ever turns in ador- ing love. We must next observe that by the continual daily sacrifice was foreshadowed the perpetual presentation by our Saviour of His Atoning Sacrifice in the presence of His Father. As the typical victim was daily offered on earth by the typical priest, so the Reality is ever pleaded and presented in the courts of Heaven by Him who is both Priest and Victim. His work of Intercession, i.e., of pleading His Sacrifice, never ceases. He is a Priest " for ever," and has an "unchangeable Priesthood," Heb. vii. 21, 24, and His work as Priest is ever carried on before the Heavenly Altar where He continually offers Himself without spot. This His Work is ever proceeding on our behalf, " He ever liveth to make intercession " for us, lb. v. 25. By that term we must not under- stand merely oral intercession, as though our great High Priest did nothing but pray for us, but a sacrificial pleading of His Passion and Death. The Divine Eye rests eternally on His Mediatorial work. Tliis is His Intercession that He is ever presenting His Sacrifice, ever pointing to His glorious Wounds, ever pleading that great Offering of which the daily burnt sacrifice was the shadow and the type. But the great national offering was not merely a typical sacrifice, but a solemn act of worship. It was the highest ex- pression of devotion and homage of which the Mosaic system was capable. To what conclusion does this fact point ? If, as is un- questionably the case, the Jewish and Christian Churches are but one body in progressive phases of developement, if, as the late Bishop Wordsworth says (Commentary on Zechariah), Zion has expanded into the Catholic Church of Christ, if, as S. Paul teaches, Rom. xi. 18, Israel is the root of which the Christian Church is the THE DAILY BURNT OFFERING. branch, then we naturally expect that in the latter there should be a provision made for a continuation of the solemn act of worship of the former. And this provision we find in the Holy Eucharist regarded as a Sacrifice. That holy Rite is the highest and central act of Christian worship, the culminating point of all service, the one Rite ordained by Christ Himself, in which we plead the merits of His all-prevailing Sacrifice, and shew forth His death till He come, i. Cor. xi. 26. As the central act of Jewish worship looked forward to the coming Offering of Calvary, so the highest and most sublime act of Christian worship, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, looks hack to that Offering, and is the Rite wherein " a memorial " is made of the great work there accomplished. In Heaven and on earth the work is identical, not here one offerer and another in Heaven, not one Sacrifice on the Altars of the Church Militant, and another on the Altar of the Heavenly Court, but on both Altars lies the same Sacrifice, before each stands the same Priest, in reality in Heaven, in figure on earth. One more point remains to be considered. The great Mosaic offering was to be presented " day by day " continually. This is the pattern divinely given, and to this we ought to aspire in the order of our sacramental worship. The daily offering of the Jewish sacrifice should find its counterpart in the daily offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice on the Christian Altar. The Jewish rite was to last till Christ the Reality abolished for ever all types and shadows, it would seem therefore that a daily offering of the more glorious and infinitely more efficacious Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the rule at which we ought to aim. Circumstances, indeed, may conspire to prevent this happy consummation, but this should not only be the model, but wherever possible, the practice of the Church till her Master shall come again. THE DEDICATORY SACRIFICE. THE Burnt Offering. Chap. i. ; vi. 8-14 ; vii. CHAPTER I. THE BURNT OFFERING. Analysis. Chief feature. Entire consumption on the Altar. Nature. Dedicatory to God. Order. First in institution, second in application. Treatment of blood. Poured round about upon the brazen Altar. Treatment of flesh. Entirely burnt, the skin being given to the officiating priest. Vienio Resented of the work of Christ. Christ our Substitute, offering to God, that He may be accepted, the entire sacrifice and dedication of Himself, as an oblation of sweet savour. Counterpart in the Sacramental system of the Chtirch. The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice. I. Hub tbe Xort) called unto /IDoses, ant) spafte unto bim out ot tbe tabernacle of tbe conoreGatton, saline;, And'] By this copulative is shewn the continuity of the Pentateuch as a book. By the word and Leviticus is linked on to Exodus, and Numbers to Leviticus. —The Lord'] Targs. O. and Jon. say " The Word of the Lord." —called] Heb. Yikra. In the Hebrew MSS. the a of this word is in a smaller character than the rest ; thus, yikr^. Hence the Jews suppose some mystery to be implied: e.g., that God met Moses accidently, or that it pointed to the gentleness of the Divine call as contrasted with the thunders on Sinai. Many such letters occur in the sacred Text, and from them the Jewish doctors elicit endless puerilities. —out of the tabernacle of the congregation] In the holy Scriptures we find the tabernacle designated by various names, e.g., ' The THE BURNT OFFERING. house of Jehovah,' Ex. xxiii. 19, Josh, vi. 24, etc. : 'the Temple of Jehovah/ i. Sam. i. 9, iii. 3 : ' the Sanctuary,' Ex. xxv. 8, Lev. xii. 4, etc. But the three names which most aptly describe the triple design of the tabernacle are these : — A. The Tabernacle of Meeting. B. The Tabernacle of Witness or Testimony. C. The Dwelling. A. The Tabernacle of Meeting. It is unfortunate that mo'aed should have been rendered 'congregation' in the A.V: for this translation not only misses the significance of the Hebrew original, but gives a false impression of the tabernacle and its uses, by lend- ing itself to the idea that it was a place where a ' congregation ' in the modern sense of the word, was intended to assemble. Not only does the space enclosed by the Court (150ft. by 75ft,), and the size of the two divisions of the Sacred building [Holy Place 30ft. by 15ft.: Holy of Holies 15ft. by 15ft.) forbid such an idea, but we know that into the Holy Place none but the priests might enter, and into the Holy of Holies none but the Highpriest, and that only once a year on the great Day of Atonement. The tabernacle, as this first name shews, was to be a place of ' meeting,' not indeed of God and the whole congregation, but of God with the people in the persons of His priests. See Ex. xxix. 42, 43 : XXX. 6, etc. B. The Tabernacle of Witness or Testimony. " Where Jehovah bears witness," says Kurtz, " through His covenant and law that He is what He is, viz., the Holy One of Israel, who will have Israel also to be holy as He is holy. Lev. xix. 2, and who qualifies Israel for it by His blessing and atoning grace. Ex. xx. 24." Sacrif. Worsh. of O. T. (Clark, F. T. L.) p. 42. C. The Dwelling. The Tabernacle was to be a divine habitation. God was to dwell there, and that continually: and from that dwell- ing place to pour forth blessings upon His chosen people. Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45, 46. Such being the three most expressive names of the sacred building, we must now enquire as to the mystical signification of the tabernacle, and as to the symbolical teaching it was designed to convey. We may consider the tabernacle 1 . As typical of Christ, and of His Human Nature. 2. As typical of the Church, His Mystical Body. THE BURNT DIFFERING. I. The tabernacle (^Sept. skene) was a remarkable type of the Incanintion. (i.j It distinctly symbolized that ' greater and more perfect Tabernacle C^iQ-^K.. skene) not made with hands' (Heb. ix. ii), viz., the Human Nature which our Divine Master took upon Himself. That was the idea present to the mind of the Apostolic writer when he said ' The Word was made flesh and tabernacled (eskenosen) among us,' S. John i. 14. God and man 'met' in the One Person of Jesus Christ. His Body was the true ' Tabernacle of Meeting ' wherein were united the Human Nature and the Divine. In the Apocalypse S. John again gives prominence to this idea : ' I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, " Behold the Tabernacle (skene) of God is with men, and He will dwell (skenosei) with them " (ch. xxi. 3). HE, i.e., Jesus Christ, is the true Tabernacle, foreshadowed and symbolized by the Mosaic tabernacle. (ii.) We read in Exod. xl. 34, that ' the glory of the Lord (^Sept. doxa kuriou) filled the tabernacle.' Not only was it present, as sometimes ' at the door,' Exod. xxxiii. g, or as at other times when it ' covered ' it, but it also ' filled ' the whole building, Exod. xl. 34, so that Moses was not able to enter. In like manner our blessed Lord was 'filled' with wisdom, S. Luke ii. 40, and with the Holy Ghost, ch. iv. I. In the person of Jesus Christ the 'glory of the Lord ' was revealed as the prophet Isaiah had foretold, Isaiah xl. 5. In Him was not merely a portion of the Divine power. He had not merely gifts and graces above His fellows, but He was ' filled ' with Divine Power. As 'the glory of the Lord' filled every nook and corner of the recently erected building, so in the true Tabernacle, our Divine Lord, Who Himself calls His Body ' a Temple,' S. John ii. 19, dwelt ' all the fulness' of the Godhead bodily, Col. ii. 9. (iii.) Another point of symbolism now claims our notice. The tabernacle was constructed in such a manner that, when occasion required, it could be taken down, carried to another place, and there erected afresh. Was not this a foreshadowing of the dis- solution of the Body of our Saviour ? The tabernacle was the type, He the anti-type. As the tabernacle could be put together and taken down, so that better Tabernacle, the Body which He took from His blessed Mother, in which He lived, worked, and died, was to be ' unclothed,' 2 Cor. v. 4., laid in the grave, and after three days to be raised up again in a glorified and spiritualized condition. ' He himself,' says the Rev. E. F. Willis, ' claimed to be the ful- filment of all that the tabernacle foreshadowed, when He called His Body a temple. For we must remember that the temple was THE BURNT OFFERING. but an enlarged and stationary tabernacle ' ( Worship of the Old Covenant^ p. 95). In this connection compare the language of S. Paul, * our earthly house of this tabernacle,' 2 Cor. v. i : ' for we that are in the tabernacle do groan, v. 4 : and also of S. Peter, ' as long as I am in this tabernacle, 2 S. Pet. i. 13 : * shortly I must put off tliis my tabernacle^ v. 14. (iv.) The last point to which we shall refer in connection with the tabernacle as symbolical of our Saviour is its anointing with oil. The tabernacle and all that was therein was to be anointed with oil, and thus set apart and consecrated to the service of Jehovah, Ex. xl. 9, 16. This surely foreshadowed the future anointing of the true Tabernacle, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost. As the holy Dwelling was to be anointed with oil, so He in whom * dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead ' was to be anointed with the Holy Ghost. He is the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One. His was the anointing of which the ceremonial anointing of the tabernacle was but the type. We next proceed to enquire in what respects 11. The Tabernacle was a type of the Church which is Christ' s Mystical Body. (i.) That this may be the more evident let us recall the threefold division of the tabernacle. This consisted, as is well known, of three parts, the Court, the Holy Place, the Holy of Holies. In the Court the Levites ministered. There stood the laver of brass, between the building and the brazen Altar of burnt offering on which day by day were offered the sacrifices, which, unable to avail in themselves, derived all their efficacy by antici- pation from the future Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. Beyond the Court no Levite might penetrate : the veil which hung before the entrance to the Holy Place no Levite might pass. In the Holy Place stood the the golden Altar of Incense, the seven-branched Candlestick, and the Table of Shew-bread. Here the priests min- istered before the Lord. On them, as on the Levites, a restriction was imposed : they might not pass the veil which hung before the Holy of Holies. In the Holy of Holies were the Ark and the Mercy Seat, the Cherubim of beaten gold, between which was the Shechinah or visible glory of the Divine Presence. Now, as S. Paul tells us, Heb. ix. 24, these holy places made with hands are ' the figures of the true.' They symbolize the three stages of the Church, the Law, the Gospel, and Heaven : in other words the Jewish Church, the Christian Church, and the Church Triumphant in glory. The Coicrt with its bleeding sacrifices and THE BURNT OFFERING. its ceremonial purifications fitly represented the Jewish Church. The Holy Place in which was an Altar, but not of a bleeding sacrifice, from which ascended to God the fumes of sweet incense, illuminated by the seven-branched candlestick of gold, well fore- shadowed the Christian Church illuminated by the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost, possessing an Altar on which is presented the new and unbloody offering, Mai, i. ii, and on whose behalf ever ascends before the eternal Father the perpetual incense of the intercession of the great High Priest Jesus. The Holy of Holies^ where dwelt the visible Presence of God, pointed, as we learn from Heb. ix. to Heaven itself, the last and final stage of the Church in the Presence of God for ever. (ii.) We now proceed to consider the unity of the tabernacle as typical of the unity of the Church. Consisting of three parts, it was but one tabernacle. There was no break in the sequence : each led up to the other, each was a stage in advance of the other, yet though three, it was one. So the Church of God is One. The Mosaic leads up to the Christian, and this to the Church Triumphant. " The threefold division of the tabernacle " says the author above quoted " contained a figurative and typical represent- ation of the three progressive stages by which the Kingdom of God upon earth arrives at its visible manifestation, and ultimate completion. In the Court there was displayed the existing stage, when Israel, as the possessor of the Kingdom of God, still stood in need of priestly mediation : in the Holy Place, the next stage, when the atonement exhibited in type in the Court would be com- pleted, and the people themselves would be able in consequence to exercise their priestly calling and draw near to God ; in the Most Holy, the last stage of all, when the people of God will have attained to the immediate vision of His glory .... The first stage was the Israelitish theocracy : the second is the Christian Church ; the third and last will be the heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocal3'pse. Each of the two earlier stages contains potentially within itself all that has still to come : but it contains it only as an ideal in faith and hope." Sacr. Worsh. of O. T, p. 44. (iii.) In connection with this subject it must be remembered that in the three divisions of the tabernacle there was a gradually ascending scale of beauty and intrinsic value in the ornaments and metals employed. The materials of the foundations and the furni- ture increased in material worth and splendour till the climax was reached in the Holy of Holies. The pillars of the Court were of brass, resting in sockets of brass, their fillets and hooks were of THE BURNT OFFERING. silver, Ex. xxvii. lo, ii : the five pillars which supported the vail at the entrance of the Holy Place were to be of shittim wood over- laid with gold, resting in sockets of brass, with hooks of gold, Ex. xxvi. 37. The four pillars which supported the vail which hung before the Most Holy Place were made of wood overlaid with gold, and rested in sockets, not of brass, but of silver, lb. 2'. 32. Again, the curtains which surrounded the Court were made simply of fine twined linen, i.e., white, Ex. xxvii. 9 ; but those hanging before the Holy Places were to be made of richer colours and more ornate workmanship, viz., blue and purple and scarlet and white, lb. V. 16. Lastly, the same ascending scale of worth is visible in the furniture of the three divisions of the sacred building. In the Court the furniture was all of brass ; the laver, pans, shovels, basins, etc., were of brass, Ex. xxvii. 3, sqq : but in the Holy Place this metal was superseded by a mixture of wood and gold : the Altar of incense was overlaid with gold, as was also the table of Shew-bread : all the vessels and the seven-branched candlestick were all of the nobler metal, Ex. xxv. 23 sqq. In the Most Holy Place the climax was reached. The Ark was laid within and with- out of pure gold, and the Mercy Seat was of pure gold, Ex. xxv. 1 1 . Can we doubt that beneath this increasing scale of beauty there lay hid a deep spiritual meaning ? Was nothing intended to be learnt from the fact that brass in one part gave way to silver in the next, and that this in its turn was superseded by gold ? The lesson was this, the transitory nature of the first two dispensations, and the eternity of the third : that the brass of the Mosaic, was to give way to the stiver of the Christian Dispensation, which in the fulness of time is to be exchanged for the pure and final gold of Heaven. 2. Speaf? unto tbe cbilDren ot Israel, an& sap unto tbem, if anp man ot pou bring an offering unto tbe Xort), pe sball bring pour otferino ot tbe cattle, even ot tbe bert), an& of tbe flocft* — An offering] Heb. Qorban. Sept. Dor on. Vulg. Hostia. The etymology of the word gives the key to its meaning. It is derived from the Hiphil or causative conjugation of the verb qarab ' to draw near,' and consequently means something ' caused to draw near,' i.e., 'brought near,' especially in the way of worship, e.g., 'a gift.' The word is so explained in S. Mark vii. 11, and also THE BURNT OFFERING. by Josephus, Antiq. iv. 4. The term is thus equivalent to the expression ' gifts ' in Ex. xxviii. 38. In the N.T. we constantly find the term ' gifts ' used in the sense of ' Sacrifice.' Cf. S. INIatth. V. 23: viii. 4: xxiii. 18: Heb. v. i: viii. 3. The offerings the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle, oxen, waggons, silver chargers, etc.. Numb, vii., as well as th(; spoils of the vanquiohed Midianites, jewels, chains, etc., valued roughly at ;^20,ooo, Numb. xxxi. were all Qorhanivi in the primary sense of the word. But the word is used in a more restricted sense, as applied to the various ' gifts ' to Jehovah, which were destined either for the Altar as ' the bread of Jehovah,' or for the maintenance of Jehovah's house and ministers. We .shall see later on how the various sacrifices present different features of the One Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord. In the meantime we may note here with regard to the word under dis- cussion that He is the greatest 'gift' of God to sinful man. This ' gift ' we have received of God, and this we return to God when we plead before Him the all-atoning Sacrifice of His dear Son. Of this * giving ' by God to man, and ' giving ' back by man to God we have a type in the sacrificial animals who were first God's 'gifts' to man, and were then 'given' back by man in sacrifice to God. Lastly, Christ is our Qorban since by Him we ' draw near ' to God. A vast gulf of sin lay between us and God ; approach to God was hopeless had it not been that Christ placed Himself between us and His Father, caused us to * draw near,' and made reconciliation for us. Cf. Eph. ii. 13 : Heb. iv. 16 : x. 2. — the cattle] Heb. behemah. Bochart gives four senses in which this word is used in H.S. Hierozoic. i. ch. 2. The derivation of this word is uncertain : the probable source is the root baham ' to close ' ' to shut ' esp. the mouth, hence ' to be dumb.' We are thus re- minded of the saying of the evangelical prophet concerning the Divine Victim, of Whom the legal victims were types, that as a sheep before the shearers is dicmb, so He opened not His mouth. Is. liii. 7. Cf. S. Matt, xxvii. 12. —of the herd, and of thefioc]i\ i.e., bulls, sheep, and goats. No other species of animals were admissible for sacrifice. Of birds only turtle doves and young pigeons, v. 14. An interesting question arises here. On what principle was this selection of sacrificial animals based ? Why were other species excluded .? On what ground were bulls, sheep, and goats more fit for sacrificial purposes than, let us say, the lion or the stag r Various C THE BURNT OFFERING. reasons have been given by the older commentators, principally resting on an assumed typology. Abarbanel, for instance, a Jewish writer of repute in the latter half of the 15th century says that the}^ were chosen (i) because by nature, character, and food they were the most excellent of all animals wanting reason and speech : (ii.) because they were always at hand, and it was not the will of Jehovah that sacrificial animals should be difficult to obtain : (iii.) because they represented the Patriarchs : and (iv.) because in H.S. the Israelites are compared to them, e.g.^ Hos. iv. 16: x. 11, etc. H. Ainsworth, a nonconformist commentator of the 17th century assigns as a reason for the selection of these particular animals that " of living creatures, they are the most tame and meek, profit- able, serviceable, harmless, etc.," and so were fittest to signify the like things in Christ and the people, A^inot. in loc. Others allege that the ox was a fitting type of the strength and labours of Christ : the sheep, of His innocence : the goat, of our sins, etc. But these explanations resting as they do on a symbolism more or less fanciful, cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It is difficult to see with Abarbanel why habit and food should in any especial manner qualify the animals for altar use : still more to see why they were typical of the Patriarchs : and even granting the typology, why that should lead to their selection. Again, the ox, it is said was a type of Christ by reason of its strength ; but we may ask, if it were required of the sacrificial animal that inter alia it should symbolize the strength and kingly majesty of Christ, would not the lion have been a better sacrificial symbol of Him who is " the Lion of the tribe of Judah" ? Rev. v. 5. But the lion was not chosen. We must therefore reject these alleged symbolisms, and seek a better explanation elsewhere. The key note of the real reason which led to the selection of these particular animals is to be found in the saying of David *' Neither will I offer burnt offerings to my God of that which doth cost me nothing," ii. Sam. xxiv. 24. The sacrificial Qorbanim were intended to set forth the grand principle of self sacrifice and self oblation to God. It was not sufficient that this principle should be merely inwardly felt, it must receive an outward expression. If there were the inward and spiritual grace — to use modern phrases — there must also be the outward and visible sign. How then could this principle of self-surrender be most forcibly expressed in outward act by the offerer ? Clearly by actually sacrificing himself. This, however, was not lawful. What then was the next best way ? By choosing as his offering that which was most closely associated with THE BURNT OFFERING. hi7ii in his daily life and labours. His offering was not to 'cost him nothing.' It was to be something acquired by personal effort. Now his ' herd ' and his ' flock ' were the very things which an- swered to this requirement. For these he toiled and laboured, and to gain them the best years of his life, and his best bodily energies were expended. Nothing that he possessed cost him so much as his ' herds ' and his ' flocks.' Nothing therefore that the agricul- tural Israelite could offer would so fitly express his self-surrender. In offering a victim from his ' flocks ' and ' herds ' he would, in figure, be offering himself. This was the reason, unconnected with a fanciful typology which led to the selection of these animals as Altar Qorbanim. The sacrificial victim distinctly set forth the personal self-sacrifice of the offerer. The Burnt Offering from the Herd. 3. 5t bis offering be a burnt sacrifice of tbe ber&, let bim offer a male witbout blemisb : be sball offer it of bis <:i\o\\ v>ol= untarp will at tbe t)oor of tbe tabernacle of tbe congrcGation before tbe Xorb. — a burnt sacrijice] Heb. ' OlaJi : (also Kalil in Deut. xxxiii. lo: Ps. li. ig [Heb. v. 21]). ' Olah is derived from a root signifying ' to go up ' or * to ascend.' It was in a special sense the ' ascending ' sacrifice, being the only one which ' ascended ' whole and entire to Jehovah. It stood in marked contrast to the other sacrifices : to the meal offering, in being the sacrifice of a living creature : to the sin offering, in being offered for ' acceptance ' and in being of * a sweet odour ' ; and to all of the other offerings in being wholly consumed upon the Altar. There were two kinds of burnt sacri- fices, the public and the private. It is to the latter class that the voluntary 'olah of the present chapter belongs, and is not to be confounded with the 'olah tainid, or daily national offering. The 'olaJi was the only sacrifice which it was lawful for Gentiles to bring. Josephus, Wars., ii. xvii. 2, tells us that the rejection by Eleazar, the son of Ananias the High Priest, of the sacrifice given by the Roman Emperor was the cause of a war with the Romans. Any animal that was fit for sacrifice might be brought as a burnt offering, but if an ox, sheep, or goat, it was to be a male without blemish. The design of the 'olah has been variously stated. Some of the Rabbis conclude that it was offered to expiate evil thoughts, lo THE BURNT OFFERING. as the sin offering to expiate evil deeds. Others say that it atoned for breaches of the affirmative, as the sin offering atoned for those of the negative precepts. That the element of expiation was not wholly absent from the burnt offering is evident from the use in the next verse of the expression " to make atonement for him." The absence, however, of any special treatment of the blood, which was the chief feature of the expiatory sacrifice, shows that this element held in the 'olah a very subordinate place. The primary idea being that of self-oblation and self-dedication, it was pre- eminently an offering of worship. — a viale\ In the Peace offerings, ch. iii. 6, animals of either sex might be offered, but in the sin offerings of one of the * common people ' female victims were expressly ordered, ch. iv. 28, 32 : v. 6. — without hlemis]i\ All sacrificial victims were to be faultless in all their parts, ch. xxii. 17 sqq : Deut. xv. 21, xvii. i. To this rule there was, however, one exception, viz., in one of the varieties of peace offerings — the ' free will ' offering — in which an animal that had anything " superfluous or lacking in his parts," ch. xxii. 23, might be offered. See on vii. 16. But it was not the victim alone that was required to be without blemish. Bodily perfection was required equally of the priests, ch. xxi. 21. The Rabbis divided ' blemishes ' into four classes : — (i) Those which if found in either priest or animal disqualified the former from ministration, and the latter from sacrifice. Of these they enumerate 50, such as blem- ishes in the ear, eye, nose, etc. (2) Those found in the animal alone. Of these they mention 2-^ kinds. (3) Those which only disqualified the priest, go in number. (4) Those which by reason of evil appearance gave offence to the beholder. Of these there were only two. The whole list may be seen in Selden, De Success. in Pontif. EbrcBor. ii. 5. Priests so disqualified were allowed to perform menial offices, such as picking out worm-eaten wood from that destined for Altar use, for such might not be burnt. Reland says that there were inspectors in the Temple whose duty it was to examine the sacrificial animals, and to certify that they were without blemish. Alomoskopoi are mentioned by Clemens Romanus, Ep. to the Cor. i. ch. xli., Philo, S. Chrysostom, Hom. xx. Ep. to the Romans, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iv. Home quotes a passage from Herodotus, ii. ch. 38, shewing that among the Egyptians the custom was for the priests to certify the fault- lessness of the victim by tying a label to its horns, and afterwards 777^ BURNT OFFERING. ii sealing it on wax with their rings. He adds, " With this custom the Jews could not be unacquainted ; and it is possible that similar precautions were in use among themselves .... To such a usage Jesus Christ is supposed to have alluded, when speaking of the sacrifice of himself, He says — '-'■Him hath God the Father sealed," S. John vi. 27. Crit Study of SS. iii. 304. The unblemished nature that was required of the legal victim and priest pointed to the spotlessness of Him who in after ages should be sacrificed, Himself both Priest and Victim, upon the Altar of the Cross. Cf. i. S. Peter i. 19. — of his own voluntary ci'fl/^ Heb. liratsono. In the R.V. this mis- leading rendering has been abandoned, and a correct translation substituted, viz., ' that he may be accepted.' The action is thus rightly referred to Jehovah. The phrase is so understood by Syr., Vulg., Sept., S.P., S.V., Ar., Targ. O. It is difficult to say why the translation of the A.V. assigned a different meaning to the phrase in the present verse and in xix. 5, xxii. ig, 29, to that which they rightly assigned to it in Ex. xxviii. 38, Lev. xxii. 20, 21, and else- where. This is true that ratson is used in the sense of * will ' or 'pleasure' as applied to individuals, e.g., Esth. i. 8, Dan. viii. 4, etc., but in this case the prefix is always ki. — at the door of the tabernacle^ Here was the brazen Altar of burnt offering, Ex. xl. 6. In Temple days the offerer and his sacrifice passed into the great court. If his Qorhan belonged to the class known as ' most holy ' he entered by the N. gate ; but if to the ' less holy ' by the S. gate. The animal was placed facing W., thus actually to bring it ' before the Lord.' Cf. Rom. xii. i. 4. Hn& be sball put bis ban& upon tbe bea^ of tbe burnt otfcrfno ; anb it sball be accepted for bim to make atonement for bim. And he shall put his hand~\ Heb. samak yado. Two principal theories have been advanced in explanation of this rite to which the Rabbis attach so much importance. According to the first theory the ' Semikah ' or laying on of hands signified transference of guilt. It was supposed that the offerer by laying his hands on the head of the sacrificial animal thereby transferred to it his guilt. This theory is not without its merits, but it fails because though applic- 12 THE BURNT OFFERING. able to some cases, e.g., that of the blasphemer, in which this ceremony was ordered, it is inapplicable to others. For instance, when Moses was commanded by the Almighty to ' lay his hands ' on Joshua, his successor in the leadership of the chosen people, it would be, to say the least of it, absurd to suppose that Moses there- by -intended to transfer to Joshua his gjiilt ! We do not want a theory, in the explanation of this rite, which is only partially ap- plicable; w^e need a central theory with which all recorded cases of the ' laying on of hands,' whether sacrificial or not, can be recon- ciled. The only partially applicable theory, therefore, of transference of guilt may be dismissed as inadequate. The second theory is that of snbstitntion. Here we feel that we are treading on firm ground. By laying his hands on the head of his Qprhan the offerer made it his substitute : it was to suffer in his stead the death which was his due : the life of the victim was to be substituted for the life of the offerer. All cases where this ceremony was ordered can thus receive a rational explanation. The blasphemer ch. xxiv. 14, was substituted for those who might unwittingly have partaken of his sin : the Levites, Numb. viii. 10, were substituted for the whole of the firstborn of the Israelites : and Joshua, Numb, xxvii. 18, 22, 2^, was substituted for Moses as cap- tain of the Lord's people. Moreover this rite had a deep spiritual significance. It was an outward sign intended to teach the great doctrine of vicarious satisfacfio7i for sin. The minds of the people were thus from the first accustomed to this idea which was to re- ceive its final and complete fulfilment when the Son of God became the Substitute for the sons of men, when the life of Jesus was to be given for the life of sinners, when the Spotless Lamb was to die instead of sinful man. Two more points remain to be noticed in connection with the ' Semikah.' First, it was to be a forcible iviposition of hands. The Rabbis are very express upon this point. There was a divergence of opinion amongst them whether one hand or both were to be laid on the head of the victim, but they are all unanimous in saying that it was to be done ' with force ' ' or strength ' or ' with all one's might.' The Verb samak implies more than * to put.' It rather means ' to lean heavily.' The force of this word may be gathered from the following passages : Ps. iii. 5 : cxii. 8 : Ixxxviii. 8 : Is. xxvi. 3 : ii. Kings xviii. 21, and many others, in all of which the idea of * force ' or ' strength ' is implied. Lastly it was a point insisted on that the offerer should him- self 'lay hands' on the head of the victim. It was a ceremony THE BURNT DIFFERING. 13 that could not be performed by deputy or representative. Maimo- nides says " neither may a messenger impose hands, for there is no imposition except by the owners .... not his wife's hand, nor his servant's, nor his messenger's." The only exception to this rule was, that if a man had vowed an offering and died before presenting it, his heir was to do all that he would have done had he lived. We are here taught two lessons, (i.) We must ' lean heavily ' on the merits of our Divine Lord. His work must be accepted with energy and in no half-hearted manner. We must throw all our strength and all our soul into the task of making Him our own. (ii.) The merits of our Saviour must be applied to individual souls by individual faith. We must, each one for himself, make personal and individual proof of a Saviour's love ; no other can do it for us. Cf. Ps. xlix. 7. Whether the ceremony of the 'Semikah' was accompanied by any form of prayer or confession of sin need not be discussed here. The Rabbis hold this to have been the case ; the Law is silent on the subject. See Outrani on Sacrifices, D.I.c. xv. — To make atonement for hini] Heb. licapher, i.e , 'to cover.' Such is the literal meaning of the original. What it is that ' covers ' or 'makes atonement for' we read in xvii. 11, "It is the blood that maketh an atonement (Heb. ' that covers ') for the soul." In what sense this ' covering ' as equivalent to ' atoning ' is to be understood may be given in the able words of Dr. Kurtz " . . . as a covering by which the accusatory and damnatory power of sin — its power to excite the anger and wrath of God — is broken, by which, in fact, it is rendered both harmless and impotent. And, understood in this sense, the sacrificial covering was not merely an apparent, conventional expiation of sin (which would have been the case if it had been merely removed from the sight of Jehovah), but a process by which it was actually rendered harmless, which is equivalent to cancelling and utterly annihilating." The learned Doctor also quotes Kahnis (i, 27) to the same effect, who says, "To expiate, literally ' to cover up ' does not mean to cause a sin not to have been committed, for that is impossible ; nor to represent it as having no existence, for that would be opposed to the earnestness of the law ; nor to pay or compensate it by any performance ; but to cover it before God, i.e., to deprive it of its pozuer to come bet:uce?i us and God." See also a striking passage in Cave's Script. Doctr. of Sacrifice, p. 98, where he treats of this * covering,' and ably 14 THE BURNT OFFERING. illustrates it by "a figure much too modern, yet equally appropriate .... as if the sinner who had been exposed to the lightning of divine wrath had been suddenly wrapped round and insulated." It is clear from this verse that the element of atonement for sin, however much it might fall into the back ground, was not entirely absent from the burnt offering. The phrase licaphcr is the same as in the sin offerings, and the idea of expiation is present though not brought into prominence. 5. Hit& be sball ftill tbe buUocI? before tbe Xort) : anb tbe priests, Baron's sons, sball bring tbe blooC>, an5 sprinftle tbe bloob rounD about upon tbe altar tbat is b^ tbe t)oor of tbe tabernacle of tbe coitoregation. And he shall kill~\ Heb. Veshachet. Sept. sphaxousi. Does this refer to the offerer or to the priest ? Many of the Rabbis held that the Shechitah was one of the five actions of the offerer the other four being the laying on of hands, skinning the animal, cutting it up, and the washing of the inwards. Several of the older critics held that the priest killed the animal. This view is maintained by the Sept., which by the use of the plural verb refers the act to the priests or Levites. In this how- ever it stands alone among the Versions. Modern writers are generally agreed that the offerer killed his own sacrifice. " Thus," says Archdeacon Freeman "in a marvellous way was the hand of man, which had at first pulled destruction upon him, commissioned to loose the bands of his death." — Sprinkle the bloody Heb. vezarequ, Sept. proschoust,Vvi\g. fundentes . Two Heb. roots are used to denote this ceremony, zaraq and hizzah. The former is used only in connection with the burnt, trespass, and peace offerings, and implies as has been well said " a more copious way of disposing of the blood than is expressed by our word spi-mkhng." For the action of sprinkling with the finger hizzah is always used. This distinction is observed in the Versions; thus, zaraq, proscJiein, fu7idere ; hizzah, rainein, aspergere. There were four ways of performing this ceremony : (i.) By sprinkling (zaraq) the blood round about. Probably effected by throwing it from a vessel, in which it was caught, on the four sides of the Altar of burnt offering. This was done in all burnt, trespass, and peace offerings. THE BURNT OFFERING. 15 (ii.) By putting (nathan) some of the blood upon the horns of the brazen Altar. This was the rule in the offerings for a ruler, iv. 25, or for one of the common people, iv. 30. (iii.) By spri7ikling (hi'zzah) the blood seven times before the veil of the Sanctuary, some being also put on the horns of the Altar of incense. This was done in the case of a sin offering for the High priest, ch. iv. 6, 7, and for the whole congregation lb. 17, 18. (iv.) By sprinkling (hizzah) the blood tcfon, and seven times before, the mercy seat. So on the day of atonement ch. xvi. 14, 15, when the High Priest offered sin offerings for himself and the people. In the Temple days there was a red line drawn in the middle of the brazen Altar, above or below which, according to the nature of the sacrifice, the blood was sprinkled. Cf. Lightfoot, the Temple, etc., p. 71. The residue of the blood after the 'sprinkling' had been performed was poured out at the foot of the Altar. In the Temple we learn that the blood was poured down two openings at the S.W. side of the Altar, and so passed through channels into the Kedron. Probably some similar arrangement existed in the tabernacle. To this ceremony the Rabbis attached the utmost import- ance. Indeed, it was in their eyes of more importance than the slaying of the animal. It was a saying with them " When the blood touches the Altar the sins of the offerer are expiated," and " Except by blood there is no expiation." S. Paul may have had these sayings in his mind when he wrote " Without shedding of blood (in which he manifestly includes the 'sprinkling') there is no remission," Heb. ix. 22. 6. Hn& be sball flap tbe burnt offering, an5 cut ft into bis pieces. — Cut it into his pieces']^ It was the the duty of the priest to see that the pieces were rightly divided, and not indiscriminately hacked off. S. Paul alludes to this practise when he urges on the Christian minister the duty of "rightly dividing" the word of truth, 2 Tim. ii. 15. There is a curious passage in the Sept., where this duty in connection with animal sacrifice is alluded to by the Almighty in His speech with Cain — " If thou offerest rightly and dividest not rightly hast thou not sinned V Gen. iv. 7. D THE BURNT OFFERING. 7. Hn5 tbe sons of Baron tbe priest sball put fire upon tbe Bltar, an& la^ tbe woob \\\ ort)er upon tbe fire : 8. Hn& tbe priests, Haron's sons, sball lap tbe parts, tbe beaD, anb tbe fat, in orber upon tbe woob tbat is o\k tbe fire wbicb is upon tbe Bltar : — the fat~\ These may be described as (i.) the envelope of fat over the inwards : (ii.) the pieces of fat tcpoft the inwards and easily- separable from them : (iii.) the two kidneys with their covering- of fat : (iv.) ' the caul above the liver,' Heb. yothereth. This was probably the small caul commencing between the two lobes of the liver, and stretching across the stomach to the neighbourhood of the kidneys : (v.) the tail, which in Oriental sheep grows to a great size. Two words are used in the original for the ' fat/ viz., peder and cheleb. The former of these is only used to describe the fat of the burnt offerings, the latter the ' fat ' of the peace, and sin, offerings. — in order\ The Jewish doctors tell us (see Outram On Sacrifice i. xvi. 3) that the members of the animal when cut up were placed upon the Altar in as nearly as possible the same position as they relatively held when the animal was alive. No doubt a practical reason was that in the service of God all things should be done * decently and in order,' as it would be unseemly that the members of the victim should be promiscuously huddled together upon the Altar fire. But there was no doubt a symbolical reason which is thus well stated by Arch. Freeman — " Plain intimations all, of relations subsisting between Israel and their mystical head Isaac, parallel to those which should thereafter ensue between Christ and His members. For so they are presented unto God as One Body ; once separated indeed by sin, but re-united now by Grace . . . . " Principle of Div. Serv. vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 238. 9. But bis inwarbs anb bis le^s sball be wasb in water: ant) tbe priest sball burn all o\i tbe altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offeriuG mabe by fire, of a sweet savour unto tbe Xort). — wash in water^ Not the head, but only the inwards and the legs. Christ, our Head, needed no purification, and He alone : the mem- THE BURNT OFFERING. 17 bers of Christ need washing with the pure water of the initial Sacrament, and of the Word. — shall bur7i\ Heb. hiqtir. This is a remarkable word. It is the Hiphil form of a verb which primarily signifies, according to Gesenius, ' to emit odour,' ' to be fragrant.' It is the word always used to denote a sacrificial burning on the Altar (as of victims, incense, etc.) ; never of ordinary burning, as of houses, cities, nor of victims burnt without the camp ; for which an entirely different verb, saraph, is used. The idea therefore which hiqtir brings into prominence, is not so much the fiery consumption of the victim, as the causing of a sweet smoke or odour to ascend before Jehovah in a flame. See a note or two below. — «//] This word brings us face to face with the distinguishing feature of the burnt offering. With the exception of the skin, see on vii. 8, all was consumed upon the Altar. In the meal offering a * memorial ' only was burned upon the Altar, the remainder being given to the Priests ; in the peace offering God, the Priest, and the offerer each had their part ; but in the burnt offering all was given to Jehovah, all was entirely consumed. Here was fore- shadowed the entire surrender of Himself by our Blessed Lord. His was no partial ofl'ering. He dedicated Himself wholly, with all the energies of His mind and activities of His Body to be an offering to His Eternal Father. " Had there been one thought," says Jukes, " in the mind of Jesus which was not perfectly given to God: — had there been but one affection in the heart of Jesus which was not yielded to His Father's will: — had there been but one step in the walk of Jesus which was taken not for God but for His own pleasure, — then He could not have offered Himself or been accepted as ' a whole burnt offering to Jehovah.' But Jesus gave up all. He reserved nothing, all was burnt, all was consumed upon the Altar." Lazv of the Offerings, pp. 55, 56. And this total and entire sur- render by our Blessed Master of Himself to the service of God and man is well expressed by S. Paul when writing to the Philipians, he says that "Christ emptied (eskenosen) Himself," Phil. ii. 7. — a sweet savour~\ The Qorbanivi which come under this denomina- tion are the burnt offering, the meal offering fii. 2), and the peace offering (iii. 2). The sin and trespass offerings were not so classed, with the exception of the offering by any of the common people for a sin of ignorance (iv. 31). The 'olah was an offering of * sweet THE BURNT OFFERING. savour,' an 'odour of refreshment' to the God to Whom it ascended. The dark shadows of sin which mingled with the smoke of the sin offerings as they slowly burnt on the fire without the camp fall here into the background. All in peace and sweet odour, food and refreshment for Jehovah. And this idea of 'sweet odour' is brought vividly before us in the sacrificial word hiqtir. The word saraph, as noticed above, told only of the act of material consumption, hiqtir much more ; it is a word pregnant with meaning, for it tells of the victim emitting a fragrant odour, of its causing the victim to ascend in smoke that was pleasant to the nostrils of Jehovah, an odour of sweetness which the Lord smelled and was thereby refreshed. The application of this phrase to our Lord is evident. The whole of His life from " His poor manger to His bitter cross " was a life of ' sweet odour.' All His thoughts, words, and works were in all infinitely acceptable. From Bethlehem and Nazareth, from the village synagogue and the Temple Court, from the green hill side and the shores of the blue sea, and especially from Calvary, the * sweet odour ' of His holy sacrifice was ever ascending to His Eternal Father. As the ointment wherewith Mary anointed the feet of the Lord filled the house with its sweet odour, S. John xii. 3, so the whole world has been filled with the sweet odour of His self-oblation. His offering was a " sweet smelling savour," Eph. V. 2. The Father needed refreshment and he found it in the sweet odour of the life of His dear Son. The Burnt Offering from the Flock. 10. II Hub if bis offerina be of tbe flocfts, namely, of tbe sbeep, or of tbe ooats, for a burnt sacrifice : be sball bring it a male witbout blentisb. U. Hn& be sball WX it q\k tbe nortb siDe of tbe altar nortb* war^ before tbe XorC): anb tbe priests, Baron's sons, sball sprinl^le bis bloo& roun& about upon tbe altan — ancP^ According to the Sept., the ceremony of the Semikah took place in the burnt offering ' from the flock ' as well as ' from the herd,' for it adds here " and he shall lay his hand upon his head." THE BURNT OFFERING. 19 — northward^ Heb. Tsaphon. From r. isaphan^ ' to hide,' hence 'hidden, dark' This injunction applied not only to the burnt offerings, but to the sin and trespass offerings, ch. iv. 24, 29, 33 : vi. 25 : vii. 2. Nothing is said as to the spot in which the private peace offerings were to be slain. According to the Mishnical Tract Middoth rings were fixed in the pavement of the N. side of the Altar in which the necks, or as some say the feet, of the victims were fastened previous to slaughter. The reason for this injunction is not now ascertainable with certainty. Various reasons have been given, but all are more or less open to objections. See Ainsworth on ch. vi. 25. 12. Hut) be sball cut it Into bis pieces, witb bis beat) ant) bis teet : ant) tbe priest sball la^ tbeni in ort)er o\\ tbe ^Qoi^ tbat is Q\\ tbe fire wbicb is upon tbe altar : 13. But be sball wasb tbe inwarbs an^ tbe leos witb water : ant) tbe priest sball bring it all, an& burn it upon tbe altar : it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering mat)e bp fire, oX a sweet savour unto tbe Xor&, The Burnt Offering of Fowls. 14. HHnb if tbe burnt sacrifice for bis offering to tbe Xort) be of fowls, tben be sball bring bis offering of turtle*t>oves, or of ^oung pigeons. —fozds\ If a man were too poor to bring his Qorbaji either from the herd or from the flock, he might bring either turtle-doves or young pigeons. But in some ceremonial purifications they were of obligation : e.g., for an ordinary purification, ch. xv. 14, 29 : for that of the Nazarite, Numb. vi. 10. Cf. S. Luke ii. 22-25, ^ In the Temple as we learn from the Mishna and Maimonides there were fifteen overseers of special departments ; of the guards, of shutting the doors, etc. One of these was ' an overseer of birds,' whose duty it was to have them ready for sale. —^ou7ig pigeons] An interesting account of doves and pigeons will be found in Tristram's Nat. Hist, of the Bible, p. 21 1, sqq. The following is worth quoting : " There is also a force in the adjective 20 THE BURN! OFFERING. * young': for while the old Turtle-dove could be trapped, it was hopeless, before the introduction of fire-arms, to secure the old Pigeon, and the offerer could only procure the young nestlings before they quitted the nest : and these, therefore, were expressly permitted in offering sacrifice," p. 213. 15. Hn5 tbe priest sball bring it unto tbe altar, an& wring off bis beab, anD burn it o\\ tbe altar; anb tbe bloob tbereot sball be wrung out at tbe sit)e of tbe altar. — wring off^ Heb. malak. Sept., apoknisei. Vulg., retorto ad collum capite, ac riipto viUneris loco. J. T., ungue secabit. Gesenius says that the Sept. rendering is contrary to the express words of ch. v. 8, " but shall not divide it asunder." The method of killing the bird is thus described by Jewish writers : The priest held its wings with two fingers and its feet between two fingers and twisting its head back cut with his nail its neck. They say, however, that in the burnt offering the head was entirely separated, but not in the sin offering, on the ground that in the latter the command is ex- pressly given that it was not to be separated entirely from the body [^. 8) while in the burnt offering this command is wanting. IMaimonides says that the killing of the birds was one of the most difficult of Altar ministrations. Since the sprinkling of the blood of the birds was immedi- ately connected with the action of killing them, it was lawful for the priest to perform this. There was no imposition of hands in the offering of birds. ta. Hub be sball pluck awa^ bis crop witb bis teatbers, an5 cast it besibe tbe altar o\\ tbe east part, b^ tbe place ot tbe asbes. — his feathers] So Sept., and Vulg., as if the Hebrew word were derived from r. nafsah, * to fly.' But the more probable derivation is that given by Gesenius, viz., as the past part, of yatsah, ' to cast out,' hence " excrement in the crop of a bird." So T.O., S.V., Syr., J.T. The R.V. has ' the filth,' with marginal rendering, ' the feathers.' — the place of ashes'] From ch. vi. 10, 11, we learn that the Priest whose duty it was to cleanse the brazen Altar was to put on his linen breeches, and to take up the ashes and to put them beside THE BURNT OFFERING. 21 the Altar. This as we know from the present verse was on the E. side, perhaps as being the farthest from the sacred building. This heap would naturally increase in course of time, and when it became so large as to need removal, the priest was to put off his linen garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes, probably in the vessels mentioned in Ex. xxvii. 3, without the camp into a clean place. M. Hut) be sball cleave it witb tbe wings tbereof, but sball not 5ivi&e it asun^er: anb tbe priest sball burn it upon tbe altar, upon tbe woot) tbat is upon tbe tire : it is a burnt sacri* flee, an offering ma&e b^ fire, of a sweet savour unto tbe Xor&, — shall not divide it asunder] Vulg. adds " neqne ferro dividet earn." Does the ' cleaving with the wings ' mean as Outram says, On Sacrif. i. xvi. 7, that they were to be " wrenched out of their joints " r Targs. O., and Hier. read " through its wings," and Targ. Jon. " between its wings." Chap. vi. 8-14. Directions to the Priests as to the Altar fire and the Disposal of the Ashes. 8. Hub tbe Xor& spal?e unto /IDoses, saving, 9. Commanb Haron an5 bis sons, sa\nng, tTbis is tbe law of tbe burnt offering : 5t is tbe burnt offering, because of tbe burning upon tbe altar all nigbt unto tbe morning, an& tbe fire of tbe altar sball be burning i\i it. — the law of the burnt offering] The present section contains in- structions to the ministering priests. The directions for worshippers were previously given. Cf. the formula here " Command Aaron and his sons, etc." with that in ch. i. 2, and iv. 2, " Speak unto the children of Isrsel, etc." 2 2 THE BURNT OFFERING. — the burnt offermg\ That is, the daily national offering. — the fir e\ See below on v. 13. 10. Hub tbe priest sball put on bis linen garment anb bis linen breecbes sball be put upon bis flesb, anb tafte up tbe asbes wbicb tbe fire batb consumed witb tbe burnt offering o\\ tbe altar, ant) be sball put tbetn beside tbe altar. — linen garment'\ The vestments of an ordinary priest were, the linen breeches, coat, girdle, and bonnet. The High priest wore the first two, and in addition, the robe of the ephod, the ephod with the breast-plate, the mitre, and the holy crown. The latter were called the ' golden ' vestments, because that metal entered into their composition. On the great day of Atonement he wore plain white vestments, as being less ornate, and more suited to a day of public sorrow and humiliation. Cf. Outram i.v.ii, and Braunius, de Vest. Sacerd. Hehr. p., 463, sqq. — the ashes .... consumed^ Rather " the ashes into which the fire hath consumed the burnt offering." Targ, O., " he shall separate the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering." — beside the altar'] On the E. side, and so removed as far as possible from the sanctuary. See on ch. i. 16. XL Hub be sball put off bis Garments, anb put o\\ otber garments, anb carr^ fortb tbe asbes witbout tbe camp unto a clean place. — put off his garme?its~\ The work of carrying forth the ashes was not strictly a sacerdotal function, and therefore the priest on whom the duty devolved was forbidden to wear the same vest- ments as those in which he actually ministered at the Altar. It has been thought that this was one of the duties which might lawfully be performed by those priests who were prevented by bodily defects from serving at the Altar itself. 12. Hub tbe fire upon tbe altar sball be burning in it ; it sball not be put out: ant) tbe priest sball burn woot) on it ever^ morning, anb la^ tbe burnt offering in orber upon it ; ant) be sball burn tbereon tbe tat of tbe peace offerings. THE BURNT OFFERING. zt^ 13. Ube tire sball ever be burning upon tbe altar; it sball never go out. —the Jire] Jewish writers tell us that on the Altar the fire was disposed in three parts: On the E. pile were burnt the various sacrifices ; from the S. pile were taken the live embers for burning the incense ; the N. pile served as a supply for keeping alight the other two. Chap. vii. 8. Directions as to the Disposal of the Skin of the Burnt Offering. 8. Hub tbe priest tbat offeretb anp man's burnt ottering, even tbe priest sball bave to bimself tbe sftin ot tbe burnt ottering wbicb be batb ottereO. — the priest shall have . . . the skin\ The law is not precise upon the point, but it is probable that other skins fell to the lot of the priests besides that of the burnt offering. There is scriptural authority, as noted on ch. ii. 3, for dividing the sacrifices into two classes, those that were ' most holy,' and those that were ' less holy.' The Jewish writers and the Mishna tell us that the skins of all the ' most holy ' sacrifices (with the exception of those that were to be wholly burnt, eg., the sin offering at the consecration of the priests — Ex. xxix. 14 — the sin offering of ignorance for the High priest Lev. iv. ii. — and for the whole congregation, v. 21, etc.) belonged to the priesthood, while the skins of the * less holy ' sacrifices were retained by the offerers. Maimonides tells us that the skins of the ' burnt offering of the Sanctuary,' by which he means the continual daily burnt offering, were sold for the main- tenance of the house of God. Philo tells us that the priests drew hence a large revenue. Canon Isaac Taylor, The AlpJiabet, vol. ii. p. 22^, mentions that on two inscriptions in the Punic form of the Phoenician alphabet, one of which was found at Carthage, and the other at Marseilles, e 24 THE BURNT OFFERING. directions are given as to the disposal of the skin of the sacrificial animal. He says that the tablets on which the inscriptions occur were " evidently affixed to the walls of the temples .... The Carthaginian inscription assigns the skin of the victim as a fee to the priest, whereas at Marseilles it belongs to the worshipper." The direction of the Law, that the priest who offered the ' Olah was to have the skin, was no doubt intended as a partial provision for his maintenance, Cf. i. Cor. ix. 13, but a spiritual lesson was also intended. Notwithstanding his office, the priest was a sinner, and as such needed ' atonement ' i.e. ' covering,' and this gift of the skin would be — to quote Willis, Worsh. of the Old Gov., p. 27, " a continual reminder to the priest of that first sinner's clothing of skin provided by Jehovah for Adam and Eve, and a constant warning to him that though a priest, and by virtue of his office a mediator between God and man, yet he too as a sinner needed a covering, not of his own making, but provided by God, and one involving the shedding of blood." THE Meal Offering. Chaps, ii. : vi. 14-24 : vii. 9, 10. Chapter ii. : vi. 14-24: vii. 9, 10. THE MEAL OFFERING. t Bn& wben an^ will offer a meat offering unto tbe Xor^, bis offering sball be of fine flour ; an5 be sball pour oil upon it, anb put frankincense tbereon : — a meat offeri7ig\ Heb. Minchah. R.V., a meal offering. Sept., doron ihusia?i, but sometimes transliterates into Alanaa ; e.g., Ezek. xlvi. 5, 7, II. The word Minchah signifies literally a 'gift' or ' present.' It is the word used for the ' present * brought by Jacob to Esau, Gen. xxxii. 13, 18, 21 ; also for that sent by Israel on his son's return into Egypt, lb. xliii, 11, 15, etc. Another signification is ' tribute ' which as Gesenius (s.v.) remarks was often exacted from subject nations under the milder name of ' a present.' Thus the ' gifts,' i.e., tribute, brought by the Moabites, ii. Sam. viii. 2, and by the Syrians, v. 6, to David, and by the sub- jects of Solomon, i. Kings iv. 21 [in the Heb. Ver. v. i], and by Hoshea to Shalmaneser, ii. Kings xvii. 3, are all called Minchoth. The first use of this word occurs in Gen. iv. 3, 4, where it stands for both the vegetable offering of Cain, and the animal offering of Abel. But in the Law the word has a special and clearly defined signification, viz., as a ' gift ' still, but one not offered to man but to Jehovah. It is used to denote the ' unbloody,' i.e., the vegetable sacrifice as distinguished from the ' bloody,' i.e., the animal sacri- fice. In several passages we find 'olah and vmichah in opposition e.g., Ex. XXX. 9 : Lev. xxiii. 37, etc. : as also zebach and minchah Ps. xl. 7 : Is. xix. 21 : Jer. xvii. 26, etc. The Minchoth were generally divided by the Jews thus : — 1. Minchoth offered in connection with sacrifices. 2. Minchoth offered alone. 28 THE MEAL OFFERING. I. Minchoth offered m connectio7i with sacrifices. These were accom- panied by a nesek, i.e., * drink offering,' Numb. xv. : hence they were called minchoth nesakim, and were offered with all animal burnt offerings, and peace offerings, but not with offerings of birds, nor with sin offerings, excepting only those offered by the leper at his purification, ch. xiv. lo, 31. II. Minchoth offered alone. These were not accompanied by any ' drink offering,' and were subdivided into a) public, and b) private mifichoth. The public were : — 1. The sheaf of the first fruits waved before the Lord, ch. xxiii. 10. 2. The two wave loaves of two tenth deals of flour, v. ij. 3. The twelve loaves of shew-bread or * Bread of faces,' ch. xxiv. 5, sqq. The private were either ordered by the Law or voluntary. III. Ordered hy the Law : — 1. That offered by the High Priest at his consecration, ch. vi. 20. 2. That offered by a man who was too poor to afford a zebach, ch. v. 11, 12. 3. The minchah of jealousy. Numb. v. 15. To these the Jews add another as ordered by the Law, viz., that which they affirm was offered by every priest on the day when he entered on his sacred duties for the first time. But clear proof of this from the sacred page is not forthcoming. IV. Voluntary minchoth. 1. Fine flour but unbaked, ch. ii. i. , 2. Unleavened cakes mingled with oil, z/. 4 \ h V rl ' 3. Unleavened wafers anointed with oil, lb. ] T-i. . i_ 1 J • ^ an oven. 4. That baked m a pan, v. 5. 5. That baked in a frying pan, v. 7. The accompaniments were three, viz., oil, salt, and frankincense, but not all were used with each minchah. The following table given by Edersheim, The Temple, p. no, and by Reland, Antiq. Vet. Hebr., pt. iii. § 7, will help to shew at a glance how these three accompaniments were distributed : THE MEAL OFFERING. 29 Oil ( and I Incense ( Oil I and > No incense ) Incense but No Oil No Oil \ and / No incense ) Some of the of others on lotted to the Fine flour unbaked : that baked in a pan : those baked in an oven : that baked in a frying pan : that of the High Priest : the omer of the first fruits. All minchoth offered in connection with sacrifices, i.e., minchoth nesakim. Partly consumed. Wholly consumed. The Shew-Bread. The two wave loaves at Pentecost : that substituted for a sin offering by reason of poverty : the jealousy offering. minchoth were to be wholly consumed upon the Altar, ly a handful was consumed, the remainder being al- priests. The unbaked of fine flour : that baked in a pan : cakes baked in an oven : wafers : baked in a frying pan. All 7ninchoth nesakim : that of the High Priest, and (according to the Jews) that of the initiation of a priest. The Minchah of fine Flour. —Jifze floiir\ Heb. Soleth. Sept. Sej?iidaiis : Vulg. Simila. ^ The etymology of soleth is uncertain. Gesenius says that the primary root is probably the verb salal ' to shake,' especially in the sense of ' sifting.' Fine wheaten flour was the material of all minchoth with two exceptions ; the omer of first fruits which was of barley (that being the corn which was first ripe), and the jealousy offering which was also of barley meal. No directions are given in the Law as to the vessel in which the iniiicJiah was to be offered : but the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle offered their fine flour in 'chargers,' i.e., deep dishes on bowls, (Heb. qarah from root qarah ' to be deep,') and this was probably the usual custom. — oil\ Olive oil, of which large quantities were produced in the Holy Land. 30 THE MEAL OFFERING. —frankincefise] Heb. Lehonah. Care must be taken to distinguish between 'incense' and 'frankincense.' The former is always rendered by qetoreth and the latter by lehonah. The qetoreth was the total compound of which lebo7iah was only one ingredient. The others as we learn from Ex. xxx. 34, were stacte, onycha, and galbamun, a like weight of each. Josephus however, Wars. v. V. 5, mentions the Altar of Incense with "its thirteen kinds of sweet smelling spices with which the sea embellished it." Eder- sheim, The Temple, p. 134, says that "altogether 368 pounds were made for the year's consumption, about half-a-pound being used every morning and evening in the service," but gives no authority for his statement. In the Talmud, Joma 38^;, two families are mentioned one of whom — the family of Gornu — possessed the secret of baking the shew-bread for the Temple, and the other — the family of Abtinas — who were skilled in making the qetoreth. See an interesting paper in the Trans. Bibl. Arch. Society by Dr. Louis, vol. viii., pt. 3. Quetoreth was strictly reserved for use in the service of Jehovah. The minchoth had only lebonah placed upon them. 2. Hn& be sball bring it to Haron's sons tbe priests : ant> be sball tafte tbereont bis banbtul of tbe tlonr tbereot, ant) ot tbe oil tbereot, witb all tbe tranl?incense tbereot; ant) tbe priest sball burn tbe memorial ol it upon tbe altar, to be an offerino mabe b^ fire, ot a sweet savour unto tbe Xort) : — Memorial of it'\ Heb. Azkarathah. Sept., mnemosunon. The Arabic version omits all mention of * memorial,' reading " and he shall burn its fragrance." Vulg., memorialc. Targ. Jon., ^'■goodly memorial^' and in "vv. 9 and 16 '■'■ memorial of praise:' The word azkarah is derived from the Hiphil conjugation of the verb zakar. The Kal signifies ' to remember ' : the Hiphil has two significations, ' to cause to remember ' i.e., ' to mention,' and ' to mention with approval ' i.e., ' to extol or praise.' Several com- mentators take the word azkarah in the latter sense, and refer to various passages in which the Hiphil form is used in the sense of ' praise,' But, as has been well pointed out, grave difficulties stand in the way of this interpretation, by such passages as ch. V, 12 and Numb. v. 26, where that part of the ?}iinchah sub- THE MEAL OFFERING. 31 stituted through poverty for a sin offering and jealousy offering which was to be burned upon the Altar is called azkarah. It is better therefore to refer the word to the primary signification of hizkir, viz., 'to cause to remember.' We may thus describe the azkarah as a ' memorial ' or ' rite of remembrance ' whereby the worshipper through the sacrificial action of the priest commem- orated before Jehovah His gracious promises to, and covenant mercies with, His chosen flock. In Acts x. 4 we are told that the alms and prayers of Cornelius were gone up before God as a mneinosu7ion (by which word the Sept. renders azkarah) i.e., as a * memorial ' whereby Cornelius sought to bring himself into the loving ' remembrance ' of his Maker. In this sense too we may think of the Holy Eucharist as our Christian Azkarah a " perpetual metnory of Christ's precious Death until He comes again." The words of Dr. Mede, a learned writer who died in 1638, and whose writings are well worth a careful study, may be quoted here : " For did not Christ ordain the Holy Eucharist to be the memorial of His Name in the New Testament? .... All those sacred ;//d?;«c'rz(^/^ of the Jewish Temple are both comprehended and excelled in this One of Christians : the Sacrifices, Shew-Bread, and Ark of the Covenant ; Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist being all these unto us in the New Testament . . . . " The Reverence of God' s House, sec. i. p. 342. 3 HnC) tbe remnant ot tbe meat (MzxixiQ sball be Haron's an^ bis sons' : (t is a tbino most bol^ ot tbe offerinos ot tbe XorC) maOe bp fire. — a thi7ig most holy] Heb. Qpdesh Qadashim. We are so accustomed to apply this term — Holy of Holies — to one especial part of the sacred building that we are apt to forget that it had a far more extensive application. Thus among the things called Qpdesh Qadashim were the following: The brazen Altar, Ex. xxix. 37: the golden Altar ^ lb. xxx. 10: The sacred i7icense, lb., v. 36: The vessels used inside the Dwelling place. Numb. iv. 19 : The residuum of voluntary minchoth. Lev. ii. 3, 10: tlie Shew-bread, eh. xxiv. 9: devoted things. Numb, xviii. 9. Similarly there is Scriptural sanction for dividing the zebachim into two classes, i.e., those which were QodesJi Qadashim, ' most holy,' and Qadashim qalim * less holy.' The former class included all F 2>2 THE MEAL OFFERING. burnt offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, and peace offerings of the whole congregation, all of which were to be killed on the northern side of the Altar, Cf. i. ii. : vi. 25 : vii. 2. The latter class included peace offerings of individuals, the paschal lamb, firstlings, and tithes — these might lawfully be slain in any part of the court of the priests. The Minchah of Cakes and Wafers. 4. llHnt) it tbou bring an oblation oii a meat otferino baften in tbe ovtw, it sball be unleaveneD caf?es qX fine flour minGle& witb oil, or unleaveneD wafers anointed witb oil. — haken in the oveii\ Heb. Thannur. Sept. Klibanon. So also Vulgate. There were various methods used by the Israelites in the baking of bread, from the simple process of laying the dough in the hot sand or ashes to mechanical appliances of a more elaborate construction. See Jahn Archoeol. Bibl. § 140. The Thamiur mentioned here was probably not square like our metal ovens, but of that shape so common in Oriental lands, viz., a brick pot with stone base and of a cylindrical form through the upper end of which the fire and smoke escaped, the bread to be baked being placed in the brick receptacle. On this supposition we can explain a difficulty in Gen. xv. 17, where (R.V.) we read of a ' smoking furnace (thajinur) and a flaming torch which passed between the pieces ' of the Covenant sacrifice with Abraham. It may seem difficult at first sight to understand the presence of a thannur on that occasion. But the difficulty passes away if with Christian and Jewish writers we understand it to have been the Shechinah then manifested for the first time. — cakes\ Heb. Chaloth. From r. Chalal * to pierce.' These cakes were perforated in order that the oil might be more readily absorbed. — mingled with oir\ The Jewish doctors held that in the mixture of the oil with the fine flour there were to be three * pourings.' First, into the vessel : on this flour was placed : then more oil, the two THE MEAL OFFERING. ^t^ ingredients being now mixed together. Next, the mixture was transferred to the vessel of service in which it was to be brought to the Altar. Lastly, oil was now poured on. The frankincense was added last of all. — unleavened wafers] Heb. Raqiqei mazzoth. Sept., Vulg., lagana. The Raqiqim (from r. raqaq, ' to beat out,' ' to make thin by beating') were thin cakes rolled or beaten out. In the Glossa Ordinaria the following spiritual meaning of ' cakes ' and 'wafers' is given. "Lagana: Panis latus et tenuis: qui prophetiam et legem significat ; quantum enim distat inter solidi- tatem panis et tenuitatem lagani : tantum inter evangelium et verba legis et prophetarum." — anointed with oil'] As the Talmud says, in the form of the letter Chi, which is thus explained by the Gloss " he poured the oil so upon them, that it went this way, and that way, in two parts." Cf. Lightfoot The Temple, etc., p. 96. 5. 1iHn& \t tb^ oblation be a meat offering baften in a pan, it sball be ot fine flour unleaveneb, mingle& witb oil. — a pail] Heb. Machabath. Vulg., Sartago. Sept., Teganon. The marginal rendering ' a flat plate ' or ' slice ' gives a more correct idea of the machabath. It seems to have been simply a flat smooth surface either of iron or earthenware without any rim at the edges. Abarbanel, quoting R. Sol. Jarchi, tells us that there was a vessel in the Temple which had a flat smooth surface, without any lip or rising, so that when the oil was poured on the wafer it spread over the surface of the plate, increased the flame, and caused the wafer to become hard Exord. Comment, in Levit., p. 255. So Maimon- ides quoted by Ainsworth in loc. 6. Ubou sbalt part it in pieces, an& pour oil tbereon : it is a meat offering. 7. ^Hnt) it tb^ oblation be a meat offering bal?en in tbe fr^ingpan, it sball be mabe oX fine flour witb oil. 34 THE MEAL OFFERING. — frying pan\ Heb., Marecheseth. Vulg., Craticula. Sept., Eschara. The marecheseth would seem from its root rachash, ' to boil up,' to have been a deep vessel, more like a kettle or a pot, in which mate- rials could have been boiled. The Syriac word, as well as those used here by the Sept. and Vulgate, imply more what we should call ' a gridiron,' but this is a wide departure from the idea implied by rachash. J. T. are more accurate in giving their rendering " munus cacabi," which they describe as " profundi vasis, in quo res coquuntur liquore mersse." 8. HnD tbou sbalt brina tbe meat offering tbat is mabe of tbese tbinas unto tbe Xor6 : anC) wben it is presented unto tbe priest, be sball brincj it unto tbe altar* 9. Hub tbe priest sball tal?e trom tbe meat offering a memorial tbereof, anb sball burn it upon tbe altar : it \q an offering mabe bp fire, of a sweet savour unto tbe Xorb. 10. Hnt) tbat wbicb is left of tbe meat offering sball be Baron's anb bis sons' : it is a tbing most bolp of tbe offer* ings of tbe Xorb mabe bp fire. !!♦ IRo meat offering wbicb ^e sball bring unto tbe Xorb, sball be mabe witb leaven : for ^e sball burn wo leaven, nor anp \iQ\\t'^, \\\ an^ offering of tbe Xorb mabe b^ fire. — no leave?! or any hoitey~\ The exclusion of these two articles rests on a common basis. There was nothing in either leaven or honey, regarded simply per se, which would prevent their being offered to Jehovah. Indeed, from the very next verse we learn that they might both be offered among the firstfruits ; moreover leaven was to be used in connection with the two Pentecostal loaves, ch. xxiii. 17, and "with the sacrifice of thanksgiving" of the peace offerings, ch. vii. 13. Honey was offered among the firstfruits at the reformation under Hezekiah, ii. Chron. xxxi. 5. But the viinchah had a symbolical meaning, and the only symbolism of which leaven and honey were capable was one of evil qualities. THE MEAL OFFERING. 35 It is the property of both to produce fermentation which is emblematical of the evil tendency of the heart of man to ferment, and to be restless, and like leaven which once was good and sweet to become sour and bad. 12. IBs for tbe oblation ot tbe flrstfruits, pe sball offer tbem unto tbe Xorb : but tbep sball not be burnt upon tbe altar tor a sweet savour. 13. Hn& ever^ oblation of tb^ meat offering sbalt tbou season witb salt; neitber sbalt tbou suffer tbe salt of tbe covenant of tbp (5o& to be lacl?ing from tbi? meat offering : witb all tbine offerings tbou sbalt offer salt. — salP\ This was the invariable accompaniment both of zehachini and niinchoth. From its nature it was a fit symbol of the unalter- able nature of the covenant which God made with His chosen people Israel. The phrase " salt of the covenant '' is equivalent to ' an enduring, lasting, covenant.' This explains, probably, the passage occurring here in Targ. Jonathan, which says that the " twenty four gifts of the priests were appointed with a covenant of salt" and therefore the " salt of the covenant" was never to be absent from the meal offering, as an indication that the priesthood of Levi was to be a lasting and perpetual priesthood throughout their generations. Those who are interested in Jewish fables will find a ridicu- lous explanation of this title, " Salt of the Covenant," quoted by Fagius (ad h. loc) from the writings of Rabbi S. Jarchi. The Minchah of Firstfruits. 14. Hn& if tbou offer a meat offering of tb^ firstfruits unto tbe Xort), tbou sbalt offer for tbe meat offering of tb^^ first* fruits green ears of corn Orie& bp tbe fire, even corn beaten out of full ears. 36 THE MEAL OFFERING. — green ears] From a comparison of the Versions we gather that the ears of corn here spoken of were not really green, i.e.^ ' unripe ' ears, but rather ears fully ripe and newly reaped. Syr. reads " a handful roast in the fire, bruised, cleansed, thou shalt offer." Targ. O., "green ears dried with fire, broken and soft." Targ. Jon., "roasted flour and meal of barley." These ears were not ground into soleth^ ' fine flour,' but into a coarse meal, and so were offered. 15. Hn& tbou sbalt put oil iipon it, an& lap tranl^incense tbereon : it is a meat ottering. 16. Hnb tbe priest sball burn tbe memorial oH it, part of tbe beaten corn tbereot, ant) part qX tbe oil tbereot, witb all tbe franl?incense tbereot, it is an otferincj maC)e bp fire unto tbe XorC>. Chap. vi. 14-19. General Directions as to the Minchoth. 14. Hub tbis is tbe law of tbe meat offering : tbe sons of Haron sball offer it before tbe XorD before tbe altar. — the law of the meat offering] This law does not apply to the viinchah of the High Priest, vv. 19-24, nor yet to the mmchoth offered as accompaniments of the ' Oloth and Shelamim, both of which were wholly burnt, but to the voluntary minchah which might be offered alone, and of which ch. ii. treats. 15. Hn6 be sball tafte of it bis ban&ful, of tbe flour of tbe meat offering, anb of tbe oil tbereot, anb all tbe frankincense vvbicb is upon tbe meat offering, ant) sball burn it upon tbe altar for a sweet savour, even tbe memorial of it, unto tbe Xort). THE MEAL OFFERING. 37 10. Hut) tbe remainder tbereot sball Baron anb bis sons eat: witb nnleaveneO breab sball it be eaten i\K tbe bolp place; in tbe court oX tbe tabernacle ot tbe congreaation tbe^ sball eat it — holy place] The * most holy ' offerings were to be eaten by the priests in the court, but the ' wave breast ' and ' heave leg ' of the Shelamhn might be eaten by them and their families in any clean place, ch. X. 14: this was afterwards explained to mean 'in any part of Jerusalem.' 17. 3t Sball not be balden witb leaven. 5 bave q\\>z\\ it unto tbem for tbeir portion of m^ offerings ma5e bp fire ; it is most bolp, as in tbe sin offering, anb as tbe trespass offering. — / have given] In both O. and N. T. the principle is recognised that they who wait at the Altar shall be partakers with the Altar, Cf. Deut. xviii. i, 2 : S. Matth. x. 10: i. Cor. ix. 13, 14, 18. Hll tbe males among tbe cbilDren of Haron sball eat of it. 5t sball be a statute for ev?er in ^our generations concerning tbe offerings of tbe Xort) mabe b^ ffre : e\?er^ qwz tbat toucbetb tbem sball be bol^. — all the males] Even if he were a priest who by reason of bodily defect — Cf. ch. i. 3 — was not permitted to serve at the Altar, ch. xxi, 21, 22. — that toucheth thevi] See on the Sin offering, ch. vi. 27. The Daily Minchah of the High Priest. vv. 19-24. 19. anb tbe Xort) spafte unto /iDoses, saving, 20. TTbis is tbe offering of Baron an5 of bis sons, wbicb tbep sball offer unto tbe Xor& in tbe &a^ wben be is anointeD ; tbe tentb part of an epbab of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, balf of it in tbe morning, an& balf tbereof at nigbt. 38 THE MEAL OFFERING. — Aaron and of his sons~\ By ' his sons ' are to be understood not the ordinary priests, but his successors in the Pontificate. — a meat offering perpetual'] Josephus, A?it. iii. lo, Abarbanel, Exord. in Lev., and other Jewish writers tell us that the minchah described here was offered by the High" priest not only on the day of his consecration but every day afterwards. The time of this offering was, in all likelihood, not during the seven days of conse- cration of Aaron and his sons, because as Kurtz points out, if that had been the case Moses must have acted for them, as their conse- cration would not have been complete, and it is evident that they offered this minchah for themselves. The present verse shews that this minchah was offered in connection with the daily sacrifice, and Jewish tradition asserts that it was offered after the minchah and before the drink offering which accompanied the daily burnt sacrifice. 21. 5n a pan it sball be ma&e witb oil: an& wben it is bat?en, tbou sbalt brincj it in: an5 tbe baften pieces of tbe meat ofterincj sbalt tbou otter tor a sweet savour unto tbe Xor&. — a pan] Heb. Machabath. See on ch. ii. 5. — hake'>'{\ Rather ' dipped ' or ' soaked.' See on ch. vii. 12, Targ. O., " . . . . while soft it shall be brought a baken minchah offered in pieces to be accepted with favour, etc." Maimonides says the number of ' pieces ' of the Pontifical minchah was twelve. 22. Hub tbe priest at bis sons tbat is anointe^ \xi bis stea^ sball offer it : it is a statute for ever unto tbe XorC) : it sball be wboll^ burnt. — the priest of his sons who is anointed] Targ. Jon., '* the Highpriest who is anointed with oil." — wholly burnt] Lit., ' a whole burnt sacrifice.' The minchah of the people was eaten by the priests with the exception of the Azkarah^ which was burnt upon the Altar. See on ch. ii. THE MEAL OFFERING. 39 23. jfor evers meat off erf na tor tbe priest sball be wboll^ burnt : It sball not be eaten. Chap. vii. 9, 10. Directions as to Division of the residue among the Priests. 9. Hnb all tbe meat offering tbat is baften in tbe oven, ant) all tbat is t>resseC> in tbe fri^ingpan, anb in tbe pan, sball be tbe priest's tbat offeretb it. 10. Hnb e\?er^ meat offering, mingleb witb oil, anD t)r^, sball all tbe sons of Baron bave, one as mucb as anotber. — every meat offering .... dry\ Such as that brought as a sin offering by reason of poverty, ch. v. 11, and the jealousy offering, Numb. V. 15. Thus we see that all minchoth baken or fried be- longed to the officiating priest, while all that were offered unbaken, whether mingled with oil, as that mentioned in ch. ii. i, or un- mingled with oil, as the sin offering of the very poor person, and the jealousy offering, belonged to the priesthood in general. — one as much as another^ Lit., a man as his brother. Sept., hekasto to ison. " All the priests," says Bp. Patrick ad h.l. " who attended on that day were to have an equal share in this kind of meat offer- ing : though he alone who ministered at the Altar, had the baked meat offerings." THE EUGHftRISTlC SACRIFICE. THE Pea ce Offering. Chaps, iii. ; vii. 11-22, and 28-35. Chapters iii. ; vii. 11-22, and 28-35. THE PEACE OFFERING. Analysis. Chief features. The sacrificial meal : the ceremony of * heaving ' and 'waving.' Nature. Eucharistic. Order. Second in institution, third in application. Treatment of blood. Sprinkled [zaraq] upon the Altar round about. Treatment of flesh. The fat and inward portions to be burnt ; the 'wave' breast given to the priesthood in general; the 'heave' leg to the officiating priest ; the residue to the offerer and his family. View presented of the work of Christ. As Priest, giving us to eat of the Sacrifice, and so satisfying us with Himself : as Victim, giving Himself to God, and so satisfying God for us. Counterpart in the Sacramental system of the Church. The Holy Eucharist as a Feast. The Peace Offering from the Herd. I. Hut) if bis oblation be a sacrifice oX peace offerinOt it be offer it of tbe bert) ; wbetber it be a male or a female, be sball offer it witbout blemisb before tbe Xor&. —a sacrifice of peace offering] Heb. zebach shelamim. Sept., thusia soteriou. Vulg., hostia pacificorum. Targ. O., "of the sanctified things." The singular noun Shelem occurs only once in Amos v. 22 : elsewhere the usual phrase is as here, zebach shelamim.^ They were either public or private. Only one public peace offering, the two Pentecostal lambs, ch. xxiii. 19, belonged to the 'most holy' class of sacrifices. As such they were killed on the N. side of the 44 THE PEACE OFFERING. Altar, the flesh being eaten by the priests in the Court. The other public Shelamini belongs to the ' less holy/ and were therefore slain on the S. side. The present chapter enumerates three varieties of private peace offerings, (i.) the zebach hattodah, the * thanksgiving ' offering : (ii.) the z. neder^ the ' votive ' offering : (iii.) z. nedabah, the 'free will' offering. No limitations were im- posed as to the animals admissible for this Qorban. They might be selected either from the herd or from the flock, either, male or female. We do not find any mention of pigeons as peace offer- ings. Bodily perfection however, as in the other sacrifices, was required of the sacrificial animal, with one single exception, viz., in the 'free will' offering, in which an animal might be offered which had anything lacking or superfluous in its parts. See below on vii. i6. The body of the animal was allotted in three parts : (i.) the fat, belonging especially to Jehovah as being the best, and as representative of the rest, ch. iii. 3, 5. (ii.) The breast and riglit leg, the former being given to the priesthood in general, and the latter to be officiating priest, ch. vii. 31, sqq. (iii.) The residue was given to the worshipper to be consumed by him- self and his household, ch. vii. 15, 16: xxii. 30. The sacrifice of ' thanksgiving ' was to i)e eaten on the day of sacrifice, none being left till the morrow, but the flesh of the ' votive,' and of the ' free will' offerings might be eaten on the second day, but none was to be left till the third day. If any of the holy flesh remained it was to be burnt with fire, ch. vii. 15, 17. The sacrificial meal was to be held in the courts of the tabernacle, Deut. xii. 17, 18, but the priests might eat their portion in a clean place, Lev. x. 14. The feast upon the sacrifice forms the distinguishing feature of the peace offering. Thus we see the intimate connection which exists between it and the Holy Eucharist. In the peace offering, the offerer shared in, fed on, and so benefited by the sacrifice : and so, in like manner, in the Holy Eucharist, we share in, feed on, and benefit by the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is daily represented on our Altars. In the burnt and meal offerings the offerer received no part for himself; but here, in the peace offering we have the consumma- tion of all sacrifice (the intention of all sacrifice being to reconcile or appease), by the admission of the faithful Jews to feed upon, and so hold communion with the sacrifice, as we, under the New Dispensation, feed upon, and so hold communion with, the Sacrifice of our Altars. THE PEACE OFFERING. 45 The reconciliation of the offerer with the God whom he would appease, is made manifest by the permission given to the offerer to eat of the offering, and so offer himself with it, and make him- self one with it, that where the offering is accepted by God, the offerer must, with it, be accepted also. Here is a literal carrying out of the prefigurement of Christ standing as Offerer (in man) ; He, in us, offers Himself with us. Priest and Victim, to the Eternal Father ; as Priest, giving us to eat of the Sacrifice, so satisfying us with Himself; as Victim giving Himself to God, and so satisfying God for us. " He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." The very object of sacrifice is here obtained : the offerer, reconciled, atoned for, is made one with Him to whom the sacrifice is offered. It is to be further observed that in the peace offering the three concerned, viz., (i.) God ; (ii.) The priest ; (iii.) Man ; each received satisfaction in each receiving a portion. And in our Peace Offering these three necessary provisions are to be found. " It is finished. I, the Offerer, and the Offered, do reconcile man to God. I, being perfect Man, make it possible for all men to attain perfection : and being perfect God, can, and do, offer or send, the offering of My Humanity to the Godhead, that through the power of the Godhead, My Sacrifice of Myself may make possible the reconciliation of fallen man to his offended Maker." Man so receives his portion, forgiveness, and is satisfied : the Priest, Christ Jesus, obtains that for which He offers Himself, man's pardon, and is satisfied ; God required Atonement for sin, this He now receives and accepts in the Person of His Son, and is satisfied. We have now only to observe that the peace offering might be offered, as often as desired, by each individual ; in the same way as our Peace Offering is daily offered and participated in, and communicated with, by the faithful. The lesson here taught is that no earthly thing, not even our communions with the Peace Offering, are here shared in their entirety and perfection. This is proved by the fact that a repetition of communion with the Peace Offering is necessary for the maintenance of the reconciliation of God and man. Before the entrance into the Holy Land only a mi?tchah accompanied the peace offerings, ch. vii. 12, but after that event a drink offering of wine was added, Numb. xv. 2-12. 46 THE PEACE OFFERING. 2» Hn& be sball la^ bis banb upon tbe beab ot bis offer* ing, anb F?iU it at tbe X^aox ot tbe tabernacle ot tbe congre* nation: anD Haron's sons tbe priests sball sprinf^le tbe bloo& upon tbe altar roun& about — sprinkle] Heb. vezarequ. Not with the finger as in the sin offerings — for which action hizzah is always used — but probably from a vessel in which the blood had been caught. See on i. 5. 3, Hn& be sball offer ot tbe sacrifice ot tbe peace offering an offering mabe b^ fire unto tbe Xort> ; tbe fat tbat coveretb tbe inwards, an^ all tbe fat tbat is upon tbe inwar^s, 4, HnO tbe ]^i&neps, anC) tbe fat tbat is o\\ tbem, wbicb is bs tbe flanfts, an5 tbe caul abo\?e tbe liver, witb tbe l?ibnei?s, it sball be tahe awa^. — the flaiiks\ See Bochart. Hierozoic. lib. ii. ch. xlv. p. 506. 5, Hub Baron's sons sball burn it o\k tbe altar upon tbe burnt sacrifice, wbicb is upon tbe wooC) tbat is ow. tbe fire : it is an offering ma&e b^ tire, ot a sweet savour unto tbe %oto. — upon the burnt sacrifice] From ch. vi. 12, it is evident that by the ' burnt sacrifice ' is meant the daily national offering. See Ex. xxix. 38. The Peace Offering from the Flock. 6, HHnt) if bis offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto tbe XorD be of tbe flocft ; male or female, be sball offer it witbout blemisb. ?♦ 3f be offer a lamb for bis offering, tben sball be offer it before tbe %oxX>. THE PEACE OFFERING. 47 8. Hut) be sball lap bis bant) upon tbe beat) of bis offer* ing, ant) filll it before tbe tabernacle of tbe congregation: ant) Baron's sons sball sprinkle tbe bloot) tbereof rount) about upon tbe altar* 9. Hn& be sball offer of tbe sacrifice of tbe peace offering an offering mat)e bp fire unto tbe Xort) : tbe fat tbereof, an^ tbe wbole rump, it sball be tal?e off bart) bp tbe backbone; ant) tbe fat tbat coveretb tbe inwards, ant) all tbe fat tbat is upon tbe inwarbs, —the whole ru77ip\ B.eh. haaleyah. Sept.,osphun. Yvi\g.,cauda7n totam. Targs. "the whole of the tail close to the spine." R.V. "the fat tail entire." This is no doubt the correct rendering. Canon Tristram tells us that there are two breeds of sheep in Palestine : " in the N. hills there is a breed apparently not unlike the merino .... The common Syrian sheep is much taller, large boned, with a broad flat tail .... The peculiarity of this breed .... ovis laticaudata, is the enormous developement of fat on the tail .... it seems to have been the breed of the ancient Israel- ites, the fat of the tail being spoken of as ' the rump ' . . . . The tail is simply a mass of fat, and is used for grease, for lamps, and for cooking .... Though the carcase does not weigh more than fifty or sixty pounds, the tail will average ten pounds, and I have known it fourteen pounds.' Nat. History of the Bible, pp. 143, 144. 10. Hub tbe two l?i&neps, an& tbe fat tbat is upon tbem, wbicb is bp tbe flanl?s, ant) tbe caul above tbe liver, witb tbe l;it)neps, it sball be tal?e awap. 11. But) tbe priest sball burn it upon tbe altar : it is tbe foot) of tbe offering mabe bp fire unto tbe Xort). 12. H But) if bis offering be a goat, tben be sball offer it before tbe %ort). —a goat^ Vulgate, wrongly, has " Si capra fuerit, etc.," Targs. ** from the young goats." H 48 THE PEACE OFFERING. 13. Hnt) be sball lay bis banb upon tbe beab of it, ant) ftill it before tbe tabernacle of tbe congreoation : an& tbe sons of Haron sball sprinl^le tbe bloo^ tbereof upon tbe altar rount) about. 14. Hub be sball offer tbereof bis offering, even an offer* ing maDe bp fire unto tbe Xor&; tbe fat tbat coveretb tbe inwar&s, anb all tbe fat tbat is upon tbe inwarbs, 15. Hub tbe two l?i5neps, ant) tbe fat tbat is upon tbem, wbicb is by tbe flanfts, ant) tbe caul abov)e tbe liver, witb tbe ftibneps, it sball be tal?e away. 10. Hub tbe priest sball burn tbem upon tbe altar ; it is tbe foob of tbe offering mabe by fire for a sweet savour : all tbe fat is tbe Xort)'s. 17. 3^t sball be a perpetual statute for your generations tbrougbout all your Dwellings, tbat ye eat neitber fat nor bloob. — a perpetual statute\ See ch. vii. 23-28, where the provision of this verse is repeated with forcible additions. — that ye eat neither fai^ Heb. Cheleh. This is the word (as we saw on i. 8.) always used of the ' fat ' of the peace, and sin offerings, as peder is of that of the burnt offerings. It must not be supposed, however, that this injunction extended to the ' fat ' of all animals without distinction. It was only the ' fat ' of sacrificial animals which might not be eaten, ch. vii. z-x,. The prohibition did not apply to animals which, though clean, i.e.^ permissible as food (e.g. stags, roebucks, etc.) were not admissible for Altar use. The rationale of this command concerning the ' fat ' is evident. The Law regarded the slaying of every ox, or goat, or sheep, even if destined for home-use alone, as in some sort a sacrificial slaying. Hence the act was to take place at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, xvii. 3, 4, 5. The fat of the sacrificial animal was a fire-offering to Jehovah, it was specially THE PEACE OFFERING. 49 His portion ; it would clearly be wrong, therefore, to assign to domestic purposes that part which especially belonged to Jehovah. Afterwards as we learn from Deut. xii. 21, this law of killing the animal at the tabernacle door was removed, and the prohibition against eating fat was in consequence removed also. The Targum Jonathan, after giving the prohibition against eating the fat or the blood, interpolates here the direction that " upon the back of the altar it shall be sacrificed to the Name of the Lord." — 7ior blood'] This prohibition was never removed. In the case of slaughterings for domestic use, whether of sacrificial animals or not, the blood was never to be eaten but to be poured on the earth as water, Deut. xii. 16, 24. The reason is given in v. 22,. "For the blood is the life: and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." Chap. vii. 11-22. \\, HnO tbis 16 tbe law of tbe sacrifice ot peace otferinos, wbfcb be sball otTer unto tbe Xor^ —peace offerings] The ritual of the peace offering is given in the previous section. In the following verses three points are enum- erated : (i.) The Minchah which was to accompany the sacrifice : Qi.) Regulations concerning eating the flesh : (iii.) The enumer- of the three varieties of Shelaimm, viz., * Eucharistic,' 'Votive,' and ' Free will.' Varieties of Peace Offerings. (i.) The * Thanksgiving' Offering. Zehach hattodah. 12. 3t be offer it tor a tbanl?soi\>tnG, tben be sball offer wltb tbe sacrifice ot tbanl^sGivino unleavened calces minolet) witb oil, ant) unleavened waters anointed witb oil, ant) cahes mins» filet) witb oil, ot fine tlour, triet). 50 THE PEACE OFFERING. — -for a thanksgiving^ Yieh. 'a I- iodah. Se-pt., peri aineseos. Vulg.,/rc gratiarum adione. This is the first of the three kinds of Shelamim. The special feature of this sacrifice is evident from its name. It was the offering of a pious Israelite who had been the recipient of Divine mercies, and who therefore desired to give outward ex- pression to the gratitude which filled his heart. It had no respect to the future, i.e., it was in no sense an impetrative sacrifice, it regarded only the past. Such were no doubt the peace offerings of the Israelites after the capture of Ai, Josh. viii. 31. So David says, Ps. cxvi. 14, 15, "... . thou hast broken my bonds in sunder (prob. in reference to his deliverance from Saul in the wilderness of Maon, i. Sam. xxiii.) I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving (zebach hattodah) . So king Manasseh after his re- storation to his kingdom offered * thank offerings ' (todoth) , ii. Chr. xxxiii. 16. — ing of bis peace offerings* — leavened bread'] This was a separate offering, not for Altar use as the Minchoth of which the memorial was burned. In none of the other sacrifices is this accompaniment of cakes of leavened bread enjoined. They were not burnt upon the Altar, for neither leaven nor honey was to be burnt in any offering of the Lord made by fire, ii. 11. But though they had no place on the Altar fire, yet they were to be presented to God, one loaf being a heave offering to the Lord, and given to the officiating priest, the rest being consumed by the worshippers. Doubtless there was here, as Archdeacon Freeman remarks, a wonderful provision for the growth of the Eucharist out of this rite. R. Levi of Barcelona tells us that the usual name for this leavened bread was " the bread of thanksgiving" or " Eucharist." X4. Bn& ot it be sball offer Oiwt out ol tbe wbole oblation tor an beave offering unto tbe Xor&, anb it sball be tbe priest's tbat sprinl^letb tbe bloot) ot tbe peace offerings* THE PEACE OFFERING. 51 — one out of the whole ohlatioii\ Maimonides tells us that this bread was thus prepared : 20 tenths of flour were taken, half of which were mixed with leaven. Ten cakes were made of this leavened portion ; of the unleavened flour thirty cakes were made: ten baked in the oven, ten made into wafers, and ten dipped in oil. And the priest took one of all four cakes, one of every sort. Treatise on Sacrifices. See Ainsworth ad. h.l, who quotes the entire passage. — a heave offering\ See below on v. 12. Sept. aphairema. 15. Hnt) tbe flesb of tbe sacrifice oX bis peace otfeririGs for tbanf^sgiving sball be eaten tbe same t)a^ tbat it is offeret); be sball not leave an^ of it nntil tbe morning. — on the same day\ The z. 7ieder and z. nedabah might be eaten on the next day after offering, but immediate consumption was en- joined in the case of the z hattodah. (ii.) The * Votive ' Offering. Zebach neder. (iii.) The * Free will ' Offering. Zebach ?tedabah. 10. 3But if tbe sacrifice of bis offerina be a vowt or a volnntar^ offering, it sball be eaten tbe same bap tbat be offeretb bis sacrifice : anb on tbe morrow also tbe remainder of it sball be eaten : — a vow\ Heb. neder. Sept., euche. Vulg., votum. This is the second variety of peace offerings. Like the todah offering, it was a ' thank ' offering, but it differed from it in one important particular, W2., that whereas the todah was a ' thanksgiving,' in the highest sense of the word, for the reception of mercies proceeding wholly and solely from Jehovah's grace and love, the neder was a 'thanks- giving' for mercies received zVz response to a vow previously made. It did not consequently rank so high in the scale of offerings as the zebach hattodah. — a voluntary ofi^ering\ 'iiieh.7iedabah. ^or^t.Jiekousion. Y\x\g.,sp07ite. This is the third variety of peace offering. It differed from the two previous kinds in being, not an eucharistic, but an impetrative or 52 THE PEACE OFFERING. supplicatory offering. The * votive ' sacrifice was offered when the blessing desired was obtained ; the ' free will ' sacrifice was offered in conjunction with the prayer for the mercy sought. The supplicatory nature of this sacrifice was generally admitted by the Rabbis, and it is impossible to suppose that a divinely instituted system, whether Jewish or Christian, should be wanting in offerings of this nature. Dr. Kurtz well says " If the supplicatory offering rested upon a truly religious basis, and the idea to be expressed therein was really founded upon a religious necessity .... we are certainly warranted in expecting that the Mosaic economy, as a Divine institute, would meet that want and satisfy it" (Mcs. Opf. pp. 134, 135, quoted in Sac. Wars, of Old Test.) . As we have already seen above, the daily national offering included in its broad basis the impetrative element. It contained potentially within itself not only the virtues, but the characteristic features of all the other sacrifices. It had thus its supplicatory as well as its expiatory and latreutic aspect : but it is important to remember that in each and all of these respects it was a national and public, and not a private and individual offering. The latter is just what the fiedabah was. It was a private offering of a supplicatory nature. As the Christian may offer by the hands of a priest the Holy EucharivSt with some special ' intention,' and with a desire to gain some special mercy, SO the Jew might offer by the hands of the Levitical priest the 2. nedabaJi in the prescribed manner with a similar object. It is probable that the following, though called in the text by the general name of Shela7Tii'm, rnay be quoted as instances of this supplicatory sacrifice, (i.) The sacrifices offered by the Israelites before the battle with the children of Benjamin, Judg. xx. 26 : (ii.) Those offered by the Israelites when they required direction as to restoring the tribe, lb. xxi. 4 : (iii.) The sacrifice ordered by Saul while waiting for Samuel, i. Sam. xiii. 9 : (iv.) The sacrifice offered by David during the plague, ii. Sam. xxiv. 25. In what sense the nedabah was a * free will ' offering ' is not apparent at first sight. That it was not a * free will ' offering in the same sense as, for example, the burnt offering of ch. i. is clear from the fact that at the three great festivals, in addition to the regular peace offerings, it was obligatory, Deut. xvi. 10, sqq. This being so, it is evident that some other grounds must be sought which will explain the sense in which it was of ' free will.' The following explanation adapted from the learned author above quoted seems to meet the requirements of the case. We have already seen that in the ' votive ' offering the sacrifice was not THE PEACE OFFERING. 53 presented till after the blessing sought had been obtained ; in the ' free will ' offering we may suppose that it was freely presented beforehand in the hope that Jehovah would grant the prayer of which it was the accompaniment. The vow once made, the con- ditions being fulfilled, the votive offering was compulsory and could not be omitted without a breach of the law contained in Numb. XXX. 2, and Deut. xxiii. 21, sqq. But there was no obligation to present a sacrifice at the time of making the prayer for the benefit desired, and hence it was properly called a ' free will ' or * voluntary ' offering. _ This was the only offering in which any bodily defect was permissible in the sacrificial animal. From ch. xxii. 22^, we learn that either a bullock or a lamb which had either superfluity (ex- plained by Rabbis to mean one member shorter than the other) or deficiency (which Sept. and Vulgate refer to the amputation of the tail or ears, and Targ. Jon. to the genital organs) might lawfully be offered for a ' free will ' but not for a ' votive ' sacrifice. The apparent contradiction of this permission to the rule given in ch. xxii. 21, is explained by the Rabbis by saying that though such an animal as had either defect or superfluity could not be offered on the Altar, that it might be brought, or the monetary value, for the maintenance of the sanctuary. 17. But tbe remainder of tbe flesb oX tbe sacrifice o\\ tbe tbirC) &ap sball be burnt witb fire. 18. Hn^ if anp of tbe flesb of tbe sacrifice of bis peace offeriuGS be eaten at all on tbe tbir& ^a^, it sball not be accepted, neitber sball it be imputeb unto bim tbat offeretb it : it sball be an abomination, anb tbe soul tbat eatetb of it sball bear bis iniquity. — imputed to him] Targ. Jon. adds " for righteousness." — an abominatio7i\ Heb. piggul. Sept. miasma. The Hebrew word is only found here and in ch. xix. 7 : Is. Ixv. 4: Ez. iv. 14. Aq. and Symm. both render it by apobleton, which is the word used by S. Paul, who perhaps had this passage in mind, when he wrote " every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused . . . . " i. Tim. iv. 4. 54 THE PEACE OFFERING. 19. Hn5 tbe flesb tbat toucbetb anp unclean tbfno sbaU not be eaten; it sball be burnt witb fire: anb as tor tbe tlesb, all tbat be clean sball eat tbereot 20. But tbe soul tbat eatetb of tbe tlesb oX tbe sacrifice of peace offerings, tbat pertain unto tbe Xor&, baling bis uncleanness upon bun, e\?en tbat soul sball be cut off from bis people. — cut off~\ Targs. " shall be destroyed." The expression " that soul shall be cut off from his people " is frequently found in the Law and signifies capital punishment : but whether by the hand of God or by the hand of man is not specified. The Jewish doctors expound this differently. Some say that it meant ' dying before at- taining the age of fifty years,' others expound it of 'dying childless.' The Mishnical treatise Kerithuth enumerates over thirty offences punishable by " cutting off," if done wilfully. See Lightfoot, Temple Service, pp. 7, 8, g. We may see in this, and in the following verse, a foreshadow- ing of that spiritual purity which is demanded of all who come to the sacrificial Feast which Jesus Christ, our Peace Offering, makes for us on the Altar of His Church. That which was demanded of the Israelite who eat the flesh of the Shelamim was an external cleanness of body : the purity which is demanded of us is internal, of heart and soul. To the clean Israelite the benefit was doubtless great : he feasted as it were at Jehovah's table, and was thereby admitted to close and intimate communion with Him : but the danger was also great if with ceremonial uncleanness he dared to approach the sacrificial feast. To us the benefit is incalculably great if with true penitence and internal purity we draw nigh to that blessed Sacrament of which both burnt offering and peace offering were types, the one as a Sacrifice, the other as a Feast. We are then made one with our Peace Offering and He with us ; but to us, as to the Israelite, the danger is also great if spiritually defiled we draw nigh to God's board, for then we provoke Him to plague us with various punishments and "cutting off" from our people, and sundry kinds of death. Here, as in many other points, the shadow was in the Law, the reality in the Gospel. THE PEACE OFFERING. 55 Chap. vii. 28-35. Directions as to the Priests' portion. 1. The " Wave" breast. 2. The ^^ Heave" leg. 28. Hn& tbe Xort) spat?e unto /Iftoses, saying, 29. Speal^ unto tbe cbil^ren oX Israel, saying, Ibe tbat offeretb tbe sacrifice ot bis peace offerings unto tbe %oxX> sball bring bis oblation unto tbe Xort) oX tbe sacrifice ot bis peace offerings. — shall bring his oblatio7i\ Some commentators understand by this the meal offering which was to accompany the Shelem. So Bp. Patrick, who lays stress on the fact that * the oblation ' is called Qorban to distinguish it from the zcbach or ' sacrifice.' But as we have seen on ch. i. 2, Qorban is a general name for * gifts ' to be employed in any way in the service of Jehovah, and is not distinc- tively used of any one offering. The reference above mentioned derives some support from the Vulg., which reads here "sacrificium, id est, libamenta ejus." The true meaning of the verse, however, seems to be, " When a man offers a Shelem to Jehovah, let him above all things take care to bring, for Altar consumption, the portion selected by Jehovah as His food, before proceeding to the sacrificial meal." The same idea of selecting " out of the sacrifice " special portions for special uses occurs in v. 32. The " oblation " therefore of the presen verse seems to refer to Jehovah's selected portions, viz., the fat parts, ch. iii. 3, 4, 9, 14, 15. 30. 1bis own banbs sball bring tbe offerings of tbe XorO mabe by fire, tbe fat witb tbe breast, it sball be bring, tbat tbe breast may be wave^ for a wave offering before tbe Xorb. — the fat with the breast^ Targ. Jon. " the fat, the fatness that is upon the breast, and the breast cut out with two ribs here, and two ribs there at the top . . . . " I 56 THE PEACE OFFERING. — waved for a wave offeriug\ Heb. lehaniph otho tenuphah. Targs. " to be lifted up, an uplifting." In addition to the present passage the ceremony of the tenuphah or ' waving ' took place in the follow- ing instances : at the offering of the ram at the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, viii. 27 : at the cleansing of the leper, xiv, 12 : the sheaf of the firstfruits, xxiii. 12 : the two lambs and bread of the firstfruits at Pentecost, lb. 20 : the offering at the trial of jealousy, Numb. v. 25 : at the fulfilment of the Nazarite's vow, lb. vi. 20. It occurs also in the ' waving' of the Levites, Numb. viii. 1 1 (where however the action cannot have been the same as with the parts of the sacrifice). It has been suggested that by ' waving ' the Levites we are to understand that Aaron caused them to walk either in front of or round the Altar. But as we learn from Numb. iii. 39, that they were 22,000 in number this seems hardly possible. Bp. Patrick's suggestion is more prob- able, viz., that Aaron " lifting up his hands, and turning about to all sides (as he did when he offered a wave offering) they, at his command, imitated the same motion ; and so were offered up to God, and became wholly His." On Numb. viii. 11. Targ. Jon. says " And thou shall place the Levite before Aaron and his sons, and present them (as) an elevation before the Lord . . . . " See Arab. version). The direction of the movement may be gathered from the following instances in which the verb niiph is used : " Shake (R.V. *■ wave ') the hand," i.e., according to Gesenius the signal of one beckonmg. Is. xiii. 2 : " Shake his hand over the river," i.e., a gesture of one threatening, lb. xi. 15, xix. 16: "to sift the nations with a. sieve," lb. xxx. 28: "shall the saw .... shaketh it?" lb. x. 15: "thou shalt not move a sickle," Deut. xxiii. 25, [Heb. v. 26]. The general idea conveyed by these passages is that of a move- ment ' to and fro.' The Talmud describes it as a motion backward and forward, and this is probably correct. But in what direction ? The waving priest stood facing the sacred building, and * waved' the breast towards it, and then drew it back towards himself. The sym- bolism of this action is evident. The first motion signified the giving of the selected portion to Jehovah, and was in effect an acknow- ledgement that it primarily belonged to Him ; the second motion signified that Jehovah returned the gift as part provision for the maintenance of His servants. The 'wave breast,' as the next verse shews was given to the priests in general and to their families. 3U Hn& tbe priest sball burn tbe tat upon tbe altar : but tbe breast sball be Baron's anb bis sons'. THE PEACE OFFERING. 57 32. Hn& tbe rfgbt sboul&er sball pe oive unto tbe priest for an beave offerfno oX tbe sacrifice ot ^our peace offerings. — shoulder] Heb. shoq. R.V. ihtgh ; rather, leg. The Hebrew word is derived from r. shtiq, 'to run.' By this word is meant the hind leg, as by zero a the fore leg. Cf. Numb. vi. ig : and Deut, xviii. 3. The only reason for the selection of this joint for the officiating priest was the abundance and excellence of the meat. — mi heave offermg\ Heb. terumah. As the tenuphah was a lat- eral, so the terumah was a vertical movement. The signification in both actions was indentical, viz., the presenting of a selected portion to Jehovah. There was however, as has been well pointed out, this difference, that whereas the ' waving ' was a presentation to Jehovah in His earthly dwelling place, the ' heaving ' or ' lifting up ' was a presentation to Him in His heavenly dwelling place. That the tenuphah and the terumah were two in act but one in meaning is evident from the fact that in several passages the terms are used interchangeably: e.g., the 'gold oi' the offering' which in Exod. xxxviii. 24, is called tejiuphah^ in Numb. xxxi. 52, is called terumah. Cf. also Lev. ix. 21, where we are told that Aaron 'waved' (Heb. heniph) for a 'wave offering,' the breasts and the right shoulder which latter is ordinarily called terumah. This significant action has passed over into the liturgical cere- monies of the Church. The ' elevation ' of the elements of the ancient liturgies with the words ta hagia tots hagiois has its origin in the 'heaving' of the Jewish sacrifice. The terimiah of the Mosaic rite was, as already observed, a presentation of earthly food to Jehovah in Heaven's glory, so the ' elevation ' of the Christian rite is the ' heaving ' or presentation to the Father of the heavenly food of the B. Sacrament, even the Body and Blood of His dear Son. It is much to be regretted that this action of ' elevation ' or * heaving' so scriptural, so ancient, and so full of beauty and significance, should not find an authorized place in the ritual of our incomparable liturgy. 33. Ibe amono tbe sons of Haron, tbat otferetb tbe bloo5 of tbe peace otferinos, ant) tbe fat, sball bave tbe rigbt 8boulC>er for bis part. 58 THE PEACE OFFERING. 34* jfor tbe wave breast an& tbe beave sboul&er ba\?e % taften ol tbe cbil&ren of Israel trom off tbe sacrifices oX tbeir peace offerings, ant) ba\?e Q\\>txK tbem unto Haron tbe priest ant) unto bis sons bp a statute tor ever trom among tbe cbilbren ot 5sraeL — have given them .... so7is\ For their maintenance* Cf. i. Cor. ix. 13, 14. The wave breast and heave leg being 'less holy' offerings might be eaten in any clean place, eh. x. 14. THE GREATER EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. THE Sin Offering. Chaps, iv. : v. 1-13: vi. 24-end. Chapters iv. : v. 1-13 : vi. 24-end THE SIN OFFERING. Analysis. Chief features. Wholly burnt on the ground outside the camp: sprinkling of the blood. Nature. Expiatory. Order. Third in institution, first in application. Treatment of blood, (i.) In higher classes, i.e., of High Priest and of the whole congregation, sprinkled seven times on the vail Paroketh, some put on the horns of the golden Altar of incense, residue poured out at base of brazen Altar. (ii.) In lower classes, i.e., of a ruler and of a private person, some put on horns of brazen Altar, residue poured out at its base, but none taken into the Holy Place. Treatment of flesh. Fat portions in every case burned : if belonging to higher class the flesh was burned with unconsecrated fire outside the camp : if to the lower class, it was eaten by officiating priests in the Court. View presented of the iwrk of Christ. Christ the Sin-bearer, made sin for man, making atonement, suffering without the camp. Counterpart in the Sacramefital system of the Church. Confession and Absolution. 1. Hn^ tbe Xort) spafte unto /iDoses, saving, 2. Speaft unto tbe cbilDven of Israel, saving, 5t a soul sball sin tbrouob ignorance against an^ (it tbe contniant)* ments ol tbe Xort) concerning tbings wbicb ougbt not to be ^one, ant) sball t)0 against anp ot tbem: 62 THE SIN OFFERING. — if a soul shall sin\ Hitherto we have dealt with those oiferings that were of " a sweet savour." We have now to consider those Qorhanim which were '• not of a sweet savour," those offered for sin and trespass. One of these, however, was included among the " sweet savour " offerings, wz., that offered for a sin of ignor- ance by any one of the common people, z^. 31. In the offerings already discussed there were points in which they differed from each other both in details of ceremonial, and in the aspect which they presented of the One offering of Christ. They rested, however, on a common basis, namely, the offering to Jehovah of something that was well pleasing to Him, and in which He found rest and satisfaction. In them, the offerer presents himself as an accepted worshipper^ bringing something sweet and pleasant to God. As Jukes well says " The offerer came to satisfy God, and having in his offering stood the sifting fire of trial was accepted as a sweet savour, and fed upon, if I may so say, by the Lord." But in the Qorbaiiivi that were not of "a sweet savour" a new idea came into prominence, viz., that of sin. For the first time we find the idea of sin connected with the offering. The offerer comes now as a transgressor before God to receive in his offering the judgement due for transgresson. Unlike the other offerings which were burnt within the sacred precincts upon the holy Altar, these were burnt without the camp upon the bare ground. We see here then the sinner cast out of the presence of Jehovah, and in his offering receiving the due reward of his sin. It is easy to see how this applies to Christ. The burnt, — meat, — and peace- offerings bring Christ before us as presenting Himself without sin to His eternal Father, but the sin — and trespass— offering shew us Christ offering Himself /^r sin, the Sin-bearer. Here we see, as S. Paul says, Christ who was made sin for us, ii. Cor. v. 21, bearing the burden of a guilty creation, and expiating the sin of man, and taking away the sin of the world. It may be well here to remind the reader that the order in which the Levitical sacrifices were originally instituted does not correspond with the order of their practical application. In insti- tution the order was (i.) burnt-offering with accompanying meal- offering : (ii.) peace-offering: (iii.) sin and trespass offering: but in application the order was (i.) sin-offering : (ii.) burnt-offering : (iii.) peace-offering. This fact has been well put by the author of The Law of the Offerings, pp. 131, 132, "The institution of these Sacrifices gives us certain aspects of the offering in the order in THE SIN OFFERING. 63 which they are viewed by God : and in this view Christ offering Himself without sin would clearly precede His offering Himself for sin ... . But the application of the offerings, on the other hand, gives us the order of Christ's work as viewed by Israel ; and Israel's view in this case, as in all others, begins where the offering meets Israel's sin and failure." The sin offerings were of four grades: (i.) for the High priest : (ii.) for the whole congregation : (iii.) for a ruler : (iv.) for any of the common people. —imorance] Heb. Shegagah. Sept., akousios. V. per ignorantiam. So Syr. and Targs. The Heb. word is derived from a root signifying * to wander ' or ' go astray ' : hence, metaphorically ' to wander from the Divine precepts.' The cases here considered are not wilful and deliberate sins, but rather sins arising from want of thought and consideration, such as in our Litany are included under the terms '' negligences and ignorances," opposed to which were sins committed presumptuously and "with a high hand," Numb. XV. 30. The Sin Offering of the High Priest. 3. 5t tbe priest tbat is anointed t)0 sin accorbittG to tbe sin ot tbe people; tben let bim bring for bis sin, wbicb be batb sinned, a ^onng bullocft witbout blemisb unto tbe XorO tor a sin otfering. —the priest that is anointed'] i.e., the High priest, who alone was solemnly anointed. So the Targums. The anointing odwas poured on the head of the High Priest, Ex. xxix. y : Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10 : ordinary priests were only sprinkled with it. The Talmud states that the High priest was signed on the forehead, just above the eyes, with the oil in the shape of the Greek letter Chi. Selden de Success, in Pont. EhrcBor. ii. 9. On this statement Reland remarks " nee videtur esse ratio cur haec Judaeorum traditio rejici debeat : imprimis quum adversus Judaeos pro Cruce Christi urgeri possit." Ant. ii. i. v. For the ingredients of the anointing oil see Ex. XXX. 23. K 64 THE SIN OFFERING. — do stn] Either officially by a breach of ceremonial law, or person- ally by breach of the moral law. Guilt was always brought on the people by an offence on the part of its anointed head, just as on a family by the sin of its head, Josh. vii. 24, or on a nation by the sin of its king. 2 Sam. xyiv. 10 sqq. The Law regarded even the High priest as liable to sin, and made provision accordingly. This was a confession of the inferiority of the Aaronic Priesthood, and of its transitional nature. The better Covenant which was to last, would have a High Priest "holy, harmless, separate from sinners," Heb. vii. 26. — according to the sin of the people~\ The R.V. gives the correct rending " so as to bring guilt on the people ; " T. Jon. explains it of a ceremonial offence, " as when he hath offered a sin offering for the people not according to the rite." The High priest in his official capacity as head of the people might cause them to sin either by his teaching, or by his example. In this verse the two terms Chattath and Asham are both used, "if the priest that is anointed do sin (yechetaa) according to the sin (leashetnath) of the people, " &c. — a young bullock] Heb. Par ben baqar. Sept., moschon ek boon. Judged by what we should call market value, all the offerings for sin were of low price and limited in number. Even in the higher classes, for the High priest and for the whole congregation, a young bullock, " a little bigger than a calf" as Patrick observes, sufficed, while for private persons a female kid or a lamb, and for a ruler a male kid, was all that was required. Two reasons may be assigned for this low scale, (i.) To prevent the idea that sin could be expiated or God's favour restored either by number or value of sacrifices, (ii.) To bring into prominence the idea of expiation which in the other sacrifices fell into the back ground, and to remind the offerer that it was not his gift, but the mercy of God, around which all centred. 4. Hnb be sball bring tbe buUocft unto tbe boor of tbe tabernacle of tbe conaregatfon before tbe Xorb; ant) sball lap bf5 banb upon tbe bullock's beaO, ant) litll tbe bullocft before tbe Xorb. THE SIN OFFERING. 65 5. Hnt) tbe priest tbat fs anofntet) sball tafte of tbe bullock's bloo&, ant) bring it to tbe tabernacle oH tbe congregation : 6. Hnt) tbe priest sball Mp bis finger in tbe bloo&, ant) sprinkle of tbe bloo5 seven times before tbe Xort), before tbe vail of tbe sanctuary. — sprinkle of the blood] Up to this point the ritual of the sin offering varied in nowise from that of the other offerings. The method of treating the blood differed in the various offerings. See on i. 5. — seven times'] See S. Augustine De Civ. Dei. xi. 30. —before the vail] Heb. Paroketh. Sept., to katapetasma. Vulg., contra velum. The prepositions in the two latter versions seem to imply that the blood of the victim was sprinkled on the vail itself. " Before the vail " however is explained by most commentators as implying the floor between the golden Altar of incense and the vail which hung before the Holiest Place. There were two vails in the tabernacle : one hung before the Holy Place called Masak and the other before the Holy of Holies called Paroketh. It is popularly supposed that it was this latter which was rent from top to bottom at the Crucifixion of our Lord. A careful consideration however of the evidence on the subject tends to shew that it was the Masak which was rent. This was the opinion of Origen (in S. Matt.) and of S. Jerome (ad Hedi- biam). The strong expression of the Syriac Version of the Gospel which mention the rending — " the faces of the gate of the Temple " — points to the same conclusion. 7. Hn& tbe priest sball put some of tbe bloo& upon tbe boms of tbe altar of sweet incense before tbe Xort), wbicb Is in tbe tabernacle of tbe congregation : ant> sball pour all tbe bloot) of tbe bullock at tbe bottom of tbe altar of tbe burnt offering, wbicb is at tbe ^oor of tbe tabernacle of tbe congregation. 66 THE SIN OFFERING. . — on the horns of the Altar\ In the following order, according to Maimonides ; North-East horn, North- West, South-West, South- East. This would be a convenient order. 8. Hn& be sball tafte otf from it all tbe tat of tbe buUocft tor tbe sin ottering : tbe fat tbat coveretb tbe inwards, an^ all tbe fat tbat is upon tbe inwarbs. 9. Hnb tbe two ftibne^s, an& tbe fat tbat is upon tbem, wbicb is b^ tbe flanfts, auD tbe caul above tbe liver, witb tbe fti&ne^s, it sball be tal^e awa^, to, Bs it was tal?en off from tbe bullocli of tbe sacrifice of peace ofterinos : anb tbe priest sball burn tbem upon tbe altar of tbe burnt offering, — bjiTJi them'] Heb. Hiqteram. For the difference between qatar and saraph see on ch. i. 9. 11. HnC) tbe sl?in of tbe bullocl?, ant> all bis flesb, witb bis beat), anC) witb bis legs, anb bis inwarbs, anb bis bung, 12. Bven tbe wbole bulloci? sball be carr^ fortb witbout tbe camp into a clean place, wbere tbe asbes are poureb out, anb burn bim o\\ tbe woob witb fire: wbere tbe asbes are poureb out sball be be burnt — the whole bullock] i.e., with the exception of those portions which from vv. 8, 9, 10, we learn were to be burnt upon the Altar of burnt- offering. — shall he carry forth] By this we are not to understand that the High priest himself carried the bullock forth to its place of burning, any more than that Jacob himself ' carried ' his cattle away, as recorded in Gen. xxxi. 18. The word hotsia, being the Hiphil form of yatsahy ' to go forth,' simply means ** he shall cause to go forth." THE SIN OFFERING. 67 — without the camp\ As afterwards, in Temple days, they carried it out of the city. Though without blemish yet it was to be burned without the camp, regarded as sin, and cast out into the wilderness. And as with the type, so with the Anti-type. Jesus was spotless and holy, there was no blemish in Him, and yet He was not only despised and rejected of men, but was made a curse for us. Gal. iii. 13. He suffered without the gate, Heb. xiii. 12, in order, says S. Leo (Sermon ix. on the Passion), that the Cross might be an Altar, not of the Temple only, but of the world. — where the ashes are poured out^ See ch. i. 16. The Sin Offering for the whole Assembly. X3, H Hub If tbe wbole congreaation of Israel sin tbrougb ianorance, anb tbe tbiitG be bit) from tbe e^es of tbe assembly, an^ tbey ba\?e X>oe : tben be sball bring bis offering, a ftiC) of tbe goats, a female witbout blemisb, for bis sin wbicb be batb sinned* — a kid of the goats\ This was one of the ' fixed ' offerings, in which no one, whether rich or poor, offered more or less. 29. Hnt> be sball la^ bis banb upon tbe beat) of tbe sin offering, ant) sla^ tbe sin offering in tbe place of tbe burnt offering. 30. Hnt) tbe priest sball tal?e of tbe bloot) tbereof witb bis finger, ant) put it upon tbe boms of tbe altar of burnt offering, ant) sball pour out all tbe bloot) tbereof at tbe bottom of tbe altar. 31. Hn& be sball take awa^ all tbe fat tbereof, as tbe fat ts fallen awa^ from off tbe sacrifice of peace offerings; ant) tbe priest sball burn it upon tbe altar for a sweet savour unto tbe Xor& ; an5 tbe priest sball mafte an atonement for bim, ant) it sball be forgiven bim. — a sweet savour] This expression occurs only in connection with the sin offering of any of the common people. L 72 THE SIN OFFERING. 32. Hn^ it be bring a lamb for a sin offering, be sball bring it a female witbout blemisb. 33. Hnt) be sball la^ bis banO upon tbe beab of tbe sin offering, an^ slap it for a sin offering in tbe place wbere tbep Ifeill tbe burnt offering. 34. Hub tbe priest sball tal?e of tbe bloob of tbe sin offer* ing witb bis finger, anb put it upon tbe boms of tbe altar of burnt offering, an& sball pour out all tbe blooC) tbereof at tbe bottom of tbe altar : 35. Hn& be sball talie awap all tbe fat tbereof, as tbe fat of tbe lamb is taften awap from tbe sacrifice of tbe peace offerings; anb tbe priest sball burn tbem upon tbe altar, accorMng to tbe offerings ma^e bi? fire unto tbe XorD : an& tbe priest sball mafte an atonement for bis sin tbat be batb committe&, ant) it sball be forgiven bim. — according to the offer mgs\ Targs., With the oblations of the Lord. Sept., epi to holokautoma Kuriou. Vulg., in incensutn Domini. The R.V. is clearly right in rendering " and the priest shall burn them on the altar upon the offerings of," etc., i.e.^ upon the ashes of the daily burnt offering. See ch. vi. 12. Chap. v. 1-13. Special Offences requiring a Sin Offering. (i.) Solemn adjuration neglected. I. Hub if a soul sin, an^ bear tbe voice of swearing, ant) is a witness, wbetber be batb seen or \\iQ>\oxi of it, tben be sball bear bis iniquity. THE SIN OFFERING. 73 — and hear the •voice of swearing\ Better ' adjuration.' Sept., orkismon. Cf. i. Kings viii. 31. To 'hear the voice of swearing' (lit. the voice of an oath) means to be charged in a most solemn manner to say or do something, usually to speak the truth. The * cursing,' of which Micah speaks to his mother, was probably this solemn form of adjuration which she had used. Judges xvii. 2. Ahab ' adjured ' (orkizo) Micaiah to tell him nothing but what was true, i. Kings xxii. 16. So also our Lord was Himself ' adjured' (exorkizo) by Caiaphas, S. Matt. xxvi. 63. So S. Paul ' adjures ' the Thessalonians that his epistle to them be read to the brethren, i. Thess. v. 27. See also Acts xix. 13, where we read that the sons of Sceva ' adjured ' the evil spirits. The sense of this verse is ' If a man refuse, when solemnly adjured, to reveal a sin committed by another of which he either has been an eyewitness, or has been informed, he is guilty ? So Targ. O. Targ. Jon., takes it in a different sense : " When a man shall have sinned, and heard the voice of the oath of execration, or have been himself witness, or shall have seen that one of the world hath transgressed against the words of an oath, or shall have known that his companion hath sworn, or imprecated vainly, if he shew it not, etc." (ii.) Ceremonial defilement. 2. ©r if a soul toncb anp unclean tbing, wbetbet it be a carcase ot an unclean beast, or a carcase ot unclean cattle, or tbe carcase of unclean creeping tbinas, anC) it it be biDDen from bim; be also sball be unclean, ant) guilty, — touch an unclea^i thing\ The list of clean and unclean creatures is given in ch. xi. If any Israelite happened to touch the carcase of any unclean creature, he was to wash his clothes, and be unclean till the evening. 3» ®r it be toucb tbe uncleanness ot man, wbatsoever uncleanness it be tbat a man sball be Oefile^ witbal, ant) it be bi^ from bim, wben be Iknowetb of it, tben be sball be guilty. 74 ■ THE SIN OFFERING. — the uncleanness of man] Such as those mentioned in chaps, xii., xiii., XV. These were purified in the same manner as those just mentioned. It may be asked, If these uncleannesses were ordinarily purified by the offender washing his clothes and remaining unclean till the evening, why does the Law enjoin in this chapter an additional confession of sin and a sacrificial offering ? It may be as the Jewish doctors tell us that the ordinance was prescribed for those who either ate of the flesh of the Shelamitn being cere- monially unclean (forbidden in ch. vii. 20, 21) or in that condition entered into the sacred precincts (forbidden in Numb. xix. 20), yet were ignorant of their condition. Or it may be as Patrick suggests that this ordinance was intended for those who on becoming aware of their uncleanness neglected to avail themselves of the prescribed simple means of purification, and so became doubly guilty. (iii.) Hastily made or neglected oaths. 4. ®r If a soul swear, pronouncing witb bis lips to X>o e\>ll, or to &o Q<:>ci^, wbatsoever It be tbat a man sball pro* nounce wltb an oatb, ant) It be bl5 from bun; wben be Iftnowetb of It, tben be sball be oullt^ In Q)\\t of tbese, — swear] The Jewish writers speak of four sorts of oaths : (i.) the oath of testimony, v. i : (ii.) the vain oath, Ex. xx. 7 : (iii.) the oath about a pledge, vi. 2, 3 : the oath of pronunciation which they say is referred to in the present verse. This latter they sub-divide into four kinds, two referring to the past and two to the future. The Targ. Jon. makes the sin alluded to here to be that of falsifying an oath, " If a man shall swear .... upon any matter which a man may affirm, whether of the present or the future .... and he falsify therein . . . ," But the reference seems rather to be to oaths hastily or rashly made, and afterwards forgotten and left unfulfilled. 5, Hut) it sball be, wben be sball be guilty in owz of tbese tbiuGs, tbat be sball confess tbat be batb s>\\mt'^ in tbat tbina: THE SIN OFFERING. ■ 75 — he shall confess^ In the Old Testament, as in the New, the prin- ciple of oral confession of sin as a preliminary step to pardon is clearly recognized, and there are numerous instances recorded in which we see this principle carried into practice. Pharaoh makes a confession of his sin to Moses and Aaron, Exod. x. : the serpent- bitten Israelites confessed to Moses, Numb. xxi. : Achan confessed his sin to Joshua, Jos. vii. : Saul confessed to Samuel, i. Samuel xv. : David to Nathan, ii. Sam. xii. And note, these are not instances of a confession made privately to God, but openly to a man, as is especially shewn in the case of Saul who begs to Samuel lo pardon his sin. For the due performance of this duty the Law provides not only in the present verse, but in Numbers v. 6, 7, " When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty ; then they shall confess their sin which they have done ....," the context in both passages shewing that this confession was to be made to the attendant priest who was about to make atonement for the penitent. These two provisions were in connection with the sin, and trepass, offering : there is no direction on the subject regarding the burnt, or peace, offerings. The exact time and form in which confessions were made are not specified in the sacred text, but in the Rabbinical writings (quoted by Dr. Outram, i. xv. 1 1) the following is given as a form of confession to be used by the penitent while laying his hands upon the head of his piacular sacrifice : " I beseech Thee, O Lord : I have sinned, I have trespassed, I have rebelled : I have \here the person specified the particular sin which he had committed, and for which he ivanted expiatio-)i\, but now I repent, and let THIS be my expiation." From the same source we learn that the usual form of confession, when not made in connection with a sacrifice, was in nearly identical terms, the words " and let this be my expiation " being of course omitted. We thus see that oral confession of particular sins made in the hearing of a priest was an established portion of the discipline of the Jewish Church. And if it be true, as it unquestionably is, that the Church of the Christian and that of the Jew are but one, though in various stages of developement, we have a right to expect in the New Covenant a continuation of this gracious provision for the remission of sin. That the Catholic Church contains this provision in the " ministry of reconciliation," and has ever exercised it to the unspeakable benefit of sinful and penitent souls, is beyond doubt. She has ever believed in the 76 THE SIN OFFERING. reality of the Divine commission first given to the Apostles, and continued to the Christian Priesthood, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," S. Matth. xviii. i8. How firmly the Church of England holds this truth is evident from her Ordina- tion Service and that for the Visitation of the Sick. 6. Hn& be sball brino bis trespass offering unto tbe Xorb tor bis sin wbicb be batb sinnet>, a temale trom tbe tlocft, a lamb or a ftit> Ql tbe Goats, tor a q\\\ offering ; anb tbe priest sball mal^e an atonement tor bim concerning bis sin, — his trespass offering for his sin which he hath sijined'\ Heb. Eth- ashamo la Yehovah 'al chattatho as her chataa. It will be noticed that Asham and Chataath are here used in conjunction. In what especial points the sin offering differed from the trespass offering is most difficult to decide. Much has been written on the subject, and many are the solutions of the problem that have been advanced both by past and present writers. It has been said that the sin offering, Chattaath^ expiated sins of commission, and the trespass offering, Asham, sins of omission. Dr. Mede thought that external sins against the second table of the Law needed the presenta- tion of a sin offering, and sins against the first table a trespass offering. Others again have sought the distinction in malicious and unintentional sins ; the late learned Bp, of Lincoln held Chataath to be an ' act ' of sin and Asham a ' state ' of sin. " In a word" he says '■'■Asham, seems to represent the consequences of Chattaath." Dr. Kurtz refers the idea of the trespass offering " as relating to violation of the rights and claims of others, or as we might put it, to some kind of robbery committed upon others not merely in material possessions and property which it would be possible to restore, but in rightful and obligatory services, based upon agreement or covenant, the neglect of which, from their very nature, could not always be compensated afterwards .... This also expresses the point of difference from the sin-offering which was connected with all such sins as could not be regarded as a robbery (either of God as the covenant ally and King of Israel, or of a fellow man) committed upon earthly possessions, or upon services required by duty or compact." On this supposition the trespass offering would be but a peculiar modification of the sin offering. THE SIN OFFERING. 77 7. Hn& ff be be not able to brino a lamb^ tben be sball brlno for bis trespass, wbtcb be batb committed, two turtle* ^oves, or two ^oung pigeons, unto tbe Xor& ; one tor a sin offerfno, anb tbe otber tor a burnt otferfng, 8. Hub be sball bring tbem unto tbe priest wbo sball offer tbat wbicb is for tbe sin offering first, ant) wring off bis beat) from bis necl^, but sball not t)ivi&e it asunber : — the sin offering first~\ It has been already observed that the order of the institution of the Levitical sacrifices is different from that of their application. In this and the two following verses this is well illustrated. First was to be offered the sin offering, and then the burnt offering. The lesson here taught is the same for the Christian of all ages as for the Jew of old. We must make our peace with God, and then our gift will be accepted. Expiation, now as then, must always precede acceptance. 9. Hub be sball sprinkle of tbe bloo5 of tbe sin offering upon tbe sit>e of tbe altar ; ant) tbe rest of tbe bloot) sball be wrung out at tbe bottom of tbe altar : it is a sin offering. — sprinkle^^ Heb. hizzah. For the difference between this word and zaraq see on ch. i. 5. 10. Hut) be sball offer tbe secont) for a burnt offering, according to tbe manner: ant) tbe priest sball mafte an atonement for bim for bis sin wbicb be batb sinnet), ant) it sball be forgiven bim, 11. H But if be be not able to bring two turtle*&ov)es, or two ^oung pigeons, tben be tbat sinne^ sball bring for bis offering tbe tentb part of an epbab of fine flour for a sin offering; be sball put \\q oil upon it, neitber sball be pxit anp frankincense tbereon: for it is a sin offering* 78 THE SIN OFFERING. — no oil .... neither frankincense\ As was also the case in the two wave loaves at Pentecost, and in the jealousy offering. See on ch. ii. i. — tenth part of an ephaK] that is, one omer, Exod. xvi. 36, or rather more than five pints. This was the quantity of manna gathered by each Israelite in the wilderness for daily consumption. 12, '^\iai sball be brfnci it to tbe priest, ant) tbe priest sball tafie bis baneful of it, even a memorial tbereot, anC> burn it ow tbe altar, accorMno to tbe offerinas mat>e b^ fire unto tbe Xor& : it is a sin offering, — according to the offerings\ See on ch. iv. 35. X3. Hn& tbe priest sball mal?e an atonement for bim as toucbino bis sin tbat be batb sinne^ \\\ oxKt of tbese, anO it sball be forgiven bim : anO tbe remnant sball be tbe priest's, as a meat offering. — the remnant"\ Of the sin offering of the High priest and of the whole congregation, the priests were not allowed to eat. Of those sin offerings which they might eat, the flesh was always to be con- sumed in the Court. Chap. vi. 24 — end. General directions as to the Sin Offerings. 24. Hub tbe aLor& spafte unto /Il>oses, sa^ing» 25. Speal? unto Baron anD to bis sons, saving, Ubis is tbe law of tbe sin offering: 5n tbe place wbere tbe burnt offering is l^ille^ sball tbe sin offering be ftilleC) before tbe !ILor& : it is most bol^. THE SIN OFFERING. 79 — the place] that is, on the North side of the Altar. See on ch. i. 1 1. — it is most holy] The sin offering was one of the four sacrifical Qorbantm which were *■ most holy.' The other three were all burnt offerings, trespass offerings, and public peace offerings. See on ch. ii. 3. 20. Ube priest tbat ofTeretb it tor sin sball eat it : in tbe bol^ place sball it be eaten, in tbe court ot tbe tabernacle of tbe congregation. — that offereth it for siii] Targs., '* The priest who maketh atone- ment with its blood." — shall eat it] The eating of the flesh of the sin offering by the priests had a deep spiritual significance. The sin of the people being thus laid, as it were, on the priest, was a fitting type of One who should be both Priest and Victim. The priests thus, to quote Arch. Freeman, " in a deep mystery neutralized through the holiness vested in them by their consecration, the sin which the offerer had laid upon the victim, and upon them. Thus, in ancient phrase, ' they bore the iniquity ' of the offerer. This is the undoubted effect of this action ; since it was so explained, on one occasion, by Moses himself." See ch. X. 17. 27. Mbatsoe\?er sball toucb tbe tlesb tbereot sball be bol^ : anC) wben tbere is sprinfileO of tbe bloob tbereof upon an^ garmentt tbou sbalt wasb tbat wbereon it was sprinlilet) in tbe bol^ place. — whatsoever] In ^z'. 18, the same Hebrew expression is rendered by the A.V. "every one that toucheth, etc." The Hebrew phrase may be referred either to persons, as the priests, or to things, as holy vessels ; but it would seem that the reference is to persons. The Sept., has pas ho haptomenos. So the Targs., " Every one who . . . . " (Onk) : ** whosoever toucheth . . . . " (Jon). The Vulgate in the present verse reads " quidquid tetigerit." Cf. Exod. M 8o THE SIN OFFERING. xxix. 37, and xxx. 29, where Sept., Vulg,, and Targums refer the expression to persons. The obvious intention of this provision was to inculcate on the priest the necessity of personal sanctifi- cation before approaching to minister at God's Altar. 28. But tbe eartben vessel wberein it is sobben sball be broken : anb if it be sobben in a brasen pot, it sball be botb scoureb, anb rinseb in water. — shall be broken~\ Lest, suggests Menochius, being of a porous material there should be any danger of some of the liquid from the holy flesh being absorbed. A better reason seems to be that this ordinance was a provision against a holy vessel being after- wards put to common or secular use. So Targ. Jon., " . . . . shall be brok(m, lest that which is common be boiled in it." 29. Hll tbe males among tbe priests sball eat tbereof : it is most bol^. 30. Hnb no sin otferino, wbereof anp of tbe bloob is brouobt into tbe tabernacle of tbe conoreoation to reconcile witbal in tbe bol^ place, sball be eaten : it sball be burnt in tbe fire. — no sin offering .... eaten'] That is, those for the High priest, and for the whole congregation. See Heb. xiii. 11. THE LESSER EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. THE Trespass Offering. Chaps, v. 14-end: vi. 1-8: vii. 1-8: Numb. v. 5-9. Chapters v. \/^-end\ vi. i-8: vii. i-8 : Numb. v. 5-9. THE TRESPASS OFFERING. Analysis. Chief features. Material compensation : a fifth part to be added to the original claim. Nature. Expiatory. Treatment of blood. Sprinkled (zaraq) round about the Altar. Treatment of flesh. As in sin offering. View presented of the work of Christ. Christ, the Sin-Bearer, making satisfaction for the wrong done to the Creator by the creature in defrauding Him of His rights. Sins committed unknowingly, requiring a Trespass Offering. 14. Bnt) tbe Xor& spa?ie itnto /IDoses, saving, 15. 5t a soul commit a trespass, ant) sin tbrouGb i^nor* ance, in tbe boly tbings of tbe XorD : tben be sball bring for bis trespass unto tbe Xor^ a ram witbout blemisb out of tbe flocF?s, witb tb\? estimation by sbeliels of silver, after tbe sbel?el of tbe sanctuary, for a trespass offering : — commit a trespass'] Heb. Mdal. The R.V. still retains, the old and erroneous translation of the A.V., both here and in ch. vi. 2. In both these passages the original would be more accurately rendered ' commit a fraud.' The cases here contemplated are those 84 THE TRESPASS OFFERING. for which material compensation could be well made by the re- storation of the due fraudulently withheld, and by the additional payment of a monetary fine, and by bringing a sacrifice. The person defrauded might be God Himself, or a compatriot. " The trespass offerings " says Mr. Cave, Scriptural Doctr. of Sacrifice p. 105, " were presented in atonement for sins against God, or against man, which admitted of compensation. If tithes, for example, had been withheld, atonement might be made .... by repaying the tithes, and presenting a trespass offering. If a fellow Israelite had been defrauded, atonement might be made by recompensing him with the amount of which he had been defrauded, together with an additional sum by way of indemnity, and the presentation of a trespass offering. There was in every trespass offering the idea of retribution. The sin and trespass offerings were both sacrifices for sin : but in the former, the leading idea was that of atonevient, the expiation of sin by a substituted life : in the latter the leading feature was that of satisfaction^ the wiping out of sin by the payment of a recompense. Two distinct features of our Lord's One Sacrifice are clearly brought out by the sin and trespass offerings. In the former we see Him atoning for sin, in the latter we see Him making amends for the wrongs done, and offering full satisfaction for the robbery of dues and rights perpetrated, by man." — the holy things of the Lord'] Targ. O., " concerning things conse- crated to the Lord." Targ. Jon., " in making misuse of the holy things of the Lord." Cf. ch. xxii. 14. A trespass of this nature might be in withholding * tithes ' which every Israelite was bound to pay, ch. xxvii. 30, 32 : or by making the 'holy anointing oil' or ' sacred incense ' for private use, which was forbidden. See Exod. XXX. 32, 37. — a rani] Vulg., qui enii potest do uhus siclis. Sept., times arguriou siklo7i. The Rabbis are agreed that the ram thus offered was to be of the value of two shekels of silver. — with thy estimation] i.e., the priest's estimate, for it was his duty. Ch. xxvii. 12. "And the priest shall value it .... as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be." — the shekel of the sanctuary] All estimations by the priest were based on the " shekel of the sanctuary," ch. xxvii. 25. There was also the royal shekel, ii. Sam. xiv. 26. As early as the time of THE TRESPASS OFFERING. 85 Abraham silver was employed as money, but was measured by weight, Gen. xxiii. 16. Cf. Jer. xxxii. 9, 10. Previous to the captivity there is no trace of stamped coins. In the Egyptian monuments silver is represented as being weighed in the shape of rings, and gold in bags. See Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt, ii. 148, sqq. 16. Hnt) be sball make amen^5 for tbe barm tbat be batb t>one i\i tbe bol^ tbtnat ant) sball abb tbe tiftb part tbereto, ant) give it unto tbe priest: an& tbe priest sball mal^e an atonement for bim witb tbe ram of tbe trespass offering, an& it sball be forgiven bint. — make amends\ Targs., "make good." This phrase gives the ]jrominent feature of the trespass offering. In the sin offering it was (itoiement of sin, but in the present offering it is that of mnking amends, or to use a theological expression ' making satisfaction.' 17. H Hnb if a soul sin, anb commit an^ of tbese tbings vvbicb are forbit)t)en to be X>o\\z b^ tbe comman6ments of tbe Xor&; tbougb be wist it not, ^et be is guilty, anb sball bear bis iniquity. — though he ivist .... gnilty\ Nothing can alter the real nature of sin. There may be extenuating circumstances, but sin is always sin in the sight of God. A man may sin in ignorance, and find mercy as did S. Paul, i. Tim. i. 13, but the unerring judgement of God nevertheless reckons the act of that man as sin. His ignorance gives him a claim on God's mercy, but it does not divest the act of its sinful nature. Our " ignorances " need covering with the Blood of Atonement no less than our "sins and negligences." If a man were uncertain whether he had ignorantly sinned, his sacrifice was called by the Rabbis Asham telai, i.e., a 'doubtful' trespass offering: but in the five cases mentioned in chps. v. 15, vi. 2, xiv. 12, xix. 20 : Numb. vi. 12, in which the plea of ignorance could not be enter- tained, his sacrifice was called Asham vaddai, i.e., a ' manifest ' trespass offering. 86 THE TRESPASS OFFERING. 18. Hnt) be sball bring a ram witbout blemisb out ot tbe ViOc% witb tb^ estimation, tor a trespass offerina, unto tbe priest : ant) tbe priest sball make an atonement tor bim con* cerning bis ignorance wberein be erre^ an^ wist it not, anC) it sball be forgiven bim. 19. %l is a trespass ottering : be batb certainly trespassed against tbe XorO. Chap. vi. i-8. Sins committed knowingly requiring a Trespass Offering. !♦ "BxCC:) tbe Xor& spal?e unto /IDoses, saving, — and the Lord spake] In the Hebrew original the following seven verses are included in ch. v. This arrangement is clearly the right one, as they are continuation of the same subject. The offences set down in this and the three following verses are details of the general law given in 2/. 17 of the previous chapter. 2. 5t a soul sin, anb commit a trespass against tbe Xorb, ant) lie unto bis neigbbour in tbat wbicb was ^eliveret) bim to fteep, or in tellowsbip, or in a tbing talien awa^ bi? violence, or batb &eceiveb bis neigbbour; 3» ©r bave fount) tbat wbicb was lost, an& lietb concern* ing it, an& swearetb falsely ; in an^ of all tbese tbat a man t>oetb, sinning tberein: THE TRESPASS OFFERING. 87 4. XTben it sball be, because be batb sinne&, an& is ouilt^, tbat be sball restore tbat wbicb be tool? violently awal^ or tbe tbing wbicb be batb &eceittullp gotten, or tbat wbicb was ^eliv>ere^ bim to Meep, or tbe lost tbing wbicb be tounO, 5. ©r all tbat about wbicb be batb sworu talsel^ ; be sball even restore it in tbe principal, auD sball a&t) tbe fittb part more tbereto, anb give it unto bim to wbom it appertainetb, in tbe t>ap of bis trespass ottering. — the fifth part^ The cases under consideration seem to be those wherein the wrong doer makes a voluntary confession of his sin, and a voluntary restitution. If, however, the matter came before a court of law, the guilty party would be ordered to pay double. See Exodus ch. xxii. — the day of his trespass offering^ R.V. more correctly " in the day of his being found guilty." So Sept. Targ. Jon., " on the day that he maketh penance for his sin." J. T., " id est, restitutionem ne differto, sed eodem tempore quo reconciliabitur Deo, proximo satisfacito." Cf. S. Matth. v. 2-^^ sqq. 6. HnD be sball bring bis trespass ottering unto tbe Xor&, a ram witbout blemisb out of tbe flocl^, witb tb^ estimation, for a trespass offering unto tbe priest : 7. Hn& tbe priest sball mal?e an atonement for bim before tbe Xorb : an& it sball be forgiven bim for an^ tbing of all tbat be batb Xiowt in trespassing tberein. N ■^■ 88 THi: TRESPASS OFFERING. Chap. vii. i-8. Directions to the Priests. 1. Xif?ewi5e tbis is tbe law ot tbe trespass offertttG : it is most bol^. — likewise'] These verses, and to the end of the tenth verse, are included, and rightly, by the Sept. in ch. vi. 2. 5n tbe place wbere tbei? ftill tbe burnt offering sball tbep Ml tbe trespass offering: an5 tbe bloot) tbereof sball be sprinl?le rount) about upon tbe altar. — the place . . . burnt offering] i.e., on the N. side of the Altar where all the ' most holy' sacrifices were slain. — sprinkle] Heb. yikeroq. Sept., proscheei.. Vulgate, fundetur. The blood was treated like that of the burnt and peace offerings, viz.^ by being thrown on the sides, none being put on the horns, of the Altar. See on ch. i. 5. No mention is made of the ceremony of ' laying on of hands ' here, but as the Rabbis laid great stress on its due performance, it is not probable that it was omitted in the trespass offerings. 3. Hub be sball offer of it all tbe tat tbereof; tbe rump, an& tbe fat tbat co\>eretb tbe inwarbs, — the fat] See on chps. i. 8 and iii. 17. — the rump] See on ch. iii. 9. 4. Hub tbe two l?i&ne^s, anb tbe fat tbat is ow. tbem, wbicb is b^ tbe flanfts, anb tbe caul tbat is above tbe liv^er, witb tbe l?ibnei?s, it sball be tafte awa^ : THE TRESPASS OFFERING. 89 5. BnD tbe priest sball burn tbem upon tbe altar tor an offering mabe b^ fire unto tbe Xor^: it is a trespass offering. 0, Bver^ male among tbe priests sball eat tbereot: ft sball be eaten \\k tbe bol^ place: it is most bolp, 7. Hs tbe sin offering is, so is tbe trespass offering: tbere is owz law tor tbem: tbe priest tbat maftetb atone* ment sball ba\?e it NUxVIB, V. 5-9. Direction as to Restitution. 1. Generally. 2. In the event of the death of the injured person. 5. HnD tbe Xorb spal?e unto /looses, saving, — the Lord spake\ It will be observed that no mention is made in this passage of the qualifying circumstance mentioned in the previous passage, ch. v. 15, 18, viz., the 'ignorance' or want of deliberate intention, on the part of the offender. This evidently presupposes a familiarity with the previous enactment in Leviticus on the subject. 6. Speal? unto tbe cbil^ren ot Israel, XlXIlben a man or woman sball commit any sin tbat men commit, to &o a trespass against tbe Xor^, an& tbat person be guilty; — to do a trespass] Targ. O. refers this sin to false swearing ; Targ. Jon., to extortion of money from a neighbour. The Sept., has here paridon paride. go THE TRESPASS OFFERING. 7. Uben tbe^ sbaU confess tbeir sin wbfcb tbe^ bave XiOXiz : anb be sball recompense bis trespass witb tbe prin* cipal tbereof, anb abb unto it tbe fittb part tbereof, anb give it unto bim against wbom be batb trespasseb. — the -pi'incipaP^ Heh. de^vs/w. Sept., to kep/ia/awn. Cf. Acts xxii. 28, where kephalaion is used to denote the ' sura of money ' paid by the chief captain as the price of his Roman citizenship. The same idea is conveyed in one word ' capital '=c«^z//, 8. But it a man bave wo f?insman to recompense tbe trespass unto, let tbe trespass be recompenseb unto tbe Xorb, even to tbe priest; besibe tbe ram ot tbe atone* ment, wbereb^ an atonentent sball be mabe tor bim, — kinsmafi] Heb, goel. Sept., agchistezwn. Vulg., qui recipiat. The word goel is derived from r. gaal signifying primarily 'to ransom anything by refunding the price ' : e.g., a field. Lev. xxv. 25 : a slave, lb. v. 48, etc. In connection with the word da7n, it signifies 'to ransom,' i.e., 'to avenge blood,' Numb. xxxv. ig, etc. We thus see how goel signifies ' a kinsman,' for, by the Mosaic law, on the nearest relative devolved these three rights, — to redeem property, to avenge blood, to marry the widow of, and to raise up children to, a deceased childless relative : in which sense the verb gaal 'to perform a kinsman's part,' i.e., 'to marry' is also used. See Ruth iii. 13. Satisfaction for injury, then, was to be paid in the first instance to the injured party : if he were dead in the interim, to the goel : if no goel existed, then to the Lord in the person of His priest. DATE DUl .'v.'