{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42334/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42334","id":"gutenberg_42334","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42334","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Leviticus -- Commentaries","Bible. Leviticus -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nText enclosed by equal signs is n boldface (=bold=).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained\nexcept in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.\n\nPage 188: \"The thought of the inspired writer appears to be this: Just\nas\" ... The transcriber has added the colon.\n\nPage 337: \"And in order to do this, we must\" ... The transcriber has\nsupplied the word \"do\".\n\n * * * * *\n\n THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n _Editor of \"The Expositor,\" etc._\n\n THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS\n\n BY THE REV\n S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n _Toronto, Canada_\n\n London\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MCMVI\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\nFIRST SERIES.\n\n Colossians.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n St. Mark.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n Genesis.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n 1 Samuel.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n 2 Samuel.\n By the same Author.\n\n Hebrews.\n By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\nSECOND SERIES.\n\n Galatians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\n The Pastoral Epistles.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Isaiah I.--XXXIX.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, DD. Vol. I.\n\n The Book of Revelation.\n By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n 1 Corinthians.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D,\n\n The Epistles of St. John.\n By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Armagh.\n\n\nTHIRD SERIES.\n\n Judges and Ruth.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Jeremiah.\n By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n Isaiah XL.--LXVI.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n St. Matthew.\n By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n Exodus.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\n St. Luke.\n By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\nFOURTH SERIES.\n\n Ecclesiastes.\n By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n St. James and St. Jude.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n Proverbs.\n By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\n Leviticus.\n By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n\nFIFTH SERIES.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n 1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n The Book of Job.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n Ephesians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\n The Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\nSIXTH SERIES.\n\n 1 Kings.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n Philippians.\n By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Joshua.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n The Epistles of St. Peter.\n By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\nSEVENTH SERIES.\n\n 2 Kings.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n Romans.\n By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.\n\n The Books of Chronicles.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n 2 Corinthians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\n Numbers.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\n The Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\nEIGHTH SERIES.\n\n Daniel.\n By the Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, F.R.S.\n\n The Book of Jeremiah.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n Deuteronomy.\n By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\n The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n Ezekiel.\n By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\n The Books of the Twelve Prophets.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n BOOK OF LEVITICUS\n\n BY THE REV.\n S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n AUTHOR OF\n \"THE JEWS; OR, PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT,\" \"THE LIGHT OF ASIA\n AND THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD,\" ETC.\n\n\n _FIFTH EDITION_\n\n\n London\n\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MCMVI\n\n\n\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n PART I.\n\n _THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._\n\n (LEV. i.-x., xvi.)\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTORY (i. 1) 3\n\n The Origin and Authority of Leviticus, 5.--The Occasion and\n Plan of Leviticus, 18.--The Purpose of Leviticus, 20.--The\n Present-day use of Leviticus, 24.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING (i. 2-4) 29\n\n The Ritual of the Burnt-offering, 36.--The Presentation of\n the Victim, 39.--The Laying on of the Hand, 41.\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n THE BURNT-OFFERING [CONCLUDED] (i. 5-17; vi. 8-13) 47\n\n The Killing of the Victim, 47.--The Sprinkling of the\n Blood, 48.--The Sacrificial Burning, 50.--The Continual\n Burnt-offering, 59.\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n THE MEAL-OFFERING (ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23) 63\n\n The Daily Meal-Offering, 79.\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n THE PEACE-OFFERING (iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii.\n 21-25) 82\n\n The Prohibition of Fat and Blood, 99.--Thank-offerings,\n Vows, and Freewill-offerings, 104.\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 1-35) 109\n\n Graded Responsibility, 120.\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n THE RITUAL OF THE SIN-OFFERING (iv. 4-35; v. 1-13; vi.\n 24-30) 134\n\n The Sprinkling of the Blood, 136.--The Sanctity of the\n Sin-offering, 150.\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n THE GUILT-OFFERING (v. 14; vi. 7; vii. 1-7) 155\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n THE PRIESTS' PORTIONS (vi. 16-18, 26; vii. 6-10, 14, 31-36) 175\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n THE CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS, AND OF THE\n TABERNACLE (viii. 1-36) 181\n\n The Levitical Priesthood and Tabernacle as Types,\n 184.--The Washing with Water, 190.--The Investiture,\n 191.--The Anointing, 201.--The Consecration Sacrifices,\n 204.\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n THE INAUGURATION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE (ix. 1-24) 219\n\n The Double Benediction, 231.\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n NADAB'S AND ABIHU'S \"STRANGE FIRE\" (x. 1-20) 237\n\n Mourning in Silence, 247.--Carefulness after Judgment, 250.\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT (xvi. 1-34) 256\n\n Azazel, 264.\n\n\n\n\n PART II.\n\n _THE LAW OF THE DAILY LIFE._\n\n (LEV. xi.-xv.; xvii.-xxv.)\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD\n BODIES (xi. 1-47) 277\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF ISSUES (xv. 1-33) 305\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n\n THE UNCLEANNESS OF CHILD-BEARING (xii. 1-8) 313\n\n The Ordinance of Circumcision, 315.--Purification after\n Child-birth, 320.\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n\n THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY (xiii. 1-46) 327\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER (xiv. 1-32) 345\n\n Leprosy in a Garment or House, 358.\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n HOLINESS IN EATING (xvii. 1-16) 367\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n\n THE LAW OF HOLINESS: CHASTITY (xviii. 1-30) 379\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n\n THE LAW OF HOLINESS [CONCLUDED] (xix. 1-37) 391\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n\n PENAL SANCTIONS (xx. 1-27) 418\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS (xxi. 1-xxii. 33) 432\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n THE SET FEASTS OF THE LORD (xxiii. 1-44) 447\n\n The Weekly Sabbath, 453.--Passover and Unleavened\n Bread, 455.--Pentecost, 459.--The Feast of Trumpets,\n 461.--The Day of Atonement, 463.--The Feast of\n Tabernacles, 464.--Typical Meaning of the Feasts of\n the Seventh Month, 468.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n\n THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW-BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER'S\n END (xxiv. 1-23) 474\n\n The \"Bread of the Presence,\" 477.--The Penalty of\n Blasphemy, 480.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n THE SABBATIC YEAR AND THE JUBILEE (xxv. 1-55) 487\n\n The Jubilee, 489.--The Jubilee and the Land, 491.--The\n Jubilee and Dwelling-houses, 494.--The Jubilee and\n Slavery, 497.--Practical Objects of the Sabbatic Year\n and the Jubilee, 502.--Typical Significance of the\n Sabbatic and Jubilee Years, 510.\n\n\n\n\n PART III.\n\n _CONCLUSION AND APPENDIX._\n\n (LEV. xxvi., xxvii.)\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n THE PROMISES AND THREATS OF THE COVENANT (xxvi. 1-46) 519\n\n The Promises of the Covenant, 521.--\"The Vengeance of\n the Covenant,\" 522.--The Promised Restoration, 534.\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n CONCERNING VOWS (xxvii. 1-34) 541\n\n The Vowing of Persons, 542.--The Vowing of Domestic\n Animals, 545.--The Vowing of Houses and Fields,\n 546.--The Vow in New Testament Ethics, 549.--Exclusions\n from the Vow, 553.--The Law of the Ban, 554.--The\n Law of the Tithe, 559.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n_THE TABERNACLE WORSHIP._\n\nI.-X., XVI.\n\n SECTION 1. THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS: i.-vi.\n\n SECTION 2. THE INSTITUTION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE: viii.-x.\n\n (1) THE CONSECRATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: vii.\n\n (2) THE INDUCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD: ix., x.\n\n SECTION 3. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT: xvi.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_INTRODUCTORY._\n\n \"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the\n tent of meeting.\"--LEV. i. 1.\n\n\nPerhaps no book in the Bible presents to the ordinary reader so many\nand peculiar difficulties as the book of Leviticus. Even of those who\ndevoutly believe, as they were taught in their childhood, that, like\nall the other books contained in the Holy Scriptures, it is to be\nreceived throughout with unquestioning faith as the very Word of God,\na large number will frankly own in a discouraged way that this is with\nthem merely a matter of belief, which their personal experience in\nreading the book has for the most part failed to sustain; and that for\nthem so to see through symbol and ritual as to get much spiritual\nprofit from such reading has been quite impossible.\n\nA larger class, while by no means denying or doubting the original\nDivine authority of this book, yet suppose that the elaborate ritual\nof the Levitical law, with its multiplied, minute prescriptions\nregarding matters religious and secular, since the Mosaic dispensation\nhas now long passed away, neither has nor can have any living relation\nto present-day questions of Christian belief and practice; and so,\nunder this impression, they very naturally trouble themselves little\nwith a book which, if they are right, can now only be of special\ninterest to the religious antiquarian.\n\nOthers, again, while sharing this feeling, also confess to a great\ndifficulty which they feel in believing that many of the commands of\nthis law can ever have been really given by inspiration from God. The\nextreme severity of some of the laws, and what seems to them to be the\narbitrary and even puerile character of other prescriptions, appear to\nthem to be irreconcilable, in the one case, with the mercy, in the\nother, with the dignity and majesty, of the Divine Being.\n\nWith a smaller, but, it is to be feared, an increasing number, this\nfeeling, either of indifference or of doubt, regarding the book of\nLeviticus, is further strengthened by their knowledge of the fact that\nin our day its Mosaic origin and inspired authority is strenuously\ndenied by a large number of eminent scholars, upon grounds which they\nclaim to be strictly scientific. And if such Christians do not know\nenough to decide for themselves on its merits the question thus\nraised, they at least know enough to have a very uncomfortable doubt\nwhether an intelligent Christian has any longer a right to regard the\nbook as in any true sense the Word of God; and--what is still more\nserious--they feel that the question is of such a nature that it is\nimpossible for any one who is not a specialist in Hebrew and the\nhigher criticism to reach any well-grounded and settled conviction,\none way or the other, on the subject. Such persons, of course, have\nlittle to do with this book. If the Word of God is indeed there, it\ncannot reach them.\n\nWith such mental conditions so widely prevailing, some words regarding\nthe origin, authority, purpose, and use of this book of Leviticus\nseem to be a necessary preliminary to its profitable exposition.\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF LEVITICUS.\n\nAs to the origin and authority of this book, the first verse presents\na very formal and explicit statement: \"The Lord called unto Moses, and\nspake unto him.\" These words evidently contain by necessary\nimplication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which\nimmediately follows is of Mosaic origin: \"The Lord spake unto\n_Moses_;\" and, secondly, that it was not the product merely of the\nmind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation\nfrom Jehovah: \"_Jehovah_ spake unto Moses.\" And although it is quite\ntrue that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that\nsection of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the\nsame or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive\nsections,--in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven\nchapters,--these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as\nexpressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the\nentire book.\n\nWe must not, indeed, put more into these words than is truly there.\nThey simply and only declare the Mosaic origin and the inspired\nauthority of the legislation which the book contains. They say nothing\nas to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or\nwhether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in\nMoses' time or afterward, to commit this Mosaic law to writing. They\ngive us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book\nwere combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses\nhimself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day.\nAs to these and other matters of secondary importance which might be\nnamed, the book records no statement. The words used in the text, and\nsimilar expressions used elsewhere, simply and only declare the\nlegislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be\nit observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and\nuncompromising manner.\n\nIt is of great importance to note all this: for in the heat of\ntheological discussion the issue is too often misapprehended on both\nsides. The real question, and, as every one knows, the burning\nBiblical question of the day, is precisely this, whether the claim\nthis book contains, thus exactly defined, is true or false.\n\nA certain school of critics, comprising many of the greatest learning,\nand of undoubted honesty of intention, assures the Church and the\nworld that a strictly scientific criticism compels one to the\nconclusion that this claim, even as thus sharply limited and defined,\nis, to use plain words, not true; that an enlightened scholarship must\nacknowledge that Moses had little or nothing to do with what we find\nin this book; that, in fact, it did not originate till nearly a\nthousand years later, when, after the Babylonian captivity, certain\nJewish priests, desirous of magnifying their authority with the\npeople, fell on the happy expedient of writing this book of Leviticus,\ntogether with certain other parts of the Pentateuch, and then, to give\nthe work a prestige and authority which on its own merits or over\ntheir own names it could not have had, delivered it to their\ncountrymen as nearly a thousand years old, the work of their great\nlawgiver. And, strangest of all, they not only did this, but were so\nsuccessful in imposing this forgery upon the whole nation that history\nrecords not even an expressed suspicion of a single person, until\nmodern times, of its non-Mosaic origin; that is, they succeeded in\npersuading the whole people of Israel that a law which they had\nthemselves just promulgated had been in existence among them for\nnearly ten centuries, the very work of Moses, when, in reality, it was\nquite a new thing.\n\nAstonishing and even incredible as all this may seem to the\nuninitiated, substantially this theory is held by many of the Biblical\nscholars of our day as presenting the essential facts of the case; and\nthe discovery of these supposed facts we are called upon to admire as\none of the chief literary triumphs of modern critical scholarship!\n\nNow the average Christian, whether minister or layman, though\nintelligent enough in ordinary matters of human knowledge, or even a\nwell-educated man, is not, and cannot be, a specialist in Hebrew and\nin the higher criticism. What is he then to do when such a theory is\npresented to him as endorsed by scholars of the highest ability and\nthe most extensive learning? Must we, then, all learn Hebrew and study\nthis higher criticism before we can be permitted to have any\nwell-justified and decided opinion whether this book, this law of\nLeviticus, be the Word of God or a forgery? We think not. There are\ncertain considerations, quite level to the understanding of every one;\ncertain facts, which are accepted as such by the most eminent\nscholars, which ought to be quite sufficient for the maintenance and\nthe abundant confirmation of our faith in this book of Leviticus as\nthe very Word of God to Moses.\n\nIn the first place, it is to be observed that if any theory which\ndenies the Mosaic origin and the inspired authority of this book be\ntrue, then the fifty-six assertions of such origin and authority\nwhich the book contains are unqualifiedly false. Further, however any\nmay seek to disguise the issue with words, if in fact this Levitical\nritual and code of laws came into existence only after the Babylonian\ncaptivity and in the way suggested, then the book of Leviticus can by\nno possibility be the Word of God in any sense, but is a forgery and a\nfraud. Surely this needs no demonstration. \"The Lord spake unto\nMoses,\" reads, for instance, this first verse; \"The Lord did _not_\nspeak these things unto Moses,\" answer these critics; \"they were\ninvented by certain unscrupulous priests centuries afterwards.\" Such\nis the unavoidable issue.\n\nNow who shall arbitrate in these matters? who shall settle these\nquestions for the great multitude of believers who know nothing of\nHebrew criticism, and who, although they may not well understand much\nthat is in this book, have yet hitherto accepted it with reverent\nfaith as being what it professes to be, the very Word of God through\nMoses? To whom, indeed, can we refer such a question as this for\ndecision but to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Lord and Saviour,\nconfessed of all believers to be in verity the only-begotten Son of\nGod from the bosom of the Father? For He declared that \"the Father\nshowed unto Him,\" the Son, \"all things that He Himself did;\" He will\ntherefore be sure to know the truth of this matter, sure to know the\nWord of His Father from the word of man, if He will but speak.\n\nAnd He has spoken on this matter, He, the Son of God. What was the\ncommon belief of the Jews in the time of our Lord as to the Mosaic\norigin and Divine authority of this book, as of all the Pentateuch,\nevery one knows. Not a living man disputes the statement made by a\nrecent writer on this subject, that \"previous to the Christian era,\nthere are no traces of a second opinion\" on this question; the book\n\"was universally ascribed to Moses.\" Now, that Jesus Christ shared and\nrepeatedly endorsed this belief of His contemporaries should be\nperfectly clear to any ordinary reader of the Gospels.\n\nThe facts as to His testimony, in brief, are these. As to the\nPentateuch in general, He called it (Luke xxiv. 44) \"the law of\nMoses;\" and, as regards its authority, He declared it to be such that\n\"till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no\nwise pass away from the law, till all be fulfilled\" (Matt. v. 18).\nCould this be truly said of this book of Leviticus, which is\nundoubtedly included in this term, \"the law,\" if it were not the Word\nof God, but a forgery, so that its fifty-six affirmations of its\nMosaic origin and inspired authority were false? Again, Christ\ndeclared that Moses in his \"writings\" wrote of Him,--a statement,\nwhich, it should be observed, imputes to Moses foreknowledge, and\ntherefore supernatural inspiration; and further said that faith in\nHimself was so connected with faith in Moses, that if the Jews had\nbelieved Moses, they would have also believed Him (John v. 46, 47). Is\nit conceivable that Christ should have spoken thus, if the \"writings\"\nreferred to had been forgeries?\n\nBut not only did our Lord thus endorse the Pentateuch in general, but\nalso, on several occasions, the Mosaic origin and inspired authority\nof Leviticus in particular. Thus, when He healed the lepers (Matt.\nviii. 4) He sent them to the priests on the ground that Moses had\ncommanded this in such cases. But such a command is found only in this\nbook of Leviticus (xiv. 3-10). Again, in justifying His disciples for\nplucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, He adduces the example\nof David, who ate the shew-bread when he was an hungered, \"which was\nnot lawful for him to eat, but only for the priests\" (Matt. xii. 4);\nthus referring to a law which is only found in Leviticus (xxiv. 9).\nBut the citation was only pertinent on the assumption that He regarded\nthe prohibition of the shew-bread as having the same inspired\nauthority as the obligation of the Sabbath. In John vii. 32, again, He\nrefers to Moses as having renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which\nat the first had been given to Abraham; and, as usual, assumes the\nDivine authority of the command as thus given. But this renewal of the\nordinance of circumcision is recorded only in Leviticus (xii. 3). Yet\nonce more, rebuking the Pharisees for their ingenious justification of\nthe hard-hearted neglect of parents by undutiful children, He reminds\nthem that Moses had said that he who cursed father or mother should be\nput to death; a law which is only found in the so-called priest-code,\nExod. xxi. 17 and Lev. xx. 9. Further, He is so far from merely\nassuming the truth of the Jewish opinion for the sake of an argument,\nthat He formally declares this law, equally with the fifth\ncommandment, to be \"a commandment of God,\" which they by their\ntradition had made void (Matt. xiv. 3-6).\n\nOne would suppose that it had been impossible to avoid the inference\nfrom all this, that our Lord believed, and intended to be understood\nas teaching, that the law of Leviticus was, in a true sense, of Mosaic\norigin, and of inspired, and therefore infallible, authority.\n\nWe are in no way concerned, indeed,--nor is it essential to the\nargument,--to press this testimony of Christ as proving more than the\nvery least which the words fairly imply. For instance, nothing in His\nwords, as we read them, any more than in the language of Leviticus\nitself, excludes the supposition that in the preparation of the law,\nMoses, like the Apostle Paul, may have had co-labourers or amanuenses,\nsuch as Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, or others, whose several parts of the\nwork might then have been issued under his endorsement and authority;\nso that Christ's testimony is in no wise irreconcilable with the fact\nof differences of style, or with the evidence of different documents,\nif any think that they discover this, in the book.[1]\n\n [1] \"Genesis may be made up of various documents, and yet have\n been compiled by Moses; and the same thing is possible, even in\n the later books of the Pentateuch. If these could be\n successfully partitioned among different writers, on the score\n of variety in literary execution, why may not these have been\n engaged jointly with Moses himself in preparing each his\n appointed portion, and the whole have been finally reduced by\n Moses to its present form?... Why might not these continue their\n work, and record what occurred after Moses was taken\n away?\"--Professor W. H. Green, _Schaff-Herzog Encyclop\u00e6dia_;\n article, \"The Pentateuch.\"\n\nWe are willing to go further, and add that in the testimony of our\nLord we find nothing which declares against the possibility of one or\nmore redactions or revisions of the laws of Leviticus in post-Mosaic\ntimes, by one or more _inspired_ men; as, _e.g._, by Ezra, described\n(Ezra vii. 6) as \"a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord,\nthe God of Israel, had given;\" to whom also ancient Jewish tradition\nattributes the final settlement of the Old Testament canon down to his\ntime. Hence no words of Christ touch the question as to when the book\nof Leviticus received its present form, in respect of the order of its\nchapters, sections, and verses. This is a matter of quite secondary\nimportance, and may be settled any way without prejudice to the Mosaic\norigin and authority of the laws it contains.\n\nNeither, in the last place, do the words of our Lord, carefully\nweighed, of necessity exclude even the possibility that such persons,\nacting under Divine direction and inspiration, may have first reduced\nsome parts of the law given by Moses to writing;[2] or even, as an\nextreme supposition, may have entered here and there, under the\nunerring guidance of the Holy Ghost, prescriptions which, although new\nas to the letter, were none the less truly Mosaic, in that by\nnecessary implication they were logically involved in the original\ncode.[3]\n\n [2] \"If it be proven that a record was committed to writing at a\n comparatively late date, it does not necessarily follow that the\n essential part has not been accurately handed down.\"--Professor\n Strack, _ibid._\n\n [3] Something like this seems to have been the final position of\n the late Professor Delitzsch, who said: \"We hold firmly that\n Moses laid the foundation of this codification\" (of the\n \"priest-code\" of Leviticus, etc.), \"but it was continued in the\n post-Mosaic period within the priesthood, to whom was entrusted\n the transmission, interpretation, and administration of the law.\n We admit this willingly; and even the participation of Ezra in\n this codification in itself furnishes no stumbling block for us.\n For it is not inconceivable that laws which until then had been\n handed down orally were fixed by him in writing to secure their\n judicial authority and execution. The most important thing for\n us is the historico-traditional character of the Pentateuchal\n legislation, and especially the occasions for (the laws) and the\n fundamental arrangements in the history of the times. That which\n we cannot be persuaded to admit is that the so-called Priestly\n Code is the work of the free invention of the latest date, which\n takes on the artificial appearance of ancient history.\"--_The\n Presbyterian Review_, July 1882; article, \"Delitzsch on the\n Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch,\" p. 578.\n\nWe do not indeed here argue either for or against any of these\nsuppositions, which were apart from the scope of the present work. We\nare only concerned here to remark that Christ has not incontrovertibly\nsettled these questions. These things may be true or not true; the\ndecision of such matters properly belongs to the literary critics. But\ndecide them as one will, it will still remain true that the law is\n\"the law of Moses,\" given by revelation from God.\n\nSo much as this, however, is certain. Whatsoever modifications may\nconceivably have passed upon the text, all work of this kind was done,\nas all agree, long before the time of our Lord; and the text to which\nHe refers as of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority, was therefore\nessentially the text of Leviticus as we have it to-day. We are thus\ncompelled to insist that whatever modifications may have been made in\nthe original Levitical law, they cannot have been, according to the\ntestimony of our Lord, such as in any way conflicted with His\naffirmation of its Mosaic origin and its inspired authority. They can\nthus, at the very utmost, only have been, as suggested, in the way of\nlegitimate logical development and application to successive\ncircumstances, of the Levitical law as originally given to Moses; and\nthat, too, under the administration of a priesthood endowed with the\npossession of the Urim and Thummim, so as to give such official\ndeliverances, whenever required, the sanction of inerrant Divine\nauthority, binding on the conscience as from God. Here, at least,\nsurely, Christ by His testimony has placed an immovable limitation\nupon the speculations of the critics.\n\nAnd yet there are those who admit the facts as to Christ's testimony,\nand nevertheless claim that without any prejudice to the absolute\ntruthfulness of our Lord, we may suppose that in speaking as He did,\nwith regard to the law of Leviticus, He merely conformed to the common\nusage of the Jews, without intending thereby to endorse their\nopinion; any more than, when, conforming to the ordinary mode of\nspeech, He spoke of the sun as rising and setting, He meant thereby to\nbe understood as endorsing the common opinion of men of that time that\nthe sun actually passed round the earth every twenty-four hours. To\nwhich it is enough to reply that this illustration, which has so often\nbeen used in this argument, is not relevant to the case before us. For\nnot only did our Lord use language which implied the truth of the\nJewish belief regarding the origin and authority of the Mosaic law,\nbut He formally teaches it; and--what is of still more moment--He\nrests the obligation of certain duties upon the fact that this law of\nLeviticus was a revelation from God to Moses for the children of\nIsrael. But if the supposed facts, upon which He bases His argument in\nsuch cases, are, in reality, not facts, then His argument becomes null\nand void. How, for instance, is it possible to explain away the words\nin which He appeals to one of the laws of Exodus and Leviticus (Matt.\nxv. 3-6) as being _not_ a Jewish opinion, but, instead, in explicit\ncontrast with the traditions of the Rabbis, \"a commandment of God\"?\nWas this expression merely \"an accommodation\" to the mistaken notions\nof the Jews? If so, then what becomes of His argument?\n\nOthers, again, feeling the force of this, and yet sincerely and\nearnestly desiring to maintain above possible impeachment the perfect\ntruthfulness of Christ, still assuming that the Jews were mistaken,\nand admitting that, if so, our Lord must have shared their error, take\nanother line of argument. They remind us of what, however mysterious,\ncannot be denied, that our Lord, in virtue of His incarnation, came\nunder certain limitations in knowledge; and then urge that without\nany prejudice to His character we may suppose that, not only with\nregard to the time of His advent and kingdom (Matt. xxiv. 36), but\nalso with respect to the authorship and the Divine authority of this\nbook of Leviticus, He may have shared in the ignorance and error of\nHis countrymen.\n\nBut, surely, the fact of Christ's limitation in knowledge cannot be\npressed so far as the argument of such requires, without by logical\nnecessity nullifying Christ's mission and authority as a religious\nteacher. For it is certain that according to His own word, and the\nuniversal belief of Christians, the supreme object of Christ's mission\nwas to reveal unto men through His life and teachings, and especially\nthrough His death upon the cross, the Father; and it is certain that\nHe claimed to have, in order to this end, perfect knowledge of the\nFather. But how could this most essential claim of His be justified,\nand how could He be competent to give unto men a perfect and inerrant\nknowledge of the Father, if the ignorance of His humiliation was so\ngreat that He was unable to distinguish from His Father's Word a book\nwhich, by the hypothesis, was not the Word of the Father, but an\ningenious and successful forgery of certain crafty post-exilian\npriests?\n\nIt is thus certain that Jesus must have known whether the Pentateuch,\nand, in particular, this book of Leviticus, was the Word of God or\nnot; certain also that, if the Word of God, it could not have been a\nforgery; and equally certain that Jesus could not have intended in\nwhat He said on this subject to accommodate His speech to a common\nerror of the people, without thereby endorsing their belief. It thus\nfollows that critics of the radical school referred to are directly\nat issue with the testimony of Christ regarding this book. It is of\nimmense consequence that Christians should see this issue clearly.\nWhile Jesus taught in various ways that Leviticus contains a law given\nby revelation from God to Moses, these teach that it is a priestly\nforgery of the days after Ezra. Both cannot be right; and if the\nlatter are in the right, then--we speak with all possible deliberation\nand reverence--Jesus Christ was mistaken, and was therefore unable\neven to tell us with inerrant certainty whether this or that is the\nWord of God or not. But if this is so, then how can we escape the\nfinal inference that His claim to have a perfect knowledge of the\nFather must have been an error; His claim to be the incarnate Son of\nGod, therefore, a false pretension, and Christianity, a delusion, so\nthat mankind has in Him no Saviour?\n\nBut against so fatal a conclusion stands the great established fact of\nthe resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; whereby He was with\npower declared to be the Son of God, so that we may know that His word\non this, as on all subjects where He has spoken, settles controversy,\nand is a sufficient ground of faith; while it imposes upon all\nspeculations of men, literary or philosophical, eternal and\nirremovable limitations.\n\nLet no one think that the case, as regards the issue at stake, has\nbeen above stated too strongly. One could not well go beyond the often\ncited words of Kuenen on this subject: \"We must either cast aside as\nworthless our dearly bought scientific method, or we must for ever\ncease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain\nof the exegesis of the Old.\" With good reason does another scholar\nexclaim at these words, \"The Master must not be heard as a witness! We\ntreat our criminals with more respect.\" So then stands the question\nthis day which this first verse of Leviticus brings before us: In\nwhich have we more confidence? in literary critics, like a Kuenen or\nWellhausen, or in Jesus Christ? Which is the more likely to know with\ncertainty whether the law of Leviticus is a revelation from God or\nnot?\n\nThe devout Christian, who through the grace of the crucified and risen\nLord \"of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write,\" and who\nhas \"tasted the good word of God,\" will not long hesitate for an\nanswer. He will not indeed, if wise, timidly or fanatically decry all\nliterary investigation of the Scriptures; but he will insist that the\ncritic shall ever hold his reason in reverent subjection to the Lord\nJesus on all points where the Lord has spoken. Such everywhere will\nheartily endorse and rejoice in those admirable words of the late\nvenerable Professor Delitzsch; words which stand almost as of his last\nsolemn testament:--\"The theology of glory which prides itself upon\nbeing its own highest authority, bewitches even those who had seemed\nproof against its enchantments; and the theology of the Cross, which\nholds Divine folly to be wiser than men, is regarded as an\nunscientific lagging behind the steps of progress.... But the faith\nwhich I professed in my first sermons, ... remains mine to-day,\nundiminished in strength, and immeasurably higher than all earthly\nknowledge. Even if in many Biblical questions I have to oppose the\ntraditional opinion, certainly my opposition rests on this side of the\ngulf, on the side of the theology of the Cross, of grace, of\nmiracles!... By this banner let us stand; folding ourselves in it, let\nus die!\"[4] To which truly noble words every true Christian may well\nsay, Amen!\n\n [4] _The Expositor_, January, 1889; article, \"The Old Theology\n and the New,\" pp. 54, 55.\n\nWe then stand without fear with Jesus Christ in our view of the origin\nand authority of the book of Leviticus.\n\n\nTHE OCCASION AND ORDER OF LEVITICUS.\n\nBefore proceeding to the exposition of this book, a few words need to\nbe said regarding its occasion and plan, and its object and present\nuse.\n\nThe opening words of the book, \"And the Lord said,\" connect it in the\nclosest manner with the preceding book of Exodus, at the contents of\nwhich we have therefore to glance for a moment. The kingdom of God,\nrejected by corporate humanity in the founding of the Babylonian\nworld-power, but continuing on earth in a few still loyal souls in the\nline of Abraham and his seed, at last, according to promise, had been\nformally and visibly re-established on earth at Mount Sinai. The\nfundamental law of the kingdom contained in the ten commandments and\ncertain applications of the same, had been delivered in what is called\nthe Book of the Covenant, amid thunders and lightnings, at the holy\nmount. Israel had solemnly entered into covenant with God on this\nbasis, saying, \"All these things will we do and be obedient,\" and the\ncovenant had been sealed by the solemn sprinkling of blood.\n\nThis being done, Jehovah now issued commandment for the building of\nthe tabernacle or \"tent of meeting,\" where He might manifest His glory\nand from time to time communicate His will to Israel. As mediators\nbetween Him and the people, the priesthood was appointed, their\nvestments and duties prescribed. All this having been done as ordered,\nthe tent of meeting covering the interior tabernacle was set up; the\nShekinah cloud covered it, and the glory of Jehovah filled the\ntabernacle,--the manifested presence of the King of Israel!\n\nOut of the tent of meeting, from this excellent glory, Jehovah now\ncalled unto Moses, and delivered the law as we have it in the first\nseven chapters of the book of Leviticus. To the law of offerings\nsucceeds (viii.-x.) an account of the consecration of Aaron and his\nsons to the priestly office, and their formal public assumption of\ntheir functions, with an account of the very awful sanction which was\ngiven to the preceding law, by the death of Nadab and Abihu before the\nLord, for offering as He had not commanded them.\n\nThe next section of the book contains the law concerning the clean and\nthe unclean, under the several heads of food (xi.), birth-defilement\n(xii.), leprosy (xiii., xiv.), and unclean issues (xv.); and closes\n(xvi.) with the ordinance of the great day of atonement, in which the\nhigh priest alone, presenting the blood of a sin-offering in the Holy\nof Holies, was to make atonement once a year for the sins of the whole\nnation.[5]\n\n [5] From the note in xvi. 1 it would appear that this chapter,\n so different in subject from the five preceding chapters on\n \"Uncleannesses,\" originally preceded them, and so followed x.,\n with which it is so closely connected. Its exposition is\n therefore given immediately after that of x.\n\nThe third section of the book contains the law of holiness,[6] first,\nfor the people (xvii.-xx.), and then the special laws for the priests\n(xxi., xxii.). These are followed, first (xxiii.), by the order for\nthe feasts of the Lord, or appointed times of public holy convocation;\nthen (xxiv.), by a historical incident designed to show that the law,\nas given, must, in several respects noted, be applied in all its\nstrictness no less to the alien than to the native-born Israelite; and\nfinally (xxv.), by the remarkable ordinances concerning the sabbatic\nyear, and the culmination of the sabbatic system of the law in the\nyear of jubilee.\n\n [6] This name is often restricted to xviii.-xx.\n\nAs a conclusion to the whole, the legislation thus given is now sealed\n(xxvi.) with promises from God of blessing to the nation if they will\nkeep this law, and threats of unsparing vengeance against the people\nand the land, if they forsake His commandments and break the covenant,\nthough still with a promise of mercy when, having thus transgressed,\nthey shall at any time repent. The book then closes with a\nsupplemental chapter on voluntary vows and dues (xxvii.).\n\n\nTHE PURPOSE OF LEVITICUS.\n\nWhat now was the purpose of Leviticus? In general, as regards Israel,\nit was given to direct them how they might live as a holy nation in\nfellowship with God. The key-note of the book is \"Holiness to\nJehovah.\" More particularly, the object of the book was to furnish for\nthe theocracy set up in Israel a code of law which should secure their\nphysical, moral, and spiritual well-being. But the establishment of\nthe theocracy in Israel was itself only a means to an end; namely, to\nmake Israel a blessing to all nations, in mediating to the Gentiles\nthe redemption of God. Hence, the Levitical laws were all intended and\nadapted to train and prepare the nation for this special historic\nmission to which God had chosen them.\n\nTo this end, it was absolutely necessary, first of all, that Israel\nshould be kept separate from the heathen nations. To effect and\nmaintain this separation, these laws of Leviticus were admirably\nadapted. They are of such a character, that obedience to them, even in\na very imperfect way, has made the nation to this day to be, in a\nmanner and degree perfectly unique, isolated and separate from all the\npeoples in the midst of whom they dwell.\n\nThe law of Leviticus was intended to effect this preparation of Israel\nfor its world-mission, not only in an external manner, but also in an\ninternal way; namely, by revealing in and to Israel the real character\nof God, and in particular His unapproachable holiness. For if Israel\nis to teach the nations the way of holiness, in which alone they can\nbe blessed, the chosen nation must itself first be taught holiness by\nthe Holy One. A lesson here for every one of us! The revelation of the\nholiness of God was made, first of all, in the sacrificial system. The\ngreat lesson which it must have kept before the most obtuse conscience\nwas this, that \"without shedding of blood there is no remission of\nsin;\" that God therefore must be the Most Holy, and sin against Him no\ntrifle. It was made, again, in the precepts of the law. If in some\ninstances these seem to tolerate evils which we should have expected\nthat a holy God would at once have swept away, this is explained by\nour Lord (Matt. xix. 8) by the fact that some things were of necessity\nordained in view of the hardness of men's hearts; while, on the other\nhand, it is certainly quite plain that the laws of Leviticus\nconstantly held before the Israelite the absolute holiness of God as\nthe only standard of perfection.\n\nThe holiness of God was further revealed by the severity of the\npenalties which were attached to these Levitical laws. Men often call\nthese harsh, forgetting that we are certain to underestimate the\ncriminality of sin; forgetting that God must, in any case, have\nrights over human life which no earthly ruler can have. But no one\nwill deny that this very severity of the law was fitted to impress the\nIsraelite, as nothing else could, with God's absolute intolerance of\nsin and impurity, and make him feel that he could not trifle with God,\nand hope to sin with impunity.\n\nAnd yet we must not forget that the law was adapted no less to reveal\nthe other side of the Divine holiness; that \"the Lord God is merciful\nand gracious, and of great kindness.\" For if the law of Leviticus\nproclaims that \"without shedding of blood there is no remission,\" with\nequal clearness it proclaims that with shedding of blood there can be\nremission of sin to every believing penitent.\n\nAnd this leads to the observation that this law was further adapted to\nthe training of Israel for its world-mission, in that to every\nthoughtful man it must have suggested a secret of redeeming mercy yet\nto be revealed. Every such one must have often said in his heart that\nit was \"not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take\naway sin;\" and that as a substitute for human life, when forfeited by\nsin, more precious blood than this must be required; even though he\nmight not have been able to imagine whence God should provide such a\nLamb for an offering. And so it was that the law was fitted, in the\nhighest degree, to prepare Israel for the reception of Him to whom all\nthese sacrifices pointed, the High Priest greater than Aaron, the Lamb\nof God which should \"take away the sins of the world,\" in whose person\nand work Israel's mission should at last receive its fullest\nrealisation.\n\nBut the law of Leviticus was not only intended to prepare Israel for\nthe Messiah by thus awakening a sense of sin and need, it was so\nordered as to be in many ways directly typical and prophetic of Christ\nand His great redemption, in its future historical development. Modern\nrationalism, indeed, denies this; but it is none the less a fact.\nAccording to the Apostle John (v. 46) our Lord declared that Moses\nwrote of Him; and, according to Luke (xxiv. 27), when He expounded\nunto the two walking to Emmaus \"the things concerning himself,\" He\nbegan His exposition with \"Moses;\" and (ver. 44) repeated what He had\nbefore His resurrection taught them, that all things \"which were\nwritten in the law of Moses\" concerning Him, must be fulfilled. And in\nfull accord with the teaching of the Master taught also His disciples.\nThe writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially, argues from this\npostulate throughout, and also explicitly affirms the typical\ncharacter of the ordinances of this book; declaring, for example, that\nthe Levitical priests in the tabernacle service served \"that which is\na copy of the heavenly things\" (Heb. viii. 5); that the blood with\nwhich \"the copies of the things in the heavens\" were cleansed,\nprefigured \"better sacrifices than these,\" even the one offering of\nHim who \"put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself\" (Heb. ix. 23-6);\nand that the holy times and sabbatic seasons of the law were \"a shadow\nof the things to come.\" The fact is familiar, and one need not\nmultiply illustrations. Many, no doubt, in the interpretation of these\ntypes, have broken loose from the principles indicated in the New\nTestament, and given free rein to an unbridled fancy. But this only\nwarns us that we the more carefully take heed to follow the\nintimations of the New Testament, and beware of mistaking our own\nimaginings for the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Such interpretations\nmay bring typology into disrepute, but they cannot nullify it as a\nfact which must be recognised in any attempt to open up the meaning of\nthe book.\n\nNeither is the reality of this typical correspondence between the\nLevitical ritual and order and New Testament facts set aside, even\nthough it is admitted that we cannot believe that Israel generally\ncould have seen all in it which the New Testament declares to be\nthere. For the very same New Testament which declares the typical\ncorrespondence, no less explicitly tells us this very thing: that many\nthings predicted and prefigured in the Old Testament, concerning the\nsufferings and glory of Christ, were not understood by the very\nprophets through whom they were anciently made known (1 Peter i.\n10-12). We have then carefully to distinguish in our interpretation\nbetween the immediate historical intention of the Levitical\nordinances, for the people of that time, and their typical intention\nand meaning; but we are not to imagine with some that to prove the\none, is to disprove the other.\n\n\nTHE PRESENT-DAY USE OF LEVITICUS.\n\nThis very naturally brings us to the answer to the frequent question:\nOf what use can the book of Leviticus be to believers now? We answer,\nfirst, that it is to us, just as much as to ancient Israel, a\nrevelation of the character of God. It is even a clearer revelation of\nGod's character to us than to them; for Christ has come as the\nFulfiller, and thus the Interpreter, of the law. And God has not\nchanged. He is still exactly what He was when He called to Moses out\nof the tent of meeting or spoke to him at Mount Sinai. He is just as\nholy as then; just as intolerant of sin as then; just as merciful to\nthe penitent sinner who presents in faith the appointed blood of\natonement, as He was then.\n\nMore particularly, Leviticus is of use to us now, as holding forth, in\na singularly vivid manner, the fundamental conditions of true\nreligion. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are no more, but the\nspiritual truth they represented abides and must abide for ever:\nnamely, that there is for sinful man no citizenship in the kingdom of\nGod apart from a High Priest and Mediator with a propitiatory\nsacrifice for sin. These are days when many, who would yet be called\nChristians, belittle atonement, and deny the necessity of the shedding\nof substitutionary blood for our salvation. Such would reduce, if it\nwere possible, the whole sacrificial ritual of Leviticus to a symbolic\n_self_-offering of the worshipper to God. But against this stands the\nconstant testimony of our Lord and His apostles, that it is only\nthrough the shedding of blood _not his own_ that man can have\nremission of sin.\n\nBut Leviticus presents not only a ritual, but also a body of civil law\nfor the theocracy. Hence it comes that the book is of use for to-day,\nas suggesting principles which should guide human legislators who\nwould rule according to the mind of God. Not, indeed, that the laws in\ntheir detail should be adopted in our modern states; but it is certain\nthat the principles which underlie those laws are eternal. Social and\ngovernmental questions have come to the front in our time as never\nbefore. The question of the relation of the civil government to\nreligion, the question of the rights of labour and of capital, of\nland-holding, that which by a suggestive euphemism we call \"the social\nevil,\" with its related subjects of marriage and divorce,--all these\nare claiming attention as never before. There is not one of these\nquestions on which the legislation of Leviticus does not cast a flood\nof light, into which our modern law-makers would do well to come and\nwalk.\n\nFor nothing can be more certain than this; that if God has indeed once\nstood to a commonwealth in the relation of King and political Head, we\nshall be sure to discover in His theocratic law upon what principles\ninfinite righteousness, wisdom, and goodness would deal with these\nmatters. We shall thus find in Leviticus that the law which it\ncontains, from beginning to end, stands in contradiction to that\nmodern democratic secularism, which would exclude religion from\ngovernment and order all national affairs without reference to the\nbeing and government of God; and, by placing the law of sacrifice at\nthe beginning of the book, it suggests distinctly enough that the\nmaintenance of right relation to God is fundamental to good\ngovernment.\n\nThe severity of many of the laws is also instructive in this\nconnection. The trend of public opinion in many communities is against\ncapital punishment, as barbarous and inhuman. We are startled to\nobserve the place which this has in the Levitical law; which exhibits\na severity far removed indeed from the unrighteous and undiscriminating\nseverity of the earlier English law, but no less so from the more\nundiscriminating leniency which has taken its place, especially as\nregards those crimes in which large numbers of people are inclined to\nindulge.\n\nNo less instructive to modern law-makers and political economists is\nthe bearing of the Levitical legislation on the social question, the\nrelations of rich and poor, of employer and employed. It is a\nlegislation which, with admirable impartiality, keeps the poor man\nand the rich man equally in view; a body of law which, if strictly\ncarried out, would have made in Israel either a plutocracy or a\nproletariat alike impossible. All these things will be illustrated in\nthe course of exposition. Enough has been said to show that those\namong us who are sorely perplexed as to what government should do, at\nwhat it should aim in these matters, may gain help by studying the\nmind of Divine wisdom concerning these questions, as set forth in the\ntheocratic law of Leviticus.\n\nFurther, Leviticus is of use to us now as a revelation of Christ. This\nfollows from what has been already said concerning the typical\ncharacter of the law. The book is thus a treasury of divinely-chosen\nillustrations as to the way of a sinner's salvation through the\npriestly work of the Son of God, and as to his present and future\nposition and dignity as a redeemed man.\n\nFinally, and for this same reason, Leviticus is still of use to us as\nembodying in type and figure prophecies of things yet to come,\npertaining to Messiah's kingdom. We must not imagine with some that\nbecause many of its types are long ago fulfilled, therefore all have\nbeen fulfilled. Many, according to the hints of the New Testament,\nawait their fulfilment in a bright day that is coming. Some, for\ninstance, of the feasts of the Lord have been fulfilled; as passover,\nand the feast of Pentecost. But how about the day of atonement for the\nsin of corporate Israel? We have seen the type of the day of atonement\nfulfilled in the entering into heaven of our great High Priest; but in\nthe type He came out again to bless the people: has that been\nfulfilled? Has He yet proclaimed absolution of sin to guilty Israel?\nHow, again, about the feast of trumpets, and that of the ingathering\nat full harvest? How about the Sabbatic year, and that most\nconsummate type of all, the year of jubilee? History records nothing\nwhich could be held a fulfilment of any of these; and thus Leviticus\nbids us look forward to a glorious future yet to come, when the great\nredemption shall at last be accomplished, and \"Holiness to Jehovah\"\nshall, as Zechariah puts it (xiv. 20), be written even \"on the bells\nof the horses.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_SACRIFICE: THE BURNT-OFFERING._\n\ni. 2-4.\n\n\nThe voice of Jehovah which had spoken not long before from Sinai, now\nspeaks from out \"the tent of meeting.\" There was a reason for the\nchange. For Israel had since then entered into covenant with God; and\nMoses, as the mediator of the covenant, had sealed it by sprinkling\nwith blood both the Book of the Covenant and the people. And therewith\nthey had professedly taken Jehovah for their God, and He had taken\nIsrael for His people. In infinite grace, He had condescended to\nappoint for Himself a tabernacle or \"tent of meeting,\" where He might,\nin a special manner, dwell among them, and manifest to them His will.\nThe tabernacle had been made, according to the pattern shown to Moses\nin the mount; and it had been now set up. And so now, He who had\nbefore spoken amid the thunders of flaming, trembling Sinai, speaks\nfrom the hushed silence of \"the tent of meeting.\" The first words from\nSinai had been the holy law, forbidding sin with threatening of wrath:\nthe first words from the tent of meeting are words of grace,\nconcerning fellowship with the Holy One maintained through sacrifice,\nand atonement for sin by the shedding of blood. A contrast this which\nis itself a Gospel!\n\nThe offerings of which we read in the next seven chapters are of two\nkinds, namely, bloody and unbloody offerings. In the former class were\nincluded the burnt-offering, the peace-offering, the sin-offering, and\nthe guilt-, or trespass-offering; in the latter, only the\nmeal-offering. The book begins with the law of the burnt-offering.\n\nIn any exposition of this law of the offerings, it is imperative that\nour interpretation shall be determined, not by any fancy of ours as to\nwhat the offerings might fitly symbolise, nor yet, on the other hand,\nbe limited by what we may suppose that any Israelite of that day might\nhave thought regarding them; but by the statements concerning them\nwhich are contained in the law itself, and in other parts of Holy\nScripture, especially in the New Testament.\n\nFirst of all, we may observe that in the book itself the offerings are\ndescribed by the remarkable expression, \"the bread\" or \"food of God\".\nThus, it is commanded (xxi. 6) that the priests should not defile\nthemselves, on this ground: \"the offerings of the Lord made by fire,\nthe bread of their God, do they offer.\" It was an ancient heathen\nnotion that in sacrifice, food was provided for the Deity in order\nthus to show Him honour. And, doubtless, in Israel, ever prone to\nidolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this gross\nconception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalm l. 8-15, God\nsharply rebukes Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using\nlanguage at the same time which teaches the spiritual meaning of the\nsacrifice, regarded as the \"food,\" or \"bread,\" of God: \"I will not\nreprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt-offerings are\ncontinually before Me.... I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor\nhe-goats out of thy stalls.... If I were hungry, I would not tell\nthee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the\nflesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the\nsacrifice of _thanksgiving_; and _pay thy vows_ unto the Most High;\nand call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee and thou\nshalt glorify Me.\"\n\nOf which language the plain teaching is this. If the sacrifices are\ncalled in the law \"the bread of God,\" God asks not this bread from\nIsrael in any material sense, or for any material need. He asks that\nwhich the offerings symbolise; thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of\ncovenant engagements to Him, and that loving trust which will call on\nHim in the day of trouble. Even so! Gratitude, loyalty, trust! this is\nthe \"food of God,\" this the \"bread\" which He desires that we should\noffer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For even\nas man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it,\nso God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing\nits expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and\nself-sacrificing service in which love manifests itself. This is to\nGod even as is food to us. Love cannot be satisfied except with love\nreturned; and we may say, with deepest humility and reverence, the God\nof love cannot be satisfied without love returned. Hence it is that\nthe sacrifices, which in various ways symbolise the self-offering of\nlove and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost \"the\nfood,\" or \"bread of God.\"\n\nAnd yet we must, on no account, hasten to the conclusion, as many do,\nthat therefore the Levitical sacrifices were _only_ intended to\nexpress and symbolise the self-offering of the worshipper, and that\nthis exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of\ninfinite Love for this \"bread of God\" cannot be adequately met and\nsatisfied by the self-offering of any creature, and, least of all, by\nthe self-offering of a sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in\nthis, that he has fallen away from perfect love. The symbolism of the\nsacrifice as \"the food of God,\" therefore, by this very phrase points\ntoward the self-offering in love of the eternal Son to the Father, and\nin behalf of sinners, for the Father's sake. It was the sacrifice on\nCalvary which first became, in innermost reality, that \"bread of God,\"\nwhich the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not\nregarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as\nsatisfying the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of\nthe perfect love of the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His\nbecoming \"obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.\"\n\nAnd now, keeping all this in view, we may venture to say even more\nthan at first as to the meaning of this phrase, \"the bread of God,\"\napplied to these offerings by fire. For just as the free activity of\nman is only sustained in virtue of and by means of the food which he\neats, so also the love of the God of love is only sustained in free\nactivity toward man through the self-offering to the Father of the\nSon, in that atoning sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and in\nthe ceaseless service of that exalted life which, risen from the dead,\nChrist now lives unto God for ever. Thus already, this expression, so\nstrange to our ears at first, as descriptive of Jehovah's offerings\nmade by fire, points to the person and work of the adorable Redeemer\nas its only sufficient explication.\n\nBut, again, we find another expression, xvii. 11, which is of no less\nfundamental consequence for the interpretation of the bloody offerings\nof Leviticus. In connection with the prohibition of blood for food,\nand as a reason for that prohibition, it is said: \"The life of the\nflesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to\nmake atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh\natonement,\"--mark the expression; not, as in the received version,\n\"_for_ the soul,\" which were mere tautology, and gives a sense which\nthe Hebrew cannot have, but, as the Revised Version has it,--\"by\nreason of the life,\" or \"soul\" (marg.). Hence, wherever in this law we\nread of a sprinkling of blood upon the altar, this must be held fast\nas its meaning, whether it be formally mentioned or not; namely,\natonement made for sinful man through the life of an innocent victim\npoured out in the blood. There may be, and often are, other ideas, as\nwe shall see, connected with the offering, but this is always present.\nTo argue, then, with so many in modern times, that because, not the\nidea of an atonement, but that of a sacrificial meal given by the\nworshipper to God, is the dominant conception in the sacrifices of the\nancient nations, therefore we cannot admit the idea of atonement and\nexpiation to have been intended in these Levitical sacrifices, is\nsimply to deny, not only the New Testament interpretation of them, but\nthe no less express testimony of the record itself.\n\nBut it is, manifestly, in the nature of the case \"impossible that the\nblood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.\" Hence, we are\nagain, by this phrase also, constrained to look beyond this Levitical\nshedding of sacrificial blood, for some antitype of which the innocent\nvictims slain at that altar were types; one who, by the shedding of\nhis blood, should do that in reality, which at the door of the tent of\nmeeting was done in symbol and shadow.\n\nWhat the New Testament teaches on this point is known to every one.\nChrist Jesus was the Antitype, to whose all-sufficient sacrifice each\ninsufficient sacrifice of every Levitical victim pointed. John the\nBaptist struck the key-note of all New Testament teaching in this\nmatter, when, beholding Jesus, he cried (John i. 29), \"Behold the Lamb\nof God, which taketh away the sin of the world.\" Jesus Christ declared\nthe same thought again and again, as in His words at the sacramental\nSupper: \"This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many\nfor the remission of sins.\" Paul expressed the same thought, when he\nsaid (Eph. v. 2) that Christ \"gave Himself up for us, an offering and\na sacrifice to God, for an odour of a sweet smell;\" and that \"our\nredemption, the forgiveness of our trespasses,\" is \"through His blood\"\n(Eph. i. 7). And Peter also, speaking in Levitical language, teaches\nthat we \"were redeemed ... with precious blood, as of a lamb without\nblemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ;\" to which he adds\nthe suggestive words, of which this whole Levitical ritual is the most\nstriking illustration, that Christ, although \"manifested at the end of\nthe times,\" \"was foreknown\" as the Lamb of God \"before the foundation\nof the world\" (1 Peter i. 18-20). John, in like manner, speaks in the\nlanguage of Leviticus concerning Christ, when he declares (1 John i.\n7) that \"the blood of Jesus ... cleanseth us from all sin;\" and even\nin the Apocalypse, which is the Gospel of Christ glorified, He is\nstill brought before us as a Lamb that had been slain, and who has\nthus \"purchased with His blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and\npeople, and nation,\" \"to be unto our God a kingdom and priests\" (Rev.\nv. 6, 9, 10).\n\nIn this clear light of the New Testament, one can see how meagre also\nis the view of some who would see in these Levitical sacrifices\nnothing more than fines assessed upon the guilty, as theocratic\npenalties. Leviticus itself should have taught such better than that.\nFor, as we have seen, the virtue of the bloody offerings is made to\nconsist in this, that \"the life of the flesh is in the blood;\" and we\nare told that \"the blood makes atonement for the soul,\" not in virtue\nof the monetary value of the victim, in a commercial way, but \"by\nreason of the life\" that is in the blood, and is therewith poured out\nbefore Jehovah on the altar,--the life of an innocent victim in the\nstead of the life of the sinful man.\n\nNo less inadequate, if we are to let ourselves be guided either by the\nLevitical or the New Testament teaching, is the view that the\nofferings only symbolised the self-offering of the worshipper. We do\nnot deny, indeed, that the sacrifice--of the burnt-offering, for\nexample--may have fitly represented, and often really expressed, the\nself-consecration of the offerer. But, in the light of the New\nTestament, this can never be held to have been the sole, or even the\nchief, reason in the mind of God for directing these outpourings of\nsacrificial blood upon the altar.\n\nWe must insist, then, on this, as essential to the right\ninterpretation of this law of the offerings, that every one of these\nbloody offerings of Leviticus typified, and was intended to typify,\nour Saviour, Jesus Christ. The burnt-offering represented Christ; the\npeace-offering, Christ; the sin-offering, Christ; the guilt-, or\ntrespass-offering, Christ. Moreover, since each of these, as intended\nespecially to shadow forth some particular aspect of Christ's work,\ndiffered in some respects from all the others, while yet in all alike\na victim's blood was shed upon the altar, we are by this reminded that\nin our Lord's redemptive work the most central and essential thing is\nthis, that, as He Himself said (Matt. xx. 28), He \"came to give His\nlife a ransom for many.\"\n\nKeeping this guiding thought steadily before us, it is now our work to\ndiscover, if we may, what special aspect of the one great sacrifice of\nChrist each of these offerings was intended especially to represent.\n\nOnly, by way of caution, it needs to be added that we are not to\nimagine that every minute circumstance pertaining to each sacrifice,\nin all its varieties, must have been intended to point to some\ncorrespondent feature of Christ's person or work. On the contrary, we\nshall frequently see reason to believe that the whole purpose of one\nor another direction of the ritual is to be found in the conditions,\ncircumstances, or immediate intention of the offering. Thus, to\nillustrate, when a profound interpreter suggests that the reason for\nthe command that the victim should be slain on the north side of the\naltar, is to be found in the fact that the north, as the side of\nshadow, signifies the gloom and joylessness of the sacrificial act, we\nare inclined rather to see sufficient reason for the prescription in\nthe fact that the other three sides were already in a manner occupied:\nthe east, as the place of ashes; the south, as fronting the entrance;\nand the west, as facing the tent of meeting and the brazen laver.\n\n\nTHE RITUAL OF THE BURNT-OFFERING.\n\nIn the law of the offerings, that of the burnt-offering comes first,\nthough in the order of the ritual it was not first, but second,\nfollowing the sin-offering. In this order of mention we need, however,\nseek no mystic meaning. The burnt-offering was very naturally\nmentioned first, as being the most ancient, and also in the most\nconstant and familiar use. We read of burnt-offerings as offered by\nNoah and Abraham; and of peace-offerings, too, in early times; while\nthe sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in Leviticus treated last,\nwere now ordered for the first time. So also the burnt-offering was\nstill, by Divine ordinance, to be the most common. No day could pass\nin the tabernacle without the offering of these. Indeed, except on the\ngreat day of atonement for the nation, in the ritual for which, the\nsin-offering was the central act, the burnt-offering was the most\nimportant sacrifice on all the great feast-days.\n\nThe first law, which applies to bloody offerings in general, was this:\nthat the victim shall be \"of the cattle, even of the herd and of the\nflock\" (ver. 2); to which is added, in the latter part of the chapter\n(ver. 14), the turtle-dove or young pigeon. The carnivora are all\nexcluded; for these, which live by the death of others, could never\ntypify Him who should come to give life. And among others, only clean\nbeasts could be taken. Israel must not offer as \"the food of God\" that\nwhich they might not eat for their own food; nor could that which was\nheld unclean be taken as a type of the Holy Victim of the future. And,\neven among clean animals, a further selection is made. Only domestic\nanimals were allowed; not even a clean animal was permitted, if it\nwere taken in hunting. For it was fitting that one should offer to God\nthat which had become endeared to the owner as having cost the most of\ncare and labour in its bringing up. For this, also, we can easily see\nanother reason in the Antitype. Nothing was to mark Him more than\nthis: that He should be subject and obey, and that not of constraint,\nas the unwilling captive of the chase, but freely and unresistingly.\n\nAnd now follow the special directions for the burnt-offering. The\nHebrew word so rendered means, literally, \"that which ascends\". It\nthus precisely describes the burnt-offering in its most distinctive\ncharacteristic. Of the other offerings, a part was burned, but a part\nwas eaten; in some instances, even by the offerer himself. But in the\nburnt-offering all ascends to God in flame and smoke. For the creature\nis reserved nothing whatever.\n\nThe first specification in the law of the burnt-offering is this: \"If\nhis oblation be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male\nwithout blemish\" (ver. 3). It must be a \"male,\" as the stronger, the\ntype of its kind; and \"without blemish,\" that is, ideally perfect.\n\nThe reasons for this law are manifest. The Israelite was thereby\ntaught that God claims the best that we have. They needed this lesson,\nas many among us do still. At a later day, we find God rebuking them\nby Malachi (i. 6, 13), with indignant severity, for their neglect of\nthis law: \"A son honoureth his father: ... if then I be a Father,\nwhere is My honour?... Ye have brought that which was taken by\nviolence, and the lame, and the sick; ... should I accept this of your\nhand? saith the Lord.\" And as pointing to our Lord, the command was no\nless fitting. Thus, as in other sacrifices, it was foreshadowed that\nthe great Burnt-offering of the future would be the one Man without\nblemish, the absolutely perfect Exemplar of what manhood should be,\nbut is not.\n\nAnd this brings us now to the ritual of the offering. In the ritual of\nthe various bloody offerings we find six parts. These are: (1) the\nPresentation; (2) the Laying on of the Hand; (3) the Killing of the\nVictim; in which three the ritual was the same for all kinds of\nofferings. The remaining three are: (4) the Sprinkling of Blood; (5)\nthe Burning; (6) the Sacrificial Meal. In these, differences appear in\nthe various sacrifices, which give each its distinctive character;\nand, in the burnt-offering, the sacrificial meal is omitted,--the\nwhole is burnt upon the altar.\n\nFirst is given the law concerning\n\n\nTHE PRESENTATION OF THE VICTIM.\n\n \"He shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he\n may be accepted before the Lord\" (ver. 3).\n\nIn this it was ordered, first, that the offerer should bring the\nvictim himself. There were parts of the ceremony in which the priest\nacted for him; but this he must do for himself. Even so, he who will\nhave the saving benefit of Christ's sacrifice must himself bring this\nChrist before the Lord. As by so doing, the Israelite signified his\nacceptance of God's gracious arrangements concerning sacrifice, so do\nwe, bringing Christ in our act of faith before the Lord, express our\nacceptance of God's arrangement on our behalf; our readiness and\nsincere desire to make use of Christ, who is appointed for us. And\nthis no man can do for another.\n\nAnd the offering must be presented for a certain purpose; namely,\n\"that he may be accepted before the Lord;\"[7] and that, as the context\ntells us, not because of a present made to God, but through an atoning\nsacrifice. And so now it is not enough that a man make much of\nChrist, and mention Him in terms of praise before the Lord, as the One\nwhom He would imitate and seek to serve. He must in his act of faith\nbring this Christ before the Lord, in such wise as to secure thus his\npersonal acceptance through the blood of the Holy Victim.\n\n [7] The usage of the common Hebrew phrase so rendered does not\n warrant the translation in the old version: \"of his voluntary\n will.\"\n\nAnd, finally, the _place_ of presentation is prescribed. It must be\n\"at the door of the tent of meeting.\" It is easy to see the original\nreason for this. For, as we learn from other Scriptures, the\nIsraelites were ever prone to idolatry, and that especially at places\nother than the appointed temple or tent of meeting, in the fields and\non high places. Hence the immediate purpose of this order concerning\nthe place, was to separate the worship of God from the worship of\nfalse gods. There is now, indeed, no law concerning the place where we\nmay present the great Sacrifice before God. At home, in the closet, in\nthe church, on the street, wherever we will, we may present this\nChrist in our behalf and stead as a Holy Victim before God. And yet\nthe principle which underlies this ordinance of place is no less\napplicable in this age than then. For it is a prohibition of all\nself-will in worship. It was not enough that an Israelite should have\nthe prescribed victim; it is not enough that we present the Christ of\nGod in faith, or what we think to be faith. But we must make no terms\nor conditions as to the mode or condition of the presentation, other\nthan God appoints. And the command was also a command of publicity.\nThe Israelite was therein commanded to confess publicly, and thus\nattest, his faith in Jehovah, even as God will now have us all make\nour confession of Christ a public thing.\n\nThe second act of the ceremonial was\n\n\nTHE LAYING ON OF THE HAND.\n\nIt was ordered:\n\n \"He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and\n it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him\" (ver.\n 4).\n\nThe laying on of the hand was not, as some have maintained, a mere\ndeclaration of the offerer's property in that which he offered, as\nshowing his right to give it to God. If this were true, we should find\nthe ceremony also in the bloodless offerings; where the cakes of corn\nwere no less the property of the offerer than the bullock or sheep of\nthe burnt-offering. But the ceremony was confined to these bloody\nofferings.\n\nIt is nearer the truth when others say that this was an act of\ndesignation. It is a fact that the ceremony of the laying on of hands\nin Scripture usage does indicate a designation of a person or thing,\nas to some office or service. In this book (xxiv. 14), the witnesses\nare directed to lay their hands upon the blasphemer, thereby\nappointing him to death. Moses is said to have laid his hands on\nJoshua, thus designating him in a formal way as his successor; and, in\nthe New Testament, Paul and Barnabas are set apart to the ministry by\nthe laying on of hands. But, in all these cases, the ceremony\nsymbolised more than mere designation; namely, a transfer or\ncommunication of something invisible, in connection with this visible\nact. Thus, in the New Testament the laying on of hands always denotes\nthe communication of the Holy Ghost, either as an enduement for\noffice, or for bodily healing. The laying of the hands of Moses on\nJoshua, in like manner, signified the transfer to him of the gifts,\noffice, and authority of Moses. Even in the case of the execution of\nthe blaspheming son of Shelomith, the laying on of the hands of the\nwitnesses had the same significance. They thereby designated him to\ndeath, no doubt; but therewith thus symbolically transferred to the\ncriminal the responsibility for his own death.\n\nFrom the analogy of these cases we should expect to find evidence of\nan ideal transference of somewhat from the offerer to the victim here.\nAnd the context does not leave the matter doubtful. It is added (ver.\n4), \"It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.\" Hence\nit appears that while, indeed, the offerer, by this laying on of his\nhand, did dedicate the victim to death, the act meant more than this.\nIt symbolised a transfer, according to God's merciful provision, of an\nobligation to suffer for sin, from the offerer to the innocent victim.\nHenceforth, the victim stood in the offerer's place, and was dealt\nwith accordingly.\n\nThis is well illustrated by the account which is given (Numb. viii.)\nof the formal substitution of the Levites in the place of all the\nfirst-born of Israel, for special service unto God. We read that the\nLevites were presented before the Lord; and that the children of\nIsrael then laid their hands upon the heads of the Levites, who were\nthus, we are told, \"offered as an offering unto the Lord,\" and were\nthenceforth regarded and treated as substitutes for the first-born of\nall Israel. Thus the obligation to certain special service was\nsymbolically transferred, as the context tells us, from the first-born\nto the Levites; and this transfer of obligation from all the tribes to\nthe single tribe of Levi was visibly represented by the laying on of\nhands. And just so here: the laying on of the hand designated,\ncertainly, the victim to death; but it did this, in that it was the\nsymbol of a transfer of obligation.\n\nThis view of the ceremony is decisively confirmed by the ritual of the\ngreat day of atonement. In the sin-offering of that day, in which the\nconception of expiation by blood received its fullest symbolic\nexpression, it was ordered (xvi. 21) that Aaron should lay his hands\non the head of one of the goats of the sin-offering, and \"confess over\nhim all the iniquities of the children of Israel.\" Thereupon the\niniquity of the nation was regarded as symbolically transferred from\nIsrael to the goat; for it is added, \"and the goat shall bear upon him\nall their iniquities unto a solitary land.\" So, while in this ritual\nfor the burnt-offering there is no mention of such confession, we have\nevery reason to believe the uniform Rabbinical tradition, that it was\nthe custom to make also upon the head of the victim for the\nburnt-offering a solemn confession of sin, for which they give the\nform to be used.\n\nSuch then was the significance of the laying on of hands. But the\nceremony meant even more than this. For the Hebrew verb which is\nalways used for this, as the Rabbis point out, does not merely mean to\nlay the hand upon, but so to lay the hand as to rest or lean heavily\nupon the victim. This force of the word is well illustrated from a\npassage where it occurs, in Psalm lxxxviii. 7, \"Thy wrath lieth hard\nupon me.\" The ceremony, therefore, significantly represented the\nofferer as resting or relying on the victim to procure that from God\nfor which he presented him, namely, atonement and acceptance.\n\nThis part of the ceremonial of this and other sacrifices was thus full\nof spiritual import and typical meaning. By this laying on of the hand\nto designate the victim as a sacrifice, the offerer implied, and\nprobably expressed, a confession of personal sin and demerit; as done\n\"before Jehovah,\" it implied also his acceptance of God's penal\njudgment against his sin. It implied, moreover, in that the offering\nwas made according to an arrangement ordained by God, that the offerer\nalso thankfully accepted God's merciful provision for atonement, by\nwhich the obligation to suffer for sin was transferred from himself,\nthe guilty sinner, to the sacrificial victim. And, finally, in that\nthe offerer was directed so to lay his hand as to rest upon the\nvictim, it was most expressively symbolised that he, the sinful\nIsraelite, rested and depended on this sacrifice as the atonement for\nhis sin, his divinely appointed substitute in penal death.\n\nWhat could more perfectly set forth the way in which we are for our\nsalvation to make use of the Lamb of God as slain for us? By faith, we\nlay the hand upon His head. In this, we do frankly and penitently own\nthe sins for which, as the great Burnt-sacrifice, the Christ of God\nwas offered; we also, in humility and self-abasement, thus accept the\njudgment of God against ourselves, that because of sin we deserve to\nbe cast out from Him eternally; while, at the same time, we most\nthankfully accept this Christ as \"the Lamb of God which taketh away\nthe sins of the world,\" and therefore our sins also, if we will but\nthus make use of Him; and so lean and rest with all the burden of our\nsin on Him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFor the Israelite who should thus lay his hand upon the head of the\nsacrificial victim a promise follows. \"It shall be accepted for him,\nto make atonement for him.\"\n\nIn this word \"atonement\" we are introduced to one of the key-words of\nLeviticus, as indeed of the whole Scripture. The Hebrew radical\noriginally means \"to cover,\" and is used once (Gen. vi. 14) in this\npurely physical sense. But, commonly, as here, it means \"to cover\" in\na spiritual sense, that is, to cover the sinful person from the sight\nof the Holy God, who is \"of purer eyes than to behold evil.\" Hence, it\nis commonly rendered \"to atone,\" or \"to make atonement;\" also, \"to\nreconcile,\" or \"to make reconciliation.\" The thought is this: that\nbetween the sinner and the Holy One comes now the guiltless victim; so\nthat the eye of God looks not upon the sinner, but on the offered\nsubstitute; and in that the blood of the substituted victim is offered\nbefore God for the sinner, atonement is made for sin, and the Most\nHoly One is satisfied.\n\nAnd when the believing Israelite should lay his hand with confession\nof sin upon the appointed victim, it was graciously promised: \"It\nshall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.\" And just so\nnow, whenever any guilty sinner, fearing the deserved wrath of God\nbecause of his sin, especially because of his lack of that full\nconsecration which the burnt-sacrifice set forth, lays his hand in\nfaith upon the great Burnt-offering of Calvary, the blessing is the\nsame. For in the light of the cross, this Old Testament word becomes\nnow a sweet New Testament promise: \"When thou shalt rest with the hand\nof faith upon this Lamb of God, He shall be accepted for thee, to make\natonement for thee.\"\n\nThis is most beautifully expressed in an ancient \"Order for the\nVisitation of the Sick,\" attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, in which\nit is written:--\n\n\"The minister shall say to the sick man: Dost thou believe that thou\ncanst not be saved but by the death of Christ? The sick man answereth,\nYes. Then let it be said unto him: Go to, then, and whilst thy soul\nabideth in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone; place thy\ntrust in no other thing; commit thyself wholly to this death; cover\nthyself wholly with this alone.... And if God would judge thee, say:\nLord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy\njudgment; otherwise I will not contend or enter into judgment with\nThee.\n\n\"And if He shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say: I place\nthe death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. If He shall\nsay unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say: Lord! I put the\ndeath of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and all my sins; and I\noffer His merits for my own, which I should have, and have not.\"\n\nAnd whosoever of us can thus speak, to him the promise speaks from out\nthe shadows of the tent of meeting: \"This Christ, the Lamb of God, the\ntrue Burnt-offering, shall be accepted for thee, to make atonement for\nthee!\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE BURNT-OFFERING (CONCLUDED)._\n\nLEV. i. 5-17; vi. 8-13.\n\n\nAfter the laying on of the hand, the next sacrificial act was--\n\n\nTHE KILLING OF THE VICTIM.\n\n \"And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord\" (ver. 5).\n\nIn the light of what has been already said, the significance of this\nkilling, in a typical way, will be quite clear. For with the first\nsin, and again and again thereafter, God had denounced death as the\npenalty of sin. But here is a sinner who, in accord with a Divine\ncommand, brings before God a sacrificial victim, on whose head he lays\nhis hand, on which he thus rests as he confesses his sins, and gives\nover the innocent victim to die instead of himself. Thus each of these\nsacrificial deaths, whether in the burnt-offering, the peace-offering,\nor the sin-offering, brings ever before us the death in the sinner's\nstead of that one Holy Victim who suffered for us, \"the just for the\nunjust,\" and thus laid down His life, in accord with His own\npreviously declared intention, \"as a ransom for many.\"\n\nIn the sacrifices made by and for individuals, the victim was killed,\nexcept in the case of the turtle-dove or pigeon, by the offerer\nhimself; but, very naturally, in the case of the national and public\nofferings, it was killed by the priest. As, in this latter case, it\nwas impossible that all individual Israelites should unite in killing\nthe victim, it is plain that the priest herein acted as the\nrepresentative of the nation. Hence we may properly say that the\nfundamental thought of the ritual was this, that the victim should be\nkilled by the offerer himself.\n\nAnd by this ordinance we may well be reminded, first, how Israel,--for\nwhose sake as a nation the antitypical Sacrifice was offered,--Israel\nitself became the executioner of the Victim; and, beyond that, how, in\na deeper sense, every sinner must regard himself as truly causal of\nthe Saviour's death, in that, as is often truly said, our sins nailed\nChrist to His cross. But whether such a reference were intended in\nthis law of the offering or not, the great, significant, outstanding\nfact remains, that as soon as the offerer, by his laying on of the\nhand, signified the transfer of the personal obligation to die for sin\nfrom himself to the sacrificial victim, then came at once upon that\nvictim the penalty denounced against sin.\n\nAnd the added words, \"before the Lord,\" cast further light upon this,\nin that they remind us that the killing of the victim had reference to\nJehovah, whose holy law the offerer, failing of that perfect\nconsecration which the burnt-offering symbolised, had failed to\nglorify and honour.\n\n\nTHE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD.\n\n \"And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and\n sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is at the door\n of the tent of meeting\" (ver. 5).\n\nAnd now follows the fourth act in the ceremonial, the Sprinkling of\nthe Blood. The offerer's part is now done, and herewith the work of\nthe priest begins. Even so must we, having laid the hand of faith upon\nthe head of the substituted Lamb of God, now leave it to the heavenly\nPriest to act in our behalf with God.\n\nThe directions to the priest as to the use of the blood vary in the\ndifferent offerings, according as the design is to give greater or\nless prominence to the idea of expiation. In the sin-offering this has\nthe foremost place. But in the burnt-offering, as also in the\npeace-offering, although the conception of atonement by blood was not\nabsent, it was not the dominant conception of the sacrifice. Hence,\nwhile the sprinkling of blood by the priest could in no wise be\nomitted, it took in this case a subordinate place in the ritual. It\nwas to be sprinkled only on the sides of the altar of burnt-offering\nwhich stood in the outer court. We read (ver. 5): \"Aaron's sons, the\npriests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about\nupon the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.\"\n\nIt was in this sprinkling of the blood that the atoning work was\ncompleted. The altar had been appointed as a place of Jehovah's\nspecial presence; it had been designated as a place where God would\ncome unto man to bless him. Thus, to present and sprinkle the blood\nupon the altar was symbolically to present the blood unto God. And the\nblood represented life,--the life of an innocent victim atoning for\nthe sinner, because rendered up in the stead of his life. And the\n_priests_ were to sprinkle the blood. So, while to bring and present\nthe sacrifice of Christ, to lay the hand of faith upon His head, is\nour part, with this our duty ends. To sprinkle the blood, to use the\nblood God-ward for the remission of sin, this is the work alone of our\nheavenly Priest. We are then to leave that with Him.\n\nReserving a fuller exposition of the meaning of this sprinkling of\nblood for the exposition of the sin-offering, in which it was the\ncentral act of the ritual, we pass on now to the burning of the\nsacrifice, which in this offering marked the culmination of its\nspecial symbolism.\n\n\nTHE SACRIFICIAL BURNING.\n\ni. 6-9, 12, 13, 17.\n\n \"And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its\n pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the\n altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire: and Aaron's sons, the\n priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order\n upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: but\n its inwards and its legs shall he wash with water: and the priest\n shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an\n offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he\n shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat: and the\n priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire\n which is upon the altar: but the inwards and the legs shall he\n wash with water: and the priest shall offer the whole, and burn\n it upon the altar: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by\n fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.... And he shall rend it by\n the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the\n priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon\n the fire: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a\n sweet savour unto the Lord.\"\n\nIt was the distinguishing peculiarity of the burnt-offering, from\nwhich it takes its name, that in every case the whole of it was\nburned, and thus ascended heavenward in the fire and smoke of the\naltar. The place of the burning, in this and other sacrifices, is\nsignificant. The flesh of the sin-offering, when not eaten, was to be\nburned in a clean place without the camp. But it was the law of the\nburnt-offering that it should be wholly consumed upon the holy altar\nat the door of the tent of meeting. In the directions for the burning\nwe need seek for no occult meaning; the most of them are evidently\nintended simply as means to the end; namely, the consumption of the\noffering with the utmost readiness, ease, and completeness. Hence it\nmust be flayed and cut into its pieces, and carefully arranged upon\nthe wood. The inwards and the legs must be washed with water, that\ninto the offering, as to be offered to the Holy One, might come\nnothing extraneous, nothing corrupt and unclean.\n\nIn vv. 10-13 and 14-17 provision is made for the offering of different\nvictims, of the flock, or of the fowls. The reason for this permitted\nvariation, although not mentioned here, was doubtless the same which\nis given for a similar permission in chap. v. 7, where it is ordered\nthat if the offerer's means suffice not for a certain offering, he may\nbring one of less value. Poverty shall be no plea for not bringing a\nburnt-sacrifice; to the Israelite of that time it thus set forth the\ntruth, that \"if there first be a willing heart, it is accepted\naccording to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.\"\n\nThe variations in the prescriptions regarding the different victims to\nbe used in the sacrifice are but slight. The bird having been killed\nby the priest (why this change it is not easy to see), its crop, with\nits contents of food unassimilated, and therefore not a part of the\nbird, as also the feathers, was to be cast away. It was not to be\ndivided, like the bullock, and the sheep or goat, simply because, with\nso small a creature, it was not necessary to the speedy and entire\ncombustion of the offering. In each case alike, the declaration is\nmade that the sacrifice, thus offered and wholly burnt upon the altar,\nis \"an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.\"\n\nAnd now a question comes before us, the answer to which is vital to\nthe right understanding of the burnt-offering, whether in its original\nor typical import. What was the significance of the burning? It has\nbeen very often answered that the consumption of the victim by fire\nsymbolised the consuming wrath of Jehovah, utterly destroying the\nvictim which represented the sinful person of the offerer. And,\nobserving that the burning followed the killing and shedding of blood,\nsome have even gone so far as to say that the burning typified the\neternal fire of hell! But when we remember that, without doubt, the\nsacrificial victim in all the Levitical offerings was a type of our\nblessed Lord, we may well agree with one who justly calls this\ninterpretation \"hideous.\" And yet many, who have shrunk from this,\nhave yet in so far held to this conception of the symbolic meaning of\nthe burning as to insist that it must at least have typified those\nfiery sufferings in which our Lord offered up His soul for sin. They\nremind us how often, in the Scripture, fire stands as the symbol of\nthe consuming wrath of God against sin, and hence argue that this may\njustly be taken here as the symbolic meaning of the burning of the\nvictim on the altar.\n\nBut this interpretation is nevertheless, in every form, to be\nrejected. As regards the use of fire as a symbol in Holy Scripture,\nwhile it is true that it often represents the punitive wrath of God,\nit is equally certain that it has not always this meaning. Quite as\noften it is the symbol of God's purifying energy and might. Fire was\nnot the symbol of Jehovah's vengeance in the burning bush. When the\nLord is represented as sitting \"as a refiner and a purifier of\nsilver,\" surely the thought is not of vengeance, but of purifying\nmercy. We should rather say that fire, in Scripture usage, is the\nsymbol of the intense energy of the Divine nature, which continually\nacts upon every person and on every thing, according to the nature of\neach person or thing; here conserving, there destroying; now\ncleansing, now consuming. The same fire which burns the wood, hay, and\nstubble, purifies the gold and the silver.\n\nHence, while it is quite true that fire often typifies the wrath of\nGod punishing sin, it is certain that it cannot always symbolise this,\nnot even in the sacrificial ritual. For in the meal-offering of chap.\nii. it is impossible that the thought of expiation should enter since\nno life is offered and no blood is shed; yet this also is presented\nunto God in fire. The fire then in this case must mean something else\nthan the Divine wrath, and presumably must mean one thing in all the\nsacrifices. And that not even in the burnt-offering can the burning of\nthe sacrifice symbolise the consuming wrath of God, becomes plain,\nwhen we observe that, according to the uniform teaching of the\nsacrificial ritual, atonement is already fully accomplished, prior to\nthe burning, in the sprinkling of the blood. That the burning, which\nfollows the atonement, should have any reference to Christ's expiatory\nsufferings, is thus quite impossible.\n\nWe must hold, therefore, that the burning can only mean in the\nburnt-offering that which alone it can signify in the meal-offering;\nnamely, the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, on the\none hand; and, on the other, God's gracious acceptance and\nappropriation of the offering. This was impressively set forth in the\ncase of the burnt-offering presented when the tabernacle service was\ninaugurated; when, we are told (ix. 24), the fire which consumed it\ncame forth from before Jehovah, lighted by no human hand, and was\nthus a visible representation of God accepting and appropriating the\noffering to Himself.\n\nThe symbolism of the burning thus understood, we can now perceive what\nmust have been the special meaning of this sacrifice. As regarded by\nthe believing Israelite of those days, not yet discerning clearly the\ndeeper truth it shadowed forth as to the great Burnt-sacrifice of the\nfuture, it must have symbolically taught him that complete\nconsecration unto God is essential to right worship. There were\nsacrifices having a different special import, in which, while a part\nwas burnt, the offerer might even himself join in eating the remaining\npart, taking that for his own use. But, in the burnt-offering, nothing\nwas for himself: all was for God; and in the fire of the altar God\ntook the whole in such a way that the offering for ever passed beyond\nthe offerer's recall. In so far as the offerer entered into this\nconception, and his inward experience corresponded to this outward\nrite, it was for him an act of worship.\n\nBut to the thoughtful worshipper, one would think, it must sometimes\nhave occurred that, after all, it was not himself or his gift that\nthus ascended in full consecration to God, but a victim appointed by\nGod to represent him in death on the altar. And thus it was that,\nwhether understood or not, the offering in its very nature pointed to\na Victim of the future, in whose person and work, as the One only\nfully-consecrated Man, the burnt-offering should receive its full\nexplication. And this brings us to the question, What aspect of the\nperson and work of our Lord was herein specially typified? It cannot\nbe the resultant fellowship with God, as in the peace-offering; for\nthe sacrificial feast which set this forth was in this case wanting.\nNeither can it be expiation for sin; for although this is expressly\nrepresented here, yet it is not the chief thing. The principal thing,\nin the burnt-offering, was the burning, the complete consumption of\nthe victim in the sacrificial fire. Hence what is represented chiefly\nhere, is not so much Christ representing His people in atoning death,\nas Christ representing His people in perfect consecration and entire\nself-surrender unto God; in a word, in perfect obedience.\n\nOf these two things, the atoning death and the representative\nobedience, we think, and with reason, much of the former; but most\nChristians, though without reason, think less of the latter. And yet\nhow much is made of this aspect of our Lord's work in the Gospels! The\nfirst words which we hear from His lips are to this effect, when, at\ntwelve years of age, He asked His mother (Luke ii. 49), \"Wist ye not\nthat I must be (lit.) in the things of My Father?\" and after His\nofficial work began in the first cleansing of the temple, this\nmanifestation of His character was such as to remind His disciples\nthat it was written, \"The zeal of Thy house shall eat me\nup\";--phraseology which brings the burnt-offering at once to mind.[8]\nAnd His constant testimony concerning Himself, to which His whole life\nbare witness, was in such words as these: \"I came down from heaven,\nnot to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.\" In\nparticular, He especially regarded His atoning work in this aspect. In\nthe parable of the Good Shepherd (John x. 1-18), for example, after\ntelling us that because of His laying down His life for the sheep the\nFather loved Him, and that to this end He had received from the\nFather authority to lay down His life for the sheep, He then adds as\nthe reason of this: \"This commandment have I received from My Father.\"\nAnd so elsewhere (John xii. 49, 50) He says of all His words, as of\nall His works: \"The Father hath given Me a commandment, what I should\nsay, and what I should speak; ... the things therefore which I speak,\neven as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak.\" And when at last\nHis earthly work approaches its close, and we see Him in the agony of\nGethsemane, there He appears, above all, as the perfectly consecrated\nOne, offering Himself, body, soul, and spirit, as a whole\nburnt-offering unto God, in those never-to-be-forgotten words (Matt.\nxxvi. 39), \"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me;\nnevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.\" And, if any more proof\nwere needed, we have it in that inspired exposition (Heb. x. 5-10) of\nPsalm xl. 6-8 wherein it is taught that this perfect obedience of\nChrist, in full consecration, was indeed the very thing which the Holy\nGhost foresignified in the whole burnt-offerings of the law: \"When He\ncometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest\nnot, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt-offerings\nand sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am\ncome (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O\nGod.\"\n\n [8] See Psalm lxix. 9, and compare in the Hebrew such\n expressions as, \"the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering;\" and\n Deut. iv. 24, \"thy God is a devouring fire,\" etc., in all which\n the verb signifying \"to eat\" is idiomatically used of fire.\n\nThus the burnt-offering brings before us in type, for our faith,\nChrist as our Saviour in virtue of His being the One wholly\nsurrendered to the will of the Father. Nor does this exclude, but\nrather defines, the conception of Christ as our substitute and\nrepresentative. For He said that it was for our sakes that He\n\"sanctified,\" or \"consecrated\" Himself (John xvii. 19); and while the\nNew Testament represents Him as saving us by His death as an expiation\nfor sin, it no less explicitly holds Him forth to us as having obeyed\nin our behalf, declaring (Rom. v. 19) that it is \"by the obedience of\nthe One Man\" that \"many are made righteous.\" And, elsewhere, the same\nApostle represents the incomparable moral value of the atoning death\nof the cross as consisting precisely in this fact, that it was a\nsupreme act of self-renouncing obedience, as it is written (Phil. ii.\n6-9): \"Being in the form of God, He yet counted it not a prize to be\non an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a\nservant, being made in the likeness of men; ... becoming obedient even\nunto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly\nexalted Him, and gave unto Him the name which is above every name.\"\n\nAnd so the burnt-offering teaches us to remember that Christ has not\nonly died for our sins, but has also consecrated Himself for us to God\nin full self-surrender in our behalf. We are therefore to plead not\nonly His atoning death, but also the transcendent merit of His life of\nfull consecration to the Father's will. To this, the words, three\ntimes repeated concerning the burnt-offering (vv. 9, 13, 17), in this\nchapter, blessedly apply: it is \"an offering made by fire, of a sweet\nsavour,\" a fragrant odour, \"unto the Lord.\" That is, this full\nself-surrender of the holy Son of God unto the Father is exceedingly\ndelightful and acceptable unto God. And for this reason it is for us\nan ever-prevailing argument for our own acceptance, and for the\ngracious bestowment for Christ's sake of all that there is in Him for\nus.\n\nOnly let us ever remember that we cannot argue, as in the case of the\natoning death, that as Christ died that we might not die, so He\noffered Himself in full consecration unto God, that we might thus be\nreleased from this obligation. Here the exact opposite is the truth.\nFor Christ Himself said in His memorable prayer, just before His\noffering of Himself to death, \"For their sakes I sanctify (marg.\n\"consecrate\") Myself, _that they also might be sanctified in truth_.\"\nAnd thus is brought before us the thought, that if the sin-offering\nemphasised, as we shall see, the substitutionary death of Christ,\nwhereby He became our righteousness, the burnt-offering, as\ndistinctively, brings before us Christ as our sanctification, offering\nHimself without spot, a whole burnt-offering to God. And as by that\none life of sinless obedience to the will of the Father He procured\nour salvation by His merit, so in this respect He has also become our\none perfect Example of what consecration to God really is. A thought\nthis is which, with evident allusion to the burnt-offering, the\nApostle Paul brings before us, charging us (Eph. v. 2) that we \"walk\nin love, as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering\nand a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell.\"\n\nAnd the law further suggests that no extreme of spiritual need can\ndebar any one from availing himself of our great Burnt-sacrifice. A\nburnt-offering was to be received even from one who was so poor that\nhe could bring but a turtle-dove or a young pigeon (ver. 14). One\nmight, at first thought, not unnaturally say: Surely there can be\nnothing in this to point to Christ; for the true Sacrifice is not\nmany, but one and only. And yet the very fact of this difference\nallowed in the typical victims, when the reason of the allowance is\nremembered, suggests the most precious truth concerning Christ, that\nno spiritual poverty of the sinner need exclude him from the full\nbenefit of Christ's saving work. Provision is made in Him for all\nthose who, most truly and with most reason, feel themselves to be poor\nand in need of all things. Christ, as our sanctification, is for all\nwho will make use of Him; for all who, feeling most deeply and\npainfully their own failure in full consecration, would take Him, as\nnot only their sin-offering, but also their burnt-offering, both their\nexample and their strength, unto perfect self-surrender unto God. We\nmay well here recall to mind the exhortation of the Apostle to\nChristian believers, expressed in language which at once reminds us of\nthe burnt-offering (Rom. xii. 1): \"I beseech you, brethren, by the\nmercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,\nacceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.\"\n\n\nTHE CONTINUAL BURNT-OFFERING.\n\nvi. 8-13.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his\n sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt\n offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar all night unto the\n morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereon.\n And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen\n breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the\n ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt offering on the\n altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put\n off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the\n ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the\n altar shall be kept burning thereon, it shall not go out; and the\n priest shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the\n burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat\n of the peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar\n continually; it shall not go out.\"\n\nIn chap. vi. 8-13 we have a \"law of the burnt-offering\" specially\naddressed to \"Aaron and his sons,\" and designed to secure that the\nfire of the burnt-offering should be continually ascending unto God.\nIn chap. i. we have the law regarding burnt-offerings brought by the\nindividual Israelite. But besides these it was ordered, Exod. xxix.\n38-46, that every morning and evening the priest should offer a lamb\nas a burnt-offering for the whole people,--an offering which primarily\nsymbolised the constant renewal of Israel's consecration as \"a kingdom\nof priests\" unto the Lord. It is to this, the daily burnt-offering,\nthat this supplementary law of chap. vi. refers. All the regulations\nare intended to provide for the uninterrupted maintenance of this\nsacrificial fire; first, by the regular removal of the ashes which\nwould else cover and smother the fire; and, secondly, by the supply of\nfuel. The removal of the ashes from the fire is a priestly function;\nhence it was ordained that the priest for this service put on his\nrobes of office, \"his linen garment and his linen breeches,\" and then\ntake up the ashes from the altar, and lay them by the side of the\naltar. But as from time to time it would be necessary to remove them\nfrom this place quite without the tent, it was ordered that he should\ncarry them forth \"without the camp unto a clean place,\" that the\nsanctity of all connected with Jehovah's worship might never be lost\nsight of; though, as it was forbidden to wear the priestly garments\nexcept within the tent of meeting, the priest, when this service was\nperformed, must \"put on other garments,\" his ordinary, unofficial\nrobes. The ashes being thus removed from the altar each morning, then\nthe wood was put on, and the parts of the lamb laid in order upon it\nto be perfectly consumed. And whenever during the day any one might\nbring a peace-offering unto the Lord, on this ever-burning fire the\npriest was to place also the fat, the richest part, of the offering,\nand with it also the various individual burnt-offerings and\nmeal-offerings of each day. And thus it was arranged by the law that,\nall day long, and all night long, the smoke of the burnt-offering\nshould be continually ascending unto the Lord.\n\nThe significance of this can hardly be missed. By this supplemental\nlaw which thus provided for \"a continual burnt-offering\" to the Lord,\nit was first of all signified to Israel, and to us, that the\nconsecration which the Lord so desires and requires from His people is\nnot occasional, but continuous. As the priest, representing the\nnation, morning by morning cleared away the ashes which had else\ncovered the flame and caused it to burn dull, and both morning by\nmorning and evening by evening, laid a new victim on the altar, so\nwill God have us do. Our self-consecration is not to be occasional,\nbut continual and habitual. Each morning we should imitate the priest\nof old, in putting away all that might dull the flame of our devotion,\nand, morning by morning, when we arise, and evening by evening, when\nwe retire, by a solemn act of self-consecration give ourselves anew\nunto the Lord. So shall the word in substance, thrice repeated, be\nfulfilled in us in its deepest, truest sense: \"The fire shall be kept\nburning on the altar continually; it shall not go out\" (vv. 9, 12,\n13).\n\nBut we must not forget that in this part of the law, as in all else,\nwe are pointed to Christ. This ordinance of the continual\nburnt-offering reminds us that Christ, as our burnt-offering,\n_continually_ offers Himself to God in self-consecration in our\nbehalf. Very significant it is that the burnt-offering stands in\ncontrast in this respect with the sin-offering. We never read of a\ncontinual sin-offering; even the great annual sin-offering of the day\nof atonement, which, like the daily burnt-offering, had reference to\nthe nation at large, was soon finished, and once for all. And it was\nso with reason; for in the nature of the case, our Lord's offering of\nHimself for sin as an expiatory sacrifice was not and could not be a\ncontinuous act. But with His presentation of Himself unto God in full\nconsecration of His person as our Burnt-offering, it is different.\nThroughout the days of His humiliation this self-offering of Himself\nto God continued; nor, indeed, can we say that it has yet ceased, or\never can cease. For still, as the High Priest of the heavenly\nsanctuary, He continually offers Himself as our Burnt-offering in\nconstantly renewed and constantly continued devotement of Himself to\nthe Father to do His will.\n\nIn this ordinance of the daily burnt-offering, ever ascending in the\nfire that never went out, the idea of the burnt-sacrifice reaches its\nfullest expression, the type its most perfect development. And thus\nthe law of the burnt-offering leaves us in the presence of this holy\nvision: the greater than Aaron, in the heavenly place as our great\nRepresentative and Mediator, morning by morning, evening by evening,\noffering Himself unto the Father in the full self-devotement of His\nrisen life unto God, as our \"continual burnt-offering.\" In this, let\nus rejoice and be at peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE MEAL-OFFERING._\n\nLEV. ii. 1-16; vi. 14-23.\n\n\nThe word which in the original uniformly stands for the English\n\"meal-offering\" (A.V. \"meat-offering,\" _i.e._, \"food-offering\")\nprimarily means simply \"a present,\" and is often properly so\ntranslated in the Old Testament. It is, for example, the word which is\nused (Gen. xxxii. 13) when we are told how Jacob sent a present to\nEsau his brother; or, later, of the gift sent by Israel to his son\nJoseph in Egypt (Gen. xliii. 11); and, again (2 Sam. viii. 2), of the\ngifts sent by the Moabites to David. Whenever thus used of gifts to\nmen, it will be found that it suggests a recognition of the dignity\nand authority of the person to whom the present is made, and, in many\ncases, a desire also to procure thereby his favour.\n\nIn the great majority of cases, however, the word is used of offerings\nto God, and in this use one or both of these ideas can easily be\ntraced. In Gen. iv. 4, 5, in the account of the offerings of Cain and\nAbel, the word is applied both to the bloody and the unbloody\noffering; but in the Levitical law, it is only applied to the latter.\nWe thus find the fundamental idea of the meal-offering to be this: it\nwas a gift brought by the worshipper to God, in token of his\nrecognition of His supreme authority, and as an expression of desire\nfor His favour and blessing.\n\nBut although the meal-offering, like the burnt-offering, was an\noffering made to God by fire, the differences between them were many\nand significant. In the burnt-offering, it was always a life that was\ngiven to God; in the meal-offering, it was never a life, but always\nthe products of the soil. In the burnt-offering, again, the offerer\nalways set apart the offering by the laying on of the hand, signifying\nthus, as we have seen, a transfer of obligation to death for sin; thus\nconnecting with the offering, in addition to the idea of a gift to\nGod, that of expiation for sin, as preliminary to the offering by\nfire. In the meal-offering, on the other hand, there was no laying on\nof the hand, as there was no shedding of blood, so that the idea of\nexpiation for sin is in no way symbolised. The conception of a gift to\nGod, which, though dominant in the burnt-offering, is not in that the\nonly thing symbolised, in the meal-offering becomes the _only_ thought\nthe offering expresses.\n\nIt is further to be noted that not only must the meal-offering consist\nof the products of the soil, but of such alone as grow, not\nspontaneously, but by cultivation, and thus represent the result of\nman's labour. Not only so, but this last thought is the more\nemphasised, that the grain of the offering was not to be presented to\nthe Lord in its natural condition as harvested, but only when, by\ngrinding, sifting, and often, in addition, by cooking in various ways,\nit has been more or less fully prepared to become the food of man. In\nany case, it must, at least, be parched, as in the variety of the\noffering which is last mentioned in the chapter (vv. 14-16).\n\nWith these fundamental facts before us, we can now see what must have\nbeen the primary and distinctive significance of the meal-offering,\nconsidered as an act of worship. As the burnt-offering represented the\nconsecration of the life, the person, to God, so the meal-offering\nrepresented the consecration of the fruit of his labours.\n\nIf it be asked, why it was that when man's labours are so manifold,\nand their results so diverse, the product of the cultivation of the\nsoil should be alone selected for this purpose, for this, several\nreasons may be given. In the first place, of all the occupations of\nman, the cultivation of the soil is that of by far the greatest\nnumber, and so, in the nature of the case, must continue to be; for\nthe sustenance of man, so far as he is at all above the savage\ncondition, comes, in the last analysis, from the soil. Then, in\nparticular, the Israelites of those days of Moses were about to become\nan agricultural nation. Most natural and suitable, then, it was that\nthe fruit of the activities of such a people should be symbolised by\nthe product of their fields. And since even those who gained their\nliving in other ways than by the cultivation of the ground, must needs\npurchase with their earnings grain and oil, the meal-offering would,\nno less for them than for others, represent the consecration to God of\nthe fruit of their labour.\n\nThe meal-offering is no longer an ordinance of worship, but the duty\nwhich it signified remains in full obligation still. Not only, in\ngeneral, are we to surrender our persons without reserve to the Lord,\nas in the burnt-offering, but unto Him must also be consecrated all\nour works.\n\nThis is true, first of all, regarding our religious service. Each of\nus is sent into the world to do a certain spiritual work among our\nfellow-men. This work and all the result of it is to be offered as a\nholy meal-offering to the Lord. A German writer has beautifully set\nforth this significance of the meal-offering as regards Israel.\n\"Israel's bodily calling was the cultivation of the ground in the land\ngiven him by Jehovah. The fruit of his calling, under the Divine\nblessing, was corn and wine, his bodily food, which nourished and\nsustained his bodily life. Israel's spiritual calling was to work in\nthe field of the kingdom of God, in the vineyard of his Lord; this\nwork was Israel's covenant obligation. Of this, the fruit was the\nspiritual bread, the spiritual nourishment, which should sustain and\ndevelop his spiritual life.\"[9] And the calling of the spiritual\nIsrael, which is the Church, is still the same, to labour in the field\nof the kingdom of God, which is the world of men; and the result of\nthis work is still the same, namely, with the Divine blessing,\nspiritual fruit, sustaining and developing the spiritual life of men.\nAnd in the meal-offering we are reminded that the fruit of all our\nspiritual labours is to be offered to the Lord.\n\n [9] Kurtz, \"Der Alt-testamentliche Opfercultus,\" p. 243.\n\nThe reminder might seem unneedful, as indeed it ought to be; but it is\nnot. For it is sadly possible to call Christ \"Lord,\" and, labouring in\nHis field, do in His name many wonderful works, yet not really unto\nHim. A minister of the Word may with steady labour drive the\nploughshare of the law, and sow continually the undoubted seed of the\nWord in the Master's field; and the apparent result of his work may be\nlarge, and even real, in the conversion of men to God, and a great\nincrease of Christian zeal and activity. And yet it is quite possible\nthat a man do this, and still do it for himself, and not for the\nLord; and when success comes, begin to rejoice in his evident skill as\na spiritual husbandman, and in the praise of man which this brings\nhim; and so, while thus rejoicing in the fruit of his labours, neglect\nto bring of this good corn and wine which he has raised for a daily\nmeal-offering in consecration to the Lord. Most sad is this, and\nhumiliating, and yet sometimes it so comes to pass.\n\nAnd so, indeed, it may be in every department of religious activity.\nThe present age is without its like in the wonderful variety of its\nenterprise in matters benevolent and religious. On every side we see\nan ever-increasing army of labourers driving their various work in the\nfield of the world. City Missions of every variety, Poor Committees\nwith their free lodgings and soup-kitchens, Young Men's Christian\nAssociations, Blue Ribbon Societies, the White Cross Army and the Red\nCross Army, Hospital Work, Prison Reform, and so on;--there is no\nenumerating all the diverse improved methods of spiritual husbandry\naround us, nor can any one rightly depreciate the intrinsic excellence\nof all this, or make light of the work or of its good results. But for\nall this, there are signs that many need to be reminded that all such\nlabour in God's field, however God may graciously make use of it, is\nnot necessarily labour for God; that labour for the good of men is not\ntherefore of necessity labour consecrated to the Lord. For can we\nbelieve that from all this the meal-offering is always brought to Him?\nThe ordinance of this offering needs to be remembered by us all in\nconnection with these things. The fruit of all these our labours must\nbe offered daily in solemn consecration to the Lord.\n\nBut the teaching of the meal-offering reaches further than to what we\ncall religious labours. For in that it was appointed that the offering\nshould consist of man's daily food, Israel was reminded that God's\nclaim for full consecration of all our activities covers everything,\neven to the very food we eat. There are many who consecrate, or think\nthey consecrate, their religious activities; but seem never to have\nunderstood that the consecration of the true Israelite must cover the\nsecular life as well,--the labour of the hand in the field, in the\nshop, the transactions of the office or on 'Change, and all their\nresults, as also the recreations which we are able to command, the\nvery food and drink which we use,--in a word, all the results and\nproducts of our labours, even in secular things. And to bring this\nidea vividly before Israel, it was ordered that the meal-offering\nshould consist of food, as the most common and universal visible\nexpression of the fruit of man's secular activities. The New Testament\nhas the same thought (1 Cor. x. 31): \"Whether ye eat or drink, or\nwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.\"\n\nAnd the offering was not to consist of any food which one might choose\nto bring, but of corn and oil, variously prepared. Not to speak yet of\nany deeper reason for this selection, there is one which lies quite on\nthe surface. For these were the most common and universal articles of\nthe food of the people. There were articles of food, then as now,\nwhich were only to be seen on the tables of the rich; but grain, in\nsome form, was and is a necessity for all. So also the oil, which was\nthat of the olive, was something which in that part of the world, all,\nthe poor no less than the rich, were wont to use continually in the\npreparation of their food; even as it is used to-day in Syria, Italy,\nand other countries where the olive grows abundantly. Hence it\nappears that that was chosen for the offering which all, the richest\nand the poorest alike, would be sure to have; with the evident intent,\nthat no one might be able to plead poverty as an excuse for bringing\nno meal-offering to the Lord.\n\nThus, if this ordinance of the meal-offering taught that God's claim\nfor consecration covers all our activities and all their result, even\nto the very food that we eat, it teaches also that this claim for\nconsecration covers all persons. From the statesman who administers\nthe affairs of an Empire to the day-labourer in the shop, or mill, or\nfield, all alike are hereby reminded that the Lord requires that the\nwork of every one shall be brought and offered to Him in holy\nconsecration.\n\nAnd there was a further prescription, although not mentioned here in\nso many words. In some offerings, barley-meal was ordered, but for\nthis offering the grain presented, whether parched, in the ear, or\nground into meal, must be only wheat. The reason for this, and the\nlesson which it teaches, are plain. For wheat, in Israel, as still in\nmost lands, was the best and most valued of the grains. Israel must\nnot only offer unto God of the fruit of their labour, but the best\nresult of their labours. Not only so, but when the offering was in the\nform of meal, cooked or uncooked, the best and finest must be\npresented. That, in other words, must be offered which represented the\nmost of care and labour in its preparation, or the equivalent of this\nin purchase price. Which emphasises, in a slightly different form, the\nsame lesson as the foregoing. Out of the fruit of our several labours\nand occupations we are to set apart especially for God, not only that\nwhich is best in itself, the finest of the wheat, but that which has\ncost us the most labour. David finely represented this thought of the\nmeal-offering when he said, concerning the cattle for his\nburnt-offerings, which Araunah the Jebusite would have him accept\nwithout price: \"I will not offer unto the Lord my God of that which\ndoth cost me nothing.\"\n\nBut in the meal-offering it was not the whole product of his labour\nthat the Israelite was directed to bring, but only a small part. How\ncould the consecration of this small part represent the consecration\nof all? The answer to this question is given by the Apostle Paul, who\ncalls attention to the fact that in the Levitical symbolism it was\nordained that the consecration of a part should signify the\nconsecration of the whole. For he writes (Rom. xi. 16), \"If the\nfirst-fruit is holy, then the lump\"--the whole from which the\nfirst-fruit is taken--\"is also holy;\" that is, the consecration of a\npart signifies and symbolically expresses the consecration of the\nwhole from which that part is taken. The idea is well illustrated by a\ncustom in India, according to which, when one visits a man of\ndistinction, he will offer the guest a silver coin; an act of social\netiquette which is intended to express the thought that all he has is\nat the service of the guest, and is therewith offered for his use. And\nso in the meal-offering. By offering to God, in this formal way, a\npart of the product of his labour, the Israelite expressed a\nrecognition of His claim upon the whole, and professed a readiness to\nplace, not this part merely, but the whole, at God's service.\n\nBut in the selection of the materials, we are pointed toward a deeper\nsymbolism, by the injunction that in certain cases, at least,\nfrankincense should be added to the offering. But this was not of\nman's food, neither was it, like the meal, and cakes, and oil, a\nproduct of man's labour. Its effect, naturally, was to give a\ngrateful perfume to the sacrifice, that it might be, even in a\nphysical sense, \"an odour of a sweet smell.\" The symbolical meaning of\nincense, in which the frankincense was a chief ingredient, is very\nclearly intimated in Holy Scripture. It is suggested in David's prayer\n(Psalm cxli. 2): \"Let my prayer be set forth as incense; the lifting\nup of my hands, like the evening oblation.\" So, in Luke i. 10, we read\nof the whole multitude of the people praying without the sanctuary,\nwhile the priest Zacharias was offering incense within. And, finally,\nin the Apocalypse, this is expressly declared to be the symbolical\nsignificance of incense; for we read (v. 8), that the four-and-twenty\nelders \"fell down before the Lamb, having ... golden bowls full of\nincense, which are the prayers of the saints.\" So then, without doubt,\nwe must understand it here. In that frankincense was to be added to\nthe meal-offering, it is signified that this offering of the fruit of\nour labours to the Lord must ever be accompanied by prayer; and,\nfurther, that our prayers, thus offered in this daily consecration,\nare most pleasing to the Lord, even as the fragrance of sweet incense\nunto man.\n\nBut if the frankincense, in itself, had thus a symbolical meaning, it\nis not unnatural to infer the same also with regard to other elements\nof the sacrifice. Nor is it, in view of the nature of the symbols,\nhard to discover what that should be.\n\nFor inasmuch as that product of labour is selected for the offering,\nwhich is the food by which men live, we are reminded that this is to\nbe the final aspect under which all the fruit of our labours is to be\nregarded; namely, as furnishing and supplying for the need of the many\nthat which shall be bread to the soul. In the highest sense, indeed,\nthis can only be said of Him who by His work became the Bread of Life\nfor the world, who was at once \"the Sower\" and \"the Corn of Wheat\"\ncast into the ground; and yet, in a lower sense, it is true that the\nwork of feeding the multitudes with the bread of life is the work of\nus all; and that in all our labours and engagements we are to keep\nthis in mind as our supreme earthly object. Just as the products of\nhuman labour are most diverse, and yet all are capable of being\nexchanged in the market for bread for the hungry, so are we to use all\nthe products of our labour with this end in view, that they may be\noffered to the Lord as cakes of fine meal for the spiritual sustenance\nof man.\n\nAnd the oil, too, which entered into every form of the meal-offering,\nhas in Holy Scripture a constant and invariable symbolical meaning. It\nis the uniform symbol of the Holy Spirit of God. Isaiah lxi. 1 is\ndecisive on this point, where in prophecy the Messiah speaks thus:\n\"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings.\" Quite in accord with this, we\nfind that when Jesus reached thirty years of age,--the time for\nbeginning priestly service,--He was set apart for His work, not as the\nLevitical priests, by anointing with symbolical oil, but by the\nanointing with the Holy Ghost descending on Him at His baptism. So,\nalso, in the Apocalypse, the Church is symbolised by seven golden\ncandlesticks, or lamp-stands, supplied with oil after the manner of\nthat in the temple, reminding us that as the lamp can give light only\nas supplied with oil, so, if the Church is to be a light in the world,\nshe must be continually supplied with the Spirit of God. Hence, the\ninjunction that the meal of the offering be kneaded with oil, and\nthat, of whatever form the offering be, oil should be poured upon it,\nis intended, according to this usage, to teach us, that in all work\nwhich shall be offered so as to be acceptable to God, must enter, as\nan inworking and abiding agent, the life-giving Spirit of God.\n\nIt is another direction as to these meal-offerings, as also regarding\nall offerings made by fire, that into them should never enter leaven\n(ver. 11). The symbolical significance of this prohibition is familiar\nto all. For in all leaven is a principle of decay and corruption,\nwhich, except its continued operation be arrested betimes in our\npreparation of leavened food, will soon make that in which it works\noffensive to the taste. Hence, in Holy Scripture, leaven, without a\nsingle exception, is the established symbol of spiritual corruption.\nIt is this, both as considered in itself, and in virtue of its power\nof self-propagation in the leavened mass. Hence the Apostle Paul,\nusing familiar symbolism, charged the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 7) that\nthey \"purge out from themselves the old leaven; and that they keep\nfestival, not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the\nunleavened bread of sincerity and truth\". Thus, in this prohibition is\nbrought before us the lesson, that we take heed to keep out of those\nworks which we present to God for consumption on His altar the leaven\nof wickedness in every form. The prohibition, in the same connection,\nof honey (ver. 11) rests upon the same thought; namely, that honey,\nlike leaven, tends to promote fermentation and decay in that with\nwhich it is mixed.\n\nThe Revised Version--in this case doubtless to be preferred to the\nother--brings out a striking qualification of this universal\nprohibition of leaven or honey, in these words (ver. 12): \"As an\noblation of first-fruits ye shall offer them unto the Lord; but they\nshall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.\"\n\nThus, as the prohibition of leaven and honey from the meal-offering\nburned by fire upon the altar reminds us that the Holy One demands\nabsolute freedom from all that is corrupt in the works of His people;\non the other hand, this gracious permission to offer leaven and honey\nin the first-fruits (which were _not_ burned on the altar) seems\nintended to remind us that, nevertheless, from the Israelite in\ncovenant with God through atoning blood, He is yet graciously pleased\nto accept even offerings in which sinful imperfection is found, so\nthat only, as in the offering of first-fruits, there be the hearty\nrecognition of His rightful claim, before all others, to the first and\nbest we have.\n\nIn ver. 13 we have a last requisition as to the material of the\nmeal-offering: \"Every oblation of thy meal-offering shalt thou season\nwith salt.\" As leaven is a principle of impermanence and decay, so\nsalt, on the contrary, has the power of conservation from corruption.\nAccordingly, to this day, among the most diverse peoples, salt is the\nrecognised symbol of incorruption and unchanging perpetuity. Among the\nArabs of to-day, for example, when a compact or covenant is made\nbetween different parties, it is the custom that each eat of salt,\nwhich is passed around on the blade of a sword; by which act they\nregard themselves as bound to be true, each to the other, even at the\nperil of life. In like manner, in India and other Eastern countries,\nthe usual word for perfidy and breach of faith is, literally,\n\"unfaithfulness to the salt;\" and a man will say, \"Can you distrust\nme? Have I not eaten of your salt?\" That the symbol has this\nrecognised meaning in the meal-offering is plain from the words which\nfollow (ver. 13): \"Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant\nof thy God to be wanting from thy meal-offering.\" In the\nmeal-offering, as in all offerings made by fire, the thought was this:\nthat Jehovah and the Israelite, as it were, partake of salt together,\nin token of the eternal permanence of the holy covenant of salvation\ninto which Israel has entered with God.\n\nHerein we are taught, then, that by the consecration of our labours to\nGod we recognise the relation between the believer and his Lord, as\nnot occasional and temporary, but eternal and incorruptible. In all\nour consecration of our works to God, we are to keep this thought in\nmind: \"I am a man with whom God has entered into an everlasting\ncovenant, 'a covenant of salt.'\"\n\nThree varieties of the meal-offering were prescribed: the first (vv.\n1-3), of uncooked meal; the second (vv. 4-11), of the same fine meal\nand oil, variously prepared by cooking; the third (vv. 14-16), of the\nfirst and best ears of the new grain, simply parched in the fire. If\nany special significance is to be recognised in this variety of the\nofferings, it may possibly be found in this, that one form might be\nsuited better than another to persons of different resources. It has\nbeen supposed that the different implements named--the oven, the\nbaking-pan or plate, the frying-pan--represent, respectively, what\ndifferent classes of the people might be more or less likely to have.\nThis thought more certainly appears in the permission even of parched\ngrain, which then, as still in the East, while used more or less by\nall, was especially the food of the poorest of the people; such as\nmight even be too poor to own so much as an oven or a baking-pan.\n\nIn any case, the variety which was permitted teaches us, that whatever\nform the product of our labour may take, as determined either by our\npoverty or our riches, or by whatever reason, God is graciously\nwilling to accept it, so the oil, frankincense, and salt be not\nwanting. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to offer of it in\nconsecration to our redeeming Lord, though it be no more than parched\ncorn. The smallness or meanness of what we have to give, need not keep\nus back from presenting our meal-offering.\n\nIf we have rightly understood the significance of this offering, the\nritual which is given will now easily yield us its lessons. As in the\ncase of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering also must be brought\nunto the Lord by the offerer himself. The consecration of our works,\nlike the consecration of our persons, must be our own voluntary act.\nYet the offering must be delivered through the mediation of the\npriest; the offerer must not presume himself to lay it on the altar.\nEven so still. In this, as in all else, the Heavenly High Priest must\nact in our behalf with God. We do not, by our consecration of our\nworks, therefore become able to dispense with His offices as Mediator\nbetween us and God. This is the thought of many, but it is a great\nmistake. No offering made to God, except in and through the appointed\nPriest, can be accepted of Him.\n\nIt was next directed that the priest, having received the offering at\nthe hand of the worshipper, should make a twofold use of it. In the\nburnt-offering the whole was to be burnt; but in the meal-offering\nonly a small part. The priest was to take out of the offering, in each\ncase, \"a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar\"; and then it is\nadded (vv. 3-10), \"that which is left of the meal offering\"--which\nwas always much the larger part--\"shall be Aaron's and his sons'.\" The\nsmall part taken out by the priest for the altar was burnt with fire;\nand its consumption by the fire of the altar, as in the other\nofferings, symbolised God's gracious acceptance and appropriation of\nthe offering.\n\nBut here the question naturally arises, if the total consecration of\nthe worshipper and his full acceptance by God, in the case of the\nburnt-offering, was signified by the burning of the whole, how is it\nthat, in this case, where also we must think of a consecration of the\nwhole, yet only a small part was offered to God in the fire of the\naltar? But the difficulty is only in appearance. For, no less than in\nthe burnt-offering, all of the meal-offering is presented to God, and\nall is no less truly accepted by Him. The difference in the two cases\nis only in the use to which God puts the offering. A part of the\nmeal-offering is burnt on the altar as \"a memorial,\" to signify that\nGod takes notice of and graciously accepts the consecrated fruit of\nour labours. It is called \"a memorial\" in that, so to speak, it\nreminded the Lord of the service and devotion of His faithful servant.\nThe thought is well illustrated by the words of Nehemiah (v. 19), who\nsaid: \"Think upon me, O Lord, for good, according to all that I have\ndone for this people;\" and by the word of the angel to Cornelius (Acts\nx. 4): \"Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before\nGod;\" for a memorial in such wise as to procure to him a gracious\nvisitation.\n\nThe remaining and larger portion of the meal-offering was given to the\npriest, as being the servant of God in the work of His house. To this\nservice he was set apart from secular occupations, that he might give\nhimself wholly to the duties of this office. In this he must needs be\nsupported; and to this end it was ordained by God that a certain part\nof the various offerings should be given him, as we shall see more\nfully hereafter.\n\nIn striking contrast with this ordinance, which gave the largest part\nof the meal-offering to the priest, is the law that of the\nfrankincense he must take nothing; \"all\" must go up to God, with the\n\"memorial,\" in the fire of the altar (vv. 2, 16). But in consistency\nwith the symbolism it could not be otherwise. For the frankincense was\nthe emblem of prayer, adoration, and praise; of this, then, the priest\nmust take nought for himself. The manifest lesson is one for all who\npreach the Gospel. Of the incense of praise which may ascend from the\nhearts of God's people, as they minister the Word, they must take none\nfor themselves. \"Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory.\"\n\nSuch then was the meaning of the meal-offering. It represents the\nconsecration unto God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, with prayer and\npraise, of all the work of our hands; an offering with salt, but\nwithout leaven, in token of our unchanging covenant with a holy God.\nAnd God accepts the offerings thus presented by His people, as a\nsavour of a sweet smell, with which He is well pleased. We have called\nthis consecration a duty; is it not rather a most exalted privilege?\n\nOnly let us remember, that although our consecrated offerings are\naccepted, we are not accepted because of the offerings. Most\ninstructive it is to observe that the meal-offerings were not to be\noffered alone; a bloody sacrifice, a burnt-offering or sin-offering,\nmust always precede. How vividly this brings before us the truth that\nit is only when first our persons have been cleansed by atoning blood,\nand thus and therefore consecrated unto God, that the consecration\nand acceptance of our works is possible. We are not accepted because\nwe consecrate our works, but our consecrated works themselves are\naccepted because first we have been \"accepted in the Beloved\" through\nfaith in the blood of the holy Lamb of God.\n\n\nTHE DAILY MEAL-OFFERING.\n\nvi. 14-23.\n\n \"And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron\n shall offer it before the Lord, before the altar. And he shall\n take up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the\n meal-offering and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense\n which is upon the meal-offering, and shall burn it upon the altar\n for a sweet savour, as the memorial thereof, unto the Lord. And\n that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall\n be eaten without leaven in a holy place: in the court of the tent\n of meeting they shall eat it. It shall not be baken with leaven.\n I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire; it\n is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering.\n Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as a due\n for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of the\n Lord made by fire: whosoever toucheth them shall be holy. And the\n Lord spake unto Moses, saying, This is the oblation of Aaron and\n of his sons, which they shall offer unto the Lord in the day when\n he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a\n meal-offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half\n thereof in the evening. On a baking-pan it shall be made with\n oil; when it is soaked, thou shalt bring it in: in baken pieces\n shalt thou offer the meal-offering for a sweet savour unto the\n Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from\n among his sons shall offer it: by a statute for ever it shall be\n wholly burnt unto the Lord. And every meal-offering of the priest\n shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten.\"\n\nAs there were not only the burnt-offerings of the individual\nIsraelite, but also a daily burnt-offering, morning and evening,\npresented by the priest as the representative of the collective\nnation, so also with the meal-offering. The law concerning this daily\nmeal-offering is given in chap. vi. 19. The amount in this case was\nprescribed, being apparently the amount regarded as a day's portion of\nfood--\"the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour,\" half of which was to\nbe offered in the morning and half in the evening, made on a baking\npan with oil, \"for a sweet savour unto the Lord.\" Unlike the\nmeal-offering of the individual, it is said, \"by a statute for ever,\nit shall be wholly burnt unto the Lord.... Every meal-offering of the\npriest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten.\" This single\nvariation from the ordinance of chap. ii. is simply an application of\nthe principle which governs all the sacrifices except the\npeace-offering, that he who offered any sacrifice could never himself\neat of it; and as the priest in this case was the offerer, the\nsymbolism required that he should himself have nothing of the\noffering, as being wholly given by him to the Lord. And this\nmeal-offering was to be presented, not merely, as some have inferred\nfrom ver. 20, on the day of the anointing of the high priest, but, as\nis expressly said, \"perpetually.\"\n\nThe typical meaning of the meal-offering, and, in particular, of this\ndaily meal-offering, which, as we learn from Exod. xxx. 39, 40, was\noffered with the daily burnt-offering, is very clear. Every\nmeal-offering pointed to Christ in His consecration of all His works\nto the Father. And as the daily burnt-offering presented by Aaron and\nhis sons typified our heavenly High Priest as offering His person in\ndaily consecration unto God in our behalf, so, in the daily\nmeal-offering, wholly burnt upon the altar, we see Him in like manner\noffering unto God in perfect consecration, day by day, perpetually,\nall His works for our acceptance. To the believer, often sorely\noppressed with the sense of the imperfection of his own consecration\nof his daily works, in that because of this the Father is not\nglorified by him as He should be, how exceedingly comforting this view\nof Christ! For that which, at the best, we do so imperfectly and\ninterruptedly, He does in our behalf perfectly, and with never-failing\nconstancy; thus at once perfectly glorifying the Father, and also,\nthrough the virtue of the boundless merit of this consecration,\nconstantly procuring for us daily grace unto the life eternal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE PEACE-OFFERING._\n\nLEV. iii. 1-17; vii. 11-34; xix. 5-8; xxii. 21-25.\n\n\nIn chap. iii. is given, though not with completeness, the law of the\npeace-offering. The alternative rendering of this term,\n\"thank-offering\" (marg. R.V.), precisely expresses only one variety of\nthe peace-offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any\none word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception\nof this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the familiar\nterm which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be made clear\nin the sequel, it was the main object of this offering, as consisting\nof a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial meal, to express\nthe conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship with God as\nsecured by the shedding of atoning blood.\n\nLike the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, the peace-offering had\ncome down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not\nexplicitly named, in Gen. xxxi. 54, on the occasion of the covenant\nbetween Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of\ntheir covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exod. xviii. 12, where\n\"Jethro took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came\nand all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law\nbefore God.\" Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the\nburnt-offering, confined to the line of Abraham's seed. Indeed,\nscarcely any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been\nmore universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially\nconnected with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of\nthis sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are told\n(Exod. xxxii. 6) how the people, having made the golden calf,\nworshipped it with peace-offerings, and sat down to eat and to drink\nat the sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace-offering;\nwhile in 1 Cor. x. Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as common\namong the idolaters of Corinth.\n\nIt hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such\nfacts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than in\nthe general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen nations.\nRather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the expression on the\npart of man of a sense of need and want, especially, in this case, of\nfriendship and fellowship with God; and, seeing that the conception of\na sacrifice culminating in a feast was, in truth, most happily adapted\nto symbolise this idea, surely it were nothing strange that God should\nbase the ordinances of His own worship upon such universal conceptions\nand customs, correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might\ndirectly or indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to\nspeak, is thus already found existing, whether in letters or in\nsymbols, why should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar\nsymbolism, which, because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for\nthat reason, far less likely to be understood?\n\nThe plan of chap. iii. is very simple; and there is little in its\nphraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the\noffering of peace-offerings, first, from the herd (vv. 1-5); then,\nfrom the flock, whether of the sheep (vv. 6-11) or of the goats (vv.\n12-16). After each of these three sections it is formally declared of\neach offering that it is \"a sweet savour,\" \"an offering made by fire,\"\nor \"the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.\" The chapter\nthen closes with a prohibition, specially occasioned by the directions\nfor this sacrifice, of all use by Israel of fat or blood as food.\n\nThe regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the\noffering differ from those for the burnt-offering in allowing a\ngreater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a male;\nthough recorded instances of the observance of the peace-offering\nindicate that the male was even here preferred when obtainable. The\noffering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however, mentioned as\npermissible, as in the case of the burnt-offering. But this is no\nexception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since these were\nexcluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial meal, for\nwhich, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient. Ordinarily, the\nvictim must be without blemish; and yet, even in this matter, a larger\nliberty was allowed (chap. xxii. 23) in the case of those which were\ntermed \"free-will offerings,\" where it was permitted to offer even a\nbullock or a lamb which might have \"some part superfluous or lacking.\"\nThe latitude of choice thus allowed finds its sufficient explanation\nin the fact that while the idea of representation and expiation had a\nplace in the peace-offering as in all bloody offerings, yet this was\nsubordinate to the chief intent of the sacrifice, which was to\nrepresent the victim as food given by God to Israel in the sacrificial\nmeal. It is to be observed that only such defects are therefore\nallowed in the victim as could not possibly affect its value as food.\nAnd so even already, in these regulations as to the selection of the\nvictim, we have a hint that we have now to do with a type, in which\nthe dominant thought is not so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our\nrepresentative, as Christ the Lamb of God, the food of the soul,\nthrough participation in which we have fellowship with God.\n\nAs before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in\nall, six, each of which, in the peace-offering, has its proper place.\nOf these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the laying on of\nthe hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood,\nare precisely the same as in the burnt-offering, and have the same\nsymbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt-offering and the\npeace-offering, the innocent victim typified the Lamb of God,\npresented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as an atonement for\nsin through substitutionary death; and the sprinkling of the blood\nupon the altar signifies in this, as in the other, the application of\nthat blood Godward by the Divine Priest acting in our behalf, and\nthereby procuring for us remission of sin, redemption through the\nblood of the slain Lamb.\n\nIn the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial\nmeal, the peace-offering stands in strong contrast with the\nburnt-offering. In the burnt-offering all was burned upon the altar;\nin the peace-offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed\ndirections which are given in the case of each class of victims are\nintended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal\nin which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for\neach, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim,\nthe particular is added, according to King James's version, \"the whole\nrump;\" but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected this\ntranslation, giving it correctly as \"the fat tail entire.\" The change\nis an instructive one, as it points to the idea which determined this\nselection of all the fat for the offering by fire. For the reference\nis to a special breed of sheep which is still found in Palestine,\nArabia, and North Africa. With these, the tail grows to an immense\nsize, sometimes weighing fifteen pounds or more, and consists almost\nentirely of a rich substance, in character between fat and marrow. By\nthe Orientals in the regions where this variety of sheep is found it\nis still esteemed as the most valuable part of the animal for food.\nAnd thus, just as in the meal-offering the Israelite was required to\nbring out of all his grain the best, and of his meal the finest, so in\nthe peace-offering he is required to bring the fat, and in the case of\nthe sheep this fat tail, as the best and richest parts, to be burnt\nupon the altar to Jehovah. And the burning, as in the whole\nburnt-sacrifice, was, so to speak, the visible Divine appropriation of\nthat which was placed upon the altar, the best of the offering, as\nappointed to be \"the food of God.\" If the symbolism, at first thought,\nperplex any, we have but to remember how frequently in Scripture \"fat\"\nand \"fatness\" are used as the symbol of that which is richest and\nbest; as, _e.g._, where the Psalmist says, \"They shall be abundantly\nsatisfied with the fatness of Thy house;\" and Isaiah, \"Come unto Me,\nand let your soul delight itself in fatness.\" Thus when, in the\npeace-offering, of which the larger part was intended for food, it is\nordered that the fat should be given to God in the fire of the altar,\nthe same lesson is taught as in the meal-offering, namely, God is\never to be served first and with the best that we have. \"All the fat\nis the Lord's.\"\n\nIn the burnt-offering, the burning ended the ceremonial: in the nature\nof the case, since all was to be burnt, the object of the sacrifice\nwas attained when the burning was completed. But in the case of the\npeace-offering, to the burning of the fat upon the altar now followed\nthe culminating act of the ritual, in the eating of the sacrifice. In\nthis, however, we must distinguish from the eating by the offerer and\nhis household, the eating by the priests; of which only the\nfirst-named properly belonged to the ceremonial of the sacrifice. The\nassignment of certain parts of the sacrifice to be eaten by the\npriests has the same meaning as in the meal-offering. These portions\nwere regarded in the law as given, not by the offerer, but by God, to\nHis servants the priests; that they might eat them, not as a\nceremonial act, but as their appointed sustenance from His table whom\nthey served. To this we shall return in a subsequent chapter, and\ntherefore need not dwell upon it here.\n\nThis eating of the sacrifice by the priests has thus not yet taken us\nbeyond the conception of the meal-offering, with a part of which they,\nin like manner, by God's arrangement, were fed. Quite different,\nhowever, is the sacrificial eating by the offerer which follows. He\nhad brought the appointed victim; it had been slain in his behalf; the\nblood had been sprinkled for atonement on the altar; the fat had been\ntaken off and burned upon the altar; the thigh and breast had been\ngiven back by God to the officiating priest; and now, last of all, the\nofferer himself receives back from God, as it were, the remainder of\nthe flesh of the victim, that he himself might eat it before Jehovah.\nThe chapter before us gives no directions as to this sacrificial\neating; these are given in Deut. xii. 6, 7, 17, 18, to which passage,\nin order to the full understanding of that which is most distinctive\nin the peace-offering, we must refer. In the two verses last named, we\nhave a regulation which covers, not only the peace-offerings, but with\nthem all other sacrificial eatings, thus: \"Thou mayest not eat within\nthy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the\nfirstlings of thy herd or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou\nvowest, nor thy free-will offerings, nor the heave-offering of thy\nhand: but thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the place\nwhich the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy\ndaughter, and my man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite\nthat is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy\nGod in all that thou puttest thy hand unto.\"\n\nIn these directions are three particulars; the offerings were to be\neaten, by the offerer, not at his own home, but before Jehovah at the\ncentral sanctuary; he was to include in this sacrificial feast all the\nmembers of his family, and any Levite that might be stopping with him;\nand he was to make the feast an occasion of holy joy before the Lord\nin the labour of his hands. What was now the special significance of\nall this? As this was the special characteristic of the\npeace-offering, the answer to this question will point us to its true\nsignificance, both for Israel in the first place, and then for us as\nwell, as a type of Him who was to come.\n\nIt is not hard to perceive the significance of a feast as a symbol. It\nis a natural and suitable expression of friendship and fellowship. He\nwho gives the feast thereby shows to the guests his friendship toward\nthem, in inviting them to partake of the food of his house. And if, in\nany case, there has been an interruption or breach of friendship, such\nan invitation to a feast, and association in it of the formerly\nalienated parties, is a declaration on the part of him who gives the\nfeast, as also of those who accept his invitation, that the breach is\nhealed, and that where there was enmity, is now peace.\n\nSo natural is this symbolism that, as above remarked, it has been a\ncustom very widely spread among heathen peoples to observe sacrificial\nfeasts, very like to this peace-offering of the Hebrews, wherein a\nvictim is first offered to some deity, and its flesh then eaten by the\nofferer and his friends. Of such sacrificial feasts we read in ancient\nBabylonia and Assyria, in Persia, and, in modern times, among the\nArabs, Hindoos, and Chinese, and various native races of the American\ncontinent; always having the same symbolic intent and meaning--namely,\nan expression of desire after friendship and intercommunion with the\ndeity thus worshipped. The existence of this custom in Old Testament\ndays is recognised in Isa. lxv. 11 (R.V.), where God charges the\nidolatrous Israelites with preparing \"a table for the god Fortune,\"\nand filling up \"mingled wine unto (the goddess) Destiny\"--certain\nBabylonian (?) deities; and in the New Testament, as already remarked,\nthe Apostle Paul refers to the same custom among the idolatrous Greeks\nof Corinth.\n\nAnd because this symbolic meaning of a feast is as suitable and\nnatural as it is universal, we find that in the symbolism of Holy\nScripture, eating and drinking, and especially the feast, has been\nappropriated by the Holy Spirit to express precisely the same ideas of\nreconciliation, friendship, and intercommunion between the giver of\nthe feast and the guest, as in all the great heathen religions. We\nmeet this thought, for instance, in Psalm xxii. 5: \"Thou preparest a\ntable before me in the presence of my enemies;\" and in Psalm xxxvi. 8,\nwhere it is said of God's people: \"They shall be abundantly satisfied\nwith the fatness of Thy house;\" and again, in the grand prophecy in\nIsaiah, xxv., of the final redemption of all the long-estranged\nnations, we read that when God shall destroy in Mount Zion \"the veil\nthat is spread over all nations, and swallow up death for ever,\" then\n\"the Lord of hosts shall make unto all peoples a feast of fat things,\na feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines\non the lees well refined.\" And in the New Testament, the symbolism is\ntaken up again, and used repeatedly by our Lord, as, for example, in\nthe parables of the Great Supper (Luke xiv. 15-24) and the Prodigal\nSon (Luke xv. 23), the Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-14),\nconcerning the blessings of redemption; and also in that ordinance of\nthe Holy Supper, which He has appointed to be a continual reminder of\nour relation to Himself, and means for the communication of His grace,\nthrough our symbolic eating therein of the flesh of the slain Lamb of\nGod.\n\nThus, nothing in the Levitical symbolism is better certified to us\nthan the meaning of the feast of the peace-offering. Employing a\nsymbol already familiar to the world for centuries, God ordained this\neating of the peace-offering in Israel, to be the symbolic expression\nof peace and fellowship with Himself. In Israel it was to be eaten\n\"before the Lord,\" and, as well it might be, \"with rejoicing.\"\n\nBut, just at this point, the question has been raised: How are we to\nconceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace-offering? Was it a\nfeast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast given\nby God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast, who was\nrepresented as host, and who as guest? Among other nations than the\nHebrews, it was the thought in such cases that the feast was given by\nthe worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an Assyrian\ninscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at Nineveh,\nsays: \"I filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I\ncalled it 'the Palace which rivals the World.' Ashur, Ishtar of\nNineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it.\nVictims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before them, and I\ncaused them to receive my gifts.\"\n\nBut here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive\ncontrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast and\nthe same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In the\nheathen sacrificial feasts, it is man who feasts God; in the\npeace-offering of Leviticus, it is God who feasts man. Some have\nindeed denied that this is the conception of the peace-offering, but\nmost strangely. It is true that the offerer, in the first instance,\nhad brought the victim; but it seems to be forgotten by such, that\nprior to the feasting he had already given the victim to God, to be\noffered in expiation for sin. From that time the victim was no longer,\nany part of it, his own property, but God's. God having received the\noffering, now directs what use shall be made of it; a part shall be\nburned upon the altar; another part He gives to the priests, His\nservants; with the remaining part He now feasts the worshipper.\n\nAnd as if to make this clearer yet, while Esarhaddon, for example,\ngives his feast to the gods, not in their temples, but in his own\npalace, as himself the host and giver of the feast, the Israelite, on\nthe contrary,--that he might not, like the heathen, complacently\nimagine himself to be feasting God,--is directed to eat the\npeace-offering, not at his own house, but at God's house. In this way\nGod was set forth as the host, the One who gave the feast, to whose\nhouse the Israelite was invited, at whose table he was to eat.\n\nProfoundly suggestive and instructive is this contrast between the\nheathen custom in this offering, and the Levitical ordinance. For do\nwe not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all\nof man's religion, and the Gospel of God? Man's idea always is, until\ntaught better by God, \"I will be religious and make God my friend, by\ndoing something, giving something for God.\" God, on the contrary,\nteaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact reverse;\nthat we become truly religious by taking, first of all, with\nthankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of\nfriendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen\nrituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also, in both, a desire for\nits removal, and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former, man\never seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by something\nthat he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and thus God shall\nbe well pleased. But God's way is the opposite! The sacrificial feast\nat which man shall have fellowship with God is provided not by man for\nGod, but by God for man, and is to be eaten, not in our house, but\nspiritually partaken in the presence of the invisible God.\n\nWe can now perceive the teaching of the peace-offering for Israel. In\nIsrael, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after\nfellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace-offering\ntaught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be\nrealised. The first thing was for him to bring and present a\ndivinely-appointed victim; and then, the laying of the hand upon his\nhead with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the\nsprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to God\nin the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol expiation\nhad been thus made for the Israelite's sin, there could be no feast\nwhich should speak of friendship and fellowship with God. But this\nbeing first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness and\nrestoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast in His\nown house.\n\nWhat a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when\nonce pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a\ndear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his\nhouse, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are\ntroubled, and perhaps seek out one who is our friend's friend and also\nour friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to reconcile\nto us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we anxiously\nawait his return; but or ever he has come back again, comes an\ninvitation from him who was estranged, just in the old loving way,\nasking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one of us would\nunderstand this; we should be sure at once that the mediator had\nhealed the breach, that we were forgiven, and were welcome as of old\nto all that our friend's friendship had to give.\n\nBut God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord Jesus,\nHis beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator; and He\nhas healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in offering\nHis own body as a sacrifice, He has ascended into heaven, there to\nappear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet returned. But\nmeantime the message comes down from Him to all who are hungering\nafter peace with God: \"The feast is made; and ye all are invited;\ncome! all things are now ready!\" And this is the message of the\nGospel. It is the peace-offering translated into words. Can we\nhesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent in our\nacceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we are to\neat \"with rejoicing.\"\n\nAnd now we may well observe another circumstance of profound typical\nsignificance. When the Israelite came to God's house to eat before\nJehovah, he was fed there with the flesh of the slain victim. The\nflesh of that very victim whose blood had been given for him on the\naltar, now becomes his food to sustain the life thus redeemed. Whether\nthe Israelite saw into the full meaning of this, we may easily doubt;\nbut it leads us on now to consider, in the clearer light of the New\nTestament, the deepest significance of the peace-offering and its\nritual, as typical of our Lord and our relation to Him.\n\nThat the victim of the peace-offering, as of all the bloody offerings,\nwas intended to typify Christ, and that the death of that victim, in\nthe peace-offering, as in all the bloody offerings, foreshadowed the\ndeath of Christ for our sins,--this needs no further proof. And so,\nagain, as the burning of the whole burnt-offering represented Christ\nas accepted for us in virtue of His perfect consecration to the\nFather, so the peace-offering, in that the fat is burned, represents\nChrist as accepted for us, in that He gave to God in our behalf the\nvery best He had to offer. For in that incomparable sacrifice we are\nto think not only of the completeness of Christ's consecration for us,\nbut also of the supreme excellence of that which He offered unto God\nfor us. All that was best in Him, reason, affection, and will, as well\nas the members of His holy body,--nay, the Godhead as well as the\nManhood, in the holy mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation, He\noffered for us unto the Father.\n\nThis, however, has taken us as yet but little beyond the meaning of\nthe burnt-offering. The closing act of the ritual, the sacrificial\neating, however, reaches in its typical significance far beyond this\nor any of the bloody offerings.\n\nFirst, in that he who had laid his hand upon the victim, and for whom\nthe blood had been sprinkled, is now invited by God to feast in His\nhouse, upon food given by himself, the food of the sacrifice, which is\ncalled in the ritual \"the bread of God,\" the eating of the\npeace-offering symbolically teaches us that if we have indeed\npresented the Lamb of God as our peace, not only has the Priest\nsprinkled for us the blood, so that our sin is pardoned, but, in token\nof friendship now restored, God invites the penitent believer to sit\ndown at His own table,--in a word, to joyful fellowship with Himself!\nWhich means, if our weak faith but take it in, that the Almighty and\nMost Holy God now invites us to fellowship in all the riches of His\nGodhead; places all that He has at the service of the believing\nsinner, redeemed by the blood of the slain Lamb. The prodigal has\nreturned; the Father will now feast him with the best that He has.\nFellowship with God through reconciliation by the blood of the slain\nLamb,--this then is the first thing shadowed forth in this part of\nthe ritual of the peace-offering. It is a sufficiently wonderful\nthought, but there is truth yet more wonderful veiled under this\nsymbolism.\n\nFor when we ask, what then was the bread or food of God, of which He\ninvited him to partake who brought the peace-offering, and learn that\nit was the flesh of the slain victim; here we meet a thought which\ngoes far beyond atonement by the shedding of blood. The same victim\nwhose blood was shed and sprinkled in atonement for sin is now given\nby God to be the redeemed Israelite's food, by which his life shall be\nsustained! Surely we cannot mistake the meaning of this. For the\nvictim of the altar and the food of the table are one and the same.\nEven so He who offered Himself for our sins on Calvary, is now given\nby God to be the food of the believer; who now thus lives by \"eating\nthe flesh\" of the slain Lamb of God. Does this imagery, at first\nthought, seem strange and unnatural? So did it also seem strange to\nthe Jews, when in reply to our Lord's teaching they wonderingly asked\n(John vi. 52), \"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?\" And yet so\nChrist spoke; and when He had first declared Himself to the Jews as\nthe Antitype of the manna, the true Bread sent down from heaven, He\nthen went on to say, in words which far transcended the meaning of\nthat type (John vi. 51), \"The bread which I will give is My flesh, for\nthe life of the world.\" How the light begins now to flash back from\nthe Gospel to the Levitical law, and from this, again, back to the\nGospel! In the one we read, \"Ye shall eat the flesh of your\npeace-offerings before the Lord with joy;\" in the other, the word of\nthe Lord Jesus concerning Himself (John vi. 33, 55, 57): \"The bread of\nGod is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the\nworld.... My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.... As\nthe living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he\nthat eateth Me, he also shall live because of Me.\" And now the\nShekinah light of the ancient tent of meeting begins to illumine even\nthe sacramental table, and as we listen to the words of Jesus, \"Take,\neat! this is My body which was broken for you,\" we are reminded of the\nfeast of the peace-offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the\nflesh of the sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.\n\nLet us hold fast then to this deepest thought of the peace-offering, a\ntruth too little understood even by many true believers. The very\nChrist who died for our sins, if we have by faith accepted His\natonement and have been for His sake forgiven, is now given us by God\nfor the sustenance of our purchased life. Let us make use of Him,\ndaily feeding upon Him, that so we may live and grow unto the life\neternal!\n\nBut there is yet one thought more concerning this matter, which the\npeace-offering, as far as was possible, shadowed forth. Although\nChrist becomes the bread of God for us only through His offering of\nHimself first for our sins, as our atonement, yet this is something\nquite distinct from atonement. Christ became our sacrifice once for\nall; the atonement is wholly a fact of the past. But Christ is now\nstill, and will ever continue to be unto all His people, the bread or\nfood of God, by eating whom they live. He was the propitiation, as the\nslain victim; but, in virtue of that, He is now become the flesh of\nthe peace-offering. Hence He must be this, not as dead, but as living,\nin the present resurrection life of His glorified humanity. Here\nevidently is a fact which could not be directly symbolised in the\npeace-offering without a miracle ever repeated. For Israel ate of the\nvictim, not as living, but as dead. It could not be otherwise. And yet\nthere is a regulation of the ritual (chap. vii. 15-18; xix. 6, 7)\nwhich suggests this phase of truth as clearly as possible without a\nmiracle. It was ordered that none of the flesh of the peace-offering\nshould be allowed to remain beyond the third day; if any then was left\nuneaten, it was to be burned with fire. The reason for this lies upon\nthe surface. It was doubtless that there might be no possible\nbeginning of decay; and thus it was secured that the flesh of the\nvictim with which God fed the accepted Israelite should be the flesh\nof a victim that was not to see corruption. But does not this at once\nremind us how it was written of the Antitype, \"Thou wilt not suffer\nThy Holy One to see corruption\"? while, moreover, the extreme limit of\ntime allowed further reminds us how it was precisely on the third day\nthat Christ rose from the dead in the incorruptible life of the\nresurrection, that so He might through all time continue to be the\nliving bread of His people.\n\nAnd thus this special regulation points us not indistinctly toward the\nNew Testament truth that Christ is now unto us the bread of God, not\nmerely as the One who died, but as the One who, living again, was not\nallowed to see corruption. For so the Apostle argues (Rom. v. 11),\nthat \"being justified by faith,\" and so having \"peace with God through\nour Lord Jesus Christ,\" our peace-offering, having been thus\n\"reconciled by His death, we shall now be saved by His life.\" And\nthus, as we appropriate Christ crucified as our atonement, so by a\nlike faith we are to appropriate Christ risen as our life, to be for\nus as the flesh of the peace-offering, our nourishment and strength by\nwhich we live.\n\n\nTHE PROHIBITION OF FAT AND BLOOD.\n\niii. 16, 17; vii. 22-27; xvii. 10-16.\n\n \"And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of\n the offering made by fire, for a sweet savour: all the fat is the\n Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your\n generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat\n nor blood.... And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto\n the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or\n sheep, or goat. And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and\n the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any\n other service: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever\n eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made\n by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut\n off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether\n it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it\n be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his\n people.... And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or\n of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner\n of blood; I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood,\n and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the\n flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar\n to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh\n atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the\n children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall\n any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever\n man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that\n sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl\n that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover\n it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof\n is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the\n children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:\n for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth\n it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which dieth\n of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be\n homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe\n himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be\n clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he\n shall bear his iniquity.\"\n\nThe chapter concerning the peace-offering ends (vv. 16, 17) with these\nwords: \"All the fat is the Lord's. It shall be a perpetual statute for\nyou throughout your generations, that ye shall eat neither fat nor\nblood.\"\n\nTo this prohibition so much importance was attached that in the\nsupplemental \"law of the peace-offering\" (vii. 22-27) it is repeated\nwith added explanation and solemn warning, thus: \"And the Lord spake\nunto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye\nshall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the\nfat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is\ntorn with beasts, may be used for any other service: but ye shall in\nno wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which\nmen offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that\neateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner\nof blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.\nWhosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from\nhis people.\"\n\nFrom which it appears that this prohibition of the eating of fat\nreferred only to the fat of such beasts as were used for sacrifice.\nWith these, however, the law was absolute, whether the animal was\npresented for sacrifice, or only slain for food. It held good with\nregard to these animals, even when, because of the manner of their\ndeath, they could not be used for sacrifice. In such cases, though the\nfat might be used for other purposes, still it must not be used for\nfood.\n\nThe prohibition of the blood as food appears from xvii. 10 to have\nbeen absolutely universal; it is said, \"Whatsoever man there be of the\nhouse of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that\neateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that\neateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.\"\n\nThe reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood, whether in the\ncase of the sacrificial feasts of the peace-offerings or on other\noccasions, is given (xvii. 11, 12), in these words: \"For the life of\nthe flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar\nto make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh\natonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of\nIsrael, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger\nthat sojourneth among you eat blood.\"\n\nAnd the prohibition is then extended to include not only the blood of\nanimals which were used upon the altar, but also such as were taken in\nhunting, thus (ver. 13): \"And whatsoever man there be of the children\nof Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh\nin hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the\nblood thereof, and cover it with dust,\" as something of peculiar\nsanctity; and then the reason previously given is repeated with\nemphasis (ver. 14): \"For as to the life of all flesh, the blood\nthereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the\nchildren of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for\nthe life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall\nbe cut off.\"\n\nAnd since, when an animal died from natural causes, or through being\ntorn of a beast, the blood would be drawn from the flesh either not at\nall or but imperfectly, as further guarding against the possibility of\neating blood, it is ordered (vv. 15, 16) that he who does this shall\nbe held unclean: \"Every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself,\nor that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a\nstranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and\nbe unclean until the even. But if he wash them not nor bathe his\nflesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.\"\n\nThese passages explicitly state the reason for the prohibition by God\nof the use of blood for food to be the fact that, as the vehicle of\nthe life, it has been appointed by Him as the means of expiation for\nsin upon the altar. And the reason for the prohibition of the fat is\nsimilar; namely, its appropriation for God upon the altar, as in the\npeace-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings; \"all the\nfat is the Lord's.\"\n\nThus the Israelite, by these two prohibitions, was to be continually\nreminded, so often as he partook of his daily food, of two things: by\nthe one, of atonement by the blood as the only ground of acceptance;\nand by the other, of God's claim on the man redeemed by the blood, for\nthe consecration of his best. Not only so, but by the frequent\nrepetition, and still more by the heavy penalty attached to the\nviolation of these laws, he was reminded of the exceeding importance\nthat these two things had in the mind of God. If he eat the blood of\nany animal claimed by God for the altar, he should be cut off from his\npeople; that is, outlawed, and cut off from all covenant privilege as\na citizen of the kingdom of God in Israel. And even though the blood\nwere that of the beast taken in the chase, still ceremonial\npurification was required as the condition of resuming his covenant\nposition.\n\nNothing, doubtless, seems to most Christians of our day more remote\nfrom practical religion than these regulations touching the fat and\nthe blood, which are brought before us with such fulness in the law of\nthe peace-offering and elsewhere. And yet nothing is of more\npresent-day importance in this law than the principles which underlie\nthese regulations. For as with type, so with antitype. No less\nessential to the admission of the sinful man into that blessed\nfellowship with a reconciled God, which the peace-offering typified,\nis the recognition of the supreme sanctity of the precious sacrificial\nblood of the Lamb of God; no less essential to the life of happy\ncommunion with God, is the ready consecration of the best fruit of our\nlife to Him.\n\nSurely, both of these, and especially the first, are truths for our\ntime. For no observing man can fail to recognise the very ominous fact\nthat a constantly increasing number, even of professed preachers of\nthe Gospel, in so many words refuse to recognise the place which\npropitiatory blood has in the Gospel of Christ, and to admit its\npre-eminent sanctity as consisting in this, that it was given on the\naltar to make atonement for our souls. Nor has the present generation\noutgrown the need of the other reminder touching the consecration of\nthe best to the Lord. How many there are, comfortable, easy-going\nChristians, whose principle--if one might speak in the idiom of the\nMosaic law--would rather seem to be, ever to give the lean to God, and\nkeep the fat, the best fruit of their life and activity, for\nthemselves! Such need to be most urgently and solemnly reminded that\nin spirit the warning against the eating of the blood and the fat is\nin full force. It was written of such as should break this law, \"that\nsoul shall be cut off from his people.\" And so in the Epistle to the\nHebrews (x. 26-29) we find one of its most solemn warnings directed to\nthose who \"count this blood of the covenant,\" the blood of Christ, \"an\nunholy (_i.e._, common) thing;\" as exposed by this, their\nundervaluation of the sanctity of the blood, to a \"sorer punishment\"\nthan overtook him that \"set at nought Moses' law,\" even the\nretribution of Him who said, \"Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith\nthe Lord.\"\n\nAnd so in this law of the peace-offerings, which ordains the\nconditions of the holy feast of fellowship with a reconciled God, we\nfind these two things made fundamental in the symbolism: full\nrecognition of the sanctity of the blood as that which atones for the\nsoul; and the full consecration of the redeemed and pardoned soul to\nthe Lord. So was it in the symbol; and so shall it be when the\nsacrificial feast shall at last receive its most complete fulfilment\nin the communion of the redeemed with Christ in glory. There will be\nno differences of opinion then and there, either as to the\ntranscendent value of that precious blood which made atonement, or as\nto the full consecration which such a redemption requires from the\nredeemed.\n\n\nTHANK-OFFERINGS, VOWS, AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS.\n\nvii. 11-21.\n\n \"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which\n one shall offer unto the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving,\n then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened\n cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil,\n and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked. With cakes of\n leavened bread he shall offer his oblation with the sacrifice of\n his peace-offerings for thanksgiving. And of it he shall offer\n one out of each oblation for an heave-offering unto the Lord; it\n shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the\n peace-offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his\n peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his\n oblation; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. But if\n the sacrifice of his oblation be a vow, or a freewill offering,\n it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his sacrifice: and\n on the morrow that which remaineth of it shall be eaten: but that\n which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day\n shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the\n sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten on the third day, it\n shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that\n offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth\n of it shall bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any\n unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.\n And as for the flesh, everyone that is clean shall eat thereof:\n but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of\n peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his\n uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.\n And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness\n of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat\n of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that soul shall\n be cut off from his people.\"\n\nAccording to this supplemental section on the law of the\npeace-offerings, these were of three kinds; namely, \"sacrifices of\nthanksgiving,\" \"vows,\" and \"freewill-offerings.\" The first were\noffered in token of gratitude for mercies received; as in Psalm cxvi.\n16, 17, where we read: \"Thou hast loosed my bonds; I will offer to\nThee the sacrifice of thanksgiving.\" The second, like these, were\noffered also in grateful return for prayer answered and mercy\nreceived, but with the difference that they were promised before, upon\nthe condition of the prayer for mercy being granted. Lastly, the\nfreewill-offerings were those which had no special occasion, but were\nmerely the spontaneous expression of the love of the offerer to God,\nand his desire to live in friendship and fellowship with Him. It is\napparently these freewill-offerings that we are to recognise in the\nmany instances recorded where the peace-offering was presented in\nconnection with supplication for special help and favour from God; as,\n_e.g._, when (Judges xx. 26) Israel supplicated mercy from God after\ntheir disastrous defeat in the civil war with the tribe of Benjamin;\nand when David entreated the Lord (2 Sam. xxiv. 25) for the staying of\nthe plague in Israel.\n\nWith not only the thank-offering, but all peace-offerings, as is clear\nfrom Numb. xv. 2-4, a full meal-offering, consisting of three kinds of\nunleavened cakes, was to be offered, of each of which, one was to be\npresented as a heave-offering, with the heave-shoulder of the\nsacrifice, to the Lord (vii. 12). For the sacrificial feast, in which\nthe offerer, his family, and friends were to partake, he was also to\nbring cakes of leavened bread, which, however, though eaten before God\nby the offerer, might not be presented unto God for a heave-offering,\nnor come upon the altar (ver. 13).\n\nFrom what we have already seen, the spiritual meaning of this will be\nclear. Thus in symbol the Israelite offered unto God, with his life,\nthe fruit of the labour of his hands, in gratitude to Him, and\nexpressed his happy consciousness of friendship and fellowship with\nGod through atonement, by feasting before Him. The leavened bread is\noffered simply, as B\u00e4hr suggests, as the usual accompaniment to a\nfeast; though regard is still had to the fact, never once forgotten in\nHoly Scripture, that leaven is nevertheless an element and symbol of\ncorruption; so that however the reconciled Israelite may eat his\nleavened bread before God, yet it cannot be allowed to come upon the\naltar of the Most Holy One.\n\nTwo slight differences appear in the ritual for the different kinds of\npeace-offerings. First, in the case of the freewill-offering, a single\nexception is allowed to the general rule that the victim must be\nwithout blemish, in the permission to offer what, otherwise perfect,\nmight have \"anything superfluous or lacking\" in its parts (xxii. 23);\na circumstance which could not affect its fitness as the symbol of\nspiritual food. For a vow (and, we may infer, for a thank-offering\nalso) such a victim, however, could not be offered; evidently because\nit would seem peculiarly unsuitable, where the object of the offering\nwas to make in some sense a return for the always perfect and most\ngracious gifts of God, that anything else than the absolutely perfect\nshould be offered. In the case of the thank-offering, again, an\nexception is made to the general regulation permitting the eating of\nthe offering on the first and second days, requiring that all be eaten\non the day that it is presented, or else be burnt with fire (vii. 15).\nWe need seek for no spiritual meaning in this. A sufficient reason for\nthis special restriction in this case is probably to be found in the\nconsideration that as this was the most common variety of the\noffering, there was the most danger that the flesh, by some oversight,\nmight be kept too long. The flesh of the victim offered to God, the\ntype of the Victim of Calvary, must on no account be allowed to see\ncorruption; and to this end every needed precaution must be taken,\nthat by no chance it shall remain unconsumed on the third day.\n\nIt is easy to connect the special characteristics of these several\nvarieties of the peace-offering with the great Antitype. So may we use\nHim as our thank-offering; for what more fitting as an expression of\ngratitude and love to God for mercies received, than renewed and\nspecial fellowship with Him through feeding upon Christ as the slain\nLamb? So also we may thus use Christ in our vows; as when,\nsupplicating mercy, we promise and engage that if our prayer be heard\nwe will renewedly consecrate our service to the Lord, as in the\nmeal-offering, and anew enter into life-giving fellowship with Him\nthrough feeding by faith on the flesh of the Lord. And it is\nbeautifully hinted in the permission of the use of leaven in this\nfeast of the peace-offering, that while the work of the believer, as\npresented to God in grateful acknowledgment of His mercies, is ever\naffected with the taint of his native corruption, so that it cannot\ncome upon the altar where satisfaction is made for sin, yet God is\ngraciously pleased, for the sake of the great Sacrifice, to accept\nsuch imperfect service offered to Him, and make it in turn a blessing\nto us, as we offer it in His presence, rejoicing in the work of our\nhands before Him.\n\nBut there was one condition without which the Israelite could not have\ncommunion with God in the peace-offering. He must be clean! even as\nthe flesh of the peace-offering must be clean also. There must be in\nhim nothing which should interrupt covenant fellowship with God; as\nnothing in the type which should make it an unfit symbol of the\nAntitype. For it was ordered (vii. 19-21), as regards every possible\noccasion of uncleanness, thus: \"The flesh that toucheth any unclean\nthing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. As for the\nflesh, every one that is clean shall eat thereof; but the soul that\neateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain\nunto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut\noff from his people. And when any one shall touch any unclean thing,\nthe uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean\nabomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,\nthat soul shall be cut off from his people.\"\n\nIn such cases, he must first go and purify himself, as provided in the\nlaw; and then, and then only, presume to come to eat before the Lord.\nAnd so Israel was ever impressively reminded that he who would have\nfellowship with God, and eat in happy fellowship with Him at His\ntable, must keep himself pure. So by the spirit of these commands are\nwe no less warned that we take not encouragement from God's grace, in\nproviding for us the flesh of the Lamb as our food, to be careless in\nwalk and life. If we will use Christ as our peace-offering, we must\nkeep ourselves \"unspotted from the world;\" must hate \"even the garment\nspotted by the flesh,\" remembering ever that it is written in the New\nTestament (1 Peter i. 15, 16), with direct reference to the typical\nlaw of Leviticus: \"As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves\nalso holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be\nholy; for I am holy.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_THE SIN-OFFERING._\n\nLEV. iv. 1-35.\n\n\nBoth in the burnt-offering and in the peace-offering, Israel was\ntaught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God\nmust begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But\nthis was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings;\nneither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to\nparticular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never\nprescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement,\nnot so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.\n\nBut the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more than\nsin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in some\novert act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this section\nof the law (iv. 1-v. 13), the sin-offering; an offering which should\nbring out into sole and peculiar prominence the thought revealed in\nother sacrifices more imperfectly, that in order to pardon of sin,\nthere must be expiation. There was indeed a limitation to the\napplication of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned\nwilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the phrase is, \"with a\nhigh hand,\" there was no provision made in the law for his\nrestoration to covenant standing. \"He that despised Moses' law died\nwithout mercy under two or three witnesses;\" he was \"cut off from his\npeople.\" But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a\nspirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their\nguilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or\ninadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal\nby means of the atonement of the sin- and the guilt-offerings. By\nmeans of these, accompanied also with full restitution of the wrong\ndone, when such restitution was possible, the guilty one might be\nrestored in those days to his place as an accepted citizen of the\nkingdom of God.\n\nNo part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching\ntruth than the law of the sin-offering. First of all, it is of\nconsequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning\nsacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance.\nFor so runs the general statement with which this section opens (ver.\n2): \"If any one shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the\nLord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them.\" And to\nthese are afterwards added sins committed through rashness, the result\nrather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate purpose of\nsin; as, for instance, in chap. v. 4: \"Whatsoever it be that a man\nshall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him.\" Besides\nthese, in the same section (vv. 1-4) as also in all the cases\nmentioned under the guilt-offering, and the special instance of a\nwrong done to a slave-girl (xix. 21), a number of additional offences\nare mentioned which all seem to have their special palliation, not\nindeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but in the nature of the acts\nthemselves, as admitting of reparation. For all such it was also\nordained that the offender should bring a sin- (or a guilt-) offering,\nand that by this, atonement being made for him, his sin might be\nforgiven.\n\nAll this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring before\nus, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures. We think\noften of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes note of\nevery sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity in that He\nnotes no less carefully every circumstance that may palliate our sin.\nWe thankfully recognise in these words the spirit of Him of whom it\nwas said (Heb. v. 2, marg.) that in the days of His flesh He could\n\"reasonably bear with the ignorant;\" and who said concerning those who\nknow not their Master's will and do it not (Luke xii. 48), that their\n\"stripes\" shall be \"few;\" and who, again, with equal justice and\nmercy, said of His disciples' fault in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 41),\n\"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.\" We do well to\nnote this. For in these days we hear it often charged against the holy\nreligion of Christ, that it represents God as essentially and horribly\nunjust in consigning all unbelievers to one and the same unvarying\npunishment, the eternal lake of fire; and as thus making no difference\nbetween those who have sinned against the utmost light and knowledge,\nwilfully and inexcusably, and those who may have sinned through\nignorance, or weakness of the flesh. To such charges as these we have\nsimply to answer that neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is\nGod so revealed. We may come back to this book of Leviticus, and\ndeclare that even in those days when law reigned, and grace and love\nwere less clearly revealed than now, God made a difference, a great\ndifference, between some sins and others; He visited, no doubt,\nwilful and defiant sin with condign punishment; but, on the other\nhand, no less justly than mercifully, He considered also every\ncircumstance which could lessen guilt, and ordained a gracious\nprovision for expiation and forgiveness. The God revealed in\nLeviticus, like the God revealed in the Gospel, the God \"with whom we\nhave to do,\" is then no hard and unreasonable tyrant, but a most just\nand equitable King. He is no less the Most Just, that He is the Most\nHoly; but, rather, because He is most holy, is He therefore most just.\nAnd because God is such a God, in the New Testament also it is plainly\nsaid that ignorance, as it extenuates guilt, shall also ensure\nmitigation of penalty; and in the Old Testament, that while he who\nsins presumptuously and with a high hand against God, shall \"die\nwithout mercy under two or three witnesses,\" on the other hand, he who\nsins unwittingly, or in some sudden rash impulse, doing that of which\nhe afterward truly repents; or who, again, has sinned, if knowingly,\nstill in such a way as admits of some adequate reparation of the\nwrong,--all these things shall be judged palliation of his guilt; and\nif he confess his sin, and make all possible reparation for it, then,\nif he present a sin- or a guilt-offering, atonement may therewith be\nmade, and the sinner be forgiven.\n\nThis then is the first thing which the law concerning the sin-offering\nbrings before us: it calls our attention to the fact that the heavenly\nKing and Judge of men is righteous in all His ways, and therefore will\never make all the allowance that strict justice and righteousness\ndemand, for whatever may in any way palliate our guilt.\n\nBut none the less for this do we need also to heed another intensely\npractical truth which the law of the sin-offering brings before us:\nnamely, that while ignorance or other circumstances may palliate\nguilt, they do not and cannot nullify it. We may have sinned without a\nsuspicion that we were sinning, but here we are taught that there can\nbe no pardon without a sin-offering. We may have sinned through\nweakness or sudden passion, but still sin is sin, and we must have a\nsin-offering before we can be forgiven.\n\nWe may observe, in passing, the bearing of this teaching of the law on\nthe question so much discussed in our day, as to the responsibility of\nthe heathen for the sins which they commit through ignorance. In so\nfar as their ignorance is not wilful and avoidable, it doubtless\ngreatly diminishes their guilt; and the Lord Himself has said of such\nthat their stripes shall be few. And yet more than this He does not\nsay. Except we are prepared to cast aside the teaching alike of\nLeviticus and the Gospels, it is certain that their ignorance does not\ncancel their guilt. That the ignorance of any one concerning moral law\ncan secure his exemption from the obligation to suffer for his sin, is\nnot only against the teaching of all Scripture, but is also\ncontradicted by all that we can see about us of God's government of\nthe world. For when does God ever suspend the operation of physical\nlaws, because the man who violates them does not know that he is\nbreaking them? And so also, will we but open our eyes, we may see that\nit is with moral law. The heathen, for example, are ignorant of many\nmoral laws; but do they therefore escape the terrible consequences of\ntheir law-breaking, even in this present life, where we can see for\nourselves how God is dealing with them? And is there any reason to\nthink it will be different in the life hereafter?\n\nDoes it seem harsh that men should be punished even for sins of\nignorance, and pardon be impossible, even for these, without\natonement? It would not seem so, would men but think more deeply. For\nbeyond all question, the ignorance of men as to the fundamental law of\nGod, to love Him with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves,\nwhich is the sum of all law, has its reason, not in any lack of light,\nbut in the evil heart of man, who everywhere and always, until he is\nregenerated, loves self more than he loves God. The words of Christ\n(John iii. 20) apply: \"He that doeth evil cometh not to the light;\"\nnot even to the light of nature.\n\nAnd yet, one who should look only at this chapter might rejoin to\nthis, that the Israelite was only obliged to bring a sin-offering,\nwhen afterward he came to the knowledge of his sin as sin; but, in\ncase he never came to that knowledge, was not then his sin passed by\nwithout an atoning sacrifice? To this question, the ordinance which we\nfind in chapter xvi. is the decisive answer. For therein it was\nprovided that once every year a very solemn sin-offering should be\noffered by the high priest, for all the multitudinous sins of Israel,\nwhich were not atoned for in the special sin-offerings of each day.\nHence it is strictly true that no sin in Israel was ever passed over\nwithout either penalty or shedding of blood. And so the law keeps it\never before us that our unconsciousness of sinning does not alter the\nfact of sin, or the fact of guilt, nor remove the obligation to suffer\nbecause of sin; and that even the sin of which we are quite ignorant,\ninterrupts man's peace with God and harmony with him. Thus the best of\nus must take as our own the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. iv. 4,\nR.V.): \"I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified;\nHe that judgeth me is the Lord.\"\n\nNor does the testimony of this law end here. We are by it taught that\nthe guilt of sins unrecognised as sins at the time of their committal,\ncannot be cancelled merely by penitent confession when they become\nknown. Confession must indeed be made, according to the law, as one\ncondition of pardon, but, besides this, the guilty man must bring his\nsin-offering.\n\nWhat truths can be more momentous and vital than these! Can any one\nsay, in the light of such a revelation, that all in this ancient law\nof the sin-offering is now obsolete, and of no concern to us? For how\nmany there are who are resting all their hopes for the future on the\nfact that they have sinned, if at all, then ignorantly; or that they\n\"have meant to do right;\" or that they have confessed the sin when it\nwas known, and have been very sorry. And yet, if this law teach\nanything, it teaches that this is a fatal mistake, and that such hopes\nrest on a foundation of sand. If we would be forgiven, we must indeed\nconfess our sin and we must repent; but this is not enough. We must\nhave a sin-offering; we must make use of the great Sin-Offering which\nthat of Leviticus typified; we must tell our compassionate High Priest\nhow in ignorance, or in the rashness of some unholy, over-mastering\nimpulse, we sinned, and commit our case to Him, that He may apply the\nprecious blood in our behalf with God.\n\nIt is a third impressive fact, that after we include all the cases for\nwhich the sin-offering was provided, there still remain many sins for\nthe forgiveness of which no provision was made. It was ordered\nelsewhere, for instance (Numb. xxxv. 31-33) that no satisfaction,\nshould be taken for the life of a murderer. He might confess and\nbewail his sin, and be never so sorry, but there was no help for him;\nhe must die the death. So was it also with blasphemy; so with\nadultery, and with many other crimes. This exclusion of so many cases\nfrom the merciful provision of the typical offering had a meaning. It\nwas intended, not only to emphasise to the conscience the aggravated\nwickedness of such crimes, but also to develop in Israel the sense of\nneed for a more adequate provision, a better sacrifice than any the\nLevitical law could offer; blood which should cleanse, not merely in a\nceremonial and sacramental way, but really and effectively; and not\nonly from some sins, but from all sins.\n\nThe law of the sin-offering is introduced by phraseology different\nfrom that which is used in the case of the preceding offerings. In the\ncase of each of these, the language used implies that the Israelites\nwere familiar with the offering before its incorporation into the\nLevitical sacrificial system. The sin-offering, on the other hand, is\nintroduced as a new thing. And such, indeed, it was. While, as we have\nseen, each of the offerings before ordered had been known and used,\nboth by the Shemitic and the other nations, since long before the days\nof Moses, before this time there is no mention anywhere, in Scripture\nor out of it, of a sacrifice corresponding to the sin- or the\nguilt-offering. The significance of this fact is apparent so soon as\nwe observe what was the distinctive conception of the sin-offering, as\ncontrasted with the other offerings. Without question, it was the idea\nof expiation of guilt by the sacrifice of a substituted victim. This\nidea, as we have seen, was indeed not absent from the other bloody\nofferings; but in those its place was secondary and subordinate. In\nthe ritual of the sin-offering, on the contrary, this idea was brought\nout into almost solitary prominence;--sin pardoned on the ground of\nexpiation made through the presentation to God of the blood of an\ninnocent victim.\n\nThe introduction of this new sacrifice, then, marked the fact that the\nspiritual training of man, of Israel in particular, herewith entered\non a new stadium; which was to be distinguished by the development, in\na degree to that time without a precedent, of the sense of sin and of\nguilt, and the need therefore of atonement in order to pardon. This\nneed had not indeed been unfelt before; but never in any ritual had it\nreceived so full expression. Not only is the idea of expiation by the\nshedding of blood almost the only thought represented in the ritual of\nthe offering, but in the order afterward prescribed for the different\nsacrifices, the sin-offering, in all cases where others were offered,\nmust go before them all; before the burnt-offering, the meal-offering,\nthe peace-offering. So again, this new law insists upon expiation even\nfor those sins which have the utmost possible palliation and excuse,\nin that at the time of their committal the sinner knew them not as\nsins; and thus teaches that even these so fatally interrupt fellowship\nwith the holy God, that only such expiation can restore the broken\nharmony. What a revelation was this law, of the way in which God\nregards sin! and of the extremity, in consequence, of the sinner's\nneed!\n\nMost instructive, too, were the circumstances under which this new\noffering, with such a special purpose, embodying such a revelation of\nthe extent of human guilt and responsibility, was first ordained. For\nits appointment followed quickly upon the tremendous revelation of\nthe consuming holiness of God upon Mount Sinai. It was in the light of\nthe holy mount, quaking and flaming with fire, that the eye of Moses\nwas opened to receive from God this revelation of His will, and he was\nmoved by the Holy Ghost to appoint for Israel, in the name of Jehovah,\nan offering which should differ from all other offerings in this--that\nit should hold forth to Israel, in solitary and unprecedented\nprominence, this one thought, that \"without shedding of blood there is\nno remission of sin,\" not even of sins which are not known as sins at\nthe time of their committal.\n\nOur own generation, and even the Church of to-day, greatly needs to\nconsider the significance of this fact. The spirit of our age is much\nmore inclined to magnify the greatness and majesty of man, than the\ninfinite greatness and holy majesty of God. Hence many talk lightly of\natonement, and cannot admit its necessity to the pardon of sin. But\ncan we doubt, with this narrative before us, that if men saw God more\nclearly as He is, there would be less talk of this kind? When Moses\nsaw God on Mount Sinai, he came down to ordain a sin-offering even for\nsins of ignorance! And nothing is more certain, as a fact of human\nexperience in all ages, than this, that the more clearly men have\nperceived the unapproachable holiness and righteousness of God, the\nmore clearly they have seen that expiation of our sins, even of our\nsins of ignorance, by atoning blood, is the most necessary and\nfundamental of all conditions, if we will have pardon of sin and peace\nwith a Holy God.\n\nMan is indeed slow to learn this lesson of the sin-offering. It is\nquite too humbling and abasing to our natural, self-satisfied pride,\nto be readily received. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact\nthat it is not until late in Israel's history that the sin-offering\nis mentioned in the sacred record; while even from that first mention\ntill the Exile, it is mentioned only rarely. This fact is indeed often\nin our day held up as evidence that the sin-offering was not of Mosaic\norigin, but a priestly invention of much later days. But the fact is\nquite as well accounted for by the spiritual obtuseness of Israel. The\nwhole narrative shows that they were a people hard of heart and slow\nto learn the solemn lessons of Sinai; slow to apprehend the holiness\nof God, and the profound spiritual truth set forth in the institution\nof the sin-offering. And yet it was not wholly unobserved, nor did\nevery individual fail to learn its lessons. Nowhere in heathen\nliterature do we find such a profound conviction of sin, such a sense\nof responsibility even for sins of ignorance, as in some of the\nearliest Psalms, and the earlier prophets. The self-excusing which so\noften marks the heathen confessions, finds no place in the confessions\nof those Old Testament believers, brought up under the moral training\nof that Sinaitic law which had the sin-offering as its supreme\nexpression on this subject. \"Search me, O God, and try my heart; and\nsee if there be in me any wicked way\" (Psalm cxxxix. 23, 24); \"Cleanse\nThou me from secret sins\" (Psalm xix. 12); \"Against Thee only have I\nsinned, and done this evil in Thy sight\" (Psalm li. 4). Such words as\nthese, with many other like prayers and confessions, bear witness to\nthe deepening sense of sin, till at the last the sin-offering teaches,\nas its own chief lesson, its own inadequacy for the removal of guilt,\nin those words of the prophetic Psalm, (xl. 6) from the man who\nmourned iniquities more than the hairs of his head: \"Sin-offering Thou\nhast not required.\"\n\nBut, according to the epistle to the Hebrews, we are to regard David\nin these words, speaking by the Holy Ghost, as typifying Christ; for\nwe thus read, x. 5-10: \"When He cometh into the world He saith,\nSacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou\nprepare for Me; in whole burnt-offerings and sin-offerings Thou hadst\nno pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is\nwritten of Me) to do Thy will, O God.\"\n\nWhich words are then expounded thus: \"Saying above, Sacrifices and\nofferings, and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou\nwouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered\naccording to the law); then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy\nwill. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. By\nwhich will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of\nJesus Christ once for all.\"\n\nAnd so, as the deepest lesson of the sin-offering, we are taught to\nsee in it a type and prophecy of Christ, as the true and one eternally\neffectual sin-offering for the sins of His people; who, Himself at\nonce High Priest and Victim, offering Himself for us, perfects us for\never, as the old sin-offering could not, giving us therefore \"boldness\nto enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus.\" May we all have\ngrace by faith to receive and learn this deepest lesson of this\nordinance, and thus in the law of the sin-offering discover Him who in\nHis person and work became the Fulfiller of this law.\n\n\nGRADED RESPONSIBILITY.\n\niv. 3, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 28.\n\n \"If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the\n people; then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a\n young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a\n sin-offering.... And if the whole congregation of Israel shall\n err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they\n have done any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to\n be done, and are guilty; when the sin wherein they have sinned is\n known, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a\n sin-offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting.... When a\n ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one of all the things\n which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is\n guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him,\n he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without\n blemish.... And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly,\n in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to\n be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which he hath sinned, be made\n known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a\n female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.\"\n\nThe law concerning the sin-offering is given in four sections, of\nwhich the last, again, is divided into two parts, separated by the\ndivision of the chapter. These four sections respectively treat\nof--first, the law of the sin-offering for the \"anointed priest\" (vv.\n3-12); secondly, the law for the offering for the whole congregation\n(vv. 13-21); thirdly, that for a ruler (vv. 22-26); and lastly, the\nlaw for an offering made by a private person, one of \"the common\npeople\" (iv. 27-v. 16). In this last section we have, first, the\ngeneral law (iv. 27-35), and then are added (v. 1-16) special\nprescriptions having reference to various circumstances under which a\nsin-offering should be offered by one of the people. Under this last\nhead are mentioned first, as requiring a sin-offering, in addition to\nsins of ignorance or inadvertence, which only were mentioned in the\npreceding chapter, also sins due to rashness or weakness (vv. 1-4);\nand then are appointed, in the second place, certain variations in the\nmaterial of the offering, allowed out of regard to the various ability\nof different offerers (vv. 5-16).\n\nIn the law as given in chap. iv., it is to be observed that the\nselection of the victim prescribed is determined by the position of\nthe persons who might have occasion to present the offering. For the\nwhole congregation, the victim must be a bullock, the most valuable of\nall; for the high priest, as the highest religious official of the\nnation, and appointed also to represent them before God, it must also\nbe a bullock. For the civil ruler, the offering must be a he-goat--an\noffering of a value less than that of the victim ordered for the high\npriest, but greater than that of those which were prescribed for the\ncommon people. For these, a variety of offerings were appointed,\naccording to their several ability. If possible, it must be a female\ngoat or lamb, or, if the worshipper could not bring that, then two\nturtle doves, or two young pigeons. If too poor to bring even this\nsmall offering, then it was appointed that, as a substitute for the\nbloody offering, he might bring an offering of fine flour, without oil\nor frankincense, to be burnt upon the altar.\n\nEvidently, then, the choice of the victim was determined by two\nconsiderations: first, the rank of the person who sinned, and,\nsecondly, his ability. As regards the former point, the law as to the\nvictim for the sin-offering was this: the higher the theocratic rank\nof the sinning person might be, the more costly offering he must\nbring. No one can well miss of perceiving the meaning of this. The\nguilt of any sin in God's sight is proportioned to the rank and\nstation of the offender. What truth could be of more practical and\npersonal concern to all than this?\n\nIn applying this principle, the law of the sin-offering teaches,\nfirst, that the guilt of any sin is the heaviest, when it is committed\nby one who is placed in a position of religious authority. For this\ngraded law is headed by the case of the sin of the anointed priest,\nthat is, the high priest, the highest functionary in the nation.\n\nWe read (ver. 3): \"If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring\nguilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin which he hath\ncommitted, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord, for a\nsin-offering.\"\n\nThat is, the high priest, although a single individual, if he sin,\nmust bring as large and valuable an offering as is required from the\nwhole congregation. For this law there are two evident reasons. The\nfirst is found in the fact that in Israel the high priest represented\nbefore God the entire nation. When he sinned it was as if the whole\nnation sinned in him. So it is said that by his sin he \"brings guilt\non the people\"--a very weighty matter. And this suggests a second\nreason for the costly offering that was required from him. The\nconsequences of the sin of one in such a high position of religious\nauthority must, in the nature of the case, be much more serious and\nfar-reaching than in the case of any other person.\n\nAnd here we have another lesson as pertinent to our time as to those\ndays. As the high priest, so, in modern time, the bishop, minister, or\nelder, is ordained as an officer in matters of religion, to act for\nand with men in the things of God. For the proper administration of\nthis high trust, how indispensable that such a one shall take heed to\nmaintain unbroken fellowship with God! Any shortcoming here is sure to\nimpair by so much the spiritual value of his own ministrations for the\npeople to whom he ministers. And this evil consequence of any\nunfaithfulness of his is the more certain to follow, because, of all\nthe members of the community, his example has the widest and most\neffective influence; in whatever that example be bad or defective, it\nis sure to do mischief in exact proportion to his exalted station. If\nthen such a one sin, the case is very grave, and his guilt\nproportionately heavy.\n\nThis very momentous fact is brought before us in an impressive way in\nthe New Testament, where, in the epistles to the Seven Churches of\nAsia (Rev. ii., iii.), it is \"the angel of the church,\" the presiding\nofficer of the church in each city, who is held responsible for the\nspiritual state of those committed to his charge. No wonder that the\nApostle James wrote (James iii. 1): \"Be not many teachers, my\nbrethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.\" Well may\nevery true-hearted minister of Christ's Church tremble, as here in the\nlaw of the sin-offering he reads how the sin of the officer of\nreligion may bring guilt, not only on himself, but also \"on the whole\npeople\"! Well may he cry out with the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. ii. 16):\n\"Who is sufficient for these things?\" and, like him, beseech those to\nwhom he ministers, \"Brethren, pray for us!\"\n\nWith the sin of the high priest is ranked that of the congregation, or\nthe collective nation. It is written (vv. 13, 14): \"If the whole\ncongregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes\nof the assembly, and they have done any one of the things which the\nLord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty, then the assembly\nshall offer a young bullock for a sin-offering.\"\n\nThus Israel was taught by this law, as we are, that responsibility\nattaches not only to each individual person, but also to associations\nof individuals in their corporate character, as nations, communities,\nand--we may add--all Societies and Corporations, whether secular or\nreligious. Let us emphasise it to our own consciences, as another of\nthe fundamental lessons of this law: there is individual sin; there\nis also such a thing as a sin by \"the whole congregation.\" In other\nwords, God holds nations, communities--in a word, all associations and\ncombinations of men for whatever purpose, no less under obligation in\ntheir corporate capacity to keep His law than as individuals, and will\ncount them guilty if they break it, even through ignorance.\n\nNever has a generation needed this reminder more than our own. The\npolitical and social principles which, since the French Revolution in\nthe end of the last century, have been, year by year, more and more\ngenerally accepted among the nations of Christendom, are everywhere\ntending to the avowed or practical denial of this most important\ntruth. It is a maxim ever more and more extensively accepted as almost\naxiomatic in our modern democratic communities, that religion is\nwholly a concern of the individual; and that a nation or community, as\nsuch, should make no distinction between various religions as false or\ntrue, but maintain an absolute neutrality, even between Christianity\nand idolatry, or theism and atheism. It should take little thought to\nsee that this modern maxim stands in direct opposition to the\nprinciple assumed in this law of the sin-offering; namely, that a\ncommunity or nation is as truly and directly responsible to God as the\nindividual in the nation. But this corporate responsibility the spirit\nof the age squarely denies.\n\nNot that all, indeed, in our modern so-called Christian nations have\ncome to this. But no one will deny that this is the mind of the\nvanguard of nineteenth century liberalism in religion and politics.\nMany of our political leaders in all lands make no secret of their\nviews on the subject. A purely secular state is everywhere held up,\nand that with great plausibility and persuasiveness, as the ideal of\npolitical government; the goal to the attainment of which all good\ncitizens should unite their efforts. And, indeed, in some parts of\nChristendom the complete attainment of this evil ideal seems not far\naway.\n\nIt is not strange, indeed, to see atheists, agnostics, and others who\ndeny the Christian faith, maintaining this position; but when we hear\nmen who call themselves Christians--in many cases, even Christian\nministers--advocating, in one form or another, governmental neutrality\nin religion as the only right basis of government, one may well be\namazed. For Christians are supposed to accept the Holy Scriptures as\nthe law of faith and of morals, private and public; and where in all\nthe Scripture will any one find such an attitude of any nation or\npeople mentioned, but to be condemned and threatened with the judgment\nof God?\n\nWill any one venture to say that this teaching of the law of the\nsin-offering was only intended, like the offering itself, for the old\nHebrews? Is it not rather the constant and most emphatic teaching of\nthe whole Scriptures, that God dealt with all the ancient Gentile\nnations on the same principle? The history which records the overthrow\nof those old nations and empires does so, even professedly, for the\nexpress purpose of calling the attention of men in all ages to this\nprinciple, that God deals with all nations as under obligation to\nrecognise Himself as King of nations, and submit in all things to His\nauthority. So it was in the case of Moab, of Ammon, of Nineveh, and\nBabylon; in regard to each of which we are told, in so many words,\nthat it was because they refused to recognise this principle of\nnational responsibility to the one true God, which was brought before\nIsrael in this part of the law of the sin-offering, that the Divine\njudgment came upon them in their utter national overthrow. How awfully\nplain, again, is the language of the second Psalm on this same\nsubject, where it is precisely this national repudiation of the\nsupreme authority of God and of His Christ, so increasingly common in\nour day, which is named as the ground of the derisive judgment of God,\nand is made the occasion of exhorting all nations, not merely to\nbelief in God, but also to the obedient recognition of His\nonly-begotten Son, the Messiah, as the only possible means of escaping\nthe future kindling of His wrath.\n\nNo graver sign of our times could perhaps be named than just this\nuniversal tendency in Christendom, in one way or another, to repudiate\nthat corporate responsibility to God which is assumed as the basis of\nthis part of the law of the sin-offering. There can be no worse omen\nfor the future of an individual than the denial of his obligations to\nGod and to His Son, our Saviour; and there can be no worse sign for\nthe future of Christendom, or of any nation in Christendom, than the\npartial or entire denial of national obligation to God and to His\nChrist. What it shall mean in the end, what is the future toward which\nthese popular modern principles are conducting the nations, is\nrevealed in Scripture with startling clearness, in the warning that\nthe world is yet to see one who shall be in a peculiar and eminent\nsense \"_the_ Antichrist\" (1 John ii. 18); who shall deny both the\nFather and Son, and be \"the Lawless One,\" and the \"Man of Sin,\" in\nthat He shall \"set Himself forth as God\" (2 Thess. ii. 3-8); to whom\nauthority will be given \"over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and\nnation\" (Rev. xiii. 7).\n\nThe nation, then, as such, is held responsible to God! So stands the\nlaw. And, therefore, in Israel, if the nation should sin, it was\nordained that they also, like the high priest, should bring a bullock\nfor a sin-offering, the most costly victim that was ever prescribed.\nThis was so ordained, no doubt, in part because of Israel's own\npriestly station as a \"kingdom of priests and a holy nation,\" exalted\nto a position of peculiar dignity and privilege before God, that they\nmight mediate the blessings of redemption to all nations. It was\nbecause of this fact that, if they sinned, their guilt was peculiarly\nheavy.\n\nThe principle, however, is of present-day application. Privilege is\nthe measure of responsibility, no less now than then, for nations as\nwell as for individuals. Thus national sin, on the part of the British\nor American nation, or indeed with any of the so-called Christian\nnations, is certainly judged by God to be a much more evil thing than\nthe same sin if committed, for example, by the Chinese or Turkish\nnation, who have had no such degree of Gospel light and knowledge.\n\nAnd the law in this case evidently also implies that sin is aggravated\nin proportion to its universality. It is bad, for example, if in a\ncommunity one man commit adultery, forsaking his own wife; but it\nargues a condition of things far worse when the violation of the\nmarriage relation becomes common; when the question can actually be\nheld open for discussion whether marriage, as a permanent union\nbetween one man and one woman, be not \"a failure,\" as debated not long\nago in a leading London paper; and when, as in many of the United\nStates of America and other countries of modern Christendom, laws are\nenacted for the express purpose of legalising the violation of\nChrist's law of marriage, and thus shielding adulterers and\nadulteresses from the condign punishment their crime deserves. It is\nbad, again, when individuals in a State teach doctrines subversive of\nmorality; but it evidently argues a far deeper depravation of morals\nwhen a whole community unite in accepting, endowing, and upholding\nsuch in their work.\n\nNext in order comes the case of the civil ruler. For him it was\nordered: \"When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any of the\nthings which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is\nguilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he\nshall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish\" (ver.\n22). Thus, the ruler was to bring a victim of less value than the\nhigh-priest or the collective congregation; but it must still be of\nmore value than that of a private person; for his responsibility, if\nless than that of the officer of religion, is distinctly greater than\nthat of a man in private life.\n\nAnd here is a lesson for modern politicians, no less than for rulers\nof the olden time in Israel. While there are many in our Parliaments\nand like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote\nwith the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth in\nthe general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in such\nplaces who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of party\nmore than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes before them,\nfirst of all consider, not what would the law of absolute\nrighteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a vote, one way\nor the other, in this matter, be likely to affect their party? Such\ncertainly need to be emphatically reminded of this part of the law of\nthe sin-offering, which held the civil ruler specially responsible to\nGod for the execution of his trust. For so it is still; God has not\nabdicated His throne in favour of the people, nor will He waive His\ncrown-rights out of deference to the political necessities of a party.\n\nNor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the\nreminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who\neither are or may be called to places of greater or less governmental\nresponsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy of such trust\nwho will be the first to acknowledge their need of this warning. For\nin all times those who have been lifted to positions of political\npower have been under peculiar temptation to forget God, and become\nreckless of their obligation to Him as His ministers. But under the\nconditions of modern life, in many countries of Christendom, this is\ntrue as perhaps never before. For now it has come to pass that, in\nmost modern communities, those who make and execute laws hold their\ntenure of office at the pleasure of a motley army of voters,\nProtestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists, and what not, a large part\nof whom care not the least for the will of God in civil government, as\nrevealed in Holy Scripture. Under such conditions, the place of the\ncivil ruler becomes one of such special trial and temptation that we\ndo well to remember in our intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all\nwho in such positions are seeking to serve supremely, not their party,\nbut their God, and so best serve their country. It is no wonder that\nthe temptation too often to many becomes overpowering, to silence\nconscience with plausible sophistries, and to use their office to\ncarry out in legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the\npeople, or rather, of that particular party which put them in power.\n\nYet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin-offering\nstands, and will stand for ever, and to it all will do well to take\nheed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and more\nheavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may\ncommit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter\ncommitted to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For the\npowers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are placed\nin authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of\nexecuting the will of their constituents, whatever that will may be,\nbut rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of\nall nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social\nrelations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent\nresponsibility attaches to them, not only in their official acts, but\nin all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to the sin\nfor which the ruler must bring his sin-offering, whether public and\nofficial, or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the sin may be,\nif committed by a ruler, God holds him specially responsible, as being\na ruler; and reckons the guilt of that sin, even if a private offence,\nto be heavier than if it had been committed by one of the common\npeople. And this, for the evident reason that, as in the case of the\nhigh priest, his exalted position gives his example double influence\nand effect. Thus, in all ages and all lands, a corrupt king or\nnobility have made a corrupt court; and a corrupt court or corrupt\nlegislators are sure to demoralise all the lower ranks of society. But\nhowever it may be under the governments of men, under the equitable\ngovernment of the Most Holy God, high station can give no immunity to\nsin. And in the day to come, when the Great Assize is set, there will\nbe many who in this world stood high in authority, who will learn, in\nthe tremendous decisions of that day, if not before, that a just God\nreckoned the guilt of their sins and crimes in exact proportion to\ntheir rank and station.\n\nLast of all, in this chapter, comes the law of the sin-offering for\none of the common people, of which the first part is given vv. 27-35.\nThe victim which is appointed for those who are best able to give, a\nfemale goat, is yet of less value than those ordered in the cases\nbefore given; for the responsibility and guilt in the case of such is\nless. The first prescription for a sin-offering by one of the common\npeople, is introduced by these words:--\"If any one of the common\npeople sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath\ncommanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which he hath\nsinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a\ngoat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned\" (vv.\n27, 28).\n\nIn case of his inability to bring so much as this, offerings of lesser\nvalue are authorised in the section following (v. 5-13), to which we\nshall attend hereafter.\n\nMeanwhile it is suggestive to observe that this part of the law is\nexpanded more fully than any other part of the law of the\nsin-offering. We are hereby reminded that if none are so high as to be\nabove the reach of the judgment of God, but are held in that\nproportion strictly responsible for their sin; so, on the other hand,\nnone are of station so low that their sins shall therefore be\noverlooked. The common people, in all lands, are the great majority of\nthe population; but no one is to imagine that, because he is a single\nindividual, of no importance in a multitude, he shall therefore, if he\nsin, escape the Divine eye, as it were, in a crowd. Not so. We may be\nof the very lowest social station; the provision in chapter v. 11\nregards the case of such as might be so poor as that they could not\neven buy two doves. Men may judge the doings of such poor folk of\nlittle or no consequence; but not so God. With Him is no respect of\npersons, either of rich or poor. From all alike, from the anointed\nhigh priest, who ministers in the Holy of Holies, down to the common\npeople, and among these, again, from the highest down to the very\nlowest, poorest, and meanest in rank, is demanded, even for a sin of\nignorance, a sin-offering for atonement.\n\nWhat a solemn lesson we have herein concerning the character of God!\nHis omniscience, which not only notes the sin of those who are in some\nconspicuous position, but also each individual sin of the lowest of\nthe people! His absolute equity, exactly and accurately grading\nresponsibility for sin committed, in each case, according to the rank\nand influence of him who commits it! His infinite holiness, which\ncannot pass by without expiation even the transient act or word of\nrash hands or lips, not even the sin not known as sin by the sinner; a\nholiness which, in a word, unchangeably and unalterably requires, from\nevery human being, nothing less than absolute moral perfection like\nHis own!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_THE RITUAL OF THE SIN-OFFERING._\n\nLEV. iv. 4-35; v. 1-13; vi. 24-30.\n\n\nAccording to the Authorised Version (v. 6, 7), it might seem that the\nsection, v. 1-13, referred not to the sin-offering, but to the\nguilt-offering, like the latter part of the chapter; but, as suggested\nin the margin of the Revised Version, in these verses we may properly\nread, instead of \"guilt-offering,\" \"for his guilt.\" That the latter\nrendering is to be preferred is clear when we observe that in vv. 6,\n7, 9 this offering is called a sin-offering; that, everywhere else,\nthe victim for the guilt-offering is a ram; and, finally, that the\nestimation of a money value for the victim, which is the most\ncharacteristic feature of the guilt-offering, is absent from all the\nofferings described in these verses. We may safely take it therefore\nas certain that the marginal reading should be adopted in ver. 6, so\nthat it will read, \"he shall bring for his guilt unto the Lord;\" and\nunderstand the section to contain a further development of the law of\nthe sin-offering. In the law of the preceding chapter we have the\ndirection for the sin-offering as graded with reference to the rank\nand station of the offerer; in this section we have the law for the\nsin-offering for the common people, as graded with reference to the\nability of the offerer.\n\nThe specifications (v. 1-5) indicate several cases under which one of\nthe common people was required to bring a sin-offering as the\ncondition of forgiveness. As an exhaustive list would be impossible,\nthose named are taken as illustrations. The instances selected are\nsignificant as extending the class of offences for which atonement\ncould be made by a sin-offering, beyond the limits of sins of\ninadvertence as given in the previous chapter. For however some cases\ncome under this head, we cannot so reckon sins of rashness (ver. 4),\nand still less, the failure of the witness placed under oath to tell\nthe whole truth as he knows it. And herein it is graciously intimated\nthat it is in the heart of God to multiply His pardons; and, on\ncondition of the presentation of a sin-offering, to forgive also those\nsins in palliation of which no such excuse as inadvertence or\nignorance can be pleaded. It is a faint foreshadowing, in the law\nconcerning the type, of that which should afterward be declared\nconcerning the great Antitype (1 John i. 7), \"The blood of Jesus ...\ncleanseth from all sin.\"\n\nWhen we look now at the various prescriptions regarding the ritual of\nthe offering which are given in this and the foregoing chapter, it is\nplain that the numerous variations from the ritual of the other\nsacrifices were intended to withdraw the thought of the sinner from\nall other aspects in which sacrifice might be regarded, and centre his\nmind upon the one thought of sacrifice as expiating sin, through the\nsubstitution of an innocent life for the guilty. In many particulars,\nindeed, the ritual agrees with that of the sacrifices before\nprescribed. The victim must be brought by the guilty person to be\noffered to God by the priest; he must, as in other cases of bloody\nofferings, then lay his hand on the head of the victim, and then (a\nparticular not mentioned in the other cases) he must confess the sin\nwhich he has committed, and then and thus entrust the victim to the\npriest, that he may apply its blood for him in atonement before God.\nThe priest then slays the victim, and now comes that part of the\nceremonial which by its variations from the law of other offerings is\nemphasised as the most central and significant in this sacrifice.\n\n\nTHE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD.\n\niv. 6, 7, 16-18, 25, 30; v. 9.\n\n \"And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle\n of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the\n sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns\n of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the\n tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bullock shall he pour\n out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the\n door of the tent of meeting.... And the anointed priest shall\n bring of the blood of the bullock to the tent of meeting: and the\n priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven\n times before the Lord, before the veil. And he shall put of the\n blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that\n is in the tent of meeting, and all the blood shall he pour out at\n the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of\n the tent of meeting.... And the priest shall take of the blood of\n the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of\n the altar of burnt offering, and the blood thereof shall he pour\n out at the base of the altar of burnt offering.... And the priest\n shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon\n the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the blood\n thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar.... And he\n shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of\n the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the\n base of the altar: it is a sin offering.\"\n\nIn the case of the burnt-offering and of the peace-offering, in which\nthe idea of expiation, although not absent, yet occupied a secondary\nplace in their ethical intent, it sufficed that the blood of the\nvictim, by whomsoever brought, be applied to the sides of the altar.\nBut in the sin-offering, the blood must not only be sprinkled on the\nsides of the altar of burnt-offering, but, even in the case of the\ncommon people, be applied to the horns of the altar, its most\nconspicuous and, in a sense, most sacred part. In the case of a sin\ncommitted by the whole congregation, even this is not enough; the\nblood must be brought even into the Holy Place, be applied to the\nhorns of the altar of incense, and be sprinkled seven times before the\nLord before the veil which hung immediately before the mercy seat in\nthe Holy of Holies, the place of the Shekinah glory. And in the great\nsin-offering of the high priest once a year for the sins of all the\npeople, yet more was required. The blood was to be taken even within\nthe veil, and be sprinkled on the mercy seat itself over the tables of\nthe broken law.\n\nThese several cases, according to the symbolism of these several parts\nof the tabernacle differ, in that atoning blood is brought ever more\nand more nearly into the immediate presence of God. The horns of the\naltar had a sacredness above the sides; the altar of the Holy Place\nbefore the veil, a sanctity beyond that of the altar in the outer\ncourt; while the Most Holy Place, where stood the ark, and the\nmercy-seat, was the very place of the most immediate and visible\nmanifestation of Jehovah, who is often described in Holy Scripture,\nwith reference to the ark, the mercy-seat, and the overhanging\ncherubim, as the God who \"dwelleth between the cherubim.\"\n\nFrom this we may easily understand the significance of the different\nprescriptions as to the blood in the case of different classes. A sin\ncommitted by any private individual or by a ruler, was that of one who\nhad access only to the outer court, where stood the altar of\nburnt-offering; for this reason, it is there that the blood must be\nexhibited, and that on the most sacred and conspicuous spot in that\ncourt, the horns of the altar where God meets with the people. But\nwhen it was the anointed priest that had sinned, the case was\ndifferent. In that he had a peculiar position of nearer access to God\nthan others, as appointed of God to minister before Him in the Holy\nPlace, his sin is regarded as having defiled the Holy Place itself;\nand in that Holy Place must Jehovah therefore see atoning blood ere\nthe priest's position before God can be re-established.\n\nAnd the same principle required that also in the Holy Place must the\nblood be presented for the sin of the whole congregation. For Israel\nin its corporate unity was \"a kingdom of priests,\" a priestly nation;\nand the priest in the Holy Place represented the nation in that\ncapacity. Thus because of this priestly office of the nation, their\ncollective sin was regarded as defiling the Holy Place in which,\nthrough their representatives, the priests, they ideally ministered.\nHence, as the law for the priests, so is the law for the nation. For\ntheir corporate sin the blood must be applied, as in the case of the\npriest who represented them, to the horns of the altar in the Holy\nPlace, whence ascended the smoke of the incense which visibly\nsymbolised accepted priestly intercession, and, more than this, before\nthe veil itself; in other words, as near to the very mercy-seat itself\nas it was permitted to the priest to go; and it must be sprinkled\nthere, not once, nor twice, but seven times, in token of the\nre-establishment, through the atoning blood, of God's covenant of\nmercy, of which, throughout the Scripture, the number seven, the\nnumber of sabbatic rest and covenant fellowship with God, is the\nconstant symbol.\n\nAnd it is not far to seek for the spiritual thought which underlies\nthis part of the ritual. For the tabernacle was represented as the\nearthly dwelling-place, in a sense, of God; and just as the defiling\nof the house of my fellow-man may be regarded as an insult to him who\ndwells in the house, so the sin of the priest and of the priestly\npeople is regarded as, more than that of those outside of this\nrelation, a special affront to the holy majesty of Jehovah, criminal\njust in proportion as the defilement approaches more nearly the\ninnermost shrine of Jehovah's manifestation.\n\nBut though Israel is at present suspended from its priestly position\nand function among the nations of the earth, the Apostle Peter (1\nPeter ii. 5) reminds us that the body of Christian believers now\noccupies Israel's ancient place, being now on earth the \"royal\npriesthood,\" the \"holy nation.\" Hence this ritual solemnly reminds us\nthat the sin of a Christian is a far more evil thing than the sin of\nothers; it is as the sin of the priest, and defiles the Holy Place,\neven though unwillingly committed, and thus, even more imperatively\nthan other sin, demands the exhibition of the atoning blood of the\nLamb of God, not now in the Holy Place, but more than that, in the\ntrue Holiest of all, where our High Priest is now entered. And thus,\nin every possible way, with this elaborate ceremonial of sprinkling of\nblood does the sin-offering emphasise to our own consciences, no less\nthan for ancient Israel, the solemn fact affirmed in the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews (ix. 22), \"Without shedding of blood there is no remission\nof sin.\"\n\nBecause of this, we do well to meditate much and deeply on this\nsymbolism of the sin-offering, which, more than any other in the law,\nhas to do with the propitiation of our Lord for sin. Especially does\nthis use of the blood, in which the significance of the sin-offering\nreached its supreme expression, claim our most reverent attention. For\nthe thought is inseparable from the ritual, that the blood of the\nslain victim must be presented, not before the priest, or before the\nofferer, but before Jehovah. Can any one mistake the evident\nsignificance of this? Does it not luminously hold forth the thought\nthat atonement by sacrifice has to do, not only with man, but with\nGod?\n\nThere is cause enough in our day for insisting on this. Many are\nteaching that the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of\nsin, lies only in the nature of man; that, so far as concerns God, sin\nmight as well have been pardoned without it; that it is only because\nman is so hard and rebellious, so stubbornly distrusts the Divine\nlove, that the death of the Holy Victim of Calvary became a necessity.\nNothing less than such a stupendous exhibition of the love of God\ncould suffice to disarm his enmity to God and win him back to loving\ntrust. Hence the need of the atonement. That all this is true, no one\nwill deny; but it is only half the truth, and the less momentous\nhalf,--which indeed is hinted in no offering, and in the sin-offering\nleast of all. Such a conception of the matter as completely fails to\naccount for this part of the symbolic ritual of the bloody sacrifices,\nas it fails to agree with other teachings of the Scriptures. If the\nonly need for atonement in order to pardon is in the nature of the\nsinner, then why this constant insistence that the blood of the\nsacrifice should always be solemnly presented, not before the sinner,\nbut before Jehovah? We see in this fact most unmistakably set forth,\nthe very solemn truth that expiation by blood as a condition of\nforgiveness of sin is necessary, not merely because man is what he is,\nbut most of all because God is what He is. Let us then not forget that\nthe presentation unto God of an expiation for sin, accomplished by the\ndeath of an appointed substitutionary victim, was in Israel made an\nindispensable condition of the pardon of sin. Is this, as many urge,\nagainst the love of God? By no means! Least of all will it so appear,\nwhen we remember who appointed the great Sacrifice, and, above all,\nwho came to fulfil this type. God does not love us because atonement\nhas been made, but atonement has been made because the Father loved\nus, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.\n\nGod is none the less just, that He is love; and none the less holy,\nthat He is merciful; and in His nature, as the Most Just and Holy One,\nlies this necessity of the shedding of blood in order to the\nforgiveness of sin, which is impressively symbolised in the unvarying\nordinance of the Levitical law, that as a condition of the remission\nof sin, the blood of the sacrifice must be presented, not before the\nsinner, but before Jehovah. To this generation of ours, with its so\nexalted notions of the greatness and dignity of man, and its\ncorrespondingly low conceptions of the ineffable greatness and majesty\nof the Most Holy God, this altar truth may be most distasteful, so\ngreatly does it magnify the evil of sin; but just in that degree is it\nnecessary to the humiliation of man's proud self-complacency, that,\nwhether pleasing or not, this truth be faithfully held forth.\n\nVery instructive and helpful to our faith are the allusions to this\nsprinkling of blood in the New Testament. Thus, in the Epistle to the\nHebrews (xii. 24), believers are reminded that they are come \"unto\nthe blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel.\" The\nmeaning is plain. For we are told (Gen. iv. 10), that the blood of\nAbel cried out against Cain from the ground; and that its cry for\nvengeance was prevailing; for God came down, arraigned the murderer,\nand visited him with instant judgment. But in these words we are told\nthat the sprinkled blood of the holy Victim of Calvary, sprinkled on\nthe heavenly altar, also has a voice, and a voice which \"speaketh\nbetter than that of Abel;\" better, in that it speaks, not for\nvengeance, but for pardoning mercy; better, in that it procures the\nremission even of a penitent murderer's guilt; so that, \"being now\njustified through His blood\" we may all \"be saved from wrath through\nHim\" (Rom. v. 9). And, if we are truly Christ's, it is our blessed\ncomfort to remember also that we are said (1 Peter i. 2) to have been\nchosen of God unto the sprinkling of this precious blood of Jesus\nChrist; words which remind us, not only that the blood of a Lamb\n\"without blemish and without spot\" has been presented unto God for us,\nbut also that the reason for this distinguishing mercy is found, not\nin us, but in the free love of God, who chose us in Christ Jesus to\nthis grace.\n\nAnd as in the burnt-offering, so in the sin-offering, the blood was to\nbe sprinkled by the priest. The teaching is the same in both cases. To\npresent Christ before God, laying the hand of faith upon His head as\nour sin-offering, this is all we can do or are required to do. With\nthe sprinkling of the blood we have nothing to do. In other words, the\neffective presentation of the blood before God is not to be secured by\nsome act of our own; it is not something to be procured through some\nsubjective experience, other or in addition to the faith which brings\nthe Victim. As in the type, so in the Antitype, the sprinkling of the\natoning blood--that is, its application God-ward as a propitiation--is\nthe work of our heavenly Priest. And our part in regard to it is\nsimply and only this, that we entrust this work to Him. He will not\ndisappoint us; He is appointed of God to this end, and He will see\nthat it is done.\n\nIn a sacrifice in which the sprinkling of the blood occupies such a\ncentral and essential place in the symbolism, one would anticipate\nthat this ceremony would never be dispensed with. Very strange it thus\nappears, at first sight, to find that to this law an exception was\nmade. For it was ordained (ver. 11) that a man so poor that \"his means\nsuffice not\" to bring even two doves or young pigeons, might bring, as\na substitute, an offering of fine flour. From this, some have hastened\nto infer that the shedding of the blood, and therewith the idea of\nsubstituted life, was not essential to the idea of reconciliation with\nGod; but with little reason. Most illogical and unreasonable it is to\ndetermine a principle, not from the general rule, but from an\nexception; especially when, as in this case, for the exception a\nreason can be shown, which is not inconsistent with the rule. For had\nno such exceptional offering been permitted in the case of the\nextremely poor man, it would have followed that there would have\nremained a class of persons in Israel whom God had excluded from the\nprovision of the sin-offering, which He had made the inseparable\ncondition of forgiveness. But two truths were to be set forth in the\nritual; the one, atonement by means of a life surrendered in expiation\nof guilt; the other,--as in a similar way in the burnt-offering,--the\nsufficiency of God's gracious provision for even the neediest of\nsinners. Evidently, here was a case in which something must be\nsacrificed in the symbolism. One of these truths may be perfectly set\nforth; both cannot be, with equal perfectness; a choice must therefore\nbe made, and is made in this exceptional regulation, so as to hold up\nclearly, even though at the expense of some distinctness in the other\nthought of expiation, the unlimited sufficiency of God's provision of\nforgiving grace.\n\nAnd yet the prescriptions in this form of the offering were such as to\nprevent any one from confounding it with the meal-offering, which\ntypified consecrated and accepted service. The oil and the\nfrankincense which belonged to the latter, are to be left out (ver.\n11); incense, which typifies accepted prayer,--thus reminding us of\nthe unanswered prayer of the Holy Victim when He cried upon the cross,\n\"My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?\" and oil, which typifies\nthe Holy Ghost,--reminding us, again, how from the soul of the Son of\nGod was mysteriously withdrawn in that same hour all the conscious\npresence and comfort of the Holy Spirit, which withdrawment alone\ncould have wrung from His lips that unanswered prayer. And, again,\nwhereas the meal for the meal-offering had no limit fixed as to\nquantity, in this case the amount is prescribed--\"the tenth part of an\nephah\" (ver. 11); an amount which, from the story of the manna,\nappears to have represented the sustenance of one full day. Thus it\nwas ordained that if, in the nature of the case, this sin-offering\ncould not set forth the sacrifice of life by means of the shedding of\nblood, it should at least point in the same direction, by requiring\nthat, so to speak, the support of life for one day shall be given up,\nas forfeited by sin.\n\nAll the other parts of the ceremonial are in this ordinance made to\ntake a secondary place, or are omitted altogether. Not all of the\noffering is burnt upon the altar, but only a part; that part, however,\nthe fat, the choicest; for the same reason as in the peace-offering.\nThere is, indeed, a peculiar variation in the case of the offering of\nthe two young pigeons, in that, of the one, the blood only was used in\nthe sacrifice, while the other was wholly burnt like a burnt-offering.\nBut for this variation the reason is evident enough in the nature of\nthe victims. For in the case of a small creature like a bird, the fat\nwould be so insignificant in quantity, and so difficult to separate\nwith thoroughness from the flesh, that the ordinance must needs be\nvaried, and a second bird be taken for the burning, as a substitute\nfor the separated fat of larger animals. The symbolism is not\nessentially affected by the variation. What the burning of the fat\nmeans in other offerings, that also means the burning of the second\nbird in this case.\n\n\nTHE EATING AND THE BURNING OF THE SIN-OFFERING WITHOUT THE CAMP.\n\niv. 8-12, 19-21, 26, 31; v. 10, 12.\n\n \"And all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering he shall take\n off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat\n that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that\n is upon them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver,\n with the kidneys, shall he take away, as it is taken off from the\n ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn\n them upon the altar of burnt offering. And the skin of the\n bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and\n its inwards, and its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry\n forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are\n poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are\n poured out shall it be burnt.... And all the fat thereof shall he\n take off from it, and burn it upon the altar. Thus shall he do\n with the bullock; as he did with the bullock of the sin offering,\n so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make atonement\n for them, and they shall be forgiven. And he shall carry forth\n the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first\n bullock: it is the sin offering for the assembly.... And all the\n fat thereof shall he burn upon the altar, as the fat of the\n sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make atonement\n for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.... And\n all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat is taken away\n from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall\n burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the\n priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven....\n And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to\n the ordinance: and the priest shall make atonement for him as\n concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be\n forgiven.... And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest\n shall take his handful of it as the memorial thereof, and burn it\n on the altar, upon the offerings of the Lord made by fire: it is\n a sin offering.\"\n\nIn the ritual of the sin-offering, sacrificial meal, such as that of\nthe peace-offering, wherein the offerer and his house, with the priest\nand the Levite, partook together of the flesh of the sacrificed\nvictim, there was none. The eating of the flesh of the sin-offerings\nby the priests, prescribed in chap. vi. 26, had, primarily, a\ndifferent intention and meaning. As set forth elsewhere (vii. 35), it\nwas \"the anointing portion of Aaron and his sons;\" an ordinance\nexpounded by the Apostle Paul to this effect, that (1 Cor. ix. 13)\nthey which wait upon the altar should \"have their portion with the\naltar.\" Yet not of all the sin-offerings might the priest thus\npartake. For when he was himself the one for whom the offering was\nmade, whether as an individual, or as included in the congregation,\nthen it is plain that he for the time stood in the same position\nbefore God as the private individual who had sinned. It was a\nuniversal principle of the law that because of the peculiarly near and\nsolemn relation into which the expiatory victim had been brought to\nGod, it was \"most holy,\" and therefore he for whose sin it is offered\ncould not eat of its flesh. Hence the general law is laid down (vi.\n30): \"No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the\ntent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten;\nit shall be burnt with fire.\"\n\nAnd yet, although, because the priests could not eat of the flesh, it\nmust be burnt, it could not be burnt upon the altar; not, as some have\nfancied, because it was regarded as unclean, which is directly\ncontradicted by the statement that it is \"most holy,\" but because so\nto dispose of it would have been to confound the sin-offering with the\nburnt-offering, which had, as we have seen, a specific symbolic\nmeaning, quite distinct from that of the sin-offering. It must be so\ndisposed of that nothing shall divert the mind of the worshipper from\nthe fact that, not sacrifice as representing full consecration, as in\nthe burnt-offering, but sacrifice as representing expiation, is set\nforth in this offering. Hence it was ordained that the flesh of these\nsin-offerings for the anointed priest, or for the congregation, which\nincluded him, should be \"burnt on wood with fire without the camp\"\n(iv. 11, 12, 21). And the more carefully to guard against the\npossibility of confounding this burning of the flesh of the\nsin-offering with the sacrificial burning of the victims on the altar,\nthe Hebrew uses here and in all places where this burning is referred\nto, a verb wholly distinct from that which is used of the burnings on\nthe altar, and which, unlike that, is used of any ordinary burning of\nanything for any purpose.\n\nBut this burning of the victim without the camp was not therefore\nempty of all typical significance. The writer of the Epistle to the\nHebrews calls our attention to the fact that in this part of the\nappointed ritual there was also that which prefigured Christ and the\ncircumstances of His death. For we read (Heb. xiii. 10-12), after an\nexhortation to Christians to have done with the ritual observances of\nJudaism regarding meats:--\"We,\" that is, we Christian believers, \"have\nan altar,\"--the cross upon which Jesus suffered,--\"whereof they have\nno right to eat which serve the tabernacle;\" _i.e._, they who adhere\nto the now effete Jewish tabernacle service, the unbelieving\nIsraelites, derive no benefit from this sacrifice of ours. \"For the\nbodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Holy Place by\nthe high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without the camp;\"\nthe priesthood are debarred from eating them, according to the law we\nhave before us. And then attention is called to the fact that in this\nrespect Jesus fulfilled this part of the type of the sin-offering,\nthus: \"Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with\nHis own blood, suffered without the camp.\" That is, as Alford\ninterprets (Comm. sub. loc.), in the circumstance that Jesus suffered\nwithout the gate, is seen a visible adumbration of the fact that He\nsuffered outside the camp of legal Judaism, and thus, in that He\nsuffered for the sin of the whole congregation of Israel, fulfilled\nthe type of this sin-offering in this particular. Thus a prophecy is\ndiscovered here which perhaps we had not else discerned, concerning\nthe manner of the death of the antitypical victim. He should suffer as\na victim for the sin of the whole congregation, the priestly people,\nwho should for that reason be debarred, in fulfilment of the type,\nfrom that benefit of His death which had else been their privilege.\nAnd herein was accomplished to the uttermost that surrender of His\nwhole being to God, in that, in carrying out that full consecration,\n\"He, bearing His cross went forth,\" not merely outside the gate of\nJerusalem,--in itself a trivial circumstance,--but, as this fitly\nsymbolised, outside the congregation of Israel, to suffer. In other\nwords, His consecration of Himself to God in self-sacrifice found its\nsupreme expression in this, that He voluntarily submitted to be cast\nout from Israel, despised and rejected of men, even of the Israel of\nGod.\n\nAnd so this burning of the flesh of the sin-offering of the highest\ngrade in two places, the fat upon the altar, in the court of the\ncongregation, and the rest of the victim outside the camp, set forth\nprophetically the full self-surrender of the Son to the Father, as the\nsin-offering, in a double aspect: in the former, emphasising simply,\nas in the peace-offering, His surrender of all that was highest and\nbest in Him, as Son of God and Son of man, unto the Father as a\nSin-offering; in the latter, foreshowing that He should also, in a\nspecial manner, be a sacrifice for the sin of the congregation of\nIsrael, and that His consecration should receive its fullest\nexhibition and most complete expression in that He should die outside\nthe camp of legal Judaism, as an outcast from the congregation of\nIsrael.\n\nAccordingly we find that this part of the type of the sin-offering was\nformally accomplished when the high priest, upon Christ's confession\nbefore the Sanhedrim of His Sonship to God, declared Him to be guilty\nof blasphemy; an offence for which it had been ordered by the Lord\n(Lev. xxiv. 14) that the guilty person should be taken \"without the\ncamp\" to suffer for his sin.\n\nIn the light of these marvellous correspondences between the typical\nsin-offering and the self-offering of the Son of God, what a profound\nmeaning more and more appears in those words of Christ concerning\nMoses: \"He wrote of Me.\"\n\n\nTHE SANCTITY OF THE SIN-OFFERING.\n\nvi. 24-30.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to\n his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: in the\n place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering\n be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that\n offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be\n eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall\n touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is\n sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash\n that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen\n vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden\n in a brasen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.\n Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.\n And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the\n tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be\n eaten: it shall be burnt with fire.\"\n\nIn chap. vi. 24-30 we have a section which is supplemental to the law\nof the sin-offering, in which, with some repetition of the laws\npreviously given, are added certain special regulations, in fuller\nexposition of the peculiar sanctity attaching to this offering. As in\nthe case of other offerings called \"most holy,\" it is ordered that\nonly the males among the priests shall eat of it; among whom, the\nofficiating priest takes the precedence. Further, it is declared that\neverything that touches the offering shall be regarded as \"holy,\" that\nis, as invested with the sanctity attaching to every person or thing\nspecially devoted to the Lord.\n\nThen by way of application of this principle to two of the most common\ncases in which it could apply, it is ordered, first (ver. 27), with\nregard to any garment which should be sprinkled with the blood, \"thou\nshalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place;\" that so by\nno chance should the least of the blood which had been shed for the\nremission of sin, come into contact with anything unclean and unholy.\nAnd then, again, inasmuch as the flesh which should be eaten by the\npriest must needs be cooked, and the vessel used by this contact\nbecame holy, it is commanded (ver. 28) that, if a brazen vessel, \"it\nshall be scoured\" and \"then rinsed with water;\" that in no case should\na vessel in which might remain the least of the sacrificial flesh, be\nused for any profane purpose, and so the holy flesh be defiled. And\nbecause when an (unglazed) earthen vessel was used, even such scouring\nand rinsing could not so cleanse it, but that something of the juices\nof the holy flesh should be absorbed into its substance, therefore, in\norder to preclude the possibility of its ever being used for any\ncommon purpose it is directed (ver. 28) that it shall be broken.[10]\n\n [10] A striking parallel to this ordinance is found in a caste\n custom in North India, where the caste Hindoo, as I have often\n seen, if he give you a drink of water in a vessel, will only use\n an earthen vessel, which, immediately after you have drunk, he\n breaks, to preclude the possibility of its accidental use\n thereafter, by which ceremonial defilement might be contracted.\n For the Hindoo does not regard it as possible so to cleanse a\n metallic vessel as to remove the defilement thus caused; and as\n he could not afford to throw it away, he will give one to drink\n in the cheap earthen vessel, or else no drink at all.\n\nBy such regulations as these, it is plain that even in those days of\nlittle light the thoughtful Israelite would be impressed with the\nfeeling that in the expiation of sin he came into a peculiarly near\nand solemn relation to the holiness of God, even though he might not\nbe able to formulate his thought more exactly. In modern times,\nhowever, strange to say, these very regulations with regard to the\nsin-offering, when it has been taken as typical of Christ, have been\nused as an argument against the New Testament teaching as to the\nexpiatory nature of His death as a true satisfaction to the holy\njustice of God for the sins of men. For it is argued, that if Christ\nwas really, in a legal sense, regarded as a sinner, because standing\nin the sinner's place, to receive in His person the wrath of God\nagainst the sinner's sin, it could not have been ordered that the\nblood and the flesh of the typical offering should be thus regarded as\nof peculiar and pre-eminent holiness. Rather, we are told, should we,\nfor example, have read in the ritual, \"No one, and, least of all, the\npriests, shall eat of it; for it is most unclean.\" An extraordinary\nargument and conclusion! For surely it is an utter misapprehension\nboth of the so-called \"orthodox\" view of the atonement, and of the New\nTestament teaching on the subject, to represent it as involving the\nsuggestion that Christ, when for us \"made sin,\" and suffering as our\nsubstitute, thereby must have been for the time Himself unclean.\nSurely, according to the constant use of the word, in imputation of\nsin, of any sin, to any one, there is no conveyance of character; it\nis only implied that such person is, for whatsoever reason, justly or\nunjustly, treated as if he were guilty of that sin which is imputed to\nhim. Imputing falsehood to a man who is truth itself, does not make\nhim a liar, though it does involve treating him as if he were. Just so\nit is in this case.\n\nThere is, then, in these regulations which emphasise the peculiar\nholiness of the sin-offering, nothing which is inconsistent with the\nstrictest juridical view of the great atonement which in type it\nrepresented. On the contrary, one can hardly think of anything which\nshould more effectively represent the great truth of the incomparable\nholiness of the victim of Calvary, than just this strenuous insistence\nthat the blood and the flesh of the typical victim should be treated\nas of the most peculiar sanctity. If, when we see the victim of the\nsin-offering slain and its blood presented before God, we behold a\nvivid representation of Christ, the Lamb of God, \"made sin in our\nbehalf;\" so when, in these regulations, we see how the flesh and blood\nof the offered victim is treated as of the most pre-eminent sanctity,\nwe are as impressively reminded how it is written (2 Cor. v. 21) that\nit was \"Him who knew no sin,\" that God \"made to be sin on our behalf.\"\nThus does the type, in order that nothing might be wanting in this law\nof the offering, insist in every possible way on the holiness of the\ngreat Victim who became the Antitype; and most of all in the\nsin-offering, because in this, where, not consecration of the person\nor the works, or the impartation and fellowship of the life of Christ,\nbut expiation, was the central idea of the sacrifice, there was a\nspecial need for emphasising, in an exceptional way, this thought;\nthat the Victim who bore our sins, although visibly laden with the\ncurse of God, was none the less all the time Himself \"most holy;\" so\nthat in that unfathomable mystery of Calvary, never was He more truly\nand really the well-beloved Son of the Father than when He cried out\nin the extremity of His anguish as \"made sin for us,\" \"My God, My God,\nwhy hast Thou forsaken Me?\"\n\nHow wonderfully adapted in all its details was this law of the\nsin-offering, not only for the education of Israel, but, if we will\nmeditate upon these things, also for our own! How the truths which\nunderlie this law should humble us, even in proportion as they exalt\nto the uttermost the ineffable majesty of the holiness of God! And, if\nwe will but yield to their teachings, how mightily should they\nconstrain us, in grateful recognition of the love of the Holy One who\nwas \"made sin in our behalf,\" and of the love of the Father who sent\nHim for this end, to accept Him as our Sin-offering, set forth in the\nconsummation of the ages, \"to put away sin by the sacrifice of\nHimself.\" No more are offered the sin-offerings of the law of Moses:--\n\n \"But Christ, the heavenly Lamb,\n Takes all our sins away;\n A sacrifice of nobler name,\n And richer blood, than they.\"\n\nIf, then, the law of the Levitical sin-offering abides in force no\nlonger, this is not because God has changed, or because the truths\nwhich it set forth concerning sin, and expiation, and pardon, are\nobsolete, but only because the great Sin-offering which the ancient\nsacrifice typified, has now appeared. God hath \"taken away the first,\nthat He may establish the second\" (Heb. x. 9). We have thus to do with\nthe same God as the Israelite. Now, as then, He takes account of all\nour sins, even of sins committed \"unwittingly;\" He reckons guilt with\nthe same absolute impartiality and justice as then; He pardons sin, as\nthen, only when the sinner who seeks pardon, presents a sin-offering.\nBut He has now Himself provided the Lamb for this offering, and now in\ninfinite love invites us all, without distinction, with whatsoever\nsins we may be burdened, to make free use of the all-sufficient and\nmost efficient blood of His well-beloved Son. Shall we risk neglecting\nthis Divine provision, and undertake to deal with God by-and-bye, in\nthe great day of judgment, on our own merits, without a sacrifice for\nsin? God forbid! Rather let us go on to say in the words of that old\nhymn:--\n\n \"My faith would lay her hand\n On that dear Head of Thine,\n While like a penitent I stand,\n And there confess my sin.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_THE GUILT-OFFERING._\n\nLEV. v. 14; vi. 7; vii. 1-7.\n\n\nAs in the English version, so also in the Hebrew, the special class of\nsins for which the guilt-offering[11] is prescribed, is denoted by a\ndistinct and specific word. That word, like the English \"trespass,\"\nits equivalent, always has reference to an invasion of the rights of\nothers, especially in respect of property or service. It is used, for\ninstance, of the sin of Achan (Josh. vii. 1), who had appropriated\nspoil from Jericho, which God had commanded to be set apart for\nHimself. Thus, also, the neglect of God's service, and especially the\nworship of idols, is often described by this same word, as in 2 Chron.\nxxviii. 22, xxix. 6, and many other places. The reason is evident; for\nidolatry involved a withholding from God of those tithes and other\nofferings which He claimed from Israel, and thus became, as it were,\nan invasion of the Divine rights of property. The same word is even\napplied to the sin of adultery (Numb. v. 12, 27), apparently from the\nsame point of view, inasmuch as the woman is regarded as belonging to\nher husband, who has therefore in her certain sacred rights, of which\nadultery is an invasion. Thus, while every \"trespass\" is a sin, yet\nevery sin is not a \"trespass.\" There are, evidently, many sins of\nwhich this is not a characteristic feature. But the sins for which the\nguilt-offering is prescribed are in every case sins which _may_, at\nleast, be specially regarded under this particular point of view, to\nwit, as trespasses on the rights of God or man in respect of\nownership; and this gives us the fundamental thought which\ndistinguishes the guilt-offering from all others, namely, that for any\ninvasion of the rights of another in regard to property, not only must\nexpiation be made, in that it is a sin, but also satisfaction, and, so\nfar as possible, plenary reparation of the wrong, in that the sin is\nalso trespass.\n\n [11] It is to be regretted that the Revisers had not allowed in\n this case the rendering \"trespass-offering\" to stand, as in the\n Authorised Version. For, unlike the more generic term \"guilt,\"\n our word \"trespass\" very precisely indicates the class of\n offences for which this particular offering was ordained. It is\n indeed true that the Hebrew word so rendered is quite distinct\n from that rendered \"trespass;\" yet, in this instance, by the\n attempt to represent this fact in English, more has been lost\n than gained.\n\nFrom this it is evident that, as contrasted with the burnt-offering,\nwhich pre-eminently symbolised full consecration of the person, and\nthe peace-offering, which symbolised fellowship with God, as based\nupon reconciliation by sacrifice, the guilt-offering takes its place,\nin a general sense, with the sin-offering, as, like that, specially\ndesigned to effect the reinstatement of an offender in covenant\nrelation with God. Thus, like the latter, and unlike the former\nofferings, it was only prescribed with reference to specific instances\nof failure to fulfil some particular obligation toward God or man. So\nalso, as the express condition of an acceptable offering, the formal\nconfession of such sin was particularly enjoined. And, finally, unlike\nthe burnt-offering, which was wholly consumed upon the altar, or the\npeace-offering, of the flesh of which, with certain reservations, the\nworshipper himself partook, in the case of the guilt-offering, as in\nthe sin-offering, the fat parts only were burnt on the altar, and the\nremainder of the victim fell to the priests, to be eaten by them alone\nin a holy place, as a thing \"most holy.\" The law is given in the\nfollowing words (vii. 3-7): \"He shall offer of it all the fat thereof;\nthe fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two\nkidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the\ncaul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away: and the\npriest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire\nunto the Lord: it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests\nshall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy.\nAs is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering: there is one law for\nthem: the priest that maketh atonement therewith, he shall have it.\"\n\nBut while, in a general way, the guilt-offering was evidently\nintended, like the sin-offering, to signify the removal of sin from\nthe conscience through sacrifice, and thus may be regarded as a\nvariety of the sin-offering, yet the ritual presents some striking\nvariations from that of the latter. These are all explicable from this\nconsideration, that whereas the sin-offering represented the idea of\natonement by sacrifice, regarded as an _expiation_ of guilt, the\nguilt-offering represented atonement under the aspect of a\n_satisfaction_ and _reparation_ for the wrong committed. Hence,\nbecause the idea of expiation here fell somewhat into the background,\nin order to give the greater prominence to that of reparation and\nsatisfaction, the application of the blood is only made, as in the\nburnt-offering and the peace-offering, by sprinkling \"on the altar (of\nburnt-offering) round about\" (vii. 1). Hence, again, we find that the\nguilt-offering always had reference to the sin of the individual, and\nnever to the congregation; because it was scarcely possible that every\nindividual in the whole congregation should be guilty in such\ninstances as those for which the guilt-offering is prescribed.\n\nAgain, we have another contrast in the restriction imposed upon the\nchoice of the victim for the sacrifice. In the sin-offering, as we\nhave seen, it was ordained that the offering should be varied\naccording to the theocratic rank of the offender, to emphasise thereby\nto the conscience gradations of guilt, as thus determined; also, it\nwas permitted that the offering might be varied in value according to\nthe ability of the offerer, in order that it might thus be signified\nin symbol that it was the gracious will of God that nothing in the\npersonal condition of the sinner should exclude any one from the\nmerciful provision of the expiatory sacrifice. But it was no less\nimportant that another aspect of the matter should be held forth,\nnamely, that God is no respecter of persons; and that, whatever be the\ncondition of the offender, the obligation to plenary satisfaction and\nreparation for trespass committed, cannot be modified in any way by\nthe circumstances of the offender. The man who, for example, has\ndefrauded his neighbour, whether of a small sum or of a large estate,\nabides his debtor before God, under all conceivable conditions, until\nrestitution is made. The obligation of full payment rests upon every\ndebtor, be he poor or rich, until the last farthing is discharged.\nHence, the sacrificial victim of the guilt-offering is the same,\nwhether for the poor man or the rich man, \"a ram of the flock.\"\n\nIt was \"a ram of the flock,\" because, as contrasted with the ewe or\nthe lamb, or the dove and the pigeon, it was a valuable offering. And\nyet it is not a bullock, the most valuable offering known to the law,\nbecause that might be hopelessly out of the reach of many a poor man.\nThe idea of value must be represented, and yet not so represented as\nto exclude a large part of the people from the provisions of the\nguilt-offering. The ram must be \"without blemish,\" that naught may\ndetract from its value, as a symbol of full satisfaction for the wrong\ndone.\n\nBut most distinctive of all the requisitions touching the victim is\nthis, that, unlike all other victims for other offerings, the ram of\nthe guilt-offering must in each case be definitely appraised by the\npriest. The phrase is (v. 15), that it must be \"according to thy\nestimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary.\"\nThis expression evidently requires, first, that the offerer's own\nestimate of the value of the victim shall not be taken, but that of\nthe priest, as representing God in this transaction; and, secondly,\nthat its value shall in no case fall below a certain standard; for the\nplural expression, \"by shekels,\" implies that the value of the ram\nshall not be less than two shekels. And the shekel must be of full\nweight; the standard of valuation must be God's, and not man's, \"the\nshekel of the sanctuary.\"\n\nStill more to emphasise the distinctive thought of this sacrifice,\nthat full satisfaction and reparation for all offences is with God the\nuniversal and unalterable condition of forgiveness, it was further\nordered that in all cases where the trespass was of such a character\nas made this possible, that which had been unjustly taken or kept\nback, whether from God or man, should be restored \"in full;\" and not\nonly this, but inasmuch as by this misappropriation of what was not\nhis own, the offender had for the time deprived another of the use and\nenjoyment of that which belonged to him, he must add to that of which\nhe had defrauded him \"the fifth part more,\" a double tithe. Thus the\nguilty person was not allowed to have gained even any temporary\nadvantage from the use for a while of that which he now restored; for\n\"the fifth part more\" would presumably quite overbalance all\nconceivable advantage or enjoyment which he might have had from his\nfraud. How admirable in all this the exact justice of God! How\nperfectly adapted was the guilt-offering, in all these particulars, to\neducate the conscience, and to preclude any possible wrong inferences\nfrom the allowance which was made, for other reasons, for the poor\nman, in the expiatory offerings for sin!\n\nThe arrangement of the law of the guilt-offering is very simple. It is\ndivided into two sections, the first of which (v. 14-19) deals with\ncases of trespass \"in the holy things of the Lord,\" things which, by\nthe law or by an act of consecration, were regarded as belonging in a\nspecial sense to Jehovah; the second section, on the other hand (vi.\n1-7), deals with cases of trespass on the property rights of man.\n\nThe first of these, again, consists of two parts. Verses 14-16 give\nthe law of the guilt-offering as applied to cases in which a man,\nthrough inadvertence or unwittingly, trespasses in the holy things of\nthe Lord, but in such manner that the nature and extent of the\ntrespass can afterward be definitely known and valued; verses 17-19\ndeal with cases where there has been trespass such as to burden the\nconscience, and yet such as, for whatsoever reason, cannot be\nprecisely measured.\n\nBy \"the holy things of the Lord\" are intended such things as, either\nby universal ordinance or by voluntary consecration, were regarded as\nbelonging to Jehovah, and in a special sense His property. Thus, under\nthis head would come the case of the man who, for instance, should\nunwittingly eat the flesh of the firstling of his cattle, or the flesh\nof the sin-offering, or the shew-bread; or should use his tithe, or\nany part of it, for himself. Even though he did this unwittingly, yet\nit none the less disturbed the man's relation to God; and therefore,\nwhen known, in order to his reinstatement in fellowship with God, it\nwas necessary that he should make full restitution with a fifth part\nadded, and, besides this, sacrifice a ram, duly appraised, as a\nguilt-offering. In that the sacrifice was prescribed over and above\nthe restitution, the worshipper was reminded that, in view of the\ninfinite majesty and holiness of God, it lies not in the power of any\ncreature to nullify the wrong God-ward, even by fullest restitution.\nFor trespass is not only trespass, but is also sin; an offence not\nonly against the rights of Jehovah as Owner, but also an affront to\nHim as Supreme King and Lawgiver.\n\nAnd yet, because the worshipper must not be allowed to lose sight of\nthe fact that sin is of the nature of a debt, a victim was ordered\nwhich should especially bring to mind this aspect of the matter. For\nnot only among the Hebrews, but among the Arabs, the Romans and other\nancient peoples, sheep, and especially rams, were very commonly used\nas a medium of payment in case of debt, and especially in paying\ntribute.\n\nThus we read (2 Kings iii. 4), that Mesha, king of Moab, rendered unto\nthe king of Israel \"an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand\nrams, with the wool,\" in payment of tribute; and, at a later day,\nIsaiah (xvi. 1, R.V.) delivers to Moab the mandate of Jehovah: \"Send\nye the lambs for the ruler of the land ... unto the mount of the\ndaughter of Zion.\"\n\nAnd so the ram having been brought and presented by the guilty person,\nwith confession of his fault, it was slain by the priest, like the\nsin-offering. The blood, however, was not applied to the horns of the\naltar of burnt-offering, still less brought into the Holy Place, as in\nthe case of the sin-offering; but (vii. 2) was to be sprinkled \"upon\nthe altar round about,\" as in the burnt-offering. The reason of this\ndifference in the application of the blood, as above remarked, lies in\nthis, that, as in the burnt-offering, the idea of sacrifice as\nsymbolising expiation takes a place secondary and subordinate to\nanother thought; in this case, the conception of sacrifice as\nrepresenting satisfaction for trespass.\n\nThe next section (vv. 17-19) does not expressly mention sins of\ntrespass; for which reason some have thought that it was essentially a\nrepetition of the law of the sin-offering. But that it is not to be so\nregarded is plain from the fact that the victim is still the same as\nfor the guilt-offering, and from the explicit statement (ver. 19) that\nthis \"is a guilt-offering.\" The inference is natural that the\nprescription still has reference to \"trespass in the holy things of\nthe Lord;\" and the class of cases intended is probably indicated by\nthe phrase, \"though he knew it not.\" In the former section, the law\nprovided for cases in which though the trespass had been done\nunwittingly, yet the offender afterward came to know of the trespass\nin its precise extent, so as to give an exact basis for the\nrestitution ordered in such cases. But it is quite supposable that\nthere might be cases in which, although the offender was aware that\nthere had been a probable trespass, such as to burden his conscience,\nhe yet knew not just how much it was. The ordinance is only in so far\nmodified as such a case would make necessary; where there was no exact\nknowledge of the amount of trespass, obviously there the law of\nrestitution with the added fifth could not be applied. Yet, none the\nless, the man is guilty; he \"bears his iniquity,\" that is, he is\nliable to the penalty of his fault; and in order to the\nre-establishment of his covenant relation with God, the ram must be\noffered as a guilt-offering.\n\nIt is suggestive to observe the emphasis which is laid upon the\nnecessity of the guilt-offering, even in such cases. Three times,\nreference is explicitly made to this fact of ignorance, as not\naffecting the requirement of the guilt-offering: (ver. 17) \"Though he\nknew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity;\" and again\n(ver. 18), with special explicitness, \"The priest shall make atonement\nfor him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it\nnot;\" and yet again (ver. 19), \"It is a guilt-offering: he is\ncertainly guilty before the Lord.\" The repetition is an urgent\nreminder that in this case, as in all others, we are never to forget\nthat however our ignorance of a trespass at the time, or even lack of\ndefinite knowledge regarding its nature and extent, may affect the\ndegree of our guilt, it cannot affect the fact of our guilt, and the\nconsequent necessity for satisfaction in order to acceptance with God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe second section of the law of the guilt-offering (vi. 1-7) deals\nwith trespasses against man, as also, like trespasses against Jehovah,\nrequiring, in order to forgiveness from God, full restitution with the\nadded fifth, and the offering of the ram as a guilt-offering. Five\ncases are named (vv. 2, 3,), no doubt as being common, typical\nexamples of sins of this character.\n\nThe first case is trespass upon a neighbour's rights in \"a matter of\ndeposit;\" where a man has entrusted something to another to keep, and\nhe has either sold it or unlawfully used it as if it were his own. The\nsecond case takes in all fraud in a \"bargain,\" as when, for example, a\nman sells goods, or a piece of land, representing them to be better\nthan they really are, or asking a price larger than he knows an\narticle to be really worth. The third instance is called \"robbery;\" by\nwhich we are to understand any act or process, even though it should\nbe under colour of legal forms, by means of which a man may manage\nunjustly to get possession of the property of his neighbour, without\ngiving him due equivalent therefor. The fourth instance is called\n\"oppression\" of his neighbour. The English word contains the same\nimage as the Hebrew word, which is used, for instance, of the\nunnecessary retention of the wages of the _employ\u00e9_ by the employer\n(xix. 13); it may be applied to all cases in which a man takes\nadvantage of another's circumstances to extort from him any thing or\nany service to which he has no right, or to force upon him something\nwhich it is to the poor man's disadvantage to take. The last example\nof offences to which the law of the guilt-offering applied, is the\ncase in which a man finds something and then denies it to the rightful\nowner. The reference to false swearing which follows, as appears from\nver. 5, refers not merely to lying and perjury concerning this\nlast-named case, but equally to all cases in which a man may lie or\nswear falsely to the pecuniary damage of his neighbour. It is\nmentioned not merely as aggravating such sin, but because in swearing\ntouching any matter, a man appeals to God as witness to the truth of\nhis words; so that by swearing in these cases he represents God as a\nparty to his falsehood and injustice.\n\nIn all these cases, the prescription is the same as in analogous\noffences in the holy things of Jehovah. First of all, the guilty man\nmust confess the wrong which he has done (Numb. v. 7), then\nrestitution must be made of all of which he has defrauded his\nneighbour, together with one-fifth additional. But while this may set\nhim right with man, it has not yet set him right with God. He must\nbring his guilt-offering unto Jehovah (vv. 6, 7); \"a ram without\nblemish out of the flock, according to the priest's estimation, for a\nguilt offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement\nfor him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning\nwhatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.\"\n\nAnd this completes the law of the guilt-offering. It was thus\nprescribed for sins which involve a defrauding or injuring of another\nin respect to material things, whether God or man, whether knowingly\nor unwittingly. The law was one and unalterable for all; the condition\nof pardon was plenary restitution for the wrong done, and the offering\nof a costly sacrifice, appraised as such by the priest, the earthly\nrepresentative of God, in the shekel of the sanctuary, \"a ram without\nblemish out of the flock.\"\n\nThere are lessons from this ordinance, so plain that, even in the dim\nlight of those ancient days, the Israelite might discern and\nunderstand them. And they are lessons which, because man and his ways\nare the same as then, and God the same as then, are no less pertinent\nto all of us to-day.\n\nThus we are taught by this law that God claims from man, and\nespecially from His own people, certain rights of property, of which\nHe will not allow Himself to be defrauded, even through man's\nforgetfulness or inadvertence. In a later day Israel was sternly\nreminded of this in the burning words of Jehovah by the prophet\nMalachi (iii. 8, 9): \"Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say,\nWherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed\nwith the curse; for ye rob me, even this whole nation.\" Nor has God\nrelaxed His claim in the present dispensation. For the Apostle Paul\ncharges the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. viii. 7), in the name of the\nLord, with regard to their gifts, that as they abounded in other\ngraces, so they should \"abound in this grace also.\" And this is the\nfirst lesson brought before us in the law of the guilt-offering. God\nclaims His tithe, His first-fruit, and the fulfilment of all vows. It\nwas a lesson for that time; it is no less a lesson for our time.\n\nAnd the guilt-offering further reminds us that as God has rights, so\nman also has rights, and that Jehovah, as the King and Judge of men,\nwill exact the satisfaction of those rights, and will pass over no\ninjury done by man to his neighbour in material things, nor forgive it\nunto any man, except upon condition of the most ample material\nrestitution to the injured party.\n\nThen, yet again, if the sin-offering called especially for _faith_ in\nan expiatory sacrifice as the condition of the Divine forgiveness, the\nguilt-offering as specifically called also for _repentance_, as a\ncondition of pardon, no less essential. Its unambiguous message to\nevery Israelite was the same as that of John the Baptist at a later\nday (Matt. iii. 8, 9): \"Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance: and\nthink not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.\"\n\nThe reminder is as much needed now as in the days of Moses. How\nspecific and practical the selection of the particular instances\nmentioned as cases for the application of the inexorable law of the\nguilt-offering! Let us note them again, for they are not cases\npeculiar to Israel or to the fifteenth century before Christ. \"If any\none ... deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit;\" as,\n_e.g._, in the case of moneys entrusted to a bank or railway company,\nor other corporation; for there is no hint that the law did not apply\nexcept to individuals, or that a man might be released from these\nstringent obligations of righteousness whenever in some such evil\nbusiness he was associated with others; the guilt-offering must be\nforthcoming, with the amplest restitution, or there is no pardon. Then\nfalse dealing in a \"bargain\" is named, as involving the same\nrequirement; as when a man prides himself on driving \"a good bargain,\"\nby getting something unfairly for less than its value, taking\nadvantage of his neighbour's straits; or by selling something for more\nthan its value, taking advantage of his neighbour's ignorance, or his\nnecessity. Then is mentioned \"robbery;\" by which word is covered not\nmerely that which goes by the name in polite circles, but all cases in\nwhich a man takes advantage of his neighbour's distress or\nhelplessness, perhaps by means of some technicality of law, to \"strip\"\nhim, as the Hebrew word is, of his property of any kind. And next is\nspecified the man who may \"have oppressed his neighbour,\" especially a\nman or woman who serves him, as the usage of the word suggests;\ngrinding thus the face of the poor; paying, for instance, less for\nlabour than the law of righteousness and love demands, because the\npoor man must have work or starve with his house. What sweeping\nspecifications! And all such, in all lands and all ages, are solemnly\nreminded in the law of the guilt-offering that in these their sharp\npractices they have to reckon not with man merely, but with God; and\nthat it is utterly vain for a man to hope for the forgiveness of sin\nfrom God, offering or no offering, so long as he has in his pocket his\nneighbour's money. For all such, full restoration with the added\nfifth, according to the law of the theocratic kingdom, was the\nunalterable condition of the Divine forgiveness; and we shall find\nthat this law of the theocratic kingdom will also be the law applied\nin the adjudications of the great white throne.\n\nFurthermore, in that it was particularly enjoined that in the\nestimation of the value of the guilt-offering, not the shekel of the\npeople, often of light weight, but the full weight \"shekel of the\nsanctuary\" was to be held the invariable standard; we, who are so apt\nto ease things to our consciences by applying to our conduct the\nprinciples of judgment current among men, are plainly taught that if\nwe will have our trespasses forgiven, the reparation and restitution\nwhich we make must be measured, not by the standard of men, but by\nthat of God, which is absolute righteousness.\n\nYet again, in that in the case of all such trespasses on the rights of\nGod or man it was ordained that the offering, unlike other sacrifices\nintended to teach other lessons, should be one and the same, whether\nthe offender were rich or poor; we are taught that the extent of our\nmoral obligations or the conditions of their equitable discharge are\nnot determined by a regard to our present ability to make them good.\nDebt is debt by whomsoever owed. If a man have appropriated a hundred\npounds of another man's money, the moral obligation of that debt\ncannot be abrogated by a bankrupt law, allowing him to compromise at\nten shillings in the pound. The law of man may indeed release him from\nliability to prosecution, but no law can discharge such a man from the\nunalterable obligation to pay penny for penny, farthing for farthing.\nThere is no bankrupt law in the kingdom of God. This, too, is\nevidently a lesson quite as much needed by Gentiles and nominal\nChristians in the nineteenth century after Christ, as by Hebrews in\nthe fifteenth century before Christ.\n\nBut the spiritual teaching of the guilt-offering is not yet exhausted.\nFor, like all the other offerings, it pointed to Christ. He is \"the\nend of the law unto righteousness\" (Rom. x. 4), as regards the\nguilt-offering, as in all else. As the burnt-offering prefigured\nChrist the heavenly Victim, in one aspect, and the peace-offering,\nChrist in another aspect, so the guilt-offering presents to our\nadoring contemplation yet another view of His sacrificial work. While,\nas our burnt-offering, He became our _righteousness_ in full\nself-consecration; as our peace-offering, our _life_; as our\nsin-offering, the _expiation_ for our sins; so, as our guilt-offering,\nHe made _satisfaction_ and plenary reparation in our behalf to the God\non whose inalienable rights in us, by our sins we had trespassed\nwithout measure.\n\nNor is this an over-refinement of exposition. For in Isa. liii. 10,\nwhere both the Authorised and the Revised Versions read, \"shall make\nhis soul _an offering for sin_,\" the margin of the latter rightly\ncalls attention to the fact that in the Hebrew the word here used is\nthe very same which through all this Levitical law is rendered\n\"guilt-offering.\" And so we are expressly told by this evangelic\nprophet, that the Holy Servant of Jehovah, the suffering Messiah, in\nthis His sacrificial work should make His soul \"a guilt-offering.\" He\nbecame Himself the complete and exhaustive realisation of all that in\nsacrifice which was set forth in the Levitical guilt-offering.\n\nA declaration this is which holds forth both the sin for which Christ\natoned, and the Sacrifice itself, in a very distinct and peculiar\nlight. In that Christ's sacrifice was thus a guilt-offering in the\nsense of the law, we are taught that, in one aspect, our sins are\nregarded by God, and should therefore be regarded by us, as debts\nwhich are due from us to God. This is, indeed, by no means the only\naspect in which sin should be regarded; it is, for example, rebellion,\nhigh treason, a deadly affront to the Supreme Majesty, which must be\nexpiated with the blood of the sin-offering. But our sins are also of\nthe nature of debts. That is, God has claims on us for service which\nwe have never met; claims for a portion of our substance which we have\noften withheld, or given grudgingly, trespassing thus in \"the holy\nthings of the Lord.\" Just as the servant who is set to do his master's\nwork, if, instead, he take that time to do his own work, is debtor to\nthe full value of the service of which his master is thus defrauded,\nso stands the case between the sinner and God. Just as with the agent\nwho fails to make due returns to his principal on the moneys committed\nto him for investment, using them instead for himself, so stands the\ncase between God and the sinner who has used his talents, not for the\nLord, but for himself, or has kept them laid up, unused, in a napkin.\nThus, in the New Testament, as the correlate of this representation of\nChrist as a guilt-offering, we find sin again and again set forth as a\ndebt which is owed from man to God. So, in the Lord's prayer we are\ntaught to pray, \"Forgive us our debts;\" so, twice the Lord Himself in\nHis parables (Matt. xviii. 23-35; Luke vii. 41, 42) set forth the\nrelation of the sinner to God as that of the debtor to the creditor;\nand concerning those on whom the tower of Siloam fell, asks (Luke\nxiii. 4), \"Think ye that they were sinners (_Greek_ 'debtors,') above\nall that dwelt in Jerusalem?\" Indeed so imbedded is this thought in\nthe conscience of man that it has been crystallised in our word\n\"ought,\" which is but the old preterite of \"owe;\" as in Tyndale's New\nTestament, where we read (Luke vii. 41), \"there was a certain lender,\nwhich ought him five hundred pence.\" What a startling conception is\nthis, which forms the background to the great \"guilt-offering\"! Man a\ndebtor to God! a debtor for service each day due, but no day ever\nfully and perfectly rendered! in gratitude for gifts, too often quite\nforgotten, oftener only paid in scanty part! We are often burdened and\ntroubled greatly about our debts to men; shall we not be concerned\nabout the enormous and ever accumulating debt to God! Or is He an easy\ncreditor, who is indifferent whether these debts of ours be met or\nnot? So think multitudes; but this is not the representation of\nScripture, either in the Old or the New Testament. For in the law it\nwas required, that if a man, guilty of any of these offences for the\nforgiveness of which the guilt-offering was prescribed, failed to\nconfess and bring the offering, and make the restitution with the\nadded fifth, as commanded by the law, he should be brought before the\njudges, and the full penalty of law exacted, on the principle of \"an\neye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!\" And in the New Testament, one of\nthose solemn parables of the two debtors closes with the awful words\nconcerning one of them who was \"delivered to the tormentors,\" that he\nshould not come out of prison till he had \"paid the uttermost\nfarthing.\" Not a hint is there in Holy Scripture, of forgiveness of\nour debts to God, except upon the one condition of full restitution\nmade to Him to whom the debt is due, and therewith the sacrificial\nblood of a guilt-offering. But Christ is our Guilt-Offering. He is our\nGuilt-Offering, in that He Himself did that, really and fully, with\nrespect to all our debts as sinful men to God, which the\nguilt-offering of Leviticus symbolised, but accomplished not. His soul\nHe made a guilt-offering for our trespasses! Isaiah's words imply that\nHe should make full restitution for all that of which we, as sinners,\ndefraud God. He did this by that perfect and incomparable service of\nlowly obedience such as we should render, but have never rendered; in\nwhich He has made full satisfaction to God for all our innumerable\ndebts. He has made such satisfaction, not by a convenient legal\nfiction, or in a rhetorical figure, or as judged by any human\nstandard. Even as the ram of the guilt-offering was appraised\naccording to \"the shekel of the sanctuary,\" so upon our Lord, at the\nbeginning of that life of sacrificial service, was solemnly passed the\nDivine verdict that with this antitypical Victim of the\nGuilt-Offering, God Himself was \"well pleased\" (Matt. iii. 17).\n\nNot only so. For we cannot forget that according to the law, not only\nthe full restitution must be made, but the fifth must be added\nthereto. So with our Lord. For who will not confess that Christ not\nonly did all that we should have done, but, in the ineffable depth of\nHis self-humiliation and obedience unto death, even the death of the\ncross, paid therewith the added fifth of the law. Said a Jewish Rabbi\nto the writer, \"I have never been able to finish reading in the Gospel\nthe story of the Jesus of Nazareth; for it too soon brings the tears\nto my eyes!\" So affecting even to Jewish unbelief was this\nunparalleled spectacle, the adorable Son of God making Himself a\nguilt-offering, and paying, in the incomparable perfection of His holy\nobedience, the added fifth in our behalf! Thus has Christ \"magnified\nthis law\" of the guilt-offering, and \"made it honourable,\" even as He\ndid all law (Isa. xlii. 21).\n\nAnd, as is intimated, by the formal valuation of the sacrificial ram,\nin the type, even the death of Christ as the guilt-offering, in one\naspect is to be regarded as the consummating act of service in the\npayment of debts Godward. Just as the sin-offering represented His\ndeath in its passive aspect, as meeting the demands of justice against\nthe sinner as a rebel under sentence of death, by dying in his stead,\nso, on the other hand, the guilt-offering represents that same\nsacrificial death, rather in another aspect, no less clearly set forth\nin the New Testament; namely, the supreme act of obedience to the will\nof God, whereby He discharged \"to the uttermost farthing,\" even with\nthe added fifth of the law, all the transcendent debt of service due\nfrom man to God.\n\nThis representation of Christ's work has in all ages been an offence,\n\"the offence of the cross.\" All the more need we to insist upon it,\nand never to forget, or let others forget, that Christ is expressly\ndeclared in the Word of God to have been \"a guilt-offering,\" in the\nLevitical sense of that term; that, therefore, to speak of His death\nas effecting our salvation merely through its moral influence, is to\ncontradict and nullify the Word of God. Well may we set this word in\nIsa. liii. 10, concerning the Servant of Jehovah, against all modern\nUnitarian theology, and against all Socinianising teaching; all that\nwould maintain any view of Christ's death which excludes or ignores\nthe divinely revealed fact that it was in its essential nature a\nguilt-offering; and, because a guilt-offering, therefore of the nature\nof the payment of a debt in behalf of those for whom He suffered.\n\nMost blessed truth this, for all who can receive it! Christ, the Son\nof God, our Guilt-Offering! Like the poor Israelite, who had defrauded\nGod of that which was His due, so must we do; coming before God,\nconfessing that wherein we have wronged Him, and bringing forth fruit\nmeet for repentance, we must bring and plead Christ in the glory of\nHis person, in all the perfection of His holy obedience, as our\nGuilt-Offering. And therewith the ancient promise to the penitent\nIsraelite becomes ours (vi. 7), \"The priest shall make atonement for\nhim before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven; concerning whatsoever\nhe doeth so as to be guilty thereby.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_THE PRIESTS' PORTIONS._\n\nLEV. vi. 16-18, 26; vii. 6-10, 14, 31-36.\n\n\nAfter the law of the guilt-offering follows a section (vi. 8-vii. 38)\nwith regard to the offerings previously treated, but addressed\nespecially to the priests, as the foregoing were specially directed to\nthe people. Much of the contents of this section has already passed\nbefore us, in anticipation of its order in the book, as this has\nseemed necessary in order to a complete exposition of the several\nofferings. An important part of the section, however, relating to the\nportion of the offerings which was appointed for the priests, has been\npassed by until now, and must claim our brief attention.\n\nIn the verses indicated above, it is ordered that of the\nmeal-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings, all that\nwas not burnt, as also the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder of the\npeace-offerings, should be for Aaron and his sons. In particular, it\nis directed that the priest's portion of the sin-offering and the\nguilt-offering shall be eaten by \"the priest that maketh atonement\ntherewith\" (vii. 7); and that of the meal-offerings prepared in the\noven, the frying-pan, or the baking-pan, all that is not burned upon\nthe altar, according to the law of chap. ii., shall be eaten by \"the\npriest that offereth it;\" and that of every meal-offering mingled with\noil, or dry, the same part \"shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as\nwell as another\" (vii. 9, 10). Of the burnt-offering, all the flesh\nbeing burned, the hide alone fell to the officiating priest as his\nperquisite (vii. 8).\n\nThese regulations are explained in the concluding verses of the\nsection (vii. 35, 36) as follows, \"This is the anointing-portion of\nAaron, and the anointing-portion of his sons, out of the offerings of\nthe Lord made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister\nunto the Lord in the priest's office; which the Lord commanded to be\ngiven them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed\nthem. It is a due for ever throughout their generations.\"\n\nHence, it is plain that this use which was to be made of certain parts\nof certain offerings does not touch the question of the consecration\nof the whole to God. The whole of each offering is none the less\nwholly accepted and appropriated by God, that He designates a part of\nit to the maintenance of the priesthood. That even as thus used by the\npriest it is used by him as something belonging to God, is indicated\nby the phrase used, \"it is most holy\" (vi. 17); expressive words,\nwhich in the law of the offerings always have a technical use, as\ndenoting those things of which only the sons of Aaron might partake,\nand that only in the holy place. In the case of the meal-offering, its\npeculiarly sacred character as belonging, the whole of it, exclusively\nto God, is further marked by the additional injunctions that it should\nbe \"eaten _without leaven_ in a holy place\" (vi. 16); and that\nwhosoever touched these offerings should be holy (vi. 18); that is, he\nshould be as a man separated to God, under all the restrictions\n(doubtless, without the privileges,) which belonged to the\npriesthood, as men set apart for God's service. In the eating of their\nportion of the various offerings by the priests, we are to recognise\nno official act: we simply see the servants of God supported by the\nbread of His table.\n\nThis last thought, which is absent in the case of no one of the\nofferings,[12] is brought out with special clearness and fulness in\nthe ceremonial connected with the peace-offerings (vii. 28-34). In\nthis case, certain parts, the right thigh (or shoulder?) and the\nbreast, are set apart as the due of the priest. The selection of these\nis determined by the principle which marks all the Levitical\nlegislation: God and those who represent Him are to be honoured by the\nconsecration of the best of everything. In the animals used upon the\naltar, these were regarded as the choice parts, and are indeed\nreferred to as such in other Scriptures. But, in order that neither\nthe priest nor the people may imagine that the priest receives these\nas a man from his fellow-men, but may understand that they are given\nto God, and that it is from God that the priest now receives them, as\nHis servant, fed from His table; to this end, certain ceremonies were\nordained to be used with these parts; the breast was to be \"heaved,\"\nthe thigh was to be \"waved,\" before the Lord. What was the meaning of\nthese actions?\n\n [12] Even in the burnt-offering, the hide of the victim was\n assigned to the priest (vii. 8).\n\nThe breast was to be \"heaved;\" that is, elevated heavenward. The\nsymbolic meaning of this act can scarcely be missed. By it, the priest\nacknowledged his dependence upon God for the supply of this\nsacrificial food, and, again, by this act consecrated it anew to Him\nas the One that sitteth in the heavens.\n\nBut God is not only the One that \"sitteth in the heavens;\" He is the\nGod who has condescended also to dwell among men, and especially in\nthe tent of meeting in the midst of Israel. And thus, as by the\nelevation of the breast heavenward, God, the Giver, was recognised as\nthe One enthroned in heaven, so by the \"waving\" of the thigh, which,\nas the rabbis tell us, was a movement backward and forward, to and\nfrom the altar, He was recognised also as Jehovah, who had\ncondescended from heaven to dwell in the midst of His people. Like the\n\"heaving,\" so the \"waving,\" then, was an act of acknowledgment and\nconsecration to God; the former, to God, as in heaven, the God of\ncreation; the other, to God, as the God of the altar, the God of\nredemption. And that this is the true significance of these acts is\nillustrated by the fact that in the Pentateuch, in the account of the\ngold and silver brought by the people for the preparation of the\ntabernacle (Exod. xxxv. 22), the same word is used to describe the\npresentation of these offerings which is here used of the\nwave-offering.\n\nAnd so in the peace-offering the principle is amply illustrated upon\nwhich the priests received their dues. The worshippers bring their\nofferings, and present them, not to the priest, but through him to\nGod; who, then, having used such parts as He will in the service of\nthe sanctuary, gives again such parts of them as He pleases to the\npriests.\n\nThe lesson of these arrangements lies immediately before us. They were\nintended to teach Israel, and, according to the New Testament, are\nalso designed to teach us, that it is the will of God that those who\ngive up secular occupations to devote themselves to the ministry of\nHis house should be supported by the free-will offerings of God's\npeople. Very strange indeed it is to hear a few small sects in our day\ndenying this. For the Apostle Paul argues at length to this effect,\nand calls the attention of the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 13, 14) to the\nfact that the principle expressed in this ordinance of the law of\nMoses has not been set aside, but holds good in this dispensation.\n\"Know ye not that they which ... wait upon the altar have their\nportion with the altar? Even so did the Lord ordain that they which\nproclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel.\" The principle plainly\ncovers the case of all such as give up secular callings to devote\nthemselves to the ministry of the Word, whether to proclaim the Gospel\nin any of the great mission fields, or to exercise the pastorate of\nthe local church. Such are ever to be supported out of the consecrated\nofferings of God's people.\n\nTo point in disparagement of modern \"hireling\" ministers and\nmissionaries, as some have done, to the case of Paul, who laboured\nwith his own hands, that he might not be chargeable to those to whom\nhe ministered, is singularly inapt, seeing that in the chapter above\nreferred to he expressly vindicates his right to receive of the\nCorinthians his support, and in this Second Epistle to them even seems\nto express a doubt (2 Cor. xii. 13) whether in refusing, as he did, to\nreceive support from them, he had not done them a \"wrong,\" making them\nthus \"inferior to the rest of the churches,\" from whom, in fact, he\ndid receive such material aid (Phil. iv. 10, 16).\n\nAnd if ever claims of this kind upon our benevolence and liberality\nseem to be heavy, and if to nature the burden is sometimes irksome,\nwe shall do well to remember that the requirement is not of man, and\nnot of the Church, but of God. It comes to us with the double\nauthority of the Old and New Testament, of the Law and the Gospel. And\nit will certainly help us all to give to these ends the more gladly,\nif we keep that in mind which the Levitical law so carefully kept\nbefore Israel, that the giving was to be regarded by them as not to\nthe priesthood, but to the Lord, and that in our giving outwardly to\nsupport the ministry of God's Word, we give, really, to the Lord\nHimself. And it stands written (Matt. x. 42): \"Whosoever shall give to\ndrink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, ... he\nshall in no wise lose his reward.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_THE CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS, AND OF THE TABERNACLE._\n\nLEV. viii. 1-36.\n\n\nThe second section of the book of Leviticus (viii. 1-x. 20) is\nhistorical, and describes (viii.) the consecration of the tabernacle\nand of Aaron and his sons, (ix.) their induction into the duties of\ntheir office, and, finally (x.), the terrible judgment by which the\nhigh sanctity of the priestly office and of the tabernacle service was\nvery solemnly impressed upon them and all the people.\n\nFirst in order (chap. viii.) is described the ceremonial of\nconsecration. We read (vv. 1-4): \"And the Lord spake unto Moses,\nsaying, Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the\nanointing oil, and the bullock of the sin offering, and the two rams,\nand the basket of unleavened bread; and assemble thou all the\ncongregation at the door of the tent of meeting. And Moses did as the\nLord commanded him; and the congregation was assembled at the door of\nthe tent of meeting.\"\n\nThese words refer us back to Exod. xxviii., xxix., in which are\nrecorded the full directions previously given for the making of the\ngarments and the oil of anointing, and for the ceremonial of the\nconsecration of the priests. The law of offerings having been\ndelivered, Moses now proceeds to consecrate Aaron and his sons to the\npriestly office, according to the commandment given; and to this end,\nby Divine direction, he orders \"all the congregation\" to be assembled\n\"at the door of the tent of meeting.\" In this last statement some have\nseen a sufficient reason for rejecting the whole account as fabulous,\ninsisting that it is palpably absurd to suppose that a congregation\nnumbering some millions could be assembled at the door of a single\ntent! But, surely, if the words are to be taken in the ultra-literal\nsense required in order to make out this difficulty, the impossibility\nmust have been equally evident to the supposed fabricator of the\nfiction; and it is yet more absurd to suppose that he should ever have\nintended his words to be pressed to such a rigid literality. Two\nexplanations lie before us, either of which meets the supposed\ndifficulty; the one, that endorsed by Dillmann,[13] that the\ncongregation was gathered in their appointed representatives; the\nother, that which refuses to see in the words a statement that every\nindividual in the nation was literally \"at the door,\" and further\nreminds us that, inasmuch as the ceremonies of the consecration are\nsaid to have continued seven days, we are not, by the terms of the\nnarrative, required to believe that all, in any sense, were present,\neither at the very beginning or at any one time during that week. It\nis not too much to say that by a captious criticism of this kind, any\nnarrative, however sober, might be shown to be absurd.\n\n [13] See \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 462.\n\nThe consecration ceremonial was introduced by a solemn declaration\nmade by Moses to assembled Israel, that the impressive rites which\nthey were now about to witness, were of Divine appointment. We read\n(ver. 5), \"Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which\nthe Lord hath commanded to be done.\"\n\nJust here we may pause to note the great emphasis which the narrative\nlays upon this fact of the Divine appointment of all pertaining to\nthese consecration rites. Not only is this Divine ordination of all\nthus declared at the beginning, but in connection with each of the\nchief parts of the ceremonial the formula is repeated, \"as the Lord\ncommanded Moses.\" Also, at the close of the first day's rites, Moses\ntwice reminds Aaron and his sons that this whole ritual, in all its\nparts, is for them an ordinance of God, and is to be regarded\naccordingly, upon pain of death (vv. 34, 35). And the narrative of the\nchapter closes (ver. 36) with the words, \"Aaron and his sons did all\nthe things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.\" Twelve\ntimes in this one chapter is reference thus made to the Divine\nappointment of these consecration rites.\n\nThis is full of significance and instruction. It is of the highest\nimportance in an apologetic way. For it is self-evident that this\ntwelvefold affirmation, twelve times directly contradicts the modern\ntheory of the late origin and human invention of the Levitical\npriesthood. There is no evading of the issue which is thus placed\nsquarely before us. To talk of the inspiration from God, in any sense\npossible to that word, of a writing containing such affirmations, so\nnumerous, formal, and emphatic, if the critics referred to are right,\nand these affirmations are all false, is absurd. There is no such\nthing as inspired falsehood.\n\nAgain, a great spiritual truth is herein brought before us, which\nconcerns believers in all ages. It is set forth in so many words in\nHeb. v. 4, where the writer, laying down the essential conditions of\npriesthood, specially mentions Divine appointment as one of these;\nwhich he affirms as satisfied in the high-priesthood of Christ: \"No\nman taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even\nas was Aaron. So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a high\npriest.\" Fundamental to Christian faith and life is this thought:\npriesthood is not of man, but of God. In particular, in all that\nChrist has done and is still doing as the High Priest, in the true\nholiest, He is acting under Divine appointment.\n\nAnd we are hereby pointed to the truth of which some may need to be\nreminded, that the work of our Lord in our behalf, and that of the\nwhole universe into which sin has entered, has its cause and origin in\nthe mind and gracious will of the Father. It was in His\nincomprehensible love, who appointed the priestly office, that the\nwhole work of atonement, and therewith purification and full\nredemption, had its mysterious origin. The thoughtful reader of the\nGospels will hardly need to be reminded how constantly our blessed\nLord, in the days of His high-priestly service upon earth, acted in\nall that He did under the consciousness, often expressed, of His\nappointment by the Father to this work. Thus, Aaron in the solemn\nceremonial of those days of consecration, as ever afterward, doing\n\"all the things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses,\" in so\ndoing fitly represented Him who should come afterward, who said of\nHimself (John vi. 38), \"I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own\nwill, but the will of Him that sent Me.\"\n\n\nTHE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND TABERNACLE AS TYPES.\n\nIn order to any profitable study of the following ceremonial, it is\nindispensable to have distinctly before us the New Testament teaching\nas to the typical significance of the priesthood and the tabernacle. A\nfew words on this subject, therefore, seem to be needful as\npreliminary to more detailed exposition. As to the typical character\nof Aaron, as high priest, the New Testament leaves us no room for\ndoubt. Throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is held forth as\nthe true and heavenly High Priest, of whom Aaron, with his successors,\nwas an eminent type.\n\nAs regards the other priests, while it is true that, considered in\nthemselves, and without reference to the high priest, each of them\nalso, in the performance of his daily functions in the tabernacle, was\na lesser type of Christ, as is intimated in Heb. x. 11, yet, as\ncontrasted with the high priest, who was ever one, while they were\nmany, it is plain that another typical reference must be sought for\nthe ordinary priesthood. What that may be is suggested to us in\nseveral New Testament passages; as, especially, in Rev. v. 10, where\nthe whole body of believers, bought by the blood of the slain Lamb, is\nsaid to have been made \"unto our God a kingdom and priests;\" with\nwhich may be compared Heb. xiii. 10, where it is said, \"We have an\naltar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle\";\nwords which plainly assume the priesthood of all believers in Christ,\nas the antitype of the priesthood of the Levitical tabernacle.[14]\n\n [14] Especially striking in this connection is the expression\n used by the Apostle Paul (Rom. xv. 16), where he speaks of\n himself as \"a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles,\n ministering the Gospel of God;\" in which last phrase, the Greek\n word denotes \"ministration as a priest.\" See R.V., margin.\n\nAs to the typical meaning of the tabernacle, which also is anointed in\nthe consecration ceremonial, there has been much difference of\nopinion. That it was typical is declared, in so many words, in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews (viii. 5), where the Levitical priests are said\nto have served \"that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly\nthings;\" as also ix. 24, where we read, \"Christ entered not into a\nholy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into\nheaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us.\" But when\nwe ask what then were \"the heavenly things\" of which the tabernacle\nwas \"the copy and shadow,\" we have different answers.\n\nMany have replied that the antitype of the tabernacle, as of the\ntemple, was the Church of believers; and, at first thought, with some\napparent Scriptural reason. For it is certain that Christians are\ndeclared (1 Cor. iii. 16) to be the temple of the living God; where,\nhowever, it is to be noted that the original word denotes, not the\ntemple or tabernacle in general, but the \"sanctuary\" or inner\nshrine--the \"holy of holies.\" More to the point is 1 Peter ii. 5,\nwhere it is said to Christians, \"Ye also, as living stones, are built\nup a spiritual house.\" Such passages as these do certainly warrant us\nin saying that the tabernacle, and especially the inner sanctuary, as\nthe special place of the Divine habitation and manifestation, did in\nso far typify the Church.\n\nBut when we consider the tabernacle, not in itself, but in relation to\nits priesthood and ministry, the explanation fails, and we fall into\nconfusion. As when the priests are considered, not in themselves, but\nin their relation to the high priest, we are compelled to seek an\nantitype different from the Antitype of the high priest, so in this\ncase. To identify the typical meaning of the tabernacle, considered as\na part of a whole system and order, with that of the priesthood who\nserve in it, is to throw that whole typical system into confusion.\nFurthermore, this cannot be harmonised with a number of New Testament\nexpressions with regard to the tabernacle and temple, as related to\nthe high priesthood of our Lord. It is hard to see, for example, how\nthe Church of believers could be properly described as \"things in the\nheavens.\" Moreover, we are expressly taught (Heb. ix. 24), that the\nAntitype of the Holy Place into which the high priest entered every\nyear, with blood, was \"heaven itself,\" \"the presence of God;\" and\nagain, His ascension to the right hand of God is described (Heb. iv.\n14, R.V.), with evident allusion to the passing of the high priest\nthrough the Holy Place into the Holiest, as a passing \"_through_ the\nheavens;\" and also (Heb. ix. 11), as an entering into the Holy Place,\n\"through the greater and more perfect tabernacle.\" These expressions\nexclude reference to the Church of Christ as the antitype of the\nearthly tabernacle.\n\nOthers, again, have regarded the tabernacle as a type of the human\nnature of Christ, referring in proof to John ii. 19-21, where our Lord\nspeaks of \"the temple of His body;\" and also to Heb. x. 19, 20, where\nit is said that believers have access to the Holiest \"by a new and\nliving way, which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is to\nsay, His flesh.\"\n\nAs regards the first of these passages, we should note that the\noriginal word is, again, not the word for the temple in general, but\nthat which is invariably used to denote the inner sanctuary, as the\nspecial shrine of Jehovah's presence: so that it really gives us no\nwarrant for affirming that the tabernacle, _as a whole_, was a type of\nour Lord's humanity; nor, on that supposition, does it seem possible\nto explain the meaning of the three parts into which the tabernacle\nwas divided. And the second passage referred to is no more to the\npoint. For the writer had only a little before described the\ntabernacle as a \"pattern of things in the heavens;\" words which,\nsurely, could not be applied to the humanity in which our Lord\nappeared in His incarnation and humiliation,--a humanity which was not\na thing \"of the heavens,\" but of the earth. The reference to the\n\"flesh\" of Christ, as being the veil through which He passed into the\nHoliest (Heb. x. 19, 20) is merely by way of illustration, and not of\ntypical interpretation. The thought of the inspired writer appears to\nbe this: Just as, in the Levitical tabernacle, the veil must be parted\nbefore the high priest could go into the Holiest Place, even so was it\nnecessary that the flesh of our Lord should be rent in order that\nthus, through death, it might be possible for Him to enter into the\ntrue holiest. The thought has been happily expressed by Delitzsch,\nthus: \"While He was with us here below, the weak, limit-bound, and\nmortal flesh which He had assumed for our sakes hung like a curtain\nbetween Him and the Divine sanctuary into which He would enter; and in\norder to such entrance, this curtain had to be withdrawn by death,\neven as the high priest had to draw aside the temple veil in order to\nmake his entry to the Holy of Holies.\"[15]\n\n [15] \"Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,\" vol. ii., p.\n 172.\n\nNot to review other opinions on this matter, the various expressions\nused constrain us to regard the tabernacle as typifying the universe\nitself, measured and appointed in all its parts by infinite wisdom, as\nthe abode of Him who \"filleth immensity with His presence,\" the place\nof the Divine manifestation, and the abode of His holiness. In the\nouter court, where the victims were offered, we have this world of\nsense in which we live, in which our Lord was offered in the sight of\nall; in the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies, the unseen and\nheavenly worlds, through the former of which our Lord is represented\nas having passed (Heb. iv. 14, ix. 11) that He might appear with His\nblood in the true Holiest, where God in the innermost shrine of His\nglory \"covereth Himself with light as with a garment.\" For this\ncosmical dwelling-place of the Most High God has been defiled by sin,\nwhich, as it were, has profaned the whole sanctuary; for we read (Col.\ni. 20), that not only \"things upon the earth,\" but also \"things in the\nheavens,\" are to be \"reconciled\" through Christ, even \"through the\nblood of His cross;\" and, still more explicitly, to the same effect\n(Heb. ix. 23), that as the typical \"copies of the things in the\nheavens\" needed to be cleansed with the blood of bullocks and of\ngoats, so \"it was necessary that ... the heavenly things themselves\nshould be cleansed with better sacrifices than these.\" And so, at this\npresent time, Christ, as the High Priest of this cosmical tabernacle,\n\"not made with hands,\" having offered His great sacrifice for sins for\never, is now engaged in carrying out His work of cleansing the people\nof God, and the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary, to the uttermost\ncompletion.\n\nWith these preliminary words, which have seemed essential to the\nexposition of these chapters, we are now prepared to consider the\nceremonial of the consecration of the priesthood and tabernacle, and\nthe spiritual meaning which it was intended to convey.\n\n\nTHE WASHING WITH WATER.\n\nviii. 6.\n\n \"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with\n water.\"\n\nThe consecration ceremonies consisted of four parts, namely, the\nWashing, the Investiture, the Anointing, and the Sacrifices. Of these,\nfirst in order was the _Washing_. We read that \"Moses\"--acting\nthroughout, we must remember, as Mediator, representing God--\"brought\nAaron and his sons, and washed them with water.\" The meaning of this\nact is so evident as not to have been called in question. Washing ever\nsignifies cleansing; the ceremonial cleansing of the body, therefore,\nin symbol ever represents the inward purification of the spirit.\n\nOf this usage the Biblical illustrations are very numerous. Thus, the\nspiritual purification of Israel in the latter day is described (Isa.\niv. 4) by the same word as is used here, as a washing away of \"the\nfilth of the daughters of Zion\" by the Lord. So, again, in the New\nTestament, we read that Christ declared unto Nicodemus that in order\nto see the kingdom of God a man must be born again, \"of water and the\nSpirit,\" and in the Epistle to Titus (iii. 5) we read of a cleansing\nof the Church \"with the washing (_marg._, laver) of water, by the\nWord,\" even the \"washing of regeneration.\" The symbolism in this case,\ntherefore, points to cleansing from the defilement of sin as a\nfundamental condition of priesthood. As regards our Lord indeed, such\ncleansing was no more needed for His high priesthood than was the\nsin-offering for Himself; for in His holy incarnation, though He took\nour nature indeed with all the consequences and infirmities consequent\non sin He was yet \"without sin.\" But all the more it was necessary in\nthe symbolism that if Aaron was to typify the sinless Christ of God he\nmust be cleansed with water, in type of the cleansing of human nature,\nwithout which no man can approach to God. And in that not only Aaron,\nbut also his sons, the ordinary priests, were thus cleansed, we are in\nthe ordinance significantly pointed to the deep spiritual truth that\nthey who are called to be priests to God must be qualified for this\noffice, first of all, by the cleansing of their human nature through\nthe washing of regeneration, by the power of the Holy Ghost.\n\n\nTHE INVESTITURE.\n\nviii. 7-9.\n\n \"And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle,\n and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he\n girded him with the cunningly woven band of the ephod, and bound\n it unto him therewith. And he placed the breastplate upon him:\n and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim. And he\n set the mitre upon his head: and upon the mitre, in front, did he\n set the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded\n Moses.\"\n\nThe next ceremony of the consecration was the Investiture of Aaron\nwith his official, high-priestly robes, as they had been appointed of\nGod to be made (Exod. xxviii.). The investiture of the sons of Aaron\nsignificantly takes place only after the anointing of the tabernacle,\nand of Aaron as high priest. Of the investiture of Aaron we read in\nvv. 7-9, above.\n\nAs these garments were official, we must needs regard them as\nsymbolical; a thought which is the more emphasised by the very minute\nand special directions given by the Lord for making them. Nothing was\nleft to the fancy of man; all was prescribed by the Lord. The official\nrobes of the high priest consisted of eight pieces, four of which,\nthe coat, the girdle, the turban (or \"mitre\"), and the breeches, were,\nwith the exception of the turban, of white linen, and identical in\nevery respect with the official dress of the ordinary priests.\n\nFour pieces more were peculiar to himself, the special insignia of his\noffice, and unlike the dress of the ordinary priest, were richly made\nin gold and various colours, \"garments for glory and for beauty.\"\nThese were: the robe of the ephod, made all of blue, with a border of\npendant pomegranates and golden bells in alternation; the ephod itself\nconsisting of two pieces, broidered in gold and blue, purple, scarlet,\nand fine white linen, the one hanging in front, the other behind, over\nthe robe of the ephod, and joined on the shoulders with two onyx\nstones, on which were graven the names of the twelve tribes, six on\nthe one shoulder and six on the other; it was girt about him with a\ngirdle of the same material and colours. The third was the\nbreast-plate, which was a double square of the same material and\ncolours as the ephod, within the fold of which, as it hung from his\nshoulders by golden chains, was placed the Urim and the Thummim,\nwhatever these may have been, and upon the front of which were set\ntwelve precious stones, on which, severally, were engraved the names\nof the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. And the fourth and\nlast article of his attire was \"the golden plate, the holy crown;\" a\nband of gold bound about his forehead over the turban, with blue lace,\non which were engraven the words, \"Holiness to Jehovah.\"\n\nThis dress of the high priest represented him, in the first place, as\nthe appointed minister of the _tabernacle_. The number of pieces,\ntwice four, like the four of the common priests' attire, answered to\nthe four which was represented in the ground plan of the tabernacle,\nquadrangular both in its form as a whole and in its several parts, the\nHoly of Holies being a perfect cube; four being in Scripture\nconstantly the number which symbolises the universe, as created by God\nand bearing witness to Him. So also the garments of the high priest\nmarked him as the minister of the tabernacle by their colours, also\nfour in number, and the same as those of the latter, namely, blue,\npurple, scarlet, and white.\n\nBut the official robes of the high priest marked him, in the second\nplace, as the servant of _the God of the tabernacle_, whose livery he\nwore. For these colours, various modifications of light, all thus had\na symbolic reference to the God of light, who made the universe of\nwhich the Mosaic tabernacle was a type. Of these, the blue, the colour\nof the overarching heaven, has been in many lands and religions\nnaturally regarded as the colour symbolising God, as the God of the\nheaven, bowing to the earth in condescending love and self-revelation.\nIn like manner, we find it repeatedly recurring in the symbolic\nmanifestations of Jehovah in the Holy Scriptures, where it always\nbrings God before us with special reference to His condescending love\nas entering into covenant with man, and revealing for their good His\nholy law.[16] The purple, as will occur to every one, is everywhere\nrecognised as the colour of royalty, and therefore symbolised the\nkingly exaltation and majesty of God, as the Ruler of heaven and\nearth. The scarlet reminds us at once of the colour of blood, which\nstands in the very foreground of the Mosaic symbolism as the symbol of\nlife, and thus points us to the conception of God, as the essentially\nLiving One, who is Himself the sole primal source of all life, whether\nphysical or spiritual, in the creature. No one can mistake, again, the\nsymbolic meaning of the white, which, not only in the Scripture, but\namong all nations, has ever been the symbol of purity and holiness,\nand thus represented the high priest as the minister of God, as the\nMost Holy One. By this investiture, therefore, Aaron was symbolically\nconstituted the minister of the tabernacle, on the one hand, and of\nGod, on the other; and, in particular, of God as the God of\nrevelation, in covenant with Israel; of God as the Most High, the King\nof Israel; of God as the God of life, the Giver of life in the\nredemption of Israel; and, finally, of God as the Most Holy, the God\n\"who is light,\" and \"with whom is no darkness at all.\"\n\n [16] See, _e.g._, Exod. xxiv. 10; Ezek. i. 26.\n\nThe \"robe of the ephod\" was woven in one piece, and all of blue. In\nthat it was thus without seam, was symbolised the wholeness and\nabsolute integrity necessary to him who should bear the high priestly\noffice. In that it was made all of blue, the colour which symbolised\nthe God of heaven as manifesting Himself to Israel in condescending\nlove, in the holy law and covenant, this robe of the ephod specially\nmarked the high priest as the minister of Jehovah and of His revealed\nlaw.\n\nThe ephod, which depended from the shoulders before and behind,\naccording to the usage of Scripture, was the garment specially\nsignificant of rule and authority; a thought which reached full\nexpression in the breast-plate which was fastened to it, which\ncontained the Urim and Thummim, by which God's will was made known to\nIsrael in times of perplexity, and was called \"the breast-plate of\njudgment.\"\n\nThe ornamentation of these garments had also a symbolic meaning,\nthough it may not be in each instance equally clear. In that the high\npriest, as thus robed, bore upon the ephod and the breast-plate of\njudgment, graven on precious stones, the names of the twelve tribes of\nIsrael, he was marked as one who in all his high-priestly work before\nand with God, presented and represented Israel. In that the names were\nengraven upon precious stones was signified the exceeding preciousness\nof Israel in God's sight, as His \"peculiar treasure.\" In that, again,\nthey were worn upon his shoulders, Aaron was represented to Israel as\nupholding and bearing them before God in the strength of his office;\nin that he wore their names upon his breast, he was represented as\nalso bearing them upon his heart in love and affection.\n\nThe symbolic meaning of the pomegranates and golden bells, which\nformed the border of the robe of the ephod, is not quite so clear. But\nwe may probably find a hint as to their significance in the Divine\ndirection as to the border of blue which every Israelite was to wear\nupon the bottom of his garment (Numb. xv. 39). The purpose of this is\nsaid to be that it might be for a continual reminder of the law: \"It\nshall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember\nall the commandments of the Lord, and do them.\" If then this border in\nthe garment of each individual member of the priestly nation was\ndesigned symbolically to mark them as the keepers of the law of the\nGod of heaven, we may safely infer an analogous meaning in the similar\nborder to the official garment of the high priest. And if so, then we\nshall perhaps not be far out of the way if in this case we follow\nJewish tradition in regarding the pomegranate, a fruit distinguished\nby being filled to the full with seeds, as the symbol, _par\nexcellence_, of the law of commandments, the words of the living God,\nas \"incorruptible seed,\" endowed by Him with vital energy and\npower.[17]\n\n [17] Thus _e.g._, in Cant. iv. 13, where the Revised Version\n reads, \"Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates,\" the Jewish\n paraphrast in the Chaldee Targum renders, \"Thy young men are\n filled with the commandments (of God) like unto pomegranates\n (_sc._ with their seeds).\"\n\nAs for the bells, we naturally think at once of the common use of the\nbell to give a signal, and announce what one may be concerned to know.\nSo we read of these golden bells (Exod. xxviii. 35), \"the sound\nthereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the\nLord ... that he die not.\"\n\nThese golden bells in the border of his garment, between each pair of\npomegranates, thus announced him as officially appearing before God as\nthe fulfiller of the law of commandments, and as, for this reason,\nacceptable to God in the execution of his high-priestly functions.\n\nAs to the Urim and Thummim, \"Light and Perfection,\" which were\napparently placed within the fold of the breast-plate of judgment, as\nthe tables of the law within the ark of the covenant, there has been\nin all ages much debate; but what they were cannot be said to have\nbeen certainly determined. Most probable appears the opinion that they\nwere two sacred lots, which on solemn occasions were used by the high\npriest for determining the will of God. So much, in any case, is clear\nfrom the Scriptures, that in some way through them the will of God as\nthe King of Israel was made known to the high priest, for the\ndirection of the nation in doubtful matters. Most fitly, therefore,\nthey were placed within the breast-plate of judgment, which, indeed,\nmay have received this name from this circumstance. The high priest,\ntherefore, as the bearer of the Urim and Thummim, was set forth, in\naccordance with the meaning of these words, as one who in virtue of\nhis office received perfect enlightenment from God as to His will, in\nall that concerned Israel's action.\n\nThe plate of graven gold, called the \"holy crown,\" was bound by Moses\nwith a lace of blue upon the mitre of Aaron in front. The precious\nmetal here, as elsewhere in the official garments of the high priest,\nand in the tabernacle, was symbolic of the boundless riches of the\nglory of the God of Israel, whose minister the high priest was. The\nspecial significance, however, of this holy crown, is found in the\nwords which appeared upon it, \"Holiness to Jehovah.\" This was a\ncontinual visible mark and reminder of the fact that the high priest,\nin all that he was, and in all that he did, was a person in the\nhighest possible sense consecrated to Jehovah, the heavenly King of\nIsrael, whose livery he wore. And in that this golden plate with this\ninscription is called his \"crown,\" it is further suggested that in\nthis last-named fact is found the crowning glory and dignity of the\nhigh priest's office. He is the minister of the God of Israel,\nJehovah, whose own supreme glory is just this, that He is holy. In the\ndirections given for this crown in Exod. xxviii. 36-38 it is said that\nin virtue of his wearing this, or, rather, in virtue of the fact thus\nset forth, \"Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things which the\nchildren of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall\nalways be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the\nLord.\" That is, even Israel's consecrated things, their holiest\ngifts, are yet defiled by the ever abiding sinfulness of those who\noffer them; but they are nevertheless graciously accepted, as being\noffered by Aaron, himself \"holy to the Lord.\"\n\nSuch then appears to have been the symbolic meaning of these \"garments\nfor glory and for beauty,\" with which Moses now robed Aaron, in token\nof his investiture with the manifold dignities of the exalted office\nto which God had called him. But we must not forget that we are not,\nin all this, dealing merely with matters of antiquarian or\narch\u00e6ological interest. Nothing is plainer than the teaching of the\nNew Testament, that Aaron, as the high priest, not by accident, but by\nDivine intention, prefigured Christ. In all the directions given\nconcerning his investiture with his office, and the work which, as\nhigh priest, he had to do, the Holy Ghost intended to prefigure,\ndirectly or indirectly, something concerning the person, office, and\nwork of Jesus Christ, as our heavenly High Priest, the Fulfiller of\nall these types. As Aaron appears in his fourfold high-priestly\ngarments of four colours, which represented him as the minister, on\nthe one hand, of the tabernacle, and, on the other, of the God of\nIsrael, the Inhabitant of the tabernacle, so are we reminded how\nChrist is appointed as the \"Minister of the greater and more perfect\ntabernacle, not made with hands\" (Heb. ix. 11), the earth, the heaven,\nand the heaven of heavens, to reconcile, by the offering of His blood,\n\"both the things which are on earth and those which are in the\nheavens\" (Col. i. 20). We look upon the blue robe of the ephod, and\nremember how Christ is made a minister of \"a better covenant, enacted\nupon better promises\" (Heb. viii. 6), representing, as that old\ncovenant did not, the fulness of the revelation of God's condescending\nlove and saving mercy. So also the inwoven scarlet reminds us how\nChrist, again, as the great High Priest, is the minister of the God of\nlife, and is also Himself life and the Giver of life to all His\npeople. We look upon the high priest's purple and gold, and are\nreminded again that Christ, the High Priest, is also invested with\nregal power and dominion, all authority being given unto Him in heaven\nand on earth (Matt. xxviii. 18).\n\nAgain, we look on the ephod of fine linen, inwoven with blue, and\nscarlet, and purple, and gold, with its girdle, symbolising service,\nand its pendant breast-plate of judgment, and are reminded how Christ\nin all the relations thus pertaining to Him as High Priest, is the\nRuler and the Judge of His people, who, as the bearer of the true Urim\nand Thummim, is not only Priest, and King, and Judge, but also, and in\norder to the salvation of His people, their Prophet, continually\nrevealing unto those who seek Him, the will of God for their direction\nand guidance in every emergency of life. The girdle, the symbol of\nservice, brings to mind, again, how in all this He is the Servant of\nthe Lord, serving the Father in saving us.\n\nThe symbolism of the pomegranates and the golden bells reminds us, for\nthe strengthening of our faith, how our exalted High Priest, who\nappears before God in our behalf in the Holiest, appears there as the\ngreat Preserver and Fulfiller of the Divine law, supremely qualified,\nno less by His supreme merit than by Divine appointment, to urge our\nneeds with prevalence before God, His very presence in the heavenly\nsanctuary vocal with sweet music. Did Aaron bear the names of the\ntwelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders and on his breast before God\ncontinually? Even so does his great Antitype bear continually all His\npeople before God, as He executes His high-priestly office; and this,\ntoo, not merely in a vague and general way, but tribe by tribe,\ncommunity by community, each with its peculiar case and special need;\nnay, we may say even more; each individual, as such, is thus borne\ncontinually on the shoulders and the breast of the heavenly Priest; on\nHis shoulders He bears them, to support them by His power; on His\nheart, in tenderest love and sympathy. And so often as we are\ndistressed and discouraged by the consciousness of defilement still\npertaining even to the holiest of our holy things, consecration ever\nimperfect at the best, we may bethink ourselves of the golden crown\nwhich Aaron wore, and its inscription, and remember how the Lord Jesus\nis in fullest reality \"holy to the Lord;\" so that we may take heart of\ngrace as, with full reason and right, we apply to Him what is said of\nthis crown of holiness on Aaron's brow: \"The crown of holiness is ever\non His forehead, and He shall bear the iniquity of the holy things\nwhich we shall hallow in all our holy gifts; it is always on His\nforehead, that our works may be accepted before the Lord.\" And so we\nare taught by this symbolism ever to look away from all conscious\ndefilement and sin to the infinite holiness of the person of the Lord\nJesus, as He continually appears before God as High Priest in our\nbehalf, the all-sufficient Surety for the acceptance of our persons\nand of our imperfect works, for His own sake.\n\nThe investiture, as also the anointing, of the sons of Aaron, followed\nthe robing and anointing of Aaron. We read (ver. 13): \"Moses brought\nAaron's sons, and clothed them with coats, and girded them with\ngirdles, and bound head-tires upon them; as the Lord commanded\nMoses.\"\n\nTo the three articles of their attire here mentioned, must be added\nthe \"linen breeches\" (Exod. xxviii. 42, 43); so that they also, in the\nseveral parts of their official vestments, bore the number four, the\nsignature of the creaturely, as represented in the tabernacle. All was\nof pure white linen, signifying the holiness and righteousness of\nthose who should act as priests before God. So once and again in the\nApocalypse, the same symbol is used to denote the spotless holiness\nand righteousness of the blood-bought saints, who are made \"a kingdom\nand priests\" unto God; as, for instance, it is said of that same holy\nbody, symbolised as the bride of the Lamb, that \"it was given unto her\nthat she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the\nfine linen is the righteous acts of the saints\" (Rev. xix. 8).\n\n\nTHE ANOINTING.\n\nviii. 10-12.\n\n \"And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle\n and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled\n thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and\n all its vessels, and the laver and its base, to sanctify them.\n And he poured of the anointed oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed\n him, to sanctify him.\"\n\nNext in order came the anointing, first of the tabernacle and all that\npertained to its service, and then the anointing of Aaron.\n\nThe anointing oil was made (Exod. xxx. 22-33) with a perfume of choice\nspices, their number, four, the sacred number so constantly recurring\nin the tabernacle. To make or use this oil, except for the sacred\npurposes of the sanctuary, was forbidden under penalty of being cut\noff from the holy people. The purpose of the anointing of the\ntabernacle and all within it, is declared to be its consecration\nthereby to the service of Jehovah. The altar, as a place of special\nsanctity, the place where God had covenanted to meet with Israel, was\nanointed seven times. For the number seven, compounded of three, the\nsignet number of the Godhead, and four, the constant symbol of the\ncreaturely, is thus by eminence the sacred number, the number, in\nparticular, which is the sign and reminder of the covenant of\nredemption; and so here it is with special meaning that the altar, as\nbeing the place where God had specially covenanted to meet with Israel\nas reconciled through the blood of atonement, should receive a\nsevenfold anointing.\n\nAfter this, the anointing oil was poured on the head of Aaron, to\nsanctify him.\n\nAs to the meaning of this part of the symbolic service, there is\nlittle room for doubt. The \"anointing\" is said to have been \"to\nsanctify\" or set apart to the service of Jehovah him that was\nanointed. And, inasmuch as oil, in the Holy Scriptures, is the\nconstant symbol of the Holy Spirit, it is taught hereby that\nconsecration is secured only through the anointing with the Holy\nGhost.\n\nThe direct typical reference of this part of the ceremonial to Christ,\nwill not be denied by any one for whom the Scripture any longer has\nauthority. For Christ Himself quoted the words we find in Isa. lxi. 1,\nas fulfilled in Himself: \"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,\nbecause the Lord God hath anointed Me.\" And the Apostle Peter\nafterward taught (Acts x. 38) that God had \"anointed Jesus with the\nHoly Ghost and with power;\" while the most common title of our Lord,\nas \"the Messiah\" or \"Christ,\" as we all know, though often forgetful\nof its meaning, simply means \"the Anointed One.\" So every time we use\nthe word, we unconsciously testify to the fulfilment of this type of\nthe anointing of Aaron as priest, as, afterward, of the anointing of\nDavid as king, in Him. And as the anointing of Aaron took place in the\nsight of all Israel, assembled at the door of the tent of meeting, so\nin the fulness of time was Jesus, in the sight of all the multitude\nthat waited on the baptism of John, after having been washed with\nwater, \"to fulfil all righteousness,\" anointed from heaven, as \"the\nHoly Ghost descended in bodily form, as a dove,\" and abode upon him\n(Luke iii. 22). And while, according to Jewish tradition, the\nanointing oil was applied to the ordinary priests only in small\nquantity and by the finger, on the head of Aaron it was \"poured;\" in\nwhich word, as suggested in Psalm cxxxiii. 2, we are to understand a\nreference to the great copiousness with which it was used. In which,\nagain, the type exactly corresponds to the Antitype. For while it is\ntrue of all believers that they \"have an anointing from the Holy One\"\n(1 John ii. 20), even as their Lord, yet of Him alone is it true that\nunto Him the Spirit \"was not given by measure\" (John iii. 34). And by\nthis Divine anointing with the Holy Spirit without limit, was Jesus\nsanctified and qualified for the office of High Priest for all His\npeople.\n\nThe anointing of the tabernacle with the same holy oil was according\nto a custom long before prevalent, and however it may seem strange to\nany of us now, will not have seemed strange to Israel. We read, for\ninstance (Gen. xxviii. 18), of the anointing of the stone at Bethel by\nJacob, by which he thus consecrated it to be a stone of remembrance of\nthe revelation of God to him in that place. So by this anointing, the\ntabernacle, with all that it contained, was \"sanctified;\" that is,\nconsecrated that so the use of these might be made, through the power\nof the Holy Ghost, a means of grace and blessing to Israel. And it was\nthus anointed, and for this purpose, as being a \"copy and pattern of\nthe heavenly things.\" By the ceremony is signified to us, that by the\npower of the Holy Ghost, through the high-priesthood of our Lord, the\nwhole universe and all that is in it has been consecrated and endowed\nby God with virtue, to become a means of grace and blessing to all\nbelievers, by His grace and might who works \"in all things and through\nall things\" to this end.\n\n\nTHE CONSECRATION SACRIFICES.\n\nviii. 14-32.\n\n \"And he brought the bullock of the sin offering: and Aaron and\n his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock of the sin\n offering. And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it\n upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and\n purified the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the\n altar, and sanctified it, to make atonement for it. And he took\n all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul of the liver,\n and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the\n altar. But the bullock, and its skin, and its flesh, and its\n dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the Lord commanded\n Moses. And he presented the ram of the burnt offering: and Aaron\n and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he\n killed it: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round\n about. And he cut the ram into its pieces; and Moses burnt the\n head, and the pieces, and the fat. And he washed the inwards and\n the legs with water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the\n altar: it was a burnt offering for a sweet savour: it was an\n offering made by fire unto the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.\n And he presented the other ram, the ram of consecration: and\n Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And\n he slew it; and Moses took of the blood thereof, and put it upon\n the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right\n hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. And he brought\n Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their\n right ear, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the\n great toe of their right foot: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon\n the altar round about. And he took the fat, and the fat tail, and\n all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul of the liver,\n and the two kidneys and their fat, and the right thigh: and out\n of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the Lord, he\n took one unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one\n wafer, and placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh: and\n he put the whole upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of\n his sons, and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord. And\n Moses took them from off their hands, and burnt them on the altar\n upon the burnt offering: they were a consecration for a sweet\n savour: it was an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And Moses\n took the breast and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord:\n it was Moses' portion of the ram of consecration; as the Lord\n commanded Moses. And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the\n blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon\n his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments with\n him; and sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and his\n sons' garments with him. And Moses said unto Aaron and to his\n sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting: and\n there eat it and the bread that is in the basket of consecration,\n as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it. And that\n which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn with\n fire.\"\n\nThe last part of the consecration ceremonial was the sacrifices. Each\nof the chief sacrifices of the law were offered in order; first, a\nsin-offering; then, a burnt-offering; then, a peace-offering, with\nsome significant variations from the ordinary ritual, adapting it to\nthis occasion; with which was conjoined, after the usual manner, a\nmeal-offering. A sin-offering was offered, first of all; there had\nbeen a symbolical cleansing with water, but still a sin-offering is\nrequired. It signified, what so many in these days seem to forget,\nthat in order to our acceptableness before God, not only is needed a\ncleansing of the defilement of nature by the regeneration of the Holy\nGhost, but also expiation for the guilt of our sins. The sin-offering\nwas first, for the guilt of Aaron and his sons must be thus typically\nremoved, before their burnt-offerings and their meal- and\npeace-offerings can be accepted.\n\nThe peculiarities of the offerings as rendered on this occasion are\neasily explained from the circumstances of their presentation. Moses\nofficiates, for this time only, as specially delegated for this\noccasion, inasmuch as Aaron and his sons are not yet fully inducted\ninto their office. The victim for the sin-offering is the costliest\never employed: a bullock, as ordered for the sin of the anointed\npriest. But the blood is not brought into the Holy Place, as in the\nritual for the offering for the high priest, because Aaron is not yet\nfully inducted into his office. Nor do Aaron and his sons eat of the\nflesh of the sin-offering, as ordered in the case of other\nsin-offerings whose blood is not brought within the Holy Place;\nobviously, because of the principle which rules throughout the law,\nthat he for whose sin the sin-offering is offered, must not himself\neat of the flesh; it is therefore burnt with fire, without the camp,\nthat it may not see corruption.\n\nBy this sin-offering, not only Aaron and his sons were cleansed, but\nwe read that hereby atonement was also made \"for the altar;\" a\nmysterious type, reminding us that, in some way which we cannot as yet\nfully understand, sin has affected the whole universe: in such a\nsense, that not only for man himself who has sinned, is propitiation\nrequired, but, in some sense, even for the earth itself, with the\nheavens. That in expounding the meaning of this part of the ritual we\ndo not go beyond the Scripture is plain from such passages as Heb. ix.\n23, where it is expressly said that even as the tabernacle and the\nthings in it were cleansed with the blood of the bullock, so was\nnecessary that, not merely man, but \"the heavenly things themselves,\"\nof which the tabernacle and its belongings were the \"copies,\" should\nbe cleansed with better sacrifices than these, even the offering of\nChrist's own blood. So also we read in Col. i. 20, before cited, that\nthrough Christ, even through the blood of His cross, not merely\npersons, \"but all _things_, whether things on the earth, or things in\nthe heavens,\" should be reconciled unto God. Mysterious words these,\nno doubt; but words which teach us at least so much as this, how\nprofound and far-reaching is the mischief which sin has wrought, even\nour sin. Not merely the sinning man must be cleansed with blood before\nhe can be made a priest unto God, but even nature, \"made subject to\nvanity\" (Rom. viii. 20), for man's sin, needs the reconciling blood\nbefore redeemed man can exercise his priesthood unto God in the\nheavenly places. Evidently we have here an estimate of the evil of sin\nwhich is incomparably higher than that which is commonly current among\nmen; and we shall do well to conform our estimate to that of God, who\nrequired atonement to be made even for the earthen altar, to sanctify\nit.\n\nReconciliation being made by the sin-offering, next in order came the\nburnt-offering, symbolic, as we have seen, of the full consecration of\nthe person of the offerer to God; in this case of the full\nconsecration of Aaron and his sons to the service of God in the\npriesthood. The ritual was according to the usual law, and requires no\nfurther exposition.\n\nThe ceremonial culminated and was completed in the offering of \"the\nram of consecration.\" The expression is, literally, \"the ram of\nfillings;\" in which phrase there is a reference to the peculiar\nceremony described in vv. 27, 28, in which certain portions of the\nvictim and of the meal-offering were placed by Moses on the hands of\nAaron and his sons, and waved by them for a wave-offering; and\nafterwards burnt wholly on the altar upon the burnt-offering, in token\nof their full devotement to the Lord. Of these it is then added, \"they\nwere a consecration\" (_lit._ \"fillings,\" _sc._ of hands, \"were\nthese\"). The meaning of the phrase and the action it denoted is\ndetermined by its use in 1 Chron. xxix. 5 and 2 Chron. xxix. 31, where\nit is used of the bringing of the freewill-offerings by the people for\nJehovah. The ceremonial in this case therefore signified the formal\nmaking over of the sacrifices into the charge of Aaron and his sons,\nwhich henceforth they were to offer; that they received them to offer\nthem to and for Jehovah, was symbolised by their presentation to be\nwaved before Jehovah, and further by their being burnt upon the altar,\nas a sacrifice of sweet savour.\n\nAnother thing peculiar to this special consecration sacrifice, was the\nuse which was made of the blood, which (ver. 23) was put upon the tip\nof Aaron's right ear, upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the\ngreat toe of his right foot. Although the solution is not without\ndifficulty, we shall probably not err in regarding this as\ndistinctively an act of consecration, signifying that in virtue of the\nsacrificial blood, Aaron and his sons were set apart to sacrificial\nservice. It is applied to the ear, to the hand, and the foot, and to\nthe most representative member in each case, to signify the\nconsecration of the whole body to the Lord's service in the\ntabernacle; the ear is consecrated by the blood to be ever attentive\nto the word of Jehovah, to receive the intimations of His will; the\nhand, to be ever ready to do the Lord's work; and the foot, to run on\nHis service.\n\nAnother peculiarity of this offering was in the wave-offering of\nAaron and his sons. Not the breast, but the thigh, and that together\nwith the fat (ver. 27) was waved before the Lord; and, afterward, not\nonly the fat was burnt upon the altar, according to the law, but also\nthe thigh, which in other cases was the portion of the priest, was\nburnt with the fat and the memorial of the meal-offering. The breast\nwas afterward waved, as the law commanded in the case of the\npeace-offerings, but was given to Moses as his portion. The last\nparticular is easy to understand; Moses in this ceremonial stands in\nthe place of the officiating priest, and it is natural that he should\nthus receive from the Lord his reward for his service. As for the\nthigh, which, when the peace-offering was offered by one of the\npeople, was presented to the Lord, and then given to the officiating\npriest to be eaten, obviously the law could not be applied here, as\nthe priests themselves were the bringers of the offering; hence the\nonly alternative was, as in the case of sin-offerings of the holy\nplace, to burn the flesh with fire upon the altar, as \"the food of\nJehovah.\" The remainder of the flesh was to be eaten by the priests\nalone as the offerers, under the regulation for the thank-offering,\nexcept that whatever remained until the next day was to be burnt; a\ndirection which is explained by the fact that the sacrifice was to be\nrepeated for seven days, so that there could be no reason for keeping\nthe flesh until the third day. Last of all, it is to be noted that\nwhereas in the thank-offerings of the people, the offerer was allowed\nto bring leavened bread for the sacrificial feast, in the feast of the\nconsecration of priests this was not permitted; no doubt to emphasise\nthe peculiar sanctity of the office to which they were inducted.\n\nWith these modifications, it is plain that the sacrifice of\nconsecration was essentially, not a guilt-offering, as some have\nsupposed, but a peace-offering. It is true that a ram was enjoined as\nthe victim instead of a lamb, but the correspondence here with the law\nof the guilt-offering is of no significance when we observe that rams\nwere also enjoined or used for peace-offerings on other occasions of\nexceptional dignity and sanctity, as in the peace-offerings for the\nnation, mentioned in the following chapter, and the peace-offerings\nfor the princes of the tribes (Numb. vii.). Unlike the guilt-offering,\nbut after the manner of the other, the sacrifice was followed by a\nsacrificial feast. That participation in this was restricted to the\npriests, is sufficiently explained by the special relation of this\nsacrifice to their own consecration.\n\nBefore the sacrificial feast, however, one peculiar ceremony still\nremained. We read (ver. 30): \"Moses took of the anointing oil, and of\nthe blood (of the peace-offering) which was upon the altar, and\nsprinkled it upon Aaron, upon his garments, and upon his sons, and\nupon his sons' garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, his garments,\nand his sons, and his sons' garments with him.\"\n\nThis sprinkling signified that now, through the atoning blood which\nhad been accepted before God upon the altar, and through the\nsanctifying Spirit of grace, which was symbolised by the anointing,\nthus inseparably associated each with the other, they had been brought\ninto covenant relation with God regarding the office of the\npriesthood. That this their covenant relation to God concerned them,\nnot merely as private persons, but in their official character, was\nintimated by the sprinkling, not only of their persons, but of the\ngarments which were the insignia of their priestly office.\n\nAll this completed, now followed the sacrificial feast. We read that\nMoses now ordered Aaron and his sons (ver. 31): \"Boil the flesh at the\ndoor of the tent of meeting: and there eat it and the bread that is in\nthe basket of consecration, as I commanded, saying, Aaron and his sons\nshall eat it. And that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread\nshall ye burn with fire.\"\n\nThis sacrificial feast most fitly marked the conclusion of the rites\nof consecration. Hereby it was signified, first, that by this solemn\nservice they were now brought into a relation of peculiarly intimate\nfellowship with Jehovah, as the ministers of His house, to offer His\nofferings, and to be fed at His table. It was further signified, that\nstrength for the duties of this office should be supplied to them by\nHim whom they were to serve, in that they were to be fed of His altar.\nAnd, finally, in that the ritual took the specific form of a\nthank-offering, was thereby expressed, as was fitting, their gratitude\nto God for the grace which had chosen them and set them apart to so\nholy and exalted service.\n\nThese consecration services were to be repeated for seven consecutive\ndays, during which time they were not to leave the tent of\nmeeting,--obviously, that by no chance they might contract any\nceremonial defilement; so jealously must the sanctity of everything\npertaining to the service be guarded.\n\nThe commandment was (vv. 33-35): \"Ye shall not go out from the door of\nthe tent of meeting seven days, until the days of your consecration be\nfulfilled: for he shall consecrate you seven days. As hath been done\nthis day, so the Lord hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you.\nAnd at the door of the tent of meeting shall ye abide day and night\nseven days, and keep the charge of the Lord, that ye die not: for so\nI am commanded.\"\n\nBy the sevenfold repetition of the consecration ceremonies was\nexpressed, in the most emphatic manner known to the Mosaic symbolism,\nthe completeness of the consecration and qualification of Aaron and\nhis sons for their office, and the fact also that, in virtue of this\nconsecration, they had come into a special covenant relation with\nJehovah concerning the priestly office.\n\nThat these consecration sacrifices by which Aaron and his sons were\nset apart to the priesthood, no less than the preceding part of the\nceremonial, pointed forward to Christ and His priestly people as the\nAntitype, it will be easy to see. As regards our Lord, in Heb. vii.\n28, the sacred writer applies to the consecration of our Lord as high\npriest the very term which the Seventy had used long before in this\nchapter of Leviticus to denote this formal consecration, and\nrepresents the consecration of the Son as the antitype of the\nconsecration of Aaron by the law: \"the law appointeth men high\npriests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after\nthe law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore.\"\n\nAn exception, indeed, must be made, as regards our Lord, in the case\nof the sin-offering; of whom it is said (Heb. vii. 27), that He\n\"needeth not ... like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,\nfirst for His own sins.\" But as regards the other two sacrifices, we\ncan see that in their distinctive symbolical import they each bring\nbefore us essential elements in the consecration of our Lord Jesus\nChrist as High Priest. In the burnt-offering, we see Him consecrating\nHimself by the complete self-surrender of Himself to the Father. In\nthe offering of consecrations, we see Him in the meal-offering of\nunleavened bread, offering in like manner His most holy works unto the\nFather; and in the sacrifice of the peace-offering, wherein Aaron ate\nof the food of God's house in His presence, we see Jesus in like\nmanner as qualified for His high-priestly work by His admission into\nterms of the most intimate fellowship with the Father, and sustained\nfor His work by the strength given from Him, according to His own\nword: \"The living Father hath sent Me, and I live because of the\nFather.\" In the formal \"filling of the hands\" of Aaron with the\nsacrificial material, in token of his endowment with the right to\noffer sacrifices for sin for the sake of sinful men, we are reminded\nhow our Lord refers to the fact that He had received in like manner\nauthority from the Father to lay down His life for His sheep,\nemphatically adding the words, (John x. 18), \"This commandment have I\nreceived of My Father.\"\n\nSo also was the meaning of the collateral ceremonies fully realised in\nHim. If Aaron was anointed with the blood on ear, hand, and foot, by\nway of signifying that the members of his body should be wholly\ndevoted unto God in priestly service, even so we are reminded (Heb. x.\n5, 7), that \"when He cometh into the world He saith, ... Sacrifice and\noffering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for Me; ...\nLo, I am come to do Thy will, O God.\"\n\nAnd so, as Aaron was at the end of the sacrifice sprinkled with blood\nand oil, in token that God had now, through the blood and the oil,\nentered into a covenant of priesthood with him, so we find repeated\nreference to the fact of such a solemn covenant and compact between\nGod and the High Priest of our profession summed up in the words of\nprophecy, \"The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest\nfor ever after the order of Melchizedek.\"\n\nSo did this whole consecration ceremony, with the exception only of\nsuch parts of it as had reference to the sin of Aaron, point forward\nto the future investiture of the Son of God with the high-priestly\noffice, by God the Father, that He might act therein for our salvation\nin all matters between us and God. How can any who have eyes to see\nall this, as opened out for us in the New Testament, fail with fullest\njoy and thankfulness to accept Christ, the Son of God, now passed into\nthe Holiest, as the High Priest of our profession? How naturally to\nall such come the words of exhortation with which is concluded the\ngreat argument upon Christ's high-priesthood in the Epistle to the\nHebrews (x. 19-23): \"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter\ninto the holy place by the blood of Jesus; ... and having a great\npriest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in\nfulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,\nand our body washed with pure water: let us hold fast the confession\nof our hope that it waver not; for He is faithful that promised.\"\n\nBut not only was Aaron thus consecrated to be high priest of the\ntabernacle, but his sons also, to be priests under him in the same\nservice. In this also the type holds good. For when in Heb. ii. Christ\nis brought before us as \"the High Priest of our confession,\" He is\nrepresented as saying (ver. 13), \"Behold, I and the children which God\nhath given me!\" As Aaron had his sons appointed to perform priestly\nfunctions under him in the earthly tabernacle, so also his great\nAntitype has \"sons,\" called to priestly office under Him in the\nheavenly tabernacle. Accordingly, we find that in the New Testament,\nnot any caste or class in the Christian Church, but all believers, are\nrepresented as \"a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,\nacceptable to God through Jesus Christ\" (1 Peter ii. 5). To the\ntestimony of Peter corresponds that of John in the Apocalypse, where\nin like manner believers are declared to be priests unto God, and\nrepresented as also acting as priests of God and of Christ in the age\nwhich is to come after \"the first resurrection\"[18] (Rev. xx. 6).\nHence it is plain that according to the New Testament we shall rightly\nregard the consecration of the sons of Aaron as no less typical than\nthat of Aaron himself. It is typical of the consecration of all\nbelievers to priesthood under Christ. It thus sets forth in symbol the\nfact and the manner of our own consecration to ministrations between\nlost men and God, in the age which now is and that which is to come,\nin things pertaining to sin and salvation, according to the measure to\neach one of the gift of Christ.\n\n [18] Not, however, as many imagine, in behalf of those who have\n in this age died in sin, but in ministrations to the living\n nations in the flesh, in the age to come. We find no ground of\n hope, in Holy Scripture, for the impenitent dead.\n\nAs the consecration of Aaron's sons began with the washing with pure\nwater, so ours with \"the washing of regeneration and the renewing of\nthe Holy Ghost\" (Titus iii. 5). As Aaron's sons, thus washed, were\nthen invested in white linen, clean and pure, so for the believer must\nthe word be fulfilled (Isa. lxi. 10): \"He hath covered me with the\nrobe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself\" (marg.\n\"decketh as a priest\"). That is, the reality of our appointment of God\nunto this high dignity must be visibly attested unto men by the\nrighteousness of our lives. But whereas the sons of Aaron were not\nclothed until first Aaron himself had been clothed and anointed, it is\nsignified that the robing and anointing of Christ's people follows and\ndepends upon the previous robing and anointing of their Head. Again,\nas Aaron's sons were also anointed with the same holy oil as was\nAaron, only in lesser measure, so are believers consecrated to the\npriestly office, like their Lord, by the anointing with the Holy\nGhost. The anointing of Pentecost follows and corresponds to the\nanointing of the High Priest at the Jordan with one and the same\nSpirit. This is another necessary consecration mark, on which the New\nTestament Scriptures constantly insist. As Jesus was \"anointed with\nthe Holy Ghost and (thereby) with power,\" so He Himself said to His\ndisciples (Acts i. 8), \"Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is\ncome upon you;\" which promise being fulfilled, Paul could say (2 Cor.\ni. 21), \"He that ... anointed us is God;\" and John (1 John ii. 20), to\nall believers, \"Ye have an anointing from the Holy One.\" And the\nsacrificial symbols are also all fulfilled in the case of the Lord's\npriestly people. For them, no less essential to their consecration\nthan the washing of the Holy Ghost, is the removal of guilt by the\ngreat Sin-offering of Calvary; which same offering, and true Lamb of\nGod, has also become their burnt-offering, their meal-offering, and\ntheir sacrifice of consecrations, as it is written (Heb. x. 10), that,\nby the will of God, \"we have been sanctified through the offering of\nthe body of Jesus Christ once for all:\" and that He also is become\n\"our peace,\" in that He has expiated our sins, and also given Himself\nto us as our spiritual food; that so we may derive daily strength for\nthe daily service in the priest's office, by feeding on the Lamb of\nGod, the true food of the altar, given by God for our support. Also,\nas the sons of Aaron, like Aaron himself, were anointed with the blood\nof the peace-offering of consecration, on the ear, the hand, and the\nfoot, so has the blood of the Lamb, in that it has brought us into\npeace with God, set apart every true believer unto full surrender of\nall the members of his body unto Him; ears, that they may be quick to\nhear God's Word; hands, that they may be quick to do it; feet, that\nthey may only run in the way of His commandments. And finally, whereas\nthe solemn covenant of priesthood into which Aaron and his sons had\nentered with God, was sealed and ratified by the sprinkling with the\noil and the blood, so by the unction of the Holy Spirit given to\nbelievers, and the cleansing of the conscience by the blood, is it\nwitnessed and certified that they are a people called out to enter\ninto covenant of priestly service with the God of all the earth and\nthe heavens.\n\nWhat searching questions as to personal experience all this raises!\nWhat solemn thoughts throng into the mind of every thoughtful reader!\nAll this essential, if we are to be indeed members of that royal\npriesthood, who shall reign as priests of God and of Christ? Have we\nthen the marks, all of them? Let us not shrink from the questions, but\nprobe with them the innermost depths of our hearts. Have we had the\nwashing of regeneration? If we think that we have had this, then let\nus also remember that after the washing came the investiture in white\nlinen. Let us ask, Have we then put on these white garments of\nrighteousness? All that were washed, were also clad in white; these\nwere their official robes, without which they could not act as priests\nunto God. And there was also an anointing. Have we, in like manner,\nreceived the anointing with the Holy Ghost, endowing us with power and\nwisdom for service? Then, the sin-offering, the burnt-offering, the\npeace-offering of consecration,--has the Lamb of God been used by us\nin all these various ways, as our expiation, our consecration, our\npeace, and our life? And has the blood which consecrates also been\napplied to ear, hand, and foot? Are we consecrated in all the members\nof our bodies?\n\nWhat questions these are! Truly, it is no light thing to be a\nChristian; to be called and consecrated to be, with and under the\ngreat High Priest, Jesus Christ, a \"priest unto God\" in this life and\nin that of \"the first resurrection;\" to deal between God and men in\nmatters of salvation. Have we well understood what is our \"high\ncalling,\" and what the conditions on which alone we may exercise our\nministry? To this may God give us grace, for Jesus' sake. Amen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_THE INAUGURATION OF THE TABERNACLE SERVICE._\n\nLEV. ix. 1-24.\n\n\nAaron and his sons having now been solemnly consecrated to the\npriestly office by the ceremonies of seven days, their formal\nassumption of their daily duties in the tabernacle was marked by a\nspecial service suited to the august occasion, signalised at its close\nby the appearance of the glory of Jehovah to assembled Israel, in\ntoken of His sanction and approval of all that had been done. It would\nappear that the daily burnt-offering and meal-offering had been indeed\noffered before this, from the time that the tabernacle had been set\nup; in which service, however, Moses had thus far officiated. But now\nthat Aaron and his sons were consecrated, it was most fitting that a\nservice should thus be ordered which should be a complete exhibition\nof the order of sacrifice as it had now been given by the Lord, and\nserve, for Aaron and his sons in all after time, as a practical model\nof the manner in which the divinely-given law of sacrifice should be\ncarried out.\n\nThe order of the day began with a very impressive lesson of the\ninadequacy of the blood of beasts to take away sin. For seven\nconsecutive days a bullock had been offered for Aaron and his sons,\nand so far as served the typical purpose, their consecration was\ncomplete. But still Aaron and his sons needed expiating blood; for\nbefore they could offer the sacrifices of the day for the people, they\nare ordered yet again first of all to offer a sin-offering for\nthemselves. We read (vv. 1, 2): \"And it came to pass on the eighth\nday, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel;\nand he said unto Aaron, Take thee a bull calf for a sin offering, and\na ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the\nLord.\"\n\nAnd then Aaron was commanded (vv. 3-5): \"Unto the children of Israel\nthou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a he-goat for a sin offering; and a\ncalf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt\noffering; and an ox and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before\nthe Lord; and a meal offering mingled with oil: for to-day the Lord\nappeareth unto you. And they brought that which Moses commanded before\nthe tent of meeting: and all the congregation drew near and stood\nbefore the Lord.\"\n\nThere is little in these directions requiring explanation. Because of\nthe exceptional importance of the occasion, therefore, as in the\nfeasts of the Lord, a special sin-offering was ordered, and a\nburnt-offering, besides the regular daily burnt-offering,\nmeal-offering, and drink-offering; and, in addition, peculiar to this\noccasion, a peace-offering for the nation; which last was evidently\nintended to signify that now on the basis of the sacrificial worship\nand the mediation of a consecrated priesthood, Israel was privileged\nto enter into fellowship with Jehovah, the Lord of the tabernacle. No\npeace-offering was ordered for Aaron and his sons, as, according to\nthe law of the peace-offering, they would themselves take part in\nthat of the people. The sin-offering prescribed for the people was,\nnot a kid, as in King James's version, but a he-goat, which, with the\nexception of the case of a sin of commission as described in chap. iv.\n13, 14, appears to have been the usual victim. For the selection of\nsuch a victim, no reason appears more probable than that assigned by\nrabbinical tradition, namely, that it was intended to counteract the\ntendency of the people to the worship of shaggy he-goats, referred to\nin chap. xvii. 7, \"They shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto\nthe he-goats (R.V.), after whom they go a whoring.\"\n\n\nTHE ORDER OF THE OFFERINGS.\n\nix. 7-21.\n\n \"And Moses said unto Aaron, Draw near unto the altar, and offer\n thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make atonement for\n thyself, and for the people: and offer the oblation of the\n people, and make atonement for them; as the Lord commanded. So\n Aaron drew near unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin\n offering, which was for himself. And the sons of Aaron presented\n the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and\n put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at\n the base of the altar: but the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul\n from the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as\n the Lord commanded Moses. And the flesh and the skin he burnt\n with fire without the camp. And he slew the burnt offering; and\n Aaron's sons delivered unto him the blood, and he sprinkled it\n upon the altar round about. And they delivered the burnt offering\n unto him, piece by piece, and the head: and he burnt them upon\n the altar. And he washed the inwards and the legs, and burnt them\n upon the burnt offering on the altar. And he presented the\n people's oblation, and took the goat of the sin offering which\n was for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the\n first. And he presented the burnt offering, and offered it\n according to the ordinance. And he presented the meal offering,\n and filled his hand therefrom, and burnt it upon the altar,\n besides the burnt offering of the morning. He slew also the ox\n and the ram, the sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the\n people: and Aaron's sons delivered unto him the blood, and he\n sprinkled it upon the altar round about, and the fat of the ox;\n and of the ram, the fat tail, and that which covered the inwards,\n and the kidneys, and the caul of the liver: and they put the fat\n upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar: and the\n breast and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before\n the Lord; as Moses commanded.\"\n\nVerses 7-21 detail the way in which this commandment of Moses was\ncarried out in the offerings, first, for Aaron and his sons, and then\nfor all the people; but, as the peculiarities of these several\nofferings have been already explained, they need not here detain us.\nThat which is new, and of profound spiritual and typical meaning, is\nthe _order_ of the sacrifices as here enjoined; an order, which as we\nlearn from many Scriptures, represented what was intended to be the\npermanent and invariable law. The appointed order of the offerings was\nas follows: first, whenever presented, came the sin-offering, as here;\nthen, the burnt-offering, with its meal-offering; and last, always,\nthe peace-offering, with its characteristic sacrificial feast.\n\nThe significance of this order will readily appear if we consider the\ndistinctive meaning of each of these offerings. The sin-offering had\nfor its central thought, expiation of sin by the shedding of blood;\nthe burnt-offering, the full surrender of the person symbolised by the\nvictim, to God; the meal-offering, in like manner, the consecration of\nthe fruit of his labours; the peace-offering, sustenance of life from\nGod's table, and fellowship in peace and joy with God and with one\nanother. And the great lesson for us now from this model tabernacle\nservice is this: that this order is determined by a law of the\nspiritual life.\n\nSo much as this, even without clear prevision of the Antitype of all\nthese sacrifices, the thoughtful Israelite might have discerned; and\neven though the truth thus symbolised is placed before us no more in\nrite and symbol, yet it abides, and ever will abide, a truth. Man\neverywhere needs fellowship with God, and cannot rest without it; to\nattain such fellowship is the object of all religions which recognise\nthe being of a God at all. Even among the heathen, we are truly told,\nthere are many who are feeling after God \"if haply they may find Him;\"\nand, among ourselves in Christian lands, and even in the external\nfellowship of Christian churches, there are many who with aching\nhearts are seeking after an unrealised experience of peace and\nfellowship with God. And yet God is \"not far from any one of us;\" and\nthe whole Scripture represents Him as longing on His part with an\nincomprehensible condescension and love after fellowship with us,\ndesiring to communicate to us His fulness; and still so many seek and\nfind not!\n\nWe need not go further than this order of the offerings, and the\nspiritual truth it signifies regarding the order of grace, to discover\nthe secret of these spiritual failures.\n\nThe peace-offering, the sacrificial feast of fellowship with God, the\njoyful banqueting on the food of His table, was always, as on this\nday, in order. Before this must ever come the burnt-offering. The\nritual prescribed that the peace-offering should be burnt \"upon the\nburnt-offering;\" the presence of the burnt-offering is thus\npresupposed in every acceptable peace-offering. But what if one had\nventured to ignore this divinely-appointed order, and had offered his\npeace-offering to be burnt alone; can we imagine that it would have\nbeen accepted?\n\nThese things are a parable, and not a hard one. For the burnt-offering\nwith its meal-offering symbolised full consecration of the person and\nthe works to the Lord. Remembering this, we see that the order is not\narbitrary. For, in the nature of the case, full consecration to God\nmust precede fellowship with God; he who would know what it is to have\nGod give Himself to him, must first be ready to give himself to God.\nAnd that God should enter into loving fellowship with any one who is\nholding back from loving self-surrender is not to be expected. This is\nnot merely an Old Testament law, still less merely a fanciful\ndeduction from the Mosaic symbolism; everywhere in the New Testament\nis the thought pressed upon us, no longer indeed in symbol, but in\nplainest language. It is taught by precept in some of the most\nfamiliar words of the great Teacher. There is promise, for example, of\nconstant supply of sufficient food and raiment, fellowship with God in\ntemporal things; but only on condition that \"we seek first the kingdom\nof God, and His righteousness,\" shall \"all these things be added unto\nus\" (Matt. vi. 33). There is a promise of \"a hundred-fold in this\nlife, and in the world to come, eternal life;\" but it is prefaced by\nthe condition of surrender of father, mother, brethren, sisters, of\nhouses and lands, for the Lord's sake (Matt. xix. 29). Not, indeed,\nthat the actual parting with these is enjoined in every case; but,\ncertainly, it is intended that we shall hold all at the Lord's\ndisposal, possessing, but \"as though we possessed not;\"--this is the\nleast that we can take out of these words.\n\nFull consecration of the person and the works, this then is the\ncondition of fellowship with God; and if so many lament the lack of\nthe latter, it is no doubt because of the lack of the former. We often\nact strangely in this matter; half unconsciously, searching, perhaps,\nevery corner of our life but the right one, from looking into which by\nthe clear light of God's Word we instinctively shrink, conscience\nsoftly whispering that just there is something about which we have a\nlurking doubt, and which therefore, if we will be fully consecrated,\nwe must at once give up, till we are sure that it is right, and right\nfor us; and for that self-denial, that renunciation unto God, we are\nnot ready. Is it a wonder that, if such be our experience, we lack\nthat blessed, joyful fellowship with the Lord, of which some tell us?\nIs it not rather the chief wonder that we should wonder at the lack,\nwhen yet we are not ready to consecrate all, body, soul, and spirit,\nwith all our works, unto the Lord? Let us then remember the law of the\nofferings upon this point. No Israelite could have the blessed feast\nof the peace-offering, except, first, the burnt-offering and the\nmeal-offering, symbolising full consecration, were smoking on the\naltar.\n\nBut this full consecration seems to many so exceeding hard,--nay, we\nmay say more, to many it is utterly impossible. A consecration of some\nthings, especially those for which they care little, this they can\nhear of; but a consecration of _all_, that the whole may be consumed\nupon the altar before and unto God, this they cannot think of. Which\nmeans--can we escape the conclusion?--that the love of God does not\nyet rule supreme. How sad! and how strange! But the law of the\nofferings will again declare the secret of the strange holding back\nfrom full consecration. For it was ordained, that wherever there was\nsin in the offerer, unconfessed and unforgiven, before even the\nburnt-offering must go the sin-offering, expiating sin by blood\npresented on the altar before God. And here we come upon another law\nof the spiritual life in all ages. If fellowship with God in peace\nand joy is conditioned by the full consecration of person and service\nto Him, this consecration, even as a possibility for us, is in turn\nconditioned by the expiation of sin through the great Sin-offering. So\nlong as conscience is not satisfied that the question of sin has been\nsettled in grace and righteousness with God, so long it is a spiritual\nimpossibility that the soul should come into that experience of the\nlove of God, manifested through atonement, which alone can lead to\nfull consecration.\n\nThis truth is always of vital importance; but it is, if possible, more\nimportant than ever to insist upon it in our day, when, more and more,\nthe doctrine of the expiation of sin through the blood of the Lamb of\nGod is denied, and that, forsooth, under the claim of superior\nenlightenment. Men are well pleased to hear of a burnt-offering, so\nlong especially as it is made to signify no more than the\nself-devotement of the offerer; but for a sin-offering, much modern\ntheology has no place. So soon as we begin to speak of the sacrifice\nof our Lord for sin in the dialect of the ancient altar--which, it\nmust never be forgotten, is that of Christ and His apostles--we are\ntold that \"it would be better for the world if the Christian doctrine\nof sacrifice could be presented to men apart from the old Jewish ideas\nand terms, which only serve to obscure the simplicity that is in\nChrist(!)\" And so men, under the pretext of magnifying the love of\nGod, and laying a truer basis for spiritual life, in effect deny the\nsupreme and incomparable manifestation of that love, that God made\n\"Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf\" (2 Cor. v. 21).\n\nVery different is the teaching, not merely of the law of Moses, but of\nthe whole New Testament; which, in all it has to say of the Christian\nlife as proceeding from full self-surrender, ever represents this full\nconsecration as inspired by the believing recognition and penitent\nacceptance of Christ, not merely as the great Example of perfect\nconsecration, but as a sin-offering, reconciling us first of all by\nHis death, before He saves us by His life (Rom. v. 10). The expiation\nof sin by the sin-offering, before the consecration which\nburnt-offering and meal-offering typify,--this is the invariable order\nin both Testaments. The Apostle Paul, in his account of his own full\nconsecration, is in full accord with the spiritual teaching of the\nMosaic ritual when he gives this as the order. He describes himself,\nand that in terms of no undue exaggeration, as so under the constraint\nof the love of Christ as to seem to some beside himself; and then he\ngoes on to explain the secret of this consecration, in which he had\nplaced himself and all he had upon God's altar, as a whole\nburnt-sacrifice, as consisting just in this, that he had first\napprehended the mystery of Christ's death, as a substitution so true\nand real of the sinless Victim in the place of sinful men, that it\nmight be said that \"one died for all, therefore all died;\" whence he\nthus judged, \"that they which live should no longer live unto\nthemselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again\" (2\nCor. v. 13-15). To the same effect is the teaching of the Apostle\nJohn. For all true consecration springs from the thankful recognition\nof the love of God; and, according to this Apostle also, the Divine\nlove which inspires the consecration is manifest in this, that \"He\nsent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins\" (1 John iv. 10). The\napprehension, then, of the reality of the expiation made by the great\nSin-offering, and the believing appropriation of its virtue to the\ncancelling of our guilt, this is the inseparable previous condition\nof full consecration of person and work unto the Lord. It is so,\nbecause only the apprehension of the need of expiation by the blood of\nthe Son of God, as the necessary condition of forgiveness, can give us\nany adequate measure of the depth of our guilt and ruin, as God sees\nit; and, on the other hand, only when we remember that God spared not\nHis only-begotten Son, but sent Him to become, through death upon the\ncross, a propitiation for our sins, can we begin to have such an\nestimate of the love of God and of Christ His Son as shall make full\nconsecration easy, or even possible.\n\nLet us then, on no account, miss this lesson from the order of this\nritual; before the peace-offering, the burnt-offering; before the\nburnt-offering, the sin-offering. Or, translating the symbolism,\nperfect fellowship with God in peace and joy and life, only after\nconsecration; and the consecration only possible in fulness, and only\naccepted of God, in any case, when the great Sin-offering has been\nfirst believingly appropriated, according to God's ordination, as the\npropitiation for our sins, for the cancelling of our guilt.\n\nBut there is yet more in this order of the offerings. For, as the New\nTestament in every way teaches us, the Antitype of every offering was\nChrist. As we have already seen, in the Sin-offering we have the type\nof Christ as our propitiation, or expiation; in the burnt-offering, of\nChrist as consecrating Himself unto God in our behalf; in the\nmeal-offering, as, in like manner, consecrating all His works in our\nbehalf; in the peace-offering, as imparting Himself to us as our life,\nand thus bringing us into fellowship of peace and love and joy with\nthe Father.\n\nNow this last is, in fact, the ultimate aim of salvation; rather,\nindeed, we may say, it is salvation. For life in its fulness means the\ncancelling of death; death spiritual, and bodily death also, in\nresurrection from the dead; it means also perfect fellowship with the\nliving God, and this, attained, is heaven. Hence it must needs be that\nthe peace-offering which represents Christ as giving Himself to us as\nour life, and introducing us into this blessed state, comes last.\n\nBut before this, in order, not of time, but of grace, as also of\nlogic, must be Christ as Sin-offering, and Christ as Burnt-offering.\nAnd, first of all, Christ as Sin-offering. For God's way of peace puts\nthe cancelling of guilt, the satisfaction of His holy law and justice,\nand therewith the restoration of our right relation to Him, first, and\nin order to a holy life and fellowship; while man will ever put these\nlast, and regard the latter as the means to obtaining a right standing\nwith God. Hence, inasmuch as Christ, coming to save us, finds us under\na curse, the first thing in order is, and must be, the removal of that\ncurse of the holy wrath of God, against every one that \"continueth not\nin all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.\"\nAnd so, first in order in the typical ritual is the sin-offering which\nrepresents Christ as made \"a curse for us,\" that He might thus redeem\nus from the curse of the law (Gal. iii. 13).\n\nBut this is not a complete account of the work of our Lord for us in\nthe days of His flesh. His work indeed was one, but the Scriptures set\nit forth in a twofold aspect. On the one hand, He is the Sinless One\nbearing the curse for us; but also, in all His suffering for our sins,\nHe is also manifested as the Righteous One, making many righteous by\nHis obedience, even an obedience unto the death of the cross (Rom. v.\n19; Phil. ii. 8). And if we ask what was the essence of this obedience\nof our Lord for us, what was it, indeed, but that which is the essence\nof all obedience to God, namely, full, unreserved, uninterrupted\nconsecration and self-surrender to the will of the Father? And as, by\nHis suffering, Christ endured the curse for us, so by all His\nobedience and suffering in full submission to the will of God, He\nbecame also \"the Lord our righteousness.\" And this, as repeatedly\nremarked, is the central thought of the burnt-offering and the\nmeal-offering,--full consecration of the person and the work to God.\n\nIn the sin-offering, then, we see Christ as our propitiation; in the\nburnt-offering, we see Him rather as our righteousness; but the former\nis presupposed in the latter; and apart from this, that in His death\nHe became the expiation of our sins, His obedience could have availed\nus nothing. But given now Christ as our propitiation and also our\nrighteousness, the whole question of the relation of Christ's people\nto God in law and righteousness is settled, and the way is now clear\nfor the communication of life which the peace-offering symbolised.\nThus, as by faith in Christ as the Sin-offering, our propitiation and\nrighteousness, we are \"justified freely by grace,\" \"apart from the\nworks of the law,\" so now the way is open, by the appropriation of\nChrist as our life in the peace-offering, for our sanctification and\ncomplete redemption. In a word, the law of the order of the offerings\nteaches, symbolically and typically, exactly what, in Rom. vi. and\nvii., the Apostle Paul teaches dogmatically, namely, that the order of\ngrace is first justification, then sanctification; but both by the\nsame crucified Christ, our propitiation, our righteousness, and our\nlife: in whom we come to have fellowship in all good and blessing\nwith the Father.\n\nIt is interesting to observe that after the analogy of this order of\nthe offerings, is the most usual order of the development of Christian\nexperience. For the awakened soul is usually first of all concerned\nabout the question of forgiveness of sin and acceptance; and hence,\nmost commonly, faith first apprehends Christ in this aspect, as the\nOne who \"bare our sins in His body,\" by whose stripes we are healed;\nand then, at a later period of experience, as the One who also, in\nlowly consecration to the Father's will, obeyed for us, that we might\nbe made righteous through His obedience. But no one who is truly\njustified by faith in Christ as our propitiation and righteousness,\ncan long rest with this. He very quickly finds what he had little\nthought of before, that the evil nature abides even in the justified\nand accepted believer; nay, more, that it has still a terrible\nstrength to overcome him and lead him into sin, even often when he\nwould not. And this prepares the believer, still in accord with the\nlaw of the order of grace here set forth, to lay hold also on Christ\nby faith as His Peace-offering, by feeding on whom we receive\nspiritual strength, so that He thus, in a word, becomes our\nsanctification and, at last, full redemption.\n\n\nTHE DOUBLE BENEDICTION.\n\nix. 22-24.\n\n \"And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed\n them; and he came down from offering the sin offering, and the\n burnt offering, and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went\n into the tent of meeting, and came out, and blessed the people:\n and the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. And there\n came forth fire from before the Lord, and consumed upon the\n altar the burnt offering and the fat: and when all the people saw\n it, they shouted, and fell on their faces.\"\n\nThe sacrifices having now been made, and the offerings presented in\nthis divinely-appointed order, by the ordained and consecrated\npriesthood, two things followed: a double benediction was pronounced\nupon the people, and Jehovah manifested to them His glory. We read\n(ver. 22), \"And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and\nblessed them; and he came down from offering the sin offering, and the\nburnt offering, and the peace offerings.\"\n\nPresumably, the form of benediction which Aaron used was that which,\naccording to Numb. vi. 24-27, the priests were commanded by the Lord\nto use: \"The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make His face to\nshine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up His\ncountenance upon thee, and give thee peace.\" It was not an empty form;\nfor the Lord at that time also promised Himself to make this blessing\nefficient, saying thereafter, \"So shall they put My Name\"--Jehovah,\nthe name of God in covenant,--\"upon the children of Israel; and I will\nbless them.\"\n\nSo also the Lord Jesus, just before withdrawing from the bodily sight\nof His disciples after the completion of His great sacrifice, \"lifted\nup His hands, and blessed them;\" and thereupon disappeared from their\nsight, ascending into heaven. Even so was it in the typical service of\nthis day; for when Aaron had thus lifted up his hands and blessed the\npeople (ver. 23), \"Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting.\"\n\nThe work of Aaron in the outer court had been finished, and now he\ndisappears from Israel's sight; for he must, in like manner, be\ninducted into the priestly work within the Holy Place. He must there\nbe shown all those things to which, in his priestly ministrations, the\nblood must be applied; and, especially, must also offer the sweet\nincense at the golden altar which was before the veil which enshrined\nthe immediate presence of Jehovah. But this offering of incense, as\nall have agreed, typifies the precious and most effective intercession\nof the great Antitype; so that thus it was shown in a figure, how the\nChrist of God, having finished His sacrificial work in the sight of\nmen, and having ascended into heaven, should there for a season abide,\nhidden from human sight, making intercession for His waiting people.\n\nAfter an interval--we are not told how long--Moses and Aaron again\n(vv. 23, 24), \"came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the\nLord appeared unto all the people. And there came forth fire from\nbefore the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and\nthe fat: and when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on\ntheir faces.\"\n\nThis second blessing by Moses and Aaron conjointly, followed Aaron's\nreappearance to Israel, and marked the completion of these\ninauguration services, the intercession within the veil, as well as\nthe sacrifices. And the revelation in a visible way of the glory of\nthe Lord added what now was alone required, the manifest attestation\nby the Lord of the tabernacle of His approval of all that had been\ndone in these memorable eight days. This appearance of the Shekinah\nglory was followed by a flash of fire which, in token of the Divine\nappropriation of the sacrifices, consumed in an instant the\nburnt-offering on the altar with the fat of the sin-offering and the\npeace-offering, which had been laid upon it. We cannot follow here the\nJewish tradition, which has it that with this act the sacrificial\nfire which was never to go out upon the altar, was originated. On the\ncontrary, as we have seen, the offerings had before this been made by\nMoses, and even on this day the fire had been kindled before (ver. 10,\n_et seq._). Nor is there any necessary inconsistency here; for we have\nbut to suppose that the burning of the sacrifices which had been\nkindled by Aaron was not yet complete, when the flash from the cloud\nof glory in an instant consummated the burning, teaching in a most\naugust and impressive manner the symbolic meaning of the burning of\nthe sacrifices on the altar, as signifying the acceptance and\nappropriation of that which was offered, by the Lord who had commanded\nall, and thereby endorsing all that had been done, as according to His\nmind and will.\n\nAnd even so, according to the sure Word of prophecy, our heavenly High\nPriest has yet in reserve for His people a second benediction. His\nfirst blessing upon leaving the world was followed by Pentecost; the\nsecond, on His reappearing, shall bring in resurrection and full\nsalvation. And in that day, when He \"shall appear a second time, apart\nfrom sin, to them that wait for Him unto salvation\" (Heb. ix. 28),\ntherewith shall appear the glory which on that day, long ago, appeared\nto Israel; for He \"shall come in the glory of His Father,\" and thus\nshall God, the Most High and the Most Holy, testify before the\nuniverse His gracious acceptance of the service of the true Aaron and\nHis \"many sons,\" the priestly people of God, through all the Christian\nages. Thus, the services and events of that day of induction, in their\norder from beginning to end, were not only a parable of the order of\ngrace, but also, as it were, a typical epitome of the whole work of\nredemption. They are thus a prophecy that the work which began when\nChrist made His soul an offering for sin, and to perfect which He is\nnow withdrawn from our sight for a season, shall be consummated at\nlast by His reappearing in glory for the final blessing of His waiting\npeople.\n\nAnd if we look at other and subordinate aspects of this inauguration\nservice, we shall still find this sequel of all, no less richly\nsuggestive. Expiation, righteousness, fellowship in peace with God,\nshall bring with it the blessing of the Lord, and finally issue in the\nrevelation of His glory in the sight of all who accept this great\nredemption through sacrifice. And so also in the personal life. As the\ntrustful acceptance and use of the appointed Sin-offering leads to the\nconsecration of the person and the life, and as by this consecration\nwe come into conscious fellowship with God in joy and peace, as we\nfeed on the flesh of the slain Lamb, so, as the blessed result, unto\nevery true believer, according to the measure of his faith, this is\nfollowed by the double benediction of the Lord; one for this life, and\na larger, for the life which is to come. The Lord blesses him, and\nkeeps him: the Lord makes His face to shine upon him, and is gracious\nunto him: the Lord lifts up His countenance upon him, and gives him\npeace, according to that word of the great High Priest: \"Peace I leave\nwith you; My peace I give unto you\" (John xiv. 27). And then, after\nthe present peace, is yet to follow, as the final issue of the\nexpiated sin, and the consecrated life, and fellowship in peace with\nthe God of life and love, the beholding of the glory of the Lord;\naccording to that high-priestly prayer of our Redeemer, \"That which\nThou hast given Me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me:\nthat they may behold My glory\" (John xvii. 24). Even here some know a\nlittle of this, and find that expiated sin and full consecration are\nfollowed here and now by bright glimpses of the glory of the Lord. But\nwhat is now seen thus in part shall then be seen fully and face to\nface. Who would not make sure of that beatific vision of the glory of\nthe Lord?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_NADAB'S AND ABIHU'S \"STRANGE FIRE.\"_\n\nLEV. x. 1-20.\n\n\nThe solemn and august ceremonies of the consecration of the priests\nand the tabernacle, and the inauguration of the tabernacle service,\nhad a sad and terrible termination. The sacrifices of the inauguration\nday had been completed, the congregation had received the priestly\nbenediction, the glory of Jehovah had appeared unto the people, and,\nin token of His acceptance of all that had been done, consumed the\nvictims on the altar. This manifestation of the glory of the Lord so\naffected the people--as well it might--that when they saw it, \"they\nshouted, and fell on their faces.\" It was, probably, under the\ninfluence of the excitement of this occasion that (vv. 1, 2), \"Nadab\nand Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put\nfire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire\nbefore the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth\nfire from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the\nLord.\"\n\nThere has been no little speculation as to what it was, precisely,\nwhich they did. Some will have it, that they lighted their incense,\nnot from the altar fire, but elsewhere. As to this, while it is not\neasy to prove that to light the incense at the altar fire was an\ninvariable requirement, yet it is certain that this was commanded for\nthe great day of atonement (xvi. 12); and also, that when Moses\noffered incense in connection with the plague which broke out upon the\nrebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Moses commanded him to take\nthe fire for the censer from off the altar (Numb. xvi. 46); so that,\nperhaps this is not unlikely to have been one element, at least, in\ntheir offence. Others, again, have thought that their sin lay in this,\nthat they offered their incense at a time not commanded in the order\nof worship which God had just prescribed; and this, too, may very\nprobably have been another element in their sin, for it is certain\nthat the divinely-appointed order of worship for the day had been\nalready completed. Yet again, others have supposed that they rashly\nand without Divine warrant pressed within the veil, into the immediate\npresence of the Shekinah glory of God, to offer their incense there.\nFor this, too, there is evidence, in the fact that the institution of\nthe great annual day of atonement, and the prohibition of entrance\nwithin the veil at any other time, even to the high priest himself, is\nsaid to have followed \"after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when\nthey drew near before the Lord, and died\" (xvi. 1, 2).\n\nIt is perfectly possible, and even likely, that all these elements\nwere combined in their offence. In any case, the gravamen of their sin\nis expressed in these words; they offered \"fire which the Lord had not\ncommanded them:\" offered it, either in a way not commanded, or at a\ntime not commanded, or in a place not commanded; or, perhaps, in each\nand all of these ways, offered \"fire which the Lord had not\ncommanded.\" This was their sin, and one which brought instant and\nterrible judgment.\n\nIt is easy enough to believe that yet they meant well in what they\ndid. It probably seemed to them the right thing to do. After such a\nstupendous display as they had just witnessed, of the flaming glory of\nJehovah, why should they not, in token of reverence and adoration,\noffer incense, even in the most immediate presence of Jehovah? And why\nshould such minor variations from the appointed law, as to manner, or\ntime, or place, matter very much, so the motive was worship? So may\nthey probably have reasoned, if indeed they thought at all. But,\nnevertheless, this made no difference; all the same, \"fire came forth\nfrom Jehovah, and devoured them.\" They had been but so lately\nconsecrated! and--as we learn from ver. 5--their priestly robes were\non them at the time, in token of their peculiar privilege of special\nnearness to God! But this, too, made no difference; \"there came forth\nfire from before the Lord and devoured them.\"\n\nTheir sin, in the form in which it was committed, can never be\nrepeated; but as regards its inner nature and essence, no sin has been\nin all ages more common. For the essence of their sin was this, that\nit was will-worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed\nwill of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their\nown fancies and inclinations. The directions for worship had been, as\nwe have seen, exceedingly full and explicit; but they apparently\nimagined that the fragrance of their incense, and its intrinsic\nsuitableness as a symbol of adoration and prayer, was sufficient to\nexcuse neglect of strict obedience to the revealed will of God\ntouching His own worship. Their sin was not unlike that of Saul in a\nlater day, who thought to excuse disobedience by the offering of\nenormous sacrifices. But he was sharply reminded that \"to obey is\nbetter than sacrifice\" (1 Sam. xv. 22); and the priesthood were in\nlike manner on this occasion very terribly taught that obedience is\nalso better than incense, even the incense of the sanctuary.\n\nIn all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as\nmuch as any. It is true that in the present dispensation the Lord has\nleft more in His worship than in earlier days to the sanctified\njudgment of His people, and has not minutely prescribed details for\nour direction. It is true, again, that there is, and always will be,\nroom for some difference of judgment among good and loyal servants of\nthe Lord, as to how far the liberty left us extends. But we are\ncertainly all taught as much as this, that wherever we are not clear\nthat we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we\nneed to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest\npossibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering\n\"strange fire,\" which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes\ninto many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable\ndevices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is\nfurthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the\ngeneration of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a\npatient God, in the mystery of His long-suffering, flashes not\ninstantly forth His vengeance.\n\nThis then is the first lesson of this tragic occurrence. We have to do\nwith a God who is very jealous; who will be worshipped as He wills, or\nnot at all. Nor can we complain. If God be such a Being as we are\ntaught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His inalienable right to\ndetermine and prescribe how He will be served.\n\nAnd it is a second lesson, scarcely less evident, that with God,\nintention of good, though it palliate, cannot excuse disobedience\nwhere He has once made known His will. No one can imagine that Nadab\nand Abihu meant wrong; but for all that, for their sin they died.\n\nAgain, we are herein impressively taught that, with God, high position\nconfers no immunity when a man sins; least of all, high position in\nthe Church. On the contrary, the greater the exaltation in spiritual\nhonour and privilege, the more strictly will a man be held to account\nfor every failure to honour Him who exalted him. We have seen this\nillustrated already by the law of the sin-offering; and this tragic\nstory illustrates the same truth again.\n\nBut the question naturally arises, How could these men, who had been\nso exalted in privilege, who had even beheld the glory of the God of\nIsrael in the holy mount (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9, 10), have ventured upon\nsuch a perilous experiment? The answer is probably suggested by the\nwarning which immediately followed their death (vv. 8, 9): \"The Lord\nspake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, ... when ye\ngo into the tent of the meeting, that ye die not.\" It is certainly\ndistinctly hinted by these words, that it was under the excitement of\nstrong drink that these men so fatally sinned.\n\nIf so, then, although their sin may not be repeated in its exact form\namong us, yet the fact points a very solemn warning, not only\nregarding the careless use of strong drink, but, more than that,\nagainst all religious worship and activity which is inspired by other\nstimulus than by the Holy Spirit of God. Of this every age of the\nChurch's history has furnished sad examples. Sometimes we see it\nillustrated in \"revivals,\" even in such as may be marked by some\nevidence of the presence of the Spirit of God; when injudicious\nspeakers seek by various methods to work up what is, after all, merely\na physical excitement of a strange, infectious kind, though too often\nmistaken for the work of the Holy Spirit of God. More subtle and yet\nmore common is the sin of such as in preaching the Word find their\nchief stimulation in the excitement of a crowded house, or the visible\nsigns of approbation on the part of the hearers; and perhaps sometimes\nmistake the natural effect of this influence for the quickening power\nof the Holy Ghost, and go on to offer before the Lord the incense of\ntheir religious service and worship, but with \"strange fire.\" Of this\nall need to beware; and most of all, ministers of the Word.\n\nThe penalty of sin is often long delayed, but it did not lag in this\ncase. The strange fire in the hands of Nadab and Abihu was met by a\nflash of flame that instantly withered their life; and, just as they\nwere, their priestly robes upon them unconsumed, their censers in\ntheir hands, they dropped dead before the fatal bolt.\n\nIn reading this account and other similar narratives in Holy\nScripture, of the deadly outbreak of God's wrath, many have felt not a\nlittle disquieted in mind because of the terrific severity of the\njudgment, which to them seems so out of all proportion to the guilt of\nthe offender. And so, in many hearts, and even to many lips, the\nquestion has perforce arisen: Is it possible to believe that in this\npassage, for instance, we have a true representation of the character\nof God? In answering such a question we ought always to remember,\nfirst of all, that, apart from our imperfect knowledge, just because\nwe all are sinners, we are, by that fact, all more or less\ndisqualified and incapacitated for forming a correct and unbiassed\njudgment regarding the demerit of sin. It is quite certain that every\nsinful man is naturally inclined to take a lenient view of the guilt\nof sin, and, by necessary consequence, of its desert in respect of\npunishment. In approaching this question, here and elsewhere in God's\nWord, it is imperative that we keep this fact in mind.\n\nAgain, it is not unnecessary to remark, that we must be careful and\nnot read into this narrative what, in fact, is not here. For it is\noften assumed without evidence, that when we read in the Bible of men\nbeing suddenly cut off by death for some special sin, we are therefore\nrequired to believe that the temporal judgment of physical death must\nhave been followed, in each instance, by the judgment of the eternal\nfire. But always to infer this in such cases, when, as here, nothing\nof the kind is hinted in the text, is a great mistake, and introduces\na difficulty which is wholly of our own making. That sometimes, at\nleast, the facts are quite the opposite, is expressly certified to us\nin 1 Cor. xi. 30-32, where we are told that among the Christians of\nCorinth, many, because of their irreverent approach to the Holy Supper\nof the Lord, slept the sleep of death; but that these judgments from\nthe Lord, of bodily death, instead of being necessarily intended for\ntheir eternal destruction, were sent that they might not finally\nperish. For the Apostle's words are most explicit; for it is with\nreference to these cases of sickness and death of which he had spoken,\nthat he adds (ver. 32): \"But when we are (thus) judged, we are\nchastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.\"\n\nWhat we have here before us, then, is not the question of the eternal\ncondemnation of Nadab and Abihu for their thoughtless, though perhaps\nnot so intended, profanation of God's worship,--a point on which the\nnarrative gives us no information,--but, simply and only, the\ninflicting on them, for this sin, of the judgment of temporal death.\nAnd if this yet seem to some undue severity, as no doubt it will,\nthere remain other considerations which deserve to have great weight\nhere. In the first place, if this reveal God as terribly severe in His\njudgment, even upon what, compared with other crimes, may seem a small\nsin, we have to remember that, after all, this God of the Bible, this\nJehovah of the Old Testament, is only herein revealed as in this\nrespect like the God whose working we see in nature and in history.\nWas the God of Nadab and Abihu a severe God? Is not the God of nature\na terribly severe God? Who then is it that has so appointed the\neconomy of nature that even for one thoughtless indulgence by a young\nman, he shall be racked with pain all his life thereafter? It is a law\nof nature, one says. But what is a law of nature but the ordinary\noperation of the Divine Being who made nature? So let us not forget\nthat the reasoning which, because of the confessed severity of this\njudgment on the sons of Aaron, argues God out of the tenth of\nLeviticus, and refuses to believe that this can be a revelation of His\nmind and character, by parity of reasoning must go on to argue God out\nof nature and out of history. But if one be not yet ready for the\nlatter, let him take heed how he too hastily decide on this ground\nagainst the verity of the history and the truth of the revelation in\nthe case before us.\n\nThen, again, we need to be careful that we pass not judgment before\nconsidering all that was involved in this act of sin. We cannot look\nupon the case as if the act of Nadab and Abihu had been merely a\nprivate matter, personal to themselves alone. This it was not, and\ncould not be. They did what they did in their official robes;\nmoreover, it was a peculiarly public act: it took place before the\nsanctuary, where all the people were assembled. What was the influence\nof this their act, if it passed unrebuked and unpunished, likely to\nbe? History shows that nothing was more inbred in the nature of the\npeople than just this tendency to will-worship. For centuries after\nthis, notwithstanding many like terrible judgments, it mightily\nprevailed, taking the form of numberless attempted improvements on the\narrangements of worship appointed by God, and introducing, under such\npretexts of expediency often the grossest idolatry. And although the\nBabylonian judgment made an end of the idolatrous form of\nwill-worship, the old tendency persisted, and worked on under a new\nform till, as we learn from our Lord's words in the Gospel, the people\nwere in His day utterly overwhelmed with \"heavy burdens and grievous\nto be borne,\" rabbinical additions to the law, attempted improvements\non Moses, under pretext of honouring Moses, all begotten of this same\ninveterate spirit of will-worship. Nor are such things of little\nconsequence, as some seem to imagine, whether we find them among Jews\nor in Christian communions. On the contrary, all will-worship, in all\nits endless variety of forms, tends to confuse conscience, by\nconfounding with the commandments of God the practices and traditions\nof men; and all history, no less of the Church than of Israel, shows\nthat the tendency of all such will-worship is to the subversion alike\nof morality religion, occasioning, too often, total misapprehension\nas to what indeed is the essence of religion well pleasing to God.\n\nWas the sin of the priests, Nadab and Abihu, then, committed in such a\npublic manner, such a trifling matter after all? And when we further\nremember the peculiar circumstances of the occasion,--that the whole\nceremonial of the day was designed in a special manner to instruct the\npeople as to the manner in which Jehovah, their King and their God,\nwould be worshipped,--it certainly is not so hard, after all, to see\nhow it was almost imperative that in the very beginning of Israel's\nnational history, God should give them a lesson on the sanctity of His\nordinances and His hatred of will-worship, which should be remembered\nto all time.\n\nThe solemn lesson of the terrible judgment, Moses, as Prophet and\nInterpreter of God's will to the people, declares in these words (ver.\n3): \"This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in\nthem that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be\nglorified.\"\n\nIf God separate a people to be specially near unto Him, it is that,\nadmitted to such special nearness to Himself, they shall ever\nreverently recognise His transcendent exaltation in holiness, and take\ncare that He be ever glorified in them before all men. But if any be\ncareless of this, God will nevertheless not be defrauded. If they will\nrecognise His august holiness, in the reverence of loyal service,\nwell; God shall thus glorify Himself in them before all. But if\notherwise, still God will be glorified in them before all people,\nthough now in their chastisement and in retribution. The principle is\nthat which is announced by Amos (iii. 2): \"You only have I known of\nall the families of the earth; _therefore_ I will visit upon you all\nyour iniquities.\" And when we remember that the sons of Aaron\ntypically represent the whole body of believers in Christ, as a\npriestly people, it is plain that the warning of this judgment comes\ndirectly home to us all. If, as Christians, we have been brought into\na relation of special nearness and privilege with God, we have to\nremember that the place of privilege is, in this case, a place of\npeculiar danger. If we forget the reverence and honour due to His\nname, and insist on will-worship of any kind, we shall in some way\nsuffer for it. God may wink at the sins of others, but not at ours. He\nis a God of love, and desires not our death, but that He may be\nglorified in our life; but if any will not have it so, He will not be\nrobbed of His glory. Hence the warning of the Apostle Peter, who was\nso filled with these Old Testament conceptions of God and His worship:\n\"It is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. And if ye call on Him\nas Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each\nman's work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear\" (1 Peter i. 17).\n\nVer. 3: \"And Aaron held his peace.\"\n\nFor rebellion were useless; nay, it had been madness. Even the\ntenderest natural affection must be silent when God smites for sin;\nand in this case the sin was so manifest, and the connection therewith\nof the judgment so evident, that Aaron could say nothing, though his\nheart must have been breaking.\n\n\nMOURNING IN SILENCE.\n\nx. 4-7.\n\n \"And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the\n uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Draw near, carry your\n brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they drew\n near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses\n had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto\n Ithamar, his sons, Let not the hair of your heads go loose,\n neither rend your clothes; that ye die not, and that He be not\n wroth with all the congregation: but let your brethren, the whole\n house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled.\n And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting,\n lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And\n they did according to the word of Moses.\"\n\nEven in ordinary cases, restrictions were placed upon Aaron and his\nsons as regards the outward signs of mourning; but exceptions were\nmade in the case of the nearest relations, and, in particular, of the\ndeath of a son, or a brother (chap. xxi. 2). In this case, however,\nthis permission could not be given; and they are warned that by public\nexpressions of grief they would not only bring death from the Lord\nupon themselves, but also bring His wrath upon the whole congregation\nwhich they represented before God. They are not indeed forbidden to\nmourn in their hearts, but from all the outward and customary signs of\nmourning they must abstain. And the reason for this is given; \"The\nanointing oil of the Lord is upon you.\" That is, by the anointing they\nhad been set apart to represent God before Israel. Hence, when God had\nthus manifested His holy wrath against sin, for them to have exhibited\nthe public signs of mourning for this, even though the stroke of wrath\nhad fallen into their own family, would have been a visible\ncontradiction between their actions and their priestly position. To\nothers, indeed, these outward tokens of mourning are expressly\npermitted, for they stood in no such special relation to God; their\nbrethren, \"the whole house of Israel,\" might bewail the burning which\nthe Lord had kindled, but they, although nearest of kin to the dead,\nare not permitted even to follow the slain of the Lord to the grave,\nand (vv. 4, 5) the sad duty is assigned to their cousins, who bear the\ndead, in their white priestly robes, just as they had fallen, out of\nthe camp to burial, while Aaron and his sons mourn silently within the\ntent of meeting.\n\nThis has seemed hard to many, and has furnished some another\nillustration of the hardness and severity of the character of God as\nheld up in the Pentateuch. But we shall do well to remember that in\nall this we have nothing which in any respect goes beyond the very\nsolemn words of the tender-hearted and most compassionate Saviour, who\nsaid, for example, \"If any man cometh unto Me, and hateth not his own\nfather, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,\n... he cannot be My disciple\" (Luke xiv. 26). In language such as\nthis, we cannot but recognise the same character as in this command\nunto Aaron and his sons; and if such \"hard sayings\" are to be held\nreason for rejecting the revelation of the character of God as given\nin the Old Testament, the same logic, in the presence of similar\nwords, will require us also to reject the revelation of God's\ncharacter as given by Christ in the New Testament.\n\nThe teaching of both Testaments on this matter is plain. Natural\naffection is right; it is indeed implanted in our hearts by the God\nwho made us in all our human relations. But none the less, whenever\nthe feelings which belong even to the nearest and tenderest earthly\nrelations come into conflict with absolute fealty and submission to\nthe will of God, and unswerving loyalty to the will of Christ, then,\nhard though indeed it may be, natural affection must give way, and\nmourn within the tent in the silence of a holy submission to the\nLord.\n\n\nCAREFULNESS AFTER JUDGMENT.\n\nx. 8-20.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong\n drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of\n meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute for ever\n throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference\n between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the\n clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the\n statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of\n Moses. And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto\n Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meal offering that\n remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it\n without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: and ye\n shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy\n sons' due, of the offerings of the Lord made by fire: for so I am\n commanded. And the wave breast and the heave thigh shall ye eat\n in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with\n thee: for they are given as thy due, and thy sons' due, out of\n the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel.\n The heave thigh and the wave breast shall they bring with the\n offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering\n before the Lord: and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee,\n as a due for ever; as the Lord hath commanded. And Moses\n diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it\n was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the\n sons of Aaron that were left, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten\n the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most\n holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the\n congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold,\n the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye\n should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.\n And Aaron spake unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered\n their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and\n there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten\n the sin offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing in the\n sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, it was\n well-pleasing in his sight.\"\n\nSuch a judgment as the foregoing ought to have had a good effect, and\nit did. This appeared in renewed carefulness to secure the most exact\nobedience hereafter in all their official duties. To this end, the\nLord Himself now laid down a law evidently designed to preclude, as\nfar as possible, every risk of any such fault in the priestly service\nas might again bring down judgment. It is not only holiness, but\nconsiderate and anxious love, which speaks in the next words,\naddressed to Aaron (vv. 8, 9): \"Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou,\nnor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye\ndie not: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.\"\n\nAnd for this prohibition the reason is given (vv. 10, 11): \"That ye\nmay put difference between the holy and the common, and between the\nunclean and the clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel\nall the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of\nMoses.\"\n\nIt was not then that the use of wine was in itself sinful; for this is\ntaught nowhere in the Old or New Testament, and as a doctrine of\nreligion is characteristic, not of Judaism or Christianity, but only\nof Mohammedanism, of Buddhism and other heathen religions. The ground\nof this command of abstinence, as of the New Testament counsel (Rom.\nxiv. 20, 21), is that of expediency. Because, in the use of wine or\nstrong drink, there was involved a certain risk, that by undue\nindulgence the judgment might be confused or the memory weakened, so\nthat something might be done amiss; therefore the priests, who were\nspecially commissioned to teach the statutes of the Lord to Israel,\nand this most of all, by their own carefulness to obey all the least\nof His commandments, are here warned to abstain whenever about\nengaging in their official duties. As suggested above, it is at least\nvery natural to infer, from the historical setting of this\nprohibition, that the fatal offence of Nadab and Abihu was occasioned\nby such an indulgence in wine or strong drink as made it possible for\nimpulse to get the better of knowledge and judgment.\n\nBut, however this may be, the lesson for us abides the same; a lesson\nwhich each one according to his circumstances must faithfully apply to\nhis own case. For the Christian it is not enough that he shall abstain\nfrom what is in its own nature always sinful; it must be the law of\nour life that we abstain also from whatever may needlessly become\noccasion of sin. In this we cannot, indeed, lay down a universal code\nof law. Heathen reformers have done this, and their imitators in the\nChurch, but never Christ or His Apostles. And this with reason. For\nthat which for one carries with it inevitable risk of sin, is not\nalways fraught with the same danger to another person with a different\ntemperament, or even to the same person under different circumstances.\nIn each instance we must judge for ourselves, taking heed not to abuse\nour liberty to another's harm; and also, on the other hand, being\ncareful how we judge others in regard to things which in their\nessential nature are neither right nor wrong. But we shall be wise to\nrecognise the fact that it is just in such things that many Christians\ndo most harm, both to their own souls and to those of others. And in\nregard to the drinking of wine in particular, one must be blind indeed\nnot to perceive it to be the fact that, whatever the reason may be,\nthe English-speaking peoples seem to be peculiarly susceptible to the\ndanger of undue indulgence in wine and strong drink. On both sides of\nthe Atlantic, drunkenness must be set down as one of the most\nprevalent national sins.\n\nIn deciding the question of personal duty in this and like cases, all\nbelievers are bound, as the Lord's priestly people, to remember that\nHe has appointed them that they should walk before Him as a separated\npeople, who, by their daily walk, above all, are to teach others to\n\"put a difference between holy and common, and unclean and clean, and\nto observe all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken.\"\n\nIn vv. 12-15 we have a repetition of the commandments previously\ngiven, concerning the use to be made of the meal-offering and the\npeace-offering. From this it appears that Moses himself, in view of\nthe tragic occurrence of the day, was stirred up to charge Aaron and\nhis sons anew on matters on which he had already commanded them. And\nwith this intensified care on his part is evidently connected the\nincident recorded in the verses which follow, where we read that,\nhaving repeated the directions as to the meal-offering and the\npeace-offering (vv. 16, 17), \"Moses diligently sought the goat of the\nsin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar\nand with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying, Wherefore\nhave ye not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary,\nseeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity\nof the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?\"\n\nIt had indeed been commanded, in the case of those sin-offerings of\nwhich the blood was brought into the holy place, that their flesh\nshould not be eaten; but that the flesh of all others should be eaten,\nas belonging to the class of things \"most holy,\" by the priests alone\nwithin the Holy Place. Hence Moses continued (ver. 18): \"Behold, the\nblood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should\ncertainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.\"\n\nWhat had been done, as it appears, had been done with Aaron's\nknowledge and sanction; for Aaron then answered in behalf of his sons\n(ver. 19): \"Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and\ntheir burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such\nthings as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering to-day, would it\nhave been well-pleasing in the sight of the Lord?\"\n\nOf which answer, the intention seems to have been this. In this day of\nspecial exaltation and privilege, when for the first time they had\nperformed their solemn priestly duties, when most of all there should\nhave been the utmost care to please the Lord in the very smallest\nthings, His holy Name had been profaned by the will-worship of his\nsons, and the wrath of God had broken out against them, and, in them,\nagainst their father's house. Could it be the will of God that a house\nin which was found the guilt of such a sin, should yet partake of the\nmost holy things of God in the sanctuary?\n\nFrom this it appears that the judgment sent into the house of Aaron\nhad had a most wholesome spiritual effect. They had received such an\nimpression of their own profound sinfulness as they had never had\nbefore. And it is very instructive to observe that they assume to\nthemselves a part in the sinfulness which had been shown in the sin of\nNadab and Abihu. It did not occur to Aaron or his remaining sons to\nsay, in the spirit of Israel in the day of our Lord, \"If we had been\nin their place, we would not have done so.\" Rather their consciences\nhad been so awakened to the holiness of God and their own inborn evil,\nthat they coupled themselves with the others as under the displeasure\nof God. Was it possible, even though they personally had not sinned,\nthat such as they should eat that which was most holy unto God? They\nhad thus in the letter disobeyed the law; but because their offence\nwas begotten of a misapprehension, and only showed how deeply and\nthoroughly they had taken to heart the lesson of the sore judgment, we\nread that \"when Moses heard\" their explanation, \"it was well pleasing\nin his sight.\"\n\nAll this which followed the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and the judgment\nwhich fell on them, and thus upon the whole house of Aaron, is a most\ninstructive illustration of the working of the chastising judgments of\nthe Lord, when rightly received. Its effect was to awaken the utmost\nsolicitude that nothing else might be found about the tabernacle\nservice, even through oversight, which was not according to the mind\nof God; and, in those immediately stricken, to produce a very profound\nsense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness before God. The New\nTestament gives us a graphic description of this effect of the\nchastisement of God on the believer, in the account which we have of\nthe result of the discipline which the Apostle Paul inflicted on the\nsinning member of the Church of Corinth; concerning which he afterward\nwrote to them (2 Cor. vii. 11): \"Behold, this selfsame thing, that ye\nwere made sorry after a godly sort, what earnest care it wrought in\nyou, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea,\nwhat fear, yea, what longing, yea, what zeal, yea, what avenging!\"\n\nA good test is this, which, when we have passed under the chastising\nhand of God, we may well apply to ourselves: this \"earnest care,\" this\n\"clearing of ourselves,\" this holy fear of a humbled heart,--have we\nknown what it means? If so, though we sorrow, we may yet rejoice that\nby grace we are enabled to sorrow \"after a godly sort,\" with \"a\nrepentance which bringeth no regret.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT._\n\nLEV. xvi. 1-34.\n\n\nIn the first verse of chapter xvi., which ordains the ceremonial for\nthe great annual day of atonement, we are told that this ordinance was\ndelivered by the Lord to Moses \"after the death of the two sons of\nAaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died.\"[19] Because of\nthe close historical connection thus declared between this chapter and\nchapter x., and also because in this ordinance the Mosaic sacrificial\nworship, which has been the subject of the book thus far, finds its\nculmination, it seems most satisfactory to anticipate the order of the\nbook by taking up at this point the exposition of this chapter, before\nproceeding in chapter xi. to a wholly different subject.\n\n [19] The interposition of chapters xi.-xv. on ceremonial\n uncleanness, between chapters x. and xvi., which are so closely\n connected by this historical note in xvi. 1, certainly suggests\n an editorial redaction--as the phrase is--in which the latter\n chapter, for whatsoever reason, has been removed from its\n original context. But that such a redaction, of which we have in\n the book other traces, does not of necessity affect in the\n slightest degree the question of its inspiration and Divine\n authority, should be self-evident.\n\nThis ordinance of the day of atonement was perhaps the most important\nand characteristic in the whole Mosaic legislation. In the law of the\nofferings, the most distinctive part was the law of the sin-offering;\nand it was on the great annual day of atonement that the conceptions\nembodied in the sin-offering obtained their most complete development.\nThe central place which this day occupied in the whole system of\nsacred times is well illustrated in that it is often spoken of by the\nrabbis, without any more precise designation, as simply \"_Yom\u00e0_,\" \"The\nDay.\" It was \"_the_ day\" because, on this day, the idea of sacrificial\nexpiation and the consequent removal of all sin, essential to the life\nof peace and fellowship with God, which was set forth imperfectly, as\nregards individuals and the nation, by the daily sin-offerings,\nreceived the highest possible symbolical expression. It is plain that\ncountless sins and transgressions and various defilements must yet\nhave escaped unrecognised as such, even by the most careful and\nconscientious Israelite; and that, for this reason, they could not\nhave been covered by any of the daily offerings for sin. Hence, apart\nfrom this full, solemn, typical purgation and cleansing of the\npriesthood and the congregation, and the holy sanctuary, from the\nuncleannesses and transgressions of the children of Israel, \"even all\ntheir sins\" (ver. 16), the sacrificial system had yet fallen short of\nexpressing in adequate symbolism the ideal of the complete removal of\nall sin. With abundant reason then do the rabbis regard it as the day\nof days in the sacred year.\n\nIt is insisted by the radical criticism of our day that the general\nsense of sin and need of expiation which this ordinance expresses\ncould not have existed in the days of Moses; and that since, moreover,\nthe later historical books of the Old Testament contain no reference\nto the observance of the day, therefore its origin must be attributed\nto the days of the restoration from Babylon, when, as such critics\nsuppose, the deeper sense of sin, developed by the great judgment of\nthe Babylonian captivity and exile, occasioned the elaboration of this\nritual.\n\nTo this one might reply that the objection rests upon an assumption\nwhich the Christian believer cannot admit, that the ordinance was\nmerely a product of the human mind. But if, as our Lord constantly\ntaught, and as the chapter explicitly affirms, the ordinance was a\nmatter of Divine, supernatural revelation, then naturally we shall\nexpect to find in it, not man's estimate of the guilt of sin, but\nGod's, which in all ages is the same.\n\nBut, meeting such objectors on their own ground, we need not go into\nthe matter further than to refer to the high authority of Dillmann,\nwho declares this theory of the post-exilian origin of this\ninstitution to be \"absolutely incredible;\" and in reply to the\nobjection that the day is not alluded to in the whole Old Testament\nhistory, justly adds that this argument from silence would equally\nforbid us to assign the origin of the ordinance to the days of the\nreturn from Babylon, or any of the pre-Christian centuries! for \"one\nwould then have to maintain that the festival first arose in the first\nChristian century; since only out of that age do we first have any\nexplicit testimonies concerning it.\"[20]\n\n [20] \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 525.\n\nAgain, the first verse of the chapter gives as the occasion of the\npromulgation of this law, \"the death of the two sons of Aaron,\" Nadab\nand Abihu, \"when they drew near before the Lord and died;\" a\nhistorical note which is perfectly natural if we have here a narrative\ndating from Mosaic days, but which seems most objectless and unlikely\nto have been entered, if the law were a late invention of rabbinical\nforgers. On that occasion it was, as we read (v. 2), that \"the Lord\nsaid unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all\ntimes into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy-seat which\nis upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon\nthe mercy-seat.\"\n\nInto this place of Jehovah's most immediate earthly manifestation,\neven Aaron is to come only once a year, and then only with atoning\nblood, as hereinafter prescribed.\n\nThe object of the whole service of this day is represented as\natonement; expiation of sin, in the highest and fullest sense then\npossible. It is said to be appointed to make atonement for Aaron and\nfor his house (ver. 6), for the holy place, and for the tent of\nmeeting (vv. 15-17); for the altar of burnt-offering in the outer\ncourt (vv. 18, 19); and for all the congregation of Israel (vv. 20-22,\n33); and this, not merely for such sins of ignorance as had been\nafterward recognised and acknowledged in the ordinary sin-offerings of\neach day, but for \"_all_ the iniquities of the children of Israel, and\n_all_ their transgressions, even all their sins:\" even such as were\nstill unknown to all but God (ver. 21). The fact of such an ordinance\nfor such a purpose taught a most impressive lesson of the holiness of\nGod and the sinfulness of man, on the one hand, and, on the other, the\nutter insufficiency of the daily offerings to cleanse from all sin.\nDay by day these had been offered in each year; and yet, as we read\n(Heb. ix. 8, 9), the Holy Ghost this signified by this ordinance,\n\"that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest;\" it\nwas \"a parable for the time now present;\" teaching that the temple\nsacrifices of Judaism could not \"as touching the conscience, make the\nworshipper perfect\" (Heb. ix. 9). We may well reverse the judgment of\nthe critics, and say--not that the deepened sense of sin in Israel was\nthe cause of the day of atonement; but rather, that the solemn\nobservances of this day, under God, were made for many in Israel a\nmost effective means to deepen the conviction of sin.\n\nThe time which was ordained for this annual observance is\nsignificant--the tenth day of the seventh month. It was appointed for\nthe seventh month, as the sabbatic month, in which all the related\nideas of rest in God and with God, in the enjoyment of the blessings\nof a now complete redemption, received in the great feast of\ntabernacles their fullest expression. It was therefore appointed for\nthat month, and for a day which shortly preceded this greatest of the\nannual feasts, to signify in type the profound and most vital truth,\nthat the full joy of the sabbatic rest of man with God, and the\ningathering of the fruits of complete redemption, is only possible\nupon condition of repentance and the fullest possible expiation for\nsin. It was appointed for the tenth day of this month, no doubt,\nbecause in the Scripture symbolism the number ten is the symbol of\ncompleteness; and was fitly thus connected with a service which\nsignified expiation completed for the sins of the year.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe observances appointed for the day had regard, first, to the\npeople, and, secondly, to the tabernacle service. As for the former,\nit was commanded (ver. 29) that they should \"do no manner of work,\"\nobserving the day as a _Sabbath Sabbathon_, \"a high Sabbath,\" or\n\"Sabbath of solemn rest\" (ver. 31); and, secondly, that they should\n\"afflict their souls\" (ver. 31), namely, by solemn fasting, in\nvisible sign of sorrow and humiliation for sin. By which it was most\ndistinctly taught, that howsoever complete atonement may be, and\nhowsoever, in making that atonement through a sacrificial victim, the\nsinner himself have no part, yet apart from his personal repentance\nfor his sins, that atonement shall profit him nothing; nay, it was\ndeclared (xxiii. 29), that if any man should fail on this point, God\nwould cut him off from his people. The law abides as regards the\ngreater sacrifice of Christ; except we repent, we shall, even because\nof that sacrifice, only the more terribly perish; because not even\nthis supreme exhibition of the holy love and justice of God has moved\nus to renounce sin.\n\nAs regards the tabernacle service for the day, the order was as\nfollows. First, as most distinctive of the ritual of the day, only the\nhigh-priest could officiate. The other priests, who, on other\noccasions, served continually in the holy place, must on this day,\nduring these ceremonies, leave it to him alone; taking their place,\nthemselves as sinners for whom also atonement was to be made, with the\nsinful congregation of their brethren. For it was ordered (ver. 17):\n\"There shall be no man in the tent of meeting when the high priest\ngoeth in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come out,\" and\nthe work of atonement be completed.\n\nAnd the high priest could himself officiate only after certain\nsignificant preparations. First (ver. 4), he must \"bathe in water\" his\nwhole person. The word used in the original is different from that\nwhich is used of the partial washings in connection with the daily\nceremonial cleansings; and, most suggestively, the same complete\nwashing is required as that which was ordered in the law for the\nconsecration of the priesthood, and for cleansing from leprosy and\nother specific defilements. Thus was expressed, in the clearest manner\npossible, the thought, that the high priest, who shall be permitted to\ndraw near to God in the holiest place, and there prevail with Him,\nmust himself be wholly pure and clean.\n\nThen, having bathed, he must robe himself in a special manner for the\nservice of this day. He must lay aside the bright-coloured \"garments\nfor glory and beauty\" which he wore on all other occasions, and put\non, instead, a vesture of pure, unadorned white, like that of the\nordinary priest; excepting only that for him, on this day, unlike\nthem, the girdle also must be white. By this substitution of these\ngarments for his ordinary brilliant robes was signified, not merely\nthe absolute purity which the white linen symbolised, but especially\nalso, by the absence of adornment, humiliation for sin. On this day he\nwas thus made in outward appearance essentially like unto the other\nmembers of his house, for whose sin, together with his own, he was to\nmake atonement.\n\nThus washed and robed, wearing on his white turban the golden crown\ninscribed \"Holiness to Jehovah\" (Exod. xxviii. 38), he now took (vv.\n3, 5-7), as a sin-offering for himself and for his house, a bullock;\nand for the congregation, \"two he-goats for a sin offering;\" with a\nram for himself, and one for them, for a burnt offering. The two goats\nwere set \"before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting.\" The\nbullock was the offering before prescribed for the sin-offering for\nthe high priest (iv. 3), as being the most valuable of all sacrificial\nvictims. For the choice of the goats many reasons have been given,\nnone of which seem wholly satisfactory. Both of the goats are equally\ndeclared (ver. 5) to be \"for a sin offering;\" yet only one was to be\nslain.\n\nThe ceremonial which followed is unique; it is without its like either\nin Mosaism or in heathenism. It was ordered (ver. 8): \"Aaron shall\ncast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot\nfor Azazel;\" an expression to which we shall shortly return. Only the\ngoat on whom the lot fell for the Lord was to be slain.\n\nThe two goats remain standing before the Lord; while now Aaron kills\nthe sin-offering for himself and for his house (ver. 11); then enters,\nfirst, the Holy of Holies within the veil, having taken (ver. 12) a\ncenser \"full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord,\"\nwith his hands full of incense (ver. 13), \"that the cloud of the\nincense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony (_i.e._,\nthe two tables of the law within the ark), that he die not.\" Then\n(ver. 13) he sprinkles the blood \"upon the mercy-seat on the east\"--by\nwhich was signified the application of the blood God-ward, accompanied\nwith the fragrance of intercession, for the expiation of his own sins\nand those of his house; and then \"seven times, before the\nmercy-seat,\"--evidently, on the floor of the sanctuary, for the\nsymbolic cleansing of the holiest place, defiled by all the\nuncleannesses of the children of Israel, in the midst of whom it\nstood. Then, returning, he kills the goat of the sin-offering \"for\nJehovah,\" and repeats the same ceremony, now in behalf of the whole\ncongregation, sprinkling, as before, the mercy-seat, and, seven times,\nthe Holy of Holies, thus making atonement for it, \"because of the\nuncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their\ntransgressions, even all their sins\" (ver. 16). In like manner, he was\nthen to cleanse, by a seven-fold sprinkling, the Holy Place; and then\nagain going into the outer court, also the altar of burnt-offering;\nthis last, doubtless, as in other cases, by applying the blood to the\nhorns of the altar.\n\nIn all this it will be observed that the difference from the ordinary\nsin-offerings and the wider reach of its symbolical virtue is found,\nnot in that the offering is different from or larger than others, but\nin that, symbolically speaking, the blood is brought, as in no other\noffering, into the most immediate presence of God; even into the\nsecret darkness of the Holy of Holies, where no child of Israel might\ntread. For this reason did this sin-offering become, above all others,\nthe most perfect type of the one offering of Him, the God-Man, who\nreconciled us to God by doing that in reality which was here done in\nsymbol, even entering with atoning blood into the very presence of\nGod, there to appear in our behalf.\n\n\nAZAZEL.\n\nxvi. 20-28.\n\n \"And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and\n the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live\n goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the\n live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the\n children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their\n sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall\n send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the\n wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities\n unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the\n wilderness. And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and\n shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went\n into the holy place, and shall leave them there: and he shall\n bathe his flesh in water in a holy place, and put on his\n garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the\n burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and\n for the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn\n upon the altar. And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall\n wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he\n shall come into the camp. And the bullock of the sin offering,\n and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to\n make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried forth without\n the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their\n flesh, and their dung. And he that burneth them shall wash his\n clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall\n come into the camp.\"\n\nAnd now followed the second stage of the ceremonial, a rite of the\nmost singular and impressive character. The live goat, during the\nformer part of the ceremony, had been left standing before Jehovah,\nwhere he had been placed after the casting of the lot (ver. 10). The\nrendering of King James' version, that the goat was so placed, \"to\nmake an atonement _with_ him,\" assumes a meaning to the Hebrew\npreposition here which it never has. Usage demands either that which\nis given in the text or the margin of the Revised Version, to make\natonement \"_for_ him\" or \"_over_ him.\" But to the former the objection\nseems insuperable that there is nothing in the whole rite suggesting\nan atonement as made for this living goat; while, on the other hand,\nif the rendering \"over\" be adopted from the margin, it may not\nunnaturally be understood of the performance _over_ this goat of that\npart of the atonement ceremonial described as follows:--\n\nVv. 20-22: \"When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place,\nand the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat\n... and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,\nand all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put\nthem upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of\na man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the goat shall\nbear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall\nlet go the goat in the wilderness.\" And with this ceremony the\natonement was completed. Aaron now laid aside the robes which he had\nput on for this service, bathed again, and put on again his richly\ncoloured garments of office, came forth and offered the burnt-offering\nfor himself and for the people, and burnt the fat of the sin-offering\nas usual on the altar (vv. 23-25), while its flesh was burned,\naccording to the law for such sacrifices, without the camp (ver. 27).\n\nWhat was the precise significance of this part of the service, is one\nof the most difficult questions which arises in the exposition of this\nbook; the answer to which chiefly turns upon the meaning which is\nattached to the expression, \"for Azazel\" (O.V., \"for a scapegoat\").\nWhat is the meaning of \"Azazel\"?\n\nThere are three fundamental facts which stand before us in this\nchapter, which must find their place in any explanation which may be\nadopted. 1. Both of the goats are declared to be \"a sin-offering;\" the\nlive goat, no less than the other. 2. In consistency with this, the\nlive goat, no less than the other, was consecrated to Jehovah, in that\nhe was \"set alive before the Lord.\" 3. The function expressly ascribed\nto him in the law is the complete removal of the transgressions of\nIsrael, symbolically transferred to him as a burden, by the laying on\nof hands with confession of sin. Passing by, then, several\ninterpretations, which seem intrinsically irreconcilable with one or\nother of these facts, or are, for other reasons, to be rejected, the\ncase seems to be practically narrowed down to this alternative. Either\nAzazel is to be regarded as the name of an evil spirit, conceived of\nas dwelling in the wilderness, or else it is to be taken as an\nabstract noun, as in the margin (R.V.), signifying \"removal,\"\n\"dismissal.\" That the word may have this meaning is very commonly\nadmitted even by those who deny that meaning here; and if, with\nB\u00e4hr[21] and others, we adopt it in this passage, all that follows is\nquite clear. The goat \"for removal\" bears away all the iniquities of\nIsrael, which are symbolically laid upon him, into a solitary land;\nthat is, they are taken wholly away from the presence of God and from\nthe camp of His people. Thus, as the killing and sprinkling of the\nblood of the first goat visibly set forth the _means_ of\nreconciliation with God, through the substituted offering of an\ninnocent victim, so the sending away of the second goat, laden with\nthose sins, the expiation of which had been signified by the sacrifice\nof the first, no less vividly set forth the _effect_ of that\nsacrifice, in the complete removal of those expiated sins from the\nholy presence of Jehovah. That this effect of atonement should have\nbeen adequately represented by the first slain victim was impossible;\nhence the necessity for the second goat, ideally identified with the\nother, as jointly constituting with it one sin-offering, whose special\nuse it should be to represent the blessed effect of atonement. The\ntruth symbolised, as the goat thus bore away the sins of Israel, is\nexpressed in those glad words (Psalm ciii. 12), \"As far as the east is\nfrom the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us;\" or,\nunder another image, by Micah (vii. 19), \"Thou wilt cast all their\nsins into the depths of the sea.\"\n\n [21] \"Symbolik des Mos\u00e4ischen Cultus,\" 2 Band., p. 668.\n\nSo far all seems quite clear, and this explanation, no doubt, will\nalways be accepted by many.\n\nAnd yet there remains one serious objection to this interpretation;\nnamely, that the meaning we thus give this word \"Azazel\" is not what\nwe would expect from the phrase which is used regarding the casting\nof the lots (ver. 8): \"One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for\nAzazel.\" These words do most naturally suggest that Azazel is the name\nof a person, who is here contrasted with Jehovah; and hence it is\nbelieved by a large number of the best expositors that the term must\nbe taken here as the name of an evil spirit, represented as dwelling\nin the wilderness, to whom this goat, thus laden with Israel's sins,\nis sent. In addition to this phraseology, it is urged, in support of\nthis interpretation, that even the Scripture lends apparent sanction\nto the Jewish belief that demons are, in some special sense, the\ninhabitants of waste and desolate places; and, in particular, that\nJewish demonology does in fact recognise a demon named Azazel, also\ncalled Sammael. It is admitted, indeed, that the name Azazel does not\noccur in the Scripture as the name of Satan or of any evil spirit;\nand, moreover, that there is no evidence that the Jewish belief\nconcerning the existence of a demon called Azazel dates nearly so far\nback as Mosaic days; and, again, that even the rabbis themselves are\nnot agreed on this interpretation here, many of them rejecting it,\neven on traditional grounds. Still the interpretation has secured the\nsupport of the majority of the best modern expositors, and must claim\nrespectful consideration.\n\nBut if Azazel indeed denotes an evil spirit to whom the second goat of\nthe sin-offering is thus sent, laden with the iniquities of Israel,\nthe question then arises: How then, on this supposition, is the\nceremony to be interpreted?\n\nThe notion of some, that we have in this rite a relic of the ancient\ndemon-worship, is utterly inadmissible. For this goat is expressly\nsaid (ver. 5) to have been, equally with the goat that was slain, \"a\nsin-offering,\" and (vv. 10, 20) it is placed \"before the Lord,\" as an\noffering to Him; nor is there a hint, here or elsewhere, that this\ngoat was sacrificed in the wilderness to this Azazel; while, moreover,\nin this very priest-code (xvii. 7-9, R.V.) this special form of\nidolatry is forbidden, under the heaviest penalty.\n\nThat the goat sent to Azazel personified, by way of warning and in a\ntypical manner, Israel, as rejecting the great Sin-offering, and thus\nladen with iniquity, and therefore delivered over to Satan, is an idea\nequally untenable. For the goat, as we have seen, is regarded as\nideally one with the goat which is slain; they jointly constitute one\nsin-offering. If, therefore, the slain goat represented in type Christ\nas the Lamb of God, our Sin-offering, so also must this goat represent\nHim as our Sin-offering. Further, the ceremonial which is performed\nover him is explicitly termed an \"atonement;\" that is, it was an\nessential part of a ritual designed to symbolise, not the condemnation\nof Israel for sin, but their complete deliverance from the guilt of\ntheir sins.\n\nNot to speak of other explanations, more or less untenable, which have\neach found their advocates, the only one which, upon this\nunderstanding of the meaning of Azazel, the context and the analogy of\nthe Scripture will both admit, appears to be the following. Holy\nScripture teaches that Satan has power over man, only because of man's\nsin. Because of his sin, man is judicially left by God in Satan's\npower (1 John v. 19, R.V.). When as \"the prince of this world\" he came\nto the sinless Man, Jesus Christ, he had nothing in Him, because He\nwas the Holy One of God; while, on the other hand, he is represented\n(Heb. ii. 14) as having over men under sin \"the authority of death.\"\nIn full accord with this conception, he is represented, both in the\nOld and the New Testament, as the accuser of God's people. He is said\nto have accused Job before God (Job i. 9-11; ii. 4, 5). When Zechariah\n(iii. 1) saw Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of\nJehovah, he saw Satan also standing at his right hand to be his\n\"adversary.\" So, again, in the Apocalypse (xii. 10) he is called \"the\nAccuser of our brethren, which accuseth them before our God day and\nnight,\" and who is only overcome by means of \"the blood of the Lamb.\"\n\nTo this Evil One, then, the Accuser and Adversary of God's people in\nall ages--if we assume the interpretation before us--the live goat was\nsymbolically sent, bearing on him the sins of Israel. But does he bear\ntheir sins as forgiven, or as unforgiven? Surely, as forgiven; for the\nsins which he symbolically carries are those very sins of the bygone\nyear for which expiating blood had just been offered and accepted in\nthe Holy of Holies. Moreover, he is sent as being ideally one with the\ngoat that was slain. As sent to Azazel, he therefore symbolically\nannounces to the Evil One that with the expiation of sin by\nsacrificial blood the foundation of his power over forgiven Israel is\ngone. His accusations are now no longer in place; for the whole\nquestion of Israel's sin has been met and settled in the atoning\nblood. Thus, as the acceptance of the blood of the one goat offered in\nthe Holiest symbolised the complete propitiation of the offended\nholiness of God and His pardon of Israel's sin, so the sending of the\ngoat to Azazel symbolised the _effect_ of this expiation, in the\ncomplete removal of all the penal effects of sin, through deliverance\nby atonement from the power of the Adversary as the executioner of\nGod's wrath.\n\nWhich of these two interpretations shall be accepted must be left to\nthe reader: that neither is without difficulty, those who have most\nstudied this very obscure question will most readily admit; that\neither is at least consistent with the context and with other\nteachings of Scripture, should be sufficiently evident. In either\ncase, the symbolic intention of the first part of the ritual, with the\nfirst goat, was to symbolise the _means_ of reconciliation with God;\nnamely, through the offering unto God of the life of an innocent\nvictim, substituted in the sinner's place: in either case alike, the\npurpose of the second part of the ceremonial, with the second goat,\nwas to symbolise the blessed _effect_ of this expiation; either, if\nthe reading of the margin be taken, in the complete removal of the\nexpiated sin from the presence of the Holy God, or, if Azazel be taken\nas a proper name, in the complete deliverance of the sinner, through\nexpiatory blood presented in the Holiest, from the power of Satan. If\nin the former case, we think of the words already cited, \"As far as\nthe east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions\nfrom us;\" in the latter the words from the Apocalypse (xii. 10, 11)\ncome to mind, \"The Accuser of our brethren is cast down, which\naccuseth them before our God day and night. And they overcame him\nbecause of the blood of the Lamb.\"\n\nOn other particulars in the ceremonial of the day we need not dwell,\nas they have received their exposition in earlier chapters of the law\nof the offerings. Of the burnt-offerings, indeed, which followed the\ndismissal of the living goat of the sin-offering, little is said; it\nis, emphatically, the sin-offering upon which, above all else, it was\ndesigned to centre the attention of Israel on this occasion.\n\nAnd so, with an injunction to the perpetual observance of this day,\nthis remarkable chapter closes. In it the sacrificial law of Moses\nattains its supreme expression; the holiness and the grace alike of\nIsrael's God, their fullest revelation. For the like of the great day\nof atonement, we look in vain in any other people. If every sacrifice\npointed to Christ, this most luminously of all. What the fifty-third\nof Isaiah is to his Messianic prophecies, that, we may truly say, is\nthe sixteenth of Leviticus to the whole system of Mosaic types,--the\nmost consummate flower of the Messianic symbolism. All the\nsin-offerings pointed to Christ, the great High Priest and Victim of\nthe future; but this, as we shall now see, with a distinctness found\nin no other.\n\nAs the unique sin-offering of this day could only be offered by the\none high-priest, so was it intimated that the High Priest of the\nfuture, who should indeed make an end of sin, should be one and only.\nAs once only in the whole year, a complete cycle of time, this great\natonement was offered, so did it point toward a sacrifice which should\nindeed be \"once for all\" (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10); not only for the lesser\n\u00e6on of the year, but for the \u00e6on of \u00e6ons which is the lifetime of\nhumanity. In that the high-priest, who was on all other occasions\nconspicuous among his sons by his bright garments made for glory and\nfor beauty, on this occasion laid them aside, and assumed the same\ngarb as his sons for whom he was to make atonement; herein was\nshadowed forth the truth that it behoved the great High Priest of the\nfuture to be \"in all things made like unto His brethren\" (Heb. ii.\n17). When, having offered the sin-offering, Aaron disappeared from the\nsight of Israel within the veil, where in the presence of the unseen\nglory he offered the incense and sprinkled the blood, it was\npresignified how \"Christ having come a High Priest of the good things\nto come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made\nwith hands, ... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but\nthrough His own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place,\"\neven \"into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us\"\n(Heb. ix. 11, 12, 24). And, in like manner, in that when the\nsin-offering had been offered, the blood sprinkled, and his work\nwithin the veil was ended, arrayed again in his glorious garments, he\nreappeared to bless the waiting congregation; it was again foreshown\nhow yet that must be fulfilled which is written, that this same\nChrist, \"having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall\nappear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto\nsalvation\" (Heb. ix. 28).\n\nTo all this yet more might be added of dispensational truth typified\nby the ceremonial of this day, which we defer to the exposition of\nchap. xxv., where its consideration more properly belongs. But even\nwere this all, what a marvellous revelation here of the Lord Jesus\nChrist! The fact of these correspondences between the Levitical ritual\nand the New Testament facts, let it be observed, is wholly independent\nof the questions as to the date and origin of this law; and every\ntheory on this subject must find a place for these correspondences and\naccount for them. But how can any one believe that all these are\nmerely accidental coincidences of a post-exilian forgery with the\nfacts of the incarnation, and the high priestly work of Christ in\ndeath and resurrection as set forth in the Gospels? How can they all\nbe adequately accounted for, except by assuming that to be true which\nis expressly taught in the New Testament concerning this very ritual:\nthat in it the Holy Ghost presignified things that were to come; that,\ntherefore, the ordinance must have been, not of man, but of God; not a\nmere product of the human mind, acting under the laws of a religious\nevolution, but a revelation from Him unto whom \"known are all His\nworks from the foundation of the world\"?\n\nNor must we fail to take in the blessed truth so vividly symbolised in\nthe second part of the ceremonial. When the blood of the sin-offering\nhad been sprinkled in the Holiest, the sins of Israel were then, by\nthe other goat of the sin-offering, borne far away. Israel stood there\nstill a sinful people; but their sin, now expiated by the blood, was\nbefore God as if it were not. So does the Holy Victim in the Antitype,\nwho first by His death expiated sin, then as the Living One bear away\nall the believer's sins from the presence of the Holy One into a land\nof forgetfulness. And so it is that, as regards acceptance with God,\nthe believing sinner, though still a sinner, stands as if he were\nsinless; all through the great Sin-offering. To see this, to believe\nin it and rest in it, is life eternal; it is joy, and peace, and rest!\nIT IS THE GOSPEL!\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n_THE LAW OF THE DAILY LIFE._\n\nXI.-XV., XVII.-XXV.\n\n\n\n\n SECTION 1. THE LAW CONCERNING THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN: xi.-xv.\n\n SECTION 2. THE LAW OF HOLINESS: xvii.-xxii.\n\n SECTION 3. THE LAW CONCERNING SACRED TIMES (WITH EPISODE, xxiv.):\n xxiii.-xxv.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, AND DEFILEMENT BY DEAD BODIES._\n\n_Lev._ xi. 1-47.\n\n\nWith chap. xi. begins a new section of this book, extending to the end\nof chap. xv., of which the subject is the law concerning various\nbodily defilements, and the rites appointed for their removal.\n\nThe law is given under four heads, as follows:--\n\n I. Clean and Unclean Animals, and Defilement by Dead Bodies: chap. xi.\n II. The Uncleanness of Child-birth: chap. xii.\n III. The Uncleanness of Leprosy: chaps. xiii., xiv.\n IV. The Uncleanness of Issues: chap. xv.\n\nFrom the modern point of view this whole subject appears to many, with\nno little reason, to be encompassed with peculiar difficulties. We\nhave become accustomed to think of religion as a thing so exclusively\nof the spirit, and so completely independent of bodily conditions,\nprovided that these be not in their essential nature sinful, that it\nis a great stumbling-block to many that God should be represented as\nhaving given to Israel an elaborate code of laws concerning such\nsubjects as are treated in these five chapters of Leviticus: a\nlegislation which, to not a few, seems puerile and unspiritual, if not\nworse. And yet, for the reverent believer in Christ, who remembers\nthat our blessed Lord did repeatedly refer to this book of Leviticus\nas, without any exception or qualification, the Word of His Father, it\nshould not be hard, in view of this fact, to infer that the\ndifficulties which most of us have felt are presumably due to our very\nimperfect knowledge of the subject. Remembering this, we shall be able\nto approach this part of the law of Moses, and, in particular, this\nchapter, with the spirit, not of critics, but of learners, who know as\nyet but little of the mysteries of God's dealings with Israel or with\nthe human race.\n\nChap. xi. may be divided into two sections, together with a concluding\nappeal and summary (vv. 41-47). The first section treats of the law of\nthe clean and the unclean in relation to eating (vv. 1-23). Under this\nhead, the animals which are permitted or forbidden are classified,\nafter a fashion not scientific, but purely empirical and practical,\ninto (1) the beasts which are upon the earth (vv. 2-8); (2) things\nthat are in the waters (vv. 9-12); (3) flying things,--comprising,\nfirst, birds and flying animals like the bat (vv. 13-19); and,\nsecondly, insects, \"winged creeping things that go upon all four\" (vv.\n20-23).\n\nThe second section treats of defilement by contact with the dead\nbodies of these, whether unclean (vv. 24-38), or clean (vv. 39, 40).\n\nOf the living things among the beasts that are upon the earth (vv.\n2-8), those are permitted for food which both chew the cud and divide\nthe hoof; every animal in which either of these marks is wanting is\nforbidden. Of the things which live in the waters, those only are\nallowed for food which have both fins and scales; those which lack\neither of these marks, such as, for example, eels, oysters, and all\nthe mollusca and crustacea, are forbidden (vv. 9-12). Of flying things\n(vv. 13-19) which may be eaten, no special mark is given; though it is\nto be noted that nearly all of those which are by name forbidden are\nbirds of prey, or birds reputed to be unclean in their habits. All\ninsects, \"winged creeping things that go upon all four\" (ver. 20), or\n\"whatsoever hath many feet,\" or \"goeth upon the belly,\" as worms,\nsnakes, etc., are prohibited (ver. 42). Of insects, a single class,\ndescribed as those \"which have legs above their feet, to leap withal\nupon the earth,\" is excepted (vv. 21, 22): these are known to us as\nthe order _Saltatoria_, including, as typical examples, the cricket,\nthe grasshopper, and the migratory locust; all of which, it may be\nnoted, are clean feeders, living upon vegetable products only. It is\nworthy of notice that the law of the clean and the unclean in food is\nnot extended, as it was in Egypt, to the vegetable kingdom.\n\nThe second section of the chapter (vv. 24-40) comprises a number of\nlaws relating chiefly to defilement by contact with the dead bodies of\nanimals. In these regulations, it is to be observed that the dead\nbody, even of a clean animal, except when killed in accordance with\nthe law, so that its blood is all drained out (xvii. 10-16), is\nregarded as defiling him who touches it; while, on the other hand,\neven an unclean animal is not held capable of imparting defilement by\nmere contact, so long as it is living. Very minute charges are given\n(vv. 29-38) concerning eight species of unclean animals, of which six\n(vv. 29, 30, R.V.) appear to be different varieties of the lizard\nfamily. Regarding these, it is ordered that not only shall the person\nbe held unclean who touches the dead body of one of them (ver. 31),\nbut also anything becomes unclean on which such a dead body may fall,\nwhether household utensil, or food, or drink (vv. 32-35). The\nexception only is made (vv. 36-38), that fountains, or wells of water,\nor dry seed for sowing, shall not be held to be by such defiled.\n\nThat which has been made unclean must be put into water, and be\nunclean until the even (ver. 32); with the exception that nothing\nwhich is made of earthenware, whether a vessel, or an oven, or a\nrange, could be thus cleansed; for the obvious reason that the water\ncould not adequately reach the interior of its porous material. It\nmust therefore be broken in pieces (vv. 33, 34). If a person be\ndefiled by any of these, he remained unclean until the even (ver. 31).\nNo washing is prescribed, but, from analogy, is probably to be taken\nfor granted.\n\nSuch is a brief summary of the law of the clean and the unclean as\ncontained in this chapter. To preclude adding needless difficulty to a\ndifficult subject, the remark made above should be specially\nnoted,--that so far as general marks are given by which the clean is\nto be distinguished from the unclean, these marks are evidently\nselected simply from a practical point of view, as of easy recognition\nby the common people, for whom a more exact and scientific mode of\ndistinction would have been useless. We are not therefore for a moment\nto think of cleanness or uncleanness as causally determined, for\ninstance, by the presence or absence of fins or scales, or by the\nhabit of chewing the cud, and the dividing of the hoof, or the absence\nof these marks, as if they were themselves the ground of the cleanness\nor uncleanness, in any instance. For such a fancy as this, which has\ndiverted some interpreters from the right line of investigation of the\nsubject, there is no warrant whatever in the words of the law, either\nhere or elsewhere.\n\nThan this law concerning things clean and unclean nothing will seem to\nmany, at first, more alien to modern thought, or more inconsistent\nwith any intelligent view of the world and of man's relation to the\nthings by which he is surrounded. And, especially, that the strict\nobservance of this law should be connected with religion, and that,\nupon what professes to be the authority of God, it should be urged on\nIsrael on the ground of their call to be a holy people to a holy\nGod,--this, to the great majority of Bible readers, certainly appears,\nto say the least, most extraordinary and unaccountable. And yet the\nlaw is here, and its observance is enforced by this very\nconsideration; for we read (vv. 43, 44): \"Ye shall not make yourselves\nabominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye\nmake yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.\nFor I am the Lord your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye\nholy; for I am holy.\" And, in any case, explain the matter as we may,\nmany will ask, How, since the New Testament formally declares this law\nconcerning clean and unclean beasts to be no longer binding (Col. ii.\n16, 20-23), is it possible to imagine that there should now remain\nanything in this most perplexing law which should be of spiritual\nprofit still to a New Testament believer? To the consideration of\nthese questions, which so naturally arise, we now address ourselves.\n\nFirst of all, in approaching this subject it is well to recall to mind\nthe undeniable fact, that a distinction in foods as clean and unclean,\nthat is, fit and unfit for man's use, has a very deep and apparently\nirremovable foundation in man's nature. Even we ourselves, who\nstumble at this law, recognise a distinction of this kind, and\nregulate our diet accordingly; and also, in like manner, feel, more or\nless, an instinctive repugnance to dead bodies. As regards diet, it is\ntrue that when the secondary question arises as to what particular\nanimals shall be reckoned clean or unclean, fit or unfit for food,\nnations and tribes differ among themselves, as also from the law of\nMoses, in a greater or less degree; nevertheless, this does not alter\nthe fact that such a distinction is recognised among all nations of\nculture; and that, on the other hand, in those who recognise it not,\nand who eat, as some do, without discrimination, whatever chances to\ncome to hand,--insects, reptiles, carrion, and so on,--this revolting\nindifference in the matter of food is always associated with gross\nintellectual and moral degradation. Certainly these indisputable facts\nshould suffice to dispose of the charge of puerility, as sometimes\nmade against the laws of this chapter.\n\nAnd not only this, but more is true. For while even among nations of\nthe highest culture and Christian enlightenment many animals are\neaten, as, _e.g._, the oyster, the turtle, the flesh of the horse and\nthe hog, which the law of Moses prohibits; on the other hand, it\nremains true that, with the sole exception of creatures of the locust\ntribe, the animals which are allowed for food by the Mosaic code are\nreckoned suitable for food by almost the entire human family. A\nnotable exception to the fact is indeed furnished in the case of the\nHindoos, and also the Buddhists (who follow an Indian religion), who,\nas a rule, reject all animal food, and especially, in the case of the\nformer, the flesh of the cow, as not to be eaten. But this exception\nis quite explicable by considerations into which we cannot here enter\nat length, but which do not affect the significance of the general\nfact.\n\nAnd, again, on the other hand, it may also be said that, as a general\nrule, the appetite of the great majority of enlightened and cultivated\nnations revolts against using as food the greater part of the animals\nwhich this code prohibits. Birds of prey, for instance, and the\ncarnivora generally, animals having paws, and reptiles, for the most\npart, by a kind of universal instinct among cultivated peoples, are\njudged unfit for human food.\n\nThe bearing of these facts upon our exposition is plain. They\ncertainly suggest, at least, that this law of Lev. xi. may, after all,\nvery possibly have a deep foundation both in the nature of man and\nthat of the things permitted or forbidden; and they also raise the\nquestion as to how far exceptions and divergencies from this law,\namong peoples of culture, may possibly be due to a diversity in\nexternal physical and climatic conditions, because of which that which\nmay be wholesome and suitable food in one place--the wilderness of\nSinai, or Palestine, for instance--may not be wholesome and suitable\nin other lands, under different physical conditions. We do not yet\nenter into this question, but barely call attention to it, as adapted\nto check the hasty judgment of many, that such a law as this is\nnecessarily puerile and unworthy of God.\n\nBut while it is of no small consequence to note this agreement in the\nfundamental ideas of this law with widely extended instincts and\nhabits of mankind, on the other hand, it is also of importance to\nemphasise the contrast which it exhibits with similar codes of law\namong other peoples. For while, as has just been remarked, there are\nmany most suggestive points of agreement between the Mosaic\ndistinctions of clean and unclean and those of other nations, on the\nother hand, remarkable contrasts appear, even in the case of those\npeople with whom, like the Egyptians, the Hebrews had been most\nintimately associated. In the Egyptian system of dietary law, for\ninstance, the distinction of clean and unclean in food was made to\napply, not only in the animal, but also in the vegetable world; and,\nagain, while all fishes having fins and scales are permitted as food\nin the Mosaic law, no fishes whatever are permitted by the Egyptian\ncode. But more significant than such difference in details is the\ndifference in the religious conception upon which such distinctions\nare based. In Egypt, for example, animals were reckoned clean or\nunclean according as they were supposed to have more predominant the\ncharacter of the good Osiris or of the evil Typhon. Among the ancient\nPersians, those were reckoned clean which were supposed to be the\ncreation of Ormazd, the good Spirit, and those unclean whose origin\nwas attributed to Ahriman, the evil Spirit. In India, the prohibition\nof flesh as food rests on pantheistic assumptions. Not to multiply\nexamples, it is easy to see that, without anticipating anything here\nwith regard to the principle which determined the Hebrew distinctions,\nit is certain that of such dualistic or pantheistic principles as are\nmanifested in these and other instances which might be named, there is\nnot a trace in the Mosaic law. How significant and profoundly\ninstructive is the contrast here, will only fully appear when we see\nwhat in fact appears to have been the determining principle in the\nMosaic legislation.\n\nBut when we now seek to ascertain upon what principle certain animals\nwere permitted and others forbidden as food, it must be confessed that\nwe have before us a very difficult question, and one to which,\naccordingly, very diverse answers have been given. In general, indeed,\nwe are expressly told that the object of this legislation, as of all\nelse in this book of laws, was moral and spiritual. Thus, we are told\nin so many words (vv. 43-45) that Israel was to abstain from eating or\ntouching the unclean, on the ground that they were to be holy, because\nthe Lord their God was holy. But to most this only increases the\ndifficulty. What possible connection could there be between eating, or\nabstinence from eating, animals which do not chew the cud, or fishes\nwhich have not scales, and holiness of life?\n\nIn answer to this question, some have supposed a mystical connection\nbetween the soul and the body, such that the former is defiled by the\nfood which is received and assimilated by the latter. In support of\nthis theory, appeal has been made to ver. 44 of this chapter, which,\nin the Septuagint translation, is rendered literally: \"Ye shall not\ndefile your souls.\" But, as often in Hebrew, the original expression\nhere is simply equivalent to our compound pronoun \"yourselves,\" and is\ntherefore so translated both in the Authorised and the Revised\nVersions. As for any other proof of such a mystical evil influence of\nthe various kinds of food prohibited in this chapter, there is simply\nnone at all.\n\nOthers, again, have sought the explication of these facts in the\nundoubted Divine purpose of keeping Israel separate from other\nnations; to secure which separation this special dietetic code, with\nother laws regarding the clean and the unclean, was given them. That\nthese laws have practically helped to keep the children of Israel\nseparate from other nations, will not be denied; and we may therefore\nreadily admit, that inasmuch as the food of the Hebrews has differed\nfrom that of the nations among whom they have dwelt, this separation\nof the nation may therefore have been included in the purpose of God\nin these regulations. However, it is to be observed that in the law\nitself the separation of Israel from other nations is represented, not\nas the end to be attained by the observance of these food laws, but\ninstead, as a fact already existing, which is given as a reason why\nthey should keep these laws (xx. 24, 25). Moreover, it will be found\nimpossible, by reference to this principle alone, to account for the\ndetails of the laws before us. For the question is not merely why\nthere should have been food laws, but also why these laws should have\nbeen such as they are? The latter question is not adequately explained\nby reference to God's purpose of keeping Israel separate from the\nnations.\n\nSome, again, have held that the explanation of these laws was to be\nfound simply in the design of God, by these restrictions, to give\nIsrael a profitable moral discipline in self-restraint and control of\nthe bodily appetites; or to impose, in this way, certain conditions\nand limitations upon their approach to Him, which should have the\neffect of deepening in them the sense of awe and reverence for the\nDivine majesty of God, as their King. Of this theory it may be said,\nas of the last-named, that there can be no doubt that in fact these\nlaws did tend to secure these ends; but that yet, on the other hand,\nthe explanation is still inadequate, inasmuch as it only would show\nwhy restrictions of some kind should have been ordered, and not, in\nthe least, why the restrictions should have been such, in detail, as\nwe have here.\n\nQuite different from any of these attempted explanations is that of\nmany who have sought to explain the law allegorically. We are told by\nsuch that Israel was forbidden the flesh of certain animals, because\nthey were regarded as typifying by their character certain sins and\nvices, as, on the other hand, those which were permitted as food were\nregarded as typifying certain moral virtues. Hence, it is supposed by\nsuch that the law tended to the holiness of Israel, in that it was, so\nto speak, a continual object-lesson, a perpetually acted allegory,\nwhich should continually remind them of the duty of abstaining from\nthe typified sins and of practising the typified virtues. But,\nassuredly, this theory cannot be carried out. Animals are in this law\nprohibited as food whose symbolic meaning elsewhere in Scripture is\nnot always bad, but sometimes good. The lion, for example, as having\npaws, is prohibited as food; and yet it is the symbol of our blessed\nLord, \"the Lion of the tribe of Judah.\" Nor is there the slightest\nevidence that the Hebrews ever attached any such allegorical\nsignificance to the various prescriptions of this chapter as the\ntheory would require.\n\nOther expositors allegorise in a different but no more satisfactory\nmanner. Thus a popular, and, it must be added, most spiritual and\ndevout expositor, sets forth the spiritual meaning of the required\nconjunction of the two marks in clean animals of the chewing of the\ncud and the dividing of the hoof in this wise: \"The two things were\ninseparable in the case of every clean animal. And, as to the\nspiritual application, it is of the very last importance in a\npractical point of view.... A man may profess to love and feed upon,\nto study and ruminate over, the Word of God--the pasture of the soul;\nbut if his footprints along the pathway of life are not such as the\nWord requires, he is not clean.\"\n\nBut it should be evident that such allegorising interpretation as this\ncan carry with it no authority, and sets the door wide open to the\nmost extravagant fancy in the exposition of Scripture.\n\nOthers, again, find the only principle which has determined the laws\nconcerning defilement by the dead, and the clean and unclean meats, to\nbe the presence in that which was reckoned unclean, of something which\nis naturally repulsive to men; whether in odour, or in the food of a\ncreature, or its other habits of life. But while it is true that such\nmarks distinguish many of the creatures reckoned unclean, they are\nwanting in others, and are also found in a few animals which are\nnevertheless permitted. If this had been the determining principle,\nsurely, for example, the law which permitted for food the he-goat and\nforbade the horse, would have been exactly the opposite; while, as\nregards fishes and insects permitted and forbidden, it is hard to see\nany evidence whatever of the influence of this principle.\n\nMuch more plausible, at first sight, and indeed much more nearly\napproaching the truth, than any of the theories above criticised, is\none which has been elaborated with no little learning and ingenuity by\nSommer,[22] according to which the laws concerning the clean and the\nunclean, whether in regard to food or anything else, are all grounded\nin the antithesis of death and life. Death, everywhere in Holy\nScripture, is set in the closest ethical and symbolical connection\nwith sin. Bodily death is the wages of sin; and inasmuch as it is the\noutward physical expression and result of the inner fact that sin, in\nits very nature, is spiritual death, therefore the dead is always held\nto be unclean; and the various laws enforcing this thought are all\nintended to keep before the mind the fact that death is the visible\nrepresentation and evidence of the presence of sin, and the consequent\ncurse of God. Hence, also, it will follow that the selection of foods\nmust be governed by a reference to this principle. The carnivora, on\nthis principle, must be forbidden,--as they are,--because they live by\ntaking the life of other animals; hence, also, is explained the\nexclusion of the multitudinous varieties of the insect world, as\nfeeding on that which is dead and corrupt. On the other hand, the\nanimals which chew the cud and divide the hoof are counted clean;\ninasmuch as the sheep and the cattle, the chief representatives of\nthis class, were by every one recognised as at the furthest possible\nremove from any such connection with death and corruption in their\nmode of life; and hence the familiar marks which distinguish them, as\na matter merely of practical convenience, were taken as those which\nmust distinguish every animal lawful for food.\n\n [22] \"Biblische Abhandlungen,\" pp. 239-270.\n\nBut while this view has been elaborated with great ability and skill,\nit yet fails to account for all the facts. It is quite overlooked that\nif the reason of the prohibition of carnivorous birds and quadrupeds\nis to be found in the fact that they live by the destruction of life,\nthe same reason should have led to the prohibition of all fishes\nwithout exception, as in Egypt; inasmuch as those which have fins and\nscales, no less than others, live by preying on other living\ncreatures. On the other hand, by the same principle, all insects which\nderive their sustenance from the vegetable world should have been\npermitted as food, instead of one order only of these.\n\nWhere so much learning and profound thought has been expended in vain,\none might well hesitate to venture anything in exposition of so\ndifficult a subject, and rest content, as some have, with declaring\nthat the whole subject is utterly inexplicable. And yet the world\nadvances in knowledge, and we are therefore able to approach the\nsubject with some advantage in this respect over earlier generations.\nAnd in the light of the most recent investigations, we believe it\nhighly probable that the chief principle determining the laws of this\nchapter will be found in the region of hygiene and sanitation, as\nrelating, in this instance, to diet, and to the treatment of that\nwhich is dead. And this in view of the following considerations.\n\nIt is of much significance to note, in the first place, that a large\npart of the animals which are forbidden as food are unclean feeders.\nIt is a well-ascertained fact that even the cleanest animal, if its\nfood be unclean, becomes dangerous to health if its flesh be eaten.\nThe flesh of a cow which has drunk water contaminated with typhoid\ngerms, if eaten, especially if insufficiently cooked, may communicate\ntyphoid fever to him who eats it. It is true, indeed, that not all\nanimals that are prohibited are unclean in their food; but the fact\nremains that, on the other hand, among those which are allowed is to\nbe found no animal whose ordinary habits of life, especially in\nrespect of food, are unclean.\n\nBut, in the second place, an animal which is not unclean in its habits\nmay yet be dangerous for food, if it be, for any reason, specially\nliable to disease. One of the greatest discoveries of modern science\nis the fact that a large number of diseases to which animals are\nliable are due to the presence of low forms of parasitic life. To such\ndiseases those which are unclean in their feeding will be especially\nexposed, while none will perhaps be found wholly exempt.\n\nAnother discovery of recent times which has a no less important\nbearing on the question raised by this chapter is the now ascertained\nfact that many of these parasitic diseases are common to both animals\nand men, and may be communicated from the former to the latter. All\nare familiar with the fact that the smallpox, in a modified and mild\nform, is a disease of cattle as well as of men, and we avail ourselves\nof this fact in the practice of vaccination. Scarcely less familiar is\nthe communication of the parasitic trichin\u00e6, which often infest the\nflesh of swine, to those who eat such meat. And research is constantly\nextending the number of such diseases. Turkeys, we are now told, have\nthe diphtheria, and may communicate it to men; men also sometimes take\nfrom horses the loathsome disease known as the glanders. Now in the\nlight of such facts as these, it is plain that an ideal dietary law\nwould, as far as possible, exclude from human food all animals which,\nunder given conditions, might be especially liable to these parasitic\ndiseases, and which, if their flesh should be eaten, might thus become\na frequent medium of communicating them to men.\n\nNow it is a most remarkable and significant fact that the tendency of\nthe most recent investigations of this subject has been to show that\nthe prohibitions and permissions of the Mosaic law concerning food, as\nwe have them in this chapter, become apparently explicable in view of\nthe above facts. Not to refer to other authorities, among the latest\ncompetent testimonies on this subject is that of Dr. Noel Gueneau de\nMussy, in a paper presented to the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1885,\nin which he is quoted as saying: \"There is so close a connection\nbetween the thinking being and the living organism in man, so intimate\na solidarity between moral and material interests, and the useful is\nso constantly and so necessarily in harmony with the good, that these\ntwo elements cannot be separated in hygiene.... It is this combination\nwhich has exercised so great an influence on the preservation of the\nIsraelites, despite the very unfavourable external circumstances in\nwhich they have been placed.... The idea of parasitic and infectious\nmaladies, which has conquered so great a position in modern pathology,\nappears to have greatly occupied the mind of Moses, and to have\ndominated all his hygienic rules. He excludes from Hebrew dietary\n_animals particularly liable to parasites_; and as it is in the blood\nthat the germs or spores of infectious disease circulate, he orders\nthat they must be drained of their blood before serving for food.\"\n\nIf this professional testimony, which is accepted and endorsed by Dr.\nBehrends, of London, in his remarkable paper on \"Diseases caught from\nButcher's Meat,\"[23] be admitted, it is evident that we need look no\nfurther for the explanation of the minute prescriptions of these\ndietary laws which we find here and elsewhere in the Pentateuch.\n\n [23] In _The Nineteenth Century_, September, 1889.\n\nAnd, it may be added, that upon this principle we may also easily\nexplain, in a rational way, the very minute prescriptions of the law\nwith regard to defilement by dead bodies. For immediately upon death\nbegins a process of corruption which produces compounds not only\nobnoxious to the senses, but actively poisonous in character; and what\nis of still more consequence to observe, in the case of all parasitic\nand infectious diseases, the energy of the infection is specially\nintensified when the infected person or animal dies. Hence the careful\nregulations as to cleansing of those persons or things which had been\nthus defiled by the dead; either by water, where practicable; or where\nthe thing could not be thus thoroughly cleansed, then by burning the\narticle with fire, the most certain of all disinfectants.\n\nBut if this be indeed the principle which underlies this law of the\nclean and the unclean as here given, it will then be urged that since\nthe Hebrews have observed this law with strictness for centuries, they\nought to show the evidence of this in a marked immunity from sickness,\nas compared with other nations, and especially from diseases of an\ninfectious character; and a consequent longevity superior to that of\nthe Gentiles who pay no attention to these laws. Now it is the fact,\nand one which evidently furnishes another powerful argument for this\ninterpretation of these laws, that this is exactly what we see. In\nthis matter we are not left to guessing; the facts are before the\nworld, and are undisputed. Even so long ago as the days when the\nplague was desolating Europe, the Jews so universally escaped\ninfection that, by this their exemption, the popular suspicion was\nexcited into fury, and they were accused of causing the fearful\nmortality among their Gentile neighbours by poisoning the wells and\nsprings. In our own day, in the recent cholera epidemic in Italy, a\ncorrespondent of the _Jewish Chronicle_ testifies that the Jews\nenjoyed almost absolute immunity, at least from fatal attack.\n\nProfessor Hosmer says: \"Throughout the entire history of Israel, the\nwisdom of the ancient lawgivers in these respects has been remarkably\nshown. In times of pestilence the Jews have suffered far less than\nothers; as regards longevity and general health, they have in every\nage been noteworthy, and, at the present day, in the life-insurance\noffices, the life of a Jew is said to be worth much more than that of\nmen of other stock.\"\n\nOf the facts in the modern world which sustain these statements, Dr.\nBehrends gives abundant illustration in the article referred to, such\nas the following: \"In Prussia, the mean duration of Jewish life\naverages five years more than that of the general population. In\nFurth, the average duration of Jewish life is 37, and of Christians 26\nyears. In Hungary, an exhaustive study of the facts shows that the\naverage duration of life with the Croats is 20\u00b72, of the Germans 26\u00b77,\nbut of the Jews 46\u00b75 years, and that although the latter generally are\npoor, and live under much more unfavourable sanitary conditions than\ntheir Gentile neighbours.\"\n\nIn the light of such well-certified facts, the conclusion seems\ncertainly to be warranted, that at least one chief consideration\nwhich, in the Divine wisdom, determined the allowance or prohibition,\nas the food of Israel, of the animals named in this chapter, has been\ntheir fitness or unfitness as diet from a hygienic point of view,\nespecially regarding their greater or less liability to have, and to\ncommunicate to man, infectious, parasitic diseases.\n\nFrom this position, if it be justified, we can now perceive a\nsecondary reference in these laws to the deeper ethical truth which,\nwith much reason, Sommer has so emphasised; namely, the moral\nsignificance of the great antithesis of death to life; the former\nbeing ever contrasted in Holy Scripture with the latter, as the\nvisible manifestation of the presence of sin in the world, and of the\nconsequent curse of God. For whatever tends to weakness or disease, by\nthat fact tends to death,--to that death which, according to the\nScriptures, is, for man, the penal consequence of sin. But Israel was\ncalled to be a people redeemed from the power of death to life, a life\nof full consecration to God. Hence, because redeemed from death, it\nwas evidently fitting that the Israelite should, so far as possible in\nthe flesh, keep apart from death, and all that in its nature tended,\nor might specially tend, to disease and death.\n\nIt is very strange that it should have been objected to this view,\nthat since the law declares the reason for these regulations to have\nbeen religious, therefore any supposed reference herein to the\nprinciples of hygiene is by that fact excluded. For surely the\nobligation so to live as to conserve and promote the highest bodily\nhealth must be regarded, both from a natural, and a Biblical and\nChristian point of view, as being no less really a religious\nobligation than truthfulness or honesty. If there appear sufficient\nreason for believing that the details of these laws are to be\nexplained by reference to hygienic considerations, surely this, so far\nfrom contradicting the reason which is given for their observance,\nhelps us rather the more clearly to see how, just because Israel was\ncalled to be the holy people of a holy God, they must needs keep this\nlaw. For the central idea of the Levitical holiness was consecration\nunto God, as the Creator and Redeemer of Israel,--consecration in the\nmost unreserved, fullest possible sense, for the most perfect possible\nservice. But the obligation to such a consecration, as the essence of\na holy character, surely carried with it, by necessary consequence,\nthen, as now, the obligation to maintain all the powers of mind and\nbody also in the highest possible perfection. That, as regards the\nbody, and, in no small degree, the mind as well, this involves the\nduty of the preservation of health, so far as in our power; and that\nthis, again, is conditioned by the use of a proper diet, as one factor\nof prime importance, will be denied by no one. If, then, sufficient\nreason can be shown for recognising the determining influence of\nhygienic considerations in the laws of this chapter concerning the\nclean and the unclean, this fact will only be in the fullest harmony\nwith all that is said in this connection, and elsewhere in the law, as\nto the relation of their observance to Israel's holiness as a\nconsecrated nation.\n\nIt may very possibly be asked, by way of further objection to this\ninterpretation of these laws: Upon this understanding of the immediate\npurpose of these laws, how can we account for the selection of such\ntest marks of the clean and the unclean as the chewing of the cud, and\nthe dividing of the hoof, or having scales and fins? What can the\npresence or absence of these peculiarities have to do with the greater\nor less freedom from parasitic disease of the animals included or\nexcluded in the several classes? To which question the answer may\nfairly be given, that the object of the law was not to give accurately\ndistributed categories of animals, scientifically arranged, according\nto hygienic principles, but was purely practical; namely, to secure,\nso far as possible, the observance by the whole people of such a\ndietary as in the land of Palestine would, on the whole, best tend to\nsecure perfect bodily health. It is not affirmed that every individual\nanimal which by these tests may be excluded from permitted food is\ntherefore to be held specially liable to disease; but only that the\nlimitation of the diet by these test marks, as a practical measure,\nwould, _on the whole_, secure the greatest degree of immunity from\ndisease to those who kept the law.\n\nIt may be objected, again, by some who have looked into this question,\nthat, according to recent researches, it appears that cattle, which\noccupy the foremost place in the permitted diet of the Hebrews, are\nfound to be especially liable to tubercular disease, and capable,\napparently, under certain conditions, of communicating it to those who\nfeed upon their flesh. And it has been even urged that to this source\nis due a large part of the consumption which is responsible for so\nlarge part of our mortality. To which objection two answers may be\ngiven. First, and most important, is the observation that we have as\nyet no statistics as to the prevalence of disease of this kind among\ncattle in Palestine; and that, presumably, if we may argue from the\nclimatic conditions of its prevalence among men, it would be found far\nless frequently there among cattle than in Europe and America.\nFurther, it must be remembered that, in the case even of clean cattle,\nthe law very strictly provides elsewhere that the clean animal which\nis slain for food shall be absolutely free from disease; so that still\nwe see here, no less than elsewhere, the hygienic principles ruling\nthe dietary law.\n\nIt will be perhaps objected, again, that if all this be true, then,\nsince abstinence from unwholesome food is a moral duty, the law\nconcerning clean and unclean meats should be of universal and\nperpetual obligation; whereas, in fact, it is explicitly abrogated in\nthe New Testament, and is not held to be now binding on any one. But\nthe abrogation of the law of Moses touching clean and unclean food can\nbe easily explained, in perfect accord with all that has been said as\nto its nature and intent. In the first place, it is to be remembered\nthat it is a fundamental characteristic of the New Testament law as\ncontrasted with that of the Old, that on all points it leaves much\nmore to the liberty of the individual, allowing him to act according\nto the exercise of an enlightened judgment, under the law of supreme\nlove to the Lord, in many matters which, in the Old Testament day,\nwere made a subject of specific regulation. This is true, for\ninstance, regarding all that relates to the public worship of God, and\nalso many things in the government and administration of the Church,\nnot to speak of other examples. This does not indeed mean that it is\nof no consequence what a man or a Church may do in matters of this\nkind; but it is intended thus to give the individual and the whole\nChurch a discipline of a higher order than is possible under a system\nwhich prescribes a large part of the details of human action.\nSubjection to these \"rudiments\" of the law, according to the Apostle,\nbelongs to a condition of religious minority (Gal. iv. 1-3), and\npasses away when the individual, or the Church, so to speak, attains\nmajority. Precisely so it is in the case of these dietary and other\nlaws, which, indeed, are selected by the Apostle Paul (Col. ii. 20-22)\nin illustration of this characteristic of the new dispensation. That\nsuch matters of detail should no longer be made matter of specific\ncommand is only what we should expect according to the analogy of the\nwhole system of Christian law. This is not, indeed, saying that it is\nof no consequence in a religious point of view what a man eats;\nwhether, for instance, he eat carrion or not, though this, which was\nforbidden in the Old Testament, is nowhere expressly prohibited in the\nNew. But still, as supplying a training of higher order, the New\nTestament uniformly refrains from giving detailed commandments in\nmatters of this kind.\n\nBut, aside from considerations of this kind, there is a specific\nreason why these laws of Moses concerning diet and defilement by dead\nbodies, if hygienic in character, should not have been made, in the\nNew Testament, of universal obligation, however excellent they might\nbe. For it is to be remembered that these laws were delivered for a\npeople few in number, living in a small country, under certain\ndefinite climatic conditions. But it is well known that what is\nunwholesome for food in one part of the world may be, and often is,\nnecessary to the maintenance of health elsewhere. A class of animals\nwhich under the climatic conditions of Palestine may be specially\nliable to certain forms of parasitic disease, under different climatic\nconditions may be comparatively free from them. Abstinence from fat is\ncommanded in the law of Moses (iii. 17), and great moderation in this\nmatter is necessary to health in hot climates; but, on the contrary,\nto eat fat largely is necessary to life in the polar regions. From\nsuch facts as these it would follow, of necessity, that when the\nChurch of God, as under the new dispensation, was now to become a\nworld-wide organisation, still to have insisted on a dietetic law\nperfectly adapted only to Palestine would have been to defeat the\nphysical object, and by consequence the moral end, for which that law\nwas given. Under these conditions, except a special law were to be\ngiven for each land and climate, there was and could be, if we have\nbefore us the true conception of the ground of these regulations, no\nalternative but to abrogate the law.\n\nThis exposition has been much prolonged; but not until we have before\nus a definite conception as to the principle underlying these\nregulations, and the relation of their observance to the holiness of\nIsrael, are we in a position to see and appreciate the moral and\nspiritual lessons which they may still have for us. As it is, if the\nconclusions to which our exposition has conducted be accepted, such\nlessons lie clearly before us. While we have here a law which, as to\nthe letter, is confessedly abrogated, and which is supposed by the\nmost to be utterly removed from any present-day use for practical\ninstruction, it is now evident that, annulled as to the letter, it is\nyet, as to the spirit and intention of it, in full force and vital\nconsequence to holiness of life in all ages.\n\nIn the first place, this exposition being granted, it follows, as a\npresent-day lesson of great moment, that the holiness which God\nrequires has to do with the body as well as the soul, even with such\ncommonplace matters as our eating and drinking. This is so, because\nthe body is the instrument and organ of the soul, with which it must\ndo all its work on earth for God, and because, as such, the body, no\nless than the soul, has been redeemed unto God by the blood of His\nSon. There is, therefore, no religion in neglecting the body, and\nignoring the requirements for its health, as ascetics have in all ages\nimagined. Neither is there religion in pampering, and thus abusing,\nthe body, after the manner of the sensual in all ages. The principle\nwhich inspires this chapter is that which is expressed in the New\nTestament by the words: \"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or\nwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God\" (1 Cor. x. 31). If,\ntherefore, a man needlessly eats such things, or in such a manner, as\nmay be injurious to health, he sins, and has come short of the law of\nperfect holiness. It is therefore not merely a matter of earthly\nprudence to observe the laws of health in food and drink and\nrecreation, in a word, in all that has to do with the appetite and\ndesires of the body, but it is essential to holiness. We are in all\nthese things to seek to glorify God, not only in our souls, but also\nin our bodies.\n\nThe momentous importance of this thought will the more clearly appear\nwhen we recall to mind that, according to the law of Moses (v. 2), if\na man was defiled by any unclean thing, and neglected the cleansing\nordered by this law, even though it were through ignorance or\nforgetfulness, he was held to have incurred guilt before God. For it\nwas therein declared that when a man defiled by contact with the dead,\nor any unclean thing, should for any reason have omitted the cleansing\nordered, his covenant relation with God could only be re-established\non his presentation of a sin-offering. By parity of reasoning it\nfollows that the case is the same now; and that God will hold no man\nguiltless who violates any of those laws which He has established in\nnature as the conditions of bodily health. He who does this is guilty\nof a sin which requires the application of the great atonement.\n\nHow needful it is even in our day to remind men of all this, could not\nbe better illustrated than by the already mentioned argument of many\nexpositors, that hygienic principles cannot have dominated and\ndetermined the details of these laws, because the law declares that\nthey are grounded, not in hygiene, but in religion, and have to do\nwith holiness. As if these two were exclusive, one of the other, and\nas if it made no difference in respect to holiness of character\nwhether a man took care to have a sound body or not!\n\nNo less needful is the lesson of this law to many who are at the\nopposite extreme. For as there are those who are so taken up with the\nsoul and its health, that they ignore its relation to the body, and\nthe bearing of bodily conditions upon character; so there are others\nwho are so preoccupied with questions of bodily health, sanitation and\nhygiene, regarded merely as prudential measures, from an earthly point\nof view, that they forget that man has a soul as well as a body, and\nthat such questions of sanitation and hygiene only find their proper\nplace when it is recognised that health and perfection of the body are\nnot to be sought merely that man may become a more perfect animal, but\nin order that thus, with a sound mind in a sound body, he may the more\nperfectly serve the Lord in the life of holiness to which we are\ncalled. Thus it appears that this forgotten law of the clean and the\nunclean in food, so far from being, at the best, puerile, and for us\nnow certainly quite useless, still teaches us the very important\nlesson that a due regard to wholeness and health of body is essential\nto the right and symmetrical development of holiness of character. In\nevery dispensation, the law of God combines the bodily and the\nspiritual in a sacred synthesis. If in the New Testament we are\ndirected to glorify God in our spirits, we are no less explicitly\ncommanded to glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. vi. 20). And thus is\ngiven to the laws of health the high sanction of the Divine obligation\nof the moral law, as summed up in the closing words of this chapter:\n\"Be ye holy; for I am holy.\"\n\nThis law concerning things unclean, and clean and unclean animals, as\nthus expounded, is also an apologetic of no small value. It has a\ndirect and evident bearing on the question of the Divine origin and\nauthority of this part of the law. For the question will at once come\nup in every reflecting mind: Whence came this law? Could it have been\nmerely an invention of crafty Jewish priests? Or is it possible to\naccount for it as the product merely of the mind of Moses? It appears\nto have been ordered with respect to certain facts, especially\nregarding various invisible forms of noxious parasitic life, in their\nbearing on the causation and propagation of disease,--facts which,\neven now, are but just appearing within the horizon of modern science.\nIs it probable that Moses knew about these things three thousand years\nago? Certainly, the more we study the matter, the more we must feel\nthat this is not to be supposed.\n\nIt is common, indeed, to explain much that seems very wise in the law\nof Moses by referring to the fact that he was a highly educated man,\n\"instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.\" But it is just this\nfact of his Egyptian education that makes it in the last degree\nimprobable that he should have derived the ideas of this law from\nEgypt. Could he have taken his ideas with regard, for instance, to\ndefilement by the dead, from a system of education which taught the\ncontrary, and which, so far from regarding those who had to do with\nthe dead as unclean, held them especially sacred? And so with regard\nto the dietetic laws: these are not the laws of Egypt; nor have we any\nevidence that those were determined, like these Hebrew laws, by such\nscientific facts as those to which we have referred.[24] In this day,\nwhen, at last, men of all schools, and those with most scientific\nknowledge, most of all, are joining to extol the exact wisdom of this\nancient law, a wisdom which has no parallel in like laws among other\nnations, is it not in place to press this question? Whence had this\nman this unique wisdom, three thousand years in advance of his times?\nThere are many who will feel compelled to answer, even as Holy\nScripture answers; even as Moses, according to the record, answers.\nThe secret of this wisdom will be found, not in the court of Pharaoh,\nbut in the holy tent of meeting; it is all explained if we but assume\nthat what is written in the first verse of this chapter is true: \"The\nLord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron.\"\n\n [24] See above, p. 290-292.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n_OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF ISSUES._\n\nLEV. xv. 1-33.\n\n\nInasmuch as the law concerning defilement from issues is presupposed\nand referred to in that concerning the defilement of child-bearing, in\nchap. xii., it will be well to consider this before the latter. For\nthis order there is the more reason, because, as will appear, although\nthe two sections are separated, in the present arrangement of the\nbook, by the law concerning defilement by leprosy (xiii., xiv.), they\nboth refer to the same general topic, and are based upon the same\nmoral conceptions.\n\nThe arrangement of the law in chap. xv. is very simple. Verses 2-18\ndeal with the cases of ceremonial defilement by issues in men; vv.\n19-30, with analogous cases in women. The principle in both classes is\none and the same; the issue, whether normal or abnormal, rendered the\nperson affected unclean; only, when abnormal, the defilement was\nregarded as more serious than in other cases, not only in a physical,\nbut also in a ceremonial and legal aspect. In all such cases, in\naddition to the washing with water which was always required, it was\ncommanded that on the eighth day from the time of the cessation of the\nissue, the person who had been so affected should come before the\npriest and present for his cleansing a sin-offering and a\nburnt-offering.\n\nWhat now is the principle which underlies these regulations?\n\nIn seeking the answer to this question, we at once note the suggestive\nfact that this law concerning issues takes cognisance only of such as\nare connected with the sexual organisation. All others, however, in\nthemselves, from a merely physical point of view, equally unwholesome\nor loathsome, are outside the purview of the Mosaic code. They do not\nrender the person affected, according to the law, ceremonially\nunclean. It is therefore evident that the lawgiver must have had\nbefore him something other than merely the physical peculiarities of\nthese defilements, and that, for the true meaning of this part of the\nlaw, we must look deeper than the surface. It should also be observed\nhere that this characteristic of the law just mentioned, places the\nlaw of issues under the same general category with the law (chap.\nxii.) concerning the uncleanness of child-bearing, as indeed the\nlatter itself intimates (xii. 2). The question thus arises: Why are\nthese particular cases, and such as these only, regarded as\nceremonially defiling?\n\nTo see the reason of this, we must recur to facts which have already\ncome before us. When our first parents sinned, death was denounced\nagainst them as the penalty of their sin. Such had been the threat:\n\"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.\" The death\ndenounced indeed affected the whole being, the spiritual as well as\nthe physical nature of man; but it comprehended the death of the body,\nwhich thus became, what it still is, the most impressive manifestation\nof the presence of sin in every person who dies. Hence, as we have\nseen, the law kept this connection between sin and death steadily\nbefore the mind, in that it constantly applied the principle that the\ndead defiles. Not only so, but, for this reason, such things as tended\nto bring death were also reckoned unclean; and thus the regulations of\nthe law concerning clean and unclean meats, while strictly hygienic in\ncharacter, were yet grounded in this profound ethical fact of the\nconnection between sin and death; had man not sinned, nothing in the\nworld had been able to bring in death, and all things had been clean.\nFor the same reason, again, leprosy, as exemplifying in a vivid and\nterrible way disease as a progressive death, a living manifestation of\nthe presence of the curse of God, and therefore of the presence of\nsin, a type of all disease, was regarded as involving ceremonial\ndefilement, and therefore as requiring sacrificial cleansing.\n\nBut in the curse denounced upon our first parents was yet more. It was\nspecially taught that the curse should affect the generative power of\nthe race. For we read (Gen. iii. 16): \"Unto the woman He said, I will\ngreatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt\nbring forth children.\" Whatever these words may precisely mean, it is\nplain that they are intended to teach that, because of sin, the curse\nof God fell in some mysterious way upon the sexual organisation. And\nalthough the woman only is specifically mentioned, as being \"first in\nthe transgression,\" that the curse fell also upon the same part of\nman's nature is plain from the words in Gen. v. 3, where the long\nmortuary record of the antediluvians is introduced by the profoundly\nsignificant statement that Adam began the long line, with its\ninheritance of death, by begetting a son \"in his own likeness, after\nhis image.\" Fallen himself under the curse of death, physical and\nspiritual, he therewith lost the capacity to beget a creature like\nhimself in his original state, in the image of God, and could only be\nthe means of bringing into the world a creature who was an inheritor\nof physical weakness and spiritual and bodily death.\n\nIn the light of this ancient record, which must have been before the\nmind of the Hebrew lawgiver, we can now see why the law concerning\nunclean issues should have had special relation to that part of man's\nphysical organisation which has to do with the propagation of the\nrace. Just as death defiled, because it was a visible representation\nof the presence of the curse of God, and thus of sin, as the ground of\nthe curse, even so was it with all the issues specified in this law.\nThey were regarded as making a man unclean, because they were\nmanifestations of the curse in a part of man's nature which, according\nto the Word of God, sin has specially affected. For this reason they\nfell under the same law as death. They separated the person thus\naffected from the congregation, and excluded him from the public\nworship of a holy God, as making him \"unclean.\"\n\nIt is impossible now to miss the spiritual meaning of these laws\nconcerning issues of this class. In that these alone, out of many\nothers, which from a merely physical point of view are equally\noffensive, were taken under the cognisance of this law, the fact was\nthereby symbolically emphasised that the fountain of life in man is\ndefiled. To be a sinner were bad enough, if it only involved the\nvoluntary and habitual practice of sin. But this law of issues\ntestifies to us, even now, that, as God sees man's case, it is far\nworse than this. The evil of sin is so deeply seated that it could lie\nno deeper. The curse has in such manner fallen on our being, as that\nin man and woman the powers and faculties which concern the\npropagation of their kind have fallen under the blight. All that any\nson of Adam can now do is to beget a son in his own physical and moral\nimage, an heir of death, and by nature unclean and unholy.\nSufficiently distasteful this truth is in all ages; but in none\nperhaps ever more so than our own, in which it has become a\nfundamental postulate of much popular theology, and of popular\npolitics as well, that man is naturally not bad, but good, and, on the\nwhole, is doing as well as under the law of evolution, and considering\nhis environment, can reasonably be expected. The spiritual principle\nwhich underlies the law concerning defilement by issues, as also that\nconcerning the uncleanness of child-bearing, assumes the exact\nopposite.\n\nIt is indeed true that similar causes of ceremonial uncleanness have\nbeen recognised in ancient and in modern times among many other\npeoples. But this is no objection to the truth of the interpretation\nof the Mosaic law here given. For in so far as there is genuine\nagreement, the fact may rather confirm than weaken the argument for\nthis view of the case, as showing that there is an ineradicable\ninstinct in the heart of man which connects all that directly or\nindirectly has to do with the continuance of our race, in a peculiar\ndegree, with the ideas of uncleanness and shame. And, on the other\nhand, the differences in such cases from the Mosaic law show us just\nwhat we should expect,--a degree of moral confusion and a deadening of\nthe moral sense among the heathen nations, which is most significant.\nAs has been justly remarked, the Hindoo has one law on this subject\nfor the Brahman, another for others; the outcast for some deadly sin,\noften of a purely frivolous nature, and a new-born child, are reckoned\nequally unclean. Or,--to take the case of a people contemporary with\nthe Hebrews,--among the ancient Chaldeans, while these same issues\nwere accounted ceremonially defiling, as in the law of Moses, with\nthese were also reckoned in the same category, as unclean, whatsoever\nwas separated from the body, even to the cuttings of the hair and the\nparings of the nails. Evidently, we thus have here, not likeness, but\na profound and most suggestive moral contrast between the Chaldean and\nthe Hebrew law. Of the profound ethical truth which vitalises and\ngives deep significance to the law of Moses, we find no trace in the\nother system. And it is no wonder if, indeed, the one law is, as\ndeclared, a revelation from the holy God, and the other the work of\nsinful and sin-blinded man.\n\nIt is another moral lesson which is brought before us in these laws\nthat, as God looks at the matter, sin pertains not only to action, but\nalso to being. Not only actions, from which we can abstain, but\noperations of nature which we cannot help, alike defile; defile in\nsuch a manner and degree as to require, even as voluntary acts of sin,\nthe cleansing of water, and the expiatory blood of a sin-offering. One\ncould not avoid many of the defilements mentioned in this chapter, but\nthat made no difference; he was unclean. For the lesser grades of\nuncleanness it sufficed that one be purified by washing with water;\nand a sin-offering was only required when this purification had been\nneglected; but in all cases where the defilement assumed its extreme\nform, the sin-offering and the burnt-offering must be brought, and be\noffered for the unclean person by the priest. So is it, we are taught,\nwith that sin of nature which these cases symbolised; we cannot help\nit, and yet the washing of regeneration and the cleansing of the blood\nof Christ is required for its removal. Very impressive in its teaching\nnow becomes the miracle in which our Lord healed the poor woman\nafflicted with the issue of blood (Mark v. 25-34), for which she had\nvainly sought cure. It was a case like that covered by the law in\nchap. xv. 25-27; and he who will read and consider the provisions of\nthat law will understand, as otherwise he could not, how great her\ntrial and how heavy her burden must have been. He will wonder also, as\nnever before, at the boldness of her faith, who, although, according\nto the law, her touch should defile the Lord, yet ventured to believe\nthat not only should this not be so, but that the healing power which\nwent forth from Him should neutralise the defilement, and carry\nhealing virtue to the very centre of her life. Thus, if other miracles\nrepresent our Lord as meeting the evil of sin in its various\nmanifestations in action, this miracle represents His healing power as\nreaching to the very source and fountain of life, where it is needed\nno less.\n\nThe law concerning the removal of these defilements, after all that\nhas preceded, will admit only of one interpretation. The washing of\nwater is the uniform symbol of the cleansing of the soul from\npollution by the power of the Holy Ghost; the sacrifices point to the\nsacrifice of Christ, in its twofold aspect as burnt-offering and\nsin-offering, as required by and availing for the removal of the\nsinful defilement which, in the mind of God, attaches even to that in\nhuman nature which is not under the control of the will. At the same\ntime, whereas in all these cases the sin-offering prescribed is the\nsmallest known to the law, it is symbolised, in full accord with the\nteaching of conscience, that the gravity of the defilement, where\nthere has not been the active concurrence of the will, is less than\nwhere the will has seconded nature. In all cases of prolonged\ndefilement from these sources, it was required that the affected\nperson should still be regarded as unclean for seven days after the\ncessation of the infirmity, and on the eighth day came the sacrificial\ncleansing. The significance of the seven as the covenant number, the\nnumber also wherein was completed the old creation, has been already\nbefore us: that of \"the eighth\" will best be considered in connection\nwith the provisions of chap. xii., to which we next turn our\nattention.\n\nThe law of this chapter has a formal closing, in which are used these\nwords (ver. 31): \"Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from\ntheir uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they\ndefile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them.\"\n\nOf which the natural meaning is this, that the defilements mentioned,\nas conspicuous signs of man's fallen condition, were so offensive\nbefore a holy God, as apart from these purifications to have called\ndown the judgment of death on those in whom they were found. In these\nwords lies also the deeper spiritual thought--if we have rightly\napprehended the symbolic import of these regulations--that not only,\nas in former cases mentioned under the law of offerings, do voluntary\nacts of sin separate from God and if unatoned for call down His\njudgment, but that even our infirmities and the involuntary motions of\nsin in our nature have the same effect, and, apart from the cleansing\nof the Holy Spirit and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, ensure the\nfinal judgment of death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n_THE UNCLEANNESS OF CHILD-BEARING._\n\nLEV. xii. 1-8.\n\n\nThe reference in xii. 2 to the regulations given in xv. 19, as\nremarked in the preceding chapter, shows us that the author of these\nlaws regarded the circumstances attending child-birth as falling under\nthe same general category, in a ceremonial and symbolic aspect, as the\nlaw of issues. As a special case, however, the law concerning\nchild-birth presents some very distinctive and instructive features.\n\nThe period during which the mother was regarded as unclean, in the\nfull comprehension of that term, was seven days, as in the analogous\ncase mentioned in xv. 19, with the remarkable exception, that when she\nhad borne a daughter this period was doubled. At the expiration of\nthis period of seven days, her ceremonial uncleanness was regarded as\nin so far lessened that the restrictions affecting the ordinary\nrelations of life, as ordered, xv. 19-23, were removed. She was not,\nhowever, yet allowed to touch any hallowed thing or to come into the\nsanctuary, until she had fulfilled, from the time of the birth of the\nchild, if a son, forty days; if a daughter, twice forty, or eighty\ndays. At the expiration of the longer period, she was to bring, as in\nthe law concerning the prolonged issue of blood (xv. 25-30), a\nburnt-offering and a sin-offering unto the door of the tent of\nmeeting, wherewith the priest was to make an atonement for her; when\nfirst she should be accounted clean, and restored to full covenant\nprivileges. The only difference from the similar law in chap. xv. is\nin regard to the burnt-offering commanded, which was larger and more\ncostly,--a lamb, instead of a turtle dove, or a young pigeon. Still,\nin the same spirit of gracious accommodation to the poor which was\nillustrated in the general law of the sin-offering, it was ordered\n(ver. 8.): \"If her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take\ntwo turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt offering,\nand the other for a sin offering.\" The law then applied, according to\nxv. 29, 30. A gracious provision this was, as all will remember, of\nwhich the mother of our Lord availed herself (Luke ii. 22-24), as\nbeing one of those who were too poor to bring a lamb for a\nburnt-offering.\n\nTo the meaning of these regulations, the key is found in the same\nconceptions which we have seen to underlie the law concerning issues.\nIn the birth of a child, the special original curse against the woman\nis regarded by the law as reaching its fullest, most consummate and\nsignificant expression. For the extreme evil of the state of sin into\nwhich the first woman, by that first sin, brought all womanhood, is\nseen most of all in this, that now woman, by means of those powers\ngiven her for good and blessing, can bring into the world only a child\nof sin. And it is, apparently, because we here see the operation of\nthis curse in its most conspicuous form, that the time of her enforced\nseparation from the tabernacle worship is prolonged to a period of\nforty or eighty days.\n\nIt has been usual to speak of the time of the mother's uncleanness,\nand subsequent continued exclusion from the tabernacle worship, as\nbeing doubled in the case of the birth of a daughter; but it were,\nperhaps, more accurate to regard the normal length of these periods as\nbeing respectively fourteen and eighty days, of which the former is\ndouble of that required in xv. 28. This normal period would then be\nmore properly regarded as shortened by one half in the case of a male\nchild, in virtue of his circumcision on the eighth day.\n\n\nTHE ORDINANCE OF CIRCUMCISION.\n\nxii. 3.\n\n \"And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be\n circumcised.\"\n\nAlthough the rite of circumcision here receives a new and special\nsanction, it had been appointed long before by God as the sign of His\ncovenant with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 10-14). Nor was circumcision,\nprobably, even then a new thing. That the ancient Egyptians practised\nit is well known; so also did the Arabs and Phoenicians; in fact, the\ncustom has been very extensively observed, not only by nations with\nwhom the Israelites came in contact, but by others who have not had,\nin historic times, connection with any civilised peoples; as, for\nexample, the Congo negroes, and certain Indian tribes in South\nAmerica.\n\nThe fundamental idea connected with circumcision, by most of the\npeoples who have practised it, appears to have been physical\npurification; indeed, the Arabs call it by the name _tatur_, which has\nthis precise meaning. And it deserves to be noticed that for this idea\nregarding circumcision there is so much reason in fact, that high\nmedical authorities have attributed to it a real hygienic value,\nespecially in warm climates.\n\nNo one need feel any difficulty in supposing that this common\nconception attached to the rite also in the minds of the Hebrews.\nRather all the more fitting it was, if there was a basis in fact for\nthis familiar opinion, that God should thus have taken a ceremony\nalready known to the surrounding peoples, and in itself of a wholesome\nphysical effect, and constituted it for Abraham and his seed a symbol\nof an analogous spiritual fact; namely, the purification of sin at its\nfountain-head, the cleansing of the evil nature with which we all are\nborn. It should be plain enough that it makes nothing against this as\nthe true interpretation of the rite, even if that be granted which\nsome have claimed, that it has had, in some instances, a connection\nwith the phallic worship so common in the East, or that it has been\nregarded by some as a sacrificial ceremony. Only the more noteworthy\nwould it thus appear that the Hebrews should have held strictly to\nthat view of its significance which had a solid basis in physical\nfact,--a fact, moreover, which made it a peculiarly fitting symbol of\nthe spiritual grace which the Biblical writers connect with it. For\nthat it was so regarded by them will not be disputed. In this very\nbook (xxvi. 41) we read of an \"uncircumcised heart;\" as also in\nDeuteronomy, the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and other books\nof Scripture.\n\nAll this, as intimating the signification of circumcision as here\nenjoined, is further established by the New Testament references. Of\nthese the most formal is perhaps that in Col. ii. 10, 11, where we\nread that believers in Christ, in virtue of their union with Him in\nwhom the unclean nature has been made clean, are said to be\n\"circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting\noff of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;\" so that\nPaul elsewhere writes to the Philippians (iii. 3): \"We are the\ncircumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ\nJesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.\"\n\nAnd that God, in selecting this ancient rite to be the sign of His\ncovenant in the flesh of Abraham and his seed (Gen. xvii. 13), had\nregard to the deep spiritual meaning which it could so naturally carry\nis explicitly declared by the Apostle Paul (Rom. iv. 11), who tells us\nthat this sign of circumcision was \"a seal of the righteousness of\nfaith,\" even the righteousness and the faith concerning which, in the\nprevious context, he was arguing; and which are still, for all men,\nthe one, the ground, and the other, the condition, of salvation. It is\ntruly strange that, in the presence of these plain words of the\nApostle, any should still cling to the idea that circumcision had\nreference only to the covenant with Israel as a nation, and not, above\nall, to this profound spiritual truth which is basal to salvation,\nwhether for the Jew or for the Gentile.\n\nAnd so, when the Hebrew infant was circumcised, it signified for him\nand for his parents these spiritual realities. It was an outward sign\nand seal of the covenant of God with Abraham and with his seed, to be\na God to him and to his seed after him; and it signified further that\nthis covenant of God was to be carried out and made effectual only\nthrough the putting away of the flesh, the corrupt nature with which\nwe are born, and of all that belongs to it, in order that, thus\ncircumcised with the circumcision of the heart, every child of Abraham\nmight indeed be an Israelite in whom there should be no guile.\n\nAnd the law commands, in accord with the original command to Abraham,\nthat the circumcision should take place on the eighth day. This is the\nmore noticeable, that among other nations which practised, or still\npractise, the rite, the time is different. The Egyptians, for example,\ncircumcised their sons between the sixth and tenth years, and the\nmodern Mohammedans between the twelfth and fourteenth year. What is\nthe significance of this eighth day?\n\nIn the first place, it is easy to see that we have in this direction a\nprovision of God's mercy; for if delayed beyond infancy or early\nchildhood, as among many other peoples, the operation is much more\nserious, and may even involve some danger; while in so early infancy\nit is comparatively trifling, and attended with no risk.\n\nFurther, by the administration of circumcision at the very opening of\nlife, it is suggested that in the Divine ideal the grace which was\nsignified thereby, of the cleansing of nature, was to be bestowed upon\nthe child, not first at a late period of life, but from its very\nbeginning, thus anticipating the earliest awakening of the principle\nof inborn sin. It was thus signified that before ever the child knew,\nor could know, the grace that was seeking to save him, he was to be\ntaken into covenant relation with God. So even under the strange form\nof this ordinance we discover the same mind that was in Him who said\nconcerning infant children (Luke xviii. 16): \"Suffer the little\nchildren to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the\nkingdom of God.\" Thus we may well recollect, in passing, that,\nalthough the law has passed away in the Levitical form, the mind of\nthe Lawgiver concerning the little children of His people, is still\nthe same.\n\nBut the question still remains, Why was the eighth day selected, and\nnot rather, for instance, the sixth or the seventh, which would have\nno less perfectly represented these ideas? The answer is to be found\nin the symbolic significance of the eighth day. As the old creation\nwas completed in six days, with a following Sabbath of rest, so that\nsix is ever the number of the old creation, as under imperfection and\nsin; the eighth day, which is the first day of a new week, everywhere\nin Scripture appears as the number symbolic of the new creation, in\nwhich all things shall be restored in the great redemption through the\nSecond Adam. The thought finds its fullest expression in the\nresurrection of Christ, as the First-born from the dead, the Beginning\nand the Lord of the new creation, who in His resurrection-body\nmanifested the first-fruits in physical life of the new creation,\nrising from the dead on the first, or, in other words, the day after\nthe seventh, the eighth day. This gives the key to the use of the\nnumber eight in the Mosaic symbolism. Thus in the law of the cleansing\nof the man or the woman that had an issue, the sacrifices which\neffectuated their formal deliverance from the curse under which,\nthrough the weakness of their old nature, they had suffered, were to\nbe offered on the eighth day (xv. 14, 29); the priestly cleansing of\nthe leper from the taint of his living death was also effected on the\neighth day (xiv. 10); so also the cleansing of the Nazarite who had\nbeen defiled by the dead (Numb. vi. 10). So also the holy convocation\nwhich closed the feast of tabernacles or ingathering--the feast which,\nas we shall see, typically prefigured the great harvest of which\nChrist was the First-fruits--was ordained, in like manner, for the\neighth day (xxiii. 36). With good reason, then, was circumcision\nordered for the eighth day, seeing that what it symbolically\nsignified was precisely this: the putting off of the flesh with which\nwe are born through the circumcision of Christ, and therewith the\nfirst beginning of a new and purified nature--a change so profound and\nradical, and in which the Divine efficiency is so immediately\nconcerned, that Paul said of it that if any man was in Christ, in\nwhose circumcision we are circised (Col. ii. 11), \"there is a new\ncreation\" (2 Cor. v. 17, margin, R.V.).\n\n\nPURIFICATION AFTER CHILD-BIRTH.\n\nxii. 4-8.\n\n \"And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and\n thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the\n sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if\n she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in\n her impurity: and she shall continue in the blood of her\n purifying threescore and six days. And when the days of her\n purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall\n bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young\n pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the\n tent of meeting, unto the priest: and he shall offer it before\n the Lord, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed\n from the fountain of her blood. This is the law for her that\n beareth, whether a male or a female. And if her means suffice not\n for a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves, or two young\n pigeons; the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin\n offering: and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she\n shall be clean.\"\n\nUntil the circumcision of the new-born child, on the eighth day, he\nwas regarded by the law as ceremonially still in a state of nature,\nand therefore as symbolically unclean. For this reason, again, the\nmother who had brought him into the world, and whose life was so\nintimately connected with his life, was regarded as unclean also.\nUnclean, under analogous circumstances, according to the law of xv.\n19, she was reckoned doubly unclean in this case,--unclean because of\nher issue, and unclean because of her connection with this child,\nuncircumcised and unclean. But when the symbolic cleansing of the\nchild took place by the ordinance of circumcision, then her\nuncleanness, so far as occasioned by her immediate relation to him,\ncame to an end. She was not indeed completely restored; for, according\nto the law, in her still continuing condition, it was impossible that\nshe should be allowed to come into the tabernacle of the Lord, or\ntouch any hallowed thing; but the ordinance which admitted her child,\nadmitted her also again to the fellowship of the covenant people.\n\nThe longer period of forty--or, in the case of the birth of a female\nchild, of twice forty--days must also be explained upon symbolical\ngrounds. Some have indeed attempted to account for these periods, as\nalso for the difference in their length in the two cases, by a\nreference to beliefs of the ancients with regard to the physical\ncondition of the mother during these periods; but such notions of the\nancients are not justified by facts; nor, especially, would they by\nany means account for the greatly prolonged period of eighty days in\nthe case of the female child. It is possible that in the forty, and\ntwice forty, we may have a reference to the forty weeks during which\nthe life of the unborn child had been identified with that of the\nmother,--a child which, it must be remembered, according to the\nuniform Biblical view, was not innocent, but conceived in sin; for\neach week of which connection of life, the mother suffered a judicial\nexclusion of one, or, in the case of the birth of a daughter, of two\ndays; the time being doubled in the latter case with allusion to the\ndouble curse which, according to Genesis, rested upon the woman, as\n\"first in the transgression.\" But, apart from this, however difficult\nit may be to give a satisfactory explanation of the fact, it is\ncertain that throughout Scripture the number forty appears to have a\nsymbolic meaning; and one can usually trace in its application a\nreference, more or less distinct, to the conception of trial or\ntesting. Thus for forty days was Moses in the mount,--a time of\ntesting for Israel, as for him: forty days, the spies explored the\npromised land; forty years, Israel was tried in the wilderness; forty\ndays, abode Elijah in the wilderness; forty days, also, was our Lord\nfasting in the wilderness; and forty days, again, He abode in\nresurrection life upon the earth.\n\nThe forty (or eighty) days ended, the mother was now formally\nreinstated in the fulness of her privileges as a daughter of Israel.\nThe ceremonial, as in the law of issues, consisted in the presentation\nof a burnt-offering and a sin-offering, with the only variation that,\nwherever possible, the burnt-offering must be a young lamb, instead of\na dove or pigeon; the reason for which variation is to be found either\nin the fact that the burnt-offering was to represent not herself\nalone, but also her child, or, possibly, as some have suggested, it\nwas because she had been so much longer excluded from the tabernacle\nservice than in the other case.[25]\n\n [25] This latter reason, however, would rather appear to have\n demanded, as in the case of the leper, a guilt-offering.\n\nThe teaching of this law, then, is twofold: it concerns, first, the\nwoman; and, secondly, the child which she bears. As regards the woman,\nit emphasises the fact that, because \"first in the trangression,\" she\nis under special pains and penalties in virtue of her sex. The\ncapacity of motherhood, which is her crown and her glory, though still\na precious privilege, has yet been made, because of sin, an\ninevitable instrument of pain, and that because of her relation to the\nfirst sin. We are thus reminded that the specific curse denounced\nagainst the woman, as recorded in the book of Genesis, is no dead\nletter, but a fact. No doubt, the conception is one which raises\ndifficulties which in themselves are great, and to modern thought are\ngreater than ever. Nevertheless, the fact abides unaltered, that even\nto this day woman is under special pains and disabilities, inseparably\nconnected with her power of motherhood. Modern theorists, men and\nwomen with nineteenth-century notions concerning politics and\neducation, may persist in ignoring this; but the fact abides, and\ncannot be got rid of by passing resolutions in a mass-meeting, or even\nby Act of Parliament or Congress.\n\nAnd so, as it is useless to object to facts, it is only left to object\nto the Mosaic view of the facts, which connects them with sin, and, in\nparticular, with the first sin. Why should all the daughters of Eve\nsuffer because of her sin? Where is the justice in such an ordinance?\nA question this is to which we cannot yet give any satisfactory\nanswer. But it does not follow that because in any proposition there\nare difficulties which at present we are unable to solve, therefore\nthe proposition is false. And, further, it is important to observe\nthat this law, under which womanhood abides, is after all only a\nspecial case under that law of the Divine government which is\nannounced in the second commandment, by which the iniquities of the\nfathers are visited upon the children. It is most certainly a law\nwhich, to our apprehension, suggests great moral difficulties, even to\nthe most reverent spirits; but it is no less certainly a law which\nrepresents a conspicuous and tremendous fact, which is illustrated,\nfor instance, in the family of every drunkard in the world. And it is\nwell worth observing, that while the ceremonial law, which was\nspecially intended to keep this fact before the mind and the\nconscience, is abrogated, the fact that woman is still under certain\nDivinely imposed disabilities because of that first sin, is reaffirmed\nin the New Testament, and is by apostolic authority applied in the\nadministration of Church government. For Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim.\nii. 12, 13): \"I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over\na man.... For Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath\nfallen into transgression.\" Modern theorists, and so-called\n\"reformers\" in Church, State, and society, busy with their social,\ngovernmental, and ecclesiastical novelties, would do well to heed this\napostolic reminder.\n\nAll the more beautiful, as against this dark background of mystery, is\nthe word of the Apostle which follows, wherein he reminds us that,\nthrough the grace of God, even by means of those very powers of\nmotherhood on which the curse has so heavily fallen, has come the\nredemption of the woman; so that \"she shall be saved through the\nchildbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification\nwith sobriety\" (1 Tim. ii. 15, R.V.); seeing that \"in Christ Jesus,\"\nin respect of the completeness and freeness of salvation, \"there can\nbe no male and female\" (Gal. iii. 28, R.V.).\n\nBut, in the second place, we may also derive abiding instruction from\nthis law, concerning the child which is of man begotten and of woman\nborn. It teaches us that not only has the curse thus fallen on the\nwoman, but that, because she is herself a sinful creature, she can\nonly bring forth another sinful creature like herself; and if a\ndaughter, then a daughter inheriting all her own peculiar infirmities\nand disabilities. The law, as regards both mother and child,\nexpresses in the language of symbolism those words of David in his\npenitential confession (Psalm li. 5): \"Behold, I was shapen in\niniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.\" Men may\ncontemptuously call this \"theology,\" or even rail at it as\n\"Calvinism;\" but it is more than theology, more than Calvinism; it is\na _fact_, to which until this present time history has seen but one\nexception, even that mysterious Son of the Virgin, who claimed,\nhowever, to be no mere man, but the Christ, the Son of the Blessed!\n\nAnd yet many, who surely can think but superficially upon the solemn\nfacts of life, still object to this most strenuously, that even the\nnew-born child should be regarded as in nature sinful and unclean.\nDifficulty here we must all admit,--difficulty so great that it is\nhard to overstate it--regarding the bearing of this fact on the\ncharacter of the holy and merciful God, who in the beginning made man.\nAnd yet, surely, deeper thought must confess that herein the Mosaic\nview of infant nature--a view which is assumed and taught throughout\nHoly Scripture--however humbling to our natural pride, is only in\nstrictest accord with what the admitted principles of the most exact\nscience compel us to admit. For whenever, in any case, we find all\ncreatures of the same class doing, under all circumstances, any one\nthing, we conclude that the reason for this can only lie in the nature\nof such creatures, antecedent to any influence of a tendency to\nimitation. If, for instance, the ox everywhere and always eats the\ngreen thing of the earth, and not flesh, the reason, we say, is found\nsimply in the nature of the ox as he comes into being. So when we see\nall men, everywhere, under all circumstances, as soon as ever they\ncome to the time of free moral choice, always choosing and committing\nsin, what can we conclude--regarding this, not as a theological, but\nmerely as a scientific question--but that man, as he comes into the\nworld, must have a sinful nature? And this being so, then why must not\nthe law of heredity apply, according to which, by a law which knows of\nno exceptions, like ever produces its like?\n\nLeast of all, then, should those object to the view of child-nature\nwhich is represented in this law of Leviticus, who accept these\ncommonplaces of modern science as representing facts. Wiser it were to\nturn attention to the other teaching of the law, that, notwithstanding\nthese sad and humiliating facts, there is provision made by God,\nthrough the cleansing by grace of the very nature in which we are\nborn, and atonement for the sin which without our fault we inherit,\nfor a complete redemption from all the inherited corruption and guilt.\n\nAnd, last of all, especially should Christian parents with joy and\nthankfulness receive the manifest teaching of this law,--teaching\nreaffirmed by our blessed Lord in the New Testament,--that God our\nFather offers to parental faith Himself to take in hand our children,\neven from the earliest beginning of their infant days, and, purifying\nthe fountain of their life through \"a circumcision made without\nhands,\" receive the little ones into covenant relation with Himself,\nto their eternal salvation. And thus is the word of the Apostle\nfulfilled: \"Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:\nthat, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through\nrighteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n_THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY._\n\nLEV. xiii. 1-46.\n\n\nThe interpretation of this chapter presents no little difficulty. The\ndescription of the diseases with which the law here deals is not given\nin a scientific form; the point of view, as the purpose of all, is\nstrictly practical. As for the Hebrew word rendered \"leprosy,\" it does\nnot itself give any light as to the nature of the disease thus\ndesignated. The word simply means \"a stroke,\" as also does the generic\nterm used in ver. 2 and elsewhere, and translated \"plague.\" Inasmuch\nas the Septuagint translators rendered the former term by the Greek\nword \"_lepra_\" (whence our word \"leprosy\"), and as, it is said, the\nold Greek physicians comprehended under that term only such scaly\ncutaneous eruptions as are now known as _psoriasis_ (_vulg._,\n\"salt-rheum\"), and for what is now known as leprosy reserved the term\n\"elephantiasis,\"[26] it has been therefore urged by high authority\nthat in these chapters is no reference to the leprosy of modern\nspeech, but only to some disease or diseases much less serious,\neither psoriasis or some other, consisting, like that, of a scaly\neruption on the skin.[27] To the above argument it is also added that\nthe signs which are given for the recognition of the disease intended,\nare not such as we should expect if it were the modern leprosy; as,\nfor example, there is no mention of the insensibility of the skin,\nwhich is so characteristic a feature of the disease, at least, in a\nvery common variety; moreover, we find in this chapter no allusion to\nthe hideous mutilation which so commonly results from leprosy.\n\n [26] This word, it should be noted, is now popularly used to\n denote a disease quite distinct from leprosy, known also as\n \"Barbadoes leg,\" which consists essentially of an elephantine\n enlargement of the lower extremities.\n\n [27] This opinion has been ably argued by Sir Risdon Bennett,\n M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., in \"By-paths of Bible Knowledge,\" vol. ix.,\n \"The Diseases of the Bible.\"\n\nWhen the use of the Hebrew term rendered \"leprosy\" is examined, in\nthis law and elsewhere, it certainly seems to be used with great\ndefiniteness to describe a disease which had as a very characteristic\nfeature a whitening of the skin throughout, together with other marks\ncommon to the early stages of leprosy as given in this chapter. Only\nin ver. 12 does the Hebrew word appear to be applied to a disease of a\ndifferent character, though also marked by the whitening of the skin.\nAs for the symptoms indicated, the undoubted absence of many\nconspicuous marks of leprosy may be accounted for by the following\nconsiderations. In the first place, with a single exception (vv.\n9-11), the earliest stages of the disease are described; and,\nsecondly, it may reasonably be assumed that, through the desire to\nensure the earliest possible separation of a leprous man from the\ncongregation, signs were to be noted and acted upon, which might also\nbe found in other forms of skin disease. The aim of the law is that,\nif possible, the man shall be removed from the camp before the\ndisease has assumed its most unambiguous and revolting form. As for\nthe omission to mention the insensibility of the skin of the leper,\nthis seems to be sufficiently explained when we remember that this\nsymptom is characteristic of only one, and that not the most fatal,\nvariety of the disease.\n\nBut, it has also been urged, that elsewhere in the Scripture the\nso-called lepers appear as mingling with other people--as, for\nexample, in the case of Naaman and Gehazi--in a way which shows that\nthe disease was not regarded as contagious; whence it is inferred,\nagain, that the leprosy of which we read in the Bible cannot be the\nsame with the disease which is so called in our time. But, in reply to\nthis objection, it may be answered that even modern medical opinion\nhas been by no means as confident of the contagiousness of the\ndisease--at least, until quite recently--as were people in the middle\nages; nor, moreover, can we assume that the prevention of contagion\nmust have been the chief reason for the segregation of the leper,\naccording to the Levitical law, seeing that a like separation was\nenjoined in many other cases of ceremonial uncleanness where any\nthought of contagion or infection was quite impossible.\n\nIn further support of the more common opinion, which identifies the\ndisease chiefly referred to in this chapter with the leprosy of modern\ntimes, the following considerations appear to be of no little weight.\nIn the first place, the words themselves which are applied to the\ndisease in these chapters and elsewhere,--_tsara'ath_ and _nega'_,\nboth meaning, etymologically, \"a stroke,\" _i.e._, a stroke in some\neminent sense,[28]--while peculiarly fitting if the disease be that\nwhich we now know as leprosy, seem very strangely chosen if, as Sir\nRisdon Bennett thinks, they only designate varieties of a disease of\nso little seriousness as _psoriasis_. Then, again, the words used by\nAaron to Moses (Numb. xii. 12), referring to the leprosy of Miriam,\ndeserve great weight here: \"Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of\nwhom the flesh is half consumed.\" These words sufficiently answer the\nallegation that there is no certain reference in Scripture to the\nmutilation which is so characteristic of the later stages of the\ndisease. It would not be easy to describe in more accurate language\nthe condition of the leper as the plague advances; while, on the other\nhand, if the leprosy of the Bible be only such a light affection as\n\"salt-rheum,\" these words and the evident horror which they express,\nare so exaggerated as to be quite unaccountable.\n\n [28] Compare our frequent use of the word to denote paralysis.\n\nThen, again, we cannot lose sight of the place which the disease known\nin Scripture language as leprosy holds in the sight of the law. As a\nmatter of fact, it is singled out from a multitude of diseases as the\nobject of the most stringent and severe regulations, and the most\nelaborate ceremonial, known to the law. Now, if the disease intended\nbe indeed the awful _elephantiasis Gr\u00e6corum_ of modern medical\nscience, popularly known as leprosy, this is most natural and\nreasonable; but if, on the other hand, only some such non-malignant\ndisease as _psoriasis_ be intended, this fact is inexplicable.\nFurther, the tenour of all references to the disease in the Scripture\nimplies that it was deemed so incurable that its removal in any case\nwas regarded as a special sign of the exercise of Divine power. The\nreference of the Hebrew maid of Naaman to the prophet of God (2 Kings\nv. 3), as one who could cure him, instead of proving that it was\nthought curable--as has been strangely urged--by ordinary means,\nsurely proves the exact opposite. Naaman, no doubt, had exhausted\nmedical resources; and the hope of the maid for him is not based on\nthe medical skill of Elisha, but on the fact that he was a prophet of\nGod, and therefore able to draw on Divine power. To the same effect is\nthe word of the King of Israel, when he received the letter of Naaman\n(2 Kings v. 7): \"Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man\ndoth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?\" In full accord\nwith this is the appeal of our Lord (Matt. xi. 5) to His cleansing of\nthe lepers, as a sign of His Messiahship which He ranks for convincing\npower along with the raising of the dead.\n\nNor is it a fatal objection to the usual understanding of this matter,\nthat because the Levitical law prescribes a ritual for the ceremonial\ncleansing of the leper in case of his cure, therefore the disease so\ncalled could not be one of the gravity and supposed incurability of\nthe true leprosy. For it is to be noted, in the first place, that there\nis no intimation that recovery from the leprosy was a common occurrence,\nor even that it was to be expected at all, apart from the direct power\nof God; and, in the second place, that the Scriptural narrative\nrepresents God as now and then--though very rarely--interposing for\nthe cure of the leper. And it may perhaps be added, that while a\nrecent authority writes, and with truth, that \"medical skill appears\nto have been more completely foiled by this than by any other malady,\"\nit is yet remarked that, when of the an\u00e6sthetic variety, \"some\nspontaneous cures are recorded.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe chapter before us calls for little detailed exposition. The\ndiagnosis of the disease by the priest is treated under four different\nheads: (1) the case of a leprosy rising spontaneously (vv. 1-17, 38,\n39); (2) leprosy rising out of a boil (vv. 18-24); (3) rising out of a\nburn (vv. 24-28); (4) leprosy on the head or beard (vv. 29-37, 40-44).\nThe indications which are to be noted are described (vv. 2, 3, 24-27,\netc.) as a rising of the surface, a scab (or scale), or a bright spot\n(very characteristic), the presence in the spot of hair turned white,\nthe disease apparently deeper than the outer or scarf skin, a\nreddish-white colour of the surface, and a tendency to spread. The\npresence of \"raw flesh\" is mentioned (ver. 10) as an indication of a\nleprosy already somewhat advanced, \"an old leprosy.\" In cases of\ndoubt, the suspected case is to be isolated for a period of seven or,\nif need be, fourteen days, at the expiration of which the priest's\nverdict is to be given, as the symptoms may then indicate.\n\nTwo cases are mentioned which the priest is not to regard as leprosy.\nThe first (vv. 12, 13) is that in which the plague \"covers all the\nskin of him that hath the plagues from his head even to his feet, as\nfar as appeareth to the priest,\" so that he \"is all turned white.\" At\nfirst thought, this seems quite unaccountable, seeing that leprosy\nfinally affects the whole body. But the solution of the difficulty is\nnot far to seek. For the next verse provides that, in such a case, if\n\"raw flesh\" appear, he shall be held to be unclean. The explanation of\nthis provision of ver. 12 is therefore apparently this: that if an\neruption had so spread as to cover the whole body, turning it white,\nand yet no raw flesh had appeared in any place, the disease could not\nbe true leprosy; as, if it were, then, by the time that it had so\nextended, \"raw flesh\" would certainly have appeared somewhere. The\ndisease indicated by this exception was indeed well known to the\nancients, as it is also to the moderns as the \"dry tetter;\" which,\nalthough an affection often of long duration, frequently disappears\nspontaneously, and is never malignant.\n\nThe second case which is specified as not to be mistaken for leprosy\nis mentioned in vv. 38, 39, where it is described as marked by bright\nspots of a dull whiteness, but without the white hair, and other\ncharacteristic signs of leprosy. The Hebrew word by which it is\ndesignated is rendered in the Revised Version \"tetter;\" and the\ndisease, a non-malignant tetter or _eczema_, is still known in the\nEast under the same name (_bohak_) which is here used.\n\nVerses 45, 46, give the law for him who has been by the priest\nadjudged to be a leper. He must go with clothes rent, with his hair\nneglected, his lip covered, crying, \"Unclean! unclean!\" without the\ncamp, and there abide alone for so long as he continues to be\nafflicted with the disease. In other words, he is to assume all the\nordinary signs of mourning for the dead; he is to regard himself, and\nall others are to regard him, as a dead man. As it were, he is a\ncontinual mourner at his own funeral.\n\nWherein lay the reason for this law? One might answer, in general,\nthat the extreme loathsomeness of the disease, which made the presence\nof those who had it to be abhorrent even to their nearest friends,\nwould of itself make it only fitting, however distressing might be the\nnecessity, that such persons should be excluded from every possibility\nof appearing, in their revolting corruption, in the sacred and pure\nprecincts of the tabernacle of the holy God, as also from mingling\nwith His people. Many, however, have seen in the regulation only a\nwise law of public hygiene. That a sanitary intent may very probably\nhave been included in the purpose of this law, we are by no means\ninclined to deny. In earlier times, and all through the middle ages,\nthe disease was regarded as contagious; and lepers were accordingly\nsegregated, as far as practicable, from the people. In modern times,\nthe weight of opinion until recent years has been against this older\nview; but the tendency of medical authority now appears to be to\nreaffirm the older belief. The alarming increase of this horrible\ndisease in all parts of the world, of late, following upon a general\nrelaxation of those precautions against contagion which were formerly\nthought necessary, certainly supports this judgment; and it may thus\nbe easily believed that there was just sanitary ground for the rigid\nregulations of the Mosaic code. And just here it may be remarked, that\nif indeed there be any degree of contagiousness, however small, in\nthis plague, no one who has ever seen the disease, or understands\nanything of its incomparable horror and loathsomeness, will feel that\nthere is any force in the objections which have been taken to this\npart of the Mosaic law as of inhuman harshness toward the sufferers.\nEven were the risk of contagion but small, as it probably is, still,\nso terrible is the disease that one would more justly say that the\nonly inhumanity were to allow those afflicted with it unrestricted\nintercourse with their fellow-men. The truth is, that the Mosaic law\nconcerning the treatment of the leper, when compared with regulations\ntouching lepers which have prevailed among other nations, stands\ncontrasted with them by its comparative leniency. The Hindoo law, as\nis well known, even insists that the leper ought to put himself out of\nexistence, requiring that he shall be buried alive.\n\nBut if there be included in these regulations a sanitary intent, this\ncertainly does not exhaust their significance. Rather, if this be\nadmitted, it only furnishes the basis, as in the case of the laws\nconcerning clean and unclean meats, for still more profound spiritual\nteaching. For, as remarked before, it is one of the fundamental\nthoughts of the Mosaic law, that death, as being the extreme visible\nmanifestation of the presence of sin in the race, and a sign of the\nconsequent holy wrath of God against sinful man, is inseparably\nconnected with legal uncleanness. But all disease is a forerunner of\ndeath, an incipient dying; and is thus, no less really than actual\ndeath, a visible manifestation of the presence and power of sin\nworking in the body through death. And yet it is easy to see that it\nwould have been quite impracticable to carry out a law that therefore\nall disease should render the sick person ceremonially unclean; while,\non the other hand, it was of consequence that Israel, and we as well,\nshould be kept in remembrance of this connection between sin and\ndisease, as death beginning. What could have been more fitting, then,\nthan this, that the one disease which, without exaggeration, is of all\ndiseases the most loathsome, which is most manifestly a visible\nrepresentation of that which is in a measure true of all disease, that\nit is death working in life, that disease which is, not in a merely\nrhetorical sense, but in fact, a living image of death,--should be\nselected from all others for the illustration of this principle: to be\nto Israel and to us, a visible, perpetual, and very awful parable of\nthe nature and the working of sin?\n\nAnd this is precisely what has been done. This explains, as sanitary\nconsiderations alone do not, not merely the separation of the leper\nfrom the holy people, but also the solemn symbolism which required him\nto assume the appearance of one mourning for the dead; as also the\nsymbolism of his cleansing, which, in like manner, corresponded very\nclosely with that of the ritual of cleansing from defilement by the\ndead. Hence, while all sickness, in a general way, is regarded in the\nHoly Scriptures as a fitting symbol of sin, it has always been\nrecognised that, among all diseases, leprosy is this in an exceptional\nand pre-eminent sense. This thought seems to have been in the mind of\nDavid, when, after his murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba,\nbewailing his iniquity (Psalm li. 7), he prayed, \"Purge me with\nhyssop, and I shall be clean.\" For the only use of the hyssop in the\nlaw, which could be alluded to in these words, is that which is\nenjoined (xiv. 4-7) in the law for the cleansing of the leper, by the\nsprinkling of the man to be cleansed with blood and water with a\nhyssop branch.\n\nAnd thus we find that, again, this elaborate ceremonial contains, not\nmerely an instructive lesson in public sanitation, and practical\nsuggestions in hygiene for our modern times; but also lessons, far\nmore profound and momentous, concerning that spiritual malady with\nwhich the whole human race is burdened,--lessons therefore of the\ngravest personal consequence for every one of us.\n\nFrom among all diseases, leprosy has been selected by the Holy Ghost\nto stand in the law as the supreme type of sin, as seen by God! This\nis the very solemn fact which is brought before us in this chapter.\nLet us well consider it, and see that we receive the lesson, however\nhumiliating and painful, in the spirit of meekness and penitence. Let\nus so study it that we shall with great earnestness and true faith\nresort to the true and heavenly High Priest, who alone can cleanse us\nof this sore malady. And in order to do this, we must carefully\nconsider what is involved in this type.\n\nIn the first place, leprosy is undoubtedly selected to be a special\ntype of sin, on account of its extreme _loathsomeness_. Beginning,\nindeed, as an insignificant spot, \"a bright place,\" a mere scale on\nthe skin, it goes on spreading, progressing ever from worse to worse,\ntill at last limb drops from limb, and only the hideous mutilated\nremnant of what was once a man is left. A vivid picture of the\nhorrible reality has been given by that veteran missionary and very\naccurate observer, the Rev. William Thomson, D.D., who writes thus:\n\"As I was approaching Jerusalem, I was startled by the sudden\napparition of a crowd of beggars, sans eyes, sans nose, sans hair,\nsans everything.... They held up their handless arms, unearthly sounds\ngurgled through throats without palates,--in a word, I was\nhorrified.\"[29] Too horrible is this to be repeated or thought of?\nYes! But then all the more solemnly instructive is it that the Holy\nSpirit should have chosen this disease, the most loathsome of all, as\nthe most fatal of all, to symbolise to us the true nature of that\nspiritual malady which affects us all, as it is seen by the omniscient\nand most holy God.\n\n [29] \"The Land and the Book,\" vol. i., pp. 530, 531.\n\nBut it will very naturally be rejoined by some; Surely it were gross\nexaggeration to apply this horrible symbolism to the case of many who,\nalthough indeed sinners, unbelievers also in Christ, yet certainly\nexhibit truly lovely and attractive characters. That this is true\nregarding many who, according to the Scriptures, are yet unsaved,\ncannot be denied. We read of one such in the Gospel,--a young man,\nunsaved, who yet was such that \"Jesus looking upon him loved him\"\n(Mark x. 21). But this fact only makes the leprosy the more fitting\nsymbol of sin. For another characteristic of the disease is its\n_insignificant and often even imperceptible beginning_. We are told\nthat in the case of those who inherit the taint, it frequently remains\nquite dormant in early life, only gradually appearing in later years.\nHow perfectly the type, in this respect, then, symbolises sin! And\nsurely any thoughtful man will confess that this fact makes the\npresence of the infection not less alarming, but more so. No comfort\nthen can be rightly had from any complacent comparison of our own\ncharacters with those of many, perhaps professing more, who are much\nworse than we, as the manner of some is. No one who knew that from his\nparents he had inherited the leprous taint, or in whom the leprosy as\nyet appeared as only an insignificant bright spot, would comfort\nhimself greatly by the observation that other lepers were much worse;\nand that he was, as yet, fair and goodly to look upon. Though the\nleprosy were in him but just begun, that would be enough to fill him\nwith dismay and consternation. So should it be with regard to sin.\n\nAnd it would so affect such a man the more surely, when he knew that\nthe disease, however slight in its beginnings, was certainly\n_progressive_. This is one of the unfailing marks of the disease. It\nmay progress slowly, but it progresses surely. To quote again the\nvivid and truthful description of the above-named writer, \"It comes on\nby degrees in different parts of the body: the hair falls from the\nhead and eyebrows; the nails loosen, decay, and drop off; joint after\njoint of the fingers and toes shrinks up and slowly falls away; the\ngums are absorbed, and the teeth disappear; the nose, the eyes, the\ntongue, and the palate are slowly consumed; and, finally, the wretched\nvictim sinks into the earth and disappears.\"\n\nIn this respect again the fitness of the disease to stand as an\neminent type of sin is undeniable. No man can morally stand still. No\none has ever retained the innocence of childhood. Except as\ncounteracted by the efficient grace of the Holy Spirit in the heart,\nthe Word (2 Tim. iii. 13) is ever visibly fulfilled, \"evil men wax\nworse and worse.\" Sin may not develop in all with equal rapidity, but\nit does progress in every natural man, outwardly or inwardly, with\nequal certainty.\n\nIt is another mark of leprosy that sooner or later it _affects the\nwhole man_; and in this, again, appears the sad fitness of the disease\nto stand as a symbol of sin. For sin is not a partial disorder,\naffecting only one class of faculties, or one part of our nature. It\ndisorders the judgment; it obscures our moral perceptions; it either\nperverts the affections, or unduly stimulates them in one direction,\nwhile it deadens them in another; it hardens and quickens the will for\nevil, while it paralyses its power for the volition of that which is\nholy. And not only the Holy Scripture, but observation itself, teaches\nus that sin, in many cases, also affects the body of man, weakening\nits powers, and bringing in, by an inexorable law, pain, disease, and\ndeath. Sooner or later, then, sin affects the whole man. And for that\nreason, again, is leprosy set forth as its pre-eminent symbol.\n\nIt is another remarkable feature of the disease that, as it\nprogresses from bad to worse, the victim becomes more and more\n_insensible_. This numbness or insensibility of the spots affected--in\none most common variety at least--is a constant feature. In some cases\nit becomes so extreme that a knife may be thrust into the affected\nlimb, or the diseased flesh may be burnt with fire, and yet the leper\nfeels no pain. Nor is the insensibility confined to the body, but, as\nthe leprosy extends, the mind is affected in an analogous manner. A\nrecent writer says: \"Though a mass of bodily corruption, at last\nunable to leave his bed, the leper seems happy and contented with his\nsad condition.\" Is anything more characteristic than this of the\nmalady of sin? The sin which, when first committed, costs a keen pang,\nafterward, when frequently repeated, hurts not the conscience at all.\nJudgments and mercies, which in earlier life affected one with\nprofound emotion, in later life leave the impenitent sinner as unmoved\nas they found him. Hence we all recognise the fitness of the common\nexpression, \"a seared conscience,\" as also of the Apostle's\ndescription of advanced sinners as men who are \"past feeling\" (Eph.\niv. 19). Of this moral insensibility which sin produces, then, we are\nimpressively reminded when the Holy Spirit in the Word holds before us\nleprosy as a type of sin.\n\nAnother element of the solemn fitness of the type is found in the\npersistently _hereditary_ nature of leprosy. It may indeed sometimes\narise of itself, even as did sin in the case of certain of the holy\nangels, and with our first parents; but when once it is introduced, in\nthe case of any person, the terrible infection descends with unfailing\ncertainty to all his descendants; and while, by suitable hygiene, it\nis possible to alleviate its violence, and retard its development, it\nis not possible to escape the terrible inheritance. Is anything more\nuniformly characteristic of sin? We may raise no end of metaphysical\ndifficulties about the matter, and put unanswerable questions about\nfreedom and responsibility; but there is no denying the hard fact that\nsince sin first entered the race, in our first parents, not a child of\nman, of human father begotten, has escaped the taint. If various\nexternal influences, as in the case of leprosy, may, in some\ninstances, modify its manifestations, yet no individual, in any class\nor condition of mankind, escapes the taint. The most cultivated and\nthe most barbarous alike, come into the world so constituted that,\nquite antecedent to any act of free choice on their part, we know that\nit is not more certain that they will eat than that, when they begin\nto exercise freedom, they will, each and every one, use their moral\nfreedom wrongly,--in a word, will sin. No doubt, then, when such\nprominence is given to leprosy among diseases, in the Mosaic symbolism\nand elsewhere, it is with intent, among other truths, to keep before\nthe mind this very solemn and awful fact with regard to the sin which\nit so fitly symbolises.\n\nAnd, again, we find yet another analogy in the fact that, among the\nancient Hebrews, the disease was regarded as _incurable_ by human\nmeans; and, notwithstanding occasional announcements in our day that a\nremedy has been discovered for the plague, this seems to be the\nverdict of the best authorities in medical science still. That in this\nrespect leprosy perfectly represents the sorer malady of the soul,\nevery one is witness. No possible effort of will or fixedness of\ndetermination has ever availed to free a man from sin. Even the\nsaintliest Christian has often to confess with the Apostle Paul (Rom.\nvii. 19), \"The evil which I would not, that I practise.\" Neither is\nculture, whether intellectual or religious, of any more avail. To this\nall human history testifies. In our day, despite the sad lessons of\nlong experience, many are hoping for much from improved government,\neducation, and such like means; but vainly, and in the face of the\nmost patent facts. Legislation may indeed impose restrictions on the\nmore flagrant forms of sin, even as it may be of service in\nrestricting the devastations of leprosy, and ameliorating the\ncondition of lepers. But to do away with sin, and abolish crime by any\nconceivable legislation, is a dream as vain as were the hope of curing\nleprosy by a good law or an imperial proclamation. Even the perfect\nlaw of God has proved inadequate for this end; the Apostle (Rom. viii.\n3) reminds us that in this it has failed, and could not but fail, \"in\nthat it was weak through the flesh.\" Nothing can well be of more\nimportance than that we should be keenly alive to this fact; that so\nwe may not, through our present apparently tolerable condition, or by\ntemporary alleviations of the trouble, be thrown off our guard, and\nhope for ourselves or for the world, upon grounds which afford no just\nreason for hope.\n\nLast of all, the law of leprosy, as given in this chapter, teaches the\nsupreme lesson, that as with the symbolic disease of the body, so with\nthat of the soul, sin _shuts out from God and from the fellowship of\nthe holy_. As the leper was excluded from the camp of Israel and from\nthe tabernacle of Jehovah, so must the sinner, except cleansed, be\nshut out of the Holy City, and from the glory of the heavenly temple.\nWhat a solemnly significant parable is this exclusion of the leper\nfrom the camp! He is thrust forth from the congregation of Israel,\nwearing the insignia of mourning for the dead! Within the camp, the\nmultitude of them that go to the sanctuary of God, and that joyfully\nkeep holy day; without, the leper dwelling alone, in his incurable\ncorruption and never-ending mourning! And so, while we do not indeed\ndeny a sanitary intention in these regulations of the law, but are\nrather inclined to affirm it; yet of far more consequence is it that\nwe heed the spiritual truth which this solemn symbolism teaches. It is\nthat which is written in the Apocalypse (xxi. 27; xxii. 15) concerning\nthe New Jerusalem: \"There shall in no wise enter into it anything\nunclean.... Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the\nfornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that\nloveth and maketh a lie.\"\n\nIn view of all these correspondences, one need not wonder that in the\nsymbolism of the law leprosy holds the place which it does. For what\nother disease can be named which combines in itself, as a physical\nmalady, so many of the most characteristic marks of the malady of the\nsoul? In its intrinsic loathsomeness, its insignificant beginnings,\nits slow but inevitable progress, in the extent of its effects, in the\ninsensibility which accompanies it, in its hereditary character, in\nits incurability, and, finally, in the fact that according to the law\nit involved the banishment of the leper from the camp of Israel,--in\nall these respects, it stands alone as a perfect type of sin; it is\nsin, as it were, made visible in the flesh.\n\nThis is indeed a dark picture of man's natural state, and very many\nare exceedingly loth to believe that sin can be such a very serious\nmatter. Indeed, the fundamental postulate of much of our\nnineteenth-century thought, in matters both of politics and religion,\ndenies the truth of this representation, and insists, on the\ncontrary, that man is naturally not bad, but good; and that, on the\nwhole, as the ages go by, he is gradually becoming better and better.\nBut it is imperative that our views of sin and of humanity shall agree\nwith the representations held before us in the Word of God. When that\nWord, not only in type, as in this chapter, but in plain language\n(Jer. xvii. 9, R.V.), declares that \"the heart is deceitful above all\nthings, and it is _desperately sick_,\" it must be a very perilous\nthing to deny this.\n\nIt is a profoundly instructive circumstance that, according to this\ntypical law, the case of the supposed leper was to be judged by the\npriest (vv. 2, 3, _et passim_). All turned for him upon the priest's\nverdict. If he declared him clean, it was well; but if he pronounced\nhim unclean, it made no difference that the man did not believe it, or\nthat his friends did not believe it; or that he or they thought better\nin any respect of his case than the priest,--out of the camp he must\ngo. He might plead that he was certainly not nearly in so bad a case\nas some of the poor, mutilated, dying creatures outside the camp; but\nthat would have no weight, however true. For still he, no less really\nthan they, was a leper; and, until made whole, into the fellowship of\nlepers he must go and abide. Even so for us all; everything turns, not\non our own opinion of ourselves, or on what other men may think of us;\nbut solely on the verdict of the heavenly Priest.\n\nThe picture thus set before us in the symbolism of this chapter is sad\nenough; but it would be far more sad did the law not now carry forward\nthe symbolism into the region of redemption, in making provision for\nthe cleansing of the leper, and his re-admission into the fellowship\nof the holy people. To this our attention is called in the next\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n_THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER._\n\nLEV. xiv. 1-32.\n\n\nThe ceremonies for the restoration of the leper, when healed of his\ndisease, to full covenant privileges, were comprehended in two\ndistinct series. The first part of the ceremonial took place without\nthe camp, and sufficed only to terminate his condition as one\nceremonially dead, and allow of his return into the camp, and his\nassociation, though still under restriction, with his fellow-Israelites.\nThe second part of the ceremonial took up his case on the eighth day\nthereafter, where the former ceremonial had left him, as a member,\nindeed, of the holy people, but a member still under defilement such\nas debarred him from approach to the presence of Jehovah; and, by a\nfourfold offering and an anointing, restored him to the full enjoyment\nof all his covenant privileges before God.\n\nThis law for the cleansing of the leper certainly implies that the\ndisease, although incurable by human skill, yet, whether by the direct\npower of God, as in several instances in Holy Scripture, or for some\ncause unknown, might occasionally cease its ravages. In this case,\nalthough the visible effects of the disease might still remain, in\nmutilations and scars, yet he would be none the less a healed man.\nThat occasionally instances have occurred of such arrest of the\ndisease, is attested by competent observers, and the law before us\nthus provides for the restoration of the leper in such cases to the\nposition from which his leprosy had excluded him.\n\nThe first part of the ceremonial (vv. 3-9) took place without the\ncamp; for until legally cleansed the man was in the sight of the law\nstill a leper, and therefore under sentence of banishment from the\ncongregation of Israel. Thus, as the outcast could not go to the\npriest, the priest, on receiving word of his desire, went to him. For\nthe ceremony which was to be performed, he provided himself with two\nliving, clean birds, and with cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop;\nalso he took with him an earthen vessel filled with living\nwater,--_i.e._, with water from some spring or flowing stream, and\ntherefore presumably pure and clean. One of the birds was then killed\nin such a manner that its blood was received into the vessel of water;\nthen the living bird and the hyssop--bound, as we are told, with the\nscarlet band to the cedar-wood--were dipped into the mingled blood and\nwater, and by them the leper was sprinkled therewith seven times by\nthe priest, and was then pronounced clean; when the living bird,\nstained with the blood of the bird that was killed, was allowed to fly\naway. Thereupon, the leper washed his clothes, shaved off all his\nhair, bathed in water, and entered the camp. This completed the first\nstadium of his restoration.\n\nCertain things about this symbolism seem very clear. First of all,\nwhereas the leper, afflicted, as it were, with a living death, had\nbecome, as regards Israel, a man legally dead, the sprinkling with\nblood, in virtue of which he was allowed to take his place again in\nthe camp as a living Israelite, symbolized the impartation of life;\nand, again, inasmuch as death is defiling, the blood was mingled with\nwater, the uniform symbol of cleansing. The remaining symbols\nemphasise thoughts closely related to these. The cedar-wood (or\njuniper), which is almost incorruptible, signified that with this new\nlife was imparted also freedom from corruption. Scarlet, as a colour,\nis the constant symbol, again, like the blood, of life and health.\nWhat the hyssop was is still in debate; but we can at least safely say\nthat it was a plant supposed to have healing and purifying virtues.\n\nSo far all is clear. But what is the meaning of the slaying of the one\nbird, and the loosing afterward of the other, moistened with the blood\nof its fellow? Some have said that both of the birds symbolised the\nleper: the one which was slain, the leper as he was,--namely, as one\ndead, or under sentence of death by his plague; the other, naturally,\nthen, the leper as healed, who, even as the living bird is let fly\nwhither it will, is now set at liberty to go where he pleases. But\nwhen we consider that it is by means of being sprinkled with the blood\nof the slain bird that the leper is cleansed, it seems quite\nimpossible that this slain bird should typify the leper in his state\nof defilement. Indeed, if this bird symbolised him as under his\ndisease, this supposition seems even absurd; for the blood which\ncleansed must then have represented his own blood, and his blood as\ndiseased and unclean!\n\nNeither is it possible that the other bird, which was set at liberty,\nshould represent the leper as healed, and its release, his liberation;\nhowever plausible, at first thought, this explanation may seem. For\nthe very same ceremony as this with the two birds was also to be used\nin the cleansing of a leprous house (vv. 50-53), where it is evident\nthat the loosing of the living bird could not have any such\nsignificance; since the notion of a liberty given would be wholly\ninapplicable in the case of a house. But whatever the true meaning of\nthe symbolism may be, it is clear that it must be one which will apply\nequally well in each of the two cases, the cleansing of the leprous\nhouse, no less than that of the leprous person.\n\nWe are therefore compelled to regard the slaying of the one bird as a\ntrue sacrifice. No doubt there are difficulties in the way, but they\ndo not seem insuperable, and are, in any case, less than those which\nbeset other suppositions. It is true that the birds are not presented\nbefore Jehovah in the tabernacle; but as the ceremony took place\noutside the camp, and therefore at a distance from the tabernacle,\nthis may be explained as merely because of the necessity of the case.\nIt is true, again, that the choice of the bird was not limited, as in\nthe tabernacle sacrifices, to the turtle-dove or pigeon; but it might\neasily be that when, as in this case, the sacrifice was elsewhere than\nat the tabernacle, the rules for service there did not necessarily\napply. Finally and decisively, when we turn to the law for the\ncleansing of the leprous house, we find that atoning virtue is\nexplicitly ascribed to this rite with the birds (ver. 53): \"He shall\nmake atonement for the house.\"\n\nBut sacrifice is here presented in a different aspect from elsewhere\nin the law. In this ceremonial the central thought is not consecration\nthrough sacrifice, as in the burnt-offering; nor expiation of guilt\nthrough sacrifice, as in the sin-offering; nor yet satisfaction for\ntrespass committed, as in the guilt-offering. It is sacrifice as\nprocuring for the man for whom it is offered purity and life, which is\nthe main thought.\n\nBut, according to vv. 52, 53, the atonement is made with both the dead\nand the living bird. The special thought which is emphasised by the\nuse of the latter, seems to be merely the full completeness of the\nwork of cleansing which has been accomplished through the death of the\nother bird. For the living bird was represented as ideally identified\nwith the bird which was slain, by being dipped in its blood; and in\nthat it was now loosed from its captivity, this was in token of the\nfact that the bird, having now given its life to impart cleansing and\nlife to the leper, has fully accomplished that end.\n\nObviously, this explanation is one that will apply no less readily to\nthe cleansing of the leprous house than of the leprous person. For the\nleprosy in the house signifies the working of corruption and of decay\nand death in the wall of the house, in a way adapted to its nature, as\nreally as in the case of the person; and the ceremonial with the birds\nand other material prescribed means the same with it as with the\nother,--namely, the removal of the principle of corruption and\ndisease, and impartation of purity and wholesomeness. In both cases\nthe sevenfold sprinkling, as in analogous cases elsewhere in the law,\nsignified the completeness of the cleansing, to which nothing was\nlacking, and also certified to the leper that by this impartation of\nnew life, and by his cleansing, he was again brought into covenant\nrelations with Jehovah.\n\nWith these ceremonies, the leper's cleansing was now in so far\neffected that he could enter the camp; only he must first cleanse\nhimself and his clothes with water and shave his hair,--ceremonies\nwhich, in their primary meaning, are most naturally explained by the\nimportance of an actual physical cleansing in such a case. Every\npossible precaution must be taken that by no chance he bring the\ncontagion of his late disease into the camp. Of what special\nimportance in this connection, besides the washing, is the shaving of\nthe hair, will be apparent to all who know how peculiarly retentive is\nthe hair of odours and infections of every kind.\n\nThe cleansed man might now come into the camp; he is restored to his\nplace as a living Israelite. And yet he may not come to the\ntabernacle. For even an Israelite might not come, if defiled for the\ndead; and this is precisely the leper's status at this point. Though\ndelivered from the power of death, there is yet persisting such a\nconnection of his new self with his old leprous self as precludes him\nfrom yet entering the more immediate presence of God. The reality of\nthis analogy will appear to any one who compares the rites which now\nfollow (vv. 10-20) with those appointed for the Nazarite, when defiled\nby the dead (Numb. vi. 9-12).\n\nSeven days, then, as in that case, he remains away from the\ntabernacle. On the seventh day, he again shaves himself even to the\neyebrows, thus ensuring the most absolute cleanness, and washes\nhimself and his clothes in water. The final restoration ceremonial\ntook place on the eighth day,--the day symbolic of the new\ncreation,--when he appeared before Jehovah at the tent of meeting with\na he-lamb for a guilt-offering, and another for a sin-offering, and a\newe-lamb for a burnt-offering; also a meal-offering of three\ntenth-deals, one tenth for each sacrifice, mingled with oil, and a log\n(3\u00b732 qts.) of oil. The oil was then waved for a wave-offering before\nthe Lord, as also the whole lamb of the guilt-offering (an unusual\nthing), and then the lamb was slain and offered after the manner of\nthe guilt-offering.\n\nAnd now followed the most distinctive part of the ceremonial. As in\nthe case of the consecration of the priests was done with the blood of\nthe peace-offering and with the holy oil, so was it done here with the\nblood of the guilt-offering and with the common oil--now by its waving\nconsecrated to Jehovah--which the cleansed leper had brought. The\npriest anoints the man's right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and\nthe great toe of his right foot, first with the blood of the\nguilt-offering, and then with the oil, having previously sprinkled of\nthe oil seven times with his finger before the Lord. The remnant of\nthe oil in the hand of the priest he then pours upon the cleansed\nleper's head; then offers for him the sin-offering, the\nburnt-offering, and the meal-offering; and therewith, at last, the\natonement is complete, and the man is restored to his full rights and\nprivileges as a living member of the people of the living God.\n\nThe chief significance of this ceremonial lies in the prominence given\nto the guilt-offering. This is evidenced, not only by the special and\npeculiar use which is made of its blood, in applying it to the leper,\nbut also in the fact that in the case of the poor man, while the other\nofferings are diminished, there is no diminution allowed as regards\nthe lamb of the guilt-offering, and the log of oil. Why should the\nguilt-offering have received on this occasion such a place of special\nprominence? The answer has been rightly given by those who point to\nthe significance of the guilt-offering as representing reparation and\nsatisfaction for loss of service due. By the fact of the man's\nleprosy, and consequent exclusion from the camp of Israel, God had\nbeen, for the whole period of his excision, defrauded, so to speak, of\nHis proper dues from him in respect of service and offerings; and the\nguilt-offering precisely symbolised satisfaction made for this default\nin service which he had otherwise been able to render.\n\nNor is it a fatal objection to this understanding of the matter that,\non this principle, he also that for a long time had had an issue\nshould have been required, for his prolonged default of service, to\nbring a guilt-offering in order to his restoration; whereas from him\nno such demand was made. For the need, before the law, for the\nguilt-offering lay, not in the duration of the leprosy, as such\napprehend it, but in the nature of the leprosy, as being, unlike any\nother visitation, in a peculiar sense, a death in life. Even when the\nman with an issue was debarred from the sanctuary, he was not, like\nthe leper, regarded by the law as a dead man; but was still counted\namong them that were living in Israel. And if precluded for an\nindefinite time from the service and worship of God at the tabernacle,\nhe yet, by his public submission to the demands of the law, in the\npresence of all, rendered still to God the honour due from a member of\nthe living Israel. But in that the leper, unlike any other defiled\nperson, was reckoned ceremonially dead, obviously consistency in the\nsymbolism made it impossible to regard him as having in any sense\nrendered honour or service to God so long as he continued a leper, any\nmore than if he had been dead and buried. Therefore he must bring a\nguilt-offering, as one who had, however unavoidably, committed \"a\ntrespass in the holy things of the Lord.\" And so this guilt-offering,\nin the case of the leper, as in all others, represented the\nsatisfaction of debt; and as the reality or the amount of a debt\ncannot be affected by the poverty of the debtor, the offering which\nsymbolised satisfaction for the debt must be the same for the poor\nleper as for the rich leper.\n\nAnd the application of the blood to ear, hand, and foot meant the same\nas in the case of the consecration of the priests. Inducted, as one\nnow risen from the dead, into the number of the priestly people, he\nreceives the priestly consecration, devoting ear, hand, and foot to\nthe service of the Lord. And as it was fitting that the priests,\nbecause brought into a relation of special nearness to God, in order\nto be ministers of reconciliation to Israel, should therefore be\nconsecrated with the blood of the peace-offering, which specially\nemphasised the realisation of reconciliation,--so the cleansed leper,\nwho was re-established as a living member of the priestly nation, more\nespecially by the blood of the guilt-offering, was therefore fittingly\nrepresented as consecrated in virtue, and by means of that fact.\n\nSo, like the priests, he also was anointed by the priest with oil; not\nindeed with the holy oil, for he was not admitted to the priestly\norder; yet with common oil, sanctified by its waving before God, in\ntoken of his consecration as a member of the priestly people.\nEspecially suitable in his case was this anointing, that the oil\nconstantly stands as a symbol of healing virtue, which in his\nexperience he had so wondrously received.\n\nRemembering in all this how the leprosy stands as a pre-eminent type\nof sin, in its aspect as involving death and corruption, the\napplication of these ceremonies to the antitypical cleansing, at least\nin its chief aspects, is almost self-evident. As in all the Levitical\ntypes, so in this case, at the very entrance on the redeemed life\nstands the sacrifice of a life, and the service of a priest as\nmediator between God and man. Blood must be shed if the leper is to be\nadmitted again into covenant standing with God; and the blood of the\nsacrifice in the law ever points to the sacrifice of Christ. But that\ngreat Sacrifice may be regarded in various aspects. Sin is a\nmany-sided evil, and on every side it must be met. As often repeated,\nbecause sin as guilt requires expiation, hence the type of the\nsin-offering; in that it is a defrauding of God of His just rights\nfrom us, satisfaction is required, hence the type of the\nguilt-offering; as it is absence of consecration, life for self\ninstead of life for God, hence the type of the burnt-offering. And yet\nthe manifold aspects of sin are not all enumerated. For sin, again, is\nspiritual death; and, as death, it involves corruption and defilement.\nIt is with special reference to this fact that the work of Christ is\nbrought before us here. In the clean bird, slain that its blood may be\napplied to the leper for cleansing, we see typified Christ, as giving\nHimself, that His very life may be imparted to us for our life. In\nthat the blood of the bird is mingled with water, the symbol of the\nWord of God, is symbolised the truth, that with the atoning blood is\never inseparably united the purifying energy of the Holy Ghost through\nthe Word. Not the water without the blood, nor the blood without the\nwater, saves, but the blood with the water, and the water with the\nblood. So it is said of Him to whom the ceremony pointed (1 John v.\n6): \"This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not\nwith the water only, but with the water and with the blood.\"\n\nBut the type yet lacks something for completeness; and for this reason\nwe have the second bird, who, when by his means the blood has been\nsprinkled on the leper, and the man is now pronounced clean, is\nreleased and flies away heavenward. What a beautiful symbol of that\nother truth, without which even the atonement of the Lord were nought,\nthat He who died, having by that death for us procured our life, was\nthen released from the bonds of death, rising from the dead on the\nthird day, and ascending to heaven, like the freed bird, in token that\nHis life-giving, cleansing work was done. Thus the message which, as\nthe liberated bird flies carolling away, sweet as a heavenly song,\nseems to fall upon the ear, is this, \"Delivered up for our trespasses,\nand raised for our justification\" (Rom. iv. 25; see _Gr._).\n\nBut although thus and then restored to his standing as a member of the\nliving people of God, not yet was the cleansed leper allowed to appear\nin the presence of God at the tent of meeting. There was a delay of a\nweek, and only then, on the eighth day, the day typical of\nresurrection and new creation, does He appear before God. Is there\ntypical meaning in this delay? We would not be too confident. It is\nquite possible that this delay of a week, before the cleansed man was\nallowed to present himself for the completion of the ceremonial which\nreinstated him in the plenary enjoyment of all the rights and\nprivileges of a child of Israel, may have been intended merely as a\nprecautionary rule, of which the purpose was to guard against the\npossibility of infection, and the defilement of the sanctuary by his\npresence, through renewed activity of the disease; while, at the same\ntime, it would serve as a spiritual discipline to remind the man, now\ncleansed, of the extreme care and holy fear with which, after his\ndefilement, he should venture into the presence of the Holy One of\nIsrael; and thus, by analogy, it becomes a like lesson to the\nspiritually cleansed in all ages.\n\nBut perhaps we may see a deeper significance in this week of delay,\nand his appointed appearance before the Lord on the eighth day. If the\nwhole course of the leper, from the time of his infection till his\nfinal reappearing in the presence of Jehovah at the tent of meeting,\nbe intended to typify the history and experience of a sinner as saved\nfrom sin; and if the cleansing of the leper without the camp, and his\nreinstatement thereupon as a member of God's Israel, represents in\ntype the judicial reinstatement of the cleansed sinner, through the\napplication of the blood and Spirit of Christ, in the number of God's\npeople; one can then hardly fail to recognise in the week's delay\nappointed to him, before he could come into the immediate presence of\nGod, an adumbration of the fact that between the sinner's acceptance\nand the appointed time of his appearing, finally and fully cleansed,\nbefore the Lord, on the resurrection morning, there intervenes a\nperiod of delay, even the whole lifetime of the believer here in the\nflesh and in the disembodied state. For only thereafter does he at\nlast, wholly perfected, appear before God in the heavenly Zion. But\nbefore thus appearing, the accepted man once and again had to cleanse\nhis garments and his person, that so he might remove everything in\nwhich by any chance uncleanness might still lurk. Which, translated\ninto New Testament language, gives us the charge of the Apostle Paul\n(2 Cor. vii. 1) addressed to those who had indeed received the new\nlife, but were still in the flesh: \"Let us cleanse ourselves from all\ndefilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of\nGod.\"\n\nBut, at last, the week of delay is ended. After its seventh day\nfollows an eighth, the first-day morning of a new week, the morning\ntypical of resurrection and therewith completed redemption, and the\nleper now, completely restored, appears before God in the holy\ntabernacle. Even so shall an eighth-day morning dawn for all who by\nthe cleansing blood have been received into the number of God's\npeople. And when that day comes, then, even as when the cleansed man\nappeared at the tent of meeting, he presented guilt-offering,\nsin-offering, and burnt-offering, as the warrant for his presence\nthere, and the ground of his acceptance, so shall it be in that day of\nresurrection, when every one of God's once leprous but now washed and\naccepted children shall appear in Zion before Him. They will all\nappear there as pleading the blood, the precious blood of Christ;\nChrist, at last apprehended and received by them in all His fulness,\nas expiation, satisfaction, and righteousness. For so John represents\nit in the apocalyptic vision of the blood-washed multitude in the\nheavenly glory (Rev. vii. 14, 15): \"These are they which come out of\nthe great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them\nwhite in the blood of the Lamb. _Therefore_ are they before the throne\nof God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple.\"\n\nAnd as it is written (Rom. viii. 11) that the final quickening of our\nmortal bodies shall be accomplished by the Spirit of God, so the\nleper, now in God's presence, receives a special anointing; a type of\nthe unction of the Holy Ghost in resurrection power, consecrating the\nonce leprous ear, hand, and foot, and therewith the whole body, now\ncleansed from all defilement, to the glad service of Jehovah our God\nand our Redeemer.\n\nSuch, in outline at least, appears to be the typical significance of\nthis ceremonial of the cleansing of the leper. Some details are\nindeed still left unexplained, but, probably, the whole reason for\nsome of the regulations is to be found in the immediate practical\nnecessities of the leper's condition.\n\n\nOF LEPROSY IN A GARMENT OR HOUSE.\n\nxiii. 47-59; xiv. 33-53.\n\n \"The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be\n a woollen garment, or a linen garment; whether it be in warp, or\n woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing\n made of skin; if the plague be greenish or reddish in the\n garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in\n any thing of skin; it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be\n shewed unto the priest: and the priest shall look upon the\n plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days: and he\n shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be\n spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in\n the skin, whatever service skin is used for; the plague is a\n fretting leprosy; it is unclean. And he shall burn the garment,\n whether the warp or the woof, in woollen or in linen, or any\n thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting\n leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. And if the priest shall\n look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment,\n either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; then\n the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the\n plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more: and the\n priest shall look, after that the plague is washed: and, behold,\n if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not\n spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire: it is a\n fret, whether the bareness be within or without. And if the\n priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing\n thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the\n skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof: and if it appear\n still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in\n any thing of skin, it is breaking out: thou shalt burn that\n wherein the plague is with fire. And the garment, either the\n warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou\n shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be\n washed the second time, and shall be clean. This is the law of\n the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in\n the warp, or the woof, or any thing of skin, to pronounce it\n clean, or to pronounce it unclean.... And the Lord spake unto\n Moses and unto Aaron, saying, When ye be come into the land of\n Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the\n plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; then\n he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying,\n There seemeth to me to be as it were a plague in the house: and\n the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the\n priest go in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be\n not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the\n house: and he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the\n plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish\n or reddish, and the appearance thereof be lower than the wall;\n then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the\n house, and shut up the house seven days: and the priest shall\n come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the\n plague be spread in the walls of the house; then the priest shall\n command that they take out the stones in which the plague is, and\n cast them into an unclean place without the city: and he shall\n cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall\n pour out the mortar that they scrape off without the city into an\n unclean place: and they shall take other stones, and put them in\n the place of those stones; and he shall take other mortar, and\n shall plaister the house. And if the plague come again, and break\n out in the house, after that he hath taken out the stones, and\n after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered; then\n the priest shall come in and look, and, behold, if the plague be\n spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is\n unclean. And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and\n the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall\n carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place. Moreover\n he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up\n shall be unclean until the even. And he that lieth in the house\n shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall\n wash his clothes. And if the priest shall come in, and look, and,\n behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house\n was plaistered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean,\n because the plague is healed. And he shall take to cleanse the\n house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: and he\n shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running\n water: and he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the\n scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the\n slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house\n seven times: and he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the\n bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and\n with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:\n but he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open\n field: so shall he make atonement for the house: and it shall be\n clean.\"\n\nThere has been much debate as to what we are to understand by the\nleprosy in the garment or in a house. Was it an affection identical in\nnature with the leprosy of the body? or was it merely so called from a\ncertain external similarity to that plague?\n\nHowever extraordinary the former supposition might once have seemed,\nin the present state of medical science we are at least able to say\nthat there is nothing inconceivable in it. We have abundant\nexperimental evidence that a large number of diseases, and, not\nimprobably, leprosy among them, are caused by minute parasitic forms\nof vegetable life; and, also, that in many cases these forms of life\nmay, and do, exist and multiply in various other suitable media\nbesides the fluids and tissues of the human body. If, as is quite\nlikely, leprosy be caused by some such parasitic life in the human\nbody, it is then evidently possible that such parasites, under\nfavourable conditions of heat, moisture, etc., should exist and\npropagate themselves, as in other analogous cases, outside the body;\nas, for instance, in cloth, or leather, or in the plaster of a house;\nin which case it is plain that such garments or household implements,\nor such dwellings, as might be thus infected, would be certainly\nunwholesome, and presumably capable of communicating the leprosy to\nthe human subject. But we have not yet sufficient scientific\nobservation to settle the question whether this is really so; we can,\nhowever, safely say that, in any case, the description which is here\ngiven indicates a growth in the affected garment or house of some kind\nof mould or mildew; which, as we know, is a form of life produced\nunder conditions which always imply an unwholesome state of the\narticle or house in which it appears. We also know that if such\ngrowths be allowed to go on unchecked, they involve more or less\nrapid processes of decomposition in that which is affected. Thus, even\nfrom a merely natural point of view, one can see the high wisdom of\nthe Divine King of Israel in ordering that, in all such cases, the man\nwhose garment or house was thus affected should at once notify the\npriest, who was to come and decide whether the appearance was of a\nnoxious and unclean kind or not, and then take action accordingly.\n\nWhether the suspicious spot were in a house or in some article it\ncontained, the article or house (the latter having been previously\nemptied) was first shut up for seven days (xiii. 50; xiv. 38). If in\nthe garment or other article affected it was found then to have\nspread, it was without any further ceremony to be burnt (xiii. 51,\n52). If it had not spread, it was to be washed and shut up seven days\nmore, at the end of which time, even though it had not spread, if the\ngreenish or reddish colour remained unchanged, it was still to be\nadjudged unclean, and to be burned (xiii. 55). If, on the other hand,\nthe colour had somewhat \"dimmed,\" the part affected was to be cut out;\nwhen, if it spread no further, it was to be washed a second time, and\nbe pronounced clean (xiii. 58). If, however, after the excision of the\naffected part, the spot appeared again, the article, without further\ndelay, was to be burned (xiii. 57).\n\nThe law, in the case of the appearing of a leprosy in a house (xiv.\n33-53), was much more elaborate. As in the former case, when the\noccupant of the house suspects, \"as it were a plague in the house,\" he\nis to go and tell the priest; who is, first of all, to order the\nemptying of the house before he goes in, lest that which is in the\nhouse, should it prove to be the plague, be made unclean (ver. 36).\nThe diagnosis reminds us of that of the leprosy in the body; greenish\nor reddish streaks, in appearance \"lower than the wall,\" _i.e._,\ndeep-seated (ver. 37). Where this is observed, the empty house is to\nbe shut up for seven days (ver. 38); and at the end of that time, if\nthe spot has spread, \"the stones in which the plague is\" are to be\ntaken out, the plaster scraped off the walls of the house, and all\ncarried out into an unclean place outside of the city, and new stones\nand new plaster put in the place of the old (vv. 40-42). If, after\nthis, the plague yet reappear, the house is to be adjudged unclean,\nand is to be wholly torn down, and all the material carried into an\nunclean place without the city (vv. 44, 45). If, on the other hand,\nafter this renewal of the interior of the house, the spots do not\nreappear, the priest \"shall pronounce the house clean, because the\nplague is healed\" (ver. 48). But, unlike the case of the leprous\ngarment, this does not end the ceremonial. It is ordered that the\npriest shall take to cleanse (_lit._ \"to purge the house from sin\")\n(ver. 49) two birds, scarlet, cedar, and hyssop, which are then used\nprecisely as in the case of the purgation of the leprous man; and at\nthe end, \"he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the\nopen field: so shall he make atonement for the house: and it shall be\nclean\" (vv. 50-53).\n\nFor the time then present, one can hardly fail to see in this\nceremonial, first, a merciful sanitary intent. By the observance of\nthese regulations not only was Israel to be saved from many sicknesses\nand various evils, but was to be constantly reminded that Israel's\nGod, like a wise and kind Father, had a care for everything that\npertained to their welfare; not only for their persons, but also for\ntheir dwellings, and even all the various articles of daily use. The\nlesson is always in force, for God has not changed. He is not a God\nwho cares for the souls of men only, but for their bodies also, and\neverything around them. His servants do well to remember this, and in\nthis imitate Him, as happily many are doing more and more. Bibles and\ntracts are good, and religious exhortation; but we have here left us a\nDivine warrant not to content ourselves with these things alone, but\nto have a care for the clothing and the homes of those we would reach\nwith the Gospel. In all the large cities of Christendom it must be\nconfessed that the principle which underlies these laws concerning\nhouses and garments, is often terribly neglected. Whether the\nveritable plague of leprosy be in the walls of many of our tenement\nhouses or not, there can be no doubt that it could not be much worse\nif it were; and Christian philanthropy and legislation could scarcely\ndo better in many cases than vigorously to enforce the Levitical law,\ntear down, re-plaster, or, in many cases, destroy from the foundation,\ntenement houses, which could, with little exaggeration, be justly\ndescribed as leprous throughout.\n\nBut all which is in this law cannot be thus explained. Even the\nIsraelite must have looked beyond this for the meaning of the\nordinance of the two birds, the cedar, scarlet, and hyssop, and the\n\"atonement\" for the house. He would have easily perceived that not\nonly leprosy in the body, but this leprosy in the garment and the\nhouse, was a sign that both the man himself, and his whole environment\nas well, was subject to death and decay; that, as already he would\nhave learned from the Book of Genesis, even nature was under a curse\nbecause of man's sin; and that, as in the Divine plan, sacrificial\ncleansing was required for the deliverance of man, so also it was\nsomehow mysteriously required for the cleansing of his earthly abode\nand surroundings, in default of which purgation they must be\ndestroyed.\n\nAnd from this to the antitypical truth prefigured by these laws it is\nbut a step; and a step which we take with full New Testament light to\nguide us. For if the leprosy in the body visibly typified the working\nof sin and death in the soul of man, then, as clearly, the leprosy in\nthe house must in this law be intended to symbolise the working of sin\nin the material earthly creation, which is man's abode. The type thus\nbrings before us the truth which is set forth by the Apostle Paul in\nRom. viii. 20-22, where we are taught in express words that, not man\nalone, but the whole creation also, because of sin, has come under a\n\"bondage of corruption.\" \"The creation was subjected to vanity, not of\nits own will, but by reason of him who subjected it.... For we know\nthat the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until\nnow.\" This is one truth which is shadowed forth in this type.\n\nBut the type also shows us how, as Scripture elsewhere clearly\nteaches, if after such partial purgation as was effected by means of\nthe deluge the bondage of corruption still persist, then the abode of\nman must itself be destroyed; \"the earth and the works that are\ntherein shall be burned up\" (2 Peter iii. 10). Nothing less than fire\nwill suffice to put an end to the working in material nature of this\nmysterious curse. And yet beyond the fire is redemption. For the\natonement shall avail not only for the leprous man, but for the\npurifying of the leprous abode. The sprinkling of sacrificial blood\nand water by means of the cedar, and hyssop, and scarlet, and the\nliving bird, which effected the deliverance of the leper, are used\nalso in the same way and for the same end, for the leprous house. And\nso \"according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new\nearth, wherein dwelleth righteousness\" (2 Peter iii. 13); and it shall\nbe brought in through the virtue of atonement made by a Saviour slain,\nand applied by a Saviour alive from the dead; so that, as the free\nbird flies away in token of the full completion of deliverance from\nthe curse, so \"the creation itself also shall be delivered from the\nbondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of\nGod\" (Rom. viii. 21).\n\nBut there was also a leprosy of the garment. If the leprosy in the\nbody typified the effect of sin in the soul, and the leprosy in the\nhouse, the effect of sin in the earthly creation, which is man's home;\nthe leprosy of the garment can scarcely typify anything else than the\npresence and effects of sin in those various relations in life which\nconstitute our present environment. Whenever, in any of these, we\nsuspect the working of sin, first of all we are to lay the case before\nthe heavenly Priest. And then, if He with the \"eyes like a flame of\nfire\" (Rev. i. 14; ii. 18) declare anything unclean, then that in\nwhich the stain is found must be without hesitation cut out and thrown\naway. And if still, after this, we find the evil reappearing, then the\nwhole garment must go, fair and good though the most of it may still\nappear. In other words, those relations and engagements in which,\ndespite all possible care and precaution, we find manifest sin\npersistently reappearing, as if there were in them, however\ninexplicably, an ineradicable tendency to evil,--these we must\nresolutely put away, \"hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.\"\n\nThe leprous garment must be burnt. For its restoration or purification\nthe law made no provision. For here, in the antitype, we are dealing\nwith earthly relationships, which have only to do with the present\nlife and order. \"The fashion of this world passeth away\" (1 Cor. vii.\n31). There shall be \"new heavens and a new earth,\" but in that new\ncreation the old environment shall be found no longer. The old\ngarments, even such as were best, shall be no longer used. The\nredeemed shall walk with the King and Redeemer, clothed in the white\nrobes which He shall give. No more leprosy then in person, house, or\ngarment! For we shall be set before the presence of the Father's\nglory, without blemish, in exceeding joy, \"not having spot, or\nwrinkle, or any such thing.\" Wherefore \"to the only God our Saviour,\nthrough Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power,\nbefore all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n_OF HOLINESS IN EATING._\n\nLEV. xvii. 1-16.\n\n\nWith this chapter begins another subdivision of the law. Hitherto we\nhave had before us only sacrificial worship and matters of merely\nceremonial law. The law of holy living contained in the following\nchapters (xvii.-xx.), on the other hand, has to do for the most part\nwith matters rather ethical than ceremonial, and consists chiefly of\nprecepts designed to regulate morally the ordinary engagements and\nrelationships of every-day life. The fundamental thought of the four\nchapters is that which is expressed, _e.g._, in xviii. 3: Israel,\nredeemed by Jehovah, is called to be a holy people; and this holiness\nis to be manifested in a total separation from the ways of the\nheathen. This principle is enforced by various specific commands and\nprohibitions, which naturally have particular regard to the special\nconditions under which Israel was placed, as a holy nation consecrated\nto Jehovah, the one, true God, but living in the midst of nations of\nidolaters.\n\nThe whole of chapter xvii., with the exception of vv. 8, 9, has to do\nwith the application of this law of holy living to the use even of\nlawful food. At first thought, the injunctions of the chapter might\nseem to belong rather to ceremonial than to moral law; but closer\nobservation will show that all the injunctions here given have direct\nreference to the avoidance of idolatry, especially as connected with\nthe preparation and use of food.\n\nIt was not enough that the true Israelite should abstain from food\nprohibited by God, as in chap. xii.; he must also use that which was\npermitted in a way well-pleasing to God, carefully shunning even the\nappearance of any complicity with surrounding idolatry, or fellowship\nwith the heathen in their unholy fashions and customs. Even so for the\nChristian: it is not enough that he abstain from what is expressly\nforbidden; even in his use of lawful food, he must so use it that it\nshall be to him a means of grace, in helping him to maintain an\nuninterrupted walk with God.\n\nIn vv. 1-7 is given the law to regulate the use of such clean animals\nfor food as could be offered to God in sacrifice; in vv. 10-16, of\nsuch as, although permitted for food, were not allowed for sacrifice.\n\nThe directions regarding the first class may be summed up in this: all\nsuch animals were to be treated as peace-offerings. No private person\nin Israel was to slaughter any such animal anywhere in the camp or out\nof it, except at the door of the tent of meeting. Thither they were to\nbe brought \"unto the priest,\" and offered for peace-offerings (ver.\n5); the blood must be sprinkled on the altar of burnt-offering; the\nfat parts burnt \"for a sweet savour unto the Lord\" (ver. 6); and then\nonly, the priest having first taken his appointed portions, the\nremainder might now be eaten by the Israelite, as given back to him by\nGod, in peaceful fellowship with Him.\n\nThe law could not have been burdensome, as some might hastily imagine.\nEven when obtainable, meat was probably not used as food by them so\nfreely as with us; and in the wilderness the lack of flesh, it will be\nremembered, was so great as to have occasioned at one time a rebellion\namong the people, who fretfully complained (Numb. xi. 4): \"Who shall\ngive us flesh to eat?\"\n\nEven the uncritical reader must be able to see how manifest is the\nMosaic date of this part of Leviticus. The terms of this law suppose a\ncamp-life; indeed, the camp is explicitly named (ver. 3). That which\nwas enjoined was quite practicable under the conditions of life in the\nwilderness, when, at the best, flesh was scarce, and the people dwelt\ncompactly together; but would have been utterly inapplicable and\nimpracticable at a later date, after they were settled throughout the\nland of Canaan, when to have slaughtered all beasts used for food at\nthe central sanctuary would have been impossible. Hence we find that,\nas we should expect, the modified law of Deuteronomy (xii. 15, 16,\n20-24), assuming the previous existence of this earlier law,\nexplicitly repeals it. To suppose that forgers of a later day, as, for\ninstance, of the time of Josiah, or after the Babylonian exile, should\nhave needlessly invented a law of this kind, is an hypothesis which is\nrightly characterised by Dillmann as \"simply absurd.\"[30]\n\n [30] \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 535.\n\nThis regulation for the wilderness days is said (vv. 5, 7) to have\nbeen made \"to the end that the children of Israel may bring their\nsacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field ... unto the Lord,\n... and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings unto the\nLord.... And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the\nhe-goats, after whom they go a whoring.\"\n\nThere can be no doubt that in the last sentence, \"he-goats,\" as in the\nRevised Version, instead of \"devils,\" as in the Authorised, is the\nright rendering. The worship referred to was still in existence in the\ndays of the monarchy; for it is included in the charges against\n\"Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin\" (2 Chron. xi.\n15), that \"he appointed him priests, ... for the he-goats, and for the\ncalves which he had made.\" Nor can here we agree with Dillmann[31]\nthat in this worship of he-goats here referred to, there is \"no\noccasion to think of the goat-worship of Egypt.\" For inasmuch as we\nknow that the worship of the sacred bull and that of the he-goat\nprevailed in Egypt in those days, and inasmuch as in Ezekiel xx. 6, 7,\n15-18, repeated reference is made to Israel's having worshipped \"the\nidols of Egypt,\" one can hardly avoid combining these two facts, and\nthus connecting the goat-worship to which allusion is here made, with\nthat which prevailed at Mendes, in Lower Egypt. This cult at that\nplace was accompanied with nameless revolting rites, such as give\nspecial significance to the description of this worship (ver. 7) as \"a\nwhoring\" after the goats; and abundantly explain and justify the\nseverity of the penalty attached to the violation of this law (ver. 4)\nin cutting off the offender from this people; all the more when we\nobserve the fearful persistency of this horrible goat-worship in\nIsrael, breaking out anew, as just remarked, some five hundred years\nlater, in the reign of Jeroboam.\n\n [31] \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 537.\n\nThe words imply that the ordinary slaughter of animals for food was\noften connected with some idolatrous ceremony related to this\ngoat-worship. What precisely it may have been, we know not; but of\nsuch customs, connecting the preparation of the daily food with\nidolatry, we have abundant illustration in the usages of the ancient\nPersians, the Hindoos, and the heathen Arabs of the days before\nMohammed. The law was thus intended to cut out this every-day idolatry\nby the root. With these \"field-devils,\" as Luther renders the word,\nthe holy people of the Lord were to have nothing to do.\n\nVery naturally, the requirement to present all slaughtered animals as\npeace-offerings to Jehovah gives occasion to turn aside for a little\nfrom the matter of food, which is the chief subject of the chapter, in\norder to extend this principle beyond animals slaughtered for food,\nand insist particularly that all burnt-offerings and sacrifices of\nevery kind should be sacrificed at the door of the tent of meeting,\nand nowhere else. This law, we are told (ver. 8), was to be applied,\nnot only to the Israelites themselves, but also to \"strangers\" among\nthem; such as, _e.g._, were the Gibeonites. No idolatry, nor anything\nlikely to be associated with it, was to be tolerated from any one in\nthe holy camp.\n\nThe principle which underlies this stringent law, as also the reason\nwhich is given for it, is of constant application in modern life.\nThere was nothing wrong in itself in slaying an animal in one place\nmore than another. It was abstractly possible--as, likely enough, many\nan Israelite may have said to himself--that a man could just as really\n\"eat unto the Lord\" if he slaughtered and ate his animal in the field,\nas anywhere else. Nevertheless this was forbidden under the heaviest\npenalties. It teaches us that he who will be holy must not only\nabstain from that which is in itself always wrong, but must carefully\nkeep himself from doing even lawful or necessary things in such a way,\nor under such associations and circumstances, as may outwardly\ncompromise his Christian standing, or which may be proved by\nexperience to have an almost unavoidable tendency toward sin. The\nlaxity in such matters which prevails in the so-called \"Christian\nworld\" argues little for the tone of spiritual life in our day in\nthose who indulge in it, or allow it, or apologise for it. It may be\ntrue enough, in a sense, that as many say, there is no harm in this or\nthat. Perhaps not; but what if experience have shown that, though in\nitself not sinful, a certain association or amusement almost always\ntends to worldliness, which is a form of idolatry? Or--to use the\napostle's illustration--what if one be seen, though with no intention\nof wrong, \"sitting at meat in an idol's temple,\" and he whose\nconscience is weak be thereby emboldened to do what to him is sin?\nThere is only one safe principle, now as in the days of Moses:\neverything must be brought \"before the Lord;\" used as from Him and for\nHim, and therefore used under such limitations and restrictions as His\nwise and holy law imposes. Only so shall we be safe; only so abide in\nliving fellowship with God.\n\nVery beautiful and instructive, again, was the direction that the\nIsraelite, in the cases specified, should make his daily food a\npeace-offering. This involved a dedication of the daily food to the\nLord; and in his receiving it back again then from the hand of God,\nthe truth was visibly represented that our daily food is from God;\nwhile also, in the sacrificial acts which preceded the eating, the\nIsraelite was continually reminded that it was upon the ground of an\naccepted atonement that even these every-day mercies were received.\nSuch also should be, in spirit, the often neglected prayer before each\nof our daily meals. It should be ever offered with the remembrance of\nthe precious blood which has purchased for us even the most common\nmercies; and should thus sincerely recognise what, in the confusing\ncomplexity of the second causes through which we receive our daily\nfood, we so easily forget: that the Lord's prayer is not a mere form\nof words when we say, \"Give us this day our daily bread;\" but that\nworking behind, and in, and with, all these second causes, is the\nkindly Providence of God, who, opening His hand, supplies the want of\nevery living thing. And so, eating in grateful, loving fellowship with\nour Heavenly Father that which His bounty gives us, to His glory,\nevery meal shall become, as it were, a sacramental remembrance of the\nLord. We may have wondered at what we have read of the world-wide\ncustom of the Mohammedan, who, whenever the knife of slaughter is\nlifted against a beast for food, utters his \"_Bism all\u00e0h_,\" \"In the\nname of the most merciful God;\" and not otherwise will regard his food\nas being made _hal\u00e0l_, or \"lawful;\" and, no doubt, in all this, as in\nmany a Christian's prayer, there may often be little heart. But the\nthought in this ceremony is even this of Leviticus, and we do well to\nmake it our own, eating even our daily food \"in the name of the most\nmerciful God,\" and with uplifting of the heart in thankful worship\ntoward Him.\n\nBut there were many beasts which, although they might not be offered\nto the Lord in sacrifice, were yet \"clean,\" and permitted to the\nIsraelites as food. Such, in particular, were clean animals that are\ntaken in the hunt or chase. In vv. 10-16 the law is given for the use\nof these. It is prefaced by a very full and explicit prohibition of\nthe eating of blood;[32] for while, as regards the animals to be\noffered to the Lord, provision was made with respect to the blood,\nthat it was to be sprinkled around the altar, there was the danger\nthat in other cases, where this was not permissible, the blood might\nbe used for food. Hence the prohibition against eating \"any manner of\nblood,\" on a twofold ground: first (vv. 11, 14), that the life of the\nflesh is the blood; and second (ver. 11), that, for this reason, God\nhad chosen the blood to be the symbol of life substituted for the life\nof the guilty in atoning sacrifice: \"I have given it to you upon the\naltar to make atonement for your souls.\" Hence, in order that this\nrelation of the blood to the forgiveness of sins might be constantly\nkept before the mind, it was ordained that never should the Israelite\neat of flesh except the blood should first have been carefully drained\nout. And it was to be treated with reverence, as having thus a certain\nsanctity; when the beast was taken in hunting, the Israelite must\n(ver. 13) \"pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust;\"--an\nact by which the blood, the life, was symbolically returned to Him who\nin the beginning said (Gen. i. 24), \"Let the earth bring forth the\nliving creature after its kind.\" And because, in the case of \"that\nwhich dieth of itself,\" or is \"torn of beasts,\" the blood would not be\nthus carefully drained off, all such animals (ver. 15) are prohibited\nas food.\n\n [32] These verses have been partially expounded, indeed, before,\n in so far as was necessary to a complete exposition of the\n sin-offering; but in this context the subject is brought forward\n in another relation, which renders necessary this additional\n exposition.\n\nIt is profoundly instructive to observe that here, again, we come upon\ndeclarations and a command, the deep truth and fitness of which is\nonly becoming clear now after three thousand years. For, as the\nresult of our modern discoveries with regard to the constitution of\nthe blood, and the exact nature of its functions, we in this day are\nable to say that it is not far from a scientific statement of the\nfacts, when we read (ver. 14), \"As to the life of all flesh, the blood\nthereof is all one with the life thereof.\" For it is in just this\nrespect that the blood is most distinct from all other parts of the\nbody; that, whereas it conveys and mediates nourishment to all, it is\nitself nourished by none; but by its myriad cells brought immediately\nin contact with the digested food, directly and immediately\nassimilates it to itself. We are compelled to say that as regards the\nphysical life of man--which alone is signified by the original term\nhere--it is certainly true of the blood, as of no other part of the\norganism, that \"the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.\"\n\nAnd while it is true that, according to the text, a spiritual and\nmoral reason is given for the prohibition of the use of blood as food,\nyet it is well worth noting that, as has been already remarked in\nanother connection, the prohibition, as we are now beginning to see,\nhad also a hygienic reason. For Dr. de Mussy, in his paper before the\nFrench Academy of Medicine already referred to,[33] calls attention to\nthe fact that, not only did the Mosaic laws exclude from the Hebrew\ndietary animals \"particularly liable to parasites;\" but also that \"it\nis in the blood,\" so rigidly prohibited by Moses as food, \"that the\ngerms or spores of infectious disease circulate.\" Surely no one need\nfear, with some expositors, lest this recognition of a sanitary intent\nin these laws shall hinder the recognition of their moral and\nspiritual purport, which in this chapter is so expressly taught.\nRather should this cause us the more to wonder and admire the unity\nwhich thus appears between the demands and necessities of the physical\nand the moral and spiritual life; and, in the discovery of the\nmarvellous adaptation of these ancient laws to the needs of both, to\nfind a new confirmation of our faith in God and in His revealed Word.\nFor thus do they appear to be laws so far beyond the wisdom of that\ntime, and so surely beneficent in their working, that in view of this\nit should be easy to believe that it must indeed have been the Lord\nGod, the Maker and Preserver of all flesh, who spake all these laws\nunto His servant Moses.\n\n [33] See p. 292.\n\nThe moral and spiritual purpose of this law concerning the use of\nblood was apparently twofold. In the first place, it was intended to\neducate the people to a reverence for life, and purify them from that\ntendency to bloodthirstiness which has so often distinguished heathen\nnations, and especially those with whom Israel was to be brought in\nclosest contact. But secondly, and chiefly, it was intended, as in the\nformer part of the chapter, everywhere and always to keep before the\nmind the sacredness of the blood as being the appointed means for the\nexpiation of sin; given by God upon the altar to make atonement for\nthe soul of the sinner, \"by reason of the life\" or soul with which it\nstood in such immediate relation. Not only were they therefore to\nabstain from the blood of such animals as could be offered on the\naltar, but even from that of those which could not be offered. Thus\nthe blood was to remind them, every time that they ate flesh, of the\nvery solemn truth that without shedding of blood there was no\nremission of sin. The Israelite must never forget this; even in the\nheat and excitement of the chase, he must pause and carefully drain\nthe blood from the creature he had slain, and reverently cover it with\ndust;--a symbolic act which should ever put him in mind of the Divine\nordinance that the blood, the life, of a guiltless victim must be\ngiven, in order to the forgiveness of sin.\n\nA lesson lies here for us regarding the sacredness of all that is\nassociated with sacred things. All that is connected with God, and\nwith His worship, especially all that is connected with His revelation\nof Himself for our salvation, is to be treated with the most profound\nreverence. Even though the blood of the deer killed in the chase could\nnot be used in sacrifice, yet, because it was blood, was in its\nessential nature like unto that which was so used, therefore it must\nbe treated with a certain respect, and be always covered with earth.\nIt is the fashion of our age--and one which is increasing in an\nalarming degree--to speak lightly of things which are closely\nconnected with the revelation and worship of the holy God. Against\neverything of this kind the spirit of this law warns us. Nothing which\nis associated in any way with what is sacred is to be spoken of or\ntreated irreverently, lest we thus come to think lightly of the sacred\nthings themselves. This irreverent treatment of holy things is a\ncrying evil in many parts of the English-speaking world, as also in\ncontinental Christendom. We need to beware of it. After irreverence,\ntoo often, by no obscure law, comes open denial of the Holy One and of\nHis holy Son, our Lord and Saviour. The blood of Christ, which\nrepresented that holy life which was given on the cross for our sins,\nis holy--an infinitely holy thing! And what is God's estimate of its\nsanctity we may perhaps learn--looking through the symbol to that\nwhich was symbolised--from this law; which required that all blood,\nbecause outwardly resembling the holy blood of sacrifice, and, like\nit, the seat and vehicle of life, should be treated with most careful\nreverence. And it is safe to say that just those most need the lesson\ntaught by this command who find it the hardest to appreciate it, and\nto whom its injunctions still seem regulations puerile and unworthy,\naccording to their fancy, of the dignity and majesty of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n\n_THE LAW OF HOLINESS: CHASTITY._\n\nLEV. xviii. 1-30.\n\n\nChapters xviii., xix., and xx., by a formal introduction (xviii. 1-5)\nand a formal closing (xx. 22-26), are indicated as a distinct section,\nvery commonly known by the name, \"the Law of Holiness.\" As this phrase\nindicates, these chapters--unlike chap. xvii., which as to its\ncontents has a character intermediate between the ceremonial and moral\nlaw--consist substantially of moral prohibitions and commandments\nthroughout. Of the three, the first two contain the prohibitions and\nprecepts of the law; the third (xx.), the penal sanctions by which\nmany of these were to be enforced.\n\nThe section opens (vv. 1, 2) with Jehovah's assertion of His absolute\nsupremacy, and a reminder to Israel of the fact that He had entered\ninto covenant relations with them: \"I am the Lord your God.\" With\nsolemn emphasis the words are again repeated, ver. 4; and yet again in\nver. 5: \"I am the Lord.\"[34] They would naturally call to mind the\nscene at Sinai, with its august and appalling grandeur, attesting amid\nearthquake and fire and tempest at once the being, power, and\nunapproachable holiness of Him who then and there, with those\nstupendous solemnities, in inexplicable condescension, took Israel\ninto covenant with Himself, to be to Himself \"a kingdom of priests and\na holy nation.\" There could be no question as to the right of the God\nthus revealed to impose law; no question as to the peculiar obligation\nupon Israel to keep His law; no question as to His intolerance of sin,\nand full power and determination, as the Holy One, to enforce whatever\nHe commanded. All these thoughts--thoughts of eternal moment--would be\ncalled up in the mind of every devout Israelite, as he heard or read\nthis preface to the law of holiness.\n\n [34] It deserves to be noticed that in this phrase, which recurs\n with such frequency in this \"Law of Holiness,\" the original,\n with evident allusion to Exod. iii. 15; vi. 2-4, always has the\n covenant name of God, commonly anglicised \"Jehovah.\" The\n retention of the term \"Lord\" here, as in many other places, is\n much to be regretted, as seriously weakening and obscuring the\n sense to the ordinary reader.\n\nThe prohibitions which we find in chap. xviii. are not given as an\nexhaustive code of laws upon the subjects traversed, but rather deal\nwith certain gross offences against the law of chastity, which, as we\nknow from other sources, were horribly common at that time among the\nsurrounding nations. To indulgence in these crimes, Israel, as the\nlater history sadly shows, would be especially liable; so contagious\nare evil example and corrupt associations! Hence the general scope of\nthe chapter is announced in this form (ver. 3): \"After the doings of\nthe land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the\ndoings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do:\nneither shall ye walk in their statutes.\"\n\nInstead of this, they were (ver. 4) to do God's judgments, and keep\nHis statutes, to walk in them, bearing in mind whose they were. And as\na further motive it is added (ver. 5): \"which if a man do, he shall\nlive in them;\" that is, as the Chaldee paraphrast, Onkelos, rightly\ninterprets in the Targum, \"with the life of eternity.\" Which\nfar-reaching promise is sealed by the repetition, for the third time,\nof the words, \"I am the Lord.\" That is enough; for what Jehovah\npromises, that shall certainly be!\n\nThe law begins (ver. 6) with a general statement of the principle\nwhich underlies all particular prohibitions of incest: \"None of you\nshall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their\nnakedness;\" and then, for the fourth time, are iterated the words, \"I\nam the Lord.\" The prohibitions which follow require little special\nexplanation. As just remarked, they are directed in particular to\nthose breaches of the law of chastity which were most common with the\nEgyptians, from the midst of whom Israel had come; and with the\nCanaanites, to whose land they were going. This explains, for\ninstance, the fulness of detail in the prohibition of incestuous union\nwith a sister or half-sister (vv. 9, 11),--an iniquity very common in\nEgypt, having the sanction of royal custom from the days of the\nPharaohs down to the time of the Ptolemies. The unnatural alliance of\na man with his mother, prohibited in ver. 8, of which Paul declared (1\nCor. v. 1) that in his day it did not exist among the Gentiles, was\nyet the distinguishing infamy of the Medes and Persians for many\ncenturies. Union with an aunt, by blood or by marriage, prohibited in\nvv. 12-14,--a connection less gross, and less severely to be punished\nthan the preceding,--seems to have been permitted even among the\nIsraelites themselves while in Egypt, as is plain from the case of\nAmram and Jochebed (Exod. vi. 20). To the law forbidding connection\nwith a brother's wife (ver. 16), the later Deuteronomic law (Deut.\nxxv. 5-10), made an exception, permitting that a man might marry the\nwidow of his deceased brother, when the latter had died without\nchildren, and \"raise up seed unto his brother.\" In this, however, the\nlaw but sanctioned a custom which--as we learn from the case of Onan\n(Gen. xxxviii.)--had been observed long before the days of Moses, both\nby the Hebrews and other ancient nations, and, indeed, even limited\nand restricted its application; with good reason providing for\nexemption of the surviving brother from this duty, in cases where for\nany reason it might be repugnant or impracticable.\n\nThe case of a connection with both a woman and her daughter or\ngranddaughter is next mentioned (ver. 17); and, with special emphasis,\nis declared to be \"wickedness,\" or \"enormity.\"\n\nThe prohibition (ver. 18) of marriage with a sister-in-law, as is well\nknown, has been, and still is, the occasion of much controversy, into\nwhich it is not necessary here to enter at length. But, whatever may\nbe thought for other reasons as to the lawfulness of such a union, it\ntruly seems quite singular that this verse should ever have been cited\nas prohibiting such an alliance. No words could well be more explicit\nthan those which we have here, in limiting the application of the\nprohibition to the life-time of the wife: \"Thou shalt not take a woman\nto her sister, _to be a rival to her_, to uncover her nakedness,\nbeside the other _in her life time_\" (R.V.). The law therefore does\nnot touch the question for which it is so often cited, but was\nevidently only intended as a restriction on prevalent polygamy.\nPolygamy is ever likely to produce jealousies and heart-burnings; but\nit is plain that this phase of the evil would reach its most extreme\nand odious expression when the new and rival wife was a sister to the\none already married; when it would practically annul sisterly love,\nand give rise to such painful and peculiarly humiliating dissensions\nas we read of between the sisters Leah and Rachel. The sense of the\npassage is so plain, that we are told that this interpretation \"stood\nits ground unchallenged from the third century B.C. to the middle of\nthe sixteenth century _A.D._\" Whatever opinion any may hold therefore\nas to the expediency, upon other grounds, of this much debated\nalliance, this passage, certainly, cannot be fairly cited as\nforbidding it; but is far more naturally understood as by natural\nimplication permitting the union, after the decease of the first wife.\nThe laws concerning incest therefore terminate with ver. 17; and ver.\n18, according to this interpretation, must be regarded as a\nrestriction upon polygamous connections, as ver. 19 is upon the rights\nof marriage.\n\nIt seems somewhat surprising that the question should have been\nraised, even theoretically, whether the Mosaic law, as regards the\ndegrees of affinity prohibited in marriage, is of permanent authority.\nThe reasons for these prohibitions, wherever given, are as valid now\nas then; for the simple reason that they are grounded fundamentally in\na matter of fact,--namely, the nature of the relation between husband\nand wife, whereby they become \"one flesh,\" implied in such phraseology\nas we find in ver. 16; and also the relation of blood between members\nof the same family, as in vv. 10, etc. Happily, however, whatever\ntheory any may have held, the Church in all ages has practically\nrecognised every one of these prohibitions, as binding on all persons;\nand has rather been inclined to err, if at all, by extending, through\ninference and analogy, the prohibited degrees even beyond the Mosaic\ncode. So much, however, by way of guarding against excess in such\ninferential extensions of the law, we must certainly say: according to\nthe law itself, as further applied in chap. xxi. 1-4, and limited in\nDeut. xxv. 5-10, relationship by marriage is not to be regarded as\nprecisely equivalent in degree of affinity to relationship by blood.\nWe cannot, for instance, conceive that, under any circumstances, the\nprohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters should have had\nany exception; and yet, as we have seen, the marriage between brother\nand sister-in-law is explicitly authorised, in the case of the\nlevirate marriage, and by implication allowed in other cases, by the\nlanguage of ver. 18 of this chapter.\n\nBut in these days, when there is such a manifest inclination in\nChristendom, as especially in the United States and in France, to\nignore the law of God in regard to marriage and divorce, and regulate\nthese instead by a majority vote, it assuredly becomes peculiarly\nimperative that, as Christians, we exercise a holy jealousy for the\nhonour of God and the sanctity of the family, and ever refuse to allow\na majority vote any authority in these matters, where it contravenes\nthe law of God. While we must observe caution that in these things we\nlay no burden on the conscience of any, which God has not first placed\nthere, we must insist--all the more strenuously because of the\nuniversal tendency to license--upon the strict observance of all that\nis either explicitly taught or by necessary implication involved in\nthe teachings of God's Word upon this question. Nothing more\nfundamentally concerns the well-being of society than the relation of\nthe man and the woman in the constitution of the family; and while,\nunfortunately, in our modern democratic communities, the Church may\nnot be able always to control and determine the civil law in these\nmatters, she can at least utterly refuse any compromise where the\ncivil law ignores what God has spoken; and with unwavering firmness\ndeny her sanction, in any way, to any connection between a man and a\nwoman which is not according to the revealed will of God, as set\nbefore us in this most holy, good, and beneficent law.\n\nThe chapter before us casts a light upon the moral condition of the\nmost cultivated heathen peoples in those days, among whom many of the\ngrossest of these incestuous connections, as already remarked, were\nquite common, even among those of the highest station. There are many\nin our day more or less affected with the present fashion of\nadmiration for the ancient (and modern) heathenisms, who would do well\nto heed this light, that their blind enthusiasm might thereby be\nsomewhat tempered.\n\nOn the other hand, these laws show us, in a very striking contrast,\nthe estimate which God puts upon the maintenance of holiness, purity,\nand chastity between man and woman; and His very jealous regard for\nthe sanctity of the family in all its various relations. Even in the\nOld Testament we have hints of a reason for this, deeper than mere\nexpediency,--hints which receive a definite form in the clearer\nteaching of the New Testament, which tells us that in the Divine plan\nit is ordained that in these earthly relations man shall be the shadow\nand image of God. If, as the Apostle tells us (Eph. iii. 15, R.V.),\n\"every family in heaven and on earth\" is named from the Father; and\nif, as he again teaches (Eph. v. 29-32), the relation of husband and\nwife is intended to be an earthly type and symbol of the relation\nbetween the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, which is His\nBride,--then we cannot wonder at the exceedingly strong emphasis which\nmarks these prohibitions. Everything must be excluded which would be\nincompatible with this holy ideal of God for man; that not only in the\nconstitution of his person, but in these sacred relations which belong\nto his very nature, as created male and female, he should be the image\nof the invisible God.\n\nThus, he who is a father is ever to bear in mind that in his\nfatherhood he is appointed to shadow forth the ineffable mystery of\nthe eternal relation of the only-begotten and most holy Son to this\neverlasting Father. As husband, the man is to remember that since he\nwho is joined to his wife becomes with her \"one flesh,\" therefore this\nunion becomes, in the Divine ordination, a type and pattern of the yet\nmore mysterious union of life between the Son of God and the Church,\nwhich is His Bride. As brothers and sisters, again, the children of\nGod are to remember that brotherly love, in its purity and unselfish\ndevotion, is intended of God to be a living illustration of the love\nof Him who has been made of God to be \"the firstborn among many\nbrethren\" (Rom. viii. 29). And thus, with the family life pervaded\nthrough and through by these ideas, will license and impurity be made\nimpossible, and, as happily now in many a Christian home, it will\nappear that the family, no less truly than the Church, is appointed of\nGod to be a sanctuary of purity in a world impure and corrupt by\nwicked works, and, no less really than the Church, to be an effective\nmeans of Divine grace, and of preparation for the eternal life of the\nheavenly kingdom, when all of God's \"many sons\" shall have been\nbrought to glory, the \"many brethren\" of the First-Begotten, to abide\nwith Him in the Father's house for ever and ever.\n\nAfter the prohibition of adultery in ver. 20, we have what at first\nseems like a very abrupt introduction of a totally different subject;\nfor ver. 21 refers, not to the seventh, but to the second, and,\ntherewith also, to the sixth commandment. It reads: \"Thou shalt not\ngive any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech,\nneither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.\"\n\nBut the connection of thought is found in the historical relation of\nthe licentious practices prohibited in the preceding verses to\nidolatry, of which this Molech-worship is named as one of the most\nhideous manifestations. Some, indeed, have supposed that this\nfrequently recurring phrase does not designate an actual sacrifice of\nthe children, but only their consecration to Molech by some kind of\nfire-baptism. But certainly such passages as 2 Kings xvii. 31, Jer.\nvii. 31, xix. 5, distinctly require us to understand an actual\noffering of the children as \"burnt-offerings.\" They were not indeed\nburnt alive, as a late and untrustworthy tradition has it, but were\nfirst slain, as in the case of all burnt-sacrifices, and then burnt.\nThe unnatural cruelty of the sacrifice, even as thus made, was such,\nthat both here and in xx. 3 it is described as in a special sense a\n\"profaning\" of God's holy name,--a profanation, in that it represented\nHim, the Lord of love and fatherly mercy, as requiring such a cruel\nand unnatural sacrifice of parental love, in the immolation of\ninnocent children.\n\nThe inconceivably unnatural crimes prohibited in vv. 22, 23 were in\nlike manner essentially connected with idolatrous worship: the former\nwith the worship of Astarte or Ashtoreth; the latter with the worship\nof the he-goat at Mendes in Egypt, as the symbol of the generative\npower in nature. What a hideous perversion of the moral sense was\ninvolved in these crimes, as thus connected with idolatrous worship,\nis illustrated strikingly by the fact that men and women, thus\nprostituted to the service of false gods, were designated by the terms\n_q\u00e1desh_ and _q\u00e1desh\u00e1h_, \"sacred,\" \"holy\"![35] No wonder that the\nsacred writer brands these horrible crimes as, in a peculiar and\nalmost solitary sense, \"abomination,\" \"confusion.\"\n\n [35] See, for example, in the Hebrew text, 1 Kings xiv. 24; Gen.\n xxxviii. 21; Hosea iv. 14, _et passim_.\n\nIn these days of ours, when it has become the fashion among a certain\nclass of cultured writers--who would still, in many instances,\napparently desire to be called Christian--to act as the apologists of\nidolatrous, and, according to Holy Scripture, false religions, the\nmention of these crimes in this connection may well remind the reader\nof what such seem to forget, as they certainly ignore; namely, that in\nall ages, in the modern heathenism no less than in the ancient,\nidolatry and gross licentiousness ever go hand in hand. Still, to-day,\neven in Her Majesty's Indian Empire, is the most horrible\nlicentiousness practised as an office of religious worship. Nor are\nsuch revolting perversions of the moral sense confined to the\n\"Mahar\u00e1j\u00e1s\" of the temples in Western India, who figured in certain\ntrials in Bombay a few years ago; for even the modern \"reformed\"\nHindooism, from which some hope so much, has not always been able to\nshake itself free from the pollution of these things, as witness the\nargument conducted in recent numbers of the _\u00c1rya Patrik\u00e1_ of Lahore,\nto justify the infamous custom known as _Niyoga_, practised to this\nday in India, _e.g._, by the Panday Brahmans of Allahabad;--a practice\nwhich is sufficiently described as being adultery arranged for, under\ncertain conditions, by a wife or husband, the one for the other. One\nwould fain charitably hope, if possible, that our modern apologists\nfor Oriental idolatries are unaccountably ignorant of what all history\nshould have taught them as to the inseparable connection between\nidolatry and licentiousness. Both Egypt and Canaan, in the olden\ntime,--as this chapter with all contemporaneous history teaches,--and\nalso India in modern times, read us a very awful lesson on this\nsubject. Not only have these idolatries led too often to gross\nlicentiousness of life, but in their full development they have, again\nand again, in audacious and blasphemous profanation of the most holy\nGod, and defiance even of the natural conscience, given to the most\nhorrible excesses of unbridled lust the supreme sanction of declaring\nthem to be religious obligations. Assuredly, in God's sight, it cannot\nbe a trifling thing for any man, even through ignorance, to extol, or\neven apologise for, religions with which such enormities are both\nlogically and historically connected. And so, in these stern\nprohibitions, and their heavy penal sanctions, we may find a\nprofitable lesson for even the cultivated intellect of the nineteenth\ncentury!\n\nThe chapter closes with reiterated charges against indulgence in any\nof these abominations. Israel is told (vv. 25, 28) that it was because\nthe Canaanites practised these enormities that God was about to\nscourge them out of their land;--a judicial reason which, one would\nthink, should have some weight with those whose sympathies are so\ndrawn out with commiseration for the Canaanites, that they find it\nimpossible to believe that it can be true, as we are told in the\nPentateuch, that God ordered their extermination. Rather, in the light\nof the facts, would we raise the opposite question: whether, if God\nindeed be a holy and righteous Governor among the nations, He could do\nanything else either in justice toward the Canaanites, or in mercy\ntoward those whom their horrible example would certainly in like\nmanner corrupt, than, in one way or another, effect the extermination\nof such a people?\n\nIsrael is then solemnly warned (ver. 28) that if they,\nnotwithstanding, shall practise these crimes, God will not spare them\nany more than He spared the Canaanites. No covenant of His with them\nshall hinder the land from spueing them out in like manner. And though\nthe nation, as a whole, give not itself to these things, each\nindividual is warned (ver. 29), \"Whosoever shall commit any of these\nabominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among\ntheir people;\" that is, shall be outlawed and shut out from all\nparticipation in covenant mercies. And therewith this part of the law\nof holiness closes, with those pregnant words, repeated now in this\nchapter for the fifth time: \"I am the Lord (Heb. Jehovah) your God!\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n_THE LAW OF HOLINESS (CONCLUDED)._\n\nLEV. xix. 1-37.\n\n\nWe have in this chapter a series of precepts and prohibitions which\nfrom internal evidence appear to have been selected by an inspired\nredactor of the canon from various original documents, with the\npurpose, not of presenting a complete enumeration of all moral and\nceremonial duties, but of illustrating the application in the everyday\nlife of the Israelite of the injunction which stands at the beginning\nof the chapter (ver. 2): \"Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am\nholy.\"\n\nTruly strange it is, in the full light of Hebrew history, to find any\none, like Kalisch, representing this conception of holiness, so\nfundamental to this law, as the \"ripest fruit of Hebrew culture\"! For\nit is insisted by such competent critics, as Dillmann, that we have\nnot in this chapter a late development of Hebrew thought, but\n\"ancient,\" \"the most ancient\" material;[36]--we shall venture to say,\ndating even from the days of Moses, as is declared in ver. 1. And we\nmay say more. For if such be the antiquity of this law, it should be\neasy even for the most superficial reader of the history to see how\nimmeasurably far was that horde of almost wholly uncultured fugitives\nfrom Egyptian bondage from having attained through any culture this\nMosaic conception of holiness. For \"Hebrew culture,\" even in its\nlatest maturity, has, at the best, only tended to develop more and\nmore the idea, not of holiness, but of legality,--a very different\nthing! The ideal expressed in this command, \"Ye shall be holy,\" must\nhave come, not from Israel, not even from Moses, as if originated by\nhim, but from the Holy God Himself, even as the chapter in its first\nverse testifies.\n\n [36] \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 550.\n\nThe position of this command at the head of the long list of precepts\nwhich follows, is most significant and instructive. It sets before us\nthe object of the whole ceremonial and moral law, and, we may add, the\nsupreme object of the Gospel also, namely, to produce a certain type\nof moral and spiritual character, a HOLY manhood; it, moreover,\nprecisely interprets this term, so universally misunderstood and\nmisapplied among all nations, as essentially consisting in a spiritual\nlikeness to God: \"Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.\"\nThese words evidently at once define holiness and declare the supreme\nmotive to the attainment and maintenance of a holy character. This\nthen is brought before us as the central thought in which all the\ndiverse precepts and prohibitions which follow find their unity; and,\naccordingly, we find this keynote of the whole law echoing, as it\nwere, all through this chapter, in the constant refrain, repeated\nherein no less than fourteen--twice seven--times: \"I am the Lord (Heb.\nJehovah)!\" \"I am the Lord your God!\"\n\nThe first division of the law of holiness which follows (vv. 3-8),\ndeals with two duties of fundamental importance in the social and the\nreligious life: the one, honour to parents; the other, reverence to\nGod.\n\nIf we are surprised, at first, to see this place of honour in the law\nof holiness given to the fifth commandment (ver. 3), our surprise will\nlessen when we remember how, taking the individual in the development\nof his personal life, he learns to fear God, first of all, through\nfearing and honouring his parents. In the earliest beginnings of life,\nthe parent--to speak with reverence--stands to his child, in a very\npeculiar sense, for and in the place of God. We gain the conception of\nthe Father in heaven first from our experience of fatherhood on earth;\nand so it may be said of this commandment, in a sense in which it\ncannot be said of any other, that it is the foundation of all\nreligion. Alas for the child who contemns the instruction of his\nfather and the command of his mother! for by so doing he puts himself\nout of the possibility of coming into the knowledge and experience of\nthe Fatherhood of God.\n\nThe principle of reverence toward God is inculcated, not here by\ndirect precept, but by three injunctions, obedience to which\npresupposes the fear of God in the heart. These are, first (ver. 3),\nthe keeping of the sabbaths; the possessive, \"My sabbaths,\" reminding\nus tersely of God's claim upon the seventh part of all our time as His\ntime. Then is commanded the avoidance of idolatry (ver. 4); and,\nlastly (vv. 5-8), a charge as to the observance of the law of the\npeace-offering.\n\nOne reason seems to have determined the selection of each of these\nthree injunctions, namely, that Israel would be more liable to fail in\nobedience to these than perhaps any other duties of the law. As for\nthe sabbath, this, like the law of the peace-offering, was a\npositive, not a moral law; that is, it depended for its authority\nprimarily on the explicit ordinance of God, instead of the intuition\nof the natural conscience. Hence it was certain that it would only be\nkept in so far as man retained a vivid consciousness of the Divine\npersonality and moral authority. Moreover, as all history has shown,\nthe law of the sabbath rest from labour constantly comes into conflict\nwith man's love of gain and eager haste to make money. It is a\nlife-picture, true for men of every generation, when Amos (viii. 5)\nbrings before us the Israelites of his day as saying, in their\ninsatiate worldly greed, \"When will the sabbath be gone, that we may\nset forth wheat?\" As regards the selection of the second commandment,\none can easily see that Israel's loyalty, surrounded as they were on\nevery side with idolaters, was to be tested with peculiar severity on\nthis point, whether they would indeed worship the living God alone and\nwithout the intervention of idols.\n\nThe circumstances, as regards the peace-offering, were different; but\nthe same principle of choice can be discovered in this also. For among\nall the various ordinances of sacrificial worship there was none in\nwhich the requisitions of the law were more likely to be neglected;\npartly because these were the most frequent of all offerings, and also\nbecause the Israelite would often be tempted, through a short-sighted\neconomy and worldly thriftiness, to use the meat of the peace-offering\nfor food, if any remained until the third day, instead of burning it,\nin such case, as the Lord commanded. Hence the reminder of the law on\nthis subject, teaching that he who will be holy must not seek to save\nat the expense of obedience to the holy God.\n\nThe second section of this chapter (vv. 9-18) consists of five groups,\neach of five precepts, all relating to duties which the law of\nholiness requires from man to man, and each of them closing with the\ncharacteristic and impressive refrain, \"I am the Lord.\"\n\nThe first of these pentads (vv. 9, 10) requires habitual care for the\npoor: we read, \"Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field,\nneither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt\nnot glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of\nthy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the\nstranger.\"\n\nThe law covers the three chief products of their agriculture: the\ngrain, the product of the vine, and the fruit of the trees,--largely\nolive-trees, which were often planted in the vineyard. So often as God\nblessed them with the harvest, they were to remember the poor, and\nalso \"the stranger,\" who according to the law could have a legal claim\nto no land in Israel. Apart from the benefit to the poor, one can\nreadily see what an admirable discipline against man's natural\nselfishness, and in loyalty to God, this regulation, faithfully\nobserved, must have been. Behind these commands lies the principle,\nelsewhere explicitly expressed (xxv. 23), that the land which the\nIsraelite tilled was not his own, but the Lord's; and it is as the\nOwner of the land that He thus charges them that as His tenants they\nshall not regard themselves as entitled to everything that the land\nproduces, but bear in mind that He intends a portion of every acre of\neach Israelite to be reserved for the poor. And so the labourer in the\nharvest-field was continually reminded that in his husbandry he was\nmerely God's steward, bound to apply the product of the land, the use\nof which was given him, in such a way as should please the Lord.\n\nIf the law is not in force as to the letter, let us not forget that it\nis of full validity as to its spirit. God is still the God of the poor\nand needy; and we are still every one, as truly as the Hebrew in those\ndays, the stewards of God. And the poor we have with us always;\nperhaps never more than in these days, in which so great masses of\nhelpless humanity are crowded together in our immense cities, did the\ncry of the poor and needy so ascend to heaven. And that the Apostles,\nacting under Divine direction, and abolishing the letter of the\ntheocratic law, yet steadily maintained the spirit and intention of\nthat law in care for the poor, is testified with abundant fulness in\nthe New Testament. One of the firstfruits of Pentecost in the lives of\nbelievers was just this, that \"all that believed ... had all things\ncommon\" (Acts ii. 44, 45), so that, going even beyond the letter of\nthe old law, \"they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them\nto all, according as any man had need.\" And the one only charge which\nthe Apostles at Jerusalem gave unto Paul is reported by him in these\nwords (Gal. ii. 10): \"Only they would that we should remember the\npoor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.\" Let the believer\nthen remember this who has plenty: the corners of his fields are to be\nkept for the poor, and the gleanings of his vineyards; and let the\nbeliever also take the peculiar comfort from this law, if he is poor,\nthat God, his heavenly Father, has a kindly care, not merely for his\nspiritual wants, but also for his temporal necessities.\n\nThe second pentad (vv. 11, 12) in the letter refers to three of the\nten commandments, but is really concerned, primarily, with stealing\nand defrauding; for the lying and false swearing is here regarded only\nas commonly connected with theft and fraud, because often necessary to\nsecure the result of a man's plunder. The pentad is in this form: \"Ye\nshall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to\nanother. And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou\nprofane the name of thy God: I am the Lord!\"\n\nClose upon stinginess and the careless greed which neglects the poor,\nwith eager grasping after the last grape on the vine, follows the\nactive effort to get, not only the uttermost that might by any stretch\nof charity be regarded as our own, but also to get something more that\nbelongs to our neighbour. There is thus a very close connection in\nthought, as well as in position, in these two groups of precepts. And\nthe sequence of thought in this group suggests what is, indeed,\nmarkedly true of stealing, but also of other sins. Sin rarely goes\nalone; one sin, by almost a necessity, leads straight on to another\nsin. He who steals, or deals falsely in regard to anything committed\nto his trust, will most naturally be led on at once to lie about it;\nand when his lie is challenged, as it is likely to be, he is impelled\nby a fatal pressure to go yet further, and fortify his lie, and\nconsummate his sin, by appealing by an oath to the Holy God, as\nwitness to the truth of his lie. Thus, the sin which in the beginning\nis directed only toward a fellow-man, too often causes one to sin\nimmediately against God, in profanation of the name of the God of\ntruth, by calling on Him as witness to a lie! Of this tendency of sin,\nstealing is a single illustration; but let us ever remember that it is\na law of all sin that sin ever begets more sin.\n\nThis second group has dealt with injury to the neighbour in the way of\nguile and fraud; the third pentad (vv. 13, 14), progressing further,\nspeaks of wrong committed in ways of oppression and violence. \"Thou\nshalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him: the wages of a hired\nservant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou\nshalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind,\nbut thou shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord!\" In these commands, again,\nit is still the helpless and defenceless in whose behalf the Lord is\nspeaking. The words regard a man as having it in his power to press\nhard upon his neighbour; as when an employer, seeing that a man must\nneeds have work at any price, takes advantage of his need to employ\nhim at less than fair wages; or as when he who holds a mortgage\nagainst his neighbour, seeing an opportunity to possess himself of a\nfield or an estate for a trifle, by pressing his technical legal\nrights, strips his poor debtor needlessly. No end of illustrations,\nevidently, could be given out of our modern life. Man's nature is the\nsame now as in the days of Moses. But all dealings of this kind,\nwhether then or now, the law of holiness sternly prohibits.\n\nSo also with the injunction concerning the retention of wages after it\nis due. I have not fulfilled the law of love toward the man or woman\nwhom I employ merely by paying fair wages; I must also pay promptly.\nThe Deuteronomic law repeats the command, and, with a peculiar touch\nof sympathetic tenderness, adds the reason (xxiv. 15): \"for he is\npoor, and setteth his heart upon it.\" I must therefore give the\nlabourer his wages \"in his day.\" A sin this is, of the rich\nespecially, and, most of all, of rich corporations, with which the\nsense of personal responsibility to God is too often reduced to a\nminimum. Yet it is often, no doubt, committed through sheer\nthoughtlessness. Men who are themselves blessed with such abundance\nthat they are not seriously incommoded by a delay in receiving some\nsmall sum, too often forget how a great part of the poor live, as the\nsaying is, \"from hand to mouth,\" so that the failure to get what is\ndue to them at the exact time appointed is frequently a sore trial;\nand, moreover, by forcing them to buy on credit instead of for cash,\nof necessity increases the expense of their living, and so really robs\nthem of that which is their own.\n\nThe thought is still of care for the helpless, in the words concerning\nthe deaf and the blind, which, of course, are of perpetual force, and,\nin the principle involved, reach indefinitely beyond these single\nillustrations. We are not to take advantage of any man's helplessness,\nand, especially, of such disabilities as he cannot help, to wrong him.\nEven the common conscience of men recognises this as both wicked and\nmean; and this verdict of conscience is here emphasised by the\nreminder \"I am the Lord,\"--suggesting that the labourer who reaps the\nfields, yea, the blind also and the deaf, are His creatures; and that\nHe, the merciful and just One, will not disown the relation, but will\nplead their cause.\n\nEach of these groups of precepts has kept the poor and the needy in a\nspecial way, though not exclusively, before the conscience. And yet no\nman is to imagine that therefore God will be partial toward the poor,\nand that hence, although one may not wrong the poor, one may wrong the\nrich with impunity. Many of our modern social reformers, in their zeal\nfor the betterment of the poor, seem to imagine that because a poor\nman has rights which are too frequently ignored by the rich, and thus\noften suffers grievous wrongs, therefore a rich man has no rights\nwhich the poor man is bound to respect. The next pentad of precepts\ntherefore guards against any such false inference from God's special\nconcern for the poor, and reminds us that the absolute righteousness\nof the Holy One requires that the rights of the rich be observed no\nless than the rights of the poor, those of the employer no less than\nthose of the employed. It deals especially with this matter as it\ncomes up in questions requiring legal adjudication. We read (vv. 15,\n16), \"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not\nrespect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty:\nbut in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go\nup and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand\nagainst the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord!\"\n\nA plain warning lies here for an increasing class of reformers in our\nday, who loudly express their special concern for the poor, but who in\ntheir zeal for social reform and the diminishing of poverty are\nforgetful of righteousness and equity. It applies, for instance, to\nall who would affirm and teach with Marx that \"capital is robbery;\" or\nwho, not yet quite ready for so plain and candid words, yet would, in\nany way, in order to right the wrongs of the poor, advocate\nlegislation involving practical confiscation of the estates of the\nrich.\n\nIn close connection with the foregoing, the next precept forbids, not\nprecisely \"tale-bearing,\" but \"slander,\" as the word is elsewhere\nrendered, even in the Revised Version. In the court of judgment,\nslander is not to be uttered nor listened to. The clause which\nfollows is obscure; but means either, \"Thou shalt not, by such\nslanderous testimony, seek in the court of judgment thy neighbour's\nlife,\" which best suits the parallelism; or, perhaps, as the Talmud\nand most modern Jewish versions interpret, \"Thou shalt not stand\nsilent by, when thy neighbour's life is in danger in the court of\njudgment, and thy testimony might save him.\" And then again comes in\nthe customary refrain, reminding the Israelite that in every court,\nnoting every act of judgment, and listening to every witness, is a\nJudge unseen, omniscient, absolutely righteous, under whose final\nreview, for confirmation or reversal, shall come all earthly\ndecisions: \"I,\" who thus speak, \"am the Lord!\"\n\nThe fifth and last pentad (vv. 17, 18) fitly closes the series, by its\nfive precepts, of which, three, reaching behind all such outward acts\nas are required or forbidden in the foregoing, deal with the state of\nthe heart toward our neighbour which the law of holiness requires, as\nthe soul and the root of all righteousness. It closes with the\nfamiliar words, so simple that all can understand them, so\ncomprehensive that in obedience to them is comprehended all morality\nand righteousness toward man: \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself.\" The verses read, \"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine\nheart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin\nbecause of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge\nagainst the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour\nas thyself: I am the Lord!\"\n\nMost instructive it is to find it suggested by this order, as the best\nevidence of the absence of hate, and the truest expression of love to\nour neighbour, that when we see him doing wrong we shall rebuke him.\nThe Apostle Paul has enjoined upon Christians the same duty,\nindicating also the spirit in which it is to be performed (Gal. vi.\n1): \"Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye which\nare spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness; looking to\nthyself, lest thou also be tempted.\" Thus, if we will be holy, it is\nnot to be a matter of no concern to us that our neighbour does wrong,\neven though that wrong do not directly affect our personal well-being.\nInstead of this, we are to remember that if we rebuke him not, we\nourselves \"bear sin, because of him;\" that is, we ourselves, in a\ndegree, become guilty with him, because of that wrong-doing of his\nwhich we sought not in any way to hinder. But although, on the one\nhand, I am to rebuke the wrong-doer, even when his wrong does not\ntouch me personally, yet, the law adds, I am not to take into my own\nhands the avenging of wrongs, even when myself injured; neither am I\nto be envious and grudge any neighbour the good he may have; no, not\nthough he be an ill-doer and deserve it not; but be he friend or foe,\nwell-doer or ill-doer, I must love him as myself.\n\nWhat an admirable epitome of the whole law of righteousness! a Mosaic\nanticipation of the very spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. Evidently,\nthe same mind speaks in both alike; the law the same, the object and\naim of the law the same, both in Leviticus and in the Gospel. In this\nlaw we hear: \"Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy;\" in\nthe Sermon on the Mount: \"Ye shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father\nis perfect.\"\n\nThe third division of this chapter (vv. 19-32) opens with a general\ncharge to obedience: \"Ye shall keep My statutes;\" very possibly,\nbecause several of the commands which immediately follow might seem in\nthemselves of little consequence, and so be lightly disobeyed. The law\nof ver. 19 prohibits raising hybrid animals, as, for example, mules;\nthe next command apparently refers to the chance, through sowing a\nfield with mingled seed, of giving rise to hybrid forms in the\nvegetable kingdom. The last command in this verse is obscure both in\nmeaning and intention. It reads (R.V.), \"Neither shall there come upon\nthee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.\" Most probably\nthe reference is to different materials, interwoven in the yarn of\nwhich the dress was made; but a difficulty still remains in the fact\nthat such admixture was ordered in the garments of the priests.\nPerhaps the best explanation is that of Josephus, that the law here\nwas only intended for the laity; which, as no question of intrinsic\nmorality was involved, might easily have been. But when we inquire as\nto the reason of these prohibitions, and especially of this last one,\nit must be confessed that it is hard for us now to speak with\nconfidence. Most probable it appears that they were intended for an\neducational purpose, to cultivate in the mind of the people the\nsentiment of reverence for the order established in nature by God. For\nwhat the world calls the order of nature is really an order appointed\nby God, as the infinitely wise and perfect One; hence, as nature is\nthus a manifestation of God, the Hebrew was forbidden to seek to bring\nabout that which is not according to nature, unnatural commixtures;\nand from this point of view, the last of the three precepts appears to\nbe a symbolic reminder of the same duty, namely, reverence for the\norder of nature, as being an order determined by God.\n\nThe law which is laid down in vv. 20-22, regarding the sin of\nconnection with a bond-woman betrothed to a husband, apparently refers\nto such a case as is mentioned in Exod. xxi. 7, 8, where the bond-maid\nis betrothed to her master, while yet, because of her condition of\nbondage, the marriage has not been consummated. For the same sin in\nthe case of a free woman, where both were proved guilty, for each of\nthem the punishment was death (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). In this case,\nbecause the woman's position, inasmuch as she was not free, was rather\nthat of a concubine than of a full wife, the lighter penalty of\nscourging is ordered for both of the guilty persons. Also, since this\nwas a case of trespass as well, in which the rights of the master to\nwhom she was espoused were involved, a guilt-offering was in addition\nrequired, as the condition of pardon.\n\nIt will be said, and truly, that by this law slavery and concubinage\nare to a certain extent recognised by the law; and upon this fact has\nbeen raised an objection bearing on the holiness of the law-giver,\nand, by consequence, on the Divine origin and inspiration of the law.\nIs it conceivable that the holy God should have given a law for the\nregulation of two so evil institutions? The answer has been furnished\nus, in principle, by our Lord (Matt. xix. 8), in that which He said\nconcerning the analogous case of the law of Moses touching divorce;\nwhich law, He tells us, although not according to the perfect ideal of\nright, was yet given \"because of the hardness of men's hearts.\" That\nis, although it was not the best law ideally, it was the best\npractically, in view of the low moral tone of the people to whom it\nwas given. Precisely so it was in this case. Abstractly, one might say\nthat the case was in nothing different from the case of a free woman,\nmentioned Deut. xxii. 23, 24, for which death was the appointed\npunishment; but practically, in a community where slavery and\nconcubinage were long-settled institutions, and the moral standard was\nstill low, the cases were not parallel. A law which would carry with\nit the moral support of the people in the one case, and which it would\nthus be possible to carry into effect, would not be in like manner\nsupported and carried into effect in the other; so that the result of\ngreater strictness in theory would, in actual practice, be the removal\nthereby of all restriction on license. On the other hand, by thus\nappointing herein a penalty for both the guilty parties such as the\npublic conscience would approve, God taught the Hebrews the\nfundamental lesson that a slave-girl is not regarded by God as a mere\nchattel; and that if, because of the hardness of their hearts,\nconcubinage was tolerated for a time, still the slave-girl must not be\ntreated as a thing, but as a person, and indiscriminate license could\nnot be permitted. And thus, it is of greatest moment to observe, a\nprinciple was introduced into the legislation, which in its ultimate\nlogical application would require and effect--as in due time it\nhas--the total abolition of the institution of slavery wherever the\nauthority of the living God is truly recognised.\n\nThe principle of the Divine government which is here illustrated is\none of exceeding practical importance as a model for us. We live in an\nage when, everywhere in Christendom, the cry is \"Reform;\" and there\nare many who think that if once it be proved that a thing is wrong, it\nfollows by necessary consequence that the immediate and unqualified\nlegal prohibition of that wrong, under such penalty as the wrong may\ndeserve, is the only thing that any Christian man has a right to\nthink of. And yet, according to the principle illustrated in this\nlegislation, this conclusion in such cases can by no means be taken\nfor granted. That is not always the best law practically which is the\nbest law abstractly. That law is the best which shall be most\neffective in diminishing a given evil, under the existing moral\ncondition of the community; and it is often a matter of such exceeding\ndifficulty to determine what legislation against admitted sins and\nevils, may be the most productive of good in a community whose moral\nsense is dull concerning them, that it is not strange that the best of\nmen are often found to differ. Remembering this, we may well commend\nthe duty of a more charitable judgment, in such cases, than one often\nhears from such radical reformers, who seem to imagine that in order\nto remove an evil all that is necessary is to pass a law at once and\nfor ever prohibiting it; and who therefore hold up to obloquy all who\ndoubt as to the wisdom and duty of so doing, as the enemies of truth\nand of righteousness. Moses, acting under direct instruction from the\nGod of supreme wisdom and of perfect holiness, was far wiser than such\nwell-meaning but sadly mistaken social reformers, who would fain be\nwiser than God.\n\nNext follows a law (vv. 23-25) directing that when any fruit tree is\nplanted, the Israelite shall not eat of its fruit for the first three\nyears; that the fruit of the fourth year shall be wholly consecrated\nto the Lord, \"for giving praise unto Jehovah;\" and that only after\nthat, in the fifth year of its bearing, shall the husbandman himself\nfirst eat of its fruit.\n\nThe explanation of this peculiar regulation is to be found in a\nspecial application of the principle which rules throughout the law;\nthat the first-fruit, whether the first-born of man or beast, or the\nfirst-fruits of the field, shall always be consecrated unto God. But\nin this case the application of the principle is modified by the\nfamiliar fact that the fruit of a young tree, for the first few years\nof its bearing, is apt to be imperfect; it is not yet sufficiently\ngrown to yield its best possible product. Because of this, in those\nyears it could not be given to the Lord, for He must never be served\nwith any but the best of everything; and thus until the fruit should\nreach its best, so as to be worthy of presentation to the Lord, the\nIsraelite was meanwhile debarred from using it. During these three\nyears the trees are said to be \"as uncircumcised;\" _i.e._, they were\nto be regarded as in a condition analogous to that of the child who\nhas not yet been consecrated, by the act of circumcision, to the Lord.\nIn the fourth year, however, the trees were regarded as having now so\ngrown as to yield fruit in perfection; hence, the principle of the\nconsecration of the first-fruit now applies, and all the fourth year's\nproduct is given to the Lord, as an offering of thankful praise to Him\nwhose power in nature is the secret of all growth, fruitfulness, and\nincrease. The last words of this law, \"that it may yield unto you its\nincrease,\" evidently refer to all that precedes. Israel is to obey\nthis law, using nothing till first consecrated to the Lord, in order\nto a blessing in these very gifts of God.\n\nThe moral teaching of this law, when it is thus read in the light of\nthe general principle of the consecration of the first-fruits, is very\nplain. It teaches, as in all analogous cases, that God is always to be\nserved before ourselves; and that not grudgingly, as if an irksome tax\nwere to be paid to the Majesty of heaven, but in the spirit of\nthanksgiving and praise to Him, as the Giver of \"every good and\nperfect gift.\" It further instructs us in this particular instance,\nthat the people of God are to recognise this as being true even of all\nthose good things which come to us under the forms of products of\nnature.\n\nThe lesson is not an easy one for faith; for the constant tendency,\nnever stronger than in our own time, is to substitute \"Nature\" for the\nGod of nature, as if nature were a power in itself and apart from God,\nimmanent in all nature, the present and efficient energy in all her\nmanifold operations. Very fittingly, thus, do we find here again (ver.\n25) the sanction affixed to this law, \"I am the Lord your God!\"\nJehovah, your God who redeemed you, who therefore am worthy of all\nthanksgiving and praise! Jehovah, your God in covenant, who gives the\nfruitful seasons, filling your hearts with joy and gladness! Jehovah,\nyour God, who as the Lord of Nature, and the Power in nature, am\nabundantly able to fulfil the promise affixed to this command!\n\nThe next six commands are evidently grouped together as referring to\nvarious distinctively heathenish customs, from which Israel, as a\npeople holy to the Lord, was to abstain. The prohibition of blood\n(ver. 26) is repeated again, not, as has been said, in a stronger form\nthan before, but, probably, because the eating of blood was connected\nwith certain heathenish ceremonies, both among the Shemitic tribes and\nothers. The next two precepts (ver. 26) prohibit every kind of\ndivination and augury; practices notoriously common with the heathen\neverywhere, in ancient and in modern times. The two precepts which\nfollow, forbidding certain fashions of trimming the hair and beard,\nmay appear trivial to many, but they will not seem so to any one who\nwill remember how common among heathen peoples has been the custom,\nas in those days among the Arabs, and in our time among the Hindoos,\nto trim the hair or beard in a particular way, in order thus visibly\nto mark a person as of a certain religion, or as a worshipper of a\ncertain god. The command means that the Israelite was not only to\nworship God alone, but he was not to adopt a fashion in dress which,\nbecause commonly associated with idolatry, might thus misrepresent his\nreal position as a worshipper of the only living and true God.\n\n\"Cutting the flesh for the dead\" (ver. 28) has been very widely\npractised by heathen peoples in all ages. Such immoderate and unseemly\nexpressions of grief were prohibited to the Israelite, as unworthy of\na people who were in a blessed covenant relation with the God of life\nand of death. Rather, recognising that death is of God's ordination,\nhe was to accept in patience and humility the stroke of God's hand;\nnot, indeed, without sorrow, but yet in meekness and quietness of\nspirit, trusting in the God of life. The thought is only a less clear\nexpression of the New Testament word (1 Thess. iv. 13) that the\nbeliever \"sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope.\" Also,\nprobably, in this prohibition, as certainly in the next (ver. 28), it\nis suggested that as the Israelite was to be distinguished from the\nheathen by full consecration, not only of the soul, but also of the\nbody, to the Lord, he was by that fact inhibited from marring or\ndefacing in any way the integrity of his body.\n\nIn general, we may say, then, that the central thought which binds\nthis group of precepts together, is the obligation, not merely to\nabstain from everything directly idolatrous, but also from all such\ncustoms as are, in fact, rooted in or closely associated with\nidolatry. On the same principle, the Christian is to beware of all\nfashions and practices, even though they may be in themselves\nindifferent, which yet, as a matter of fact, are specially\ncharacteristic of the worldly and ungodly element in society. The\nprinciple assumed in these prohibitions thus imposes upon all who\nwould be holy to the Lord, in all ages, a firm restriction. The\nthoughtless desire of many, at any risk, to be \"in the fashion,\" must\nbe unwaveringly denied. The reason which is so often given by\nprofessing Christians for indulgence in such cases, that \"all the\nworld does so,\" may often be the strongest possible reason for\ndeclining to follow the fashion. No servant of God should ever be seen\nin any part of the livery of Satan's servants. That God does not think\nthese \"little things\" always of trifling consequence, we are reminded\nby the repetition here, for the tenth time in this chapter, of the\nwords, \"I am the Lord!\"\n\nNext (ver. 29) follows the prohibition of the horrible custom, still\npractised among heathen peoples, of the prostitution of a daughter by\na parent. It is here enforced by the consideration of the public weal:\n\"lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of\nwickedness.\" Assuredly, that a land in which such harlotry as this, in\nwhich all the most sacred relations of life are trampled in the mire,\nwould be nothing less than a land full of wickedness, is so evident as\nto require no comment.\n\nHerewith now begins the fourth and last division of this chapter (vv.\n30-37), with a repetition of the injunction to keep the Sabbaths of\nthe Lord, and reverence His sanctuary. The emphasis on this command,\nshown by its repetition in this chapter, and the very prominent place\nwhich it occupies both in the law and the prophets, certainly suggests\nthat in the mind of God, reverence for the Sabbath and for the place\nwhere God is worshipped, has much to do with the promotion of holiness\nof life, and the maintenance of a high degree of domestic and social\nmorality. Nor is it difficult to see why this should be so. For\nhowever the day of holy rest may be kept, and the place of Divine\nworship be regarded with only an outward reverence by many, yet the\nfact cannot be disputed, that the observance of a weekly sabbatic rest\nfrom ordinary secular occupations, and the maintenance of a spirit of\nreverence for sacred places or for sacred times, has, and must have, a\ncertain and most happy tendency to keep the God of the Sabbath and the\nGod of the sanctuary before the mind of men, and thus imposes an\neffective check upon unrestrained godlessness and reckless excesses of\niniquity. The diverse condition of things in various parts of modern\nChristendom, as related to the more or less careful observance of the\nweekly religious rest, is full of both instruction and warning to any\ncandid mind upon this subject. There is no restraint on immorality\nlike the frequent remembrance of God and the spirit of reverence for\nHim.\n\nVerse 31 prohibits all inquiring of them that \"have familiar spirits,\"\nand of \"wizards,\" who pretend to make revelations through the help of\nsupernatural powers. According to 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-11, and Isa. viii.\n19, the \"familiar spirit\" is a supposed spirit of a dead man, from\nwhom one professes to be able to give communications to the living.\nThis pretended commerce with the spirits of the dead has been common\nenough in heathenism always, and it is not strange to find it\nmentioned here, when Israel was to be in so intimate relations with\nheathen peoples. But it is truly most extraordinary that in Christian\nlands, as especially in the United States of America, and that in the\nfull light, religious and intellectual, of the last half of the\nnineteenth century, such a prohibition should be fully as pertinent as\nin Israel! For no words could more precisely describe the pretensions\nof the so-called modern spiritualism, which within the last half\ncentury has led away hundreds of thousands of deluded souls, and\nthose, in many cases, not from the ignorant and degraded, but from\ncircles which boast of more than average culture and intellectual\nenlightenment. And inasmuch as experience sadly shows that even those\nwho profess to be disciples of Christ are in danger of being led away\nby our modern wizards and traffickers with familiar spirits, it is by\nno means unnecessary to observe that there is not the slightest reason\nto believe that this which was rigidly forbidden by God in the\nfifteenth century B.C., can now be well-pleasing to Him in the\nnineteenth century A.D. And those who have most carefully watched the\nmoral developments of this latter-day delusion, will most appreciate\nthe added phrase which speaks of this as \"defiling\" a man.\n\nVerse 32 enjoins reverence for the aged, and closely connects it with\nthe fear of God. \"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour\nthe face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.\"\n\nA virtue this is which--it must be with shame confessed--although\noften displayed in an illustrious manner among the heathen, in many\nparts of Christendom has sadly decayed. In many lands one only needs\nto travel in any crowded conveyance to observe how far it is from the\nthoughts of many of the young \"to rise up before the hoary head, and\nhonour the face of the old man.\" So manifest are the facts that one\nhears from competent and thoughtful observers of the tendencies of our\ntimes no lamentation more frequently than just this, for the\nconcurrent decay of reverence for the aged and reverence for God. No\nmore beautiful remarks on these words have we found than the words\nquoted by Dr. H. Bonar, commenting on this verse: \"Lo! the shadow of\neternity! for one cometh who is almost in eternity already. His head\nand his beard, white as snow, indicate his speedy appearance before\nthe Ancient of Days, the hair of whose head is as pure wool.\"\n\nIn this last command is also, no doubt, contained the thought of the\ncomparative weakness and physical infirmity of the aged, which is thus\ncommended in a special way to our tender regard. And thus this\nsentiment of kindly sympathy for all who are subject to any kind of\ndisability naturally prepares the way for the injunction (vv. 33, 34)\nto regard \"the stranger\" in the midst of Israel, who was debarred from\nholding land, and from many privileges, with special feelings of\ngood-will. \"If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not\ndo him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you\nas the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye\nwere strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.\"\n\nThe Israelite was not to misinterpret, then, the restrictions which\nthe theocratic law imposed upon such. These might be no doubt\nnecessary for a moral reason; but, nevertheless, no man was to argue\nthat the law justified him in dealing hardly with aliens. So far from\nthis, the Israelite was to regard the stranger with the same kindly\nfeelings as if he were one of his own people. And it is most\ninstructive to observe that this particular case is made the occasion\nof repeating that most perfect and comprehensive law of universal\nlove, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;\" and this the more\nthey were to do that they too had been \"strangers in the land of\nEgypt.\"\n\nLast of all the injunctions in this chapter (vv. 35, 36) comes the\ncommand to absolute righteousness in the administration of justice,\nand in all matters of buying and selling; followed (ver. 37) by a\nconcluding charge to obedience, thus: \"Ye shall do no unrighteousness\nin judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances,\njust weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the\nLord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. And ye\nshall observe all My statutes, and all My judgments, and do them: I am\nthe Lord.\"\n\nThe ephah is named here, of course, as a standard of dry measure, and\nthe hin as a standard of liquid measure. These commandments are\nillustrated in a graphic way by the parallel passage in Deut. xxv. 13,\n14, which reads: \"Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a\ngreat and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures,\na great and a small;\" _i.e._, one set for use in buying, and another\nset for use in selling. This charge is there enforced by the same\npromise to honesty in trade which is annexed to the fifth commandment,\nnamely, length of days; and, furthermore, by the declaration that all\nwho thus cheat in trade \"are an abomination unto the Lord.\"\n\nHow much Israel needed this law all their history has shown. In the\ndays of Amos it was a part of his charge against the ten tribes\n(viii. 5), for which the Lord declares that He will \"make the land to\ntremble, and every one in it to mourn,\" that they \"make the ephah\nsmall, and the shekel great,\" and \"deal falsely with balances of\ndeceit.\" So also Micah, a little later, represents the Lord as calling\nJudah to account for supposing that God, the Holy One, can be\nsatisfied with burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings; indignantly asking\n(vi. 10, 11), \"Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house\nof the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?\"\n\nBut it is not Israel alone which has needed, and still needs, to hear\niterated this command, for the sin is found in every people, even in\nevery city, one might say in every town, in Christendom; and--we have\nto say it--often with men who make a certain profession of regard for\nreligion. All such, however religious in certain ways, have special\nneed to remember that \"without holiness no man shall see the Lord;\"\nand that holiness is now exactly what it was when the Levitical law\nwas given out. As, on the one side, it is inspired by reverence and\nfear toward God, so, on the other hand, it requires love to the\nneighbour as to one's self, and such conduct as that will secure. It\nis of no account, therefore, to keep the Sabbath--in a way--and\nreverence--outwardly--the sanctuary, and then on the week-day water\nmilk, adulterate medicines, sugars, and other foods, slip the\nyard-stick in measuring, tip the balance in weighing, and buy with one\nweight or measure and sell with another, \"water\" stocks and gamble in\n\"margins,\" as the manner of many is. God hates, and even honest\natheists despise, religion of this kind. Strange notions, truly, of\nreligion have men who have not yet discovered that it has to do with\njust such commonplace, every-day matters as these, and have never yet\nunderstood how certain it is that a religion which is only used on\nSundays has no holiness in it; and therefore, when the day comes, as\nit is coming, that shall try every man's work as by fire, it will, in\nthe fierce heat of Jehovah's judgment, be shrivelled into ashes as a\nspider's web in a flame, and the man and his work shall perish\ntogether.\n\nAnd herewith this chapter closes. Such is the law of holiness!\nObligatory, let us not forget, in the spirit of all its requirements,\nto-day, unchanged and unchangeable, because the Holy God, whose law it\nis, is Himself unchangeable. Man may be sinful, and because of sin be\nweak; but there is not a hint of compromise with sin, on this account,\nby any abatement of its claims. At every step of life this law\nconfronts us. Whether we be in the House of God, in acts of worship,\nit challenges us there; or in the field, at our work, it commands us\nthere; in social intercourse with our fellow-men, in our business in\nbank or shop, with our friends or with strangers and aliens, at home\nor abroad, we are never out of the reach of its requirements. We can\nno more escape from under its authority than from under the\noverarching heaven! What sobering thoughts are these for sinners! What\nself-humiliation should this law cause us, when we think what we are!\nwhat intensity of aspiration, when we think of what the Holy One would\nhave us be, holy like Himself!\n\nThe closing words above given (ver. 37) assert the authority of the\nLaw-giver, and, by their reminder of the great deliverance from Egypt,\nappeal, as a motive to faithful and holy obedience, to the purest\nsentiment of grateful love for undeserved and distinguishing mercy.\nAnd this is only the Old Testament form of a New Testament argument.\nFor we read, concerning our deliverance from a worse than Egyptian\nbondage (1 Peter i. 15-19): \"Like as He which called you is holy, be\nye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is\nwritten, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on Him as\nFather, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each man's\nwork, pass the time of your sojourning in fear: knowing that ye were\nredeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver or gold, ... but with\nprecious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even\nthe blood of Christ.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n_PENAL SANCTIONS._\n\nLEV. xx. 1-27.\n\n\nIn no age or community has it been found sufficient, to secure\nobedience, that one should appeal to the conscience of men, or depend,\nas a sufficient motive, upon the natural painful consequences of\nviolated law. Wherever there is civil and criminal law, there, in all\ncases, human government, whether in its lowest or in its most highly\ndeveloped forms, has found it necessary to declare penalties for\nvarious crimes. It is the peculiar interest of this chapter that it\ngives us certain important sections of the penal code of a people\nwhose government was theocratic, whose only King was the Most Holy and\nRighteous God. In view of the manifold difficulties which are\ninseparable from the enactment and enforcement of a just and equitable\npenal code, it must be to every man who believes that Israel, in that\nperiod of its history, was, in the most literal sense, a theocracy, a\nmatter of the highest civil and governmental interest to observe what\npenalties for crime were ordained by infinite wisdom, goodness, and\nrighteousness as the law of that nation.\n\nThis penal code (vv. 1-21) is given in two sections. Of these, the\nfirst (vv. 1-6) relates to those who give of their seed to Molech, or\nwho are accessory to such crime by their concealment of the fact; and\nalso to those who consult wizards or familiar spirits. Under this last\nhead also comes ver. 27, which appears to have become misplaced, as it\nfollows the formal conclusion of the chapter, and by its subject--the\npenalty for the wizard, or him who claims to have a familiar\nspirit--evidently belongs immediately after ver. 6.\n\nThe second section (vv. 9-21) enumerates, first (vv. 9-16), other\ncases for which capital punishment was ordered; and then (vv. 17-21)\ncertain offences for which a lesser penalty is prescribed. These two\nsections are separated (vv. 7, 8) by a command, in view of these\npenalties, to sanctification of life, and obedience to the Lord, as\nthe God who has redeemed and consecrated Israel to be a nation to\nHimself.\n\nThese penal sections are followed (vv. 22-26) by a general conclusion\nto the whole law of holiness, as contained in these three chapters, as\nalso to the law concerning clean and unclean meats (xi.); which would\nthus appear to have been originally connected more closely than now\nwith these chapters. This closing part of the section consists of an\nexhortation and argument against disobedience, in walking after the\nwicked customs of the Canaanitish nations; enforced by the declaration\nthat their impending expulsion was brought about by God in punishment\nfor their practice of these crimes; and, also, by the reminder that\nGod in His special grace had separated them to be a holy nation to\nHimself, and that He was about to give them the good land of Canaan as\ntheir possession.\n\nIt is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that the law of this chapter\ndoes not profess to give the penal code of Israel with completeness.\nMurder, for example, is not mentioned here, though death is expressly\ndenounced against it elsewhere (Numb. xxxv. 31). So, again, in the\nBook of Exodus (xxi. 15) death is declared as the penalty for smiting\nfather or mother. Indeed, the chapter itself contains evidence that it\nis essentially a selection of certain parts of a more extended code,\nwhich has been nowhere preserved in its entirety.\n\nIn this chapter death is ordained as the penalty for the following\ncrimes: viz., giving of one's seed to Molech (vv. 2-5); professing to\nbe a wizard, or to have dealings with the spirits of the dead (ver.\n27); adultery, incest with a mother or step-mother, a daughter-in-law\nor mother-in-law (vv. 10-12, 14); and sodomy and bestiality (ver. 13).\nIn a single case--that of incest with a wife's mother--it is added\n(ver. 14) that both the guilty parties shall be burnt with fire;\n_i.e._, after the usual infliction of death by stoning. Of him who\nbecomes accessory by concealment to the crime of sacrifice to Molech,\nit is said (ver. 5) that God Himself will set His face against that\nman, and will cut off both the man himself and his family. The same\nphraseology is used (ver. 6) of those who consult familiar spirits;\nand the cutting off is also threatened, ver. 18. The law concerning\nincest with a full- or half-sister requires (ver. 17) that this\nexcision shall be \"in the sight of the children of their people;\"\n_i.e._, that the sentence shall be executed in the most public way,\nthus to affix the more certainly to the crime the stigma of an\nindelible ignominy and disgrace. A lesser grade of penalty is attached\nto an alliance with the wife of an uncle or of a brother; in the\nlatter case (ver. 21) that they shall be childless, in the former\n(ver. 20), that they shall die childless; that is, though they have\nchildren, they shall all be prematurely cut off; none shall outlive\ntheir parents. To incest with an aunt by blood no specific penalty is\naffixed; it is only said that \"they shall bear their iniquity,\"\n_i.e._, God will hold them guilty.\n\nThe chapter, directly or indirectly, casts no little light on some\nmost fundamental and practical questions regarding the administration\nof justice in dealing with criminals.\n\nWe may learn here what, in the mind of the King of kings, is the\nprimary object of the punishment of criminals against society.\nCertainly there is no hint in this code of law that these penalties\nwere specially intended for the reformation of the offender. Were this\nso, we should not find the death-penalty applied with such unsparing\nseverity. This does not indeed mean that the reformation of the\ncriminal was a matter of no concern to the Lord; we know to the\ncontrary. But one cannot resist the conviction in reading this\nchapter, as also other similar portions of the law, that in a\ngovernmental point of view this was not the chief object of\npunishment. Even where the penalty was not death, the reformation of\nthe guilty persons is in no way brought before us as an object of the\npenal sentence. In the governmental aspect of the case, this is, at\nleast, so far in the background that it does not once come into view.\n\nIn our day, however, an increasing number maintain that the\ndeath-penalty ought never to be inflicted, because, in the nature of\nthe case, it precludes the possibility of the criminal being reclaimed\nand made a useful member of society; and so, out of regard to this and\nother like humanitarian considerations, in not a few instances, the\ndeath penalty, even for wilful murder, has been abrogated. It is thus,\nto a Christian citizen, of very practical concern to observe that in\nthis theocratic penal code there is not so much as an allusion to the\nreformation of the criminal, as one object which by means of\npunishment it was intended to secure. Penalty was to be inflicted,\naccording to this code, without any apparent reference to its bearing\non this matter. The wisdom of the Omniscient King of Israel,\ntherefore, must certainly have contemplated in the punishment of crime\nsome object or objects of more weighty moment than this.\n\nWhat those objects were, it does not seem hard to discern. First and\nsupreme in the intention of this law is the satisfaction of outraged\njustice, and of the regal majesty of the supreme and holy God, defied;\nthe vindication of the holiness of the Most High against that\nwickedness of men which would set at nought the Holy One and overturn\nthat moral order which He has established. Again and again the crime\nitself is given as the reason for the penalty, inasmuch as by such\niniquity in the midst of Israel the holy sanctuary of God among them\nwas profaned. We read, for example, \"I will cut him off ... because he\nhath defiled My sanctuary, and hath profaned My holy name;\" \"they have\nwrought confusion,\" _i.e._, in the moral and physical order of the\nfamily; \"their blood shall be upon them;\" \"they have committed\nabomination; they shall surely be put to death;\" \"it is a shameful\nthing; they shall be cut off.\" Such are the expressions which again\nand again ring through this chapter; and they teach with unmistakable\nclearness that the prime object of the Divine King of Israel in the\npunishment was, not the reformation of the individual sinner, but the\nsatisfaction of justice and the vindication of the majesty of broken\nlaw. And if we have no more explicit statement of the matter here, we\nyet have it elsewhere; as in Numb. xxxv. 33, where we are expressly\ntold that the death-penalty to be visited with unrelenting severity on\nthe murderer is of the nature of an expiation. Very clear and solemn\nare the words, \"Blood, it polluteth the land: and no expiation can be\nmade for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood\nof him that shed it.\"\n\nBut if this is set forth as the fundamental reason for the infliction\nof the punishment, it is not represented as the only object. If, as\nregards the criminal himself, the punishment is a satisfaction and\nexpiation to justice for his crime, on the other hand, as regards the\npeople, the punishment is intended for their moral good and\npurification. This is expressly stated, as in ver. 14: \"They shall be\nburnt with fire, that there be no wickedness among you.\" Both of these\nprinciples are of such a nature that they must be of perpetual\nvalidity. The government or legislative power that loses sight of\neither of them is certain to go wrong, and the people will be sure,\nsooner or later, to suffer in morals by the error.\n\nIn the light we have now, it is easy to see what are the principles\naccording to which, in various cases, the punishments were measured\nout. Evidently, in the first place, the penalty was determined, even\nas equity demands, by the intrinsic heinousness of the crime. With the\npossible exception of a single case, it is easy to see this. No one\nwill question the horrible iniquity of the sacrifice of innocent\nchildren to Molech; or of incest with a mother, or of sodomy, or\nbestiality. A second consideration which evidently had place, was the\ndanger involved in each crime to the moral and spiritual well-being of\nthe community; and, we may add, in the third place, also the degree to\nwhich the people were likely to be exposed to the contagion of\ncertain crimes prevalent in the nations immediately about them.\n\nBut although these principles are manifestly so equitable and\nbenevolent as to be valid for all ages, Christendom seems to be\nforgetting the fact. The modern penal codes vary as widely from the\nMosaic in respect of their great leniency, as those of a few centuries\nago in respect of their undiscriminating severity. In particular, the\npast few generations have seen a great change with regard to the\ninfliction of capital punishment. Formerly, in England, for example,\ndeath was inflicted, with intolerable injustice, for a large number of\ncomparatively trivial offences; the death-penalty is now restricted to\nhigh treason and killing with malice aforethought; while in some parts\nof Christendom it is already wholly abolished. In the Mosaic law,\naccording to this chapter and other parts of the law, it was much more\nextensively inflicted, though, it may be noted in passing, always\nwithout torture. In this chapter it is made the penalty for actual or\nconstructive idolatry, for sorcery, etc., for cursing father or\nmother, for adultery, for the grosser degrees of incest, and for\nsodomy and bestiality. To this list of capital offences the law\nelsewhere adds, not only murder, but blasphemy, sabbath-breaking,\nunchastity in a betrothed woman when discovered after marriage, rape,\nrebellion against a priest or judge, and man-stealing.\n\nAs regards the crimes specified in this particular chapter, the\ncriminal law of modern Christendom does not inflict the penalty of\ndeath in a single possible case here mentioned; and, to the mind of\nmany, the contrasted severity of the Mosaic code presents a grave\ndifficulty. And yet, if one believes, on the authority of the teaching\nof Christ, that the theocratic government of Israel is not a fable,\nbut a historic fact, although he may still have much difficulty in\nrecognising the righteousness of this code, he will be slow on this\naccount either to renounce his faith in the Divine authority of this\nchapter, or to impugn the justice of the holy King of Israel in\ncharging Him with undue severity; and will rather patiently await some\nother solution of the problem, than the denial of the essential equity\nof these laws. But there are several considerations which, for many,\nwill greatly lessen, if they do not wholly remove, the difficulty\nwhich the case presents.\n\nIn the first place, as regards the punishment of idolatry with death,\nwe have to remember that, from a theocratic point of view, idolatry\nwas essentially high treason, the most formal repudiation possible of\nthe supreme authority of Israel's King. If, even in our modern states,\nthe gravity of the issues involved in high treason has led men to\nbelieve that death is not too severe a penalty for an offence aimed\ndirectly at the subversion of governmental order, how much more must\nthis be admitted when the government is not of fallible man, but of\nthe most holy and infallible God? And when, besides this, we recall\nthe atrocious cruelties and revolting impurities which were\ninseparably associated with that idolatry, we shall have still less\ndifficulty in seeing that it was just that the worshipper of Molech\nshould die. And as decreeing the penalty of death for sorcery and\nsimilar practices, it is probable that the reason for this is to be\nfound in the close connection of these with the prevailing idolatry.\n\nBut it is in regard to crimes against the integrity and purity of the\nfamily that we find the most impressive contrast between this penal\ncode and those of modern times. Although, unhappily, adultery and,\nless commonly, incest, and even, rarely, the unnatural crimes\nmentioned in this chapter, are not unknown in modern Christendom, yet,\nwhile the law of Moses punished all these with death, modern law\ntreats them with comparative leniency, or even refuses to regard some\nforms of these offences as crimes. What then? Shall we hasten to the\nconclusion that we have advanced on Moses? that this law was certainly\nunjust in its severity? or is it possible that modern law is at fault,\nin that it has fallen below those standards of righteousness which\nrule in the kingdom of God?\n\nOne would think that by any man who believes in the Divine origin of\nthe theocracy only one answer could be given. Assuredly, one cannot\nsuppose that God judged of a crime with undue severity; and if not, is\nnot then Christendom, as it were, summoned by this penal code of the\ntheocracy--after making all due allowance for different conditions of\nsociety--to revise its estimate of the moral gravity of these and\nother offences? In these days of continually progressive relaxation of\nthe laws regulating the relations of the sexes, this seems indeed to\nbe one of the chief lessons from this chapter of Leviticus; namely,\nthat in God's sight sins against the seventh commandment are not the\ncomparative trifles which much over-charitable and easy-going morality\nimagines, but crimes of the first order of heinousness. We do well to\nheed this fact, that not merely unnatural crimes, such as sodomy,\nbestiality, and the grosser forms of incest, but adultery, is by God\nranked in the same category as murder. Is it strange? For what are\ncrimes of this kind but assaults on the very being of the family?\nWhere there is incest or adultery, we may truly say the family is\nmurdered; what murder is to the individual, that, precisely, are\ncrimes of this class to the family. In the theocratic code these were,\ntherefore, made punishable with death; and, we venture to believe,\nwith abundant reason. Is it likely that God was too severe? or must we\nnot rather fear that man, ever lenient to prevailing sins, in our day\nhas become falsely and unmercifully merciful, kind with a most\nperilous and unholy kindness?\n\nStill harder will it be for most of us to understand why the\ndeath-penalty should have been also affixed to cursing or smiting a\nfather or a mother, an extreme form of rebellion against parental\nauthority. We must, no doubt, bear in mind, as in all these cases,\nthat a rough people, like those just emancipated slaves, required a\nseverity of dealing which with finer natures would not be needed; and,\nalso, that the fact of Israel's call to be a priestly nation bearing\nsalvation to mankind, made every disobedience among them the graver\ncrime, as tending to so disastrous issues, not for Israel alone, but\nfor the whole race of man which Israel was appointed to bless. On an\nanalogous principle we justify military authority in shooting the\nsentry found asleep at his post. Still, while allowing for all this,\none can hardly escape the inference that, in the sight of God,\nrebellion against parents must be a more serious offence than many in\nour time have been wont to imagine. And the more that we consider how\ntruly basal to the order of government and of society is both sexual\npurity and the maintenance of a spirit of reverence and subordination\nto parents, the easier we shall find it to recognise the fact that if\nin this penal code there is doubtless great severity, it is yet the\nseverity of governmental wisdom and true paternal kindness on the part\nof the high King of Israel: who governed that nation with intent,\nabove all, that they might become in the highest sense \"a holy nation\"\nin the midst of an ungodly world, and so become the vehicle of\nblessing to others. And God thus judged that it was better that\nsinning individuals should die without mercy, than that family\ngovernment and family purity should perish, and Israel, instead of\nbeing a blessing to the nations, should sink with them into the mire\nof universal moral corruption.\n\nAnd it is well to observe that this law, if severe, was most equitable\nand impartial in its application. We have here, in no instance,\ntorture; the scourging which in one case is enjoined, is limited\nelsewhere to the forty stripes save one. Neither have we\ndiscrimination against any class, or either sex; nothing like that\ndetestable injustice of modern society which turns the fallen woman\ninto the street with pious scorn, while it often receives the betrayer\nand even the adulterer--in most cases the more guilty of the two--into\n\"the best society.\" Nothing have we here, again, which could justify\nby example the insistence of many, through a perverted humanity, when\na murderess is sentenced for her crime to the scaffold, her sex should\npurchase a partial immunity from the penalty of crime. The Levitical\nlaw is as impartial as its Author; even if death be the penalty, the\nguilty one must die, whether man or woman.\n\nQuite apart, then, from any question of detail, as to how far this\npenal code ought to be applied under the different conditions of\nmodern society, this chapter of Leviticus assuredly stands as a most\nimpressive testimony from God against the humanitarianism of our age.\nIt is more and more the fashion, in some parts of Christendom, to pet\ncriminals; to lionize murderers and adulterers, especially if in high\nsocial station. We have even heard of bouquets and such-like\nsentimental attentions bestowed by ladies on blood-red criminals in\ntheir cells awaiting the halter; and a maudlin pity quite too often\nusurps among us the place of moral horror at crime and intense\nsympathy with the holy justice and righteousness of God. But this\nDivine government of old did not deal in flowers and perfumes; it\nnever indulged criminals, but punished them with an inexorable\nrighteousness. And yet this was not because Israel's King was hard and\ncruel. For it was this same law which with equal kindness and equity\nkept a constant eye of fatherly care upon the poor and the stranger,\nand commanded the Israelite that he love even the stranger as himself.\nBut, none the less, the Lord God who declared Himself as merciful and\ngracious and of great kindness, also herein revealed Himself,\naccording to His word, as one who would \"by no means clear the\nguilty.\" This fact is luminously witnessed by this penal code; and,\nlet us note, it is witnessed by that penal law of God which is\nrevealed in nature also. For this too punishes without mercy the\ndrunkard, for example, or the licentious man, and never diminishes one\nstroke because by the full execution of penalty the sinner must suffer\noften so terribly. Which is just what we should expect to find, if\nindeed the God of nature is the One who spake in Leviticus.\n\nFinally, as already suggested, this chapter gives a most weighty\ntestimony against the modern tendency to a relaxation of the laws\nwhich regulate the relations of the sexes. That such a tendency is a\nfact is admitted by all; by some with gratulation, by others with\nregret and grave concern. French law, for instance, has explicitly\nlegalised various alliances which in this law God explicitly forbids,\nunder heavy penal sanctions, as incestuous; German legislation has\nmoved about as far in the same direction; and the same tendency is to\nbe observed, more or less, in all the English-speaking world. In some\nof the United States, especially, the utmost laxity has been reached,\nin laws which, under the name of divorce, legalize gross\nadultery,--laws which had been a disgrace to pagan Rome. So it goes.\nWhere God denounced the death-penalty, man first apologises for the\ncrime, then lightens the penalty, then abolishes it, and at last\nformally legalises the crime. This modern drift bodes no good; in the\nend it can only bring disaster alike to the well-being of the family\nand of the State. The maintenance of the family in its integrity and\npurity is nothing less than essential to the conservation of society\nand the stability of good government.\n\nTo meet this growing evil, the Church needs to come back to the full\nrecognition of the principles which underlie this Levitical code;\nespecially of the fact that marriage and the family are not merely\ncivil arrangements, but Divine institutions; so that God has not left\nit to the caprice of a majority to settle what shall be lawful in\nthese matters. Where God has declared certain alliances and\nconnections to be criminal, we shall permit or condone them at our\nperil. God rules, whether modern majorities will it or not; and we\nmust adopt the moral standards of the kingdom of God in our\nlegislation, or we shall suffer. God has declared that not merely the\nmaterial well-being of man, but _holiness_, is the moral end of\ngovernment and of life; and He will find ways to enforce His will in\nthis respect. \"The nation that will not serve Him shall perish.\" All\nthis is not theology, merely, or ethics, but history. All history\nwitnesses that moral corruption and relaxed legislation, especially in\nmatters affecting the relations of the sexes, bring in their train\nsure retribution, not in Hades, but here on earth. Let us not miss of\ntaking the lesson by imagining that this law was for Israel, but not\nfor other peoples. The contrary is affirmed in this very chapter (vv.\n23, 24), where we are reminded that God visited His heavy judgments\nupon the Canaanitish nations precisely for this very thing, their\ndoing of these things which are in this law of holiness forbidden.\nHence \"the land spued them out.\" Our modern democracies, English,\nAmerican, French, German, or whatever they be, would do well to pause\nin their progressive repudiation of the law of God in many social\nquestions, and heed this solemn warning. For, despite the unbelief of\nmultitudes, the Holy One still governs the world, and it is certain\nthat He will never abdicate His throne of righteousness to submit any\nof His laws to the sanction of a popular vote.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n_THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS._\n\nLEV. xxi. 1-xxii. 33.\n\n\nThe conception of Israel as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, was\nconcretely represented in a threefold division of the people,--the\ncongregation, the priesthood, and the high priest. This corresponded\nto the threefold division of the tabernacle into the outer court, the\nholy place, and the holy of holies, each in succession more sacred\nthan the place preceding. So while all Israel was called to be a\npriestly nation, holy to Jehovah in life and service, this sanctity\nwas to be represented in degrees successively higher in each of these\nthree divisions of the people, culminating in the person of the high\npriest, who, in token of this fact, wore upon his forehead the\ninscription, \"HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH.\"\n\nUp to this point the law of holiness has dealt only with such\nobligations as bore upon all the priestly nation alike; in these two\nchapters we now have the special requirements of this law in its yet\nhigher demands upon, first, the priests, and, secondly, the high\npriest.\n\nAbolished as to the letter, this part of the law still holds good as\nto the principle which it expresses, namely, that special spiritual\nprivilege and honour places him to whom it is given under special\nobligations to holiness of life. As contrasted with the world without,\nit is not then enough that Christians should be equally correct and\nmoral in life with the best men of the world; though too many seem to\nbe living under that impression. They must be more than this; they\nmust be holy: God will wink at things in others which He will not deal\nlightly with in them. And so, again, within the Church, those who\noccupy various positions of dignity as teachers and rulers of God's\nflock are just in that degree laid under the more stringent obligation\nto holiness of life and walk. This most momentous lesson confronts us\nat the very opening of this new section of the law, addressed\nspecifically to \"the priests, the sons of Aaron.\" How much it is\nneeded is sufficiently and most sadly evident from the condition of\nbaptized Christendom to-day. Who is there that will heed it?\n\nPriestly holiness was to be manifested, first (vv. 1-15), in regard to\nearthly relations of kindred and friendship. This is illustrated under\nthree particulars, namely, in mourning for the dead (vv. 1-6), in\nmarriage (vv. 7, 8), and (ver. 9) in the maintenance of purity in the\npriest's family. With regard to the first point, it is ordered that\nthere shall be no defilement for the dead, except in the case of the\npriest's own family,--father, mother, brother, unmarried sister, son,\nor daughter.[37] That is, with the exception of these cases, the\npriest, though he may mourn in his heart, is to take no part in any\nof those last offices which others render to the dead. This were \"to\nprofane himself.\" And while the above exceptions are allowed in the\ncase of members of his immediate household, even in these cases he is\nspecially charged (ver. 5) to remember, what was indeed elsewhere\nforbidden to every Israelite, that such excessive demonstrations of\ngrief as shaving the head, cutting the flesh, etc., were most unseemly\nin a priest. These restrictions are expressly based upon the fact that\nhe is \"a chief man among his people;\" that he is holy unto God,\nappointed to offer \"the bread of God, the offerings made by fire.\" And\ninasmuch as the high priest, in the highest degree of all, represents\nthe priestly idea, and is thus admitted into a peculiar and exclusive\nintimacy of relation with God, having on him \"the crown of the\nanointing oil of his God,\" and having been consecrated to put on the\n\"garments for glory and for beauty,\" worn by none other in Israel,\nwith him the prohibition of all public acts of mourning is made\nabsolute (vv. 10-12). He may not defile himself, for instance, by even\nentering the house where lies the dead body of a father or a mother!\n\n [37] The wife is not mentioned, but that she would also be\n included in the exception, in view of her being always regarded\n in the law as yet nearer to her husband than father or mother,\n may be safely taken for granted.\n\nThese regulations, at first thought, to many will seem hard and\nunnatural. Yet this law of holiness elsewhere magnifies and guards\nwith most jealous care the family relation, and commands that even the\nneighbour we shall love as ourselves. Hence it is certain that these\nregulations cannot have been intended to condemn the natural feelings\nof grief at the loss of friends, but only to place them under certain\nrestrictions. They were given, not to depreciate the earthly\nrelationships of friendship and kindred, but only to magnify the more\nthe dignity and significance of the priestly relation to God, as far\ntranscending even the most sacred relations of earth. As priest, the\nson of Aaron was the servant of the Eternal God, of God the Holy and\nthe Living One, appointed to mediate from Him the grace of pardon and\nlife to those condemned to die. Hence he must never forget this\nhimself, nor allow others to forget it. Hence he must maintain a\nspecial, visible separation from death, as everywhere the sign of the\npresence and operation of sin and unholiness; and while he is not\nforbidden to mourn, he must mourn with a visible moderation; the more\nso that if his priesthood had any significance, it meant that death\nfor the believing and obedient Israelite was death in hope. And then,\nbesides all this, God had declared that He Himself would be the\nportion and inheritance of the priests. For the priest therefore to\nmourn, as if in losing even those nearest and dearest on earth he had\nlost all, were in outward appearance to fail in witness to the\nfaithfulness of God to His promises, and His all-sufficiency as his\nportion.\n\nStanding here, will we but listen, we can now hear the echo of this\nsame law of priestly holiness from the New Testament, in such words as\nthese, addressed to the whole priesthood of believers: \"He that loveth\nfather or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me;\" \"Let those that\nhave wives be as though they had none, and those that weep as though\nthey wept not;\" \"Concerning them that fall asleep ... sorrow not, even\nas the rest, which have no hope.\" As Christians, we are not forbidden\nto mourn; but because a royal priesthood to the God of life, who\nraised up the Lord Jesus, and ourselves looking also for the\nresurrection, ever with moderation and self-restraint. Extravagant\ndemonstrations of sorrow, whether in dress or in prolonged separation\nfrom the sanctuary and active service of God, as the manner of many\nis, are all as contrary to the New Testament law of holiness as to\nthat of the Old. When bereaved, we are to call to mind the blessed\nfact of our priestly relation to God, and in this we shall find a\nrestraint and a remedy for excessive and despairing grief. We are to\nremember that the law for the High Priest is the law for all His\npriestly house; like Him, they must all be perfected for the\npriesthood by sufferings; so that, in that they themselves suffer,\nbeing tried, they may be able the better to succour others that are\ntried in like manner (2 Cor. i. 4; Heb. ii. 18). We are also to\nremember that as priests to God, this God of eternal life and love is\nHimself our satisfying portion, and with holy care take heed that by\nno immoderate display of grief we even seem before men to traduce His\nfaithfulness and belie to unbelievers His glorious all-sufficiency.\n\nThe holiness of the priesthood was also to be represented visibly in\nthe marriage relation. A priest must marry no woman to whose fair fame\nattaches the slightest possibility of suspicion,--no harlot, or fallen\nwoman,[38] or a woman divorced (ver. 7); such an alliance were\nmanifestly most unseemly in one \"holy to his God.\" As in the former\ninstance, the high priest is still further restricted; he may not\nmarry a widow, but only \"a virgin of his own people\" (ver. 14); for\nvirginity is always in Holy Scripture the peculiar type of holiness.\nAs a reason it is added that this were to \"profane his seed among his\npeople;\" that is, it would be inevitable that by neglect of this care\nthe people would come to regard his seed with a diminished reverence\nas the separated priests of the holy God. From observing the practice\nof many who profess to be Christians, one would naturally infer that\nthey can never have suspected that there was anything in this part of\nthe law which concerns the New Testament priesthood of believers. How\noften we see a young man or a young woman professing to be a disciple\nof Christ, a member of Christ's royal priesthood, entering into\nmarriage alliance with a confessed unbeliever in Him! And yet the law\nis laid down as explicitly in the New Testament as in the Old (1 Cor.\nvii. 39), that marriage shall be only \"in the Lord;\" so that one\nprinciple rules in both dispensations. The priestly line must, as far\nas possible, be kept pure; the holy man must have a holy wife. Many,\nindeed, feel this deeply and marry accordingly; but the apparent\nthoughtlessness on the matter of many more is truly astonishing, and\nalmost incomprehensible.\n\n [38] See margin (R.V.).\n\nAnd the household of the priest were to remember the holy standing of\ntheir father. The sin of the child of a priest was to be punished more\nseverely than that of the children of others; a single illustration is\ngiven (ver. 9): \"The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by\nplaying the harlot, ... shall be burnt with fire.\"[39] And the\nseverity of the penalty is justified by this, that by her sin \"she\nprofaneth her father.\" From which it appears that, as a principle of\nthe Divine judgment, if the children of believers sin, their guilt\nwill be judged more heavy than that of others; and that justly,\nbecause to their sin this is added, over like sin of others, that they\nthereby cast dishonour on their believing parents, and in them soil\nand defame the honour of God. How little is this remembered by many\nin these days of increasing insubordination even in Christian\nfamilies!\n\n [39] That is, not burnt alive, but after execution.\n\nThe priestly holiness was to be manifested, in the second place, in\nphysical, bodily perfection. It is written (ver. 17): \"Speak unto\nAaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their\ngenerations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the\nbread of his God.\"\n\nAnd then follows (vv. 18-20) a list of various cases in illustration\nof this law, with the proviso (vv. 21-23) that while such a person\nmight not perform any priestly function, he should not be debarred\nfrom the use of the priestly portion, whether of things \"holy\" or\n\"most holy,\" as his daily food. The material and bodily is ever the\ntype and symbol of the spiritual; hence, in this case, the spiritual\npurity and perfection required of him who would draw near to God in\nthe priests' office must be visibly signified by his physical\nperfection; else the sanctity of the tabernacle were profaned.\nMoreover, the reverence due from the people toward Jehovah's sanctuary\ncould not well be maintained where a dwarf, for instance, or a\nhumpback, were ministering at the altar. And yet the Lord has for such\na heart of kindness; in kindly compassion He will not exclude them\nfrom His table. Like Mephibosheth at the table of David, the deformed\npriest may still eat at the table of God.\n\nThere is a thought here which bears on the administration of the\naffairs of God's house even now. We are reminded that there are those\nwho, while undoubtedly members of the universal Christian priesthood,\nand thus lawfully entitled to come to the table of the Lord, may yet\nbe properly regarded as disabled and debarred by various\ncircumstances, for which, in many cases, they may not be responsible,\nfrom any eminent position in the Church.\n\nIn the almost unrestrained insistence of many in this day for\n\"equality,\" there are indications not a few of a contempt for the holy\noffices ordained by Christ for His Church, which would admit an equal\nright on the part of almost any who may desire it, to be allowed to\nminister in the Church in holy things. But as there were dwarfed and\nblinded sons of Aaron, so are there not a few Christians\nwho--evidently, at least, to all but themselves--are spiritually\ndwarfs or deformed; subject to ineradicable and obtrusive\nconstitutional infirmities, such as utterly disqualify, and should\npreclude, them from holding any office in the holy Church of Christ.\nThe presence of such in her ministry can only now, as of old, profane\nthe sanctuaries of the Lord.\n\nThe next section of the law of holiness for the priests (xxii. 1-16)\nrequires that the priests, as holy unto Jehovah, treat with most\ncareful reverence all those holy things which are their lawful\nportion. If, in any way, any priest have incurred ceremonial\ndefilement,--as, for instance, by an issue, or by the dead,--he is not\nto eat until he is clean (vv. 2-7). On no account must he defile\nhimself by eating of that which is unclean, such as that which has\ndied of itself, or has been torn by beasts (ver. 8), which indeed was\nforbidden even to the ordinary Israelite. Furthermore, the priests are\ncharged that they preserve the sanctity of God's house by carefully\nexcluding all from participation in the priests' portion who are not\nof the priestly order. The stranger or sojourner in the priest's\nhouse, or a hired servant, must not be fed from this \"bread of God;\"\nnot even a daughter, when, having married, she has left the father's\nhome to form a family of her own, can be allowed to partake of it\n(ver. 12). If, however (ver. 13), she be parted from her husband by\ndeath or divorce, and have no child, and return to her father's house,\nshe then becomes again a member of the priestly family, and resumes\nthe privileges of her virginity.\n\nAll this may seem, at first, remote from any present use; and yet it\ntakes little thought to see that, in principle, the New Testament law\nof holiness requires, under a changed form, even the same reverent use\nof God's gifts, and especially of the Holy Supper of the Lord, from\nevery member of the Christian priesthood. It is true that in some\nparts of the Church a superstitious dread is felt with regard to\napproach to the Lord's Table, as if only the conscious attainment of a\nvery high degree of holiness could warrant one in coming. But, however\nsuch a feeling is to be deprecated, it is certain that it is a less\nserious wrong, and argues not so ill as to the spiritual condition of\na man as the easy carelessness with which multitudes partake of the\nLord's Supper, nothing disturbed, apparently, by the recollection that\nthey are living in the habitual practice of known sin, unconfessed,\nunforsaken, and therefore unforgiven. As it was forbidden to the\npriest to eat of those holy things which were his rightful portion,\nwith his defilement or uncleanness on him, till he should first be\ncleansed, no less is it now a violation of the law of holiness for the\nChristian to come to the Holy Supper having on his conscience\nunconfessed and unforgiven sin. No less truly than the violation of\nthis ancient law is this a profanation, and who so desecrates the holy\nfood must bear his sin.\n\nAnd as the sons of Aaron were charged by this law of holiness that\nthey guard the holy things from the participation of any who were not\nof the priestly house, so also is the obligation on every member of\nthe New Testament Church, and especially on those who are in official\ncharge of her holy sacraments, that they be careful to debar from such\nparticipation the unholy and profane. It is true that it is possible\nto go to an extreme in this matter which is unwarranted by the Word of\nGod. Although participation in the Holy Supper is of right only for\nthe regenerate, it does not follow, as in some sections of the Church\nhas been imagined, that the Church is therefore required to satisfy\nherself as to the undoubted regeneration of those who may apply for\nmembership and fellowship in this privilege. So to read the heart as\nto be able to decide authoritatively on the regeneration of every\napplicant for Church membership is beyond the power of any but the\nOmniscient Lord, and is not required in the Word. The Apostles\nreceived and baptized men upon their credible profession of faith and\nrepentance, and entered into no inquisitorial cross-examination as to\nthe details of the religious experience of the candidate. None the\nless, however, the law of holiness requires that the Church, under\nthis limitation, shall to the uttermost of her power be careful that\nno one unconverted and profane shall sit at the Holy Table of the\nLord. She may admit upon profession of faith and repentance, but she\ncertainly is bound to see to it that such profession shall be\ncredible; that is, such as may be reasonably believed to be sincere\nand genuine. She is bound, therefore, to satisfy herself in such\ncases, so far as possible to man, that the life of the applicant, at\nleast externally, witnesses to the genuineness of the profession. If\nwe are to beware of imposing false tests of Christian character, as\nsome have done, for instance, in the use or disuse of things\nindifferent, we are, on the other hand, to see to it that we do apply\nsuch tests as the Word warrants, and firmly exclude all such as insist\nupon practices which are demonstrably, in themselves always wrong,\naccording to the law of God.\n\nNo man who has any just apprehension of Scriptural truth can well\ndoubt that we have here a lesson which is of the highest present-day\nimportance. When one goes out into the world and observes the\npractices in which many whom we meet at the Lord's Table habitually\nindulge, whether in business or in society,--the crookedness in\ncommercial dealings and sharp dealing in trade, the utter dissipation\nin amusement, of many Church members,--a spiritual man cannot but ask,\nWhere is the discipline of the Lord's house? Surely, this law of\nholiness applies to a multitude of such cases; and it must be said\nthat when such eat of the holy things, they \"profane them;\" and those\nwho, in responsible charge of the Lord's Table, are careless in this\nmatter, \"cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, when\nthey eat their holy things\" (ver. 16). That word of the Lord Jesus\ncertainly applies in this case (Matt. xviii. 7): \"It must needs be\nthat occasions of stumbling come; but woe to that man through whom the\noccasion cometh!\"\n\nThe last section of the law concerning priestly holiness (xxii. 17-33)\nrequires the maintenance of jealous care in the enforcement of the law\nof offerings. Inasmuch as, in the nature of the case, while it rested\nwith the sons of Aaron to enforce this law, the obligation concerned\nevery offerer, this section (vv. 17-25) is addressed also (ver. 18)\n\"unto all the children of Israel.\" The first requirement concerned the\nperfection of the offering; it must be (vv. 19, 20) \"without\nblemish.\" Only one qualification is allowed to this law, namely, in\nthe case of the free-will offering (ver. 23), in which a victim was\nallowed which, otherwise perfect, had something \"superfluous or\nlacking in his parts.\" Even this relaxation of the law was not allowed\nin the case of an offering brought in payment of a vow; hence Malachi\n(i. 14), in allusion to this law, sharply denounces the man who\n\"voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing.\" Verse 25\nprovides that this law shall be enforced in the case of the foreigner,\nwho may wish to present an offering to Jehovah, no less than with the\nIsraelite.\n\nA third requirement (ver. 27) sets a minimum limit to the age of a\nsacrificial victim; it must not be less than eight days old. The\nreason of this law, apart from any mystic or symbolic meaning, is\nprobably grounded in considerations of humanity, requiring the\navoidance of giving unnecessary suffering to the dam. A similar\nintention is probably to be recognised in the additional law (ver. 28)\nthat the cow, or ewe, and its young should not both be killed in one\nday; though it must be confessed that the matter is somewhat obscure.\n\nFinally, the law closes (vv. 29, 30) with the repetition of the\ncommand (vii. 15) requiring that the flesh of the sacrifice of\nthanksgiving be eaten on the same day in which it is offered. The\nslightest possibility of beginning corruption is to be precluded in\nsuch cases with peculiar strictness.\n\nThis closing section of the law of holiness, which so insists that the\nregulations of God's law in regard to sacrifice shall be scrupulously\nobserved, in its inner principle forbids all departures in matter of\nworship from any express Divine appointment or command. We fully\nrecognise the fact that, as compared with the old dispensation, the\nNew Testament allows in the conduct and order of worship a far larger\nliberty than then. But, in our age, the tendency, alike in politics\nand in religion, is to the confounding of liberty and license. Yet\nthey are not the same, but are most sharply contrasted. Liberty is\nfreedom of action within the bounds of Divine law; license recognises\nno limitation to human action, apart from enforced necessity,--no law\nsave man's own will and pleasure. It is therefore essential\nlawlessness,[40] and therefore is sin in its most perfect and\nconsummate expression. But there is law in the New Testament as well\nas in the Old. Because the New Testament lays down but few laws\nconcerning the order of Divine worship, it does not follow that these\nfew are of no consequence, and that men may worship in all respects\njust as they choose, and equally please God.\n\n [40] See 1 John iii. 4 and 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 7, 8,--passages\n which, in view of this most manifest and characteristic tendency\n of our times, are pregnant with very solemn warning.\n\nTo illustrate this matter. It does not follow, because the New\nTestament allows large liberty as regards the details of worship, that\ntherefore we may look upon the use of images or pictures in connection\nwith worship as a matter of indifference. If told that these are\nmerely used as an aid to devotion,--the very argument which in all\nages has been used by all idolaters,--we reply that, be that as it\nmay, it is an aid which is expressly prohibited under the heaviest\npenal sanctions in both Testaments. We may take another present-day\nillustration, which, especially in the American Church, is of special\npertinence. One would say that it should be self-evident that no\nordinance of the Church should be more jealously guarded from human\nalteration or modification than the most sacred institution of the\nsacramental Supper. Surely it should be allowed that the Lord alone\nshould have the right to designate the symbols of His own death in\nthis most holy ordinance. That He chose and appointed for this purpose\nbread and wine, even the fermented juice of the grape, has been\naffirmed by the practically unanimous consensus of Christendom for\nalmost nineteen hundred years; and it is not too much to say that this\nunderstanding of the Scripture record is sustained by the no less\nunanimous judgment of truly authoritative scholarship even to-day.\nNeither can it be denied that Christ ordained this use of wine in the\nHoly Supper with the most perfect knowledge of the terrible evils\nconnected with its abuse in all ages. All this being so, how can it\nbut contravene this principle of the law of holiness, which insists\nupon the exact observance of the appointments which the Lord has made\nfor His own worship, when men, in the imagined interest of \"moral\nreform,\" presume to attempt improvements in this holy ordinance of the\nLord, and substitute for the wine which He chose to make the symbol of\nHis precious blood, something else, of different properties, for the\nuse of which the whole New Testament affords no warrant? We speak with\nfull knowledge of the various plausible arguments which are pressed as\nreasons why the Church should authorise this nineteenth-century\ninnovation. No doubt, in many cases, the change is urged through a\nmisapprehension as to the historical facts, which, however astonishing\nto scholars, is at least real and sincere. But whenever any, admitting\nthe facts as to the original appointment, yet seriously propose, as so\noften of late years, to improve on the Lord's arrangements for His own\nTable, we are bold to insist that the principle which underlies this\npart of the priestly law of holiness applies in full force in this\ncase, and cannot therefore be rightly set aside. Strange, indeed, it\nis that men should unthinkingly hope to advance morality by ignoring\nthe primal principle of all holiness, that Christ, the Son of God, is\nabsolute and supreme Lord over all His people, and especially in all\nthat pertains to the ordering of His own house!\n\nWe have in these days great need to beseech the Lord that He may\ndeliver us, in all things, from that malign epidemic of religious\nlawlessness which is one of the plagues of our age; and raise up a\ngeneration who shall so understand their priestly calling as\nChristians, that, no less in all that pertains to the offices of\npublic worship, than in their lives as individuals they shall take\nheed, above all things, to walk according to the principles of this\nlaw of priestly holiness. For, repealed although it be as to the\noutward form of the letter, yet in the nature of the case, as to its\nspirit and intention, it abides, and must abide, in force unto the\nend. And the great argument also, with which, after the constant\nmanner of this law, this section closes, is also, as to its spirit,\nvalid still, and even of greater force in its New Testament form than\nof old. For we may now justly read it in this wise: \"Ye shall not\nprofane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among My people: I am the\nLord that hallow you, _that have redeemed you by the cross_, to be\nyour God.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n_THE SET FEASTS OF THE LORD._\n\nLEV. xxiii. 1-44.\n\n\nIt is even an instinct of natural religion to observe certain set\ntimes for special public and united worship. As we should therefore\nanticipate, such observances are in this chapter enjoined as a part of\nthe requirement of the law of holiness for Israel.\n\nIt is of consequence to observe that the Revisers have corrected the\nerror of the Authorised Version, which renders two perfectly distinct\nwords alike as \"feasts;\" and have distinguished the one by the\ntranslation, \"set feasts,\" the other by the one word, \"feasts.\" The\nprecise sense of the former word is given in the margin \"appointed\nseasons,\" and it is naturally applied to all the set times of special\nreligious solemnity which are ordained in this chapter. But the other\nword translated \"feast,\"--derived from a root meaning \"to dance,\"\nwhence \"feast\" or \"festival,\"--is applied to only three of the former\nsix \"appointed seasons,\" namely, the feasts of Unleavened Bread, of\nPentecost, and of Tabernacles; as intended to be, in a special degree,\nseasons of gladness and festivity.\n\nThe indication of this distinction is of importance, as completely\nmeeting the allegation that there is in this chapter evidence of a\nlater development than in the account of the feasts given in Exod.\nxxxiv., where the number of the \"feasts,\" besides the weekly Sabbath,\nis given as three, while here, as it is asserted, their number has\nbeen increased to six. In reality, however, there is nothing here\nwhich suggests a later period. For the object of the former law in\nExodus was only to name the \"feasts\" (_hagg\u00edm_); while that of the\nchapter before us is to indicate not only these,--which here, as\nthere, are three,--but, in addition to these, all \"appointed seasons\"\nfor \"holy convocations,\" which, although all _mo'adim_, were not all\n_hagg\u00edm_.\n\nThe observance of public religious festivals has been common to all\nthe chief religions of the world, both ancient and modern. Very often,\nthough not in all cases, these have been determined by the phases of\nthe moon; or by the apparent motion of the sun in the heavens, as in\nmany instances of religious celebrations connected with the period of\nthe spring and autumnal equinoxes; and thus, very naturally, also with\nthe times of harvest and ingathering. It is at once evident that of\nthese appointed seasons of holy convocation, the three feasts\n(_hagg\u00edm_) of the Hebrews also fell at certain points in the harvest\nseason; and with each of these, ceremonies were observed connected\nwith harvest and ingathering; while two, the feast of weeks and that\nof tabernacles, take alternate names, directly referring to this their\nconnection with the harvest; namely, the feast of firstfruits and that\nof ingathering. Thus we have, first, the feast of unleavened bread,\nfollowing passover, which was distinguished by the presentation of a\nsheaf of the firstfruits of the barley harvest, in the latter part of\nMarch, or early in April; then, the feast of weeks, or firstfruits,\nseven weeks later, marking the completion of the grain harvest with\nthe ingathering of the wheat; and, finally, the feast of tabernacles\nor ingathering, in the seventh month, marking the harvesting of the\nfruits, especially the oil and the wine, and therewith the completed\ningathering of the whole product of the year.\n\nFrom these facts it is argued that in these Hebrew feasts we have\nsimply a natural development, with modifications, of the ancient and\nwidespread system of harvest feasts among the heathen; to which the\nhistorical element which appears in some of them was only added as an\nafterthought, in a later period of history. From this point of view,\nthe idea that these feasts were a matter of supernatural revelation\ndisappears; what religious character they have belongs originally to\nthe universal religion of nature.\n\nBut it is to be remarked, first, that even if we admit that in their\noriginal character these were simply and only harvest feasts, it would\nnot follow that therefore their observance, with certain prescribed\nceremonies, could not have been matter of Divine revelation. There is\na religion of nature; God has not left Himself without a witness, in\nthat He has given men \"rains and fruitful seasons,\" filling their\nhearts with food and gladness. And, as already remarked in regard to\nsacrifice, it is no part of the method of God in revelation to ignore\nor reject what in this religion of nature may be true and right; but\nrather to use it, and build on this foundation.\n\nBut, again, the mere fact that the feast of unleavened bread fell at\nthe beginning of barley harvest, and that one--though only\none--ceremony appointed for that festive week had explicit reference\nto the then beginning harvest, is not sufficient to disprove the\nuniform declaration of Scripture that, as observed in Israel, its\noriginal ground was not natural, but historical; namely, in the\ncircumstances attending the birth of the nation in their exodus from\nEgypt.\n\nBut we may say more than this. If the contrary were true, and the\nintroduction of the historical element was an afterthought, as\ninsisted by some, then we should expect to find that in accounts\nbelonging to successive periods, the reference to the harvest would\ncertainly be more prominent in the earlier, and the reference of the\nfeast to a historical origin more prominent in the later, accounts of\nthe feasts. Most singular it is then, upon this hypothesis, to find\nthat even accepting the analysis, _e.g._, of Wellhausen, the facts are\nthe exact reverse. For the only brief reference to the harvest in\nconnection with this feast of unleavened bread is found in this chap.\nxxiii. of Leviticus, composed, it is alleged, about the time of\nEzekiel; while, on the other hand, the narrative in Exod. xii.,\nregarded by all the critics of this school as the earliest account of\nthe origin of the feast of unleavened bread, refers only to the\nhistorical event of the exodus, as the occasion of its institution. If\nwe grant the asserted difference in age of these two parts of the\nPentateuch, one would thus more naturally conclude that the historical\nevents were the original occasion of the institution of the festival,\nand that the reference to the harvest, in the presentation of the\nsheaf of firstfruits, was the later introduction into the ceremonies\nof the week.\n\nBut the truth is that this naturalistic identification of these Hebrew\nfeasts with the harvest feasts of other nations is a mistake. In order\nto make it out, it is necessary to ignore or pervert most patent\nfacts. These so-called harvest feasts in fact form part of an\nelaborate system of sacred times,--a system which is based upon the\nSabbath, and into which the sacred number seven, the number of the\ncovenant, enters throughout as a formative element. The weekly\nSabbath, first of all, was the seventh day; the length of the great\nfestivals of unleavened bread and of tabernacles was also, in each\ncase, seven days. Not only so, but the entire series of sacred times\nmentioned in this chapter and in chap. xxv. constitutes an ascending\nseries of sacred septenaries, in which the ruling thought is this:\nthat the seventh is holy unto the Lord, as the number symbolic of rest\nand redemption; and that the eighth, as the first of a new week, is\nsymbolic of the new creation. Thus we have the seventh day, the weekly\nSabbath, constantly recurring, the type of each of the series; then,\ncounting from the feast of unleavened bread,--the first of the sacred\nyear,--the fiftieth day, at the end of the seventh week, is signalised\nas sacred by the feast of firstfruits or of \"weeks;\" the seventh\nmonth, again, is the sabbatic month, of special sanctity, containing\nas it does three of the annual seasons of holy convocation,--the feast\nof trumpets on its first day, the great day of atonement on the tenth,\nand the last of the three great annual feasts, that of tabernacles or\ningathering, for seven days from the fifteenth day of the month.\nBeyond this series of sacred festivals recurring annually, in chap.\nxxv., the seventh year is appointed to be a sabbatic year of rest to\nthe land, and the series at last culminates at the expiration of seven\nsevens of years, in the fiftieth year,--the eighth following the\nseventh seven,--the great year of jubilee, the supreme year of rest,\nrestoration, and release. All these sacred times, differing in the\ndetails of their observance, are alike distinguished by their\nconnection with the sacred number seven, by the informing presence of\nthe idea of the Sabbath, and therewith always a new and fuller\nrevelation of God as in covenant with Israel for their redemption.\n\nNow, like to this series of sacred times, in heathenism there is\nabsolutely nothing. It evidently belongs to another realm of thought,\nethics, and religion. And so, while it is quite true that in the three\ngreat feasts there was a reference to the harvest, and so to fruitful\nnature, yet the fundamental, unifying idea of the system of sacred\ntimes was not the recognition of the fruitful life of nature, as in\nthe heathen festivals, but of Jehovah, as the Author and Sustainer of\nthe life of His covenant people Israel, as also of every individual in\nthe nation. This, we repeat, is the one central thought in all these\nsacred seasons; not the life of nature, but the life of the holy\nnation, as created and sustained by a covenant God. The annual\nprocesses of nature have indeed a place and a necessary recognition in\nthe system, simply because the personal God is active in all nature;\nbut the place of these is not primary, but secondary and subordinate.\nThey have a recognition because, in the first place, it is through the\nbounty of God in nature that the life of man is sustained; and,\nsecondly, also because nature in her order is a type and shadow of\nthings spiritual. For in the spiritual world, whether we think of it\nas made up of nations or individuals, even as in the natural, there is\na seed-time and a harvest, a time of firstfruits and a time of the joy\nand rest of the full ingathering of fruit, and oil, and wine. Hence it\nwas most fitting that this inspired rubric, as primarily intended for\nthe celebration of spiritual things, should be so arranged and timed,\nin all its parts, as that in each returning sacred season, visible\nnature should present itself to Israel as a manifest parable and\neloquent suggestion of those spiritual verities; the more so that thus\nthe Israelite would be reminded that the God of the Exodus and the God\nof Sinai was also the supreme Lord of nature, the God of the seed-time\nand harvest, the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth,\nand of all that in them is.\n\n\nTHE WEEKLY SABBATH.\n\nxxiii. 1-3.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children\n of Israel, and say unto them, The set feasts of the Lord, which\n ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are My set\n feasts. Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is a\n sabbath of solemn rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no\n manner of work: it is a sabbath unto the Lord in all your\n dwellings.\"\n\nThe first verse of this chapter announces the purpose of the section\nas, not to give a complete calendar of sacred times or of seasons of\nworship,--for the new moons and the sabbatic year and the jubilee are\nnot mentioned,--but to enumerate such sacred times as are to be kept\nas \"holy convocations.\" The reference in this phrase cannot be to an\nassembling of the people at the central sanctuary, which is elsewhere\nordered (Exod. xxxiv. 23) only for the three feasts of passover,\nweeks, and atonement; but rather, doubtless, to local gatherings for\npurposes of worship, such as, at a later day, took form in the\ninstitution of the synagogues.\n\nThe enumeration of these \"set times\" begins with the Sabbath (ver. 3),\nas was natural; for, as we have seen, the whole series of sacred times\nwas sabbatic in character. The sanctity of the day is emphasised in\nthe strongest terms, as a _shabbath shabbathon_, a \"sabbath of\nsabbatism,\"--a \"sabbath of solemn rest,\" as it is rendered by the\nRevisers. While on some other sacred seasons the usual occupations of\nthe household were permitted, on the Sabbath \"no manner of work\" was\nto be done; not even was it lawful to gather wood or to light a fire.\n\nFor this sanctity of the Sabbath two reasons are elsewhere given. The\nfirst of these, which is assigned in the fourth commandment, makes it\na memorial of the rest of God, when having created man in Eden, He saw\nHis work which He had finished, that it was very good, and rested from\nall His work. As created, man was participant in this rest of God. He\nwas indeed to work in tilling the garden in which he had been placed;\nbut from such labour as involves unremunerative toil and exhaustion he\nwas exempt. But this sabbatic rest of the creation was interrupted by\nsin; God's work, which He had declared \"good,\" was marred; man fell\ninto a condition of wearying toil and unrest of body and soul, and\nwith him the whole creation also was \"subjected to vanity\" (Gen. iii.\n17, 18; Rom. viii. 20). But in this state of things the God of love\ncould not rest; it thus involved for Him a work of new creation, which\nshould have for its object the complete restoration, both as regards\nman and nature, of that sabbatic state of things on earth which had\nbeen broken up by sin. And thus it came to pass that the weekly\nSabbath looked not only backward, but forward; and spoke not only of\nthe rest that was, but of the great sabbatism of the future, to be\nbrought in through a promised redemption. Hence, as a second reason\nfor the observance of the Sabbath, it is said (Exod. xxxi. 13) to be a\nsign between God and Israel through all their generations, that they\nmight know that He was Jehovah which sanctified them, _i.e._, who had\nset them apart for deliverance from the curse, that through them the\nworld might be saved.\n\nThese are thus the two sabbatic ideas; rest and redemption. They\neverywhere appear, in one form or another, in all this sabbatic series\nof sacred times. Some of them emphasise one phase of the rest and\nredemption, and some another; the weekly Sabbath, as the unit of the\nseries, presents both. For in Deuteronomy (v. 15) Israel was commanded\nto keep the Sabbath in commemoration of the exodus, as the time when\nGod undertook to bring them into His rest; a rest of which the\nbeginning and the pledge was their deliverance from Egyptian bondage;\na rest brought in through a redemption.[41]\n\n [41] See the inspired comment in Heb. iv.\n\n\nTHE FEAST OF PASSOVER AND UNLEAVENED BREAD.\n\nxxiii. 4-14.\n\n \"These are the set feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations,\n which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season. In the first\n month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, is the Lord's\n passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast\n of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye shall eat\n unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy\n convocation: ye shall do no servile work. But ye shall offer an\n offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh\n day is an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work. And the\n Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel,\n and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give\n unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring\n the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: and\n he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you:\n on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And in\n the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without\n blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. And\n the meal offering thereof shall be two tenth parts of an ephah of\n fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the\n Lord for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be\n of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither\n bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day,\n until ye have brought the oblation of your God: it is a statute\n for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.\"\n\nVerses 5-8 give the law for the first of the annual feasts, the\npassover and unleavened bread. The passover lamb was to be slain and\neaten on the evening of the fourteenth day; and thereafter, for seven\ndays, they were all to eat unleavened bread. The first and seventh\ndays of unleavened bread were to be kept as an \"holy convocation;\" in\nboth of which \"servile work,\" _i.e._, the usual occupations in the\nfield or in one's handicraft, were forbidden. Further than this the\nrestriction did not extend.\n\nThe utter impossibility of making this feast of passover also to have\nbeen at first merely a harvest festival is best shown by the signal\nfailure of the many attempts to explain on this theory the name\n\"passover\" as applied to the sacrificial victim, and the exclusion of\nleaven for the whole period. Admit the statements of the Pentateuch on\nthis subject, and all is simple. The feast was a most suitable\ncommemoration by Israel of the solemn circumstances under which they\nbegan their national life: their exemption from the plague of the\ndeath of the first-born, through the blood of a slain victim; and\ntheir exodus thereafter in such haste that they stopped not to leaven\ntheir bread.\n\nAnd there was a deeper spiritual meaning than this. Whereas, secured\nby the sprinkling of blood, they then fed in safety on the flesh of\nthe victim, by which they received strength for their flight from\nEgypt, the same two thoughts were thereby naturally suggested which we\nhave seen represented in the peace-offering; namely, friendship and\nfellowship with God secured through sacrifice, and life sustained by\nHis bounty. And the unleavened bread, also, had more than a historic\nreference; else it had sufficed to eat it only on the anniversary\nnight, and it had not been commanded also to put away the leaven from\ntheir houses. For leaven is the established symbol of moral\ncorruption; and in that, the passover lamb having been slain, Israel\nmust abstain for a full septenary period of a week from every use of\nleaven, it was signified in symbol that the redeemed nation must not\nlive by means of what is evil, but be a holy people, according to\ntheir calling. And the inseparable connection of this with full\nconsecration of person and service, and with the expiation of sin, was\ndaily symbolised (ver. 8) by the \"offerings made by fire,\"\nburnt-offerings, meal-offerings, and sin-offerings, \"offerings made by\nfire unto the Lord.\"\n\nOn \"the morrow after the Sabbath\" (ver. 15) of this sacred week, it\nwas ordered (ver. 10) that \"the sheaf of the firstfruits of the\n(barley) harvest\" should be brought \"unto the priest;\" and (ver. 11)\nthat he should consecrate it unto the Lord, by the ceremony of waving\nit before Him. This wave-offering of the sheaf of firstfruits was to\nbe accompanied (vv. 12, 13) by a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, and\na drink-offering of wine. Until all this was done (ver. 14) they were\nto \"eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears\" of the new\nharvest. By the consecration of the firstfruit is ever signified the\nconsecration of the whole, of which it is the first part, unto the\nLord. By this act, Israel, at the very beginning of their harvest,\nsolemnly consecrated the whole harvest to the Lord; and are only\npermitted to use it, when they receive it thus as a gift from Him.\nThis ethical reference to the harvest is here expressly taught; but\nstill more was thereby taught in symbol.\n\nFor Israel was declared (Exod. iv. 22) to be God's first-born; that\nis, in the great redemptive plan of God, which looks forward to the\nfinal salvation of all nations, Israel ever comes historically first.\n\"The Jew first, and also the Greek,\" is the New Testament formula of\nthis fundamental dispensational truth. The offering unto God,\ntherefore, of the sheaf of firstfruits, at the very beginning of the\nharvest,--in fullest harmony with the historic reference of this feast,\nwhich commemorated Israel's deliverance from bondage and separation\nfrom the nations, as a firstfruits of redemption,--symbolically\nsignified the consecration of Israel unto God as the first-born unto\nHim from the nations, the beginning of the world's great harvest.\n\nBut this is not all. For in these various ceremonies of this first of\nthe feasts, all who acknowledge the authority of the New Testament\nwill recognise a yet more profound, and prophetic, spiritual meaning.\nPassover and unleavened bread not only looked backward, but forward.\nFor the Apostle Paul writes, addressing all believers (1 Cor. v. 7,\n8): \"Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye\nare unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even\nChrist: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither\nwith the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened\nbread of sincerity and truth;\"--an exposition so plain that comment is\nscarcely needed. And as following upon the passover, on the morrow\nafter the Sabbath, the first day of the week, the sheaf of firstfruits\nwas presented before Jehovah, so in type is brought before us that of\nwhich the same Apostle tells us (1 Cor. xv. 20), that Christ, in that\nHe rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, became \"the\nfirstfruits of them that are asleep;\" thus, for the first time,\nfinally and exhaustively fulfilling this type, in full accord also\nwith His own representation of Himself (John xii. 24) as \"a grain of\nwheat,\" which should \"fall into the earth and die,\" and then, living\nagain, \"bear much fruit.\"\n\n\nTHE FEAST OF PENTECOST.\n\nxxiii. 15-21.\n\n \"And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath,\n from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering;\n seven sabbaths shall there be complete: even unto the morrow\n after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye\n shall offer a new meal offering unto the Lord. Ye shall bring out\n of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts of an\n ephah: they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with\n leaven, for firstfruits unto the Lord. And ye shall present with\n the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one\n young bullock, and two rams: they shall be a burnt offering unto\n the Lord, with their meal offering, and their drink offerings,\n even an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.\n And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two\n he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings.\n And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits\n for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they\n shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And ye shall make\n proclamation on the selfsame day; there shall be an holy\n convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work: it is a\n statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your\n generations.\"\n\nNext in order came the feast of firstfruits, or the feast of weeks,\nwhich, because celebrated on the fiftieth day after the presentation\nof the wave-sheaf in passover week, has come to be known as Pentecost,\nfrom the Greek numeral signifying fifty. It was ordered that the\nfiftieth day after this presentation of the first sheaf of the harvest\nshould be kept as a day of \"holy convocation,\" with abstinence from\nall \"servile work.\" The former festival had marked the absolute\nbeginning of the harvest with the first sheaf of barley; this marked\nthe completion of the grain harvest with the reaping of the wheat. In\nthe former, the sheaf was presented as it came from the field; in this\ncase, the offering was of the grain as prepared for food. It was\nordered (ver. 16) that on this day \"a new meal offering\" should be\noffered. It should be brought out of their habitations and be baken\nwith leaven. In both particulars, it was unlike the ordinary\nmeal-offerings, because the offering was to represent the ordinary\nfood of the people. Accompanied with a sevenfold burnt-offering, and a\nsin-offering, and two lambs of peace-offerings, these were to be waved\nbefore the Lord for their acceptance, after the manner of the\nwave-sheaf (vv. 18-20). On the altar they could not come, because they\nwere baken with leaven.\n\nThis festival, as one of the sabbatic series, celebrated the rest\nafter the labours of the grain harvest, a symbol of the great\nsabbatism to follow that harvest which is \"the end of the age\" (Matt.\nxiii. 39). As a consecration, it dedicated unto God the daily food of\nthe nation for the coming year. As passover reminded them that God was\nthe Creator of Israel, so herein, receiving their daily bread from\nHim, they were reminded that He was also the Sustainer of Israel;\nwhile the full accompaniment of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings\nexpressed their full consecration and happy state of friendship with\nJehovah, secured through the expiation of the sin-offering.\n\nWas this feast also, like passover, prophetic? The New Testament is\nscarcely less clear than in the former case. For after that Christ,\nfirst having been slain as \"our Passover,\" had then risen from the\ndead as the \"Firstfruits,\" fulfilling the type of the wave-sheaf on\nthe morning of the Sabbath, fifty days passed; \"and when the day of\nPentecost was fully come,\" came that great outpouring of the Holy\nGhost, the conversion of three thousand out of many lands (Acts ii.),\nand therewith the formation of that Church of the New Testament whose\nmembers the Apostle James declares (i. 18) to be \"a kind of\nfirstfruits of God's creatures.\" Thus, as the sheaf had typified\nChrist as \"the Firstborn from the dead,\" the presentation on the day\nof Pentecost of the two wave-loaves, the product of the sheaf of\ngrain, no less evidently typified the presentation unto God of the\nChurch of the first-born, the first-fruits of Christ's death and\nresurrection, as constituted on that sacred day. This then was the\ncomplete fulfilment of the feast of weeks regarded as a redemptive\ntype, showing how, not only rest, but also redemption was comprehended\nin the significance of the sabbatic idea. And yet, that complete\nredemption was not therewith attained by that Church of the first-born\non Pentecost was presignified in that the two wave-loaves were to be\nbaken with leaven. The feast of unleavened bread had exhibited the\nideal of the Christian life; that of firstfruits, the imperfection of\nthe earthly attainment. On earth the leaven of sin still abides.\n\n\nTHE FEAST OF TRUMPETS.\n\nxxiii. 23-25.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children\n of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the\n month, shall be a solemn rest unto you, a memorial of blowing of\n trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work: and\n ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.\"\n\nBy a very natural association of thought, in ver. 22 the direction to\nleave the gleaning of the harvest for the poor and the stranger is\nrepeated verbally from chap. xix. 9, 10. Thereupon we pass from the\nfeast of the seventh week to the solemnities of the seventh month, in\nwhich the series of annual sabbatic seasons ended. It was thus, by\neminence, the sabbatic season of the year. Of the \"set times\" of this\nchapter, three fell in this month, and of these, two--the day of\natonement and tabernacles--were of supreme significance: the former\nbeing distinguished by the most august religious solemnity of the\nyear, the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies to make\natonement for the sins of the nation; the latter marking the\ncompletion of the ingathering of the products of the year, with the\nfruit, the oil, and the wine. Of this sabbatic month, it is directed\n(vv. 23-25) that the first day be kept as a _shabbathon_, \"a solemn\nrest,\" marked by abstinence from all the ordinary business of life,\nand a holy convocation. The special ceremony of the day, which gave it\nits name, is described as a \"memorial of blowing of trumpets.\" This\n\"blowing of trumpets\" was a reminder, not from Israel to God, as some\nhave fancied, but from God to Israel. It was an announcement from the\nKing of Israel to His people that the glad sabbatic month had begun,\nand that the great day of atonement, and the supreme festivity of the\nfeast of tabernacles, was now at hand.\n\nThat the first day of this sabbatic month should be thus sanctified\nwas but according to the Mosaic principle that the consecration of\nanything signifies the consecration unto God of the whole. \"If the\nfirstfruit is holy, so also the lump;\" in like manner, if the first\nday, so is the month. Trumpets--though not the same probably as used\non this occasion--were also blown on other occasions, and, in\nparticular, at the time of each new moon; but, according to\ntradition, these only by the priests and at the central sanctuary;\nwhile in this feast of trumpets every one blew who would, and\nthroughout the whole land.\n\n\nTHE DAY OF ATONEMENT.\n\nxxiii. 26-32.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Howbeit on the tenth day\n of this seventh month is the day of atonement: it shall be an\n holy convocation unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; and\n ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye\n shall do no manner of work in that same day: for it is a day of\n atonement, to make atonement for you before the Lord your God.\n For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that\n same day, he shall be cut off from his people. And whatsoever\n soul it be that doeth any manner of work in that same day, that\n soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner\n of work: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in\n all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of solemn\n rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the\n month at even, from even unto even, shall ye keep your sabbath.\"\n\nAfter this festival of annunciation, followed, on the tenth day of the\nmonth, the great annual day of atonement. This has already come before\nus (chap. xiii.) in its relation to the sacrificial system, of which\nthe sin-offering of this day was the culmination. But this chapter\nbrings it before us in another aspect, namely, in its relation to the\nannual septenary series of sacred seasons, the final festival of which\nit preceded and introduced.\n\nIts significance, as thus coming in this final seventh and sabbatic\nmonth of the ecclesiastical year, lay not merely in the strictness of\nthe rest which was commanded (vv. 28-30) from every manner of work,\nbut, still more, in that it expressed in a far higher degree than any\nother festival the other sabbatic idea of complete restoration\nbrought in through expiation for sin. This was indeed the central\nthought of the whole ceremonial of the day,--the complete removal of\nall those sins of the nation which stood between them and God, and\nhindered complete restoration to God's favour. And while this\nrestoration was symbolised by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, and\nits presentation and acceptance before Jehovah in the Holy of Holies;\nyet, that none might hence argue from the fact of atonement to license\nto sin, it was ordained (ver. 27) that the people should \"afflict\ntheir souls,\" namely, by fasting,[42] in token of their penitence for\nthe sins for which atonement was made; and the absolute necessity of\nthis condition of repentance in order to any benefit from the\nhigh-priestly sacrifice and intercession was further emphasised by the\nsolemn threat (ver. 29): \"Whatsoever soul it be that shall not be\nafflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people.\"\n\n [42] Compare Isa. lviii. 3-7, Zech. vii. 5, where the necessity\n of the inward sorrow for sin and turning unto God, in connection\n with this fast of the seventh month, is solemnly urged upon\n Israel.\n\nThese then were the lessons--lessons of transcendent moment for all\npeople and all ages--which were set forth in the great atonement of\nthe sabbatic month,--the complete removal of sin by an expiatory\noffering, conditioned on the part of the worshipper by the obedience\nof faith and sincere repentance for the sin, and issuing in rest and\nfull establishment in God's loving favour.\n\n\nTHE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.\n\nxxiii. 33-43.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children\n of Israel, saying, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is\n the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord. On the\n first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile\n work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the\n Lord: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you;\n and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is\n a solemn assembly; ye shall do no servile work. These are the set\n feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy\n convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a\n burnt offering, and a meal offering, a sacrifice, and drink\n offerings, each on its own day: beside the sabbaths of the Lord,\n and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all\n your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the Lord. Howbeit on\n the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in\n the fruits of the land, ye shall keep the feast of the Lord seven\n days: on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth\n day shall be a solemn rest. And ye shall take you on the first\n day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs\n of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice\n before the Lord your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast\n unto the Lord seven days in the year: it is a statute for ever in\n your generations: ye shall keep it in the seventh month. Ye shall\n dwell in booths seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall\n dwell in booths: that your generations may know that I made the\n children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of\n the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.\"\n\nThe sin of Israel having been thus removed, the last and the greatest\nof all the feasts followed--the feast of tabernacles or ingathering.\nIt occupied a full week (ver. 34), from the fifteenth to the\ntwenty-second of the month, the first day being signalised by a holy\nconvocation and abstinence from all servile work (ver. 35). Two\nreasons are indicated, here and elsewhere, for the observance: the\none, natural (ver. 39), the completed ingathering of the products of\nthe year; the other, historical (vv. 42, 43),--it was to be a memorial\nof the days when Israel dwelt in booths in the wilderness. Both ideas\nwere represented in the direction (ver. 40) that they should take on\nthe first day \"the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and\nboughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook,\" fitly symbolising\nthe product of the vine and the fruit-trees which were harvested in\nthis month; and, making booths of these, all were to dwell in these\ntabernacles, and \"rejoice before the Lord their God seven days.\" And\nto this the historical reason is added, \"that your generations may\nknow that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt.\"\n\nNo one need feel any difficulty in seeing in this a connection with\nsimilar harvest and vintage customs among other peoples of that time.\nThat other nations had festivities of this kind at that time, was\nsurely no reason why God should not order these to be taken up into\nthe Mosaic law, elevated in their significance, and sanctified to\nhigher ends. Nothing could be more fitting than that the completion of\nthe ingathering of the products of the year should be celebrated as a\ntime of rejoicing and a thanksgiving day before Jehovah. Indeed, so\nnatural is such a festivity to religious minds, that--as is well\nknown--in the first instance, New England, and then, afterward, the\nwhole United States, and also the Dominion of Canada, have established\nthe observance of an annual \"Thanksgiving Day\" in the latter part of\nthe autumn, which is observed by public religious services, by\nsuspension of public business, and as a glad day of reunion of kindred\nand friends. It is interesting to observe how this last feature of the\nday is also mentioned in the case of this Hebrew feast, in the later\nform of the law (Deut. xvi. 13-15): \"After that thou hast gathered in\nfrom thy threshing-floor and from thy winepress ... thou shalt rejoice\nin thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant,\nand thy maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the\nfatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates, ... and thou\nshalt be altogether joyful.\"\n\nThe chief sentiment of the feast was thus joy and thanksgiving to God\nas the Giver of all good. Yet the joy was not to be merely natural and\nearthly, but spiritual; they were to rejoice (ver. 40) \"before the\nLord.\" And the thanksgiving was not to be expressed merely in words,\nbut in deeds. The week, we are elsewhere told, was signalised by the\nlargest burnt-offerings of any of the feasts, consisting of a total of\nseventy bullocks, beginning with thirteen on the first day, and\ndiminishing by one each day; while these again were accompanied daily\nby burnt-offerings of fourteen lambs and two rams, the double of what\nwas enjoined even for the week of unleavened bread, with\nmeal-offerings and drink-offerings in proportion. Nor was this outward\nritual expression of thanksgiving enough; for their gratitude was to\nbe further attested by taking into their glad festivities the Levite\nwho had no portion, the fatherless and the widow, and even the\nstranger.\n\nIt is not hard to see the connection of all this with the historical\nreference to the days of their wilderness journeyings. Lest they might\nforget God in nature, they were to recall to mind, by their dwelling\nin booths, the days when they had no houses, and no fields nor crops,\nwhen, notwithstanding, none the less easily the Almighty God of Israel\nfed them with manna which they knew not, that He might make them to\n\"know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that\nproceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord\" (Deut. viii. 3). There is,\nindeed, no better illustration of the intention of this part of the\nfeast than those words with their context as they occur in\nDeuteronomy.\n\nThe ceremonies of the feast of tabernacles having been completed with\nthe appointed seven days, there followed an eighth day,--an holy\nconvocation, a festival of solemn rest (vv. 36, 39). This last day of\nholy solemnity and joy, to which a special name is given, is properly\nto be regarded, not as a part of the feast of tabernacles merely, but\nas celebrating the termination of the whole series of sabbatic times\nfrom the first to the seventh month. No ceremonial is here enjoined\nexcept the holy convocation, and the offering of \"an offering made by\nfire unto the Lord,\" with abstinence from all servile work.\n\n\nTYPICAL MEANING OF THE FEASTS OF THE SEVENTH MONTH.\n\nWe have already seen that the earlier feasts of the year were also\nprophetic; that Passover and Unleavened Bread pointed forward to\nChrist, our Passover, slain for us; Pentecost, to the spiritual\ningathering of the firstfruits of the world's harvest, fifty days\nafter the presentation of our Lord in resurrection, as the wave-sheaf\nof the firstfruits. We may therefore safely infer that these remaining\nfeasts of the seventh month must be typical also. But, if so, typical\nof what? Two things may be safely said in this matter. The\nsignificance of the three festivals of this seventh month must be\ninterpreted in harmony with what has already passed into fulfilment;\nand, in the second place, inasmuch as the feast of trumpets, the day\nof atonement, and the feast of tabernacles all belong to the seventh\nand last month of the ecclesiastical year, they must find their\nfulfilment in connection with what Scripture calls \"the last times.\"\n\nKeeping the first point in view, we may then safely say that if\nPentecost typified the firstfruits of the world's harvest in the\ningathering of an election from all nations, the feast of tabernacles\nmust then typify the completion of that harvest in a spiritual\ningathering, final and universal. Not only so, but, inasmuch as in the\nantitypical fulfilment of the wave-sheaf in the resurrection of our\nLord, we were reminded that the consummation of the new creation is in\nresurrection from the dead, and that in regeneration is therefore\ninvolved resurrection, hence the feast of tabernacles, as celebrating\nthe absolute completion of the year's harvest, must typify also the\nresurrection season, when all that are Christ's shall rise from the\ndead at His coming. And, finally, whereas this means for the now\nburdened earth permanent deliverance from the curse, and the beginning\nof a new age thus signalised by glorious life in resurrection, in\nwhich are enjoyed the blessed fruits of life's labours and pains for\nChrist, this was shadowed forth by the ordinance that immediately upon\nthe seven days of tabernacles should follow a feast of the eighth day,\nthe first day of a new week, in celebration of the beginning season of\nrest from all the labours of the field.\n\nMost beautifully, thus regarded, does all else connected with the\nfeast of tabernacles correspond, as type to antitype, to the\nrevelation of the last things, and therein reveal its truest and\ndeepest spiritual significance: the joy, the reunion, the rejoicing\nwith son and with daughter, the fulness of gladness also for the widow\nand the fatherless; and this, not only for those in Israel, but also\nfor the stranger, not of Israel,--for Gentile as well as Israelite was\nto have part in the festivity of that day; and, again, the full\nattainment of the most complete consecration, signified in the\nten-fold burnt-offering;--all finds its place here. And so now we can\nsee why it was that our Saviour declared (Matt. xiii. 39) that the end\nof this present age should be the time of harvest; and how Paul,\nlooking at the future spiritual ingathering, places the ingathering of\nthe Gentiles (Rom. xi. 25) as one of the last things. In full accord\nwith this interpretation of the typical significance of this feast it\nis that in Zech. xiv. we find it written that in the predicted day of\nthe Lord, when (ver. 5) the Lord \"shall come, and all the holy ones\"\nwith Him, and (ver. 9) \"the Lord shall be King over all the earth; ...\nthe Lord ... one, and His name one,\" then (ver. 16) \"every one that is\nleft of all the nations ... shall go up from year to year to worship\nthe King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles;\"\nand, moreover, that so completely shall consecration be realised in\nthat day that (ver. 20) even upon the bells of the horses shall the\nwords be inscribed, \"HOLY UNTO THE LORD!\"\n\nBut before the joyful feast of tabernacles could be celebrated, the\ngreat, sorrowful day of atonement must be kept,--a season marked, on\nthe one hand, by affliction of soul throughout all Israel; on the\nother, by the complete putting away of the sin of the nation for the\nwhole year, through the presentation of the blood of the sin-offering\nby the high priest, within the veil before the mercy seat. Now, if the\nfeast of tabernacles has been correctly interpreted, as presignifying\nin symbol the completion of the great world harvest in the end of the\nage, does the prophetic word reveal anything in connection with the\nlast things as preceding that great harvest, and, in some sense,\npreparing for and ushering in that day, which should be the antitype\nof the great day of atonement?\n\nOne can hardly miss of the answer. For precisely that which the\nprophets and apostles both represent as the event which shall usher in\nthat great day of final ingathering and of blessed resurrection rest\nand joy in consummated redemption, is the national repentance of\nIsrael, and the final cleansing of their age-long sin. In the type,\ntwo things are conspicuous: the great sorrowing of the nation and the\ngreat atonement putting away all Israel's sin. And two things, in like\nmanner, are conspicuous in the prophetic pictures of the antitype,\nnamely, Israel's heart-broken repentance, and the removal thereupon of\nIsrael's sin; their cleansing in the \"fountain opened for sin and for\nuncleanness.\" As Zechariah puts it (xii. 10, xiii. 1), \"I will pour\nupon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the\nspirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom\nthey have pierced: and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for\nhis only son;\" and \"in that day there shall be a fountain opened to\nthe house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and\nfor uncleanness.\" And the relation of this cleansing of Israel to the\ndays of blessing which follow is most explicitly set forth by the\nApostle Paul, in these words concerning Israel (Rom. xi. 12, 15), \"If\ntheir fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of\nthe Gentiles; how much more their fulness? If the casting away of them\nis the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be,\nbut life from the dead?\"\n\nSo far, then, all seems clear. But the feast of trumpets yet remains\nto be explained. Has Holy Scripture predicted anything, falling in the\nperiod between Pentecost and the repentance of Israel, but specially\nbelonging to the last things, which might with reason be regarded as\nthe antitype of this joyful feast of trumpets? Here, again, it is not\neasy to go far astray. For the essential idea of the trumpet call is\nannouncement, proclamation. From time to time all through the year the\ntrumpet-call was heard in Israel; but on this occasion it became the\nfeature of the day, and was universal throughout their land. And, as\nwe have seen, its special significance for that time was to announce\nthat the day of atonement and the feast of ingathering, which typified\nthe full consummation of the kingdom of God, were now at hand. One can\nthus hardly fail to think at once of that other event which, according\nto our Lord's express word (Matt. xxiv. 14), is immediately to precede\n\"the end,\" namely, the universal proclamation of the Gospel: \"This\ngospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a\ntestimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.\" As\nthroughout the year, from time to time, the trumpet call was heard in\nIsrael, but only in connection with the central sanctuary; but now in\nall the land, as the chief thing in the celebration of the day which\nushered in the final sabbatic month, precisely so in the antitype. All\nthrough the ages has the Gospel been sounded forth, but in a partial\nand limited way; but at \"the time of the end\" the proclamation shall\nbecome universal. And thus and then shall the feast of trumpets also,\nlike Passover and Pentecost, pass into complete fulfilment, and be\nswiftly followed by Israel's repentance and restoration, and the\nconsequent reappearing, as Peter predicts (Acts iii. 19-21 R.V.), of\nIsrael's High Priest from within the veil, and thereupon the harvest\nof the world, the resurrection of the just, and the consummation upon\nearth of the glorified kingdom of God.\n\nOf many thoughts of a practical kind which this chapter suggests, we\nmay perhaps well dwell especially on one. The ideal of religious life,\nwhich these set times of the Lord kept before Israel, was a religion\nof joy. Again and again is this spoken of in the accounts of these\nfeasts. This is true even of Passover, with which we oftener, though\nmistakenly, connect thoughts of sadness and gloom. Yet Passover was a\nfeast of joy; it celebrated the birthday of the nation, and a\ndeliverance unparalleled in history. The only exception to this joyful\ncharacter in all these sacred times is found in the day of atonement;\nbut it is itself instructive on the same point, teaching most clearly\nthat in the Divine order, as in the necessity of the case, the joy in\nthe Lord, of which the feast of ingathering was the supreme\nexpression, must be preceded by and grounded in an accepted expiation\nand true penitence for sin.\n\nSo it is still with the religion of the Bible: it is a religion of\njoy. God does not wish us to be gloomy and sad. He desires that we\nshould ever be joyful before Him, and thus find by blessed experience\nthat \"the joy of the Lord is our strength.\" Also, in particular, we do\nwell to observe further that, inasmuch as all these set times were\nsabbatic seasons, joyfulness is inseparably connected with the\nBiblical conception of the Sabbath. This has been too often forgotten;\nand the weekly day of sabbatic rest has sometimes been made a day of\nstern repression and forbidding gloom. How utterly astray are such\nconceptions from the Divine ideal, we shall perhaps the more clearly\nsee when we call to mind the thought which appears more or less\ndistinctly in all these sabbatic seasons, that every Sabbath points\nforward to the eternal joy of the consummated kingdom, the sabbath\nrest which remaineth for the people of God (Heb. iv. 9).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n_THE HOLY LIGHT AND THE SHEW-BREAD: THE BLASPHEMER'S END._\n\nLEV. xxiv. 1-23.\n\n\nIt is not easy to determine with confidence the association of thought\nwhich occasioned the interposition of this chapter, with its somewhat\ndisconnected contents, between chap. xxiii., on the set times of holy\nconvocation, and chap. xxv., on the sabbatic and jubilee years, which\nlatter would seem most naturally to have followed the former\nimmediately, as relating to the same subject of sacred times. Perhaps\nthe best explanation of the connection with the previous chapter is\nthat which finds it in the reference to the olive oil for the lamps\nand the meal for the shew-bread. The feast of tabernacles, directions\nfor which had just been given, celebrated the completed ingathering of\nthe harvest of the year, both of grain and of fruit; and here Israel\nis told what is to be done with a certain portion of each.\n\nTHE ORDERING OF THE LIGHT IN THE HOLY PLACE.\n\nxxiv. 1-4.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of\n Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the\n light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. Without the veil of\n the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron order it from\n evening to morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a\n statute for ever throughout your generations. He shall order the\n lamps upon the pure candlestick before the Lord continually.\"\n\nFirst (vv. 1-4) is given the direction for the ordering of the daily\nlight, which was to burn from evening until morning in the holy place\ncontinually. The people themselves are to furnish the oil for the\nseven-branched candlestick out of the product of their olive yards.\nThe oil is to be \"pure,\" carefully cleansed from leaves and all\nimpurities; and \"beaten,\" that is, not extracted by heat and pressure,\nas are inferior grades, but simply by beating and macerating the\nolives with water,--a process which gives the very best. The point in\nthese specifications is evidently this, that for this, as always, they\nare to give to God's service the very best,--an eternal principle\nwhich rules in all acceptable service to God. The oil is to come from\nthe people in general, so that the illuminating of the Holy Place,\nalthough specially tended by the high priest, is yet constituted a\nservice in which all the children of Israel have some part. The oil\nwas to be used to supply the seven lamps upon the golden candlestick\nwhich was placed on the south side of the Holy Place, without the veil\nof the testimony, in the tent of meeting. This Aaron was to \"order\nfrom evening to morning before the Lord continually.\" According to\nExod. xxv. 31-40, this candlestick--or, more properly, lampstand--was\nmade of a single shaft, with three branches on either side, each with\na cup at the end like an almond blossom; so that, with that on the top\nof the central shaft, it was a stand of seven lamps, in a conventional\nimitation of an almond tree.\n\nThe significance of the symbol is brought clearly before us in Zech.\niv. 1-14, where the seven-branched candlestick symbolises Israel as\nthe congregation of God, the giver of the light of life to the world.\nAnd yet a lamp can burn only as it is supplied with oil and trimmed\nand cared for. And so in the symbol of Zechariah the prophet sees the\ngolden candlestick supplied with oil conveyed through two golden pipes\ninto which flowed the golden oil, mysteriously self-distilled from two\nolive trees on either side the candlestick. And the explanation given\nis this: \"Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,\" saith the\nLord. Thus we learn that the golden seven-branched lampstand denotes\nIsrael, more precious than gold in God's sight, appointed of Him to be\nthe giver of light to the world. And yet by this requisition of oil\nfor the golden candlestick the nation was reminded that their power to\ngive light was dependent upon the supply of the heavenly grace of\nGod's Spirit, and the continual ministrations of the priest in the\nHoly Place. And how this ordering of the light might be a symbolic act\nof worship, we can at once see, when we recall the word of Jesus\n(Matt. v. 14, 16): \"Ye are the light of the world.... Let your light\nshine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your\nFather which is in heaven.\"\n\nHow pertinent for instruction still in all its deepest teaching is\nthis ordinance of the lamp continually burning in the presence of the\nLord, is vividly brought before us in the Apocalypse (i. 12, 13),\nwhere we read that seven candlesticks appeared in vision to the\nApostle John; and Christ, in His glory, robed in high-priestly\nvesture, was seen walking up and down, after the manner of Aaron, in\nthe midst of the seven candlesticks, in care and watch of the manner\nof their burning. And as to the significance of this vision, the\nApostle was expressly told (ver. 20) that the seven candlesticks were\nthe seven Churches of Asia,--types of the collective Church in all the\ncenturies. Thus, as in the language of this Levitical symbol, we are\ntaught that in the highest sense it is the office of the Church to\ngive light in darkness; but that she can only do this as the heavenly\noil is supplied, and each lamp is cared for, by the high-priestly\nministrations of her risen Lord.\n\n\nTHE \"BREAD OF THE PRESENCE.\"\n\nxxiv. 5-9.\n\n \"And thou shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof:\n two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. And thou shalt\n set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before\n the Lord. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row,\n that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made\n by fire unto the Lord. Every sabbath day he shall set it in order\n before the Lord continually; it is on the behalf of the children\n of Israel, an everlasting covenant. And it shall be for Aaron and\n his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place: for it is most\n holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a\n perpetual statute.\"\n\nNext follows the ordinance for the preparation and presentation of the\n\"shew-bread,\" _lit._, \"bread of the Face,\" or \"Presence,\" _sc._ of\nGod. This was to consist of twelve cakes, each to be made of two tenth\nparts of an ephah of fine flour, which was to be placed in two rows or\npiles, \"upon the pure table\" of gold that stood before the Lord, in\nthe Holy Place, opposite to the golden candlestick. On each pile was\nto be placed (ver. 7) \"pure frankincense,\"--doubtless, as tradition\nsays, placed in the golden spoons, or little cups (Exod. xxxvii. 16).\nEvery sabbath (vv. 8, 9) fresh bread was to be so placed, when the old\nbecame the food of Aaron and his sons only, as belonging to the order\nof things \"most holy;\" the frankincense which had been its \"memorial\"\nhaving been first burned, \"an offering made by fire unto the Lord\"\n(ver. 7). Tradition adds that the bread was always unleavened; a few\nhave called this in question, but this has been only on theoretic\ngrounds, and without evidence; and when we remember how stringent was\nthe prohibition of leaven even in any offerings made by fire upon the\naltar of the outer court, much less is it likely that it could have\nbeen tolerated here in the Holy Place immediately before the veil.\n\nThis bread of the Presence must be regarded as in its essential nature\na perpetual meal-offering,--the meal-offering of the Holy Place, as\nthe others were of the outer court.[43] The material was the same,\ncakes of fine flour; to this frankincense must be added as a\n\"memorial,\" as in the meal-offerings of the outer court. Such part of\nthe offering as was not burned, as in the case of the others, was to\nbe eaten by the priests only, as a thing \"most holy.\" It differed from\nthose in that there were always the twelve cakes, one for each tribe;\nand in that while they were repeatedly offered, this lay before the\nLord continually. The altar of burnt-offering might sometimes be empty\nof the meal-offering, but the table of shew-bread, \"the table of the\nPresence,\" never.\n\n [43] See Kurtz, \"Der Alttestamentliche Opfercultus,\" p. 271.\n\nIn general, therefore, the meaning of the offering of the shew-bread\nmust be the same as that of the meal-offerings; like them it\nsymbolised the consecration unto the Lord of the product of the labour\nof the hands, and especially of the daily food as prepared for use.\nBut in this, by the twelve cakes for the twelve tribes it was\nemphasised that God requires, not only such consecration of service\nand acknowledgment of Him from individuals, as in the law of chap.\nii., but from the nation in its collective and organised capacity;\nand that not merely on such occasions as pious impulse might direct,\nbut continuously.\n\nIn these days, when the tendency among us is to an extreme\nindividualism, and therewith to an ignoring or denial of any claim of\nGod upon nations and communities as such, it is of great need to\ninsist upon this thought thus symbolised. It was not enough in God's\nsight that individual Israelites should now and then offer their\nmeal-offerings; the Lord required a meal-offering \"on behalf of the\nchildren of Israel\" _as a whole_, and of each particular tribe of the\ntwelve, each in its corporate capacity. There is no reason to think\nthat in the Divine government the principle which took this symbolical\nexpression is obsolete. It is not enough that individuals among us\nconsecrate the fruit of their labours to the Lord. The Lord requires\nsuch consecration of every nation collectively; and of each of the\nsubdivisions in that nation, such as cities, towns, states, provinces,\nand so on. Yet where in the wide world can we see one such consecrated\nnation? Can we find one such consecrated province or state, or even\nsuch a city or town? Where then, from this biblical and spiritual\npoint of view, is the ground for the religious boasting of the\nChristian progress of our day which one sometimes hears? Must we not\nsay, \"It is excluded\"?\n\nTypically, the shew-bread, like the other meal-offerings with their\nfrankincense, must foreshadow the work of the Messiah in holy\nconsecration; and, in particular, as the One in whom the ideal of\nIsrael was perfectly realised, and who thus represented in His person\nthe whole Israel of God. But the bread of the Presence represents His\nholy obedience in self-consecration, not merely, as in the other\nmeal-offerings, presented in the outer court, in the sight of men, as\nin His earthly life; but here, rather, as continually presented before\nthe \"Face of God,\" in the Holy Place, where Christ appears in the\npresence of God for us. And in this symbolism, which has been already\njustified, we may recognise the element of truth that there is in the\nview held by B\u00e4hr,[44] apparently, as by others, that the shew-bread\ntypified Christ Himself regarded as the bread of life to His people.\nNot indeed, precisely, that Christ Himself is brought before us here,\nbut rather His holy obedience, continually offered unto God in the\nheavenly places, in behalf of the true Israel, and as sealing and\nconfirming the everlasting covenant;--this is what this symbol brings\nbefore us. And it is as we by faith appropriate Him, as thus ever\npresenting His holy life to God for us, that He becomes for us the\nBread of Life.\n\n [44] \"Symbolik des Mos\u00e4ischen Cultus,\" erster Band, pp. 428-432.\n\n\nTHE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY.\n\nxxiv. 10-23.\n\n \"And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an\n Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and the son of\n the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the\n camp; and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name,\n and cursed: and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's\n name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.\n And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at\n the mouth of the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,\n Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all\n that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the\n congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of\n Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And\n he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put\n to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well\n the stranger, as the homeborn, when he blasphemeth the name of\n the Lord, shall be put to death. And he that smiteth any man\n mortally shall surely be put to death; and he that smiteth a\n beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. And if a man\n cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be\n done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as\n he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto\n him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that\n killeth a man shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of\n law, as well for the stranger, as for the homeborn: for I am the\n Lord your God. And Moses spake to the children of Israel, and\n they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and\n stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the\n Lord commanded Moses.\"\n\nThe connection of this section with the preceding context is now\nimpossible to determine. Very possibly its insertion here may be due\nto the occurrence here described having taken place at the time of the\ndelivery of the preceding laws concerning the oil for the golden\nlampstand and the shew-bread. However, the purport and intention of\nthe narrative is very plain, namely, to record the law delivered by\nthe Lord for the punishment of blasphemy; and therewith also His\ncommand that the penalty of broken law, both in this case and in\nothers specified, should be exacted both from native Israelites and\nfrom foreigners alike.\n\nThe incident which was the occasion of the promulgation of these laws\nwas as follows. The son of an Israelitish woman by an Egyptian husband\nfell into a quarrel in the camp. As often happens in such cases, the\none sin led on to another and yet graver sin; the half-caste man\n\"blasphemed the Name, and cursed;\" whereupon he was arrested and put\ninto confinement until the will of the Lord might be ascertained in\nhis case. \"The Name\" is of course the name of God; the meaning is that\nhe used the holy name profanely in cursing. The passage, together with\nver. 16, is of special and curious as upon these two the Jews have\nbased their well-known belief that it is unlawful to utter the Name\nwhich we commonly vocalise as Jehovah; whence it has followed that\nwherever in the Hebrew text the Name occurs it is written with the\nvowels of _Adon\u00e1y_, \"Lord,\" to indicate to the reader that this word\nwas to be substituted for the proper name,--a usage which is\nrepresented in the Septuagint by the appearance of the Greek word\n_Kurios_, \"Lord,\" in all places where the Hebrew has Jehovah (or\nY\u00e1hveh); and which, in both the authorised and revised versions, is\nstill maintained in the retention of \"Lord\" in all such cases,--a\nrelic of Jewish superstition which one could greatly wish that the\nRevisers had banished from the English version, especially as in many\npassages it totally obscures to the English reader the exact sense of\nthe text, wherever it turns upon the choice of this name. It is indeed\ntrue that the word rendered \"blaspheme\" has the meaning \"to\npronounce,\" as the Targumists and other Hebrew writers render it; but\nthat it also means simply to \"revile,\" and in many places cannot\npossibly be rendered \"to pronounce,\" is perforce admitted even by\nJewish scholars.[45] To give it the other meaning here were so plainly\nforeign to the spirit of the Old Testament, debasing reverence to\nsuperstition, that no argument against it will be required with any\nbut a Jew.\n\n [45] See, _e.g._, Rabbi Dr. J. Levy, \"Chald\u00e4isches W\u00f6rterbuch,\"\n zweiter Band, pp. 301, 302; and compare Numb. xxiii. 8, Prov.\n xi. 26, xxiv. 24, where the same Hebrew word is used.\n\nAnd this young man, in the heat of his passion, \"reviled the Name.\"\nThe words \"of the Lord\" are not in the Hebrew; the name \"Jehovah\" is\nthus brought before us expressively as THE NAME, _par excellence_, of\nGod, as revealing Himself in covenant for man's redemption.[46]\nHorrified at the man's wickedness, \"they brought him unto Moses;\" and\n\"they put him in ward\" (ver. 12), \"that it might be declared unto them\nat the mouth of the Lord\" what should be done unto him. This was\nnecessary because the case involved two points upon which no\nrevelation had been made: first, as to what should be the punishment\nof blasphemy; and secondly, whether the law in such cases applied to a\nforeigner as well as to the native Israelite. The answer of God\ndecided these points. As to the first (ver. 15), \"Whosoever curseth\nhis God shall bear his sin,\" _i.e._, he shall be held subject to\npunishment; and (ver. 16), \"He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord,\nhe shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly\nstone him.\" And as to the second point, it is added, \"as well the\nstranger, as the homeborn, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put\nto death.\"\n\n [46] _Cf._ the expression used with reference to Jesus Christ,\n Phil. ii. 9 (R.V.), \"the name which is above every name.\"\n\nThen follows (vv. 17-21) a declaration of penalties for murder, for\nkilling a neighbour's beast, and for inflicting a bodily injury on\none's neighbour. These were to be settled on the principle of the _lex\ntalionis_, life for life, \"breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for\ntooth;\" in the case of the beast killed, its value was to be made good\nto the owner. All these laws had been previously given (Exod. xxi. 12,\n23-36); but are repeated here plainly for the purpose of expressly\nordering that these laws, like that now declared for blasphemy, were\nto be applied alike to the home-born and the stranger (ver. 22).\n\nMuch cavil have these laws occasioned, the more so that Christ Himself\nis cited as having condemned them in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v.\n38-42). But how little difficulty really exists here will appear from\nthe following considerations. The Jews from of old have maintained\nthat the law of \"an eye for eye,\" as here given, was not intended to\nauthorise private and irresponsible retaliation in kind, but only\nafter due trial and by legal process. Moreover, even in such cases,\nthey have justly remarked that the law here given was not meant to be\napplied always with the most exact literality; but that it was\nevidently intended to permit the commutation of the penalty by such a\nfine as the judges might determine. They justly argue from the\nexplicit prohibition of the acceptance of any such satisfaction in\ncommutation in the case of a murderer (Numb. xxxv. 31, 32) that this\nimplies the permission of it in the instances here mentioned;--a\nconclusion the more necessary when it is observed that the literal\napplication of the law in all cases would often result in defeating\nthe very ends of exact justice which it was evidently intended to\nsecure. For instance, the loss by a one-eyed man of his only eye,\nunder such an interpretation, would be much more than an equivalent\nfor the loss of an eye which he had inflicted upon a neighbour who had\nboth eyes. Hence, Jewish history contains no record of the literal\napplication of the law in such cases; the principle is applied as\noften among ourselves, in the exaction from an offender of a pecuniary\nsatisfaction proportioned to the degree of the disability he has\ninflicted upon his neighbour. Finally, as regards the words of our\nSaviour, that He did not intend His words to be taken in their utmost\nstretch of literality in all cases, is plain from His own conduct when\nsmitten by the order of the high priest (John xviii. 23), and from the\nstatement that the magistrate is endowed with the sword, as a servant\nof God, to be a terror to evil-doers (Rom. xiii. 4); from which it is\nplain that Christ did not mean to prohibit the resort to judicial\nprocess under all circumstances, but rather the spirit of retaliation\nand litigation which sought to justify itself by a perverse appeal to\nthis law of \"an eye for eye;\"--a law which, in point of fact, was\ngiven, as Augustine has truly observed, not \"as an incitement to, but\nfor the mitigation of wrath.\"\n\nThe narrative then ends with the statement (ver. 23) that Moses\ndelivered this law to the children of Israel, who then, according to\nthe commandment of the Lord, took the blasphemer out of the camp, when\nall that heard him blaspheme laid their hands upon his head, in token\nthat they thus devolved on him the responsibility for his own death;\nand then the congregation stoned the criminal with stones that he died\n(ver. 23).\n\nThe chief lesson to be learned from this incident and from the law\nhere given is very plain. It is the high criminality in God's sight of\nall irreverent use of His holy name. To a great extent in earlier days\nthis was recognised by Christian governments; and in the Middle Ages\nthe penalty of blasphemy in many states of Christendom, as in the\nMosaic code and in many others, although not death, was yet\nexceedingly severe. The present century, however, has seen a great\nrelaxation of law, and still more of public sentiment, in regard to\nthis crime,--a change which, from a Christian point of view, is a\nmatter for anything but gratulation. Reverence for God lies at the\nvery foundation of even common morality. Our modern atheism and\nagnosticism may indeed deny this, and yet, from the days of the French\nRevolution to the present, modern history has been presenting, in one\nland and another, illustrations of the fact which are pregnant with\nmost solemn warning. And while no one could wish that the crime of\nblasphemy should be punished with torture and cruelty, as in some\ninstances in the Middle Ages, yet the more deeply one thinks on this\nsubject in the light of the Scripture and of history, the more, if we\nmistake not, will it appear that it might be far better for us, and\nmight argue a far more hopeful and wholesome condition of the public\nsentiment than that which now exists, if still, as in Mosaic days and\nsometimes in the Middle Ages, death were made the punishment for this\ncrime;--a crime which not only argues the extreme of depravity in the\ncriminal, but which, if overlooked by the State, or expiated with any\nlight penalty, cannot but operate most fatally by breaking down in the\npublic conscience that profound reverence toward God which is the most\nessential condition of the maintenance of all private and public\nmorality.\n\nIn this point of view, not to speak of other considerations, it is not\nsurprising that the theocratic law here provides that blasphemy shall\nbe punished with death in the case of the foreigner as well as the\nnative Israelite. This sin, like those of murder and violence with\nwhich it is here conjoined, is of such a kind that to every conscience\nwhich is not hopelessly hardened, its wickedness must be manifest even\nfrom the very light of nature. Nature itself is sufficient to teach\nany one that abuse and calumny of the Supreme God, the Maker and Ruler\nof the world,--a Being who, if He exist at all, must be infinitely\ngood,--must be a sin involving quite peculiar and exceptional guilt.\nHence, absolute equity, no less than governmental wisdom, demanded\nthat the law regarding blasphemy, as that with respect to the other\ncrimes here mentioned, should be impartially enforced upon both the\nnative Israelite and the foreigner.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\n_THE SABBATIC YEAR AND THE JUBILEE._\n\nLEV. xxv. 1-55.\n\n\nThe system of annually recurring sabbatic times, as given in chap.\nxxiii., culminated in the sabbatic seventh month. But this remarkable\nsystem of sabbatisms extended still further, and, besides the sacred\nseventh day, the seventh week, and seventh month, included also a\nsabbatic seventh year; and beyond that, as the ultimate expression of\nthe sabbatic idea, following the seventh seven of years, came the\nhallowed fiftieth year, known as the jubilee. And the law concerning\nthese two last-named periods is recorded in this twenty-fifth chapter\nof Leviticus.\n\nFirst (vv. 1-5), is given the ordinance of the sabbatic seventh year,\nin the following words: \"When ye come into the land which I give you,\nthen shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six years thou shalt\nsow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather\nin the fruits thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of\nsolemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto the Lord: thou shalt neither\nsow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of itself of\nthy harvest thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine\nthou shalt not gather: it shall be a year of solemn rest for the\nland.\"\n\nThis sacred year is thus here described as a sabbath for the land unto\nthe Lord,--a _shabbath shabbathon_; that is, a sabbath in a special\nand eminent sense. No public religious gatherings were ordered,\nhowever, neither was labour of every kind prohibited. It was strictly\na year of rest for the land, and for the people in so far as this was\ninvolved in that fact. There was to be no sowing or reaping, even of\nwhat might grow of itself; no pruning of vineyard or fruit trees, nor\ngathering of their fruit. These regulations thus involved the total\nsuspension of agricultural labour for this entire period.\n\nIt was further ordered (vv. 6, 7) that during this year the\nspontaneous produce of the land should be equally free to all, both\nman and beast: \"The sabbath of the land shall be for food for you; for\nthee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant\nand for thy stranger that sojourn with thee; and for thy cattle, and\nfor the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be\nfor food.\"\n\nThat this cannot be regarded as merely a regulation of a communistic\ncharacter, designed simply to affirm the absolute equality of all men\nin right to the product of the soil, is evident from the fact that the\nbeasts also are included in the terms of the law. The object was quite\ndifferent, as we shall shortly see.\n\nThat it should be regarded as possible for a whole people thus to live\noff the spontaneous produce of self-sowed grain may seem incredible to\nus who dwell in less propitious lands; and yet travellers tell us that\nin the Palestine of to-day, with its rich soil and kindly climate, the\nvarious food grains continuously propagate themselves without\ncultivation; and that in Albania, also, two and three successive\nharvests are sometimes reaped as the result of one sowing. So, even\napart from the special blessing from the Lord promised to them if they\nwould obey this command, the supply of at least the necessities of\nlife was possible from the spontaneous product of the sabbath of the\nland. Though less than usual, it might easily be sufficient. In Deut.\nxv. 1-11 it is ordered also that the seventh year should be \"a year of\nrelease\" to the debtor; not indeed as regards all debts, but loans\nonly; nor, apparently, that even these should be released absolutely,\nbut that throughout the seventh year the claim of the creditor was to\nbe in abeyance. The regulation may naturally be regarded as consequent\nupon this fundamental law regarding the sabbath of the land. The\nincome of the year being much less than usual, the debtor, presumably,\nmight often find it difficult to pay; whence this restriction on\ncollection of debt during this period.\n\nThe central thought of this ordinance then is this, that man's right\nin the soil and its product, originally granted from God, during this\nsabbatic year reverted to the Giver; who, again, by ordering that all\nexclusive rights of individuals in the produce of their estates should\nbe suspended for this year, placed, for so long, the rich and the poor\non an absolute equality as regards means of sustenance.\n\n\nTHE JUBILEE.\n\nxxv. 8-12.\n\n \"And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven\n times seven years; and there shall be unto thee the days of seven\n sabbaths of years, even forty and nine years. Then shalt thou\n send abroad the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh\n month; in the day of atonement shall ye send abroad the trumpet\n throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year,\n and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants\n thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return\n every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto\n his family. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye\n shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it,\n nor gather the grapes in it of the undressed vines. For it is a\n jubilee; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase\n thereof out of the field.\"\n\nThe remainder of this chapter, vv. 8-55, is occupied with this\nordinance of the jubilee year; an observance absolutely without a\nparallel in any nation, and which has to do with the solution of some\nof the most difficult social problems, not only of that time, but also\nof our own. Seven weeks of years, each terminating with the sabbatic\nyear of solemn rest for the land, were to be numbered, _i.e._,\nforty-nine full years, of which the last was a sabbatic year,\nbeginning, as always, with the feast of atonement in the tenth day of\nthe seventh month. And then when, at its expiration, the day of\natonement came round again, at the beginning of the fiftieth year of\nthis reckoning, at the close, as would appear, of the solemn expiatory\nritual of the day, throughout all the land of Israel the loud trumpet\nwas to be sounded, proclaiming \"liberty throughout the land unto all\nthe inhabitants thereof.\" The ordinance is given in vv. 8-12 above.\n\nIt appears that the liberty thus proclaimed was threefold: (1) liberty\nto the man who, through the reverses of life, had become dispossessed\nfrom his family inheritance in the land, to return to it again; (2)\nliberty to every Hebrew slave, so that in the jubilee he became a free\nman again; (3) the liberty of release from toil in the cultivation of\nthe land,--a feature, in this case, even more remarkable than in the\nsabbatic year, because already one such sabbatic year had but just\nclosed when the jubilee year immediately succeeded.\n\nWhy this year should be called a jubilee (Heb. _yobel_) is a vexed\nquestion, on which scholars are far from unanimous; but as it is of no\npractical importance, there is no need to enter on the discussion\nhere. To suppose that these enactments should have originated, as the\nradical critics claim, in post-exilian days, when, under the existing\nsocial and political conditions, their observance was impossible, is\nutterly absurd.[47] Not only so, but in view of the admitted neglect\neven of the sabbatic year,--an ordinance certainly less difficult to\ncarry out in practice,--during four hundred and ninety years of\nIsrael's history, the supposition that the law of the jubilee should\nhave been first promulgated at any earlier post-Mosaic period is\nscarcely less incredible.\n\n [47] Thus Dillmann writes: \"That the law (of the jubilee) in its\n principal features was already issued by Moses does not admit of\n demonstration to him who wills not to believe it; but that it\n cannot have been in the first instance the invention of a\n post-exilian scribe is certain. Only in the simpler communal\n relations of the more ancient time could a law of such an ideal\n character have seemed practicable; after the exile, all the\n presuppositions involved in its promulgation are wanting\" (\"Die\n B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" 2 Aufl., p. 608).\n\n\nTHE JUBILEE AND THE LAND.\n\nxxv. 13-28.\n\n \"In this year of jubilee ye shall return every man unto his\n possession. And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buy of\n thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not wrong one another: according\n to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy\n neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the crops he\n shall sell unto thee. According to the multitude of the years\n thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the\n fewness of the years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for the\n number of the crops doth he sell unto thee. And ye shall not\n wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the Lord\n your God. Wherefore ye shall do My statutes, and keep My\n judgments and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.\n And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat your fill,\n and dwell therein in safety. And if ye shall say, What shall we\n eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our\n increase: then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth\n year, and it shall bring forth fruit for the three years. And ye\n shall sow the eighth year, and eat of the fruits, the old store;\n until the ninth year, until her fruits come in, ye shall eat the\n old store. And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the\n land is Mine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in\n all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for\n the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his\n possession, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come,\n and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold. And if a man\n have no one to redeem it, and he be waxen rich and find\n sufficient to redeem it; then let him count the years of the sale\n thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold\n it; and he shall return unto his possession. But if he be not\n able to get it back for himself, then that which he hath sold\n shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the\n year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall\n return unto his possession.\"\n\nThe remainder of the chapter (vv. 13-55) deals with the practical\napplication of this law of the jubilee to various cases. In vv. 13-28\nwe have the application of the law to the case of property in _land_;\nin vv. 29-34, to sales of _dwelling houses_; and the remaining verses\n(35-55) deal with the application of this law to the institution of\n_slavery_.\n\nAs regards the first matter, the transfers of right in land, these in\nall cases were to be governed by the fundamental principle enounced in\nver. 23: \"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is\nMine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me.\"\n\nThus in the theocracy there was no such thing as either private or\ncommunal ownership in land. Just as in some lands to-day the only\nowner of the land is the king, so it was in Israel; but in this case\nthe King was Jehovah. From this it follows, evidently, that properly\nspeaking, according to this law, there could be no such thing in\nIsrael as a sale or purchase of land. All that any man could buy or\nsell was the right to its products, and that, again, only for a\nlimited time; for every fiftieth year the land was to revert to the\nfamily to whom its use had been originally assigned. Hence the\nregulations (vv. 14-19) regarding such transfers of the right to the\nuse of the land. They are all governed by the simple and equitable\nprinciple that the price paid for the usufruct of the land was to be\nexactly proportioned to the number of years which were to elapse\nbetween the date of the sale and the reversion of the land, which\nwould take place in the jubilee. Thus, the price for such transfer of\nright in the first year of the jubilee period would be at its maximum,\nbecause the sale covered the right to the produce of the land for\nforty-nine years; while, on the other hand, in the case of a transfer\nmade in the forty-eighth year, the price would have fallen to a very\nsmall amount, as only the product of one year's cultivation remained\nto be sold, and after the ensuing sabbatic year the land would revert\nin the jubilee to the original holder. The command to keep in mind\nthis principle, and not wrong one another, is enforced (vv. 17-19) by\nthe injunction to do this because of the fear of God; and by the\npromise that if Israel will obey this law, they shall dwell in safety,\nand have abundance.\n\nIn vv. 24-28, after the declaration of the fundamental law that the\nland belongs only to the Lord, and that they are to regard themselves\nas simply His tenants, \"sojourners with Him,\" a second application of\nthe law is made. First, it is ordered that in every case, and without\nreference to the year of jubilee, every landholder who through stress\nof poverty may be obliged to sell the usufruct of his land shall\nretain the right to redeem it. Three cases are assumed. First (ver.\n25), it is ordered that if the poor man have lost his land, and have a\nkinsman who is able to redeem it, he shall do so. Secondly (ver. 26),\nif he have no such kinsman, but himself become able to redeem it, it\nshall be his privilege to do so. In both cases alike, \"the overplus,\"\n_i.e._, the value of the land for the years still remaining till the\njubilee, for which the purchaser had paid, is to be restored to him,\nand then the land reverts at once, without waiting for the jubilee, to\nthe original proprietor. The third case (ver. 28) is that of the poor\nman who has no kinsman to buy back his landholding, and never becomes\nable to do so himself. In such a case, the purchaser was to hold it\nuntil the jubilee year, when the land reverted without compensation to\nthe family of the poor man who had transferred it. That this was\nstrictly equitable is self-evident, when we remember that, according\nto the law previously laid down, the purchaser had only paid for the\nvalue of the product of the land until the jubilee year; and when he\nhad received its produce for that time, naturally and in strict equity\nhis right in the land terminated.\n\n\nTHE JUBILEE AND DWELLING HOUSES.\n\nxxv. 29-34.\n\n \"And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may\n redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; for a full year\n shall he have the right of redemption. And if it be not redeemed\n within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the\n walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought\n it, throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the\n jubilee. But the houses of the villages which have no wall round\n about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country: they\n may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubilee.\n Nevertheless the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities\n of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time. And if\n one of the Levites redeem [not], then the house that was sold,\n and the city of his possession, shall go out in the jubilee: for\n the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession\n among the children of Israel. But the field of the suburbs of\n their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual\n possession.\"\n\nIn vv. 29-34 is considered the application of the jubilee ordinance to\nthe sale of dwelling houses: first (vv. 29-31), to such sale in case\nof the people generally; secondly (vv. 32-34), to sales of houses by\nthe Levites. Under the former head we have first the law as regards\nsales of dwelling houses in \"walled cities;\" to which it is ordered\nthat the law of reversion in the jubilee shall not apply, and for\nwhich the right of redemption was only to hold valid for one year. The\nobvious reason for exempting houses in cities from the law of\nreversion is that the law has to do only with land such as may be used\nin a pastoral or agricultural way for man's support. And this explains\nwhy, on the other hand, it is next ordered (ver. 31) that in the case\nof houses in unwalled villages the law of redemption and reversion in\nthe jubilee shall apply as well as to the land. For the inhabitants of\nthe villages were the herdsmen and cultivators of the soil; and the\nhouse was regarded rightly as a necessary attachment to the land,\nwithout which its use would not be possible. But inasmuch as God had\nassigned no landholding to the Levites in the original distribution of\nthe land,--and apart from their houses they had no possession (ver.\n33),--in order to secure them in the privilege of a permanent holding,\nsuch as others enjoyed in their lands, it was ordered that in their\ncase their houses, as being their only possession in real estate,\nshould be treated as were the landholdings of members of the other\ntribes.[48]\n\n [48] The interpretation of ver. 33 presents a difficulty which,\n if the rendering retained in the text by the Revisers be\n accepted, is hard to resolve. But if we assume that a negative\n has fallen out of the first clause in the received text, and\n read with the Vulgate, as given in the margin of the Revised\n Version, \"if one of the Levites redeem _not_,\" all becomes\n clear. In the exposition we have ventured to assume in this\n instance the correctness of the Vulgate.\n\nThe relation of the jubilee law to personal rights in the land having\nbeen thus determined and expounded, in the next place (vv. 35-55) is\nconsidered the application of the law to slavery. Quite naturally,\nthis section begins (vv. 35-37) with a general injunction to assist\nand deal mercifully with any brother who has become poor. \"If thy\nbrother be waxen poor, and his hand fail with thee; then thou shalt\nuphold him: as a stranger and a sojourner shall he live with thee.\nTake thou no usury of him or increase; but fear thy God: that thy\nbrother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon\nusury, nor give him thy victuals for increase.\"\n\nThe evident object of this law is to prevent, as far as possible, that\nextreme of poverty which might compel a man to sell himself in order\nto live. Debt is a burden in any case, to a poor man especially; but\ndebt is the heavier burden when to the original debt is added the\nconstant payment of interest. Hence, not merely \"usury\" in the modern\nsense of _excessive_ interest, but it is forbidden to claim or take\nany interest whatever from any Hebrew debtor. On the same principle,\nit is forbidden to take increase for food which may be lent to a poor\nbrother; as when one lets a man have twenty bushels of wheat on\ncondition that in due time he shall return for it twenty-two. This\ncommand is enforced (ver. 38) by reminding them from whom they have\nreceived what they have, and on what easy terms, as a gift; from their\ncovenant God, who is Himself their security that by so doing they\nshall not lose: \"I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out\nof the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.\"\nThey need not therefore have recourse to the exaction of interest and\nincrease from their poor brethren in order to make a living, but are\nto be merciful, even as Jehovah their God is merciful.\n\n\nTHE JUBILEE AND SLAVERY.\n\nxxv. 39-55.\n\n \"And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself\n unto thee; thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant: as\n an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee; he\n shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee: then shall he go\n out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return\n unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall\n he return. For they are My servants, which I brought forth out of\n the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt\n not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. And as for\n thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have; of the\n nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen\n and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do\n sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families\n that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and\n they shall be your possession. And ye shall make them an\n inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a\n possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over\n your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over\n another, with rigour. And if a stranger or sojourner with thee be\n waxen rich, and thy brother be waxen poor beside him, and sell\n himself unto the stranger or sojourner with thee, or to the stock\n of the stranger's family: after that he is sold he may be\n redeemed; one of his brethren may redeem him: or his uncle, or\n his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto\n him of his family may redeem him; or if he be waxen rich, he may\n redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from\n the year that he sold himself to him unto the year of jubilee:\n and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of\n years; according to the time of an hired servant shall he be with\n him. If there be yet many years, according unto them he shall\n give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he\n was bought for. And if there remain but few years unto the year\n of jubilee, then he shall reckon with him; according unto his\n years shall he give back the price of his redemption. As a\n servant hired year by year shall he be with him: he shall not\n rule with rigour over him in thy sight. And if he be not redeemed\n by these means, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee, he,\n and his children with him. For unto Me the children of Israel are\n servants; they are My servants whom I brought forth out of the\n land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.\"\n\nEven with the burdensomeness of debt lightened as above, it was yet\npossible that a man might be reduced to poverty so extreme that he\nshould feel compelled to sell himself as a slave. Hence arises the\nquestion of slavery, and its relation to the law of the jubilee. Under\nthis head two cases were possible: the first, where a man had sold\nhimself to a fellow-Hebrew (vv. 39-46); the second, where a man had\nsold himself to a foreigner resident in the land (vv. 47-55).\n\nWith the Hebrews and all the neighbouring peoples, slavery was, and\nhad been from of old, a settled institution. Regarded simply as an\nabstract question of morals, it might seem as if the Lord might once\nfor all have abolished it by an absolute prohibition; after the manner\nin which many modern reformers would deal with such evils as the\nliquor traffic, etc. But the Lord was wiser than many such. As has\nbeen remarked already, in connection with the question of concubinage,\nthat law is not in every case the best which may be the best\nintrinsically and ideally. That law is the best which can be best\nenforced in the actual moral status of the people, and consequent\ncondition of public opinion. So the Lord did not at once prohibit\nslavery; but He ordained laws which would restrict it, and modify and\nameliorate the condition of the slave wherever slavery was permitted\nto exist; laws, moreover, which have had such an educational power as\nto have banished slavery from the Hebrew people.\n\nIn the first place, slavery, in the unqualified sense of the word, is\nallowed only in the case of non-Israelites. That it was permitted to\nhold these as bondmen is explicitly declared (vv. 44-46). It is,\nhowever, important, in order to form a correct idea of Hebrew slavery,\nto observe that, according to Exod. xxi. 16, man-stealing was made a\ncapital offence; and the law also carefully guarded from violence and\ntyranny on the part of the master the non-Israelite slave lawfully\ngotten, even decreeing his emancipation from his master in extreme\ncases of this kind (Exod. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27).\n\nWith regard to the Hebrew bondman, the law recognises no property of\nthe master in his person; that a servant of Jehovah should be a slave\nof another servant of Jehovah is denied; because they are His\nservants, no other can own them (vv. 42, 55). Thus, while the case is\nsupposed (ver. 39) that a man through stress of poverty may sell\nhimself to a fellow-Hebrew as a bondservant, the sale is held as\naffecting only the master's right to his service, but not to his\nperson. \"Thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant: as an\nhired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee.\"\n\nFurther, it is elsewhere provided (Exod. xxi. 2) that in no case shall\nsuch sale hold valid for a longer time than six years; in the seventh\nyear the man was to have the privilege of going out free for nothing.\nAnd in this chapter is added a further alleviation of the bondage (vv.\n40, 41): \"He shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee: then\nshall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall\nreturn unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers\nshall he return. For they are My servants, which I brought forth out\nof the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.\"\n\nThat is, if it so happened that before the six years of his prescribed\nservice had been completed the jubilee year came in, he was to be\nexempted from the obligation to service for the remainder of that\nperiod.\n\nThe remaining verses of this part of the law (vv. 44-46) provide that\nthe Israelite may take to himself bondmen of \"the children of the\nstrangers\" that sojourn among them; and that to such the law of the\nperiodic release shall not be held to apply. Such are \"bondmen for\never.\" \"Ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you,\nto hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for\never.\"\n\nIt is to be borne in mind that even in such cases the law which\ncommanded the kind treatment of all the strangers in the land (xix.\n33, 34) would apply; so that even where permanent slavery was allowed\nit was placed under humanising restriction.\n\nIn vv. 47-55 is taken up, finally, the case where a poor Israelite\nshould have sold himself as a slave to a foreigner resident in the\nland. In all such cases it is ordered that the owner of the man must\nrecognise the right of redemption. That is, it was the privilege of\nthe man himself, or of any of his near kindred, to buy him out of\nbondage. Compensation to the owner however, enjoined in such cases\naccording to the number of the years remaining to the next jubilee, at\nwhich time he would be obliged to release him (ver. 54), whether\nredeemed or not. Thus we read (vv. 50-52): \"He shall reckon with him\nthat bought him from the year that he sold himself to him unto the\nyear of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the\nnumber of years; according to the time of an hired servant shall he be\nwith him. If there be yet many years, according unto them he shall\ngive back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was\nbought for. And if there remain but few years unto the year of\njubilee, then he shall reckon with him; according unto his years shall\nhe give back the price of his redemption. As a servant hired year by\nyear shall he be with him.\"\n\nFurthermore, it is commanded (ver. 53) that the owner of the\nIsraelite, for so long time as he may remain in bondage, shall \"not\nrule over him with rigour;\" and by the addition of the words \"in thy\nsight\" it is intimated that God would hold the collective nation\nresponsible for seeing that no oppression was exercised by any alien\nover any of their enslaved brethren. To which it should also be added,\nfinally, that the regulations for the release of the slave carefully\nprovided for the maintenance of the family relation. Families were not\nto be parted in the emancipation of the jubilee; the man who went out\nfree was to take his children with him (vv. 41, 54). In the case,\nhowever, where the wife had been given him by his master, she and her\nchildren remained in bondage after his emancipation in the seventh\nyear; but of course only until she had reached her seventh year of\nservice. But if the slave already had his wife when he became a slave,\nthen she and their children went out with him in the seventh year\n(Exod. xxi. 3, 4). The contrast in the spirit of these laws with that\nof the institution of slavery as it formerly existed in the Southern\nStates of America and elsewhere in Christendom, is obvious.\n\nThese, then, were the regulations connected with the application of\nthe ordinance of the jubilee year to rights of property, whether in\nreal estate or in slaves. In respect to the cessation from the\ncultivation of the soil which was enjoined for the year, the law was\nessentially the same as that for the sabbatic year, except that,\napparently, the right of property in the spontaneous produce of the\nland, which was in abeyance in the former case, was in so far\nrecognised in the latter that each man was allowed to \"eat the\nincrease of the jubilee year out of the field\" (ver. 12).\n\n\nPRACTICAL OBJECTS OF THE SABBATIC YEAR AND JUBILEE LAW.\n\nSuch was this extraordinary legislation, the like of which will be\nsought in vain in any other people. It is indeed true that, in some\ninstances, ancient lawgivers decreed that land should not be\npermanently alienated, or that individuals should not hold more than a\ncertain amount of land. Thus, for example, the Lacedemonians were\nforbidden to sell their lands, and the Dalmatians were wont to\nredistribute their lands every eight years. But laws such as these\nonly present accidental coincidences with single features of the\njubilee year; an agreement to be accounted for by the fact that the\naim of such lawgivers was, in so far, the same as that of the Hebrew\ncode, that they sought thus to guard against excessive accumulations\nof property in the hands of individuals, and those consequent great\ninequalities in the distribution of wealth which, in all lands and\nages, and never more clearly than in our own, have been seen to be\nfraught with the gravest dangers to the highest interests of society.\nBeyond this single point we shall search in vain the history of any\nother people for an analogy to these laws concerning the sabbatic and\nthe jubilee year.\n\nWhat was the immediate object of this remarkable legislation? It is\nnot irrelevant to observe that in so far as regards the prescription\nof a periodic rest to the land, agricultural science recognises that\nthis is an advantage, especially in places where it may be difficult\nto obtain fertilisers for the soil in adequate amount. But it cannot\nbe supposed that this was the chief object of these ordinances, not\neven in so far as they had respect to the land. We shall not err in\nregarding them as intended, like all in the Levitical system, to make\nIsrael to be in reality, what they were called to be, a people holy,\n_i.e._, fully consecrated to the Lord. The bearing of these laws on\nthis end is not hard to perceive.\n\nIn the first place, the law of the sabbatic year and the jubilee was a\nmost impressive lesson as to the relation of God to what men call\ntheir property; and, in particular, as to His relation to man's\nproperty in land. By these ordinances every Israelite was to be\nreminded in a most impressive way that the land which he tilled, or on\nwhich he fed his flocks and herds, belonged, not to himself, but to\nGod. Just as God taught him that his time belonged to Him, by putting\nin a claim for the absolute consecration to Himself of every seventh\nday, so here He reminded Israel that the land belonged to Him, by\nasserting a similar claim on the land every seventh year, and twice in\na century for two years in succession.\n\nNo one will pretend that the law of the sabbatic year or the jubilee\nis binding on communities now. But it is a question for our times as\nto whether the basal principle regarding the relation of God to land,\nand by necessary consequence the right of man regarding land, which\nis fundamental to these laws, is not in its very nature of perpetual\nforce. Surely, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that God's\nownership of the land was limited to the land of Palestine, or to that\nland only during Israel's occupancy of it. Instead of this, Jehovah\neverywhere represents Himself as having given the land to Israel, and\ntherefore by necessary implication as having a like right over it\nwhile as yet the Canaanites were dwelling in it. Again, the purpose of\nGod's dealing with Egypt is said to be that Pharaoh might know this\nsame truth: that the earth (or land) was the Lord's (Exod. ix. 29);\nand in Psalm xxiv. 1 it is stated, as a broad truth, without\nqualification or restriction, that the earth is the Lord's, as well as\nthat which fills it. It is true that there is no suggestion in any of\nthese passages that the relation of God to the earth or to the land is\ndifferent from His relation to other property; but it is intended to\nemphasise the fact that in the use of land, as of all else, we are to\nregard ourselves as God's stewards, and hold and use it as in trust\nfrom Him.\n\nThe vital relation of this great truth to the burning questions of our\nday regarding the rights of men in land is self-evident. It does not\nindeed determine how the land question should be dealt with in any\nparticular country, but it does settle it that if in these matters we\nwill act in the fear of God, we must keep this principle steadily\nbefore us, that, primarily, the land belongs to the Lord, and is to be\nused accordingly. How, as a matter of fact, God did order that the\nland should be used, in the only instance when He has condescended\nHimself to order the political government of a nation, we have already\nseen, and shall presently consider more fully.\n\nIt is obvious that the natural and therefore intended effect of these\nregulations, if obeyed, would have been to impose a constant and\npowerful check upon man's natural covetousness and greed of gain.\nEvery seventh year the Hebrew was to pause in his toil for wealth, and\nfor one whole year he was to waive even his ordinary right to the\nspontaneous produce of his fields; which year of abstinence from\nsowing and reaping once in fifty years was doubled. Add to this the\nstrict prohibition of lending money upon interest to a fellow-Israelite,\nand we can see how far-reaching and effective, if obeyed, were such\nregulations likely to be in restraining that insatiate greed for\nriches which ever grows the more by that which feeds it.\n\nYet again; the law of the sabbatic year and the jubilee was adapted to\nserve also as a singularly powerful discipline in that faith toward\nGod which is the soul of all true religion. In this practical way\nevery Hebrew was to be taught that \"man doth not live by bread alone,\nbut by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.\" The lesson\nis ever hard to learn, though none the less necessary. This thought is\nalluded to in ver. 20, where it is supposed that a man might raise the\nvery natural objection to these laws, \"What shall we eat the seventh\nyear?\" To which the answer is given, with reference even to the\nextreme case of the jubilee year: \"I will command My blessing upon you\nin the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for the three years;\nuntil the ninth year ... ye shall eat the old store.\"\n\nBut probably the most prominent and important object of the\nregulations in this chapter was to secure, as far as possible, the\nequal distribution of wealth, by preventing excessive accumulations\neither of land or of capital in the hands of a few, while the mass\nshould be sunk in poverty. It is certain that these laws, if carried\nout, would have had a marvellous effect in this respect. As for\ncapital, we all know what an important factor in the production of\nwealth is accumulation by interest on loans, especially when the\ninterest is constantly compounded. There can be no doubt of its\nimmense power as an instrument for at once enriching the lender and in\nproportion impoverishing the borrower. But among the Israelites, to\nreceive interest or its equivalent was prohibited. One other chief\ncause of the excessive wealth of individuals among us, as in all ages,\nis the acquirement in perpetuity by individuals of a disproportionate\namount of the public land. The condition of things in the United\nKingdom is familiar to all, with its inevitable effect on the\ncondition of large masses of people; and in parts of the United States\nthere are indications of a like tendency working toward the similar\ndisadvantage of many small landholders and cultivators. But in Israel,\nif these laws should be carried into effect, such a state of things,\nso often witnessed among other nations, was made for ever impossible.\nIndividual ownership in the land itself was forbidden; no man was\nallowed more than a leasehold right; nor could he, even by adding\nlargely to his leaseholds, increase his wealth indefinitely, so as to\ntransmit a fortune to his children, to be still further augmented by a\nsimilar process in the next and succeeding generations; for every\nfifty years the jubilee came around, and whatever leaseholds he might\nhave acquired from less fortunate brethren, reverted unconditionally\nto the original owner or his legal heirs.\n\nHowever impracticable such arrangements may seem to us under the\nconditions of modern life, yet it must be confessed that in the case\nof a nation just starting on its career in a new country, as was\nIsrael at that time, nothing could well be thought of more likely to\nbe effective toward securing, along with careful regard to the rights\nof property, an equal distribution of wealth among the people, than\nthe legislation which is placed before us in this chapter.\n\nIt deserves to be specially noticed by how exact equity the laws are\ndistinguished. While, on the one hand, excessive accumulations, either\nof capital or of land, were thus made impossible, there is here\nnothing of the destructive communism advocated by many in our day.\nThese laws put no premium on laziness; for if a man, through indolence\nor vice, was compelled to sell out his right in his land, he had no\nsecurity of obtaining it again until the jubilee; that is to say, upon\nan average, during his working lifetime. On the other hand,\nencouragement was given to industry, as a man who was thrifty might,\nby purchase of leaseholds, materially increase his wealth and comfort\nin life. And the effect on inheritance is evident. There could, on the\none hand, be no inheritance of such colossal and overgrown fortunes as\nare possible in our modern states,--no blessing, certainly, in many\ncases, to the heirs; and neither, on the other hand, could there be\nany inheritance of hopeless and degrading poverty. A man might have\nhad an indolent or a vicious father, who had thus forfeited his\nlandholding; but while the father would doubtless suffer deserved\npoverty during his active life, the young man, when the jubilee\nreturned, and the lost paternal inheritance reverted to him, would\nhave the opportunity to see whether he might not, with his father's\nexperience before him as a warning, do better, and retrieve the\nfortunes of the family. In any case, he would not start upon the work\nof life weighted, as are multitudes among us, with a crushing and\nalmost irremovable burden of poverty.\n\nIt is certain, no doubt, that these laws are not morally binding now;\nand no less certain, probably, that failing, as they did, to secure\nobservance in Israel, such laws, even if enacted, could not in our day\nbe practically carried out any more than then. Nevertheless, so much\nwe may safely say, that the intention and aim of these laws as regards\nthe equal distribution of wealth in the community ought to be the aim\nof all wise legislation now. It is certain that all good government\nought to seek in all righteous and equitable ways to prevent the\nformation in the community of classes, either of the excessively rich\nor of the excessively poor. Absolute equality in this respect is\ndoubtless unattainable, and in a world intended for purposes of moral\ntraining and discipline were even undesirable; but extreme wealth or\nextreme poverty are certainly evils to the prevention of which our\nlegislators may well give their minds. Only it needs also to be kept\nin mind that these Hebrew laws no less distinctly teach us that this\nend is to be sought only in such a way as shall neither, on the one\nhand, put a premium on laziness and vice, nor, on the other, deny to\nthe virtuous and industrious the advantage which industry and virtue\ndeserve, of additional wealth, comfort, and exemption from toilsome\ndrudgery.\n\nIn close connection with all this it will be observed that all this\nlegislation, while guarding the rights of the rich, is evidently\ninspired by that same merciful regard for the poor which marks the\nLevitical law throughout. For in all these regulations it is assumed\nthat there would still be poor in the land; but the law secured to\nthe poor great mitigations of poverty. Every seventh year the produce\nof the land was to be free alike to all; if one were poor his brother\nwas to uphold him; when lending him, he was not to add to the debt the\nburden of interest or increase. And then there was to the poor man the\never-present assurance, which alone would take off half the bitterness\nof poverty, that through the coming of the jubilee the children at\nleast would have a new chance, and start life on an equality, in\nrespect of inheritance in land, with the sons of the richest. And when\nwe remember the close connection between extreme poverty and every\nvariety of crime, it is plain that the whole legislation is as\nadmirably adapted to the prevention of crime as of abject and hopeless\npoverty. Well might Asaph use the words which he employs, with evident\nallusion to the trumpet sound which ushered in the jubilee: \"Happy the\npeople that know the joyful sound!\" _i.e._, that have the blessed\nexperience of the jubilee, that supreme earthly sabbatism of the\npeople of God.[49]\n\n [49] See Psalm lxxxix. 15.\n\nMost significant and full of instruction, no less to us than to\nIsrael, was the ordinance that both the sabbatic and the jubilee years\nshould date from the day of Atonement. It was when, having completed\nthe solemn ritual of that day, the high priest put on again his\nbeautiful garments and came forth, having made atonement for all the\ntransgressions of Israel, that the trumpet of the jubilee was to be\nsounded. Thus was Israel reminded in the most impressive manner\npossible that all these social, civil, and communal blessings were\npossible only on condition of reconciliation with God through atoning\nblood; atonement in the highest and fullest sense, which should reach\neven to the Holy of Holies, and place the blood on the very mercy-seat\nof Jehovah. This is true still, though the nations have yet to learn\nit. The salvation of nations, no less than that of individuals, is\nconditioned by national fellowship with God, secured through the great\nAtonement of the Lord. Not until the nations learn this lesson may we\nexpect to see the crying evils of the earth removed, or the questions\nof property, of land-holding, of capital and labour, justly and\nhappily solved.\n\n\nTYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SABBATIC AND JUBILEE YEARS.\n\nBut we must not forget that the sabbatic year and the year of jubilee,\nfollowing the seventh seven of years, are the two last members of a\nsabbatic system of septenary periods, namely, the sabbath of the\nseventh day, the feast of Pentecost, following the expiry of the\nseventh week from Passover, and then the still more sacred seventh\nmonth, with its two great feasts, and the day of atonement\nintervening. But, as we have seen, we have good scriptural authority\nfor regarding all these as typical. Each in succession brings out\nanother stage or aspect of the great Messianic redemption, in a\nprogressive revelation historically unfolding. In all of these alike\nwe have been able to trace thoughts connected with the sabbatic idea,\nas pointing forward to the final rest, redemption, and consummated\nrestoration, the sabbatism that remaineth to the people of God. To\nthese preceding sabbatic periods these last two are closely related.\nBoth alike began on the great day of atonement, in which all Israel\nwas to afflict their souls in penitence for sin; and on that day they\nboth began when the high priest came out from within the veil, where,\nfrom the time of his offering the sin-offering, he had been hidden\nfrom the sight of Israel for a season; and both alike were ushered in\nwith a trumpet blast.\n\nWe shall hardly go amiss if we see in both of these--first in the\nsabbatic year, and still more clearly in the year of jubilee--a\nprophetic foreshadowing in type of that final repentance of the\nchildren of Israel in the latter days, and their consequent\nre-establishment in their land, which the prophets so fully and\nexplicitly predict. In that day they are to return, as the prophets\nbear witness, every man to the land which the Lord gave for an\ninheritance to their fathers. Indeed, one might say with truth that\neven the lesser restoration from Babylon was prefigured in this\nordinance; but, without doubt, its chief and supreme reference must be\nto that greater restoration still in the future, of which we read, for\nexample, in Isa. xi. 11, when \"the Lord shall set His hand again the\n_second_ time to recover the remnant of His people, which shall\nremain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, ... and from the islands of the\nsea.\"\n\nBut the typical reference of these sacred years of sabbatism reaches\nyet beyond what pertains to Israel alone. For not only, according to\nthe prophets and apostles, is there to be a restoration of Israel, but\nalso, as the Apostle Peter declared to the Jews (Acts iii. 19-21),\nclosely connected with and consequent on this, a \"restoration of all\nthings.\" And it is in this great, final, and exceedingly glorious\nrestoration of the time of the end that we recognise the ultimate\nantitype of these sabbatic seasons. When read in the light of later\npredictions they appear to point forward with singular distinctness to\nwhat, according to the Holy Word, shall be when Jesus Christ, the\nheavenly High Priest, shall come forth from within the veil; when the\nlast trumpet shall sound, and He who was \"once offered to bear the\nsins of many\" shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that\nwait for Him, unto salvation (Heb. ix. 28).\n\nEven in the beginning of the Pentateuch (Gen. iii. 17-19) it is\nexplicitly taught that because of Adam's sin, the curse of God, in\nsome mysterious way, fell even upon the material earthly creation. We\nread that the Lord said unto Adam: \"Cursed is the ground for thy sake;\nin toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and\nthistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of\nthe field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou\nreturn unto the ground.\" It is because of sin, then, that man is\ndoomed to labour, toilsome and imperfectly requited by an unwilling\nsoil. It lies immediately before us that both the sabbatic year and\nthe year of jubilee, by the ordinance regarding the rest for the land,\nand the special promise of sufficiency without exhausting labour,\ninvolved for Israel a temporary suspension of the full operation of\nthis curse. The ordinance therefore points unmistakably in a prophetic\nway to what the New Testament explicitly predicts--the coming of a day\nwhen, with man redeemed, material nature also shall share the great\ndeliverance. In a word, in the sabbatic year, and in a yet higher form\nin the year of jubilee, we have in symbol the wonderful truth which in\nthe most didactic language is formally declared by the Apostle Paul in\nthese words (Rom. viii. 19-22): \"The earnest expectation of the\ncreation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the\ncreation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason\nof him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall\nbe delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the\nglory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation\ngroaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.\"\n\nThe jubilee year contained in type all this, and more. Where the\nsabbatic year had typically pointed only to a coming rest of the earth\nfrom the primeval curse, the jubilee, falling, not on a seventh, but\non an eighth year, following immediately on the sabbatic seventh,\npointed also to the permanence of this blessed condition. It is the\nfestival, by eminence, of the new creation, of paradise completely and\nfor ever restored.\n\nMoreover, as falling in the fiftieth year, and therefore on an eighth\nyear of the sabbatic calendar, the jubilee was to the week of years as\nthe Lord's day to the week of days. Like that, it is the festival of\nresurrection. This is as clearly foreshadowed in the type as the\nother. For in the year of jubilee not only was the land to rest, but\nevery bond-slave was to be released, and to return to his inheritance\nand to his family. In the light of what has preceded, and of other\nrevelations of Scripture, we can hardly miss of perceiving the typical\nmeaning of this. For what is the great event which the Apostle Paul,\nin the passage just cited, associates in time with the deliverance of\nthe earthly creation, but \"the redemption of the body,\" as the final\nissue of the atoning work of Christ? For as yet even believers are in\nbondage to death and the grave; but the day which is coming, the day\nof earth's redemption, shall bring to all that are Christ's, all that\nare Israelites indeed, deliverance \"from the bondage of corruption\ninto the liberty of the glory of the children of God.\"\n\nAnd as the slave who was freed in the year of jubilee therewith also\nreturned to his forfeited inheritance, so also shall it be in that\nday. For precisely this is given us by the Holy Spirit in the New\nTestament (1 Peter i. 4, 5), as another aspect of the day when the\nheavenly Aaron shall come forth from the Holiest. For we are begotten\n_unto an inheritance_, reserved in heaven for us, \"who by the power of\nGod are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in\nthe last time.\" Cast out through death from the inheritance of the\nearth, which in the beginning was given by God to our first father,\nand to his seed in him, but which was lost to him and to his children\nthrough his sin, the great jubilee of the future shall bring us again,\nevery man who is in Christ by faith, into the lost inheritance,\nredeemed and glorified citizens of a redeemed and glorified earth.\nHence it is that in Rev. xxii. we are shown in vision, first, the new\nearth, delivered from the curse, and then the New Jerusalem, the\nChurch of the risen and glorified saints of God, descending from God\nout of heaven, to assume possession of the purchased inheritance.\n\nAnd the law adds also: \"Ye shall return every man unto his family;\"\nwhich gives the last feature here prefigured of that supreme sabbatism\nwhich remaineth for the people of God (Heb. iv. 9). It shall bring the\nreunion of those who had been parted and scattered. The day of\nresurrection is accordingly spoken of (2 Thess. ii. 1) as a day of\n\"gathering together\" of all who, though one in Christ, have been\nrudely parted by death. And yet more, it will be \"the day of our\ngathering together unto Him,\" even the blessed Lord Jesus Christ, the\n\"_Goel_,\" the Kinsman-Redeemer of the ruined bondsmen and their lost\ninheritance: \"Whom not having seen, we love,\" but then expect to see\neven as He is, and beholding Him, be like Him, and be with Him for\never and for ever. Who should not long for the day?--the day when for\nthe first time, this last type of Leviticus shall pass into complete\nfulfilment in the antitype; the day of \"the restoration of all\nthings;\" the day of the deliverance of the material creation from her\npresent bondage to corruption; the day also of the release of every\ntrue Israelite from the bondage of death, and the eternal\nestablishment of all such with the Elder Brother, the First-begotten,\nin the enjoyment of the inheritance of the saints in light.\n\n \"Love, rest, and home!\n Sweet hope!\n Lord! tarry not, but COME!\"\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n_CONCLUSION AND APPENDIX._\n\nXXVI., XXVII.\n\n\n\n\n1. CONCLUSION: PROMISES AND THREATENINGS: xxvi.\n\n2. APPENDIX: CONCERNING VOWS: xxvii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\n_THE PROMISES AND THREATS OF THE COVENANT._\n\nLEV. xxvi. 1-46.\n\n\nOne would have expected that this chapter would have been the last in\nthe book of Leviticus, for it forms a natural and fitting close to the\nwhole law as hitherto recorded. But whatever may have been the reason\nof its present literary form, the fact remains that while this chapter\nis, in outward form, the conclusion of the Levitical law, another\nchapter follows it in the manner of an appendix.\n\nChapter xxvi. opens with these words (vv. 1, 2): \"Ye shall make you no\nidols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar,\nneither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down\nunto it: for I am the Lord your God. Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and\nreverence My sanctuary: I am the Lord.\"\n\nThese verses, as they stand in the English versions as a preface to\nthis chapter, at first sight seem but distantly related to what\nfollows; and the Chaldee paraphrast and others have therefore appended\nthem to the preceding chapter. But with that they have even less\nevident connection. The thought of the editor of this part of the\ncanon, however, seems to have been that the three commands which are\nhere repeated might be regarded as presenting a compendious summary,\nin its fundamental principles, of the whole law, the promises and\nthreatenings attached to which immediately follow. And the more we\nthink upon these commands and what they involve, the more evident will\nappear the fitness of their selection from the whole law to introduce\nthis chapter.\n\nThe commands which are here repeated are three: namely, (1) a detailed\nprohibition of idolatry in the forms then chiefly prevalent; (2) an\ninjunction to observe God's sabbaths; and (3) to reverence His\nsanctuary. Inasmuch as the various forms of idol-worship, which are\nhere forbidden, all involved the recognition of gods other than\nJehovah, it is plain that ver. 1 is in effect inclusive of the first\nand second commandments of the decalogue. The injunction to keep God's\nsabbaths, although in principle including all the sabbatic times\npreviously appointed, evidently refers especially to the weekly\nsabbath of the fourth commandment; while the command to reverence the\nsanctuary of Jehovah covers in principle the ground of the third. And\nthus, in fact, these three injunctions essentially include the four\ncommands of the decalogue which have to do with man's duty to God, and\nare thus fundamental to all other duties, both to God and man. Very\nappropriately, then, are these verses given here as a brief summary of\nthe law to which the following promises and threatenings are annexed.\nAnd their suitableness to that which follows is the more clear when we\nremember that the weekly sabbath, in particular, is elsewhere (Exod.\nxxxi. 12-17) declared to be a sign of God's covenant with Israel, to\nwhich these promises and threats belong; and that the presence of\nJehovah's sanctuary also, which they are here charged to reverence,\nwas a continual visible witness among them of the special presence of\nGod in Israel in pursuance of that covenant.\n\nAfter this pertinent summation of the most fundamental commands of the\nlaw, the remainder of the chapter contains, first (vv. 3-13), promises\nof blessing from God, in case they shall obey this law; secondly (vv.\n14-39), threats of chastising judgment, in case they disobey; and,\nthirdly (vv. 40-45), a prediction of their final repentance, and\npromise of their gracious restoration thereupon to the favour of God,\nand the everlasting endurance of God's covenant to preserve them in\nexistence as a nation. The chapter then closes (ver. 46) with the\ndeclaration: \"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the\nLord made between Him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the\nhand of Moses.\"\n\n\nTHE PROMISES OF THE COVENANT.\n\nxxvi. 3-13.\n\n \"If ye walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do\n them; then I will give you rains in their season, and the land\n shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield\n their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and\n the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat\n your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will\n give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall\n make you afraid: and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the\n land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall\n chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.\n And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you\n shall chase ten thousand: and your enemies shall fall before you\n by the sword. And I will have respect unto you, and make you\n fruitful, and multiply you; and I will establish My covenant with\n you. And ye shall eat old store long kept, and ye shall bring\n forth the old because of the new. And I will set My tabernacle\n among you: and My soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among\n you, and will be your God, and ye shall be My people. I am the\n Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt,\n that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bars\n of your yoke, and made you go upright.\"\n\nThe promises of the covenant are thus to the effect that if Israel\nshall keep the law, God will give them rain and fruitful seasons,\nharvests so abundant that the \"threshing shall reach unto the vintage,\nand the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time;\" internal security;\ndeliverance from the wild beasts, which are still such a scourge in\nmany parts of the East; and such power and spirit, that no enemy shall\nbe able to stand before them, but five of them shall chase an hundred,\nand an hundred chase ten thousand. Then (ver. 9) is renewed the\npromise, given long before to Abraham, of a great increase in their\nnumbers; and thereupon, very naturally, is repeated the promise of\nabundant harvests, so that notwithstanding they shall be so\nmultiplied, one year's harvest should not be consumed before it would\nhave to be removed from the granaries to make room for the new (ver.\n10). And then this section ends with the assurance, which secures all\nother blessings, temporal and spiritual, that God will abide among\nthem in His tabernacle, and will be their God, and they shall be His\npeople. And the fulfilment of all this is guaranteed by the person,\nthe purpose, and the past dealing of the Promiser; Himself, Jehovah;\nHis purpose, to deliver them from bondage; and His past mercy, in\nbreaking the bands of their yoke.\n\n\n\"THE VENGEANCE OF THE COVENANT.\"\n\nxxvi. 14-46.\n\n \"But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these\n commandments; and if ye shall reject My statutes, and if your\n soul abhor My judgments, so that ye will not do all My\n commandments, but break My covenant; I also will do this unto\n you; I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever,\n that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away: and\n ye shall sow your seed in vain for your enemies shall eat it. And\n I will set My face against you and ye shall be smitten before\n your enemies: they that hate you shall rule over you; and ye\n shall flee when none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for\n these things hearken unto me, then I will chastise you seven\n times more for your sins. And I will break the pride of your\n power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as\n brass: and your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land\n shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land\n yield their fruit. And if ye walk contrary unto Me, and will not\n hearken unto Me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you\n according to your sins. And I will send the beast of the field\n among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your\n cattle, and make you few in number; and your ways shall become\n desolate. And if by these things ye will not be reformed unto Me,\n but will walk contrary unto Me; then will I also walk contrary\n unto you; and I will smite you, even I, seven times for your\n sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the\n vengeance of the covenant; and ye shall be gathered together\n within your cities: and I will send the pestilence among you; and\n ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. When I break\n your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven,\n and they shall deliver your bread again by weight: and ye shall\n eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this\n hearken unto Me, but walk contrary unto Me; then I will walk\n contrary unto you in fury; and I also will chastise you seven\n times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and\n the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your\n high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your carcases\n upon the carcases of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you. And\n I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries\n unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet\n odours. And I will bring the land into desolation: and your\n enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And you\n will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword\n after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities\n shall be a waste. Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long\n as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then\n shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth\n desolate it shall have rest; even the rest which it had not in\n your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. And as for them that are\n left of you I will send a faintness into their heart in the lands\n of their enemies: and the sound of a driven leaf shall chase\n them; and they shall flee, as one fleeth from the sword; and\n they shall fall when none pursueth. And they shall stumble one\n upon another, as it were before the sword, when none pursueth:\n and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And ye\n shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies\n shall eat you up. And they that are left of you shall pine away\n in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the\n iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. And\n they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their\n fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and\n also that because they have walked contrary unto Me, I also\n walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of\n their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and\n they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I\n remember My covenant with Jacob; and also My covenant with Isaac,\n and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will\n remember the land. The land also shall be left of them, and shall\n enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them; and\n they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because,\n even because they rejected My judgments, and their soul abhorred\n My statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of\n their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them,\n to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them: for\n I am the Lord their God: but I will for their sakes remember the\n covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land\n of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:\n I am the Lord. These are the statutes and judgments and laws,\n which the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel in\n mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.\"\n\nSo, if Israel should not obey the commandments of the Lord, but break\nthat covenant which they had made with Him, when they had said unto\nthe Lord (Exod. xxiv. 7): \"All that the Lord hath spoken will we do,\nand be obedient;\" then they are threatened, first in a general way\n(vv. 14-17) with terrible judgments, which shall reverse, and more\nthan reverse, all the blessings. God will appoint over them \"terror;\"\ndisease shall ravage them, consumption and fever; their enemies shall\nlay waste the land, defeat them in battle, and rule over them; and\ninstead of five of them chasing an hundred, they should flee when\nnone was pursuing (vv. 17, 18). Then follow four series of threats,\neach conditioned by the supposition that through what they should have\nalready experienced of Jehovah's judgment, they should not repent;\neach also introduced by the formula, \"I will chastise (or \"smite\") you\nseven times for your sins.\" In this four times repeated series of\ndenunciations, thus introduced, we are not to insist that numerical\nprecision was intended; neither can we, with some, give to the \"seven\ntimes\" a numerical or temporal reference. The thought which runs\nthrough all these denunciations, and determines the form which they\ntake, is this: that the judgments threatened as to follow each new\ndisplay of hardness and impenitence on the part of Israel shall be\nmarked by continually increasing severity; and the phrase \"seven\ntimes,\" by the reference to the sacred number \"seven,\" intimates that\nthe vengeance should be \"the vengeance of the covenant\" (ver. 25), and\nalso the awful thoroughness and completeness with which the threatened\njudgments, in case of their continued obduracy, would be inflicted.\n\nThis interpretation is sustained by the details of each section. The\nfirst series (vv. 18-20), in which the threatenings of vv. 14-17 are\ndeveloped, adds to what had been previously threatened, the\nwithholding of harvest for lack of rain. He who had promised to send\nthe rains \"in their season,\" if they were obedient, now declares that\nif they will not hearken unto Him for the other chastisements before\ndenounced, He will \"make their heaven as iron, and their earth as\nbrass.\" The second series threatens in addition their devastation by\nwild beasts, which shall rob them of their children and their cattle;\nand also, in consequence of these great judgments, with a great\ndiminution of their numbers. The third series (vv. 23-26) repeats,\nunder forms still more intense, the threats of sword, pestilence, and\nfamine. The staff of bread shall be broken, and when, stricken with\npestilence, they are gathered together in their cities, one oven shall\nsuffice ten women for their baking, and bread shall be distributed by\nrations and in insufficient quantity (vv. 25, 26).\n\nIt is intimated that with these extraordinary judgments it shall\nbecome increasingly evident that it is Jehovah who is thus dealing\nwith them for the breach of His covenant. This is suggested (ver. 24)\nby the emphatic use of the personal pronoun in the Hebrew, only to be\nrendered in English by a stress of voice; and by the declaration (ver.\n25) that the sword which should be brought upon them should \"execute\nthe vengeance of the covenant.\"\n\nThe same remark applies with still more emphasis to the next and last\nof these sub-sections (vv. 27-39), the terrific denunciations of which\nare introduced by these words, which almost seem to flash with the\nfire of God's avenging wrath: \"If ... ye will walk contrary unto Me;\nthen I will walk contrary unto you in fury (_lit._, \"I will walk with\nyou in fury of opposition\"); and I also will chastise you seven times\nfor your sins.\" All that has been threatened before is here repeated\nwith every circumstance which could add terror to the picture. Was\nfamine threatened? it shall be so awful in its severity that they\nshall eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters. The high places\nwhich had been the scenes of their licentious worship should be\ndestroyed, and the \"sun-images\" which they had worshipped, going after\nBaal, should be cut down; and, in visible sign of the Divine wrath\nand of God's holy contempt for the impotent idols for which they had\nforsaken the Lord, upon the fallen idols should lie the dead corpses\nof their worshippers. The sanctuaries (with special,--though, perhaps,\nnot exclusive,--reference, as the following words show, to the holy\nplaces of Jehovah's tabernacle or temple) should become a desolation;\nthe sweet savour of their sacrifices should be rejected. The holy\npeople should be scattered into other lands; the land should become so\ndesolate that those of their enemies who should dwell in it should\nthemselves be astonished at its transformation. And so, while they\nshould be scattered in their enemies' land, the land would \"enjoy her\nsabbaths;\"[50] _i.e._, it should thus, untilled and desolate, enjoy\nthe rest which Jehovah had commanded them to give the land each\nseventh year, which they had not observed. Meanwhile, the condition of\nthe banished nation in the lands of their captivity should be most\npitiful: minished in number, those that were left alive should pine\naway in their iniquities, and in the iniquity of their fathers; timid\nand broken-spirited, they should flee before the sound of a broken\nleaf, and the land of their enemies should \"eat them up.\"\n\n [50] Much has been made of this reference to the neglect of the\n sabbatic years as evidence of the late composition of the\n chapter; but surely in this argument there is little force. For,\n even apart from any question of inspiration, the ordinance of\n the sabbatic year was of such an extraordinary character, so\n opposed alike to human selfishness and eagerness for gain, and\n calling for such faith in God, that it would require no great\n knowledge of human nature to anticipate its probable neglect,\n even on natural grounds. But, even were this not so, still an\n argument of this kind against the Mosaic origin of this minatory\n section of the covenant can have decisive force for those only\n who, for whatsoever reason, have come to disbelieve that God can\n tell beforehand what free agents will do, or that, if He know,\n He can impart that knowledge to His servants.\n\nAnd herewith ends the second section of this remarkable prophecy.\nPromising Israel the highest prosperity in the land of Canaan, if they\nwill keep the words of this covenant, it threatens them with\nsuccessive judgments of sword, famine, and pestilence, of continually\nincreasing severity, to culminate, if they yet persist in\ndisobedience, in their expulsion from the land for a prolonged period;\nand predicts their continued existence, despite the most distressing\nconditions, in the lands of their enemies, while their own land\nmeanwhile lies desolate and untilled without them.\n\nThe fundamental importance and instructiveness of this prophecy is\nevident from the fact that all later predictions concerning the\nfortunes of Israel are but its more detailed exposition and\napplication to successive historical conditions. Still more evident is\nits profound significance when we recall to mind the fact, disputed by\nnone, that not only is it an epitome of all later prophecy of Holy\nScripture concerning Israel, but, no less truly, an epitome of\nIsrael's history. So strictly true is this that we may accurately\ndescribe the history of that nation, from the days of Moses until now,\nas but the translation of this chapter from the language of prediction\ninto that of history.\n\nThe facts which illustrate this statement are so familiar that one\nscarcely needs to refer to them. The numerous visitations in the days\nof the Judges, when again and again the people were given into the\nhands of their enemies for their sins, and so often as then they\nrepented, were again and again delivered; the heavier judgments of\nlater days, first in the days of the earlier kings, and afterwards\nculminating in the captivity of the ten tribes, following the siege\nand capture of Samaria, 721 B.C.; and still later, the terrible siege\nand capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 586 B.C., to the horrors\nof which the Lamentations of Jeremiah bear most sorrowful\nwitness;--what were all these events, with others of lesser\nimportance, but an historical unfolding of this twenty-sixth chapter\nof Leviticus?\n\nAnd how, since Old Testament days, this prophecy has been continually\nillustrated in Israel's history, is, or should be, familiar to all. As\napostasy has succeeded to apostasy, judgment has followed upon\njudgment. To a Nebuchadnezzar succeeded an Antiochus Epiphanes; and,\nafter the Greco-Syrian judgment, then, following the supreme national\ncrime of the rejection and crucifixion of their promised Messiah, came\nthe Roman captivity, the most terrible of all; a judgment continued\neven until now in the eighteen hundred years of Israel's exile from\nthe land of the covenant, and their scattering among the\nnations,--eighteen hundred years of tragic suffering, such as no other\nnation has ever known, or, knowing, has yet survived; sufferings which\nare still exhibited before the eyes of all the world to-day in the\nbitter experiences of the four millions of Jews in the Empire of the\nCzar, and the persecutions of Anti-Shemitism in other lands.\n\nExisting, rather than living, under such conditions for centuries, as\na natural result, the Jewish people became few in number, as here\npredicted; having been reduced from not less than seven or eight\nmillions in the days of the kingdom, to a minimum, about two hundred\nyears ago, of not more than three millions.[51] And, strangest of\nall, throughout this time the once fertile land has lain desolate, for\nthe Gentiles have never settled in it in any great number; and in\nplace of a population of five hundred to the square mile in the days\nof Solomon, we find now only a few hundred thousand miserable people,\nand the most of the land, for lack of cultivation, in such a condition\nthat nothing can easily exceed its desolation. And when we have said\nall this, and much more that might be said without exaggeration, we\nhave but simply testified that vv. 31-34 of this chapter have in the\nfullest possible sense become historical fact. For it was written (vv.\n32-34): \"I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which\ndwell therein shall be astonished at it. And you will I scatter among\nthe nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land\nshall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. Then shall\nthe land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be\nin your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her\nsabbaths.\"\n\n [51] So Basnage (\"History of the Jews,\" London, 1700, chap.\n xxviii., sec. 15) estimated it in his day. Since then, however,\n their number has materially increased, and is still increasing;\n a fact the significance of which has been pointed out by the\n present writer in \"The Jews; or, Prediction and Fulfilment\" (New\n York, 1883, pp. 178-83).\n\nThese facts make this chapter to be an apologetic of prime importance.\nIt is this, because we have here evidence of foreknowledge, and\ntherefore of the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God in\nthe prophecy here recorded. The facts cannot be adequately explained,\neither on the supposition of fortunate guessing or of accidental\ncoincidence. It was not indeed impossible to forecast on natural\ngrounds that Israel would become corrupt, or that, if so, they should\nexperience disaster in consequence of their moral depravation. For God\nhas not one law for Israel and another for other nations. Nor does\nthe argument rest on the details of these threatened judgments, as\nconsisting in the sword, famine, and pestilence; for other nations\nhave experienced these calamities, though, indeed, few in equal\nmeasure with Israel; and of these one has a natural dependence on\nanother.\n\nBut setting aside these elements of the prophecy, as of less\napologetic significance, two particulars yet remain in which this\npredicted experience has been unique, and antecedently to the event in\nso high degree improbable, that we can reasonably think here neither\nof shrewd human forecast nor of chance agreement of prediction and\nfulfilment. The one is the predicted survival of exiled Israel as a\nnation in the land of their enemies, their indestructibility\nthroughout centuries of unequalled suffering; the other, the\nextraordinary fact that their land, so rich and fertile, which was at\nthat time and for centuries afterwards one of the principal highways\nof the world's commerce and travel, the coveted possession of many\nnations from a remote antiquity, should during the whole period of\nIsrael's banishment remain comparatively unoccupied and untilled.\n\nAs regards the former particular, we may search history in vain for a\nsimilar phenomenon. Here is a people who, at their best, as compared\nwith many other nations, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and\nRomans, were few in number and in material resources; who now have\nbeen scattered from their land for centuries, crushed and oppressed\nalways, in a degree and for a length of time never experienced by any\nother people; yet never merging in the nations with whom they were\nmingled, or losing in the least their peculiar racial characteristics\nand distinct national identity. This, although now for a long time\nmatter of history, was yet, _\u00e0 priori_, so improbable that all history\nrecords no other instance of the kind; and yet all this had to be if\nthose words of ver. 44 were to prove true: \"When they be in the land\nof their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them,\nto destroy them utterly.\" With abundant reason has Professor\nChristlieb referred to this fact as an unanswerable apologetic, thus:\n\"We point to the people of Israel as a perennial historical miracle.\nThe continued existence of this nation up to the present day, the\npreservation of its national peculiarities throughout thousands of\nyears, in spite of all dispersion and oppression, remains so\nunparalleled a phenomenon, that without the special providential\npreparation of God, and His constant interference and protection, it\nwould be impossible for us to explain it. For where else is there a\npeople over which such judgments have passed, and yet not ended in\ndestruction?\"[52]\n\n [52] \"Modern Doubt and Christian Belief,\" p. 333.\n\nNo less remarkable and significant is the long-continued depopulation\nof the land of Israel. For it was and is by nature a richly fertile\nland; and at the time of this prediction--whether it be assigned to an\nearlier or a later period--it was upon one of the chief commercial and\nmilitary routes of the world, and its possession has thus been an\nobject of ambition to all the dominant nations of history. Surely, one\nwould have expected that if Israel should be cast out of such a land,\nit would at once and always be occupied by others who should cultivate\nits proverbially productive soil. But it was not to be so, for it had\nbeen otherwise written. And yet it seems as if it had scarcely been\npossible that through all these later centuries of the history of\nChristendom, the land could have thus lain desolate, except for the so\nmomentous discovery in 1497 of the Cape route to India, by which\nevent--which no one could in so remote days have well anticipated--the\ntide of commerce with the East was turned away from Egypt, Syria, and\nPalestine, to the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans; so that the land of\nIsrael was left, like a city made to stand solitary in a desert by the\nshifting of the channel of a river; and its predicted desolation thus\nwent on to receive its most complete, consummate, and now\nlong-realised fulfilment.\n\nSo, then, stands the case. It is truly difficult to understand how one\ncan fairly escape the inference from these facts, namely, that they\nimply in this chapter such a prescience of the future as is not\npossible to man, and therefore demonstrate that the Spirit of God\nmust, in the deepest and truest sense, have been the author of these\npredictions of the future of the chosen people and their land.\n\nAnd it is of the very first importance, with reference to the\ncontroversies of our day regarding this question, that we note the\nfact that the argument is of such a nature that it is not in the least\ndependent upon the date that any may have assigned to the origin of\nthis chapter. Even though we should, with Graf and Wellhausen,\nattribute its composition to exilian or post-exilian times, it would\nstill remain true that the chapter contained unmistakable predictions\nregarding the nation and the land; predictions which, if fulfilled, no\ndoubt, in a degree, in the days of the Babylonian exile and the\nreturn, were yet to receive a fulfilment far more minute, exhaustive,\nand impressive, in centuries which then were still in a far distant\nfuture. But if this be granted, it is plain that these facts impose a\nlimitation upon the conclusions of criticism. That only is true\nscience which takes into view _all_ the facts with respect to any\nphenomenon for which one seeks to account; and in this case the facts\nwhich are to be explained by any theory, are not merely peculiarities\nof style and vocabulary, etc., but also this phenomenon of a\ndemonstrably predictive element in the chapter; a phenomenon which\nrequires for its explanation the assumption of a supernatural\ninspiration as one of the factors in its authorship. But if this is\nso, how can we reconcile with such a Divine inspiration any theory\nwhich makes the last statement of the chapter, that \"these are the\nstatutes which the Lord made ... in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses,\"\nto be untrue, and the preceding \"laws\" to be thus, in plain language,\na forgery of exilian or post-exilian times?\n\n\nTHE PROMISED RESTORATION.\n\nxxvi. 40-45.\n\n \"And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their\n fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and\n also that because they have walked contrary unto Me, I also\n walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of\n their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and\n they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I\n remember My covenant with Jacob; and also My covenant with Isaac,\n and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will\n remember the land. The land also shall be left of them, and shall\n enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them; and\n they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because,\n even because they rejected My judgments, and their soul abhorred\n My statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of\n their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them,\n to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them: for\n I am the Lord their God: but I will for their sakes remember the\n covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land\n of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:\n I am the Lord.\"\n\nThis closing section of this extraordinary chapter yet remains to be\nconsidered. It is the most remarkable of all, whether from a\nhistorical or a religious point of view. It declares that even under\nso extreme visitations of Divine wrath, and howsoever long Israel's\nstubborn rebellion and impenitence should continue, yet the nation\nshould never become extinct and pass away. Very impressive are the\nwords (vv. 43-45) which emphasise this prediction: \"The land also\nshall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth\ndesolate without them; and they shall accept[53] of the punishment of\ntheir iniquity: because, even because they rejected My judgments, and\ntheir soul abhorred My statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in\nthe land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I\nabhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with\nthem: for I am the Lord their God: but I will for their sakes remember\nthe covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land\nof Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am\nthe Lord.\"\n\n [53] It is the same Hebrew word which is rendered \"enjoy\" when\n applied to the land and \"accept\" when applied to Israel: it\n might thus be rendered \"enjoy\" in the latter case--\"they shall\n enjoy the punishment of their iniquity,\" when the words would\n express a severe irony, a figure of which we have examples\n elsewhere in the Scriptures.\n\nAs to what is included in this promise of everlasting covenant mercy,\nwe are told explicitly (ver. 40)[54] that as the final result of these\nrepeated and long-continued judgments, the children of Israel \"shall\nconfess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their\ntrespass which they trespassed\" against the Lord. Also they will\nacknowledge (ver. 41) that all these calamities have been sent upon\nthem by the Lord; that it is because they have walked contrary unto\nHim that He has also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into\nthe land of their enemies. And then follows the great promise (vv. 41,\n42): \"If then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then\naccept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember My\ncovenant with Jacob; and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My\ncovenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.\"\n\n [54] The \"if\" which introduces ver. 40 in the Authorised version\n has no equivalent in the Hebrew, and should therefore be\n omitted, as in the revision.\n\nThese words are very full and explicit. That they have had already a\npartial and inadequate fulfilment in the restoration from Babylon, and\nthe spiritual quickening by which it was accompanied, is not to be\ndenied. But one only needs to refer to the covenants to which\nreference is made, and especially the covenant with Abraham, as\nrecorded in the book of Genesis,[55] to see that by no possibility can\nthat Babylonian restoration be said to have exhausted this prophecy.\nSince those earlier days Israel has again forsaken the Lord, and\ncommitted the greatest of all their national sins in the rejection and\ncrucifixion of the promised Messiah; and therefore, again, according\nto the threat of the earlier part of this chapter, they have been cast\nout of their land and scattered among the nations, and the land,\nagain, for centuries has been left a desolation. But for all this,\nGod's covenant with Israel has not lapsed, nor, as we are here\nformally assured, can it ever lapse. To imagine, with some, that\nbecause of the new dispensation of grace to the Gentiles which has\ncome in, therefore the promises of this covenant have become void, is\na mistake which is fatal to all right understanding of the prophetic\nword. As for the spiritual blessing of true repentance and a national\nturning unto God, Zechariah, after the Babylonian captivity,\nrepresents the prediction as yet to have a larger and far more blessed\nfulfilment, in a day which, beyond all controversy, has never yet\nrisen on the world. For it is written (Zech. xii. 8-14; xiii. 1): \"In\nthat day ... I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and\nthey shall look unto Me whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn\nfor Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness\nfor Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn; ... all the\nfamilies that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. In\nthat day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to\nthe inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.\" And that\nthis great promise, which implies by its very terms the previous\n\"piercing\" of the Messiah, is still valid for the nation in the new\ndispensation, is expressly testified by the Apostle Paul, who formally\nteaches, with regard to Israel, that \"God did not cast off His people\nwhich He foreknew;\" that \"the gifts and calling of God are without\nrepentance;\" and that therefore the days are surely coming when \"all\nIsrael shall be saved\" (Rom. xi. 2, 29, 26).\n\n [55] See Gen. xii. 1-3; xiii. 14-17; xv. 5-21; xvii. 2-11; xxii.\n 15-18.\n\nAnd while nothing is said in this chapter of Leviticus as to the\nrelation of this future repentance of Israel to the establishment of\nthe kingdom of God, we only speak according to the express teaching\nboth of the later prophets and of the apostles, when we add that we\nare not to think of this covenant of God concerning Israel as of\nlittle consequence to our faith and hope as Christians. For we are\nplainly taught, with regard to the present exclusion and impenitence\nof Israel (Rom. xi. 15), that \"the receiving of them\" again shall be\nas \"life from the dead;\" which, again, is only what long before had\nbeen declared in the Old Testament (Psalm cii. 13-16); that when God\nshall arise and have mercy upon Zion, and the set time to have pity\nupon her shall come, the nations shall fear the name of the Lord, and\nall the kings of the earth His glory.\n\nAnd while we may grant that the matter is in itself of less moment, it\nis yet of importance to observe that the very covenant which promises\nspiritual mercy to the people, as explicitly assures us (ver. 42)\nthat, when Israel confesses its sin, God \"will remember the land\" as\nwell as the people. All that has been said for the present and\nunchangeable validity of the former part of this promise, is of\nnecessity true for this latter part also. To affirm the former, and on\nthat ground maintain the faith and expectation of the future\nrepentance of Israel, and yet deny the latter part of this promise,\nwhich is no less verbally explicit, regarding the land of Israel, is\nan inconsistency of interpretation which is as astonishing as it is\ncommon. For the restoration of the scattered nation to their land is\nrepeatedly promised, as here, in connection with, and yet in clear\ndistinction from, their conversion, by both the pre- and post-exilian\nprophets. And if, for reasons not hard to discover, the promise\nconcerning the land is not in so many words repeated in the New\nTestament, its future fulfilment is yet, to say the least, distinctly\nassumed in the prediction of Christ (Luke xxi. 24), that Israel,\nbecause of their rejection of Him, should be \"led captive into all the\nnations, and Jerusalem be trodden down of the Gentiles,\"--not for\never, but only--\"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.\" Surely\nthese words of our Lord imply that, whenever these \"times of the\nGentiles\" shall have run their course, their present domination over\nthe Holy City and the Holy Land shall end.\n\nNor is such a restoration of Israel to their land, with all that it\nimplies, inconsistent, as some have urged, with the spirit and\nprinciples of the Gospel. Many a Gentile nation is greatly favoured of\nthe Lord, and, as one mark of that favour, is permitted to abide in\npeace and prosperity in their own land. Why should it be any more\nalien to the spirit of the Gospel that penitent Israel should be\nblessed in like manner, and, upon their turning unto the Lord, also,\nlike many other nations, be permitted to dwell in peace and safety in\nthat land which lies almost empty and desolate for them until this\nday? And if it be urged that, admitting this interpretation, we shall\nalso be obliged to admit that Israel is in the future to be exalted to\na position of pre-eminence among the nations, which, again, is\ninconsistent, it is said, with the principles of the Gospel\ndispensation, we must again deny this last assertion, and for a\nsimilar reason. If not inconsistent with the Gospel that the British\nnation, for example, should to-day hold a position of exceptional\neminence and world-wide influence among the nations, how can it be\ninconsistent with the Gospel that Israel, when repentant before God,\nshould be in like manner exalted of Him to national eminence and\nglory?\n\nWhile in itself this question may be of little consequence, yet in\nanother aspect it is of no small moment that we steadfastly affirm the\npermanent validity of this part of the promise of the covenant with\nIsrael as given in this chapter. For it is not too much to say that\nthe logic and the exegesis which make the promise to have become void\nwith regard to Israel's land, if accepted, would equally justify one\nin affirming the abrogation of the promise of Israel's final\nrepentance, if the exigencies of any eschatological theory should seem\nto require it. Either both parts of this promise in ver. 42 are still\nvalid, or neither is now valid; and if either is still in force, the\nother is in force also. These two, the promise concerning the people,\nand the promise concerning the land, stand or fall together.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n_CONCERNING VOWS._\n\nLEV. xxvii. 1-34.\n\n\nAs already remarked, the book of Leviticus certainly seems, at first\nsight, to be properly completed with the previous chapter; and hence\nit has been not unnaturally suggested that this chapter has by some\neditor been transferred, either of intention or accident, from an\nearlier part of the book--as, _e.g._, after chapter XXV. The question\nis one of no importance; but it is not hard to perceive a good reason\nfor the position of this chapter after not only the rest of the law,\nbut also after the words of promise and threatening which conclude and\nseal its prescriptions. For what has preceded has concerned duties of\nreligion which were obligatory upon all Israelites; the regulations of\nthis chapter, on the contrary, have to do with special vows, which\nwere obligatory on no one, and concerning which it is expressly said\n(Deut. xxiii. 22): \"If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin\nin thee.\" To these, therefore, the promises and threats of the\ncovenant could not directly apply, and therefore the law which\nregulates the making and keeping of vows is not unfitly made to\nfollow, as an appendix, the other legislation of the book.\n\nHowsoever the making of vows be not obligatory as a necessary part of\nthe religious life, yet, in all ages and in all religions, a certain\ninstinct of the heart has often led persons, either in order to\nprocure something from God, or as a thank-offering for some special\nfavour received, or else as a spontaneous expression of love to God,\nto \"make a special vow.\" But just in proportion to the sincerity and\ndepth of the devout feeling which suggests such special acts of\nworship and devotion, will be the desire to act in the vow, as in all\nelse, according to the will of God, so that the vow may be accepted of\nHim. What then may one properly dedicate to God in a vow? And, again,\nif by any stress of circumstances a man feels compelled to seek\nrelease from a vow, is he at liberty to recall it? and if so, then\nunder what conditions? Such are the questions which in this chapter\nwere answered for Israel.\n\nAs for the matter of a vow, it is ruled that an Israelite might thus\nconsecrate unto the Lord either persons, or of the beasts of his\npossession, or his dwelling, or the right in any part of his land. On\nthe other hand, \"the firstling among beasts\" (vv. 26, 27), any\n\"devoted thing\" (vv. 28, 29), and the tithe (vv. 30-33) might not be\nmade the object of a special vow, for the simple reason that on\nvarious grounds each of these belonged unto the Lord as His due\nalready. Under each of these special heads is given a schedule of\nvaluation, according to which, if a man should wish for any reason to\nredeem again for his own use that which, either by prior Divine claim\nor by a special vow, had been dedicated to the Lord, he might be\npermitted to do so.\n\n\nOF THE VOWING OF PERSONS.\n\nxxvii. 1-8.\n\n \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children\n of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow,\n the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy\n estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto\n sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of\n silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female,\n then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from\n five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation\n shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten\n shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old,\n then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver,\n and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of\n silver. And if it be from sixty years old and upward; if it be a\n male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the\n female ten shekels. But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then\n he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value\n him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest\n value him.\"\n\nFirst, we have the law (vv. 2-8) concerning the vowing of persons. In\nthis case it does not appear that it was intended that the personal\nvow should be fulfilled by the actual devotement of the service of the\nperson to the sanctuary. For such service abundant provision was made\nby the separation of the Levites, and it can hardly be imagined that\nunder ordinary conditions it would be possible to find special\noccupation about the sanctuary for all who might be prompted thus to\ndedicate themselves by a vow to the Lord. Moreover, apart from this,\nwe read here of the vowing to the Lord of young children, from five\nyears of age down to one month, from whom tabernacle service is not to\nbe thought of.\n\nThe vow which dedicated the person to the Lord was therefore usually\ndischarged by the simple expedient of a commutation price to be paid\ninto the treasury of the sanctuary, as the symbolic equivalent of the\nvalue of his self-dedication. The persons thus consecrated are said to\nbe \"for the Lord,\" and this fact was to be recognised and their\nspecial dedication to Him discharged by the payment of a certain sum\nof money. The amount to be paid in each instance is fixed by the law\nbefore us, with an evident reference to the labour value of the person\nthus given to the Lord in the vow, as determined by two factors--the\nsex and the age. Inasmuch as the woman is inferior in strength to the\nman, she is rated lower than he is. As affected by age, persons vowed\nare distributed into four classes: the lowest, from one month up to\nfive years; the second, from five years to twenty; the third, from\ntwenty to sixty; the fourth, from sixty years of age and upwards.\n\nThe law takes first (vv. 3, 4) the case of persons in the prime of\ntheir working powers, from twenty to sixty years old, for whom the\nhighest commutation rate is fixed; namely, fifty shekels for the male\nand thirty for a female, \"after the shekel of the sanctuary,\" _i.e._,\nof full standard weight. If younger than this, obviously the labour\nvalue of the persons service would be less; it is therefore fixed\n(ver. 5) at twenty shekels for the male and ten for the female, if the\nage be from five to twenty; and if the person be over sixty, then\n(ver. 7), as the feebleness of age is coming on, the rate is fifteen\nshekels for the male and ten for the female.[56] In the case of a\nchild from one month to five years old, the rate is fixed (ver. 6) at\nfive, or, in a female, then at three shekels. In this last case it\nwill be observed that the rate for the male is the same as that\nappointed (Numb. xviii. 15, 16) for the redemption of the firstborn,\n\"from a month old,\" in all cases. As in that ordinance, so here, the\npayment was merely a symbolic recognition of the special claim of God\non the person, without any reference to a labour value.\n\n [56] These commutation rates are so low that it is plain that\n they could not have represented the actual value of the\n individual's labour. The highest sum which is named--fifty\n shekels--as the rate for a man from twenty to sixty years of\n age, taking the shekel as 2s. 3\u00b737_d._, or $\u00b75474, would only\n amount to \u00a35 14_s._ 0-3/4_d._, or $27\u00b7375. Even from this alone\n it is clear that, as stated above, the chief reference in these\n figures must have been symbolic of a claim of God upon the\n person, graded according to his capacity for service.\n\nBut although the sum was so small that even at the most it could not\nnearly represent the actual value of the labour of such as were able\nto labour, yet one can see that cases might occur when a man might be\nmoved to make such a vow of dedication of himself or of a child to the\nLord, while he was yet too poor to pay even such a small amount. Hence\nthe kindly provision (ver. 8) that if any person be poorer than this\nestimation, he shall not therefore be excluded from the privilege of\nself-dedication to the Lord, but \"he shall be set before the priest,\nand the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that\nvowed shall the priest value him.\"\n\n\nOF THE VOWING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS.\n\nxxvii. 9-13.\n\n \"And if it be a beast, whereof men offer an oblation unto the\n Lord, all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be\n holy. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or\n a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast,\n then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. And\n if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer an\n oblation unto the Lord, then he shall set the beast before the\n priest: and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad:\n as thou the priest valuest it, so shall it be. But if he will\n indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto\n thy estimation.\"\n\nThis next section concerns the vowing to the Lord of domestic animals\n(vv. 9-13). If the animal thus dedicated to the Lord were such as\ncould be used in sacrifice, then the animal itself was taken for the\nsanctuary service, and the vow was unalterable and irrevocable. If,\nhowever, the animal vowed was \"any unclean beast,\" then the priest\n(ver. 12) was to set a price upon it, according to its value; for\nwhich, we may infer, it was to be sold and the proceeds devoted to the\nsanctuary.\n\nIn this case, the person who had vowed the animal was allowed to\nredeem it to himself again (ver. 13) by payment of this estimated\nprice and one-fifth additional, a provision which was evidently\nintended to be of the nature of a fine, and to be a check upon the\nmaking of rash vows.\n\n\nOF THE VOWING OF HOUSES AND FIELDS.\n\nxxvii. 14-25.\n\n \"And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the\n Lord, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or\n bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. And if\n he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add\n the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it\n shall be his. And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord part of\n the field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be\n according to the sowing thereof: the sowing of a homer of barley\n shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver. If he sanctify his\n field from the year of jubilee, according to thy estimation it\n shall stand. But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee, then\n the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years\n that remain unto the year of jubilee, and an abatement shall be\n made from thy estimation. And if he that sanctified the field\n will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the\n money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him.\n And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field\n to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more: but the field,\n when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as\n a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest's.\n And if he sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought,\n which is not of the field of his possession; then the priest\n shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation unto the year\n of jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a\n holy thing unto the Lord. In the year of jubilee the field shall\n return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the\n possession of the land belongeth. And all thy estimations shall\n be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall\n be the shekel.\"\n\nThe law regarding the consecration of a man's house unto the Lord by a\nvow (vv. 14, 15) is very simple. The priest is to estimate its value,\nwithout right of appeal. Apparently, the man might still live in it,\nif he desired, but only as one living in a house belonging to another;\npresumably, a rental was to be paid, on the basis of the priest's\nestimation of value, into the sanctuary treasury. If the man wished\nagain to redeem it, then, as in the case of the beast that was vowed,\nhe must pay into the treasury the estimated value of the house, with\nthe addition of one-fifth.\n\nIn the case of the \"sanctifying\" or dedication of a field by a special\nvow two cases might arise, which are dealt with in succession. The\nfirst case (vv. 16-21) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which\nbelonged to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (vv. 22-24), that\nof one which had come to him by purchase. In the former case, the\npriest was to fix a price upon the field on the basis of fifty shekels\nfor so much land as would be sown with a _homer_--about eight\nbushels--of barley. In case the dedication took effect from the year\nof jubilee, this full price was to be paid into the Lord's treasury\nfor the field; but if from a later year in the cycle, then the rate\nwas to be diminished in proportion to the number of years of the\njubilee period which might have already passed at the date of the vow.\nInasmuch as in the case of a field which had been purchased, it was\nordered that the price of the estimation should be paid down to the\npriest \"in that day\" (ver. 23) in which the appraisal was made, it\nwould appear as if, in the present case, the man was allowed to pay it\nannually, a shekel for each year of the jubilee period, or by\ninstalments otherwise, as he might choose, as a periodic recognition\nof the special claim of the Lord upon that field, in consequence of\nhis vow. Redemption of the field from the obligation of the vow was\npermitted under the condition of the fifth added to the priest's\nestimation, _e.g._ on the payment of sixty instead of fifty shekels\n(ver. 19).\n\nIf, however, without having thus redeemed the field, the man who vowed\nshould sell it to another man, it is ordered that the field, which\notherwise would revert to him again in full right of usufruct when the\njubilee year came round, should be forfeited; so that when the jubilee\ncame the exclusive right of the field would henceforth belong to the\npriest, as in the case of a field devoted by the ban. The intention of\nthis regulation is evidently penal; for the field, during the time\ncovered by the vow, was in a special sense the Lord's; and the man had\nthe use of it for himself only upon condition of a certain annual\npayment; to sell it, therefore, during that time, was, in fact, from\nthe legal point of view, to sell property, absolute right in which he\nhad by his vow renounced in favour of the Lord.\n\nThe case of the dedication in a vow of a field belonging to a man, not\nas a paternal inheritance, but by purchase (vv. 22-24), only differed\nfrom the former in that, as already remarked, immediate payment in\nfull of the sum at which it was estimated was made obligatory; when\nthe jubilee year came, the field reverted to the original owner,\naccording to the law (xxv. 28). The reason for thus insisting on full\nimmediate payment, in the case of the dedication of a field acquired\nby purchase, is plain, when we refer to the law (xxv. 25), according\nto which the original owner had the right of redemption guaranteed to\nhim at any time before the jubilee. If, in the case of such a\ndedicated field, any part of the amount due to the sanctuary were\nstill unpaid, obviously this, as a lien upon the land, would stand in\nthe way of such redemption. The regulation of immediate payment is\ntherefore intended to protect the original owner's right to redeem the\nfield.\n\nVer. 25 lays down the general principle that in all these estimations\nand commutations the shekel must be \"the shekel of the sanctuary,\"\ntwenty gerahs to the shekel;--words which are not to be understood as\npointing to the existence of two distinct shekels as current, but\nsimply as meaning that the shekel must be of full weight, such as only\ncould pass current in transactions with the sanctuary.\n\n\nTHE \"VOW\" IN NEW TESTAMENT ETHICS.\n\nNot without importance is the question whether the vow, as brought\nbefore us here, in the sense of a voluntary promise to God of\nsomething not due to Him by the law, has, of right, a place in New\nTestament ethics and practical life. It is to be observed in\napproaching this question, that the Mosaic law here simply deals with\na religious custom which it found prevailing, and while it gives it a\ncertain tacit sanction, yet neither here or elsewhere ever recommends\nthe practice; nor does the whole Old Testament represent God as\ninfluenced by such a voluntary promise, to do something which\notherwise He would not have done. At the same time, inasmuch as the\nreligious impulse which prompts to the vow, howsoever liable to lead\nto an abuse of the practice, may be in itself right, Moses takes the\nmatter in hand, as in this chapter and elsewhere, and deals with it\nsimply in an educational way. If a man will vow, while it is not\nforbidden, he is elsewhere (Deut. xxii. 22) reminded that there is no\nspecial merit in it; if he forbear, he is no worse a man.\n\nFurther, the evident purpose of these regulations is to teach that,\nwhereas it must in the nature of the case be a very serious thing to\nenter into a voluntary engagement of anything to the holy God, it is\nnot to be done hastily and rashly; hence a check is put upon such\ninconsiderate promising, by the refusal of the law to release from the\nvoluntary obligation, in some cases, upon any terms; and by its\nrefusal, in any case, to release except under the condition of a very\nmaterial fine for breach of promise. It was thus taught clearly that\nif men made promises to God, they must keep them. The spirit of these\nregulations has been precisely expressed by the Preacher (Eccl. v. 5,\n6): \"Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou\nshouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to\nsin; neither say thou before the messenger [of God],[57] that it was\nan error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the\nwork of thine hands?\" Finally, in the careful guarding of the practice\nby the penalty attached also to change or substitution in a thing\nvowed, or to selling that which had been vowed to God, as if it were\none's own; and, last of all, by insisting that the full-weight shekel\nof the sanctuary should be made the standard in all the appraisals\ninvolved in the vow,--the law kept steadily and uncompromisingly\nbefore the conscience the absolute necessity of being strictly honest\nwith God.\n\n [57] So certainly should we render instead of \"angel,\" in\n accordance with the suggestion of the margin (R.V.). The\n reference is to the priest, as Mal. ii. 7 makes very clear: \"He\n [the priest] is the messenger of the Lord.\"\n\nBut in all this there is nothing which necessarily passes over to the\nnew dispensation, except the moral principles which are assumed in\nthese regulations. A hasty promise to God, in an inconsiderate spirit,\neven of that which ought to be freely promised Him, is sin, as much\nnow as then; and, still more, the breaking of any promise to Him when\nonce made. So we may take hence to ourselves the lesson of absolute\nhonesty in all our dealing with God,--a lesson not less needed now\nthan then.\n\nYet this does not touch the central question: Has the vow, in the\nsense above defined--namely, the promise to God of something not due\nto Him in the law--a place in New Testament ethics? It is true that it\nis nowhere forbidden; but as little is it approved. The reference of\nour Lord (Matt. xv. 5, 6) to the abuse of the vow by the Pharisees to\njustify neglect of parental claims does not imply the propriety of\nvows at present; for the old dispensation was then still in force. The\nvows of Paul (Acts xviii. 18; xxi. 24-26) apparently refer to the vow\nof a Nazarite, and in no case present a binding example for us,\ninasmuch as they are but illustrations of his frequent conformity to\nJewish usages in things involving no sin, in which he became a Jew\nthat he might gain the Jews. On the other hand, the New Testament\nconception of Christian life and duty seems clearly to leave no room\nfor a voluntary promise to God of what is not due, seeing that,\nthrough the transcendent obligation of grateful love to the Lord for\nHis redeeming love, there is no possible degree of devotement of self\nor of one's substance which could be regarded as not already God's\ndue. \"He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto\nthemselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again.\" The\nvow, in the sense brought before us in this chapter, is essentially\ncorrelated to a legal system such as the Mosaic, in which dues to God\nare prescribed by rule. In New Testament ethics, as distinguished from\nthose of the Old, we must therefore conclude that for the vow there is\nno logical place.\n\nThe question is not merely speculative and unpractical. In fact, we\nhere come upon one of the fundamental points of difference between\nRomish and Protestant ethics. For it is the Romish doctrine that,\nbesides such works as are essential to a state of salvation, which are\nby God made obligatory upon all, there are other works which, as Rome\nregards the matter, are not commanded, but are only made matters of\nDivine counsel, in order to the attainment, by means of their\nobservance, of a higher type of Christian life. Such works as these,\nunlike the former class, because not of universal obligation, may\nproperly be made the subject of a vow. These are, especially, the\nvoluntary renunciation of all property, abstinence from marriage, and\nthe monastic life. But this distinction of precepts and counsels, and\nthe theory of vows, and of works of supererogation, which Rome has\nbased upon it, all Protestants have with one consent rejected, and\nthat with abundant reason. For not only do we fail to find any\njustification for these views in the New Testament, but the history of\nthe Church has shown, with what should be convincing clearness, that,\nhowsoever we may gladly recognise in the monastic communities of\nRome, in all ages, men and women living under special vows of poverty,\nobedience, and chastity, whose purity of life and motive, and sincere\ndevotion to the Lord, cannot be justly called in question, it is none\nthe less clear that, on the whole, the tendency of the system has been\ntoward either legalism on the one hand, or a sad licentiousness of\nlife on the other. In this matter of vows, as in so many things, it\nhas been the fatal error of the Roman Church that, under the cover of\na supposed Old Testament warrant, she has returned to \"the weak and\nbeggarly elements\" which, according to the New Testament, have only a\ntemporary use in the earliest childhood of religious life.\n\n\nEXCLUSIONS FROM THE VOW.\n\nxxvii. 26-33.\n\n \"Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to\n the Lord, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or sheep, it\n is the Lord's. And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall\n ransom it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it\n the fifth part thereof: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall\n be sold according to thy estimation. Notwithstanding, no devoted\n thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath,\n whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall\n be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the\n Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be\n ransomed; he shall surely be put to death. And all the tithe of\n the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the\n tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will\n redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part\n thereof. And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever\n passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He\n shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he\n change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and that for\n which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.\"\n\nThe remaining verses of this chapter specify three classes of property\nwhich could not be dedicated by a special vow, namely, \"the firstling\namong beasts\" (ver. 26); any \"devoted thing\" (vv. 28, 29), _i.e._,\nanything which had been devoted to the Lord by the ban--as, _e.g._,\nall the persons and property in the city of Jericho by Joshua (vii.\n17); and, lastly, \"the tithe of the land\" (ver. 30). The reason for\nprohibiting the vowing of any of these is in every case one and the\nsame; either by the law or by a previous personal act they already\nbelonged to the Lord. To devote them in a vow would therefore be to\nvow to the Lord that over which one had no right. As for the\nfirstborn, the Lord had declared His everlasting claim on these at the\ntime of the Exodus (Exod. xiii. 12-15); to vow to give the Lord His\nown, had been absurd. To the law previously given, however, concerning\nthe firstling of unclean beasts (Exod. xiii. 13), it is here added\nthat, if a man wish to redeem such a firstling, the same law shall\napply as in the redemption of what has been vowed; namely, the priest\nwas to appraise it, and then the man whose it had been might redeem it\nby the payment of the amount thus fixed, increased by one-fifth.\n\n\nTHE LAW OF THE BAN.\n\nxxvii. 28, 29.\n\n \"Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto\n the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the\n field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted\n thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be\n devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to\n death.\"\n\nNeither could any \"devoted thing\" be given to the Lord by a vow, and\nfor the same reason--that it belonged to Him already. But it is added\nthat, unlike that which has been vowed, the Lord's firstlings and the\ntithes, that which has been devoted may neither be sold nor redeemed.\nIf it be a person which is thus \"devoted,\" \"he shall surely be put to\ndeath\" (ver. 29). The reason of this law is found in the nature of the\n_herem_ or ban. It devoted to the Lord only such persons and things as\nwere in a condition of irreformable hostility and irreconcilable\nantagonism to the kingdom of God. By the ban such were turned over to\nGod, in order to the total nullification of their power for evil; by\ndestroying whatever was capable of destruction, as the persons and all\nliving things that belonged to them; and by devoting to the Lord's\nservice in the sanctuary and priesthood such of their property as,\nlike silver, gold, and land, was in its nature incapable of\ndestruction. In such devoted persons or things no man therefore was\nallowed to assert any personal claim or interest, such as the right of\nsale or of redemption would imply. Elsewhere the Israelite is\nforbidden even to desire the silver or gold that was on the idols in\ndevoted cities (Deut. vii. 25), or to bring it into his house or tent,\non penalty of being himself banned or devoted like them; a threat\nwhich was carried out in the case of Achan (Josh. vii.), who, for\nappropriating a wedge of gold and a garment which had been devoted,\naccording to the law here and elsewhere declared, was summarily put to\ndeath.\n\nThis is not the place to enter fully into a discussion of the very\ngrave questions which arise in connection with this law of the ban, in\nwhich it is ordered that \"none devoted,\" \"whether of man or beast,\"\n\"shall be ransomed,\" but \"shall be surely put to death.\" The most\nfamiliar instance of its application is furnished by the case of the\nCanaanitish cities, which Joshua, in accordance with this law of Lev.\nxxvii. 28, 29, utterly destroyed, with their inhabitants and every\nliving thing that was in them. There are many sincere believers in\nChrist who find it almost impossible to believe that it can be true\nthat God commanded such a slaughter as this; and the difficulty well\ndeserves a brief consideration. It may not indeed be possible wholly\nto remove it from every mind; but one may well call attention, in\nconnection with these verses, to certain considerations which should\nat least suffice very greatly to relieve its stress.\n\nIn the first place, it is imperative to remember that, if we accept\nthe teaching of Scripture, we have before us in this history, not the\ngovernment of man, but the government of God, a true theocracy. Now it\nis obvious that if even fallible men may be rightly granted power to\ncondemn men to death, for the sake of the public good, much more must\nthis right be conceded, and that without any limitation, to the\ninfinitely righteous and infallible King of kings, if, in accord with\nthe Scripture declarations, He was, literally and really, the\npolitical Head (if we may be allowed the expression) of the\nIsraelitish nation. Further, if this absolute right of God in matters\nof life and death be admitted, as it must be, it is plain that He may\nrightly delegate the execution of His decrees to human agents. If this\nright is granted to one of our fellow-men, as to a king or a\nmagistrate, much more to God.\n\nGranting that the theocratic government of Israel was a historical\nfact, the only question then remaining as to the right of the ban,\nconcerns the justice of its application in particular cases. With\nregard to this, we may concede that it was quite possible that men\nmight sometimes apply this law without Divine authority; but we are\nnot required to defend such cases, if any be shown, any more than to\nexcuse the infliction of capital punishment in America sometimes by\nlynch law. These cases furnish no argument against its infliction\nafter due legal process, and by legitimate governmental authority. As\nto the terrible execution of this law of the ban, in the destruction\nof the inhabitants of the Canaanitish cities, if the fact of the\ntheocratic authority be granted, it is not so difficult to justify\nthis as some have imagined. Nor, conversely, when the actual facts are\nthoroughly known, can the truth of the statement of the Scripture that\nGod commanded this terrible destruction, be regarded as irreconcilable\nwith those moral perfections which Scripture and reason alike\nattribute to the Supreme Being.\n\nThe researches and discoveries of recent years have let in a flood of\nlight upon the state of society prevailing among those Canaanitish\ntribes at the date of their destruction; and they warrant us in saying\nthat in the whole history of our race it would be hard to point to any\ncivilized community which has sunken to such a depth of wickedness and\nmoral pollution. As we have already seen, the book of Leviticus gives\nmany dark hints of unnamable horrors among the Canaanitish races: the\nfearful cruelties of the worship of Molech, and the unmentionable\nimpurities of the cult of Ashtoreth; the prohibition among some of\nthese of female chastity, requiring that all be morally\nsacrificed[58]--one cannot go into these things. And when now we read\nin Holy Scripture that the infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God\ncommanded that these utterly depraved and abandoned communities should\nbe extirpated from the face of the earth, is it, after all, so hard to\nbelieve that this should be true? Nay, may we not rather with abundant\nreason say that it would have been far more difficult to reconcile\nwith the character of God, if He had suffered them any longer to\nexist?\n\n [58] On this subject, among other authorities, see Ebrard,\n \"Apologetik,\" 2 Theil, pp. 167-90, especially p. 173.\n\nNor have we yet fully stated the case. For we must, in addition,\nrecall the fact that these corrupt communities, which by this law of\nthe ban were devoted to utter destruction, were in no out-of-the-way\ncorner of the world, but on one of its chief highways. The\nPhoenicians, for instance, more than any people of that time, were the\nnavigators and travellers of the age; so that from Canaan as a centre\nthis horrible moral pestilence was inevitably carried by them hither\nand thither, a worse than the \"black death,\" to the very extremities\nof the known world. Have we then so certainly good reason to call in\nquestion the righteousness of the law which here ordains that no\nperson thus devoted should be ransomed, but be surely put to death?\nRather are we inclined to see in this law of the theocratic kingdom,\nand its execution in Canaan--so often held up as an illustration of\nthe awful cruelty of the old theocratic _r\u00e9gime_--not only a\nconspicuous vindication of the righteousness and justice of God, but a\nno less illustrious manifestation of His mercy;--of His mercy, not\nmerely to Israel, but to the whole human race of that age, who because\nof this deadly infection of moral evil had otherwise again everywhere\nsunk to such unimaginable depths of depravity as to have required a\nsecond flood for the cleansing of the world. This certainly was the\nway in which the Psalmist regarded it, when (Psalm cxxxvi. 17-22) he\npraised Jehovah as One who \"smote great kings, and slew famous kings,\nand gave their land for an heritage, even an heritage unto Israel His\nservant: for HIS MERCY endureth for ever;\" a thought which is again\nmore formally expressed (Psalm lxii. 12) in the words: \"Unto Thee, O\nLord, belongeth mercy: for Thou renderest to every man according to\nhis work.\"\n\nNor can we leave this law of the ban without noting the very solemn\nsuggestion which it contains that there may be in the universe persons\nwho, despite the great redemption, are morally irredeemable,\nhopelessly obdurate; for whom, under the government of a God\ninfinitely righteous and merciful, nothing remains but the execution\nof the ban--the \"eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his\nangels\" (Matt. xxv. 41); \"a fierceness of fire which shall devour the\nadversaries\" (Heb. x. 27). And this, not merely although, but BECAUSE\nGod's \"mercy endureth for ever.\"\n\n\nTHE LAW OF THE TITHE.\n\nxxvi. 30-33.\n\n \"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,\n or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: it is holy unto the\n Lord. And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add\n unto it the fifth part thereof. And all the tithe of the herd or\n the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be\n holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it be good or\n bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then\n both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall\n not be redeemed.\"\n\nLast of all these exclusions from the vow is mentioned the tithe.\n\"Whether of the seed of the land, or of the herd, or of the flock,\" it\nis declared to be \"holy unto the Lord;\" \"it is the Lord's.\" That\nbecause of this it cannot be given to the Lord by a special vow,\nalthough not formally stated, is self-evident. No man can give away\nwhat belongs to another, or give God what He has already. In Numb.\nxviii. 21 it is said that this tenth should be given \"unto the\nchildren of Levi ... for the service of the tent of meeting.\"\n\nMost extraordinary is the contention of Wellhausen and others, that\nsince in Deuteronomy no tithe is mentioned other than of the product\nof the land, therefore, because of the mention here also of a tithe of\nthe herd and the flock, we must infer that we have here a late\ninterpolation into the \"priest-code,\" marking a time when now the\nexactions of the priestly caste had been extended to the utmost limit.\nThis is not the place to go into the question of the relation of the\nlaw of Deuteronomy to that which we have here; but we should rather,\nwith Dillmann,[59] from the same premisses argue the exact opposite,\nnamely, that we have here the very earliest form of the tithe law. For\nthat an ordinance so extending the rights of the priestly class should\nhave been \"smuggled\" into the Sinaitic laws after the days of\nNehemiah, as Wellhausen, Reuss, and Kuenen suppose, is simply\n\"unthinkable;\"[60] while, on the other hand, when we find already in\nGen. xxviii. 22 Jacob promising unto the Lord the tenth of all that He\nshould give him, at a time when he was living the life of a nomad\nherdsman, it is inconceivable that he should have meant \"all,\n_excepting_ the increase of the flocks and herds,\" which were his\nchief possession.\n\n [59] See \"Die B\u00fccher Exodus und Leviticus,\" pp. 635-638.\n\n [60] See \"Undenkbar;\" so Dillmann, _op. cit._, p. 638.\n\nThe truth is that the dedication of a tithe, in various forms, as an\nacknowledgment of dependence upon and reverence to God, is one of the\nmost widely-spread and best-attested practices of the most remote\nantiquity. We read of it among the Romans, the Greeks, the ancient\nPelasgians, the Carthaginians, and the Phoenicians; and in the\nPentateuch, in full accord with all this, we find not only Jacob, as\nin the passage cited, but, at a yet earlier time, Abraham, more than\nfour hundred years before Moses, giving tithes to Melchizedek. The\nlaw, in the exact form in which we have it here, is therefore in\nperfect harmony with all that we know of the customs both of the\nHebrews and surrounding peoples, from a time even much earlier than\nthat of the Exodus.\n\nVery naturally the reference to the tithe, as thus from of old\nbelonging to the Lord, and therefore incapable of being vowed, gives\noccasion to other regulations respecting it. Like unclean animals,\nhouses, and lands which had been vowed, so also the tithe, or any part\nof it, might be redeemed by the individual for his own use, upon\npayment of the usual mulct of one-fifth additional to its assessed\nvalue. So also it is further ordered, with special regard to the tithe\nof the herd and the flock, \"that whatsoever passeth under the rod,\"\n_i.e._, whatever is counted, as the manner was, by being made to pass\ninto or out of the fold under the herdsman's staff, \"the tenth\"--that\nis, every tenth animal as in its turn it comes--\"shall be holy to the\nLord.\" The owner was not to search whether the animal thus selected\nwas good or bad, nor change it, so as to give the Lord a poorer\nanimal, and keep a better one for himself; and if he broke this law,\nthen, as in the case of the unclean beast vowed, as the penalty he was\nto forfeit to the sanctuary both the original and its attempted\nsubstitute, and also lose the right of redemption.\n\nA very practical question emerges just here, as to the continued\nobligation of this law of the tithe. Although we hear nothing of the\ntithe in the first Christian centuries, it began to be advocated in\nthe fourth century by Jerome, Augustine, and others, and, as is well\nknown, the system of ecclesiastical tithing soon became established as\nthe law of the Church. Although the system by no means disappeared\nwith the Reformation, but passed from the Roman into the Reformed\nChurches, yet the modern spirit has become more and more adverse to\nthe medi\u00e6val system, till, with the progressive hostility in society\nto all connection of the Church and the State, and in the Church the\ndevelopment of a sometimes exaggerated voluntaryism, tithing as a\nsystem seems likely to disappear altogether, as it has already from\nthe most of Christendom.\n\nBut in consequence of this, and the total severance of the Church from\nthe State, in the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the\nnecessity of securing adequate provision for the maintenance and\nextension of the Church, is more and more directing the attention of\nthose concerned in the practical economics of the Church, to this\nvenerable institution of the tithe as the solution of many\ndifficulties. Among such there are many who, while quite opposed to\nany enforcement of a law of tithing for the benefit of the Church by\nthe civil power, nevertheless earnestly maintain that the law of the\ntithe, as we have it here, is of permanent obligation and binding on\nthe conscience of every Christian. What is the truth in the matter? In\nparticular, what is the teaching of the New Testament?\n\nIn attempting to settle for ourselves this question, it is to be\nobserved, in order to clear thinking on this subject, that in the law\nof the tithe as here declared there are two elements--the one moral,\nthe other legal,--which should be carefully distinguished. First and\nfundamental is the principle that it is our duty to set apart to God a\ncertain fixed proportion of our income. The other and--technically\nspeaking--_positive_ element in the law is that which declares that\nthe proportion to be given to the Lord is precisely one-tenth. Now,\nof these two, the first principle is distinctly recognised and\nreaffirmed in the New Testament as of continued validity in this\ndispensation; while, on the other hand, as to the precise proportion\nof our income to be thus set apart for the Lord, the New Testament\nwriters are everywhere silent.\n\nAs regards the first principle, the Apostle Paul, writing to the\nCorinthians, orders that \"on the first day of the week\"--the day of\nthe primitive Christian worship--\"every one\" shall \"lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him.\" He adds that he had given the same\ncommand also to the Churches of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2). This most\nclearly gives apostolic sanction to the fundamental principle of the\ntithe, namely, that a definite portion of our income should be set\napart for God. While, on the other hand, neither in this connection,\nwhere a mention of the law of the tithe might naturally have been\nexpected, if it had been still binding as to the letter, nor in any\nother place does either the Apostle Paul or any other New Testament\nwriter intimate that the Levitical law, requiring the precise\nproportion of a tenth, was still in force;--a fact which is the more\nnoteworthy that so much is said of the duty of Christian benevolence.\n\nTo this general statement with regard to the testimony of the New\nTestament on this subject, the words of our Lord to the Pharisees\n(Matt. xxiii. 23), regarding their tithing of \"mint and anise and\ncummin\"--\"these ye ought to have done\"--cannot be taken as an\nexception, or as proving that the law is binding for this\ndispensation; for the simple reason that the present dispensation had\nnot at that time yet begun, and those to whom He spoke were still\nunder the Levitical law, the authority of which He there reaffirms.\nFrom these facts we conclude that the law of these verses, in so far\nas it requires the setting apart to God of a certain definite\nproportion of our income, is doubtless of continued and lasting\nobligation; but that, in so far as it requires from all alike the\nexact proportion of one-tenth, it is binding on the conscience no\nlonger.\n\nNor is it difficult to see why the New Testament should not lay down\nthis or any other precise proportion of giving to income, as a\nuniversal law. It is only according to the characteristic usage of the\nNew Testament law to leave to the individual conscience very much\nregarding the details of worship and conduct, which under the\nLevitical law was regulated by specific rules; which the Apostle Paul\nexplains (Gal. iv. 1-5) by reference to the fact that the earlier\nmethod was intended for and adapted to a lower and more immature stage\nof religious development; even as a child, during his minority, is\nkept under guardians and stewards, from whose authority, when he comes\nof age, he is free.\n\nBut, still further, it seems to be often forgotten by those who argue\nfor the present and permanent obligation of this law, that it was here\nfor the first time formally appointed by God as a binding law, in\nconnection with a certain divinely instituted system of theocratic\ngovernment, which, if carried out, would, as we have seen, effectively\nprevent excessive accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals,\nand thus secure for the Israelites, in a degree the world has never\nseen, an equal distribution of property. In such a system it is\nevident that it would be possible to exact a certain fixed and\ndefinite proportion of income for sacred purposes, with the certainty\nthat the requirement would work with perfect justice and fairness to\nall. But with us, social and economic conditions are so very\ndifferent, wealth is so very unequally distributed, that no such law\nas that of the tithe could be made to work otherwise than unequally\nand unfairly. To the very poor it must often be a heavy burden; to the\nvery rich, a proportion so small as to be a practical exemption.\nWhile, for the former, the law, if insisted on, would sometimes\nrequire a poor man to take bread out of the mouth of wife and\nchildren, it would still leave the millionaire with thousands to spend\non needless luxuries. The latter might often more easily give\nnine-tenths of his income than the former could give one-twentieth.\n\nIt is thus no surprising thing that the inspired men who laid the\nfoundations of the New Testament Church did not reaffirm the law of\nthe tithe as to the letter. And yet, on the other hand, let us not\nforget that the law of the tithe, as regards the moral element of the\nlaw, is still in force. It forbids the Christian to leave, as so\noften, the amount he will give for the Lord's work, to impulse and\ncaprice. Statedly and conscientiously he is to \"lay by him in store as\nthe Lord hath prospered him.\" If any ask how much should the\nproportion be, one might say that by fair inference the tenth might\nsafely be taken as an _average minimum_ of giving, counting rich and\npoor together. But the New Testament (2 Cor. viii. 7, 9) answers after\na different and most characteristic manner: \"See that ye abound in\nthis grace.... For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that,\nthough He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through\nHis poverty might become rich.\" Let there be but regular and\nsystematic giving to the Lord's work, under the law of a fixed\nproportion of gifts to income, and under the holy inspiration of this\nsacred remembrance of the grace of our Lord, and then the Lord's\ntreasury will never be empty, nor the Lord be robbed of His tithe.\n\nAnd so hereupon the book of Leviticus closes with the formal\ndeclaration--referring, no doubt, strictly speaking, to the\nregulations of this last chapter--that \"these are the commandments,\nwhich the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount\nSinai.\" The words as explicitly assert Mosaic origin and authority for\nthese last laws of the book, as the opening words asserted the same\nfor the law of the offerings with which it begins. The significance of\nthese repeated declarations respecting the origin and authority of the\nlaws contained in this book has been repeatedly pointed out, and\nnothing further need be added here.\n\nTo sum up all:--what the Lord, in this book of Leviticus, has said,\nwas not for Israel alone. The supreme lesson of this law is for men\nnow, for the Church of the New Testament as well. For the individual\nand for the nation, HOLINESS, consisting in full consecration of body\nand soul to the Lord, and separation from all that defileth, is the\nDivine ideal, to the attainment of which Jew and Gentile alike are\ncalled. And the only _way_ of its attainment is through the atoning\nSacrifice, and the mediation of the High Priest appointed of God; and\nthe only _evidence_ of its attainment is a joyful obedience, hearty\nand unreserved, to all the commandments of God. For us all it stands\nwritten: \"YE SHALL BE HOLY; FOR I, JEHOVAH, YOUR GOD, AM HOLY.\"\n\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\n =CATHOLICISM--ROMAN AND ANGLICAN.=\n\n By the Rev. A. M. FAIRBAIRN, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Principal of\n Mansfield College, Oxford; Author of \"The Place of Christ in\n Modern Theology,\" etc. _Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d._\n\n _The Daily Chronicle_, in a Leading Article, says:\n\n \"Such a work cannot but have a deep effect.\"\n\n \"Dr. Fairbairn's able and striking volume.... The treatment is\n throughout so thoughtful and free from narrow polemical\n bias.\"--_Times._\n\n \"The book is certainly one every theologian must\n welcome--high-minded in tone, broad in its outlook, penetrating\n in its vision, and full of luminous _apercus_ on the history of\n thought and of events.\"--_Literature._\n\n\n =THE PLACE OF CHRIST IN MODERN THEOLOGY.= _Eleventh Edition. 8vo,\n cloth, 12s._\n\n \"In some respects this is a great book. It strikes out a new and\n generally a fresh line of argument. The story of the development\n of thought during the Christian ages is a brilliant and vivid\n historical sketch, and will be a most useful piece of reference\n to the student.\"--THE DEAN OF GLOUCESTER, _in the Pall Mall\n Gazette_.\n\n \"His work is, without doubt, one of the most valuable and\n comprehensive contributions to theology that has been made during\n this generation.\"--_Spectator._\n\n \"Dr. Fairbairn starts from the principle that Christian theology\n must be based on the consciousness of Christ; and from the fact\n that the historical Christ is only now, nineteen centuries after\n His appearance on earth, being recovered for human knowledge and\n faith.... A more vivid summary of Church history has never been\n given. With its swift characterisation of schools and politics,\n with its subtle tracings of the development of various tendencies\n through the influence of their environment, of reaction, and of\n polemic; with its contrasts of different systems, philosophies,\n and races; with its portraits of men; with its sense of progress\n and revolt--this part of Dr. Fairbairn's book is no mere annal,\n but drama, vivid and full of emotion, representative of the\n volume and sweep of Christianity through the\n centuries.\"--_Speaker._\n\n \"The volume before us is the most weighty and important which he\n has yet issued. His treatises entitled 'Studies in the Life of\n Christ' and 'A City of God' contain much of great value; but in a\n sense they gave promise of better things to come, and this\n promise has been amply fulfilled ... in this very able and\n learned and altogether admirable discussion on 'The Place of\n Christ in Modern Theology.' ... The book is evidently one for the\n times, and doubtless attention will be widely drawn to it on\n account of the great importance of the subject of which it\n treats, the honoured name of its author, and the conspicuous\n ability, the competent learning, and the gracious spirit which it\n everywhere displays.\"--_Scotsman._\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n\n\n ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES. By the late R. W. DALE, of Birmingham.\n Edited by his Son, A. W. W. DALE, M.A. _Third Edition. Crown 8vo,\n cloth, 6s._\n\n \"They are excellent examples of the earnest, powerful, and\n closely reasoned addresses which Dr. Dale was in the habit of\n giving on important occasions.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n \"Dr. Dale writes a brisk and vigorous style, and his blows fall\n as with the clink of a hammer upon an anvil.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n _BY PROF. JAMES ORR._\n\n NEGLECTED FACTORS in the STUDY of the EARLY PROGRESS of\n CHRISTIANITY. By REV. JAMES ORR, D.D., Professor of Church\n History in the United Presbyterian Theological College,\n Edinburgh. _Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d._\n\n \"An interesting volume.... The volume is a valuable contribution\n to the history of the subject.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n \"These lectures deserve publication. They are able, learned, and\n they show that Dr. Orr has the gift of research, and of looking\n at things for himself. To each of these themes (the neglected\n factors) he gives earnest attention, and he discusses them with\n overflowing learning and with great clearness. The product is\n solid, substantial, and after the thorough pattern set to us by\n German writers. He has abundantly proved his case.\"--_Aberdeen\n Free Press._\n\n \"The volume is valuable for the new light it throws on the\n progress and influence of Christianity in the first three\n centuries, for the fulness of its details, and for the ability\n with which these are handled in working out the conclusions that\n are sought to be established.\"--_North British Daily Mail._\n\n _BY THE SAME AUTHOR._\n\n THE RITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY AND THE EVANGELICAL FAITH. _Third\n Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d._\n\n \"His volume is not a large one, but it is packed with matter, and\n it embodies the well-considered results of careful and extensive\n reading. It is the best English book we have on the subject.\n Nothing is left unnoticed that is necessary to a proper\n appreciation of this influential school of theology.\"--_Critical\n Review._\n\n \"Professor Orr has done his work well. His treatment of\n Ritschlianism is scholarly, self-contained, and lucid, and no\n English student of religion in future can have any difficulty in\n understanding the position of the Ritschlian school, whether at\n home or abroad.\"--_Church Times._\n\n \"It is a surprisingly well-written book, for the subject is\n supremely difficult. It is the best popular account of the great\n movement that yet been seen in English.\"--_Expository Times._\n\n THE UNHEEDING GOD, AND OTHER SERMONS. By the REV. THOMAS G.\n SELBY. _Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s._\n\n \"It is not often, in the somewhat barren records of pulpit\n literature, that such a noble and striking volume of sermons as\n this is given to the public. The present volume elevates its\n author to a front rank among the preachers of the time.... No\n more timely discourses than these could possibly be\n preached.\"--_Spectator._\n\n \"An excellent volume of sermons. Mr. Selby writes in a pungent\n and forcible style, and has a great command of suggestive\n illustrations, taken from history, literature, and science. Some\n of the lines of thought opened out by him are very original, and\n we especially commend the fine sermon on 'Obscure Service and the\n Infinite Outlook.'\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Leviticus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":176083}