# commentaries

text:
<p><em>Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague is reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, like the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh- </em></p><p>Leprosy as we know it doesn't begin in the head; see on :42. Sudden baldness is a specific Divine judgment, as in <em><a href='B:290 3:24'>Isa 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 15:2'>Isa 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 47:5'>Jer 47:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:10'>Amo 8:10</a></em>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>he is a leprous man. He is unclean. The priest shall surely pronounce him unclean. His plague is on his head- </em></p><p>The idea is that the stroke of judgment appearing on his head was one of the clearest signs of major Divine judgment. For sin is rooted in the mind, and the stroke of judgment was therefore manifest there in such a public manner. All because the person had refused to repent from the judgment of sudden baldness see on :43. </p>


text:
<p><em>The leper in whom the plague is shall wear torn clothes, and the hair of his head shall hang loose. He shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’- </em></p><p>Contrary to what is often thought, leprosy is not highly contagious. It is a bacterial disease, not a viral infection. A common cold is a viral infection, and is far more contagious than leprosy. So this apparently heavy handed exclusion of lepers was not primarily for the sake of the health of the community. Rather was it the equivalent of condemnation- having been stricken for sin and refusing to repent, despite multiple opportunities through the various seven days confinements, the person was effectively condemned. Living outside the community of God's people, with no path back, looked ahead to the awful condition of the rejected at the last judgment. For there is no legislation for the return of the leper from this situation. But see on :50.</p><p>Isaiah’s vision of God's glory as it would be in His crucified Son convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness to a very fine degree. The vision occurred "in the year that King Uzziah died" (<em><a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a></em>)- and he died of leprosy, smitten of God for his sin. Isaiah would've known Uzziah, and prophesied against him. And yet now, after the vision of God's glory, Isaiah declares that <em>he</em> is a man "of unclean lips" (<em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>). And it was lepers who had to cover their upper lips (<em><a href='B:30 13:45'>Lev 13:45</a></em>). He felt no better than Uzziah, the well known smitten-by-God king of Isaiah's time. Likewise before the experience of God's glory as it was and is in Christ, we shouldn't feel that we are any better than the most famous sinner.</p>


text:
<p><em>All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Outside of the camp shall be his dwelling-</em></p><p>The Lord Jesus Christ died for us “outside the camp” (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>); he was unashamed to associate with lepers, the condemned sinners (see on :45), and as it were died with them and for them. The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp;Do we struggle with some secret vice, in the grip of habitual sin? The cross convicts of sin, for we are impelled by it to follow Christ in going forth “without the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>), following the path of the leper who had to go forth without the camp.</p>


text:
<p><em>The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it is a woollen garment, or a linen garment- </em></p><p>As explained on :1, the idea that "leprosy" can be in garments or houses (<em><a href='B:30 14:55'>Lev 14:55</a></em>) means that the plague in view is not that of Hansen's disease or leprosy as we now know it. It was a specific judgment from God for specific sins.</p>


text:
<p><em>whether it is in warp, or woof; of linen, or of wool; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin- </em></p><p>The clothing of a man was significant, both in personal and economic terms. The idea may be that this legislation about clothing refers specifically to the clothing of the impenitent person who has been excluded outside the camp (:46)&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>if the plague is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything made of skin; it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown to the priest- </em></p><p>The person excluded permanently (see on :45,46) still had property, clothing and houses, as will be discussed in Leviticus 14. The question was whether these things could be used by others, or should they be destroyed. If the "leprosy" in view was Hansen's disease, then surely the clothing of the leper had to be automatically destroyed. But as discussed on :1, this was not the case. The 'leper' was not a leper as we now think of a leper, but one smitten by God with some specific judgment. Whether or not his clothing and property could be taken by others.. was a question for God to pronounce upon.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall examine the plague, and isolate the plague seven days- </em></p><p>I argued on <em><a href='B:30 13:45'>Lev 13:45</a></em> that the final exclusion "outside the camp" was permanent. It looked forward to the final condemnation of the wicked at the last day. But in <em><a href='B:40 12:14-15'>Num 12:14-15</a></em> we have an example of Miriam being made a leper and being shut out of the camp for seven days. "Shut out" there is s.w. "isolate" in <em><a href='B:30 13:50'>Lev 13:50</a></em>. But she repented, and was allowed back in. So I deduce that the implication is that the shut out person could still repent after seven days. The priest could not have contact with the excluded person. But their clothing and housing could be examined, and if the plague within it had not spread, then the person had repented and could be received back in. Leprosy as we know it is not cured in seven days; as explained on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em>, 'leprosy' here means literally a striking from the Lord, and not the leprosy we know today as Hansen's disease. </p>


text:
<p><em>He shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague has spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever use the skin is used for, the plague is a destructive leprosy. It is unclean-</em></p><p>"Whatever use" suggests that no matter how valuable the garment, this didn’t somehow mean that the leprosy (cp. sin) was any less significant. Petty material advantage was not to cloud judgment in these matters. See on :50.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in wool or in linen, or anything of skin, in which the plague is; for it is a destructive leprosy. It shall be burned in the fire- </em></p><p>As explained on :50, the shut out person had the chance to repent after seven days. But there was no contact between the priest and the condemned leper. So their clothing was examined. If the stroke of God was still spreading in it, then judgment was ongoing, and it could be deduced that the excluded person had not repented. So perhaps the implication was that they should be burned in fire, along with their garments. For destruction by fire is the repeated image of final condemnation from God.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the priest examines it, and behold, the plague hasn’t spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin- </em></p><p>As explained on :50, the condemned excluded sinner "outside the camp" had no contact with the priest. But after seven days there, they had a chance to repent. If the plague had not spread in their garments, it could be deduced that they had repented and Divine judgment had run its course.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which the plague is, and he shall isolate it seven more days- </em></p><p>The apparent repentance of the condemned person was not to be a passing matter; see on :50-53. Another seven days must be allowed after the partial cleansing by washing. For repentance of a person who has persistently refused to repent before has to be more than a passing feeling on their part.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the priest shall examine it, after the plague is washed; and behold, if the plague hasn’t changed its colour, and the plague hasn’t spread, it is unclean; you shall burn it in the fire. It is a mildewed spot, whether the rot is inside or outside-</em></p><p>The tendency would’ve been to think that if the rot was only on the inside of the garment and not visible to anyone else, then this didn’t require attention or cleansing. Hence the emphasis- “whether the rot is inside or outside”. Sin is still sin, whether or not it is visible to others or not. Some peoples’ sins are more open to our view than others (<em><a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a></em>). The condemned sinner had to change colour and not just repent on a surface level; see on :50-54.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the priest looks, and behold, the plague has faded after it is washed, then he shall pluck it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof-</em></p><p>The plucking out was to &nbsp;stop the leprosy / sin spreading. Jesus uses the same phrase in teaching that we should ‘pluck out’ of our lives whatever is likely to lead us to stumble into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>). Repeatedly, the seriousness of the leprosy / sin is defined by whether it spreads, either in depth or distribution.</p>


text:
<p><em>and if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is spreading. You shall burn with fire that in which the plague is- </em></p><p>This effort of the priest to stop the plague spreading in the garment reflected the Divine effort to lead the condemned sinner to repentance, and to isolate the spread of sin. If the efforts for the garment failed, then this reflected how the isolated, stricken sinner had still not repented, sin was still alive and spreading in him. And so he / she along with the garments must be burned in fire.</p>


text:
<p><em>The garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of skin it is, which you shall wash, if the plague has departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and it will be clean- </em></p><p>The two stages of washing reflect the cleansing of the excluded sinner whom the garment represented (see on :50). Perhaps there is a hint here of being born of water and Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>), also reflected in the two stage washing and healing of the blind man in <em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, either in the warp, or the woof, or in anything of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean-</em></p><p>The final pronouncing&nbsp; of men clean or unclean will only be made by the Lord Jesus at the last day. As explained throughout this chapter, the various procedures were in order to by all means elicit repentance in the stricken person (see on :1), so that the plague might be lifted- even after their apparently final condemnation outside the camp. In this we see God's earnest desire to save, to isolate the spread of sin- rather than to condemn by burning in fire.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>It’s doubtful whether the skin disease referred to in Leviticus is what we now call leprosy, i.e. Hansen’s disease. The descriptions of the disease or affliction in Leviticus 13, 14 don't sound at all like leprosy as we know it. And the idea of this disease actually being afflicted upon buildings and clothing doesn't sound like mere contamination. Leprosy had no cure in the ancient world. And yet the legislation in Leviticus 13, 14 sounds as if after a relatively short time, the affliction could be lifted- and then a sin offering had to be made. The decisions and diagnosis of the affliction was to be made by the priests, not physicians. I conclude therefore that we should pay more attention to the Hebrew word here translated "leprosy". It is the same word as used for the "stroke" of Divine judgment. This makes more sense throughout the legislation. God could smite sinners with this affliction, mistranslated as "leprosy". If the sinner repented sufficiently, it would be lifted. But the priest would judge that, and therefore sin offerings were required to complete the cleansing process. It is no sin to get sick with leprosy; but if we understand this affliction as a Divine stroke, then it all makes so much more sense.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest- </em></p><p>There is a difference between the cleansing and the healing. If someone doesn't externally appear sinful (for leprosy represents sin), this doesn't mean he is therefore acceptable to God. There must still be the cleansing, which speaks of the Lord's work, through His Spirit and through His blood.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall go forth out of the camp. The priest shall examine him, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper- </em></p><p>I suggested on Leviticus 13 that the clothing of the stricken man was examined, and if the evidence from it was that the Lord's striking of the man had finished because of his repentance, then this procedure would be followed.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two living clean birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop-</em></p><p>The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. His mind was evidently full of the word, He would have seen the symbolism of everything far more than we can, from the thorns in His mock crown, to the hyssop being associated with Him at the very end (the hyssop was the fulfilment of types in <em><a href='B:20 12:8'>Exo 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:49-52'>Lev 14:49-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:18'>Num 19:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water-</em></p><p>The enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em> alludes here: "He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly ("innermost being", NIV) shall flow rivers of living (Gk. spring) water". What "scripture" did the Lord have in mind? Perhaps the references to spring water being used to cleanse men from leprosy and death (<em><a href='B:30 14:5'>Lev 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:16'>Num 19:16</a></em>). Out of the innermost being of the true believer, the spring(ing) water of the Gospel will <em>naturally</em> spring up and go out to heal men, both now and more fully in the Kingdom, aided then by the Spirit gifts. The believer, <em>every</em>&nbsp; believer, <em>whoever</em>&nbsp; believes, will preach the word to others <em>from his innermost being</em>, both now and in the Kingdom - without the need for preaching committees or special efforts (not that in themselves I'm decrying them). The tendency is to delegate our responsibilities to these committees. There is no essential difference between faith and works. If we believe, we will do the works of witness, quite spontaneously. And note how the water that sprung out of the Lord’s smitten side is to be compared with the bride that came out of the smitten side of Adam. We, the bride, are the water; thanks to the inspiration of the cross, we go forth in witness, the water of life to this hard land in which we walk.</p>


text:
<p><em>As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water- </em></p><p>The running or springing water would have initially referred to the water from the rock which followed them at this time. The two birds, like the two goats on the day of atonement, could have spoken of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The similarity with the day of atonement suggests that atonement is in view here; because as suggested on :1, we are dealing here not simply with leprosy infection, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment in response to sin, which required repentance and atonement.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall sprinkle on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird go into the open field-</em></p><p>The phrase "let go" is often used of how God let Israel go from Egypt, overruling how the wicked Pharaoh refused to let the people go. The term is used later in the Mosaic legislation; the way Israel had been "let go" from Egypt was to determine how they "let go" others from slavery (<em><a href='B:50 15:12-13'>Deu 15:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>); their own experience of redemption was to influence how they released others. Just as ours should. The letting go of the bird and scapegoat into the wilderness was likewise to remind them of how they had been let go from Egypt into the wilderness without being slain for their sins- all by grace (<em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:53'>Lev 14:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21-22'>Lev 16:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:26'>Lev 16:26</a></em>).</p><p>The two birds may foreshadow the death and resurrection of Jesus. The bird which flew away in joyful, thankful freedom symbolized Christ’s resurrection and the freedom from sin which is enabled for us who were spiritual lepers; thanks to the death of Christ, represented by the death of the first bird.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water; and he shall be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent seven days-</em></p><p>This washing was because the stricken person had been involved in actual sin; see on :1. Washing the body was also what the priests had to do in order to begin their active service. So the idea was that the forgiven, cleansed person was now to give their lives to serving God in the spirit of priesthood. We see something of this in the command to Naaman: "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean" (<em><a href='B:120 5:10'>2Ki 5:10</a></em>).&nbsp; Although this was not Christian baptism, it is perhaps analogous. Because humility was elicited by this request to dip in Jordan, as it is by the ritual of baptism. Elisha was aiming to convert Naaman, not simply heal him, so that he could continue as general of the forces who were marauding Israel. The fact there were plenty of lepers in Israel (<em><a href='B:490 4:27'>Luk 4:27</a></em>) was evidence enough that the waters of Jordan contained no healing powers of themselves; Naaman was being taught faith in God's word, rather than supposed healing waters. The seven dippings recall the way Jericho was to be circled for six days before victory on the seventh (<em><a href='B:60 6:3-5'>Jos 6:3-5</a></em>), the child sneezed seven times before resurrection (<em><a href='B:120 4:35'>2Ki 4:35</a></em>) and the way Elijah was only answered at his seventh prayer (<em><a href='B:110 18:43'>1Ki 18:43</a></em>). The intention was that through the six times performing something which had no immediate answer, faith, hope and humility were elicited. <em><a href='B:30 14:8'>Lev 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em> speak of the healed leper washing<em> after</em> the cure, in order to be then also ritually clean. And there were various sprinkling / cleansing rituals which had to be performed seven times upon the leper (<em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:16'>Lev 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:27'>Lev 14:27</a></em>). So Naaman was potentially cured of his leprosy, but what was necessary was that he become ritually clean, and therefore he had to take the step of faith in washing. Had he not done that, the potential cure would have remained an unrealized potential. He was bidden grasp that he had been cured by Elisha; but now he had to wash in order to become spiritually clean and acceptable within Israelite, and not Syrian, society (see on <em><a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his body in water, then he shall be clean-</em></p><p>The cleansed leper was to become as a baby, and be washed in water. This looked ahead to baptism by full immersion into Christ as the new birth (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>On the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish, and three tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil-</em></p><p>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). So this looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest who cleanses him shall set these things and the man who is to be cleansed before Yahweh, at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take one of the male lambs, and offer him for a trespass offering, with the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God's, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God's and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>He shall kill the male lamb in the place where they kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the sanctuary; for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering. It is most holy-</em></p><p>Again we note that the cleansing of the leper was very much associated with cleansing from sin. This is not because it was sinful to get leprosy, or leprosy made a person sinful. Rather I suggested on :1 that we are not reading here of leprosy as we know it, but of being struck with Divine punishment for sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot-</em></p><p>The leper was to continually live under the impression of the fact he or she had been healed and cleansed, just as we should. The fact the blood of Christ was shed for us personally should affect how we hear (hence the blood was put on the ear), what we do with our hands (the right thumb) and where we go with our feet (the right big toe). The process was repeated with oil (:16), perhaps foreshadowing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the lives of those in Christ. The ritual here is similar to that at the inauguration of the priests. The idea was that having been cleansed from sin (see on :1), the repentant sinner was to devote themselves to the service of others in the spirit of priesthood, whether or not he or she was a Levite.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand- </em></p><p>A log of oil is about half a pint, a third of a litre. We note the personal association of the priest with the cleansed person. No vessel is used, only the palm and fingers of the priest. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The rituals similar to this usually involved the sprinkling of blood in this way. But here it is the sprinkling of oil. The idea is clearly that the Spirit of God is involved here. The stricken sinner was worthy of death; see on :1. But they had been saved by grace. And that experience as it were anointed them for further service in response to the grace shown. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall put some of the rest of the oil that is in his hand on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering- </em></p><p>The ritual here is similar to that at the inauguration of the priests. The idea was that having been cleansed from sin (see on :1), the repentant sinner was to devote themselves to the service of others in the spirit of priesthood, whether or not he or she was a Levite.</p>


text:
<p><em>The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh-</em></p><p>Were people really morally unclean before God because of bodily situations over which they had no control? Surely not. Anointing the head and body with oil by a Divine representative was effectively an anointing, which implied a call to service. Those stricken for their sin but who then repented... were called not simply to utter thanks to God for His grace, but to respond in some specific way. And this is the consistent pattern with all God's servants. Their service was a response to grace received. And of course the ultimate anointed one was the Lord Jesus. We are to seek to be Him in this world in response to the gracious salvation and cleansing we receive, washed in water (cp. baptism) and then granted the washing of regeneration by the Spirit which the oil represented.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall offer the sin offering, and make atonement for him who is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness: and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering-</em></p><p>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (represented by the grain offering of :20), although in this case the equivalent of the peace offering was fire coming from Heaven in response to the sin and burnt offering. Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering. So the person was being convicted of his sin, so that their dedication to Yahweh's service was no mere ritual, but a from the heart desire to serve Him from gratitude for the forgiveness of sin.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar. The priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean- </em></p><p>I suggested on :19 that this grain offering was a kind of peace offering. As discussed on :1, it was not that the disease of leprosy was removed by this act of cleansing. The person had been struck for sin and had now repented. So this was a specific statement of moral forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em>If he is poor, and can’t afford so much, then he shall take one male lamb for a trespass offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a grain offering, and a log of oil- </em></p><p>We get the impression that God was very strict about the offerings. He was. But He made concession to the man who couldn't bring what he ought to: "If he be poor, and cannot get much... two young pigeons, such as he is able to get" (<em><a href='B:30 14:22'>Lev 14:22</a></em>). If they were blemished in some way, and even though they were not the animal God desired, God would accept such as the man was able to get. However it could be argued that in this case, by all means the male lamb must be offered; or it can be read as if the two birds of :22 could replace that male lamb. Likewise the offerings had to involve the shedding of blood; but God was prepared to accept a food offering if a man really couldn't get an animal. The eagerness of God to accept what a man can do rather than the insistence on legal principles really comes over. He recognized the Israelites would be living on different levels. Such an eagerness involved accepting a lower standard of adherence to God's ideal principles. In harmony with this, the Passover ‘lamb’ could be either a sheep, or if necessary, a goat (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>), even though the use of a goat would somewhat spoil the foreshadowing of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>and two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to afford; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering- </em></p><p>Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year; whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the eighth day he shall bring them for his cleansing to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The following verses appear a repetition of what we have just read. There is huge emphasis upon this material. Because the grace of saving a condemned sinner was indeed remarkable. Therefore the commandments about what was to happen on the eighth day are repeated- this was indeed to be what happened.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take the lamb of the trespass offering, and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God's, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God's and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>He shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering. The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering and put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot- </em></p><p>The stricken person was to continually live under the impression of the fact he or she had been healed and cleansed, just as we should. The fact the blood of Christ was shed for us personally should affect how we hear (hence the blood was put on the ear), what we do with our hands (the right thumb) and where we go with our feet (the right big toe). The process was repeated with oil (:16), perhaps foreshadowing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the lives of those in Christ. The ritual here is similar to that at the inauguration of the priests. The idea was that having been cleansed from sin (see on :1), the repentant sinner was to devote themselves to the service of others in the spirit of priesthood, whether or not he or she was a Levite.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand- </em></p><p>A log of oil is about half a pint, a third of a litre. We note the personal association of the priest with the cleansed person. No vessel is used, only the palm and fingers of the priest. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The rituals similar to this usually involved the sprinkling of blood in this way. But here it is the sprinkling of oil. The idea is clearly that the Spirit of God is involved here. The stricken sinner was worthy of death; see on :1. But they had been saved by grace. And that experience as it were anointed them for further service in response to the grace shown. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the priest shall put some of the oil that is in his hand on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the place of the blood of the trespass offering- </em></p><p>The placing of the oil upon the blood was required along with the washing in water. The same three entities are found in the enigmatic <em><a href='B:690 5:8'>1Jn 5:8</a></em>. These three are the witness made in earth to the saving work of God's Son. The connection is at best oblique, but the idea may be that we are all in the position of the condemned, stricken person who has been saved by grace through these things, all of them associated with the work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed, to make atonement for him before Yahweh- </em></p><p>Were people really morally unclean before God because of bodily situations over which they had no control? Surely not. Anointing the head and body with oil by a Divine representative was effectively an anointing, which implied a call to service. Those stricken for their sin but who then repented... were called not simply to utter thanks to God for His grace, but to respond in some specific way. And this is the consistent pattern with all God's servants. Their service was a response to grace received. And of course the ultimate anointed one was the Lord Jesus. We are to seek to be Him in this world in response to the gracious salvation and cleansing we receive, washed in water (cp. baptism) and then granted the washing of regeneration by the Spirit which the oil represented.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as he can lay his hand on-</em></p><p>Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year; whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.</p>


text:
<p><em>even such as he is able to afford, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, with the grain offering. The priest shall make atonement for him who is to be cleansed before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The Mosaic Law countered the idea that only the rich can be generous. They all had to tithe. And it’s possible to argue that they had to give around 27%, not just 10% (10% to the Levites, 10% of the rest to support the feasts; and 10% of the rest for the poor). The purification after childbirth and the cleansing of the leper allowed a lower grade of offering to be made by the very poor- to underline that <em>no one</em> is exempted from giving to the Lord, no matter how poor they are. Consider the emphasis: "Every man shall give <em>as he is able</em>... he shall offer <em>even such as he is able to get</em>... then the disciples (consciously motivated by these principles?) <em>every man according to his ability</em>, determined to send relief... let <em>every one of you</em> lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:30-31'>Lev 14:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:29'>Act 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:2'>1Co 16:2</a></em>). God reckons a man’s generosity according to what he has; if there is the desire to give, a generous spirit, then this is seen as generosity. This is exemplified by the Lord’s high estimation of the widow’s giving. The amount was not as important as the spirit behind it. “The Lord blesseth a cheerful giver, and will supply the deficiency of his works” (<em><a href='B:240 22:8'>Pro 22:8</a></em> LXX; although not in the Hebrew text, this passage is quoted in the NT as inspired).</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law for him in whom is the plague of leprosy, who is not able to afford the sacrifice for his cleansing-</em></p><p>Lepers&nbsp; / stricken sinners (see on :1) had to live outside the camp of Israel and couldn’t work, so they would’ve typically been very poor. But the concept of sacrifice was important; they weren’t to assume ‘I’m a leper, of course I have nothing, I don’t have to sacrifice anything’. They had to lay their hand on at least some kind of animal- and the Hebrew could possibly carry the sense of ‘<em>whatever</em> he can lay his hand on’ (:30). It was important that they gave at least something in recognition of their need for cleansing, and their receipt of it by God’s grace. We shouldn’t consider our poverty, in whatever area, to mean that we don’t have to sacrifice anything to God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p>I suggest that the following legislation about "leprosy" in a house is further evidence that we are not reading here about leprosy as we know it, i.e. Hansen's disease, but rather the specific striking of a person because of their sin (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p><em>When you have come into the land of Canaan which I give to you for a possession, and I put a spreading leprosy in a house in the land of your possession- </em></p><p>Constantly Israel were reminded that God would indeed give them the promised Kingdom, even though at that time as they wandered in the wilderness it must’ve seemed merely a nice idea. He encourages us likewise.</p><p>I argued on <em><a href='B:30 13:45'>Lev 13:45</a></em> that the final exclusion "outside the camp" was permanent. It looked forward to the final condemnation of the wicked at the last day. But in <em><a href='B:40 12:14-15'>Num 12:14-15</a></em> we have an example of Miriam being made a leper and being shut out of the camp for seven days. "Shut out" there is s.w. "isolate" in <em><a href='B:30 13:50'>Lev 13:50</a></em>. But she repented, and was allowed back in. So I deduce that the implication is that the shut out person could still repent after seven days. The priest could not have contact with the excluded person. But their clothing and housing could be examined, and if the plague within it had not spread, then the person had repented and could be received back in. Leprosy as we know it is not cured in seven days; as explained on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em>, 'leprosy' here means literally a striking from the Lord, and not the leprosy we know today as Hansen's disease.</p>


text:
<p><em>then he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, ‘There seems to me to be some sort of plague in the house’-</em></p><p>It would’ve been tempting for the owner to just cover up the signs of disease within his house, rather than ask the priest to inspect it. We are to be open before God, freely confessing our sins and possible sins or liabilities to sin, in open dialogue before Him in prayer. When David invites God to search his heart and see if there be any wicked way in him (<em><a href='B:230 139:23'>Psa 139:23</a></em>), he was alluding to the language of the house owner inviting the priest to inspect his house for leprosy.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes in to examine the plague, that all that is in the house not be made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to inspect the house- </em></p><p>If a literal contagious disease like leprosy were in view, then everything in the house would surely be unclean anyway. But here the reasoning is different; whatever was in the house would not be unclean even if the house were declared unclean- if it was removed before the priest entered it. Clearly "the plague" spoke of a specific judgment for sin upon someone. And as explained on :34, this was a condition brought upon the housing and clothing of the stricken person whilst the priest couldn't have contact with them. It was to reveal whether or not they were truly repentant, and Divine judgment had now run its course.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall examine the plague; and behold, if the plague is in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and it appears to be deeper than the wall-</em></p><p>Just as leprosy / the Divine striking was defined by being deeper than the flesh, so the stroke upon housing was defined by being deeper than the surface. A person can appear to have the stroke of Divine judgment / leprosy when in fact it’s only a surface level appearance of it; but only the priest, representing Jesus, can declare this. We must of course be careful not to excuse our failings as merely surface level sin; but when it comes to judging others, we must accept that someone can appear sinful to us but it’s only a surface appearance; we must not ultimately judge whether a person will be saved or not, quite simply because we cannot do so. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can do so.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days- </em></p><p>The spreading of plague in the sense of Divine judgment (see on :1) is found in <em><a href='B:40 16:46-48'>Num 16:46-48</a></em>, and it was repentance and the intercession of Aaron which stopped it spreading further. We are therefore to understand this spreading of the plague in the person as a sign that they were continuing under Divine judgment.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall come again on the seventh day, and look. If the plague has spread in the walls of the house-</em></p><p>This looks forward to Christ as the ultimate priest coming again on the final (seventh) day and inspecting the degree to which sin has spread within us, or remained merely on the level of appearance. <em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em> alludes here, by calling the day of Christ’s return “the day of inspection” (Gk.).</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall command that they take out the stones in which is the plague, and cast them into an unclean place outside of the city-</em></p><p>This looks ahead to the casting of the rejected into Gehenna, the place of condemnation outside the city of Jerusalem. As explained on :34, the state of the person's clothing and property reflected whether Divine judgment was still ongoing, in reflection of whether or not the person had truly repented. The fate of their property or living place was therefore reflective of their own fate.</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall cause the inside of the house to be scraped all over, and they shall pour out the mortar that they scraped off outside of the city into an unclean place-</em></p><p>The removing and scraping of diseased stones is a figure alluded to later in the Bible. The stones of Tyre were to be removed and scraped (<em><a href='B:330 26:4'>Eze 26:4</a></em>)- for it was a sinful city. Jesus makes the same allusion when He said that the stones of the temple were to be removed one by one, because the Jews refused to accept the day of Christ’s inspection (<em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em> Gk.). When He entered the temple, looked around it and then walked out, He was acting as a priest inspecting a leprous house (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>). But the Jews refused to accept Him as priest and insisted that their hypocrisy was in fact holiness. The new stones which were to be brought in (:42) refer to the Christian believers, who were to be built up into a new temple (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). It was a radical thing indeed for Jesus to liken the temple, the very symbol of human piety and the very quintessence of the Jewish religion, to a leprous house which needed to be pulled down. Established religion today likely has the same judgment from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other mortar, and shall plaster the house-</em></p><p>I explained on :41 that on a national level, these things looked ahead to the judgment and destruction of God's own temple, which He struck with judgment. The other stones brought in to replace them were therefore symbols of the Gentiles, who are built up as lively /healthy stones in the new sanctuary (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If the plague comes again, and breaks out in the house, after he has taken out the stones, and after he has scraped the house, and after it was plastered- </em></p><p>As discussed on :41,42, the striking of God's house and replacing the stones with the Gentiles was still not guaranteed to bring about complete freedom from condemnation. For many of the Gentiles brought in were to likewise turn away and fall under Divine judgment. "Scraped" is s.w. "cut off", and it was sinners who brought shame upon their own house to cut it off (s.w. <em><a href='B:420 2:10'>Hab 2:10</a></em>). But Yahweh was to scrape or cut off the house of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a></em>). We could see this plastering, scraping and removal of offending individuals as God's attempt to reform Israel- and it failed. For the language of plastering a house is used of how God tried to do this with His people, but it didn't work (<em><a href='B:330 13:10-15'>Eze 13:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:28'>Eze 22:28</a></em> s.w.).</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall come in and look; and behold, if the plague has spread in the house, it is a destructive mildew in the house. It is unclean- </em></p><p>"Mildew" is the word usually translated "leprosy" in this section, and as suggested on :1,34, it refers not to "leprosy" as we know it but to a specific Divine judgment for sin upon individuals. This legislation highlights the issue of whether the condition has spread. This was a sign that the Divine judgment was still ongoing. And in spiritual terms, the question is whether or not sin is spreading in us. We are either on the upward spiral of the Holy Spirit, or the downward spiral of the flesh. We cannot be on both at the same time.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house. He shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place-</em></p><p>The language of breaking down the house of Israel is very often used in the prophets (s.w.) concerning what God did to Israel. It is also often used of the breaking down of idol shrines. Again we get the impression that the house was being destroyed not for practical reasons of stopping contamination, but rather in judgment for sin, especially idolatry. <em><a href='B:330 13:10-15'>Eze 13:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:28'>Eze 22:28</a></em> condemn Israel for shoddy building without proper mortar. And so it would fall down itself, and God's judgment was in confirmation of that. </p>


text:
<p><em>Moreover he who goes into the house while it is shut up shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>There was no excuse for doing so because everything in the house was to be removed before the inspection (:36). We wonder if the Lord had this in mind when urging His people in Jerusalem not to return back into their homes in the day of His coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:15'>Mar 13:15</a></em>). The day of judgment of the leprous house had begun, and there was to be no return into it.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who lies down in the house shall wash his clothes; and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes-</em></p><p>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to lie down in the unclean house required a washing of clothes, whereas just going into it merited a lesser requirement for cleansing. Clearly knowledge is associated with responsibility.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the priest shall come in, and examine it, and behold, the plague hasn’t spread in the house, after the house was plastered, then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed-</em></p><p>If leprosy or a contagious disease were in view, then there would surely have been some legislation surely about the priest cleansing himself after entering a contaminated building. But there is none. Because this was not a contagious disease, but as explained on :1, a stroke of Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>To cleanse the house he shall take two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop- </em></p><p>We note the association of hyssop with the Lord's death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:29'>Joh 19:29</a></em>), before which He had been clothed in scarlet. That hyssop had been dipped in red wine, representing blood, and the Lord surely saw the relevance to Himself. "I am that hyssop", He would have thought. On the cross, He was the door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), and He experienced hyssop with red wine (representing blood) brushed against Him. Just as the doors at Passover had blood brushed onto them using a hyssop plant, and this was the basis of Israel's salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water- </em></p><p>The Lord taught that He was the rock, and we like Israel drink of what came out of Him. The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called " the running water" (<em><a href='B:30 14:5-6'>Lev 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:50-52'>Lev 14:50-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:17'>Num 19:17</a></em>). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> cp. 21:19; <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: " ...they talk to the hurt of him (Christ) whom thou hast smitten" (<em><a href='B:230 69:26'>Psa 69:26</a></em>); "we esteemed him (as He hung on the cross) smitten of God" (<em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>). The living waters were representative of the Holy Spirit which is given to us- not the miraculous gifts, but the power of God within the human spirit, to bring us to have His Spirit and mind which was in Christ. It is this which now is the cleansing agent, making our sacrifices acceptable, cleansing our motives in a way in which we cannot do, at least not by any conscious intellectual process.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times- </em></p><p>Wood, hyssop and scarlet clothing all featured in the final suffering and crucifixion of Christ. This is the basis for our cleansing from the leprosy of sin and condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, with the living bird, with the cedar wood, with the hyssop, and with the scarlet-</em></p><p>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement- looking ahead to the work of the Lord Jesus. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p><em>but he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field. So shall he make atonement for the house; and it shall be clean-</em></p><p>The running or springing water would have initially referred to the water from the rock which followed them at this time. The two birds, like the two goats on the day of atonement, could have spoken of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The similarity with the day of atonement suggests that atonement is in view here; because as suggested on :1, we are dealing here not simply with leprosy infection, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment in response to sin, which required repentance and atonement.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law for any plague of leprosy, and for an itch-</em></p><p>The idea is that this is the way to distinguish between the stroke of God in Divine judgment (see on :1), and the appearance of it which was just an ordinary case of scurf ("itch"). The law was simply that the priest alone could discern the difference between that which appeared to be Divine judgment, and what was indeed Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>and for the destructive leprosy of a garment, and for a house-</em></p><p>I suggested on :1,34 that the garment and house of a stricken person was also given a form of Divine judgment in order to demonstrate to the priest whether or not the condemned sinner had repented, during the period they were isolated from the community after having been stricken.</p>


text:
<p><em>and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot-</em></p><p>The idea is that this is the way to distinguish between the stroke of God in Divine judgment (see on :1), and the appearance of it which was just an ordinary case of a scab or spot on the skin. The law was simply that the priest alone could discern the difference between that which appeared to be Divine judgment, and what was indeed Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<em>to teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean. This is the law of leprosy-</em></p><p><p>We note "when" and not "what" is clean or unclean. As explained on :1, the purpose of these regulations was not for the sake of hygiene; rather they were designed to reflect when and whether the person stricken with judgment had repented.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p>These laws could be read as meaning that a person was made unclean by involuntary bodily discharges of a sexual nature. Or they can be read as referring to specific discharges related to sexually transmitted diseases; see on :3 LXX. The meaning would then be that they were made morally unclean by their sinful actions, and these were the consequences of those actions. Cleansing from them was therefore effectively representative of their cleansing from sin. </p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When any man has a discharge from his body, because of his discharge he is unclean- </em></p><p>These laws taught that in essence, it is what comes from within a person which makes them unclean, rather than what enters us from outside (<em><a href='B:480 7:15-23'>Mar 7:15-23</a></em>). The idea that demons, evil spirits or Satan can enter us and make us unclean must be rejected; Jesus emphasizes that sin comes from <em>within</em>, therefore it is totally our fault, and we must take responsibility rather than blaming it on cosmic forces outside of us. See on :1.</p>


text:
<p><em>This shall be his uncleanness in his discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or if his body has stopped excreting his discharge, it is his uncleanness-</em></p><p>LXX "whoever has a gonorrhea out of his body, this is his uncleanness in him by reason of the issue, by which, his body is affected through the issue". As discussed on :1, the idea of this section may not be that people are unclean because of issues which are nothing to do with morality; but rather that these regulations cover the result of sexually transmitted diseases and therefore cleansing from those consequences was effectively parallel with forgiveness for the sins related to them. The fertility cults of Canaan involved the usage of temple prostitutes by the worshippers, and therefore sexually transmitted diseases were rife in Canaan. An Israelite who had one of them would have been suffering the result of such apostasy, either by themselves or by family members. This would explain why the stricken person in view in this section is a male- who had slept with the temple / cult prostitutes.</p><p>Even if we are no longer sinning, we must remember that we still stand guilty for past sins unless we have received cleansing for them. The passage of time and the fading of human memory works only a pseudo-atonement for sin; it is the blood of Christ and our conscious identity with it which alone can eternally cleanse our conscience from sins both past and present.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every bed whereon he who has the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything he sits on shall be unclean-</em></p><p>We must note that this legislation follows on from that about 'leprosy' in Leviticus 13, 14. I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that leprosy in the form we know it was not in view, but rather a specific stroke of Divine judgment from God. And the commands we now read about men with discharges of a sexual nature, and their cleansing, may well refer to a similar being stricken with a judgment appropriate to sexual sin. This is why the bed of the stricken person is so emphasized. Effectively, the person was to be sexually isolated.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>The implication was that his wife would have to abstain from sexual relationships with him and he was to be effectively isolated from his family. The stress upon the stricken person's bed is reflected in the Psalms, where David speaks of being stricken and lying on his bed, isolated from family and society because of his running, oozing issue which oozed in the night (<em><a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:2'>Psa 77:2</a></em>). It seems he was stricken with a Divine stroke that led to him secreting unclean fluids from his reproductive organ, which is the situation in view here (<em><a href='B:230 6:6'>Psa 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 41:3'>Psa 41:3</a></em>). Job likewise complained of how he is isolated upon an unclean bed / couch (<em><a href='B:220 7:13'>Job 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 33:19'>Job 33:19</a></em> "he is chastened with pain upon his bed"), as if he too was experiencing a stroke from God which corresponds to the situation envisaged here in Leviticus 15.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who sits on anything whereon the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>The Hebrew for 'sitting' here is elsewhere used specifically in the context of urination or defecation, so the idea would be that the man was not to use a toilet shared by others.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who touches the body of him who has the discharge shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>This seems the equivalent of the leper of Leviticus 13, 14 being isolated from society. And I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that what was in view there was not the disease of leprosy, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment. And I suggest the person with a discharge was likewise. In practice, with such extreme laws about contact with him or whatever he touched, he would be isolated from his family and society. We note that the stricken person in view is presented as male. There is no equivalent legislation about females. This would make sense if as suggested on :3, the person in view is one who had slept with the temple / cult prostitutes. The fertility cults of Canaan involved the usage of temple prostitutes by the worshippers, and therefore sexually transmitted diseases were rife in Canaan. An Israelite who had one of them would have been suffering the result of such apostasy, either by themselves or by family members.</p>


text:
<p><em>If he who has the discharge spits on him who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>This law was therefore aimed at ensuring that people kept away from this stricken person. In primitive society, every day's labour was valuable, and nobody wanted to run the risk of being made unclean for a whole day.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever saddle he who has the discharge rides on shall be unclean- </em></p><p>If an involuntary discharge of semen at night is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most sexually transmitted diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as an infected person. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a man had an involuntary emission of semen at night, then who would know about it, unless he told them? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. He who carries those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to purposefully carry something unclean required a washing of clothes, whereas just touching them merited a lesser requirement for cleansing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever he who has the discharge touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>Those suffering with the "discharge" are parallel with 'lepers' in <em><a href='B:40 5:2'>Num 5:2</a></em> as needing to be put out of the camp. The dramatic laws about how they made everyone else unclean effectively required they be put outside the camp. I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that "lepers" doesn't refer to those with Hansen's disease, but to those struck down by Divine judgment. Those with a "discharge", literally a 'flowing', were in the same category. In neither case is involuntary disease or human bodily situation a reason for moral uncleanness. Just as human nature of itself doesn't separate between God and man; for all we posit about human nature, we say about the undefiled Lord Jesus who fully had that same human nature.</p>


text:
<p><em>The earthen vessel, which he who has the discharge touches, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water- </em></p><p>As discussed on :11, the intention of these extreme laws were to effectively require that the person with such a discharge be put outside the camp. Otherwise they would render daily life impossible to live if they remained within it.</p>


text:
<p><em>When he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes; and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean-</em></p><p>In the dry wilderness, this would have been from the river of spring water which followed them from the smitten rock, which represented Christ who was smitten so that we might have the means of being cleansed (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>). The enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em> alludes here: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly ("innermost being", NIV) shall flow rivers of living (Gk. spring) water". What "scripture" did the Lord have in mind? Perhaps the references to spring water being used to cleanse men from uncleanness and death (<em><a href='B:30 14:5'>Lev 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:16'>Num 19:16</a></em>). Out of the innermost being of the true believer, the spring(ing) water of the Gospel will <em>naturally</em> spring up and go out to heal men, both now and more fully in the Kingdom, aided then by the Spirit gifts.</p>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:30 14:8'>Lev 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em> speak of the person healed of 'leprosy' (the Divine stroke) and a "discharge" washing<em> after</em> the cure, in order to be then also ritually clean. As discussed on :11, those with a discharge and the 'leper' were treated the same way; for as with the leper / stricken person, the man with a "discharge" was under Divine judgment, and had not simply experienced an involuntary emission.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before Yahweh to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and give them to the priest-</em></p><p>Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year (<em><a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:7'>Jer 8:7</a></em>); whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God's law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God's truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh for his discharge- </em></p><p>It is no sin to be human, nor to go through the bodily functions which go along with being human. The atonement was required because the person had sinned and had been struck with Divine judgment. That ended when the person repented, hence the language of atonement.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>Like many of the commandments, there was a large element of personal choice in whether to obey this or not; intimate matters such as personal discharges were unknown to others. Under the new covenant, this is even more the case; attitudes of mind which make us unclean before God are known only to ourselves. The Law of Moses was the only legal code which had so many clauses which concerned matters which could never be publically demonstrated. God’s intention even under the old covenant was to teach and inculcate personal relationship between God and His people. He did this by giving commandments whose keeping only He and the individual knew about.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every garment, and every skin, whereon the semen is, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>I suggest that the emission of semen in view is not a result of sex within marriage. For Paul appears to warn against any such extremist interpretation by teaching that the marital bed is "undefiled", unlike that of whores and adulterers (<em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>). There is nothing in that sense dirty about the sexual act. What is in view is the immorality which has given rise to the Divine stroke which now requires repentance and atonement.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>I suggested on :17 that this doesn't refer to sex within marriage. For the marital bed is "undefiled" (<em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>). It could refer to sex outside marriage. The whole theme of this section which began in <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> is of Divine judgment for wrong behaviour, rather than normal bodily functions making a person unclean before God. If however it does refer to marital sex, then we reflect that the whole family would have known that ‘mum and dad’ or just mum was unclean. Personal matters like sex and menstruation thereby became part of normal family awareness, rather than being hived off in quasi-secrecy and invested with an aura of mystery as they are in many modern cultures.</p><p>The Lord taught that He was the rock, and we like Israel drink of what came out of Him. The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called " the running water" (<em><a href='B:30 14:5-6'>Lev 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:50-52'>Lev 14:50-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:17'>Num 19:17</a></em>). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> cp. 21:19; <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: " ...they talk to the hurt of him (Christ) whom thou hast smitten" (<em><a href='B:230 69:26'>Psa 69:26</a></em>); "we esteemed him (as He hung on the cross) smitten of God" (<em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>). The living waters were representative of the Holy Spirit which is given to us- not the miraculous gifts, but the power of God within the human spirit, to bring us to have His Spirit and mind which was in Christ. It is this which now is the cleansing agent, making our sacrifices acceptable, cleansing our motives in a way in which we cannot do, at least not by any conscious intellectual process.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>This is worded very strangely if in fact a normal period is in view. I have suggested earlier in this chapter that the "discharge" refers to a specific stroke of Divine judgment. It could involve a hemorrhage of blood. The language and grammar seems to imply that the "discharge" occurred at one time, and then after that point she was impure seven days. But period bleeding is not a one time event, lasting typically from three to eight days. If monthly periods are in view here, then the woman would be impure for up to 15 days / month. And whoever touched her would be unclean. This would have made family life just about impossible. So I don't think that monthly periods are in view, but rather a specific Divine judgment. "Be in her impurity" is s.w. "removed", "set apart", "put apart". It is the equivalent of being put outside the camp, which was the judgment for the leper and the man smitten with a "discharge" as Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:40 5:2'>Num 5:2</a></em>). It is also found translated "filthy" in <em><a href='B:150 9:11'>Ezr 9:11</a></em> "the filthiness of the people of the lands". But it is not an act of moral filth to have a period. What is in view is not period bleeding, but a specific Divine judgment for sin, the female equivalent of the judgment upon sinful males described in the first half of this chapter.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Everything that she lies on in her impurity shall be unclean. Everything also that she sits on shall be unclean- </em></p><p>The severity of the laws about not coming into contact with such a woman were designed to make it impossible to have her in society or the home. She therefore effectively had to be put out of the camp (see on :19).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>Beds were typically shared in family homes, so this was designed to make the woman leave her home. This would be appropriate for someone stricken with Divine judgment for serious sin, but not for a woman having a period.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever touches anything that she sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>This is the female equivalent of the male judgment of a "discharge". If involuntary period bleeding is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as a woman who is menstruating. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a woman was menstruating, then who would know about it, unless she told others? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>If it is on the bed, or on anything whereon she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>This was certainly not for hygienic reasons, for we would all be hopelessly infected if infection really spread by touching whatever a menstruating woman has touched. Again, the woman in view is clearly a sinner under the stroke of Divine judgment, and not simply a menstruating woman.</p>


text:
<p><em>If any man lies with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lies shall be unclean- </em></p><p>The "monthly flow" is apparently different to the "discharge". The discharge was, I suggest, a specific Divine judgment for sin. <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> says that if a man sleeps with a menstruating woman then they must both die. But <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> says that in this case the man must be unclean seven days. I suggest that the language of uncovering nakedness in <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> is talking about some form of illicit or perverted relationship. Menstrual blood was a times drunk or used in various cultic rituals.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days not in the time of her period, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her period; all the days of the discharge of her uncleanness shall be as in the days of her period: she is unclean- </em></p><p>The "discharge" and "her period" are grammatically separate. But perhaps her period is not in view here. LXX "And if a woman have an issue of blood many days, not in the time of her separation; if the blood should also flow after her separation, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean". As the 'leper' / stricken person was shut up for periods of seven days, which could be extended if they were impenitent, so here too, the woman was given a "time" during which her judgment lasted; but it could be extended, if she were impenitent.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every bed whereon she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her period: and everything whereon she sits shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her period- </em></p><p>Her laying on a bed "all the days" could imply that she lay on her bed day and night. Which was impossible for an average Hebrew woman going about daily life, with so many responsibilities upon her in domestic life. But it makes more sense if we consider this to be talking about a specific period of Divine judgment which forced her to be confined to her bed, as happened to men like David. Again, "her period" may not be in view. LXX "And every bed on which she shall lie all the days of her flux shall be to her as the bed of her separation, and every seat whereon she shall sit shall be unclean according to the uncleanness of her separation"; GNB gives simply "Any bed on which she lies and anything on which she sits during this time is unclean".</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to lie down in the unclean house required a washing of clothes, whereas just going into it merited a lesser requirement for cleansing. Clearly knowledge is associated with responsibility.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean-</em></p><p>This two stage cleansing process is common in the Mosaic rituals. She was clean, but in another sense not fully cleansed until the end of the seven days. We likewise are now cleansed in Christ, but in a full sense we will only be fully cleansed when He returns and our bodies are made like His, and the flesh no longer is a part of our condition of being.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>As discussed on :14, this was the female equivalent to the male rituals required for a man stricken down with Divine judgment. This is what is in view, and not menstruation. It can hardly be that every menstruating woman in all Israel was to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting every month. Clearly what is in view is a woman under specific Divine judgment for sin who has now repented, rather than every menstruating woman.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before Yahweh for the uncleanness of her discharge- </em></p><p>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (although that isn't specifically required here). Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering. So the woman was being convicted of sin, so that their dedication to Yahweh's service was no mere ritual, but a from the heart desire to serve Him from gratitude for the forgiveness of sin.&nbsp;Clearly a judgment for sin is in view; and not menstruation, which isn't sinful of itself.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, so they will not die in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is in their midst’-</em></p><p>It could be argued from this that these commandments may have had specific relevance to the Levites, who were the only ones who could enter the holy places- GNB "so that they would not defile the Tent of his presence, which was in the middle of the camp. If they did, they would be killed". This is language more relevant to Levites- for whom this book of Leviticus was specifically relevant.</p><p>The legislation here is very severe- it seems inappropriate for touching something which a menstruating woman had touched, seeing menstruation is not a moral sin. So again I suggest that what is in view is a woman or man struck by God with a 'flowing' of intimate body fluids from their private parts, and not involuntary emissions of semen or blood. The "uncleanness" of Israel refers elsewhere to their actual sins which required repentance and atonement (<em><a href='B:30 16:16'>Lev 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:19'>Lev 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:17'>Eze 36:17</a></em>). It was this which had led to the woman being struck with a Divinely sent plague, and involuntary menstruation is not in view.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean thereby-</em></p><p>"Thereby" is a translators' guess. The idea is simply "who is unclean", with the Hebrew for "unclean" having the sense of moral sin, s.w. foul, polluted, defiled- always in the sense of having actually committed sin. It was this sin which led to the discharge or flow of personal body fluids from intimate private parts, and was a judgment from God- rather than an involuntary part of being human. The idea is not that these things rendered an innocent person "thereby" offensive to God and worthy of being separated from. It is no sin to be human.</p>


text:
<p><em>and of her who has her period, and of a man or woman who has a discharge, and of him who lies with her who is unclean- </em></p><p>The Hebrew word for "period" isn't used here. AV quaintly gives "sick of her flowers", but the phrase is literally "sick from her rejection / filthiness / uncleanness". She had been stricken because of her sin, her moral filthiness. This seems a separate punishment to the "discharge". Israel in their sinfulness and separation from God are likened to a woman in this contaminated state (<em><a href='B:330 36:17'>Eze 36:17</a></em>). But Israel, like this woman, were separated from God because of their actual sins, and not by reason of simply being human.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before Yahweh and died-</em></p><p>The High Priest had to cleanse himself meticulously before entering the Most Holy. Access was now limited to the Most Holy as a result of inadequate preparation by some in the past. The Lord’s death reversed all this, it opened up the veil, for us to pass through with the utmost effort made by us in personal sanctification, in order to further God’s glory in the salvation of others. We cannot simply refuse to enter, turn away from the torn veil. To do so is to turn away from what the cross has achieved, and to place ourselves outside its scope. We must go forward, go onwards into the presence of God to replicate in essence the Saviour’s work, with the awed and humble spirit of the High Priest entering the Holiest on the day of atonement. He would surely have carefully analyzed his motives, as to <em>why</em> he was passing through that veil, and whether he was sufficiently personally sanctified for the work he was doing. He would have been comforted by knowing that his motives were solely for the glorification of his God in the redemption for his people which he was seeking to obtain.</p>


text:
<p><em>and Yahweh said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the Most Holy Place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, in case he die; for I will appear in the cloud on the mercy seat- </em></p><p>This is one of a number of examples where the Law God gave Moses was changed by Him in consideration of human weakness. This shows that God’s law isn’t set in stone; those who argue that we must keep the Sabbath today must face the fact that God <em>can</em> change and abrogate His own laws. The wonderful thing in this case is that God meditated upon the sin of Aaron’s sons, and didn’t wish to put Aaron in the way of temptation which might be too much for him; because God never allows us to be tempted beyond our capabilities (<em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>). The way God here recognizes the extent of His own holiness and as it were seeks to protect humanity from being harmed by it is similar to how He warned Israel not to come too near to the burning mountain (<em><a href='B:20 19:21'>Exo 19:21</a></em>), and how He urged Moses not to come too near to the burning bush (<em><a href='B:20 3:5'>Exo 3:5</a></em>). This isn’t God distancing Himself from us, but His seeking to establish understanding of His holiness whereby we can ultimately draw near to Him in Christ (<em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>). When we struggle with God’s distance from us we must bear this in mind.</p><p>In the face of sin amongst His people, there are levels of God's withdrawal of His presence. The way the glory progressively departed from the temple as recounted in Ezekiel is a graphic illustration of this. Under the Law, Aaron initially could come at will within the Most Holy. But after the blasphemy of his sons, apparently for being drunk on duty, he was only allowed to come once per year, and only after an elaborate ritual emphasizing human sinfulness (<em><a href='B:30 16:2'>Lev 16:2</a></em> ff.). Likewise it seems that God's original intention was that the Angel of the presence should travel in the midst of Israel in the wilderness. But after the golden calf apostasy, God announced that He was still with Israel, but His Angel would "go before thee... for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiff-necked people: lest I consume thee in the way" (<em><a href='B:20 33:2-3'>Exo 33:2-3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Herewith shall Aaron come into the sanctuary: with a young bull for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering- </em></p><p>We note the contrast with Moses, who lived in a tent outside the tabernacle with the cloud of glory ever nearby, and the radiance from the Angel within it shining off his face. Aaron was being warned not to assume that intimacy with God experienced by Moses was the right of every man or priest. Relationship with God must be built up. It is not for us to assume that the close relationship with God enjoyed by another can be ours without personal effort at building that relationship.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches on his body, and shall put on the linen sash, and he shall be clothed with the linen turban. They are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and put them on- </em></p><p>The ideas of washing in water and being clothed in white linen are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christian baptism, and the imputation of righteousness, as clean as the white linen clothes of the priests (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). This means that the work of even the high priest himself is to be aspired to by every Christian. The veil was rent at the Lord's death so that the way into the holiest was open to every believer. They were to follow the High Priest into the holiest- but what did he do there? He obtained forgiveness for others. And it is our mission likewise to do this, through bringing others to the saving experience of the Lord's work. This was a high, challenging call for Jews in the first century, who assumed the priesthood did all their religious work for them, and they were effectively just spectators at a show.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering- </em></p><p>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (although that isn't specifically required here- the experience of forgiveness was the equivalent). Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house- </em></p><p>This has been wrongly interpreted to mean that the Lord Jesus likewise offered for Himself, as if He were alienated from God by His nature. Whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus who fully had our nature. And He was undefiled and perfect before God. He showed us what is possible within human nature. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take the two goats, and set them before Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p>This looks ahead to the death of the Lord Jesus "before Yahweh"; His special presence was at Golgotha.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for the scapegoat- </em></p><p>The two goats represent the death and resurrection of Christ. The scapegoat bounding away in relieved, joyful freedom symbolizes the genuine freedom and joy of forgiven sin which we can experience in Christ. It’s clear that human beings are eager for a scapegoat, we seem wired with a psychological need for one, someone upon whom we can place our sins and thereby feel free from them personally. The scapegoat has been provided for us in Christ, and therefore we shouldn’t seek to scapegoat others.</p><p>The Hebrew for "scapegoat" is <em>azazel</em>, and there has been much misunderstanding of the term. It simply means the removed or separated one, and although the word doesn't occur elsewhere, the idea connects with what we have been reading in the last three chapters of Leviticus, where condemned sinners were to separated or removed from the community. The Lord Jesus was associated with the condemned, and died for them; and yet He is also represented by the goat which ran free into the wilderness in resurrection life.</p><p>The Jewish apocryphal Book of Enoch was instrumental in forging the Jewish misunderstanding of Satan as a personal being. This book shifts the blame for sin from humanity to a Satan-figure called Azazel, whose name is taken from the scapegoat: "The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin" (1 Enoch 9:6; 10:8). There is a subtle but significant difference between this and the Biblical record in <em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em> - which states that the earth became corrupt before God because of <em>human sin. </em>The Biblical record makes no attempt to pass the blame for this onto any other being- humanity was punished because <em>they</em> sinned. It would in any case be surely unethical for God to punish humanity because of what 'Azazel' supposedly did.</p><p>But the two goats were in a sense one "for Yahweh" and the other "for Azazel". It could be that there is indeed an allusion to wrong understandings about an 'Azazel' being who supposedly lurked out in the uninhabited desert, the supposed haunt of demons and evil. The allusion was in order to deconstruct this wrong idea. The real issue was not Azazel; it was human sin which needed atonement for. The real 'Azazel' was not a Satan like being out in the desert. It was human sin, which had now been dealt with. Just as 'Satan' is not a real cosmic being, but is defined in the New Testament as human sin, which has been dealt with and its power negated by the Lord's death on the cross. It was to that death which the day of Atonement pointed ahead to. Hence even the <em>azazel</em> goat was offered before Yahweh (:10) before its release- and not offered to any Satan like being.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for Yahweh, and offer him for a sin offering- </em></p><p>This is the language used in <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em> about the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, upon whom God laid the iniquity of us all. The Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra refers to a tradition that at the age of 33, a man would understand the meaning of this. It can be no coincidence that the Lord Jesus was sacrificed at age 33. The thoughtful Jews would have perceived that He was indeed the sin offering.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the goat on which the lot fell for the scapegoat shall be presented alive before Yahweh to make atonement for him, and then sent away as the scapegoat into the wilderness-</em></p><p>Presented alive (Heb. 'stood up') before Yahweh clearly looks ahead to the Lord's resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em>). The description of the believer as a “living sacrifice” (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>) alludes to the scapegoat, the only living sacrifice, which was a type of the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em> LXX = <em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em>). As the Lord ran free in His resurrection, bearing away the sins of men, so we who are in Him and preach that salvation can do the same. As Christ bore away our iniquities (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>), so “we then that are strong ought to bear the iniquities of the weak” (<em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>).</p><p>The cycle of revenge and paying back has to be resolved in sacrifice- many societies have shown that. I was a few times in far northern Russia, and it was fascinating to hear the traditions of the Chukchi people. In the past, they say, when a big crime was committed and the criminal convicted, an <em>innocent</em> person had to be sacrificed. The study of primitive societies reveals this basic human need for a scapegoat. There was a psychological value to the Mosaic rite of the scapegoat (<em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>). All the sins, all the grudges that called for revenge, were to be placed upon that animal, and it was released into the desert. They could watch it scampering away into the bush. This is how we are to understand the placing of human sin- yes, the sins committed against you this day by others- upon the Lord as He hung on the cross. And we must remember that “Vengeance is <em>mine</em> (not ours, not the state’s), and requital" (<em><a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a></em>). That taking of vengeance, that requital, was worked out by God on the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering which is for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull of the sin offering which is for himself- </em></p><p>Aaron was a sinful mortal, and had to offer for himself. This has been misread to mean that the Lord Jesus, the great high priest, had to offer as it were for the sin of being human. But I suggest this is a careless reading of the type, driven by a desire to prove a theological point. The New Testament commentary is at <em><a href='B:650 5:3'>Heb 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em>: "And because of it, he is required to offer sacrifices both for his sins and also for the sins of the people". The "weakness" of the high priest included moral weakness, which required him to offer also for his own sins. But the Lord Jesus had none of this. The references to the High Priest are to present the Lord Jesus by way of both similarity and contrast. Thus the way the high priest served standing is contrasted with the way the Lord serves sitting (<em><a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a></em>); and the contrast here at this point is that the Lord had no sins to offer for. The Lord indeed was subject to weakness (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>), but without the need to offer sin offerings for his own sins.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em> must be given its full weight in what it says about the Lord Jesus: "Who needs not to offer up sacrifices daily, like those high priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself". "This he did once" is a contrast with how the old High Priest offered ("this") daily (Jesus did it only "once"). The reference to "first for his own sins, then for the people's" is as it were in parenthesis, a throw away comment, to indicate again the inferiority of the old High Priests who themselves were sinners and therefore needed to offer for their own sins as well as those of God's people. My own suspicion that Paul was the author of Hebrews is based upon the style of writing we have there which we see in Paul elsewhere- so often, a comment is made in passing like this example of commenting that the old Priests had to offer for their own sins too. This kind of style is typical of Paul, Ephesians and Colossians are full of this kind of thing- making an argument, but throwing in a comment in the midst of it, a kind of aside, which often phases the reader. It is not the day of atonement which is in view here, because the contrast is with the "daily" offerings of the priests. A sincere priest would have offered daily sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. The Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for "the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis of the entire Biblical revelation. "This He did" refers to His offering for the people, for us; and not for His own 'sins'. This point is underlined in the next verse, which notes that the priests were morally weak, whereas the Son of God is perfect and shall be forever, unable to sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before Yahweh, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil- </em></p><p>Incense represents prayer offered by Christ (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>); the way it was taken beyond the veil into the Most Holy Place reflected how prayer, be it the ‘mere’ words of a woman waiting at a bus stop, enters into Heaven itself. The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall put the incense on the fire before Yahweh, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the testimony, so that he will not die- </em></p><p>For "the fire", see on :12. Incense smoke in the surrounding religions was supposed to drive away demons; but the image is used to represent prayer and Yahweh's glory (<em><a href='B:30 16:3'>Lev 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:13'>Lev 16:13</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:8'>Rev 5:8</a></em>). And thereby fear of demons was to be replaced by fear of God's holiness and human sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times- </em></p><p>The High Priest sprinkled the blood eastwards, on the mercy seat. He would therefore have had to walk round to God's side of the mercy seat and sprinkle the blood back the way he had come. This would have given the picture of the blood coming out from the presence of God Himself; as if <em>He</em> was the sacrifice. <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em> seems to teach (in the AV) that God purchased the church with <em>His</em> own blood. His manifestation in His Son was especially intense.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat- </em></p><p>The idea of entering within the veil is clearly in view when Paul speaks of the work of the Lord Jesus resulting in a hope which "enters into that within the veil" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:7'>Heb 9:7</a></em>). The typical meaning of this was therefore that finally, all Israel, the true people of God however defined, would enter within the veil, thanks to the blood of the ultimate sin offering. Those identified with the blood would, like the blood, enter within the veil, and remain there in fellowship with God, in His very presence. We show that identity with the Lord's blood through baptism, the breaking of bread and a life lived in Him.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting that is situated amongst them, in the midst of their uncleanness- </em></p><p>Clearly the atonement was not made for the inanimate structure of the Holy Place. Rather was it for the sins of Israel. The idea would be that nobody is perfectly pure, and therefore the priests had indeed entered the Holy Place whilst impure; and this was being atoned for. The wonder was that God met with sinful man "in the midst of the uncleanness"- and this was to be recognized through these rituals.</p>


text:
<p><em>No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, and has made atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel-</em></p><p>This perhaps helps us to understand the ultimate loneliness of the Lord Jesus in making His offering. These rituals have been misunderstood, in my opinion, to mean that the Lord Jesus offered for Himself, for His family (the believers) and for the world. That is indeed what the mortal, sinful High Priest did, but the type works by way of difference rather than exact correspondence. The New Testament therefore emphasizes that the Lord Jesus, unlike the Mosaic High Priests, offered only <em>one </em>sacrifice to achieve atonement- and that was "for us" (<em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>). The idea that the Lord atoned for the world as well as "for us" would imply some kind of universal salvation, of which the Bible is silent. Christ died for our sins, the sins of His people- that is the Biblical emphasis. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall go out to the altar that is before Yahweh and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the bull’s blood, and some of the goat’s blood, and put it around it, on the horns of the altar- </em></p><p>The New Testament observes that the blood of this bull and goat could not take away sins- even though the live goat apparently carried the sins away into the wilderness. If sin had really been carried away, there would have been no need for this annual day of atonement ceremony (<em><a href='B:650 10:3-4'>Heb 10:3-4</a></em>). The conclusion is therefore drawn that God only operated this system of atonement on the basis that the blood of the sacrifices pointed forward to the blood of Christ, and on the basis of His faith and knowledge that Christ would make the perfect sacrifice, God accepted the animal blood on the basis that it was symbolic of Christ’s blood.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and make it holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel-</em></p><p>Inanimate objects didn't need atonement. The cleansing was a recognition of the fact that the Israelites were unclean morally, and they had approached the altar and tabernacle furniture only technically clean when they were unclean morally.</p>


text:
<p><em>When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat- </em></p><p>As explained on :19, this is not to imply that the furniture itself was somehow morally unclean; this atonement was because of "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" who had approached into God's presence whilst still sinners.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness to do this-</em></p><p>Time and again, the difference between Moses' account of history and the surrounding myths is seen in the fact that Moses emphasizes human sin. There was a common ancient Near East belief in Azazel as a desert demon who looked like a goat. Perhaps Moses wished to address this idea when he called the scapegoat of the day of Atonement ritual "Azazel" and sent the goat into the desert (<em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>)- as if to say 'Now for you, Israel, no belief in that Azazel- the Azazel for us is simply a literal goat, bearing our sins in symbol, which we let loose into the desert'. Again and again, Moses sought to refocus his people on the practical, the literal, the concrete, and away from the myths which surrounded them. And yet he does this by alluding to those myths, so as to alert Israel to the fact that the new, inspired record which he was writing was fully aware of the myths God's people were being assailed with.</p><p>Praise is related to the realization that sin has been forgiven. Hezekiah's praise on realizing God's mercy to him was expressed in a desire to walk in quiet fellowship with God for the rest of his life. There is no suggestion that praise was some kind of ecstatic exuberance of emotion. The normal Hebrew word translated "praise" is also translated "confess" in the context of confessing sin (<em><a href='B:30 5:5'>Lev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:40'>Lev 26:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). Contrition of heart because of appreciating our own failures is therefore one way of praising Yahweh's Name. So often does the word "praise" occur in the context of praising the <em>Name</em> of Yahweh, or the praising of "the God of Israel", i.e. Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p><em>The goat shall carry all their iniquities on himself to a solitary land, and he shall let the goat go in the wilderness-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> alludes here in saying that on the cross, the Lord Jesus was cut off from the land of the living. The experience of both goats was found in His sacrifice. The phrase "let go" is often used of how God let Israel go from Egypt, overruling how the wicked Pharaoh refused to let the people go. The term is used later in the Mosaic legislation; the way Israel had been "let go" from Egypt was to determine how they "let go" others from slavery (<em><a href='B:50 15:12-13'>Deu 15:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>); their own experience of redemption was to influence how they released others. Just as ours should. The letting go of the bird and scapegoat into the wilderness was likewise to remind them of how they had been let go from Egypt into the wilderness without being slain for their sins- all by grace (<em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:53'>Lev 14:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21-22'>Lev 16:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:26'>Lev 16:26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there-</em></p><p>The Lord was buried in linen garments after His death; so as noted on :11, the typical meaning of these things is often by way of contrast rather than equivalent similarity.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he shall bathe himself in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people-</em></p><p>As discussed on :11, the Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for "the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis of the entire Biblical revelation.</p>


text:
<p><em>The fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar-</em></p><p>Some manuscripts have :23 after this verse :25. The altar in view is that of burnt offering and not the incense offering (<em><a href='B:20 30:9'>Exo 30:9</a></em>). There is special emphasis upon the fat, which was perceived as the best part of the animal, and the most covered inward parts. After recognizing our sin, we must be prepared to offer these to God. David understood the spirit of the trespass offering when after his sin with Bathsheba he offered to God his inward parts (<em><a href='B:230 51:6'>Psa 51:6</a></em>). Elsewhere the idea is as in LXX "the fact (even) the fat tail" (as <em><a href='B:30 3:9'>Lev 3:9</a></em>). There were species of sheep with a large fatty tail, which was considered in their culture to be a great delicacy. We see here how the law of Moses was limited in application to an immediate context, and was simply not intended to be a global law for all time. But the take away lesson is that we are to give to God whatever is for us, in our culture and worldview, the best and most desirous.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who lets the goat go for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp- </em></p><p>Throughout the rituals there is the idea that those involved in making this atonement were themselves "compassed with infirmity" (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>). The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that there was something lacking in all this; sinners were making atonement for sinners. There was thereby presented the need and longing for a righteous priest who was morally sinless although able to understand and relate to the weakness of men. And that need was met in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>The bull for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried forth outside the camp; and they shall burn their skins, their flesh, and their dung with fire- </em></p><p>The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He who burns them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp-</em></p><p>As discussed on :26, in all these rituals there is the idea that those involved in making this atonement were themselves unclean. The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that there was something lacking in all this; sinners were making atonement for sinners. And thus the desire was prepared for the perfect priest, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be a statute to you forever: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and shall do no kind of work, the native-born, or the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you-</em></p><p>This was to help them understand that no works could produce atonement. It was all of grace. "Afflict your souls" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember the state they had been in prior to their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them. All this is an abiding principle for us. True redemption of others has to be rooted in an awareness of our own affliction. This is particularly necessary for those who were as it were schooled into Christ by reason of their upbringing.</p>


text:
<p><em>for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before Yahweh- </em></p><p>Every kind of sin was atoned for (:21). Sins of ignorance, of omission rather than commission, were all met in this atonement. And likewise even moreso with the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. There should therefore never now be any sense that some sins are dealt with, but others aren't.</p><p>The Hebrew here and especially in <em><a href='B:30 23:28'>Lev 23:28</a></em> definitely reads as if it is the day of atonement which made atonement. This verse has been clung on to by Judaism at times when the temple was not standing and the sacrifices associated with the day of atonement were not offered. Their argument was and is that it is the day of atonement which makes atonement, because the atonement is from God's sovereign grace. And indeed there is some truth in this. For it was ever impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, and Paul's argument in Hebrews is based upon the implications of the day of Atonement. It indeed looks ahead to another and more ultimate atonement, by God's grace through His pronouncement. And that pronouncement was made regardless of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices; it was made over the blood of His crucified Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict your souls; it is a statute forever- </em></p><p>They were to "do no kind of work" (:29). Because this was the day of atonement (:30). The point was that <em>God</em> was providing atonement by His grace and on account of the blood which represented Christ’s blood- and not on the basis of our works.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest who is anointed and who is consecrated to be priest in his father’s place shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments- </em></p><p>The language here is pregnant with allusion to the future Lord Jesus, the "Christ" or anointed priest, who operated in the name and place of His Father, God Himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly-</em></p><p>It is clarified in :19 that this cleansing of the furniture was to make them "holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel". Inanimate objects didn't need atonement. The cleansing was a recognition of the fact that the Israelites were unclean morally, and they had approached the altar and tabernacle furniture only technically clean when they were unclean morally.</p>


text:
<p><em>This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel once in the year because of all their sins. It was done as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p>The Sabbath is described as a perpetual, eternal ordinance between God and His people (<em><a href='B:20 31:16'>Exo 31:16</a></em>). Yet in the New Testament we read that the Old Covenant has been done away; and the Old Covenant clearly included the ten commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>), one of which was concerning the Sabbath. For this reason the New Testament is at pains to explain that Sabbath keeping is not now required of God’s people (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-3'>Rom 14:1-3</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines <em>olahm</em> as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>These regulations which follow reflect the concept of sacred space which was central to the old covenant. Stephen's speech in Acts 7 demonstrates how even within the Old Testament, there were many hints that God operated well beyond the confines of this concept. And finally all notions of sacred space were collapsed beneath the wonderful idea that God dwells in the hearts of those who are His.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded- </em></p><p>As discussed on :3,5, the commandment of Yahweh in this passage was limited to Israel in the wilderness. Because later, sacrifice to Yahweh was acceptably offered by men like Gideon, Manoah, David and Samuel in places other than the sanctuary. Likewise the command that Gentiles could not eat Passover was only true for the first Passover, and later legislation allowed them to eat it. A failure to appreciate this has led to many mistaken turns in Biblical exposition; thus Adventists think that any law of Yahweh is eternal, whereas clearly the laws within 'the law of Moses' were often time and place limited. And 'closed table' enthusiasts build an argument on the laws surrounding the first Passover instead of realizing that those laws were only for a limited place and time.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever man there is of the house of Israel, who kills a bull, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp- </em></p><p>This legislation was clearly only intended for Israel during the wilderness years. For "the camp" no longer existed once the land had been settled. It could be argued that the animals listed are not simply sacrifices, but refer to any animal. In this case, it was not God's intention that the people should eat animal meat during the wilderness journey; the manna was intended to be all sufficient. In this case they would have returned to the situation after creation and before the flood, when animal meat was not eaten. It was therefore an attempt to help Israel rise above the effects of the flood and to return towards Eden, as they were on their way to the promised land, which was presented as an Eden to some extent restored.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and hasn’t brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to offer it as an offering to Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh: blood shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people- </em></p><p>The animal represented the offerer, and therefore to slay a sacrificial animal was as if a person had been slain. Hence the language of bloodshed. The Law foresaw that there would be the tendency to worship God away from the rest of the congregation. Those who did so were condemned in the strongest terms: their sacrifice of an animal was seen as the murder of their brother, whereas they would have seen it as an expression of their righteousness. "He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man" (<em><a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a></em>) refers back to this, making it parallel with idolatry and proudly refusing to let God's word dwell in the heart.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>This is to the end that the children of Israel may bring to Yahweh their sacrifices which they sacrifice in the open field, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings to Yahweh- </em></p><p>This was to help the Israelites not to follow the example of the Egyptians and desert dwellers through whom they travelled, who offered religious sacrifices to satyrs and other supposed demons of the desert (:7). Sacrifice was only to be offered at the tent of meeting. This was later impractical when Israel were no longer just dwelling around the tent of meeting; so this law was temporary. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>To sprinkle blood upon something didn't necessarily mean the object was forgiven. For an inanimate altar didn't need forgiving. The blood of the covenant was sprinkled (s.w.) upon the people as a sign of their involvement with the covenant process of salvation, rather than as a statement of their forgiveness (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). Likewise with the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:140 35:11'>2Ch 35:11</a></em>). This was an act of identification rather than forgiveness of sin. The function of the altar was valid before God, or efficacious, because of its association with the blood of Christ; for the blood of the animals slain upon it couldn't bring salvation of itself, but only through God's way of looking at that blood is looking ahead to that of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). And so the altar was associated with the blood which represented His blood.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>And burn the fat for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </p><p>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat idols-</em></p><p>See on :5. LXX calls the idols "vanities". Do we feel that life is just pointless, an endless round of childcare, working all day doing in essence the same job for 30 years, a trudging through an endless tunnel until our mortality catches up on us? We were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ from the “vain way of life handed down from the fathers" (<em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>), from the frustration of this present life . The word used for “vain" is that used by the LXX for the ‘vanity’ of life as described in Ecclesiastes, and for idol worship in <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a></em>. We have been redeemed from it all! Not for us the life of endlessly chasing the rainbow’s end, slavishly worshipping the idols of ever bigger homes, smarter technology...we were redeemed from the vanity of life “under the sun" by the precious blood of Christ. We were bought out of this slavery, even if in the flesh we go through its motions.</p><p>After which they play the prostitute. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations’- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall say to them, ‘Any man there is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:50 12:20-21'>Deu 12:20-21</a></em> says that when God enlarged the land, this law of only eating at the sanctuary was to be changed. There was never any signal from God that He had now enlarged the land and therefore this change of the law was allowed. We note that the law of Moses was flexible and open to change. That it should later be abrogated is therefore no surprise. The argument that each Mosaic law was eternal is therefore lacking in careful attention to the text of the law itself.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and doesn’t bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to Yahweh; that man shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p>Sacrifice couldn’t be offered anywhere, although see on :8. It wasn’t the case that the fact someone had a desire to do something for God thereby made them acceptable to Him. He had to be approached in the way He stipulated; and Jesus said “I am the door” (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). It’s not therefore true that all spiritual roads lead to the same place. We can only come to God in His way. Later we read that God did accept sacrifice in local sanctuaries; we think of acceptable offerings made in other places, by Gideon, Manoah, David and others. We see reflected here God's willingness to accept less than ideal sacrifices, so desirous is He of relationship with His people.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people-</em></p><p>The peoples' behaviour in <em><a href='B:90 14:32'>1Sa 14:32</a></em> is portrayed as breaking every principle of the commands here about eating blood in <em><a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a></em>. They ate blood, and also killed calves and mothers on the same day (disobeying <em><a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a></em>). All because they were more obedient to their oath to Saul not to eat anything until sundown, rather than to God's covenant. For all this, they were to have God against them and be cut off from God's people. The essence of this has been seen so many times in church history. An insistence upon petty legalism leads people to commit major sin. They are more obedient to the party line and the barked orders of their leadership, than to God. And the legalistic demands of their elders lead them to make utter shipwreck of their faith, breaking the most elemental principles of their covenant with God. Once sundown came and they were free from the oath to Saul, the people were totally disobedient to the covenant.</p><p>Blood represents life; to take life to ourselves rather than recognize it is God’s results in us losing our lives (:14). Just as simply as the blood was to be given to God, so we are to give our lives to God. To take the blood to themselves is in fact spoken of as being as bad as murder (:4). This seems extreme language, but it underlines how important to God is this principle- that life is His and we are to give it to Him rather than live or take it to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life’-</em></p><p>The symbolism of blood in the Bible is difficult. At times it seems to mean simply 'life', at others, it appears to be used for 'death'. We are saved by the blood of Christ- His life, outgiven in death, and His resurrection life lives in us today through the Spirit. God did not demand the death of animals because He simply is pleased by death. What He wants from us is our lives, not that we accept Christ and kill ourselves. 1 Corinthians 10 speaks of how we have fellowship with the blood of Christ through the memorial drinking of wine, but in practice this surely refers to our physical symbolism of how we are sharing in His life; His life becomes ours. Life is not ours to take, we are to give it to God- that's the whole idea of the repeated Old Testament emphasis upon not drinking blood but pouring it out to God. The Lord Jesus alludes to all this by urging us to drink <em>His</em> blood, <em>His</em> life- the life we live in the flesh we are to live by, or 'on account of', Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>).</p><p>When the psalmist says, 'What profit is there in my blood?' he means, 'What profit is there in my death?' (<em><a href='B:230 30:9'>Psa 30:9</a></em>). The idiom of 'blood upon him' means that a person bears the guilt for another's death. "His blood be on us" (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>) clearly means they accepted guilt for the death of Jesus. Babylon is a woman "drunken with the blood of the saints"- guilty of their death (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:17:6'>Rev 17:6</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:24'>Rev 18:24</a></em>). "Innocent blood" is brought upon a person by allowing the death of an innocent person (<em><a href='B:300 26:15'>Jer 26:15</a></em> RV). The blood of the innocent cries out to God- in the sense that their <em>death </em>cries out to Him for vengeance (<em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>). The Leviticus passages state that "the life is in the blood", meaning that once the life is taken out of a person or animal, then they are dead (this is an oblique evidence against the notion of an 'immortal soul'). In this sense, blood refers to death as well as life. We have no right to shed blood because all life is God's; and likewise we have no right to think that our life is our own. It is God's. Even animal life was seen as belonging to God- the blood of animals had to be poured out to Him in acknowledgment of this. Our thanks to God for meat is gratitude that He has allowed us to kill and eat animals, to take their lives. "The blood of his cross" (<em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>) clearly means the death of the cross, rather than the blood of Jesus which was smeared on the cross as opposed to His blood generally.</p><p>The command not to murder has as its basis the fact that human life is not for us to use as we will (<em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). It is God's life and is His- and this applies to our view of others lives as well as our own. Others, therefore, are not for us to use as we will. Gentleness and sensitivity to the life of others, in family life, the workplace, on the road... is therefore an outcome of our belief that the 'other' person likewise has been created by God and has life from Him. To drive in an unkind way, to act in a thoughtless way to others detriment, is therefore the same basic error as taking human life in murder.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore I have said to the children of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who lives as a foreigner among you eat blood-</em></p><p>The blood was understood as representing life (<em><a href='B:50 12:23'>Deu 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>). We are not to take life to ourselves; not merely in that we aren’t to murder, but we also aren’t to assume that our lives, or any life, is in fact ours to use or dominate for ourselves. Our lives and those of others are God’s, and we cannot take any life to ourselves. The Lord Jesus specifically alluded to the major Jewish principle of not eating blood- when He taught that unless His blood was drunk, then they had no life in them. This alludes to another reason for not eating blood, given in <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>: "I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life". The blood looked ahead to the blood which God would give which would make atonement. The blood of animals couldn't take away sins (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). So the blood only 'made atonement' because it pointed forward to that of the Lord Jesus. The whole structure of the laws about blood required some blood of atonement which had to be shed in future, a blood sacrifice of a representative human who was not an animal. That blood was to be given to God, and not to man. Hence the stress upon not eating blood.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever man there is of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who takes in hunting any animal or bird that may be eaten; he shall pour out its blood, and cover it with dust-</em></p><p>Burying the life, as it were. In baptism, we give our lives to God and figuratively die and are buried with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). We are to live life in this spirit that life is not ours but to be given to God. This frees us from all the manic human concern to live life to the full for ourselves. We no longer have this concern if we continually accept the principle that life is not ours, but God's.</p>


text:
<p><em>For as to the life of all flesh, its blood is its life; therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any kind of flesh; for the life of all flesh is its blood-</em></p><p>It is very often stated in the New Testament that our justification and salvation is through the blood of Jesus (e.g. <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:11'>Rev 12:11</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>).&nbsp;To appreciate the significance of Christ's blood, we must understand that it is a Biblical principle that "the life of every creature is its blood" (<em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em> NIV).&nbsp;Without blood a body cannot live;&nbsp;it is therefore symbolic of life.&nbsp;This explains the aptness of Christ's words, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). Sin results in death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>),i.e. a pouring out of the blood, which carries the life.&nbsp;For this reason the Israelites were expected to pour out blood each time they sinned, to remind them that sin resulted in death.&nbsp;"According to the law (of Moses) almost all things are purged (cleansed) with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission (forgiveness)" (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>).&nbsp;Because of this, Adam and Eve's covering of themselves with fig leaves was unacceptable;&nbsp;instead, God killed a lamb to provide skins to cover their sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:7'>Gen 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:21'>Gen 3:21</a></em>).&nbsp;Similarly, Abel's sacrifice of animals was accepted rather than Cain's offering of vegetables, because he appreciated this principle that without shedding blood there could be no forgiveness and acceptable approach to God (<em><a href='B:10 4:3-5'>Gen 4:3-5</a></em>). Not only did he appreciate it, he <em>had faith </em>in that blood, and on this basis God accepted his offering (<em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em>). These incidents point forward to the supreme importance of the blood of Christ.</p><p>Whoever eats it shall be cut off- </p><p>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Every person that eats what dies of itself, or that which is torn by animals, whether he is native-born or a foreigner, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening: then he shall be clean- </em></p><p>The more conscious was the association with uncleanness, the greater was the effort which made to be made to achieve cleansing. Thus if someone knowingly carried a carcass, they had to was their clothes in addition to being unclean. And it's the same principle here. There is definitely a principle connection between knowledge and responsibility, and conscious defilement requires greater cleansing.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if he doesn’t wash them, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity- </em></p><p>The Lord Jesus Christ knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated <em>as if</em> He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to Moses- </em></p><p>So far in Leviticus the text has dealt with uncleanness and sin in an abstract sense. Now Leviticus 18-20 exemplify this by talking of sin in more concrete, actual terms.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p>The following commandments relate to matters of intimate relationships. If Yahweh is our God, then His commandments and principles extent to every part of our lives, especially the most personal and intimate.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived; and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; neither shall you walk according to their statutes- </em></p><p>The contrast is presented between the word of God and that of man (:4). And this is the abiding conflict in our lives. The chapter will go on to outlaw various immoral relationships and sexual bonding. But these are all prefaced by this commandment not to do according to the laws of the Gentiles. These outlawed sexual behaviours were therefore part of the laws of the various fertility cults. These things were done in the belief they would thereby please the gods and result in abundant harvests. And the idea was the more attractive because it appealed to the lust of the flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall do My ordinances, and you shall keep My statutes, and walk in them: I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances; which if a man does, he shall live in them: I am Yahweh</em><em>-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em> “unto life” presumably implies that perfect keeping of the law would have resulted in a person living the life of God, the kind of life which will be lived in the eternal life (which might also be implied in <em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 19:7-10'>Psa 19:7-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:11'>Eze 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>). Death for such a person would therefore be necessary because of their relation with Adam, but would in another sense be unjust, in that they had not sinned. The perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus therefore required His resurrection. His eternal life wasn’t given to Him by grace, but He was entitled to it by obedience. He had no pre-existent eternal life; He was given eternal life because of His obedience. And His life is counted to us who are “in Him” by grace. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>.</p><p>"If a man does, he shall live in them" is quoted in <em><a href='B:550 3:12'>Gal 3:12</a></em> to prove that life with God was possible by complete obedience to the Law of Moses. The Law could not give life in practice only in that people broke it (<em><a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a></em>). Paul’s point in Galatians is that eternal life therefore cannot be given on the basis of doing the Law- because we all break it. But Jesus completely kept the Law, and therefore deserved to have eternal life; but He died for us. Because of His perfect obedience to it, it wasn’t therefore possible for Him to remain dead, He had to be raised from the dead (<em><a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a></em>). The principle that life was possible for those who lived in perfect obedience to the Law would have driven every humble, sensitive, Godly minded person to wonder how he or she could attain to eternal life; they would’ve so wished to find a person who was completely obedient to the Law whose righteousness could as it were be counted to them. In this sense, the Law was a household servant which led people to perceive their need for Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:24'>Gal 3:24</a></em>).</p><p>The life of serious obedience will lead to more obedience. Likewise the man who is obedient to God's commands will live in them, i.e. they will become an integral part of his way of life (<em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:29'>Neh 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:13'>Eze 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:21'>Eze 20:21</a></em> etc.). The further we go in God’s way, the clearer and more obvious it all becomes, and the fewer agonies we face over decisions, as perhaps we did in our early days of believing. The way of wisdom is “plain to him that understands” (<em><a href='B:240 8:9'>Pro 8:9</a></em>). Some seek for wisdom but can never find it; for others, “knowledge is easy unto him that understands” (<em><a href='B:240 14:6'>Pro 14:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>None of you shall approach anyone who are his close relatives, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh-</em></p><p>Who God is becomes the motive for obedience; our core desire to be like Him, rather than a legalistic, literalistic desire to keep commandments, is what will help us in practice to be like Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother: she is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness-</em></p><p>Uncovering nakedness alludes to the result of the first sin in Eden. The idea therefore is not that it is a sin to simply see a parent naked. Rather is it that such sins are sins because you are leading your sexual partner into sin and they will receive the same judgment as Adam and Eve- their nakedness will be uncovered. And so the Lord Jesus likewise reasons that the problem with sexual sin is that it leads other parties into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife: it is your father’s nakedness- </em></p><p>In a polygamous society, this is not the same as "your mother", which has been addressed in :7. We learned in :3 that this kind of thing happened amongst the Gentiles, but was not to happen amongst God's people. Paul makes some kind of allusion to this by complaining that this was happening in the church at Corinth, but it didn't happen amongst the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em>). His idea may be that there had been some moral progression amongst the Gentiles in this area- but sadly not amongst God's people.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home, or born abroad-</em></p><p>These laws teach that nakedness should only be uncovered before your wife or husband. Uncovering nakedness is an idiom for the sexual act. The allusion is to Adam and Eve having their nakedness uncovered; we have to accept the situation we are in as a result of the curse, rather than having sexual relations with who we like, as if uncovering nakedness is nothing shameful. Our hope is for the curse put on us in Eden to be lifted at Christ’s return; we can’t lift it in this life, as our own ever insistent mortality reminds us.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness: for theirs is your own nakedness- </em></p><p>The idea is that such sexual sin is effectively a sin against ourselves, a shaming of self. Paul sees this as an abiding principle, when he warns the Corinthian Christians to quit using temple prostitutes because they were thereby sinning against their own bodies (<em><a href='B:530 6:18'>1Co 6:18</a></em>). Sin is its own judgment, and to be made naked is the language of the shame of condemnation (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). By being naked with inappropriate partners, the sinner was effectively living out their own condemnation. Sin is its own judgment, the condemned are essentially self condemned, and in this sense judgment day is now.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, conceived by your father, since she is your sister- </em></p><p>It is no mere coincidence that so many of these forbidden relationships were seen in the patriarchal family. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister. So we see that Israel were being reminded that their whole national basis was rooted in moral weakness from the start. They were God's people by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister: she is your father’s near kinswoman- </em></p><p>We note that Moses' father Amram had married his father's sister (<em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>). It could be that uncovering the nakedness therefore refers specifically to perversions practiced in the name of idolatry, which is the context here. Or the idea may be that the founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister: for she is your mother’s near kinswoman- </em></p><p>These awful things listed here were clearly real temptations for Israel; for they are repeated in the list of what Judah actually did in their idol worship (<em><a href='B:330 22:11'>Eze 22:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, you shall not approach his wife: she is your aunt-</em></p><p>We note the distinction between uncovering nakedness and 'approaching' the woman. The word for "approach" is the standard word used in Leviticus, and very often, for 'offering' in a religious sense. This confirms that what is in view here is illicit sexual activity performed as part of idol cult worship.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness- </em></p><p>This was exactly what Judah did (<em><a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:16'>Gen 38:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:24'>Gen 38:24</a></em>). The founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience.</p><p>Uncovering nakedness was what would happen to Israel in the shame of their condemnation at the hands of their one time lovers (<em><a href='B:290 47:3'>Isa 47:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:36-37'>Eze 16:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:10'>Eze 23:10</a></em>). But this was because they had themselves inappropriately revealed their nakedness to those lovers when they were still lovers (<em><a href='B:330 22:10'>Eze 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:18'>Eze 23:18</a></em>). Sin is therefore its own judgment. In this sense it is man who condemns himself, rather than being condemned by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:15'>Joh 8:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife: it is your brother’s nakedness- </em></p><p>Herod was condemned by John the Baptist for doing this (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>). This raises the issue as to whether we have a duty to point out to people in the world that they are living in sin. Although it could be argued that Herod claimed to be some kind of Jew, and therefore was under these laws. The laws of Levirate marriage allowed such marriage (<em><a href='B:50 25:5'>Deu 25:5</a></em>), so it seems to me that uncovering nakedness doesn't refer to marriage but to illicit sexual activity, probably in the context of idol worship.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. You shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen: it is wickedness-</em></p><p>David took the wives of Saul and also Saul’s daughter- and&nbsp;his breaking of the Law in this didn’t lead to happiness, even though he remained God’s man.&nbsp;But I suggest that it is not marriage which is in view here by 'uncovering the nakedness'. Rather is it some sexual ritual involving sleeping with a mother and her daughter at the same time as part of idol worship. <em><a href='B:370 2:7'>Amo 2:7</a></em> condemns a man and his son for sleeping with the same girl, again in the context of idolatry.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not marry your wife’s sister, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness, while her sister is yet alive-</em></p><p>Jacob broke this principle by taking Rachel and Leah, and his sad family life afterwards was recorded as a testimony to how if we break God’s principles, we may remain His people as Jacob did, but we will suffer the consequences. Many aspects of the Mosaic Law were already in place before it was pronounced to Moses; the prohibition on marrying a second wife who was the sister of the first wife could well have been known among God's people in Jacob's time, seeing that it was a precept based on the principles of Eden (<em><a href='B:30 18:17-18'>Lev 18:17-18</a></em>). "It is wickedness" was God's comment to Moses, and there is no reason to think that His essential moral judgment on this kind of thing has ever changed much. Yet Jacob thought nothing of breaching this command, and committing this "wickedness". And yet through this, God&nbsp; worked to create the house of Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness-</em></p><p>This verse seems to have stuck in David's mind, in that he lay with Bathsheba "because" she was "purified from her uncleanness". This is typical of so much spiritual dysfunction- to focus on a few Divine words and be strictly obedient to them, whilst ignoring the far larger principles. We think of the Jews being so careful to keep the Passover, whilst crucifying God's Son.</p><p>However I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> that the woman in view was not simply menstruating but suffering a specific Divine stroke or plague which involved bleeding. To sleep with such a woman was therefore particularly defiant of God's judgments and therefore is so strongly condemned (<em><a href='B:330 18:6'>Eze 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:10'>Eze 22:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife, and defile yourself with her- </em></p><p>This may indeed be a condemnation of adultery, but I suggest that the specific reference is not to having an affair, but to sleeping with women as part of the Moloch cult- and the woman slept with might well be their neighbour's wife. "And defile yourself with her" makes better sense if read as referring to defilement with idols, you along with her. "Defile" is often used in the context of idolatry.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not give any of your children to sacrifice to Molech; neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>We carry God’s Name too, in that we are baptized into the Name. Our behaviour must therefore be appropriate to the Name we bear (<em><a href='B:660 2:7'>Jas 2:7</a></em>). Children born within the covenant were intended to bear Yahweh's Name; to sacrifice them to Molech was therefore to profane Yahweh's Name. "I am Yahweh" means that He is real and His Name is real, and we are not to profane it through devoting our children to idols. And we can devote them to the idols of career and secular success just as much as Israelites gave their children to Molech. The Hebrew phrase is literally "to pass over to Molech". "Pass (through the fire)" (AV) is an interpretation not a translation. "Pass over" translates <em>abar</em>, the root of the word 'Hebrew', those who passed over. By letting their children pass over to Molech, the parents were denying their calling as Hebrews, to pass over from this world to the things of the Kingdom. "Profane" is the word for prostitution or defilement. This is what we do to God's wonderful Name if we as His people pass over to other gods.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable-</em></p><p>Or, "an abomination". The related passage in <em><a href='B:30 20:13'>Lev 20:13</a></em> also says that the two men have committed "abomination". "Abomination" is a word distinctly and specifically associated with idol worship. The context of these commands is an appeal not to follow the ways of Moloch worshippers (also in <em><a href='B:30 20:2-5'>Lev 20:2-5</a></em>). As was the case in Corinth centuries later, idol worshippers slept with both male and female prostitutes; and that is what is primarily in view here.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman give herself to an animal, to lie down with it: it is a perversion- </em></p><p>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level.</p><p>"Perversion" is AV "confusion", and is the word also used of God's condemnation of men in "confusion" unto destruction (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again we see that sin is its own judgment; people condemn themselves by their behaviour, living out condemnation in their sins. Israel are condemned for having 'mixed themselves' amongst the Gentiles (s.w. <em><a href='B:350 7:8'>Hos 7:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Don’t defile yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled-</em></p><p>I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> that Leviticus was given at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings. At that point, God was casting out the nations from Canaan. Their refusal to enter the land was therefore a waste of so much potential. And a reflection of their disbelief in words like these which were spoken to them. Israel were eventually cast out of the land as the Canaanites were intended to be; and yet God's patience with them was remarkable. We note that God's plan was to cast out the nations before Israel so that they could enter the land immediately after leaving Egypt. But there is no evidence this happened- because the people chose not to enter the land. And when they did, they themselves didn't cast out the nations but rather coexisted with them in the land, and worshipped their gods. Again we see how so much potential was wasted; just as many have the path to entrance into the Kingdom made clear for them, but they reject it.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>The land was defiled; therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out her inhabitants- </em></p><p>The period for gathering iniquity was fulfilled, and so the land was intended to vomit out the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). But we see here the flexibility and open ended nature of God's ways of working. For one thing, that period was extended by around 40 years; for Israel didn't enter the land when they were intended to, and so the local inhabitants remained there. And the vomiting out of the inhabitants was to be fulfilled through human agency, i.e. the Israelites were to cast them out with God's help. But they generally didn't do this, and chose to coexist with those inhabitants within the land, and to serve their gods.</p>


text:
<p><em>You therefore shall keep my statutes and my ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the native-born, nor the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you- </em></p><p>The idea was that the perversions listed above were not to be found within the land. The original inhabitants who did these things were to be vomited out; and Israel and any Gentiles remaining in the land were to not do these things, lest they be vomited out of the land. This was the Divine intention. But as noted on :24,25, the reality was different. Israel chose not to enter the land, so these abominations were done in the land for another 40 years longer than ideally anticipated. Israel then entered the land, didn't cast the nations who did these things out of the land; and Israel did the same abominations because they worshipped the gods of the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p><em>(for all these abominations have the men of the land done that were before you, and the land became defiled)-</em></p><p>"Defiled" is the word used for being ritually "unclean". The land was to be "clean" because Yahweh lived as it were in the land (<em><a href='B:40 35:34'>Num 35:34</a></em>). As soon as Israel entered the land, they defiled it by their abominations / idolatry (<em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em> s.w.). Clearly Joshua was not representative of the people generally, and the generation who entered the land were hardly strongly committed to Yahweh. They had after all carried the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of Remphan all through the wilderness, and Joshua himself told them that he considered that they were so far gone in idolatry that they ought not to sign up to a covenant of loyalty to Yahweh. We can therefore assume that seeing the land was instantly defiled by Israel when they entered it, they therefore did in fact commit the abominations of the Canaanites which are listed in this chapter.</p>


text:
<p><em>that the land not vomit you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you-</em></p><p>"When you defile it" shows God's premonition that they would do all these abominations and defile it; and indeed that is what happened (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em>). The figure of vomiting suggests that their rejection from the land was going to happen as an immediate gut reaction if they did these abominations. They did them, but God's response was so patient. It was as if He did not vomit them out immediately as planned, but remained feeling nauseous at their behaviour for centuries, until He finally did so.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people- </em></p><p>As noted on :29, this didn't happen immediately, because of God's love and patient, pitiful hopefulness that it wouldn't continue. But they defiled the land when they entered it by their idolatry (<em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em> s.w.), and they repeatedly defiled the land by their abominations, i.e. their idolatry and the associated perverted practices listed in this chapter (s.w. <em><a href='B:330 22:4'>Eze 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:26'>Eze 33:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:18'>Eze 36:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore you shall keep My requirements, that you do not practice any of these abominable customs, which were practiced before you, and that you do not defile yourselves with them: I am Yahweh your God’- </em></p><p>The word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp;17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p>This section develops the theme of holiness and what it means in practice. Holiness means both separation <em>from </em>and also separation <em>unto</em>. We are separated from the things of the flesh and this world, but that is not a negative, onerous burden. For thereby are we separated unto the positive things of God's service.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘You shall be holy; for I Yahweh your God am holy- </em></p><p>The inclusiveness of Yahweh of His people, the nature of who His Name reveals Him to be, should of itself have led Israel to not discriminate against other races: “For I am Yahweh your God” (<em><a href='B:30 24:22'>Lev 24:22</a></em>). Because Yahweh <em>is</em> who He is, therefore we must be like Him; His very existence and being demands it of us (<em><a href='B:30 20:7'>Lev 20:7</a></em> cp. 19:2,10). If we really know the characteristics implicit in His Name, we will put our trust in Him (<em><a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 124:8'>Psa 124:8</a></em>). If we see / know God in the experiential sense, we will do no evil (<em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>).</p><p>Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted “Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy” (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>) as “Be you therefore merciful, even as your father in heaven is merciful” (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as “father”, rather than transliterating the Name.</p>


text:
<p><em>Each one of you shall respect his mother and his father-</em></p><p>We have to read this in the context of the preceding chapter which has forbidden idolatrous rites involving sexual activity with parents and siblings. The contemporary Near Eastern legal codes prescribed the most severe penalties for crimes against the wealthy and their property. Rich people were given lesser punishments than poor people for the same crime. The value of persons reflected in Yahweh's law meant that all people were judged equally before the law, and truly there was no respect of persons with the true God. Both father and mother are placed together as worthy of equal honour (<em><a href='B:30 19:3'>Lev 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>)- whereas the contemporary laws were oriented towards respect of the male rather than females.</p><p>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness.</p><p>You shall keep My Sabbaths. I am Yahweh your God- </p><p>The two laws repeated here, about honouring parents and keeping the Sabbath, are the only two positive commandments in the ten commandments. The others are all "You shall not...". So this confirms the impression that now having read so much negative, about separation from sin, we are being encouraged to focus upon what we are separated unto, positively.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Don’t turn to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p>This clearly alludes to the golden calf which they had made. They were not to ever do this again. And yet we know from <em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em> that they took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea, and carried the tabernacle and star of their idols throughout the wilderness journey. Even by Joshua's time, he had to urge them to cast away the idols of Egypt. Perhaps they justified them by arguing that they had not cast them themselves. Our flesh is so able to justify sin. And we must beware of that.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh, you shall offer it voluntarily-</em></p><p>The Mosaic law was in fact geared against mere legalism and symbolic offerings for the sake of discharging religious conscience. Voluntary offerings must indeed be just that- from the heart. Freewill offerings such as the peace offering must really be of our free will. We mustn’t feel any sense of obligation to others, doing voluntary things to be seen of them, but any act of freewill devotion must be genuine, motivated by our personal desire to devote our time or resources to God.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day: and if anything remains until the third day-</em></p><p>The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute it immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much.</p><p>It shall be burned with fire- </p><p>"With fire" is literally "with the fire". The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination. It will not be accepted- </em></p><p>We cannot be passive on receiving the opportunity to serve God. We will urgently seek to do something with what we have been enabled to do for the Lord: “The servant who got five bags <em>went quickly </em>to invest the money and earned five more bags” (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em> NCV). The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much.</p><p>If we think our freewill devotions to be God can be done as we wish without regard for His principles, then what we do is obnoxious to Him. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” is often used about idol worship; we will not be worshipping Him, but the idols of our own image and standing in the eyes of people.</p>


text:
<p><em>but everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy thing of Yahweh, and that soul shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p>This was a very stern warning. It was designed to guard against the temptation to spin out eating the peace offerings over several days, so that you personally benefitted from the meat. We are not to offer that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest- </em></p><p>This doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow" (<em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>). By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, a leash binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; for Israel is God's partner, not His dog. But rather was it designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>If all Israel were obedient to the Law of Moses, there wouldn’t have been any poor in Israelite society (<em><a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a></em>). But the same Law of Moses repeatedly instructed Israel to be generous and sensitive to the poor; it tacitly recognized, as did Jesus, that there would always be poor within Israel, for the Law would never be fully kept (<em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>). We see in the structure of the Law the recognition of human failure in a way which no other law has ever equaled. There’s a tendency to assume that the poor are poor because of their own poor decision making and therefore we have no responsibility to help them- although we are all poor decision makers in various ways, especially in spiritual matters. The Law taught a principle we need to learn also- that even if folk have dug a whole and fallen into it, we are still to assist them and be sensitive to their situation.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not steal, nor lie, nor shall you deceive one another- </em></p><p>The command not to steal is associated with not deceiving others nor lying to them. Dishonesty, even if it’s unrelated to material gain at another’s expense, is a form of theft; we are taking from another wrongfully. The Hebrew indeed means to steal, but also carries the idea of deceit. For to deceive another is to effectively steal from them, to take away and misuse their belief and trust in you and your integrity. And all deceit is ultimately in order to gain something wrongly, even the thing gained isn't anything material.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not swear by My name falsely, and profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em> phrases this in terms of not taking God's Name in vain. But the idea of not taking Yahweh's Name "in vain", 'vanity', is often associated with idolatry. Israel never formerly rejected Yahweh, and never became atheists. They mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry on the basis that they claimed that they worshipped Yahweh through worshipping the idols. This is what emboldened them to later place idols in Yahweh's temple. They were taking Yahweh's Name as a form of vanity, "in vain", a kind of idol. Thus their relationship with Yahweh was not to be a "vain thing" (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p>The vulnerability and sensitivity of God is reflected in the way that He is concerned that His covenant people, His wife, who bears His Name, might profane His Name (<em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:11'>Deu 5:11</a></em>). His repeated concern that His Name be taken in vain doesn't simply refer to the casual use of the word "God" as an expression of exasperation. God is concerned about His people taking His Name upon themselves (<em><a href='B:40 6:27'>Num 6:27</a></em>) in vain- i.e., marrying Him, entering covenant relationship with Him, taking on His Name (which we do through baptism)- but not being serious about that relationship, taking it on as a vain thing, like a woman who casually marries a man who loves her at the very core of his being, when for her, it's just a casual thing and she lives a profligate and adulterous life as his wife. When God revealed His Name to His people, opening up the very essence of His character to them, He was making Himself vulnerable. We reveal ourselves intimately to another because we wish for them to make a response to us, to love us for what we revealed to them. God revealed Himself to Israel, He sought for intimacy in the covenant relationship, and therefore was and is all the more hurt when His people turn away from Him, after having revealed to them all the wonders of His word (<em><a href='B:350 8:12'>Hos 8:12</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:30 5:16'>Lev 5:16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not oppress your neighbour, nor rob him-</em></p><p>The oppression in view is things like not paying him his hire every day (<em><a href='B:50 24:14-15'>Deu 24:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:13'>Lev 19:13</a></em>). The ethnic background of the man was irrelevant; he was to be treated as a person and not in any way abused because of his weak economic position. "Oppress" is the same word translated "deceive"; to not oppress others through deceiving them would elicit the heaviest judgment from God, when the person realized the deception and cried to God because of it (<em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>). Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning-</p><p><em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em> adds: "Each day you must give him his hire. The sun must not go down on it for he is poor and sets his heart on it, lest he cry against you to Yahweh and it be sin to you". This is one of many examples of the utter inversion of values to be found in the sphere of God's dealings with men: The rich are to almost fear the landless poor labourer, in case he feels hard done by and prays to God against the rich. The power, in ultimate and spiritual terms, is with the poor- and the balance of power is against the wealthy. <em><a href='B:660 5:4'>Jas 5:4</a></em> specifically alludes to this command, and says that the cry of those we have been insensitive to will enter the ears of Yahweh of Hosts, a title typically associated with His active judgment. The cries of those we hurt are effectively a calling out to Yahweh of Hosts to enter into judgment with us. Whilst we may not have hired labourers, there are many ways in which we can make our less privileged brethren cry out in pain to God; particularly through refusing them fellowship at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind; but you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh’-</em></p><p>As if God is especially sensitive to our abusing others’ disadvantages in whatever form, and His wrath about this is to be feared. <em><a href='B:50 27:18'>Deu 27:18</a></em> has "Cursed is he who makes the blind wander out of the way’". It was Aaron, their revered leader, who had made Israel wander "out of the way" through the golden calf apostacy (<em><a href='B:20 32:8'>Exo 32:8</a></em>). The people surely could not have repeated these words without thinking of Aaron. It was intended, therefore, as a reminder to them of how their very standing with God was by grace alone; and they were not from any wonderful spiritual pedigree, but instead were God's people by grace through faith. Paul repeats the essence of this teaching in warning against making our brother stumble, even if he is spiritually blind. And he applies this therefore to what we eat and the things our own conscience may allow us to do.</p>


text:
<p><em>’You shall do no injustice in judgment: you shall not be partial to the poor, nor show favouritism to the great; but you shall judge your neighbour in righteousness-</em></p><p>We are not to judge in the sense of condemn others, but it’s inevitable in daily life that we have to form opinions. But we must always remember that the person we are judging is in fact our neighbour, our brother, our equal; our judgment shouldn’t be rooted in any sense of feeling inherently superior over him or her, spiritually or otherwise. We are warned in <em><a href='B:20 23:3'>Exo 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a></em>&nbsp; against bias in any way- feeling pity for a poor man who has done wrong is as bad as bias toward the wealthy. Economic status is of no matter, compared to human behaviour and the human person.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people. You shall not endanger the life of your neighbour. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p>Unless we talk frankly to our brother about issues (:17) between us <em>alone</em>, then we will end up hating him in our heart (even though it may not feel like that) and we will gossip about him. The frank raising of the issue with our brother is associated with loving our neighbour as ourselves. This is actually the opposite to what we would think; we would imagine that it would be more 'loving' to say nothing to our brother. But in this case, we will inevitably gossip about him and be bitter against him. The practice of true love will result in an open community in which we can frankly discuss with each other the issues which concern us, with love and not hatred in our hearts. This is the teaching of <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. No wonder the Proverbs expand upon it so much. And no wonder the Lord appropriated it as a ground rule for His ecclesia- there must be no gossip in the church (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbour, and not bear sin because of him-</em></p><p>The implication is that if we don’t have transparency with our neighbour, if we don’t rebuke them openly and specifically, then we will end up hating them. Just saying nothing about those situations calling for rebuke will only drive you to hate the person in the end. "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbour" (<em><a href='B:30 19:17-18'>Lev 19:17-18</a></em>). Unless there is direct, one on one dialogue, the hatred born of misunderstanding will develop. But reasoning together is something only possible if we perceive the value of persons. By not rebuking our brother, by saying nothing and not engaging with the issues when we need to, we are likely to breed anger in our hearts against him or her. Again we note that the law of God is unlike secular legal codes in that it speaks so much about attitudes of the heart, which are unseen by others and can never be formally judged by any human legal apparatus.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>One reason we fail to love others as ourselves is because we may in fact not love ourselves in the sense of perceiving our own value before God. Unless there is direct, one on one dialogue, the hatred born of misunderstanding will develop. But reasoning together is something only possible if we perceive the value of persons.</p><p>The structure of the law of Moses seemed to almost encourage the idea of serving God on different levels. After much study of it, the Rabbis concluded that there was within it “a distinction between holy and holy just as much as there is between holy and profane”. They were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so (<em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God's</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative.</p><p>Proverbs is often a commentary upon the Law. The many passages there about gossiping are based upon this passage, in <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. The fact this passage is expanded upon so many times in Proverbs would indicate that gossip was as major a problem among the old Israel as it is among the new. But notice the fine psychology of the Spirit here: gossip in the church is related to having a grudge, to hating your neighbour in your heart, to not loving your neighbour as you love yourself (and we are very conservative about our own failings). When the Lord spoke about hating your brother being the same as murdering him (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>), he may well have been thinking of this passage in Leviticus. To hate your brother in your heart, to gossip about him, was and is as bad as murdering him. And this same connection between gossip and murder is made in the prophets (<em><a href='B:330 22:9'>Eze 22:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:240 26:22'>Pro 26:22</a></em>). But the Law provided a way out. If you had something against your brother, frankly tell him about his failure, so that you would not hate him in your heart. If we don't do this, or try to get someone else to do it, we will end up hating our brother in our heart and we will gossip about him.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall keep my statutes- </em></p><p>It could be argued that the following commandments in this verse were hedges around the law to assist obedience- rather than addressing issues which were immoral in themselves.</p><p>You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals- </p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is when Absalom murders his brother Amnon (<em><a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a></em>). They were cross bred in disobedience to this command. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored.</p><p>You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed- </p><p>The commandments about not inappropriately mixing things in Deuteronomy 22 are sandwiched between commandments about avoiding sexual perversion and inappropriate bonding, such as adultery, sex with a father's wife (<em><a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a></em>), and the perversion of <em><a href='B:50 22:5'>Deu 22:5</a></em>, which is also about inappropriate mixture of sexual behaviours. There is a similar sexual context here in :20. The idea of these commands about not mixing seed and animals may be as it were a fence around these laws. The fear was that this was going to be a subliminal temptation towards sin. Rather like the command not to plant trees near an altar of Yahweh, lest this lead to the subliminal temptation to worship the trees like an asherah grove.&nbsp;</p><p>Neither shall there come upon you a garment made of two kinds of material-</p><p>Again, as discussed above, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about this. Rather the idea was that in daily life, there was to be the lesson of separation and avoidance of inappropriate bonding. <em><a href='B:50 22:11'>Deu 22:11</a></em> speaks specifically of not mixing linen and wool. It could be argued that "linen" came from Egypt (<em><a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>), whilst wool was the classic produce of Israel.</p><p><em><a href='B:460 2:11-15'>Mal 2:11-15</a></em> shows that the sin of marriage out of the faith is because it is a denial of God's principles regarding children; He instituted marriage to create “a Godly seed". It stands to reason that marrying an unbeliever (or an uncommitted believer, for that matter) cannot very easily produce a Godly seed. Israel were not to sow "mingled seed" in their fields, or make clothes of "mingled" materials (<em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>). The materials would, as the Lord Himself mentioned, tear apart. The garment wouldn't last. And sowing different seeds together likewise would bring no fruit to perfection. But the LXX in these passages is quoted in one place only in the NT: "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (<em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>). If we are, <em>the relationship can't work</em>. So don't think that if we marry out of the Faith, it will all work out OK. Unless there is serious repentance (and even then, not always), <em>it won't work</em>. It will be a garment patched up with two different materials.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>If a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave girl, pledged to be married to another man, and not ransomed, or given her freedom; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free- </em></p><p>See on :19. The Mosaic law appears to take into account that slavery is indeed slavery, and this does make a difference (also <em><a href='B:20 21:20-21'>Exo 21:20-21</a></em>). The toleration of slavery was a concession to their weakness, but having made the concession, God shows integrity in to some extent accepting the status of the slave and the diminished rights which go with that.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, even a ram for a trespass offering-</em></p><p>Nothing is said about payment of recompense to the intended bridegroom of the woman, perhaps because the idea is that he was also a slave and didn't have full rights; see on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him- </em></p><p>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you come into the land, and have planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years shall they be forbidden to you. It shall not be eaten-</em></p><p>Forbidden fruit naturally recalls the forbidden fruit on the tree in Eden. To grab as much as we can immediately without working for it nor recognizing that the firstfruits of all human endeavour must be given to the Lord- is all very human and common. But to do so is painted as being as bad as taking the forbidden fruit of Eden, with all the long term suffering which came as a result of short-termism.</p>


text:
<p><em>But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, for giving a praise offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p>This was all designed to teach self control. For three years the fruit couldn't be eaten, on the fourth year the fruit must be offered to God, and only on the fifth year could the fruit be eaten (:25). Self control, delayed gratification, looking to the long term rather than the short term, is what spiritual life is all about. And such things are increasingly in deficit in secular society.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, that it may yield its increase to you. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p>The implication could be that if the required self control discussed on :24 was not followed, then the tree would not "yield its increase"- a phrase often used about how God would make the plants of the land yield their increase abundantly to an obedient Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not eat any meat with the blood still in it; neither shall you use enchantments, nor practise sorcery-</em></p><p>These two commandments are put together because drinking blood was part of many idol worshipping rituals. Hence LXX speaks of eating blood <em>"</em>upon the mountains". One practical consequence of this was that obedience would have meant social separation from the Canaanites; for none of them observed these positions on blood, indeed eating blood or meat with much blood in it was a delicacy. Blood represents life; to take life to ourselves rather than recognize it is God’s results in us losing our lives (<em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>). Just as simply as the blood was to be given to God, so we are to give our lives to God. To take the blood to themselves is in fact spoken of as being as bad as murder (<em><a href='B:30 17:4'>Lev 17:4</a></em>). This seems extreme language, but it underlines how important to God is this principle- that life is His and we are to give it to Him rather than live or take it to ourselves. In baptism, we give our lives to God and figuratively die and are buried with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). We are to live life in this spirit that life is not ours but to be given to God. This frees us from all the manic human concern to live life to the full for ourselves. We no longer have this concern if we continually accept the principle that life is not ours, but God's.</p><p>AV "observe times" is literally "exercise the evil eye". They were to reject pagan notions of a cosmic Satan and demons, and believe instead that good and evil come from God, not the evil eye (<em><a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard-</em></p><p>This was the style of mourning in the surrounding world. And it had some hints of idolatry. We could take this as meaning 'Don't follow the fashions of the world when they are allusive to idolatry and sinful ways'. And that has abiding relevance. The spiritual way of life seeks to cut off all opportunities for the flesh; all subliminal encouragements to sin are to be rooted out of our lives, rather than seeing how close we can sail to the wind.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p>The context refers to such marks as showed loyalty to an idol or to the dead who were thought to be still alive. Whereas the Bible teaches that death is unconsciousness. Whilst there is nothing morally wrong with cutting the skin, the idea was that Israel weren’t to even appear associated with pagan rituals for the dead. We likewise should naturally not want to even appear like worshippers of any other god (of whatever kind) when Yahweh is our only God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Don’t profane your daughter, to make her a prostitute; lest the land fall to prostitution, and the land become full of wickedness- </em></p><p>Sexual misbehaviour sets an example which spreads so easily. Thus if a very poor man discreetly prostituted his daughter out of financial desperation, the whole land would fall to whoredom and sexual abandon. But the idea behind&nbsp; making a daughter a prostitute likely refers to making her serve as a cult prostitute in the idol rituals. The serious nature of sexual sin is that it leads others into sin, by its very nature. The Lord Jesus reasoned likewise (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>The stress may be upon the word "<em>My</em>". The systems of idol worships also required days to be kept as holy to them, and <em>their </em>sanctuaries to be reverenced. For the context here is all about avoiding idolatry. Yahweh's claims upon His people are supreme. There is no way we can worship both Yahweh and idols; the Sabbath was to kept exclusively for Him rather than also to the other gods who also demanded that a Sabbath be kept to them. Perhaps this was one reason for the Sabbath legislation at this time- to preclude keeping Sabbath to any other god. But Israel as so many today sought to worship Yahweh through idol worship. The church at Corinth made the same mistake.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Don’t turn to those who are mediums, nor to the wizards-</em></p><p>The Bible is written in terms which the surrounding people would have understood; therefore it sometimes speaks of how things appear to be <em>as if</em> this really is the case. God warns against dabbling with “them that <em>have</em> familiar spirits” (<em><a href='B:30 19:31'>Lev 19:31</a></em> AV); not ‘those who think they’ve got access to the supposed spirit world which, of course, doesn’t exist’. This is the same approach the New Testament adopts to the demons issue.</p><p>Don’t seek them out, to be defiled by them. I am Yahweh your God-</p><p>This is exactly what Saul did in seeking out the witch of Endor. He thereby showed that Yahweh was not his God, and yet he went to the witch because he wanted to find connection with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall rise up before the gray head, and honour the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh-</em></p>&nbsp;<p>"Fear the Lord your God" of <em><a href='B:20 9:30'>Exo 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:14'>Lev 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:32'>Lev 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:17'>Lev 25:17</a></em> becomes "love the Lord your God" in the greater maturity of Deuteronomy, the second law (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>). Some time, read through the book of Deuteronomy in one or two sessions. You'll see many themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. It really shows how Moses felt towards Israel, and how the Lord Jesus feels towards us, and especially how he felt towards us just before his death. For this is what the whole book prefigures. "Love" and the idea of love occurs far more in Deuteronomy than in the other books of the Law. There are 23 references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to only 5 in Ex. - Num.; Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love. He saw these things as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of maturity he warned his beloved people against them. His mind was full of them. The LXX uses the word ekklesia eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other words (<em><a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:16'>Deu 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:1-3'>Deu 23:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Responsibility for the whole family God had redeemed was a mark of Moses; maturity at the end of his life, at the time of Deuteronomy. It is observable that both as a community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong- </em></p><p>Israel were to be motivated in kindness to others by the recollection that they had been redeemed from Egypt; the memory of our redemption through the waters of baptism (cp. the Red Sea)&nbsp;should have the same effect upon us. Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 24:14'>Deu 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as relevant to you personally. They were "types of us". Note how <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em> speaks of "<em>our</em> fathers"- even when Paul is writing to Gentiles. He intended them to see in the Jewish fathers a type of themselves. Israel's keeping of the Passover implied that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that night. All down the years, they were to treat the stranger fairly: "for you know the heart of an alien" (<em><a href='B:20 23:9'>Exo 23:9</a></em>). The body of believers, the body of Christ, is not only world-wide geographically at this point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance, to include all those who have truly believed. This is why David found such inspiration from the history of Israel in his own crises (e.g. Psalms 77).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or of quantity- </em></p><p>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "judgment", s.w. "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p>Israel's deliverance from Egypt was by grace, not justice. They worshipped idols there and took them with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). Their salvation was by grace and not by justice, for their just desert was to be abandoned there. Our salvation is likewise only "just" because we are in Christ, on a personal level we are saved despite our unworthiness. One response to this is to seek to be just in all our dealings.</p><p>Deuteronomy, the second law, stresses these things. <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em> says that "You must not have in your bag different weights, a great and a small". Deceitful traders still use balancing weights (Heb. "stones") of different weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. But the reference to the bag suggests that this command strikes at the forethought before the action. Don't go to market having prepared such weights in your bag. Any human legal code would focus just upon the act of using deceitful weights, whereas God foresees the planning and thought process behind the act of sin. <em><a href='B:50 25:14'>Deu 25:14</a></em> goes further: "You must not have in your house different measures, a great and a small". To avoid temptation it’s best to not even possess things which we may be tempted to misuse. See on :13. The act of deceiving at the market was analyzed by God as beginning in the home, and it was there and to that thought that the Divine law struck. Even possessing such "different measures" was a temptation to misuse them, and we take the lesson that we are to remove sources of temptation.</p><p><em><a href='B:50 25:16'>Deu 25:16</a></em> adds: "For all who do such things, all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God". The 'doing' in view is not deceiving customers in the marketplace but the forethought which preceded it- having unjust weights and measures in your bag when you set out to market, or even having them in your home (<em><a href='B:50 25:13-14'>Deu 25:13-14</a></em>). The Lord Jesus rightly interpreted this teaching as meaning that the thought is counted as the action, the doing. These forethoughts, planning deceit in order to gain a petty amount of material advantage, were seen by Yahweh as "abomination", the word for idol worship. And such things are our temptation constantly.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them. I am Yahweh’-</em></p><p>The word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; ; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp; 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The theme of this section appears to be of capital offences against God, which were to be punished by execution, or by God cutting the person off in His own way and time.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moreover, you shall tell the children of Israel, ‘Anyone of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech; he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones-</em></p><p>Despite this very clear statement, made right at the beginning of the wilderness journey (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>), the Israelites carried the tabernacle of Moloch through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). They heard these words, but refused to let them really take lodgment within them. And neither did the Levites, to whom they were originally addressed. We must ask ourselves whether we are really allowing God's words to truly register with us. "The people of the land" may refer to the Gentiles living in Israel; see on :4.</p>


text:
<p><em>I also will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people- </em></p><p>The Hebrew word translated ‘to cut a covenant’ is also translated ‘cut off’ in the sense of death (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:2-3'>Lev 20:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:9'>Isa 48:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 2:21'>Pro 2:21</a></em>). Death and blood shedding are essential parts of covenant making<em>,</em> and in this sense the covenant was ended too by death / cutting off. This means that God would pay special attention to this individual, setting His face against them, and remove them from His covenant people- whether or not He slew them immediately. </p><p>Because he has given of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name-</p><p>Our attitude to our children is our attitude to God’s Name. We need to ask ourselves how in our context we might be giving our children to Molech? ‘Giving’ children to Molech may not only have referred to child sacrifices but also dedicating children to the service of Molech. Our children are to be dedicated to God and nobody and nothing else.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the people of the land all hide their eyes from that person, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and don’t put him to death-</em></p><p>Acting as if we didn’t notice something is a sin of omission just as bad as a sin of commission. "The&nbsp; people of the land" is literally 'the people of the <em>eretz</em>', a phrase which usually refers to the non-Israelite peoples within the land promised to Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:6'>Gen 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:24'>Jos 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:43'>1Ki 8:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:53'>1Ki 8:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 5:25'>1Ch 5:25</a></em> etc.). This would be the likely understanding of the phrase here (and in <em><a href='B:30 4:27'>Lev 4:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all who play the prostitute after him, to play the prostitute with Molech, from among their people-</em></p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. </p><p>The seriousness of sin is partly in the influence it has upon others. To give children to Molech encouraged others to sin by the example set. The power of our example upon others is far greater than we realize. Verse 14 likewise teaches that sexual perversion in one case could easily lead to wickedness being practiced amongst the whole congregation. Israel were told to destroy any of their number who worshipped idols; but if they failed to do this, God said that He Himself would remove that man from the community. He doesn't say that the whole nation of Israel would become personally guilty by association and therefore the whole nation would be treated by Him as the one man who was idolatrous.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>The person that turns to those who are mediums, and to the wizards, to play the prostitute after them, I will even set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people-</em></p><p>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>The inclusiveness of Yahweh of His people, the nature of who His Name reveals Him to be, should of itself have led Israel to not discriminate against other races: “For I am Yahweh your God”. Because Yahweh <em>is</em> who He is, therefore we must be like Him; His very existence and being demands it of us (<em><a href='B:30 20:7'>Lev 20:7</a></em> cp. 19:2, 10). If we really know the characteristics implicit in His Name, we will put our trust in Him (<em><a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 124:8'>Psa 124:8</a></em>). If we see / know God in the experiential sense, we will do no evil (<em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall keep My statutes, and do them. I am Yahweh who sanctifies you- </em></p><p>Note the logic of <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em> and indeed the whole spirit of the Law given at Sinai: Because it is Yahweh who sanctifies / counts righteous His people, therefore, in thankful response, "you shall keep My statutes and do them". As they stood and sat before Yahweh and Moses, He sanctified them, or in Ezekiel's terms, picked up a sickly baby and turned her in His eyes into a beautiful woman. And their response to that imputed righteousness was to keep the laws they were given.</p><p>The word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; ; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp; 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him’- </em></p><p>Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both the Lord's death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it. <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em> and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world.</p><p>In the immediate context here, cursing parents may be equivalent to sleeping with them or sexually misusing them as part of Moloch worship (:2-5). In the very similar passage in Leviticus 18, at this point there is the prohibition of sex with parents; here we read of not cursing them. The idea may be that sexual misbehaviour involves leading others into sin. If parents agreed to participate, then they would be cursed by God, and so effectively the child who tried to sleep with their parents as part of Moloch worship was cursing them, by bringing a Divine curse upon them.</p>


text:
<p><em>’The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p>"Another man’s wife, even... his neighbour’s wife" is a definition which suggests that every man in the community was to be treated as one’s neighbour. Hence in the New Testament, loving our neighbour is interpreted as meaning loving all others within the community of God’s people (<em><a href='B:550 5:13-14'>Gal 5:13-14</a></em>). We shouldn’t think that because someone is unknown to us or distant from us in whatever sense, that we can act differently to them than we would to the one living next door to us.</p>


text:
<p><em>The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them-</em></p><p>In a polygamous society, this is not the same as "your mother". We learned in :2-5 that this kind of thing happened amongst the Gentile Moloch worshippers, but was not to happen amongst God's people. Paul makes some kind of allusion to this by complaining that this was happening in the church at Corinth, but it didn't happen amongst the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em>). His idea may be that there had been some moral progression amongst the Gentiles in this area- but sadly not amongst God's people.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have committed a perversion-</em></p><p>"Perversion" is AV "confusion", and is the word also used of God's condemnation of men in "confusion" unto destruction (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again we see that sin is its own judgment; people condemn themselves by their behaviour, living out condemnation in their sins. Israel are condemned for having 'mixed themselves' amongst the Gentiles (s.w. <em><a href='B:350 7:8'>Hos 7:8</a></em>).&nbsp; </p><p>Their blood shall be upon them-</p><p>Blood being upon them seems a variation of "they shall bear their iniquity"; the guilt for their own blood or life was upon them. The Lord Jesus Christ knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated <em>as if</em> He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them- </em></p><p>"Abomination" is a word distinctly and specifically associated with idol worship. The context of these commands is an appeal not to follow the ways of Moloch worshippers (:2-5). As was the case in Corinth centuries later, idol worshippers slept with both male and female prostitutes; and that is what is primarily in view here.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burned with fire, both he and they; that there may be no wickedness among you-</em></p><p>"They shall be burnt with fire" makes this punishment appears different to that stipulated in the other legislation, where we read simply that the sinners "shall surely be put to death". However, the idea isn't that in this case of a man taking a wife and her mother, they were to be burnt to death. Rather does it mean that the corpses were to be burnt with fire. Achan likewise was stoned to death, and then his corpse burnt with fire (<em><a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a></em>). The idea seems to be that the sin was so gross that there was to be a public lesson made out of it. We read of the smoke arising from the burning of Babylon and other enemies of the Lord's people (e.g. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:9'>Rev 18:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:18'>Rev 18:18</a></em>). The idea was that there was to be a warning to others from this; and that surely was the intention here in <em><a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; and you shall kill the animal- </em></p><p>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a woman approaches any animal, and lies down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the animal: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them- </em></p><p>See on :15. Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level. "Their blood" requires an ellipsis to be read in- 'the guilt for their blood / loss of life'. This behaviour was likely in the context of idolatry, and was particularly an Egyptian religious rite which the people had taken with them. </p>


text:
<p><em>If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness; it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity- </em></p><p>It is no mere coincidence that so many of these forbidden relationships were seen in the patriarchal family. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister (<em><a href='B:10 20:17'>Gen 20:17</a></em>). So we see that Israel were being reminded that their whole national basis was rooted in moral weakness from the start. They were God's people by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with a woman having her monthly period, and uncovers her nakedness; he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> says that if a man sleeps with a menstruating woman then they must both die. But <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> says that in this case the man must be unclean seven days. I suggest that the language of uncovering nakedness in <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> is talking about some form of illicit or perverted relationship, perhaps with a woman under the stroke of Divine judgment. But here we are reading of menstruation. Menstrual blood was a times drunk or used in various cultic rituals.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked his close relative: they shall bear their iniquity-</em></p><p>Uncovering nakedness alludes to the result of the first sin in Eden. The idea therefore is not that it is a sin to simply see a parent naked. Rather is it that such sins are sins because you are leading your sexual partner into sin and they will receive the same judgment as Adam and Eve- their nakedness will be uncovered. And so the Lord Jesus likewise reasons that the problem with sexual sin is that it leads other parties into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin: they shall die childless-</em></p><p>The implication of dying childless is that they had slept with each other in order to have children- perhaps not specifically with each other, but because this was part of a fertility ritual. But it would not work- in fact the opposite. They would both be unable to have children. And perhaps dying childless could mean that their existing children would die before they died.</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity: he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless-</em></p><p>See on :20 for 'dying childless'. "Impurity" is the Hebrew word for rejection, especially at the last day (<em><a href='B:100 23:6'>2Sa 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 18:18'>Job 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:17'>Hos 9:17</a></em>). Sin is its own judgment; in this sense, man condemns himself rather than being condemned by God. We stand before His judgment in daily life; we make the answer now. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all My ordinances, and do them; that the land, where I am bringing you to dwell, may not vomit you out-</em></p><p>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word mishpat, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them- </em></p><p>I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> that Leviticus was given at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings. At that point, God was casting out the nations from Canaan. Their refusal to enter the land was therefore a waste of so much potential. And a reflection of their disbelief in words like these which were spoken to them. Israel were eventually cast out of the land as the Canaanites were intended to be; and yet God's patience with them was remarkable. We note that God's plan was to cast out the nations before Israel so that they could enter the land immediately after leaving Egypt. But there is no evidence this happened- because the people chose not to enter the land. And when they did, they themselves didn't cast out the nations but rather coexisted with them in the land, and worshipped their gods. Again we see how so much potential was wasted; just as many have the path to entrance into the Kingdom made clear for them, but they reject it.&nbsp; </p><p>The period for gathering iniquity was fulfilled, and so the land was intended to vomit out the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). But we see here the flexibility and open ended nature of God's ways of working. For one thing, that period was extended by around 40 years; for Israel didn't enter the land when they were intended to, and so the local inhabitants remained there. And the vomiting out of the inhabitants was to be fulfilled through human agency, i.e. the Israelites were to cast them out with God's help. But they generally didn't do this, and chose to coexist with those inhabitants within the land, and to serve their gods.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am Yahweh your God, Who has separated you from the peoples- </em></p><p>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves abominable by animal, or by bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have separated from you as unclean for you- </em></p><p>The fact God had separated His people from this world (:24) was the reason for the commandments about them making a distinction between clean and unclean. There is nothing unclean of itself, the commands were given as a mechanism for teaching and reminding Israel in their daily lives of their separation from uncleanness. Those animals designated by God as “unclean” were “unclean <em>for you</em>”- not that they were in themselves.</p><p>As Israel were to "detest" idols and idolatry as "abomination" (<em><a href='B:50 7:26'>Deu 7:26</a></em>), so they were to "abhor" and treat as "abomination" unclean animals (<em><a href='B:30 11:11'>Lev 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 11:13'>Lev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 11:43'>Lev 11:43</a></em>), lest they "make yourselves abominable (s.w. "detestable") with any creeping thing" (<em><a href='B:30 20:25'>Lev 20:25</a></em>). I suggest this is the reason why God designated some animals as 'abominable'; because of their association with idol worship. The idols of Egypt were often in the form of animals, and sex with animals was part of the rites. Just as in primitive societies today. There is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>); no animal is morally more or less clean than another. The commandments about unclean animals were clearly intended just for Israel living within a culture of idolatry / abomination involving those kinds of animals.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall be holy to me; for I, Yahweh, am holy-</em></p><p>Peter quotes these words to his Jewish converts (<em><a href='B:670 1:15-16'>1Pe 1:15-16</a></em>)<em>: "</em>But like He who called you is holy, be you yourselves holy in all manner of living. Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy". Orthodox Jews such as they once were would have been obsessed with holiness in the sense of ritual separation. But this was to be extended to "all manner of living". By being holy / separate over a few things, they were tempted to think that vast areas of life in other areas could be lived as they wished. This was and is the problem with legalistic obedience. Hence the focus on all manner of living.</p><p>These words are quoting from the Levitical code of conduct for priests (<em><a href='B:30 11:44-45'>Lev 11:44-45</a></em>). But those same words were spoke to all the congregation (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>)- for it was God's intention that all Israel should develop into a nation of priests. And this very idea is applied by Peter to the entire church (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>). We likewise cannot assume that others shall take care of our spirituality; we are in fact called to be Levites for others. All of us have this calling.</p><p>And have set you apart from the peoples, that you should be Mine-</p>But in reality, Israel mixed with the peoples and were not set apart from them. Although God potentially enabled this. We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all. Consider how God told Israel that&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they kept His commandments,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;they would be His “peculiar treasure” (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). This conditional promise is then referred to by Moses as having been fulfilled- Israel became His “peculiar treasure” by status even though they did<em>&nbsp;not</em>&nbsp;keep His commandments (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em> s.w.; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>). Moses concludes by saying that “the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people (s.w.)…<em>&nbsp;</em>that&nbsp;thou shouldest keep all his commandments” (<em><a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a></em>). See what’s happening here. God said that<em>&nbsp;if</em>&nbsp;they were obedient,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;they would be His special people. Yet He counted them as His special people even though they were not obedient. And He did this so that they would be so touched by this grace that they&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;be obedient.


text:
<em>A man or a woman that is a medium, or is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them’-</em></p><p><p>AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or (ESV, GNB) "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<em><a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God's final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<em><a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a></em>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<em><a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a></em>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest shall not defile himself for the dead among his people- </em></p><p>Mourning the deceased was not of itself defiling. What is in view is the custom of touching the corpse, which would make them unclean. Touching a corpse made a person unclean seven days (<em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>), and if the priests were on duty then this would have caused a disruption in their service. And they were being asked to put God's service before the desire to touch the corpse of their loved ones. They were not being forbidden to mourn their loss, but rather were being asked not to become defiled by touching the corpse. </p>


text:
<p><em>except for his relatives that are near to him: for his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, for his brother-</em></p><p>We wonder whether Paul's command not to weep for the dead who die in the Lord (<em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>) may have this in mind. The idea may be that this allusion is one of many which encourages the Christian believers to see themselves as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and for his virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband; for her he may defile himself- </em></p><p>The list in :2,3 includes only direct blood relatives; his wife is omitted. See on :4. But it could be assumed that his wife was included amongst the "relatives near to him" of :2. Ezekiel was a priest, and when his wife died and he didn't mourn her, the people were surprised as to why he didn't (<em><a href='B:330 24:16'>Eze 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 24:19'>Eze 24:19</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself- </em></p><p>The Hebrew uses the word '<em>baal</em>' in the sense of master or husband. So some interpret this as meaning 'He shall not defile himself as an husband (i.e. for his wife) among his people'. But we wonder why, when he was allowed to do so for his other close relatives (:2,3). But LXX has "He shall not defile himself suddenly among his people to profane himself"- as if without self control, sudden expressions of grief could lead a person into uncleanness.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall not shave their heads, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards- </em></p><p>This was the style of mourning in the surrounding world. And it had some hints of idolatry. We could take this as meaning 'Don't follow the fashions of the world when they are allusive to idolatry and sinful ways'. And that has abiding relevance. The spiritual way of life seeks to cut off all opportunities for the flesh; all subliminal encouragements to sin are to be rooted out of our lives, rather than seeing how close we can sail to the wind.</p><p>Nor make any cuttings in their flesh- </p><p>This refers to such marks as showed loyalty to an idol or to the dead who were thought to be still alive. Whereas the Bible teaches that death is unconsciousness. Whilst there is nothing morally wrong with cutting the skin, the idea was that Israel weren’t to even appear associated with pagan rituals for the dead. We likewise should naturally not want to even appear like worshippers of any other god (of whatever kind) when Yahweh is our only God.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God-</em></p><p>Whatever carries God's Name is Him; and we bear that Name by baptism into it. We are to be aware of this and not profane it by inappropriate contact with that which is unclean.</p><p>For they offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, the food of their God; therefore they shall be holy- </p><p>God invited Israel to eat with Him at the altar, which became His table with their sacrifices as God's food, eaten by Him. The equivalent for us is eating with God at the Lord’s table, the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). Eating together was understood in Semitic culture as a sign of religious acceptance and fellowship.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall not marry a woman who is a prostitute, or profane; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God-</em></p><p>Reference to the possibility of prostitutes who were not punished with death is another tacit recognition within the Law that it would not be fully kept; for prostitution was outlawed. Thus in the very structure of the Law we see God’s sensitive recognition of the fact it would not be fully kept. His sensitivity to and provision for our failures in advance, both individually and collectively, shouldn’t lead us to think that therefore we needn’t take His principles seriously; His foreknowledge of our weakness shouldn’t be perceived by us as a safety net for our sinfulness. We recall how Solomon when confronted by two prostitutes did not order them to be slain as the law required; and his judgment was that of Divine wisdom, which is of grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall sanctify him therefore; for he offers the bread of your God: he shall be holy to you; for I Yahweh, who sanctify you, am holy- </em></p><p>Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods.</p>


text:
<p><em>The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the prostitute, she profanes her father: she shall be burned with fire- </em></p><p>The prostitution in view was likely not for economic reasons, but was rather being a cult prostitute at an idol shrine. This mixture of Yahweh worship and idolatry was especially obnoxious to God. The woman would have profaned not only her earthly father but also her Heavenly Father. This is why this kind of prostitute was to be punished whereas as noted on :7 there were others who were apparently tolerated.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who is the high priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor tear his clothes;-</em></p><p>LXX "he having been consecrated to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments". If he was on duty, especially at the day of atonement, then this was to be of paramount importance, reflecting the Lord's absolute focus upon His work on the cross. There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word <em>chiton</em> used in <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em> is that used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:3'>Gen 37:3</a></em> to describe Joseph’s coat of many pieces. Josephus (<em>Antiquities</em> 3:7:4,161) uses the word for the tunic of the High Priest, which was likewise not to be rent (<em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). The Lord in His time of dying is thus set up as High Priest, gaining forgiveness for His people, to ‘come out’ of the grave as on the day of Atonement, pronouncing the forgiveness gained, and bidding His people spread that good news world-wide.</p><p>This is not to say that long hair is wrong in itself for a male. The pagan priests of Egypt, from where Israel had just been brought out, were noted for their long hair, which stood out from the rest of the male population in Egypt who generally had shaved heads at that time. The principle is that we shouldn’t perceive our religion as merely just one of many other religions; there is something utterly unique about our way to God through Christ, who is our only mediator, the only way, “the truth”. Whilst on one hand God doesn’t judge the outward appearance but the heart, we should also be careful not to have externalities which make us appear to be ‘pagan’ and not the unique people of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother- </em></p><p>He would have been unclean for seven days if he did (<em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>), and this would have meant that his ministrations for the people, especially at the day of atonement, would have been interrupted. He like the Lord Jesus was to focus upon the work of saving the people more than anything else.</p><p>The Lord’s comment: “Let the dead bury their dead” (<em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>) reveals how He had a way of so radically challenging the positions held by normal people of the world, to a depth quite unheard of- and He did it in so few words. <em><a href='B:30 21:11'>Lev 21:11</a></em> forbad the High Priest to be polluted by touching the corpse of his parents, which would’ve precluded him from the usual Jewish manner of burying the dead in the first century. By asking His followers to act as if under the same regulation, the Lord was inviting His followers to see themselves, each one, as the High Priest. We may merely raise our eyebrows at this point, as a matter of mere expositional interest. But to those guys back then, this was major and radical, a man would have to sum up every ounce of spiritual ambition in order to rise up to this invitation. And psychologically, we could say that those first century illiterate Jews were subject to a very powerful systemic spiritual abuse. By this I mean that they were so emotionally hammered into the ground by the oppressive synagogue system that they felt themselves unworthy, no good, not up to much, awful sinners, woefully ignorant of God’s law, betrayers of Moses and their nation… and the Lord addresses these people and realistically asks them to feel and act like the High Priest! No wonder people just ‘didn’t get’ His real message, and those who did were so slow to rise up to the heights of its real implications. And we today likewise toil under a more insidious systemic abuse than we likely appreciate, with the same sense of not being ultimately worth much… until the Lord’s love and high calling bursts in upon our lives, releasing us from the mire of middle class (or aspired-to middle class) mediocrity into a brave new life.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p>The calling to priesthood was not to be taken lightly. There was the death penalty for not remaining on duty during the seven days of their inauguration (<em><a href='B:30 8:35'>Lev 8:35</a></em>), and it could be that <em><a href='B:30 21:12'>Lev 21:12</a></em> implies the same as a general principle. We cannot just resign our responsibilities; for we are called to the priesthood, our baptism and clothing in the righteousness of Christ was our calling and inauguration (see on <em><a href='B:30 8:6-7'>Lev 8:6-7</a></em>). It is not for us to walk away from our calling. We are in this for life, serving until death, and then eternally in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take a wife in her virginity- </em></p><p>LXX "He shall take for a wife a virgin of his own tribe". Perhaps this is therefore one of the passages alluded to by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em> when he taught that marriage was to be "only in the Lord". See on :15. He was also alluding back to the command to Zelophehad's daughters to marry "whom they think best", but only "in" their tribe, otherwise they would lose the inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 36:6-7'>Num 36:6-7</a></em>). The implication is that those who do not marry "in the Lord" will likewise lose their promised inheritance. And this rather strange allusion indicates one more thing: the extent of the seriousness of marriage out of the Faith is only evident to those who search Scripture deeply.</p>


text:
<p><em>A widow, or one divorced- </em></p><p>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage.</p><p>Or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry; but a virgin of his own people shall he take as a wife-</p><p>Prostitutes were envisaged as not always being put to death. See on :7. By not doing so, Solomon showed his wisdom. "His own people" may refer to 'from his own tribe', as in :13 LXX.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall not profane his seed among his people; for I am Yahweh who sanctifies him’- </em></p><p>GNB "Otherwise, his children, who ought to be holy, will be ritually unclean. I am the LORD and I have set him apart as the High Priest". The idea of children being clean or unclean is alluded to by Paul when he says that "The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" (<em><a href='B:530 7:14'>1Co 7:14</a></em>). We noted on <em><a href='B:30 21:13'>Lev 21:13</a></em> another allusion to this section in 1 Corinthians 7. Principles relevant to the High Priest are now applied to every believer; willful marriage to the unclean would not produce holy / clean children. Just as the tearing down of the veil into the most holy was a signal that all in Christ, and not just the High Priest, should now go in there just as the High Priest had done- and do his work, in essence. This was a high calling for those used to the Judaist system doing everything for them. In Christ they were called not just to priesthood, but to participate with and in Him who does the work of the High Priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The demands we will now read for unblemished Levites to serve Yahweh recall the requirements for unblemished sacrifices. But the thoughtful Israelite would have reflected that no man nor animal is without blemish. These commandments were to elicit a desire for perfection which was not possible. And this desire was only realizable in the change of human nature which was to be possible only through the appearance of an unblemished priest and sacrifice, the Lord Jesus. We too are brought up against our blemishes, in order to make us long for this final change which has to be brought about by God's action rather than our own efforts at perfection.</p>


text:
<p><em>Say to Aaron, ‘None of your seed throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God- </em></p><p>"Of your seed" is LXX "of thy tribe". See on :16. God invited Israel to eat with Him at the altar, which became His table with their sacrifices as God's food, eaten by Him. The equivalent for us is eating with God at the Lord’s table, the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). Eating together was understood in Semitic culture as a sign of religious acceptance and fellowship. As we sit to eat at the Lord's table, quite naturally the very experience elicits self examination. And we realize that we are blemished; but by grace we are urged to eat at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whatever man he is that has a blemish, he shall not draw near: a blind man, or a lame, or he who has a flat nose, or any deformity-</em></p><p>A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>), nor come within the holy city (<em><a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a></em>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.</p><p>Yahweh describes His servant Israel, both natural and spiritual, as a blind servant: "Who is blind but my servant?... who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?" (<em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em>). There is a real paradox here: a blind servant, or slave. What master would keep a blind servant? Only a master who truly loved him, and kept him on as his servant by pure grace. Yet this useless blind servant was God's servant and messenger- even though the blind were not acceptable as servants or sacrifices of God under the Law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:22'>Lev 21:22</a></em>)! God uses His spiritually blind servant people to proclaim His message to the world. The disciples, still blind to the call of the Gentiles, were sent out to preach to the whole world! And we too, blind as we are in many ways, are turning men from blindness to light.</p>


text:
<p><em>or a man who has an injured foot, or an injured hand-</em></p><p>LXX gives "broken" for "injured". Perhaps this was to make a connection with how not a bone of the Passover lamb was to be broken. And this was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, of whom not a bone was broken (<em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em>). The priests were to be as living sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p><em>or hunchbacked, or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye, or an itching disease, or scabs, or who has damaged testicles- </em></p><p>LXX "or hump-backed, or blear-eyed, or that has lost his eye-lashes, or a man who has a malignant ulcer, or tetter, or one that has lost a testicle". The reference to the "itching disease" may refer to those who had received a specific Divine stroke of judgment, as discussed on Leviticus 13, 14. Eye lashes are particularly affected by leprosy, so this and the itch and scabs would sound like the stroke of Divine judgment which was similar to what we know as leprosy, although I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that it was not leprosy as we now know it.</p>


text:
<p><em>no man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. Since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God- </em></p><p>The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming. The sacrificial animals are spoken of as "the bread of your God" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:21'>Lev 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to Christ. In addition to alluding to the manna, Christ must have been consciously making this connection when He spoke about himself as the bread of God. The only time "the bread of God" could be eaten by the Israelite was at the peace offering. When in this context Christ invites us to eat the bread of God, to eat His flesh and drink His blood (<em><a href='B:500 6:51-52'>Joh 6:51-52</a></em>), He is looking back to the peace offering. But this is also an evident prophecy of the breaking of bread service. Many of the Jews just could not cope with what Christ was offering them when He said this. They turned back, physically and intellectually. They just could not grapple with the idea that Christ was that peace offering sacrifice, and He was inviting them to sit down with God, as it were, and in fellowship with the Almighty, partake of the sacrificed body of His Son. But this is just what Christ is inviting each of us to do in the memorial meeting, to sit down in fellowship with Him, and eat of His bread. God really is here with us at the memorial meeting. He is intensely watching us. He is intensely with us, He really is going to save us, if only we can have the faith to believe how much He loves us, how much He wants us to share His fellowship and know His presence. We are the new priesthood, and can only eat this bread of God if we are unblemished. But we are full of blemishes. We can only be unblemished through believing that we are "in Christ", the unblemished One.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall eat the food of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy- </em></p><p>LXX "The gifts of God are most holy, and he shall eat of the holy things". Whatever blemish the man had, he could still personally fellowship with God, but he was not to publically offer the offerings of others. The priests at that moment were to be consciously representative of the sacrifices, which are the only other things which have the language of ‘blemish’ and ‘unblemished’ applied to them (e.g. <em><a href='B:30 22:20'>Lev 22:20</a></em>). The message may be that whatever a man's disqualification from public ministry, he should never be denied eating "the food of his God", fellowship at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall not come near to the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish; that he may not profane My sanctuaries, for I am Yahweh who sanctifies them’-</em></p><p>As discussed on :16, there was no man nor animal which was totally without blemish or (Heb.) 'spot'. The thoughtful Israelite would have therefore looked ahead to an unblemished priest and sacrifice which was not to be of the Mosaic order. This idea is alluded to when Paul and Peter write to Hebrews that the Lord Jesus offered "without spot"&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>); and through being "in" Him, we too are counted as without spot, by imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>). This idea is hinted at here in this verse; the unblemished were not to come near to the veil, because it is Yahweh who would sanctify them / make them holy. This appears at first blush to be a juxtaposition of ideas; but the sense is that the all were in fact blemished, and it was only Yahweh who would sanctify them or make them holy.</p>


text:
<p><em>So Moses spoke to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel- </em></p><p>Leviticus is addressed to the Levites, indeed it could be that the entire book is a transcription of the things said at the inauguration of the Levites after the tabernacle was completed. But "all the children of Israel" were to be aware of them; the priesthood and regulations were to be no secret. All the people were to be made aware of them, so they might perceive the principles being taught. This contrasts with how the pagan religions tended to keep their priestly regulations a close kept secret.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The language of the next verses is used elsewhere about the peace offerings, so perhaps they were particularly in view. Voluntary devotion to God doesn't mean we can ignore His principles<em>.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>Tell Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they make holy to Me, and that they don’t profane My holy name. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>The summary idea is as in GNB "You must not bring disgrace on my holy name, so treat with respect the sacred offerings that the people of Israel dedicate to me". Eating the offerings was one of the many antecedents of the memorial meeting. Once the offerer had dedicated himself to making it, he was condemned if he didn't then do it, and yet also condemned if he ate it unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em>). So a man <em>had </em>to either cleanse himself, or be condemned. There was no get out, no third road. The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of “eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. And so it is with us as we face the emblems. We must do it, or we deny our covenant relationship. And yet if we do it in our uncleanness, we also deny that relationship. And thus the breaking of bread brings us up before the cross and throne of the Lord Jesus- even now. It brings us to a realistic self-examination. If we cannot examine ourselves and know that Christ is really in us, then we are reprobate; we "have failed" (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em> G.N.B.). Self-examination is therefore one of those barriers across our path in life which makes us turn to the Kingdom or to the flesh. If we can't examine ourselves and see that Christ is in us and that we have therefore that great salvation in Him; we've failed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Tell them, ‘If anyone of all your descendants throughout your generations approaches the holy things, which the children of Israel make holy to Yahweh, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>It was not allowed for unclean offerers to eat peace offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em>), nor could Levites or priests approach to the sacrifices whilst unclean (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>). But there is no statement that the offerer had to be clean, indeed <em><a href='B:50 12:22'>Deu 12:22</a></em> says that in some circumstances, some sacrifices could be eaten by the offerer whilst unclean. We see here God's willingness to by all means accept the offerer of sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever of the seed of Aaron is a leper or has an issue shall not eat of the holy things, until he is clean. Whoever touches anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goes from him- </em></p><p>As noted on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> and throughout Leviticus 13, 14, I suggest that the leprosy in view is a specific stroke of Divine judgment, from which the person could be cleansed by repentance. It doesn't refer to leprosy as we now understand it, i.e. Hansen's disease. Whilst a priest was under Divine judgment, he couldn't eat in fellowship with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>or whoever touches any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean; or a man from whom he may take uncleanness, whatever uncleanness he has-</em></p><p>The "whoever" continues to apply to the Levites; see on :3. Leviticus is specifically commandment to the Levites.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>the person that touches any such shall be unclean until the evening, and shall not eat of the holy things, until he bathe his body in water- </em></p><p>As we as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) read of these requirements not to eat the holy things whilst unclean, we may wonder how we as sinners can ever eat the bread and drink the wine as required to remember Christ’s death. But the fact is, we have been washed and sanctified for service by baptism into the Name of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em> alludes here). This is a status we are continually in- for this is the wonder of the concept of our being “in Christ”.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his food-</em></p><p>The food which the Levites ate is also called God's food (see on <em><a href='B:30 21:17'>Lev 21:17</a></em>); their eating of it for themselves was effectively God eating the sacrifices of the people. So in eating it, they were to manifest God, and therefore not be in a state of uncleanness.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>That which dies of itself, or is torn by animals, he shall not eat, defiling himself by it. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:20 22:31'>Exo 22:31</a></em> says they were to throw such food to the dogs and not eat it. Perhaps "dogs" meant Gentiles.&nbsp;This command wasn’t only for hygienic reasons. God wished to encourage His people to have a healthy work ethic, not taking short cuts, but eating animals they had raised themselves for that purpose. We live in a society where laziness and trying to live for free has become almost an art form. We cannot ultimately get around the curse, that we shall eat only as a result of the sweat of our own labour. We have to accept our humanity and our fallen condition, looking for the lifting of the curse in God’s future Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall therefore follow My requirements, lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. I am Yahweh who sanctifies them- </em></p><p>They were to be holy or sanctified, because Yahweh counted them as holy / sanctified. We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all.</p>


text:
<p><em>No foreigner shall eat of the holy thing: a foreigner living with the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing- </em></p><p>The Law has a lot to say about welcoming foreigners and being hospitable to them. We as the “Israel of God” (<em><a href='B:550 6:16'>Gal 6:16</a></em>) should likewise be open rather than closed to the people of the world around us, even though we are in another sense separated <em>from</em> them and <em>unto</em> the things of our God. The priests who ate the meat sacrificed by the Israelites were representing God by doing so. The food which the Levites ate is also called God's food (see on <em><a href='B:30 21:17'>Lev 21:17</a></em>); their eating of it for themselves was effectively God eating the sacrifices of the people. So in eating it, they were to manifest God and therefore a foreigner was not appropriate for this. This was not racism; for foreign slaves and their children could eat of it (:11), the idea therefore seems to be a Gentile traveller who had been given temporary hospitality by a Levite.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if a priest buys a slave, purchased by his money, he shall eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they shall eat of his bread- </em></p><p>Gentiles who had been bought for a price by a priest to be his servants were treated as Israelites. This looked forward to Christ, the final Priest, buying us with His own blood that we might be His servants, and thereby we are fully part of His family and the people of God (<em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If a priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of the holy things-</em></p><p>The girl who married a Gentile couldn’t eat of the holy things; and neither could a Gentile who was passing through, it is stated, in this same passage (<em><a href='B:30 22:11'>Lev 22:11</a></em>). The point was: if you marry a Gentile, then you are a Gentile, and you forego your spiritual privileges which you have as an Israelite.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if a priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread-</em></p><p>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage.</p><p>But no stranger shall eat any of it- </p><p>But if the stranger had been bought by the Priest, he or she was no longer a stranger (:11). Paul has this passage in mind when he rejoices that those baptized into Christ are no longer strangers and foreigners but members of God’s family and fellow citizens with “the saints”, a term which he may well have understood in this context as referring to the community of Israel (<em><a href='B:560 2:19'>Eph 2:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If a man eats something holy unwittingly, then he shall add the fifth part of its value to it, and shall give the holy thing to the priest- </em></p><p>We note that the legislation about the cities of refuge likewise reflected God's special concern about unintentional sin. He recognizes that there are different kinds of sin. And in this we see His sensitivity, for the other legal codes at the time saw everything in black and white terms of obedience or disobedience to legal statutes. The word for "unwittingly" or "unintentionally" is s.w. 'deceived' (<em><a href='B:220 12:16'>Job 12:16</a></em>). It could be that God also recognizes that some are deceived into sin, and therefore treats those who lead into sin more severely than those who are led into sin. Likewise the New Testament condemns false teachers, but seems to be more acceptive of the falsely taught, the misguided.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priests shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer to Yahweh- </em></p><p>The summary idea is as in :2 GNB "You must not bring disgrace on my holy name, so treat with respect the sacred offerings".</p>


text:
<p><em>and so cause them to bear the iniquity that brings guilt, when they eat their holy things; for I am Yahweh who sanctifies them’- </em></p><p>The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of “eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The idea of the following section is that the offerings now described had to be as the offerers, whose 'without blemish' status has just been described. Perhaps this was to develop the reflection that the offerer was to be as the offering. Because the offering represented the offerer; and this is made explicit in the New Testament invitation to be living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘Whoever is of the house of Israel, or of the foreigners in Israel, who offers his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill offerings, which they offer to Yahweh for a burnt offering- </em></p><p>The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>that you may be accepted, you shall offer a male without blemish, of the bulls, of the sheep, or of the goats- </em></p><p>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). So this looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.</p>


text:
<p><em>But whatever has a blemish, that you shall not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you- </em></p><p>The idea of being not accepted may mean that the fire of God would not appear and consume it. "Acceptable" translates the same Hebrew word used for "at your own will" (:19,29; <em><a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:5'>Lev 19:5</a></em>). The sense is that offering a blemished animal would as it were cancel out the commendable freewill desire to offer to God. Our desire to serve God on our initiative doesn't mean that we can ignore the need to give Him the best.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh to accomplish a vow, or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted: no blemish shall be therein- </em></p><p>This repeats the principle discussed on :20; that a desire to serve God on our own initiative does not mean we can ignore His principles. They are not somehow subsumed beneath the value of our freewill; His will is to be honoured more than ours. And yet "perfect to be accepted" would have struck the thoughtful Israelite as a principle which left them for ever unacceptable- for no offerer nor offering was "perfect". And so again the whole structure was set up to elicit a desire for the perfect One, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blind, injured, maimed, having a wart, festering, or having a running sore, you shall not offer these to Yahweh, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Yahweh- </em></p><p>But this is precisely what the priests at the time of the restoration are condemned for doing in <em><a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a></em>. The excuse of the priests would have been that it was the people who offered these defective animals. But they were judged as responsible, as their acceptance of them encouraged the masses in their disrespect. Thus they failed to speak out against the low spiritual standards of their flock, but instead went along with them.&nbsp;So the masses got the spiritual leadership they wanted, even if they despised them (<em><a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a></em>). For this reason, both society and priesthood were equally to be condemned. They offered blemished sacrifices, when it had been prophesied / commanded in the Ezekiel prophecies of the restored temple that Israel were not to do this (<em><a href='B:330 43:23'>Eze 43:23</a></em>). Those prophecies were command more than prediction, and only conditional upon Israel's obedience- which was not forthcoming. So much prophetic potential was wasted, as it is in human life today. See on <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 2:14'>Mal 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>A bull or a lamb that has any deformity or is lacking in his parts, that you may offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted-</em></p><p>For a freewill offering, God would accept a deformed animal (<em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>), even though this was against His <em>preferred principle </em>of absolute perfection in offerings. There was no atonement without the shedding of blood; and yet for the very poor, God would accept a non-blood sacrifice. This all reflected the zeal of God to accept fallen men.</p>


text:
<p><em>That which has its testicles bruised, crushed, broken, or cut, you shall not offer to Yahweh; neither shall you do thus in your land- </em></p><p>Animals weren’t to be castrated. We see in this not only a reflection of the huge value God places upon life in general, but also His sensitivity to animals. Verses 27 and 28 may reflect the same. Animals are usually castrated if they have defects so that they don't produce more deformed animals. But if Israel were obedient to the covenant, their animals would be healthy and not deformed, so obedience to this command would have been easier. If we follow the Spirit, then we are led into an upward spiral of spiritual life and an atmosphere whereby obedience leads to obedience.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither shall you offer any of these as the food of your God from the hand of a foreigner; because their corruption is in them. There is a blemish in them. They shall not be accepted for you’- </em></p><p>Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods.</p><p>The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming. The sacrificial animals are spoken of as "the bread of your God" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:21'>Lev 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to Christ. In addition to alluding to the manna, Christ must have been consciously making this connection when He spoke about himself as the bread of God. The only time "the bread of God" could be eaten by the Israelite was at the peace offering. When in this context Christ invites us to eat the bread of God, to eat His flesh and drink His blood (<em><a href='B:500 6:51-52'>Joh 6:51-52</a></em>), He is looking back to the peace offering. But this is also an evident prophecy of the breaking of bread service. Many of the Jews just could not cope with what Christ was offering them when He said this. They turned back, physically and intellectually. They just could not grapple with the idea that Christ was that peace offering sacrifice, and He was inviting them to sit down with God, as it were, and in fellowship with the Almighty, partake of the sacrificed body of His Son. But this is just what Christ is inviting each of us to do in the memorial meeting, to sit down in fellowship with Him, and eat of His bread. God really is here with us at the memorial meeting. He is intensely watching us. He is intensely with us, He really is going to save us, if only we can have the faith to believe how much He loves us, how much He wants us to share His fellowship and know His presence.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>We must remember that these commands are given to the Levites- we are reading Leviticus. They were not to consider that the low standards of others were not their concern.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat, is born, then it shall remain seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for the offering of an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p>Animals often died after birth, and it was only by the eighth day that it was apparent whether or not it was deformed. This was to remind them that they were to offer the best to God, and not to offer that which cost them nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Whether it is a cow or ewe, you shall not kill it and its young both in one day-</em></p><p>The Mosaic law sought to inculcate a culture of kindness and extreme sensitivity to all, even animals. Read like this, the law about not boiling a kid in its mother's milk is similar to the prohibitions of killing on the same a cow and a calf, or a ewe and her lamb. It is likely that this was also related to a paganic fertility ritual, performed at harvest time ; and God didn't want His people to even remotely be associated with that. For He alone was the source of all fertility.</p><p>The peoples' behaviour in <em><a href='B:90 14:32'>1Sa 14:32</a></em> is portrayed as breaking every principle of the commands about eating blood in <em><a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a></em>. They ate blood, and also killed calves and mothers on the same day (disobeying <em><a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a></em>). All because they were more obedient to their oath to Saul not to eat anything until sundown, rather than to God's covenant. For all this, they were to have God against them and be cut off from God's people. The essence of this has been seen so many times in church history. An insistence upon petty legalism leads people to commit major sin. They are more obedient to the party line and the barked orders of their leadership, than to God. And the legalistic demands of their elders lead them to make utter shipwreck of their faith, breaking the most elemental principles of their covenant with God. Once sundown came and they were free from the oath to Saul, the people were totally disobedient to the covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Yahweh, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted-</em></p><p>The Levite was not to just assume that an unacceptable peace offering was not his concern. He was not to just do his job as if it were a secular day job of mere religion. His passion was to be that others might be accepted by God; and as a nation of priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) we should have the same spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be eaten on the same day; you shall leave none of it until the morning. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much. Leviticus 7 warns against various ways of using the peace offering for the benefit of the offerer. One such idea may have been to kill meat and eat it over three days, and then claim this was a peace offering- when actually it involved eating meat which the offerer wanted to eat anyway. So the warning is against using voluntary offerings (in whatever way) as a front for doing our own thing, offering what cost us very little, and only appearing to others to have a great religious devotion. <em><a href='B:30 19:7'>Lev 19:7</a></em> warns that "If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination". We note that "the third day" was not to be taken as 72 hours, and this affects our understanding of the chronology of the Lord's death and resurrection. If we think our freewill devotions to be God can be done as we wish without regard for His principles, then what we do is obnoxious to Him. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” is often used about idol worship; we will not be worshipping Him, but the idols of our own image and standing in the eyes of people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and do them. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p>The word so often used for keeping / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; ; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp; 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be made holy among the children of Israel. I am Yahweh Who makes you holy- </em></p><p>They as us were to live out in practice the status which God had given them. He had made them holy and acceptable in His sight, and they were therefore to live in a holy manner. Because we bear the Lord’s Name by baptism into it, we <em>are</em> Christ to this world. Likewise, those in covenant relationship in the Old Testament bore Yahweh’s Name, and were therefore in all ways to act appropriately lest their behaviour “profane My holy name”.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p>The language echoes that of God to Abraham: "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur" (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>). They were being asked to act as Abraham's seed, and respond as He did to the Divine initiative in separating them from the world- by following His commandments. Whenever God speaks about His Name, it is in the context of His emphasizing His huge commitment to Israel as His people, often in the face of their weakness (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:26'>Exo 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>). The very meaning of God's Name is of itself encouraging- although it is somewhat masked in English translations. God 'is' not just in the sense that He exists, but in that He 'is' there with and for us. The verb behind 'YHWH' was "originally causative", i.e. God not only 'is' but He causes things to happen. We aren't to understand Him as passive, just a stone cold Name... but rather passionately active and causative in our sometimes apparently static and repetitive lives.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>There are connections between the various sections of Revelation and the Jewish feasts. Here's a summary:</p><p>Revelation 5 Passover <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></em></p><p>Revelation 7 Tabernacles <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:15-16'>Rev 7:15-16</a></em> RV = <em><a href='B:20 23:16'>Exo 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 14:16-20'>Zec 14:16-20</a></em></p><p>Revelation 8, 9 Day Of Atonement <em><a href='B:30 16:31'>Lev 16:31</a></em>; more detailed links in Harry Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach pp. 104,105.</p><p>Revelation 11 Dedication & Purim The Torah readings for these feasts were Numbers 7 and Zechariah 2-4 about the dedication of the temple; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:11:10'>Rev 11:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:190 9:19'>Est 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a></em>. The period from Tabernacles to Purim is exactly 5 months- as mentioned in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em></p><p>Revelation 12 Pentecost & Passover The Jews traditionally ask: "On this Sabbath, shall I reap?"</p><p>Revelation 14 Tabernacles </p>&nbsp;<p>Revelation 15 + 16 Atonement & Passover Leviticus 16; Psalms 118 the Hallel Psalm</p><p>Revelation 19 Passover Psalms 113, 114 Passover Psalms</p><p>Revelation 21, 22 Tabernacles</p>&nbsp;<p>Laying out the material chronologically, we have:</p><p>Chapter 5: Passover</p><p>6 months</p><p>Chapter 7: Tabernacles</p><p>Chapters 8 & 9: Atonement and Tabernacles</p><p>1 year</p><p>Chapter 11: Dedication 5 months (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>)</p><p>Chapter 11: Purim</p><p>Chapter 12: Passover and Pentecost</p><p>Chapter 14: Tabernacles</p><p>1 year</p><p>Chapter 15: Atonement</p><p>Chapter 16 & 19: Passover </p><p>Chapter 21 & 22: Tabernacles</p><p>1 year</p><p>The conclusion would therefore be that we have in the book of Revelation a literal account of the three and a half years tribulation, with the Jewish feasts being the key marker points. And it would appear there will be an especial period of five months tribulation as described between Revelation chapters 9 and 11.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘The set feasts of Yahweh, which you shall proclaim to be holy assemblies, even these are My set feasts- </em></p><p>"Convocation" or "assembly" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God's people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship.</p>


text:
<p><em>Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy assembly; you shall do no kind of work. It is a Sabbath to Yahweh in all your dwellings- </em></p><p>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>), using the word which is used in the Septuagint for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath. Just as we are to live the "eternal life" now, the type of life we will eternally live in the Kingdom is to be lived and experienced now. In this sense, as Hebrews makes clear, we "have entered into rest", and yet in another sense we labour now to enter into that rest at the Lord's return. This is a classic case of the "now but not yet" theme of the Bible.</p><p>We note that the Sabbath was one of the ten commandments. But&nbsp;the Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<em><a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a></em>).&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “... the Lord has given <em>you</em> (not all mankind) the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a></em>); “... You (God) made known to them (Israel) Your holy Sabbath” (<em><a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a></em>). The Old Covenant refers to the Law of Moses, which was replaced on the cross by the New Covenant. God "declared to you (Israel) His covenant which he commanded you (Israel) to perform, that is the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>).&nbsp;God "wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>). If we argue that keeping the covenant made in the ten commandments is necessary, we must also observe every detail of the entire Law, seeing that this is all part of the same covenant.&nbsp;It is evidently impossible to do this. “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a></em>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. <em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em> speaks of "the tablets of the covenant".&nbsp;The ten commandments were written on the tablets of stone, which comprised "the (old) covenant". Paul refers to this covenant as "written and engraved on&nbsp;stones", i.e. on the tablets of stone.&nbsp;He calls it "the ministry of death... the ministry of condemnation...” that which is “... passing away" (<em><a href='B:540 3:7-11'>2Co 3:7-11</a></em>).&nbsp;However, nine of the ten commandments have been reaffirmed, in spirit at least, in the New Testament: 1st. - <em><a href='B:560 4:6'>Eph 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:21'>1Jn 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>; Matthew ; Second - <em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; Romans Third - <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>; Fifth - <em><a href='B:560 6:1-2'>Eph 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:20'>Col 3:20</a></em>; Sixth - <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; Matthew Seventh - <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27-28'>Mat 5:27-28</a></em>; Matthew Eighth - <em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>; Ninth - <em><a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:25'>Eph 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:3'>2Ti 3:3</a></em>; Tenth. - <em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>. </p><p>Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 can be found in 1 Timothy 1 alone, and Numbers 1, 2, 10 in 1 Corinthians 5. But never is the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath repeated in the New Testament as obligatory for us.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the set feasts of Yahweh, even holy assemblies, which you shall proclaim in their appointed season-</em></p><p>Paul alludes here when he says that the breaking of bread meeting- the only ‘feast’ we have under the New Covenant- is a proclaiming of Christ’s death (<em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is Yahweh’s Passover- </em></p><p>Israel both kept Passover and went through the Red Sea at night.&nbsp;Indeed, it is stressed six times in Exodus 12 that it was “night", and hence <em><a href='B:50 16:1'>Deu 16:1</a></em> reminds them to carefully keep the Passover (i.e. at night), “for... your God brought you forth&nbsp;out of Egypt by night".&nbsp;Other latter day prophecies speak of the events of the second coming being at "night":&nbsp;Lot left Sodom in the very early hours of the morning;&nbsp;and it was "at midnight (that) there was a cry made" informing the virgins of their Lord's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread- </em></p><p>These seven days were to recall the seven days of creation; for the exodus was a new creation of Israel, out of the water of the Red Sea.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the first day you shall have a holy assembly. You shall do no regular work- </em></p><p>Work was obviously required in order to keep the Passover; the "work" in view is therefore secular work. But the Hebrew phrase "regular work" is that repeatedly used for "the work of the service" of the tabernacle, performed by the Levites (<em><a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:24'>Exo 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:1'>Exo 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:5'>Exo 36:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:13'>1Ch 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:19'>1Ch 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a></em> etc.). Perhaps this command in Leviticus was specifically addressed to the Levites, and the idea was that at the times of the festivals, the Levites were to focus upon keeping them in their own families and not be unduly taken up with the work of the sanctuary beyond what was required by the Mosaic law. The principle is that we must not be so taken up with religious duty that we neglect our own personal worship, especially in our own families.</p>


text:
<p><em>but you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy assembly: you shall do no regular work’- </em></p><p>The sacrifices on each of the seven days were two young bullocks, one ram and seven Iambs for a burnt offering, with the accompanying meat offerings, and one goat for a sin offering (<em><a href='B:40 28:19-24'>Num 28:19-24</a></em>). This explains why the Jews at the time of the Lord's death were careful about not being defiled so that they might eat the Passover (<em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>). The reference is not to the Passover lamb, but to these sacrifices which began the seven day feast of unleavened bread which followed the Passover feast, which only last one day.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>We wonder whether the following commandment about the feast of ingathering was therefore given at a slightly different time to the preceding material about Passover; or whether the inspired recording of it wished to emphasize a subdivision.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you have come into the land which I give to you, and shall reap the harvest, then you shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest- </em></p><p>It could be argued that the following ritual was specific to the first generation who entered the land. But see on :14. But there is no historical record of their obedience to it. Constantly Israel were reminded that God would indeed give them the promised Kingdom, even though at that time as they wandered in the wilderness it must’ve seemed merely a nice idea. He encourages us likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall wave the sheaf before Yahweh, to be accepted for you. On the next day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it- </em></p><p>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God's, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God's and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>). Joseph was likened to a sheaf (<em><a href='B:10 37:7'>Gen 37:7</a></em>), as a type of the Christ who was the wave sheaf.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb without blemish a year old for a burnt offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.</p>


text:
<p><em>The grain offering with it shall be two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire to Yahweh for a pleasant aroma; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin- </em></p><p>The mention of bread and wine looked ahead to the breaking of bread meeting. But they were accessory sacrifices; they imply that there must be an offering which they accompany. And that speaks of the Lord Jesus, and of ourselves in response to Him.</p><p>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain, until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God. This is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings-</em></p><p>The following ritual was specific to the first generation who entered the land. But there is no historical record of their obedience to it. And yet subsequent generations were to keep this<em>,</em> feeling each year as if they had just entered the land. In this sense Biblical history becomes alive; we live in newness of life, as the historical records come alive for us time and again. History is not therefore bunk for us. </p>


text:
<p><em>‘You shall count from the next day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be completed- </em></p><p>This sheaf represented the Lord Jesus; see on :16. This came to the feast of Pentecost, around 50 days after Passover. After the Lord's death there was to be a great harvest celebration- and that is the significance of the mass baptisms on the day of Pentecost, the greater harvest after the harvesting of the Lord Jesus in His resurrection. All those baptized chose to do so of their own freewill, but things worked out wonderfully in fulfilling the feasts in spiritual terms. We see here the interplay between Divine sovereignty and human volition.</p>


text:
<p><em>even to the next day after the seventh Sabbath you shall number fifty days; and you shall offer a new grain offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:50 16:9'>Deu 16:9</a></em> adds: "You must count for yourselves seven weeks: from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks". These 50 days led to the Greek term "Pentecost"<em>.</em> The putting of the sickle to the barley harvest was therefore at Passover (<em><a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a></em>). The wheat harvest was seven weeks after this. The Lord's death at Passover was as the barley harvest, and we recall that barley was the food of the poor. He died on 13 / 14 Nissan, and resurrected on 16/17 Nissan, which was when the 50 days to Pentecost began to be counted from; for that was the time when the sickle was put to the grain and the firstfruits harvested (<em><a href='B:30 23:15'>Lev 23:15</a></em>). But at the feast of Pentecost 50 days later, there were the baptisms of 3000 people. This was as it were the wheat harvest, of which the Lord's resurrection was a foretaste and firstfruit (<em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a></em>). That great multitude represented all who would afterwards believe, and be finally harvested at the last day.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring out of your habitations two loaves of bread for a wave offering made of two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour. They shall be baked with yeast, for first fruits to Yahweh-</em></p><p>Yeast represents human sin (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>), and was often banned from being offered. But here it was required- to remind the people that they were sinners, and yet God still accepts the offerings of sinners. On the morning after the Passover Sabbath a sheaf of firstripe barley must be waived (i.e. passed to and fro) before the Lord; this represents the resurrection of Christ and the fact He is a firstfruits of us; but so encouragingly, a few weeks later at Pentecost the corresponding wave offering before the Lord was two loaves <em>baked with leaven</em>. Leaven always represents sin or corruption. They represent Jews and Gentiles who because of Christ's resurrection and triumph can come into the presence of God despite their leaven, our natural wretched man of the flesh, not having been completely purged out of them. Personally I feel that the N.T. indicates that it is God's desire that we should break bread weekly; if so, then the seven days of unleavened bread afterwards then represent our restrained lives in the coming week until we come to break bread again.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall present with the bread seven lambs without blemish a year old, one young bull, and two rams. They shall be a burnt offering to Yahweh, with their grain offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of a sweet aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old for a sacrifice of peace offerings-</em></p><p>This was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God's redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before Yahweh, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to Yahweh for the priest-</em></p><p>The two lambs offered for a burnt offering at the end of harvest contrast with the single lamb offered at the start of it (:12). This was to underline that the receipt of blessing from God must be responded to in dedication to Him- which is what the burnt offering represented.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall make proclamation on the same day: there shall be a holy assembly to you; you shall do no regular work. This is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations-</em></p><p>The celebration of harvest was typically a celebration of the fruits of human labour. But God's people were to be careful to realize that any harvest blessings were ultimately of God and not of their labour.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap into the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest: you shall leave them for the poor, and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p>The Israelites were reminded of this principle at this point in the legislation lest they become so caught up with realizing their own material blessings that they forgot that others were not so blessed. Whenever we reflect upon our material blessings we are to immediately remind ourselves that others somewhere are not so blessed, and we have a duty towards them. The idea was that the poor could come after the field had been harvested and glean. By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, a leash binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; for Israel is God's partner, not His dog. But rather was it designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p>The feast of trumpets is mentioned separately to that of the day of atonement, but it was clearly intended to prepare for it. To blow trumpets was to proclaim a King, or to rejoice in his kingship. Yahweh was Israel's King. <em><a href='B:230 81:2'>Psa 81:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 81:4'>Psa 81:4</a></em> interprets the feast as jubilation that God is king and judge of Israel- and this thought of judgment leads to the soberness of the day of Atonement. Yahweh is indeed proclaimed as judge, but we can jubilate in that because He will judge with grace and forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest to you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy assembly-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:160 8:2'>Neh 8:2</a></em> records that this feast was used in order to teach the law to the assembled people. It w<em>a</em>s a lead up to the affliction of souls on the tenth day of that month at the day of atonement.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall do no regular work; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh’- </em></p><p>There is repeated emphasis upon not working whilst remembering God's saving work. Throughout the Mosaic law, there was the clear teaching that it was God's work and not that of man which was to be celebrated and was to be the basis of relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The feast of trumpets featured both conviction of sin and also joy in God's salvation and forgiveness; the same strange mixture of emotions we see in the record of its observance in <em><a href='B:160 8:1-10'>Neh 8:1-10</a></em>, and which we experience in our own lives. And this was all to prepare for the same mixture of emotions at the day of Atonement which followed straight on.</p>


text:
<p><em>However on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement: it shall be a holy assembly to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p>"Afflict your souls" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember the state they had been in prior to their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them. All this is an abiding principle for us. True redemption of others has to be rooted in an awareness of our own affliction. This is particularly necessary for those who were as it were schooled into Christ by reason of their upbringing. The details of the offerings are given in <em><a href='B:40 29:7-15'>Num 29:7-15</a></em>.</p><p>We note from <em><a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a></em> that the fast of the seventh month, which clearly refers to this fasting at the day of atonement, was to be a time of joy and cheerful feasting once Israel were assured of their forgiveness. And this was fulfilled to a limited extent when the exiles (apparently on the day of atonement) mourned in conviction of their sins, and then with their eyes streaming with tears, were told to go and rejoice with a feast (<em><a href='B:160 8:10'>Neh 8:10</a></em>). It was this spirit which was to be found in the subsequent feast of tabernacles, which was to commemorate and rejoice in sin forgiven. But there is reason to think that the exiles on that occasion were told to in fact celebrate on that very day of atonement; another indication that God never intended His law to be eternally fixed and literally unchanging. Although it is worth considering whether in fact the law was actually requiring fasting; rather was the emphasis upon affliction of souls after conviction of personal sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall do no kind of work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>The Hebrew definitely reads as if it is the day of atonement which made atonement. This verse has been clung on to by Judaism at times when the temple was not standing and the sacrifices associated with the day of atonement were not offered. Their argument was and is that it is the day of atonement which makes atonement, because the atonement is from God's sovereign grace. And indeed there is some truth in this. For it was ever impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, and Paul's argument in Hebrews is based upon the implications of the day of Atonement. It indeed looks ahead to another and more ultimate atonement, by God's grace through His pronouncement. And that pronouncement was made regardless of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices; it was made over the blood of His crucified Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever it is who shall not bow himself down in that same day shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p>But only God could see which soul did not afflict itself (see AV). So many of these laws were not able to be judged by men; and indeed Yahweh was Israel's judge and not any human judiciary. Hence in <em><a href='B:290 58:3-5'>Isa 58:3-5</a></em> we read of God's judgment of an insincerely kept day of Atonement. The people fasted and bowed down their heads- but God saw that it was an affliction of soul, and in fact they did this for the sake of their own egos. They were to afflict their souls and on this basis give practical help to the afflicted souls (<em><a href='B:290 58:3'>Isa 58:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:5'>Isa 58:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:10'>Isa 58:10</a></em>). And this was to be the spirit of the subsequent feast of booths. Our generosity to others who are afflicted is to be upon the basis of our own conviction of personal sin and self affliction because of it.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever it is who does any kind of work in that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people-</em></p><p>As explained on :29, the emphasis is upon how God Himself, and not His people, would cut off or destroy such a person. Whilst work was forbidden during the other feasts, this threat is added only here concerning the Day of Atonement. This was how important it was for them to realize that atonement for our sins is in the end by God’s grace through the sacrifice of the animals who represented Christ; and not according to our works.</p><p>God in the prophets complains that <em>His people </em>don’t keep the Sabbath. He didn’t cut off the individuals as He threatened. The Lord (<em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>) said that the priests " profaned" the Sabbath; He didn't say that because they kept the spirit of it, that was acceptable. By using a word as extreme as " profaned" He seems to be even emphasizing the point. This isn’t to say that God says but doesn’t do. It’s just that His grace and patience is beyond His law.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall do no kind of work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings- </em></p><p>We note how God so wished the people to cease from their own works, and to believe in justification by faith through grace, rather than by their own works.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall bow down yourselves. In the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall keep your Sabbath- </em></p><p>The Sabbath is always called God's Sabbath, celebrating His rest from His works; here, the Sabbath associated with the day of Atonement is called Israel's Sabbath. The need to rest from their own works is so strongly stressed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The material about the feasts is clearly split up into clearly defined sections, probably to assist memorization in a largely illiterate society.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and say, ‘On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the feast of tents for seven days to Yahweh- </em></p><p>This was to celebrate the joy of forgiveness received at the day of Atonement. The communal nature of it was in order to provide an opportunity for the generosity to others which was intended to arise from personal experience of God's gift of salvation and forgiveness. See on :29.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the first day shall be a holy assembly: you shall do no regular work- </em></p><p>This huge stress upon not working is to be noted. The feast was celebrating God's forgiveness of His people on the day of Atonement, and it was critical for Israel to realize that it was His grace and not their works which was the basis of their salvation. It is therefore quite wrong to think of the Mosaic law as teaching salvation by works; it taught the very opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em>Seven days you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh. On the eighth day shall be a holy assembly to you; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh. It is a solemn assembly; you shall do no regular work-</em></p><p>The details of the offerings are given in <em><a href='B:40 29:12-38'>Num 29:12-38</a></em>. Thirteen bullocks were to be sacrificed on the first day, and the number of bullocks decreased by one every day until seven bullocks on the last day. Additionally there were to be two rams and fourteen iambs. The sin offering on each day was one kid of the goats. On the eighth day the burnt offering consisted of one bullock, one ram, seven lambs, and the sin offering of one kid of the goats. Over the eight days, this made a total of seventy-one bullocks, fifteen rams, one hundred and five lambs and eight kids plus meat and drink offerings.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the appointed feasts of Yahweh, which you shall proclaim to be holy assemblies, to offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh, a burnt offering, and a grain offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, each on its own day- </em></p><p>This is the word used in <em><a href='B:20 5:13'>Exo 5:13</a></em> of the 'daily work quota' of Israel under Egyptian abuse. But the phrase is used of their daily work for Yahweh, in collecting manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>) and serving in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:30 23:37'>Lev 23:37</a></em>). They were being reminded that they had changed masters when they crossed the Red Sea, just as Paul says happens when we are baptized (Romans 6). And the Red Sea crossing represented baptism into Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Like us, Israel were not radically free to do as they pleased. What happened was that they changed masters; hence the appeal to Pharaoh to let God's people go, that they may serve Him rather than Pharaoh. We too will only find ultimate freedom through this servitude to God's ways, and will finally emerge into the radical liberty of the children of God in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>besides the Sabbaths of Yahweh, and besides your gifts, and besides all your vows, and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to Yahweh-</em></p><p>The repeated use of the word “besides” emphasized that times of special commitment to God shouldn’t lead us to forget the regular sacrifices and devotions which we are to make. An example of this would be that if one spends some days away at a church gathering, we are not to forget our own personal quiet time with God, prayer and Bible reading.</p><p>The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>So on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruits of the land, you shall keep the feast of Yahweh seven days: on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest- </em></p><p>Leviticus was given at the beginning of the wilderness journey (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). There was continual encouragement that they would indeed possess the promised kingdom and eat the fruits of that land. Just as we are given such continual encouragement by the same God whose greatest will is that we should inherit the Kingdom. This feast would not therefore have been kept whilst Israel lived in tents all the time in the wilderness. Sadly they would have likely considered it an irrelevancy, as in their hearts they returned to Egypt. The solemn rest was ultimately the "rest" of the Kingdom which Joshua didn't give Israel, but the Lord Jesus will. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9-17'>Rev 7:9-17</a></em> uses the imagery of the feast of tabernacles to describe the entire Kingdom of God upon earth; then we will spend eternity in joyful fellowship, celebrating the gift of atonement made possible by the Lord Jesus. The ingathering of fruits of the land / Kingdom would then refer to the time when all the people of God have been gathered in. The firstfruits of that harvest were ultimately the Lord Jesus, but the image also appears to refer to a specific group of Jews saved during the last tribulation (see on <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God seven days- </em></p><p>The image of rejoicing Israelites with palms in their hands is the image of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>, used of the final joy of the Kingdom, when forgiveness of sins and atonement comes to its ultimate term. <em><a href='B:160 8:15'>Neh 8:15</a></em> records the fulfillment of this "as it is written" by taking "olive branches". But the olive branches are not listed here; we conclude that obedience "as it is written" still involves keeping the spirit rather than the letter of the law. God is not a literalist nor a legalist, and to interpret the Mosaic law in such a casuistic way is to miss the spirit of the entire law.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall keep it a feast to Yahweh seven days in the year: it is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month-</em></p><p>The seven days looks forward to the eternity of God's Kingdom. For this feast celebrated the atonement received on the day of atonement.</p><p>The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall dwell in booths seven days. All who are native-born in Israel shall dwell in booths-</em></p><p>The dwelling in booths / tents is not specifically recorded in the historical record, but we do read that on leaving Egypt, Israel camped at Succoth- a related word to "booths" in Hebrew (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:20'>Exo 13:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 33:17'>Gen 33:17</a></em>). They camped there in tents; but they camped there in fear of their own vulnerability before Egypt / the world, as well as relief that they had left Egypt / the world. And God wanted His people to always remember that spirit. The booths were not strictly tents, but as it were miniature replicas of the tabernacle. And it was Yahweh who dwelt in the tabernacle. Their dwelling in the mini tabernacles was therefore in order to encourage them to manifest Him, and His generous spirit. Therefore <em><a href='B:50 16:14'>Deu 16:14</a></em> commands that the Gentiles and marginal people should be entertained at this time. So the idea was that they should be generously entertained within the booths erected by the Israelites. This would be an appropriate way of reflecting the generosity shown to them in personal forgiveness (see on :29) and at the deliverance from Egypt (:43).</p>


text:
<p><em>that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p>It’s not recorded in the account of the Exodus that God made Israel dwell in booths; but see on :42. Often later Scripture gives us extra information about what happened at a historical event. This is why we need to use the entire Bible in order to get the correct picture about what happened in the historical sections.</p><p>Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>; ), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed feasts of Yahweh- </em></p><p>The Hebrew for "feasts" means literally an assembly, and the same word is translated "synagogue". The essence of the feasts was therefore the gathering together of God's people, and it is in this spirit that all assemblies of God's people are kept under the new covenant. The Old Testament feasts were therefore by their nature not intended to be kept individually. And it has ever been God's intention that His people should not serve Him in total isolation from each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The whole congregation of Israel were to bring a small amount of oil and flour for the bread each week. The constantly burning oil and presence of the small loaves was a symbol of how Israel were continually before Him. Yet the amount of oil and flour required each week was miniscule in comparison to the size of all Israel- there were probably three million of them at the time this law was given (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). But God is the God of small things. In the very small things we offer Him, we are remembered before Him. Israel were taught that this tiny offering of oil and flour each week was so highly significant; offering even very small things shouldn’t be seen by us as unnecessary or insignificant before God. The way Jesus noticed the widow offering two tiny coins and commented upon it is proof of this (<em><a href='B:490 21:2'>Luk 21:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually-</em></p><p>"Pure olive oil" apparently refers to olive juice which bursts naturally from the first ripe olives. But we enquire where Israel obtained olive oil from in the wilderness, especially such "pure" olive oil to such great amounts as required here? Perhaps they had been given lots of it as they left Egypt and gave it to the priests. But for 40 years? I suggest as on <em><a href='B:20 27:8'>Exo 27:8</a></em> that this was God's ideal intention, and many of these laws were applicable only in contexts when obedience to them was possible. God's law is not therefore at all a reflection of a God who is a literalist or legalist. For by its nature, the law of Moses shows that He was not like that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Outside of the veil of the Testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh continually: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:20 27:21'>Exo 27:21</a></em> adds "Aaron and his sons". "The tent of meeting" is the tent where God met with His people over the blood of atonement upon the ark of the covenant. But that "meeting" was effectively not with the people, as only the priests entered into the holy place, and the high priest alone, only once / year, into the ultimate place where God met with His people- the Most Holy place. But the candlestick was to be kept burning in order to point the way into the Most Holy. All this suggested that there was something lacking in the entire system. God was prepared and even willing to meet with His people over the blood of atonement on the day of atonement. That meeting was therefore predicated upon their repentance and forgiveness. But it would have left the people aware that a fuller meeting with God was somehow promised. And this would come to full term when the Lord's death tore down the veil, and the way into the holiest was opened for all, not just the priests nor the High Priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall keep in order the lamps on the pure gold lampstand before Yahweh continually- </em></p><p>The lampstand is used as a symbol of the ecclesia in the visions of Revelation 2, 3. The purpose of the ecclesia is to enable the oil of the Spirit to be burnt, to turn it into light. We are to keep our own personal light burning continually, day and night. Jesus had this in mind when He likened us to women waiting for the bridegroom to come at night, whose oil lamps should not be allowed to go out (<em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em>).</p><p>The lampstand is a symbol of the ecclesia; the lamps are us.&nbsp; The oil is the spirit of Jesus. Aaron was as Jesus. He daily ‘orders’ us, enabling us to shine. Jesus understood this to be so in saying that He came to fan men's’ lamps into brighter light, to mend smoking flax, not give up on it. And He is actively about this work on a daily basis as were the priests.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake-</em></p><p>These "cakes" were quite large seeing that about six pints of flour were used for each of them. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall set them in two rows, six on a row, on the pure gold table before Yahweh- </em></p><p>The bread on the table connects with the breaking of bread at the table of the Lord under the New Covenant. The bread was replaced- as it were eaten by God- each week (:8). Whilst there is no specific command as to how frequently we should break bread, it would seem from <em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em> that some of the early Christians did it weekly, and this is no bad example for us to follow. <em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em> expresses this as "You shall set bread of the presence on the table before me always". "The bread of the presence" doesn't simply mean that it was bread which was in God's presence; for that is the meaning covered by "before Me always". Rather the idea is that God's especial presence was there in the eating of the bread. The God who dwelt the other side of the veil, over the mercy seat, as it were came out from there and was present when the bread was eaten. We may have here some hint that there is a special presence of the Father and Son at the breaking of bread, which is the Christian equivalent of this table (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may make the bread be for a memorial, even an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p>Many times we read of God being provoked to remember someone, often for good (<em><a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em> LXX "that God may mercifully remember"; <em><a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a></em> LXX; 37:1 LXX; <em><a href='B:450 6:14'>Zec 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 17:18'>1Ki 17:18</a></em>). This language of limitation surely suggests that the God who could be omniscient over time, not needing to have anything brought back to His memory, allows Himself to 'forget' so that sin or righteousness again brings things to His remembrance. Thus generosity and prayer is a memorial before God in the sense that it brings a person to His memory or attention (<em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>), and He appropriately responds in their lives.</p><p>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Paul writes often that he "makes mention" or 'remembers' his brethren in regular prayer (<em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:16'>Eph 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:4'>Phm 1:4</a></em>). The Greek <em>mneia</em> is the word used in the LXX for the "memorial" of the incense or the meal offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 2:16'>Lev 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:15'>Lev 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em>), or the constant fire on the altar (<em><a href='B:30 6:12-13'>Lev 6:12-13</a></em>). That fire, that flour, that incense, had to be carefully and consciously prepared; it had to be the result of man's labour. And likewise, Paul seems to be saying, he first of all thought through the cases which he then presented to the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every Sabbath day he shall set it in order before Yahweh continually. It is on the behalf of the children of Israel an everlasting covenant- </em></p><p>The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire by a perpetual statute-</em></p><p>The priests had no inheritance amongst Israel, they survived by eating parts of the offerings. Their eating of them represented God’s ‘eating’ of the sacrifices, the altar being described as His table (<em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>), and His acceptance of the offerer and fellowship with them- for eating what had been brought to you was a sign of acceptance and religious fellowship with the donor.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian-</em></p><p>This suggests there was some intermarriage between the Egyptians and Israelites, which explains why a mixed multitude left Egypt with the Israelites. That mixed multitude were apparently not spiritually committed to the things of Israel's God once the going got tough in the desert (<em><a href='B:20 11:4'>Exo 11:4</a></em>). The similarity of phrasing with <em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em> leads the rabbis to claim that this was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew. See on :17.</p><p>Went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp-</p><p>"Went out" is to be connected with how the rebels of <em><a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a></em> "came out" in argument as in <em><a href='B:240 25:8'>Pro 25:8</a></em>. This striving together could have been in a legal sense, before the judges. The idea is not necessarily of a literal fight between the two men. Perhaps when he was judged against, he blasphemed (:10). The idea is certainly that his blasphemy was done openly and publically in the spirit of rebellion. As the Israelites encamped according to "the names of the tribes of their fathers" (<em><a href='B:40 26:55'>Num 26:55</a></em>), it could be that this man whose father was an Egyptian was somehow encamped outside the camp, and he had come into the camp to foment rebellion and express his anger at his position. However the command in :17 could suggest that the half Egyptian had slain an Israelite in this striving.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses-</em></p><p>Perhaps he repeated the language of Pharaoh who did the same (<em><a href='B:20 5:2'>Exo 5:2</a></em>). The context is of the shewbread, so perhaps the striving together in :10 was connected with the use of the shewbread. Bringing the case to Moses suggests that it had first been brought before the system of judges beneath him (<em><a href='B:20 18:13-26'>Exo 18:13-26</a></em>). This confirms the suggestion made on :10 that the striving together may have been before the judges, as it were in court.</p><p>His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan-</p><p>If we marry out of the family of faith (:10), our children may well not have the reverence towards the true God which they should have. Her name may have been preserved as a permanent reproach for her influence upon her apostate son; or perhaps we are to understand her name, "Peaceable", and her father's name "Man of the words", and her tribe "Judgment", as implying that she was faithful and not associated with her son's apostacy.</p>


text:
<p><em>They put him in custody, until the will of Yahweh about this should be declared to them- </em></p><p>A similar incident was dealt with the same way in <em><a href='B:40 15:34'>Num 15:34</a></em>. It was clear that the person should be executed, but perhaps the question was what method of execution should be used, as it was unclear whether he was to be treated as a Jew or Gentile.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>The penalty of death by stoning was appropriate to an Israelite, whereas Gentiles would have been slain by the sword. So although the man was the son of an Egyptian, and foreigners only entered the congregation after three generations (<em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>), this man was treated as an Israelite. So as ever in God's judgments, we discern even there some element of grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him- </em></p><p>The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorossa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin- </em></p><p>This contrasts with how the one who blasphemed the name of Yahweh was to be killed (:16). The command is specifically in the context of the Egyptian man who had blasphemed Yahweh. It is as if God is saying that blasphemers of their own gods were still in sin, but Yahweh pronounced no judgment upon them. This is one of a number of Biblical examples of where God requires some level of integrity from those who don't know Him and have their own wrong religious ideas. He even apparently commends the Gentiles for not changing their gods and being faithful to them, whilst lamenting Israel's penchant for many gods and their unfaithfulness to all of them.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death-</em></p><p>This seems to answer the unclarity which was the reason for Moses asking God's advice; they were unsure whether to treat this man as a foreigner or an Israelite. See on :12,13.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He who strikes any man mortally shall surely be put to death-</em></p><p>This additional clarification could be in the immediate context of the striving between the half Egyptian and the Israelite in :10. Perhaps the Israelite had been killed. If indeed this man was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew (see on :10), then we can better understand why his abiding anger led him to want to slay an Israelite in revenge.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who strikes an animal mortally shall make it good, life for life- </em></p><p>The context seems to suggest that this was a slaying of an animal intentionally in order to damage the owner.</p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone injures his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him- </em></p><p>This command may be in connection with the fight between the two men of :10. The equivalent command in <em><a href='B:20 21:22-25'>Exo 21:22-25</a></em> is also in the context of two men fighting.</p>


text:
<p><em>fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has injured someone, so shall it be done to him-</em></p><p>When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses' Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is how you should behave...'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up the <em>choice</em> of taking that higher level, even though making use of the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though in certain cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to simply forgive'.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>He who kills an animal shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death- </em></p><p>The slain animal was to replaced by another animal; the slain man was to be replaced, as it were, by the death of the murderer. The idea of 'making it good' could possibly hint that through his willing submission to death, the murderer could be forgiven. The Hebrew <em>shalam</em> carries with it the idea of making peace, but the death of the murderer could only make peace with God rather than with the man whom he had slain.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall have one kind of law, for the foreigner as well as the native-born; for I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p>If we have unbelievers into our homes or any situation where we are in charge of the social situation, we are to ensure that God’s principles are upheld. Again translating this into modern terms- if parents have unbelieving children in their home to play with their own children, God’s principles are still to be upheld by the visitors.</p><p>The inclusiveness of Yahweh of His people, the nature of who His Name reveals Him to be, should of itself have led Israel to not discriminate against other races: “For I am Yahweh your God”. Because Yahweh <em>is</em> who He is, therefore we must be like Him; His very existence and being demands it of us (<em><a href='B:30 20:7'>Lev 20:7</a></em> cp. 19:2, 10). If we really know the characteristics implicit in His Name, we will put our trust in Him (<em><a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 124:8'>Psa 124:8</a></em>). If we see / know God in the experiential sense, we will do no evil (<em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they brought out him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. The children of Israel did as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p><p>The essential idea of the Hebrew word used for cursing here is to treat as a light thing (s.w. <em><a href='B:110 16:31'>1Ki 16:31</a></em> "as if it had been a light thing"). To treat the things of God as a mere hobby, as light rather than "heavy", which is the idea of the Hebrew <em>kabod </em>translated "glory"... is to curse God. It is the same idea as taking God's Name in vain, as a vain, light thing. And this is the problem with hobby level religion. What may begin as a mere religious hobby may lead us to the eternal weight of God's glory. And no longer must we treat these things as a light thing. True spirituality must eclipse mere religion. And if it doesn't, then we risk effectively cursing God, treating Him as a light thing, just a passing part of our lives...</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to Moses in Mount Sinai- </em></p><p>The assumption at this point was that those hearing these words would soon be established in the promised land. God foreknew they would not, but He goes ahead with His ideal potentials with absolute enthusiasm and legitimate enthusiasm.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a Sabbath to Yahweh-</em></p><p>As will be explained below, the whole purpose of the legislation was to teach Israel spiritual things. Whilst leaving land fallow is indeed a good idea, we must remember that the incredible fecundity promised was the result of Divine blessing for covenant keeping, and not of agricultural technique.</p>


text:
<p><em>Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in its fruits-</em></p><p>The parallel here is with six days of work followed by the seventh day of rest. The seventh year was therefore to be a temporary suspension of the curse, the possibility of having a taste of the Kingdom now; just as we today can live "the eternal life", the kind of life which we will eternally live in the Kingdom. The idea of the Sabbath year was also to lead Israel away from the mentality of justification by works. And that was to involve faith in God's provision, rather than trust in our own works. We note that work is a commandment; there is no way to avoid the curse. But the Sabbath day and Sabbath year shows that even in this life, we have a foretaste of the Kingdom when the curse shall be no more.</p>


text:
<p><em>but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to Yahweh. You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard- </em></p><p>The legislation about the feasts stressed so often that Israel were not to work at these times. The weekly Sabbath likewise taught the need to trust in God rather than human works. The spirit of it all was that "There's more to life than work, put relationship with God, in the Spirit of the Sabbath rest of the Kingdom, before mad accumulation of wealth". Having hopefully learned these lessons week by week and feast by feast, the people were thus spiritually educated for the far greater test of not working for a whole year, or even three years, in the Jubilee year. There is no historical evidence that Israel ever kept this legislation as outlined here. They failed to learn the lessons and to be taken further in faith. This is why the land had to keep its Sabbath during the years of exile to compensate for how it had never been allowed to rest under the tenure of the Israelites.</p>


text:
<p><em>What grows of itself in your harvest you shall not reap, and the grapes of your undressed vine you shall not gather. It shall be a year of solemn rest for the land-</em></p><p>This was so that the poor could eat (<em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em>). So through this experience, the landowners were treated as the poor and landless. They too had to live by faith in God's provision and not in their own works or ownership of assets. God works likewise with us all, helping us to identify with the poor, that we might have a heart and identity with those who lack our resources. LXX has "thou shalt not gather fully the grapes of thy dedication". The idea may be that the fruit of the vine was the best fruit, but it was to be dedicated to God. Israel were not therefore to make or drink wine in the Sabbath or Jubilee years.</p>


text:
<p><em>The Sabbath of the land shall be for food for you; for yourself, for your servant, for your maid, for your hired servant, and for your stranger, who lives as a foreigner amongst you-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em> expresses the reason for this as being "that the poor of your people may eat". It’s true that often, although not always, poverty is partly due to poor decisions and mismanagement, and any aid given is often misused. And it’s true that the materially poor are partly poor (in many cases) exactly because of that. And yet the Bible teaches generosity to “the poor”. There is no attempt in the Bible teaching about “the poor” to subdivide them into the genuinely poor, and those who are poor because of their own fault or laziness, or who are asking for support when they don’t actually need it. A person who comes to you claiming need is “the poor”. Thus Israel were not to farm their land in the seventh year, “that the poor of your people may eat” (<em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em>). This immediately raised the issue that all manner of people could eat the fruit which grew naturally on the land that year- but there is no legislation to try to limit who had access to it. Those who had food in their barns might eat what grew- but there was no mechanism within the law which controlled that. The point is, in our spiritual poverty we are just the same. We are in that position partly because of our human situation and other factors over which we have no control; but also partly and largely because we choose to be in it. We cry to God for the riches of His forgiveness- and we waste it, by doing the same sin over and again. Our hold on spiritual things is weak, we don’t respond with the grace and appreciation we ought to. We’re spiritually lazy. We’re no better than those who are materially poor through nothing but their own fault. Our generosity to them is a reflection of our recognition of this.</p>


text:
<p><em>For your livestock also, and for the animals that are in your land, shall all its increase be for food-</em></p><p>LXX "the wild beasts". God feeds wild animals from that which grows naturally, and here He wanted the people to do the same; to experience and live out something of His generosity to all. But the acceptance that wild animals would exist is perhaps a tacit recognition that the full blessing of the covenant would not come, for the presence of wild beasts in the land was a sign of lack of blessing (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>). It's rather like the promise that there would be no poor in the land, and yet there is plenty of Mosaic legislation about poor Israelites. We see in this God's acceptance that His people would not live and experience as they should, and yet His legislation accounted for that- for He so thirsted for relationship with them. And He likewise is acceptant of our imperfection and failure to receive the blessings we could and should receive. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years-</em></p><p>The seventh year was also a Sabbath year, so the idea is that there would be two years when the land was not sown, which meant that there would be a bumper harvest given enough for three years (:21).</p>


text:
<p><em>Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land-</em></p><p>This clearly established that the jubilee of abundant Divine provision and rest from works was a result of the atonement. That atonement clearly looked forward to the work of the Lord on the cross, as Hebrews makes clear. Therefore the things of the jubilee year are those of the Kingdom made possible for us through that.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family-</em></p><p>To preach (proclaim) the acceptable year of the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) is parallel with “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>). Likewise there are to be found other such allusions to the proclamation of Jubilee: “We as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive… the grace of God… a time accepted… in the day of salvation (the Jubilee) have I succoured thee: behold, now is the <em>accepted time</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 6:1-2'>2Co 6:1-2</a></em>) “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached (proclaimed, s.w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em> where we read that Jesus proclaimed “the acceptable year of the Lord”. We are to make the same proclamation in preaching the good news to all people- “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached ("proclaimed", s.w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). The year of Jubilee began with the Day of Atonement, which is understood in the New Testament as foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins. We are now to live in a permanent state of Jubilee, announcing it to all people. The Hebrew word translated “jubilee” carries the idea of forgiveness, release, freedom. This is our message to all the people of the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines- </em></p><p>LXX "neither shall ye gather its dedicated fruits". The idea may be that the fruit of the vine was the best fruit, but it was to be dedicated to God. Israel were not therefore to make or drink wine in the Sabbath or Jubilee years. The confusion between 49th and 50th year is because the seventh year was a jubilee year anyway, so there were two years when the land wasn't cultivated. In the Sabbath year they could eat what grew naturally, but not in the Jubilee year. This was a massive leap of faith. Only God's law would judicially require such behaviour, in faith in His provision.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field- </em></p><p>The Jubilee year is presented as the land itself. They were to eat the increase of the jubilee year in that their barns were to be full of harvest. They were not to eat that which grew naturally (:11). We think of how the harvests of Egypt gave enough food for seven years, and of how the rich fool thought he had enough in his for many years. But the food which could be stored would have only been basic grain- none of the nicer things which are specifically cultivated would have kept in store for so long. So the Jubilee was a call to live a basic life, remembering their fathers sustained by the harvests of Egypt- by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em>In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property-</em></p><p>"His property" is intentionally contrasted with the reality that "the land is Mine" (:23). The concept of ‘private property’ is indeed a myth. For we die, and leave it all behind. The Mosaic law sought to teach this- because “The land is mine”, what appeared to be a ‘sale’ of property wasn’t really a sale at all- quite simply because the land was God’s (<em><a href='B:30 25:13'>Lev 25:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:23'>Lev 25:23</a></em>). And likewise our ‘generosity’, as David observed, isn’t really that at all- for we only give God back what He has given us. In fact, when you think about it, the only ‘thing’ that Biblically a person can say is ‘theirs’ is their partner or family- even though these are also given of God. And so it’s sadly understandable that a materialistic, wealthy society always becomes one that has a low estimate of the family unit and the exclusive sanctity of marriage.</p><p>The reality was that the property returned to the owner; but we read that the owner was to return to his property. We see encouraged a mutuality between each individual and their place or inheritance in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you sell anything to your neighbour, or buy from your neighbour, you shall not wrong one another- </em></p><p>"Do wrong..." is the word used of how the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 22:21'>Exo 22:21</a></em>). The oppression would be through deceiving the buyer concerning how many years were left until the Jubilee. It would be like selling a ten year lease for the price of a forty year lease. But Israel did oppress the simple and ignorant (<em><a href='B:330 22:7'>Eze 22:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:29'>Eze 22:29</a></em>), and so were oppressed by Babylon (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 50:16'>Jer 50:16</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbour. Relative to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you-</em></p><p>The ultimate time of Jubilee will be at the return of Christ. We are to perceive the value of all things we buy relative to this. Effectively, the Jubilee was a time of release from debt. “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>) is probably another allusion to the Jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we choose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>According to the length of the years you shall increase its price, and according to the shortness of the years you shall diminish its price; for he is selling the number of the crops to you-</em></p><p>The idea seems to be, the number of harvests expected until the Jubilee year. But the number of harvests depended upon Israel's blessings for obedience. If they were disobedient, then there would be no harvests. If they were obedient, then every year they would not harvest the land before the time for sowing had come (<em><a href='B:30 26:5'>Lev 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a></em>). So there was built in to this law an opportunity to reflect upon the potentials possible if they were obedient. God's ideal was that there would be a continual harvest; but His legislation in <em><a href='B:30 25:16'>Lev 25:16</a></em> accepts the reality that this would not happen. His awareness of our failure to reach our potential height of blessing is seen throughout His word. See on :7.</p>


