# commentaries

text:
<p><em>He overlaid it with pure gold inside and outside, and made a moulding of gold for it around it.</em></p><p>The weak acacia wood was to be overlaid with gold. "Overlay" in Hebrew carries the idea of to be seen, to be looked at. This was how God looked at that weak acacia wood, as if it was the finest gold. This was an Old Testament anticipation of what the New Testament calls imputed righteousness; we the weak acacia wood, the thorn bush, are looked at as pure gold. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and one outcome of love is to consider the beloved as far more glorious than they are. The mention of a "crown" or "moulding of gold" is as if it represented a person, a King- the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>He cast four rings of gold for it, in its four feet- </em></p><p>The ark had feet, literally "walking feet", feet bent as if walking, to symbolize how the ark was always moving on. We recall that God spoke of how He had "walked" in the tabernacle and therefore didn't want a fixed temple (<em><a href='B:100 7:6'>2Sa 7:6</a></em>). </p><p><em>Even two rings on its one side, and two rings on its other side- </em></p><p>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God. See on <em><a href='B:20 25:27'>Exo 25:27</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold- </em></p><p>"Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to bear the ark- </em></p><p>This was a deconstruction of the Egyptian religious arks, which were displayed and carried in processions. God's ark was concealed, and only carried when it was without religious significance, being moved between sanctuaries.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made a mercy seat of pure gold. Its length was two and a half cubits, and a cubit and a half its breadth-</em></p><p>This was the cover or lid of the ark, with the wings of the cherubim overshadowing it, and upon this the blood of atonement was sprinkled each year at the day of atonement. The blood would have built up over the years. Paul interprets this as symbolic of the blood of the Lord Jesus on the cross. It is a seat or throne in that it is upon that that God's glory is enthroned. But we note the small size of it. God doesn't need anything large scale by human standards. "Mercy seat" is a form of the Hebrew word for 'covering' which is usually used for the covering of sins; literally "the means of propitiation". The LXX word used here is directly applied to the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>. It was the blood which was the basis of atonement (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>), but the actual mercy seat, the slab of gold which was the cover of the ark, was put by metonymy for the blood. It is upon this that God's glory dwells and is revealed. His forgiveness is Yahweh at His most glorious, and it is in this that God meets with man (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). We note that the mercy seat or cover was of pure gold, not acacia word overlaid with gold. It may have been a literal cover over the ark which was detachable.&nbsp; </p><p>The mercy seat is clearly stated in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom has been set forth for all to see the salvation of God in Christ. But note that only the High Priest once / year was able to view the mercy seat covered in the blood of atonement. It's as if we are each now the High Priest, if we are in Christ. We can now with boldness, not as the fearful High Priest, enter the Most Holy place (<em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). The veil has been opened. We can enter, in order to gain atonement for others. The "seat" implies someone sat upon it- there God was enthroned in all the glory of His forgiveness of men through the blood of Christ. He "dwelt between the cherubim" (<em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 99:1'>Psa 99:1</a></em>). There was the impression held by Hezekiah (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em>) and David (<em><a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a></em>) that God dwelt between the cherubim, over the mercy seat. "Justice and judgment" are where God was enthroned (<em><a href='B:230 89:14'>Psa 89:14</a></em>), and this refers to the blood sprinkled mercy seat where God was especially enthroned in glory on the day of Atonement. His forgiveness and salvation has integrity, it's not a turning of a blind eye, a waiving of principle. In this is the wonder of our salvation. Note that the cherubim peered down upon the blood- alluded to in <em><a href='B:670 1:11-12'>1Pe 1:11-12</a></em>, which says that the Angels earnestly look into the things of the blood of Christ. The cherubim were of gold, of one piece with the mercy seat, but Jesus was not an Angel by nature (see Hebrews 1)- which warns us not to over-interpret tabernacle types. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made two cherubim of gold. He made them of beaten work, at the two ends of the mercy seat- </em></p><p>The cherubim had wings (:9) and could have human and animal forms, according to Ezekiel 1, 10. In this sense they could be said to resemble the sphinx forms which were such a common part of Egyptian religion. The similarity is in the fact that God was deconstructing Egyptian religion, just as the plagues were aimed at the gods of Egypt. Instead of openly displayed sphinx like creatures memorializing the dead, these were the hidden symbols of God's living presence amongst His people, hidden away in the holiest place, and only briefly seen once every year by the high priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end. He made the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends- </em></p><p>The cherubim represented those through whom God was manifested, be it Angels or His people. For this is how the cherubim are used in Ezekiel. But they are of one part with the mercy seat, which represented the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>). This speaks of His deep unity with us, shown in His life by His being of our nature, and now through the presence of His Spirit within those who are "in" Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>The cherubim spread out their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward one another. The faces of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat- </em></p><p>Speaking of the things of the blood of the Lord Jesus, Peter comments: "Which things the angels desire to look into" (<em><a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a></em>), as if he saw in the cherubim some representation of the Angels looking down at the blood of atonement sprinkled upon the mercy seat. And yet Peter implies that we too "look into" those things. And thus we note that the cherubim were looking down at the blood, not at each other; as our focus should be upon the Lord's blood, and not each other.</p><p>The pagan god tabernacles all feature some kind of throne, upon which the god visibly sits. The cherubim of the Israelite tabernacle are similar to the Mesopotamian <em>karibu</em>, cherubim, upon which their gods sat. Phoenician and Egyptian art uncovered by archaeologists shows they believed in cherubim very similar in form to those described in Ezekiel's visions of Yahweh's cherubim. The throne of Yahweh was the ark, covered by the cherubim. There, above the blood spattered lid of the ark (or "mercy seat"), supported by the cherubim, the pagan mind expected to see Israel's God enthroned. The similarities to the pagan shrines were intentional- to set up this expectation. But there was nothing there. It was, to their eyes, an empty throne- just as God appears to be absent to so many people today. There was no visible image resting upon the wings of the cherubim, nothing on the throne / lid of the ark but the blood of atonement (which pointed forward to that of God's Son).</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the table of acacia wood. Its length was two cubits, and its breadth was a cubit, and its height was a cubit and a half- </em></p><p>The Ugaritic poems speak of the furniture in Baal's heavenly temple, and it's very similar to that in the Most Holy Place. But the poems especially focus upon Baal's bed and chests of drawers for his clothing. These are noticeably absent in Yahweh's tabernacle furniture. </p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood, which was effectively the weak wood from a thorn bush; but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<em><a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a></em>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<em><a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a></em>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<em><a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a></em>). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<em><a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a></em>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<em><a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a></em>), although as discussed on <em><a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a></em>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God's judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He overlaid it with pure gold, and made a gold moulding around it- </em></p><p>The table of shewbread looked ahead to the breaking of bread in the Christian experience. It had a crown (NEV "moulding") around it, as if it were the king's table. And indeed it is. We sit there as guests at the king's table, and it is not for us to use it as "our" table, excluding or ejecting others from it.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made a border of a handbreadth around it, and made a golden moulding on its border around it-</em></p><p>The golden moulding or crown is twice stressed (:24), as if it really was the king's table. The purpose of the rim was for the rings for carrying it (:27). </p>


text:
<p><em>He cast four rings of gold for it, and put the rings in the four corners that were on its four feet- </em></p><p>The ark had feet, literally "walking feet", feet bent as if walking, to symbolize how the ark was always moving on. We recall that God spoke of how He had "walked" in the tabernacle and therefore didn't want a fixed temple (<em><a href='B:100 7:6'>2Sa 7:6</a></em>). See on :5.</p>


text:
<p><em>The rings were close by the border, the places for the poles to carry the table- </em></p><p>"Places" is the Hebrew word usually used for a house. A different word would have been used if the idea was merely a "place". There is a purposeful juxtaposition between the image of stability carried by the idea of a "house", and the fact that the rings and poles were in order that this furniture could be carried and moved on. God's permanent, characteristic way is the way of dynamism, moving on. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold, to carry the table- </em></p><p>The need to be mobile and always moving on is stressed throughout the record of the tabernacle. There could have been some blanket statement like "All the tabernacle equipment had rings on it so that poles could be put in the rings, and it could be carried". But the record labours this mobile nature of the whole system; see on :14.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the vessels which were on the table, its dishes, its spoons, its bowls, and its pitchers with which to pour out, of pure gold- </em></p><p>Yahweh had a "table". The Mesopotamian gods likewise had a table (<em>passuru</em>) upon which food was placed as a meal for the god (as in <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em>). But the beakers, cups and vessels on Yahweh's table remained empty; the wine was poured out onto the sacrifices and vaporized; the priests ate the shewbread. There was no pretence that Yahweh was a hungry god who needed to be fed by His worshippers. To the pagan mind, this would've meant that if He didn't eat, He wasn't actually around nor powerful. Again, the difference and similarities were intentional, in order to point up the need for faith in the power and existence of Yahweh.</p><p><em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em> adds: "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>He made the lampstand of pure gold. He made the lampstand of beaten work. Its base, its shaft, its cups, its buds, and its flowers were of one piece with it- </em></p><p>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <em><a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a></em> David decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, the one people of God; such was his obsession with mere religion. See on :10.</p><p>The candlestick represents the assembly of believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>). It was made of beaten work, representing how all those in the true church will be beaten into a shape through which they can be lights for God. "Hammered" or "beaten" suggests that through blow by blow on material heated in the furnace of affliction (<em><a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a></em>), God works out a place where His glory may be revealed. And that place is our lives. </p>


text:
<p><em>There were six branches going out of its sides: three branches of the lampstand out of its one side, and three branches of the lampstand out of its other side- </em></p><p>The lampstand represents God's people (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), and it had seven lamps; the six branches and the central stem, upon which there was also a lamp. Seven is the number of wholeness and completion. Perhaps the idea is that there is to be a complete manifestation of God through the witness of His people, burning the oil of the Spirit. Each component member witnesses to Him in a slightly different way, not only in this life but throughout the generations of God's people. Likewise the body of Christ in the same way manifests Christ to the world. </p>


text:
<p><em>three cups made like almond blossoms in one branch, a bud and a flower, and three cups made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bud and a flower: so for the six branches going out of the lampstand- </em></p><p>The almond is the first tree in Palestine to bud, so it means literally the watching tree, as if it were alive and eager to come to life. So it is appropriate for the candlestick, which represented God's people. Jeremiah sees the branch of an almond tree and is comforted that "I watch over My word to perform it" (<em><a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a></em>). The word translated 'hasten' or "watch over" is very similar to the word for 'almond'. Almonds are associated with God's eyes; the bowls of the lampstands were almonds (<em><a href='B:20 25:33-34'>Exo 25:33-34</a></em>). <em><a href='B:450 4:2'>Zec 4:2</a></em> talks about these almond bowls on the candlestick, and <em><a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a></em> interprets them as the "eyes of the LORD which run to and fro through the whole earth". <em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em> talks about the Angels in the same way; "the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him". Similarly in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em> the lamps in the bowls of almond are equated with the "seven spirits (or Angels) of God". <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em> equates the seven eyes with the seven spirits. Thus the almond rod which Jeremiah saw represented God's eyes or Angels who would watch over the word of God which Jeremiah was to speak to perform it. And He does likewise with the witness of all those represented within the candlestick.</p><p>Israel was one nation under God; they were represented by one seven-branched candlestick. But in the New Testament vision of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>, each church is represented by an individual candlestick, and the body of Christ as a whole is represented by seven candlesticks, seven being the number of completion. This suggests that each local congregation is seen as autonomous by Christ; no other candlestick can dictate to another what they should do. If they fail to give light as they should, then this is dealt with by Christ Himself, the One who walks amongst the seven candlesticks and is in their midst (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:13'>Rev 1:13</a></em>); He alone can remove a candlestick (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:5'>Rev 2:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>In the lampstand were four cups made like almond blossoms, its buds and its flowers-</em></p><p>The menorah or "candlestick" is from a root meaning to yoke. In the Christian context, the yoke, the uniting power, is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). He is the unique power which binds together His otherwise disparate people into one candlestick. Thereby Christian unity becomes a witness to the world, at least that is the intention. All disunity between believers therefore causes the candlestick not to function, and the light of witness is thereby the less. </p>


text:
<p><em>and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of it- </em></p><p>The language of buds, flowers and branches invites us to see the candlestick as a tree of life giving light in the darkness of the tabernacle, which had no natural light. The candlestick represents the local church in our times (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>); we as communities of believers are to be as the tree of life, offering eternity to a dark world; hence <em><a href='B:240 11:30'>Pro 11:30</a></em> likens the fruit of the righteous to the tree of life, which results in winning people for eternity. In this sense the ecclesia, the community of believers, is to be as the tree of life to others by their words (<em><a href='B:240 3:18'>Pro 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:30'>Pro 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:4'>Pro 15:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Their buds and their branches were of one piece with it. The whole thing was one beaten work of pure gold- </em></p><p>The fact the candlestick was made from one piece of gold is emphasized; it speaks of the unity of the local church, achieved through much patient beating out of the material which comprises it. The candlestick represents the assembly of believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>). It was made of beaten work, representing how all those in the true church will be beaten into a shape through which they can be lights for God. "Hammered" suggests that through blow by blow on material heated in the furnace of affliction (<em><a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a></em>), God works out a place where His glory may be revealed. And that place is our lives. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made its seven lamps, and its snuffers, and its snuff dishes, of pure gold- </em></p><p>The mention of seven lamps confirms that there was a central stem with a lamp, and six branches coming out of it with a total of six lamps on them- making seven lamps. <em><a href='B:20 25:37'>Exo 25:37</a></em> adds: "And they shall light its lamps to give light to the space in front of it"<em>. </em>The candlestick was on the south end of the holy place, shedding light "opposite" (Heb., NEV "in front of it"), i.e. towards the northern end where the veil was, and where the table of shewbread was, symbolizing fellowship with God. This is the purpose of our witness; to direct people towards fellowship with God and entry to the most holy place. </p><p>Gold wasn’t the strongest or most practical material for these instruments. But it represents faith (<em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>). We aren’t the best instruments for God to use in His house, but He prefers to use the soft and those who aren’t humanly qualified for His work- because He works by faith in us, and by our faith in Him rather than our human strength.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made it of a talent of pure gold, with all its vessels- </em></p><p>A talent was 94 pounds or 42:6 kg. This was a huge amount of gold, but all the same, due to the dense weight of gold, the candlestick would have been quite small if it were solid. 42 kg. of solid gold is about the size of two standard size books. This fits the theme that everything in the tabernacle was small scale, not large. The ecclesia of God, represented by the candlestick (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), is small but gives huge light in a dark place, pointing towards the entrance to the most holy place. It is depicted as large and a source of particular glory in the famous depiction of the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, but either the candlestick of those times was only gold plated, or the size was exaggerated. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the altar of incense of acacia wood. It was square: its length was a cubit, and its breadth a cubit. Its height was two cubits. Its horns were of one piece with it- </em></p><p>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. </p><p>GNB "18 inches long and 18 inches wide, and it is to be 36 inches high". Again we note the small scale of the tabernacle and its furniture. God doesn't need grandiose religious symbols.</p>


text:
<p><em>He overlaid it with pure gold, its top, its sides around it, and its horns. He made a gold moulding around it- </em></p><p>The mention of a "crown" or "moulding of gold" is as if it represented a person, a King- the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made two golden rings for it under its moulding crown, on its two ribs, on its two sides, for places for poles with which to carry it- </em></p><p>"Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God. See on :3. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with gold- </em></p><p>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the holy anointing oil and the pure incense of sweet spices, after the art of the perfumer-</em></p><p>The specific perfumer in view was Bezaleel.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the altar of burnt offering of acacia wood. It was square. Its length was five cubits, its breadth was five cubits, and its height was three cubits- </em></p><p>In <em><a href='B:140 4:1'>2Ch 4:1</a></em>, David and Solomon replaced this with "An altar of brass, twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and ten cubits in height". This was far larger than the altar of the tabernacle, which was 5 x 5 x 3. 5 cubits is 7:5 feet (225 cm.), 3 cubits is 1:5 feet (45 cm.) Clearly the idea was that far more animals were going to be offered. And yet David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<em><a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a></em>). Just as God didn't want a physical house built to Him, but rather wanted to build a house of people with humble hearts open to the working of His Spirit. The altar was of brass, whereas that of the tabernacle was of common, weak acacia wood (<em><a href='B:20 27:1-2'>Exo 27:1-2</a></em>). This taught that the basis of acceptable sacrifice and approach to God is the recognition of our common weak humanity, and sacrifice is offered to God upon that basis. But Solomon had no recognition of his own moral frailty and humanity, and was convinced that as David's son and the Messianic seed (as he imagined), he was therefore perfect. And it seems David too somehow rationalized his sin with Bathsheba by the end of his life, and lacked grace and humility.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He made its horns on its four corners. Its horns were of one piece with it, and he overlaid it with brass- </em></p><p>Whilst there are similarities with the concept of religion which Israel had been used to in Egypt, there were significant differences. The altars of Egypt tended to have the horns of previously sacrificed animals attached to them. But the horns of Yahweh's altar were in order to bind the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:230 118:27'>Psa 118:27</a></em>), they had practical function; and were a symbol of Yahweh's salvation (<em><a href='B:110 1:50'>1Ki 1:50</a></em>)- not the triumph of secular man over an impressive animal. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made all the vessels of the altar, the pots, the shovels, the basins, the forks, and the fire pans. He made all its vessels of brass-</em></p><p>Jewish tradition has it that the fire which came down from Heaven in <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> remained burning; and this fire was preserved burning all night and day. Hence the need for "fire pans" (<em><a href='B:20 27:3'>Exo 27:3</a></em>) to keep the fire burning whilst the altar was being cleaned or the remains of sacrifices removed from it. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made for the altar a grating of a network of brass, under the ledge around it beneath, reaching halfway up- </em></p><p>This implies that the altar was a brass plated box, with a grating on the top to feed air to the fire with air. Through this the ashes would have fallen into a pan below. </p>


text:
<p><em>He cast four rings for the four ends of brass grating, to be places for the poles- </em></p><p>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the poles of acacia wood, and overlaid them with brass- </em></p><p>"Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the altar, with which to carry it. He made it hollow with planks- </em></p><p>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the basin of brass, and its base of brass, out of the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>Perhaps this suggests that their devotion to God led them to no longer be so concerned with their own image and appearance.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the court: for the south side southward the hangings of the court were of fine twined linen, one hundred cubits- </em></p><p>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. It perhaps appropriately designated the boundary between the believer and the world, represented by the linen fence which marked the enclosure of the tabernacle. 100 cubits is 58 yards or 53 meters.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>their pillars were twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver-</em></p><p>"Fillets" is rendered "connecting rods" by some, and "sockets" as "bases". </p>


text:
<p><em>For the north side one hundred cubits, their pillars twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p>Nearly all the features of the tabernacle suggest parts of the body. The girl in Solomon's song portrays her lover as having "legs as pillars (s.w. "pillars" here) set upon sockets (s.w. "sockets" here, meaning "bases") of gold" (<em><a href='B:260 5:15'>Son 5:15</a></em>). The pillars therefore correspond to legs, and the bases / "sockets" to feet. It was as if the tabernacle was surrounded by men's legs and feet, holding hands with each other.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For the west side were hangings of fifty cubits, their pillars ten, and their sockets ten; the hooks of the pillars, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p>GNB "with ten posts and ten bases".</p>


text:
<p><em>For the east side, eastward fifty cubits-</em></p><p>LXX adds "their pillars ten, and their sockets ten".</p>


text:
<p><em>The hangings for the one side were fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three-</em></p><p>Summed up in GNB: "On each side of the entrance there are to be 71/2 yards of curtains, with three posts and three bases". Fifteen cubits is 6:8 meters, or 7:5 yards. But LXX gives "fifty cubits". </p>


text:
<p><em>and so also for the other side: on this hand and that hand by the gate of the court were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three-</em></p><p>See on :14. But LXX gives "fifty cubits". </p>


text:
<p><em>All the hangings around the court were of fine twined linen- </em></p><p>For "linen" see on :9. "Hangings" is literally 'covering', and covering is a major theme of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 26:36-37'>Exo 26:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:12'>Exo 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 39:34'>Exo 39:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:3'>Exo 40:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 40:21'>Exo 40:21</a></em>). For the message was of the atonement or covering which is in the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>The sockets for the pillars were of brass. The hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver; and the overlaying of their heads, of silver; and all the pillars of the court were filleted with silver-</em></p><p>GNB "All the posts around the enclosure are to be connected with silver rods, and their hooks are to be made of silver and their bases of bronze". Silver rods seems another feature of the tabernacle which might appear at first blush to not at all be how man would have designed things. </p>


text:
<p><em>The screen for the gate of the court was the work of the embroiderer, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen. Twenty cubits was the length, and the height in the breadth was five cubits, like to the hangings of the court- </em></p><p>This describes the curtain over the door of the tabernacle in similar language to how the veil hiding the Most Holy is described. Entrance to both the court and to the most holy place was through a veil made of the same design. The Lord Jesus alludes to this in teaching that "I am the door". The only way to get on the path to God is through Him. This rules out all non-Christian paths to God. Christ is the door of the tabernacle through which we enter at our conversion and baptism (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). By doing so we also enter, in prospect, through the veil into the Most Holy of eternity and Divine nature. The height of the curtains was such that a man would have to bow his head in order to pass underneath it, teaching the humility required to approach God’s presence.</p>


text:
<p><em>Their pillars were four, and their sockets four, of brass; their hooks of silver, and the overlaying of the heads, and their fillets, of silver-</em></p><p>"Sockets" is GNB "bases", and "fillets" is "rods". </p>


text:
<p><em>All the pins of the tabernacle, and around the court, were of brass-</em></p><p>The "pins" are the tent pegs. </p>


text:
<p><em>This is the amount of material used for the tabernacle, even the Tabernacle of the Testimony, as they were counted, according to the commandment of Moses, for the service of the Levites, by the hand of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the priest- </em></p><p>GNB is clearer: "Here is a list of the amounts of the metals used in the Tent of the LORD's presence, where the two stone tablets were kept on which the Ten Commandments were written. The list was ordered by Moses and made by the Levites who worked under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest". We note that the work of accounting was given to Ithamar rather than to Nadab or Abihu, who were later to show themselves apostate. Perhaps they already showed signs of lack of integrity at this stage. Time and again we note the internal corroboration within the inspired record.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p>Bezaleel means shelter of / for God, appropriate for a man who built His tent / tabernacle. This reinforces the idea that God prefers to dwell in a tent, and not in a physical brick building. David and Solomon willfully ignored this in their obsession with building a temple. It's possible (although see my commentary on <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>) that Bezaleel was little more than a child. For <em><a href='B:130 2:19-20'>1Ch 2:19-20</a></em> says that Caleb was the father of Hur. Caleb was only 40 when he first spied out the land (<em><a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a></em>). "The son of..." is not a precise term in Hebrew and can simply mean a relative, but there is still the idea of a relative in a younger generation than the 'father'. Bezaleel was a generation or two older than Bezaleel; and when Caleb was 40, Bezaleel made the tabernacle that same year. This would be typical of how God works through the weak and those considered inappropriate by men. He gave His Spirit to the young Bezaleel, who may have been only 12 years old, and through him built His dwelling place. We can be sure there would have been many older and experienced builders, who had worked for the Egyptian building projects, who would have been far more qualified in secular terms. </p>


text:
<p><em>With him was Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, an engraver and a skilful workman, and an embroiderer in blue, in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen- </em></p><p>This seems to imply that Aholiab was already a master craftsman; but he could only do the work because God blessed and developed the ‘natural’ talent which Aholiab was willing to present to God’s service. God sometimes gives us the opportunity to develop our ‘natural’ talents for use in His service- other times, He asks us to do that which is for us a taking up on the cross.</p><p>"The skilful workman" of <em><a href='B:20 28:15'>Exo 28:15</a></em> and elsewhere may specifically refer to Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>). Perhaps Paul saw in this man a representation of us all- for he urged us likewise to be careful workmen when it comes to the understanding and teaching of God's word (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>All the gold that was used for the work in all the work of the sanctuary, even the gold of the offering, was twenty-nine talents, and seven hundred thirty shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary-</em></p><p>The total weight of all the gold, silver and brass comes to 10:4 tones or 10,400 kg. In addition to this there was the gold used and destroyed in the destruction of the golden calf. This would however only make a very small amount per person, if indeed two million of them left Egypt. But see on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>. They did indeed spoil the Egyptians, but we can assume that they gave nearly all their wealth to the tabernacle project; perhaps that is the intention of the note in <em><a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a></em> that they stopped wearing jewellery from then onwards. And yet they continued worshipping idols all through the wilderness journey, despite their stellar generosity to Yahweh's tabernacle. We also can reflect that transporting this tabernacle on poles was a major exercise. </p>


text:
<p><em>The silver of those who were numbered of the congregation was one hundred talents, and one thousand seven hundred seventy-five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary- </em></p><p>The census of <em><a href='B:20 30:16'>Exo 30:16</a></em> required each man of military age to pay a half shekel of silver. It was used for the silver sockets in the boards of the tabernacle etc. There were 600,000 men of military age who left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>); if they each paid a half shekel, this would have been 300,000 shekels of silver. 3000 shekels make one talent, so this would have made 1000 talents of silver. Which is exactly the amount of silver mentioned in <em><a href='B:20 38:27'>Exo 38:27</a></em>. However, there were actually 603,550 men (<em><a href='B:20 38:26'>Exo 38:26</a></em>). And we wonder whether each man actually paid what was asked. We see here the way in which the Biblical record often doesn't worry about literal exactitude, but presents an overall picture.</p>


text:
<p><em>a beka a head, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for each one who passed over to those who were numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men- </em></p><p>"Beka" is literally 'that which is divided', a divided shekel or half shekel. See the discussion of whether this number is literal on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>The one hundred talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil; one hundred sockets for the one hundred talents, a talent for a socket- </em></p><p>If each socket weighed a talent (<em><a href='B:20 38:27'>Exo 38:27</a></em>), the forty silver sockets connecting the boards would have been really big and solid. The connection between the boards was critical, because according to <em><a href='B:20 26:15'>Exo 26:15</a></em> they were "standing up". This seems to mean that the boards were not to merely sink into the dust of the earth, but to hold together in such a way that they would be stable. So the large size and weight of the sockets is appropriate. The internal cohesion and corroboration within the account of the tabernacle is such that it is a profound reflection of the Divine inspiration of the record. </p>


text:
<p><em>From the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels he made hooks for the pillars, overlaid their capitals, and made fillets for them- </em></p><p>The weak acacia wood was to be overlaid with silver. "Overlay" in Hebrew carries the idea of to be seen, to be looked at. This was how God looked at that weak acacia wood, as if it was the finest silver. This was an Old Testament anticipation of what the New Testament calls imputed righteousness; we the weak acacia wood, the thorn bush, are looked at as pure silver. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and one outcome of love is to consider the beloved as far more glorious than they are.</p>


text:
<p><em>The brass of the offering was seventy talents, and two thousand four hundred shekels- </em></p><p>God remembers to this day how much everyone gave of what material, and has preserved the record in His written word. This is encouragement to us that no sacrifice for God’s house is ever forgotten, but He eternally remembers it.</p>


text:
<p><em>From this he made the sockets to the door of the Tent of Meeting, the bronze altar, the bronze grating for it, all the vessels of the altar- </em></p><p>"Vessels" is the same Hebrew word translated "jewels" when we read that the Hebrews were to 'borrow' "jewels" from the Egyptians (<em><a href='B:20 3:22'>Exo 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a></em>). All they took from Egypt / the world was to be used in the Lord's work, and that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p><em>the sockets around the court, the sockets of the gate of the court, all the pins of the tabernacle, and all the pins around the court- </em></p><p>The amount of brass was enough for us to assume that the tent pegs and sockets or GNB "bases" were very solid. They would have had to be very strong to hold up the tabernacle against desert winds. </p>


text:
<p><em>Of the blue, purple, and scarlet, they made finely worked garments, for ministering in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>Scarlet and purple were the colours of royalty or rulership, yet it was intertwined with the priestly garments. There was always the theme of king-priests. It was perhaps God's initial intention that the leadership of Israel should be by the priests, and their choice of a human king and the subsequent ruling dynasty through David and the tribe of Judah was not His ideal intention.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen- </em></p><p>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. We also see that the religious style which they had been used to in Egypt was being alluded to but deconstructed. They were being given a system of religion not completely foreign to them, but also radically different to all systems they had previously used or encountered. This is why the Pentateuch alludes to things like the laws of Hammurabi, or the existing creation myths- to deconstruct them.</p>


text:
<p><em>They beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into wires, to work it in the blue, in the purple, in the scarlet, and in the fine linen, the work of the skilful workman- </em></p><p>This may refer to one specific "skilful workman", Bezaleel or Aholiab. </p>


text:
<p><em>They made shoulder straps for it, joined together. At the two ends it was joined together- </em></p><p>LXX "It shall have two shoulder-pieces joined together, fastened on the two sides".&nbsp; "Joined / Coupled together" is s.w. "have fellowship with" (<em><a href='B:230 94:20'>Psa 94:20</a></em>), and often of men 'joining together'. The theme of coupling and joining together occurs throughout the record of the tabernacle, and is used e.g. of the joining together of the curtains (<em><a href='B:20 26:3'>Exo 26:3</a></em>). Unity amongst believers is to be the outcome of the indwelling of God's glory. Disunity results from simply not having perceived His glory. For before that, all disunity disappears as we are awed by His grace and convicted of our own smallness and unworthiness. </p>


text:
<p><em>The skilfully woven band that was on it, with which to fasten it on, was of the same piece, like its work; of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>The significance of the colours should not be over emphasized. Israel in the wilderness only had a limited range of things with them, and as with the use of the acacia wood for the tabernacle construction, God was (and is) in a sense limited by the material He choses to have available to work with. But see on :1.</p>


text:
<p><em>They worked the onyx stones, enclosed in settings of gold, engraved with the engravings of a signet, according to the names of the children of Israel- </em></p><p>LXX "emerald". The LXX is the version quoted repeatedly in the New Testament, often preferring its renderings to that of the Masoretic text. And yet the LXX differs from the Hebrew in the description of the precious stones, and their order in the breastplate. It is unwise therefore to seek to find meaning in the actual stones. These precious stones would have been extracted from the amulets or jewellery given to Israel by the Egyptians when they left Egypt. The significant thing is that the names of God's people were engraved upon them. God's people were carried before God by the High Priest, looking forward to how we are personally represented by name before God, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus in Heaven itself. Man is not alone, none are forgotten or unknown. That is the simple take away.</p><p>The names of God's people were engraved upon the stones which were on the High Priest's clothing. God's people were carried before God by the High Priest, looking forward to how we are personally represented by name before God, through the mediation of the Lord Jesus in Heaven itself. Man is not alone, none are forgotten or unknown. That is the simple take away. But "engraved" is the word usually translated "open", "to make appear". We are revealed before God, our life situation and personality type is openly made to appear before God, by our great High Priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put them on the shoulder straps of the ephod, to be stones of memorial for the children of Israel, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>The idea wasn’t that God might forget His people and so He needed to be reminded by the Priest wearing these stones with their names on; rather they were a reminder to Israel that they were each personally remembered by God all the time.</p><p>Bearing on the shoulders by the High Priest in order to gain atonement surely looks forward to the Lord bearing the cross on His shoulders. Yet He bore our sins. The cross is presented as symbolic of the weight of our sins. This is symbolic of how Christ, our High Priest, carries the names of all God’s people on His shoulders and over His heart (:8) as He stands for us in God’s presence. The preciousness of the stones reflects our high value in God’s sight. </p><p><em><a href='B:20 28:10'>Exo 28:10</a></em> adds: "six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the six that remain on the other stone, in the order of their birth". The names of the tribes were to be written on the two shoulder stones of the High Priest "in the order of their birth" (<em><a href='B:20 28:10'>Exo 28:10</a></em>). Seeing that Reuben was deposed from being the first born, we may wonder why there is this curious requirement. And the answer is perhaps just very practical. For if we take the tribes in the order of their birth, the list is: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali upon one stone, and&nbsp; Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin upon the other stone. There are then exactly 25 Hebrew letters on each stone. This kind of perfect symmetry would be impossible to arrange by any uninspired hand. It is this kind of internal corroboration which to me is the most powerful argument for a Divinely inspired Bible.</p>


text:
<p><em>He made the breastplate, the work of a skilful workman, like the work of the ephod; of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen- </em></p><p>"Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the urim and thummim associated with the breastplate&nbsp; was God's word or oracle to His people. For "linen" see on :2<em>.</em> "The skilful workman" may specifically refer to Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>). Perhaps Paul saw in this man a representation of us all- for he urged us likewise to be careful workmen when it comes to the understanding and teaching of God's word (<em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>It was square. They made the breastplate double. Its length was a span, and its breadth a span, being double- </em></p><p>GNB "9 inches long and 9 inches wide". 23 x 23 cm. Again we note the small size of the things associated with the tabernacle, compared with the grandiose surface level religion of the other peoples. David and Solomon's obsession with building a large scale temple reflects how they failed to grasp this. The breastplate was quite small, compared to the grandiose religious clothing of other religions.</p>


text:
<p><em>They set in it four rows of stones: a row of ruby, topaz, and beryl was the first row- </em></p><p>The faithful believers are likened to a stone with a unique name written on it (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). We are each called to uniquely reflect and refract the light of God’s glory in a way slightly different to anyone else, just as the stones on the breastplate all glimmered with their own unique beauty. Unity isn’t the same as uniformity. LXX "a sardius, a topaz, and emerald". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the second row, a turquoise, a sapphire, and an emerald- </em></p><p>LXX "a carbuncle, a sapphire, and a jasper". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the third row, a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst- </em></p><p>LXX has "a ligure" for "jacinth". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text. </p>


text:
<p><em>and the fourth row, a chrysolite, an onyx, and a jasper. They were enclosed in gold settings- </em></p><p>LXX "chrysolite, and a beryl, and an onyx stone". See on :6 for the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text. "Chrysolite" is Hebrew&nbsp; '<em>tarshish</em>', from the idea of long endurance. "Ships of tarshish" therefore refer to long distance trading vessels, not a specific location called Tarshish.</p>


text:
<p><em>The stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names; like the engravings of a signet, everyone according to his name, for the twelve tribes- </em></p><p>The long sentence here belabours the point several times over that the names of Israel were engraven or 'opened up' upon the stones. The idea is that the people of God were individually represented by name before God by the High Priest / the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>They made on the breastplate chains like cords, of braided work of pure gold- </em></p><p>LXX calls "the breastplate" "the oracle", see on :8. The attachment of the breastplate to the inner clothes of the High Priest is emphasized. The impression is of careful connection of the precious stones to the person of the High Priest- all looking forward to our connection with the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>They made two settings of gold, and two gold rings, and put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate- </em></p><p>As noted on :15, the impression is of careful connection of the precious stones to the person of the High Priest- all looking forward to our connection with the Lord Jesus. LXX is quite different: "And Aaron shall take the names of the children of Israel, on the oracle of judgment on his breast; a memorial before God for him as he goes into the sanctuary".</p>


text:
<p><em>They put the two braided chains of gold in the two rings at the ends of the breastplate- </em></p><p>The almost monotonous stress continues- that the chains connected the breastplate to the ephod. The lesson from all this is that God's people are indeed truly connected to their High Priest. And that connection, like they themselves, is all supremely precious- the most valuable metal and stones are used to represent it. </p>


text:
<p><em>The other two ends of the two braided chains they put on the two settings, and put them on the shoulder straps of the ephod, in its front- </em></p><p>As noted on :16,17, the cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in very close up here. The connection of God's people to their High Priest is being laboured.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>They made two rings of gold, and put them on the two ends of the breastplate, on its edge, which was toward the side of the ephod inward- </em></p><p>GNB "make two rings of gold and attach them to the lower corners of the breastpiece on the inside edge next to the ephod"<em>.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>They made two rings of gold, and put them on the two shoulder straps of the ephod underneath, in its front, close by its coupling, above the skilfully woven band of the ephod- </em></p><p>GNB "attach them to the lower part of the front of the two shoulder straps of the ephod, near the seam and above the finely woven belt". There is nowhere that we have more detail about a piece of clothing in the Bible. The attachment of the symbols of God's people to the High Priest is clearly of the utmost importance to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>They bound the breastplate by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it might be on the skilfully woven band of the ephod, and that the breastplate might not come loose from the ephod, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>GNB "so that the breastpiece rests above the belt and does not come loose". Again we note the constant emphasis upon the connection between the breastplate and the ephod, looking ahead to the unbreakable connection between God's people and the Lord Jesus in His work of mediation for us before God. </p>


text:
<p><em>He made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of blue- </em></p><p>This plain single colour (perhaps indigo) would have thrown into contrast the variegated patterns of the ephod and breastplate.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The opening of the robe in its midst was like the opening of a coat of mail, with a binding around its opening, that it should not be torn-</em></p><p>The Lord having His own clothes put back on Him meant that He would have been dressed in blood sprinkled garments for the walk to Golgotha. Again His holy mind would have been on the Messianic prophecies of <em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em> about a Messiah with blood sprinkled garments lifted up in glorious victory. Or perhaps He saw the connection to <em><a href='B:30 8:30'>Lev 8:30</a></em>, where the priests had to have blood sprinkled garments in order to begin their priestly work. This would have sent His mind to us, for whom He was interceding. Likewise when He perceived that His garment would not be rent, He would have joyfully perceived that He was indeed as the High Priest whose garment was not to be rent (<em><a href='B:20 39:23'>Exo 39:23</a></em>). </p><p>The Lord's robe He wore to the cross was without seam and not torn (<em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em>). There He acted as High Priest, with the names of God's people on His shoulders, upon which He carried the cross; and in His heart. "Now is the judgment of this world", He predicted of the cross; and the cross was indeed the judgment of the world. This was matched by the urim and thummim being on the breastplate, flashing out judgment.<em>&nbsp;</em></p><p>Christ died as the supreme High Priest, and the soldiers decided not to rend His garment but instead to throw dice to see which of them should get it (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). As He hung on the cross, looking down and noticing what they were doing, He would have remembered this teaching about the High Priest’s garment, and taken encouragement that He was indeed doing the High Priestly work to its ultimate term. His blood stained, dirty outer garment- perhaps woven by his social outcast of a mother- was equivalent of the High Priest’s robe of “glory and beauty” (<em><a href='B:20 28:2'>Exo 28:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>They made on the skirts of the robe pomegranates of blue, purple, scarlet, and twined linen- </em></p><p>The golden bells on the High Priest's garments were familiar in local religions as charm to ward off demons by their noise. But they are used in the Divine scheme of things to remind of God's holiness and the danger of human sin impinging upon this and thus leading to death. And thereby fear of demons was to be replaced by fear of God's holiness and human sin.</p><p>LXX "pomegranates of a flowering pomegranate tree".</p>


text:
<p><em>They made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates around the skirts of the robe, between the pomegranates- </em></p><p>The pomegranate was full of seeds. The suggestion was that the mediation of the High Priest was to produce a multitudinous seed, in fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. Hebrew tradition claims there were 12 pomegranates on the hem, appropriate to the 12 tribes of Israel. All this came to full term in the priestly work of the Lord Jesus. As noted on :23, the robe looked ahead to that of the Lord Jesus, and so we note how He healed those who took hold of the hem of His robe (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>). Perhaps they perceived His High Priestly nature. </p>


text:
<p><em>a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, around the skirts of the robe, to minister in, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>The bells can be understood as meaning that there was to be an element of proclamation in the work of the priest. <em><a href='B:20 28:35'>Exo 28:35</a></em> adds: "It shall be on Aaron to minister; and his sound shall be heard when he goes in to the holy place before Yahweh, and when he comes out, so that he will not die". </p><p>"Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>) may be alluding to how the High Priest had to have bells so that "his sound may be heard... that he die not" (<em><a href='B:20 28:35'>Exo 28:35</a></em>; this idea of the sound being heard is picked up in Psalms 19 concerning the spread of the Gospel). </p>


text:
<p><em>They made the coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:20 28:40'>Exo 28:40</a></em> adds that these clothes were "for glory and for beauty". The idea is not that the clothes should be beautiful and glorious; they were "for" the manifestation of the glory and beauty of God's saving ways, once their significance was perceived. The naked flesh of man was to be covered over with a glory and beauty which was to come from God, looking forward to the idea of imputed righteousness which Paul explains in Romans. Glory and beauty were to be the features of all Israel in their role as priests / teachers of the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:50 26:19'>Deu 26:19</a></em> s.w.). Again we see repeated the ideal intention that all Israel were to be a nation of priests, and not just resign the work of witness to the priestly tribe.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>and the turban of fine linen, and the linen headbands of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twined linen- </em></p><p>"The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>) suggests that the entire body of believers ("saints") are seen as indeed they are, a priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). This is how we will be presented to the Lord, as priests now equipped for eternal service. This is what eternity will be about- serving in the spirit of priests. And we are to train for this now, and at least develop the desire to do that work.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>and the sash of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, the work of the embroiderer, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>"Sash" is AV "girdle". "The embroiderer" was specifically Bezaleel or Aholiab (<em><a href='B:20 38:23'>Exo 38:23</a></em>), and the word is more commonly translated "needlework". This was typically women's work, but a theme of the construction of the tabernacle is that the work was done by God's Spirit using people for His purpose. We may connect this with how the likes of chemists and goldsmiths were used for the rough work of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah's time. On one hand, our natural talents are used by God; and yet we are also called to step out against the wind of our natural inclination in God's service.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>They made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote on it a writing, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY TO YAHWEH- </em></p><p>Most of the surrounding tabernacles featured quite a lot of noise- especially incantations and spoken formulas regarding the holiness of the god and shrine. There were few spoken words in the Mosaic rituals; "Holy to the Lord" was written upon the forehead of the High Priest rather than stated by incantations (GNB 'Dedicated to the LORD', LXX has "holiness of the Lord"). We could maybe go so far as to say that we see here the exaltation of God's written word, with all the faith and understanding which this requires, as opposed to the incantations of other worship systems. The plate or rosette on the High Priest's turban would've recalled pagan plates which warded off supposed demons; but this one spoke of "Holiness to Yahweh", again replacing the negative with the positive.</p>


text:
<p><em>They tied to it a lace of blue, to fasten it on the turban above, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>"Lace" is s.w. "wire", "ribband", "line"; we note it was not a golden chain but a lace. That the Priest’s crown was to be made of linen rather than solid gold or some other precious metal could appear some kind of anticlimax- most leaders of other religions had something solid on their heads. White linen represents righteousness (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>); it’s as if the intention was to highlight the fact that simple righteousness is of such great value and power in God’s sight rather than any visible ostentation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting was finished. The children of Israel did according to all that Yahweh commanded Moses; so they did- </em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the exact obedience to the commandments given before the apostacy with the golden calf. But it was really Moses, Bezaleel and Aholiab who did most of the work. Their obedience and work was counted to all Israel. The idea of imputed righteousness is found throughout the Bible, and not just in the New Testament letter to the Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em>They brought the tabernacle to Moses, the tent, with all its furniture, its clasps, its boards, its bars, its pillars, its sockets- </em></p><p>The interconnected nature of the tabernacle construction is continually stressed. For this is the nature of God's system of manifestation amongst His people to this day- various aspects and individuals linking in with each other, according to His design. There is no way an individual can reach God's Kingdom alone. </p>


text:
<p><em>the covering of rams’ skins dyed red, the covering of sea cow hides, the veil of the screen- </em></p><p>The sea cow hides would have been picked up by them whilst camped by the Red Sea. Whatever we pick up along the way in our wilderness journey- is to be used by God, and devoted to Him by us.</p>


text:
<p><em>the ark of the testimony with its poles, the mercy seat-</em></p><p>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood, which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God's strength through being overlaid with gold. </p>


text:
<p><em>the table, all its vessels, the show bread- </em></p><p>"The bread of the presence" (<em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em>) 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>the pure lampstand, its lamps, even the lamps to be set in order, all its vessels, the oil for the light- </em></p><p>GNB reads in the possible ellipsis: "the lampstand of pure gold".&nbsp;As the gold for it weighed around 40 kg., it would have been quite small, given the density of gold. "The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <em><a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a></em> David decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, the one people of God; such was his obsession with mere religion. </p>


text:
<p><em>the golden altar, the anointing oil, the sweet incense, the screen for the door of the Tent- </em></p><p>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. </p>


text:
<p><em>the bronze altar, its grating of brass, its poles, all of its vessels, the basin and its base- </em></p><p>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>the hangings of the court, its pillars, its sockets, the screen for the gate of the court, its cords, its pins, all the instruments of the service of the tabernacle, for the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The tent of meeting is here defined as the tabernacle. The reference is to the tent which included the holy place and the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 29:11'>Exo 29:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:20'>Exo 30:20</a></em>). But the actual place of meeting between God and His people was over the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was in the most holy place and only seen by the high priest briefly once / year. But it was as if God as a king left His throne and came forth to meet His people, represented by the priests, at the door of the holy place, the "tent of meeting". </p>


text:
<p><em>the finely worked garments for ministering in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office- </em></p><p>AV "the cloths of service" (NEV "finely worked garments") may refer to the cloths used for covering the various items as they were transported around.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did all the work- </em></p><p>But it was really Moses, Bezaleel and Aholiab who did most of the work. Their obedience and work was counted to all Israel. The idea of imputed righteousness is found throughout the Bible, and not just in the New Testament letter to the Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it as Yahweh had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them-</em></p><p>Moses’ personal blessing of the people was that of God (Deuteronomy 33); and when he looked with pleasure upon the completed tabernacle and blessed Israel, he was imitating God’s inspection and blessing of the completed natural creation (<em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>). Yet Israel tragically failed to appreciate the degree to which God was manifest in the words of Moses, as they did with Christ. This is shown by them asking for Moses to speak with them, not God; they failed to realize that actually his voice was God’s voice. They failed to see that commandments given ‘second hand’ really are the voice of God (<em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>). Perhaps our appreciation of inspiration is similar; we know the theory, but do we really see the wonder of the fact that what we read is the awesome voice of God Himself?</p><p>When Moses looked with pleasure upon the completed tabernacle and blessed Israel, he was imitating God’s inspection and blessing of the completed natural creation (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>); as if now a new creation had been begun in the lives of Israel, just as it is in us through baptism into Christ (cp. the Red Sea crossing)- <em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p>We must remember in interpreting what follows that this was all spoken personally to Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the first day of the first month you shall raise up the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The components of the tabernacle had been made and brought to Moses, and he was to assemble it by hand. Jewish tradition has it that Moses was Divinely empowered in assembling it all in one day, and therefore didn't do it with his own hands. <em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em> appears to allude to this and deconstruct it: "Christ having become a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands". The tabernacle was indeed made or assembled with hands, unlike the spiritual tabernacle of the house of believers which is being put together by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus. Moses pitched the tent, but the spiritual tabernacle has been pitched without hands, by the Spirit of Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>). The Lord Jesus alluded to these things by saying that He could raise up a new temple through His death and resurrection, without hands (<em><a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a></em>). "Raise up", used here of raising or assembling the tabernacle, was interpreted by the Lord as implying resurrection. The idea was that the tabernacle looked ahead to the new system of believers which the Lord was to bring about through His sacrifice. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall put the ark of the testimony in it, and you shall screen the ark with the veil- </em></p><p>The “testimony” refers to the tables of the covenant, the ten commandments, which were within the ark; the connection between the ark and the “testimony” is very strong in the record. The ark was symbolic of Christ, in whom dwelt the word and covenant of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring in the table, and set in order the things that are on it. You shall bring in the lampstand, and light its lamps- </em></p><p>The candlestick was on the south end of the holy place, shedding light "opposite" (Heb., NEV "in front of it"), i.e. towards the northern end where the veil was, and where the table of shewbread was, symbolizing fellowship with God. This is the purpose of our witness; to direct people towards fellowship with God and entry to the most holy place. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall set the golden altar for incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the screen of the door to the tabernacle- </em></p><p>Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer- <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall set the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>Sacrifice is necessary before we can enter God’s presence. Sacrifice doesn’t simply mean giving material things to God; it refers to giving up to God that which is personal and valuable to us. We’re not involved with God simply in order to get from Him; in this case, spirituality would be purely selfish, as it is in many religions. Authentic relationship with God depends upon our having the spirit of sacrifice; not in the sense that we can only get to God if we give something, for that too would be too primitive and a denial of grace as the basis of our relationship with God. But His grace and the wonder of fellowship with Him cannot be accepted by us passively nor with indifference; our natural response, if we believe it, is to want to give to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall set the basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and shall put water therein- </em></p><p>This would imply a change of perspective in the description, which so far has been from the most holy place and outwards, whereas this is now from the perspective of someone approaching from the outside. Either that, or the mention of the basin / laver is not placed in order. Possibly the idea is to emphasize the critical importance of washing the priests before entering the holy place, pointing forward to the importance of baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall set up the court around it, and hang up the screen of the gate of the court- </em></p><p>For Moses alone to do this all in one day would have perhaps required superhuman help; see on :1,2. The weight of some of the items would have surely been too much for him to carry or manipulate alone.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is in it, and shall make it holy, and all its furniture; and it will be holy- </em></p><p>The anointing process takes our Christian minds to the Christ, the anointed one, and we who are anointed through being in Him (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall anoint the altar of burnt offering, with all its vessels, and sanctify the altar; and the altar will be most holy- </em></p><p>We wonder why the altar is here called "most holy" although it stood outside of the tent of meeting. All the tabernacle was called "most holy" (<em><a href='B:20 30:29'>Exo 30:29</a></em>), but here there seems an especial note made that the altar was to be made "most holy". It was in the court, not in the holy place nor most holy place. The idea may be that the God who dwells in the most holy place between the cherubim is so pleased with sacrifice, that He accepts even the place outside the tabernacle as most holy. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall anoint the basin and its base, and sanctify it- </em></p><p>This may represent the need for the washing of baptism in order to come to Christ, the altar (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). This was required if they didn’t want to die (<em><a href='B:20 30:20'>Exo 30:20</a></em>). It is baptism which is the washing or "laver" of regeneration by the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>). The fact we are to wash in this laver suggests that all baptized are all priests; we are a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). It is for us to take seriously the work of priestly service, it falls to all who are baptized; and we must therefore overcome the typical human tendency to leave such work to others.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and shall wash them with water- </em></p><p>The laver was situated just in front of the door of the tent, so presumably this was done in the laver.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall put on Aaron the holy garments; and you shall anoint him, and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me in the priest’s office- </em></p><p>It is hard to imagine how Moses could have erected the tabernacle and done all this on one day. It confirms the suggestion on :2 that he could only have done this with Divine help. However it could be that this anointing of Aaron and his sons was deferred and not done until the time of <em><a href='B:30 8:1'>Lev 8:1</a></em> ff. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring his sons, and put coats on them- </em></p><p>See on :13. <em><a href='B:20 28:40'>Exo 28:40</a></em> adds that these clothes were "for glory and for beauty". The idea is not that the clothes should be beautiful and glorious; they were "for" the manifestation of the glory and beauty of God's saving ways, once their significance was perceived. The naked flesh of man was to be covered over with a glory and beauty which was to come from God, looking forward to the idea of imputed righteousness which Paul explains in Romans. Glory and beauty were to be the features of all Israel in their role as priests / teachers of the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:50 26:19'>Deu 26:19</a></em> s.w.). Again we see repeated the ideal intention that all Israel were to be a nation of priests, and not just resign the work of witness to the priestly tribe.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me in the priest’s office. Their anointing shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations- </em></p><p>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 spectre 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><p>Likewise 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>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses did so. According to all that Yahweh commanded him, so he did- </em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the exact obedience of Moses to the commandments<em>.</em> And yet his careful obedience to the letter regarding the "house" or tabernacle is commented upon in <em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>. The idea is that all that obedience to commandment was still nothing compared to that of the Lord Jesus. For He was not only obedient to commandment, but more positively achieved a personality and character which was to be the basis of an eternal spiritual house.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was raised up- </em></p><p>As discussed on :1,2, this meant that Moses assembled the tabernacle alone in one day- and surely required Divine help to do so.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses raised up the tabernacle, and laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and put in its bars, and raised up its pillars- </em></p><p>The rabbis like to note that there are three references to Moses' assembly of the tabernacle (:2,17,18), which they see as pointing forward to the three temples (the third yet to be built by Messiah). </p>


text:
<p><em>He spread the covering over the tent, and put the roof of the tabernacle above on it, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>"As Yahweh commanded Moses" is a phrase runs as a refrain throughout the chapter, as an appropriate ending to the book. See on <em><a href='B:20 36:31'>Exo 36:31</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>He took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the poles on the ark, and put the mercy seat above on the ark- </em></p><p>The ark was always ready to be moved on. The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God's desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn't want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the screen, and screened the ark of the testimony, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>There may be a reference here to the two veils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em> "the second veil" ), one over the entrance to the holy place, and the other over the entrance to the most holy</p>


text:
<p><em>He put the table in the Tent of Meeting, on the side of the tabernacle northward, outside of the veil- </em></p><p>"Side" is literally "thigh", and constantly we find language appropriate to the human body used in describing the tabernacle. It was all a hint that it was looking ahead to a greater and more perfect tabernacle (<em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>) in a person, Messiah, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>He set the bread in order on it before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>"Before Yahweh" may imply that by this point, there was some presence of God already in the most holy place beyond the veil. Or perhaps an Angel was standing with Moses as he assembled the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put the lampstand in the Tent of Meeting, opposite the table, on the side of the tabernacle southward- </em></p><p>"The north side" is literally "the left side". As noted on <em><a href='B:20 26:18'>Exo 26:18</a></em>, the south side was "to the right". Semitic thought is often expressed from the perspective of a person facing east. The left hand side was considered the side of lesser favour (<em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). This perhaps was why the candlestick was placed on the right or south side of the tent (<em><a href='B:20 40:24'>Exo 40:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>He lit the lamps before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>"Before Yahweh" may imply that by this point, there was some presence of God already in the most holy place beyond the veil. Or perhaps an Angel was standing with Moses as he assembled the tabernacle. <em><a href='B:20 27:20'>Exo 27:20</a></em> recorded that "You shall command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light". "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? I suggest 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>He put the golden altar in the Tent of Meeting before the veil- </em></p><p>The incense altar is called "the golden altar" because the incense represents prayer, and gold is the symbol of faith. And prayer "works" by faith. It was before the veil which screened the most holy place, because the smell of the incense would have entered there, even if man cannot. Just as our prayers enter heaven itself.</p>


text:
<p><em>and he burnt incense of sweet spices on it, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>“A pleasant / sweet 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>He put up the screen of the door to the tabernacle- </em></p><p>The New Testament therefore speaks of "the second veil" (<em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>) which screened the most holy place. This was of the same material as the veil which covered the door into the holy place, but was more elaborate, including the cherubim motif whereas the first veil didn't. Perhaps the idea is that it is through the Lord Jesus, represented by the veil, that we enter into the community of believers; He is the door and by Him alone a sheep can enter the fold. But it is likewise also through Him, displaying an even greater glory and beauty, that we shall enter into the presence of God Himself. By entering into Him we in prospect enter into the salvation presence of God personally; we are saved in prospect, we live the eternal life, as John's Gospel stresses. </p>


text:
<p><em>He set the altar of burnt offering at the door of the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and offered on it the burnt offering and the meal offering, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>This may refer specifically to the offerings Moses was to make during the seven days of the rituals for the consecration of Aaron and his sons. The daily burnt offering was from then on to be offered by Aaron.</p>


text:
<p><em>He set the basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and put water therein, with which to wash- </em></p><p>Before we can come to offer acceptable sacrifice and do God’s work, we must firstly wash in baptism. The water may have come from the stream from the smitten rock. This is used in the New Testament to represent the spirit of Christ. It is this which we are washed in by water baptism; we must therefore be born of water-and-spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses, Aaron, and his sons washed their hands and their feet there- </em></p><p>The Lord alludes to this in <em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em> and implies it applies to all His people. Baptism is in essence ongoing, as the Lord progressively sanctifies us for His service in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>When they went into the Tent of Meeting, and when they came near to the altar, they washed, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>The altar of sacrifice would have therefore been walked passed in order to wash in the laver, and then they would have returned to offer at the altar. 'Coming near' the altar is therefore used to refer to offering sacrifice, rather than in any literal sense.</p>


text:
<p><em>He raised up the court around the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the screen of the gate of the court. So Moses finished the work-</em></p><p>Jesus had this in mind when just before His death He said that He had finished the work God had given Him to do (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); and He died saying “It is finished” (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>). He felt His work had been to build a dwelling place for God- not in a literal tabernacle, but in the hearts of willing men and women whose weakness and sin He had enabled to be overcome through His sacrifice. See on :2. Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22, 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a <em>work </em>which was <em>finished </em>(e.g. <em><a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a></em>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. </p><p>What God did at creation, He can do at any time. When Moses “finished the work” of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>), there is clear allusion to God ‘finishing the work’ of creation (<em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>). The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle- </em></p><p>This was "the cloud" which had covered Sinai (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 24:15-16'>Exo 24:15-16</a></em>). Both holy place and most holy were filled. The glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle when it was erected (<em><a href='B:20 40:34'>Exo 40:34</a></em>), as it would later fill the temple (<em><a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a></em>). But it was God's intention that His glory should fill all the earth; the same words are used in <em><a href='B:40 14:21'>Num 14:21</a></em>. The apparently intense manifestation of Himself in a specific place was only a foretaste of what He wished to bring about in "all the earth". And yet Judaism misread this as meaning that His glory was there alone in a specific holy place. They failed to perceive that it was merely a localized foretaste of His intention to make this a universal experience, and the tearing down of the veil at the Lord's death was evidence enough of the progression of this plan. When exiled from the sanctuary, David in his Psalms often perceives that God's glory fills and shall fill all the earth (<em><a href='B:230 72:19'>Psa 72:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:14'>Hab 2:14</a></em>).&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses wasn’t able to enter into the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud stayed on it, and Yahweh’s glory filled the tabernacle-</em></p><p>This implied that Moses wished to enter but couldn't, perhaps preparing him for his later experience of being unable to enter the promised land as he wished. But typically these things look ahead to how Moses and the legal system associated with him created a desire to enter into God's glory, and into the Kingdom- but failed to achieve it. And so they looked ahead to the achievement of the Lord Jesus. Likewise the glory in the later temple precluded the priests from entering it (<em><a href='B:110 8:11'>1Ki 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 5:14'>2Ch 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:2'>2Ch 7:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>When the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward, throughout all their journeys- </em></p><p>"Onward" is Heb. 'to pull up', alluding to the pulling up of tent pegs. The process of moving onward would have been a major, regular upheaval. They would've preferred to stay where they were. And this is a feature of our wilderness journey after our Red Sea baptism; we are always being moved on further, in various ways. And this goes right against the conservatism which is such a major part of the human condition. </p>


text:
<p><em>but if the cloud wasn’t taken up, then they didn’t travel until the day that it was taken up- </em></p><p>They didn’t know their itinerary ahead of time, each day and night they would’ve wondered whether they’d be called to move on or not. Their lives in this sense had no stability. If the Red Sea crossing represents our baptisms (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>) then this speaks of our lives afterwards being under God’s leadership and guidance, we in that sense cannot map out how we would wish our journey to be. There was no prior warning how long they were to remain in any one place; sometimes they stayed a year in one place, at other times they had to travel even by night. This was all at the commandment or word of the Lord. If the Red Sea deliverance represents our baptism, the wilderness journey is like our journey through life towards the promised land of God’s Kingdom. We are led by an Angel, and the path we take is determined by God. Sometimes we are suddenly and unexpectedly asked to move forward; sometimes quickly, travelling by night, as it were; other periods of our lives can appear static and leading nowhere. But in all these situations we are still being led- if we remain obedient to the word of God. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the cloud of Yahweh was on the tabernacle by day, and there was fire in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys-</em></p><p>Practically this meant that they were shielded from the desert heat in the day time, and kept warm at night. Such was (and is) Yahweh's sensitivity to His people in their wilderness journey towards the Kingdom.</p><p><em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em> also says that there was a pillar of cloud in the day time and a pillar of fire by night. But at the time of the Exodus, there was a pillar of cloud for the Egyptians and a pillar of fire to give light in the night for the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>). Could this mean that the meaning of time was collapsed at this time? It was night for the Israelites but daytime for the Egyptians? <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>, amidst many exodus / Red Sea allusions, speaks of how God makes the darkness light before His exiting people. The many Johanine references to the Lord Jesus being a light in the darkness for His followers would then be yet more elaborations of the idea that the Lord Jesus is the antitype of the Angel that led Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 9:21'>Num 9:21</a></em> says that the pillar of cloud was with the Israelites at <em>night</em>, and sometimes it was taken up in the night and they therefore had to move on. Does this mean that there were times when the meaning of time was collapsed during their journey, and the night was made as the day (perhaps <em><a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a></em> alludes to this experience)? When Yahweh came down on Sinai, He was enveloped in a <em>cloud</em> of <em>fire</em>-</p><p> suggesting that there was no day and night for Him (<em><a href='B:20 24:15-17'>Exo 24:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh called to Moses and spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying-</em></p><p>The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books. It could of course be argued that these are the words of a Divinely inspired editor. But consider this alternative.&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> appears to follow straight on from the previous narrative in Exodus. It could be that all of Leviticus is an account of the words of Yahweh to the Levites during the eight days of consecration after the tabernacle was built. For the whole book specifically addresses the Levites, and how they were to conduct priestly work.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel and tell them, ‘When anyone of you offers an offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p>"Of you" means that the invitation to offer freewill offerings which now follows was limited to the community of Israel. But within them, "anyone" could offer- including women, who were typically excluded from such religious opportunities in the surrounding cults.</p><p>You shall offer your offering of the livestock, from the herd and from the flock-</p><p>They were not to keep some animals specially for sacrifice; they were to take the sacrificial animals out of the herd, just as the Lord Jesus was One taken out of the herd of humanity. We are to be living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>), not reserving just part of our lives for God. The Lord Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and He was taken out of the common herd of humanity, not preserved specially for His work. We also learn from this that they were not to hunt wild animals in order to offer them. They may well have become blemished in the process of being hunted and slain.</p>


text:
<p><em>If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish-</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>). The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that all the animas offered were not totally without blemish- for none was, upon minute examination. The requirement for a male sacrifice was not because God considered the female gender inferior; rather was it because He was asking that they offer their most valuable animal to Him, and not their least valuable. And male animals were more valuable than female.</p><p>"Without blemish" was how Noah was (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>), and how God wished Abraham and all his seed to be (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). We all fail to be perfect; blemishes remain. So perhaps the idea was that the animal represented how the offerer wished to be; but it was only an animal, not a man. And therefore the thought would have arisen that it must surely look forward to some perfect, unblemished human who was the representative of all men. And that was the need which was met in the death of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>He shall offer it at the door of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before Yahweh- </p><p>The offerer personally was to bring it. It was not to be brought by someone else, for sacrifice was to involve personal engagement and not be performed as mere tokenistic ritual through a third party. And that is an abiding principle. The offerer firstly had to enter through the gate into the court, before approaching the altar. The height of the gate meant that most would had to bow their heads. Humility was the first requirement, and this is what made sacrifice acceptable.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him-</em></p><p>Putting the hand on the animal’s head was to show that the animal represented the offerer. He showed thereby that he deserved to die, and wished to give his total life to God just as the animal would be totally offered to God. We see here God’s principle of accepting us on the basis of the representative sacrifice of Christ; the equivalent of our putting our hand on the head of the sacrifice is the act of baptism into Christ and abiding “in Christ”, He being our representative and we being His. The Hebrew means more to the effect of leaning on the head, as if a very intense act of identification was being made.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall slaughter the bull before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is 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>


text:
<p><em>He shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into pieces-</em></p><p>Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously.</p>


text:
<p><em>The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire- </em></p><p>In all the many commands about sacrifices, we must remember that God was not in need of them. If He were hungry, He would not tell <em>us</em> (<em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>). The legislation and concepts were therefore purely for our benefit, and that of His people at the time. We therefore need to discern the teaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar- </em></p><p>The wood was to be placed in order on the fire (<em><a href='B:30 1:7'>Lev 1:7</a></em>), suggesting the use of several bits of wood to be laid in order, with the parts also laid in order upon them. This was as if each part of the Lord's life (and ours) had its own cross. We think of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the stake of wood, effectively done by the priests who arranged His crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p><em>but its inward parts and its legs he shall wash with water. The priest shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh-</em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>If his offering is from the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without blemish- </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>He shall kill it on the north side of the altar before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar-</em></p><p>Golgotha was on the north side of Jerusalem, and all these sacrifices look ahead to the Lord's death there. The laver was on the west side of the altar, the place of ashes on the east (<em><a href='B:30 1:16'>Lev 1:16</a></em>), and the approach to the altar from the south would have been up a slope to avoid approaching the altar by steps and uncovering nakedness. The north side would have been the only appropriate place for this. So there is an impressive corroboration of the records here, with this command to kill the animals on the north side of the altar.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>He shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat. The priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar- </em></p><p>The offerer "shall cut it into his pieces" (Heb.)- the pieces of the animal were the pieces of the offerer, so the ambiguous genitive suggests. The offerer was represented by the sacrifice. The parts were washed in the water (of the word) before the final crucifying of flesh. But the sacrifice also represented that of the Lord Jesus, as well as of the offerer; for He on the cross was the representative of all God's people.</p>


text:
<p><em>but the inward parts and the legs he shall wash with water. The priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar-</em></p><p>This is picked up by Paul in Romans 7 where he says that he delights in God's law after the inward man, or innards. He sees himself as cut open and offered to God. All this provokes powerful self-examination. Does the zeal of God's house consume every part of the offering of our lives as we lay ourselves before Him at the Passover meal? Does it eat us up? Do our faces and words and way of speaking reflect the crucifixion of every part of our lives? Or does our triviality, our inability to spiritually concentrate our minds, our lack of sustained enthusiasm for the Lord's work reflect the fact that we are not like that animal as it lay dead and still in its parts on that altar, that we are not in the spirit of Christ. Our attitudes to money, holidays, relationships, standard of living, commitment to study of the word, zeal for preaching, all raise question marks in our minds. It is easy to take immediate refuge in the fact that salvation is through the grace of the Lord's sacrifice, not works. But before we go on to those sentiments, let us accept that we do all have an urgent need for improvement.</p><p>It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of 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>If his offering to Yahweh is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall offer his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons-</em></p><p>Those who couldn't afford larger animals could offer birds. But these regulations may also apply to those rituals which required a bird to be offered for all (<em><a href='B:30 15:14'>Lev 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:29'>Lev 15:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:10'>Num 6:10</a></em>). 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>The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:30 1:15'>Lev 1:15</a></em> A.V. mg. stipulates that if the offering was a bird, "pinch off the head with the nail" - as if a nail used in the process, perhaps for nailing the parts to the wood (cp. the nailing of the Lord Jesus to the cross).</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall take away its crop with its filth, and throw it beside the altar on the east side, in the place of the ashes-</em></p><p>LXX describes the removal of the feathers, and apparently taking away "the crop with its filth" apparently sounds "as when made ready for cooking". The idea was that this was a meal being prepared, for the idea was that the offerer was eating with God. And despite the humble nature of the meal, God was eating with this offerer. For the altar was effectively the table of Yahweh. The east side was nearest to the exit to the court, so this was the logical place for any refuse to be placed. We marvel at the consistent internal corroboration of the Biblical record.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall tear it by its wings, but shall not divide it apart-</em></p><p>The tearing of the wings was equivalent to the dividing into parts of the larger sacrifices (<em><a href='B:30 1:6'>Lev 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 1:12'>Lev 1:12</a></em>). Only the small size of the bird precluded dividing it.</p><p>The priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of 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>‘When anyone offers- </em></p><p>"Anyone", literally "any soul / person", is a term carefully chosen. For women as well as men were encouraged to offer- in contrast to the generally male based system of offerings in the surrounding religions. There is also no age limit- anyone and everyone was encouraged to offer, even a grain offering if they could not manage an animal.</p><p>An offering of a grain offering to Yahweh, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it-</p><p>Frankincense was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (:2). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


text:
<p><em>He shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall take his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, with all its frankincense; and the priest shall burn its memorial on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></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>That which is left of the grain offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. It is a most holy thing of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire- </em></p><p>The language of "most holy" is juxtaposed against the fact that this was referring to a simple grain offering, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on :1). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; we think of the Lord's attitude to the widow offering her two small coins.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you offer an offering of a grain offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil-</em></p><p>God was pleased to accept just flour; but there was the opportunity to bake a cake from the flour and bring that to the altar. For the idea was that the altar was the table of Yahweh, and they were eating with Him. And you don't eat flour together at a meal table, you eat cakes. 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. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p><em>If your offering is a grain offering baked in a pan, it shall be of unleavened fine flour, mixed with oil-</em></p><p>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall cut it in pieces, and pour oil on it. It is a grain offering-</em></p><p>Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously. This was taught in the dividing up of the offerings into pieces (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:17'>Lev 1:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If your offering is a grain offering of the pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil- </em></p><p>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ. "The pan" is LXX "the hearth".&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to Yahweh: and it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar- </em></p><p>We note how it was the priest who was to place the sacrifices upon the altar. <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em> surely alludes to this; we are "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (cp. <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial, and shall burn it on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></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>That which is left of the grain offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire- </em></p><p>The "most holy" nature of the humble grain offering is stressed (:3). The grain offering was just a little flour, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on :1). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; He has a particular interest in those 'little somethings' we offer to Him, and they are very holy to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>No grain offering, which you shall offer to Yahweh, shall be made with yeast; for you shall burn no yeast, nor any honey, as an offering made by fire to Yahweh-</em></p><p>Even though leaven was prohibited in offerings (<em><a href='B:30 2:11'>Lev 2:11</a></em>), God was willing to accept a peace offering with leaven in it (<em><a href='B:30 7:13'>Lev 7:13</a></em>). Yeast represented sin (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). Honey and yeast would’ve made the grain pleasing to men; but the lesson was that what pleases people isn’t what is necessarily pleasing to God. He wants a person as they are, from the heart, and wanted to teach that He wants us as we are without any element of fermentation (which yeast and honey produced). God wanted salt and not honey on His food; for the altar is presented as the table of Yahweh at which a man ate with his God. Honey was widely used in pagan sacrifices, and God wished to cut off all possibility of serving idols in the name of Yahweh worship. And yet this is what Israel did, despite His best efforts in this legislation to help them maintain a total separation between such kinds of worship.</p>


text:
<p><em>As an offering of firstfruits you shall offer them to Yahweh: but they shall not ascend for a pleasant aroma on the altar-</em></p><p>The "them" refers to leaven and honey, which could be offered as firstfruit offerings (<em><a href='B:30 23:17'>Lev 23:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a></em>). But they were not to be burnt, but given to the priests. As noted on :11, leaven and honey are associated with fermentation and therefore moral corruption. We may discern here that less than perfect offerings are still welcomed and encouraged by God; such is His desire for engagement with man, and His wish to accept the imperfect offering we bring.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; neither shall you allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt- </em></p><p>The altar was understood as the table of Yahweh, where He ate together with the offerer. To eat bread and salt was a sign of fellowship and acceptance in covenant, and the presence of salt in the sacrifices was therefore insisted upon (<em><a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a></em>). A "covenant of salt" was an eternal covenant (<em><a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a></em>). The reminder therefore was that our relationship with God is eternal, not a passing phase in our lives, nor just a mere religious crutch to help us get through this life. For truly, God is man's friend and accepts us at His table. The salt represents gracious speech (<em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>) and peace with one another (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>); without these things, no matter how great our sacrifice, it cannot be accepted by God. Hence Jesus taught that we should not offer our sacrifices to God until we have done what we can to get at peace with our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Salt was a symbol of covenant relationship with God; yet in the NT this salt stands for love, peace and kind speaking the one to the other (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>). This is the result of true membership in covenant relationship; a true and abiding love for all others in covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you offer a grain offering of first fruits to Yahweh, you shall offer for the grain offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, bruised grain of the fresh ear- </em></p><p>"Grain in the ear" is <em>Abib</em>, the month of Passover which was at the time of grain harvest. But "grain in the ear" is literally green ears; just before harvest, some of the immature grain could be offered as a freewill offering. This was an opportunity for higher level of devotion from those eager to show personal gratitude for redemption from Egypt in addition to the Passover. As discussed on :4, here was another opportunity to serve God on the highest level.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall put oil on it, and lay frankincense on it: it is a grain offering- </em></p><p>The incense gave the offering a sweet smell, portraying God's acceptance of it and how pleasing are such 'little things' of freewill sacrifice. The offering of the frankincense was therefore to teach the offerer this. And we must ever remember that God Himself was not in need of such sacrifices of incense. If He were hungry, He would not tell <em>us</em> (<em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>). The legislation and concepts were therefore purely for our benefit, and that of His people at the time. We therefore need to discern the teaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall burn as its memorial portion part of its crushed grain, and part of its oil, along with all its frankincense: it is an offering made by fire to Yahweh’-</em></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>


text:
<p><em>‘If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offerings; if he offers it from the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before 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>He shall lay his hand on the head of his offering- </em></p><p>An act of personal identity, looking forward to our acts of identity with the representative sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. Baptism, breaking bread and especially having His spirit and living His kind of life are all the equivalent in our times.</p><p>And kill it at the door of the Tent of Meeting: and Aaron’s sons, the priests shall sprinkle the blood around on the altar-</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>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer of the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh; the fat that covers the inner parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts-</em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar on the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire- </em></p><p>The reference is to how the daily burnt offering was never to be overlooked<em>,</em> this was to be offered first, and then the voluntary peace offerings on top of that. Regular basic daily disciplines are so important in spiritual life. Any extra activity must not be allowed to take away from them.</p><p>It is an offering made by fire, of 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>If his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh is from the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish- </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>If he offers a lamb for his offering, then he shall offer it before Yahweh-</em></p><p>Although peace offerings were completely voluntary, they were not to think that therefore they could not respect God’s holiness and give Him that which was second best (:6) or offer it where they liked. Many of the sacrifices we make to God are likewise not compulsory, but the spirit of giving God the best which permeates the Law of Moses should remain with us. We may be able to deduce that peace offerings could be offered in other places, and there appear to be examples of that in later scripture; but if a lamb was offered, it must be "before Yahweh", seeing that the lamb particularly looked ahead to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus "before Yahweh".</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and kill it before the Tent of Meeting: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar- </em></p><p>To lay the hand upon is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God's hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer from the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh; its fat, the entire tail fat, he shall take away close to the backbone; and the fat that covers the inwards, and all the fat that is on the inwards- </em></p><p>The idea is as in LXX "the fat (even) the fat tail" (as <em><a href='B:30 3:9'>Lev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:3'>Lev 7:3</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>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded. </p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall burn it on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p>The metaphor invites us to see the altar as God’s table, at which He as it were ate the sacrifices. At the breaking of bread service, we come to the table of the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>); the offering we bring is ourselves. And yet God has placed on the altar, on the table before us, the sacrifice of His Son, and invites us to eat with Him there. Eating with someone was understood as a sign of religious fellowship. At the breaking of bread, we are therefore celebrating our living fellowship with God Himself.</p><p>The peace offering was the "food (also translated "bread") of the offering made... unto the Lord" (<em><a href='B:30 3:11'>Lev 3:11</a></em>). The peace offering was therefore God's food, or bread. Yet the offerer was invited to eat the bread of God. This implied that when the offerer sat down to eat the food, as it were, God was sitting with him, also eating of it. This was symbolized in human terms by the fact that the priest, as God's representative, ate part of the peace offering, while the offerer ate the other part. Presumably they sat down together to do this. The closeness of God which this implies is almost beyond our comprehension. We are invited to see the exquisite beauty of true fellowship with God. 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>If his offering is a goat, then he shall offer it before Yahweh-</em></p><p>God is eager for fellowship with man, and wanted by all means to eat with man through the peace offerings. It seems there were various kinds of animals which could be used, in accordance with the possibilities of the offer<em>er. </em>The goat appears to be the lowest rank. 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 he shall lay his hand on its head, and kill it before the Tent of Meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar- </em></p><p>David rejoiced in God's mercy to him, perhaps in the context of his sin with Bathsheba. He asks: "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his (spiritual) benefits toward me?" . He decides that he will offer a peace offering: "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving (the peace offering; <em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>)... I will take the cup of salvation... I will pay my vows... in the presence of all his people... in the courts of the Lord's house". As we sit "before the Lord" at the memorial meeting, beholding the cross of Christ and the blood of Calvary, we should be intensely aware of God's great benefits towards us: our salvation assured, sin forgiven, peace with God. Our response should be to renew our vows joyfully, in the ecclesia, God's house, in the presence of His people, as we eat the peace offering, the sacrifice of thanksgiving. As the peace offering was to be offered publicly, "before the tabernacle of the congregation" (<em><a href='B:30 3:13'>Lev 3:13</a></em>), so in the sight of each other we too renew our vows and express our peace with God. And if we are all at peace with God, we should therefore be at peace with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer from it as his offering, an offering made by fire to Yahweh; the fat that covers the inward parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts,</em><em>-</em></p><p>The inward man of <em><a href='B:520 7:22'>Rom 7:22</a></em> is what is so important; yet the LXX in <em><a href='B:30 3:14-16'>Lev 3:14-16</a></em> uses the same word to describe the fat surrounding the intestines, which God appeared to so value in the sacrifices. It was not that He wanted that fat in itself; but rather He saw that fat as representing a man's essential spirituality, that which is developed close to the heart, unseen by others, but revealed after death.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p>See on :10; the legislation is identical.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall burn them on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma; all the fat is Yahweh’s- </em></p><p>The offerer put his hand on its head, thereby associating himself with it. In a sense, the animal therefore represented the offerer. But it had to be "without blemish" (<em><a href='B:30 3:1'>Lev 3:1</a></em>), and to produce a "sweet savour" when burnt (<em><a href='B:30 3:16'>Lev 3:16</a></em>). But how are we to offer ourselves as an unblemished sacrifice? We are surely each aware of our desperate sinfulness. The answer is in the fact that the language of the peace offering sacrifice is applied to Jesus. "He is our peace" (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>), our peace offering by metonymy (in the same way as Christ was made "sin" for us, i.e. a sin offering). He is the unblemished animal (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>), and if we are in Christ, we too will be counted as being without spot and blemish (<em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>). We ought to know whether we are in Christ. If we are, we will be seen by God as just as pure as He is.</p>


text:
<em>It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood’- </em><p>The fat was understood as the best part of the animal, although today for health reasons we tend to consider the meat to be of more interest than the fat. They were to give to God that which they perceived to be the most valuable and not keep it for themselves, within the frames of understanding and perception within which they then lived. They were not to indulge themselves on what seemed best to them, but to offer it to God. And that principle applies to us. </p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>God spoke to Moses, who then spoke to the Israelites (:2). He is presented as mediator between God and man, looking ahead to the greater prophet like him, Messiah, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally, in any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and does any one of them- </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 "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>if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he has sinned, a young bull without blemish to Yahweh for a sin offering- </em></p><p>Sins of ignorance still needed to be atoned for. Sin is a felt offence against God, whether or not we were aware of it at the time. If we accidentally step on someone’s foot and they don’t tell us about it until tomorrow, it doesn’t mean that we didn’t hurt them at the time. The sins we committed before baptism, in ignorance, were still felt by God and need atonement- which is available freely through being “in Christ”. David asked to be forgiven for the sins he committed which he didn’t know about (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). We should pray the same. But this means we are asking for forgiveness for sin which we haven’t specifically repented of. We should likewise forgive others for their sins which although <em>we</em> so clearly feel them, they themselves don’t realize they have committed them. We can, if we wish, insist that we shall only forgive those who repent to us of their sins. But the problem with that approach is that <em>as </em>we forgive others, the basis we choose upon which to relate to them, so we will be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). If we trust we are forgiven for sins we aren’t conscious of, even though they are very clear to God and felt by Him, then we ought to forgive others for their sins even when they don’t perceive (at this point in their spiritual journey) that they have sinned.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall bring the bull to the door of the Tent of Meeting before Yahweh; and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull, and kill the bull before Yahweh- </em></p><p>To lay the hand upon is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God's hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull, and bring it to the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’, and so Jewish minds would have associated ‘Jesus Christ’ with the priest who saves (‘Jesus’ means ‘Yahweh’s salvation’).</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before Yahweh, before the veil of the sanctuary- </em></p><p>The blood of the sin offering was to be sprinkled “before the LORD, before the veil" (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>). Yet the veil was a symbol of the flesh of the Lord Jesus at the time of His dying. At the time of the sprinkling of blood when the sin offering was made, the veil (the flesh of the Lord Jesus) was identifiable with Yahweh Himself. The blood of the offerings was poured out “before Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 4:15'>Lev 4:15</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to how God Himself, from so physically far away, “came down" so that the blood shedding of His Son was done as it were in His presence. And who is to say that the theophany that afternoon, of earthquake and thick darkness, was not the personal presence of Yahweh, hovering above crucifixion hill? Over the mercy seat (a symbol of the Lord Jesus in Hebrews), between the cherubim where the blood was sprinkled, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). There we see the essence of God, and there in the cross we hear the essential word and message of God made flesh.</p><p>The sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices around the altar is mentioned several times, but only for the sin offering do we read that the priest was to sprinkle it with his finger. This perhaps pointed forward to how there was to be a very personal connection between the priest and the atonement made for others, just as there was between the Lord Jesus and the atonement He made for us. The blood would presumably have made the priest unclean and unable to further officiate, again looking forward to the ending of the priestly function through the blood of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Yahweh, which is in the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The sweetness of the incense speaks of how pleasing is prayer to God; for incense represents prayer later in the Bible. But that acceptability and pleasure is dependent upon confession of sin, and the sacrifice of the blood of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>And he shall pour out all of the rest of the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</p><p>We think of the blood of Christ trickling down the stake to the ground.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take all the fat of the bull of the sin offering off of it: the fat that covers the inward parts, and all the fat that is on the inward parts- </em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away- </em></p><p>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.</p>


text:
<p><em>as it is taken off of the bull of the sacrifice of peace offerings. The priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering- </em></p><p>The emphasized similarity with the peace offering was because the idea of the sin offering was to restore peace with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>The bull’s skin, all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, its inward parts, and its dung-&nbsp; </em></p><p>The idea is, "the whole bull" (:12). In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: "There is one God... and to love him... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:480 12:32-33'>Mar 12:32-33</a></em>). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 4:7-15'>Lev 4:7-15</a></em>). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh. We must love others who bear that Name "as ourselves", so intense is the unity between us.</p>


text:
<p><em>even the whole bull shall he carry forth outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned- </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>If the whole congregation of Israel sins, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and are guilty- </em></p><p>LXX "and they should do one thing forbidden of any of the commands of the Lord". James may have this in mind when he says that obeying all the law but breaking just one commandment will lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:660 2:10'>Jas 2:10</a></em>). His argument becomes all the more powerful if he is alluding here, for the point is then made that this holds true even if that one commandment is broken in ignorance. Clearly the only way to justification with God is through faith in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>when the sin in which they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The closest historical example of this is when Josiah discovered the book of the law, and realized that Israel were guilty of disobedience in ignorance. But he did far more than follow the ritual prescribed here. See on <em><a href='B:30 6:5'>Lev 6:5</a></em>. Again we see how the Mosaic law was not a chain, a wearisome and limiting leash upon man, but rather a springboard to using personal initiative to respond to the principles taught- often to a far greater extent than mere obedience to the letter of the law. We see this in the way Boaz interpreted the Levirate law, and also the laws about allowing gleaning.</p>


text:
<p><em>The elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before Yahweh; and the bull shall be killed before Yahweh-</em></p><p>Before the priests who represented God. God Himself is in Heaven, but His representatives on earth are functionally Him to other people. We must therefore watch our behaviour and who we are, because we who have been baptized into His Name are His representatives on earth.</p>


text:
<p><em>The anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bull to the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The sins of ignorance were the only offerings where the offering was to be brought to the tent of meeting, to be taken beyond the altar of burnt offering. It emphasized the gravity of what had been done; that God was especially interested in how man responds once he becomes aware of his failures. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before Yahweh, before the veil-</em></p><p>This describes the priest as sprinkling the blood "before the LORD, even before the veil". This implies that the veil and the "LORD" were associated, as if the Angel, the 'LORD', was just behind the veil, i.e. in the Most Holy. See on <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em>. The rending of the veil at the Lord's death therefore as it were displayed God Himself to men.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before Yahweh, that is in the Tent of Meeting; and the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p>The altar in view is that of incense (as in :7). The ritual of the offering was very similar to that for the high priest if he personally realized he had sinned. Perhaps there is to be deduced the idea that the high priest was representative of all Israel. They were in him, and he was in them. This looks ahead to the representative nature of the Lord's sacrifice and relationship with His people; as a representative and not a substitute.</p>


text:
<p><em>All its fat he shall take from it, and burn it on the altar-</em></p><p>If the sacrifice was to be treated as the high priest's sin offering (:20), we can assume this included the kidneys etc.; see on :9.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven-</em></p><p>Again and again the point is made- atonement and forgiveness was still required even for sins of ignorance. The hurt to God had still been caused. Repentance was still needed. Otherwise there would be a disinterest in learning God's ways, a preference to remain in ignorance. Whereas once we grasp that sins of ignorance are still culpable sins, we will rather be motivated to learn all we can of God's ways. If we love God, we will want to please Him, we will want to know what He wishes from us, we will desire to learn His ways.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall carry forth the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is the sin offering for the assembly- </em></p><p>He needed help to carry an entire bull, hence LXX "they shall carry forth the calf whole without the camp".</p>


text:
<p><em>When a ruler sins, and unwittingly does any one of all the things which Yahweh his God has commanded not to be done, and is guilty- </em></p><p>Again we note that guilt is still reckoned even for past sins of ignorance. See on :20.&nbsp;We don't read "<em>If</em> a ruler sins...", but "when". This ought to have warned Israel against desiring a human king; they were being reminded that all human leadership has feet of clay, and leaders sin.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>if his sin, in which he has sinned, is made known to him-</em></p><p>The double emphasis that he "has sinned" must be noted; ignorance doesn't work some kind of automatic atonement for sin. See on :20. "Is made known to him" could suggest he has his sin pointed out to him. We think of the situation with king Uzziah in <em><a href='B:140 26:18'>2Ch 26:18</a></em>.</p><p>He shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish- </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>He shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before Yahweh. It is a sin offering- </em></p><p>For "lay his hand", see on :4. The scenario presented here is quite counter instinctive, especially in the societies of those days. You didn't point out sin to a leader (:23), and he typically would be proud and angry rather than humbly penitent.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. He shall pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering- </em></p><p>On one level, God surely foreknew that the scenario here described, whereby leaders of Israel humbly accepted rebuke and followed this ritual, was just not going to happen. And yet the whole legislation was given because this was God's hope. We think of all the detailed legislation of Ezekiel 40-48 for the exiles, in order that they might restore the temple. But it was not obeyed. This is one of the most tragic dimensions of God- setting up so much potential which is wasted. Perhaps David alludes to this legislation when he laments that there was no sacrifice prescribed for a king who had sinned as he had; for his sins were not those of ignorance but of presumption.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>All its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and he will be forgiven- </em></p><p>The record of the sin offering in <em><a href='B:30 4:10'>Lev 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:26'>Lev 4:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:31'>Lev 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:35'>Lev 4:35</a></em> stresses an impressive four times that the animal was to be prepared and offered in a similar way to the peace offerings, (e.g.) "as the fat is taken away from the peace offering”. This serves to emphasize the link between the two sacrifices; the peace offering was in gratitude and rejoicing for the peace of sins forgiven. For this reason it was totally voluntary.</p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone of the common people sins unwittingly, in doing any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and is guilty- </em></p><p>LXX "and they should do one thing forbidden of any of the commands of the Lord". See on :13. "The common&nbsp; people" is literally 'the people of the land /<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 20:2'>Lev 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:4'>Lev 20:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>if his sin, which he has sinned, is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned-</em></p><p>The ruler was to offer a male, but the common person was to offer a female. It may simply be because female animals cost less, and the ruler was to realize that he had greater responsibility in his failure and needed to show this in the kind of sacrifice he made.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering-</em></p><p>The person had to personally kill the animal, not delegate it to a priest or someone else. It would’ve been an unpleasant experience, but designed to teach the seriousness of sin. ‘This animal has done nothing wrong; it’s <em>me</em> who ought to be dying for my sin’ would’ve been the thought of all sensitive, spiritually minded people who did this. And this is our thought as we survey the cross with the son of God dying upon it for our sins.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar-</em></p><p>Because the altar represented the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>), it has been wrongly argued that these rituals speak of the cleansing of the nature of the Lord Jesus by His own death. This runs far too close to making the Lord Jesus a sinner who needed reconciliation with God; whereas His perfect character made Him for ever "one" with His Father, both before and after His death. Rather I suggest the blood of the sin offering was placed on the altar (and other items) in order to demonstrate how they achieved any forgiveness of sin. They only functioned in practice through their identification with the blood of Christ, represented by that of the bull slain as a sin offering. It as impossible that the blood of a bull could take away sin; it only functioned in this way insofar as God foresaw the blood of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The horns of the altar were perceived as the place of salvation for sinners (<em><a href='B:110 1:51'>1Ki 1:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a></em>). But this was only finally to be true through the power of the blood of Christ. This idea was taught by the daubing of sin offering blood on the horns of the altar- as an act of identification of the altar with the blood, rather than to somehow make the metal of an unclean altar now clean. The whole system was dedicated to God, and accepted by Him, only through its association with the future blood of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>All its fat he shall take away, like the fat is taken away from off of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven- </em></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>If he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish- </em></p><p>For "female" see on :28. 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>He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering-</em></p><p>Many of the offerers would never have killed an animal. The experience would have been traumatic for some of them, and a powerful lesson in the effect of sin, even if committed unwittingly.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar- </em></p><p>"The base of the altar" points ahead to the significance of the blood at the foot of the cross of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>All its fat he shall take away, like the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned, and he will be forgiven’-</em></p><p>The sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus is very generously presented as a sin of ignorance by the Lord's saying that “they know not what they do”, confirmed by Peter's appeal to repent although “Through ignorance you did it” (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>). Repentance was therefore encouraged on the basis of having had sin made known to them. And the offering for that sin had already been made, in the Lord's death. Their sin of (apparent) ignorance was therefore in fact the forgiveness for their sin- if they actualized it by recognition and repentance.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>‘If anyone sins, in that he hears the a legal call to testify, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn’t speak, then he shall bear his iniquity-</em></p><p>Sins of omission, of turning a blind eye, are just as culpable as sins of commission. If we are witnesses, we will bear witness; we will naturally. We have to; and note how <em><a href='B:30 5:1'>Lev 5:1</a></em> taught that it was a sin not to bear witness / testify when one had been a witness. This may well be consciously alluded to in the language of witness which we have in <em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>. We each have the witness of the Lord's resurrection in ourselves (<em><a href='B:690 5:10'>1Jn 5:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if anyone touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and it is hidden from him, and he is unclean, then he shall be guilty-</em></p><p>Haggai comments that it was easier to be made unclean than to be made clean; touching holy things didn’t impart holiness to a person, whereas touching unclean things made people unclean (<em><a href='B:440 2:11-14'>Hag 2:11-14</a></em>). It’s easy to be made unspiritual by association with unspiritual things, the things which are dead, which have no spiritual life in them, which are going nowhere- hence Paul alludes to this by saying “Touch not the unclean thing” in the context of appealing for believers to quit worldly associations (<em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>). However, on the other hand, this is no proof for the wrong idea of ‘guilt by association’. The Lord Jesus touched lepers in order to heal them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if he touches the uncleanness of man, whatever his uncleanness is with which he is unclean, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty-</em></p><p>Sins of ignorance still needed to be atoned for. Sin is a felt offence against God, whether or not we were aware of it at the time. If we accidentally step on someone’s foot and they don’t tell us about it until tomorrow, it doesn’t mean that we didn’t hurt them at the time. The sins we committed before baptism, in ignorance, were still felt by God and need atonement- which is available freely through being “in Christ”. David asked to be forgiven for the sins he committed which he didn’t know about (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 90:8'>Psa 90:8</a></em>). We should pray the same. But this means we are asking for forgiveness for sin which we haven’t specifically repented of. We should likewise forgive others for their sins which although <em>we</em> so clearly feel them, they themselves don’t realize they have committed them. We can, if we wish, insist that we shall only forgive those who repent to us of their sins. But the problem with that approach is that <em>as </em>we forgive others, the basis we choose upon which to relate to them, so we will be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). If we trust we are forgiven for sins we aren’t conscious of, even though they are very clear to God and felt by Him, then we ought to forgive others for their sins even when they don’t perceive (at this point in their spiritual journey) that they have sinned.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if anyone swears rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it is that a man might utter rashly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty of one of these-</em></p><p>LXX speaks in harsher terms of the man who swears rashly: "That unrighteous soul, which determines with his lips to do evil or to do good...". The idea would be that even a desire to do good was rendered unrighteous through the huge sin of swearing rashly. It would seem that Jephthah's rash vow falls in this category. He need not have performed it, had he been aware of the legislation here. Or perhaps he intentionally chose not to perform it. Maybe he rose up to a higher level than the following the letter of the law here; or maybe like Saul wishing to slay his son Jonathan, there was a death wish against his daughter. These questions are intentionally left open in the inspired text, as there is some designed benefit from our reflection upon them.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be, when he is guilty of one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned- </em></p><p>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. 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</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin-</em></p><p>"His sin... he has sinned... his sin" labours the fact that sins of ignorance are really sin. And must be dealt with. It emphasized the gravity of what had been done; that God was especially interested in how man responds once he becomes aware of his failures. And that is an abiding principle.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>If he can’t afford a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, to Yahweh; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering-</em></p><p>AV "His trespass which he hath committed" labours the point that sin of ignorance really is still sin. The usual order of the description of the offerings is sin offering, then burnt offering (speaking of dedication promised after the receipt of forgiveness) and then the peace offering, celebrating peace with God through forgiveness and commitment to the dedicated life, spoken of in the burnt offering.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one which is for the sin offering, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not sever it completely- </em></p><p>A.V. mg. stipulates that if the offering was a bird, "pinch off the head with the nail" - as if a nail used in the process, perhaps for nailing the parts to the wood (cp. the nailing of the Lord Jesus to the cross).</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering-</em></p><p>"The base of the altar" points ahead to the significance of the blood at the foot of the cross of the Lord Jesus. See on <em><a href='B:30 4:30'>Lev 4:30</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven- </em></p><p>The sin offering always preceded the burnt offering, which represented dedication to God. Before we can acceptably dedicate ourselves to God in any enterprise or aspect of our lives, we must first be right with God, cleansed from our sins; for good works alone cannot compensate for the sin we have committed.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if he can’t afford two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that in which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin 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 (<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>He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. It is a sin offering- </em></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>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he will be forgiven; and the rest shall be the priest’s, as the grain offering- </em></p><p>God thirsts for relationship with us, and doesn’t want human poverty to mean that we can’t get atonement. In Bible times, religion was the hobby of the wealthy; yet God wants relationship with all. Although it was a principle that shedding of blood was required for forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>), God was prepared to allow a non-blood sacrifice if this was all a person had to offer. Aware of this, <em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em> says that “<em>almost</em> all things” under the Law were cleansed by the shedding of blood- but not literally all, because the writer knew that there was this possibility of offering flour offerings instead of the required animal. The fact God is prepared to make concessions to human weakness shouldn’t lead us to any spirit of minimalism in how we consider sin or the standards of God’s holiness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>As explained on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>, Leviticus is largely teachings specifically addressed to the Levites, so the unwitting sin with "holy things" (:15) refers specifically to the Levites making unintentional errors.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone commits a trespass, and sins unwittingly, in the holy things of Yahweh; then he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock, according to your estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering- </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>He shall make restitution for that which he has done wrong in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth part to it, and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and he will be forgiven- </em></p><p>"Done wrong" is "for the harm that he has done". I find this wonderful; a sin of ignorance, an unintentional mishandling of Divine things, causes "harm"- to the sensitive soul of God Himself. A French proverb says that to understand all (as God does) is to forgive all; but it also means to be hurt by all so much the more. Just as little children assume their parents are insensitive and mere rocks of strength and provision, so we can fail to appreciate our Heavenly Father's sensitivity. Love, promises, covenant relationship, feeling for others, revealing yourself to the object of your love- this is all part of what it means for this sensitive God to enter covenant relationship with us. See on <em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone sins, and does any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done; though he didn’t know it, yet he is guilty, and 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>He shall bring a ram without blemish from of the flock, according to your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him-</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><p>Israel were not to grow some crops, or raise some animals, just for God, and others for themselves. They were not to make this difference. They were to give Him e.g. lambs "out of their flock"; not enforcing a difference between that which is for God and that which is for ourselves. In other words, they were not to make a difference between spiritual and personal life; it is us, our daily lives and situations, which God wishes to be part of.</p><p>Concerning the thing in which he sinned and didn’t know it, and he will be forgiven- </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 "didn't know it" 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>It is a trespass offering. He is certainly guilty before Yahweh’-</em></p><p>"Certainly guilty" continues the great emphasis upon the fact that atonement and forgiveness was still required even for sins of ignorance. The hurt to God had still been caused. Repentance was still needed. Otherwise there would be a disinterest in learning God's ways, a preference to remain in ignorance. Whereas once we grasp that sins of ignorance are still culpable sins, we will rather be motivated to learn all we can of God's ways. If we love God, we will want to please Him, we will want to know what He wishes from us, we will desire to learn His ways.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p>We will read now about theft and fraud (:2-7), and then the text goes straight on to speak of burnt offerings (:8,9). Perhaps the connection in thought is that these words have specifically in view the temptation to steal from others and then offer the stolen goods as an offering to Yahweh- which is exactly the problem addressed in <em><a href='B:290 61:8'>Isa 61:8</a></em>. So it clearly was a problem in Israel. See on :7. The principle is that we are not to offer to Yahweh that which cost us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>) and that is the abiding take away lesson.</p>


text:
<p><em>’If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against Yahweh, and deals falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of bargain, or of robbery, or has oppressed his neighbour-</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>). "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. We should likewise have such a special interest, rather than ever seeking to analyze why people are poor. Fraud and oppression were Israel's experience in Egypt. Constantly, the law of Moses urges them to remember their spiritual biography, and this awareness is intended to elicit grace to others, never treating them as Israel were treated in Egypt. Our lives before baptism were lived as it were in Egypt (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), and so the principle applies to us too.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>or has found that which was lost, and dealt falsely therein, and swearing to a lie; in any of all these things that a man does, sinning therein- </em></p><p>"Found that which was lost" is the phrase quoted by the Lord Jesus in His parables of the lost sheep and coin (<em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>). He had engaged with these same words which we are reading. Finding the lost was to be a source of open joy, rather than being used secretly for personal advantage and benefit. And so it is with all pastoral work in finding the lost.</p>


text:
<p><em>then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he has gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found-</em></p><p>Robbery was effectively what the exaggeration, mind games, manipulation, white lies and deceitful dealing of :2 was reckoned as. These things creep in so easily into any business dealings between people; and God sees them as robbery.</p>


text:
<p><em>or any thing about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore it even in full, and shall add a fifth part more to it. To him to whom it belongs he shall give it, in the day of his being found guilty- </em></p><p>Broken relationships were to be restored as quickly as possible "in the day", so the restoration was to be made immediately. In all human failure, reconciliation involves some level of restoration, be it verbal or material. Zacchaeus alludes to this when he says that he would restore fourfold that which he had stolen by deceit. This was far more than the "fifth part" required by the law (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>). Again we see how the Mosaic law was not a chain, a wearisome and limiting leash upon man, as if he were a dog ever miserably constrained from what he would like to do; but rather a springboard to using personal initiative to respond to the principles taught- often to a far greater extent than mere obedience to the letter of the law. We see this in the way Boaz interpreted the Levirate law, and also the laws about allowing gleaning. See <em><a href='B:30 4:14'>Lev 4:14</a></em> for another example.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock- </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>). 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><p>According to your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest-</p><p>This is a reminder that we are reading commandments addressed to the Levites. Many stolen things were in forms other than money, so they had to estimate what was a fifth amount of the value of the stolen sheep, or whatever.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he will be forgiven concerning whatever he has done to become guilty’-</em></p><p>"To become guilty" could equally be translated "in the presentation of a sin offering". And this would connect with the suggestion on :1, that we may be here dealing specifically with a case of a person stealing from others in order to make the sin offering required for some earlier sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>See on :1 for the connection between the following laws of the burnt offering, and the preceding commandments about fraud.</p>


text:
<p><em>Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering: the burnt offering shall be on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it-</em></p><p>The idea may be that there was not to be a moment, night or day, when the principle of sacrifice was not being demonstrated. And this should feature in our lives. But the lamb specifically looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. There is a sense in which His sacrifice for us is eternally ongoing.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall put on his linen garment, and he shall put on his linen breeches upon his body; and he shall remove the ashes from where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar- </em></p><p>This was the garment of <em><a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:39'>Exo 28:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:42'>Exo 28:42</a></em> (see notes there). The entire body of believers are described as being figuratively clothed in linen at the Lord's return, in that it represents the imputed righteousness of the saints / believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). The allusion to the 'clothing upon' of the nakedness of flesh at the Lord's return is clear; the same figure is found in <em><a href='B:540 5:4'>2Co 5:4</a></em>. But the implication is that we shall then be as ordained priests- we shall go forth into eternity to do the work of priesthood, helping others to come to Yahweh. Our experiences now, especially our frustrations in being unable to do or achieve this work, are all in order to prepare us for such an eternity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place- </em></p><p>We think of the slain, sacrificed body of the Lord Jesus being removed to a clean place, buried outside the city of Jerusalem, wrapped in a clean linen cloth (cp. the garments of :10) and laid in a new tomb, wherein no man had been laid (<em><a href='B:470 27:59'>Mat 27:59</a></em>), and therefore ritually clean.</p>


text:
<p><em>The fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not go out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn on it the fat of the peace offerings-</em></p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out’- </em></p><p>There was fair emphasis on this, that always a lamb should be smouldering as a burnt offering to God. Our devotion to God, as a community of believers and as individuals, must be 24/7; it’s not a matter of occasional flashes of devotion, weekly attendance at meetings etc. Whatever special devotions we make, our regular daily evening and morning prayers and devotions are to never to be missed. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' 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>‘This is the law of the grain offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before Yahweh, before the altar- </em></p><p>The humblest offering, just some flour, was before Yahweh. He has a special interest in the offering of little things from little people; see on :17.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall take from there his handful of the fine flour of the grain offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is on the grain offering, and shall burn it on the altar for a pleasant aroma, as its memorial, to Yahweh-</em></p><p>Frankincense was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour. Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life.</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 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em>), or the constant fire on the altar which was for a memorial (<em><a href='B:30 6:15'>Lev 6:15</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>That which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eat. It shall be eaten without yeast in a holy place. They shall eat it in the court of the Tent of Meeting- </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>), 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>It shall not be baked with yeast. I have given it as their portion of my offerings made by fire. It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the trespass offering- </em></p><p>The language of "most holy" is juxtaposed against the fact that this was referring to a simple grain offering, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on <em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; we think of the Lord's attitude to the widow offering her two small coins.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as their portion forever throughout your generations, from the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. Whoever touches them shall be holy’- </em></p><p>This doesn't mean that holiness was transferred by touching them, for holiness cannot be spread like that (<em><a href='B:440 2:11-13'>Hag 2:11-13</a></em>). Rather the idea is that the males who touched them must be ritually clean (<em><a href='B:30 22:6-7'>Lev 22:6-7</a></em>). Perhaps we as the new priesthood are to learn from this that we are to partake of the memorial bread and wine in a "clean" way, i.e. having examined ourselves and recognizing our uncleanness. For by a great paradox, that is what it means to be clean before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p>The following commands were specifically for the day when Aaron was anointed; as discussed on <em><a href='B:30 1:1-2'>Lev 1:1-2</a></em>, it seems all of Leviticus is aimed specifically in this context.</p>


text:
<p><em>’This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to Yahweh in the day when he is anointed: the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering perpetually, half of it in the morning, and half of it in the evening- </em></p><p>An ephah is about 22 liters. "Perpetually" may refer specifically to the days of the consecration rituals for Aaron and his sons; see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>. Roughly one kilogram of flour baked into a cake (:21) was to be offered every morning and evening. This relatively small, low value offering was perhaps to remind them of the supreme importance to God of small, regular sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be made with oil in a griddle. When it is soaked, you shall bring it in. You shall offer the grain offering in baked pieces- </em></p><p>The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously. This was taught in the dividing up of the offerings into pieces (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:17'>Lev 1:17</a></em>).</p><p>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>The anointed priest that will be in his place from among his sons shall offer it. By a statute forever, it shall be wholly burnt to Yahweh- </em></p><p>‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’, and so Jewish minds would have associated ‘Jesus Christ’ with the priest who saves (‘Jesus’ means ‘Yahweh’s salvation’).</p>


text:
<p><em>Every grain offering of a priest shall be wholly burned. It shall not be eaten’- </em></p><p>Again we see that this refers specifically to the ritual of the dedication of the priests. For <em><a href='B:30 7:9'>Lev 7:9</a></em> is clear that generally, "Every grain offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest’s who offers it".&nbsp;The priests were not to eat parts of their own dedicatory offering, as they usually did with the offerings of others. We as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) shouldn’t take any personal benefit from what we give to God, otherwise the concept of personal sacrifice to God is somewhat lacking in meaning. We are not to offer that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>). The priests were so used to dealing with the needs of others for atonement and acceptability with God- but they were not to forget that they too needed this, hence they too had to offer sacrifice. Our dealings with the unsaved world shouldn’t lead us to forget our own personal need for reconciliation with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>God spoke to Moses, who then spoke to the Aaronites (:25). He is presented as mediator between God and man, looking ahead to the greater prophet like him, Messiah, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering-</em></p><p>I suggest this refers to specific sin offering when Aaron was consecrated. See on :20,26.</p><p>In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy- </p><p>That is, on the north side of the altar (<em><a href='B:30 1:11'>Lev 1:11</a></em>). Golgotha was on the north side of Jerusalem, and all these sacrifices look ahead to the Lord's death there. The laver was on the west side of the altar, the place of ashes on the east (<em><a href='B:30 1:16'>Lev 1:16</a></em>), and the approach to the altar from the south would have been up a slope to avoid approaching the altar by steps and uncovering nakedness. The north side would have been the only appropriate place for this. So there is an impressive corroboration of the records here, with this command to kill the animals on the north side of the altar. </p>


text:
<p><em>The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p>It was not to be taken out of the court and eaten. And yet the priestly share of the offerings could usually be eaten by their families. So we are confirmed in understanding that this refers to a specific sin offering when Aaron was consecrated. See on :20,25.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy- </em></p><p>This doesn't mean that holiness was transferred by touching them, for holiness cannot be spread like that (<em><a href='B:440 2:11-13'>Hag 2:11-13</a></em>). Rather the idea is that the males who touched them must be ritually clean (<em><a href='B:30 22:6-7'>Lev 22:6-7</a></em>).</p><p>When there is any of its blood sprinkled on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled in a holy place-</p><p>This makes us think of the blood sprinkled garments of the Lord Jesus which are prophesied in <em><a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em>). This therefore was a terrible image for those steeped in Mosaic concepts, just as His invitation to drink His blood. To accept His sacrifice meant a radical rethinking of Mosaic images.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken; and if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water- </em></p><p>Unglazed, porous pottery could have absorbed some of the blood, so it had to be destroyed. The water was presumably from the laver (<em><a href='B:20 30:28'>Exo 30:28</a></em>). The Hebrew for "scoured" implies being made bright in the fire. The breaking of earthen vessels is an image used for the breaking of humanity. We hold God's truth, the blood of Christ, in earthen vessels (<em><a href='B:540 4:7'>2Co 4:7</a></em>), which must be broken at the last day when our mortality is swallowed up. We are to pass through fire and water so that we will be eternally preserved.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Every male among the priests shall eat of it: it is most holy-</em></p><p>When the Lord Jesus presented Himself as the sin offering and invited His people to eat the symbol of it in the breaking of bread meeting, He was inviting us to see ourselves as a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>), no longer assuming some group of specialists would look after the spiritual concerns of others, but everyone, male and female, taking responsibility. This was a radical, difficult idea to accept for first century Jewish Christians, and it is hard for us today too, accustomed as we are to assigning responsibility to others rather than taking it ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>No sin offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be eaten: it shall be burned with fire’-</em></p><p>What was in view were the sin offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation (<em><a href='B:30 4:3'>Lev 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:12-21'>Lev 4:12-21</a></em>), and the sin offering of the Day of Atonement (<em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>‘This is the law of the trespass offering. It is most holy-</em></p><p>There’s a difference between the trespass offering ("guilt offering") and the sin offering, which is hard to define; and the terms are at times used interchangeably. It seems that the trespass offering was made when a specific sin had been done more consciously, whereas the sin offering was required when sin had been committed less consciously, or when a more general recognition of the fact we are sinners was required.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the place where they kill the burnt offering, he shall kill the trespass offering; and its blood he shall sprinkle around on the altar- </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>


text:
<p><em>He shall offer all of its fat: the fat tail, and the fat that covers the inward parts- </em></p><p>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>).</p><p>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>and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the cover on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away- </em></p><p>"Take away" is the word usually used for declining, refusing etc. The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall burn them on the altar for an offering made by fire to Yahweh: it is a trespass offering-</em></p><p>"Burn" is literally 'to smoke'. The idea is that the offering of the inward parts went up to God; see on :4.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy- </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>), 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>As is the sin offering, so is the trespass offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with them shall have it- </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.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest who offers any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered- </em></p><p>This skin could be eaten, or used to make clothes or other items from the hide. "Skin" is s.w. "leather". But it had been burnt, so we wonder whether there was any practical benefit from having it. Perhaps it was solely in order to teach the priests that they were themselves sinful, like Adam, who was given the skin of the first offering.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Every grain offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the pan, and on the griddle, shall be the priest’s who offers it- </em></p><p>We wonder whether these methods of preparing the grain offering refer to the usage of the fire on the altar in order to prepare it, either by frying or baking. The "pan" would therefore be one of the "pans" which are descried as utensils for use in the sanctuary. For not all visitors to the sanctuary would have a home nearby where there was an oven for them to prepare it before they arrived. </p>


text:
<p><em>Every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, belongs to all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another- </em></p><p>God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which one shall offer to Yahweh- </em></p><p>Peace offerings were voluntary, but they were still regulated. Our desire to serve God on our own initiative doesn't mean that we can ignore His principles and totally do our own thing.</p>


text:
<p><em>If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened loaves mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mixed with oil- </em></p><p>The idea is, "for a thanksgiving offering". Continually we should offer this sacrifice of praise (<em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>), the thankfulness that wells up from knowing we are forgiven, the joy born of regular, meaningful repentance. And we do this "by" or 'on account of' the sacrifice of Jesus for us, which enables this forgiveness and thereby repentance (<em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>). This "sacrifice of praise" is alluded to in <em><a href='B:300 33:11'>Jer 33:11</a></em>, which describes our offering "the sacrifice of praise... for his mercy" at the beginning of the Kingdom. Praise will (and does) bring forth sacrifice / action. Yet "praise" here is the same Hebrew word translated "thanksgiving"; and the sacrifice of thanksgiving was the peace offering, a commemoration of our free conscience and the peace of sin forgiven (<em><a href='B:30 7:12-15'>Lev 7:12-15</a></em>). If we seriously confess our sins and believe in forgiveness, we should be experiencing a foretaste of the praise we will be offering at the start of the Kingdom, as we embark upon eternity.</p><p>The Hebrew for “thanksgiving" is rendered "confession" (of sin) in <em><a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a></em>. We see that the peace offering was linked with confession of sin. It is significant that after Manasseh's marvellous confession of sin (is there any greater encouragement as to the possibility of repentance than his case?), he then offered peace offerings (<em><a href='B:140 29:31'>2Ch 29:31</a></em>). In Hezekiah's time, all those who were of a "free heart" offered "thank offerings", i.e. peace offerings (<em><a href='B:140 29:31'>2Ch 29:31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>), after they had consecrated themselves. The free conscience that comes from realistic re- dedication was reflected in making the peace offering. Coming to the breaking of bread should have a like motivation.</p><p>David rejoiced in God's mercy to him, perhaps in the context of his sin with Bathsheba. He asks: "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his (spiritual) benefits toward me?" . He decides that he will offer a peace offering: "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving (the peace offering; <em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>)... I will take the cup of salvation... I will pay my vows... in the presence of all his people... in the courts of the Lord's house". As we sit "before the Lord" at the memorial meeting, beholding the cross of Christ and the blood of Calvary, we should be intensely aware of God's great benefits towards us: our salvation assured, sin forgiven, peace with God. Our response should be to renew our vows joyfully, in the ecclesia, God's house, in the presence of His people, as we eat the peace offering, the sacrifice of thanksgiving. As the peace offering was to be offered publicly, "before the tabernacle of the congregation" (<em><a href='B:30 3:13'>Lev 3:13</a></em>), so in the sight of each other we too renew our vows and express our peace with God. And if we are all at peace with God, we should therefore be at peace with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>With loaves of leavened bread he shall offer his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving- </em></p><p>Even though leaven was prohibited in offerings (<em><a href='B:30 2:11'>Lev 2:11</a></em>), God was willing to accept a peace offering with leaven in it (<em><a href='B:30 7:13'>Lev 7:13</a></em>). And for a freewill offering, He 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. Or perhaps the idea was that despite the presence of our flesh and moral weakness, represented by the leaven, man can still be at peace with God. For none of us reach perfect sinlessness, but we can still find peace with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Of it he shall offer one loaf out of each offering for a gift offering to Yahweh. It shall be the priest’s who sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings- </em></p><p>LXX "And he shall bring one of all his gifts, a separate offering to the Lord: it shall belong to the priest who pours forth the blood of the peace-offering". GNB "You shall present one part of each kind of bread as a special contribution to the LORD". The reference is to the three kinds of bread listed in :12.</p>


text:
<p><em>The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering. He shall not leave any of it until the morning- </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.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow, or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the next day what remains of it shall be eaten- </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>but what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire- </em></p><p>As noted on :15,16, the spontaneous desire to offer a peace offering was not to be spun out over a period of days. The condemnation for doing so was severe (:18). This chapter will go on to warn 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it. It will be an abomination, and the soul who eats any of it will bear his iniquity’</em><em>-</em></p><p>The Septuagint uses the word translated “imputed” in the NT with regard to sacrifices (symbolic of Christ’s death on the cross) being “reckoned” to a person (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:27'>Num 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a></em>); and of Shimei asking David not to “reckon” his guilt to him, to judge him not according to the obvious facts of the case (<em><a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a></em>). The Old Testament is at pains to stress that Yahweh will <em>not</em> justify the guilty (<em><a href='B:20 23:7'>Exo 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:23'>Isa 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a></em>). This is where the unique significance of Jesus comes in. Because of <em>Him</em>, His death and our faith in it, our being in Him, God can justify the wicked in that they have died with Christ in baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>), they are no longer, they are only “in Christ”, for them “to live is Christ”. They are counted as in Him, and in this way sinners end up justified.</p>


text:
<p><em>‘The flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten. It shall be burned with fire. As for the flesh, everyone who is clean may eat it- </em></p><p>The fact someone had made the freewill decision to offer a peace offering didn't mean they could eat it unclean, or that they could allow the meat of the offering to be unclean. This ancient regulation is strikingly relevant to the modern mindset, to the effect that if I make a voluntary donation to my church, I am somehow justified to live and carry on as I wish, regardless of God's basic moral demands.</p>


text:
<p><em>but the soul who eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that belongs to Yahweh, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p>See on :19. 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><p>The peace offering was a voluntary sacrifice. But this didn’t mean that the offerer could be careless, or think that having made a special sacrifice to God somehow made his uncleanness of no significance. Taking the initiative in serving God is good, but it shouldn’t make us think that we are somehow above God’s principles and can be unclean in other aspects of our lives.</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 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>When anyone touches any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean animal, or any unclean abomination, and eats some of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belong to Yahweh, that soul shall be cut off from his people’- </em></p><p>The peace offering 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>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>This section in :23-27 about not eating fat or blood is sandwiched between other legislation about peace offerings. So the idea may be that the peace offering was not to be used as an excuse to feast oneself on otherwise prohibited parts of the animal. Again, as noted on :19, the warning is against thinking that freewill, voluntary religious devotion can be used for our own personal pleasuring.</p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘You shall eat no fat, of bull, or sheep, or goat- </em></p><p>These animals are those referred to in :25, animals "of which men offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh". This confirms the suggestion in :23 that we are reading of specific warnings about misusing the peace offering, the idea of voluntary devotion, in order to get around the need to give God the best.</p>


text:
<p><em>The fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of animals, may be used for any other service, but you shall in no way eat of it-</em></p><p>As noted on :23,24, the context is warning against misusing the spirit of the peace offering. The temptation was to use the fat of the bodies of animals which had died natural deaths, and eat this as a peace offering. This was a specific denial of the vital principle that we are not to offer sacrifice of that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever eats the fat of the animal, of which men offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh, even the soul who eats it shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p>The fat and blood represented the best parts of life, and were to be given to God completely. The making of a voluntary sacrifice like the peace offering didn't mean that basic Divine principles could be bypassed, or His moral demands reversed. And we must beware of this mentality in our money oriented age, thinking that financial generosity to the church frees us from other basic moral obligations.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not eat any blood, whether it is of bird or of animal, in any of your dwellings- </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. This principle cannot be gotten around by making a one time act of voluntary devotion to God, such as the peace offering was. The command not to eat of blood or fat was specifically in the context of the legislation about peace offerings; this entire section is about the peace offering (:37).</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever it is who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people’- </em></p><p>The blood represented the life (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>). The lesson was that life- both our own and that of others- is God’s, and we shouldn’t assume that we are our own masters. It is not for us to do what we wish with life- it is God’s. Paradoxically, the person who thought they could eat blood, who thought that life was theirs, would lose their life. The only way to live eternally is to give our life back to God who gave it to us. In baptism, we die with Christ, giving our lives to God as He did, but this must be an ongoing principle in our daily living, as we live not to ourselves but to Him (<em><a href='B:540 5:15'>2Co 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:2'>1Pe 4:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>These regulations continue the Divine warning against using the voluntary peace offering as a front for giving an appearance of sacrifice, when in fact the offerer was offering what cost them very little. Such spiritual pride, seen in Ananias and Sapphira, is so obnoxious to God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘He who offers the sacrifice of his peace offerings to Yahweh shall bring his offering to Yahweh out of the sacrifice of his peace offerings- </em></p><p>I suggest in the context of :30 that we are to read this as meaning he must bring the sacrifice of his <em>own </em>&nbsp;peace offerings. There was to be no fictive offering through paying someone else to do it. Relationship with God is personal and can only be celebrated between God and the individual. Yet the way of religion (not spirituality) is to get someone else to do our religious stuff for us.</p>


text:
<p><em>With his own hands- </em></p><p>We cannot get others to do our worship and devotion to God for us. In this lies the grave error of the orthodox idea of a human priesthood who as it were do everything for us. We are to have a deeply personal relationship with God, with Christ as our only mediator (<em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>).</p><p>He shall bring the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. He shall bring the fat with the breast, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before Yahweh-</p><p>The Hebrew word for "waved" means to lift up, to shake, to move to and fro. This style of offering meant that the offerer lifted up the sacrifice to God. The wave offerings were typically eaten by the priests, but first they had to be lifted up to God in recognition that they were being given ultimately to Him and not to the priests personally. The physical lifting up of the sacrifice through the air towards God could represent the ascension of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice to God. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall burn the fat on the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’-</em></p><p>In addition, as for all offerings, "the front leg, the two jaw-bones, and the rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestion is completed" was to be given to the priest (<em><a href='B:50 18:3'>Deu 18:3</a></em>). These were thought to be the best parts of an animal; and additionally a leg (<em><a href='B:30 7:32'>Lev 7:32</a></em>) and the breast (<em><a href='B:30 7:31'>Lev 7:31</a></em>) of the offering were also to be given to the priest if it was a peace offering (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>The right thigh you shall give to the priest for a heave offering out of the sacrifices of your peace offerings- </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>). See on :30.</p>


text:
<p><em>He among the sons of Aaron who offers the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion-</em></p><p>This could be a repetition of :33, but the Hebrew for "right thigh" is s.w. "leg" and "shoulder", so there may be a reference to two parts of the body.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the waved breast and the heaved thigh I have taken from the children of Israel out of the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their portion forever from the children of Israel-</em></p><p>"Their portion" was the food, and not land on which food could be grown. The land was the portion Yahweh gave to the other tribes. Clearly the more peace offerings offered meant the more food for the Levites; for they took a significant proportion of the meat offered. But peace offerings were voluntary, and the number of them offered reflected the overall spirituality of the people, which in turn was a function of the work of the Levites in teaching them to be spiritually devoted to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the anointing portion of Aaron, and the anointing portion of his sons, out of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister to Yahweh in the priest’s office-</em></p><p>GNB "This is the part of the food offered to the LORD that was given to Aaron and his sons on the day they were ordained as priests". Whilst the commandments about offerings in this chapter are all true in a general sense, they are mentioned in the book of Leviticus because the entire book was about the various offerings associated with the specific consecration of Aaron; see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>. And that included peace offerings.</p>


text:
<p><em>which Yahweh commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that He anointed them. It is their portion forever throughout their generations’-</em></p><p>See on :35. Yahweh anointed the priests (<em><a href='B:30 7:36'>Lev 7:36</a></em>) - but in practice Moses did. Moses is one of greatest types of the Lord Jesus, in whom the Father was supremely manifested. Because of this, it is fitting that we should see a very high level of God manifestation in Moses. Indeed it seems that God was manifest in Moses to a greater degree than in any other Old Testament character.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law of the burnt offering, of the grain offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecration, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings-</em></p><p>This whole chapter, therefore, has concerned the sacrifices. The apparent interjection in :23-27 about not eating blood or fat, especially of animals which were found dead after dying from natural causes, is therefore also in the context of the offerings. Much of the legislation is therefore aimed at stopping attempts at only appearing to offer sacrifice, when in fact the intention was to please themselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>which Yahweh commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their offerings to Yahweh, in the wilderness of Sinai-</em></p><p>This indicates Moses' obedience to the commandment to teach Israel God's law<em>. </em>In the day that he received the commandments in Mount Sinai, he taught them to Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. It means that the very day he returned from the mountain to the wilderness, he immediately shared with them the commandments which he had been given. Those who truly sense the bear God's words will be urgent in sharing them with others.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> that perhaps the whole of Leviticus refers to the inauguration of Aaron and his sons. And the following passage is confirmation of that. </p>


text:
<p><em>’Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and the bull of the sin offering, and the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread-</em></p><p>We see here the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace 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 (the reference of the unleavened bread in the basket). So the priests were being convicted of their 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 assemble all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting’- </em></p><p>The entire congregation could not have fitted there, so we have here an example of the Hebraism whereby the entire group is put for representatives of that group. Thus we read of "all men" being saved, hearing the Gospel etc., when clearly 'representatives of' "all men" are in view.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses did as Yahweh commanded him; and the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p>The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), uses the word <em>ekklesia</em>, which is used in the New Testament for the church. The body of believers in Christ today are the equivalent of the Old Testament people of God, Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses said to the congregation, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded to be done- </em></p><p>The significance of this is that Aaron and his sons were declared the priests by Divine commandment. The later rebellion of Koran was effectively a disagreement with this commandment and Divine choice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water-</em></p><p>This washing with water looks ahead to baptism into Christ, by which we become the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). Baptism is not therefore a mere statement of agreement with a denomination or set of theology. It is our inauguration to a life of dedicated service.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put the coat on him, tied the sash on him, clothed him with the robe, put the ephod on him, and he tied the skilfully woven band of the ephod on him, and fastened it to him with it- </em></p><p>Clothing after washing in water (:6) looks ahead to our being clothed in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus after baptism. But it is so that we might then go forward and serve, ministering in the spirit of the Levites.</p><p>The commands relating to the rebuilt temple of Ezekiel 40-48 are expanded upon in Zechariah 3. There we read that Joshua the high priest was to be dressed first with the headpiece and then with the rest of the priestly garments (<em><a href='B:450 3:5'>Zec 3:5</a></em>). This is the reverse order to the Mosaic commands in <em><a href='B:20 29:5-7'>Exo 29:5-7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:30 8:7-9'>Lev 8:7-9</a></em> - implying that this was to be a new kind of high priest. Likewise the two onyx stones and the twelve gemstones of the Mosaic breastplate are replaced by a singular stone for the restored high priest (<em><a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a></em>). The religious system offered to the returned exiles was not at all a restoration of the Mosaic system. There are too many differences. The old covenant was broken by Israel and has been abrogated. There is no reason to think that these "weak and beggarly elements" will ever be revived; there is no need for it now that we have the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p><em>He placed the breastplate on him; and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim- </em></p><p>LXX "The Manifestation and the Truth". These stones appear to have flashed out binary yes / no responses or judgments in response to issues brought before God; they were the means of the manifestation of His truth. This is how they were used on the occasions we will later read of them. This is perhaps why "Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the urim and thummim associated with the breastplate was God's word or oracle to His people.&nbsp;The urim and thummim are where the precious stones of the breastplate were (<em><a href='B:20 28:29'>Exo 28:29</a></em>)- on the heart of the high priest. The answer of God concerning His people was on the heart of the Lord Jesus. The outcome of His judgment of us is so deeply in His heart.</p>


text:
<p><em>He set the turban on his head; and on the turban, in front, he set the golden plate, the holy crown- </em></p><p>This is the plate of <em><a href='B:20 28:36'>Exo 28:36</a></em> "You shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave on it, like the engravings of a signet, ‘HOLY TO YAHWEH’". Most of the surrounding tabernacles featured quite a lot of noise- especially incantations and spoken formulas regarding the holiness of the god and shrine. There were few spoken words in the Mosaic rituals; "Holy to the Lord" was written upon the forehead of the High Priest rather than stated by incantations (GNB 'Dedicated to the LORD', LXX has "holiness of the Lord"). We could maybe go so far as to say that we see here the exaltation of God's written word, with all the faith and understanding which this requires, as opposed to the incantations of other worship systems. The plate or rosette on the High Priest's turban would've recalled pagan plates which warded off supposed demons; but this one spoke of "Holiness to Yahweh", again replacing the negative with the positive</p><p>As Yahweh commanded Moses- </p><p>The careful obedience of Moses is emphasized; by it he became a type of Christ who was totally obedient to God (<em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>). The early chapters of Exodus present Moses as not always obedient, often arguing back with God and trying to find ways around God’s commandments to him. In this we see his spiritual growth. This growing acceptance of God’s authority and eagerness to obey rather than find ways around His commandments should be a feature of our spiritual growth too.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and sanctified them- </em></p><p>‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’. All these anointed things were therefore symbolic of Him. He fulfilled their meaning in reality within His person, character and work.</p>


text:
<p><em>He sprinkled it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its vessels, and the basin and its base, to sanctify them- </em></p><p>This pointed forward to the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the anointed one, through whom all the sacrifices were made ultimately meaningful. Without Him in the future, the whole system wouldn't have worked.</p>


text:
<p><em>He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him- </em></p><p>The Septuagint word used for ‘anointing’ here occurs in the New Testament only in <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em>, where we read that we have each been anointed. The idea of anointing was to signal the initiation of someone. I'd therefore be inclined to see <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em> as alluding to baptism; when we become in Christ, in the anointed, then as <em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em> says, we too are anointed in a sense. We're given a specific mission and purpose. "The anointing that you received" would therefore refer to our commissioning at baptism. It seems to imply a one time act of being anointed / commissioned / inaugurated for service. Baptism isn't therefore merely an initiation into a community; it's a specific commissioning for active service, in ways which are unique to us. We do well to bring this point out to those we prepare for baptism. The words for 'anointing' are unique to 1 John but they occur in the LXX to describe the anointing / initiation of the priests, and of the tabernacle / dwelling place of God (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 29:7'>Exo 29:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:14'>Exo 35:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:28'>Exo 35:28</a></em>). John sees us as the dwelling place / tabernacle of the Father, and specifically as the priests.</p><p><em><a href='B:230 133:1-2'>Psa 133:1-2</a></em> allude here, and clearly understand the oil (which was poured abundantly so that it ran down all his clothing) as representing the blessings of the Holy Spirit: "See how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to live together in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, that ran down on the beard, even Aaron’s beard; that came down on the edge of his robes". Aaron the High Priest is here likened to the whole community of Israel. They were all anointed, they were united "in him" by the oil of the spirit, looking ahead to the idea of the body of believers being "in Christ", the anointed one, the High Priest. </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses brought Aaron’s sons, and clothed them with coats, and tied sashes on them, and put headbands on them; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>They were not to clothe themselves, but to be clothed by Moses. This may have been to remind Aaron that this was not of his doing, he was merely being used by God, manifest through Moses. But it would also have been to humble Moses, who might have been tempted to assume that he and <em>his</em> sons ought to be this new high priest figure and priesthood. For Aaron had consistently been spiritually inferior to Moses. But it was part of Moses' humbling process to make him array his brother as the High Priest and priests, and to realize that not his own sons, but those of his brother, were to be the priests. And so he ended up the humblest man (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). See on :29.</p>


text:
<p><em>He brought the bull of the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull of the sin offering- </em></p><p>Whatever special work we embark upon for God, we should always be aware of our own weakness and need for forgiveness. Therefore the consecration of Aaron and his sons for their great work began with sin offerings; their dedication to the work of serving others was to be motivated by an awe at God's personal grace to them. And so it should be with us, as the new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p><em>He killed it; and Moses took the blood, and put it around on the horns of the altar with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the altar, and sanctified it, to make atonement for it-</em></p><p>The physical furniture of the tabernacle wasn’t sinful of itself. It was cleansed in order to demonstrate that whatever humanly beautiful and impressive work we make for God, it is still shadowed by our own sinfulness. The whole system only functioned effectively because of how it looked ahead to the blood of the Lord Jesus. But "atonement <em>for</em> it" can as well be "atonement <em>upon </em>it". The preposition <em>al</em> is of very wide meaning, but generally means "upon", "over" or "above". The idea of 'cleansing' here surely requires the use of water and not blood. The same word is used of "purified / cleansed with water" (<em><a href='B:40 31:23'>Num 31:23</a></em>). They were to offer a sin offering and after each sacrifice, they were to clean the altar, upon which atonement had been made. There is no idea here that inanimate objects are somehow sinful. The altar itself, like the Lord Jesus, was not sinful. It was a means to the end of atonement.</p>


text:
<p><em>He took all the fat that was on the inward parts, and the cover of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat; and Moses burned it on the altar- </em></p><p>The idea may be that these internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the bull, and its skin, and its flesh, and its dung, he burned with fire outside the camp; as Yahweh commanded Moses-</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 presented the ram of the burnt offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram-</em></p><p>To lay the hand upon is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God's hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood around on the altar-</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>


text:
<p><em>He cut the ram into its pieces; and Moses burned the head, and the pieces, and the fat- </em></p><p>We note the continual Mosaic requirement that sacrifices be cut into parts. Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously.</p>


text:
<p><em>He washed the inward parts and the legs with water; and Moses burned the whole ram on the altar. It was a burnt offering for a pleasant aroma. It was an offering made by fire to Yahweh; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He presented the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram-</em></p><p>This spoke of dedication or consecration to God after the sin offering. This is what should motivate service to God- personal conviction of sin and experience of forgiveness. This ensures our service is given in humility.</p><p>Putting the hand on the animal’s head was to show that the animal represented the offerer. He showed thereby that he deserved to die, and wished to give his total life to God just as the animal would be totally offered to God. We see here God’s principle of accepting us on the basis of the representative sacrifice of Christ; the equivalent of our putting our hand on the head of the sacrifice is the act of baptism into Christ and abiding “in Christ”, He being our representative and we being His. The Hebrew means more to the effect of leaning on the head, as if a very intense act of identification was being made.</p>


text:
<p><em>He killed it; and Moses took some of its blood, and put it on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of his right foot-</em></p><p>As the blood of the ram had to be put on the ear, thumb and toe (<em><a href='B:30 8:23'>Lev 8:23</a></em>), so the blood of Christ's atonement should transform and affect every aspect of our lives; our hearing (i.e. our perception), our doing and walking...</p>


text:
<p><em>He brought Aaron’s sons; and Moses put some of the blood on the tip of their right ear, and on the thumb of their right hand, and on the great toe of their right foot; and Moses sprinkled the blood around on the altar- </em></p><p>All our service to God is to be done with the awareness of the fact that Christ shed His blood for us- our way of hearing, all we do with our hands and where we go with our feet is to be influenced by our experience of His death for us.</p>


text:
<p><em>He took the fat, and the fat tail, and all the fat that was on the inward parts, and the cover of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right thigh-</em></p><p>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>; <em><a href='B:30 7:3'>Lev 7:3</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>and out of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before Yahweh, he took one unleavened loaf, and one loaf of oiled bread, and one wafer, and placed them on the fat, and on the right thigh- </em></p><p>This was a form of peace offering. Having been convicted of sin, accepting forgiveness through the sin offering, we devote ourselves to God's service. That is what the burnt offering represented. And only after that comes the celebration of peace with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>He put all these in Aaron’s hands and in his sons’ hands, and waved 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>Moses took them from their hands, and burned them on the altar on the burnt offering. They were a consecration for a pleasant aroma. It was an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></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>Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before Yahweh. It was Moses’ portion of the ram of consecration, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>I discussed on :13 how all this was very humbling for Moses. He had briefly been Israel's priest, and was therefore allowed to have the portions of the sacrifices for himself. But now he was handing over the priesthood to Aaron and his sons. </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses took some of the anointing oil, and some of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, on his garments, and on his sons, and on his sons’ garments with him, and sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and his sons’ garments with him-</em></p><p>The Lord having His own clothes put back on Him meant that He would have been dressed in blood sprinkled garments for the walk to Golgotha. Again His holy mind would have been on the Messianic prophecies of <em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em> about a Messiah with blood sprinkled garments lifted up in glorious victory. Or perhaps He saw the connection to <em><a href='B:30 8:30'>Lev 8:30</a></em>, where the priests had to have blood sprinkled garments in order to begin their priestly work. This would have sent His mind to us, for whom He was interceding. Likewise when He perceived that His garment would not be rent, He would have joyfully perceived that He was indeed as the High Priest whose garment was not to be rent (<em><a href='B:20 39:23'>Exo 39:23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses said to Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and there eat it and the bread that is in the basket of consecration, as I commanded, saying, ‘Aaron and his sons shall eat it’-</em></p><p>The peace offering was really a matter of voluntary desire, but in this special case of the inauguration of Aaron, it was commanded.</p>


text:
<p><em>What remains of the flesh and of the bread you shall burn with fire- </em></p><p>This continues a major theme in the Mosaic law, that the sacrifices were to be eaten immediately and not left to be eaten over a longer period. The spontaneous desire to offer a peace offering was not to be spun out over a period of days. The condemnation for doing so was severe (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>). 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting seven days, until the days of your consecration are fulfilled: for He shall consecrate you seven days-</em></p><p>This is the phrase used for not going out of the doors at Passover night, on pain of death (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). They were to again realize that Israel's redemption from Egypt was theirs personally, and that redemption (like ours) had been in order to serve Yahweh. And that was what they were now doing.</p>


text:
<p><em>What has been done this day, so Yahweh has commanded to do, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p>They were insistently reminded of their own need for atonement as they commenced the work of securing the atonement of others. In all our efforts for others we must bear this in mind.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall stay at the door of the Tent of Meeting day and night seven days, and keep Yahweh’s command, that you don’t die; for so I am commanded- </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>Aaron and his sons did all the things which Yahweh commanded by Moses- </em></p><p>When Moses said "For so I am commanded" (:35), he really means 'Yahweh commands you through me'. In the preaching of God's word, we become identified with that word; our intimacy and connection with God becomes the greater as we preach His word through our own lips.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel- </em></p><p>The sequence of sin offering, burnt offering and peace offering had been gone through before the seven days of inauguration (<em><a href='B:30 8:35'>Lev 8:35</a></em>), as described in Leviticus 8. But now they are repeated. Such was the importance of grasping the lessons involved; see on :2. </p>


text:
<p><em>and he said to Aaron, Take a calf from the herd for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before Yahweh- </em></p><p>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering, 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 priests were being convicted of their 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;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Take a male goat for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both a year old, without blemish, for a burnt offering- </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><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><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>and a bull and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before Yahweh; and a grain offering mixed with oil-</em></p><p>The peace offerings are nearly always mentioned as coming after the sin offerings. The peace which they commemorate is spiritual peace with God due to forgiveness. See on :18. God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mingled" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made.</p><p>For today Yahweh appears to you’-</p><p>“The glory of the Lord became manifest before the whole people" (Heb.). It could be argued that when the fire came down and consumed the sacrifices when the tabernacle was established, this was the specific, one time fulfilment of <em><a href='B:20 29:43'>Exo 29:43</a></em> "There I will meet with the children of Israel; and the place shall be sanctified by My glory". The appearing of Yahweh to His people required that they made themselves right with Him through a sequence of offerings which dealt with their sin and made them acceptable to Him. We in our day are to live in daily expectation of God’s appearing to us through the return of Christ; and we too must ensure we are right with Him and can go to meet Him acceptably (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>They brought what Moses commanded before the Tent of Meeting: and all the congregation drew near and stood before Yahweh- </em></p><p>"Come near before Yahweh" is usually translated "offer (sacrifice) before Yahweh", and is translated that way multiple times. Although rarely (<em><a href='B:20 16:9'>Exo 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:5'>Lev 9:5</a></em>) it is used of the congregation coming near before Yahweh. But the congregation didn't generally want to come before Yahweh, and so He chose just the Levites to come before Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 8:10'>Num 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> s.w.). It was God's intention that all Israel should be His servants, a nation of priests. But He changed and ammended His approach, and chose just the Levites for this. We see here how open God is to change, so that by all means He may have relationship with His people. Under the new covenant, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) as He initially intended even under the old covenant. And yet there is always the tendency to leave the priestly work to specialists rather than perceiving our personal call to do it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses said, This is the thing which Yahweh commanded that you should do: and the glory of Yahweh shall appear to you-</em></p><p>The appearing of Yahweh's glory was conditional upon the recognition of sin which is being underlined in :7 and the subsequent rituals. We cannot perceive the wonder of His glory without conviction of our own sinfulness. For His glory is supremely seen in His forgiveness and grace to sinners.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses said to Aaron, Draw near to the altar, and offer your sin offering, and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself, and for the people; and offer the offering of the people, and make atonement for them as Yahweh commanded-</em></p><p>We sense a reticence within Aaron to accept the calling to priesthood and to make the sin offering. Perhaps he felt so much guilt over the sin of the golden calf; see on :8. Or perhaps the alcohol abuse of his sons we will meet in Leviticus 10 was in fact known to him ahead of time. And we can identify with this reserve and struggle to really believe we have been forgiven and can move on in Divine service. Or perhaps he still clung to the idea that his sin with the golden calf was not really his fault and that he had been manipulated by the people.</p>


text:
<p><em>So Aaron drew near to the altar, and killed the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself- </em></p><p>"For himself" suggests the calf was offered in recognition of his sin with the golden calf. See in :8. It is in my view mistaken to assume that Aaron's offering for himself somehow points forward to the Lord Jesus gaining forgiveness for His own nature. This isn't taught in the Bible. The Lord Jesus was perfect, harmless and undefiled- and yet He had human nature. All we posit about human nature we say about the Lord Jesus. It is no sin to be alive, to be human.&nbsp; It is actual, committed sin, in thought and action, which is the barrier between God and man. The character and person of the Lord Jesus is an endless challenge to us as to what is possible within human nature and for humanity.</p>


text:
<p><em>The sons of Aaron presented the blood to him; and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it on the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the base of the altar- </em></p><p>The sin offering involved putting the blood on the horns of the altar of incense in the holy place (<em><a href='B:30 4:7'>Lev 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:16-18'>Lev 4:16-18</a></em>) but it seems Aaron could not yet have access there, as Moses was still priest. Aaron could only be in the outer court, where the altar of burnt offering was, until he was fully ordained as high priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>but the fat, and the kidneys, and the cover from the liver of the sin offering, he burned upon the altar; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p>These internal organs were not to be eaten by the priests, but were to be wholly offered to God. For our inner things are to be wholly His. David came to understand that all the Mosaic emphasis upon the "kidneys" was because they represented the inner heart or mind. He often uses the word to describe his innermost thoughts (<em><a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 16:7'>Psa 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:13'>Psa 139:13</a></em>). Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:300 11:20'>Jer 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:12'>Jer 20:12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "kidneys" is a form of the word for "jewel"; for the innermost core thoughts of a person are so precious to God.&nbsp; Likewise the Hebrew for "liver" is literally 'that which he heaviest / most valuable'. For the innermost thoughts are the weighty things to God. We see here the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.</p>


text:
<p><em>The flesh and the skin he burned with fire outside the camp-</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 killed the burnt offering; and Aaron’s sons delivered the blood to him, and he sprinkled it around on the altar-</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>


text:
<p><em>They delivered the burnt offering to him, piece by piece, and the head: and he burned them upon the altar- </em></p><p>We note the continual Mosaic requirement that sacrifices be cut into parts. Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously.</p>


text:
<p><em>He washed the inward parts and the legs, and burned them on the burnt offering on the altar- </em></p><p>See on :10. The Mosaic idea of washing the priests and inner parts of the sacrifices is alluded to in <em><a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a></em>; the Lord died that "he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word". The Lord's death provided the water which cleanses and sanctifies; and that water which came from His death refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 4:14'>Joh 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>). This was the significance of the water flowing from His side when He was crucified.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>There is huge emphasis upon the “inward parts” in the regulations about sacrifices. Our inward parts and thoughts of the heart are laid open before God and should be offered to Him, not just the externalities which men see (<em><a href='B:650 4:12'>Heb 4:12</a></em>). The same word is used of Sarah's laughing "within herself" (<em><a href='B:10 18:12'>Gen 18:12</a></em>). The sacrifice of Christ was so perfect because His innermost thoughts were offered to God. And it is our thoughts when nobody else is watching which are of the essence to God; "to be spiritually minded", as the New Testament expresses it. This is why Yahweh could not go up in "the midst" of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a></em>), because they didn't have Him in their midst. Thus to marry unbelievers would be a snare "in the midst of you" (<em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>), right in the inner mind which is what God seeks above all. David in the Psalms speaks of the "inward parts" of the human mind, which are critical in God's judgment of a person as wicked or righteous (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a></em>, where "inward thought" is s.w. "inward parts"). It is those inward parts which were to be washed (<em><a href='B:30 1:13'>Lev 1:13</a></em>), just as our innermost heart can be washed by the Spirit which is given at baptism. For this is the gift of the Spirit in the new covenant, whereby God's law is placed within our inward parts (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26-27'>Eze 36:26-27</a></em>) by the God who can form the spirit of man in man's inward parts, the God who can work directly upon the human heart (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He presented the people’s offering, and took the goat of the sin offering which was for the people, and killed it, and offered it for sin, like the first-</em></p><p>Jesus spoke of the righteous as sheep and the sinners as goats (<em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>). A goat rather than a sheep was required because the goat was the representative of the sinful people; it was killed as a recognition by them that their sin deserved death. In baptism we make the same recognition- that I should die, and I identify myself with the dead body of Christ, and come alive again in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>He presented the burnt offering, and offered it according to the regulation- </em></p><p>Conviction of sin, taught by the sin offering, 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>He presented the grain offering, and filled his hand from there, and burned it upon the altar, besides the burnt offering of the morning- </em></p><p>The stress upon "<em>he</em> presented" (:16,17) suggests that now Aaron is taking over from Moses as the high priest. We note that the daily burnt offering was never overlooked even when there were additional sacrifices required on that day. Likewise our basic daily devotions to God must never be allowed to slip regardless of whatever other work we are doing for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>He also killed the bull and the ram, the sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people; and Aaron’s sons delivered to him the blood, which he sprinkled around on the altar- </em></p><p>The peace offerings are nearly always mentioned as coming after the sin offerings. The peace which they commemorate is spiritual peace with God due to forgiveness. The Law always lists the sacrifices in a specific order: sin offering, burnt offering, peace offering (e.g. <em><a href='B:30 9:2-4'>Lev 9:2-4</a></em>). This may foreshadow the New Testament trio: "Grace, mercy and peace". Thus the peace offering is a result of having received mercy. Therefore we keep our peace offering, the memorial meeting, to recall the mercy which we have received. We do not specifically come there to find mercy. We do not need to break bread in order to be forgiven. <em><a href='B:230 100:4-5'>Psa 100:4-5</a></em> seems to allude to the peace offerings: "Enter into his gates (the peace offering was to be offered at the gate of the tabernacle) with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto Him... for the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting". The peace offering was "the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and in practice it was offered in thanks and praise of God's mercy towards human sin. In similar vein, <em><a href='B:230 107:17-21'>Psa 107:17-21</a></em> exults in the wonder of God's mercy in forgiving men. The spirit told Israel to respond by making voluntary peace offerings: "Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving" (v:22), i.e. peace offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>and the fat of the bull and of the ram, the fat tail, and that which covers the inward parts, and the kidneys, and the cover of the liver- </em></p><p>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>; <em><a href='B:30 7:3'>Lev 7:3</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>and they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burned the fat on the altar- </em></p><p>The fire which burned up the fat came down from God in :24. So we have here an example of a situation being presented which is a summary of future events. The picture is given, and then we later read the explanation of how it came about. This is typical of so much Biblical writing.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before Yahweh, as Moses commanded-</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>Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed them-</em></p><p>When the offerings are spoken of together, they are always in this order- sin offering, then burnt offering and then peace offering. Firstly we must deal with our sin; then dedicate ourselves to God, as spoken of in the burnt offering. Only then can we have peace with God and fellowship freely with Him, as exemplified in the peace offering.</p><p>Within the Pentateuch, the idea of blessing creation paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too <em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:22-24'>Num 6:22-24</a></em>). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the things created by the gods then blessing <em>them</em>. The Sumerians recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue gave praise”. But the true God, the God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but then blesses <em>them</em>! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods” (S.G.F. Brandon), to relieve them in their everyday work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great freedom, and blessing him.</p><p>And he came down from offering the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings-</p><p>Although the altar was very low, only three cubits (45 cm.) high (<em><a href='B:20 27:1'>Exo 27:1</a></em>), Aaron "came down" from it (<em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>). This may be understood in the same way as people "went up" and "came down" from the temple. Sacrifice was a 'height'.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses and Aaron went into the Tent of Meeting, and came out, and blessed the people; and the glory of Yahweh appeared to all the people- </em></p><p>Blessing is often associated with forgiveness and acceptance with God. The blessings promised to Abraham and his seed likewise (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). If we are Abraham’s seed by baptism (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>) then we are to be a blessing to the world in that we offer them the way to God’s forgiveness and fellowship with Him. The glory of God is only perceptible by those who have been genuinely convicted of their sin.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>There came forth fire from before Yahweh, and consumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on their faces- </em></p><p>Jewish tradition has it that the fire which came down from Heaven in <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> remained burning; and this fire was preserved burning all night and day. Hence the need for "fire pans" (<em><a href='B:20 27:3'>Exo 27:3</a></em>) to keep the fire burning whilst the altar was being cleaned or the remains of sacrifices removed from it. 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>Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered strange fire before Yahweh, which He had not commanded them-</em></p><p>The implication of :9 could be that they were drunk when they did this. Nadab and Abihu treated the sacred as secular; and that has to be a warning for all time. As explained on <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em>, special fire came down from God to show His acceptance of Aaron, and remained burning. Nadab and Abihu took "strange" fire, not this fire; and "strange" suggests Gentile or foreign, so it was likely fire associated with paganism.</p><p>Nadab and Abihu kindled strange fire, and it was with that fire that God burnt them up, in symbol of His destruction of all the wicked at judgment day (<em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em>). Our words are as fire, and are to be connected with the fire of condemnation (<em><a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a></em>), which our words have already kindled (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>).&nbsp; Likewise wrongly gained wealth is the fire that will burn those who have it at the last day (<em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>). James is picking up a figure from <em><a href='B:290 33:11'>Isa 33:11</a></em>, again concerning the final judgment: “Your (own) breath (i.e. words), as fire, shall devour you”. Their breath, their words, were as fire which would in the end be the basis of their condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And fire came forth from before Yahweh, and devoured them, and they died before Yahweh-</em></p><p>Fire coming down from God has just occurred as a sign of His acceptance of sacrifice (<em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em>). We shall either be consumed by God’s fire, or we give ourselves to Him as living sacrifices and are accepted and consumed by Him. There’s a logic of devotion here- whether we live to the flesh or to the Spirit, we are to be consumed anyway. So we may as well be consumed by God’s acceptance of us rather than by His wrath.</p><p>Elijah called the fire down in evident allusion to how fire came down from the Lord to destroy Nadab and Abihu and also Sodom (<em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a></em>). He did the wrong thing from wrong motives and yet he Biblically justified it- for the prophets themselves saw an apostate Israel as being like Sodom (<em><a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a></em>). Now this is probably how most Christians sin. We rarely harden ourselves and sin in willful defiance. In the heat of the moment the ‘devil’ of our own self-talk persuades us to find a pseudo-spiritual justification for actions which only later we reflect were wrong. The Lord’s wilderness temptations were all about doing justifiable things for wrong motives, based on a self-justifying recollection of Bible passages. And this in essence is how it is with most of our failures. The Lord’s victory and Elijah’s failure should serve to stop us in our tracks in careful and sustained self-examination. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Moses said to Aaron, This is what Yahweh spoke of, saying, ‘I will be declared holy in those who come near Me, and before all the people I will be glorified’. Aaron held his peace- </em></p><p>If we don't burn up the flesh now, then it will be at judgment day. When the rebels were burnt by fire, Moses commented: "This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me" (<em><a href='B:30 10:3'>Lev 10:3</a></em> AV). Either we burn ourselves up in commitment now, or we will be burnt up. God demands us from ourselves. The glaring logic is that seeing the flesh will be dissolved, it must have its judgment, therefore we ought to judge it now and thereby receive acceptance at the judgment; rather than omit to do so now and go through the same dissolution at the judgment, with the result that we will sleep eternally.</p><p>God’s destruction of sinners is a constructive declaration of His holiness rather than an angry deity lashing out at people because they offended Him. Any disciplining of others which we may have to do, e.g. of our children or within the family of God, should be done in the same constructive spirit. This incident teaches that we cannot approach God on our own terms, in our own way, but must do so in the way He has defined in His word. The fact He doesn’t respond to human failure so visibly as He did in Moses’ time doesn’t mean that this is any less true for us today.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, Draw near, carry your brothers from before the sanctuary out of the camp-</em></p><p>This suggests they were in the holy place, offering upon the incense altar. It also presumably made the priests who carried them ritually unclean. This would have required seven days of purification, and likewise the tabernacle would have been defiled and required days to cleanse it because of defilement with dead bodies. Yet there is no evidence that God required this letter of the law to be fulfilled at this point. And so we see that the inauguration of the tabernacle and priesthood began by grace; for it was all in a ritually unclean state right at its dedication. The lesson of acceptance by grace, by spirit and not letter, was taught from the beginning. There is another example of this noted on :17.</p>


text:
<p><em>So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said- </em></p><p>The fact they were dressed in their coats shows that they were attempting to do some kind of religious ritual in a "strange" or Gentile / pagan way. They were destroyed by fire (:2), but their coats were apparently miraculously preserved and not burnt. Perhaps this was so that the next priests who wore those coats would remember what had happened.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons, Don’t let the hair of your heads go loose, neither tear your clothes; that you don’t die, and that He not be angry with all the congregation; but let your brothers, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which Yahweh has kindled-</em></p><p>To tear the priestly clothes meant God's wrath with all the congregation and the ending of his priesthood. Caiaphas’ equivalent name in Hebrew could suggest ‘cast out’; his rending of his priestly clothes at Christ’s trial declared him “cast out” of the priesthood (see <em><a href='B:30 10:6'>Lev 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). We note too that the sin of one person can bring judgment upon others, in this case "all the congregation". On one hand, God deals with us as individuals. And yet on another, the nature of sin is that others suffer from the effects of the sin of third parties. That is largely the nature of sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die; for the anointing oil of Yahweh is on you. They did according to the word of Moses-</em></p><p>This is the phrase used for not going out of the doors at Passover night, on pain of death (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). They were to again realize that Israel's redemption from Egypt was theirs personally, and that redemption (like ours) had been in order to serve Yahweh. And that was what they were now doing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p>Aaron has now been accepted as high priest in the place of Moses. Despite all the weakness just described. And so Yahweh now addresses him directly, rather than via Moses as earlier.</p>


text:
<p><em>Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you don’t die: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations-</em></p><p>This suggests that the offering of strange fire may have been under the influence of alcohol. Which means that all the ritual of dedication we have been reading of so far in Leviticus... was done whilst under the influence of alcohol, or at least, involving sons of Aaron who were wont to abuse alcohol. The weakness of the priesthood is apparent. Perhaps it was because he knew this that Aaron was reticent about accepting the dedication of himself and his sons. The Lord Jesus as the great High Priest alluded to this ruling, when He said that He would no longer drink wine until He drinks it again with us (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>). The implication is that after His death and until He returns, He is now on priestly duty for us.</p>


text:
<p><em>and that you are to make a distinction between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean-</em></p><p>The behaviour of the rebels was therefore a failure to make this distinction. "Distinction" or 'make a division' is the word used of how the veil divided between the holy and most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 26:33'>Exo 26:33</a></em>). Their bodies were taken out from "before the sanctuary" (:4), so we wonder if they entered the most holy with their strange fire, drunk, and mixing clean and unclean foods. The list of unclean animals which follows in the next chapter was to underline this point; for that list was a distinction between the clean and unclean (<em><a href='B:30 11:47'>Lev 11:47</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 31:4-5'>Pro 31:4-5</a></em> associates alcohol abuse with forgetting God's law and it seems this is one of the many historical commentaries of Proverbs, alluding back to this incident.</p>


text:
<p><em>and that you are to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Yahweh has spoken to them by Moses-</em></p><p>The actions of the rebels were perhaps involved with a refusal to teach all Yahweh's statutes. And the priesthood were intended to teach Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, Take the grain offering that remains of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and eat it without yeast beside the altar; for it is most holy-</em></p><p>Because of the sin with the golden calf, God's intention had been to "destroy" Aaron (<em><a href='B:50 9:20'>Deu 9:20</a></em>). A person was 'destroyed' by having their family cut off (<em><a href='B:370 2:9'>Amo 2:9</a></em>). Moses had interceded for Aaron and apparently changed that outcome. But as it happened, the judgment was partially fulfilled, because of their sin. It's rather like Moses offering not to enter the land, so that Israel could. His offer was turned down, but in the end, he did not in fact enter the land, because of his sin. So God works even through human sin, in order to bring about what the sinner really wants. We also learn that human intercession for a sinner may indeed be heard, but if the sinner persists in their way, then they are allowed to choose their own condemnation.&nbsp;</p><p>Moses repeats the commands because he is fearful Aaron will not obey them properly, and may be slain as two of his sons had been.</p>


text:
<p><em>and you shall eat it in a holy place, because it is your portion, and your sons’ portion, of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: for so I am commanded-</em></p><p>"For so I am commanded" could suggest these were specific commands given for the inauguration ceremony after the death of Nadab and Abihu. "It is <em>your</em> portion" signifies that no longer is Moses the priest, taking the portions for himself (<em><a href='B:30 8:29'>Lev 8:29</a></em>). They were now Aaron's. I discussed on <em><a href='B:30 8:13'>Lev 8:13</a></em> how all this was very humbling for Moses. He had briefly been Israel's priest, and was therefore allowed to have the portions of the sacrifices for himself. But now he was handing over the priesthood to Aaron and his sons, when surely it had been his natural sense that he ought to have been the priest as he was spiritually more mature than Aaron.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The waved breast and the contributed thigh you shall eat in a clean place, you, and your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are given as your portion, and your sons’ portion, out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel- </em></p><p>We note the inclusion of the daughters. All the family were to come to a clean place and eat. The dedication of the male members to the Divine service was to involve their families too, and they were to be engaged in this dedication ceremony. Constantly we see God's care for the family unit. This is contrast to the secular religious view, that priesthood was for chosen men, and their families must put up with it.</p>


text:
<p><em>The heaved thigh and the waved breast they shall bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before Yahweh; and it shall be yours, and your sons’ with you, as a portion forever, as Yahweh has commanded- </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>Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying- </em></p><p>Moses' faith slipped for a moment; because his spirit was provoked by Israel, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips and was therefore barred from entering the land (although maybe such an apparently temporary slip was the reflection of deeper problems?). Yet it does seem uncharacteristic, a tragic slip down the graph of ever rising spirituality. There must have almost been tears in Heaven. Being easily provoked was one of Moses' characteristics; consider how he turned himself and stormed out from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:6'>Exo 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>); how his anger waxed hot when he returned from the mount, how he went out from Pharaoh in great anger, how he first of all feared the wrath of Pharaoh and then stopped fearing it; how Moses was "very wroth" at Israel's suggestion that he was appropriating the sacrifices for himself; how he was "angry" with Eleazer (<em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:16-17'>Lev 10:16-17</a></em>). This temperament explains his swings of faith. Was the Lord Jesus likewise afflicted?</p>


text:
<p><em>Why haven’t you eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is most holy, and He has given it to you to carry the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Yahweh?- </em></p><p>It was true that the letter of the law had been broken. But this was accepted, because Aaron's admission of bad conscience was in the spirit of the law. And so we see that the inauguration of the tabernacle and priesthood began by grace; for it was all in a ritually unclean state right at its dedication. The lesson of acceptance by grace, by spirit and not letter, was taught from the beginning. There is another example of this noted on :4.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary: you certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded- </em></p><p>Aaron the sinner comes over as more righteous than Moses the legalist. "As I commanded... you certainly should... why haven't you...?" is met with the answer that 'I didn't do all that because I was so upset with God and life generally for the slaying of my sons'. And that was the more mature response.</p>


text:
<p><em>Aaron spoke to Moses, Behold, this day they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before Yahweh; and such things as these have happened to me; and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been pleasing in the sight of Yahweh?-</em></p><p>Aaron felt unable to eat with God because of his bad conscience about his sons’ behaviour, or maybe because he felt angry with God for killing his sons. Moses expected Aaron to just be obedient to the letter of the law for the sake of it, but Aaron is presented as having done the right thing, living with sensitivity to our conscience and feelings rather than in unthinking obedience to the letter of the law.</p>


text:
<p><em>When Moses heard that, it was pleasing in his sight-</em></p><p>Moses is one of greatest types of the Lord Jesus, in whom the Father was supremely manifested. Because of this, it is fitting that we should see a very high level of God manifestation in Moses. Indeed it seems that God was manifest in Moses to a greater degree than in any other Old Testament character. Thus Aaron asks: “Would it have been well pleasing in the sight of Yahweh?”, and then we read “And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight”.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them-</em></p><p>Comparing the lists of clean and unclean animals in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, we see the Deuteronomy list tends to be more specific. This is understandable; for the people were now going to enter the land, and there would be specific questions about specific animals. </p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:50 14:3'>Deu 14:3</a></em> prefaces this teaching by saying that "you must not eat any abominable thing". See on :13. The word "abominable" has connections with idolatry. The reasons for defining certain animals as clear and others as unclean may be connected to the way in which the unclean animals were used in idol worship, especially by the Egyptians. There is a clear connection between unclean animals and idols in <em><a href='B:290 66:17'>Isa 66:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 8:10'>Eze 8:10</a></em>. There is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>), every creature is "good" and was made "very good" (<em><a href='B:610 4:4'>1Ti 4:4</a></em>); the differentiations were purely for teaching purposes, and therefore at the Lord's death the differences were collapsed. Peter struggled to accept this, but was taught that the unclean animals had been intended to represent the Gentiles- and now they were to be accepted on an equal footing to the Jews, the supposedly "clean" animals. Again we see the temporary nature of the law of Moses; the animals were not of themselves unclean originally, nor were they after the Lord's death.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed- </em></p><p>The sense of the Hebrew is "Whatever parts the hoof, and completely divides it". Some animals part the hoof but don't completely divide it to the end, such as the camel. The lesson would be that there must be clear division between clean and unclean, good and bad, and that division must not be begun and not finished. The line dividing good from evil must run to the end through every part of our lives.&nbsp;</p><p>And chews the cud among the animals, that you may eat- </p><p>The Hebrew means to bring the food up again, to ruminate. Perhaps this was to represent ruminating upon God’s word; and being cloven-footed perhaps speaks of being sure footed and walking stably in life. To chew the cud (ruminate on God’s word) but not walk the talk (not having a cloven foot) still makes us unclean (:4). However, it may be that there is little significance in the chewing of the cud of itself, because doing so didn’t make the animal unclean of itself- it was just an exercise for Israel to teach them the concept of discernment, self control and obedience to God even when this meant practical inconvenience for them (see on :6).</p>


text:
<p><em>Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you- </em></p><p>Some animals part the hoof but don't completely divide it to the end (see on :3), such as the camel, which has a kind of ball at the back of their foot which means the hoof is not completely divided. The lesson would be that there must be clear division between clean and unclean, good and bad, and that division must not be begun and not finished. The line dividing good from evil must run to the end through every part of our lives.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>the rock badger, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you- </em></p><p>As with the language of demons in the New Testament, the Bible here speaks of things as they appear. For hares and rock badgers do chew the cud, but their munching movements, the lower jaw moving backward and forward, suggest they are chewers of the cud- but in fact they don't.</p>


text:
<p><em>the hare, because she chews the cud but doesn’t part the hoof, she is unclean to you-</em></p><p>The hare was apparently thought to be avoided by demons ("jinns") and so was worshipped; hare bones or skills were used as good luck charms, and still are among some Arab tribes. So the reason for having nothing to do with hares was religious rather than because hares are somehow more intrinsically unclean than other animals.</p>


text:
<p><em>the pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn’t chew the cud, he is unclean to you-</em></p><p>Appearing to make a differentiation in our walk, our external life, is no good unless internally we are chewing the cud, masticating our food, ruminating upon God's word (:3). Many people appear to have made a division between themselves and society but this is no evidence that they are spiritual.</p>


text:
<p><em>Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you-</em></p><p>The basis of the command to us in our age to “touch not the unclean thing” by being separate from sinful things (<em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that you may eat- </em></p><p>All fish have fins and scales, it's just that some aren't evident. We see here how the Bible is written in places from the viewpoint of humans, and according to their understanding of things, even if that understanding is false. And this is why we find mental illness attributed to "demons" in the New Testament, even though demons don't exist.</p>


text:
<p><em>All that don’t have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are to be an abomination to you-</em></p><p>The parable of the drag net pictures fishermen sitting down with their catch, throwing away the “bad” fish. These would’ve been the unclean sea creatures, e.g. crabs, which had got caught up in the net. This represented the ‘sitting’ of the final judgment at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:48-49'>Mat 13:48-49</a></em>). We are to make that same division between good and bad in the choices we make today.</p>


text:
<p><em>and you are to detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses- </em></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;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is to be an abomination to you- </em></p><p>See on :9. "Abomination" is the language of idolatry, and it was the idolatrous associations which were the basis for these animals being forbidden; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p><em>These you shall detest among the birds they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture-</em></p><p>"Detest" is the word for "abomination", which further suggests that the unclean birds were to be rejected because they were associated with idol worship; not because they were somehow more intrinsically unclean than the "clean" animals. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the red kite, any kind of black kite- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:50 14:11'>Deu 14:11</a></em> LXX makes it a command that "Ye shall eat every clean bird". The reference may specifically be to the birds used in the ritual of the cleansing of the leper; as if this was the only time a bird may be eaten. For the basis upon which clean and unclean animals were divided (chewing the cud, cloven hooves) doesn't apply to birds. It could be that birds were not to be eaten, apart from those sanctified or "made clean" by the rituals which used birds.</p>


text:
<p><em>any kind of raven-</em></p><p>We note how Elijah was later to be made to depend upon food brought to him by unclean ravens (<em><a href='B:110 17:4-6'>1Ki 17:4-6</a></em>). This was all part of God's program to educate him against exclusivity. God told Elijah that He had commanded unclean ravens to feed him; and thus He reminded Elijah of a basic fact, that God speaks to even unclean animals (<em><a href='B:10 1:22'>Gen 1:22</a></em>)- and they obey him. The ravens not only obeyed Yahweh in going to Elijah, but in not eating the food they were carrying. Elijah likely considered that the fact God spoke to him meant that he must therefore have some automatic superiority over others. But not so. It’s the same with us. We can consider that because we have heard God’s true voice, we thereby are justified before Him. But He speaks to and uses all, clean and unclean.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>the horned owl, the screech owl, and the gull, any kind of hawk-</em></p><p>These birds all hunt and eat other unclean animals, and many of them were totems of the idols believed in by the nations. Again the idea was to teach God’s people the need to keep away from association with things which resembled sin, which would put ideas in the mind which tended towards sin rather than righteousness. This principle is so relevant today in connection with what we watch or read, for by presenting ourselves continually with sinful associations we are the more likely to ourselves fall into sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>the barn owl, the cormorant, the great owl- </em></p><p>The extensive stress upon not eating owls of any kind (:18)was because the local tribes considered that owls were the most human-like of all birds. They were therefore worshipped and considered as mediators between the gods and man. There was to be no even going near these birds, because association is the basis of so much downward sliding in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p><em>the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey- </em></p><p>See on :17. It is common in primitive societies for tribes and individuals to have totems, an animal or plant which they are associated with. This practice is common today in central Africa. Seeing there are no animals unclean of themselves, as the New Testament makes clear, one reason for the specific designation of some animals as "unclean" may be because they were associated with local tribes or individuals who were to be treated as unclean. The meaning of some of the names of the designated "unclean" animals are suggestive of individuals.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat-</em></p><p>Some of the birds forbidden as unclean were thought to be good luck symbols, and their carcasses were used as medicines or potions used in idol worship. The heron and bat were amongst these. The take away lesson is that we are to avoid all associations with that which is paganic and anti-God.</p>


text:
<p><em>All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you-</em></p><p>Paul observes that there is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>). These animals were to be unclean “to <em>you</em>” because it was part of God’s method of teaching His people to make a moral choice in life, to recognize there is sin and righteousness, clean and unclean. There were hygienic reasons behind the prohibition of some animals, but the essential intention was to teach the concept of making a difference, of looking at something we could partake of and saying ‘No, that is not for me’. The fact God later withdrew the distinction between clean and unclean animals just confirms that they were not clean nor unclean of themselves; all had been created by God and declared “very good” in Genesis (<em><a href='B:610 4:4'>1Ti 4:4</a></em>). The distinctions between them were there to simply educate Israel in practicing the concept of separation and discernment between acceptable and unacceptable things in life.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yet you may eat these: of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth- </em></p><p>Winged creeping things with feet recalls the language of the cherubim. These kinds of animals often had religious symbolism; the bas reliefs of Assyria and Babylon are full of such winged quadrupeds. Again we see that the prohibition about eating them was as it were a fence around the law. They were eaten in worship, and God wanted to ensure that there was not even to be the subconscious suggestion of idolatry for His people.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Even of these you may eat: any kind of locust, any kind of bald locust, any kind of cricket, and any kind of grasshopper-</em></p><p>The difference between these and the larger winged creeping things of :21 was simply that these were not generally objects of worship.</p>


text:
<p><em>But all winged creeping things which have four feet, are an abomination to you- </em></p><p>The idea may be that they had the potential to fly, but often preferred to crawl on earth. Refusing to use spiritual potential was seen as a bad thing, and Israel didn't need even the unconscious association with anything which resembled that. This is why so much which passes for entertainment would be better not viewed nor listened to by Christians; there is nothing unclean in itself, but the subliminal associations are what drag us down.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>By these you will become unclean: whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>See on :25. There was no requirement for sacrifice. But <em><a href='B:30 5:2'>Lev 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:6'>Lev 5:6</a></em> taught that if a person touches an unclean thing and only later realizes they had done so, then they needed to offer a guilt offering. This seems to teach that moral weakness, immediately recognized, is less serious than unrecognized moral weakness which is later recognized. The requirement for a guilt offering was surely to underline the seriousness of sin even if committed in ignorance. And perhaps to thereby encourage thoughtfulness about and awareness of God's law, so that the cost and inconvenience of making a guilt offering was not incurred.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening-</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. There is definitely a principle connection between knowledge and responsibility, and conscious defilement requires greater cleansing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every animal which parts the hoof, and is not cloven-footed, nor chews the cud, is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean- </em></p><p>See on :7. Parting the hoof, appearing to make a differentiation in our walk, our external life, is no good unless internally we are chewing the cud, masticating our food, ruminating upon God's word (:3). Many people appear to have made a division between themselves and society but this is no evidence that they are spiritual. Or we may note the warning that some part the hoof but aren't cloven footed, meaning that although they appear to make a division in their walk, they don't do so to the end. For not being cloven-footed means that the parted hoof doesn't remain parted right to the end of the hoof.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever goes on its paws, among all animals that go on all fours, they are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>GNB "all four-footed animals with paws", LXX "all the wild beasts that moves upon its fore feet". The Hebrew for "paws" is the usual word for "hands". It is used in the sense of 'power' (<em><a href='B:90 4:3'>1Sa 4:3</a></em> and often). Perhaps the message is that those animals which so overtly trust in their own natural strength and power should be avoided. Or maybe the idea is that animals which appear to be a mix of the animal and the human (by having "hands") should be avoided. For these were the animals worshipped in paganism, and half human, half divine idols and gods are found everywhere in pagan thought. For the same reason as humans shouldn't have sex with animals, even the subliminal suggestion of these animals was to be avoided. For man is not on the same level as the beasts, and he should not act like that.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. They are unclean to you-</em></p><p>We may enquire why a person would need to carry a carcass of an unclean animal. Possibly in order to move a carcass out of the way; but more likely, to use it for food or its skin for clothing. And this was forbidden. So the extra duty of washing clothes was introduced, because such behaviour was likely to lead closer to sin. We may despise fences around laws as legalistic, but in reality, the way of the Spirit requires wisdom and an appreciation in practical daily life decisions and structuring of our tendency to fall into sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are they which are unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard- </em></p><p>AV "The mouse". The mouse is associated with idolatry in <em><a href='B:290 66:17'>Isa 66:17</a></em>. This shows how these laws were intended to keep Israel well away from even the subliminal suggestion towards such idolatry. But they didn't obey the food laws, and so they ended up participating in the very idolatry which the food laws were designed to psychologically preclude.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>the gecko, and the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the sand lizard and the chameleon-</em></p><p>The animals listed were known in the land promised to Abraham. This is another proof that the Law of Moses was not intended for world-wide Gentile use but was the covenant between God and Israel during a specific time and in a specific location on the earth.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are they which are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p>But the Hebrew could suggest that touching them dead or alive made unclean, hence GNB "Whoever touches them or their dead bodies will be unclean".</p>


text:
<p><em>On whatever any of them falls when they are dead, it shall be unclean; whether it is any vessel of wood, or clothing, or skin, or sack, whatever vessel it is with which any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it will be clean-</em></p><p>This seems to suggest cases where things were inadvertently made unclean. The chance of harmful contamination being spread by a clean animal touching something was not less than that for an unclean animal. So these laws about washing the things with water were only partly for hygienic reasons; the teaching aspect was far greater.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it- </em></p><p>As noted on :32, if the reason was purely hygienic, then we would expect to read this about clean animals. We must ever recall that there is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>). The intention of these laws was to build up a culture of distaste and even fear of the unclean animals, because they were connected to idolatry. Even subliminal suggestions of idolatry were to be found distasteful. And this has huge relevance for us today. Why, then, would a Christian wish to read and view material which is full of subliminal suggestions and temptations to sin...</p>


text:
<p><em>All food which may be eaten, that on which water comes, shall be unclean; and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean- </em></p><p>GNB "Any food which could normally be eaten, but on which water from such a pot has been poured, will be unclean, and anything drinkable in such a pot is unclean". This is not to be seen as supporting guilt by association, contamination by communion and other such unGodly extremism. As noted on :33, it was all part of a teaching mechanism, and the aim was to create a culture of distaste and even fear of the unclean animals, because they were connected to idolatry.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Everything whereupon part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it be an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces: they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you- </em></p><p>"Range for pots" is GNB "a clay stove"; or the idea may be 'covered pots', i.e. pots with lids. The outcome of this legislation would have been to ensure that unclean animals such as mice and lizards were kept out of the kitchen. It all contributed toward a cultural attitude towards these unclean animals, just as those raised in a Muslim culture may vomit at the thought of eating pork. This was how Israel were to feel to all the unclean animals, and therefore to the religious associations they had.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Nevertheless a spring or a cistern in which water is gathered shall be clean; but that which touches their carcass shall be unclean- </em></p><p>It would be hard to legislate that a spring of water couldn't be used if an unclean animal fell into it. Clearly enough the hygienic reasons behind the legislation were only a minimal part of the thinking behind it. Otherwise the spring would have been declared unusable. Again we must recall that the chances of human contamination from many clean animals was about the same as from many unclean animals. There is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If part of their carcass falls on any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean- </em></p><p>Again, the idea would be that barns and storehouses were best kept free of unclean animals like mice and lizards which were likely to cause this situation to come about. But we note that in this case, mere physical contact was not enough to make the seed unclean. Again, if the concerns were largely hygienic, then we would expect this. But it isn't the case, because they were being used as a teaching mechanism. Any hygienic benefit was in passing.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But if water is put on the seed, and part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you- </em></p><p>GNB expresses the intent better: "But if the seed is soaking in water". There was indeed a higher chance of possible contamination due to the water, but again this is surely a teaching point. For the crop which was to later be produced from that seed would not be markedly inferior even if a dead mouse had fallen into the bowl of water where the seed was being soaked.</p>


text:
<p><em>If any animal of which you may eat, dies; he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>An unclean animal would usually only be touched if it were being brought home to be eaten. It was possible to eat it, although doing so required washing clothes and being unclean (:40). Famine would only come if Israel were unfaithful to the covenant, but even in that case, God was considerate to their hunger and allowed the eating of unclean food- given the provisos of :40.</p>


text:
<p><em>He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p>See on :40. 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”. Take the uncleanness laws. They basically said: 'Don't touch an unclean animal. If you do, there's a penalty. If you carry the carcass, there's a more serious penalty. And if you carry the carcass home and eat it, there's something more serious. The highest ideal was not to touch the unclean thing. But there were concessions to weakness for those who either couldn't or wouldn't make the effort to attain the highest level of response to the will of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every creeping thing that creeps on the earth is an abomination. It shall not be eaten- </em></p><p>This appears to contrast with the allowance for eating unclean meats in :40, if the person washed their clothes and became unclean until evening. As discussed on :40, the two ideas are clearly, consciously juxtaposed. Because the idea is that God could be served on different levels; although choosing the lower level, of eating unclean meat, made one more liable to break Divine law. Because clothes had to be washed, and they had to be unclean until evening- which meant they were likely to make others unclean by contact with them. So the path of lower levels only makes obedience and conformity to the Spirit that much harder.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all creeping things that creep on the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are an abomination-</em></p><p>They were not to associate themselves with animals which hugged the earth; just as we should not keep close to earthly things (<em>Php_3:19</em>) but seek the things which are above (<em><a href='B:580 3:1'>Col 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled thereby- </em></p><p><em>"</em>Abomination" is the word also used for idolatry. Making oneself abominable with an animal seems to allude to sexual behaviour. Sex with any animal was wrong, but here sex with unclean animals is focused upon. So here we have another big clue as to why some animals were designated unclean. They were associated with idolatry and perverted sexual behaviour which accompanied the idolatry.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I am Yahweh your God. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy; neither shall you defile yourselves with any kind of creeping thing that moves on the earth-</em></p><p>The Hebrew words for sanctification and holiness include the ideas of both being negatively separated <em>from</em> and positively being separated <em>unto</em>. The whole legislation about clean and unclean animals was to try to teach Israel this principle. As such there was limited significance in the actual division of animals into clean and unclean- it was merely a teaching device.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I am Yahweh who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy- </em></p><p>The great works of Yahweh which He showed at the time of their exodus from Egypt (cp. the world) and baptism at the Red Sea were in essence repeated throughout their wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>). Therefore whenever they faced discouragement and an apparent blockage to their way, they were to remember how God had redeemed them at their baptism, and to realize that in fact His work was still ongoing with them (<em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). He told them in the desert that He was "Yahweh that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a></em>). Therefore the overcoming of Edom, Moab and the Canaanite tribes is described in language lifted from the Red Sea record (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a></em>). Throughout their history, Israel were reminded that what God had done for them in their Red Sea deliverance He was continuing to do, and therefore all their enemies would likewise perish if they remained God's people (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 43:16'>Isa 43:16</a></em>). This didn’t just happen at the Red Sea, just as it wasn’t completed at our baptisms (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Our being brought out of Egypt and toward God is an ongoing process.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth- </em></p><p>The earth or <em>eretz</em> is clearly the land promised to Abraham. For the 'every creature' in view refers to those in that territory. This is evidence enough that the law of Moses was indeed a mark of the covenant between God and Israel, and as such has never been applicable to the Gentile world. If it were e.g. applicable in the Australian outback or northern Siberia, the examples of animals given would have been different.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten’-</em></p><p>This need to make a distinction between clean and unclean was exactly what Nadab and Abihu had failed to do, as explained in the previous chapter (<em><a href='B:30 10:10'>Lev 10:10</a></em>). Indeed I suggest that it is in this context that we now have this list distinguishing between clean and unclean animals. It is our failure to divide light from darkness, to allow everything to become shades of gray, which is our most common weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p>Most primitive societies had legislation similar to this about childbirth; some kind of offering and period of uncleanness, and then a period confined at home without contact with others<em>. </em>And usually the periods were longer for a female child than for a male child. So this would be an example of where the Mosaic law recognized the religious needs of the time, and sought to meet them in a way which glorified Yahweh. We marvel at God's concessions to human weakness, and His understanding of the situation and need of every generation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean-</em></p><p>The reference to conception before bearing a male child may allude to the incorrect but strongly held ideas of the time- that a woman who releases her egg or achieves orgasm before contact with the male sperm in orgasm will bear a male child. This is the explanation of this passage which the Rabbis tend to give. This would then be in line with the suggestion on :1, that the following legislation is a concession to human weakness of understanding at the time. If Israel had not been given this legislation, likely they would have used the pagan rituals concerning childbirth which involved idol worship. </p>


text:
<p><em>In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised-</em></p><p>I suggest this is added at this point because we read in :2 that the mother was to be unclean seven days after birth. The God who is apparently so far away could foresee human experience so accurately and sympathetically. For He knew that the circumcision would be an event to be celebrated. And so it would be nice for the mother to have had a week to recover from the childbirth, and to be in a ritually clean state so she could celebrate and mix freely with the others present. This is also noteworthy because it is the only time circumcision is commanded under the old covenant. It had already been commanded to Abraham, but within the series of promises which were to become the new covenant. We see here a tacit recognition of the difference between the two covenants. The command for circumcision had to be repeated rather than assumed as still binding.&nbsp; </p><p><em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em> presents baptism as the equivalent in our day if we wish to enter the new covenant, which is based upon the same promises to Abraham. But there is more to new covenant relationship than simply the ritual of baptism. Circumcision spoke of a cutting off of the flesh in the most private and intimate place. We always read of circumcision as being done to a person. Water baptism enables us to receive the birth of the Spirit, whereby the Lord will work through the Spirit to change our hearts, to cut off our flesh in the most private and personal recesses of human hearts. Cuttings of the flesh as a sign of tribal affiliation were common amongst the surrounding tribes, as they are to this day in less developed tribal areas of the world. The signs are always public and immediately evident- you can tell instantly that a person belongs to this or that tribe by a cut in the ear or nose or cheek, or the removal of certain teeth, or the painting of a certain symbol on a visible part of the body. But circumcision was not at all outwardly evident. It was not mere tribalism; it taught that God's demands were upon the most private part of human life. Women also could be in covenant, and they must have wondered what was required for them. They would've quickly figured that lack of physical cutting was not to say they weren't in covenant, and that therefore, the real token of the covenant was not circumcision in itself, but what circumcision represented- the cutting off of the flesh in our most personal areas.</p>


text:
<p><em>She shall continue in the blood of purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed-</em></p><p>A woman in this case was not unclean for 33 days after the birth of a son, but was still involved in the blood of purification. For after seven days she was ritually clean, but not allowed to enter the sanctuary. It can be no accident that the Lord lived for 33 years- in such close association with the purification of humanity that He was identified with our absolute human situation.&nbsp;</p><p>The command not to come into the sanctuary reminds us that women as well as men were allowed to enter the sanctuary. Relationship with Yahweh was not a mere male hobby as it was in many religions. We must however remember that Leviticus is specifically the commands given to the Levites at their inauguration, so possibly the woman in view here is specifically a woman from the tribe of Levi who was accustomed to entering the sanctuary to eat the priestly portions.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days-</em></p><p>This doesn't mean that females somehow need more purification than males. I suggest that the shorter period of purification for males was in order to demonstrate the great value of their circumcision, which was as it were worth 33 days of being "in the blood of purification".&nbsp;</p><p>The longer length of purification required for the woman is also found in many pagan religions. The reason was that it was believed that various demons and bad gods sought to kill female babies more than they sought male babies. And so for female babies there was a greater sense of gratitude for a live birth. Perhaps this legislation reflected how God was making concessions to the wrong or misinformed gut feelings of His people. Just as He often does to us. Likewise it may be a concession to the common but incorrect belief that bleeding and watery discharge continued longer after the birth of a girl than after that of a boy. Likewise the wrong ideas about 'demons' are as it were tolerated in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the days of her purification are completed- </em></p><p>Let us note that the woman was unclean for a period, and<em> she</em> then needed purification- not her child. We cannot therefore reason from this that the Lord Jesus was unclean by reason of His birth. It is no sin to be born a human.</p><p>For a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the Tent of Meeting, a year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering-</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><p>We note that the sin offering was of far lower value than the burnt offering in this case. Perhaps this was to reflect how whilst God does indeed want recognition of sin and the fact we are born into a sinful environment, far more significant to Him is our desire to dedicate life to Him, despite that background and environment which we have. We also note that this is about the only time when the order sin offering - burnt offering is reversed. Usually there was to be conviction of sin resulting in dedication, the burnt offering. But a newborn child is not sinful, there is no "sin" somehow buried physically in human flesh; for all we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus who fully shared that nature. So the idea was that the child was dedicated to Yahweh, that was the sense of the offering, along with an awareness that indeed we are all sinful in practice, and we recognize that the child is being born into a sinful family and environment.</p>


text:
<p><em>and he shall offer it before Yahweh, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. ‘This is the law for her who bears, whether a male or a female-</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>If she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean’-</em></p><p>The poverty of Mary the mother of Jesus is indicated by the fact she offered doves and not a lamb (<em><a href='B:490 2:24'>Luk 2:24</a></em>). He knew poverty. 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>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, 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>When a man shall have a rising in his body’s skin, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes in the skin of his body the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons, the priests-</em></p><p>Leprosy was and is a common scourge in the Middle East. For each person with the possible symptoms to be brought to either the high priest or one of his sons would have been logistically too much. This confirms the suggestion on :1 that what is in view is not Hansen's disease, leprosy as we know it, but a specific stroke from God upon sinners. </p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall examine the plague in the skin of the body; and if the hair in the plague has turned white, and the appearance of the plague is deeper than the body’s skin, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean-</em></p><p>Leprosy is symbolic of sin. But a person can appear to have 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>If the bright spot is white in the skin of his body, and its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and its hair hasn’t turned white, then the priest shall isolate the infected person for seven days- </em></p><p>The language is continually suggestive of spiritual repentance. See on :1. The hair had to be "turned" white, always the hint is at change. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:90 10:6'>1Sa 10:6</a></em>, "turned into another man".&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and behold, if in his eyes the plague is arrested, and the plague hasn’t spread in the skin, then the priest shall isolate him for seven more days- </em></p><p>The idea of plague or striking in judgment being arrested or stayed is found in <em><a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:50'>Num 16:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 24:21'>2Sa 24:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a></em>. In every case, the plague was a special striking from God in judgment; and it was arrested or stayed by repentance and / or intercession, even by third parties. If Hansen's disease ("leprosy" as we know it) was in view, such a quick diagnosis could not be made. Such leprosy would not break out and then be arrested after seven days. But if as suggested on :1 the "leprosy" was a stroke of Divine judgment which could be "arrested", then this is understandable. It was the duty of the Levites to teach Israel, so that they would not be smitten by such plague / striking in judgment (<em><a href='B:40 8:19'>Num 8:19</a></em>). This is why these laws are given here to the Levites, in this book of Leviticus.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and behold, if the plague has faded, and the plague hasn’t spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a scab. He shall wash his clothes, and be clean-</em></p><p>Our life spent in Christ is represented by these periods of seven days; at the end, Christ as the true priest and judge will decide whether the sin which there is in our lives has remained at a surface, appearance level- or whether it has spread. Yeast likewise represents sin, in that it spreads its influence. Sin either spreads in our flesh or doesn’t...</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the scab spreads on the skin, after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again- </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 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 examine him; and behold, if the scab has spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is leprosy-</em></p><p>"Pronounce him unclean" is literally 'to make him unclean'. The uncleanness was therefore a moral issue, rather than being made unclean simply through having contracted an illness. This confirms our suggestion on :1, that the "leprosy" was not Hansen's disease but a specific Divine judgment for sin. The temptation must have been to try to cover up the appearance of sin / leprosy rather than revealing oneself to the priest; just as we are tempted today.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest-</em></p><p>God’s people were to avoid trying to judge the appearance of leprosy / sin in others. And this temptation remains an abiding issue for all time- to ourselves interpret appearances and judge them in others, rather than leaving this to the Lord's judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall examine him. Behold, if there is a white rising in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the rising- </em></p><p>GNB "If there is a white sore on your skin which turns the hairs white and is full of pus". "Raw flesh" is s.w. "life of the flesh" (<em><a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a></em>). The idea is that living flesh was being actively contaminated and destroyed. The key issue was whether the disease was still spreading within the person. This speaks of whether or not we have as it were reigned in the spread of sin in our human lives. But the immediate reference was as to whether the Divine judgment was ongoing in the person.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>it is a chronic leprosy in the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He shall isolate him, for he is unclean- </em></p><p>AV "It is an old leprosy". And that is indeed the sense of the Hebrew. The previous ("old") judgments for sin had not been learned from, and continued. So the person was still unclean because they had not learned their lesson. Seeing leprosy was incurable at that time, an old leprosy is a contradiction in terms; as suggested on :1, the reference is to a specific stroke from God and not Hansen's disease.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the leprosy breaks out all over the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the infected person from his head even to his feet, as far as it appears to the priest-</em></p><p>This is again strong evidence that a stroke from God is in view and not leprosy as we know it; see on :1. For if this were leprosy, then the man would be completely unclean. The idea rather is that the stroke from God had now run its course, and the man had been completely rendered stricken.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the leprosy has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean of the plague. It has all turned white: he is clean-</em></p><p>If a person has indulged in sin and recognizes it, although they carry in their lives the evidence of it, yet the sin has as it were died and they are clean. At baptism into Christ we became “dead to sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But whenever raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean-</em></p><p>Whenever sin is actively dominating over virgin flesh, claiming new areas in a person's life, then they are "unclean". But the original idea would be that in this case, the judgment stroke of God was still actively at work in the person.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall examine the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean: the raw flesh is unclean. It is leprosy-</em></p><p>AV "it is <em>a</em> leprosy" would suggest that this was not just a form of leprosy, but rather this was a stroke from God.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Or if the raw flesh turns again, and is changed to white, then he shall come to the priest- </em></p><p>The critical issue is whether the condition was spreading. And this is the question in our lives- whether sin has run its course with us, even if we bear the results of it in our flesh; or whether it is ongoing and spreading.</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the plague has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean of the plague. He is clean- </em></p><p>Turning white was the sign that the man was clean, whereas if Hansen's disease were in view, this would surely show that the man was obviously still infected. For lepers "white as snow" are described in the Biblical records. "Turned white" would suggest that the stroke for sin had now turned the person "white", they were acceptable, covered in imputed righteousness through repentance and acceptance of their previous judgment for sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>When the body has a boil on its skin, and it has healed- </em></p><p>The idea is that there are external signs which might suggest a person to have been smitten of God, but we cannot judge that. Job's example comes to mind. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can judge this. "Boil" is the word used of the smiting&nbsp; of Hezekiah (<em><a href='B:120 20:7'>2Ki 20:7</a></em>) and Job (<em><a href='B:220 2:7'>Job 2:7</a></em>); also for ‘the botch (RV "boil") of Egypt’ (<em><a href='B:50 28:17'>Deu 28:17</a></em>). In the cases of Job and Hezekiah, they were smitten by God; they didn't just contract the disease we now know as leprosy. And the end of that "boil" was an outcome of prayer and repentance. And the period of their affliction was far shorter than the natural course of leprosy as we know it. This again confirms the suggestion on :1 that "leprosy" here refers not to Hansen's disease but to some specific judgment from God upon a person.</p>


text:
<p><em>and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest-</em></p><p>"Reddish" is the word<em> adam.</em> The idea may be that it is unclear in this case whether the man is "white" or not, for Adam, the natural man, is mixed with the whiteness. And we muse about so many folks, as to whether they are white in righteousness or still red with the ways of Adam. And again, it is not for us in fact to muse upon these things. We must leave it to the priest's judgment, the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and the priest shall examine it; and behold, if it appears beneath the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy. It has broken out in the boil-</em></p><p>I suggested on :19 that the red /&nbsp; <em>Adam</em> sin is appearing as white righteousness. The question is whether we have allowed sin to penetrate beneath the flesh- by implication, to the heart. There may be here a distinction being drawn between sin on a surface level and that sin which is deeper, which leads to exclusion from God’s family.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the priest examines it, and behold, there are no white hairs in it, and it isn’t deeper than the skin, but is dim, then the priest shall isolate him seven days-</em></p><p>Heb. 'become dim'. Even if it appears that sin is in retreat in human life, the question is whether it spreads or not. Or, whether the stroke of God is still ongoing.</p>


text:
<p><em>If it spreads in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is a plague- </em></p><p>Clearly "it is a plague" suggests a stroke from God. And again, it is the spreading nature which showed whether the stroke was finished or not.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread, it is the scar from the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean-</em></p><p>People carry the scars of their sins, but these don’t mean we should treat them as sinful. There may be multiple children from a series of casual relationships, illnesses resulting from addictions; but we are not to judge people as unclean because of that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or when the body has a burn from fire on its skin, and the raw flesh of the burn becomes a bright spot, reddish-white, or white- </em></p><p>"A burn from fire" is literally "a fire of burning". The same word is used in <em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em> of how Yahweh sent out fire upon the flesh of Nadab and Abihu in judgment. There are similar usages of the word in <em><a href='B:30 21:9'>Lev 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:10'>Num 26:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 18:38'>1Ki 18:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 1:16'>Job 1:16</a></em> etc. And as suggested on :1, I suggest that this is the context of this talk about Divine plague here.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall examine it; and behold, if the hair in the bright spot has turned white, and its appearance is deeper than the skin; it is leprosy. It has broken out in the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy- </em></p><p>The idea would be that the person had not learned from being struck by the Lord. The judgment was still spreading, because they were still impenitent.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the priest examines it, and behold, there is no white hair in the bright spot, and it isn’t lower than the skin, but is faded; then the priest shall isolate him seven days- </em></p><p>Even if the external appearance of the judgment of sin is apparently not lower than the flesh, and has apparently faded; this is not to say that a person is clean, or that their judgment from God had ended. The critical issue was not surface level appearance, but whether it has spread further (:27).</p>


text:
<p><em>The priest shall examine him on the seventh day. If it has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is the plague of leprosy- </em></p><p>Again the issue is whether sin spreads, or whether the judgment from God was still ongoing. Clearly the Jews in <em><a href='B:510 4:17'>Act 4:17</a></em> had the idea that 'leprosy' spreading represented sin spreading.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the bright spot stays in its place, and hasn’t spread in the skin, but is faded, it is the swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar from the burn- </em></p><p>I explained on :24 that "the burn" was a direct Divine judgment. The results of Divine judgment may be openly apparent in a person's life; but that is no reason to consider a person unclean in any ongoing sense.</p>


text:
<p><em>When a man or woman has a plague on the head or on the beard- </em></p><p>Clearly the idea of leprosy only affecting the head or beard (:30) cannot apply to Hansen's disease, or leprosy as we now know it. The reference was clearly to some specific Divine judgment.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall examine the plague; and behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is yellow and thin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is an itch, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard-</em></p><p>The argument that this language makes a difference between surface level sin and deeper sin... is a slippery slope. Once we start justifying some failures as mere surface level sins, we are on the downward path. But it does remain a fact that in God's eyes- and it is the judgment of the Priest and not ours which is so critical in all this- there is a difference between surface level failure, and sin on a deeper heart level. There is a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death (<em><a href='B:690 5:16'>1Jn 5:16</a></em>). We do well to remember this when the sins of others obtrude upon us and require some level of response from us.</p>


text:
<p><em>If the priest examines the plague of itching, and behold, its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall isolate the person infected with itching seven days- </em></p><p>The various periods of examination were not because the priest needed to see whether the plague was spreading or not. Rather they were periods of self examination for the stricken person, opportunities for repentance in order to change the outcomes and spread of the disease.</p>


text:
<p><em>On the seventh day the priest shall examine the plague; and behold, if the itch hasn’t spread, and there is no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the itch isn’t deeper than the skin- </em></p><p>I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it couldn't be that whoever had an itchy beard or scurf would have to come to them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically smitten by God with a stroke of judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>then he shall be shaved, but he shall not shave the itch; and the priest shall shut up him who has the itch seven more days- </em></p><p>H.P. Mansfield suggests that "The ulcer shall not be shaved lest the place become irritated and inflamed, and the priest will not be able to form an accurate judgment". But I am approaching this legislation from the viewpoint that the "leprosy" is not leprosy as we know it, but a specific stroke of Divine judgment. The legislation and various periods of seven days isolation were not for the sake of the priest, so that he could diagnose the condition; but rather were to elicit repentance from the stricken person, so that the stroke might be removed. The word for "shaven" is consistently used in the Bible for being shamed or being in mourning. This mourning and shame for sin was being elicited from the stricken person, so that they might repent and the stroke be lifted. The legislation was for the sake of the stricken person, designed to elicit their repentance.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>On the seventh day, the priest shall examine the itch; and behold, if the itch hasn’t spread in the skin, and its appearance isn’t deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. He shall wash his clothes, and be clean-</em></p><p>Sin must not spread nor go deeper than the skin, surface level sin must not become a sin from the heart. This is the repeated lesson. And in practice, the lack of spreading of the plague would indicate that the Divine judgment had run its course.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing-</em></p><p>If the person merely had the appearance of leprosy but was found not to have it, then there would have been no need for any process of cleansing nor washing of clothes (:34). But I suggest that even this "itch" was a stroke of Divine judgment and reflected the moral failure of the person; therefore cleansing from it was required.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall examine him; and behold, if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest shall not look for the yellow hair, he is unclean- </em></p><p>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>But if in his eyes the itch is arrested, and black hair has grown in it; the itch is healed, he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean-</em></p><p>The opinion, analysis and judgment of the priest, representing the Lord Jesus Christ, is all important. Many people in primitive societies consider they have a legitimate medical opinion, based on the kind of traditions and folk wisdom which abound in relation to skin diseases. Israel were to resist these, and leave the diagnosis and judgment solely in the hands of the priest. We have a serious tendency to judge others’ sin, and we really must leave this to Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>When a man or a woman has bright spots in the skin of the body, even white bright spots- </em></p><p>I suggested above that the requirement that these cases be brought either to the high priest or to his sons meant that, logistically, it couldn't be that whoever had spots appear on their bodies would have to come to them. Clearly those in view are those individuals specifically smitten by God with a stroke of judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the priest shall examine them; and behold, if the bright spots on the skin of their body are a dull white, it is a harmless rash, it has broken out in the skin, he is clean- </em></p><p>"Harmless rash" is not at all the sense, because as explained on :38<em>,</em> these spots were still some form of Divine judgment. LXX then adds: "it burst forth in the skin of his flesh". The idea is that when the pustule had burst, the judgment was over. "He is clean" should not be read as meaning "he's done nothing wrong, all a false alarm". The idea is that the person can now go through the process of cleansing- for there has been failure and judgment, and that requires cleansing.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>If a man’s hair has fallen from his head, he is bald, he is clean- </em></p><p>This sounds stating the obvious- until we read it as meaning that sudden baldness, removing the glory of a person's hair, was a Divine judgment. And as noted on :39, "he is clean" means he has been judged, the judgment is over, and he has to now go through the cleansing rituals of Leviticus 14.</p>


text:
<p><em>If his hair has fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead bald, he is clean- </em></p><p>GNB sums up the teaching of :40,41 as "If you lose your hair at the back or the front of your head, this does not make you unclean". Total sudden baldness was a stroke from God, and was not to be confused with the general receding of the hairline which comes with the ageing process.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But if there is in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague; it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead- </em></p><p>There are five major types of leprosy, and only one of them involves hair loss, and the hair loss is mainly around the eyebrows. So as discussed on :1, we are not here reading of leprosy as we know it. The idea is that the man was stricken by God with sudden baldness, didn't repent, and so the plague broke out again on his now bald head. The scenario pictured here, of sudden baldness and then the appearance of leprosy on the bald head, is simply not appropriate to leprosy as we know it, i.e. Hansen's disease.</p>


