# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘This is the law of the grain offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before Yahweh, before the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed one’, and so Jewish minds would have associated ‘Jesus Christ’ with the priest who saves (‘Jesus’ means ‘Yahweh’s salvation’).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every grain offering of a priest shall be wholly burned. It shall not be eaten’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggest this refers to specific sin offering when Aaron was consecrated. See on :20,26.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every male among the priests shall eat of it: it is most holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘This is the law of the trespass offering. It is most holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer all of its fat: the fat tail, and the fat that covers the inward parts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"Burn" is literally 'to smoke'. The idea is that the offering of the inward parts went up to God; see on :4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, belongs to all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which one shall offer to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With loaves of leavened bread he shall offer his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘You shall eat no fat, of bull, or sheep, or goat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not eat any blood, whether it is of bird or of animal, in any of your dwellings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever it is who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With his own hands- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall burn the fat on the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and assemble all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did as Yahweh commanded him; and the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the congregation, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded to be done- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He placed the breastplate on him; and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Yahweh commanded Moses- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and sanctified them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>‘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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood around on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He cut the ram into its pieces; and Moses burned the head, and the pieces, and the fat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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...<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>“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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>The peace offering was really a matter of voluntary desire, but in this special case of the inauguration of Aaron, it was commanded.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What remains of the flesh and of the bread you shall burn with fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What has been done this day, so Yahweh has commanded to do, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron and his sons did all the things which Yahweh commanded by Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a bull and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before Yahweh; and a grain offering mixed with oil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For today Yahweh appears to you’-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought what Moses commanded before the Tent of Meeting: and all the congregation drew near and stood before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Aaron drew near to the altar, and killed the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The flesh and the skin he burned with fire outside the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They delivered the burnt offering to him, piece by piece, and the head: and he burned them upon the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He washed the inward parts and the legs, and burned them on the burnt offering on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He presented the burnt offering, and offered it according to the regulation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burned the fat on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved for a wave offering before Yahweh, as Moses commanded-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And he came down from offering the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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'.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And fire came forth from before Yahweh, and devoured them, and they died before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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?<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses heard that, it was pleasing in his sight-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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”.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And chews the cud among the animals, that you may eat- <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the rock badger, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the hare, because she chews the cud but doesn’t part the hoof, she is unclean to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you are to detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is to be an abomination to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the red kite, any kind of black kite- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>any kind of raven-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the horned owl, the screech owl, and the gull, any kind of hawk-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the barn owl, the cormorant, the great owl- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>The difference between these and the larger winged creeping things of :21 was simply that these were not generally objects of worship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all winged creeping things which have four feet, are an abomination to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>By these you will become unclean: whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. They are unclean to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the gecko, and the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the sand lizard and the chameleon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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...<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If part of their carcass falls on any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If any animal of which you may eat, dies; he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every creeping thing that creeps on the earth is an abomination. It shall not be eaten- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'><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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the days of her purification are completed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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...<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But whenever raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall examine the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean: the raw flesh is unclean. It is leprosy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if the raw flesh turns again, and is changed to white, then he shall come to the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the body has a boil on its skin, and it has healed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it spreads in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is a plague- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man or woman has a plague on the head or on the beard- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man or a woman has bright spots in the skin of the body, even white bright spots- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>"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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man’s hair has fallen from his head, he is bald, he is clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his hair has fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead bald, he is clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><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 style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the priest shall examine him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague is reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, like the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Leprosy as we know it doesn't begin in the head; see on :42. Sudden baldness is a specific Divine judgment, as in <em><a href='B:290 3:24'>Isa 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 15:2'>Isa 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 47:5'>Jer 47:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:10'>Amo 8:10</a></em>.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he is a leprous man. He is unclean. The priest shall surely pronounce him unclean. His plague is on his head- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that the stroke of judgment appearing on his head was one of the clearest signs of major Divine judgment. For sin is rooted in the mind, and the stroke of judgment was therefore manifest there in such a public manner. All because the person had refused to repent from the judgment of sudden baldness see on :43. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Outside of the camp shall be his dwelling-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus Christ died for us “outside the camp” (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>); he was unashamed to associate with lepers, the condemned sinners (see on :45), and as it were died with them and for them. The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorosa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp;Do we struggle with some secret vice, in the grip of habitual sin? The cross convicts of sin, for we are impelled by it to follow Christ in going forth “without the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>), following the path of the leper who had to go forth without the camp.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>whether it is in warp, or woof; of linen, or of wool; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The clothing of a man was significant, both in personal and economic terms. The idea may be that this legislation about clothing refers specifically to the clothing of the impenitent person who has been excluded outside the camp (:46)&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall examine the plague on the seventh day. If the plague has spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever use the skin is used for, the plague is a destructive leprosy. It is unclean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Whatever use" suggests that no matter how valuable the garment, this didn’t somehow mean that the leprosy (cp. sin) was any less significant. Petty material advantage was not to cloud judgment in these matters. See on :50.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall burn the garment, whether the warp or the woof, in wool or in linen, or anything of skin, in which the plague is; for it is a destructive leprosy. It shall be burned in the fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :50, the shut out person had the chance to repent after seven days. But there was no contact between the priest and the condemned leper. So their clothing was examined. If the stroke of God was still spreading in it, then judgment was ongoing, and it could be deduced that the excluded person had not repented. So perhaps the implication was that they should be burned in fire, along with their garments. For destruction by fire is the repeated image of final condemnation from God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the priest examines it, and behold, the plague hasn’t spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :50, the condemned excluded sinner "outside the camp" had no contact with the priest. But after seven days there, they had a chance to repent. If the plague had not spread in their garments, it could be deduced that they had repented and Divine judgment had run its course.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which the plague is, and he shall isolate it seven more days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The apparent repentance of the condemned person was not to be a passing matter; see on :50-53. Another seven days must be allowed after the partial cleansing by washing. For repentance of a person who has persistently refused to repent before has to be more than a passing feeling on their part.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the priest looks, and behold, the plague has faded after it is washed, then he shall pluck it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plucking out was to &nbsp;stop the leprosy / sin spreading. Jesus uses the same phrase in teaching that we should ‘pluck out’ of our lives whatever is likely to lead us to stumble into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>). Repeatedly, the seriousness of the leprosy / sin is defined by whether it spreads, either in depth or distribution.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and if it appears again in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is spreading. You shall burn with fire that in which the plague is- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This effort of the priest to stop the plague spreading in the garment reflected the Divine effort to lead the condemned sinner to repentance, and to isolate the spread of sin. If the efforts for the garment failed, then this reflected how the isolated, stricken sinner had still not repented, sin was still alive and spreading in him. And so he / she along with the garments must be burned in fire.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The garment, either the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of skin it is, which you shall wash, if the plague has departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and it will be clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The two stages of washing reflect the cleansing of the excluded sinner whom the garment represented (see on :50). Perhaps there is a hint here of being born of water and Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>), also reflected in the two stage washing and healing of the blind man in <em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a difference between the cleansing and the healing. If someone doesn't externally appear sinful (for leprosy represents sin), this doesn't mean he is therefore acceptable to God. There must still be the cleansing, which speaks of the Lord's work, through His Spirit and through His blood.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall go forth out of the camp. The priest shall examine him, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on Leviticus 13 that the clothing of the stricken man was examined, and if the evidence from it was that the Lord's striking of the man had finished because of his repentance, then this procedure would be followed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two living clean birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. His mind was evidently full of the word, He would have seen the symbolism of everything far more than we can, from the thorns in His mock crown, to the hyssop being associated with Him at the very end (the hyssop was the fulfilment of types in <em><a href='B:20 12:8'>Exo 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:49-52'>Lev 14:49-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:18'>Num 19:18</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em> alludes here: "He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly ("innermost being", NIV) shall flow rivers of living (Gk. spring) water". What "scripture" did the Lord have in mind? Perhaps the references to spring water being used to cleanse men from leprosy and death (<em><a href='B:30 14:5'>Lev 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:16'>Num 19:16</a></em>). Out of the innermost being of the true believer, the spring(ing) water of the Gospel will <em>naturally</em> spring up and go out to heal men, both now and more fully in the Kingdom, aided then by the Spirit gifts. The believer, <em>every</em>&nbsp; believer, <em>whoever</em>&nbsp; believes, will preach the word to others <em>from his innermost being</em>, both now and in the Kingdom - without the need for preaching committees or special efforts (not that in themselves I'm decrying them). The tendency is to delegate our responsibilities to these committees. There is no essential difference between faith and works. If we believe, we will do the works of witness, quite spontaneously. And note how the water that sprung out of the Lord’s smitten side is to be compared with the bride that came out of the smitten side of Adam. We, the bride, are the water; thanks to the inspiration of the cross, we go forth in witness, the water of life to this hard land in which we walk.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall sprinkle on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird go into the open field-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "let go" is often used of how God let Israel go from Egypt, overruling how the wicked Pharaoh refused to let the people go. The term is used later in the Mosaic legislation; the way Israel had been "let go" from Egypt was to determine how they "let go" others from slavery (<em><a href='B:50 15:12-13'>Deu 15:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>); their own experience of redemption was to influence how they released others. Just as ours should. The letting go of the bird and scapegoat into the wilderness was likewise to remind them of how they had been let go from Egypt into the wilderness without being slain for their sins- all by grace (<em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:53'>Lev 14:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21-22'>Lev 16:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:26'>Lev 16:26</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The two birds may foreshadow the death and resurrection of Jesus. The bird which flew away in joyful, thankful freedom symbolized Christ’s resurrection and the freedom from sin which is enabled for us who were spiritual lepers; thanks to the death of Christ, represented by the death of the first bird.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his body in water, then he shall be clean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cleansed leper was to become as a baby, and be washed in water. This looked ahead to baptism by full immersion into Christ as the new birth (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest who cleanses him shall set these things and the man who is to be cleansed before Yahweh, at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus. See on :15.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take one of the male lambs, and offer him for a trespass offering, with the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>). <em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A log of oil is about half a pint, a third of a litre. We note the personal association of the priest with the cleansed person. No vessel is used, only the palm and fingers of the priest. See on :11.<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Were people really morally unclean before God because of bodily situations over which they had no control? Surely not. Anointing the head and body with oil by a Divine representative was effectively an anointing, which implied a call to service. Those stricken for their sin but who then repented... were called not simply to utter thanks to God for His grace, but to respond in some specific way. And this is the consistent pattern with all God's servants. Their service was a response to grace received. And of course the ultimate anointed one was the Lord Jesus. We are to seek to be Him in this world in response to the gracious salvation and cleansing we receive, washed in water (cp. baptism) and then granted the washing of regeneration by the Spirit which the oil represented.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall offer the sin offering, and make atonement for him who is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness: and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (represented by the grain offering of :20), although in this case the equivalent of the peace offering was fire coming from Heaven in response to the sin and burnt offering. Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering. So the person was being convicted of his sin, so that their dedication to Yahweh's service was no mere ritual, but a from the heart desire to serve Him from gratitude for the forgiveness of sin.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he is poor, and can’t afford so much, then he shall take one male lamb for a trespass offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil for a grain offering, and a log of oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We get the impression that God was very strict about the offerings. He was. But He made concession to the man who couldn't bring what he ought to: "If he be poor, and cannot get much... two young pigeons, such as he is able to get" (<em><a href='B:30 14:22'>Lev 14:22</a></em>). If they were blemished in some way, and even though they were not the animal God desired, God would accept such as the man was able to get. However it could be argued that in this case, by all means the male lamb must be offered; or it can be read as if the two birds of :22 could replace that male lamb. Likewise the offerings had to involve the shedding of blood; but God was prepared to accept a food offering if a man really couldn't get an animal. The eagerness of God to accept what a man can do rather than the insistence on legal principles really comes over. He recognized the Israelites would be living on different levels. Such an eagerness involved accepting a lower standard of adherence to God's ideal principles. In harmony with this, the Passover ‘lamb’ could be either a sheep, or if necessary, a goat (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>), even though the use of a goat would somewhat spoil the foreshadowing of Christ.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to afford; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day he shall bring them for his cleansing to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following verses appear a repetition of what we have just read. There is huge emphasis upon this material. Because the grace of saving a condemned sinner was indeed remarkable. Therefore the commandments about what was to happen on the eighth day are repeated- this was indeed to be what happened.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take the lamb of the trespass offering, and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>). <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A log of oil is about half a pint, a third of a litre. We note the personal association of the priest with the cleansed person. No vessel is used, only the palm and fingers of the priest. See on :11.<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed, to make atonement for him before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Were people really morally unclean before God because of bodily situations over which they had no control? Surely not. Anointing the head and body with oil by a Divine representative was effectively an anointing, which implied a call to service. Those stricken for their sin but who then repented... were called not simply to utter thanks to God for His grace, but to respond in some specific way. And this is the consistent pattern with all God's servants. Their service was a response to grace received. And of course the ultimate anointed one was the Lord Jesus. We are to seek to be Him in this world in response to the gracious salvation and cleansing we receive, washed in water (cp. baptism) and then granted the washing of regeneration by the Spirit which the oil represented.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as he can lay his hand on-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, ‘There seems to me to be some sort of plague in the house’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It would’ve been tempting for the owner to just cover up the signs of disease within his house, rather than ask the priest to inspect it. We are to be open before God, freely confessing our sins and possible sins or liabilities to sin, in open dialogue before Him in prayer. When David invites God to search his heart and see if there be any wicked way in him (<em><a href='B:230 139:23'>Psa 139:23</a></em>), he was alluding to the language of the house owner inviting the priest to inspect his house for leprosy.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes in to examine the plague, that all that is in the house not be made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to inspect the house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If a literal contagious disease like leprosy were in view, then everything in the house would surely be unclean anyway. But here the reasoning is different; whatever was in the house would not be unclean even if the house were declared unclean- if it was removed before the priest entered it. Clearly "the plague" spoke of a specific judgment for sin upon someone. And as explained on :34, this was a condition brought upon the housing and clothing of the stricken person whilst the priest couldn't have contact with them. It was to reveal whether or not they were truly repentant, and Divine judgment had now run its course.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall examine the plague; and behold, if the plague is in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and it appears to be deeper than the wall-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as leprosy / the Divine striking was defined by being deeper than the flesh, so the stroke upon housing was defined by being deeper than the surface. A person can appear to have the stroke of Divine judgment / leprosy when in fact it’s only a surface level appearance of it; but only the priest, representing Jesus, can declare this. We must of course be careful not to excuse our failings as merely surface level sin; but when it comes to judging others, we must accept that someone can appear sinful to us but it’s only a surface appearance; we must not ultimately judge whether a person will be saved or not, quite simply because we cannot do so. Only the priest, the Lord Jesus, can do so.<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the priest shall command that they take out the stones in which is the plague, and cast them into an unclean place outside of the city-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looks ahead to the casting of the rejected into Gehenna, the place of condemnation outside the city of Jerusalem. As explained on :34, the state of the person's clothing and property reflected whether Divine judgment was still ongoing, in reflection of whether or not the person had truly repented. The fate of their property or living place was therefore reflective of their own fate.<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the plague comes again, and breaks out in the house, after he has taken out the stones, and after he has scraped the house, and after it was plastered- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :41,42, the striking of God's house and replacing the stones with the Gentiles was still not guaranteed to bring about complete freedom from condemnation. For many of the Gentiles brought in were to likewise turn away and fall under Divine judgment. "Scraped" is s.w. "cut off", and it was sinners who brought shame upon their own house to cut it off (s.w. <em><a href='B:420 2:10'>Hab 2:10</a></em>). But Yahweh was to scrape or cut off the house of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a></em>). We could see this plastering, scraping and removal of offending individuals as God's attempt to reform Israel- and it failed. For the language of plastering a house is used of how God tried to do this with His people, but it didn't work (<em><a href='B:330 13:10-15'>Eze 13:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:28'>Eze 22:28</a></em> s.w.).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house. He shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of breaking down the house of Israel is very often used in the prophets (s.w.) concerning what God did to Israel. It is also often used of the breaking down of idol shrines. Again we get the impression that the house was being destroyed not for practical reasons of stopping contamination, but rather in judgment for sin, especially idolatry. <em><a href='B:330 13:10-15'>Eze 13:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:28'>Eze 22:28</a></em> condemn Israel for shoddy building without proper mortar. And so it would fall down itself, and God's judgment was in confirmation of that. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover he who goes into the house while it is shut up shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was no excuse for doing so because everything in the house was to be removed before the inspection (:36). We wonder if the Lord had this in mind when urging His people in Jerusalem not to return back into their homes in the day of His coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:15'>Mar 13:15</a></em>). The day of judgment of the leprous house had begun, and there was to be no return into it.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who lies down in the house shall wash his clothes; and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to lie down in the unclean house required a washing of clothes, whereas just going into it merited a lesser requirement for cleansing. Clearly knowledge is associated with responsibility.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To cleanse the house he shall take two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the association of hyssop with the Lord's death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:29'>Joh 19:29</a></em>), before which He had been clothed in scarlet. That hyssop had been dipped in red wine, representing blood, and the Lord surely saw the relevance to Himself. "I am that hyssop", He would have thought. On the cross, He was the door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), and He experienced hyssop with red wine (representing blood) brushed against Him. Just as the doors at Passover had blood brushed onto them using a hyssop plant, and this was the basis of Israel's salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Wood, hyssop and scarlet clothing all featured in the final suffering and crucifixion of Christ. This is the basis for our cleansing from the leprosy of sin and condemnation.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, with the living bird, with the cedar wood, with the hyssop, and with the scarlet-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement- looking ahead to the work of the Lord Jesus. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus. See on :15.<em></em></p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws could be read as meaning that a person was made unclean by involuntary bodily discharges of a sexual nature. Or they can be read as referring to specific discharges related to sexually transmitted diseases; see on :3 LXX. The meaning would then be that they were made morally unclean by their sinful actions, and these were the consequences of those actions. Cleansing from them was therefore effectively representative of their cleansing from sin. <em></em></p>


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication was that his wife would have to abstain from sexual relationships with him and he was to be effectively isolated from his family. The stress upon the stricken person's bed is reflected in the Psalms, where David speaks of being stricken and lying on his bed, isolated from family and society because of his running, oozing issue which oozed in the night (<em><a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:2'>Psa 77:2</a></em>). It seems he was stricken with a Divine stroke that led to him secreting unclean fluids from his reproductive organ, which is the situation in view here (<em><a href='B:230 6:6'>Psa 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 41:3'>Psa 41:3</a></em>). Job likewise complained of how he is isolated upon an unclean bed / couch (<em><a href='B:220 7:13'>Job 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 33:19'>Job 33:19</a></em> "he is chastened with pain upon his bed"), as if he too was experiencing a stroke from God which corresponds to the situation envisaged here in Leviticus 15.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who sits on anything whereon the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for 'sitting' here is elsewhere used specifically in the context of urination or defecation, so the idea would be that the man was not to use a toilet shared by others.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he who has the discharge spits on him who is clean, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This law was therefore aimed at ensuring that people kept away from this stricken person. In primitive society, every day's labour was valuable, and nobody wanted to run the risk of being made unclean for a whole day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever saddle he who has the discharge rides on shall be unclean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If an involuntary discharge of semen at night is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most sexually transmitted diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as an infected person. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a man had an involuntary emission of semen at night, then who would know about it, unless he told them? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. He who carries those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to purposefully carry something unclean required a washing of clothes, whereas just touching them merited a lesser requirement for cleansing.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earthen vessel, which he who has the discharge touches, shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :11, the intention of these extreme laws were to effectively require that the person with such a discharge be put outside the camp. Otherwise they would render daily life impossible to live if they remained within it.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before Yahweh to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and give them to the priest-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh for his discharge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is no sin to be human, nor to go through the bodily functions which go along with being human. The atonement was required because the person had sinned and had been struck with Divine judgment. That ended when the person repented, hence the language of atonement.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like many of the commandments, there was a large element of personal choice in whether to obey this or not; intimate matters such as personal discharges were unknown to others. Under the new covenant, this is even more the case; attitudes of mind which make us unclean before God are known only to ourselves. The Law of Moses was the only legal code which had so many clauses which concerned matters which could never be publically demonstrated. God’s intention even under the old covenant was to teach and inculcate personal relationship between God and His people. He did this by giving commandments whose keeping only He and the individual knew about.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every garment, and every skin, whereon the semen is, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggest that the emission of semen in view is not a result of sex within marriage. For Paul appears to warn against any such extremist interpretation by teaching that the marital bed is "undefiled", unlike that of whores and adulterers (<em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>). There is nothing in that sense dirty about the sexual act. What is in view is the immorality which has given rise to the Divine stroke which now requires repentance and atonement.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is worded very strangely if in fact a normal period is in view. I have suggested earlier in this chapter that the "discharge" refers to a specific stroke of Divine judgment. It could involve a hemorrhage of blood. The language and grammar seems to imply that the "discharge" occurred at one time, and then after that point she was impure seven days. But period bleeding is not a one time event, lasting typically from three to eight days. If monthly periods are in view here, then the woman would be impure for up to 15 days / month. And whoever touched her would be unclean. This would have made family life just about impossible. So I don't think that monthly periods are in view, but rather a specific Divine judgment. "Be in her impurity" is s.w. "removed", "set apart", "put apart". It is the equivalent of being put outside the camp, which was the judgment for the leper and the man smitten with a "discharge" as Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:40 5:2'>Num 5:2</a></em>). It is also found translated "filthy" in <em><a href='B:150 9:11'>Ezr 9:11</a></em> "the filthiness of the people of the lands". But it is not an act of moral filth to have a period. What is in view is not period bleeding, but a specific Divine judgment for sin, the female equivalent of the judgment upon sinful males described in the first half of this chapter.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everything that she lies on in her impurity shall be unclean. Everything also that she sits on shall be unclean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The severity of the laws about not coming into contact with such a woman were designed to make it impossible to have her in society or the home. She therefore effectively had to be put out of the camp (see on :19).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Beds were typically shared in family homes, so this was designed to make the woman leave her home. This would be appropriate for someone stricken with Divine judgment for serious sin, but not for a woman having a period.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches anything that she sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the female equivalent of the male judgment of a "discharge". If involuntary period bleeding is in view, then such extreme danger of contaminating others would not be in view. In terms of hygiene, nothing would be achieved by it anyway. For most diseases are spread only at body temperature, and not through sitting on the same chair as a woman who is menstruating. Therefore we conclude that a special state of uncleanness and illness is in view, the result of a Divine stroke. And in practice, if a woman was menstruating, then who would know about it, unless she told others? So it seems more likely that the person in view is a sinner who has been struck with a Divine stroke.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is on the bed, or on anything whereon she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was certainly not for hygienic reasons, for we would all be hopelessly infected if infection really spread by touching whatever a menstruating woman has touched. Again, the woman in view is clearly a sinner under the stroke of Divine judgment, and not simply a menstruating woman.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If any man lies with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lies shall be unclean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "monthly flow" is apparently different to the "discharge". The discharge was, I suggest, a specific Divine judgment for sin. <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> says that if a man sleeps with a menstruating woman then they must both die. But <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> says that in this case the man must be unclean seven days. I suggest that the language of uncovering nakedness in <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> is talking about some form of illicit or perverted relationship. Menstrual blood was a times drunk or used in various cultic rituals.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a woman has a discharge of her blood many days not in the time of her period, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her period; all the days of the discharge of her uncleanness shall be as in the days of her period: she is unclean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "discharge" and "her period" are grammatically separate. But perhaps her period is not in view here. LXX "And if a woman have an issue of blood many days, not in the time of her separation; if the blood should also flow after her separation, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean". As the 'leper' / stricken person was shut up for periods of seven days, which could be extended if they were impenitent, so here too, the woman was given a "time" during which her judgment lasted; but it could be extended, if she were impenitent.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every bed whereon she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her period: and everything whereon she sits shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her period- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Her laying on a bed "all the days" could imply that she lay on her bed day and night. Which was impossible for an average Hebrew woman going about daily life, with so many responsibilities upon her in domestic life. But it makes more sense if we consider this to be talking about a specific period of Divine judgment which forced her to be confined to her bed, as happened to men like David. Again, "her period" may not be in view. LXX "And every bed on which she shall lie all the days of her flux shall be to her as the bed of her separation, and every seat whereon she shall sit shall be unclean according to the uncleanness of her separation"; GNB gives simply "Any bed on which she lies and anything on which she sits during this time is unclean".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was greater culpability the more consciously a person did things which he or she knew were unclean. Thus to lie down in the unclean house required a washing of clothes, whereas just going into it merited a lesser requirement for cleansing. Clearly knowledge is associated with responsibility.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This two stage cleansing process is common in the Mosaic rituals. She was clean, but in another sense not fully cleansed until the end of the seven days. We likewise are now cleansed in Christ, but in a full sense we will only be fully cleansed when He returns and our bodies are made like His, and the flesh no longer is a part of our condition of being.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :14, this was the female equivalent to the male rituals required for a man stricken down with Divine judgment. This is what is in view, and not menstruation. It can hardly be that every menstruating woman in all Israel was to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting every month. Clearly what is in view is a woman under specific Divine judgment for sin who has now repented, rather than every menstruating woman.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before Yahweh for the uncleanness of her discharge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (although that isn't specifically required here). Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering. So the woman was being convicted of sin, so that their dedication to Yahweh's service was no mere ritual, but a from the heart desire to serve Him from gratitude for the forgiveness of sin.&nbsp;Clearly a judgment for sin is in view; and not menstruation, which isn't sinful of itself.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, so they will not die in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is in their midst’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued from this that these commandments may have had specific relevance to the Levites, who were the only ones who could enter the holy places- GNB "so that they would not defile the Tent of his presence, which was in the middle of the camp. If they did, they would be killed". This is language more relevant to Levites- for whom this book of Leviticus was specifically relevant.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The legislation here is very severe- it seems inappropriate for touching something which a menstruating woman had touched, seeing menstruation is not a moral sin. So again I suggest that what is in view is a woman or man struck by God with a 'flowing' of intimate body fluids from their private parts, and not involuntary emissions of semen or blood. The "uncleanness" of Israel refers elsewhere to their actual sins which required repentance and atonement (<em><a href='B:30 16:16'>Lev 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:19'>Lev 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:17'>Eze 36:17</a></em>). It was this which had led to the woman being struck with a Divinely sent plague, and involuntary menstruation is not in view.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean thereby-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Thereby" is a translators' guess. The idea is simply "who is unclean", with the Hebrew for "unclean" having the sense of moral sin, s.w. foul, polluted, defiled- always in the sense of having actually committed sin. It was this sin which led to the discharge or flow of personal body fluids from intimate private parts, and was a judgment from God- rather than an involuntary part of being human. The idea is not that these things rendered an innocent person "thereby" offensive to God and worthy of being separated from. It is no sin to be human.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and of her who has her period, and of a man or woman who has a discharge, and of him who lies with her who is unclean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for "period" isn't used here. AV quaintly gives "sick of her flowers", but the phrase is literally "sick from her rejection / filthiness / uncleanness". She had been stricken because of her sin, her moral filthiness. This seems a separate punishment to the "discharge". Israel in their sinfulness and separation from God are likened to a woman in this contaminated state (<em><a href='B:330 36:17'>Eze 36:17</a></em>). But Israel, like this woman, were separated from God because of their actual sins, and not by reason of simply being human.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before Yahweh and died-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The High Priest had to cleanse himself meticulously before entering the Most Holy. Access was now limited to the Most Holy as a result of inadequate preparation by some in the past. The Lord’s death reversed all this, it opened up the veil, for us to pass through with the utmost effort made by us in personal sanctification, in order to further God’s glory in the salvation of others. We cannot simply refuse to enter, turn away from the torn veil. To do so is to turn away from what the cross has achieved, and to place ourselves outside its scope. We must go forward, go onwards into the presence of God to replicate in essence the Saviour’s work, with the awed and humble spirit of the High Priest entering the Holiest on the day of atonement. He would surely have carefully analyzed his motives, as to <em>why</em> he was passing through that veil, and whether he was sufficiently personally sanctified for the work he was doing. He would have been comforted by knowing that his motives were solely for the glorification of his God in the redemption for his people which he was seeking to obtain.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Herewith shall Aaron come into the sanctuary: with a young bull for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the contrast with Moses, who lived in a tent outside the tabernacle with the cloud of glory ever nearby, and the radiance from the Angel within it shining off his face. Aaron was being warned not to assume that intimacy with God experienced by Moses was the right of every man or priest. Relationship with God must be built up. It is not for us to assume that the close relationship with God enjoyed by another can be ours without personal effort at building that relationship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches on his body, and shall put on the linen sash, and he shall be clothed with the linen turban. They are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and put them on- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ideas of washing in water and being clothed in white linen are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christian baptism, and the imputation of righteousness, as clean as the white linen clothes of the priests (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). This means that the work of even the high priest himself is to be aspired to by every Christian. The veil was rent at the Lord's death so that the way into the holiest was open to every believer. They were to follow the High Priest into the holiest- but what did he do there? He obtained forgiveness for others. And it is our mission likewise to do this, through bringing others to the saving experience of the Lord's work. This was a high, challenging call for Jews in the first century, who assumed the priesthood did all their religious work for them, and they were effectively just spectators at a show.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This repeats the usual progression from sin offering to burnt offering to peace offering (although that isn't specifically required here- the experience of forgiveness was the equivalent). Conviction of sin leads to a desire to make complete dedication to God, which results in the peace with God celebrated in the peace offering.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This has been wrongly interpreted to mean that the Lord Jesus likewise offered for Himself, as if He were alienated from God by His nature. Whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus who fully had our nature. And He was undefiled and perfect before God. He showed us what is possible within human nature. See on :11.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take the two goats, and set them before Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looks ahead to the death of the Lord Jesus "before Yahweh"; His special presence was at Golgotha.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for Yahweh, and offer him for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the language used in <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em> about the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, upon whom God laid the iniquity of us all. The Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra refers to a tradition that at the age of 33, a man would understand the meaning of this. It can be no coincidence that the Lord Jesus was sacrificed at age 33. The thoughtful Jews would have perceived that He was indeed the sin offering.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering which is for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull of the sin offering which is for himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron was a sinful mortal, and had to offer for himself. This has been misread to mean that the Lord Jesus, the great high priest, had to offer as it were for the sin of being human. But I suggest this is a careless reading of the type, driven by a desire to prove a theological point. The New Testament commentary is at <em><a href='B:650 5:3'>Heb 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em>: "And because of it, he is required to offer sacrifices both for his sins and also for the sins of the people". The "weakness" of the high priest included moral weakness, which required him to offer also for his own sins. But the Lord Jesus had none of this. The references to the High Priest are to present the Lord Jesus by way of both similarity and contrast. Thus the way the high priest served standing is contrasted with the way the Lord serves sitting (<em><a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a></em>); and the contrast here at this point is that the Lord had no sins to offer for. The Lord indeed was subject to weakness (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>), but without the need to offer sin offerings for his own sins.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a></em> must be given its full weight in what it says about the Lord Jesus: "Who needs not to offer up sacrifices daily, like those high priests, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself". "This he did once" is a contrast with how the old High Priest offered ("this") daily (Jesus did it only "once"). The reference to "first for his own sins, then for the people's" is as it were in parenthesis, a throw away comment, to indicate again the inferiority of the old High Priests who themselves were sinners and therefore needed to offer for their own sins as well as those of God's people. My own suspicion that Paul was the author of Hebrews is based upon the style of writing we have there which we see in Paul elsewhere- so often, a comment is made in passing like this example of commenting that the old Priests had to offer for their own sins too. This kind of style is typical of Paul, Ephesians and Colossians are full of this kind of thing- making an argument, but throwing in a comment in the midst of it, a kind of aside, which often phases the reader. It is not the day of atonement which is in view here, because the contrast is with the "daily" offerings of the priests. A sincere priest would have offered daily sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. The Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for "the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis of the entire Biblical revelation. "This He did" refers to His offering for the people, for us; and not for His own 'sins'. This point is underlined in the next verse, which notes that the priests were morally weak, whereas the Son of God is perfect and shall be forever, unable to sin.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before Yahweh, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Incense represents prayer offered by Christ (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>); the way it was taken beyond the veil into the Most Holy Place reflected how prayer, be it the ‘mere’ words of a woman waiting at a bus stop, enters into Heaven itself. The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall put the incense on the fire before Yahweh, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the testimony, so that he will not die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "the fire", see on :12. Incense smoke in the surrounding religions was supposed to drive away demons; but the image is used to represent prayer and Yahweh's glory (<em><a href='B:30 16:3'>Lev 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:13'>Lev 16:13</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:8'>Rev 5:8</a></em>). And thereby fear of demons was to be replaced by fear of God's holiness and human sin.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The High Priest sprinkled the blood eastwards, on the mercy seat. He would therefore have had to walk round to God's side of the mercy seat and sprinkle the blood back the way he had come. This would have given the picture of the blood coming out from the presence of God Himself; as if <em>He</em> was the sacrifice. <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em> seems to teach (in the AV) that God purchased the church with <em>His</em> own blood. His manifestation in His Son was especially intense.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of entering within the veil is clearly in view when Paul speaks of the work of the Lord Jesus resulting in a hope which "enters into that within the veil" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:7'>Heb 9:7</a></em>). The typical meaning of this was therefore that finally, all Israel, the true people of God however defined, would enter within the veil, thanks to the blood of the ultimate sin offering. Those identified with the blood would, like the blood, enter within the veil, and remain there in fellowship with God, in His very presence. We show that identity with the Lord's blood through baptism, the breaking of bread and a life lived in Him.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting that is situated amongst them, in the midst of their uncleanness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly the atonement was not made for the inanimate structure of the Holy Place. Rather was it for the sins of Israel. The idea would be that nobody is perfectly pure, and therefore the priests had indeed entered the Holy Place whilst impure; and this was being atoned for. The wonder was that God met with sinful man "in the midst of the uncleanness"- and this was to be recognized through these rituals.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, and has made atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This perhaps helps us to understand the ultimate loneliness of the Lord Jesus in making His offering. These rituals have been misunderstood, in my opinion, to mean that the Lord Jesus offered for Himself, for His family (the believers) and for the world. That is indeed what the mortal, sinful High Priest did, but the type works by way of difference rather than exact correspondence. The New Testament therefore emphasizes that the Lord Jesus, unlike the Mosaic High Priests, offered only <em>one </em>sacrifice to achieve atonement- and that was "for us" (<em><a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a></em>). The idea that the Lord atoned for the world as well as "for us" would imply some kind of universal salvation, of which the Bible is silent. Christ died for our sins, the sins of His people- that is the Biblical emphasis. See on :11.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall go out to the altar that is before Yahweh and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the bull’s blood, and some of the goat’s blood, and put it around it, on the horns of the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The New Testament observes that the blood of this bull and goat could not take away sins- even though the live goat apparently carried the sins away into the wilderness. If sin had really been carried away, there would have been no need for this annual day of atonement ceremony (<em><a href='B:650 10:3-4'>Heb 10:3-4</a></em>). The conclusion is therefore drawn that God only operated this system of atonement on the basis that the blood of the sacrifices pointed forward to the blood of Christ, and on the basis of His faith and knowledge that Christ would make the perfect sacrifice, God accepted the animal blood on the basis that it was symbolic of Christ’s blood.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and make it holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Inanimate objects didn't need atonement. The cleansing was a recognition of the fact that the Israelites were unclean morally, and they had approached the altar and tabernacle furniture only technically clean when they were unclean morally.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :19, this is not to imply that the furniture itself was somehow morally unclean; this atonement was because of "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" who had approached into God's presence whilst still sinners.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness to do this-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again, the difference between Moses' account of history and the surrounding myths is seen in the fact that Moses emphasizes human sin. There was a common ancient Near East belief in Azazel as a desert demon who looked like a goat. Perhaps Moses wished to address this idea when he called the scapegoat of the day of Atonement ritual "Azazel" and sent the goat into the desert (<em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>)- as if to say 'Now for you, Israel, no belief in that Azazel- the Azazel for us is simply a literal goat, bearing our sins in symbol, which we let loose into the desert'. Again and again, Moses sought to refocus his people on the practical, the literal, the concrete, and away from the myths which surrounded them. And yet he does this by alluding to those myths, so as to alert Israel to the fact that the new, inspired record which he was writing was fully aware of the myths God's people were being assailed with.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Praise is related to the realization that sin has been forgiven. Hezekiah's praise on realizing God's mercy to him was expressed in a desire to walk in quiet fellowship with God for the rest of his life. There is no suggestion that praise was some kind of ecstatic exuberance of emotion. The normal Hebrew word translated "praise" is also translated "confess" in the context of confessing sin (<em><a href='B:30 5:5'>Lev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:40'>Lev 26:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). Contrition of heart because of appreciating our own failures is therefore one way of praising Yahweh's Name. So often does the word "praise" occur in the context of praising the <em>Name</em> of Yahweh, or the praising of "the God of Israel", i.e. Yahweh.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The goat shall carry all their iniquities on himself to a solitary land, and he shall let the goat go in the wilderness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> alludes here in saying that on the cross, the Lord Jesus was cut off from the land of the living. The experience of both goats was found in His sacrifice. The phrase "let go" is often used of how God let Israel go from Egypt, overruling how the wicked Pharaoh refused to let the people go. The term is used later in the Mosaic legislation; the way Israel had been "let go" from Egypt was to determine how they "let go" others from slavery (<em><a href='B:50 15:12-13'>Deu 15:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>); their own experience of redemption was to influence how they released others. Just as ours should. The letting go of the bird and scapegoat into the wilderness was likewise to remind them of how they had been let go from Egypt into the wilderness without being slain for their sins- all by grace (<em><a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:53'>Lev 14:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21-22'>Lev 16:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:26'>Lev 16:26</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord was buried in linen garments after His death; so as noted on :11, the typical meaning of these things is often by way of contrast rather than equivalent similarity.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then he shall bathe himself in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :11, the Lord Jesus didn't need to do this; the parallels with the Levitical priesthood are by way of both contrast and similarity. They stood; He sits. They offered animals, He offered "Himself". But as He offered for "the people" so too did the mortal priests; but He did so once, whereas they did so daily. They offered for their own wins too; He did not. If the Lord in any sense had needed to offer for His own "sins", He would have had to do so daily. But He offered only one offering, for us. That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures is the clear emphasis of the entire Biblical revelation.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some manuscripts have :23 after this verse :25. The altar in view is that of burnt offering and not the incense offering (<em><a href='B:20 30:9'>Exo 30:9</a></em>). There is special emphasis upon the fat, which was perceived as the best part of the animal, and the most covered inward parts. After recognizing our sin, we must be prepared to offer these to God. David understood the spirit of the trespass offering when after his sin with Bathsheba he offered to God his inward parts (<em><a href='B:230 51:6'>Psa 51:6</a></em>). Elsewhere the idea is as in LXX "the fact (even) the fat tail" (as <em><a href='B:30 3:9'>Lev 3:9</a></em>). There were species of sheep with a large fatty tail, which was considered in their culture to be a great delicacy. We see here how the law of Moses was limited in application to an immediate context, and was simply not intended to be a global law for all time. But the take away lesson is that we are to give to God whatever is for us, in our culture and worldview, the best and most desirous.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who lets the goat go for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Throughout the rituals there is the idea that those involved in making this atonement were themselves "compassed with infirmity" (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>). The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that there was something lacking in all this; sinners were making atonement for sinners. There was thereby presented the need and longing for a righteous priest who was morally sinless although able to understand and relate to the weakness of men. And that need was met in the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The bull for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried forth outside the camp; and they shall burn their skins, their flesh, and their dung with fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who burns them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :26, in all these rituals there is the idea that those involved in making this atonement were themselves unclean. The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that there was something lacking in all this; sinners were making atonement for sinners. And thus the desire was prepared for the perfect priest, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every kind of sin was atoned for (:21). Sins of ignorance, of omission rather than commission, were all met in this atonement. And likewise even moreso with the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. There should therefore never now be any sense that some sins are dealt with, but others aren't.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew here and especially in <em><a href='B:30 23:28'>Lev 23:28</a></em> definitely reads as if it is the day of atonement which made atonement. This verse has been clung on to by Judaism at times when the temple was not standing and the sacrifices associated with the day of atonement were not offered. Their argument was and is that it is the day of atonement which makes atonement, because the atonement is from God's sovereign grace. And indeed there is some truth in this. For it was ever impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, and Paul's argument in Hebrews is based upon the implications of the day of Atonement. It indeed looks ahead to another and more ultimate atonement, by God's grace through His pronouncement. And that pronouncement was made regardless of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices; it was made over the blood of His crucified Son.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict your souls; it is a statute forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were to "do no kind of work" (:29). Because this was the day of atonement (:30). The point was that <em>God</em> was providing atonement by His grace and on account of the blood which represented Christ’s blood- and not on the basis of our works.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest who is anointed and who is consecrated to be priest in his father’s place shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language here is pregnant with allusion to the future Lord Jesus, the "Christ" or anointed priest, who operated in the name and place of His Father, God Himself.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is clarified in :19 that this cleansing of the furniture was to make them "holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel". Inanimate objects didn't need atonement. The cleansing was a recognition of the fact that the Israelites were unclean morally, and they had approached the altar and tabernacle furniture only technically clean when they were unclean morally.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These regulations which follow reflect the concept of sacred space which was central to the old covenant. Stephen's speech in Acts 7 demonstrates how even within the Old Testament, there were many hints that God operated well beyond the confines of this concept. And finally all notions of sacred space were collapsed beneath the wonderful idea that God dwells in the hearts of those who are His.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :3,5, the commandment of Yahweh in this passage was limited to Israel in the wilderness. Because later, sacrifice to Yahweh was acceptably offered by men like Gideon, Manoah, David and Samuel in places other than the sanctuary. Likewise the command that Gentiles could not eat Passover was only true for the first Passover, and later legislation allowed them to eat it. A failure to appreciate this has led to many mistaken turns in Biblical exposition; thus Adventists think that any law of Yahweh is eternal, whereas clearly the laws within 'the law of Moses' were often time and place limited. And 'closed table' enthusiasts build an argument on the laws surrounding the first Passover instead of realizing that those laws were only for a limited place and time.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever man there is of the house of Israel, who kills a bull, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation was clearly only intended for Israel during the wilderness years. For "the camp" no longer existed once the land had been settled. It could be argued that the animals listed are not simply sacrifices, but refer to any animal. In this case, it was not God's intention that the people should eat animal meat during the wilderness journey; the manna was intended to be all sufficient. In this case they would have returned to the situation after creation and before the flood, when animal meat was not eaten. It was therefore an attempt to help Israel rise above the effects of the flood and to return towards Eden, as they were on their way to the promised land, which was presented as an Eden to some extent restored.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and hasn’t brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to offer it as an offering to Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh: blood shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The animal represented the offerer, and therefore to slay a sacrificial animal was as if a person had been slain. Hence the language of bloodshed. The Law foresaw that there would be the tendency to worship God away from the rest of the congregation. Those who did so were condemned in the strongest terms: their sacrifice of an animal was seen as the murder of their brother, whereas they would have seen it as an expression of their righteousness. "He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man" (<em><a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a></em>) refers back to this, making it parallel with idolatry and proudly refusing to let God's word dwell in the heart.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is to the end that the children of Israel may bring to Yahweh their sacrifices which they sacrifice in the open field, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to help the Israelites not to follow the example of the Egyptians and desert dwellers through whom they travelled, who offered religious sacrifices to satyrs and other supposed demons of the desert (:7). Sacrifice was only to be offered at the tent of meeting. This was later impractical when Israel were no longer just dwelling around the tent of meeting; so this law was temporary. See on :2.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And burn the fat for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“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.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall say to them, ‘Any man there is of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 12:20-21'>Deu 12:20-21</a></em> says that when God enlarged the land, this law of only eating at the sanctuary was to be changed. There was never any signal from God that He had now enlarged the land and therefore this change of the law was allowed. We note that the law of Moses was flexible and open to change. That it should later be abrogated is therefore no surprise. The argument that each Mosaic law was eternal is therefore lacking in careful attention to the text of the law itself.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and doesn’t bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to Yahweh; that man shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sacrifice couldn’t be offered anywhere, although see on :8. It wasn’t the case that the fact someone had a desire to do something for God thereby made them acceptable to Him. He had to be approached in the way He stipulated; and Jesus said “I am the door” (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>). It’s not therefore true that all spiritual roads lead to the same place. We can only come to God in His way. Later we read that God did accept sacrifice in local sanctuaries; we think of acceptable offerings made in other places, by Gideon, Manoah, David and others. We see reflected here God's willingness to accept less than ideal sacrifices, so desirous is He of relationship with His people.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore I have said to the children of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who lives as a foreigner among you eat blood-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blood was understood as representing life (<em><a href='B:50 12:23'>Deu 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>). We are not to take life to ourselves; not merely in that we aren’t to murder, but we also aren’t to assume that our lives, or any life, is in fact ours to use or dominate for ourselves. Our lives and those of others are God’s, and we cannot take any life to ourselves. The Lord Jesus specifically alluded to the major Jewish principle of not eating blood- when He taught that unless His blood was drunk, then they had no life in them. This alludes to another reason for not eating blood, given in <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>: "I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life". The blood looked ahead to the blood which God would give which would make atonement. The blood of animals couldn't take away sins (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). So the blood only 'made atonement' because it pointed forward to that of the Lord Jesus. The whole structure of the laws about blood required some blood of atonement which had to be shed in future, a blood sacrifice of a representative human who was not an animal. That blood was to be given to God, and not to man. Hence the stress upon not eating blood.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For as to the life of all flesh, its blood is its life; therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any kind of flesh; for the life of all flesh is its blood-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is very often stated in the New Testament that our justification and salvation is through the blood of Jesus (e.g. <em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:11'>Rev 12:11</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>).&nbsp;To appreciate the significance of Christ's blood, we must understand that it is a Biblical principle that "the life of every creature is its blood" (<em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em> NIV).&nbsp;Without blood a body cannot live;&nbsp;it is therefore symbolic of life.&nbsp;This explains the aptness of Christ's words, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). Sin results in death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>),i.e. a pouring out of the blood, which carries the life.&nbsp;For this reason the Israelites were expected to pour out blood each time they sinned, to remind them that sin resulted in death.&nbsp;"According to the law (of Moses) almost all things are purged (cleansed) with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission (forgiveness)" (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>).&nbsp;Because of this, Adam and Eve's covering of themselves with fig leaves was unacceptable;&nbsp;instead, God killed a lamb to provide skins to cover their sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:7'>Gen 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:21'>Gen 3:21</a></em>).&nbsp;Similarly, Abel's sacrifice of animals was accepted rather than Cain's offering of vegetables, because he appreciated this principle that without shedding blood there could be no forgiveness and acceptable approach to God (<em><a href='B:10 4:3-5'>Gen 4:3-5</a></em>). Not only did he appreciate it, he <em>had faith </em>in that blood, and on this basis God accepted his offering (<em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em>). These incidents point forward to the supreme importance of the blood of Christ.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whoever eats it shall be cut off- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every person that eats what dies of itself, or that which is torn by animals, whether he is native-born or a foreigner, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening: then he shall be clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The more conscious was the association with uncleanness, the greater was the effort which made to be made to achieve cleansing. Thus if someone knowingly carried a carcass, they had to was their clothes in addition to being unclean. And it's the same principle here. There is definitely a principle connection between knowledge and responsibility, and conscious defilement requires greater cleansing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he doesn’t wash them, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So far in Leviticus the text has dealt with uncleanness and sin in an abstract sense. Now Leviticus 18-20 exemplify this by talking of sin in more concrete, actual terms.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following commandments relate to matters of intimate relationships. If Yahweh is our God, then His commandments and principles extent to every part of our lives, especially the most personal and intimate.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived; and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; neither shall you walk according to their statutes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contrast is presented between the word of God and that of man (:4). And this is the abiding conflict in our lives. The chapter will go on to outlaw various immoral relationships and sexual bonding. But these are all prefaced by this commandment not to do according to the laws of the Gentiles. These outlawed sexual behaviours were therefore part of the laws of the various fertility cults. These things were done in the belief they would thereby please the gods and result in abundant harvests. And the idea was the more attractive because it appealed to the lust of the flesh.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances; which if a man does, he shall live in them: I am Yahweh</em><em>-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em> “unto life” presumably implies that perfect keeping of the law would have resulted in a person living the life of God, the kind of life which will be lived in the eternal life (which might also be implied in <em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 19:7-10'>Psa 19:7-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:11'>Eze 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>). Death for such a person would therefore be necessary because of their relation with Adam, but would in another sense be unjust, in that they had not sinned. The perfect obedience of the Lord Jesus therefore required His resurrection. His eternal life wasn’t given to Him by grace, but He was entitled to it by obedience. He had no pre-existent eternal life; He was given eternal life because of His obedience. And His life is counted to us who are “in Him” by grace. See on <em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"If a man does, he shall live in them" is quoted in <em><a href='B:550 3:12'>Gal 3:12</a></em> to prove that life with God was possible by complete obedience to the Law of Moses. The Law could not give life in practice only in that people broke it (<em><a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a></em>). Paul’s point in Galatians is that eternal life therefore cannot be given on the basis of doing the Law- because we all break it. But Jesus completely kept the Law, and therefore deserved to have eternal life; but He died for us. Because of His perfect obedience to it, it wasn’t therefore possible for Him to remain dead, He had to be raised from the dead (<em><a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a></em>). The principle that life was possible for those who lived in perfect obedience to the Law would have driven every humble, sensitive, Godly minded person to wonder how he or she could attain to eternal life; they would’ve so wished to find a person who was completely obedient to the Law whose righteousness could as it were be counted to them. In this sense, the Law was a household servant which led people to perceive their need for Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:24'>Gal 3:24</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The life of serious obedience will lead to more obedience. Likewise the man who is obedient to God's commands will live in them, i.e. they will become an integral part of his way of life (<em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:29'>Neh 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:13'>Eze 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:21'>Eze 20:21</a></em> etc.). The further we go in God’s way, the clearer and more obvious it all becomes, and the fewer agonies we face over decisions, as perhaps we did in our early days of believing. The way of wisdom is “plain to him that understands” (<em><a href='B:240 8:9'>Pro 8:9</a></em>). Some seek for wisdom but can never find it; for others, “knowledge is easy unto him that understands” (<em><a href='B:240 14:6'>Pro 14:6</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>None of you shall approach anyone who are his close relatives, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Who God is becomes the motive for obedience; our core desire to be like Him, rather than a legalistic, literalistic desire to keep commandments, is what will help us in practice to be like Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother: she is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Uncovering nakedness alludes to the result of the first sin in Eden. The idea therefore is not that it is a sin to simply see a parent naked. Rather is it that such sins are sins because you are leading your sexual partner into sin and they will receive the same judgment as Adam and Eve- their nakedness will be uncovered. And so the Lord Jesus likewise reasons that the problem with sexual sin is that it leads other parties into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home, or born abroad-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws teach that nakedness should only be uncovered before your wife or husband. Uncovering nakedness is an idiom for the sexual act. The allusion is to Adam and Eve having their nakedness uncovered; we have to accept the situation we are in as a result of the curse, rather than having sexual relations with who we like, as if uncovering nakedness is nothing shameful. Our hope is for the curse put on us in Eden to be lifted at Christ’s return; we can’t lift it in this life, as our own ever insistent mortality reminds us.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, conceived by your father, since she is your sister- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is no mere coincidence that so many of these forbidden relationships were seen in the patriarchal family. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister. So we see that Israel were being reminded that their whole national basis was rooted in moral weakness from the start. They were God's people by grace alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister: she is your father’s near kinswoman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Moses' father Amram had married his father's sister (<em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>). It could be that uncovering the nakedness therefore refers specifically to perversions practiced in the name of idolatry, which is the context here. Or the idea may be that the founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister: for she is your mother’s near kinswoman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These awful things listed here were clearly real temptations for Israel; for they are repeated in the list of what Judah actually did in their idol worship (<em><a href='B:330 22:11'>Eze 22:11</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, you shall not approach his wife: she is your aunt-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the distinction between uncovering nakedness and 'approaching' the woman. The word for "approach" is the standard word used in Leviticus, and very often, for 'offering' in a religious sense. This confirms that what is in view here is illicit sexual activity performed as part of idol cult worship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was exactly what Judah did (<em><a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:16'>Gen 38:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:24'>Gen 38:24</a></em>). The founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Uncovering nakedness was what would happen to Israel in the shame of their condemnation at the hands of their one time lovers (<em><a href='B:290 47:3'>Isa 47:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:36-37'>Eze 16:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:10'>Eze 23:10</a></em>). But this was because they had themselves inappropriately revealed their nakedness to those lovers when they were still lovers (<em><a href='B:330 22:10'>Eze 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:18'>Eze 23:18</a></em>). Sin is therefore its own judgment. In this sense it is man who condemns himself, rather than being condemned by the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:15'>Joh 8:15</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife: it is your brother’s nakedness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Herod was condemned by John the Baptist for doing this (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>). This raises the issue as to whether we have a duty to point out to people in the world that they are living in sin. Although it could be argued that Herod claimed to be some kind of Jew, and therefore was under these laws. The laws of Levirate marriage allowed such marriage (<em><a href='B:50 25:5'>Deu 25:5</a></em>), so it seems to me that uncovering nakedness doesn't refer to marriage but to illicit sexual activity, probably in the context of idol worship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. You shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen: it is wickedness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David took the wives of Saul and also Saul’s daughter- and&nbsp;his breaking of the Law in this didn’t lead to happiness, even though he remained God’s man.&nbsp;But I suggest that it is not marriage which is in view here by 'uncovering the nakedness'. Rather is it some sexual ritual involving sleeping with a mother and her daughter at the same time as part of idol worship. <em><a href='B:370 2:7'>Amo 2:7</a></em> condemns a man and his son for sleeping with the same girl, again in the context of idolatry.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not marry your wife’s sister, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness, while her sister is yet alive-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jacob broke this principle by taking Rachel and Leah, and his sad family life afterwards was recorded as a testimony to how if we break God’s principles, we may remain His people as Jacob did, but we will suffer the consequences. Many aspects of the Mosaic Law were already in place before it was pronounced to Moses; the prohibition on marrying a second wife who was the sister of the first wife could well have been known among God's people in Jacob's time, seeing that it was a precept based on the principles of Eden (<em><a href='B:30 18:17-18'>Lev 18:17-18</a></em>). "It is wickedness" was God's comment to Moses, and there is no reason to think that His essential moral judgment on this kind of thing has ever changed much. Yet Jacob thought nothing of breaching this command, and committing this "wickedness". And yet through this, God&nbsp; worked to create the house of Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This verse seems to have stuck in David's mind, in that he lay with Bathsheba "because" she was "purified from her uncleanness". This is typical of so much spiritual dysfunction- to focus on a few Divine words and be strictly obedient to them, whilst ignoring the far larger principles. We think of the Jews being so careful to keep the Passover, whilst crucifying God's Son.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> that the woman in view was not simply menstruating but suffering a specific Divine stroke or plague which involved bleeding. To sleep with such a woman was therefore particularly defiant of God's judgments and therefore is so strongly condemned (<em><a href='B:330 18:6'>Eze 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:10'>Eze 22:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife, and defile yourself with her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may indeed be a condemnation of adultery, but I suggest that the specific reference is not to having an affair, but to sleeping with women as part of the Moloch cult- and the woman slept with might well be their neighbour's wife. "And defile yourself with her" makes better sense if read as referring to defilement with idols, you along with her. "Defile" is often used in the context of idolatry.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not give any of your children to sacrifice to Molech; neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We carry God’s Name too, in that we are baptized into the Name. Our behaviour must therefore be appropriate to the Name we bear (<em><a href='B:660 2:7'>Jas 2:7</a></em>). Children born within the covenant were intended to bear Yahweh's Name; to sacrifice them to Molech was therefore to profane Yahweh's Name. "I am Yahweh" means that He is real and His Name is real, and we are not to profane it through devoting our children to idols. And we can devote them to the idols of career and secular success just as much as Israelites gave their children to Molech. The Hebrew phrase is literally "to pass over to Molech". "Pass (through the fire)" (AV) is an interpretation not a translation. "Pass over" translates <em>abar</em>, the root of the word 'Hebrew', those who passed over. By letting their children pass over to Molech, the parents were denying their calling as Hebrews, to pass over from this world to the things of the Kingdom. "Profane" is the word for prostitution or defilement. This is what we do to God's wonderful Name if we as His people pass over to other gods.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, "an abomination". The related passage in <em><a href='B:30 20:13'>Lev 20:13</a></em> also says that the two men have committed "abomination". "Abomination" is a word distinctly and specifically associated with idol worship. The context of these commands is an appeal not to follow the ways of Moloch worshippers (also in <em><a href='B:30 20:2-5'>Lev 20:2-5</a></em>). As was the case in Corinth centuries later, idol worshippers slept with both male and female prostitutes; and that is what is primarily in view here.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman give herself to an animal, to lie down with it: it is a perversion- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Perversion" is AV "confusion", and is the word also used of God's condemnation of men in "confusion" unto destruction (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again we see that sin is its own judgment; people condemn themselves by their behaviour, living out condemnation in their sins. Israel are condemned for having 'mixed themselves' amongst the Gentiles (s.w. <em><a href='B:350 7:8'>Hos 7:8</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land was defiled; therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out her inhabitants- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The period for gathering iniquity was fulfilled, and so the land was intended to vomit out the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). But we see here the flexibility and open ended nature of God's ways of working. For one thing, that period was extended by around 40 years; for Israel didn't enter the land when they were intended to, and so the local inhabitants remained there. And the vomiting out of the inhabitants was to be fulfilled through human agency, i.e. the Israelites were to cast them out with God's help. But they generally didn't do this, and chose to coexist with those inhabitants within the land, and to serve their gods.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You therefore shall keep my statutes and my ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the native-born, nor the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea was that the perversions listed above were not to be found within the land. The original inhabitants who did these things were to be vomited out; and Israel and any Gentiles remaining in the land were to not do these things, lest they be vomited out of the land. This was the Divine intention. But as noted on :24,25, the reality was different. Israel chose not to enter the land, so these abominations were done in the land for another 40 years longer than ideally anticipated. Israel then entered the land, didn't cast the nations who did these things out of the land; and Israel did the same abominations because they worshipped the gods of the local inhabitants.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(for all these abominations have the men of the land done that were before you, and the land became defiled)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Defiled" is the word used for being ritually "unclean". The land was to be "clean" because Yahweh lived as it were in the land (<em><a href='B:40 35:34'>Num 35:34</a></em>). As soon as Israel entered the land, they defiled it by their abominations / idolatry (<em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em> s.w.). Clearly Joshua was not representative of the people generally, and the generation who entered the land were hardly strongly committed to Yahweh. They had after all carried the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of Remphan all through the wilderness, and Joshua himself told them that he considered that they were so far gone in idolatry that they ought not to sign up to a covenant of loyalty to Yahweh. We can therefore assume that seeing the land was instantly defiled by Israel when they entered it, they therefore did in fact commit the abominations of the Canaanites which are listed in this chapter.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that the land not vomit you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"When you defile it" shows God's premonition that they would do all these abominations and defile it; and indeed that is what happened (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em>). The figure of vomiting suggests that their rejection from the land was going to happen as an immediate gut reaction if they did these abominations. They did them, but God's response was so patient. It was as if He did not vomit them out immediately as planned, but remained feeling nauseous at their behaviour for centuries, until He finally did so.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :29, this didn't happen immediately, because of God's love and patient, pitiful hopefulness that it wouldn't continue. But they defiled the land when they entered it by their idolatry (<em><a href='B:300 2:7'>Jer 2:7</a></em> s.w.), and they repeatedly defiled the land by their abominations, i.e. their idolatry and the associated perverted practices listed in this chapter (s.w. <em><a href='B:330 22:4'>Eze 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:26'>Eze 33:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:18'>Eze 36:18</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This section develops the theme of holiness and what it means in practice. Holiness means both separation <em>from </em>and also separation <em>unto</em>. We are separated from the things of the flesh and this world, but that is not a negative, onerous burden. For thereby are we separated unto the positive things of God's service.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Each one of you shall respect his mother and his father-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have to read this in the context of the preceding chapter which has forbidden idolatrous rites involving sexual activity with parents and siblings. The contemporary Near Eastern legal codes prescribed the most severe penalties for crimes against the wealthy and their property. Rich people were given lesser punishments than poor people for the same crime. The value of persons reflected in Yahweh's law meant that all people were judged equally before the law, and truly there was no respect of persons with the true God. Both father and mother are placed together as worthy of equal honour (<em><a href='B:30 19:3'>Lev 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>)- whereas the contemporary laws were oriented towards respect of the male rather than females.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>You shall keep My Sabbaths. I am Yahweh your God- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The two laws repeated here, about honouring parents and keeping the Sabbath, are the only two positive commandments in the ten commandments. The others are all "You shall not...". So this confirms the impression that now having read so much negative, about separation from sin, we are being encouraged to focus upon what we are separated unto, positively.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t turn to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This clearly alludes to the golden calf which they had made. They were not to ever do this again. And yet we know from <em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em> that they took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea, and carried the tabernacle and star of their idols throughout the wilderness journey. Even by Joshua's time, he had to urge them to cast away the idols of Egypt. Perhaps they justified them by arguing that they had not cast them themselves. Our flesh is so able to justify sin. And we must beware of that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh, you shall offer it voluntarily-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mosaic law was in fact geared against mere legalism and symbolic offerings for the sake of discharging religious conscience. Voluntary offerings must indeed be just that- from the heart. Freewill offerings such as the peace offering must really be of our free will. We mustn’t feel any sense of obligation to others, doing voluntary things to be seen of them, but any act of freewill devotion must be genuine, motivated by our personal desire to devote our time or resources to God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day: and if anything remains until the third day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute it immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It shall be burned with fire- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"With fire" is literally "with the fire". The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination. It will not be accepted- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We cannot be passive on receiving the opportunity to serve God. We will urgently seek to do something with what we have been enabled to do for the Lord: “The servant who got five bags <em>went quickly </em>to invest the money and earned five more bags” (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em> NCV). The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we think our freewill devotions to be God can be done as we wish without regard for His principles, then what we do is obnoxious to Him. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” is often used about idol worship; we will not be worshipping Him, but the idols of our own image and standing in the eyes of people.<em></em></p>


