INTRODUCTION
1. Historical Background and Contents
Leviticus, the middle book of the Pentateuch, is largely limited to material revealed at Sinai after the Exodus and before Israel’s wandering in the desert. Genesis gives the patriarchal background of the people of Israel. They were molded into a nation, however, at the time of the Exodus by Moses, the great lawgiver. The Israelites left Egypt in the spring on the fourteenth of Nisan, the month that begins the spring season. This was a datum point, the “first month of your year” (Ex 12:2). On the fifteenth of the second month, they came to the Desert of Sin (Ex 16:1). In the third month (Ex 19:1), they arrived at Sinai and encamped before the mountain. There they stayed for about one year. The second Passover was celebrated at Sinai (Nu 9:5).
The people were “numbered” on the “first day of the second month of the second year” after leaving Egypt (Nu 1:1). On the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, the Israelites marched on from Sinai toward Kadesh Barnea, the southern gateway to the Promised Land (Nu 10:11).
The Israelites thus encamped before Mount Sinai just short of a year. During that time Moses spent eighty days on the mountain with God. Then the people of Israel, at Moses’ instruction, built the tabernacle. During this year Moses also organized the nation, built up the army, established courts and laws, and ordered formal worship. It was a busy year. Although most of the laws that Moses drew up at that time are found in Exodus and Numbers, Leviticus is the law book par excellence. It mainly emphasizes Israel’s worship of God and the instructions for the priests. Undoubtedly for this reason the LXX called the book Levitikon (“pertaining to the Levites”).
The book of Leviticus, presuming the construction of the tabernacle as detailed in Ex 25–31; 35–40, begins with a description of the offerings for the great bronze altar (chs. 1–7) and continues with the consecration of the first priests and the start of the tabernacle worship (chs. 8–10). The chapters that follow largely set forth those laws for the conduct of the people that were administered by the priests. It is difficult to generalize, however, because the priests were concerned with instruction for and regulation of many aspects of Israel’s life, not just the sacerdotal—for instance, chs. 18 and 20 cover laws of incest. The laws of cleanliness come in ch. 11–15, followed by the law of the great national sin offering on the Day of Atonement in ch. 16. The next section (chs. 17–26) is sometimes called the Holiness Code, because it emphasizes God’s moral standards for his people. Included is a description of the other annual feasts of Israel (ch. 23) and further miscellaneous regulations concerning the sabbatical year and laws of land inheritance (ch. 25). Chapter 26 includes extensive warnings of punishment if Israel departs from the Lord, and the book ends (ch. 27) with regulations concerning property given to the Lord’s work.
2. Date and Authorship
The view taken of the date and authorship of Leviticus depends largely on one’s view of the Pentateuch as a whole. The tradition of Israel unanimously declares that the ritual laws of Leviticus—and the other Pentateuchal material as well—were given by God through Moses. See the discussion of these issues in the introduction to Exodus.
3. Literary Form and Classification
The study of Israel’s laws is important because the will of God is found in them. They must be studied with care, however, because obviously not all of them apply to the Christian today (cf. Heb 7:12). Some of the laws of Israel (e.g., the Ten Commandments) carry over into the present age and are repeated in the NT (Ro 13:9); some are abrogated (Ac 10:14–15).
The nation of Israel was unique in that it was a theocracy; God was its Head. He had chosen Israel and channeled his grace particularly through that nation. To Israel he gave his revelation, including the order of true worship. In Israel things that we call sacred and profane were mingled together. Before the monarchy virtually all administration of the nation was in the hands of the priests. There were physical penalties—even capital punishment—for religious offenses.
Israel’s laws have customarily been classified as moral, civil, and ceremonial—the commandments (e.g., you shall not murder), judgments (e.g., a person guilty of manslaughter may flee to a city of refuge), and ordinances (e.g, prescribing a sin offering for a repentant sinner). Such a classification implies that the ceremonial legislation is done away in Christ, the civil legislation changes with the civil government, and the moral legislation continues ever in binding force.
A better approach, however, is to see the law as defining (1) our relationship to God and (2) our relationship to our fellow beings. These laws can be further divided into eternal principles and temporary manifestations. Thus, for example, the first four of the Ten Commandments give the eternal principles of divine worship. Other laws also stress God’s holiness, hatred of sin, and love issuing in redemption. These eternal principles were manifested in the temporary laws of worship that occupy much of Leviticus. They typify the holiness of God, the uncleanness of humans, the necessity of blood redemption, and the restoration of fellowship with God. They also point forward to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who came to take away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). Today these same eternal principles find temporary manifestations in baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and other aspects of Christian worship.
Similarly, the last six of the Ten Commandments express God’s will for our relations with our fellow beings, being manifested in civil law. The civil laws of modern cultures reflect more or less the eternal principles that God has implanted in the consciences of humans and set forth in his Word.
A third recent classification of Israel’s laws is as case laws and categorical laws (casuistic and apodictic legislation). The case laws apply to a particular situation and are of the form, “If someone does such and such, then you shall punish that person in such and such a way.” The categorical or apodictic laws are “You shall not . . .” or “Whoever does such and such shall surely suffer.” This difference in form between case law and categorical law does not seem to be too significant in Leviticus. For example, ch. 18 is largely categorical law; ch. 20 repeats many of these items in case law formulation, but the laws in ch. 20 include a penalty. Practically all the laws of the surrounding cultures were of the case-law type.
The Pentateuchal legislation does not cover all possible situations, but it covers enough; and the judges on whom God placed his Spirit were competent enough to handle all other cases on these principles. God had providentially given Moses training in the royal academies of Egypt. And God used Moses to give the Israelites such precedents and case laws as were necessary and helpful in establishing the infant nation. Moses served as chief justice of Israel for forty years, and many cases came before him for judgment. He was knowledgeable on legal principles, and the important cases were collected at his direction and under the Spirit’s inspiration during these forty years and were given for the guidance of the nation ever after.
There is no evidence that Israel’s ritual law was derived from the rituals of the nations in which they lived. Eighteen of the chapters in Leviticus begin with the words “The LORD said to Moses.” Israel’s worship, like Israel’s theology, was of divine origin; and the prescriptions for ritual were God-given. The Bible makes it plain that the sacrificial system of the OT began as soon as our first parents had sinned. The specialized institutions of national worship, however, were given by God through Moses at Sinai.
4. Theology
a. Sin
Underlying Leviticus is the biblical doctrine of sin. This seems clear both from specific words used (e.g., “sin” in 18:25; 19:22; “sins” in 16:16, 21–22; the verb “to sin” in 4:2–3; “guilt” in 10:17; 22:16) and from the punishments prescribed for offenses committed. Human beings have a problem with sin; they violate God’s law. Such sin had to be atoned for—i.e., to have the penalty paid and the guilt removed—in order for fellowship between God and his people to be renewed. God revealed the sacrificial system as the means of atonement.
b. Sacrifice
The most important matter discussed in the book of Leviticus, therefore, is the sacrificial system of ancient Israel. It begins with a description of five major sacrifices, together with their regulations (chs. 1–7). Chapter 16 discusses the rituals of the great Day of Atonement. While no passage of Leviticus discusses the meaning of sacrifice in a formal manner, many things are said that give us considerable guidance. In ch. 16 the principle is clearly stated that sin is atoned for by sacrifice and the guilt is taken far away (cf. Ps 103:12). The historic view of the OT sacrificial system is that the death of the sacrificial victim is the God-given type of the death of Christ and that the blood shed by the lamb or goat points forward to the blood shed by Christ on Calvary to atone for our sins (see especially Heb 8–10; also Ro 3:25–26).
c. Cleanness
Large sections of this book deal with the topic of cleanness and its relationship to holiness. There are two main things to consider: the concept of ethical holiness as separation from sin and the concept of ritual holiness as separation from various defilements. God’s own holiness involves both ethical and ritual holiness.
Regarding ethical holiness, the Holiness Code (chs. 17–26) outlines numerous ethical commands that were applicable in many areas of Israelite life. These are all subsumed under one general principle, repeated in several places of this book: “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:7–8; 21:8).
Regarding ritual holiness, in order to approach the holy God, the priest, the articles of worship, and the worshipers all had to be cleansed. Only in that way could God preserve his holy name in the midst of an elect but sinful nation. The animals used for sacrifice had to be perfect, in order to meet the requirements of a perfect God. The Lord also revealed to Moses numerous ritual cleanness laws regarding diet, health, and habits. Why? God had promised that he would defend his people from the diseases of Egypt (Ex 15:26; Dt 7:15); in other words, the health of his people was a major concern. Sickness and death are ultimately the result of sin. Rules of diet, washing, and quarantine were therefore necessary to promote Israel’s health; these rules were also naturally given the religious sanctions requiring sacrifices and other rituals for their enforcement.
EXPOSITION
I. Description of the Five Major Offerings (1:1–6:7)
A. Burnt Offering (1:1–17)
1 These directions for sacrifice were not given to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai but while he was at work arranging for Israel’s worship. The “Tent of Meeting” is the usual name of the movable tabernacle constructed by Moses at Sinai (Ex 40:2). Most likely, however, the reference here is to a temporary tent of worship set up during the time at Sinai (cf. Ex 33:7–10; 38:8). God would hardly leave Israel for a year without a place of worship.
2 The “herd” would be cattle; the “flock” would include both sheep and goats. Although the Israelites were a nomadic people, their mainstay was their cows, sheep, and goats. It is probable that during the extended wandering in the desert the cows, which needed more pasture, were reduced in number; and the people kept the hardier sheep and goats. The ruminant animals digest cellulose. Goats, especially, can live on dried grass, stalks, and bushes. The directions for sacrifice included all the animals that might be offered both in the desert and later in the settled country.
3–17 In brief, the “burnt offering” (GK 6592) was to be made of a clean animal; and all of it was to be burnt on the altar, except the feathers and crop of a bird and the hide of an animal. The hide was for the priest (7:8). The hand of the offerer was to be placed on the animal’s head in symbolic acknowledgment of the substitution of the animal for the worshiper (v.4); this is specified also in the fellowship offering (3:2, 8, 13) and the sin offering (4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33). The ritual seems to be self-explanatory but is interpreted clearly in connection with the Day of Atonement (16:21). When hands are laid on the animal and sins are confessed, the sins are in symbol transferred to the animal. The scapegoat carried the sins off into the desert, signifying their total removal. In the cases where the animal was slaughtered, laying on of hands signified the substitution of the sacrifice in judgment on sin.
The blood was to be sprinkled on the altar to emphasize substitution by death (cf. 17:14). Various animals were used in the ritual depending on the choice and ability of the worshiper. The rich would bring a young bull, the poor a bird, the average person a sheep or a goat.
The burnt offering, sometimes called a “holocaust” (total) offering, was completely consumed on the altar. It was not the most common sacrifice. When thousands of sacrifices were offered, they were usually fellowship offerings, which were partly eaten.
The special meaning of the burnt offering is nowhere explicitly given. It included atonement by the giving of life for life, as did the other sacrifices. It seems probable that the additional meaning of the burnt offering was worship, symbolized by the ascending smoke. It is also legitimate to see the idea of surrender.
A burnt offering was given for all Israel every morning and again in the evening. On the Sabbath the burnt offerings were double (Nu 28:9), and there were extra offerings on the various feast days. The directions of this chapter refer especially to voluntary burnt offerings that any Israelite might be led to offer in special worship to God.
B. Grain Offering (2:1–16)
1–16 The “grain offering” (GK 4966) is sometimes called a meal offering or cereal offering, for it consisted of flour or baked goods. Four kinds of grain offerings are specified: uncooked flour, bread baked in an oven, bread prepared on a griddle, and bread cooked in a pan.
The meaning of the grain offering is not explicitly given. It has a practical value in that a “memorial portion” of the offering was burnt on the altar and the rest was given to the priests for their food (cf. 1Co 9:13). Only males who were priests could eat it in the Holy Place (6:16–18). The rest of the priest’s family would eat ordinary yeast bread. Apart from the practical value that this offering gave the priests bread to eat with their meat, the symbolism of the grain offering possibly emphasizes thanksgiving. A grain offering was specified to accompany other various types of offerings on the altar (23:13–20; Ex 29:40; Nu 28–29; et al.). The drink offering, which was to accompany various sacrifices, is not mentioned in this section. It was a libation offering, poured on the altar—not drunk (cf. Nu 28:7).
The size of the grain offering is not given here. Elsewhere various amounts are specified—the smallest is one-tenth measure of flour (about two quarts if a “measure” is an ephah) mixed with one-fourth hin of oil (about a pint and a half; cf. Nu 28:11–14).
The grain offering was to be accompanied with oil, incense, and salt. The familiar olive oil was often used as a shortening, as an ointment, and as an ingredient in perfume. Only a portion of the flour was to be burnt, but all the incense was consumed on the altar. The proscription of yeast with the sacrifices that are burnt on the altar is frequent. The reason for forbidding yeast with the Passover meal was that when Israel left Egypt, there was no time to use yeast to make the bread rise. This incident may have determined the symbolic meaning in other sacrifices. The law against honey appears only here (perhaps because under some circumstances this will also ferment). Yeast and honey were indeed edible and were suitable gifts as an offering of firstfruits for the priests’ food, but they were not to be burned on the altar.
C. Fellowship Offering (3:1–17)
1–17 In the phrase “fellowship offering,” the word translated “fellowship” (GK 8968) includes the ideas of health, wholeness, welfare, and peace. It is reflected in the common Jewish greeting “Shalom!” This offering apparently symbolizes peace with God because the worshiper joins in the sacred meal. The fellowship offering was brought to the priest, the worshiper laid his hand on the head of the animal in symbolic identification and transfer of guilt, then the priest dressed it, handling the blood in the same way as was done for the burnt offering. In this case, however, only the fat and kidneys were burned on the altar. Elsewhere it is specified that the priest is to be given the right breast and the right thigh as his portion (see 7:34). The balance was for the worshiper and his family to eat.
| Old Testament Sacrifices | |||
| NAME | OT REFERENCES | ELEMENTS | PURPOSE |
| BURNT OFFERING | Lev 1; 6:8–13; 8:18–21; 16:24 | Bull, ram or male bird (dove or young pigeon for poor); wholly consumed; no defect | Voluntary act of worship; atonement for unintentional sin in general; expression of devotion, commitment and complete surrender to God |
| GRAIN OFFERING | Lev 2; 6:14–23 | Grain, fine flour, olive oil, incense, baked bread (cakes or wafers), salt; no yeast or honey; accompanied burnt offering and fellowship offering (along with drink offering) | Voluntary act of worship; recognition of God’s goodness and provisions; devotion to God |
| FELLOWSHIP OFFERING | Lev 3; 7:11–34 | Any animal without defect from herd or flock; variety of breads | Voluntary act of worship; thanksgiving and fellowship (it included a communal meal) |
| SIN OFFERING | Lev 4:1–5:13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22 | 1. Young bull: for high priest and congregation 2. Male goat: for leader 3. Female goat or lamb: for common person 4. Dove or pigeon: for the poor 5. Tenth of an ephah of fine flour: for the very poor |
Mandatory atonement for specific unintentional sin; confession of sin; forgiveness of sin; cleansing from defilement |
| GUILT OFFERING | Lev 5:14–6:7; 7:1–6 | Ram or lamb | Mandatory atonement for unintentional sin requiring restitution; cleansing from defilement; make restitution; pay 20% fine |
When more than one kind of offering was presented (as in Nu 6:16, 17), the procedure was usually as follows: (1) sin offering or guilt offering, (2) burnt offering, (3) fellowship offering and grain offering (along with a drink offering). This sequence furnishes part of the spiritual significance of the sacrificial system. First, sin had to be dealt with (sin offering or guilt offering). Second, the worshiper committed himself completely to God (burnt offering and grain offering). Third, fellowship or communion between the Lord, the priest and the worshiper (fellowship offering) was established. To state it another way, there were sacrifices of expiation (sin offerings and guilt offerings), consecration (burnt offerings and grain offerings) and communion (fellowship offerings—these included vow offerings, thank offerings and freewill offerings).
A fellowship offering could be voluntary as a special offering of thanks to God or could be given as the result of a vow or as a freewill offering (7:12–26). This offering was given by the thousands at special celebrations when many people joined in the sacred meal (1Ki 8:63). If a man was too poor to bring a voluntary fellowship offering, he would probably be given a share in the offerings of others. Neither fat nor blood was to be eaten (see 17:10–14). It generally is not realized that eating the fat was also prohibited (see 7:22–25). It was the special part of the animal that was offered to the Lord and was therefore sacred.
D. Sin Offering (4:1–5:13; cf. Nu 15:22–31)
4:1–35 The “sin offering” (GK 2633) and the guilt offering (5:14–6:7) are similar. Indeed, 7:7 says, “The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering.” They are offered in a somewhat similar way, though different animals are specified and the blood was handled differently.
The purpose of the sin offering was to give a specific way for a penitent sinner who was convicted of sin to attain full restoration of fellowship with God. It was both a confession of sin and an assurance of pardon. There were representative sin offerings prescribed for leaders of the people as well as offerings for the individual. A type of sin offering was available for the poorest sinner in the land (5:7, 11).
The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering was in the nature of the sin. The former was for what might be called general sins; the latter was for sins that injured other people or detracted from the sacred worship. The guilt offering thus involved not only a sacrifice but also restitution plus a fine of 20 percent (6:5). The sins for which the sin offering was prescribed are called “unintentional sins”; the same expression is used in connection with the guilt offering (5:15). The sins concerned are not so strictly limited, however.
The expression “to sin unintentionally” (GK 8706) calls for some comment. The NIV reading may give the impression that there was no sacrifice for intentional sins. This presents a problem, for many of our sins are more or less intentional (though not necessarily deliberate). The word basically means “to err,” “go astray,” “wander,” or “stagger.” That is, the notion of intent or lack of intent is not basic to the meaning of the Hebrew word and ought not to be imported.
The usual sins we fall into are covered by the sin offering and the guilt offering. For instance, lying, stealing, cheating, and false swearing are surely intentional; yet they are specifically covered by the guilt offering (6:2–3). There is one place where these words seem at first to refer to unintentional sins (Nu 15:22–31). There the “unintentional” sin is contrasted with sinning “defiantly” (NIV) or, as the Hebrew expresses it, “with a high hand.” Here the NIV has correctly caught the sense of the unpardonable sin—not one done intentionally, but one done “defiantly,” i.e., in rebellion, sinning against light (cf. Mt 12:31–32), which results in separation from God. No sacrifice is specified for that.
The sense will be adequately caught if, in all the verses concerned here in Lev 4–5, the phrase “sins unintentionally” is rendered by “goes astray in sin” or “does wrong” or the like. “Unintentional” seems better only in the manslaughter passages (Nu 35:11–22; Jos 20:3–5), and even there “inadvertently” or “by mistake” would actually fit better.
In the case of the sin offering, there was special emphasis on substitutionary atonement. For the sin of a prominent person—e.g., an anointed priest (4:3)—or the whole congregation (v.13), an expensive offering was demanded (“a young bull”). Substitution was typified by laying hands on the offering just prior to its being slain (cf. v.24). Some of the young bull’s blood was to be taken into the Holy Place and sprinkled seven times before the veil and also put on the horns of the altar of incense. The rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the bronze altar, presumably on the ashes. In such cases the fat was to be burned on the bronze altar and the carcass burned outside the camp in the place of ashes (cf. Heb 13:11).
In the case of an offering for the sin of an ordinary individual, blood was applied to the four horns of the bronze altar and the rest of the blood poured out as in the previous cases. The fat also was to be burned on the altar, but the meat was to be eaten by the priests in the sacred precincts (7:22–27).
Special sin offerings for the congregation were ordained for particular feast days (Nu 28–29). Particular solemnity was attached to the Day of Atonement in the autumn, when the ritual centered around the goat for a sin offering and the scapegoat (see on Lev 16). All the offerings of the tabernacle included the idea of atonement by blood. The sin and guilt offerings symbolized this basic idea most emphatically.
5:1–13 Verses 1–4 give examples of sins that required a sin offering. Far from the modern idea, it was the duty of a witness to come forward and give his testimony in the interest of truth and justice. In Israel all the people were to be involved in seeing that justice was done. Not to witness was a sin.
The laws of cleanness were partly for public health (cf. chs. 11–15), but they were given sanction in the tabernacle. The priests were the public health officers. Uncleanness demanded ritual cleansing.
An unlawful oath should not be made and should not be kept. Jesus’ teaching on oaths emphasized that a person’s word is sacred. Jesus himself went on oath before the high priest (Mt 26:63–64). In certain circumstances an oath is not wrong, but an oath should not be necessary. A Christian’s word should be as good as his bond (Mt 5:33–37).
One must not suppose that every Israelite who ever sinned intentionally was cut off from the congregation or that no sacrifice availed for him. David at least did not think so (Ps 51:19). The sin offering was available for any tender soul convicted of wrongdoing. Compassionate provision was made for the poor. Atonement is without money and without price. It is true, however, that there were sins recognized under the old covenant as unpardonable because they were defiant, just as in the NT (see comments on 4:1–35).
When a pigeon or chicken has its neck wrung (i.e., rapidly twisted), the neck is broken and the bird killed; but the head is not necessarily severed. A somewhat similar procedure is given in 1:17 in connection with the burnt offering, where it is said specifically that the priest should not sever the bird. The NIV reads as if the sin-offering bird has its head still attached though its blood is to be drained out. The other bird, used as a burnt offering, is said specifically (1:15–17) to have the head wrung off and burned first, then the blood sprinkled and the carcass cleaned but not “divided” and then burned. Although the details are not clear, it would seem more probable that the two birds were handled alike and that ch. 5 has not repeated the details of the cleaning and opening of the carcass. The priest would presumably have the bird of the sin offering to eat (cf. v.13). The other bird would be put on the altar as a burnt offering.
An “ephah” (v.11) seems to have been about three-fifths of a bushel (twenty-two liters), though there is some uncertainty. Jars marked as containing one bath (= one ephah) have been found; but since they are in pieces, the total capacity is not known. Apparently a tenth of an ephah would be about two quarts. This would be an offering that even the poor should be able to give. It was distinguished from the fellowship offering in that it should have no oil or frankincense and was not to be cooked. Presumably, in accordance with 2:11–13, it also was to have no yeast or honey but would have salt added. Though it was a bloodless offering, a portion of it was burned on the altar and thus associated with the sacrifices offered with blood. The balance of the flour was for the priest.
E. Guilt Offering (5:14–6:7)
5:14–6:7 As explained above (see comment on 4:1–35), the “guilt offering” (GK 871) and the sin offering were similar in ritual and meaning. Even the names sometimes interchange. The guilt offering had more reference to sins that had done definite damage to the tabernacle service or to a neighbor. This required repair of the damage and a penalty of 20 percent in addition (5:16; 6:5). It is not entirely clear what sort of damage is referred to. Probably it could include withholding tithes or firstfruits or other required offerings.
The guilt offering required without exception a male sheep plus restitution plus a 20 percent fine. Like the fines for stealing given in the civil law of Ex 22, there was no remission of fines for the poor. Presumably, as in Ex 22:3, the poor man had to get the money or be sold into bondage. There is a distinction between the sins mentioned as examples in Lev 6:1–5 and outright stealing. These sins are more on the edge of dishonesty. They concern things obtained by false representation, keeping a lost-and-found article, etc. These things also are sins but are not so easily established in court. If a man was guilty of such things and his conscience convicted him, however, he needed to confess and bring his guilt offering and the penalty, too. For cases of outright lawbreaking, such as those given in Exodus, the fines would vary according to the circumstance and as assessed by the judge. A repentant lawbreaker, however, would also presumably offer his guilt offering. In any kind of sin involving damage, full restoration must be made. Forgiveness does not allow us just to forget the damage done but requires us in repentance and with confession to make right as far as possible the wrong done. That forgiveness is free does not mean that it is free of obligation. And there is also a 20 percent penalty. Apparently the fine was given to the person wronged along with the full payment of damage done.
Regarding “unintentional,” see comments on 4:1–35.
Guilt in the biblical sense is not just a feeling but a condition. There may be known transgressions that bring feelings of guilt, but there is also the condition of guilt before God, caused by sins known or unknown. Sometimes a hardened sinner has few feelings of guilt when he is the most guilty. Any sinner must bear the guilt of his transgression.
The guilt offering differed from the sin offering in that blood was never sprinkled in the Holy Place. Rather the blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering in the manner of the burnt and peace offerings. The fat parts were to be burned on the altar and the meat eaten by the priests as in the case of the ordinary sin offering. This offering is one of those specified for the cleansing of a “leper” in Lev 14:12–28. It was a special sacrifice also for a Nazirite who had accidentally become unclean during his period of consecration (Nu 6:9–12).
In the great prophecy of Isaiah, the predicted Servant is said to suffer and die as a “guilt offering” (Isa 53:10; GK 871). In this significant verse the messianic hope of Israel is associated with the sacrificial system. The Lamb that God would supply for the sacrifice was the coming Messiah. It is worth adding that in the context of Isa 53, the glorious results of the suffering and death of the Servant are given in ch. 54, climaxing in the Davidic covenant (55:3): “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.” In this central portion of Isaiah, the sacrificial system, the suffering and dying Servant to come, and the promised Son of David are in close association. These lines of prophecy and typology thus interpret one another. The Christ was both to suffer and to die as a sin and guilt offering and yet would reign as great David’s greater Son.
II. Directions for the Priests in Their Service (6:8–7:38)
A. Burnt Offering (6:8–13)
It should be remembered that the Bible does not tell us every detail of the methods of sacrificing. There was no need, for example, to tell an ancient priest how to skin a sheep. But enough was given to be self-explanatory to the Israelites and to give us the general outline and meaning of the ritual. The section on the prescribed ritual of the five major offerings gives mainly instructions for the officiating priests. Leviticus was a directory for worship for the priests from which they in turn were to instruct the people.
8–13 There is an emphasis here on the perpetual fire on the bronze altar. Actually, the sacrifices required not a little work. Wood had to be secured and cut. A good bit of wood was needed to get the roaring fire that would burn the sacrifices completely and carry the odor skyward so as not to be offensive. The care of the ashes is detailed in vv.10–11. Leviticus 1:16 says that the place of the ashes was east of the altar, i.e., toward the front of the tabernacle court (cf. Ex 27:13–15; Nu 3:38). The sacrifices were killed on the north side, i.e., to the right as the worshiper faced the tabernacle. It was helpful that the prevailing winds came from the west.
The reason for the use of linen is given in Eze 44:18. No garment “that makes them perspire” was to be worn by the priest while officiating. Linen made a fine cloth, easily washed and comfortable. The linen garments were to be kept clean. For disposing ashes outside the camp, ordinary clothes were to be worn.
B. Grain Offering (6:14–23)
14–23 Much of this section repeats material already given in ch. 2. The additional directions concern the grain offering to be given by the priests themselves. This offering differs from the usual in that it was to be burned up entirely. It was given every morning and was to accompany the burnt offering (Nu 28:5) and the fellowship offerings (Lev 7:12). It represented the thanksgiving of the priests and, through them, all Israel.
C. Sin Offering (6:24–30)
24–30 The description of this section adds little to the previous treatment at 4:1–5:13 except to emphasize the holiness of the offering. Offerings whose blood was not taken into the tabernacle could be eaten by the officiating priest, but only by him and the males of his family. It was to be eaten within the sacred precincts, and the vessels it was cooked in were to be broken or scoured. It was apparently the most solemn sacrifice of Israel and was thus an especially fitting type of Christ’s atoning death (Heb 13:12).
D. Guilt Offering (7:1–10)
1–10 As v.7 says, the guilt offering was similar to the sin offering, especially as regards ritual. The main difference was that the blood of the guilt offering was treated like that of the burnt and fellowship offerings rather than like the sin offering. A difference is made between the cooked and uncooked grain offerings. The former belonged to the officiating priest. The latter, because it was in flour that could be preserved, was distributed among the priests.
E. Fellowship Offering (7:11–38)
Several other instructions were given for this most common sacrifice. There were two varieties of the fellowship offerings. The first expressed thanksgiving for God’s general benefits (vv.12–15); the second served as a fulfillment of a vow or as a freewill offering (vv.16–18). Slight differences were made in the eating of the remainder from these varieties of offerings. Since, of all the sacrifices of the tabernacle, only fellowship offerings might be eaten by those who were not from priestly families, special warnings are given with regard to cleanness on the part of those who eat them. The prohibition of fat and blood is repeated (cf. 3:17), and details are given as to the portion of the animals that was given to the priests for food. On these verses see the remarks on 3:1–17.
11–18 The standard grain offering is specified to accompany the burnt offering and the meat of the fellowship offering. The description of the grain offering repeats the term of 2:4 and 6:14. A “memorial portion” was burned on the altar.
A second kind of breadstuff is specified, an offering of yeast bread. This was not burned on the altar. A portion was given the priest, who would present it before the Lord as an “offering” and then eat it. The rest of the bread, like the rest of the meat, was for the worshiper.
All of the thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the same day to encourage sharing it with the poor. The other types of fellowship offering could be eaten on the second day, but by the third day it was prohibited as unsafe (cf. 19:5–8; 22:30).
19–21 As mentioned above, only the fellowship offerings were eaten by laypersons. Rules for guarding their sacredness were therefore needed. They must be kept clean. An unclean person must absolutely not eat of the sacred meal (cf. 1Co 11:28).
The phrase “cut off [GK 4162] from his people” is used over twenty-five times, usually with regard to some ceremonial violation. It is clearly associated with capital crimes only three times (17:14; 18:29; Ex 31:14). Similar phraseology is used repeatedly of cutting off enemies. The phrase here may have meant only some kind of excommunication from the people of the Lord.
22–27 The carcass of an unclean animal was not to be touched; but a sheep or goat that died a natural death or was killed by a wild beast could be used—only not for food. Its hide and wool were usable. Its fat also was usable, perhaps mostly for fuel.
28–34 The priest’s portion of every fellowship offering was the right breast and the right thigh. The breast was “waved” before the Lord, i.e., presented and then taken by the priest. Similarly, the thigh, being heavier, was lifted up before the Lord as a “contribution” and then taken by the priest and his family (10:14).
For “the right thigh” it is difficult to know whether the hindquarter or forequarter is meant. If the Hebrews observed their comparative anatomy (the word when used for people means “leg”), the hindquarter would be intended. Also, the hindquarter is much better meat than the forequarter, and it is probable that the choicer portion was given to the priests; the rest was for the worshipers.
35–38 These offerings were allocated to the priests from “the day they were presented to serve” and onward. There need be no problem between the statement “on Mount Sinai” and 1:1, which says God spoke to Moses from “the Tent of Meeting.” The Hebrew preposition b (GK 928) can mean “in,” “on,” “at,” etc. Or the phrase “Mount Sinai” may have included more than the mountaintop itself. And some of these regulations may indeed have been given to Moses during his two periods on the mount while others may have been added during the year of establishing the worship of Israel.
III. The Beginning of the Tabernacle Worship (8:1–10:20)
Chapter 8 shows in a very interesting way the relationship of Leviticus to Exodus. They are parts of a unified whole. The consecration of the priests here is the fulfillment of the commands in Ex 29 (cf. vv.1–37).
The last part of Exodus consists largely of the directions for setting up Israel’s worship (Ex 25–28, 30), followed by the record that the worship was set up in just that way (Ex 37–39). There is much repetition, with a difference only in tenses. For instance, the instructions for building the ark in Ex 25:10–21 are repeated almost verbatim in the past tense in Ex 37:1–9.
In the same way, the directions for the consecration of the priests in Ex 29:4–20, 22–26, and 31 are very closely paralleled by the record of the consecration in Lev 8:6–9, 12–19, and 31. It is rather obvious that Leviticus is a continuation of Exodus. Exodus ends with the setting up of the tabernacle. Leviticus proceeds with the directions for the offerings. Then Leviticus tells how the priests began their ministry, using the terms of the directions already given in Exodus.
Moses first acted as priest to consecrate the tabernacle, the altar, and Aaron and his sons. It is hard to overemphasize the work of Moses, the man of God. As the first priest, Moses is a type of Christ, the Great High Priest. As the greatest of the OT prophets, he was a type of Christ who spoke the word of God (Dt 18:15–19; Jn 7:40). As the great lawgiver, he received God’s revelations face-to-face and was faithful as a servant in all God’s house (Nu 12:7–8). Here too he was but a type and a shadow, far inferior to Christ, who was faithful as a Son over all God’s house (Heb 3:1–6).
A. Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (8:1–36; cf. Ex 29:1–37)
1–13 The service of consecration was carried on according to the Lord’s command and was done in the presence of the congregation. The people had given to the building of the tabernacle, and many had worked on it. Now it and its ministers were ready for the consecration of the priests and the dedication of the house of God.
The steps of the consecration of Aaron and his sons were solemn and meaningful. Aaron first was washed and clothed anew with the holy garments. He wore the ephod, the breastplate with its twelve-jeweled symbols of the tribes, the Urim and Thummim, and the priest’s turban with the golden plate and its inscription “HOLY TO THE LORD” (Ex 28:36; 39:30). Then he, his sons, the altar, and its accouterments were anointed with oil. This was a special perfumed oil described in Ex 30:23–25. Psalm 133 says the oil ran down to the skirts of Aaron’s garments.
It is generally agreed that the anointing oil typifies the Holy Spirit. When kings were anointed, the Holy Spirit came on them (1Sa 10:1–6; 16:13). The word “messiah” comes from the Hebrew word for “anoint” (GK 5417), and the work of Christ began with such an anointing of the Holy Spirit. There is no statement in the OT as to why oil typified the Holy Spirit. Oil was widely used in lamps. As the lamp burned, the oil seemed to vanish into the air. Such a connection of oil and air possibly may have made the typology natural in the Hebrew culture. The Hebrew word ruah (GK 8120) means either “spirit” or “wind, air, breath.” The seven-branched lampstand, perpetually fed with oil, is called a symbol of the Spirit in the OT (Zec 4:2–6).
14–30 After being anointed, Aaron and his sons offered first for themselves (Heb 7:27) and then for the consecration of the altar. Then came a burnt offering of worship and consecration. Next they offered a ram of “ordination.” This is an unusual term, used idiomatically in the sense of “filling the hand” of a priest, i.e., installing him in his office or ordaining him (cf. v.33).
The ram was sacrificed as a fellowship offering with special application of the blood to the priests’ right ears, right thumbs, and right great toes. This doubtless symbolized their new total obedience and service.
31–36 The ram of ordination was then eaten at the door of the tabernacle in a new communion with God. So for seven days Aaron and his sons stayed at the tabernacle in contrition, worship, consecration, and fellowship. The whole OT ritual is given without any prescribed prayers except the Aaronic benediction of Nu 6:24–26.
B. Divine Acceptance of the First Worship (9:1–24)
1–4 After one week of ordination service, Aaron and his sons had fulfilled the complete ritual of consecration and were then ready to begin their priestly service. This chapter tells of a sin offering, burnt offerings, fellowship offerings, and a grain offering for the priests and the people.
5–6 It seems at first sight that this promised manifestation (which occurred at v.23) was a second one, different from that recorded in Ex 40:34. However, it is difficult to see why, if God had already accepted the tabernacle then, the priests would here have to consecrate it again with offerings and anointings. It is perhaps best to see the event mentioned here as the same one as the event recorded in Ex 40.
7–14 These verses give the details of Aaron’s offering for himself the sacrifices of v.2. As mentioned in 8:15, the blood of the sin offering of the priest was put on the horns of the golden incense altar in the Holy Place; the rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the large bronze altar of burnt offering.
15–21 The details of Aaron’s sacrifice of the offering of the people mentioned in vv.3–4 are given here. Notice that in v.21 Aaron presented the wave breast and the right thigh to the Lord but then took them for food for himself and his sons. The people’s sin offering, however, being a sin offering for the congregation, was burned outside the camp (4:13–21).
22–24 After the offerings had been duly made, Aaron lifted up his hands in benediction and blessed the people. He probably spoke the prescribed benediction of Nu 6:24–26. The material in this section need not be strictly chronological. The symbolic presence of God was evidenced by the reality of his glory (see comment on vv.5–6). There had been fire on the altar during the week of the priests’ consecration. But miraculous fire came from the Lord to consume the offerings and to show the divine acceptance. That this was miraculous fire could easily be distinguished by its suddenness, intensity, etc. It emphasized the fact that when the sacrifices were burned year after year, God himself accepted them and blessed the people accordingly. The fire was sacred and was not to be allowed to go out.
The immediate response of the people—“they shouted for joy and fell facedown”—was gladness at God’s acceptance. Mingled therewith, however, was awe at the presence of the supernatural manifestation of the holy Lord who had promised to live with them, to be their God, and to take them for his people.
C. Nadab and Abihu’s Profanation (10:1–7)
1–7 Unfortunately humans are feeble and frail, and no amount of oil on the outside will change the heart. Two of Aaron’s own sons, Nadab and Abihu, profaned the sanctuary with strange fire and died before the Lord. Judgment was harsh (cf. Ac 5:1–11). Aaron and the congregation needed to know that God was real and that the priests were not playing at religion.
D. Explicit Instructions for the Priests (10:8–20)
8–11 Apparently Nadab and Abihu profaned the Lord’s house because they were drunk. At least a prohibition of fermented drink while serving in the Lord’s house was immediately given. From here on the priest entering the tabernacle was to drink no alcohol.
12–20 It appears that Nadab and Abihu were the elder sons of Aaron. When Moses was on the mountain, God invited Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders to come partway to meet the Lord (Ex 24:1–2). Possibly Eleazer and Ithamar were under the age of thirty (cf. Nu 4:3, 23, 30). As Aaron, however, was about eighty at this point and had been married about forty years, his youngest sons may indeed have been over thirty. The text does not say whether all four sons were consecrated at the same time.
After the death of Aaron’s older sons, Moses found that Aaron and his two remaining sons had not eaten the meat of the sin offering as was normal. But Aaron replied that though he was forbidden to mourn, he could not eat in good conscience that day. With that Moses was content; for Aaron had acted, not in negligence or mechanically, but in responsible sincerity. The heart attitude is more important than the mechanics of all the sacrifices (1Sa 15:22; 2Ch 30:19).
“The goat of the sin offering” was not the people’s sin offering mentioned in 9:15. When such an offering was made with a male goat, the blood was sprinkled in the Holy Place, and the meat was not to be eaten by the priests (4:13–21). In the present instance there had been further offerings. Individuals had apparently also brought sin offerings whose blood was not sprinkled in the Holy Place and whose flesh could be eaten by the priest. Aaron, however, had directed the flesh of this sin offering also to be burned outside the camp, as was prescribed for a young bull whose blood had been sprinkled in the Holy Place.
IV. Laws of Cleanness (11:1–15:33)
The Levitical laws of cleanness symbolized spiritual cleansing and set Israel apart from the surrounding nations. The spiritual and the hygienic reasons for the laws are remarkably valuable in the area of public health. In general they protected Israel from bad diet, dangerous vermin, and communicable diseases. Only recently have better laws of health been possible with the advance of medicine. These were rule-of-thumb laws that God gave in his wisdom to a people who could not know the reason for the provision.
First, the laws protected Israel’s diet. Some of the food forbidden was good some of the time, but not unless it was properly prepared. Pigs spread trichinosis; rabbits spread tularemia. The fish classified as clean are normally free-swimming, whereas scaleless and finless fish are usually bottom feeders and therefore susceptible to a great many more parasites. Cows, goats, and sheep are safe to eat under all ordinary circumstances and are economical to raise. The horse and camel were too uneconomical to use for meat.
The Hebrews were not only to avoid eating unclean animals; they were not to touch their dead carcasses. Thus the laws automatically helped control vermin. Common unclean animals would be spiders, flies, bugs, rats, and mice. A dead rat in a Hebrew house was not overlooked. It was carefully taken out and buried. In an effort to avoid such problems, the Hebrew housewife would normally keep a clean house.
The word “leprosy” used in older translations of chs. 13–14 is now generally recognized to include several “skin diseases” (GK 7669) showing a rash, such as measles, smallpox, and scarlet fever. For any such disease there was a quarantine period with weekly examination until the patient was well. Likewise, the laws on sexual uncleanness protected Israel from venereal diseases and from childbed fever.
A. Clean and Unclean Food (11:1–47) (cf. Dt 14:4–21)
1–8 Deuteronomy 14:6–19 is almost a verbatim copy of Lev 11:3–20. The difference between clean and unclean food is clearly as old as the time of Noah. It was to some extent tied in with sacrifice, for parts of some of the sacrifices were eaten. Noah’s purpose in taking extra pairs of the clean animals aboard the ark was to have meat available for his family. There is no reference to clean and unclean items in the history between Noah and Moses, though Job, whose date is uncertain, does frequently mention the difference. Abrahamic sacrifices were of clean animals as far as they are specified (Ge 15:9). The need for extensive laws on these matters concerning public health would only arise when Israel became a nation under Moses.
The phrase “a split hoof completely divided” is obscure. The precise meaning of the terminology is not sure.
The clean animals are further limited to those that “chew the cud.” The ruminants are peculiar in that they can exist on a rough diet. Cows, sheep, goats, and camels actually digest cellulose such as found in straw, leaves, twigs, bushes, etc. Horses and pigs require more nourishing food. Deuteronomy 14:4–5 names nine animals that are clean, including the wild deer and the antelope.
Contrary to general opinion, the use of the camel was not characteristic of ancient Israel. Camels are mentioned twenty-four times in connection with the patriarchs who traveled widely along the caravan routes. The rest of the Pentateuch mentions them only three times. From Moses to the Exile, the use of camels by the Israelites is only mentioned twice. They were more a desert animal; apparently the life of Israel did not nearly so much revolve around the camel as does life for the Arab today.
Neither the “coney” (GK 9176; see NIV note, “hyrax or rock badger”) nor the “rabbit” is a ruminant. The coney is a vegetarian and an ungulate (i.e., has hoofs). Though small like a rabbit, it is related to the elephant. Both the coney and the rabbit wiggle their noses in a chewing action that resembles the chewing of a cud. The description is not scientifically precise but one of external appearances. Outlawing the rabbit protected the nation from tularemia.
9–12 Fish with fins and scales are free swimming and generally free of parasites. Scaleless fish are more likely carriers of parasites since they are scavengers and mud-bottom dwellers. Clams in current times have carried hepatitis—though this may be due to modern pollution problems. Crabs are scavengers, and some of their meat is said not to be good. Snail fever from infested waters has been a curse in Egypt.
13–19 There was no easy rule of thumb for clean birds. A negative list is given that in cases is difficult to translate with certainty. The different modern versions vary in detail. In general carrion-eating and fish-eating birds were forbidden, just as they are not used for food today. Chickens are not mentioned in the OT. The eating of bird eggs and the mother bird together is forbidden in Dt 22:6, apparently for conservation reasons. If the eggs are taken, the mother bird will lay more; but if the mother bird is taken, there will be no more eggs! Doves, their eggs, and their young were eaten.
20–23 “Flying insects that walk on all fours” include such pests as cockroaches, flies, or even mosquitoes. Verses 21–22 allow the locust/grasshopper family as food. The distinction is that they have strong hind legs for springing. Evidently in the category of insects, the hind pair of legs was not counted; so these insects are described as creeping on all fours.
The “locust” (GK 746) is not the cicada or the seventeen-year locust but a large grass-hopper-type of insect. These locusts could be great pests in antiquity. A plague of them could eat every green thing in a field in a very short time. Travelers in the Near East tell of having seen the sun obscured by clouds of locusts. When they are present in more normal numbers, they are used as food to this day. Only the muscular portion is used and when fried is said to be a delicacy. John the Baptist ate locusts and wild honey. No one in the OT is mentioned as eating locusts, but this silence does not prove that they were not eaten.
24–43 The words for “weasel,” “great lizard,” “gecko,” “monitor lizard,” “wall lizard,” and “skink” occur only in these verses in Leviticus. It is impossible to be sure of their identification. Some of these names of animals have parallels in later Arabic or Aramaic literature. Fortunately the details are not important.
The basic meaning of the word “moves about” is to multiply. The little animals like mice, lizards, etc., multiply rapidly if they are not controlled. The word is used again in vv.41–42 to refer to snakes, lizards, centipedes, etc. The word also is used in Ge 1:21 to refer to animals that multiply in the water and in Ge 9:7 in the command to people after the Flood to multiply and fill the earth. The small animals mentioned here are thus rapid movers and reproducers.
The laws of cleanness apply as much to touching the carcasses of vermin as to eating them. Even a part of the carcass of an unclean animal was defiled. This was not true of the carcass of a clean animal killed for food. Dead vermin were a problem in the Hebrew house. Dead bugs in an earthen pot meant the pot was to be broken. Food contaminated by dead bugs or mice was to be thrown out. A carcass on dry seed was all right but on damp seed was contaminating. Even the carcass of a clean animal that had died a natural death (i.e., by a disease) was unclean. Such laws resulted in prompt burial of carrion and certainly promoted public health.
44–47 The phrase “be holy [GK 7705], because I am holy” is interesting because it is like the words of 19:2, which are said to be characteristic of the Holiness Code (chs. 17–26). Actually, the words are characteristic of the laws of holy conduct wherever found. The use of the phrase here unifies stylistically the laws of cleanness and the laws of holiness.
B. Purification After Childbirth (12:1–8)
1–8 Fuller details with regard to sexual impurity are given in ch. 15. Childbirth, like menstruation, rendered the mother unclean. The period was seven days for a boy, twice that for a girl. There may be more reasons than one for such a law. First, it would put the mother in sufficient isolation to assist in bringing her back to normal health. Being unclean she could not do the cooking or keep the house. Also, it is possible that such a provision would help prevent the spread of childbed fever, which in former days took many lives. If the mother was unclean, presumably any midwife would have to wash in water and be unclean until the evening, which would prevent the direct transmission of this disease.
Circumcision was instituted by God in Abraham’s family and distinguished his descendants from all others. Although some ancient peoples practiced circumcision as a puberty rite, infant circumcision appears to have been peculiar to Israel. It had one extra virtue by precluding any licentious puberty circumcision rites that other nations may have observed. The spiritual import of circumcision is clear from Dt 10:16; Jer 4:4; and Ro 2:29.
There was an additional period of semiisolation during which a newly delivered mother could not yet make the journey to the sanctuary for her offering. Travel in ancient days was more strenuous than now. It would be a physical blessing for a mother to wait for about a month. Breast-feeding was then a must as now it still is a desideratum. It was a natural and wise provision for a mother to have time at home with her baby until the child was stronger and her milk established.
It is not at all clear why the time of uncleanness and seclusion is doubled for a female child. There may be the symbolism of the uncleanness that the daughter would eventually suffer in her turn. Or it may be that circumcising the male child at the end of one week was considered symbolically to reduce the attendant uncleanness. There is no statement that the baby is ceremonially unclean. That the child is also a sinner is plain in the OT (cf. Ps 58:3)—else why the ritual of circumcision that is said to be symbolic of circumcision of the heart?
There may have been good reasons in that culture why the journey to the temple was delayed for a baby girl. Girls are usually smaller at birth. More girls are born than boys, but even now the mortality rate is greater for girls so that the sexes are soon numerically even. To allow a longer time to let a baby girl grow and get established would be a good thing! There may also have been cultural influences. In many countries girls are less desired than boys. Thoughtless husbands might have taken better care of baby boys and their mothers; so a longer time at home might have been a positive help for a mother with a baby girl. No difference is made in the temple ritual between the birth of a boy or a girl. The only difference is in the periods of uncleanness and seclusion.
The prescribed offering for the new mother was a burnt offering and a sin offering that was normal for a woman with any unnatural discharge (15:30). The OT does not state that conception and birth are sinful; but all who conceive and bear are sinners, and the end of all such uncleanness was accomplished by ritual laws of cleansing. The laws were for public health, but there was also the religious sanction. Doubtless the physical uncleanness was typical of spiritual uncleanness as well.
C. Cleanness and Skin Diseases (13:1–46)
Clearly chs. 13–14 are not limited to what is now termed leprosy or Hansen’s disease. The Hebrew word translated “skin diseases” (GK 7669) is used only in connection with sickness and mildew, and its use elsewhere gives no great light on the identification. The word is used in connection with the miracles of Moses’ hand (Ex 4:6), Miriam’s plague (Nu 12:10), and Naaman’s healing and Gehazi’s plague (2Ki 5:1–27). These all refer to the whiteness of skin and thus would be true leprosy. Uzziah’s curse, being a continuing disease (2Ki 15:5; 2Ch 26:21), also could be true leprosy. The other references are general and do not add to the picture (22:4; Nu 5:2; Dt 24:8; 2Sa 3:29).
The symptoms listed in ch. 13 are more applicable to the communicable diseases characterized by skin rash, such as measles, smallpox, scarlet fever, etc. Hansen’s disease does not change the hair color but causes loss of hair. It makes no pocks in the skin. The different symptoms listed in the chapter are hard to follow in detail; but the main consideration is whether the sore is virulent, spreading, and deeper than the skin. Such a disease would be watched for seven days and if necessary seven days more. By that time, if the disease were serious, the person would likely be either well or dead. Hansen’s disease is slow in onset and does not improve in seven days. Of course, the references to the disease affecting a garment or a house (vv.47–49; 14:33–53) cannot apply to Hansen’s disease.
No medication is prescribed because in those days there was nothing appropriate. The only weapon the people had to prevent the spread of disease was quarantine, and this was applied as sensibly as it could be in those times. No other ancient law code has these quarantine prescriptions or even approaches the questions of public health.
Some damage may have been done by the translation “leprosy.” Some of the diseases here referred to are highly communicable. Leprosy is not easily communicable; but partly because of these biblical references, people with leprosy, even in modern days, have been more isolated than necessary. It is true that leprosy is more communicable among children. With modern treatment, however, it can be controlled without the strict quarantine that was usually added to the pitiable state of the victims. Such unfortunate hardships were perhaps overbalanced by the beneficial results of an ancient quarantine for measles, smallpox, scarlet fever, and other such communicable diseases.
1–11 That the victim “must be brought” indicates that he would be too sick to walk. Leprosy in its incipient stages does not incapacitate a person. No details are given about the type of “isolation” required. The sick person was probably not confined at home, and no quarters were available around the tabernacle. His family would probably avoid him. He would stay outside the camp (see v.46). The implication is that a “rash” was a temporary thing. At least there was no serious disease. He was to wash and be clean. True leprosy does not change enough in fourteen days to be recognized by such an examination. Some other affliction is intended.
The details of these symptoms and the examinations by the priest escape us. It appears that the main questions were, Is the sore more than skin deep? Is there raw flesh? Is the infection spreading? A temporary disease meant quarantine; a chronic disease meant segregation; an abated disease meant cure—the individual was clean.
12–17 Any disease that would leave the whole body white after a couple of weeks would not be serious. Apparently it means that the rash had gone, leaving the skin white. Perhaps the whiteness would refer to new skin, not as sun-bronzed as usual. However, if raw flesh appeared, the person was unclean.
18–23 The word “boil” (GK 8825) is used of Job’s affliction, and boils were one of the ten plagues of Egypt. The similar Arabic word refers to inflammation. That the person is pronounced “unclean” means that the boil has not healed. The test is, Is the infection more than skin deep? Again, leprosy is too specific for the disease.
24–28 The case of a “burn” (GK 4805) is more clear. This sore is caused by fire. Burns are not contagious, but they can become infected; in that case, for his own good as well as for others, the infected person would be quarantined. Again the key questions are, Is it deep? Is the hair dead? Is it spreading?
29–37 The “itch” (GK 5999) is possibly a scab that is complicated by the hair of the head or the beard. The patient is to shave the hair around the sore and watch it. Such open sores were not allowed to fester without care. And the person with the sore was not to spread the infection.
38–46 The dull white spot, it must be remembered, is against the background of the darker skin of the tanned Jew of Palestine. The spots are not active, raw, or deep. They are a “harmless rash,” possibly a scar. From the context, at least, it was harmless.
The word for “unkempt” (GK 7277) is difficult and may derive from a word referring to long hair such as a Nazirite had (Nu 6:5) or from a word meaning “a bit loose,” “untied” (a turban). In 21:10 the priest was forbidden thus to take off his turban (or let his hair grow long) as a sign of mourning. The unclean man was to do what a priest was forbidden to do.
The quarantined person in Israel was not quarantined in his house; that would endanger the family. He was to warn others of his illness by dress and action and was to stay outside the camp. He probably got little care except from a mother who was willing to share his uncleanness. Till relatively recent years many a country town had a pest house where victims of communicable diseases were put. The author’s grandfather once nursed a relative in such a pest house. Mortality was high; but it would also have been high at home, and the well people were preserved. It is hard for modern people to imagine the severity of ancient epidemics. The black death (bubonic plague) killed a quarter of Europe’s people in about 1350. Whole villages would move away from those stricken with the disease. Quarantine was the only available relief. The OT specified such quarantine already in the days of Moses.
D. Mildew (13:47–59)
47–59 Obviously leprosy is not in view here but some kind of rot, fungus, or “mildew” (GK 7669; cf. 14:33–53). Palestine has a winter rainy season that could generate mildew. One unfortunate result of this presence of mildew is that we have few remnants of the writings of ancient Israel. If the Israelites had written on clay tablets, we might have had an abundance of preserved writings; but except for those found in the dry, hot Jordan valley, the leather and papyrus copies have perished through the rot mentioned here.
Leather was used for clothing, as these verses point out (cf. Heb 11:37); but leather clothing is not often referred to in the OT, being, perhaps, the clothing of the poor. It would seem to be durable but hot and uncomfortable. As v.48 shows, leather was also used for other objects: belts (2Ki 1:8), skins for liquids (Jos 9:4), etc. Leather was cheap and versatile but subject to decay. Linen and woolen objects likewise would mildew if stored in a damp place. Such mildew could be irritating to the lungs and certainly would be damaging to the articles. The law that declared such objects unclean was good for both hygiene and economics.
The ancient housewife could not spray the item with a disinfectant or bleach. The Lord did not instruct Moses in the biology of fungi. He did prescribe, however, practical public health measures to be administered under the priest-physician. The article was to be shown to the priest who isolated it for seven days; then if the fungus had not spread, the article was to be washed and watched for another week. If the fungus was gone, the garment was safe to wear; if not, the spot was to be cut out or the whole article was to be burned up. If the mildew was caused by storage in a damp place, the transfer to the priests’ quarters would probably fix an ordinary problem. Probably a housewife would go over stored clothes rather often to prevent such trouble and loss. If the garments were frequently inspected and aired, that alone would be a good thing. The principle of quarantine was a practical means to control mildew in clothes or houses as well as to control sickness.
To wash the item was a logical treatment. If washing did not fix the trouble, nothing more could be done—better to burn it and keep any problem from spreading. Much was left to the priests’ judgment. If washing helped, cutting out the spot would cure. Then watch it again, wash it again, and the garment was safe to wear.
Verse 59 summarizes the matter of mildew only. Similar summaries for other regulations appear in 11:46–47; 14:57; and 15:32.
E. Cleansing From Skin Diseases (14:1–32)
1–7 The priests were the public health officers, but they served in their priestly capacity. Israel was a holy nation, and even her cleansing from sickness was done with religious ceremony. Sickness was symbolic of sin, and even now it should not be forgotten that sickness and death are part of God’s curse on the sin of Adam and the human race. Therefore, cleansing the diseased person required sacrifices (cf. Lk 5:12–15).
It is difficult to see in detail the symbolism of the two live birds. The ritual of cleansing a house in vv.49–53 is so similar to the cleansing of a diseased person that the latter passage may be used to explain the former. Verse 52 makes it quite explicit that the fresh water was mingled with the small amount of blood of the slaughtered bird and used in the cleansing. When the bird was killed over the fresh water, its blood dripped into the water. The wording of vv.51 and 53 is so similar to that of vv.6–7 that we may use v.52 to interpret the action of the earlier verses to include the fresh water also in the sprinkling. The live bird was identified with the blood of the dead bird so that both penalty for and removal of sin are symbolized (cf. 16:21–28). The scarlet yarn, hyssop, and cedar wood were presumably used in the sprinkling. Hyssop is a plant that can be used like a paint brush, and the wood may have served as a handle around which to wrap the yarn.
8–20 The rather unusual practice of shaving was a real help in cleansing the body and showing up any remaining scabs. After seven days of semiisolation and a final bath, the man was clean and must offer his sacrifice. The order of the offerings was first a guilt offering, then a sin offering, then the burnt offering. The grain offering was three-tenths of an ephah, indicating that one-tenth should be offered with each sacrifice. The same extremities are touched with blood and oil that were consecrated with blood at a priest’s ordination (Ex 29:20). The ear, thumb, and great toe stand for the whole person who is cleansed and anointed with the “log of oil”—a little over one cup of olive oil.
21–32 As usual in the case of a necessary offering, there is provision for the poor, but the principles of the offering are maintained. Verses 24–31 are almost a duplicate of the regulations of vv.12–18 with the changes of the two doves instead of two lambs. This illustrates the usual Hebrew style that loves duplication.
F. Cleansing Houses From Mildew (14:33–57)
33–57 As remarked above, the word used to describe infection in houses as well as infection of skin proves that its meaning is not restricted to leprosy. “Mildew” surely is preferable. Verse 34 shows that the Israelites had the expectation of being in Canaan within the year. This law of mildew in a house was obviously not for the desert journey. It is equally obvious, however, that God did not expect Israel to live forever in tents.
In dealing with this problem, the house was first to be emptied because it was suspect and may be pronounced unclean. For all the contents to be pronounced unclean unnecessarily would be quite a loss. As would be expected, the symptoms of “greenish or reddish depressions” are not very clear. The words for the colors are used elsewhere, but the word “depressions” is used only here. It may mean “hollow,” “crack,” “spot,” etc. The main thing is that it is not a surface stain.
The procedure for dealing with the mildew in the house is again isolation (v.38). If the house is emptied of its contents and the mildew continues or spreads, the affected stones must be removed and the area scraped and replastered. If the mildew persists, the house must be condemned. If the mildew is cured, the house is clean. We see once more a useful procedure for public health. A house with such mildew conditions would normally not be a healthy place to live because of dampness, allergens, etc.
The procedure for purifying the house is similar to that of cleansing persons (vv.2–7). This time it is clear that fresh water was used in the cleansing, mixed with the blood that had dripped into it. The symbolism of blood atonement and removal of defilement is maintained, but no further guilt, sin, or burnt offering was required. The problem of the house’s mildew was impersonal.
G. Uncleanness From Emissions (15:1–33)
Various matters are taken up in this chapter: defilement from normal sexual activity, abnormal sexual discharge, and, probably, diarrhea (cf. Dt 23:9–14).
1–3 The words “any man” may indicate that the first section applies to both men and women. The question involves the nature of the “bodily discharge [GK 2307].” This is not the normal male emission that is specifically mentioned in vv.16–18 and that involves only washing and temporary uncleanness. This discharge, like a woman’s unnatural discharge of blood (vv.25–30), requires a sacrifice. It may therefore be a virulent male discharge such as in the case of gonorrhea. Or it may not be a sexual discharge at all. Diarrhea is common still in the Near East and is sometimes a symptom of many serious diseases. It is perhaps safest to say that this section is all-inclusive, and both diarrhea and any unnatural male discharge are covered.
4–12 The regulations covering the uncleanness of a person in this case are very stringent. Anything he touches is unclean, and anyone who touches anything he touches is unclean. These prohibitions better fit diarrhea. For instance, the scourge of cholera is very serious. It involves diarrhea and is very contagious. Venereal diseases, on the other hand, are almost always transmitted by sexual contact rather than by infected items.
13–15 Examination by the priest was not required because there were no external symptoms such as 13:1–44 mentions. A waiting period of seven days, however, was required in this case also, then a bath, and then offerings. The offerings specified are only the sin offering and burnt offering, and only doves or pigeons are required, not lambs. After all, diarrhea may sometimes be a serious symptom, but it may also be common and not at all serious.
16–18 Normal sexual activity resulted in temporary uncleanness requiring washing, but no guilt was attached and no offering was required. The Bible says a good bit about sex. It heavily condemns extramarital and perverted sex. Marriage, however, is plainly said to be honorable (Heb 13:4). A Christian perhaps may not speak much of sex, not because it is shameful, but because it is intimate, wonderful, and holy.
19–24 Notice the emphasis on washing, which is good hygiene. No offering is prescribed for cleansing after a woman’s regular period. The natural result of the stipulation in v.24 is to protect a woman with cramps and some weakness from the unwelcome advances of an unfeeling husband. The penalty is not severe; the situation is probably different from 20:18, which should be compared.
25–33 The ancient law distinguishes between normal flow and abnormalities causing a discharge, possibly because of disease. The net effect of the quarantine imposed would be to prevent contagion and to give the woman a real rest from housework, marital relations, and family care. A person perpetually unclean could hardly prepare the food and do the housework.
The offering prescribed for a woman’s sickness was exactly the same as that for the “discharge” of a man or the diarrhea of either sex (cf. vv.13–15, 28–30).
V. The Annual Sin Offering of the Day of Atonement (16:1–34) (cf. 23:27–32; Nu 29:7–11)
The Day of Atonement is not mentioned in Ex 23:14–17 and 34:18–23. Nor does it appear in Dt 16:1–16. These places mention only the three so-called pilgrimage festivals when the males of all Israel were to assemble before the tabernacle. The Day of Atonement was not such a pilgrimage festival. The ordinary Israelite remained at home, and the priests carried out the ritual. It was the only day of fasting enjoined on Israel and was to be a special Sabbath of rest and solemnity. It was a time of special contrition, special sin offerings, and atonement. It is kept to this day by the Jews and is called Yom Kippur (“Day of Atonement”). The biblical term is plural, “Day of Atonements.”
This day had a special symbolism. Two goats were taken to bear the people’s sins. One was killed as a sin offering; the other was sent off into the desert to bear away the sins of the people. The two goats thus symbolized both propitiation for sins by death and complete removal of the sins for which atonement was made. Clearly the Day of Atonement was to symbolize for Israel every year the substitutionary atonement God provided for their sins and the total removal of their guilt.
1–10 The mention of the death of the two sons of Aaron shows that chronologically this law of the Day of Atonement was not given until near the end of the stay at Sinai, which is one good reason why it is not found in Exodus. The occasion of the institution was the necessity to protect the priests in their ministry. It appears probable that Nadab and Abihu had entered the Most Holy Place. This privilege and duty were now limited to the high priest who “entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance” (Heb 9:7). Christ, as Hebrews emphasizes, has entered heaven itself once for all with his own blood, “having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).
The “Most Holy Place” (GK 7731) behind the curtain was the inner shrine where the ark was kept. The golden lid of the sacred chest, the “atonement cover” (GK 4114; called the “mercy seat” in KJV), is better translated “the atonement place.” The emphasis is on the atonement rather than on the mercy lying behind the atonement. In the symbolism of the tabernacle, this inner shrine was the dwelling of God; and the place above the ark was the place where he would meet with humans. But the holiness of God was so awesome that for sinners to approach him carelessly and without an atoning sacrifice could be fatal—as it was for Nadab and Abihu (cf. Jn 14:6).
A young bull was the sin offering specified for a priest (4:3). This was to be followed by a burnt offering. These offerings were for Aaron himself, that he might be cleansed and consecrated afresh before acting as priest for the people. Hebrews 7:27 declares that Christ had no need of this first cleansing sacrifice. Christ is the perfect Priest. Aaron was but a human type.
What is the “scapegoat” (GK 6439)? In later Jewish theology the Book of Enoch uses the word as a name for one of the fallen angels, Azazel. Enoch’s extensive demonology is demonstrably late (c. 200 B.C.). It often uses late Aramaic forms for names of the demons, which suggests that they were of postbiblical invention. Enoch is dependent on Lev 16 rather than vice versa and is no guide to the interpretation of Leviticus.
A much simpler view goes back to the LXX of 200 B.C. The first part of “Azazel” can mean “goat” and the last part is from a verb that means “go away.” Compound nouns like this are rare in ancient Hebrew, but new evidence for them is turning up in Ugaritic. It is simply the designation of the goat to be taken away, the escape goat. In Nu 29:11 the escape goat is called “the sin offering for atonement.”
11–14 The formula for the “fragrant incense” is given in Ex 30:34–38. It was not to be used for private perfume, for it was holy. This incense was not burned on the altar of incense in the Holy Place but in the censer that Aaron was to carry into the Most Holy Place. The smoke of the incense in the dark shrine would add to the awesomeness of Aaron’s work in the annual blanket atonement for Israel’s sins.
The “Testimony” (GK 6343) was the tablets of the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16; 31:18); thus the tent is called the tabernacle of the Testimony. The phrase “ark of the Testimony” is used eleven times in Exodus, twice in Numbers, and once in Joshua. The more usual name is the “ark of the covenant,” used twice in Numbers, four times in Deuteronomy, and often in the later histories, Joshua-2 Chronicles. It is clear that the tablets of the law are also called the “testimony” and the “covenant,” and this is the reason for the phrase “ark of the covenant” (2Ch 6:11). Studies of ancient treaties draw attention to the nature of the Ten Commandments as sharing parts of the treaty form of early times.
In this most solemn act of worship in the inner shrine, the blood sprinkled before God symbolizes the substitutionary atonement. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb 9:22).
15–19 The same ritual is now repeated by Aaron for the people. The newly cleansed priest representatively bears the nation before God for atonement. The shrine, the whole tent, and the bronze altar must be cleansed by the sin offering because these things dwell among an unclean people. It is clear that the ritual cleansing of the tabernacle furniture was not due to its physical uncleanness. Rather, it stemmed from the Israelites whose sin and rebellion defiled the tabernacle when they worshiped.
20–28 Attention has already been called to thepart of the ritual for sacrifice wherein the symbolism of transfer of sins is prominent (cf. 1:4 et al.). In this special case the symbolism is quite clear. The priest confesses Israel’s sins over the goat, putting them on the goat, who then bears them away. Of course, this was only symbolic. The NT antitype is our union with Christ (Ro 6:5), in virtue of which “he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1Pe 2:24). The divine order set forth here is, first, sins must be dealt with; then comes worship and consecration. Aaron’s own burnt offering was delayed until the sin offerings were all completed; then both Aaron’s and the people’s burnt offerings were acceptable. The sin offering for a priest and the sin offering for the nation were to have the carcasses burned outside the camp (cf. 4:12, 21). Hebrews 13:11–12 applies this principle to the death of Christ, who suffered outside the gate as a sin offering.
29–34 A series of holy days clusters in the fall in the Jewish calendar. The phrase “deny yourselves” (GK 6700) probably signifies fasting (NIV note). It is used in conjunction with fasting in Ps 35:13 and in parallel with fasting in Isa 58:3 (where in both instances it is referred to as humbling). But as the context in Isa 58 shows, God’s injunction was not for mere external fasting but for fasting as an accompaniment of true repentance and new obedience. The title “high priest” is not common in the OT, but this verse shows that a hereditary succession is in view. The conclusion to the whole chapter does not mention the cleansing of tabernacle furniture but specifies that atonement was thus “made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.”
VI. Laws of Personal Holiness (17:1–22:33)
A. One Place of Sacrifice (17:1–9) (cf. Dt 12:1–27)
1–2 Chapter 17 is a hinge chapter between the public and private regulations. It deals with the requirement for central sacrifice, as does Dt 12:1–27, and it likewise forbids eating blood. These matters concerned the general public.
3–7 Of the several Hebrew words for “kill,” the one used here practically always is used for killing animals for sacrifice, except that it also refers to the slaughter of people. As Dt 12:15 makes plain, people could kill animals at home but not for sacrifice. Animals sacrificed elsewhere would not have God’s blessing, and bloodguilt would be imputed to the offerer. It is unnecessary to hold that butchering was not done at home. The alleged contradiction of Lev 17:3–5 and Dt 12:15 disappears if “sacrifice” is adopted in Lev 17:3–5.
8–9 The prohibition against sacrificing away from the central tabernacle repeats the law of v.3, except that it adds mention of the major kind of sacrifice—the burnt offering. Repetition is not surprising in Hebrew; indeed, it is characteristic. A double prohibition also is given in Dt 12:4–6 and 13–14, which is probably dependent on the earlier command in Leviticus, giving, however, a few extra details—the mention of wild animals as examples of legitimate butchering at home (v.15). Deuteronomy 14:23–26 takes up the further question of converting tithes into money if the central sanctuary is too far away to carry gifts to it.
The expression “must be cut off from his people” (cf. v.4) is not easy to identify. It usually refers to ceremonial offenses (Passover, Ex 12:15, 19; Nu 9:13), being uncircumcised (Ge 17:14), eating of unclean foods, or failing to be cleansed after defilement (Lev 17:4, 9, 10, 14; Nu 19:13, 20, et al.). The times when it may refer to judgment on moral matters are Lev 18:29, where it refers to all the previous matters of incest; Nu 15:30, the unpardonable sin; Ex 31:14, Sabbath desecration; and Lev 20:3, 5–6, idolatry and spiritualism. It is hard to think that all these instances involve capital punishment—though some may. Another view is that they involve excommunication.
B. The Sanctity of Blood (17:10–16)
10–16 Blood, so obviously necessary to life, plays the major role in the sacrificial system and did so from the first sacrifice of Abel. God told Noah that human blood was sacred, for it stands for the life of a human being made in God’s image (Ge 9:4–6). That animal blood was forbidden as food further emphasizes this fact. The additional reason for its sacrificial meaning is given in the present passage (cf. Dt 12:23).
C. Laws Against Incest (18:1–18)
The laws of ch. 18 and much of ch. 20 are not against indecent exposure (as the KJV and NRSV phrase “You shall not uncover the nakedness of” might suggest); rather, they deal with sexual relations, and this chapter forbids incest. Chapter 20 covers much the same ground, giving the penalties for such actions. As mentioned in connection with ch. 17, the ground for these laws is found in the lordship of God (ch. 18) and his holiness (ch. 20). The Lord had brought the Israelites out of Egypt where such practices were common. In their new land they were to avoid these common sins of pagan society.
1–5 A frequent emphasis of critics is that Israel borrowed her religion from her neighbors. Doubtless some faithless Israelites did borrow, but the constant emphasis of the Law and Prophets was for Israel’s faith to be kept unique. Their religion was to be different from the practices of Egypt and Canaan. Its greatest distinction was expressed in the refrain “I am the LORD your God.”
Verse 5—“Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD”—is quoted in Eze 20:11, 13, 21; Ne 9:29; and in Lk 10:28; Ro 10:5; and Gal 3:12. There is some difference of opinion how it should be taken. Ezekiel and Nehemiah use the verse to condemn Israel. God’s people had violated his ordinances and were exiled. Christ told the questioning lawyer to keep the commandments, and he would live. It is sometimes said that Christ here allowed a hypothetical salvation by works. But he then told the parable of the Good Samaritan in order to search out the lawyer’s sin and bring conviction.
Rather than teaching salvation by works, v.5 teaches that the OT believers who trusted God and obeyed him from the heart received life abundant both here and hereafter. It would seem that the things here required to be done include all the laws of God—including keeping the laws of morality and the rituals of atonement and worship in the tabernacle. Observance of these laws in an attitude of faith resulted in spiritual life and power for the godly Israelite. But, as Lev 19:17 and other verses show, the Lord required more than mere external obedience and ritual. The Lord desired a circumcised heart (Dt 30:6). Therefore, it is best to take Lev 18:5 as a command to keep all God’s laws by faith and thus attain a full spiritual life.
6–18 The forbidden degrees of relationship are given here. Some of these provisions seem unnecessary because the marriage is impossible anyway (i.e., with a daughter-in-law, she being already married), but the law would be in point if the person were widowed or divorced.
Two items call for special mention: v.16, marriage with a brother’s wife, and v.18, with a wife’s sister. The problem with v.16 is that it seems to forbid the levirate marriage of Dt 25:5. It is usually supposed that levirate marriage was an old and acknowledged exception (Ge 38:6–11). It was in force only if the widow was childless. Was it also required only if the surviving brother was single (Dt 25:5, if brothers were living together)? As to v.18, at the very least it forbids this special case of polygamy. This does not mean that polygamy in general is approved—only that its excesses are curbed.
The reason for forbidding these relationships is because extensive intermarriage results in tragic abnormalities and also destroys the freedom of the family that should be able to have normal love and intimacy without sexual overtones. In a polygamous society such rules were the more necessary. And incest was common in antiquity under certain circumstances. For three generations just prior to Moses, the kings of Egypt had married their half-sisters to maintain the kingship in the royal family. The laws of incest as given in this chapter are those recognized in civilized society. Marriage with first cousins is not forbidden.
D. Sexual Purity (18:19–30)
19 As argued at 15:24, the restriction of this verse is a general protection for a woman against an inconsiderate husband’s approach. The penalty in 15:24 is a seven-day period of uncleanness. In view of that regulation, it seems that here to “be cut off from their people” (v.29) does not involve death but perhaps excommunication, perhaps divine displeasure.
20 This verse defines adultery as specifically forbidden in the seventh commandment (Ex 20:14; Dt 22:22). Other sexual aberrations are mentioned and various penalties given. Intercourse with a single girl required marriage (Dt 22:28–29). But violation of another man’s wife broke the marriage bond and destroyed the home. People lightly call it “cheating” today, but in God’s sight it is a capital offense.
21 “Sacrificed to Molech” is literally “to cross over, or through, to Molech.” It seems to be an abbreviation of the phrase used elsewhere (2Ki 23:10), “to make one’s child pass through the fire to Molech” (of unwanted or illegitimate children?). On Molech see the comments on 20:1–5.
22 Homosexual acts are clearly denounced as hateful to God. The penalty given at 20:13 is capital punishment. Homosexuality is denounced also in Ro 1:26–27. This sin was well-known in Canaan—witness Sodom (Ge 19:5) and Gibeah (Jdg 19:22)—but it was no less wicked in God’s sight. Clearly “gay churches,” where homosexuality is rampant, can exist only where people have cast off biblical authority.
23 Bestiality is likewise punishable by death (20:15–16; Ex 22:19 [18 MT]; Dt 27:21). This wicked perversion of the holy sexual relationship given for marriage and the home shows how deeply the human race has fallen!
24–30 People forget that God judges nations when iniquity runs rampant. The Canaanites had no covenant relationship with God. Yet for their excess of abominations, God punished them, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. There comes a day when God’s patience runs out. Evil brings its own reward, though not immediately or infallibly in this life. But at last when the cup of iniquity is full, evil brings God’s judgment. This eternal principle of justice applied also to Israel, as she found out in the days of the judges.
E. Miscellaneous Laws (19:1–37)
These laws of varied content show how intimately the moral and ceremonial legislation was mixed in ancient Israel. A number of these laws have parallels elsewhere. It is difficult to classify the laws of this chapter and perhaps unnecessary to try. Ancient law codes do not always follow an arrangement we think of as logical.
1. Parents, Sabbaths, and idols (19:1–4) (cf. Dt 27:15–16)
1–3a Verse 2 was alluded to by Christ (Mt 5:33–35) and quoted in 1Pe 1:16 (cf. Lev 11:44; 20:26). The character of God is behind his commandments. Among the sensual and foolish deities of antiquity, no god could ground all moral duty in his divine character; only the God of Israel could. The word “respect” (v.3a; GK 3707) is frequently used of the fear of God; the principle is the same as the fifth commandment (Ex 20:12) and is stated negatively in the curse ritual at Dt 27:16.
3b The word “Sabbath” (GK 8701) refers to the annual feasts and the sabbatical years as well as the weekly Sabbaths. All parts of the Bible emphasize the Sabbaths. Attempts to explain away the Jewish Sabbath without reference to revelation are unsatisfactory. No other nation of antiquity observed a seven-day week. Efforts are made to derive the Sabbath from Assyrian unlucky days and from the phases of the moon, but the twenty-nine and a half days of the lunar month are not so divisible.
Whether the Sabbath is for Christians to observe has been much debated. Some say the Sabbath law is part of the moral law and must be kept today. But they do not keep the day as the OT believers did, resting at home. And the NT emphasizes the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, as did the early church. Others say that the Sabbath was wholly ceremonial and is done away in Christ. These also seem to neglect some NT data and the witness of the early church.
Most Christians, with varying emphases, agree that the Sabbath day, the various feasts called Sabbaths, and the sabbatical years were part of Israel’s ceremonial worship. However, these days were based on eternal principles of rest. The spiritual significance of the OT law is kept in the NT by its setting apart of the Lord’s Day. The ceremonial part of the law specifying the seventh day and certain feast days and sabbatical years is done away (cf. Gal 4:10 et al.). It should be noted that the OT ceremonies were not exactly “done away” in Christ. They were fulfilled and their principles continue to be represented in the simpler NT ceremonies.
4 The word “cast” means “poured out” and refers to the process of casting metals—an ancient invention. The proscription of idolatry is pervasive in the OT. This matter also is emphasized in the Ten Commandments and in the curse ritual at Dt 27:15. The basis for the prohibition is given extensively in Dt 4:15–19. God has no form or likeness. To represent the Deity by any material object is to represent the Creator by his creation—and thus to limit him. In the words of Christ, God is spirit (Jn 4:24). Such teaching is unique in antiquity. In all the excavations of Palestine no idol of Israel’s God has ever been found.
2. Fellowship offerings (19:5–8) (cf. Dt 24:19–22; 27:18)
5–8 This is really a rule about eating the fellowship offering. The same thing is said in more detail in 7:15–18 (see comments on those verses). There it requires a thanksgiving fellowship offering to be eaten on the same day and allows other fellowship offerings to be eaten on the second day. That passage is a rubric for priests especially. The reason is clear. Meat quickly spoils without refrigeration. Meat that could not be eaten was to be promptly shared with others or else burned up.
3. Help of the unfortunate (19:9–14)
9–10 These verses are almost identical with 23:22. Chapter 19 has an added phrase referring to vineyards. Deuteronomy 24:19–22 gives the same law in different words. Deuteronomy 23:24–25 adds a further thought that a person may eat his fill in a neighbor’s vineyard or field but must not carry anything away in a vessel. This last law, incidentally, is still followed among the Arabs of Palestine.
11 “Steal . . . lie . . . deceive” are standard ethical prohibitions given in the Ten Commandments and elsewhere. In this particular setting they may have special reference to defrauding the poor. The word “another” (GK 6660) is used only a dozen times—eleven in Leviticus and once in Zec 13:7. It is translated twice in the KJV as “another,” once as “fellow,” and nine times as “neighbor.” It is handled similarly in the NIV, except “countryman” is used at 25:14–15.
12 Verse 12 probably sheds light on the third commandment, though the wording there is slightly different. To take the name of God in vain (KJV) is not merely to use it as a curse word but to invoke the name of God to support an oath that is not going to be kept. A false oath profanes the name of God as does idolatry (20:3) or violation of God’s commands for worship (22:32).
13 Evidently hired servants, at least the poor, were paid daily (cf. Mt 20:1–8). To keep their wages until later would work a hardship. Deuteronomy 24:15 gives the explanation that the laborer is poor and needs his pay daily.
14 To curse the deaf might have been fine sport, for they could not hear the cursing! But God would hear, and he is the Protector of the unfortunate. Likewise, such a callous attitude toward the blind—and there was much blindness in antiquity—comes under God’s condemnation. Again there is a parallel to the curse ritual of Dt 27:18.
4. Fairness and neighborly love (19:15–18)
15 Justice is not justice unless the scales of the balance swing even. King Jehoshaphat’s instruction for his judges rather closely parallels this verse (see 2Ch 19:7). Deuteronomy 27:19 also treats this subject, recognizing, however, that it is usually the “alien, the fatherless or the widow” who gets the small end of justice. Nonetheless, partiality for the poor is also not justice.
16 The word for “slander” (GK 8215) is used also in Pr 11:13 and 20:19, where it is translated “gossip.” The translation “slander” is preferable in each case (cf. Jer 6:28; 9:4; Eze 22:9, where slander and murder are again connected).
17 This significant verse shows that the OT law did not concern itself only with outward obedience. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was not giving a new spiritual meaning to the law, as is often supposed, for it already had the spiritual meaning in the OT. He was protesting against the Pharisaic interpretation of the law that limited it to externals.
18 Verse 18 is quoted often in the NT (Mt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27; Ro 13:9; Gal 5:14). From the passage in Luke, it seems that Jesus was not the first or only one to couple this verse with Dt 6:5 as the greatest commandments. The error of the lawyer who tempted Jesus was not that he did not know the law but that he did not apply it to himself. The law is plain and gives a noble teaching. As Paul says, it sums up the commandments of our duty to our fellow human beings. The same law is given requiring love for aliens in v.34.
The great parable on this verse is the story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30–37). Its usual interpretation is that to love your neighbor is to help the unfortunate as the Good Samaritan did. Another view notes that the Good Samaritan is the hero of the story. Jesus asked who had become neighbor to the wounded man. The obvious answer is, the Samaritan. Then, Jesus implies, “Love the Samaritan.” This the lawyer never did. He did not really keep the law and thus needed God’s grace. This is somewhat more limited than the Levitical law that forbids revenge and anger against any “one of your people.”
5. Forbidden mixtures (19:19) (cf. Dt 22:9–11)
19 The reason for these provisions is not clear but could refer to keeping pure a superior breed of cattle brought from Egypt. The reference to mixed seeds or cloth is difficult to understand without more background. It might be an effort to reduce adulteration of a good product. Mixing wheat and barley would make harvest difficult because of different times of ripening. Or possibly the prohibition is against using good seed mixed with weed seed.
Similar laws are given in Dt 22:9–11. In Deuteronomy the clothing mixtures are specified as wool and linen. Why these should not be mixed is not clear. Flax and wool are spun differently. Whether weaving them together was difficult for people of antiquity we cannot say. Or perhaps different threads in warp and woof would cause difficulties in washing—surely they would shrink differently. They also take dyes differently.
Regarding the prohibitions of mixtures in Dt 22:9–11, the first, about mixed seeds (v.9), is parallel with the second of Leviticus. The third of Deuteronomy, mixed cloth materials (v.11), is parallel with the third of Leviticus. One would expect the second of Deuteronomy (“Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together,” v.10) to be parallel with the first one of Leviticus (“Do not mate different kinds of animals”). The trouble is that Deuteronomy seems to speak of mismatching animals, Leviticus of mismating them.
Is Leviticus, however, so clear? Different kinds of animals just do not mate. The only exception is the horse and donkey, which produce the sterile mule. The mule was not forbidden in Israel. Mules are mentioned seventeen times in the OT, often in a favorable context (e.g., 1Ki 1:44). This law can hardly forbid mules. Either the Leviticus law refers to keeping breeds of cattle pure, or the usual translation is faulty.
“Do not mate different kinds of animals” is the NIV rendering. But the word for “mate” (GK 8061) means “lie down” (cf. Ps 139:3). It is only used elsewhere in Lev 18:23 and 20:16, where it refers to bestial relations. The word is an Aramaic cognate to the common Hebrew word that many times means “to lie down to rest.” Once the word is used for a donkey fallen down under a burden (Ex 23:5). It is never used for copulation.
Possibly the figure in Lev 19:19 is not sexual at all but more naturally would forbid causing different animals to bear a load in such a way that it would be an unequal load under which they would fall. If this interpretation is adopted, the law would fit beautifully its parallel in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the LXX on Lev 19:19 can be read, “You shall not hold down your animals with an unequal yoke.” The word “hold down” is rare and is translated here sexually by some, but its derivatives usually refer to “restraint” in general. We suggest, therefore, something like, “Do not make your animals fall down with an unequal yoke.”
6. Protection of slave girls (19:20–22)
20–22 The expression “due punishment” (GK 1334) is troublesome. The situation could be reconstructed thus: a slave woman is betrothed to a man, i.e., is assigned in advance, but not yet given her freedom (the man presumably was a free man); and then a different man sleeps with her. In such a case normally the penalty was death. But the slave girl was presumed to be not free to resist or not so guarded by a father. So the penalty was not death, but she is not marriageable to the original man. Therefore, the original suitor must be reimbursed; the damages would be a fine (NIV, “due punishment”) paid to the original suitor or slave owner. Then the moral offense would be dealt with by the sacrifice, and presumably the slave girl, after being freed, would be married to the second man.
7. Fallow fruit trees (19:23–25)
23–25 The common fruit trees of Palestine were the olive, fig, and date palm. The details of Israelite horticulture are unknown. Does this verse mean that fruit may be eaten in the fifth year of the tree or in the fifth year of its fruit bearing? Probably the latter. Olives are slow-growing trees. Date palms reach full maturity in thirty years but last for nearly two hundred years. The main idea, probably, is that the first three crops are light and that the firstfruits given to the Lord should be a good crop, such as would be borne in the fourth year.
8. Against heathen practices (19:26–31) (cf. Ex 22:18; Dt 18:9–13)
26 The emphasis and frequent prohibition of blood suggest that in this context eating blood or the flesh with the blood was a common heathen practice. The words for practicing divination and sorcery involved heathen worship. To engage in such practices was a capital offense (cf. Ex 22:18; Dt 18:9–13). In ancient Israel as a theocracy, false religion was not to be tolerated. Those who apostatized were free to leave. But those who were Israelites remained bound to Israel’s religion. On the other hand, the errors of the English and the New England witch trials were multiple. The definition of witchery was wrong, the court procedure—extorting confession by torture—was poor, and, in any case, the state should have been kept separate from the church so that there would not have been civil trials for religious offenses.
27–28 There was nothing morally wrong with cutting the hair or the beard or with tattooing. But these practices then, and also now in some places, were parts of heathen ritual.
29 Probably in the context to degrade a daughter by making her a prostitute means to make her a religious harlot, a devotee of a heathen shrine.
30 The command to “observe my Sabbaths” is identical with 26:2 (see comments on that verse).
31 “Mediums” and “spiritists” were common and very degrading in the surrounding religions (see v.26).
9. Protection for the old, the stranger, and the poor (19:32–37) (cf. Dt 25:13–26)
32–34 Verse 32 seems to be unique in the Pentateuch, though it is implied in the fifth commandment that honor be given to parents. Proverbs 20:29 and 16:31 give similar thoughts. Verse 34 is a complement to v.18. The neighbor is not to be treated differently from the alien. Both are to be loved as ourselves because the Lord God loved Israel when she was a stranger in Egypt and us while we were yet sinners (Ro 5:8).
35–37 There are more ways to steal than by thievery. And the poor are usually the defenseless ones who suffer most. The emphasis on just weights and measures is given again in Dt 25:13–16 and finds an echo in Pr 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23. Without a central bureau of weights and measures, it was all too easy to cheat the poor. Exodus 30:13, 24 et al. show that the priests served to some extent as such a bureau of weights and measures. In Egypt we find examples of a “royal cubit.” There the king established the standard. Genesis 23:16 appeals to common, well-known standards. God here reminds them of his constant presence and concern: “Keep . . . all my laws . . . I am the LORD.”
F. Punishments for Various Sins (20:1–27)
1. Against the Molech cult (20:1–5)
1–5 The giving of children to Molech seems clearly to be human sacrifice and is strictly forbidden. It is mentioned in the OT in 2Ki 23:10; Jer 32:35 (in the days of Josiah and Jeremiah) and in 1Ki 11:7 (which, however, may be Milcom as in v.5 [cf. NIV note]). In the past it was supposed that the name was a false vocalization for melek (“king”; GK 4889), i.e., a divine king-idol, and that the consonants were mixed with the vowels for “shameful thing,” which were written in by a later pious Jewish scribe. The deity Molech was equated with Melkar (“Melech of the city”), a deity of of the city of Tyre. The cult came later into northern Israel in force with Queen Jezebel.
Evidently the sacrifice of children was a dreadful reality among Israel’s neighbors and a danger to Israel herself. A bystander is also guilty if he fails to inform on a neighbor performing this monstrous sacrifice (v.4).
2. Various sexual sins (20:6–21) (cf. Ex 21:17; 22:19; Dt 22:30; 27:20)
6 “Mediums and spiritists” are the same evil pair mentioned in 19:31; 20:27; and elsewhere. Verse 27 implies that the persons are inhabited by these evil spirits (lit., “in whom shall be a medium”). Isaiah 8:19 and the report of the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:3–11) show that these people claimed contact with the dead. Of course, this was common in the heathen religions.
7–8 Following the call to consecration, v.8 nicely associates the ideas of human responsibility—“Keep my decrees”—and divine grace—“I am the LORD, who makes you holy.”
9 This verse is quoted in Mt 15:4 and Mk 7:10. Cursing one’s parents was a capital offense (so also in Ex 21:17; cf. Pr 20:20). Also, striking one’s parents was a capital crime (Ex 21:15); and a “stubborn and rebellious son,” “a profligate and a drunkard,” was to be stoned (Dt 21:18–21). This appears to be severe punishment. What parent would wish to have a son stoned to death for being “stubborn and rebellious”? It is probable that there is more to these verses than meets the eye.
The phrase “stubborn and rebellious” is applied to wayward sons in Dt 21:18. It is applied to Israel’s apostasy from God in Ps 78:8 and Jer 5:23. From this we may surmise that the connotation of the phrases included apostasy and idolatry. As to the duty of parents to accuse such a son, the implication is that parents should not shield even their own children who descend to apostasy and black magic (cf. Dt 13:6–11).
Likewise, cursing father and mother here surely does not refer to the angry response that a child might give in a fit of temper. The word is widely used. It includes blaspheming the name of God (24:11–16). Shimei cursed David in open rebellion (2Sa 16:5–13). Gaal, the son of Ebed, cursed Abimelech Qdg 9:27). Cursing in ancient times sometimes involved a malevolent operation of magic against the person cursed. The modern equivalent is to put a hex on someone. It could thus include an appeal to false religion. Such cursing of parents (or anyone in authority, Ex 22:28), if it were a determined and aggravated offense, was punishable by death. The place of this sin at the head of a list of sexual crimes may or may not be significant. Many times the laws recorded in the Pentateuch are not according to a system we would expect. It may be that the law has closer affinity with the law forbidding “mediums and spiritists” in v.6.
In vv.9–16 death is specified as the penalty. The method of execution was usually by stoning. This was the penalty for idolatry (Dt 13:10; 17:5; Lev 20:2, 27), adultery (Dt 22:21, 24), blasphemy (Lev 24:13–16), profligacy (Dt 21:21), and Sabbath breaking (Nu 15:35). Often the method of execution is not named. Burning (Ge 38:24) was apparently rare.
10 Compare 18:20. The law of Israel took very seriously the sacredness of marriage. Both parties who broke that bond were judged guilty of death. In Deuteronomy this law is put in connection with the one in Ex 22:16–17 on forcible rape of a betrothed or married woman. In such a case only the man was guilty and had to die.
11–12 Compare 18:8, 15 (cf. also Ex 22:19; Dt 22:30; 27:20). These more serious cases of incest received the death penalty. At first glance it seems that adultery would also be involved, and it may have been. More likely this refers to marriage after the death of the woman’s husband.
13 Compare 18:22. Homosexuality was quite common among the Greeks of a later time. The Bible is emphatic that it is a serious sin. Here the death penalty is specified. The NT condemns homosexual acts as shameless perversion (Ro 1:27).
14 Compare 18:17. The Hebrew phrasing shows that marriage is under consideration, and this would be impossible with a wife and her mother unless the mother were widowed or divorced. Theoretically in a polygamous society such a marriage would be possible, but it was strictly forbidden as was also marriage with two sisters (18:18). As mentioned above, the reason for such prohibitions is reinforced by the necessity to keep the areas of family love and affection among children in the house from the overtones of possible sexual attraction that could lead to incest and promiscuity.
“Burned in the fire” is a peculiar provision. The method of execution is mentioned only two other times (Ge 38:24; Lev 21:9). In both cases it is punishment of grave harlotry. Evidently this type of incest was regarded as especially reprehensible.
15–16 Bestiality is mentioned also in 18:23. There it is forbidden; here it has the death penalty attached. Also in Ex 22:19 it is listed among capital offenses; and in Dt 27:21 it is included among the curses at Mount Ebal. The stories of the gods and goddesses of Ugarit frequently exhibit such practices. Israel’s pagan neighbors probably followed their gods in these revolting practices.
17 Compare 18:9. This incest with a full or half-sister was forbidden but apparently did not receive the death penalty.
18 The prohibition of intercourse during menstruation was given earlier (15:19; 18:19; see comments on 18:19). It seems probable that here the phrase “cut off from their people” does not refer to execution.
19–21 These verses cite various cases of incest, all of which were covered in ch. 18. The penalties added here are minor and apparently are to be executed by divine providence. “They will be held responsible; they will be childless.” See the discussion of levirate marriage on 18:16.
3. Exhortations to holiness (20:22–27)
The strong emphasis on holiness in these verses and this whole section of Leviticus is noteworthy. In the midst of an immoral age and in an era of false religion, the demands of Israel’s God stood out in bright light.
22–23 To dwell securely in the Promised Land, it was necessary for the Israelites to shun “the customs of the nations.” The word for “customs” (GK 2978) is literally “statutes.” The morals and worship of the surrounding nations were low. Therefore, the Lord required Israel to be separated and different from them. He had cast out the Canaanites because they did all “these things,” i.e., the incest, perversions, and immoralities referred to in the previous chapters. Israel was to be holy because the Lord is holy (v.26).
24 The expression “flowing with milk and honey” is used fourteen times in the Pentateuch and five times in the rest of the OT. It is, of course, symbolic of the agricultural plenty of Palestine. Palestine today is far from attractive, agriculturally speaking; the rainfall is seasonal, and the summers are dry. It is probable that a similar climate obtained in Moses’ day, though the subject is debated. A little more rain would have made a great difference. At least a cover of trees would have better conserved the winter rains. The mention of honey is perhaps lost to modern ears. To us honey is a dispensable condiment. Then it was the only sweetener at hand.
25–26 In the midst of moral prescriptions and warnings on false religion, there is an emphasis again on the laws of cleanness. There is here a reminder that all God’s laws for Israel were intertwined and all had a religious sanction. It is convenient to divide the laws into moral, ceremonial, and civil; but the Bible itself makes no such distinction. They were all God’s laws and were given in wisdom for the regulation of the life and worship of his people.
27 The two words “medium” and “spiritist” usually go together (see v.6). In the Pentateuch they are forbidden in Lev 19:26, 31; 20:6, here; and Dt 18:11. The latter verse is the inclusive one and should be compared for discussion of the terms. Only in the present verse is the penalty assigned. Since all such practices involved pagan worship, the penalty naturally was death (see 19:26).
G. Special Holiness for Priests (21:1–22:16)
The thrust of this section is twofold: the office of a priest is holy, and the office is above the man. A “priest” (GK 3913) must be holy in body, upright in conduct, and ceremonially clean; for he is the representative of God. The OT priest was a type of Christ. We see this from the priest’s work of mediation, which was nevertheless not perfect or final (cf. Heb 9). We see this also from the priest’s official character: he was to be cleansed and more holy than other men. His perfection pointed to a perfect priesthood. We see the priesthood as a type of Christ, especially from the references to a Melchizedekian priesthood in Ps 110 and to a king-priest to come (mentioned in Ps 110; Zec 6:11–14).
1–4 To touch a dead body brought uncleanness for seven days (Nu 19:11). The prohibitions in this chapter include more than just touching the dead body of a friend. They also refer to visible signs of mourning. Aaron was not to tear his clothes in mourning even for his two sons (10:6). The case there, however, was somewhat different; for they had died under the judgment of God, and Aaron was the high priest (cf. v.11). The verses here allow mourning by an ordinary priest for death in the immediate family.
Curiously, the priest’s wife is omitted in vv.2–3! Surely this omission is insignificant, and the wife is implied. The Hebrew word for “relative” means flesh-and-blood kin, and the degree of this relationship is here specified.
5–6 The practices of self-disfigurement were forbidden to all Israelites (19:27–28). They were apparently heathen signs of grief, which were forbidden to Israel and especially to Israel’s priests (cf. 1Ki 18:28).
7–8 One special reason for the prohibition in v.7 is that there should be no question of paternity about the next generation of priests. For the same reason the high priest must marry a “virgin from his own people” (v.14).
9 On “burned in the fire,” see 20:14. As the priest is to be holy, his family also is to be holy. Sin is more heinous on the part of those chosen by God for special service.
10–15 The phrase “the anointing oil poured on his head” designates the high priest and his sons who were called to a special sanctity of service. The anointing is commanded for Aaron in Ex 30:30, and the anointing of Aaron as high priest is recorded at Lev 8:12. There are not many references to the high priest (Heb.: “great priest”) in the OT; Aaron is called simply “the priest” (Ex 31:10; Nu 25:11), as well as “chief priest” (or “high priest”; Nu 35:25, 28).
In v.10 and at Nu 35:25, the phrase “high priest” (GK 1524 & 3913) is explained as the anointed priest, which is the term used in Lev 4:3, 5; 6:22, and 16:32. The latter verse further qualifies this anointed priest as the high priest. In Nu 20:28 and Dt 10:6, the high priesthood was transferred from Aaron to his son Eleazer and in Nu 25:11 to Phinehas. Deuteronomy 26:3 refers to the “priest in office.” Outside the Pentateuch the office is referred to using various terms; and prominent men like Eli, Jehoiada, and Hilkiah occupied it. The office gathered importance after the Exile, when the high priest eventually assumed governmental functions.
The curious provision that the priest must not “leave the sanctuary” is not clear. There were no living quarters in the tabernacle or its court. Actually the phrase is more general. It forbids the high priest from going away from the tabernacle on any business. It was a twenty-four-hour job! Numbers 3:38 says that Moses, Aaron, and his sons should encamp in front of the tabernacle to the east. After the temple was built, the officiating priests lived in the rooms built in three stories against the outside walls of the temple.
As explained above, a priest’s children also were to be holy and above reproach. If the high priest married only a virgin from his own people, the legitimacy of his successor to the holy office could not be questioned.
16–24 It is difficult to translate some of the terms of these verses with certainty, but it is clear that the priest was to be physically perfect. This is an understandable provision for priests who stood in a public relation; but even more, as remarked earlier, it carries out the typology of Christ the perfect Priest.
Blindness was common in antiquity. With improper setting of broken bones as well as no way to correct birth defects, lameness was also common. “A crippled foot or hand” surely refers to common deformities when broken bones would have been poorly set. The word gibben (GK 1492) is used only here, but its derivation makes “hunchbacked” probable. The word daq (GK 1987) means “thing” or “small” and could refer to someone “dwarfed,” though the evidence is scanty. “Eye defect” is literally “blurred or spotted in his eye,” but what kind of defect is intended is beyond our information. “Festering . . . sore” is used only here and in similar contexts in 22:22 and Dt 28:27. Surely it refers to some long-continuing disease or scab. “Running sore” is used only here and at 22:22. The exact meaning is unsure.
The term translated “damaged testicles” is used only here, and the precise meaning is uncertain, though the word for “testicle” is clear from neighboring languages. If this is the correct reading, why was the ordinary word for eunuch not used? Perhaps because that word was not specific enough and was also applied to high court officials who were not eunuchs. Could a eunuch officiate as a priest? Clearly not. Deuteronomy 23:1 is translated similarly but has totally different Hebrew words and is subject to some obscurities. Leviticus 22:24 rejects castrated animals as offerings.
The unfortunate cripple in the priest’s family could not serve in office but received his regular food like others of the family. He could even eat the most holy things, which shows that there was no superstitious or callous attitude inculcated toward the disabled person.
22:1–3 Chapter 22 continues the directions for sanctity and cleanliness that govern the priesthood. The translation “treat with respect” (GK 5692) is the verb from which the word “Nazirite” (GK 5693) is derived. A Nazirite not only kept away from certain things, he kept himself holy in respect to those things. In v.2, however, it seems that the priests were not to separate themselves from the sacrifices—which, after all, they were to offer—but were to consecrate those sacrifices, to treat them with respect. As the following verses explain, the priest was to keep the holy things inviolate when he himself had some uncleanness.
4–8 The standard causes of uncleanness listed in vv.4–5 have been given before. The emphasis is further given that an unclean priest not only must not minister but also must not eat of the holy offerings. The unclean priest should bathe and be unclean the rest of the day. He would again be clean “when the sun goes down.” The Hebrew day then, as now, began at sundown. This was usual in the Orient. The Romans began the day at midnight.
9 It was no small matter to be a priest of God. The institution was divine and not to be trifled with. The judgment on Nadab and Abihu was supernatural, as it later was on Korah and his company (Nu 16). On the other hand, the judgment on Eli’s sons was providential. Many a faithless priest escaped catastrophe in his lifetime, but the threat of judgment was always there.
10–13 The definition of an “outsider” (GK 2424) is interesting. He was a temporary visitor or worker. The slave was considered family. The principle is that an outsider should not eat of the holy things. A married daughter with a nonpriest husband was no longer in the priest’s family. A widow or divorced daughter with children might bring a stranger’s children into the family. This was not allowed. But a priest’s daughter without children would revert to her childhood status.
14–16 To “eat a sacred offering by mistake” would be one of the sins that required the guilt offering. There too a 20 percent penalty was specified (cf. 5:16).
Verses 15–16 are somewhat obscure. The meaning chosen by the NIV is that these verses oblige the priests to enforce the rules against the practice of the sacred portions being eaten by the people who offered them. This unites vv.15–16 with the preceding verses. The KJV seems to take v.15 to require the priests to maintain their sanctity, and v.16 requires the priests to preserve the people from profaning the holy things. The NIV reading seems to fit the context better.
H. Perfection Required in Sacrifices (22:17–33)
The principle of a perfect sacrifice has been already stated at Lev 1:3. It is emphasized here with details. Other laws on the subject are in Dt 15:21 and 17:1. Malachi reproached the people after the Exile for offering their worthless and blemished animals (though the words he used are somewhat different). He complained that Israel offered to the Lord animals that would not be acceptable for taxes and that their God, the “great king, . . . the LORD Almighty,” was displeased (Mal 1:14).
17–25 Numbers 15:14–15 says that if an alien wishes to join in worship, he must do so in the same way as the Israelite. The “alien” (GK 1731) was probably not just a visitor. He was a foreigner living temporarily in Israel without full rights. Abraham was a sojourner (alien) among the Canaanites. He has been likened to a man having taken out first papers for citizenship. Doubtless the legal status of an alien varied over the centuries.
The word “defect” (GK 4583) is the same one used in 21:18. It is defined in the context as well as by common sense. If the offering was to mean anything, it should be an offering of perfection. As the priesthood symbolized Christ the Perfect Priest, so the offering symbolized Christ the Perfect Sacrifice.
As at 21:18, the words “blind, the injured or the maimed” are sometimes obscure. The words “blind” and “injured” are obvious. The word “maimed” probably means “cut.” The word “warts” is used only here, but similar words suggest a running sore (see 21:20).
At 7:15–16 the fellowship offerings are divided into thanksgiving, votive, and voluntary or “freewill offerings.” Here it is explained that a stunted or overgrown animal (if not diseased or blemished) can be used for a freewill offering regardless of its market value. However, an offering made in consequence of a vow would require the standard market value of a standard animal. The words “deformed” and “stunted” are uncertain, but the general sense is clear. These animals are not normal in growth, but neither are they diseased. They are all right for some purposes.
There is no word here in the Hebrew for “testicles.” There may be truth in the translation, however, that would forbid the offering of an emasculated animal. The LXX takes it so.
Animals purchased from a foreigner were apparently not forbidden as sacrifice, but such purchased animals as were defective were unacceptable. Deuteronomy 15:21–22 explains that defective animals may be eaten for food at home but must not be offered to the Lord.
26–33 The reason for the law in v.27 is not entirely clear. But even today newborn calves are not usually slaughtered. The meat improves with age. Also, it probably is better for the mother that the calf not be taken at once. We might add that to transport a calf under a week old for some distance to the tabernacle or temple would likely in some cases kill the calf.
Similar provisions to v.28 are found in the thrice-repeated law, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21), and also in the law not to kill a mother bird with her young (Dt 22:6–7). The provisions are curious. To boil a kid in its mother’s milk is probably a Canaanite ritual, and this heathen practice was therefore to be avoided. It is barely possible that Dt 22:6–7 gives the key. Those verses forbid the killing of the mother bird when the young are taken. The mother bird is easily caught with her fledglings, but then the goose that lays the golden egg is killed. The mother must be preserved so that the species will not become extinct. Possibly the thrust of the phrase “on the same day” is general and means “at the same time.” The mother cow especially should not be slaughtered just when she “comes in fresh” with plenty of milk.
“That same day” is slightly different from the phrase in v.28; it repeats the law of 7:15. Leviticus 19:5 gives the general law of the fellowship offerings. Repeatedly in this section the character of God is given as the basis of his will for Israel. Verse 33 (as Ex 20:1) also gives the basis of God’s saving work in bringing Israel out of Egypt. Because he has redeemed us, and because he is the holy God, therefore we are bound to keep his commandments.
VII. The Feasts and Worship of the Lord (23:1–24:9)
A. Introduction (23:1–2) (cf. Ex 23:10–17; 34:18–23; Nu 28:9–29:39; Dt 15:1–16:17)
1–2 A directory for Israel’s worship would not be complete without a catalog of the annual feasts. Leviticus has so far given the rules for offerings, ordination of priests, public health, and personal holiness. Now the religious ceremonial seasons are given. The emphasis is on the things the general public would need to know. Numbers 28–29 is more technical and for the use of the priests. Two feasts celebrated by Jews today do not appear in these Pentateuchal lists because their origin was much later—Purim, which was established in Esther’s day, and Hanukkah, which celebrates the rededication of the temple in 165 B.C., after it had been desecrated by the Syrian invaders. Of the five major feasts, three required the presence of all grown men at the tabernacle, later at the temple (Ex 23:17; 34:23; et al.). These are often called the pilgrimage festivals. They were the special times when offerings would be brought in great numbers.
B. The Sabbath (23:3)
3 All the festivals are properly called Sabbaths, but the weekly Sabbath gains great emphasis in the Pentateuch and many other places in Israel’s instruction and history (cf. Ex 20:8–11; 23:12; 31:12–17; 34:21; 35:2; Nu 15:32–36; 28:9–10; Dt 5:12–15). The basis for the Sabbath is God’s Creation activity. It might indeed be that God ordained the weekly Sabbath on the basis of Creation to protect the Israelite from the pagan unlucky days associated with moon worship in the surrounding cultures. At least the Sabbath is never called unlucky or sinister as in the Assyrian tablets. It is a “holy convocation” (KJV) or day of “sacred assembly” (see 19:3).
| Name | OT References | OT Time | Today | Description | NT References |
| Sabbath | Ex 20:8–11;31:12–17; Lev 23:3; Dt 5:12–15 |
7th day | Same | Day of rest; no work | Mt 12:1–14; Mk 2:23–3:5; Lk 4 4:16–30; 6:1–10; 13:10–16; 14:1–5; Jn 5:1–15; 9:1–34; Ac 13:14–48; 17:2; 18:4; Heb 4:1–11 |
| Sabbath Year | Ex 23:10–11; Lev 25:1–7 | 7th year | Same | Year of rest; fallow fields | |
| Year of Jubilee | Lev 25:8–55; 27:17–24; Nu 36:4 |
50th year | Same | Cancelled debts; liberation of slaves and endentured servants; land returned to original family owners | |
| Passover | Ex 12:1–14; Lev 23:5; Nu 9:1–14; 28:16; Dt 16:1–3a, 4b-7 |
1st month (Abib) 14 | Mar-Apr | Slaying and eating a lamb, together with bitter herbs and bread made without yeast, in every household | Mt 26:1–2, 17–29; Mk 14:12–26; Lk 22:7–38; Jn 2:13–25; 11:55–56; Jn 13:1–30; 1Co 5:7 |
| Unleavened Bread | Ex 12:15–20; 13:3–10; 23:15; 34:18; Lev 23:6–8; Nu 28:17–25; Dt 16:3b, 4a, 8 |
1st month (Abib) 15–21 | Mar-Apr | Eating bread made without yeast; holding several assemblies; making designated offerings | Mt 26:17; Mk 14:1, 12; Luke 22:1, 7; Ac 12:3; 20:6; 1Co 5:6–8 |
| Firstfruits | Lev 23:9–14 | 1st month (Abib) 16 | Mar-Apr | Presenting a sheaf of the first of the barley harvest as a wave offering; making a burnt offering and a grain offering | Ro 8:23; 1Co 15:20–23 |
| Weeks (Pentecost)(Harvest) | Ex 23:16a; 34:22a; Lev 23:15–2 Nu 28:26–31; Dt 16:9–12 |
3rd month (Sivan) 6 | May-June | A festival of joy; mandatory and voluntary offerings, including the firstfruits of the wheat harvest | Ac 2:1–41; 20:16; 1Co 16:8 |
| Trumpets (Later: Rosh Hashanah-New Year’s Day) | Lev 23:23–25; Nu 29:1–6 |
7th month (Tishri) 1 | Sept-Oct | An assembly on a day of rest commemorated with trumpet blasts and sacrifices | |
| Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) | Lev 16; 23:26–32; Nu 29:7–11 |
7th month (Tishri) 10 | Sept-Oct | A day of rest, fasting and sacrifices of atonement for priests and people and atonement for the tabernacle and altar | Ac 27:9; Ro 3:24–26; Heb 9:1–14, 23–26; 10:19–22 |
| Tabernacles (Booths)(Ingathering) | Ex 23:16b; 34:22b; Lev 23:33–36a, 39–43; Nu 29:12–34; Dt 16:13–15; Zec 14:16–19 |
7th month (Tishri) 15–21 | Sept-Oct | A week of celebration for the harvest; living in booths and offering sacrifices | Jn 7:2–37 |
| Sacred Assembly | Lev 23:36b; Nu 29:35–38 |
7th month (Tishri) 22 | Sept-Oct | A day of convocation, rest and offering sacrifices | Jn 7:37–44 |
| Dedication | 9th month | Dec | A commemoration of the purification of the temple in Maccabean era (166–164 B.C.) | Jn 10:22–39 | |
| Purim | Est 9:18–32 | 12th month (Adar) 14, 15 | Feb-Mar | A day of joy and feasting and giving presents |
Copyright ©1991 Zondervan Publishing House.
C. The Passover and Firstfruits (23:4–14)
4–5 The Passover was probably the greatest feast of the year, commemorating as it did the deliverance from Egyptian bondage (cf. Ex 12:14–20; 43–49; 23:14–15; 34:18; Nu 9:1–14; 28:16–25; Dt 16:1–8). In type it represents Christ our Passover sacrificed for us (1Co 5:7). The Jews today, because of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, celebrate the Passover using only a dry bone instead of the paschal lamb. The ancient Passover ritual, like most all of the other sacrifices, emphasizes redemption through the blood of the slain lamb. It was against this background that John the Baptist proclaimed Christ as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1:29). The Jews today celebrate the Passover far differently from the OT regulations. The Jewish liturgy changed greatly at A.D. 70.
For “at twilight” the Hebrew has “between the evenings.” This curious phrase is explained, however, in Dt 16:6 as “in the evening, when the sun goes down.”
6–8 More details on the Feast of Unleavened Bread are given elsewhere (cf. esp. Ex 12; Dt 16). In the latter passage unleavened bread is called the “bread of affliction” (Dt 16:3). It commemorated the fact that the Israelites left Egypt in haste with no time to let their dough rise. The Passover and the time of Unleavened Bread were so closely intertwined that in the NT the whole week is called the Passover (Ac 12:3–4; cf. Jn 19:14). Directions for the special sacrifices to be offered on this and on the other feast days are given in Nu 28–29.
9–14 Allied to Passover and Unleavened Bread was the Feast of Firstfruits celebrated at the same time. The firstfruits at Passover would be barley, which ripens in the warmer areas as early as March.
The presentation of the sheaf “on the day after the Sabbath” symbolized the dedication of the whole year’s crop; and until this was done, none of the new grain was to be eaten. In Nu 28:27 other offerings are specified for this day; but as the context shows, they are the standard offerings for every day of Unleavened Bread. This “burnt offering” is an extra one for the firstfruits ceremony.
An “ephah” was about three-fifths of a bushel. Two-tenths would be about four quarts (dry measure; see 5:11). The value of the “hin” is possibly about one gallon (see ZPEB, 5:916). A “quarter of a hin” would then be about a quart. The name “drink offering” (GK 5821) is a misnomer. The Hebrew word refers to pouring. The drink offering was never drunk but was poured out over the sacrifice at a holy place (Ge 35:14; Nu 28:7; 2Ki 16:15).
D. The Feast of Weeks (23:15–22)
15–21 The Feast of Weeks is called the Feast of Harvest in Ex 23:16 and the “firstfruits of the wheat harvest” in Ex 34:22 (cf. Nu 28:26–31; Dt 16:9–12). It always occurred on the first day of the week and fell seven weeks and one day after the Sabbath after the full moon of the Passover (14 Nisan). From the day after the Passover Sabbath to the day after the Pentecost Sabbath is “fifty days” by inclusive reckoning, counting both the first and last days. It would therefore be around the end of May to mid-June.
It should be remembered that there is a wide latitude of seasons in Palestine from the seacoast to the mountains to the Jordan Valley. This feast was a dedication of the wheat harvest to the Lord. Special sacrifices were specified. The fellowship offering was normally prepared without yeast. Here in v.17 it is different. It is the first part of the harvest prepared as a Hebrew housewife would prepare it. The “seven male lambs” and other offerings were to sanctify Israel and cleanse her anew for the new season’s work and rejoicing.
All the males were to appear at the tabernacle; but, in this time when the harvest was beginning, they would not stay long. The NT antitype to this feast is Pentecost, which was, as a consequence, on Sunday, and was the day of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a new phase of God’s saving work extending the harvest to the Gentiles also.
22 This rule is appropriate for a harvest festival. In all Israel’s life, the poor in Israel were helped and protected. Christians should search their hearts to be sure they have a similar attitude toward the unfortunate in our day. There is much talk of the church’s duty to the poor. It is obvious that in a time of famine, emergency, or tragedy, no Christian should withhold his means if he or she is able to help. Still, the NT examples and teaching emphasize the church’s duty toward the poor in the church (Ac 6:1; 11:29; 24:17; 1Ti 4:9–10). The law on gleaning with mention also of the treatment of vineyards is stated in 19:9–10.
E. The Feast of Trumpets (23:23–25)
It is interesting that this ancient fall feast was not given the extra emphasis that its equivalent, the New Year (Rosh Hashanah), is given among Jews today. Neither was the New Year given the emphasis that it had in Babylon, where it was a week-long celebration. This feast was a one-day celebration with special sacrifices, and that was all. Actually, the phrase Rosh Hashanah occurs only once in the OT (Eze 40:1), where it is used of the “beginning of the year” (NIV) without reference to what month is in question; and it just as well could be in the spring. The Hebrew year began in the spring (Ex 12:2). The “turn of the year” of Ex 34:22 and the “going out of the year” of Ex 23:16 need not mean the “end of the year” but only the turn of the season (cf. below).
23–25 Every new moon in Israel began with a special celebration marked by blowing the trumpets (Nu 10:10; 28:11; Ps 81:3; et al.) and by offering special sacrifices (Nu 28:11–15). It was of some importance for business as well as for religious observances for the new month to be fixed definitely, and this announcement was made by the priests with the blowing of trumpets. Since a lunar month is twenty-nine and a half days long, there is some possibility for variation in the calendar. Probably, as in surrounding nations, the decision to start a new month was arrived at partly by observation, partly by calculation. It is not improbable that the beginnings of the months of Israel were integrated with the dates decided by the surrounding nations, at least in later years. It seems clear that the blowing of trumpets reechoed the signal across the hills of Palestine. It was helpful to know when the seventh month started since it included important religious festivals. The prescribed offering for the Feast of Trumpets is given in Nu 29:1–6.
F. The Day of Atonement (23:26–32)
26–32 The Day of Atonement has been discussed in connection with the ritual prescribed for it in Lev 16 (cf. Lev 16:1–34; Nu 29:7–11). It was to be a day of fasting. People were to remain in their houses and remember that on this day their high priest was to enter the Most Holy Place bearing the name of their tribe on his breastpiece. Verse 32 underlines the fact that any of the annual feasts could also be called a Sabbath. There seems to be no special reason why the tenth of the month was chosen for this Sabbath. It was a proper and convenient time for repentance and spiritual preparation for the Feast of Tabernacles of the following week.
G. The Feast of Tabernacles (23:33–44)
33–44 The Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths; cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nu 29:12–40; Dt 16:13–17) is also called the Feast of Ingathering “at the end of the year” (Ex 23:16). As noted above, this does not necessarily mean the end of the calendar year—just as we have other years: school years, fiscal years, etc. The usual expression “turn of the year” always means “spring” (2Sa 11:1 = 1Ch 20:1; 1Ki 20:22, 26; 2Ch 36:10). The present Jewish new year starts in the fall, but the biblical text nowhere calls this Rosh Hashanah (head of the year). The biblical new year began in the spring. From these references some have concluded that there were two new years in Israel—spring and fall—but the fall new year is probably a later Jewish development.
Like Passover and the Feast of Weeks, Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival when all the men were to appear at the tabernacle or temple. Of course, in many cases the whole family came. The offerings are detailed in Nu 29. A peculiar feature is that the burnt offering on the first day of the feast includes thirteen bulls and that each subsequent day the number is reduced by one until the last day, when seven bulls are offered (Nu 29:13–32). The other offerings stayed the same in number every day.
Autumn was a convenient time to bring an offering from the year’s harvest. Even the grapes, olives, and dates would have been ripe by then. The weather would have been mild and clear, ideal for the temporary stay in booths. There is a problem in v.40 in the relation of fruit and branches. It is probable that eating the good fruit of fruit trees was part of the festivities of rejoicing during the eight days. The waving of the palms and branches, perhaps in processions, would be another part of the rejoicing. The branches were used in any case to make the booths (Ne 8:15–17).
The feast was a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt and the long trek to Sinai with the people living in tents. It would in future days be a reminder of the simple desert life when they walked with God at their head. The Hebrew name is Sukkoth, which in modern Hebrew is changed in pronunciation to Sukkos.
In contrast to the fast and repentance of the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Booths was an occasion of joy—a thanksgiving day (cf. Zec 14:16–19). Indeed, it is clear that when the Puritans proclaimed their Thanksgiving Day in New England, they had in mind the OT harvest festival.
H. The Care of the Lampstand (24:1–4)
1–4 In a sense this section, like ch. 8, is a complement to the book of Exodus. Exodus 25:31–40 has the directions for making the seven-branched lampstand; 37:17–24 records Moses’ having made the lampstand. Then Ex 27:20–21 gives directions for the care of the light. Here in vv.1–4 these directions are to be carried out. The wording of this section (vv.2–4) is almost identical to that in Ex 27:20–21. This is not surprising if we recognize that Leviticus is part of the larger structure of the Pentateuch. Many times in Ex 35–40 the description of the building of the tabernacle and its furniture is almost word for word the same as the instruction for its building in Ex 25–29.
The fire on the altar was never to go out. But it seems from the phrase “from evening to morning” and the similar one in Ex 27:21 that the lamps were to burn every night but not through the day. This arrangement may explain the statement in 1Sa 3:3: “The lamp of God had not yet gone out,” i.e., it was toward morning but still dark. On the meaning of “Testimony,” see comment on 16:13.
I. The Bread of the Presence (24:5–9)
5–9 This is the only place where the details of the offering of the bread of the Presence are given (cf. Ex 25:30; 40:23). It was the priests’ grain offering. It was set out before the Lord every Sabbath and eaten at the end of the week. Presumably it was hard baked and would not spoil in the interim. On the other hand, the text does not strictly say that the bread would stay on the table a week. It may have been taken off at a convenient time—after the Sabbath was over—and eaten by the priests. This is the background of the famous incident when David ate the consecrated bread (1Sa 21:6; cf. Mt 12:4).
“Two-tenths of an ephah” is about four quarts of flour (the ephah being about twenty quarts), which seems to be an impossibly large amount for each loaf or cake. Actually, the Hebrew says “two-tenths” to each cake. The measure is not specified. Probably some smaller measure like the seah (five quarts) or the omer (four pints) is intended. The flat, round, pancakelike loaf of bread would not take very much flour.
“Along each row put some pure incense” is a better translation than KJV’s “upon each row.” The incense was not eaten, for it is not edible. It was burned with the “memorial portion” of the bread. The meaning of the ritual, like the ordinary grain offering, surely includes communion as the bread was eaten before the Lord in the Holy Place.
VIII. Identical Laws for the Stranger and the Israelite (24:10–23)
10–23 Not much of Leviticus is narration. The whole year’s stay at Sinai is told in a few chapters in Exodus and Numbers. But the incident of the son of Shelomith gave rise to legislation and therefore finds a place in Leviticus. His offense was plain and called for execution, just as if he had been an Israelite. His father was one of the mixed multitude who went out with the Israelites, probably because he had married a woman of the tribe of Dan.
Just what the crime was is hard to say. It may well have been more than thoughtless profanity. The Hebrew does not have the Tetragram (YHWH, “LORD”; GK 3378) here at v.11 or at the end of v.16. It is, however, at the beginning of v.16. Clearly the sacred Name is intended. The word “curse” (GK 7837) is used when Balak hired Balaam to curse Israel so that he might conquer the nation. The man may have engaged in some curse procedure to injure his opponent by a kind of hex in the name of the Lord, or it may have been an angry cursing of the Israelite man and his God. Blasphemy, of course, was strictly forbidden and punishable by death. The man was stoned.
The decision in the case established the principle that one who lived in Israel’s company was counted as an adherent of their faith. The alien already had been made subject to Israel’s laws of offering and cleanliness (17:8–15). Likewise, the alien enjoyed the protection of the law (Ex 23:9). But the sojourner who blasphemed would have to pay the extreme penalty.
The stoning of the blasphemer is taken as the occasion for the summation of the principles of justice. Here again the principle of lex talionis or retaliation is stated as a form of justice. The principle similarly appears in Ex 21:23–25 and Dt 19:21. Christ quoted the law in Mt 5:38–42 and seems to have opposed it, though he was actually not contradicting the OT but was denouncing the Pharisaic use of these verses to justify personal revenge.
It is another question whether this law was taken literally or is an emphatic statement of the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. If a man killed a beast, his own beast was not killed (v.21). There is no example in the OT of a judge exacting literally an eye for an eye. The usual penalties of Hebrew law were capital punishment for a limited number of serious offenses and fines and restitution for the remainder. There were no prisons in the early days, and none is mentioned in the Pentateuchal legislation. Apparently we have here an emphatic legal idiom meaning that the punishment must be commensurate with the offense.
IX. Laws of Land Use (25:1–55)
There are three subdivisions to this section: the sabbatical year, the Jubilee, and the laws of indebtedness. The basis of the land laws God gave to Israel is his statement that “the land is mine” (v.23). When Joshua conquered Palestine, the land was divided by sacred lot, not secured by individual military prowess. The people, therefore, could not sell their land. Society was agricultural; and the farms belonged, under God, to the people in perpetuity. The question was, How do you keep such a system working? The constant tendency is for the rich to increase their holdings at the expense of the poor. To obviate this danger the Lord instituted a land reform of return to the old homestead every fifty years. Actually, the Jubilee was one of the first land reforms known in history.
The sabbatical year likewise was a humane and advanced social program. Imagine all debts forgiven and slaves released every seven years! Ingrained into Israel’s laws and faith was a concern for the poor and unfortunate. It is observable in many of the laws already noticed and is made most emphatic in this chapter. It is not by accident that v.10 of this chapter is the motto on the Liberty Bell that hangs in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A. The Sabbatical Year (25:1–7)
1–7 The sabbatical year is mentioned also in Ex 23:10–11 and Dt 15:1–18. In the former passage, however, it is described as a year to leave the land fallow (as here in Lev 25) without the year being specifically named. In the Deuteronomy passage the year is described as a year of canceling debts and freeing slaves, not as a year of rest from the tillage of the land. However, in Ex 23:11 the NIV has “let the land lie unplowed.” It appears from the combination of these two ideas that the seventh year was both a fallow year for the land and a year of canceling debts. For the further matter of liberating slaves, see the Jubilee below.
As far as Moses knew at this time, the occupation of Canaan would begin in a few months, and Israel would begin this program of land tenure at once. Though Israel was in the wilderness, she was looking toward a settled condition within a year, similar to what they had known in Egypt—without the slavery! The adoption of such a law does not imply that the legislation is late, long years after the Conquest. Indeed, v.2 says it is a law adopted to cover future circumstances.
The terminology “the land itself must observe a sabbath” apparently comes from the weekly Sabbath that was already in force. The emphasis of the Sabbath was the resting. The land “I am going to give you” (notice the proprietorship) will have its rest as well. Presumably no one then knew why this would be good for the land. Principles of crop rotation were not known, and God did not give them such advanced wisdom. But he did give them the idea of the land lying fallow, and he gave it religious sanction. Seemingly no other nation had any custom like this.
Verse 5 at first appears to contradict v.4. The solution seems to be that there is to be no normal work of harvest or grape-gathering that would involve servants and include storage. It was all right to eat and gather directly from the fields (v.11), but regular harvest work was forbidden. The idea was twofold. First, the produce of the sixth year would be so abundant because of the Lord’s blessing that there would be a surplus. Second, the natural produce of the land would feed the poor (Ex 23:11). It would even give wildlife a chance to repopulate itself. The natural crop would be public property.
There is an additional reason for the sabbatical year that does not appear in this chapter. In the Feast of Booths of the sabbatical year, the law was to be read to the people. The whole nation was to have a short-term Bible institute (Dt 31:10–13). There would be opportunities for other instruction during the rest of this vacation year.
B. The Jubilee (25:8–34)
8–12 The word “Jubilee” (GK 3413) means “blowing the ram’s horn,” which was done in announcing the year. Thus the root occurs also in the name Jubal, the father of musicians (Ge 4:21). The identifying name Jubilee occurs only in Leviticus and in Nu 36:4. But the idea of release of those enslaved for debt occurs, not only at v.10, but also at Isa 61:1; Jer 34:8, 15, 17; and Eze 46:17. From this word the idea of celebration has come into English, especially the celebration of a fiftieth anniversary.
In v.8 the Hebrew is “seven sabbaths” of years, not “seventy sevens” as in Dan 9:24–27, though there too the word “seven” is used for a sabbatical-year period. Probably it was well that the announcement came “on the Day of Atonement,” that solemn day of contrition. Otherwise many a hard-hearted, rich Israelite would have refused the obligations of the release. Indeed, the Jubilee and sabbaticals were not always observed (2Ch 36:21). It was suggested above that the new moon trumpet reechoed through the land as others took up the signal of the start of a new moon. Here, clearly, there was such an arrangement for the word to get around.
It seems rather impractical to have had two fallow years in succession, namely, the forty-ninth and the fiftieth, though, of course, God could have simply compounded the blessing for the forty-eighth year. A suggestion to relieve the problem comes from the Book of Jubilees. This book, written perhaps about 200 B.C., is a reworking of Genesis with every event dated. The dates are counted from Creation and are given in terms of jubilees, sabbaticals, years, months, and days. But the Jubilees are only forty-nine years long. This may have been a mistake on the part of the author of Jubilees, or it may give a clue to a better translation of v.10. Just as seven weeks from Sunday to Sunday is called fifty days by inclusive reckoning in 23:15–16, so in the present sense the last of the forty-nine years might be called the fiftieth year by inclusive reckoning.
“To proclaim liberty” for the slaves was characteristic of every sabbatical year. The return to the family homestead was a special feature of the Jubilee. The word for “liberty” (GK 2002) is used in Jer 34:8–17 of the freeing of slaves in the sabbatical year. The inference is as suggested above, that the seventh sabbatical year was the Jubilee.
13–17 The arrangement for buying or selling considering the number of years since the Jubilee was simple. A field that could be possessed forty years before the Jubilee was worth more than one that would be possessed only ten years. A man might speculate in land for temporary advantage, but no family could be permanently disadvantaged. In all this social legislation, successful operation really must proceed on the basis of the cooperation of the citizens. And Israel’s regard for the poor was supported by the knowledge that the Lord is God and that he has respect for the poor (Ex 22:27).
In a sense Israel had a kind of communism. The wealth was partially redivided every few years. But it is unfair to call this communism, just as it is inaccurate to call the communal living of the early church communism. It was a communal sharing that works well in a family where all have the strongest ties of love and interest. Even in families the system breaks down if the common bond is not there. Israel, like the early church, was a community of people united in worship of the true God and sanctified in him. In times of revival, at least, the bulk of Israel’s citizens would have been God-fearing men and women who earnestly desired to obey God’s law.
18–28 The success of laws such as these depended on the people’s obedience; but the system still would not work except for the special blessing of God, who owned both the land and the people and had his sovereign purposes for both. Verse 21 underlines the importance of the providential blessing of God. It was doubtless good for the land to lie fallow one year. God would bless an obedient nation with rains, and pests would cease under his hand. Unfortunately the nation turned to other gods, and God vacated the land until it had “enjoyed its sabbath rests” (2Ch 36:21).
Verses 23–24 spell out the details of the Jubilee. There are certain exceptions and special regulations. The NIV’s “must not be sold permanently” presents well the idea of the Hebrew text. This law of land reform is perpetual, but the land when sold was to be sold for a limited time only, not permanently. Not only was the land to return to its original family in the Jubilee, but a man who had been forced to sell his land out of necessity could buy it back at any time that he could raise the money. If his near kin could do it, he should. If the man’s fortunes increased, he could do it himself (cf. the book of Ruth).
29–31 To “refund the balance” is to pay back the price of the field at the later date, which would be less than the price at the earlier date. The translation “balance” is more accurate than the RSV’s “overpayment” or KJV’s “overplus”.
The city is different from the country. To live in a walled city was a privilege, not a right. Real estate in the walled city was at a premium. Its value was not just its land but the improvements in terms of house and fortifications. A man temporarily in need could sell the house and redeem it in a year, but after that time the buyer was protected. As explained in v.16, when a man sold his farm, he was selling so many crops until the Jubilee. In contrast to walled cities, the villages, which were unrestricted in extent, were counted in with their respective fields. They were released in the Jubilee.
32–34 The point of v.32 is that many, if not all, of the Levitical cities listed in Jos 21 were walled, where normally the right of redemption was limited to one year. Levites usually did not have any property outside these cities. Thus, except for this provision, the Levites eventually could have lost their cities and, therefore, all their holdings. But in these cities the Levites could redeem their property at any time.
The Hebrew of v.33 is somewhat involved, but the total meaning is clear. No Levitical house can be bought in perpetuity. It will go out in the Jubilee.
C. Protection of the Poor (25:35–55)
In this section there are three cases that are covered by the Mosaic law on loans (cf. Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19–20). Usually they have been treated as (1) loans without interest, (2) indentured servitude for debt, and (3) indentured servitude to an alien.
35–38 “Help him” is not a proper translation of the Hebrew, which literally says, “you shall seize him.” The supposition is that a creditor has seized his debtor like a resident alien while he works off the debt. While the debtor was working off the debt, he himself served as a pledge for its payment, and no further interest or second interest could be charged. That would be “excessive” interest or usury. Verse 36 is a conclusion to v.35. If you seize him, you will not make further charges but must treat him like a brother. The implication is that it is wrong to treat him like a resident alien. After enslavement no further interest should accrue. Otherwise the poor man could never work off his debt. The word “interest” (GK 5968) is from the root “to bite.” The rate of interest mentioned in Ne 5:10–11 is 1 percent—probably 1 percent a month.
Verses 36–37 do not forbid a loan to the poor man, for Ex 22:25–27 pictures a loan to a poor man with his garment as collateral. (Or was it really not collateral but a token that was taken before witnesses and restored promptly?) The passage in Dt 24:10–13 on pledges specifies that the creditor could not enter a house to choose the pledge he desired. The pledge chosen by the borrower must be accepted by the creditor, then recorded and restored promptly. In case of default, temporary enslavement would result. It seems strange in such a context to assume that no interest at all could be charged. But in any case, no excessive interest could be charged—interest beyond the usual regulations. The poor were to be protected.
39–46 The situation in v.39 is similar to that in v.35, only more extreme. The two verses begin with exactly the same words. In this instance a man has no credit to obtain a loan. His case is hopeless, and he takes the initiative. But he has his rights; he is not a slave. “A hired worker or a temporary resident” is perhaps better translated “resident laborer,” i.e., not a resident alien.
The notice “until the Year of Jubilee” would apply equally well to case 1 of v.35, if that man’s debt were not worked off before the Year of Jubilee. The mention of “resident laborers” brings up the contrasting positions of “slaves.” Hebrews could not be enslaved by their compatriots. Slaves of the nations were permitted, and these were not released in the Jubilee. The most that could be exacted of a brother Israelite was indentured servitude. Of course, slaves too had their rights. Indeed, a runaway slave was not to be returned to his master (Dt 23:15). This would tend greatly to affect a master’s attitude toward his slaves.
47–55 “An alien or a temporary resident” who bought a Hebrew slave did so under the stipulations of Hebrew law. The redemption of such a slave was a kinsman’s duty. Or the slave might grow rich and redeem himself. This says a good bit about the relative independence of such a slave. His time with his owner was counted like that of a hired servant. In any event, the slave with his children would be freed at the Jubilee. Of course, if a man died in slavery, his children would not be slaves forever. They would benefit by the Jubilee.
Verse 55 is remarkably like the thought of Col 4:1. All Israelites were God’s servants. They therefore should be compassionate masters—an attitude that Christians should remember even though the institution of physical slavery is happily over.
X. Warnings Against Apostasy (26:1–46)
A. Conditions of Blessing (26:1–13)
This chapter has strong affinities with Dt 28–30 (cf. esp. Dt 28:1–14; 30:1–10). It is a solemn reinforcement of the preceding laws with an appeal to Israel to obey God’s laws and so be blessed rather than to turn away to disaster. The warnings in Dt 28–30 are more extensive than the promises, but the chapters end with a reminder of God’s enduring mercy and the ancient covenants he made with the patriarchs.
The conditions given here are only summarized. The things specified are avoiding idols, keeping the Sabbath, and revering the sanctuary (vv.1–2). Beyond that the broad statement is “Obey my commands” (v.3). The promises, which are emphatic and detailed, largely concern material blessings; but the crowning spiritual blessing—“I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people”—is included (v.12; cf. Jer 30:22; Hos 2:23; et al.).
The physical blessings and curses characterize Israel’s establishment as a nation. Even in God’s dealings with the patriarchs, the promised material blessings were largely not for the present. Abraham died only having seen the promises afar off (cf. Heb 11:13). He owned only a sepulcher in the Promised Land. Abraham grew rich, but Isaac probably grew poor; and Jacob certainly had a hard life. Material blessings such as favorable rains, health, peace, etc., were appropriate promises for Israel as a nation living in one area with unified culture, laws, and worship. In other situations the people of God shared the common lot of human beings. God sends his “rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Mt 5:45). Today when God punishes a nation with war, the innocent must suffer with the guilty.
1–5 The ban on idols is sharp and pervasive throughout the OT. The reason is plainly given in Dt 4:15–19. God has no form and is not a part of his creation. Any material god is less than God. The prohibition of idolatry was so emphatic that ancient Israel made no images of God, at least as far as archaeological evidence goes. The idols that Israel worshiped were of the heathen gods. The word for “idols” (GK 496) is a word of scorn (“worthless things”). The word for “image” (GK 7181) is a general word for any image constructed or sculptured of wood, stone, metal, etc. The word “sacred stone” (GK 5167) refers to a monumental stone stele or slab with or without inscription. Some such monuments apparently associated with the temple of Baal Berith in Shechem (Jdg 9:6, 46) have been found.
The word for “carved stone” (GK 74) is less certain but refers to some kind of sculptured figure. It may be added that the absence of idols was wonderful for the advancement of faith, though it is troublesome to the archaeologist. Much can be learned of the surrounding cultures’ religion, history, and art by the carved work that often bears inscriptions. Palestine digs are sadly (or happily) lacking in these idolatrous materials.
As mentioned in the comments on ch. 23, the Sabbaths include the set feasts as well as the weekly Sabbath. The word “sanctuary” (lit., “holy place”; GK 5219) is used many times in the OT from Ex 15:17 on and usually refers to the tabernacle or the later temple. Verse 2 repeats 19:30, but here it serves well as a summary of God’s will for his worship.
Significantly, the first blessing mentioned is “rain.” Palestine is water conscious. In those days farmers and housewives were totally dependent on the rain and the perennial springs. There are two views of the amount of rainfall in antiquity. The first argues that the climate in Palestine has greatly changed, while the other argues that it has not. Actually, Jerusalem has about the same average annual rainfall as London. But in Palestine the rain is all concentrated in the months from October to April. If the rains have a good spread, i.e., including early and latter rains, then crops grow well. Also forestation and irrigation can conserve the water for a longer growing season. It was a very small matter for the Lord to give better rains and rains spread out in a better way so as to bless a faithful nation.
It would be quite a harvest that would last from June to September! Actually, with ancient methods of harvesting and threshing, this may not have been much hyperbole for a really good year (cf. Am 9:13).
6–8 There is a causal connection as well as a providential connection here. Decent living and decent government to an extent produce peace. Immoral, reckless government invites wars, both civil and foreign. In the years from the division of the kingdom to the fall of Samaria, the two kingdoms had a diverse character. The northern kingdom openly encouraged idolatry and in its national life apostatized from the Lord. During those two hundred years, the northern kingdom saw nine different dynasties fight for the throne. In the southern kingdom, which in general maintained the faith, the dynasty of David continued with one small interregnum at the time of Athaliah. God often uses wars as an instrument of punishment (Isa 10:6).
Dangerous animals (“savage beasts”), except for snakes and scorpions, have not been much of a problem in Palestine for many years. In biblical times, however, both lions and bears are mentioned repeatedly. There must have been a somewhat different situation (cf. v.4 above). Egyptian pictures show pharaohs hunting lions where now there are only deserts. Such animals require lesser game for food. The lesser game require some grass and woodland. Palestine in ancient times clearly must have been different from what it is today, for “savage beasts” were a real danger to Israel. In fact, God promised to drive out the Canaanites gradually so that the dangerous animals would not multiply unduly (Ex 23:30).
The same sort of expression as “five of you will chase a hundred” is found in Dt 32:30. Of course, there is hyperbole here, but it is true even today that small things can turn the tide of history. Gideon’s 300 men defeated 135,000 Midianites; Jonathan and his armor-bearer alone defeated a Philistine force. When David killed Goliath, all the Philistines fled. In ancient warfare, even more than in modern times, a little incident such as the death or prowess of a hero could turn the whole tide of battle. God promised the Israelites victory if they would remain faithful to him.
9–13 “Will keep my covenant” is literally “will cause to rise up my covenant.” This is probably legal language. The covenant referred to in the present verse is probably the covenant God made with Israel on Mount Sinai. Verses 1–2 refer to prominent parts of that covenant. However, this chapter should not be pressed into a covenant-treaty mold, as has been proposed in recent covenant-treaty studies. There is no historical prelude; the commands or “stipulations” are brief if they can be found at all, nor are the copies specified, as is usual in treaties. The chapter is a logical presentation of the consequences of obedience or disobedience to God’s law.
God promised to dwell among his people in the tabernacle spiritually, not materially. From the word for “dwelling place” (GK 5438) and its root (GK 8905), the later Israelites developed a name for the presence of God in the Most Holy Place—the Shekinah. The expression “I will walk among” is not to be literalized in this connection. It refers to life, fellowship, and behavior. Enoch, Abraham, and others were said to “walk with God.” God would continually fellowship with his people if they obeyed his word; he would live among them. The thought repeats that of the promised dwelling at v.11. The promise “and be your God” is repeated in Jer 30:22; Eze 11:20; Hos 2:23; and Ro 9:26.
Ten times in Leviticus and over a hundred times in the rest of the OT, God’s miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage is emphasized. The event made an indelible impression on the Hebrew mind and record. The expression “enabled you to walk with heads held high” (lit., “upright”) is an interesting commentary on how the ancient mind regarded slavery—about as we do today.
B. Threatened Punishments (26:14–39) (cf. Dt 28:15–68; 29:18–28)
14–17 A long list of threatened punishments to Israel if they disobeyed God’s laws follows (cf. Dt 28:15–68; 29:18–28). These punishments and the preceding blessing sound like the imprecations and benedictions of a Hittite treaty. Yet in this section the whole of a covenant-treaty structure is not easily observable. This should perhaps be a warning against too mechanical an approach to the covenant format. It was not always followed nor slavishly observed, and appropriate parts could be used alone for particular emphasis. The more extensive presentation of imprecations and benedictions is in Dt 28 and 30.
Similar words to “but if you will not listen to me” introduce the corresponding section in Dt 28:15, which adds “I am giving you today.” Here we do not have the conclusion of a long sermon, as Deuteronomy was, but a code of laws and rituals. In one sense, all the legislation of Exodus and Leviticus is part of the covenant God ordained at Sinai. The summary was the Ten Commandments that were engraved in stone as a witness and testimony. The sacred chest that contained them was therefore often called the “ark of the covenant” or the “ark of the Testimony.” The curtain separating the holy shrine where the ark was kept was even called the “curtain of the Testimony [or Covenant]” (24:3).
The word “covenant” (GK 1382) as used in such biblical phrases is somewhat like the word “contract” or “treaty”—only it was a one-sided treaty imposed on the nation chosen for God’s blessing. To break the covenant or contract meant not only to forfeit all God’s promised blessings but to incur his curse. The word “covenant” as used in these biblical phrases is somewhat different from the theological formulation of “covenant” when the word is used in such contexts as “covenant theology.” In such contexts the covenants of works and grace embrace a representative principle that some would and others would not find so extensively in God’s dealings with his people.
The phrase “sudden terror” does not seem to require the idea of surprise but means “to be terrified” or “to be confused.” The words “wasting diseases and fever” are used only here and in Dt 28:22. They refer to physical ailments. The Arabic equivalent of “wasting diseases” is the disease formerly called consumption—tuberculosis. Quite likely the words “that will destroy your sight and drain away your life” are not adjectival in referring to previous “wasting diseases.” The normal result of fever is not to “destroy the sight.” The words are participles and probably substantival in use: “a destruction of sight” and “a draining away of life.”
Palestine was situated on the land bridge between the great powers of antiquity. And there were local enemies, too. The threat of enemy domination was very real. The Midianites of Gideon’s day are likened to grasshoppers who devour everything.
Verse 17 is picked up by Pr 28:1. How different the situation if Israel were obedient (v.8)!
18–26 Verse 18 is a surprisingly rare usage of the number seven. It is apparently restricted to this chapter (vv.21, 24, 28) and is a threat of multiple punishment.
The expression “sky . . . like iron and the ground . . . like bronze,” which refers to a rainless sky and dried ground, is used only here and in Dt 28:23, where the symbols of iron and bronze are reversed! Obviously they are figures of speech. No Israelite thought the heavens were solid metal. The Deuteronomy passage adds further description of the dryness of the ground.
Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin and was used early, but how early is hard to tell. (“Brass,” used in KJV, was not much used until nearly the time of Christ.) The first bronzes were probably accidental, for tin and copper occur together in some minerals. Bronze is a practical metal. It can be cast and hammered easily and makes good hard tools and weapons. Its properties vary according to the amount of tin used.
Verse 19 is only the second mention of iron in the Bible. The first mention (Ge 4:22) is a special case and perhaps refers to meteoric iron or even an ironlike stone that first received the name. Nothing in the tabernacle was made of iron. A little iron was found in the tomb of the Pharaoh Tutankhamun (c. 1360 B.C). Deuteronomy 3:11 mentions it in connection with Og’s bedstead (which was probably a sarcophagus trimmed with iron). But the secret of successful iron-working and tempering into steel did not come into Palestine until about 1180 B.C., when the Philistines introduced iron weapons and implements and brought in the Iron Age (1Sa 13:19–22). This verse only refers to iron as a hard metal and would fit well the pre-Philistine period. The crop failure obviously would be because of a drought so harsh as to affect the trees. The roads would not be much traveled because of danger from wild animals and enemies.
The Hebrew of v.25 is emphatic. The sword will “avenge the vengeance” of the covenant. The broken covenant cannot be passed over by God without awful judgment. The Israelites will “withdraw into [their] cities” (a phrase that indicates a state of siege). In time of war people living in the countryside fled to the cities for protection. In the crowded cities hunger and pestilence took their awful toll. “Ten women will be able to bake your bread” indicates that there would be many people but very little bread to go around. Every crumb would be weighed and conserved, and still people would go hungry.
27–35 The horrors of ancient sieges are matched perhaps only by the modern siege of Leningrad in World War II. There also cannibalism occurred. There are biblical references to these horrors in the sieges of Samaria (2Ki 6:28–29) and Jerusalem (La 4:10). Josephus (War 6.15–32 [3–4]) tells dreadful stories of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.
So horrible would be God’s judgments that even the enemies around would be “appalled” (v.32). These references to captivity have been used to argue that this chapter could not have been written until after the Exile. It seems like a strange argument. By the same token, the blessings of vv.4–13 are so wonderful that one might think they could not have been written until after the Millennium! Actually, anyone in antiquity who could write a treaty of the Hittite suzerainty type could write such maledictions. The anguish of famine, conquest, and siege were well enough known in Moses’ time.
“Enjoy its sabbath years” (v.34) is quoted in 2Ch 36:21 and combined with Jeremiah’s prophecy (25:11) that the Captivity would last seventy years. There is no need to be mechanical and hold that the sabbatical-year provision was neglected for just 490 years. But it was evidently neglected for a long time. “Enjoy” is the regular translation of the Hebrew word used again at v.43.
36–39 One can argue that v.36 repeats v.17. The words “as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall” may be parenthetical. The point is that the people will flee at the sound of a driven leaf—when none pursues. The wording is somewhat different from v.17, but the thought is similar. This section ends with an emphasis on their end and the unreasoning panic that God will put in their hearts. Proverbs 28:1 probably alludes to v.37 as well as v.17.
C. God’s Perpetual Covenant (26:40–46)
God had promised the land of Palestine to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ge 15:18) by a covenant. God’s promises are inviolable. God remembered the promise to Abraham as the people groaned in Egyptian bondage (Ex 3:15–17). The promise of vv.40–46 is similar to that in Dt 30, and there too God remembers the word he “swore to . . . Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (v.20). Two other passages give somewhat similar promises. Solomon prayed that the Lord would hear the people’s prayer of repentance when they would be in captivity (1Ki 8:46–53). Nehemiah prayed (Ne 1:8–9) that the Lord would remember his promise to Israel through Moses, probably referring to Lev 26 and Dt 30, that if they returned to God, he would regather them.
The 1 Kings and the Nehemiah passages, however, have an element not found in the Pentateuch. In his prayer Solomon included the idea that the dispersed people should pray toward the holy temple he had just built in Jerusalem. And Nehemiah’s prayer assumes that God would regather Israel to the place where God’s name dwelt, Jerusalem. Such ideas are proper in the later books, but in Moses’ time Jerusalem had not yet been chosen for the sanctuary. It was not even conquered until David’s day. This chapter therefore makes no mention of Jerusalem. Indeed, the only possible mention of Jerusalem in the whole Pentateuch is in Ge 14:18.
40–45 Confession is essential if we would be rid of sin and right with God. The word in Dt 30:2 is “return to the LORD . . . with all your heart and with all your soul.” The idea of the circumcised heart is thought to be characteristic of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. And it is true that the phrase is found in Dt 10:16 and 30:6, as well as in Jer 4:4; but the Leviticus passage has the equivalent thought in negative expression and is in fact similar to Jer 9:25, which complains that Israel is uncircumcised in heart like the heathen round about.
Actually, God’s law never emphasized the merely external, though there was far more of the external in the OT than in the NT. Proverbs 23:26 expresses the eternal desire of God in the words, “My son, give me your heart.” Circumcision was not just a physical mark of national origin. Paul says real circumcision is a matter of the heart (Ro 2:29; more lit., “circumcision . . . is of the heart”).
In Lev 25:23 God said, “The land is mine,” and he promised to remember his promises to the patriarchs to give them that land. Incidentally, the promises given here to Israel are not limited to the time of the judges or the Babylonian captivity. Paul declares that the promises to Israel and the fathers are “irrevocable” (Ro 11:28–29). But the Jews will not reinherit Palestine in peace and blessing until they return to the Lord.
Verse 36 stated that only some of the people of the Captivity will be left. But God will spare some and use their punishments to bring them back to him. A sad commentary on human nature is that in prosperity people tend to forget God, and he must often punish them to bring them back to him. The wise child of God will stay close to him in the first place and rejoice in the blessings without having to get the punishments.
46 The mention of the mutuality of the covenant is interesting, though it is also stated that God “gave” the laws. This verse is really a summary of the material of Leviticus, though some additional material on vows is given before Numbers begins with the order to break camp and move on toward the land of Canaan.
XI. Laws Concerning Gifts and Endowments (27:1–34)
It is difficult to understand this section fully because we know so little about the details of dedicating things to the Lord in ancient Israel (cf. Ex 34:19–20; Dt 23:21–23). The chapter discusses dedicated persons, clean animals, unclean animals, houses, and lands. Firstborn animals cannot be dedicated because they belong to the Lord already. Then comes an enigmatic paragraph on devoted things and people. These are apparently the spoils of certain types of war that belong absolutely to the Lord. This is followed by a brief section on tithes.
It seems clear that a person normally would dedicate to the Lord some person or thing, not an amount of money. It was not an age of money exchange; coinage was not yet invented. But often, if not usually, the person or thing given was redeemed, and its value in silver was given instead. The person given would presumably become a temple slave, so the values are those of a slave. They may be given in tabular form:
| Age | Value of Male | Value of Female |
| 1–5 | 5 shekels | 3 shekels |
| 5–20 | 20 shekels | 10 shekels |
| 20–60 | 50 shekels | 30 shekels |
| 60 plus | 15 shekels | 10 shekels |
We may not conclude from these figures that women were considered of less worth in the OT. It is merely that adult males were more capable of and valuable for the heavy work of the tabernacle. Note that a bride was purchased in ancient Israel; a groom cost nothing! This proves nothing! Also, the value of a slave, male or female, gored to death by a vicious ox is thirty shekels (Ex 21:32).
The “devoted” (GK 3051) things and persons mentioned in vv.28–29 are quite different. These are not things vowed to the Lord by an individual but spoils of war devoted to destruction by the Lord. The best-known examples are the spoils of Jericho (Jos 6:24) and of the Amalekites of Saul’s day (1Sa 15:3–9). Such spoils and captives could not be redeemed, sold, or ransomed.
Numbers 18:14 is in line with this interpretation. At first sight it might seem that the devoted thing there promised to the priests is the firstborn of man or beast mentioned in v.15. But actually there is in this section of Numbers a list of items to be given to the priests. First-ripe fruits are mentioned in v.13. Devoted things under the ban come next as another category; then come firstborn animals and men. There is therefore no problem between the Numbers statements and the Leviticus laws that devoted things, animals, or men may not be redeemed; that firstborn animals may be redeemed; and that it is obligatory that firstborn men must be redeemed (Ex 13:13; Nu 18:15–16). The redemption price of firstborn men is five shekels of silver according to Nu 18:16, which is the valuation of a male up to five years of age according to Lev 27:6.
1–8 The rendering “special” (GK 7098) is strange. The underlying word is used many times to mean “wonderful” or even “miraculous”; but here and in Nu 15:3, 8, it is used in the sense of making a vow that is special or particular. Nothing in the contexts of these verses indicates that this type of vow was out of the ordinary. It was just the special reaction of a consecrated heart to the goodness of God. The LXX has “whoever shall vow a vow.” The Hebrew word order differs a little from the English: “a special vow in valuation of persons.” The presence of the word “valuation” or “equivalent value” in this connection suggests that a common practice was to give the money equivalent, not the person, for the tabernacle service. It was otherwise when Hannah vowed to give her son to the Lord (cf. 1Sa 1). There was no thought of redemption there. On the other hand, Jephthah’s vow (Jdg 11:32–40) was very different and was an evil vow that never should have been made or kept.
On “fifty shekels of silver” see the table of values of a dedicated tabernacle slave given above.
Apparently “if a man is too poor” refers to a man who wanted to make a vow but was too poor to redeem the person (slave or child?) whom he had vowed. In this case the priest was not to take the one who made the vow as a slave in lieu of the money but was to reduce the evaluation to what the man could afford.
9–13 In the case of clean animals, the vow of an animal was supposed to be final. The case was quite different from the dedication of men. A man might dedicate to the Lord the next male sheep born in his flock. If so, he should give it regardless of whether it looked especially good or bad. And if he tried to exchange it for another animal, both animals would be forfeited.
The “unclean animal” might or might not be given to the tabernacle. There was a need for such animals. Priests used donkeys, too. But such an animal could be redeemed. It is not clear why the animal was valued by the priest if the animal, and not the monetary equivalent, was actually being given. Perhaps the priest’s evaluation would be a factor in the worshiper’s decision whether or not to add 20 percent and redeem the animal.
14–15 The law for dedicating a house is similar to that for an unclean animal. Notice that if the man adds 20 percent and redeems the house, “the house will again become his.” Otherwise the house is the property of the tabernacle. Nothing is said about the house going out in the Jubilee. Probably this case applied to houses in fortified cities that were sold absolutely (25:30).
16–21 The law for other land acquired by purchase is given in vv.22–25. Land values were determined by formula depending on the area of what we would call tillable land. Rock outcropping, ravines, etc., did not count. The area that would normally be sown by a homer of barley (about six bushels) cost fifty shekels. Modern planting calls for about a bushel and a half of seeds per acre, which would mean that land values would be fifty shekels for four acres of arable land—twelve and a half shekels per acre.
“The priest will determine the value.” For instance, if twenty-five years had passed since the last Jubilee, the value of the land would be reduced by half. If a man had redeemed a field by paying an extra 20 percent, the field would be his. But if he gave it to the tabernacle without redeeming it, it would be an irrevocable gift. Also, the gift would be irrevocable if he had promised it eventually to the tabernacle but had sold it to another person until the Jubilee. When it went out in the Jubilee, it would then not revert to the owner but to the tabernacle to which it was promised. By this method the tabernacle lands could greatly increase over the years. Whether they did or not, we cannot tell. Such increase of church properties was a great problem in late medieval times.
22–25 It was impossible for anyone to dedicate perpetually to the Lord a part of some other family’s inheritance. Perhaps his own line of heirs might run out, and he could properly give his own land. But bought land must revert to its owners at the Jubilee, and even the tabernacle could have no claim on it. “The sanctuary shekel” was an established weight. Present-day governments have effective control over weights and measures to keep them standard. Such standardizing in antiquity was difficult. There are many references in the OT to the sin of using false weights and measures.
26–27 The principle that “the firstborn already belongs to the LORD” is first stated in Ex 13:2. God had killed the firstborn of men and animals of the Egyptians but had spared the firstborn of the Israelites. Therefore, he claimed a special ownership of the firstborn. The firstborn of men and animals that could not be offered were to be redeemed (Ex 13:13). All the firstborn of clean animals were to be the Lord’s (Ex 13:12). In consequence of this principle, the clean firstling was already the Lord’s and obviously could not be given by a vow.
Verse 27 adds another option to Ex 13:13. There it is said that every firstborn donkey should be redeemed with a lamb. Here it says that the animal may be redeemed with its money value plus 20 percent, or, if not redeemed, the priest may take it and sell it. The law in Ex 13:13 says that if a man does not redeem it, he must break its neck. That is, the owner cannot keep the animal in any case. The law in Leviticus is in full agreement; the animal, if not given to the Lord’s work, must be redeemed either by a lamb (Ex) or money (Lev), or it must be killed.
28–34 See the discussion on devoted things at the introduction to this chapter. The word for “devoted thing” (herem; GK 3051) has the curious double usage of referring to the totally holy and the totally evil. It is used especially of the holy war of conquest of Canaan that put the spoils of war “under the ban,” as it is sometimes translated. The spoils of Jericho, for instance, that were perishable were devoted to the flames (Jos 6:17, 21, 24). The spoils that could stand the fire belonged absolutely to the Lord. This principle in the Conquest kept the Israelites from fighting for the sake of the spoils, as was so often done in ancient warfare. The individual got no personal reward for his fighting.
The “tithe” (GK 5130) belonged to the Lord. It also could not be dedicated by a vow, though that point is not raised here. The tithe of grain and fruit was sufficiently uniform to be redeemed by adding 20 percent. Perhaps also this provision was used because some fruits were too perishable to transport to the tabernacle.
Some animals are strong and healthy; other are scrawny and poor. An unscrupulous herdsman could easily have given to the Lord the worst, as the priests did later (cf. Mal 1:8). Or an overzealous herdsman could injure his own flock by always giving the best breeders to the tabernacle. The Lord gave a wise provision that every tenth animal regardless of its condition should belong to the Lord.
This last chapter adds a footnote, as it were, to the main body of laws concluded in ch. 26. There were yet a few more laws to be given at Mount Sinai that were included in the early chapters of Numbers, but this section is concluded by the formula that had been used with variation before (7:38; 25:1; 26:46). The opening verses of Numbers begin the directions preparing for the march from Sinai to the Promised Land.
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Lev 5:11 | Lk 2:24 | Offering of the poor |
| Lev 11:44–45 | 1Pe 1:16 | Holiness commanded |
| Lev 12:8 | Lk 2:24 | Offering of the poor |
| Lev 18:5 | Ro 10:5; Gal 3:12 | Living by the law |
| Lev 19:18 | Mt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27; Ro 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8 | Love your neighbor as yourself |
| Lev 20:9 | Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10 | Cursing parents |
| Lev 24:20 | Mt 5:38 | Eye for eye |
| Lev 26:11–12 | 2Co 6:16 | God living with us |