Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification

Series ID: 
5
/assets/worddocs/deff_lev.zip

1. Learning to Love Leviticus

Introduction

Leviticus used to be the first book that Jewish children studied in the synagogue. In the modern Church it tends to be the last part of the Bible anyone looks at seriously. … In practice then, though not in theory, Leviticus is treated as though it does not really belong to the canon of Scripture.1

A certain lady, on being asked if she had ever read the Bible right through, replied: “I have never read it through, though I have read much of it consecutively. Three times I have started to read it through, but each time I have broken down in Leviticus. I have enjoyed Genesis and Exodus, but Leviticus has seemed such dull reading that I have become discouraged and have given up.”2

I believe that these comments aptly describe the attitude of 20th century Christians toward the Book of Leviticus. I was attending a banquet the other night and was seated next to a Christian woman whose child attends the same school as our children. She commenced our conversation by politely asking what I did for a living. I responded that I was a preacher. As the conversation developed, I told this woman that I would soon be beginning to teach in the Book of Leviticus. That brought an immediate response. She told me that she had been involved in Bible Study Fellowship and that she had been assigned to study and to teach the Book of Leviticus. She went on to say that she went off by herself and sat down to read the book for two hours, after which time she was convinced she could come up with nothing whatever to say on this text.

A number of Christians would agree with her analysis. There is a kind of mental block which most Christians seem to have about certain books—especially Old Testament books, and particularly the Book of Leviticus. In this lesson I want to try to identify some of the reasons for our mental block about this book. I want to isolate some of the reasons why people think that Leviticus is an impossible book to read, to study, and most of all, to teach. I then will seek to show that these reasons are not valid. In the process, I hope to show why we should study the Book of Leviticus.

Characteristics of the Book of Leviticus

(1) Leviticus is largely a code book, a book of regulations. If any book of the Old Testament could be called a “book of the law” surely the Book of Leviticus is such. The book is filled with regulations.

(2) The Book of Leviticus is, to a great degree, a book of priestly regulations. In the Hebrew text the first word of the Book of Leviticus, translated “and He called,” serves as the title of the book. The English title, Leviticus, is borrowed from the Latin Vulgate, which, in turn, is derived from the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew text.3 Leviticus is not an inappropriate title for this, the third of the books of the Pentateuch written by Moses. It focuses on the levitical priesthood, who are prominently featured in this book.

(3) The Book of Leviticus contains many regulations pertaining to the laity, as well as to the priests. It should be pointed out, however, that the book is not written exclusively for the levitical priests, but has much instruction directed to the Israelite layman.4

(4) The Book of Leviticus is a book of regulations which is given by God through Moses, spoken to him from the tent of meeting. The very first words of the Book of Leviticus are: “Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, …’” (Lev. 1:1-2a).

The regulations of Leviticus are a direct revelation from God to and through Moses.

(5) The Book of Leviticus is essentially a narrative form of literature. As Wenham has pointed out, “Leviticus is a book of laws set within a narrative framework …”5 One of the frequently found phrases in the Book of Leviticus is, “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, …” It is thus to be understood that this book, as a piece of literature, is to be interpreted as a narrative. This means, as Wenham further emphasizes,6 that the legislation given in the book is that which is likely laid down in response to actual incidents which required a divine response. The laws and regulations of this book are the divine response to real life situations which came up in Israel’s wilderness sojourn.

(6) Leviticus is closely connected with the entire Pentateuch, and especially with Exodus and Numbers.7 In the original text the Book of Leviticus begins with a connective which is essentially equivalent here to “and,” indicating to the reader that the book simply follows on with the events and content of the Book of Exodus.8

The continuity of Leviticus with Exodus is immediately apparent, as can be illustrated by several common factors. In Exodus, God told Moses that He had chosen the Israelites to be a priestly nation (Exod. 19:6). In Leviticus there are many priestly regulations laid down. In the Book of Exodus the design for the tabernacle is given (Exod. 25-31, 35-40), while in Leviticus the “user’s manual” for the tabernacle is given. At the very conclusion of the Book of Exodus the presence of God descends upon the tabernacle. In Leviticus, the implications of the presence of God are spelled out.

(7) Essentially, Leviticus can be divided into two major divisions, separated by chapter 16, which deals with the annual day of atonement.9 Chapters 1-15 deal with what we might call “priestly holiness” for they give instructions about sacrifices and rituals which ceremonially relate to one’s holiness. Chapters 17-27 deal more with what we could call “practical holiness,” that is holiness which is worked out in one’s daily walk, rather than by one’s religious or ritualistic activities.

(8) Leviticus is quite frequently quoted or referred to, but in the Old Testament, perhaps no other book is more influenced by Leviticus than the prophecy of Ezekiel.10

(9) Leviticus makes a great deal of some distinctions. Much of the Book of Leviticus is devoted to distinguishing between what is “clean” and “unclean,” and that which is “holy” from that which is “profane.”11

(10) Leviticus does not press the distinction between ceremonial holiness and civilian holiness. While Leviticus does press the distinctions between clean and unclean, holy and profane, it does not press the distinction between the sacred and the secular.12 Holiness should be seen in the tabernacle and the sacrifices, and in the fields and workplace.

So What’s Your Problem With Leviticus?

Up to this point in time the Book of Leviticus has been the “liver and onions” book of the Bible to me. That is, I know that it must be good for me, but I just don’t seem to have a taste for the stuff. To others, the Book of Leviticus is something like camping … they tried it once and that was enough to last them a lifetime. Having briefly looked at the Book of Leviticus, let us get down to the issue of “taste” which must be settled before we will ever benefit from this portion of God’s word. The first thing we must seek to do is to identify the reasons why we tend to dislike and thus to avoid this book. Here are some of the ones which I have isolated.

(1) Leviticus is boring, it is not exciting enough. Dull after all the excitement of Genesis and Exodus. My children would probably say of the Book of Leviticus, “That’s boring.” Adults are more sophisticated about how they put it, but they mean the same thing. A young Jewish man, after hearing my analogy that Leviticus was like liver and onions, responded, “I like liver and onions better.”

My first response to this criticism of Leviticus is not to deny the charge. If I had to choose between reading the exciting narratives in Genesis or Exodus and the levitical codes I would quickly opt for reading in the books of Genesis and Exodus. Compared to other portions of the Bible Leviticus is dull.

My second response is that our culture has concluded that anything which is not entertaining is not worth listening to. The media has the task of grabbing a person’s attention, of taking them from whatever they are doing and setting their eyes and their minds on the printed page or the television screen. They do this in competition with other media, trying to do the same thing. And so we have come to the conclusion that we deserve to have all communication be entertaining and exciting.

I would like to suggest that in most (not all) cases the level of drama and hype is directly related to the irrelevance of what we are watching. You have to spice up the kinds of things we see in the media because they have little value, other than entertainment. On the other hand, the greatest and most significant communications of history have not been particularly entertaining. The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States are not written to entertain us. If we want to be entertained we turn to writings which begin, “once upon a time,” and end “happily after.” If we want to be informed about things vital to the present and to eternity, we most often must set aside our desire for entertainment.

How many of you go to the Richardson Public Library and check out the city code book for entertaining reading? No one does, but they do read the city codes very carefully if they plan to build a house in Richardson. The Texas Driver’s Manual is not great entertainment either, but anyone who wants to get their driver’s license had better study it well.

The Book of Leviticus is a book of regulations, regulations concerning how men are to relate to God and to their neighbors. Failure to observe these regulations can lead to death, and has eternal implications. Thus, the very form and content of the Book of Leviticus, which in the past may have caused us to avoid the book, is that which signals us to the vitally important communication from God which is contained in this book. No law book should be taken lightly, especially one which comes from God.

(2)The Book of Leviticus is too bloody. I was talking about Leviticus with a friend this week. When I started listing some of the reasons why people resist this book he interjected, “Blood on the ears.” It took me a moment to grasp what he was saying, but then I remembered that Moses took some of the blood of the “ram of ordination” and placed it on the right ears of Aaron and his sons, as well as on the big toes of their right feet (Lev. 8:22-24). This is a bloody book.

But then anyone who understands Old or New Testament faith understands that blood is required to be shed in order for sins to be forgiven and for men to be able to approach God. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). For the full and complete forgiveness of sins of both Old and New Testament believers, the blood of Christ was shed:

And not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:12-14).

Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

(3) The Book of Leviticus is too difficult to understand. Anyone who has attempted to study the Book of Leviticus would have to agree that it is not an easy book to understand. The fact is, however, that all biblical revelation in not only hard to fathom, it is impossible, apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit:

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God … But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:11-12, 14-16).

Thus the Spirit of God enables us to comprehend the truths of God which are otherwise impossible to fathom or to accept.

The level of difficulty of understanding Leviticus (or any other Scripture, for that matter) is not without purpose. God never “casts His pearls before swine” (cf. Matt. 7:6). The richest truths of the Word of God seldom lie on the surface, for all to see. They have to be “mined,” as it were, showing our love for God and our diligence to know His will. As Proverbs puts it,

Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will discern the fear of the LORD, And discover the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding (Prov. 2:2-6).

The wisdom of God is for those who diligently seek it. That is precisely what the psalmist did with regard to the law of God (Ps. 119). Let us determine to do likewise.

(4) The Book of Leviticus is not relevant to the New Testament Christian. There is no disputing the fact that Leviticus is “foreign” to the 20th century Christian. We are separated from the ancient Israelite culturally and geographically, not to mention the separation of centuries of time and of different dispensations in God’s dealing with men. How, then, can we find this ancient book relevant to our lives?

First, we must see that any objection which we raise concerning the relevancy of Leviticus is equally applicable to any other portion of the Old Testament, of which Leviticus is a part. In fact, if we are to object on the grounds of a distant place and time and a different culture, we would have to object to the New Testament books as irrelevant on the same grounds.

Second, we must approach Leviticus and all other Old Testament Scriptures in the light of the apostolic assertions of the relevance of their message to us:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable … (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Now these things [Israel’s experiences at the exodus and afterward in the wilderness] happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11).

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Rom. 15:4).

The Old Testament books are indeed relevant to us. And since Leviticus is included in the word “all” (All Scripture is inspired …), it must be profitable to us as well.

The difficulties which we might have in understanding, interpreting, and applying Old Testament is a matter of our hermeneutic, our method of interpreting Scripture.13 I hope that in our study of the Book of Leviticus we will be able to articulate and apply a hermeneutic which will enable us to get from the Old Testament all that Paul says we can.

There are those who would quickly set aside Leviticus on dispensational grounds, maintaining that this book contains “ceremonial law,” which is not relevant to the New Testament saint. Those who have come to this conclusion should carefully consider these words:

Christians customarily divide the OT law into three parts: the moral, e.g., the ten commandments, the civil, i.e., the legislation for OT society, and the ceremonial, i.e., the sacrificial and ritual laws. Many, despite Paul’s teaching that ‘all Scripture is inspired and profitable’ (2 Tim. 3:16), assert that only the moral law binds the Christian. The position faces three main difficulties. First, the NT does not seem to distinguish between the different types of law in this way. Second, it is difficult to draw the line between moral precepts and other law. … Third, much of the civil legislation is grounded on moral judgments, often expressed in the ten commandments.14

In one sense then the whole ceremonial law in Leviticus is obsolete for the Christian. We are interested in the sacrifice of Christ, not in animal sacrifice. But in another sense the levitical rituals are still of immense relevance. It was in terms of these sacrifices that Jesus himself and the early church understood his atoning death. Leviticus provided the theological models for their understanding. If we wish to walk in our Lord’s steps and think his thoughts after him, we must attempt to understand the sacrificial system of Leviticus. It was established by the same God who sent his Son to die for us; and in rediscovering the principles of Old Testament worship written there, we may learn something of the way we should approach a holy God.15

Also, I must say that our preoccupation with the relevance of any text of Scripture points out that Christians today are far too “relevancy oriented.” We are very pragmatic in our orientation. We are not very interested in truths that do not immediately and practically relate to our lives. This is similar to the thinking of the ancients, who thought that the sun must rotate around the earth, rather than the earth around the sun. Preachers are told to introduce their sermons by addressing some “felt need” and then to show how the truth of the text meets that need. The whole orientation thus is around self, and not God. Enough! I must protest.

We smile (sometimes) at the little child’s foolishness, who, when given a quarter, spends that quarter for immediate gratification. He goes out and buys a candy bar, rather than to deny himself an immediate pleasure in order to obtain something far better in the future. When we come to the Bible, we are far more interested in finding candy than we are in learning those truths and those principles which will put us in good standing in the future. Let us determine that we will study Leviticus (as well as other Scripture) for what God has for us in it, whether or not it immediately addresses and soothes some need. In a day when warmness and fuzziness is held at a premium I must tell you that God’s word often does not promise us a “warm fuzzy.” It is high time that we began to orient ourselves to God, and not insist that God orient Himself and His word to us.

The Book of Leviticus is relevant. If we are to understand its relevance to our lives then we must do so in the light of the use of this book by other inspired writers. How do the New Testament writers, who quote or refer to Leviticus at least 40 times in Scripture,16 see this book as relevant to New Testament saints? Let us briefly survey the way in which the New Testament writers use the teaching of Leviticus.

The Lord Jesus referred to the teachings of Leviticus on several occasions. In Matthew 5:43-48 our Lord based His teaching that we should be perfect, even as the Father is perfect, on the command of Leviticus 19:2, showing that the vengeance which characterizes men is not consistent with the teaching of Leviticus, which instructs us that we must “love our neighbor as ourselves” (Lev. 19:18).17

It is not just the teaching of our Lord which attests the relevance of the Book of Leviticus, but His life and sacrificial death. When Jesus first presented Himself to Israel as her Messiah, John the Baptist proclaimed, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). In this one statement John summed up the fact that Jesus was the culmination and consummation of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which is one of the central themes of the Book of Leviticus. Thus, we learn that the key to understanding the life, ministry, and death of Christ is to be found in the Old Testament sacrificial system, which He fulfilled and brought to a close. The extensive treatment of the work of Christ and its relationship to the old covenant is further proof of the importance of our understanding of the Book of Leviticus.

The apostle Paul also referred to the teaching of the Book of Leviticus. In both Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14 Leviticus 19:18 is cited. Peter made even more use of Leviticus. In 1 Peter chapter one Peter based his argument for the Christian’s personal holiness on the commandment found in Leviticus (11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7). In the second chapter of this same epistle Peter taught that the church, the body of Christ, is a priestly nation. Thus the priestly regulations of Leviticus must have relevance to the priestly people, the church.

Not only do other biblical writers frequently cite passages from the Book of Leviticus, but the subject matter emphasized in Leviticus is that which is very relevant to Christians today. I believe that if you were to select a half dozen words which summarized the essence of the Christian faith you would find that most, if not all, were prominent themes in the Book of Leviticus.

In his commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Wenham has identified four key elements in the theology of the book.18 These are:

  • The Presence of God
  • Holiness19
  • The Role of Sacrifice
  • The Sinai Covenant

Each of these themes is of great importance to the New Testament Christian. If time would permit, we could probe each area, showing its key role in New Testament Christianity.

To this point I have suggested that the New Testament testifies to the importance of Leviticus by (1) the citation of Leviticus by New Testament writers, and (2) by the fact that the theological themes of Leviticus are also primary focuses of New Testament theology. There is yet one more way in which the New Testament testifies to the importance of the Book of Leviticus: The New Testament writers frequently employ Old Testament sacrificial terminology to express their own point of view. If we are to understand what the New Testament writer meant for us to understand, we must understand his Old Testament figures of speech and terminology.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a couple examples from the New Testament. Our Lord, Paul and other writers use sacrificial terminology to describe New Testament acts of worship and obedience:

“For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another” (Mark 9:49-50).

I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship (Rom. 12:1).

But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God (Phil. 4:18).

We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hence, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Heb. 13:10-16).

In the Mark 9 passage cited above, I believe that the key to the interpretation to this text is to be found in understanding the role salt played in some of the Old Testament sacrifices, such as found in Leviticus 2:13. The same can be said of the other portions of the New Testament where New Testament concepts are conveyed in Old Testament terminology. If we don’t understand the Old Testament terminology and concepts, we will not grasp the New Testament meaning.

We then have three compelling testimonies from the New Testament of the importance of a study of the Book of Leviticus. First, there is the citation of texts from Leviticus by our Lord and His apostles. Second, there is the recurrence of Old Testament theology in the New. And third, there is the dependence of the New Testament writers on Old Testament terminology.

Rightly, then, J. Sidlow Baxter concludes that this book has great relevance and value to Christians today:

Now, any fair study of Leviticus will quickly dispel these misgivings; for, as we shall see, it simply abounds in spiritual values; it has a living voice to our own day; its revelation of the Divine character is unique; and it is built together according to a clear plan. Its Mosaic authorship and Divine inspiration are attested by the Lord Jesus. It is referred to over forty times in the New Testament. All that follows it in the Scriptures is coloured by it; and, therefore, a clear knowledge of it contributes greatly towards comprehending the message of the Bible as a whole.20

Conclusion

I would like to ask you to do several things as we come to the conclusion of this message. First, I would like to ask you to agree with those who have studied the Book of Leviticus carefully and have concluded that it is a book which has great value for us. I want you to agree in particular to the fact that Leviticus is inspired of God, and that it is thus profitable to you for doctrine, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that you can be equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Second, I would like for you to act on this acknowledgment. I would like you to commit yourself to study this book. That you would read it consistently, consecutively, and in large portions at a time. I ask you to ponder (meditate) its teachings and to pray that God would give you insight and understanding as to its meaning and its application in your life. Finally, I ask you to do what you have committed to do, for the glory of God, in obedience to Him, and for your good.


1 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. vii.

2 J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing house, 1960 [Six volumes in one]), I, p. 113.

3 “The opening word of the book, ‘wayyiqra,’ ‘and he called,’ was used as a title by the Jews, who also described Leviticus by such designations as ‘the law of the priests,’ ‘the book of the priests,’ and ‘the law of the offerings.’ These latter characterized the general contents of the book, recognizing it as a work intended principally for the Hebrew priesthood. The Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament entitled the book Leuitikon or Leueitikon, i.e., ‘relating to the Levites.’ The Vulgate, which was a revision of the Old Latin version, rendered the Greek heading by the phrase Liber Leviticus, from which the title in the English Bible was derived. Although the book is much more concerned with the duties of priests than of Levites, the English title is not entirely inappropriate, since the Hebrew priesthood was essentially levitical in character (cf. Heb. 7:11).” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 13.

4 Leviticus is a fairly appropriate title for the book for it deals largely with priestly matters, and the priests were drawn from the tribe of Levi. … It would be wrong, however, to describe Leviticus simply as a manual for priests. It is equally, if not more, concerned with the part the laity should play in worship. Many of the regulations explain what the layman should sacrifice. … Most of the laws apply to all Israel: only a few sections specifically concern the priests alone. …” Wenham, p. 3.

5 Ibid., p. 15.

6 “One striking feature of the Levitical laws is so obvious that it can be overlooked. At the beginning of nearly every chapter, and often several times within a chapter, it says, ‘The Lord spoke to Moses.’ In other words, all the laws are set within a narrative framework. … This historical setting accounts for some features of the book that seem out of place if the book were arranged in a purely logical fashion. For example, the instructions to the priests in ch. 10 are placed in their present position because they were given then, and the same motive may account for the law on blasphemy in ch. 24. … The laws were thus intended to meet immediate pressing problems… Leviticus is part of the Pentateuch. It is preceded by Exodus and followed by Numbers and therefore cannot be looked at in isolation. … Israel’s goal was Canaan, not the wilderness, and indeed until the disastrous episode of the spies (Num. 13-14) the Israelites expected to enter the promised land very shortly. Guidance as to the conduct befitting a holy people was therefore welcome at this stage of their development. Many of the laws in chs. 18-27 could only apply to a sedentary agricultural community, not to wandering nomads. … The actual quantity of narrative in Leviticus is very small. … Yet it is essential to recognize that all the laws are set within this historical frame if their arrangement is to be appreciated.” Ibid., pp. 5-6.

7 “Since Leviticus is basically a manual of priestly regulations and procedures, it is only natural that the purely historical element should be subordinated to ritual and legal considerations. Nevertheless, historical narratives are interwoven with sections of law and instructions concerning sacrificial procedures in such a way as to make it clear that Leviticus is closely connected historically with Exodus and Numbers.” Harrison, p. 13.

8 “On purely stylistic grounds alone Leviticus is linked with Exodus 20-40, and the association is demonstrated in the Hebrew text by means of the opening word of Leviticus, the very first consonant of which is a ‘waw consecutive,’ indicating a direct connection with what has just preceded it …” Ibid.

9 “The first fifteen chapters deal broadly with sacrificial principles and procedures relating to the removal of sin and the restoration of persons to fellowship with God. The last eleven chapters emphasize ethics, morality and holiness. The unifying theme of the book is the insistent emphasis upon God’s holiness, coupled with the demand that the Israelites shall exemplify this spiritual attribute in their own lives.” Harrison, p. 14.

10 “… the book of Ezekiel quotes or alludes to Leviticus many times (e.g., Lev. 10:10//Ezek. 22:26; Lev. 18:5//Ezek. 20:11; Lev. 26//Ezek. 34).” Wenham, p. 9.

11 J. Sidlow Baxter (Ibid., p. 113) has cited four basic reasons why Christians tend to avoid the Book of Leviticus. Briefly summarized these are: (1) The belief that it is impossible to master all the ritual and symbol so as to get much profit from the exercise. (2) Since the Leviticus is of another dispensation, there is no application or relevance to today. (3) Some of the teaching (either its severity or its seeming insignificance) seems inconsistent with the nature of God. (4) Genesis and Exodus are essentially historical narrative, so that the flow of the argument is quickly and easily discerned—not so with Leviticus.

12 “… thus the two series of laws in Leviticus are placed in unmistakable correspondence to one another.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 264.

13 Wenham’s comments on his hermeneutical are helpful and accurate: “The approach favored in this commentary takes with equal seriousness both the plain original meaning of the text and its abiding theological value. The primary duty of every commentator is to elucidate what the author of the book meant and to recover what the earliest readers understood it to mean. But Christian commentators are bound to go further and say what the sacred text has to teach the church today, remembering Paul’s words that “whatever was written in former times was written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). Wenham, p. vii. … “In this commentary the following position is assumed: the principles underlying the OT are valid and authoritative for the Christian, but the particular applications found in the OT may not be. The moral principles are the same today, but insofar as our situation often differs from the OT setting, the application of the principles in our society may well be different too.” Wenham, p. 35.

14 Ibid., p. 32.

15 Ibid., pp. 36-37. In pages 32-37 Wenham points out that there is a great deal of continuity, consistency, between the Old Testament and the New. I recommend that the reader consult these pages.

16 Baxter, I, p. 114.

17 Harrison writes, “The importance of levitical law in the mind of Christ can be seen from His remarks (Mt. 22:39) concerning the ‘golden rule’ (Lv. 19:18). In the synoptic gospels this aphorism is mentioned in Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31; and Luke 10:27.” Harrison, p. 32.

18 Wenham, pp. 15-32.

19 Wright comments on holiness in Leviticus: “Holiness is the biblical ‘shorthand’ for the very essence of God. This makes the command of Leviticus 19:2 quite breath-taking. Your quality of life, it said to Israel, must reflect the very heart of God’s character. No less breath-taking, of course, was Jesus’ own echo of the verse to his disciples: ‘Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Mt. 5:48).” Christopher J. H. Wright, An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), p. 27.

20 Baxter, I, pp. 113-114. Of the Abiding Value of the book, Baxter further writes, “First, Leviticus is a revelation of the Divine character to ourselves today, as much as it was to Israel of old. God has not changed. Second, it is a symbolic exposition of the basic principles which underlie all dealing between God and men, just as truly today as in the past; for although the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are now done away, the spiritual realities which they pictorially declare abide for all time. … Third, Leviticus provides a body of civil law for the theocracy; and although some of the details in it are now otiose, the principles of it are such as should guide legislation today. Religion and State, Capital and Labour, land-ownership and property rights, marriage and divorce—these and other matters, which are all to the fore today, are dealt with in Leviticus. … Fourth, Leviticus is a treasury of symbolic and typical teaching. Here are the greatest spiritual truths enshrined in vivid symbols. Here are the great facts of the New Covenant illustrated by great types in the Old Covenant. Supremely, it is in these ways an advance unveiling of Christ.” Baxter, I, pp. 114-115.

Passage: 

2. The Law of Burnt Offerings (Leviticus 1:1-17)

Introduction

For many of us, the most we know of “burnt offerings” is from the jokes which are told by husbands pertaining to the “burnt offerings” of their wives. The ancient Israelite knew much more about burnt offerings, much thanks to the Book of Leviticus. The burnt offering is the first, and one of the most significant offerings.

The burnt offering, along with the others described in Leviticus 1-7, was offered on the bronze altar of burnt offering, the plans for which God gave Moses in the Book of Exodus:

And you shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits wide; the altar shall be square, and its height shall be three cubits. And you shall make its horns on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it, and you shall overlay it with bronze. And you shall make its pails for removing its ashes, and its shovels and its basins and its forks and its fire pans; you shall make all its utensils of bronze. And you shall make for it a grating of network of bronze; and on the net you shall make four bronze rings at its four corners. And you shall put it beneath, under the ledge of the altar, that the net may reach halfway up the altar. And you shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with bronze. And its poles shall be inserted into the rings, so that the poles shall be on the two sides of the altar when it is carried. You shall make it hollow with planks; as it was shown to you in the mountain, so they shall make it (Exod. 27:1-8; cf. also 38:1-7).

The altar for the burnt offerings was thus made of acacia wood, overlaid with bronze, being nearly 8 feet square and about 4 and a half feet high.21 It was a very large altar indeed, but certainly not too large considering the large number of sacrifices and offerings which it was required to facilitate.

As one entered the courtyard of the tabernacle through the gate, the altar of burnt offering would be the first of the tabernacle furnishings to be encountered as one approached the tabernacle proper. To the left of the altar would be the ash heap, where the ashes from the altar were placed (cf. Lev. 1:16). Between the altar and the tabernacle doorway was the bronze laver (30:17-21; 38:8), where Aaron and his sons cleansed themselves. Then, there was the doorway to the tabernacle. Since the altar was located at the approach to the tabernacle, the sacrifices enabled men to draw near to God who dwelt in the tabernacle, and who spoke to Moses from within it (Lev. 1:1).

The purpose of this lesson is to study the first of the sacrifices regulated by chapters 1-7 of Leviticus. We will first make several observations about this sacrifice; then we will attempt to pursue the meaning of the burnt offering for the Israelite, and then we will seek to determine its meaning and application to the New Testament Christian.

As we seek to study the sacrifices of Leviticus, we will focus on two aspects of each. First, we will seek to see the continuity of one sacrifice to the rest. That is, we will seek to learn how a particular sacrifice is like the others. Secondly, we will seek to discern the unique contribution of each sacrifice. That is, we will attempt to determine how each sacrifice is distinct and unique from the others. I believe this two-fold approach will provide us with the key to understanding the sacrifices.

Observations Concerning the Burnt Offerings

The following observations will provide us with the raw material necessary for understanding the significance of the burnt offering of Leviticus chapter 1 (cf. the “law of the burnt offering” in Lev. 6:8-13):

(1) The burnt offering does not originate in Leviticus, but is found early in the Book of Genesis. It is incorrect to suppose that the burnt offering originates in Leviticus. Consulting a concordance will show that the first occurrence of the burnt offering is found in Genesis chapter 8. The first “burnt offering”22 was that offered by Noah after the flood waters had subsided, at which time he offered “burnt offerings” of all the clean23 animals (Gen. 8:20). God instructed Abraham to offer up Isaac as a “burnt offering” (Gen. 22:2ff.), and so the ram which God in Isaac’s place was offered by Abraham as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:13). When Moses told Pharaoh that Israel must take their cattle with them into the wilderness to worship their God, it was because they needed them to offer burnt offerings (Exod. 10:25-26). Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, offered a burnt offering to God in Exodus chapter 18 (v. 12). The Israelites offered up burnt offerings in conjunction with their meeting with God and receiving His covenant on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 20:24; 24:5, etc.). Unfortunately, when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf they offered up burnt offerings as a part of their false worship (Exod. 32:6).

It is my contention that it is these earlier references to the burnt offering in Genesis and Exodus which provided the Israelites with the key to understanding the meaning and significance of the burnt offering regulated in Leviticus chapter 1. We will demonstrate this fact a little later in this message.

(2) The burnt offering regulated in Leviticus chapter 1 was viewed primarily as a personal offering, done voluntarily by the individual Israelite.24 Elsewhere, the burnt offering is often a corporate offering, but as it is regulated in Leviticus 1 it is viewed as a personal, private offering. Thus, verse 2 reads, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock’” (Lev. 1:2). From here on, the personal pronoun “he” is employed, referring to this individual Israelite, who comes with the burnt offering. It is also apparent that it was only the males who could make these offerings to the Lord. It seems that they represented their families (cp. Job 1:5).

(3) The burnt offering is one of the most common offerings, which is offered on a great variety of occasions, often in conjunction with another sacrifice or offering. The major purpose of Leviticus 1 is to instruct the Israelites how the burnt offering is to be offered, but they also needed to know when it should be offered. We find the answer to this question elsewhere in the Pentateuch. I will summarize the occasions on which the burnt offering was appropriate or required.

There were the regularly scheduled times for the burnt offering. Burnt offerings were to be made every day, in the morning and the evening (Exod 29:38-42; Num. 28:3, 6, cf. 2 Chron. 2:4, etc.). An additional burnt offering was to be offered up each Sabbath day (Num. 28:9-10). Also, at the beginning of each month (Num. 28:11), at the celebration of Passover on the 14th day of the 1st month (Num. 28:16), along with new grain offering at Feast of Weeks (Num. 28:27), at the feast of trumpets, on sacred day in the 7th month (Num. 29:1ff.), and for the celebration of the new moon (Num. 29:6).25

A burnt offering was often offered in conjunction with another sacrifice. Among these were the guilt offering (Lev. 5:7, 10, 17-18), the sin offering (cf. Lev. 5:7; 6:25; 9:2-3, 7; 12:6, 8), the votive or freewill offering (Lev. 22:18), the sheaf offering (Lev. 23:12), and the new grain offering (Lev. 23:15-22, esp. v. 18).

There were a number of occasions when a sacrifice was required for cleansing, of which the burnt offering was one of the sacrifices offered. The burnt offering was required in the cleansing of a woman’s uncleanness as a result of child-bearing (both a sin offering and a burnt offering were required, Lev. 12:6-8), of a leper (Lev. 14:19-20), of a man with a discharge (with a sin offering, Lev. 15:14-15), of a woman with an abnormal discharge (with a sin offering, Lev. 15:30), and of a Nazarite who was unintentionally defiled by contact with a dead body (Num. 6:11, 14). When the congregation unwittingly failed to observe one of God’s commands, and was thereby defiled, a burnt offering was required for the purification of the congregation (Num. 15:22-26). A burnt offering was required for the purification and consecration of Aaron (Lev. 16:3, 5, 24), as well as the Levites (Num. 8:12).

In addition to this, there were special times at which the burnt offering was appropriate. Then, there were times when this sacrifice could be offered voluntarily. The bottom line is that this sacrifice was the most common of all sacrifices in Israel:

The reason for describing the burnt offering first is that it was the commonest of all the sacrifices, performed every morning and evening, and more frequently on holy days. … This makes it plausible to suppose that the sacrifices in chs. 1-5 are arranged according to their various theological concepts, so that it is easier to remember their distinctive features. It may be that they were grouped in this way to help the priests learn their tasks.26

(4) The burnt offering was a whole “burnt offering,” which was totally consumed on the altar. Most of the sacrifices benefited the offerer and the priests, in addition to being pleasing to God. Sometimes, the offerer would eat some of the meat of the sacrificial animal, and most often the priest received a portion of it. Thus, when one offered a sacrifice to God, one’s mouth would water, knowing that he would be able to partake of the sacrifice. Not so in the case of the burnt offering, however. Neither the offerer nor the priest partook of any of the meat, for it was all burned in the fire. The hide of the animal was the priest’s only remuneration (cf. Lev. 7:8).

Incidentally, in verse 2 the Hebrew word used for an offering is “corban,” which is referred to by our Lord in Mark 7:11, providing us with an interesting and helpful insight into the evil practiced by the scribes and Pharisees when they called a possession “corban” to keep from having to provide for their parents in their old age.

(5) The regulations for the burnt offering (as well as the other offerings) are very important, and violations are taken very seriously. The way in which one offers any of the sacrifices described in chapters 1-7 must follow God’s regulations precisely. One need only read of the death of Nadab and Abihu in chapter 10 to have this point vividly underscored (cf. also Lev. 17:8-9).

(6) There are three types of animals to sacrifice in the burnt offering.27 The three types of animals, and the specific regulations pertaining to each, provides the structure for chapter 1: (1) Offerings from the herd (bull), vv. 3-9. (2) Offerings from the flock (a sheep or a goat), vv. 10-13. (3) Offerings of birds (turtledoves or pigeons), vv. 14-17. It would seem that the principal reason for providing several sacrificial animals is that the poor could not afford to sacrifice a bull (cf. 14:21-22, 31, where being poor is given as basis for reduction in sacrifice demanded by God).

(7) The animal to be offered in the burnt offering was always to be of the highest quality. A bull, a sheep, or a goat, were all livestock of considerable value.28 With the exception of the birds which could be offered for a burnt offering, the animal must be a male of the flock (v. 10) or the herd (v. 3).29 The animal was to be young, not a old, unproductive, useless creature, fit only for soup or for the proverbial “glue factory.” In fact, it is my impression that the animals were just at the point where they would begin to “pay for their keep.” It truly would be a sacrifice to offer up an animal which one had raised, which was about to be productive, and was thus valuable.

(8) There is an alternation between the activity of the priest and the offerer. As you read the regulations in Leviticus 1 pertaining to the burnt offering you notice an intermingling of involvement between the offerer and the priest(s). While the offering of the birds is somewhat different (it is not nearly so complicated a process), the offerer generally puts the animal to death and cuts it up, while the priest handles the sprinkling of its blood and its burning on the altar of sacrifice. The offerer is much more involved in the process of sacrifice than we might think.30 Sacrifice was, for the offerer, a very personal experience. This was intended, I believe, to make an impression on the Israelite who was making his sacrifice.

(9) The purpose of the burnt offering was to make atonement for the sin of the offerer and thus to gain God’s acceptance. The offerer laid his hands upon the animal, identifying with it.31 More specifically, he identified his sins with the animal. Thus, when the animal was slain (by the hand of the offerer) it died for the sins of the offerer. It is not so much for the offerer’s specific sins (which are dealt with by other sacrifices), but rather for the offerer’s general state of sinfulness.32

The burnt offering was required by, and served to remind the offerer of, his depravity. The burnt offering was thus not so much to gain forgiveness for a particular sin, but to make atonement for the offerer’s sinfulness. It was not just a certain sin which required men to remain separated from God, but the individual’s sinful state. The burnt offering seems to provide a divine solution for man’s fallen condition.

Burnt Offerings and the Ancient Israelite

When we come to the point of trying to discern the meaning of the burnt offering (or any other offering, for that matter) to the Israelites of Moses’ day, we tend to forget a very important fact: they understood this sacrifice in the light of what they already knew about it, not in terms of its future fulfillment. We often impose our viewpoint and interpretation on the Israelites of old by interpreting the meaning of an Old Testament text in the light of the coming of Christ. We must remember, however, that Christ’s coming, life, death, and resurrection is a past event for us, but a future event for the Israelites. They (like Christians today) had to interpret God’s Word in the light of what God had already said and done.

Thus, the key to understanding the meaning of the burnt offering for the ancient Israelite was what had already been revealed about it before the regulations of Leviticus. Leviticus 1 informed the Israelite how the burnt offering was to be offered, not what it meant. I believe that the two major interpretive keys to the meaning of the burnt offering are to be found in the “burnt offerings” of Noah in Genesis 8 and of Abraham in Genesis 22.

In Genesis chapter 8, after the flood has destroyed all life on earth (except for what was in the ark), and after the water has subsided, we read:

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease” (Gen. 8:20-22).

The relationship between this text and that of Leviticus can be seen by several lines of correspondence. First, the term “burnt offering” found in Genesis 8:20 is the same as that of Leviticus 1. Second, “clean” animals and birds are offered by Noah (Gen. 8:20). It is Leviticus which defines the difference between what is clean and what is not. Third, the offering is said to be a “soothing aroma” to God (Gen. 8:21), which is an expression similar to that found frequently in Leviticus, and more specifically in Leviticus chapter 1 (vv. 9, 13, 17).

The sacrifice which Noah offered was the basis for the covenantal promise of God that He would never again destroy every living thing by a flood again (Gen. 8:21). This promise was not due to the fact that all sin had been destroyed from the face of the earth. The fact of man’s depravity (as will soon be manifested in Noah and his family) is still present, for God can still say, “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21), a statement very similar to that of Exodus 32:9, where God told Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.”

The basis for God’s promise to Noah is not the goodness of man, for man’s depravity is specifically stated. This basis for God’s covenant promise is the result of the burnt offering offered up by Noah. Thus, the Israelites saw that the burnt offering was a means of avoiding God’s wrath and of obtaining God’s favor. God’s blessing was the result of a burnt offering, not of man’s good deeds.

The second interpretive key is found in the burnt offering of Abraham in Genesis 22. God summoned Abraham with this command: “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you” (Gen. 22:2).

We know from the account given by Moses that Abraham did as God commanded him. We know from the New Testament accounts that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son because he believed that God would raise him from the dead (cf. Rom. 4:19-21; Heb. 11:19). In God’s grace, He stopped Abraham from slaying his son, and provided a ram in his place (Gen. 22:13).

In what way did this account of the offering up of Isaac as a burnt offering instruct the Israelites about the meaning of the burnt offering? I believe that it taught them several important lessons. First, they could have seen that the promise of God’s blessing to all the earth, the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3), involved the death and resurrection of Abraham’s offspring. Secondly, the Israelites saw that in the “burnt offering” the sacrificial animal died in place of the man. Isaac didn’t die because God provided an animal to take his place. So when the Israelite place his hand on the head of the sacrificial animal, he should have known that this animal was dying in his place, just as the ram died in the place of Isaac. He should also have seen that something must take place in the future, so that the death of Isaac, which was prevented by the sacrifice of the ram, could be carried out in some greater way.

All of this has become clear to the New Testament saint, but it was obscure to the ancient Israelite, who knew that God was at work in some mysterious and, as yet, unknown way. Until the time when this purpose was made known, the Israelite offered up his burnt offering, so that God’s wrath could be avoided, and so that God’s blessings could be received.

The Burnt Offering and the New Testament Saint

Regardless of what the ancient Israelite understood of the symbolism of the burnt offering in terms of its future fulfillment in Christ, Christ was the ultimate fulfillment, the antitype of the burnt offering. John the Baptist indicated this at the very outset of our Lord’s ministry, when he greeted Him with the words, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).33

We must agree with the theology of the Book of Hebrews (in particular) and of the New Testament (in general) that now that Christ has come as the Lamb of God and died “once for all” there is no longer any need for the burnt offering, the type of which our Lord is the ultimate and final antitype.

It might seem that if the burnt offering is no longer necessary, we must conclude that the burnt offering is no longer relevant, since the future meaning of that sacrifice has been realized in Christ. There is a sense in which this conclusion is absolutely correct. There is another sense in which this conclusion can be carried too far. Let me press on to show the importance and the applicability of the burnt offering to New Testament saints today.

The burnt offering (and the others, too) was symbolic in the sense that it represented and portrayed, in advance, the ultimate burnt offering, Jesus Christ. The burnt offering also symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God’s provision for his sins, and for his access to God. The burnt offering symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God, and his intention to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself.

The Israelite’s worship often deteriorated to mere ritualism when the sacrifices were offered, but then the faith and obedience which they symbolized did not follow. When this happened, the prophets sternly rebuked the Israelites for their hypocrisy:

With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves? Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:6-8).

It is my contention that the faith and obedience of the Israelite, which the sacrifice of the burnt offering symbolized, and which was required by God of the Israelites, is the same faith and obedience which the death of Christ is to produce in all who profess Him as Savior, and which God requires of us. These acts of faith and obedience are described by the New Testament writers by the use of the same sacrificial terminology as is employed in the Old Testament.

Christian service, in church and in the community, is compared to sacrifice: “Through him let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God. … Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb. 13:15-16; cf. Phil. 4:18; 1 Pet. 2:5). In that the only burnt offering that can atone for sin has been made by Christ, Christians no longer have to bring their lambs to the altar to receive forgiveness of sins. But bringing a sacrifice involved praising God for his grace and declaring one’s intention to love God and keep his commandments. Now that animal sacrifice is obsolete, praise and good works by themselves constitute the proper sacrifices expected of a Christian.34

Thus far, we have seen that the burnt offering and the other Old Testament sacrifices apply in the fulfillment of Christ as the “once for all” sacrifice for sinners, and in the faith and obedience of the offerer which the sacrifices symbolized. There is yet another way in which the sacrifices apply to us. The same principles which the sacrifices were intended to teach the Israelite and those which these sacrifices teach us, these principles still apply today, as much as in the days of the Israelite. Let me identify a few of these principles and suggest some of their practical implications to New Testament saints. As our study of Leviticus continues, we shall pursue these principles in greater detail.

(1) The principle of man’s depravity The burnt offering was not an offering for a specific sin, but was associated with other offerings, and with various occasions, from mourning and repentance, to celebration and joy. The purpose of this sacrifice, I believe, was to be a reminder to the Israelites of man’s depravity. As God Himself put it in Genesis 8:21, “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” In any instance when an Israelite wanted to approach God, to worship Him, to be accepted by Him, he had to come with a burnt offering, thus acknowledging and making provision for his sinfulness. We ought not forget our own depravity.

The principle applies equally to Christians today. While it is true that Christ died for our sins, once for all, it is also still true that we will not be freed from sin’s presence until we are in the presence of God, with transformed bodies. Our present condition is the reason why we must die, and to enter into heaven in a different form (cf. 1 Cor. 15). Because we are still corrupted by sin, we need to suspect and scrutinize our every motive and action. We need to realize that whether we are witnessing, preaching, or serving, our actions can appear to be pious, but can be prompted by the basest motives. We need to realize that we are in need of the present intercession and mediation of Christ, that we need Him every hour, yes every moment. The only reason why we can approach God is due to the sacrificial work of Christ.

(2) The principle of particularity. If the Israelite learned anything from the meticulous rules and regulations which God laid down for the burnt offering and all of the rest, it was that He is very particular about the way men approach Him. The rebellious nature of fallen man inclines him to want to approach God his own way. The song, “I did it my way,” illustrates this tendency. God did not allow men to approach Him their own way, but rather only in accordance with the means He Himself established. Men could only approach God by means of the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices. Today, men can only come to God God’s way, through the person and work of Jesus Christ, who, as the sacrificial lamb, died for our sins, making a way of approach to God. Our Lord conveyed the exclusiveness of His death as the way to God when He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).

If you wish to approach God, to be assured of the forgiveness of your sins, and to dwell in His presence forever, my friend, you can do so only through faith in the person of Jesus Christ, who came to earth and died in your place. No other way is acceptable with God. In no other way can you be found acceptable in Him.

(3) The principle of acceptance with God. Closely related to this is the principle of acceptance with God. There is a great deal of emphasis these days on self-acceptance, or self-esteem, most of which is wrongly oriented. Contemporary self-esteem looks inward for acceptance, while the Bible tells us that the ultimate acceptance we must seek is God’s. People today want to “feel good about themselves” by looking for the good which is in them, while God’s word tells us that we are not good, in and of ourselves, but must look for God’s favor which is occasioned by something outside ourselves, ultimately in something which we put to death. Today we are told, even from the pulpit, that we must first feel good about ourselves, we must first love ourselves, and then we will be able to love God. The Bible tells us that we cannot, that we should not, accept ourselves until God has accepted us.

The bottom line is that the Bible portrays God’s acceptance as the highest good of all, and that making great sacrifice is worth the price to attain God’s favor. Let us see God’s approval as our highest good, and let us forsake all, including self-seeking and self-love to attain it. It is in our death, in Christ, that God is well pleased. It is in giving up our life that we gain life. And as Christians, no motive should be stronger than that of pleasing God, of hearing Him say to us in that day, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

(4) The principle of atonement through the shedding of blood. The sinful state of man is dealt with by the shedding of innocent blood, the blood of a sacrificial victim. The burnt offering communicates and illustrates this principle of atonement.

(5) The principle of identification. The one who was to benefit from the death of the sacrificial victim had to identify with that animal. It was, first of all, his animal, one that he had either raised or obtained at a price. Then the offerer placed his hand upon the victim, symbolically identifying himself with the victim, which he killed in his place. Apart from identifying with the sacrificial animal in this way, the sacrifice had no benefit for the individual Israelite.

We, too, are redeemed, and atonement is made, when we identify ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism is the rite which God has established, whereby men identify personally with the work of Christ. Baptism does not, in and of itself, save men, but identification with Christ (which is symbolized and expressed by baptism) is the instrumentality God has ordained so that we may be delivered from the judgment we deserve. Those who have failed to be baptized may either fail in their understanding of the importance and urgency of this public act of identification, or they may not have personally identified with Christ by faith.

(6) The principle of sacrifice. One of the unique contributions of the whole burnt offering is that it illustrates sacrifice in its purest form. A very valuable animal is given up wholly to God. Neither the offerer nor the priest gains much from the offering, other than the benefit of being found acceptable to God, which, in the final analysis, is the ultimate benefit.

This kind of sacrifice is seldom practiced, and even when it is we may wonder at the wisdom of such waste. The widow who gave her last two mites might be criticized today for her lack of prudence in failing to plan and prepare for the future. The woman who poured out her expensive perfume, anointing the feet of the Lord, was accused of wastefulness. And so we tend to give our worn out old things to God, while we keep what is new and best for ourselves. We know little of giving our best to God, with no hope of anything beyond His approval.

But this kind of sacrifice is what God calls for from those who would be true disciples. Disciples are those who give up all to follow Christ. They are to count the cost of discipleship, and then to gladly pay it. When we give ourselves to God, as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1-2), we are to do so totally, without reserve, so as to be pleasing to Him. May God enable us to practice this kind of sacrifice in our own lives.


21 “Outside the tent was found the large altar for burnt offerings, 7 ft. 6 inches (2.2 meters) square and 4 ft. 6 inches (1.3 meters) high, which is described in Exod. 27:1-8.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 52-53.

22 When I refer to the term “burnt offering” here I refer specifically to that offering which is designated by the same Hebrew term as is found in Leviticus chapter one.

23 It is noteworthy that in this first account of a “burnt offering” the term “clean” appears, a term which is greatly clarified in Leviticus. Also, the sacrifice of the “burnt offering” offered by Noah was said to produce a “soothing aroma” to the Lord (Gen. 8:21), an expression frequently employed (at least in very similar terms) in Leviticus (e.g. 1:9, 17). This suggests that many of the practices which are regulated in Leviticus are not initiated here, but have their origin much earlier in the history of God’s dealings with men.

24 “The following laws deal with offerings made by private persons. The public national sacrifices offered each day and at the festivals are listed in Num. 28-29. But here it is a question of a personal act of devotion or atonement.” Wenham, p. 50.

25 Special times of offering burnt offerings are summarized in 2 Chronicles 8:13: “And did so according to the daily rule, offering them up according to the commandment of Moses, for the sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths” (cf. also 2 Chron. 31:3).

26 Wenham, p. 52.

27 Leviticus 1:2 makes it clear that only domesticated animals may be offered, and not wild game, which is (too) easily obtained.

28 “Furthermore, only perfect animals were acceptable in worship (Lev. 1:3, 10; 22:18ff.). Only the best is good enough for God. The prophet Malachi later told those who offered second-rate animals that they were despising the Lord’s name and polluting his table … Meat was a rare luxury in OT times for all but the very rich (cf. Nathan’s parable, 2 Sam. 12:1-6). Yet even we might blanch if we saw a whole lamb or bull go up in smoke as a burnt offering. How much greater pangs must a poor Israelite have felt.” Wenham, p. 51.

29 Wenham agrees that the male species is more highly valued: “Male animals were also regarded as more valuable than females. For example, in the case of purification offerings a ruler had to bring a he-goat, but an ordinary person was expected to offer only a she-goat (4:22-31). Except for the burnt offering and reparation offerings, animals of either sex could be offered: the limitation to male animals shows the high status of these two sacrifices.” Ibid., p. 55.

Harrison, however, disagrees: “Here and in 5:18 alone a male animal is specified for sacrifice. The choice of a male may reflect the dominance of that sex in other than matriarchal societies, but it may well have embraced a more pragmatic purpose also. Where a choice was involved, male animals were more expendable than females in a society in which livestock was equivalent to both capital and income. Fewer males than females were necessary for the survival of the herds and flocks, since the male was utilized only periodically for purposes of breeding. By contrast, the female functioned as a continual provider of milk and its by-products in addition to producing new livestock from time to time.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 43-44.

I find Harrison’s reasoning hard to accept. The rarer animal (the male, by his admission) is the more expensive. Due to his role in the reproduction process, the male could reproduce many offspring, while the female would produce (normally) but one offspring. To give up a female was some loss; to give up the male, great loss. In either case, however, since the animals sacrificed were young, neither had yet produced for its owner. The owner was to sacrifice the animal just at that point in time when the animal was gaining value, after a period of what we might call “negative cash flow.” This really was a sacrifice, then.

30 “The ancient worshipper did not just listen to the minister and sing a few hymns. He was actively involved in the worship. He had to choose an unbelmished animal from his own flock, bring it to the sanctuary, kill it and dismember it with his own hands, then watch it go up in smoke before his very eyes. He was convicted that something very significant was achieved through these acts and knew that his relationship with God was profoundly affected by this sacrifice.” Wenham, p. 55.

31 Wenham stresses this when he writes, “Lay is perhaps a rather weak translation of the Hebrew (samak); ‘press’ might be preferable (cf. Isa. 59:16; Ezek. 24:2; 30:6; Amos 5:19). The worshipper was not just to touch the animal; he was to lean on it.” Wenham, p. 61.

32 Wenham seems to agree when he writes, “… the burnt offering makes atonement for sin in a more general sense.” Ibid., p. 57.

33 The words of John the Baptist are especially relevant, since he did not say, “who takes away the sins (plural) of the world,” but rather, “who takes away the sin of the world.” Christ as the Lamb of God, as the antitype of the burnt offering, deals with the depravity of man, with man’s sinfulness in general, as well as his sinfulness in terms of specific sins.

34 Wenham, pp. 64-65.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

3. The Grain Offering (Leviticus 2:1-16; 6:14-18; 7:9-10; 10:12-13)

Introduction35

I can well remember the quizzical feeling I sensed as I walked into that remote village in India, late one afternoon three years ago. There was something strange about that village, but I wasn’t quite sure what it was that caused me to think that this was unusual. After several moments I realized that I was puzzled by two things. The first was the fact that the village was virtually empty and almost entirely silent. The answer to this mystery was easy. During the day, every able-bodied man and child goes out to the surrounding countryside with their cattle, so that they might graze. (The elderly, the women and the young children stayed at home, but they remained inside their huts, out of sight until they knew who these strangers were.) The empty streets suddenly came to life in a few minutes, when the cattle were driven home, to their stalls alongside the huts (which could scarcely be distinguished from the huts themselves).

The second puzzle was the one sound that I did hear being emitted from the huts. It was a low, rumbling sound, almost like the sound of a motor, or a poorly lubricated piece of machinery, but I knew this could not be true, for the power lines which ran overhead did not supply any electrical power to the villagers, save to power the street lights, paid for by the government. An Indian friend solved this mystery. The sound was that of the hand-powered grindstones, operated by the women of the village, grinding the grain in preparation for the evening meal—which would consist primarily of a very thin “taco shell-like” bread, which would be cooked over an open fire.

These uneducated village people, whose world was perhaps no bigger than a few square miles, would find it easier to identify with the grain offerings of the Israelites, as regulated in Leviticus chapter 2, than we would. For us, a good “square” meal would consist of meat, potatoes, perhaps another veggie or so, salad, and maybe, dessert. For the Israelites, their meal would be much simpler, much more similar to that of the Indian villager. An offering of grain to God would mean more to these people than to us.

There is one thing which we should not lose sight of, however. While grain was not unfamiliar to the Israelite, it was not a common commodity, either. Remember, the Israelites are not living in Egypt, where grain was common, nor are they yet living in Canaan, where they would grow grain. The Israelites were currently camped at the base of Mt. Sinai. They were in the desert, where grain could not be grown, and where it could not be purchased, either. Thus, the sacrifice of grain was either impossible to do until reaching Canaan, or it was something not easy to do. Offering manna, on the other hand, would have been easy, but this is not what God commanded.

The grain offering is perhaps one of the most difficult offerings of the Book of Leviticus to interpret and apply. Other than by means of resorting to typology, I have seen no works which give a satisfactory explanation of the meaning of the grain offerings, either for the ancient Israelites, or for 20th century Christians. We have before us a task that is not going to be easy, but will be worthwhile, I believe.

Before we begin to analyze the text in greater detail, let me make a comment about the rendering of this chapter in the King James Version of the Bible. You will note that the grain offerings are referred to as “meat offerings.” The word “meat,” as it was used by the translators of the KJV, did not mean “meat” as we now use the term, say in the expression “meat and potatoes.” This was a term which simply referred to food, and thus, in a general way, could refer to grain (either in its raw form, or cooked in some fashion).

Two more comments about the structure and arrangement of our text will help us as we commence our study of the grain offering in chapter 2. First, we should note the structure of the first 10 chapters of the Book of Leviticus. In Leviticus we must consider each offering by consulting two major texts, not just one. There are two sections for each offering, the first regulations are spelled out in chapters 1-5, followed by further regulations in chapters 6 & 7. The second set of regulations generally begin with an expression something like, “this is the law of …,” which then goes on to specify which sacrifice the regulations which will follow pertain to. Thus, we find the regulations for the various sacrifices in two major texts:

    First Regulations:

    Subsequent Regulations:

    (More “laity” directed)

    (More Priestly in orientation)

    Burnt Offering, ch. 1

    Law of Burnt Offering, 6:8-13

    Grain Offering, ch. 2

    Law of Grain Offering, 6:14-18
    (vv. 19-23, the priests grain offering), 7:9-10

    Peace Offering, ch. 3

    Law of Peace Offering, 7:11-34

    Sin Offering, ch. 4

    Law of Sin Offering, 6:24-30

    Guilt Offering, ch. 5, 6:1-7

    Law of Guilt Offering, 7:1-10

    Ordination Offering, 6:19-23

    Ordination Offerings, 8:1–9:24
    Priests and offerings, 10:1-2036

Second, we should take note of the basic structure of Leviticus chapter 2. The chapter falls into four basic divisions. Verses 1-3 introduce the grain offering and focus on the offering of the grain in an uncooked form. Verses 4-10 provide the regulations pertaining to the grain offering in several cooked forms. Verses 11-13 deal with that which can and that which cannot be added to the offering. Verses 14-16 prescribe the offering of the first fruits of the grain crop. In summary form, the chapter can thus be outlined:

      The Grain Offering in Leviticus 2

        Vv. 1-3—The uncooked grain offering.

        Vv. 4-10—The various cooked grain offerings.

        Vv. 11-13—Ingredients: refused (leaven) and required (salt).

        Vv. 14-16—Early grain offerings.

Finally, before we move into our study of the text itself, it is important to keep in mind the three principal terms used for “offering” in the first two chapters of the Book of Leviticus. There are three principle terms used for the offerings of the Israelites in chapters 1 & 2. First, there is the general term QORBAN, which is found in chapters 1 through 7 (also chapters 9, 17, 22, 23 & 27) of Leviticus, normally rendered “offering” (cf. Lev. 1:2, marginal note, NASB), and referring to all the sacrifices which the Israelite could offer and that the early chapters of Leviticus describe. Second, there is the more specialized term `OLA, which refers to the whole burnt offering regulated in Leviticus chapter one. Third, there is the term MINHA, which is employed in a technical sense in Leviticus chapter 2 for the Grain Offering.37

Observations Concerning the Grain Offering

The grain offering can perhaps be understood in comparison and in contrast with the whole burnt offering which we have already considered in Leviticus chapter 1. We will begin by noting the similarities of the two sacrifices. Next, we shall seek to note the distinctives of the grain offering, as opposed to the burnt offering. Finally, we shall make some other observations which will help us to determine its meaning and application.

Similarities Between the Grain and Burnt Offerings:

(1) Both offerings required the highest quality offering to be sacrificed. In the case of the whole burnt offering, the animal, whether bull, goat, sheep, or bird (turtledove or pigeon), had to be young, male (except for birds), and without blemish. The grain to be offered had to be “fine.” The term “fine” could mean “fine quality,” which it does by inference, but the “fine” here refers to the finely ground flour which is to be offered.38 To obtain fine flour entailed a great deal of extra effort on the part of the person who ground it, for it was not something which one purchased from the store. Neither was it simply run through an electrically powered mechanical grinder a second time. The flour would have had to have been ground on a primitive grinding stone, a process which, at best, usually produces only a coarse flour. (I suspect that even our commercially purchased whole wheat flour would be difficult to produce on such a primitive grindstone.) Such “fine” flour was that which was fit for a king (cf. 1 Ki. 4:22).

(2) The Grain Offering was, like the Burnt Offering, an offering by fire. Frequently in both chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Leviticus we find the expression, “an offering by fire …” (cf. 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 10, 16). Both the Burnt Offering and the Grain Offering were offered to God by fire, on the altar of burnt offerings.

(3) The Grain Offering and the Burnt Offering produced a “soothing aroma to the Lord.” Only the Burnt, Grain, and Peace Offerings (cf. 3:5, 16) were said to produce a “soothing aroma to the Lord.”

(4) There is a close correspondence between the Burnt Offering and the Grain Offering because the two offerings are often carried out together. The Grain Offering was often an adjunct of another offering (cf. Exod. 29:38-46; Lev. 23:9ff.; Num. 6:13ff.; 7:13, 19, etc.; 8:8; 15:1-9). The 28th and 29th chapters of the Book of Numbers most dramatically demonstrate the association between the Grain and the other offerings. The Grain Offering was instructed by God to follow the Burnt Offering (Num. 28, cf. also Josh. 22:23, 29; Judg. 13:19, 23). Thus, while the Grain Offering itself does not atone, there is atonement very near at hand whenever the Grain Offering takes place.

Distinctives of the Grain Offering

Having considered some of the ways in which the Grain Offering is similar to the Burnt Offering, let us now proceed to identify some of the distinctives of the Grain Offering, those characteristics of this offering which set it apart from the first (Burnt) offering. It is in these distinctives, I believe, that we shall find the unique contribution of the Grain Offering.

(1) The Grain Offering is distinguished from the Burnt Offering by that which is being offered up to God. The Burnt Offering was an animal offering; the Grain Offering was a vegetable offering. The Burnt Offering could either be a bull (Lev. 1:3-9), a male sheep or goat (Lev. 1:10-13), or a pigeon or turtledove of either sex (Lev. 1:14-17). The Grain Offering was just that, an offering of grain, which was most likely either wheat or barley.

(2) The Grain Offering differed from the Burnt Offering in that the latter was a blood sacrifice, while the former was not. Since the Grain Offering was not an animal offering, there was no blood shed in this offering. We know that apart from the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins (cf. Heb. 9:22), and thus the Grain Offering did not make atonement for sin. Consequently, the offerer was not instructed to identify himself with the grain he was about to offer, as was the case with the Burnt Offering, with which the offerer identified himself by laying his hand on the head of the animal (Lev. 1:4). The purpose, then, of the Grain Offering was other than that of making atonement for sin.

(3) The Burnt Offerings and the Grain Offerings differed in that the animals for the Burnt Offerings were more accessible than the grain. Grain was common in the ancient Near East, but it was not a common commodity in the camp of the Israelites. Why, after all, was it necessary for God to provide manna for the Israelites to eat, if not because of the absence of grain? The Israelites could not raise wheat in the desert. It would not grow such a crop without rain, and the Israelites were just passing through this place anyway. The grain which the Israelites were to offer was, in my opinion, much more rare, much more precious a commodity than the cattle, which these shepherds had in abundance.

Assuming that the Israelites had grain with them in the camp, grain which they would not eat, but which could be offered to God, what would this grain have been for? I have come to the conclusion that this grain was taken with the Israelites for seed (cf. 2 Cor. 9:10). To sacrifice their seed to God was indeed an act of faith.

The “oil” which was used in this offering (vv. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, etc.) I would take to be olive oil. This would not have been readily available in the desert, either. The same could be said for frankincense, which was probably quite rare and expensive. Thus, the sacrificial materials, the grain, the oil, and the frankincense, were all difficult to obtain in the days of Moses. Once the people entered the land of Canaan, obtaining these goods would have depended upon the bounty of the harvest, for which the Israelites must look to God (cf. Deut. 11:10-12).

(4) The Grain Offering was not a “whole burnt offering,” but only a portion of it was burned on the altar, while the rest was eaten by the priests. The Burnt Offering was totally consumed upon the altar, with the priests benefiting only from the hide (Lev. 1:5-9; 7:8). With the Grain Offering only a handful of the offering was burned on the altar, while the rest was given to the priests:

‘He shall then bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all its memorial portion on the altar, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD. And the remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons: a thing most holy, of the offerings to the LORD by fire’ (Lev. 2:2-3).

The greater portion of the Grain Offering served as the livelihood of the priests, just as the tithe was God’s appointed means for supporting the Levites (Num. 18:21-24). A handful of the Grain Offering was burned on the altar, while the rest was given to Aaron and his sons. The portion that was offered was called the “memorial portion”39 (Lev. 2:2, 9, 16), while the other portion was called “a thing most holy” (Lev. 2:3, 10; cf. 5:17).40

(5) The Grain Offering was distinct from the Burnt Offering in that the Grain Offering allowed and even encouraged man’s contribution to the offering. The Burnt Offering allowed men to participate in the ceremony of the sacrifice, but not to add anything to the sacrifice. This can easily be understood in the light of the purpose of atonement and attaining divine favor. For sinful man to attempt to contribute to an atoning sacrifice would only defile that sacrifice. The Israelite could add nothing to that sacrifice which atoned for his sins, just as we can contribute nothing to the work of Christ, which atones for our sins.

The purpose of the Grain Offering is not atonement, but worship, acknowledgment of God’s divine provision of the needs of the Israelite for life itself. The Grain Offering praised God for His abundant supply of the “daily bread” of the Israelite. But while men do not contribute to their redemption, they do participate in the growing of the crops by which God sustains their life. Thus, the human element is present in the Grain Offering in a way that it is not in the Burnt Offering.

For example, the kind of grain that can be offered to God seems to be a matter of choice (although perhaps this was simply decided on the basis of what was available). The grain could be offered to God cooked or uncooked, and if cooked in a variety of ways. Verses 1-3 of Leviticus 2 prescribe the offering of uncooked grain, while verses 4-10 regulate the offering of that grain which is cooked in an oven (v. 4),41 on a griddle (v. 5),42 or in a pan (v. 7).43 All of these options suggest freedom as to what form the offering can take, within the parameters God has set. Put in today’s terms, the offering could be that of flour, mixed with oil, of bread, of pancakes, of sweet rolls, or of donuts.

(6) The Grain Offering was distinct in what additional ingredients were either prohibited or prescribed. Forbidden ingredients for the Grain Offering were leaven and honey.44 No specific reason for this prohibition is given, although at the institution of the Passover, leaven was prohibited at this meal (cf. Exod. 12:15, 19). Leaven is not mentioned in the Bible before this. A key to the significance of leaven may be found in Exodus chapter 23: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; nor is the fat of My feast to remain overnight until morning” (Exod. 23:18; also 34:25). The blood sacrifice cannot be associated with leaven or with “spoiling.” That is, the blood sacrifice cannot be associated with corruption, which leaven and leaving overnight both are known to produce.

The absence of leaven in the sacrifice was also a reminder of God’s deliverance in the past: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it [the Passover lamb]; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), in order that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt” (Deut. 16:4).

Not only are leaven and honey to be absent, but salt and frankincense45 is to be present in the Grain Offering. Frankincense was a sweet-smelling fragrance available in the ancient Near East. I believe that it was a sensory symbol of the pleasure which the offering was intended to bring God. The expense of the frankincense was a reminder that costly sacrifice is worth the price, for pleasing God is the highest good. The salt which had to be offered with the Grain Offering was understood, I believe, in contrast to the leaven and honey. While leaven corrupts, salt preserves and purifies. Salt was thus related to purification and preservation.

Beyond this, the salt that was to be added was identified as “the salt of the covenant of your God” (Lev. 2:13). A “covenant of salt” is found only elsewhere in the Bible in Numbers 18:19 and 2 Chronicles 13:5. In Ezekiel 43:24 God commands salt to be thrown on the Burnt Offerings. We are told that salt was used symbolically in covenants of that day in the ancient Near East. It would seem, then, that salt spoke not only of purity, but even more importantly, of longevity. The salt which was added to the Grain Offering reminded Israel of the covenant God had made with Israel, which was an enduring covenant.

But what covenant is this, and what did it have to do with the Grain Offering? The covenant was the Mosaic Covenant, which promised the Israelites the presence of God and the possession of Canaan, if they kept God’s commandments. In Canaan, God would prosper His people: “For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deut. 8:7-8).

The promise included the assurance that God would produce the rain required for the harvests in this land where rain did not predictably fall, and which was not irrigated, like Egypt:

“For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year” (Deut. 11:10-12).

This move to the land of Canaan is going to require a radical change in the way of life of the Israelites. They will cease to be a semi-nomadic people, leading their flocks wherever grass is to be found. They will settle down, still raising cattle, but now growing grain, wheat and barley. The Grain Offering anticipates this radical change, and serves as a reminder that the very grain which they are required to offer will be provided by God. They must trust in Him to provide, as well as to labor diligently in their fields.

Conclusion

In order to determine the meaning of this passage, we must first agree upon the method which we are going to employ to interpret and to apply this Old Testament text. Thus, we will conclude by briefly discussing the hermeneutic which we will employ to interpret this passage. Then we shall seek to identify those principles which were intended to be learned and applied by the reader. We will then seek to find the application of those principles to our lives.

Hermeneutics: A Method of Interpreting This Text

As we move from the distinctives of the Grain Offering to the interpretation of this text, we must pause to consider the crucial area of hermeneutics, the methods with which we endeavor to interpret the biblical text, and then find its application to our lives.

The principle thing we must agree upon is that there is but one primary interpretation of the text. The passage was not written to mean different things to different people, but to convey a message, a lesson, a principle. While there is but one interpretation of the text, that interpretation may have many different applications. Thus, we often are told, and rightly so, “Interpretation is one; applications are many.” There is a message in the second chapter of Leviticus, and it is our task to determine what that message is. Our hermeneutic will define how (the process) we are going to go about trying to discern what the lesson of the text is.

The typological meaning given to a text is seldom, if ever, the principle interpretation of the text. I feel that I must address the “hermeneutic” of typology because of its popularity in the interpretation of the books of the law, such as Leviticus. The biggest problem with typology is that it is so loosely tied to the text, to exegesis, and to the meaning of that text to its original audience. Also troubling and problematic is the fact that so few seem to agree about the meaning of the types which they “see.” My biggest problem is that the typological meaning of any Old Testament text would not have been known to the ancient reader, because a type is best recognized and understood in the light of the coming of its antitype. Joseph did not perceive of himself as a type of Christ, nor did his brothers, nor did any Israelite, until after the coming of Christ. Now, in the light of its typological fulfillment, we understand the meaning and significance of the type. Typology may be of value to us, but it was of little or no value to the ancient Israelite. Typology often serves as a substitute for a careful search for the primary interpretation of an Old Testament text. To be honest, I did not find any commentary who went very far beyond a typological interpretation and application of the Grain Offering.

In a very few instances, for example in Psalm 22, the typological interpretation of the text may be its predominant message, at least for the contemporary saint. But the typological meaning of a passage is one that did not speak to the reader who lived in the days when that text was first written. Typology applies most to those who live after the cross, and not before it. Thus, we should be very cautious about making the typology of a text its principle meaning.

The hermeneutic which we will employ will seek to interpret and to apply this text in the following sequence:

(1) To determine the meaning of the Old Testament text for the Israelite of that day. This is the starting point for our interpretation of all biblical revelation. We must begin by determining what this chapter in Leviticus was intended to teach the Israelites who were with Moses at the base of Mt. Sinai, who had not yet entered Canaan. This is the most crucial step in exegesis (interpretation), and it is also one of the most difficult. It is most difficult because we are most removed from the text in time and in culture. In order to complete this step we must consider:

  • What has already happened to the Israelites, which has prepared them to understand what they are now being taught.
  • What the text being studied and its context teaches about the meaning of the text.
  • What the Old Testament prophets taught (if they did) about the meaning of the Old Testament text. The prophets of the Old Testament often refer to the earlier teachings of the Law, and point out their intended interpretation and application. Thus, the prophets often explain the early passages of Scripture.
  • What New Testament might add to our understanding of the interpretation of the Old Testament text. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had a great deal to say about the correct understanding and application of the Old Testament Scriptures. Also, the New Testament writers often used Old Testament texts to buttress or illustrate their teachings. Apostolic interpretation and application of Old Testament passages provides us with a model hermeneutic.

(2) To determine the meaning of the Old Testament text as it was fulfilled in the coming of Christ. In many instances, an Old Testament text is fulfilled by the coming of Christ, or by some facet of His ministry. For example, the words of John the Baptist, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), indicate that the Old Testament sacrificial lamb was, in some way, fulfilled in Christ. When Paul tells us that the rock which followed Israel was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), we have a commentary of the Old Testament passage describing that rock (e.g. Exodus 17). Here is where typology applies, although this method of interpretation must be used with great caution.

(3) To determine its meaning as it is to be applied by the New Testament saint. This is almost entirely based upon a determination of the primary interpretation of the Old Testament text, and then the application of the permanent principles which are evident in that interpretation.

The Grain Offering, Israel, and the Contemporary Christian:
Principles Taught by the Grain Offering

Before we begin to pursue the principles involved in the Grain Offering, let me remind you of some of the practical implications of the exodus and the entrance into Canaan for the Israelite, which bears on the whole matter of the Grain Offerings.

First, the exodus required a radical change in lifestyle for the Hebrew people, from that of semi-nomadic sheep herders, to settled farmers. In the Book of Genesis we see that the patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 43:32; 46:34), and thus they wandered from place to place. Thus, when the Israelites offered their first fruits of grain, they were instructed:

“You shall go to the priest who is in office at that time, and say to him, ‘I declare this day to the LORD my God that I have entered the land which the LORD swore to our fathers to give us.’ Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down before the altar of the LORD your God. And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God, ‘My father was a wandering Aramean, …’” (Deut. 26:3-5a; cf. Gen. 37:12-17).

Israel’s wandering was especially the case when there was a shortage of grass or a famine (cp. Gen. 12:10; Gen. 45:5-11). When the Israelites left the land of Egypt, they were to possess the land of Canaan, where each tribe would be assigned a portion of the land. Thus, these shepherds would become settled farmers, with houses instead of tents, with farms which they owned, rather than to wander about like Gypsies. Rather than seeking to buy grain, as they once did, they would raise it themselves.

Second, the exodus from Egypt to Canaan meant that farming would be very different in Canaan than in Egypt. As we have seen previously from the passage in Deuteronomy 11:10-12, the manner in which farming was conducted in Canaan was radically different from that in Egypt. In “Texas terms” it was the difference between “dry” (unirrigated) farming and “deep well” (irrigated) farming. In Egypt, the farmer merely had to dig a trench with his foot and the irrigation waters from the Nile provided the water for this parched land. But in Canaan the people must rely upon God to provide them with the rain which was required for their crops. Thus, Canaan would force the Israelites to farm by faith. The grain which they would raise would be that which God caused to grow and to prosper.

In light of these changes, and of the commands which God gave the Israelites pertaining to the Grain Offering, there are several principles which they were to learn, which are equally applicable to Christians today. Let us consider these principles.

(1) The Principle of Dependence Upon God for the Physical Necessities of Life. The Grain Offering was one means for the Israelite to be reminded (and for him to affirm in worship), that it is God who is not only Israel’s Creator, but also her Sustainer. The great danger for the Israelite, once in the land of Canaan, enjoying the blessings from God’s hand, was to forget where they had come from, and why. Thus we read,

“Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers … to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you shall eat and be satisfied, then watch yourself, lest you forget the LORD who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Deut. 6:10-12).

“Beware lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; lest, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart becomes proud, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Deut. 8:11-14).

What God warned would happen did. The very blessings which God gave to the Israelites were then used in the worship of false gods: “‘Also my bread which I gave you, fine flour, oil, and honey with which I fed you, you would offer before them for a soothing aroma; so it happened,’ declares the Lord God” (Ezek. 16:19).

Some might think that while the Israelites of old were to offer the Grain Offering to develop and to express their dependence upon God, such has no application or bearing on the New Testament saint. Our Lord taught differently. The prayer which He gave as a model for prayer includes the petition, “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matt. 6:11).

The independent, self-sufficient attitude about which God warned the Israelites is that same spirit which James condemns in New Testament saints:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil (Jas. 4:13-16).

The problem for 20th century Christians in the Western World is that we have too many margins of safety, too many contingency plans, too much to rely on other than God. The farmer of Moses’ day had to look to God, day by day, for rain, for protection from predators like the grasshopper, and so on. We have crop insurance, bank accounts, and the like. In all honesty, we don’t trust in God because we don’t feel that we need to.

(2) The Principle of Dependence Upon God for the Spiritual Necessities of Life. The dependence which God wants to develop in His people is not just a dependence upon Him for physical food, but it is a dependence upon God for guidance and direction, a dependence upon His word. Thus, even in the Old Testament, God stressed the importance of obedience to the Word of God: “And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3).

The daily provision of Israel’s physical needs, and the promise of prosperity in the land of Canaan, was based upon Israel’s obedience to God’s law, as expressed in His covenant:

“Now it shall be, if you will diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the LORD your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out” (Deut. 28:1-6).

We live under the New Covenant, not under the old. Does this mean that obedience is no longer vital to us? Far from it! You will remember that in our Lord’s testing in the wilderness, Satan sought to get Him to make a stone into bread. Our Lord’s response was to rebuke Satan, based upon the statement in Deuteronomy 8 that man shall not live by bread alone. Thus, in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel we find the disciples urging our Lord to eat, and perplexed when He responded to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” The disciples therefore were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work” (John 4:32-34).

When our Lord spoke of Himself as the “living water” in John chapter 4, He spoke of Himself as the Savior of men. Thus, those who drank of His “living water” never thirsted again. But our Lord not only referred to Himself as the “living water,” He also spoke of Himself as the “bread of life” (John 6). He, as the “true” bread, was like the manna which God gave the Israelites in the wilderness, which daily sustained their lives. There is a sense, then, that we must not only, once for all, look to our Lord as our Savior, but we must look to Him daily as our sustainer. In John chapter 15 this daily dependence is described as abiding in Him, as a branch abides in the vine. Just as the Israelites were constantly reminded of their dependence on God by the Grain Offering, so we must also be daily reminded of our dependence upon Christ. Much of our abiding in Him is that of abiding in His word, the bread of life (cf. John 15:7; John 16:13-15; 17:17).

(3) The Principle of Sacrifice. How, then, do we develop the kind of trust in God that we should have? There is one very simply way: to give sacrificially. While Christians today do not offer up Grain Offerings to God, we can offer up sacrifices by giving to others. These “sacrifices” are described by the New Testament writers in Old Testament sacrificial terms. In reference to the gift of money which he had received, Paul said, “But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18).

While it may be true that most Christians give, it is doubtful that most of us give sacrificially, in such a way that we must daily depend on God to meet our needs. What kind of giving, then, is sacrificial? I would suggest that it is the kind of giving which makes us dependent upon God for our next day’s bread. It is the kind of giving which depletes our reserves, and which causes us to look to God for our needs for the next day. This is the kind of giving we see in the Old Testament when the Israelite offered up the first fruits of his fields, trusting God to provide an additional harvest. It is the type of giving we find exemplified by the Gentile widow, who provided for the prophet Elijah, even though her grain container was emptied (1 Ki. 17:8-16). It is the kind of giving we find in the New Testament, when the poor widow gave her last two coins (Mk. 12:42). It is also the kind of giving we see in the Macedonian church, which gave out of their poverty (2 Cor. 8:1-2).

It is in the context of the sacrificial giving of the Macedonians that we find these words, reflecting the terminology of the Old Testament grain offering: “Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food, will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:10).

The generous sacrificial giving of the Macedonian saints is likened by Paul to the offering of grain by the Israelites. When men give sacrificially, Paul says, God replenishes their supply of grain, so that they may give even more. Here is where our faith enters in. When we give, knowing that this depletes our supplies, we must do so trusting in God to replenish our supply. Sacrificial giving requires faith in God as the One who faithfully supplies our needs, and who gives to us our daily bread. In my estimation, one of the greatest hindrances to sacrificial giving today is our lack of faith in God as our sustainer.

(4) The Principle of Support. The Old Testament saints supported the priests by their sacrifices, and the Levites by their tithes. The sacrificial offering of grain (among others) was God’s means of providing for the needs of the priests. We might think that this matter of support is surely something put to rest in the New Testament, but Paul applies the principle of support, based upon the levitical offerings, to the support of those whose time is consumed by their ministry: “Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:13-14).

(5) The Principle of Sequence. There is a very important matter of sequence which is suggested by the relationship of the Grain Offering to the Burnt. The Burnt Offering allowed for no human contribution to the sacrifice, while the Grain Offering allowed for much. The reason why the Burnt Offering allowed for no human contribution was because the offering was a blood offering, and was to make atonement for man’s sin. Sinful men can only corrupt an offering, they cannot contribute to it. But since the Grain Offering followed the Burnt Offering, then human participation and contribution are allowed, because man’s sinfulness has been atoned for.

The principle of sequence can be seen in the New Testament Book of 1 Corinthians. There was a man living in sin who was allowed to remain in fellowship with the church (1 Cor. 5:1-5). Paul had determined that this man should be put out of the church. He then cites biblical precedent from the Old Testament:

Your boasting is not good. Do you now know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Paul’s application was based on the celebration of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, which started after the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb. The Feast of Unleavened Bread began by searching the house for any leaven and putting it out. Paul was thus pointing to the sequence of these two events. The sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, followed by the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which commenced with the putting away of all leaven). When the first is done, the second should begin.

So, too, Paul reasoned, since Christ is the Passover, and since He has been sacrificed, the putting away of leaven should be under way. The Corinthians should put away this man, whose presence was serving as leaven in the body, corrupting the whole.

So, too, I believe, with the Burnt and the Grain Offerings. Man can add nothing to his redemption, to his atonement, and so man could not add to the Burnt Offering. But since the Grain Offering followed the Burnt Offering, man’s contribution is acceptable to God, based on the atonement of the Burnt Offering.

People cannot give anything to God until they have first received the atonement which the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, has offered. He is the Burnt Offering, who made atonement for our sinfulness. His offering makes it possible for us to make other sacrifices and offerings to God because our sins are atoned for. How sad it is when people violate the principle of sequence and try to offer things to God before they receive His salvation in Christ. How sad it is when people try to clean up their lives in order to be acceptable to God. But once His sacrifice has been accepted, once we have trusted in Christ’s work on our behalf, then our offerings and sacrifices are pleasing in His sight, so long as they conform to the requirements He has given us.

I pray that you have received the atonement Christ has made by the shedding of His blood on the cross of Calvary, and that having done so, you will now offer to God the other sacrifices which will be pleasing in His sight.


35 The principle texts which pertain to the study of the grain offering are: Exod. 29:41; 40:29; Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-18; 9:4; 23:18; 5:11-13; 7:9-10; 10:12-13; Num. 15:6; the key interpretive texts are: Gen. 18:1ff.; Exod. 29:38-46; 1 Sam. 1:24; 1 Sam. 28:20-25 (esp. v. 24); Judg. 6:19-24 (esp. v. 19); Ezek. 16 (cf. esp., vv. 13, 15, 19).

36 It is puzzling why the editors of the NASB chose to reverse the titles of these two sections. You will note that the headings for the first five chapters begin, “The Law of …” while the headings for chapters 6 and 7 begin, “The Priest’s part in …” They are correct in the observation that the second section does emphasize the part of the priest, but it is in chapters 6 and 7 that the biblical text reads, “The law of …” (cf. 6:9, 14, 25; 7:1, 11, 37). I believe that titles should reflect the text itself, and thus I would choose to differ with the choice of titles in the NASB at this point.

37 “The Hebrew word for cereal offering is minhah. In Leviticus this is a technical term for cereal offerings as defined in this chapter, but elsewhere its meaning is much broader. It may refer to animal sacrifices as well as cereal offerings; for example, both Cain’s and Abel’s offerings are called minhah, though Abel’s consisted of animals and Cain’s of cereals. Other references to minhah in nontechnical passages may well refer to animal sacrifices as well as cereal offerings (1 Sam. 2:17, 29; 26:19).” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 69.

38 Lange informs us that the Hebrew term for “fine” is “… a work of uncertain derivation, but clearly meaning fine flour, whether as separated from the bran, or as sifted from the coarser particles.” John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960 [reprint]), trans. by Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman, 12 vols, first vol., “Leviticus,” p. 32.

39 Memorial portion … is a technical term used in Lev. 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8(15); 24:7; Num. 5:26. It is a difficult term to find an exact English equivalent for. It is derived from the verb zakar, ‘to remember.’” Ibid., p. 68, fn. 3.

40 “The term ‘most holy’ is applied to all the sacrificial gifts that were consecrated to Jehovah, in this sense, that such portions as were not burned upon the altar were to be eaten by the priests alone in a holy place; the laity, and even such of the Levites as were not priests, being prohibited from partaking of them … in fact all the holy sacrificial gifts, in which there was any fear lest a portion should be perverted to other objects,—were called most holy; whereas the burnt-offerings, the priestly meal-offerings (chap. vi. 12-16) and other sacrifices, which were quite as holy, were not called most holy, because the command to burn them entirely precluded the possibility of their being devoted to any of the ordinary purposes of life.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 293.

41 Lange writes that the word ‘oven’ “… must here mean a portable oven, or rather a large earthen pot or jar, such as is still in use in the East for baking cakes, such as is mentioned in xi. 35 as capable of being broken; this was heated by a fire inside.” Lange, “Leviticus,” p. 31.

42 “Authorities differ as to whether this is to be understood … of a frying-pan, or as … of a flat plate. … The distinction of this variety of oblation from the former will be more marked if we may understand it of fried cakes, according to the translation of the A. V. in 1 Chron. xxiii. 29.” Ibid.

43 “This is another variety made up with oil and boiled, perhaps also boiled in oil. Lange notes that with each successive advance in the form of the oblation ‘the addition of the oil seems to rise, …” Ibid.

44 Leaven and honey were prohibited ingredients in Grain Offerings which were to be burnt on the altar, but were not forbidden for every sacrifice (cf. Lev. 7:13-14; 23:17; 2 Chron. 31:5).

45 As I understand the text, the frankincense was only added to the portion offered to the Lord. Thus, the text specifies that the priests take the handful of grain and all of its frankincense (Lev. 2:2; cf. also 2:16) and offer it upon the altar of burnt offering.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

4. The Fellowship Offering (Leviticus 3:1-17; 7:11-34; 19:5-8; 22:29-30)

Introduction

As I have studied the Book of Leviticus this past week, I have come to realize several things which greatly motivate and enhance my study. Let me share these with you as we commence our study of the “Fellowship” or “Peace” Offering.

First, I have begun to appreciate the opportunity to consider the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice one-by-one. A friend of mine tells the story of the woman who is trying to decide how she should confess her sins. She asks, “Shall I ’fess ’em as I does ’em, or shall I bunch ’em?”

The problem of “bunching” is very much related to our study of the offerings. The offerings of the Old Testament are something like the tools in John Maurer’s shop: He has a particular tool for each particular task, and you never use the wrong tool for the task.

The Old Testament seems to have more offerings than we can count. That can lead to a fair bit of frustration on the part of the New Testament saint. There is a very important lesson to be learned here, which may help to motivate us in our study of these offerings. There is no one Old Testament offering which sums up the work of our Lord, and thus we must see that Christ’s death, burial and resurrection served to accomplish many different functions, not just one. I believe that it is Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer who lists over thirty things which the death of Christ accomplished.

We tend to “bunch” the benefits of the work of Christ, rather than to deal with them one at a time, and in so doing we miss much of the blessing which could be ours. One great contribution of the offerings in the Book of Leviticus is that they portray the blessings of the death of Christ, the Lamb of God, individually. The Old Testament saint would sacrifice the various offerings and would grasp, to some degree, the blessings God had given him. With each offering was associated some particular blessing. For us, all the blessings of God are realized by one offering, made once for all, the death of Christ at Calvary. In the Old Testament offerings, we are given the privilege to pause and to focus on the particular benefits and blessings we have received in Christ’s death, and to do so one at a time.

Second, every sacrifice that an Israelite offered was of a certain type, and for a specific purpose. Every offering has very exacting rules as to what is offered, how it is offered, and by whom it is offered. For example, the Peace Offering could be eaten on the day it was sacrificed, or on the day after, but not on the third day. To eat this sacrificial meat on the third day would have serious consequences (Lev. 19:5-8). A burnt offering had to be a male, while the Peace Offering could have been a male or a female, but not a bird. An ox or a lamb with an overgrown or stunted member could be offered for a freewill Peace Offering, but not for a votive Peace Offering (Lev. 22:23). Because of the consequences for failing to observe the “laws” of the offerings, one must be very certain what offering he was making, and then do it in accordance with all the laws God had laid down.

If you would, the law prescribed the plan, the way in which every offering was to be made. Before men could follow the plan, they had to determine the purpose, that is they had to decide which offering they were about to make, and why. Thus there was a built-in safeguard against mindless ritual, in which one went through the motions of making an offering without really thinking about what he was doing or why. The Israelite’s worship was to involve his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. The precise regulations encouraged the Israelite worshipper to engage his mind in his worship.

Third, the only meat which an Israelite ate from their cattle was that which was offered as a Peace Offering. I know this is hard to believe, but listen to the command of God as given in Leviticus chapter 17:

“Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, or a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of the meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Lev. 17:3-4).

These are strong words indeed! Any animal that was slaughtered had to be offered to God as a sacrifice. Any blood that was shed, was shed as a part of a sacrifice. Thus, any meat that was eaten (at least from the cattle of the Israelites) had to be that which was first offered to God as a part of a sacrifice at the tent of meeting. And since the Peace Offering was the only sacrifice of which the Israelite could eat, every time the Israelite wanted to eat meat for dinner, he had to offer a Peace Offering.

There are three principle passages in the Book of Leviticus which deal with the Peace Offering. They are:

      A. Leviticus 3:1-17—the mechanics of the sacrifice

      B. Leviticus 7:11-34—the meaning of the sacrifice

      C. Leviticus 19:5-8—The “law of leftovers”

Leviticus 3 is structured similarly to the first chapter of Leviticus. The regulations for the sacrifice of the Peace Offering are dealt with in terms of the kind of animal sacrificed. Thus, in chapter 3 we find the following structure:

      A. Leviticus 3:1-5—offerings from the herd

      B. Leviticus 3:6-17—offerings from the flock

        1. a lamb (vv. 7-11)

        2. a goat (vv. 12-17)

      Leviticus chapter 7:11-34 is structured differently:

      A. Lev. 7:11—Introduction

      B. Lev. 7:12-14—Grain Offerings which accompany the Peace Offering

      C. Lev. 7:15-34—The flesh of the Peace Offering

        1. Its Defilement— vv. 15-27

          a. By delay, vv. 15-18

          b. By contact with unclean thing, vv. 19-21

          c. By definition, vv. 22-27

        2. Its Distribution—vv. 28-34

The Peace Offering

Imagine for the moment that you are an Israelite in the days of Moses, and that you are about to make a Peace Offering, according to all of the regulations in the Pentateuch. You could offer a Peace Offering as an act of thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12; 22:29-30), or to fulfill a special vow (Lev. 7:16; 22:21), or as a freewill offering (Lev. 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23). These were all optional offerings, which an Israelite could offer at any time, except for the feast of Pentecost (Lev. 23:19) and the fulfillment of the Nazarite’s days of separation (Num. 6:13-20), when the offering was mandatory.

You would begin by selecting an animal without any defect, either male or female, from the herd or from the flock (Lev. 3:1, 6). You would then bring this animal to the doorway of the tent of meeting, where you would lay your hand upon its head (3:2, 8, 13), thus identifying your sin with this animal, and yourself with its death. When you have slain the animal, the priests will collect the blood which is shed and sprinkle it around the altar (3:2, 8, 13).

The animal would then be skinned46 and cut into pieces. The priests would then take the fat of the animal, along with the kidneys and the lobe of the liver, and burn it on the altar of burnt offering (3:3-5; 9-11; 14-16). God’s portion of the Peace Offering would be the blood and the fat (Lev. 3:16-17; cf. 17:10-13). The priests would be given the breast and the right thigh of the animal (cf. Exod. 29:26-28; Lev. 7:30-34; 10:14-15). Aaron and his sons receive the breast (7:31), while the thigh goes to that priest who offers up the Peace Offering (7:33).

Along with the fat which is offered up to God there would also be the appropriate offering of grain. In the case of a thanksgiving offering both leavened and unleavened cakes were to be offered, some of which was burned on the altar, and the rest of which was to go to the priests (7:12-13). This was not the only grain offering which was leavened, for the celebration of Pentecost included the offering of leavened bread (Lev. 23:17). Those who would tell us that leaven is always a symbol of evil, and that, as such, it can never be used in conjunction with Israel’s worship or offerings, have some explaining to do here.47

Since the fat48 and blood are offered to God and the breast and the right thigh are given to the priest, the rest of the sacrificial animal is left for the offerer to eat. Thus, after the offering of the fat portions on the altar, the Israelite would eat a meal,49 partaking of the portions of the sacrificial animal which remained. Not much is said about the meal that is eaten. In contrast, there is considerable emphasis placed on the disposal of the meat of the Peace Offering (cf. Lev. 7:15-18; 19:5-8). I call this, “the law of the leftovers.”50 The meat of the thanksgiving Peace Offering must be eaten on the day it is sacrificed (7:15); if it is a votive offering or a freewill offering, it can be saved and eaten on the next day, but then must be burned (7:16-18; 19:5-8). The one who disobeys this regulation must be cut off from his people (19:8).

Distinctives of the Peace Offering

There are several distinctives of the Peace Offering, as compared with the Burnt and Grain Offerings of chapters 1 and 2. It is these distinctives which provide us with the key to the unique role of this offering.

First, the animal sacrificed in the Peace Offering could be from the herd or from the flock (but not a bird), whether male or female.

Second, the offering was shared by God, by the priests, and by the offerer. All of the Burnt Offering was the Lord’s (except for the skin). Most of the Grain Offering was for the priests. But the Peace Offering was shared by all, each receiving their appointed portions.

Third, three of the occasions on which the Peace Offering was appropriate were for thanksgiving, for completing a vow, and for a freewill offering.

Fourth, the Peace Offering was unique in that there was a meal associated with this offering.

Fifth, the thanksgiving Peace Offering included leavened bread (Lev. 7:13).

The Origin and Meaning of the Peace Offering

Sacrifices were not new to the Israelite, nor to the pagan, for that matter. The laws of Leviticus which pertain to the offerings do not initiate sacrifice, they merely seek to regulate it. The reason for these regulations, as for most all laws, is that men are abusing certain privileges. Before we seek to discern the meaning of the Peace Offering, let us take a moment to trace the history of sacrifice from the biblical data we are given.

Sacrifice was first offered by Adam and Eve and by their sons. Animals had to be slaughtered for the skins which covered the nakedness of Adam and his wife (Gen. 3:21).51 Then, in Genesis chapter 4, Cain and Abel made offerings to God (Gen. 4:1-5). Abel offered a blood (animal) sacrifice. It is especially interesting to note the wording here: “And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4a, emphasis mine).

In the first recorded animal sacrifice by men, we are told that the “fat portions” are offered. And thus we read in Leviticus, “… all fat is the LORD’s” (Lev. 3:16b). Then, after the flood, Noah offered animal sacrifices to God as burnt offerings (Gen. 8:20), and as a result, God made a covenant never to destroy mankind in this way again (Gen. 8:21-22). God then pronounced a blessing on Noah and his sons, and gave the animals to them for food, seemingly for the first time (Gen. 9:1-3). There was the stipulation, however, that the blood of the animals could not be eaten (Gen. 9:4-5), which, if it is not the precedent for this command in Leviticus, is surely somehow related: “‘It is a perpetual statue throughout your generations in all your dwellings; you shall not eat any fat or any blood’” (Lev. 3:17). The prohibition against shedding man’s blood is then stated, along with the institution of capital punishment, as the penalty for murder (Gen. 9:5-7).

It is my speculation that from this time on, no animal was sacrificed apart from some kind of sacrificial ceremony, at which time the blood was poured out, and perhaps the fat was offered up in fire to the Lord. I believe that this practice persisted, in a perverted form, by the pagans who descended from Noah and his sons. I say this on the basis of two biblical texts:

So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play (Exod. 32:6).

“The reason is so that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they were sacrificing in the open field, that they may bring them in to the LORD, at the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the LORD. And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations” (Lev. 17:5-7).

Before Moses had descended from Mt. Sinai with God’s instructions, which included the sacrifices, the Israelites were offering “peace offerings” as a part of their heathen worship. They did not learn to make peace offerings from Moses, and so they must have known similar offerings from their past. The text in Leviticus 17 is even more explicit. The reason why God ordered the Israelites to slaughter every animal as a sacrifice before the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1-4) was because they were slaughtering their animals outside the camp in the open field, not in a neutral way, but as a part of a heathen ritual which involved the worship of “goat demons” (17:7). Thus, the regulations of Leviticus pertaining to the offerings were to deal with the corrupted form of offering, which I believe stems from the sacrifices of Abel, and later of Noah.

The killing of animals by the shedding of their blood thus was originated by God, and was normally associated with atonement (covering sin) and with God’s blessing, as expressed in His covenants. The Book of Genesis thus laid a vital foundation for the origins of worship and of sacrifice, intended to correct the distortions and perversions of it over time by sinful men. Much of Israel’s understanding of the Peace Offering (and the rest) was therefore based on the divine revelation of Genesis.

In the Book of Exodus we find further revelation concerning the Peace Offering, which would assist the Israelite in understanding the significance of this offering. God spoke specifically of the Peace Offering in Exodus 20:24: “‘You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.’”

Again, in Exodus chapter 24, we find the Peace Offering. You will recall that God has just proclaimed the details of the Mosaic Covenant to Moses, and in chapter 24 this covenant will be formally ratified. Thus, we read:

And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. … Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank (Exod. 24:4-5, 9-11, emphasis mine).

Numbers chapter 7 is an account of the gifts and offerings which were initially offered by the leaders of Israel (7:2), which includes peace offerings. It seems to me that in both Exodus 24 and Numbers 7 the leaders are acting representatively for the people in making their peace offerings. While it is not stated per se in Exodus 24, it would seem to me that the meal which was eaten by the leaders of Israel in God’s presence was the prototype and predecessor of the peace offering which would be made in conjunction with the tabernacle. Where did the leaders of Israel get the food which they ate in God’s presence? I think that it was that which remained from the peace offerings of 24:5.

It is against the backdrop of Genesis and Exodus, in the light of the previous sacrifices and peace offerings of God’s people, that the Israelite was to understand the peace offering. But this is not all the information we have concerning the meaning of the Peace Offering. In addition, we have (1) the meaning of the original term employed for the Peace Offering, (2) the instructions and regulations pertaining to the Peace Offering, (3) biblical examples of the Peace Offering, and, (4) the ability to distinguish this offering from the others (knowing the primary significance of the other offerings at least enables us to discern what facets of Israel’s relationship to God have not yet been enacted by their sacrificial ritual). Let us briefly consider each of these, so that we can discern the meaning of the Peace Offering to the Israelite of Moses’ day.

(1) The meaning of “peace.” There is considerable difference of opinion as to exactly what the Hebrew term employed for the “Peace” Offering actually means. Nevertheless, there is some help to be gained from a consideration of the general meaning of the root word. Essentially “peace” has the connotation of “wholeness” or “completeness.”

An illustration of biblical “wholeness” can be seen in marriage, specifically in the marriage of Adam and Eve. When God made Adam, he was initially alone. When Adam named the animals, they all passed before him—in pairs! There was Mr. and Mrs. Sheep, Mr. and Mrs. Ox, and so on. Adam began to feel incomplete, and rightly so. God said that Adam’s aloneness was not good, and so he made a mate for him—Eve. When the two were joined together, they became one flesh. Adam became “whole” when he became one with Eve.

So the Israelites became whole when they become one with God in worship. “Peace” describes this wholeness. I believe “peace” refers to the condition of acceptance (cf. Lev. 19:5, “So that you might be accepted”) which the Israelite experienced with God by virtue of the sacrifices, resulting in an inner peace on the part of each Israelite. Since the offerer places his hand on the animal that is sacrificed, the element of sin is clearly present. This offering assures the offerer that he has peace with God, based upon the shedding of innocent blood.

(2) The instructions pertaining to the Peace Offering. In particular, the most striking features of this offering are that the offerer personally partakes of the sacrificial meat by means of a festive meal. I take it, that in so doing the focus here is more upon the experiential benefits to the offerer than in the previous offerings. In the Burnt Offering, the offerer received none of the sacrificed animal at all. In the Grain Offering, the same was true, although the priests fared better here. But it is in the Peace Offering, indeed, only in the Peace Offering, that the offerer gets something back, something like a rebate. I believe this suggests that the emphasis falls on the benefits to the offerer, that the offerer is here more in view than previously has been the case.

(3) The biblical examples of the Peace Offering. In 1 Samuel chapter 1, Hannah made a vow to the Lord that she would dedicate her son to the Lord if He would but give her a boy child. When God answered her prayer, she fulfilled her promise, thus completing her vow. Thus, in obedience to the instructions found in Leviticus pertaining to the Peace Offering, Hannah went to Shiloh and gave her son to the Lord, offering her Peace Offering at this time (1 Sam. 1:22-28). As she had experienced the “wholeness” of child-bearing and of being able to fulfill her vow, she offered her “peace” offering.

In many other instances the Peace Offering was offered in the history of Israel. Interestingly, this offering was made both in times of great sorrow (e.g. Judg. 20:26; 21:4) and in times of great joy (e.g. Dt. 27:7; Josh. 8:31; 1 Sam. 11:15). In each instance the Peace Offering focuses on the benefits, the wholeness, which Israel is experiencing, or which she had lost (and for which she hopes), the offering then being an act of faith, a looking forward to a future wholeness or peace, which God will grant His people.

(4) The Peace Offering as contrasted to the Burnt and Grain Offerings. I said at the outset of this message that each of the sacrifices focuses on one particular facet of God’s grace and of the benefits which God’s people experience through the sacrifices. The Burnt Offering focus on the satisfaction of God’s righteousness because of the sacrificial death of the animal offered. Here, as it were, the emphasis falls on God, and the satisfaction of His anger, due to the general fallen condition of man. The Grain Offering focuses on the Israelite’s dependence upon God, not only for forgiveness and spiritual life, but for physical life. The Peace Offering focuses on the Israelite’s “peace with God,” the joys and the peace of mind which comes from knowing that God is at peace with us. Thus, whether it is the joy that God has enabled the Israelite to fulfill his vow, or in thanks for some gracious act of God, or a freewill offering, the Israelite’s peace with God is in view.

The Peace Offering and the Contemporary Christian

(1) Christ is our Peace Offering. The primary significance of the Peace Offering of the Old Testament is to be found in its antitype, Jesus Christ. In the offering of the Peace Offering the Israelite was benefited by the peace of knowing and experiencing God’s forgiveness. In fact, it was more than this. God’s anger was not just appeased, God was no longer angry with the offerer, His favor was with him. There is the sense in which Christ’s death appeased (propitiated) God’s anger, but the “Peace Offering” aspect of Christ’s work went beyond this. Because of Christ, God is no longer angry with the one who has identified with Him by faith, He is favorably disposed to Him. And because this is true, we can experience the inner peace that comes from knowing God’s favor is directed toward us. Just as our love for God is reflected in a love for man, so our “peace with God” also manifests itself in a peace with men. This is the message which Paul proclaimed:

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. and He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:13-18).

Some versions have translated the “Peace Offering” the “Fellowship Offering.” Both terms, “peace” and “fellowship” are appropriate, in my opinion. Through Christ’s death we have peace and fellowship with God and peace and fellowship with man. The meal that the offerer of the Peace Offering enjoyed, along with his fellow-Israelites, whom he invited, signified the peace which the sacrifice brought about.

Years ago, Dr. Billy Graham wrote a book entitled, Peace With God. There are a lot of expressions used for conversion which I do not care for, because they are not really biblical, but this expression, “peace with God” expresses, perhaps better than any other, the blessing which salvation brings to the believer. Have you experienced this peace with God my friend? The Bible tells us that we are born at enmity with God. That is our natural state (cf. Eph. 2:1-3). That condition of hostility, Paul tells us in the second chapter of Ephesians, is remedied and removed by the blood of Christ, and enmity with God is replaced by peace with God, and with our fellow men.

We are hearing a lot of talk these days about “fulfillment” and “self-realization” and the like. We can read much about “reaching our full potential” and having a “positive self-image,” but all these goals fall far short of the joy of having peace with God, through faith in our great Peace Offering, Jesus Christ. I urge you, if you have never received this gift, do so today, by simply trusting in Jesus Christ as your Peace Offering to God. When you receive Christ as your Peace Offering you will be able to sing with conviction and assurance, “It Is Well With My Soul,” for this is the peace which God offers us in Christ.

(2) The meaning of a meal. Throughout the Bible, the meal has a meaning much greater than that which our culture attributes to it. I believe that for the people of God, and often for the pagans (cf. Exod. 32:6; Num. 25:1-3), the meal had a deeply religious significance. I do not think that the Peace Offering was the origin of this significance, but rather a reflection of it. Before Leviticus, Abraham offered meat and a meal to his unknown visitors (Gen. 18), as did Lot (Gen. 19). Later on, it was significant when the Levite was seeking a meal and a place to lodge without success (Judges 19). The festive meal which was a part of the Peace Offering simply added to the significance which the meal already had. Here, the meal was a symbol of the peace which the Israelite had with God and with men, through the sacrifice of the innocent victim.

When you stop to think of it, the New Testament is saturated with stories and teachings related to the dinner table. In Luke chapter 14 the entire chapter is dealing with “meals,” precipitated by the fact that our Lord associated with the “wrong kind of people” at the table, at least in the minds of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:16). Our Lord taught, for example, that one should not invite those to dinner who are wealthy and influential, and who can thus return the favor to us in some way (Lu. 14:12-14). Was not this especially applicable at the meal associated with the Peace Offering, when the poor would only be able to participate if the more affluent invited them? (Remember, there was no “poor people’s” alternative for the Peace Offering, as there was for the Burnt Offering, for example.)

The story of the “prodigal son” takes on even more significance once we understand the nature of the “Peace Offering.” What was it that the prodigal son missed so much in that foreign land, when he was longing to eat the pods which the pigs were eating, but his father’s table? And what was it that angered the older brother, if it was not the father’s slaying of the fatted calf? Now, in the light of what we know of the Peace Offering, what would the father have had to do, before the fatted calf could have been eaten? It would have been offered first as a Peace Offering. What, then, did the fatted calf signify, if not the fact that the son had been accepted by the father, and that there was “peace” in the family again? The Peace Offering deepens our grasp of the significance of meals in the New Testament.

So, too, the significance of meat and of meals enhances our grasp of the problem which Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians of eating meats, especially those eaten in the home of an unbelieving neighbor, who may very well have obtained meat which was involved in a pagan ritual, or which might take place in the meal itself.

The Peace Offering helps the Christian to understand the significance of a meal, especially since the Lord’s Table was initially conducted as a part of a meal (cf. 1 Cor. 11). The Lord’s Table, or Communion, is, in large measure, the New Testament version of the Peace Offering festive meal. The Peace Offering sacrifice is not offered, for our Peace Offering is Christ, who died once for all, to make peace between men and God, and between men and men. The celebration goes on, however, and so in the communion service we are reminded of our unity with others, as well as our unity with God: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

Because of the significance of the Lord’s Table, as it pertains to the peace which Christ has accomplished on the cross, misconduct at this table is taken most seriously, even as infractions of the regulations pertaining to the Peace Offering are sobering.

The newly born church manifested its life and fellowship by sharing meals from “house to house” (Acts 2:46). One of the greatest barriers between the Jewish believers and the Gentile saints was that of eating (cf. Acts 10 & 11). Thus, when Peter departed from what God had taught him in this passage, Paul rebuked him for departing from the very essence of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-21).

The coming of our Lord and joy and peace experienced by true believers at this time are thus appropriately described in “banquet terms”:

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude and as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready … And he said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God” (Rev. 19:6-7, 9).

The dinner table has become much more secular to us than it ever was to the people of earlier times. I suspect that some of this is due to the pace of our lives, and to the instant “TV” dinners, which are eaten before the TV, rather than at the table, or which are gulped down at a “fast food” chain outlet. How much we can make of the meal table is suggested by the Peace Offering meal of the Old Testament, and by the Lord’s Table of the New. May God enable us to make more of the meal table, and to meditate more on the peace which Christ has won for us on the cross.


46 The skinning of the animal is not mentioned anywhere that I can find, but it is surely implied, as in the case of the other sacrifices (cf. Lev. 7:8).

47 I am not certain what significance leavened bread has here, but I do know that we dare not insist that leaven is a symbol of sin, either.

48 The fat is what is offered primarily here; all the fat is the Lord’s (cf. Lev. 3:16-17; 6:12; Amos 5:22; 1 Ki. 8:64; 2 Chron. 7:7; 29:35).

49 The fact that a meal was associated with the Peace Offering helps to explain why the size of this offering is often significantly larger than the other offerings. Cf. Numbers 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, etc.; 1 Ki. 8:63.

50 No reason is given why the meat cannot be kept for a longer period of time. Perhaps it is because there was the possibility of it spoiling, and thus negating the value of the offering (cf. Lev. 7:18-27). It is also possible that the necessity of totally consuming the animal quickly encouraged the one who was making this offering to invite as many as possible to share with him in the sacrificial meal. (If you could keep the leftovers, you might not invite as many to share the meal with you.)

51 Is it possible that God burned up the rest of the animals from which these skins were taken? Something had to be done with their carcases, and it seems that men did not yet eat meat (cf. Gen. 9:1-7). It is interesting to note that in the first sacrifice the skin was used and the rest was disposed of, while in later sacrifices it is almost the opposite.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

5. The Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30)

Introduction

Too many years ago to admit, while I was a student in Seminary, Haddon Robinson gave the men in one of our classes a stirring appeal to be creative, and to avoid getting into a rut. He suggested that instead of driving home the same old route, that we take a different one, and take the time to “smell the roses.” All-in-all it was a great encouragement. A friend and I happened to be walking out of class together. It was almost lunch time and my friend had a sack lunch in his hand. Not to overlook the point of Dr. Robinson’s exhortation, I turned to my friend, Bob, and said, “Hey, Bob, why don’t you do something different today? Why don’t you eat your sack and throw away the lunch?”

If we had not been such good friends, my friend might eaten his lunch and fed me the sack. Most of the time it would be foolish to throw away your lunch and eat the sack. I did read of one study where rats were fed a certain breakfast cereal. A control group of rats were fed the box. In this instance, the rats which ate the box got more nutritive value from the box than the others got from the cereal. As we read the account of the Sin Offering in Leviticus, we come to the rather amazing realization that to our way of thinking God instructed the Israelites to “eat the sack and throw away the lunch.” That is, the Israelites were commanded to kill the sacrificial animal, make use of its blood and its fat, and then dispose of the rest. Of all the things which a slain animal provided, what was the least useful? I think I can say that it would be those very things which the Israelites offered up to God—the fat of the animal, and its blood. The most valuable portion of the animal, the meat and the hide (plus some other, not so useful, things), were burned and left on the ash heap or they were given to the priest to eat. Thus, they ate the sack and threw away the lunch.

I have to tell you that this would have been a very difficult sacrifice for me to offer, if I had been living in Israel in those days. I used to work for a company that made add-on automobile air conditioners. One of the greatest agonies I experienced was to look at all the “goodies” which were thrown on the scrap heap, to be sold for a few cents a pound. Can you imagine being required to offer one of your best animals, having its blood and fat offered to God, and then watch two sides of “prime” beef being hauled off outside the camp to be incinerated and thrown on the ash heap? We would have to say, like those who agonized over the “waste” of the expensive perfume on the feet of Jesus, “What a waste!” (John 12:3-5).

In the case of the use of the expensive perfume to anoint the feet of our Lord, we can understand that it was not waste to expend the finest on Him who is the most worthy object of our worship. But what was so valuable to the Israelite that he could be persuaded to offer up his finest livestock in a way that appeared to be utterly wasteful? The answer to this question will be found when we discover that which is of higher value than a prime animal. That answer will be the result of our study of the Sin Offering of Leviticus. Let us listen well to this inspired portion of the Word of God.

In this message we will seek to discover those things which made the Sin Offering distinctive, and to find the unique contribution of this offering to the Israelites’ walk with God. We will then identify the principles which underlie this offering and attempt to apply them to 20th century Christianity.

When we come to the fourth chapter of the Book of Leviticus we can sense a change from the first three chapters. By and large, the offerings in Leviticus 1-3 can be found earlier in the Pentateuch (e.g. the Burnt Offering is found in Genesis 8:20; 22:2), while those in chapters 4 and following cannot be found until the Israelites reach Mt. Sinai and are given the law (e.g. the Sin Offering is first mentioned in Exodus 29:36).52 The offerings in chapters 1-3 are organized according to the animal being sacrificed, and usually begin with an expression like, “If his offering is …”

In chapter 4 the material is organized in accordance with the social categories, from the high priest to the common Israelite. The introductory formula is, “If _____ sins …” The expression, “a soothing aroma,” frequently found in chapters 1-3 is but seldom found in chapters 4 and 5 (4:31). The term “atonement,” on the other hand, is found but once in the first 3 chapters of Leviticus (1:4), but 9 times in chapters 4 and 5. The terms “guilt” and “guilty” are not found in chapters 1-3, but are each found 9 times in chapters 4 and 5. Chapters 1-3 are more concerned with the process of the sacrifice, while chapters 4-6 have more emphasis on the product of the process—forgiveness (not found once in chapters 1-3, 8 times in chapters 4 & 5).

An Overview of Leviticus Chapter 4

The structure of the passage dealing with the Sin Offering is somewhat baffling to me. Almost all of the commentaries understand the Sin Offering to be described in 4:1–5:13. The division is not as neat as this in my opinion because there is a kind of merging of the Sin Offering with the Guilt Offering in 5:1-13. For example, we read, “‘He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin’”(Lev. 5:6).

In the same sentence the terms “guilt offering” and “sin offering” are employed, seemingly with respect to the same offering.

The fourth chapter of the Book of Leviticus deals with the Sin Offering of four different categories of people: the high priest (vv. 3-12); the whole congregation of Israel (vv. 13-21); a leader (vv. 22-26); and a commoner (vv. 27-35). In the first 13 verses of chapter 5 the approach changes. In verses 1-6 the reader is given some examples, which serve to illustrate what sins are or are not included in the category of “unintentional.” In verse 1 we are given an example of a sin which is not unintentional. The one who gives false testimony and has done so under oath has done this in a premeditated fashion. Thus, the person must bear his sin. Verses 2 and 3 suggest how a person might inadvertently and unknowingly come into contact with something unclean, and thus become guilty and in need of a Sin Offering. Verse 4 includes a case of inadvertent sin in one’s speech.

Verses 7-13 of chapter 5 are gracious in providing an exception for those who are poor. The one who cannot afford to sacrifice a lamb or a goat is allowed to sacrifice two turtledoves or two pigeons. The one who is so poor as not to be able to afford two birds is allowed, in verses 11-13, to offer a small quantity of grain. Thus, while not everyone could afford a Peace Offering, everyone was afforded the opportunity to make a Sin Offering. How gracious.

In this lesson I will be focusing largely on chapter 4. In order to convey the overall organization of chapter 4 I have summarizing its four major sections in chart form below (see chart at end of lesson). From this chart we can better visualize certain characteristics of the Sin Offering, as outlined in chapter 4.

Note from the chart those items which are common to all four categories of the Sin Offering. First, there is the common element of sin and of guilt. Regardless of the category, whether the high priest, the whole congregation, a leader, or a common citizen, all are in a condition of guilt due to sin. In all categories, an animal is sacrificed and its blood is shed and applied for atonement. Further, the fat of the animal was burned on the altar of burnt offering and the offerer got none of the meat.

Also, note the unity of the first two categories, as well as that of the second two categories. In the first two divisions (vv. 3-12, 13-21) the whole nation is guilty, and a bull is required for the Sin Offering. The blood is likewise used in the same way in the first two categories. Some of the blood is taken into the tent of meeting, where it is sprinkled onto53 (or in front of) the veil. Finally, the bull in both instances is burned up outside the camp. Thus we see that the first two sections are quite similar in scope and function.

So, too, with the second two categories (vv. 22-26, 27-35). In the case of the leader of Israel (vv. 22-26) or of a common Israelite (vv. 27-35), the sacrifice could be either a goat or a sheep, of either sex. The blood of this animal was not taken inside the tent of meeting, but was placed on the horns of the brazen altar of burnt offering, and the remainder of the blood was poured out at the base of this altar. The meat of these sacrificial animals could be eaten in a holy place by the male priests (Lev. 6:24-30).

The Uniqueness of the Sin Offering

This is but one of the offerings of Leviticus. We will understand it best by focusing our attention on what is unique about it. Let us consider several of the features of this offering which set it apart from the others:

(1) The Sin Offering is an offering for a specific sin. All of the blood sacrifices are related to sin, but the Sin Offering of Leviticus 4 is an offering for a specific, defined sin. It is not an offering for sin in general, or for a general state of sinfulness (which I believe is the function of the Burnt Offering). While chapter 4 deals with guilt in a more general way, chapter 5 begins to get very specific about sin: “‘Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, …’” (Lev. 5:1a). Thus, the Sin Offering was required when a person was aware of a specific act of sin, which needed to be atoned for.

(2) The Sin Offering was an offering for a known sin. Especially in chapter 4 the sins which are dealt with are those which, for some reason, were not immediately apparent, but which, in the course of time, came to a conscious level. The impression which we get is that the Sin Offering was to be made immediately after the knowledge of sin was present.

(3) The Sin Offering was a sacrifice for those sins which were unintentional (cf. 4:2, 13, 22, 27). The term “unintentional” is more carefully defined by God elsewhere:

‘Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he should offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him’ (Num. 15:27-31).

In some cases, the “unintentional” sin is one which is not recognized at the time committed. We might call this a “sin of ignorance.” In the case of the one who has given false testimony under oath (Lev. 5:1), this person has knowingly and deliberately sinned, and thus his sin cannot be called unintentional, and the Sin Offering cannot be offered. Instead, this person must “bear his guilt” (5:1).

(4) The Sin Offering made a different use of the blood and the body of the animal which was offered. In the case of a sin which brought guilt on the entire congregation,54 some of the blood of the bull was to be taken into the tent and sprinkled on the veil and placed on the horn of the golden altar of incense. The rest was poured at the base of the altar of burnt offering. In previous blood sacrifices, the blood was to be “sprinkled around on” the altar (cf. 3:2). The fat of the animal offered for the Sin Offering was burned like the Peace Offering, but the body of the animal was either burned completely outside the camp (the bull, Lev. 4:11-12, 21), or it was eaten by the males of the priests (Lev. 6:29). The offerer received none of the meat.

Principles to Be Learned From the Sin Offering

It stands to reason that the Sin Offering should teach us something about sin. There are several important principles to learn which relate to sin which are evident in the texts pertaining to the sin offering.

(1) Sin is that which God defines as evil. Sin is that which is inconsistent with the righteousness of God. Thus, it is only God, who alone is righteous, who can define sin. Leviticus informs us that sin is that which is contrary to God’s revealed Word: “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them” (Lev. 4:2, emphasis mine). Sin is whatever God declares to be evil. There are some “sins” which nearly any culture recognizes as sin, and which are thus forbidden. Stealing, lying, and murder, for example, are almost universally defined as evils. These “sins” are also “crimes.” But there are a number of sins which are not crimes. In fact there are a number of sins (by God’s definition) which are considered beneficial by society. Self-seeking, for example, is considered a positive thing. There are other attitudes or actions which, if not commended, are at least accepted with charity (homosexuality, for example).

It is evident that our culture is not particularly interested in what God calls sin. So long as it is legal, it is possible. Sometimes even what isn’t legal (e.g. smoking pot or cheating on income tax) is socially acceptable. Those who are incarcerated in prison are not necessarily more sinful, but have erred by offending society’s standard of what is acceptable (crimes involving the money of others are especially detested).

I find that a number of the “sins” which are enumerated in the Pentateuch are not really those things which men might consider evil. Eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for example, seemed wise. God’s prohibition seemed unduly harsh, as Satan portrayed it.

Some have tried to show a good reason for every prohibition. For example, they would try to demonstrate that the “unclean” foods of the Bible were those which would be detrimental to a society which had no refrigeration, or whatever. I think this misses the point. Sin is whatever God says is sin, whether or not we have a good explanation for why it is evil. Obedience is best evidenced by our willingness to do something which we would rather not do, for reasons we don’t understand, simply because God says so. Some sins of the Old Testament are arbitrary, in my opinion, and purposefully so, to teach the people of God to trust and to obey a God whose thoughts are higher than the thoughts of men.

(2) Sin may be either ignorant or willful; active or passive. The guilt which the Sin Offering atones for is that from a sin which was unintentional and unknown at the moment the sin was committed. This means that we can sin even when we don’t intend to. Our culture tends to condemn only those sins which are intentional. God condemns all sin. Indeed, there is no provision made in the law for intentional sin. The kind of sin for which the Sin Offering is applicable is that which was unintentional.

We may console ourselves that we are not guilty because we did not mean to hurt another. If, however, our negligence has caused injury to another, we are guilty. If we fail to do what we should have done, we have sinned. Though we may not have intended to hurt a loved one by a harsh word, we have nevertheless done them harm. Sins of inaction or of ignorance are sins. God says so.

Let me get very practical for a moment. We have made a great deal of the “strong-willed child.” To us, there is nothing more offensive than a child who bows his neck, looks us in the eye, and defies us. I agree, this is sin, and it is offensive to me. But we often fail to recognize that sin also has its passive form. Is the child who says, “No!” any more sinful than the child who says he will obey, only to fail to do so? Is the child who resists to get his way any more sinful than the child who gives in, only to get what he wants? God’s Word informs us that passive sin is sin, that sins of inaction are sins, too, that ignorance is no excuse for wrong-doing.

(3) Sin results in defilement. Repeatedly in the Old Testament we find that sin brings defilement, not only to the sinner, but to others, and this even includes places.55 After a list of prohibitions, God said to the Israelites,

‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have spewed out its inhabitants … Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God’ (Lev. 18:24-25, 30).

“And I brought you into the fruitful land, To eat its fruit and its good things. But you came and defiled My land, And My inheritance you made an abomination” (Jer. 2:7).

Furthermore, all the officials of the priests and the people were very unfaithful following all the abominations of the nations; and they defiled the house of the LORD which He had sanctified in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:14).

It is most enlightening to take note of those sins which Israel committed which were said to defile the people, the land, and even the dwelling place of God:

Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:24-30)
Bloodshed (Num. 35:29-34)
Occult practices (Lev. 19:31; 20:6)
Infant sacrifice (Lev. 20:1-5)
Divorce (Jer. 3:1)
False worship (Jer. 16:18)

Most of these defiling sins are summed up in the Book of Ezekiel:

“For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. Thus they have committed adultery with their idols and even caused their sons, whom they bore to Me, to pass through the fire to them as food. Again, they have done this to Me: they have defiled My sanctuary on the same day and have profaned My sabbaths” (Ezek. 23:37-38).

(4) Sin is exceedingly costly. A number of years ago our family went to Six Flags with another family from the church. As we sat there watching the rides I turned to my friend and said, “Now here is a beautiful illustration of sin: the price is high and the ride is short.” That is just how it is with sin. When you think of what it would cost an Israelite who wished to maintain his walk with God, it would have been a religion almost too costly to be able to afford. No wonder God promised to prosper this people greatly!

(5) The only solution for the guilt of sin is blood atonement. In chapter 4 there is a sequence of terms which are repeated. In essence, the sequence is as follows:

There is sin, resulting in guilt.
There is a blood sacrifice, resulting in atonement and forgiveness.

If sin defiles, blood that is shed in accordance with God’s commandments purifies and sanctifies. Thus, it was through the sprinkling of shed blood that the tabernacle, all of its furnishings, and the priests were purified (cf. Lev. 8). The Sin Offering was holy, and what it touched was also made holy: “‘Anyone who touches its flesh shall become consecrated; and when any of its blood splashes on a garment, in a holy place you shall wash what was splashed on’” (Lev. 6:27).

I agree with those who hold that the principle function of the Sin Offering was to purify those people and things which were defiled by sin.56 Only by the shedding of innocent blood, in accordance with the instructions of God, could one’s sins be atoned for.

This explains why only the blood and the fat of the Sin Offering were used, while the rest was disposed of. By using the blood and throwing away the rest of the animal, God was demonstrating in a very dramatic fashion that it was only the blood that atoned for Israel’s sin; only the blood cleansed the tabernacle, the priests, the people, and the land from the defilement caused by the sin of the people. In the words of the writer to the Hebrews, “… without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22).

(6) The death of Christ, who died once and for all, has made atonement for man’s sin, and assures him of forgiveness. The Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 53 spoke of the Messiah, whose shed blood would atone for men’s sins:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him (Isa. 53:4-6, cf. also vv. 7-8, 10-12).

And so it was that when John the Baptist saw our Lord he proclaimed to the nation Israel, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). The Book of Hebrews demonstrates that the Lord Jesus Christ was the sinless Lamb of God, whose death was vastly superior to that of bulls and goats, thus making atonement for men, once for all:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:11-14).

With these words the apostle Peter agrees (cf. 1 Pet. 1:13-21). Jesus Christ is the Sin-bearer, who died once for all, that the wrath of a holy God might be appeased and that the defilement of sin might be cleansed. In the words of the hymn writer, “What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

Conclusion

From these principles there are several immediate levels of application. The first pertains to the matter of your personal salvation.

Do you see the value which God has assigned to the blood of an innocent victim, which is shed in place of the sinner? Have you come to personally accept the shed blood of Christ as God’s provision for your sins? The terms “salvation” and “born again” are all too frequently misunderstood because we use unbiblical terminology to define what they mean. We talk, for example, about “asking Jesus into your heart,” a totally unbiblical phrase, and one which completely ignores the shed blood of Christ.

Liberal theologians, along with countless Americans, who are lost in their sins, want to retain certain things about Jesus, but choose to reject the most important part of His person and work. They want to honor Him as a humanitarian, a healer, a teacher and philosopher, a great example, but they do not want anything to do with His sacrificial death, His shed blood. By God’s definition this is taking the sack, but throwing out the lunch. The essence of Christ’s work for sinful man is the shedding of His blood. I urge you to trust in His blood for your salvation, for the cleansing from your sins.

The teaching of Leviticus on the Sin Offering has something very important to say to the Christian about personal sanctification. Whenever we sin, we need to remember that it is the shed blood of Christ which God has provided for our forgiveness. Repentance and confession is the means for experiencing that forgiveness and cleansing on a daily basis.

Knowing the high price which Christ has paid for our forgiveness should also cause us to take sin very seriously. Every sin, no matter how insignificant it may seem, required the blood of Christ to be shed. Let us never forget that while forgiveness is free, it was not obtained cheaply. Here is a motivation for godly living.

Then, too, let us be reminded of the seriousness of sin. God takes sin very seriously. God takes unintentional sin more seriously than we take willful sin. And God takes willful sin even more seriously than we wish to think about:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26-29).

I am not for a moment suggesting that Christians are not eternally saved and secure, but I am suggesting that the willful sin of a wayward saint is a very sobering matter, and one which will not allow that wayward believer to sense any safety and security in what he or she is doing. Let us learn from both the Old and the New Testament how much God hates sin.

Finally, I must say to you that “ignorance is not bliss,” in spite of those who would have you think so. The Israelites were held accountable for the sins they committed ignorantly. Many contemporary Christians seem to think that if they don’t study their Bibles, if they don’t familiarize themselves with the standards and principles God has given in the Bible, they will not be responsible for their sins committed in ignorance. Not so! The Sin Offering strongly suggests that we had better become careful students of the revealed Word of God, for it is disobedience to His word that constitutes sin.

The Sin Offering in Leviticus 4

    Text

    Lev. 4:3-12

    Lev. 4:13-21

    Lev. 4:22-26

    Lev. 4:27-35

    Guilty

    Anointed priest sins;
    Guilt on all (v 3)

    The whole congretation (v 13)

    One of Israel’s leaders (v 22)

    One of the common people (v 27)

    Sin

     

    Unintentional
    (Cf. Num. 15:27-31)

     
     

    (v 2)

    (v.13)

    (v 22)

    (v 27)

    Animal

    Bull

    Bull

    Male Goat (v 23)

    Female Goat or
    Female Sheep (v 32)

     

    Animal brought to the doorway of the tent of meeting.
    Hand(s) laid on the head of the animal.
    Animal is slain.

     

    By priest
    (v 4)

    By elders
    (v 15)

    By leader
    (v 24)

    By individual
    (vv 29, 33)

    Blood

    Some of the blood is taken into the tent of meeting and sprinkled seven times in front of the veil.

       
     

    (vv 5-6)

    (v 18)

       
     

    Some blood put on horns of the altar of incense in the tent.

    The rest of the blood poured out at the bse of the altar of burnt offering.

       
     

    (v 7)

    (v 18)

       
         

    Some of the blood put on the horns of the altar of burnt offering.

    The rest of the blood poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering.

         

    (v 25)

    (vv 30, 34)

    Body

    The fat of the sacrificial animal was burned on the altar to God.

     

    (vv 8-10)

    (vv 19-20)

    (v 26)

    (vv 31, 35)

     

    The remainder of the bull burned in a clean place outside the camp.

    The priest who offered the animal ate it in the court of the tent of meeting.

     

    (v 12)

    (v 21)

    (Lev. 6:24-30)


52 “The sacrifices treated in chap. i.-iii. are introduced by their names, as though already known, for the purpose of giving them a legal sanction. But in chap. iv. and v. sacrifices are appointed for different offences, which receive their names for the first time from the objects to which they apply … a clear proof that the sin and debt offerings were introduced at the same time as the Mosaic law.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 302.

53 Wenham thinks that while the expression may refer to the blood being sprinkled before the curtain, it more likely suggests that the blood was sprinkled on “… the face (surface) of the curtain.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 90, cf. fn. 7.

54 The sin of the “anointed priest,” apparently a synonym for the high priest, could bring guilt upon the whole congregation. The nature of the work of the priest (in and about the tent of meeting) would explain the way in which the tent could be defiled, and thus all the people pay the price. The high priest also serves as the representative of the people, and thus when he sins, he sins on the people’s behalf. This seems to be an illustration of the principle of federal headship (cp. Heb. 7:1-10). While the principle works to the detriment of the people in the case of the sinful high priests, it is to the benefit of believers in the perfect High Priest, Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 7).

55 In the Old Testament sin is said to defile: (1) the people (cf. Jer. 2:23; Ezek. 20:43; Hos. 5:3; 6:10); (2) the place (Lev. 18:24-30; 20:2; Num. 19:20*; Deut. 21:23; 2 Chron. 36:14*; Ps. 106:38; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 2:7*; 3:1, 2, 9); and, (3) the name of God (cf. Lev. 20:3; Ezek. 43:8).

56 “The word hatta’t comes from a verbal form meaning ‘purify,’ so that the noun signifies ‘a sacrifice procuring purification.’ The function of this offering is thus to purify the place of worship, making it holy to the Lord …, and enabling God to dwell once again amongst His people.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), p. 61.

“Purification is the main element in the purification sacrifice. Sin not only angers God and deprives him of his due, it also makes his sanctuary unclean. A holy God cannot dwell amid uncleanness. The purification offering purifies the place of worship, so that God may be present among his people. This interpretation of the term seems to be compatible with its root meaning, and to explain the rituals of blood sprinkling peculiar to it.” Wenham, p. 89.

Passage: 

6. The Guilt Offering (Leviticus 5:14-6:7; 7:1-6)

Introduction57

Guilt has two distinct aspects: legal and emotional. Legal guilt is the outcome of a legal or a moral violation. If a break the law or a moral code, I am “guilty” of breaking it. Put another way, the breaking of law or code imparts guilt to the law breaker. Emotional guilt is the outcome of the conscience that God has given us. It is the spiritual organ that causes us to feel pain when we do wrong. Rightly tuned, it is a good thing to have. As Hebrews 5:14 says, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”

Legal and emotional guilt may be paired in any one of four ways:

1. No legal guilt with no guilt feelings. This, of course, is where we would like to be all the time. I have neither broken a law nor do have any sense of conviction.

2. No legal guilt with guilt feelings. This can come about by a misunderstanding of the intent of a law, or it can be a sign of an overly sensitive conscience. A girl, raised with the teaching that make-up is of the devil, who tries a little blush, may feel guilty.

3. Legal guilt with no guilt feelings. On the good side, this comes from convicting an innocent person. On the serious side, this comes from the reprobate who feels bad for being caught in his or her law breaking, but has no sense of wrongdoing. As Proverbs 30:20 says, “This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’”

4. Legal guilt with guilt feelings. Not the best place to be but it certainly presents cause for hope. It’s the stuff from which repentance comes.

The story of Stephen in the Book of Acts gives us an example of wrong legal guilt for which the legally guilty person has no guilt feelings. Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin, for being one of Jesus’ followers. They found him guilty of blasphemy and stoned him. Stephen was legally guilty as far as the Jewish criminal justice system was concerned. He had incurred a legal debt that demanded his death. From the standpoint of a higher truth, however, he was not guilty, and in fact, his conscience was not inflamed at all.

The men who stoned Stephen took Stephen’s clothes and placed them at the feet of a man named Saul. Saul did not feel guilty either; in fact, Scripture says he approved of the stoning of Stephen. Saul was quite innocent before the Sanhedrin, yet he was morally guilty before a higher Truth.

It’s clear that guilt is a complex subject that affects all of us. We are, of course, in the best of situations when code and conscience, at the level of highest truth, are in agreement. Note again Hebrews 5:14” But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” A proper functioning conscience is a mark of maturity.

Guilt is universal. We have all felt guilty and have been guilty. If we examine the philosophies of the world, we find that, whereas many of them do not recognize the biblical concept of sin, they will invariably recognize the concept of guilt and try to deal with it. This includes not only many religions but also the fields of psychology and psychiatry. This demonstrates the degree to which guilt and guilt feelings trouble the human race.

Some religious groups stir up guilt as a means of control. They seek to expand the scope of guilt.

Conversely, Humanistic philosophies try to narrow the scope of guilt. They do not affirm valid guilt except in regard to violating the space, privacy, or short-term welfare of another person.

Psychiatry often takes the blame-shifting approach to guilt feelings. The comedian Anna Russell wrote a poem that pokes fun at this.

I went to my psychiatrist to be psychoanalyzed
To find out why I killed the cat and blacked my husband’s eyes.
He laid me on a downy couch to see what he could find
And here’s what he dredged up from my subconscious mind.

When I was one my mommy hid my dolly in a trunk
And so it follows naturally that I am always drunk.
And when I was two I saw my father kiss the maid one day
And that is why I suffer now from kleptomaniae.

At three I had the feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers
And so it follows naturally I poison all my lovers.
But I am happy now I’ve learned a lesson this has taught
That everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault.58

Although true Christianity offers a solution to guilt, there is a charicature of Christianity that portrys it as a producer of guilt feelings instead. This has led some to attack Christianity as being harmful to good mental health, as the following quote from The Humanist magazine demonstrates. The article it comes from is called “The Fundamentalist Anonymous Movement.”

At long last, the best kept secret in America is being revealed to the public: the fundamentalist experience can be a serious mental health hazard to perhaps millions of people. … At this time, more than ten thousand people, hardly a significant number compared to the population from which it claims to come, have called or written us. Even though they come from all fifty states and constitute a cross-section of American society, there is a common list of complaints that we hear again and again: years of overwhelming guilt, fear, and anxiety after leaving the fundamentalist fold, loneliness, chronic depression, low self-esteem, years in therapy, and sometimes even attempts at suicide.59

They are saying that fundamentalists are really pouring on the guilt. Although there are some religious groups, Christian and otherwise, that use guilt to manipulate their members, we still have to realize that guilt feelings are God-given, just like our emotions of fear and anger. All emotions, however, have been warped by sin. Just as there are those who develop sinful anger patterns or are too fearful, there are those who have destructive guilt. Then again, there are others who do not feel guilty enough. What seems clear is that a proper balance must be the goal to which we strive for our mental, emotional, and spiritual health.

The Guilt Offering and the Sin Offering

Leviticus chapters 4 through 7 present the Sin and Guilt offerings. The two themes intermingle throughout. Thus, the Bible, contrary to our modern culture, closely ties sin and guilt together. Look at how both relate to each other in the following texts.

Leviticus 5:5-6 When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Leviticus 5:15 When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord’s holy things, he is to bring to the Lord as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering.

Notice the two passages! On the one hand, if a person is guilty he may need to bring a sin offering. On the other hand, if a person sins, he may need to bring a guilt offering. The two concepts are seemingly inseparable.

Guilt Offerings in Israel’s History

The Bible describes a number of occasions when guilt offerings were made. A guilt offering was part of the ceremonial cleansing of a leper. A guilt offering was required when a man or woman, under a Nazarite vow, came in contact with a dead animal or person and unintentionally broke their vow.

The most interesting illustration is told in 1 Samuel 6. The Philistines had captured the ark of God. Their excitement turned to dismay as problems mounted from their having the ark in their possession. In particular, their god Dagon kept falling over and the people suffered from tumors. Their recourse was to “invent” a guilt offering, presumably for sinning against the Lord’s holy things.

1 Samuel 6:1-5 Now the ark of the Lord had been in the country of the Philistines seven months. And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, saying, “What shall we do with the ark of the Lord? Tell us how we shall send it to its place.” And they said, “If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, do not send it empty; but you shall surely return to Him a guilt offering. Then you shall be healed and it shall be known to you why His hand is not removed from you.” Then they said, “What shall be the guilt offering which we shall return to Him?” And they said, “Five golden tumors and five golden mice according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for one plague was on all of you and on your lords. So you shall make likenesses of your tumors and likenesses of your mice that ravage the land, and you shall give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will ease His hand from you, your gods, and your land.

Another example is related at the end of the Book of Ezra. The exiles had returned from their captivity, and guilt and sin offerings had been made. Afterwards, the leaders came to Ezra and told him that the priests, Levites, and others had married foreign wives. Ezra 9:2 says, “They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” Ezra was so distraught at the marring of the racial purity of Israel that he literally pulled his own hair out. He asked the Levites to repent and put away their foreign wives. Many offered guilt offerings. They perhaps had sinned without knowledge or had violated the holy things of God, i.e. “the holy race.”

Structure of Our Text

The passages in Leviticus that concern the guilt offering have the following structure:

    1. Leviticus 5:14-16 The Guilt Offering is required for violating the Lord’s holy things.

    2. Leviticus 5:17-19 The Guilt Offering is required when one sins without knowing it.

    3. Leviticus 6:1-7 The Guilt Offering is required for extortion or robbery.

    4. Leviticus 7:1-6 The details of the Guilt Offering.

The Lord’s Holy Things

Leviticus 5:14-16 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the LORD'S holy things, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD: a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering. He shall make restitution for that which he has sinned against the holy thing, and shall add to it a fifth part of it and give it to the priest. The priest shall then make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and it will be forgiven him.”

What are the Lord’s holy things?

1. The Lord’s name is holy. We are commanded to not misuse it or take it in vain. Swearing falsely by the name of the Lord violates and brings dishonor to the Lord. In the Lord’s prayer, we pray for the sanctity of the Lord’s name.

2. The Sabbath was to be kept holy. An unintentional Sabbath violation would be one of the things that required a guilt offering.

3. The offerings and the temple rites were holy. Much of the temple ceremony dealt with maintaining its holy character. An improperly trained priest could violate any part of the ordinance and be guilty. Leviticus 19 directs that any remains of the peace offering was to be burned on the third day. Leviticus 19:7,8 says, “So if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an offense; it will not be accepted. And anyone who eats it will bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from his people

4. National purity was holy. The Israelites were to be holy just as their Lord God was holy. Not maintaining purity in their worship of the one true God and by their inter-marrying, they violated the Lord’s holy things.

What are some of the Lord’s holy things for Christians?

1. The Lord’s Name. As stated above, Jesus taught us to pray “Hallowed be Thy name.”

2. The Gospel. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

3. Our Bodies. As Paul says again in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Or, do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body”

4. The Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 10:14f, Paul associates the table of the Lord and partaking of it with the “most holy” offerings in Leviticus:

Therefore, my dear friends flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

There is more to be said about the holiness of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul writes:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Many would say that this means we are not to partake of the Lord’s table with unconfessed sin, but I do not think that is true. Paul says, whoever eats or drinks in an “unworthy manner.” If we take both this passage and what we see in Leviticus, the Lord’s table is one of the most holy things of the Lord. We are to regard it as holy.

I am certainly not saying there is a transubstantiation of the elements when we serve the Lord’s table. But it is “most holy” for us. Paul clearly associates this with the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. Paul says it is a “participation” in the body and blood of Christ, and through the one loaf, it is a communion among us with fellow believers. I think we recognize it is emblematic of the Lord’s death and resurrection; we recognize it as one of the symbols of our salvation, but we sometimes lose sight of the fact it is also holy.

All of us are believer priests and may eat—both men and women. The Levitical priests would violate the Lord’s holy things if they ate anything with blood in it. Yet we freely participate in both the body and the blood of Christ. Here’s why: when the priest ate the guilt offering, he was ingesting the sin of the offerer to make atonement for him. The blood was excluded because the life was in the blood, and the life had to be shed because of guilt. For us, Christ has made the perfect atonement. We partake of His sinless body and drink His life, which is in His blood.

Guilt for Unknown Sin

Leviticus 5:17-19 Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment. He is then to bring to the priest a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his error in which he sinned unintentionally and did not know it, and it will be forgiven him. It is a guilt offering; he was certainly guilty before the LORD.

Unknown sin is a class of unintentional sin. A sin can be unknown because you didn’t know that an action violated the Lord’s command. It could also be because circumstances hid from you the sinful nature of your actions. Here is an example:

When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac answered him, “Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her.” Then Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the men might have slept with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us” (Genesis 26:8-10).

One debate in our modern age is between situational ethics and absolute morals. Between Abimelech and Isaac, there was no such debate. A Philistine would have been guilty of adultery if he had slept with Rebekah, even though the situation suggested differently. Incidentally, this is the first occurrence of the word “guilt” in the Scriptures.

Another incident that combines elements of unknown sin and the Lord’s holy things occurs in Joshua chapter 9. The Gibeonites, marked by the Lord for destruction by the Israelites, dressed up and pretended to be from a distant land. They asked Joshua to make a treaty with them. Though Joshua asked some probing questions, he did not inquire before the Lord before making the treaty, and he swore by the Lord to make the treaty. When the truth became known, Joshua stood by the treaty he had made by swearing on the Lord’s name, but obviously he was guilty of an unknown violation of the Lord’s commands. In this case, the guilt was incurred in ignorance. Ignorance, however, is no excuse. The guilt exists and must be dealt with.

Will any of us ever know the Scriptures in such a way, or be so led by the Spirit, as to never commit an unknown sin and thus incur guilt in our lives? Probably not. Anyone who says we can live sinlessly before our resurrection has a shallow view of the human heart and no understanding of God’s righteous character. This offering demonstrates God’s grace to the Israelite by making a provision for not knowing it all, not understanding it all, and feeling a sense of God’s righteousness and of falling short, yet not knowing why.

In a study on Proverbs that Dr. Bruce Waltke taught many years ago, he described four Hebrew words translated “fool” in Proverbs. They are: (a) pethi: Naive, simple one, not committed; (b) kesil: Dull insensitive, foolish; (c) evil: A hater of wisdom; (d) qalas: The scoffer. These words suggest a continuum between the ignorant and uncommitted, and the premeditated sinner. Everything we do falls somewhere within this continuum.

Intentional sin is brash, bold, direct, premeditated, and consuming. There are many descriptions of those who plan the next day’s evil when they go to sleep at night. One of my favorites is found in Isaiah 5:18-23:

Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit and wickedness as with cart ropes, to those who say, “Let God hurry, let Him hasten His work so we may see it. Let it approach, let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come, so we may know it.” Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.

Extortion Etc.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion, or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering. Then he shall bring to the priest his guilt offering to the LORD, a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt” (Leviticus 6:1-7)

According to Leviticus, if you cheat your neighbor, you need to bring a guilt offering. If you find property and do not return it, you need to bring a guilt offering. Along with the guilt offering, you also return what was stolen, plus 20 percent.

I am immediately reminded of the words of Jesus: “Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23, 24). The gift Jesus is referring to may be a peace offering or a tithe. Regardless, it is made worthless by the offense someone has received from you.

Legal and Moral Debt—Handling Guilt Biblically

Guilt is legal and/or moral debt. Both the Levitical offerings and Christianity claim to resolve guilt in our lives. But the enemies of the church are able to accuse us of generating huge amounts of guilt. What gives? Are we innocent of the charge? Mostly so, but partly not. The emotion of guilt, like anger and fear, can be distorted by sin. An overactive conscience is one of the liabilities of spiritual warfare, especially as we draw nearer and nearer to God. Neither do Christianity’s detractors understand that a deadened conscience is also damaging to the person.

How do we handle guilt biblically? For true guilt—whether against the Lord or man, whether known or unknown—the Levitical combination of restitution and the guilt offering absolved the offender of all legal and moral debt. For the Christian, restitution and the death of Jesus Christ, our guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10) also absolves us of legal and moral debt. This statement is important because one of the reasons we carry our guilt is that we refuse to recognize that the debt has been paid.

When I was a teenager, I was hired as a lifeguard, but did not take my position as seriously as I should have. One day I was sitting on the sidelines of the pool talking with some girls (rather than up in the chair). Suddenly I saw a man running along the edge of the pool, in violation of the rules. I blew my whistle, but he didn’t quit running. Instead, he dove into the pool and brought up a young boy out of the water. His face was very blue. The Lord was good to me; the boy revived quickly and no permanent harm came to him. This is an illustration of the kind of guilt that can be damaging to us if we don’t leave it behind. I can’t bring up the memory of this incident without reliving it very vividly. I repented right away, and after that time became a conscientious lifeguard. But it would be pointless to condemn myself each time I remembered the situation. I sinned, incurred guilt, and repented. Jesus, my guilt offering, paid my debt to God. Therefore, I can let the past be the past and move on with a clear conscience.

Here are some concrete ideas for handling guilt:

1. Our conscience must be correctly trained. It must alert us when we have failed to do, as we ought. This requires faithful teaching:

1 Timothy 1:3, 5 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer … The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Hebrews 5:11-12, 14 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk not solid food! … But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

2. Not all of our sin will be known to us. This is really an extension of the first point, but it also covers those times when we just feel unworthy. The sin nature is a deep, festering pool. Now that we know the Lord instituted an offering for this, we may have confidence that this is normal and covered by the cross.

3. Confession is better than denial. First John 1:9 validates the role confession has in the life of the believer. It contains the promise of cleansing, and by faith, we know that our known failings will eventually be behind us, and our unknown failings brought to light and cleansed. Confessing unknown sinfulness is appropriate.

4. When restitution is possible, make it. When restitution is offered, accept it. Restitution is what uniquely distinguishes the guilt offering from the sin offering. Restitution brings healing, and cancels the legal and moral debt on the horizontal level between men.

5. Learn the lesson, and leave it behind you. I suspect that it is here that we drop the ball. But consider the Israelite who appears before the priest with the property of his neighbor, plus 20 percent of its value in grain, plus the ram. When all has been offered, what else is there to do? The moral and legal debt is paid. What more can he do? Nothing. Continuing to carry it around as baggage is not faith and may violate the holiness of the guilt offering and the atonement of the priest.

For the believer, our guilt offering is Jesus Christ. Restitution is our responsibility, and confession and cleansing are offered to us. Even if it is a recurring sin, we need to confess it and leave the guilt behind us.

Christ Our Guilt Offering

We are guilty of violating the Lord’s holy things. We are guilty of unknown sins, and we have wronged our neighbors. The good news comes from the prophet Isaiah who wrote:

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:10-11).

Messiah was prophesied to be our guilt offering. The word “justify” means to declare “not guilty.” The moral and legal debt is canceled, but there is more. The author of Hebrews wrote:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts; and I will write them on their minds.” Then He adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:10-18).

Jesus Christ, our sin offering, is the eternal solution to our guilt. He offered Himself for your guilt, but you must acknowledge your guilt and accept this guilt offering He made for you. Then you can rejoice in the knowledge that you will be made holy.


57 This message was preached by Don Curtis (email) an excellent student of the Scriptures, teacher, and good friend. Don graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1974 with a degree in Philosophy. He has since become a Senior Computer Programmer with the IBM Corporation. For a number of years, Don and his family attended Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, until his job took him to Atlanta, Georgia. Partly from Bob Deffinbaugh’s influence, biblical studies and teaching have become a passion in his Christian life. Don is currently an elder and teacher at Cobb Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Kennesaw, GA.

58 Adams, Jay E., Competent to Counsel, 1971, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 8.

59 Luce, James J. D., “The Fundamentalists Anonymous Movement,” The Humanist, January/February 1986, pp. 11, 12.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

7. Principles of Priesthood (Leviticus 8-10)

Introduction

Have you ever watched someone performing a very dangerous task and gone away smiling at the thought that this person is risking his neck, rather than you? There are several occupations that I would gladly pay someone else an exorbitant salary to do than to have to do it myself. One such task is that of washing windows on skyscrapers, another is painting bridges, like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The other day I saw a brief news feature on the men who change the light bulbs on top of the Reunion Tower. More power (and more pay) to them! Anyone who wants to risk their life in such occupations has my full support.

I would imagine that if I had lived in the days of Moses and the ancient Israelites I would have felt the same way about those whose occupation was the priesthood. In the text which we are going to study in this lesson two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, were struck dead for exercising their priestly duties in a way that dishonored God. While at the end of chapter 9 fire came down from heaven, consuming what was left of the people’s sacrifice, at the beginning of chapter 10 fire came down from heaven, consuming two of Israel’s priests. From this day forward, every Israelite looked upon the priesthood as a very dangerous occupation.

This week, Jerry Soderberg suggested to me that this incident is similar to that found in the New Testament Book of Acts, chapter 5, in which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for lying to the church (and thus to the Holy Spirit) about their contribution to the church. I think this is a very helpful insight. In both instances, there was the beginning of a new era, some would say a new dispensation. In Leviticus chapter 10, where the death of Nadab and Abihu are recorded, the Mosaic Covenant has just been instituted, along with the tabernacle and the Aaronic priesthood. In Acts chapter 5, where Ananias and Sapphira were judged of God, the church age has just commenced with Pentecost (Acts 2). In both cases, the death of God’s people is designed to set a precedent, so that those who enter into the new dispensation would grasp the significance of the holiness of God in relation to the institutions which He has just created.

As the Israelites of old and the New Testament church learned to take heed to God’s commandments and character, so let us listen well to the words of our text, for these are weighty matters with which we are dealing.

A Survey of the
History of the Priesthood in the Pentateuch

The Aaronic Priesthood is just being formally established in Leviticus chapter 8, but the concept of priesthood is not new to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, written by Moses. In a curious incident in the life of Abraham, a priest-king by the name of Melchizedek is introduced:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand” (Gen. 14:18-20).

Not until Psalm 110 is Melchizedek referred to again, and much is made of this order of priesthood in the Book of Hebrews (chaps. 5-7).

Joseph’s wife was the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20), and Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was known as “the priest of Midian” (Exod. 2:16; 3:1; 18:1). At Mt. Sinai God proclaimed that He had delivered Israel from bondage and set her apart to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). Most interesting is the fact that there was some order of priests before the Aaronic Priesthood was officially instituted. When God first appeared from Mt. Sinai, but before instructions concerning the priesthood had been given (cf. Exod. 28, 29), God gave this warning:

“And also let the priests who come near to the LORD consecrate themselves, lest the LORD break out against them.” And Moses said to the LORD, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for Thou didst warn us, saying, ‘Set bounds about the mountain and consecrate it.’” Then the LORD said to him, “Go down and come up again, you and Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD, lest He break forth upon them” (Exod. 19:22-24, emphasis mine).

As in other instances, it would seem that the Mosaic Covenant formalized and regulated institutions and practices which already existed prior to the making of this covenant.

It is in Exodus chapter 28 that legislation concerning the Aaronic priesthood begins with a description of the garments which will set Aaron and his sons apart as a priesthood:60

“Then bring near to yourself Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the sons of Israel, to minister as priest to Me—Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. And you shall speak to all the skillful persons whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece and an ephod and a robe and a tunic of checkered work, a turban and a sash, and they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons, that he may minister as priest to Me” (Exod. 28:1-4).

In Exodus chapter 28 God instructed Moses concerning the priestly garments which would set Aaron and his sons apart. In chapter 29 instructions for the consecration and ordination of Aaron and his sons are meticulously outlined. It is this chapter which is virtually mirrored by the account of the ordination of Aaron and his sons in Leviticus chapter 8. A brief summary of these two chapters will show the close relationship they have with each other:


Command (Exodus 29)


Fulfillment (Leviticus 8)

Present one bull, two rams, unleavened bread, cakes, oil (vv. 1-4a)

One bull, two rams, basket of unleavened bread brought to tent of meeting (vv. 1-5).

Aaron and sons to be washed, clothed with priestly garments (vv. 4b-9)

Aaron and sons washed and clothed with priestly garments (vv. 6-9)

Bull to be offered as a sin offering (vv. 10-14)

Bull offered as sin offering (vv. 14-17)

First ram to be offered as burnt offering (vv. 15-18)

First ram offered as burnt offering (vv. 18-21)

Second ram to be offered as an ordination offering (vv. 19-28)

Second ram offered as an ordination offering (vv. 22-29)

Moses to anoint Aaron and sons (vv. 29-30)

Aaron and sons anointed (v. 30)

Commands related to the eating of the ram of ordination (vv. 31-34)

Moses instructs Aaron and sons concerning the eating of the ordination ram (vv. 31-36)

An Overview of Leviticus 8-10

Chapters 8-10 of the Book of Leviticus describe the origin and the ordination of the Aaronic priesthood. Let me briefly summarize the major contribution of each chapter.

Leviticus 8 portrays the fulfillment of God’s commands pertaining to the ordination of Aaron and his sons, as detailed in Exodus chapter 29. This chapter highlights Moses, who, until after the ordination of Aaron and his sons, functions as Israel’s priest.

Leviticus 9 changes the focus from Moses to Aaron. Aaron and his sons are now commanded to offer sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the nation. A Sin Offering, Burnt Offering, Peace Offering, and Grain Offering were offered for Aaron and his sons (vv. 1-17), and also for the people (with the exception of the Grain Offering, vv. 18-22). The purpose of these offerings is to make preparations for the revelation of the glory of God to the people:

And Moses said, “This is the thing which the LORD has commanded you to do, that the glory of the LORD may appear to you” (Lev. 9:6, emphasis mine).

And so the glorious conclusion to the chapter is the revelation of God’s glory:

And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting. When they came out and blessed the people, the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people. Then fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces (Lev. 9:23-24).

Leviticus 10 begins with another account of fire descending from heaven, but this time it is God’s judgment in response to the “strange fire” which is offered up by Nadab and Abihu, the two oldest sons of Aaron. Immediately thereafter, God gave Aaron instructions concerning drinking while on duty (vv. 8-11), and then Moses gave further instructions about the eating of the sacrifices (vv. 12-15). The chapter concludes with a very interesting account of Moses’ protest concerning the uneaten goat of the sin offering, which was successfully answered by Aaron.

The death of Nadab and Abihu is the most striking incident in chapters 8-10, and serves to dramatically convey some important principles related to the priesthood. Nadab and Abihu were the oldest of Aaron’s four sons (cf. Exod. 6:23). These men were privileged to accompany Moses and their father, along with others, to Mount Sinai, where they participated in the covenant meal with God (cf. Exod. 24:1, 9). They had just recently been ordained and begun to assume their duties as priests. We do not know how long they had been serving in this capacity when they were put to death, but the inference is that this incident came close on the heels of their ordination.

The text does not inform us as to the precise nature of the sin of these two priests. They sinned, we are told, by “offering strange fire before the LORD” (v. 1). It was, however, clearly designated as an act of direct disobedience to God’s commands. They did that “… which He had not commanded them” (v. 1). My understanding is that God has declined from giving a precise description of their sin so as to underscore the more general nature of the sin—disobedience. They were in some way carrying out their priestly duties in a way that disobeyed some of God’s exacting requirements.

Nadab and Abihu must have agreed among themselves concerning their actions, for they both sinned and both were put to death. There is a kind of conspiracy here. Simply finding others who agree with us and will join us in disobedience is not sufficient reason for disobeying God. Many denominations and cults err here. They think that sheer numbers must prove them right.

This disaster had a very beneficial effect on at least one of the other sons of Aaron, Eleazar. Eleazar was one of the other sons of Aaron, who assumed the role of one of his dead brothers (v. 6). He was also the father of Phinehas, who zealously acted in behalf of God’s holiness:

Then behold, one of the sons of Israel came and brought to his relatives a Midianite woman, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, while they were weeping at the doorway of the tent of meeting. When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he arose from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and pierced both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman, through the body. So the plague on the sons of Israel was checked (Num. 25:6-8, cf. also vv. 10-13).

I take it therefore that Eleazar learned to regard the holiness of God very highly, and that this same regard was later evidenced in his son, Phinehas.

Verses 8-11 seem to be a direct outgrowth of the death of Nadab and Abihu. God spoke directly to Aaron, rather than to speak to him through Moses (as He does in vv. 12ff.). God instructed Aaron that alcohol was not to be mixed with priestly duties. It would be easy to infer that Nadab and Abihu may have both been drinking before or on duty, and that alcohol had diminished their capacity to carry out their duties in a way that was honoring to God. At least we can say that priestly ministry should be done with one’s full capacities, and that nothing which diminishes our careful attention to upholding the glory and the holiness of God should be practiced by priests.

Verses 12-15 are instructions to Aaron and the priests which are conveyed through Moses. I believe that these instruction precede the final section (vv. 16-20) because they provide us with the backdrop for understanding the consternation of Moses when the sin offering cannot be found. When a goat was offered for a sin offering, the breast which was a wave offering was to be eaten by the priests. Moses therefore looked for the meat from the sin offering which the younger sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, had just offered (vv. 16-18). The meat was missing, and Moses seems to have been angered at the thought that these two sons had also disobeyed God’s instructions, and that they, too, might be smitten for their sin.

Surprisingly, Aaron was not shaken by the anger and accusation of Moses. Moses was probably rightly motivated, but Aaron’s explanation prevailed: “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD. When things like these happened to me, if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have been good in the sight of the LORD?” (v. 19). As I follow Aaron’s logic, he is saying that it was probably on this very day that Nadab and Abihu were stuck down by God for their sin, and it was also on this day when Eleazar and Ithamar were required to offer a sin offering for themselves, just as Aaron and his two oldest sons had done as recorded in chapter 9. Because of the tragic events of the day and the inauguration of his two younger sons, Aaron felt that eating of the sin offering of the people would have been inappropriate. Thus, the meat which could have been eaten was burned up, just as the uneaten portion would have been anyway.

Aaron’s actions and those of his two younger sons were not normal, but then this was no typical day in the lives of the priests. In the light of this, Moses was satisfied that they had not done something forbidden, but had only declined from exercising their priestly privileges, for higher considerations.

The significant fact here is that Aaron has come into his own, and that even Moses had to recognize his position and his wisdom in the decision he had reached and the actions which followed it.

Conclusion

Lessons for Ancient Israel

The first question which we must ask, as we seek to discover the meaning of these chapters, is, “What did this mean to the ancient Israelites, who first read this divinely inspired account, penned by Moses?” I believe that the Israelites would have been impressed with several truths.

First, the ancient Israelites would have been impressed with the prominence of the priesthood in God’s order, and with Aaron, as their first high priest. At the beginning of our text, in chapter 8, Moses was the prominent figure, as he has been throughout the account of the exodus. In chapter 10, however, Aaron is installed as the high priest, and he very much comes “into his own.” Moses’ provisional priestly role seems to come to an end here. He is the great prophet, like unto whom the Messiah will be (Deut. 18:15), but Aaron is the great priest, who is the foreshadow of Christ, our Great High Priest.

Second, the Israelites would have been impressed with the grace of God in the appointment of Aaron as Israel’s high priest. This Aaron, who is now honored by being appointed as Israel’s first high priest, is the same man who seemed to be, at best, a sort of tag along helper of Moses. More than this, this is the man who was instrumental in leading Israel in her false worship of the golden calf (Exod. 32). Now, this same Aaron is Israel’s high priest. One can only explain the Aaronic priesthood as purely a matter of God’s grace. Much like Paul, who was a persecutor of the church, and then came, by God’s grace, to be a great apostle to the church, Aaron, a hindrance to Moses and Israel, now becomes her spiritual leader.

Third, the Israelites would be reminded of the holiness of God, and of the dangers faced by those who would draw near to Him in service. The priesthood was an exceedingly dangerous job, for those who drew near to Him in service dare not do so casually or carelessly, as did Nadab and Abihu.

Fourth, Israel would be painfully aware of the limitations of this Aaronic Priesthood. Thus they would be prepared for and looking forward to a “better Priest and priesthood” which would be the result of the New Covenant and of the coming of the Christ. The Aaronic priesthood was shown to have failed at its very outset. It is as though an unsinkable ship was launched, and at the first instant it struck the water it sank. If these two priests, Nadab and Abihu were so sinful as to be struck dead by God, how could anything they or any other sinful priest did bring people to perfection? Any system which had an imperfect priesthood could surely not bring the people to perfection. The flaws of the old covenant and its Aaronic priesthood pointed to the need for a new and better covenant, with a better priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood was only a provisional, imperfect priesthood. A sinner was the high priest, and his sinful sons were priests as well. There was no basis for unbridled optimism in the Aaronic order.

Lessons for New Testament Christians

There are a number of principles of priesthood to be found in the Book of Leviticus which apply to both Old and New Testament priests. Before we consider these there are several New Testament principles which will guide us in differentiating between the Aaronic priesthood of Leviticus and the priesthood which is described in the New Testament.

Principle 1: The Old Testament Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled and rendered obsolete by Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest.

When we come to the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, we must recognize that this priesthood has been rendered obsolete by the coming of Christ, and the inauguration of His perfect priesthood, which brings men to perfection. If the Aaronic priesthood was plagued by the imperfection of its priests, the priesthood inaugurated by our Lord is marked by the perfection and the holiness of Jesus Christ, in whom there was no sin. It is in those very areas where the old priesthood was weak and inadequate that Christ has proven to be the perfect priest. The standards which God set for the priesthood and which men failed to meet are those which Christ has met fully.

The Book of Hebrews has much to say about Christ as our great High Priest, and of His superiority to the Aaronic order. Ideally, the Aaronic priesthood would have taken away iniquity:

“You shall also make a plate of pure gold and shall engrave on it, like the engraving of a seal, ‘Holy to the LORD.’ And you shall fasten it on a blue cord, and it shall be on the turban; it shall be at the front of the turban. And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall take away [bear, cf. marginal note, NASB] the iniquity of the holy things which the sons of Israel consecrate, with regard to all their holy gifts; and it shall always be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD” (Exod. 28:36-38).

Due to the sinfulness of these priests provision had to be made to cover their own sins, so that they would not die (cf. Exod. 28:40-43; 29). It was not until Jesus Christ came as Israel’s Messiah and Great High Priest that the sins of men were atoned for, once for all. The writer to the Hebrews makes much of the superiority of Christ and of His priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek. He writes,

Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives … Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession (Heb. 2:14-15, 17-18; 3:1).

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need. For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself …

In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and who was heard because of His piety, although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation; being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 4:14–5:3; 5:7-10).

In chapters 7-10, the writer to the Hebrews reaches the climax of his arguments for the superiority of the priesthood of Christ. He provides the following lines of evidence:

  • A better priesthood—7:1-10
  • A better covenant—7:11-28
  • A better ministry—8:1-13
  • A better tabernacle and a better sacrifice—9:1-28
  • A better sanctification—10:1-18

The conclusion to the argument of these chapters in Hebrews is found in verses 19-25 of chapter 10:

Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:19-25).

There is a second New Testament principle of priesthood which is an outgrowth of the first:

Principle 2: The Lord Jesus Christ has instituted a new priestly order, not of a few select individuals, but of all those who are born again, who are united by faith with His priesthood.

Just as Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, was the top ranking priest of a whole order, so Jesus Christ is the head of a New Testament order of priests. The priesthood of the Old Testament was called the Aaronic priesthood because all the priests were the offspring of Aaron, they were members of his family. The priesthood of the New Testament is composed of all who are “in Christ.” This is implied in the Book of Hebrews. In chapter 8 we read of a “better ministry.” In chapter 9 we are told of one of the results of the high priestly ministry of Christ:

For if the blood of goats and bulls and ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:13-14, emphasis mine).

The service which is to result from the cleansing accomplished by our Great High Priest is a priestly service. Thus, in chapter 10, the application of Christ’s work in the believer’s actions is described in the priestly vocabulary of the Old Testament priesthood:

… since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:21-25, emphasis mine).

The Old Testament priests were those who drew near, and were those who had to be washed in order to carry out their priestly duties. This terminology is now applied to all who are in Christ, because all who are in Christ are priests. This is clearly taught elsewhere in the New Testament. Our Lord taught that the new order which He would bring into existence was one in which a religious hierarchy would not and could not exist. There was to be no laity and clergy distinction. No men were to be put on a higher spiritual level than others:

“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:8-12).

Thus, in the New Testament, all believers are said to be the priesthood of the New Covenant:

You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. … But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen (Rev. 1:6).

Often in the New Testament we find the ministry of the New Testament saint couched in the sacrificial language of the Old Testament because we who are in Christ are His priests (cf. Rom. 12:1; Phil. 1:18; Heb. 13:9-17).

The cross of Jesus Christ marks the greatest dividing line of all history. There may be other lines drawn in the history of God’s dealings with men, but none matches this one in its significance. This line has not always been viewed as clearly as it should have been, however. In the history of the church, the line has had to be redrawn, or at least rediscovered. The Reformation, brought about by a former Roman Catholic monk, Martin Luther, was one such redrawing of the line. As Christ drew the line between the traditions of Judaism and the teachings of the Old Testament, so Luther drew the line between the authority of the church and the authority of the Bible. As Christ drew the line between a salvation of works and that of faith in His shed blood, so Luther reiterated that men were saved by faith in Christ alone, and not by their works.

Unfortunately, the Reformation did not redraw the line as fully as it should have. Many matters of ecclesiology, that is, matters pertaining to the forms and functions of the church, were left virtually unchallenged. Thus, for example, the distinction between laity and clergy was maintained. In most Catholic and Protestant churches, there is either a formal or an informal priesthood, an order of those who somehow mediate between God and men. Thus, much of the Aaronic Priesthood, which we find defined and described in the Book of Leviticus, is simply carried over into the New Testament church, with only superficial changes or alterations. Such practice is ignorant of (or worse yet, disobedient to) the fact that with Christ came a New Covenant, as well as a new priesthood, and that this priesthood includes every true believer, not a select few.

Why is it that the clear teaching of the Bible has not been followed, as it pertains to the new priestly order or the New Testament? Why has the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” been set aside, both doctrinally and practically, so that an elite priestly class still performs the religious rituals for the laity? I think the reason can be seen in the Old Testament text. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, and the people partially perceived the holiness of God, they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, lest we die” (Exod. 20:19).

Before the death of Nadab and Abihu (as seen above) and after it as well, I suspect, the people were glad to let someone else get close to God. They wished to play it safe by keeping their distance. I think that is one of the principle reasons why Christians today want to have a small priestly class, and clergy, as it were, who will represent them before God, and who will relieve them of the responsibility of getting to close to God, and having to pay the higher price of purity, discipline, and devotion which this entails.

Moses exemplifies the change which God wants to see in all of us. When God first called Moses, as recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Exodus, Moses kept retreating from God and drawing back from the position to which God has called him. He wanted God to send someone else, and only very reluctantly went after God’s anger was evident, and when Aaron was sent along with him.

The great change in Moses occurs after the “fall of Israel” in Exodus 32, when the people sinned by their worship of the golden calf. From here on, we have the sense of Moses pressing toward God—almost dangerously so. He is not content with God’s promise to be personally present with him alone. He wants God’s promise to be present with His people. Even beyond this Moses pressed God to reveal His glory to him, in a way that definitely was life-threatening (cf. Exod. 33:17–34:35).

The man who drew back from God now pressed upon Him. How can we explain this change? Two things explain the change, and they are at the very heart of the Book of Leviticus: loving God and loving men. Moses loved God so much that he wanted to be near Him, even to see His undiminished glory, if possible. He loved the Israelites so much that he would not settle only for God’s promise of His personal presence and blessing, but for nothing less than His presence with His people. When we love God and men we wish to draw near to God, not to draw away from Him. The reason why many of us want an elite priesthood, a clergy, is that we don’t sufficiently love God or our fellow men. Let us learn from Moses and from other godly saints to “draw near.”

Principle 3: The Book of Hebrews, in particular, uses the inferiority of the Aaronic Priesthood as an argument for not being tempted to go back to the old order, which prefers law to grace, and Moses to Christ.

The strong emphasis on the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron is for a very specific purpose in the Book of Hebrews. There were apparently those who were tempted (by Jewish persecution) to fall away from their faith and to return to the practice of Judaism. As we study the Aaronic priesthood, we should be overcome with gratitude to God for the better priesthood which Christ has inaugurated, and be motivated to continue in grace, rather than to fall into works.

Having emphasized the differences between the former priesthood and the new, let me now state a very important principle, which enables us to appreciate the continuity between the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood and the New Testament priesthood of all believers:

Principle 4: Most of the principles of priesthood which are found in the Old Testament apply equally to the New Testament priesthood as well.

For many Christians, a study of the priesthood in the Book of Leviticus should emphasize the differences between that priesthood and the priesthood of all believers today. For most of us, however, these distinctions are quite clear. We attempt, in this church, to avoid all distinctions between an elite clergy and a large, and lower order, known as the laity. In our efforts to maintain the crucial distinctions drawn by the cross of Christ, we may neglect to give due attention to the many similarities which exist between the former Aaronic priesthood and the priesthood of all believers today. Therefore, I want to close by emphasizing those principles of priesthood which have remained unchanged, from the days of the Aaronic order to our own days.

Old Testament Principles of Priesthood

(1) Priesthood is bestowed upon all those who are a member of the right family. Just as it was only the sons of Aaron who were priests under the Law of Moses, so it is only those who are in Christ by personal faith who are priests today. Priesthood is not something which men can bestow upon other men, or even which the church can bestow; it is the result of the new birth, which constitutes one to be a child of God and thus to be in Christ. Priests are those whose sins have been atoned for, so that they are free to minister to other sinners. This atonement for the New Testament priest is that which Christ, our Great High Priest, has made through the shedding of His blood on the cross.

(2) God’s priesthood is a holy priesthood. We are to learn from God’s words, quoted by Moses, that disobedience to God dishonors Him and fails to regard Him as holy. A God who is Holy is a God who is to be honored, and we honor God by obeying Him. This same principle of showing honor by our obedience applies to others, including children, who are to honor their parents (Eph. 6:1-2), and citizens, who are to honor those in authority (cf. Rom. 13:1-7).

God takes the sin of His priests very seriously. Being in close proximity to God brings with it correspondingly high standards of conduct. This is indicated in several ways in the Book of Leviticus. God frequently indicated that disobedience to His commands would bring about the death of the violator. The expression “lest you die” is often found in this context (cf. Exod. 28:35, 43; 30:20, 21; Lev. 8:35; 10:6, 7, 9). In addition, a previous statement of God is quoted by Moses in our text as an explanation of what happened to Nadab and Abihu and its implications for the priesthood:

Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the LORD spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’” So Aaron, therefore, kept silent (Lev. 10:3).

Priests must not let their human sympathies and family affections dim their regard for the holiness of God. Specifically, Eleazar and Ithamar were not allowed to touch the bodies of their brothers, nor were they allowed to mourn their death, as others could do (v. 6). The priests were to represent and reflect the holiness of God, and thus they could not identify with the sympathies of men. To have mourned for their brothers would have implied a sorrow for their deserved judgment, and would have implied an excessive severity on the part of God, who judged them.

(3) Priests must not do anything which dulls their sense of judgment or their grasp of the significance of what they are doing (vv. 8-11). I understand verses 8-10 to be directly related to the death of Nadab and Abihu. Distinct from later instructions, which are given by Moses, verses 8-10 are said to have come directly from God to Aaron (v. 8). I take it that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that Nadab and Abihu had been “tipping the bottle” before or while they were acting as priests. The consequent dullness of mind, or even downright drunkenness, could have contributed greatly to their disobedience. Today, we remind people not to mix drinking and driving. In those days God reminded the priests not to drink and be on duty. Drinking can be deadly, to those who drive and to those who serve God.

You will remember that the abuses which Paul sought to correct in the remembrance of the Lord in the church at Corinth involved excesses in drink, so that their commemoration of the Lord’s Table was one that was dishonoring to Him:

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk … Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:20-21, 27-32).

(4) The function of priests is to serve God and men. Repeatedly in the 28th chapter of Exodus, the garments which are made for Aaron and for his sons are those which enable them to minister to God. So that we frequently find the expression, or one that is similar, “… that he (or they) may minister as priests to Me” (cf. Exod. 28:1, 3, 4, 41; also 29:44). The emphasis here is on serving God, more than on serving men, though I believe both elements are present.

Just what is involved in the ministry of Aaron, and of his sons? As I have pondered Exodus chapter 28 it seems to me that each of the various components of Aaron’s attire relates to a particular facet of his ministry. The ephod is to contain two stones on the shoulder pieces (cf. Exod. 28:6-14). On these two stones were engraved the names of the sons of Israel. Aaron was to wear these, “as stones of memorial for the sons of Israel,” to bear “their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for a memorial” (Exod. 28:12). Aaron also was to wear a “breastpiece of judgment” (vv. 15-30). On this breastpiece four rows of stones were set, with three stones in each row, each signifying one of the tribes of Israel. The purpose of these stones is given in verse 30: “… and Aaron shall carry the judgment of the sons of Israel over his heart before the LORD continually” (Exod. 28:30b). On Aaron’s turban was to be placed a “plate of gold” (Exod. 28:36-39). It was to be engraved with a seal, reading, “Holy to the Lord” (v. 36). This had to do with “taking away the iniquity of the holy things which the sons of Israel consecrated,” “so that they may be accepted before the LORD” (v. 38).

I must be honest with you and confess that I do not really comprehend all that Aaron’s ministry entailed, but I am certain that a study of his garments would prove worthwhile. I also believe that the ministries of Aaron and his sons as priests have their fulfillment in Christ, and have a counterpart in New Testament priestly ministry. It is worthwhile to recall that the practical righteousness of the Christian is often described in terms of garments, and thus “putting off” and “putting on” refer to character qualities of the saint (cf. Colossians 3). The weapons of the Christian are likewise described as those things which are worn by the saint (cf. Ephesians 6:10-20).

A Biblical Philosophy of Failure

It has occurred to me that the Pentateuch is really a record of repeated human failures, and contains very few real “success” stories. Very early into the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve sinned, losing the bliss of their sinless state and the joys of living in the Garden of Eden. In chapter 6, the whole race had to be wiped out, due to its sin. The human failures of the remainder of the book far outnumber the successes. And then in Exodus we find the Mosaic Covenant broken in chapter 32, before “the ink has dried.” In the Book of Numbers, chapter 14, the Israelites fail at Kadesh Barnea, refusing to go into the land and face the “giants” who possess it. In Deuteronomy Moses fails to enter into the land, due to his sin, and thus even the greatest leader the nation has yet known does not enter Canaan.

The Book of Leviticus has much to say about the priesthood, as its name implies. In chapters 8-10, the priesthood is established, and yet at what seems to be the very outset of the priests assuming their duties, the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, are smitten of God for their irreverence. Think of it, at the very outset of the ministry of the Aaronic priesthood, two of the highest order of priests failed, and paid with their lives.

The entire Pentateuch, I repeat, is the record of human failure, much more than of human success. What is the purpose of such a dismal record? The New Testament tells us:

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:11-12).

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4).

In these two texts, both penned by the apostle Paul, we learn that the Old Testament Scriptures, which report the stories of human failure and tragedy, are given to us to warn us of our fallibility, and to cautions us not to be over confident. At the same time, these Old Testament passages also give us hope.

It is not difficult to see how reports of human failure would caution the Christian not to be too self-confident, but how can they produce hope at the same time? The answer to this is very clear in the Bible, and it is one that is consistently taught. It is the essence of the Gospel: When men come to the point that they see they cannot trust in themselves, they must turn to God alone for their deliverance. Thus, human hopelessness is the basis for biblical hope. Over and over in the Bible, God brought people to the end of themselves, so that in their weakness they might find God sufficient. When all human hope is lost, men still have the promises of God, backed by His power and by His character.

Here is the critical difference between the “hope” which the world offers me and the true hope which God offers. The world’s hope is a counterfeit hope, it is only a delusion. God’s hope is certain. Hebrews chapter 11 focuses on the biblical hope which sustained the men and women of faith in the Old Testament times, especially when all human hope was lost.

The world’s “hope” differs from God’s hope in the way it is spelled. God’s hope is spelled H O P E. The world’s “hope” is spelled H Y P E. Hype is furthered and fueled by success, while hope is promoted by failure. HYPE is confident of what men can do. Hope is confident in God, not men.

The sad reality, in my personal opinion, is that the church has all too often exchanged its hope for hype. We think that “success stories” build the hope of Christians, but the Bible suggests otherwise. It is those who are sick who turn to someone else for healing, as the afflicted turned to our Lord in the gospels. It is those who are sinners, who look for salvation in someone outside of themselves.

You see, when we as Christians view our hope as being synonymous and signaled by our successes, we have switched to hype, not hope. And the tragedy is that those who are afflicted and suffering are told (or it is at least strongly implied) that they must have too little faith, when it is these very trials which God has given us to strengthen our faith, just as He gave to those who are listed in the “hall of faith” in Hebrews chapter 11.

The failures of the Aaronic Priesthood caused men and women of faith to look to God for a better High Priest, and a better priesthood. It instructed the saints of old not to put their trust in men, but in God. Every failure which is to be found in the Pentateuch (and in all the Bible, for that matter) is recorded to cause us to distrust ourselves, and to place our trust more fully in God, who is worthy of our trust.

May God grant that we, like the Israelites of old, might learn from the failures of the old institutions that God always has a better way. May God grant us to see, and to believe that the better way has been finished by our Lord Jesus Christ, who is all sufficient, and who is worthy of all of our hope and trust.


60 An informative text concerning the establishment of the priesthood is found in the Book of 1 Samuel: “Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: “Did I not clearly reveal myself to your father’s house when they were in Egypt under Pharaoh? I chose your father out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod in my presence. I also gave your father’s house all the offerings made with fire by the Israelites. Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?”’” (1 Sam. 2:27-29, NIV).

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

8. The Clean and Unclean-Part I (Leviticus 11)

Introduction61

Leviticus 11 is dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness—specifically, with the subject of clean and unclean foods. The word “clean” has a lot of different meanings today depending upon the context in which it is used. For example, in the operating room, things must be clean, and that has a very rigid, strict interpretation—to be as free as possible from all germs and contamination. In an electronics plant where silicon crystals are grown, the clean room is incredibly clean. There is hardly any contamination at all! The restaurants in which you and I eat are supposed to be clean, especially the kitchens. That is not always true. I remember someone telling me of his experience not long ago. He was taking this girl out for the first time, and as they waited at their table in the restaurant, he noticed a huge roach crawling up the booth right beside her. He thought to himself, “Now shall I tell her and ruin the whole night, or shall I not tell her and hope the roach just walks away?” He decided not to tell her, and the roach went on its way and continued up over the booth and then down the other side. When my friend got to the cashier, he said as quietly as he could, “You all have a real roach infestation here. We had a trophy roach in the booth where I was eating.” Not at all taken back by the comment, the cashier replied, “Oh, that’s nothing! You should see the size of them in the kitchen!”

Clean and unclean—that can be a matter of great importance to us, but it is also a matter of differing definitions. In third world countries, “clean” means “free of large clumps of contamination.” In our children’s bedrooms, clean has a definition which means that everything has been kicked into one general pile and if given enough time, they can find what they left in that pile.

Clean means something different when we come to the definition of clean versus unclean in Leviticus. It is important for us to understand the meaning of clean and unclean, as it is used in the Old Testament, and its application for us in the New Testament.

For one thing, the expression clean and its counterpoint unclean is one of the prominent themes of Leviticus. Author G. J. Wenham,62 in a footnote in one of his commentaries, says that unclean and its cognates occurs 132 times in the Old Testament; over 50 percent of these are Leviticus. So the sense of uncleanness is a predominate theme, and the word clean, along with its related terms, occurs 74 times in Leviticus, which is over one-third of the uses found in the Old Testament. All of that says to us that if we are going to begin to get some kind of grasp of Leviticus, we must have some kind of grasp over what clean and unclean means and how these words apply to the Israelite.

When we leave the Old Testament and come to the New Testament, we once again find that the definition of clean and unclean is critical to our understanding. We find these issues discussed and debated heatedly between the scribes and the Pharisees, and our Lord had to do with cleanness and uncleanness—particularly the area of ceremonial uncleanness as defined by Jewish tradition, not so much as defined by Old Testament revelation. If we are going to understand how our Lord differed from the scribes and the Pharisees, if we are going to understand how Judaism “went to seed” on the area of clean and unclean, we must first understand the backdrop teaching of cleanness and uncleanness as it is introduced in Leviticus chapter 11. We must also observe that cleanness and uncleanness is related to holiness. Certainly, this is so in Leviticus. And if that is so, then if you and I are committed to the concept of holiness in general, and to the reality of holiness in specific in our lives, then we must understand the role which cleanness plays in regard to holiness. All of this says to us that these chapters are important. We must understand what we are dealing with as we come to our study because clean and unclean is one of the great issues of the Bible.

We should note that clean and unclean was the great issue dividing Jews and Gentiles. Clean and unclean was the critical issue that had to be met head on and solved in Acts 10 and 11 before the church could become a church where the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles was torn down.

When we come to Leviticus 11, we come to the third major section of Leviticus. In chapters 1-7, we had the offerings and the sacrifices that the Israelites could bring. Chapters 8-10 dealt with the priesthood—the actual ordination of Aaron and his sons which culminated in the death of two of Aaron’s oldest sons—and the instructions which come to Israel and to us from that. There were the offerings, the priesthood. Now chapters 11-15 deal with those things which are clean and unclean. Chapter 11 begins by talking about clean and unclean food, and then in chapter 12, the uncleanness that is the result of a woman bearing a child. I’m sure all of us want to know why that is so. And then there is uncleanness that is the result of issues that come forth from an individual. So there are a number of areas in which we find uncleanness.

The matter of uncleanness is related, I believe, to Leviticus 10:10, where it is commanded that the priests are not to drink wine or strong drink, so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane and the clean and the unclean. This matter of declaring something clean or unclean was a matter for the priests, and they needed full comprehension to do that. Also we will notice in Leviticus 16, which is the chapter dealing with the Day of Atonement, that the purpose of the annual atonement was to make the people of Israel clean. Cleanness and uncleanness was the preparatory issue that comes to declare the people of God unclean and therefore in need of the great day of Atonement as it will be described in Leviticus 16.

Categories of Cleanness and Uncleanness

Now let’s take a brief look at some of the details of chapter 11. Let me preface this by giving one word of caution. When we come to the animals named here, some of us agonize over not being able to pronounce them correctly, let alone understand what they are. But one of the scholars has pointed out that likely in no more than 40% of the creatures named here can they be absolutely confident they have the right name, let alone the right one. We understand then that when a translator is dealing with Hebrew terms and trying to isolate and identify a specific creature, it is not always easy, nor even possible, to do so with a great deal of accuracy because you and I are not worried about whether we eat or don’t eat those things—it doesn’t matter anyway. I simply want to share with you that as you read the different translations, you may find some difference of opinion. Essentially it is easy to at least discern that we are dealing with three different categories of creatures. When we come to chapter 11, we find first the land creatures, the animals that roam about through the earth (vv. 1-8); then we find in verses 9-12 the water creatures, those that live under water or in the water, and finally we have the flying creatures.

So we have the same three basic distinctions found back in Genesis 1 where God created all life that is in the heavens, on earth, and under the waters. Those three categories are all dealt with, and creatures that are in those categories are defined as being either clean or unclean, according to the formula that God lays down.

Verses 24-47, basically the last half of the chapter, deal with the cure, the solution for the problem of uncleanness. Generally speaking, one of the prominent themes of those last chapters has to do with death—that is, whether it is a clean animal that is corrupted or made unclean by its death because all dead creatures are unclean, or whether it is an unclean animal that has been perhaps killed in order to be eaten. It is in its death that the animal contaminates. If we are going to eat a creature, the first thing we generally do is that we kill them. The death of any creature contaminates it and makes it unclean. There is only one way in which an animal can be killed in order for it to be clean, and that is to offer it as a sacrifice to God. Leviticus 17 clearly spells that out. If we were to go through our Bibles and circle the work carcass, or carcasses, we would see that we are stepping over carcasses all the way through the second half of the chapter because these animals contaminate in their death, but the cure for contamination is given.

Essentially, we are dealing with misdemeanor offenses in chapter 11. These are not felony-type offenses because usually one is only unclean until the evening, and one may be cleansed by simply washing oneself, or the item involved, in water. If a clay pot was defiled and could not be cleansed, then it could be destroyed, but normally the solution was to wash it with water, and in the evening it would be cleansed. There are greater levels of uncleanness in chapters 12 and following, but these are the lesser matters that are solved by the application of water itself.

Let’s go through the categories of cleanness and uncleanness as they are defined by God in these verses. Notice in verse 1 that God “spoke again to Moses and to Aaron saying to them …” I think that is significant because normally God would have spoken through Moses, but now he is speaking through Moses and Aaron. You may remember that I suggested from chapter 10 that Aaron as the great high priest, now that he is installed, has come into his own, and he has a leadership role to play—and now Moses and Aaron share that leadership role. Also it is the priests who will declare whether something is clean or unclean, so this is a priestly function, and it is natural that Aaron would be the one addressed as well as Moses in terms of what makes or constitutes cleanness or uncleanness.

First, there are the land animals. There are two basic stipulations which must be met before an animal that dwells on the land can be considered clean and therefore can be eaten by the Israelite. It must be split-hoofed, and it must be a cud-chewer. It cannot be just one of those; it must be both of those. So a non-cud chewing split-hoofer isn’t good enough. It has to be both, and the text makes it very clear. A rabbit, for example, is called a cud-chewer (I think you and I understand that rabbits do not chew their cud like a cow does). But if we watched a rabbit eat, we would observe that as the rabbit ate his food, he chewed it up very carefully.

We have two dogs and they are not cud-chewers. We throw a piece of food on the floor, and they don’t chew AT ALL! One animal is so fearful that the other animal is going to get it that they just inhale the food. They don’t chew their cud. But when we look at a rabbit, we see that a rabbit sort of works on that food, and works on it, just like mothers tell their children they ought to chew up their meat and other things. So a cud-chewer does not technically have to be cow-like in having multiple stomachs, but one that chews its food well. I think we could say it is that which chews its non-meat food well. So cud-chewers are vegetarians. It is to be split-hoofed and cud-chewing if it is clean, and therefore the Israelites may partake of it.

Second, the sea creatures. When we come to the creatures that dwell in the sea, they must meet two qualifications as well—they must have fins and scales. Now that is certainly the norm. Those of us who are fishermen and hope to catch something when we throw our lines in expect that it will have fins and scales. It must have both of those in order to qualify. That would mean that creatures that live in the sea, like shrimp, lobster, and those kinds of creatures, would not fit. Only those that have fins and scales—only those that are fishy—would be clean.

Third, those creatures that are in the air. It seems as though, essentially, no qualifications are given. That is, it doesn’t have to have two wings, but rather it seems as though those creatures in the air are creatures that are non-vulture like. That is, they are not sitting around waiting for something to die so they can go pick it up and eat it. It doesn’t look as though these are meat eaters or those that feed off of the dead carcasses of other creatures. Then we have flying insects that are described. Here all flying insects are called unclean, with the exception of those that have a set of jumper legs which propel them so they can leap through the air and thus propel themselves through the air. Jumping, flying insects are edible; all the rest are not.

Fourth, there is the category of dead animals which are unclean. Essentially, any dead animal other than an animal which has been killed through the sacrificial process in the front of the door of the tent of meeting is unclean. There are unclean animals that will defile in their death, and there are clean animals that will defile man in their death, if their death is not a sacrificial death. The carcasses are that which can contaminate, therefore if a person eats a cow which has just been killed by a wolf, that person would be ceremonially unclean even though he could eat the meat if it were sacrificed to God.

Fifth, swarming animals. These are a bit of a puzzle, but this category includes things like mice, lizards, and most all of those things that I can readily pass up, so I can easily and readily identify them. I don’t know how many of you saw the movie “Cry Wolf” but I’ve seen it a couple of times and giggled my way through that scene where the fellow eats the mice. He studies the wolves, and he can’t understand what they live on during the winter when the things they normally feed on are gone. Then all of a sudden one day hordes of mice appear all over, and the man must decide how the wolves could live on the protein of the mice, so he cooks up a batch of mouse stew. I can remember when he popped that first mouthful in and crunched its bones. I say to myself “Unclean! Unclean!” I can agree with that—I understand! But apparently they are called swarming because they go about together in groups, and they seem to have an erratic, unpredictable manner of movement.

A General Definition of Cleanness and Uncleanness

Now let’s talk now about cleanness and uncleanness just in terms of generalities. What are some of the things we can observe about cleanness and uncleanness as we find it in Leviticus 11? Other points will come as we get to different kinds of uncleanness, but let me touch on a few characteristics of cleanness and uncleanness.

First, in chapter 11, cleanness and uncleanness has to do principally with food. It deals secondarily with cleanness or uncleanness that is the result of contact with a dead animal, but it seems the reason the dead animal is called unclean is because we couldn’t eat it. Even a clean animal, a bull or a sheep, could not be eaten if it were not killed in a sacrificially prescribed way. So it has to do with food or that which is touched when dead.

Second, cleanness or uncleanness is a matter of category more than of condition. When we talk about being clean, we generally speak of a condition someone is in. If our children come in unclean, they need to have their hands washed, but they are still in the category of a child. When we read in the paper that there is a car for sale, and it says Clean, that supposedly describes the condition of the car, not the classification of it. It may be a coupe, sedan, or station wagon. It may be a convertible or not. Those are classification areas. Clean in automobile terms is a condition, but basically what we are dealing with here is categories. Clean is a categorical pronouncement. It is all those land animals that chew their cud and have split hooves, whether their hooves have been washed or not. The category is clean or the category is unclean, depending upon the classification of the creature that is in mind.

Third, cleanness is that which is defined by God and declared by the priests. Clean or unclean is clean or unclean by the definition, and the definition for the clean and unclean creatures is given in Leviticus 11. It is declared by the priests, which will become more and more important as we get into skin disorders. It is the priest who must say, this person or this disease is clean or unclean. It is God’s definition; it is the declaration the priests will make.

Fourth, it is the state of access to God. The practical outworking of being declared unclean means that we have to stay back. For example, a priest in Leviticus 22 cannot go about his priestly duties in a state of uncleanness. He must wait until he is ceremonially clean. So one may not approach God in his normal worship in an unclean state. It restricts one’s fellowship with God, and it restricts one’s fellowship with men. That is the natural consequence of the declaration of uncleanness.

Cleanness is somehow related to holiness. We say that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” but I don’t think that is scriptural. In our bathroom, we have a little plaque that says, “Cleanliness is next to impossible!” Now that has some earthly wisdom to it! But in Leviticus, cleanliness is next to holiness. When we get down to the basic reason why an Israelite is to make these distinctions between clean and unclean, it is because God says, “You are to be holy, for I am holy.” For the first time in history—for the first time in the Old Testament—men and women are to observe these distinctions because God has made them. Therefore cleanliness is related to God’s holiness, and Israel is to observe it because of the holiness of God. Twice it is repeated in this chapter. Therefore there is a direct relationship between what is clean and what is holy in Scripture. What is unclean can never be holy. Some things that are clean may be consecrated and set apart as holy, but nothing which is holy is unclean; only that which is clean can become holy.

There is also an intensification which goes on here. When we read through chapter 11, we start out with the sense that these are the creatures that are going about on the land, and some of them are clean and some are unclean—the clean ones they could eat, the unclean ones they were to avoid. But by the time we get to the category of those that are in the water, it talks about them being abhorrent, “and their carcasses you shall detest.” There is a sense in which one’s emotions must come to agree with God’s.

There are certain kinds of food we would not even begin to think about eating. When I was visiting my folks recently, my Dad had been loaned a book by one of the great western artists, and he had written a number of stories. I don’t know if they are true or not, but one of the stories I read was called, “The Dog Eater.” This poor old man was a trapper, and he was stuck out in the middle of winter in a cabin with no food. He and his dog were together. As the man neared the condition of starvation, he began to have these terrible dreams that he did not want to dream, but they kept coming to him. It was a dream of having dog-tail soup. Finally the day came when the man crept up behind the dog with an ax, lopped off his tail, and boiled it for soup. A few days later the dog came back with his stump of a tail, and the man shared his soup with the dog, who seemed to think it was all right. I read a story like that, and I can’t think of anything more abhorrent than to eat dog-tail soup.

There is a sense in which the Israelite is called to detest what is unclean. It is not enough for the Israelite to say I can eat this, and I can’t eat that. It is more a matter of saying that I can eat this, and those things which I can’t eat, I loath. We cannot rightly relate to the unclean things until we loath them. When Eve looked at the forbidden fruit, it looked good to eat. She looked at that as something desirable not just to look at, but something desirable to eat. God knows that if we look upon something as desirable, sooner or later we are going to eat it. It is only when we look at that as something terribly undesirable that we are not going to eat it.

I am getting close to the point of going on a diet, and when I do, I have to start looking at donuts as not only something I can’t eat, but I have to start looking at them as a friend of mine puts it, as “Fat-pills!” I can’t eat them. I have to start looking at them as the worst thing in the world. And that is what the Israelite was called to do with regard to unclean animals. It was to be abhorrent to them, to be detestable to them, so that they didn’t even have the inclination to want to eat it. That seems to be the sense here in the detestable and abhorrent terminology.

Reasons for Cleanness or Uncleanness

God never tells Israel why something is clean or unclean. He never gives a reason for the definition of clean or unclean. For centuries, men have tried to give reasons for these definitions of clean and unclean, and Wenham’s commentary outlines four, which I think are worthy of mentioning. Why is one kind of food clean and another kind of food unclean?

First, the cultic explanation says that certain kinds of creatures were used in pagan ritual and worship. Because of those animal’s association with paganism, God could not allow them to be brought into the Israelite’s worship of the True God. For example, pig bones were found all over the Near East, and they were involved in pagan sacrificial rituals. Apparently, this was true in Egypt also. But we have to remember that among the pagans, the sacrifice of a bull was prominent too. God had no problem in saying to Israel that they ought to sacrifice a bull. In other words, it just does not seem to play out that the creatures God proclaimed were unclean were all creatures that were involved in pagan worship, and the creatures God said were clean were not.

The second explanation is called the hygienic explanation. This is the one Christians love so much today. The basic theory is found in a number of books, one of which is None of These Diseases. The basic theory is that God prohibited the eating of certain animals because it was unhealthy to eat them in those days. They didn’t have refrigerators or microwaves, or all the things that kill germs. Now that sounds like a reasonable thing, and I would go so far as to say that there may be some creatures that God called unclean that were not healthy to eat. But that distinction doesn’t hold water either, because our Lord declared all of those to be clean. He did that at a time when there were still no refrigerators or ranges, and when all of the dangers that would have been present before would have been present after his definition, “All things now are clean.” Therefore it doesn’t seem that health is the issue concerning cleanness or uncleanness.

The third view that Wenham suggests is the symbolic interpretation. In those things man eats, or does not eat, he is an imitator of God—that is, there are only certain things which God allows to be offered up as burnt offerings to Him. Interestingly, the sacrificial terminology is used, but it is offered up as food to God. Now obviously God does not eat the food, but it is the symbolism employed. So if God is selective about what He eats, that is, what is sacrificed to Him, the Israelites ought to also be choosy about what they eat.

It seems to be partly true, if not universally true, that many of the creatures that are unclean are those creatures which may live on meat and may therefore be blood-shedders. For instance, in the category of those animals which prowl on the face of the earth, the cat family, as an illustration, does not have a split hoof; it has paws. Neither does it have those kinds of teeth that look like cow teeth that are for chewing up grass. They have claws, and they have sharp teeth because they kill other animals; they shed blood in order to eat. It would seem that often, though not always, the animals that are unclean are blood shedders, or they are those that eat off dead prey, as vultures of some sort or another. So there is some similarity there between what Israelites are to eat. They are not to eat of animals that of themselves sacrifice the life or come into contact with other animals. So man only eats creatures which are themselves free from contamination by death, by not shedding blood in a sacrificial way. It is possible that there is a great deal of symbolic information that ought to be seen here.

I lean most heavily toward the fourth answer, and that is the arbitrary definition. Why did God call the pig unclean and a cow clean? God never explains this, and by looking at all the commentaries, we find that nobody has figured it out either. It may be that there isn’t any reason at all other than that God said “clean” or “unclean.” Think about God’s choice of Israel as a nation. Is there some reason why God chose Israel as opposed to the Canaanites? Did he choose the Israelites because they were so spiritually pure? They weren’t! The prophets remind Israel that they served foreign gods when they were in Egypt, and they brought those foreign gods with them when they came out of Egypt. Was it because they were powerful and numerous and looked promising, and God wanted to go with a winning team? No, they were nobody! Why did God choose Israel and not some other nation? It was just God’s sovereign choice. That’s all! There was nothing intrinsically good about them or intrinsically more evil about anybody else. God just made a choice. It seems to me, therefore, that the arbitrary explanation, while it may not fully explain all of it, at least gives meaning and fits when nothing else does. It was just God’s choice. God said He chose Jacob, and He rejected Esau. Why? Because sovereign choices are sovereign choices, and they don’t have reasons. Election is the point we see in the clean and the unclean, as well as in the salvation of Israel.

Cleanness or Uncleanness in the Old Testament

Now let’s look at cleanness and uncleanness in the Old Testament from a broader brush view. If we were to look at the words cleanness or uncleanness, we would discover that clean and unclean are found only in Genesis 7 and 8—with Noah. And it is only found with respect to those animals that were brought onto the ark. Remember there were seven of each species that were clean. At the end of Genesis 8, Noah offered up the clean animals as a sacrifice to God. The distinction between clean and unclean is much older than in Moses’ day; it goes clear back to Noah’s day. Noah didn’t say to God, “Clean? Unclean? What is that?” Noah knew what a clean creature was, and he knew what an unclean creature was, and he brought seven of the clean ones so that he could sacrifice them to God.

Noah already understood that anything that was to be offered to God had to be something that was clean. So the distinction between clean and unclean begins far earlier than the Book of Leviticus. However, it is not until Leviticus 4 that the “clean and unclean” terminology reappears after Genesis 7 and 8. Now it is given more substance, and “clean and unclean” are brought to bear on Israel’s worship of God and on Israel’s eating habits. So there is a history of clean and unclean that goes back beyond the Book of Leviticus and beyond the life of Moses.

Cures for uncleanness are spelled out in Leviticus and on through the Old Testament. In particular, what is interesting is that as we move toward the end of the Old Testament period and into that period of the prophets, we discover that the prophets begin to talk about cleanness and uncleanness as something internal rather than something merely external. Before, something unclean was always something “out there,” or it was something “out here,” as something that grew on my skin. It was not something apart. We find in Psalms 19:9 “The fear of the Lord is clean.”

David says in Psalms 51:10: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” Now cleanness becomes something that is more internal than external. Ultimately, God says that He is going to make the Israelites clean, something that never was possible through the Old Testament legal system and through the Old Testament sacrificial system. He was going to make them clean, but it was going to be through the New Covenant and the coming of Messiah.

Ezekiel 36:24-27 spells this out:

“For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols; moreover I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”

Even in Old Testament times, the prophets were pointing forward and saying that ultimately cleanness can only come by the work of God Himself. It can only come when the internal part of man is transformed, when he is cleansed, and when he has a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone. In other words, cleanness can only come ultimately through the New Covenant and through the coming of Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses us from all sin. The prophets looked forward to that.

Cleanness or Uncleanness in the New Testament

When we come to the New Testament, we discover immediately that our Lord begins to talk in terms of clean and unclean, and particularly as the scribes and Pharisees are disputing with Him. In Mark 7, for example, they debate about whether Jesus and His disciples can come in from outside and then begin to eat dinner, and they have not ceremonially (ritually) washed their hands. This is something the Jews added to the interpretation and the meaning of the Old Testament. They had more emphasis on cleanliness that was by their tradition than it was by Scripture. And our Lord says, “Don’t you understand that it is not that which comes from without that defiles a man, but that which comes from within that defiles a man.” Then, Mark says parenthetically, “Thus He declared all things to be clean.” No one really understood the implications of that until after the death of Jesus Christ.

Cleanness and uncleanness in terms of food was what distinguished a Jew and a Gentile. That is, a Jew, in order not to eat of the kinds of food God had prohibited, could not eat in a Gentile home because undoubtedly there was going to be contamination there. That built up a great wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. That distinction was designed in the Old Testament, but it had to be set aside in the New Testament. The Book of Ephesians says the middle wall of partition has been torn down—the enmity that existed there has been taken away, and the Jews and Gentiles have been brought together in one new body—the church. The distinctions therefore that separate Jews and Gentiles have to be set aside. Thus in Acts 10, God said in a vision to Peter (a Jewish Jew) that He wanted him to eat of these things which Peter recognized as being unclean by Old Testament definition. And Peter said “Oh, no! No ham sandwich for me!” But God said to him three times, “What I have called clean, don’t you call unclean.” He takes the arbitrary definition of clean and unclean. Something is clean or unclean because God declares it to be just that. That means if God re-declares that something which was unclean is now clean, it is clean. And Peter had difficulty understanding that.

When he finally got the message, he went to the house of Cornelius, and he ate his ham or bacon and tomato sandwich, and he shares the gospel with him. And they are saved! Then the whole church, which is predominately Jewish at the time, has to go through the same struggle. And Peter has to remind them that God no longer has distinguished between Jews and Gentiles. We saw what happened in Act 2—the Spirit came down on the Jews. Now when the gospel was preached to this Gentile group, the Spirit came upon them in exactly the same way. God doesn’t distinguish Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians. They are one body!

And the church says, “Oh, Oh! So God doesn’t distinguish anymore!” And then the next verse says they went out and preached only to Jews! (Acts 11) It wasn’t until after a few brave souls went out and began to share the gospel with Gentile unbelievers and they got saved that we begin to have a church that was mixed with Jewish and Gentile believers. The distinctions were set aside. Therefore, it was wrong to maintain the distinction of food laws. And here Paul had to jump all over Peter in Galatians 2 because Peter was now sitting only with a Jewish group, and he was implying to the Gentile group that if they wanted to become a part of this Jewish group they had to act Jewish. Paul jumps all over them and says it is not just wrong, but it is a denial and a contradiction of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is because the gospel of Jesus Christ not only removes the barrier between men and God, it removes all barriers between Jews and Gentiles. The distinctions don’t count! Therefore those distinctions cannot be maintained.

In the New Testament, we find chapters like Colossians 2 which says these practices which have to do with external things have no value in overcoming the struggle with the flesh. That is an internal issue that is worked out in part—not an external issue handled by these kinds of prohibitions. It forced them to distinguish themselves from other nations, for those kinds of food stipulations meant that an Israelite could not have real intimate interaction with a Gentile because intimacy most often came around a dinner table. So if you didn’t eat with Gentiles, you didn’t have the intimacy of communion that you would have had otherwise. Remember that it is when they started eating and drinking and making merry that the Israelites started mingling with the Canaanites. So God’s distinctions with regard to food helped to maintain the distinction of Israel as a nation apart from Gentiles as a nation in the Old Testament. It distinguished them as a people. It identified them with God as His people. It reminded them of the principal of election that God is the One who defines what is clean and unclean. It forced the Israelite to be meticulous about everything they did because they realized how easy it was to become contaminated under the laws of cleanness and uncleanness.

What does it say to a New Testament saint? When we are looking at the change of God’s law with regard to a kind of food, it is often a signal that we are dealing with a change of dispensation. There are distinctions with the way God has dealt with men. What happens in Genesis 1 when God creates all those creatures, and He makes man in His own image (Gen. 1:29-30)?

Then God said, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; …”

When God started creation, everybody was a vegetarian, including the animals! And in Genesis 3, what was the test? The test was food—whether you ate or didn’t eat of the particular food that was on the Tree of Good and Evil!

After the sacrifices are made by Noah of the clean animals (Genesis 8), then God blessed Noah, and in Genesis 9:3, He says, “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you. I give all to you as I gave the green plant, only you shall not eat flesh with its life” (that is its blood). So there is a change in dispensation, because God is now giving not only just the green things to eat, but He has given meat to eat. One stipulation was that meat had to be killed in such a way that the blood was drained from it. Then in the Mosaic Law in Exodus and Leviticus, we see restrictions that bear upon the way in which Israel eats.

In the New Testament, what is the basic issue among the strong unbelieving Jewish element? He eats with unwashed hands; he eats with Gentiles. He doesn’t maintain the distinctions between clean and unclean. What does the New Testament say? Those things don’t matter anymore!! Romans 14 says, “All things are clean.” That is because there is a new age, a new dispensation. It signals that God has done something new. Whenever God prescribes something new to eat, He is doing it in relationship to a covenant; He is doing it in relation to a change that bears upon His relationship with men.

Food is often the test today! Whether a certain kind of food was eaten or not eaten was a critical issue in the New Testament—not only in the issue between Jews and Gentiles—but it was also the issue that had to do with Gentile Christians who were going to eat at the home of a pagan neighbor. In the Old Testament, ignorance was never bliss because the sacrifices for the sin and guilt offerings were for sins you didn’t know you committed at the time. You may have sat down at your neighbor’s table and had what you thought was beef stew, but later discovered it was pig stew. Then you were a sinner, and you had to take care of it. But Paul says, if you go to your neighbor’s house, don’t ask them what they are serving. If they don’t tell you what they are serving, don’t ask; eat it! It doesn’t matter! Ignorance is bliss! If they tell you this has been sacrificed to an idol, then you can’t eat it because your neighbor obviously thinks that is important, though it wouldn’t have mattered to you.

When we get to the New Testament and the issue of whether or not a Christian ought to eat this meat or not eat the meat, it is not a matter of black or white. It is not a matter of yes or no, and no in between. It is a matter of personal conviction. The Christian there may eat it freely, knowing that God has given him all things to eat. There are others however who have different scruples. If they cannot eat in good conscience, they should not eat. If I can eat in good conscience, but I cause a weaker brother to go ahead and eat and defile his conscience, then it is sin. The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does! It is the work of God that is written in our hearts, and it is the work of the Spirit inside that guides us as we make those kinds of decisions.

Conclusion

There are two primary motivations that we ought to evidence which the Old Testament saints also evidenced: (1) loving God and (2) loving man. If God’s distinctions between clean and unclean are arbitrary, then there are no good reasons for obeying Him other than that He is God. We have a choice to make. The decision is based not on whether something makes sense, but on who God is. It is as though a young man is dating a beautiful young lady, and he finds out that she hates liver and onions. Now, not only will that young man not order liver and onions for his date, but he won’t order it for himself. Why? Because it is detestable to her. If Israel is to have that same sense of abhorrence toward unclean things, they must begin to feel about things the way God feels about them. It is ultimately Israel’s love for God that is at issue. If God thinks something is unclean, if He abhors it, then I abhor it! I don’t care if there is no reason for it! I don’t care if it isn’t healthy to do it. I only care that God says that is what He hates, and this is what He loves, and I’m going to do what He loves and avoid what He hates.

Loving God! That is the motive for doing something—whether God’s commands are arbitrary or not. Whether we can find out a reason for them or not, if God hates it, I hate it; if God loves it, I love it! Loving God is the key! As I look at my believing neighbor, and I know that he is weak, I know that I can eat that meat but that it may cause him to stumble. My love for my neighbor overcomes my love for food. My love for my neighbor says to me, “Don’t eat it.” So what we do and what we don’t do is basically rooted in loving God and loving man. The Old Testament commandment is applicable in New Testament times.

Few things today are just as clear and simple as clean and unclean. Some days I wish it was that easy, don’t you? Don’t you wish that every choice and every decision you and I had to make we could just say, it’s clean or it’s unclean? It’s yes, or it’s no. It’s evil, or it’s good. I sometimes wish that life were that simple, but most often it isn’t. But there is one issue in which it is just that categorical, and that is when it comes to our relationship with God.

When it comes to our relationship with God, when it comes to the issue of where we will spend eternity, it is a clear-cut, clearly defined issue. All of those who are in Christ are saved, and their sins are forgiven. It is a category. All of those who are trusting in anything else, including their good works, are not in Christ. In that sense, our salvation is a very clear-cut yes or no, in or out matter. All of those who trust the shed blood of Jesus Christ, shed on their behalf, are in. All of those who trust in anything else are out! A clean issue! We are either in Christ, or we are not.


61 Normally, these messages are manuscripts, and not merely a transcription of the message which was preached. In this case, the manuscript was not completed, so what you will find here is an edited transcript of the sermon, as it was preached. It will therefore not have the footnoting, but perhaps something is better than nothing at all. Bob Deffinbaugh.

62 G. J. Wenham, The International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979). For references to Wenham’s commentary in this lesson, see “Unclean Animals,” pp. 161-184.

Passage: 

9. Offending God: The Clean and the Unclean—Part II (Leviticus 12-15)

Introduction

The closest I have come to the Old Testament condition of “uncleanness” was the way I felt I was treated in the hospital during the birth of several of our children. I know that times have changed, and that fathers of newborn children are now invited into the delivery room and accepted as a key player in the team effort of child-bearing. During the birth of our first child, however, this was not the case. I remember the way that the nurses and doctors worked at keeping me out of the way. They really didn’t want me around, and they surely paid little attention to my efforts to get my wife some relief from her pain. (I must confess that after the first three or four of our children were born, I began to reflect some of the same casualness toward what was taking place.) After the baby was born, you could only get in to see your wife at rare occasions. It was as though I would contaminate the whole place. And you could only see your baby from behind a window, held by a nurse. I felt privileged to even get to hold the baby until after we got home.

If this is the closest I have ever come to the feeling of uncleanness, think of what it must have meant to a person who had a serious skin problem to be publicly declared unclean, to be banned from worship, and even banned from the camp, living outside the camp in an unclean place, removed from fellowship with God, family and friends. Even more frustrating for me is the dilemma of the woman, who, as a result of bearing a boy baby, was unclean for seven days, and then kept apart from worship for another 40 days. How could a woman be declared unclean for having a baby? Worse yet, if an Israelite woman had a girl baby, the consequences (or should I say, the penalty) was doubled, so that she was unclean for 14 days, and then separated for yet another 80 days. Imagine that, for every girl child a mother bore she was kept apart for over three months!

Review

In our study of the Book of Leviticus, last week we came to the third major section of the book. In chapters 1-7 we learned about the sacrificial offerings and how they were to be presented. In chapters 8-10 we studied the origination and ordination of the Aaronic priesthood. Now, in chapters 11-15 we are learning about the distinction which God has defined between those things which are clean and those which are unclean. Last week we studied clean and unclean animals in chapter 11. This week we are considering the remaining chapters, chapters 12-15, which deal with other types of uncleanness. Chapters 12 and 15 deal with the uncleanness related to sexual reproduction, and the process of purification. Chapters 13 and 14 define unclean “skin”63 ailments, and the process of purification.

The Problem of the Passage

As I have considered these four chapters in the Book of Leviticus, I have come to the realization that the dilemma of the woman who has borne a child is not the only perplexing problem in the text. In virtually every case of uncleanness which is defined by God in these chapters the one who is declared unclean is not responsible for his or her condition. A wife could hardly be held responsible for bearing a child to her husband. A woman could hardly be guilty for having a normal monthly period. A man with a serious skin ailment can hardly be said to be guilty for his condition. A husband and wife cannot be guilty for having normal physical relations. And yet, in each of these cases God has declared that the person in these circumstances is unclean. That person is barred from participation in worship, in offering sacrifices, in having any access to the tabernacle, where God dwelled. In addition, the unclean person was removed from fellowship and communion with the congregation of Israel, and was required to live “outside the camp.”

The problem of uncleanness without personal responsibility has been recognized by Bible students,64 but their explanations often leave much to be desired and fail to come to a consensus. The more I have considered this dilemma, the more convinced I have become that the answer to this quandary is the key to our understanding of the distinction of clean and unclean in the Old Testament. The explanation also aids us greatly in appreciating the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. Let us listen well to these words from the Book of Leviticus.

As I approach these chapters I am going to deal with them in a more general way, focusing on broad generalizations and on the particular problem which I have raised. I will deal with chapters 13 and 14 first, which deal with the matter of unclean “skin” conditions. Then we will consider chapters 12 and 15 together, since both chapters pertain to uncleanness related to the processes related to sexual reproduction. In conclusion we will attempt to find the solution to the puzzle of uncleanness for which there is no direct responsibility.

Uncleanness Resulting From Skin Disorders
(Leviticus 13 & 14)

Chapters 13 and 14 declare serious skin ailments to render the individual unclean, and pronounce the process by which such ailments are identified, as well as how the recovered Israelite may be pronounced clean. The term “leprosy,” employed by most translations, is unfortunate, as it is very likely that the disease we know as leprosy is not mentioned in our text as one of the unclean skin ailments.65 The NIV better renders the original term, employed for all of these unclean skin disorders, “infectious skin disease.” This is undoubtedly a better, and more accurate rendering of the text. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, for us to identify with precision the ailments which are described as unclean by the text.

Characteristics of the Unclean Skin Disorders

According to Wenham,66 there are 21 different cases of skin disease in chapter 13, along with 3 different cases of diseased garments. We will not attempt to deal with each of these, but we should note some of the common characteristics of these maladies:

(1) They are all visible, external (not any internal diseases). The term “skin” is used broadly here, referring not only to the skin ailments of people, but also the outer coverings of material, leather, and buildings.

(2) By and large, the ailments were not fatal, not as serious as we might have expected.

(3) These ailments affected only a part of the body, not all of it.

(4) The skin diseases are all chronic (persistent, serious), contagious, and/or contaminating.

(5) Only the priest could declare a skin condition to be clean or unclean, which sometimes required him to go “outside the camp” (cf. Lev. 14:3).

(6) The primary concern is not curing the individual, nor protecting the public health, but of protecting the sanctity of the dwelling of God in the midst of the camp: “ … so that they will not defile their camp where I dwell in their midst” (Num. 5:3; cf. Lev. 15:31-33).

“Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you lest He turn away from you” (Deut. 23:14).

The Consequences of Being Declared Unclean

Things which were declared unclean in chapters 11-15 either had to be purified or destroyed: (a) Washed with water (cf. Lev. 11:32; 15:6). (b) Burned with fire (cf. Lev. 13:52, 55, 57). (c) Broken (cf. Lev. 11:33, 35). (d) Torn down and demolished (cf. Lev. 14:40-41, 45).

People who were declared unclean by the priests suffered the humiliation of being declared (and, in some cases of having to declare oneself) unclean, and then the resulting isolation from the presence of God and from association with the people of God. That which was unclean was put outside the camp, away from the presence of God and His people. “… she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary” (Lev. 12:4). “… the priest shall isolate (lit. shut up) him” (Lev. 13:4, cf. vv. 11, 21, 26). “… send away from the camp …” (Num. 5:2). “The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair, and bathe in water and be clean. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside the tent for seven days” (Lev. 14:8). In some cases the unclean thing or person was viewed as being a contaminator of others (cf. Lev. 15:4-12, 23-24, 26-27).

The Cleansing Process

Once the individual recovered from his or her unclean malady, there was carefully prescribed ritual of cleansing and, at times, a sacrificial ritual, which was required before the person could approach the dwelling of God, the tabernacle. These rituals include: (a) “Wash and wait” (e.g. Lev. 15:7-11, 17, 18, 22). (b) Atonement for cleansing (cf. Lev. 14:20, 31; 15:14-15). (c) The cleansing ritual, with the string, the cedar, and the birds (e.g. cleansing of house, Lev. 14:49-53). Ultimately, for the Israelite, there was the annual day of atonement (cf. 16:16, 30), which will be the topic of our next lesson.

It is relatively easy to see why the kinds of exterior maladies described in chapters 13 and 14 were offensive to God. The things which are unclean in chapters 12 and 15 are a bit more perplexing. I have chosen to call these, “Dishonorable Discharges.”

Uncleanness Resulting From “Dishonorable Discharges”
(Leviticus 12 & 15)

Chapter 12 describes the uncleanness which a woman acquires as the result of the birth of a child. The uncleanness is the result of the “flow of blood” following the birth of a child. The blood, while it is unclean to her and others, is the instrument of her cleansing. In the text (Lev. 12:4-5) it is called “the blood of her purification.” It is impure, I suspect, partly because it removes the impurities of the child-bearing process from her body, thus making the blood unclean and defiling. The explanation for why having a girl child results in a doubled period of uncleanness is difficult, and most efforts to solve this puzzle prove unsatisfactory.

Chapter 15 declares certain discharges as unclean. Two of the ailments pertain to men; the other two to women. Both the men and the women have what might be called normal discharges (men, 15:16-18; women, vv. 19-24), and abnormal (men, vv. 2-15; women, vv. 25-30). I think that it is safe to conclude that these chapters generally are referring to those discharges which are relative to sex and the sexual organs. While some have viewed the ailment of Leviticus 15:1-12 as that of hemorrhoids, this seems unlikely, as the context is that of sexually related discharges.67

In chapter 12 the woman who is unclean due to bearing a child must offer sacrifices, including a sin offering. The inference is clearly made that there is some kind of sin to be atoned for. In chapter 15 the unusual discharges of men and women also require a sin offering, among other things. Why is there the suggestion that sin is related to reproduction?

This is not a new concept to the Israelite. In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were said to be ashamed, due to nakedness (3:7), even when they made coverings for themselves, they were still ashamed and hid from God (3:10).

In Exodus 19, God gave these instructions to the people through Moses: “So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, ‘Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman’” (Exod. 19:14-15, emphasis mine).

In Exodus 20, God told Moses to tell these words to the people: “‘And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it’” (Exod. 20:26).

Again, when Moses was given instructions on Mt. Sinai concerning the garments worn by Aaron, God said,

“And you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh; they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs. And they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter the tent of meeting, or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they do not incur guilt and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and to his descendants after him” (Exod. 28:42-43).

Thus, when we read in Leviticus chapters 12 and 15 that discharges related to sex and reproduction cause a man and/or his wife to be unclean, this should not take us totally by surprise.

The regulations of Leviticus concerning sex-related uncleanness served one very important purpose—it clearly separated sex from religious worship. If one had sexual relations with his wife this rendered both unclean until evening. This meant that the Israelites could not have sexual relations during the Sabbath, since this would cause both to be unclean, thus prohibiting their participation in worship. The effect was to encourage the Israelites to keep their minds devoted to worship. Ideally, both sexual intimacy and spiritual intimacy require the undistracted involvement of body, soul, and spirit. This means that either activity should be engaged in apart from the competition of the other. One can see a similar theme in Paul’s practical instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7).

The separation of sexual activity and worship was particularly important to the Israelites because of the pagan worship rituals of the Canaanites, whose fertility cult engaged in carnal sexual union as an act of worship (cf. Num. 25:1-9), a practice into which the Israelites had already once fallen (cf. Exod. 32:6). If the clean/unclean legislation did no more than to create a wide gap between sex and worship it did the Israelites a great favor. It distinguished their worship from that of their pagan neighbors.

The question remains, “But why was the Israelite woman punished two-fold for bearing a girl child?” I have only one explanation, which is similar in nature to the reason for separating sex from worship. The reason is not to be found as much in the cause of the uncleanness as it is in the result this uncleanness will have in the life of the Israelite woman. In my opinion, the two-fold period of uncleanness will cause the Israelite mother of a girl child to ponder the reasons for her plight. Why is a woman singled out for uncleanness in the birth of the child, and especially so when the child is a female, like her? In other words, what is that about womanhood that merits this “curse”?

Ah, but doesn’t this word “curse” supply us with the key? This long period of isolation should have given the Israelite mothers a fair period of time to ponder why women should be cursed as they were. I believe that Genesis chapter 3 supplies her with a good part of the reason. This chapter could have provided her with ample food for thought, and taught her not only the way in which a woman participated (even led) in the fall of man, but also the ways (especially involving childbirth) in which she has been cursed, due to the fall.

The Heart of the Matter

Let us return to the great and pressing problem which confronts us in all of these chapters on the clean and the unclean: Why is a person declared unclean and caused to suffer for something for which he or she is not responsible? Further, why, in some cases of uncleanness, was a sin offering required when no specific sin was committed by the one making the offering?

I would begin by suggesting that these questions are precisely those which God intended the Israelite to ask, and to meditate upon, as they suffered the consequences of their “undeserved” uncleanness. The demands of the Law of Moses, summarized by the Ten Commandments, demanded or forbade specific actions. The violation of any of these commandments would have been evident, and no one could question the consequences which befell the Israelite for disobedience. But why would God bring the curse of uncleanness upon an Israelite for suffering from a condition for which he or she was not responsible? Can an Israelite woman be blamed for bearing a child, or for having a monthly period? Is this a matter which falls under her control? I believe the answer is an evident “No!” How, then, can some conditions result in suffering for an Israelite, and even require a sin offering, as though a wrong was committed?

The answer to the question, “Why must the Israelite suffer when no wrong has been committed by the individual,” is answered by this principle: The fall of man, as recorded in Genesis 3, has brought chaos and suffering to all creation, including mankind. The fall has rendered man inherently sinful from birth. Thus, man sins because he is a sinner. So, too, he will suffer in life because he lives in a fallen world where the consequences of sin cause chaos and suffering.

This principle occurred to me as I was thinking about the words of David in Psalm 51. Note the terms which are similar to those we have seen in Leviticus pertaining to uncleanness:

Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. … Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow (Ps. 51:1-3, 7).

David loved the law of God and meditated upon it constantly. Whether or not he authored Psalm 119, this is apparent in the psalms which he did write (e.g. Psalm 19). We know that the background to Psalm 51 is the sin of David with Bathsheba, and the murder of Uriah, her husband. As David speaks of his sin, however, he sees his specific sins as evidence of his more general sinful state. Elsewhere in this Psalm David makes the statement, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. And in sin my mother conceived me” (v. 5). David acknowledged his specific sin, but he went even farther by confessing his innate, inherited sinfulness, which was the result of the fall. David understood that he was “unclean” even from birth. His specific act of sin with Bathsheba was the outgrowth of his innate sinful condition, the condition in which he was found at birth. If his own acts of sin did not render him a sinner at birth, whose sin did? The answer is, the sin of Adam.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Rom. 5:12-14).

In this passage, Paul teaches us that Adam’s sin has constituted that all of his offspring (all of mankind) are born sinners. We inherit this sin nature and are thus born sinners, just as David indicates in this psalm. Later on in Romans, Paul informs us that the entire creation has been adversely affected by the fall, and that the creatures, like mankind, suffer and groan in this fallen condition, and will continue to do so until the Kingdom of God is established, with a new heaven and a new earth:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:18-23).

The laws of uncleanness were instructive tools, by means of which God taught the Israelites those truths fundamental to their religious faith. One of those truths was what we now call the “doctrine of the depravity of man.” Man is born a sinner, by virtue of being a child of Adam. When the Israelite asked himself (or herself), “Why should I be unclean for a condition I did not cause?,” the answer, contained in the first chapters of Genesis was, “Because of the sinful condition you inherited from your forefather, Adam.”

As you stop to think about it, most of the conditions which caused the state of uncleanness were those which resulted from the fall. All sickness and death is the result of the fall. Child-bearing is at least related to the curse. Sex was distorted and diminished by the fall, to the point where Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness and fled from God. This first view that sex was “dirty” and unacceptable to God originated with man, as a result of the fall, not God. Thus, we can say that uncleanness was a condition resulting from the fall, from sin, and thus uncleanness also required a sin offering. As the Israelite offered up the sin offering due to uncleanness, he or she also acknowledged their sinful condition inherited from Adam.

And so there were two different categories of sin for the Israelite. The first was that sinfulness in which the Israelite was born, that sinfulness to which David confessed. This sin was highlighted by the laws of cleanness and uncleanness. The second was that sin which was the result of the individual violating the specific commands of God.

In Psalm 51 David saw his uncleanness as much more serious than just some external offense, some physical malady which God declares to be offensive. David confesses his specific sin as a result of his sinful state, inherited from Adam. The following verses of this Psalm indicate that David understood that the act of offering sacrifices would not make him clean, but that only God could forgive when he repented in sincerity:

For Thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; Thou art not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. … Then Thou wilt delight in righteous sacrifices, In burnt offering and whole burnt offering; Then young bulls will be offered on Thine altar (vv. 16-17, 19).

This same theme was resounded by the Old Testament prophets. When given a vision of the holiness of God, Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts” (Isa. 6:5). Later on, Isaiah spoke of man’s best efforts as “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). As I understand it, these filthy rags would be the rags which are associated with the woman’s monthly flow of blood.

It is at this point that the Israelite of Moses’ day came to a very sobering realization. While the Law could pronounce a person unclean, it made no provision to make him clean. The priest could declare an unclean person unclean, and he could pronounce a clean person clean, but there was no means to cure the condition which produced the uncleanness. It was only with the coming of Christ, who inaugurated the New Covenant, that the condition of uncleanness, and the curse of Adam, would be remedied.

Jesus, the One Who Makes Men Clean

The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day did not have this grasp of what really constituted uncleanness. They saw it merely as a matter of external things. Thus, they were greatly offended at the actions of our Lord, and considered Him to be unclean, and a law-breaker. Their opposition to Him was frequently sounding the note: “unclean.” They could not understand why He spent His time with the unclean, the publicans, the harlots, the sick, even the lepers. Their error was to fail to see Him as the One who had come to do what the Law was unable to do—to make men clean.

The Old Testament Law required that the unclean could never come into the presence of the Holy God, and yet the Holy One, the Messiah, Jesus Christ took upon Himself human flesh, and He dwelt in the midst of men. In His ministry he avoided the self-righteous, who thought themselves clean, and He sought out those who were regarded unclean. The barrier that the Old Testament Law and its sacrificial system could not break down, the New Covenant in the person of Jesus Christ did. The cleansing which the Law could not perform, but could only pronounce, was done, once and for all by the atoning death of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Repeatedly, the New Testament writers speak of the cleansing which the Christian has received:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6; cf. Eph. 5:25, 26; Heb. 10:22).

The consequences of sin have not yet been fully set aside. It is only in the Kingdom of God that they will be. Heaven will be that perfect place, where all of the things that are the result of the fall of man are removed. In the Book of Revelation, we are told of a number of other things which will not be there, which we have known on earth: (a) No sun or moon (21:23; cf. 22:5). (b) No sickness, sorrow, or death (21:4). (c) No curse (22:3).

But take special note of these words:

and in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 21:25-27, emphasis mine).

The death of Christ provides the solution for both of the sin problems of the Old and New Testament saint. As the second Adam, Jesus Christ reversed the effect of Adam’s sin, thus removing the guilt and sinful state inherited from Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). By faith in Christ’s death, men are declared clean, and thus look forward to dwelling in God’s presence forever—heaven. While the full and final remedy is yet future, it is certain, accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

I understand that no one will go to Hell because Adam sinned. The only reason why God condemns any person to hell is because of his own acts of disobedience, his own sin. And since Christ died to remove the guilt of all sin (that of Adam, as well as that of every individual), the only reason why any person must suffer the torment of hell is because they have not accepted Christ as their Savior, their sin-bearer.

I want you to think through the Gospel accounts with me for a moment. It was the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, who thought that they were clean, who rejected the Lord Jesus as unclean, and who considered Him worthy of death, hung upon a cross, “outside the camp,” as it were, at Calvary.

On the other hand, it was those who knew that they were unclean who came to Jesus to be cleansed. When Jesus touched the lepers and made them clean, they understood that touching the unclean could not defile the Holy God, in whom was healing and cleansing. Thus, the woman with the hemorrhage did not hesitate to touch the Master, believing the He could make her clean, and yet not be defiled by her touch. Jesus could drink water from the woman at the well and not be defiled, for He was the Holy One of Israel.

The wicked flee from the presence of God, for they cannot approach His holiness. And yet the repentant sinner can come to Him for cleansing. I was deeply stirred as I read again the account of Peter and our Lord in Luke chapter 5. When Peter saw the fishing nets overflowing with fish at the mere spoken word of the master Luke tells us, “But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus feet, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’” (Luke 5:8). Do you see the paradox here? Peter fell at the feet of our Lord, but at the same time, sensing His holiness, invited Him to depart. Obviously Peter did not wish to depart, for he fell at His feet. And He did not depart, until after He had finished His work on the cross, by which all men can be clean if they but believe.

May I ask you this morning, my friend, are you clean or unclean? We all are unclean. Isaiah, the prophet of old described our best efforts at self-made cleanness as the filthy rags associated with a woman’s monthly uncleanness: “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment” (Isa. 64:6a). For those whose sins have caused them to feel impure, unclean, I can say with the assurance of God’s word, “You can be clean. Trust in Him, who alone has died to make you clean.”

For those who have already found cleansing in the blood of Jesus Christ, there are two very important lessons to be learned which are an application of our text. The first lesson is that Christians should expect undeserved suffering in this life, as the result of living in a fallen world. Just as the clean and unclean laws of Leviticus brought undeserved suffering to the Israelites, so Christians today should expect suffering to come into their lives, even when they have committed no specific sin. Romans chapter 8 teaches us that we live in a fallen world, a world in which the saint, along with all creation, suffers and groans, waiting for the new heavens and new earth which are still to come:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat? But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:10-13).

Second, my Christian friend, I must give this word of exhortation. Even as our Lord went “outside the camp,” seeking to save the unclean, so you and I are called to do likewise. As the writer to the Hebrews has put it, “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hence, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13). Outside the camp is the place where the unclean dwell. I know of many ministries whose goal is to reach the lost, but I must say with sadness that many, perhaps most, of these ministries are targeting the “clean” as those they seek to reach, rather than the “unclean.” All men need to hear the gospel and be saved, but our task of evangelism demands that we take the gospel “outside the camp” to proclaim the cleansing which Christ can give to those who so desperately need it, and who more often than the self-righteous and self-sufficient are willing to receive it.


63 When I use the term “skin” here I use it in a most general way, since included in this category is the “skin” of clothing, of leather goods, and of the wall of a house. In each case the exterior, visible portion of a person, place, or thing is in view. The Hebrew text uses the same term for the “skin” of a person and these other things, and thus we can legitimately reflect the original text in our terminology without reservation. Cf. also, Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 201.

64 Cf. Wenham, pp. 187-188.

65 Wenham lists these reasons for concluding that leprosy (Hansen’s disease) is not found in these chapters of Leviticus: (a) Archaeological evidence suggests that leprosy was not a serious problem until later on in history. (b) Neither the symptoms of leprosy nor its pathognomonic features are described in our text. (c) The Greek term lepra did not refer to true leprosy, either. Ibid., p. 195. Wenham goes on (pp. 196-197) to suggest some of the skin conditions which may be referred to in the text.

66 Ibid., p. 193.

67 Wenham mentions two reasons why this ailment, like the others in chapter 15, is related to the sex organ of the individual, rather than hemorrhoids: (a) There is no mention of loss of blood, which would be likely in the case of hemorrhoids. (b) The same term (“flesh”) is employed in verse 19 with reference to the woman’s vagina. Wenham, p. 19.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

10. The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)

Introduction

I have always loved to see the spring come each year, with all that it brings, with one notable exception—spring cleaning. You married men know that dreaded day as well as I do. Your wife gets that certain restlessness and a peculiar look in her eye. She wants to throw out half of the treasures you have gathered over the year. Worse yet, she wants you to help her move things around, and around, and around.

Israel’s annual Day of Atonement was something like a spiritual spring cleaning, except for the fact that this sacred day came in the fall of the year, in September-October, six months after the celebration of Passover. According to the Israelite calendar, it came on the tenth day of the seventh month (cf. Lev. 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11).

In one sense, Israel did not look forward to the coming of this day any more than I look forward to spring cleaning. Unlike the other Jewish holidays, the Day of Atonement was no festive event. It was a day of national mourning and repentance. This was a Sabbath day celebration, which meant that no work could be done (Lev. 23:26-32). Anyone who did not observe this Sabbath was to be cut off from his people (Lev. 23:29), which is a euphemism for being put to death. Beyond this, this was a day when the people were to “humble their souls” (cf. Lev. 16:31; 23:27; Num. 29:7), which, according to many, included fasting. This would thus be the only religious holiday which was characterized by mourning, fasting, and repentance.

Relationship of Chapter 16 to the Preceding Chapters

There is a very logical development of the argument of the Book of Leviticus evident in the first 16 chapters. Chronologically chapter 16 should follow directly after chapter 10, for the first verse of chapter 16 informs us that God gave the instructions of chapter 16 to Moses “after the death of the two sons of Aaron,” which, as we know, is recorded in chapter 10. The first section of Leviticus, chapters 1-7, outlines the sacrificial rituals the priests must follow; chapters 8-10 records the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood, who will offer the sacrifices; chapters 11-15 distinguishes the clean from the unclean, and proper procedures for dealing with uncleanness. In short, we have:

Leviticus 1-7: Ritual (Offerings)
Leviticus 8-10: Religious Officials (Priests)
Leviticus 11-15: Reasons for Sacrifices (Uncleanness)
Leviticus 16: Repentance and Restoration (Day of Atonement)

Leviticus 16 builds upon the preceding chapters by outlining the sacrifices of the great Day of Atonement. This instruction is directed primarily toward Aaron and the priests (vv. 1-25), but not exclusively so, for the people have a role to play as well (cf. vv. 26-31). No other sacrifice in Leviticus more clearly anticipates the future, greater, atonement of Israel’s Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. And no other sacrifice provides a better backdrop against which to see the vast superiority of our Lord’s atonement over that of Aaron. Let us learn well from this chapter.

The Structure of Leviticus 1668

 

Verses

Content

1-2
3-5
6-10
11-28
11-19
20-22
23-28
29-34

Introduction
Animals and priestly dress needed for the ceremonies
Outline of the ceremonies
Detailed description of the ceremonies
the blood-sprinkling rites
the scapegoat
cleansing of the participants
The people’s duty

The chapter is not strictly chronological in its organization. Verses 6-10 serve as a preliminary summary of the offering of the bull and the two goats, but this is then taken up in greater detail in verses 11-22.69

Background of the Day of Atonement
(Exodus 30:1-10)

The first reference to the Day of Atonement comes in the Book of Exodus, chapter 30. The first nine verses detail the plans for the Altar of Incense. There is then a special word of warning, followed by a brief reference to the Day of Atonement: “You shall not offer any strange incense on this altar, or burnt offering or meal offering; and you shall not pour out a libation on it. And Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year; he shall make atonement on it with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once a year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD” (Exod. 30:9-10).

It is noteworthy that in this passage, the warning about offering “strange incense” immediately precedes reference to the Day of Atonement, just as Leviticus 16 introduces the instructions concerning the offerings by referring to the death of Nadab and Abihu, who were smitten of God for offering “strange fire” (cf. Lev. 10:1).

An Overview of the Day of Atonement

Before we discuss the significance of some of the events of the Day of Atonement, let us pause to “walk through” the entire ceremony which is outlined in Leviticus chapter 16. This will enable us to get a feel for the ceremony as a whole, before we move to an examination of its parts.

From all appearances, the rituals outlined in our text do not begin the day’s activities for Aaron, but come after the exercise of some of his regular duties. The day would seem to begin as usual with the offering of the morning sacrifice, the burnt offering of a one year old lamb (cf. Exod. 29:38-42; Num. 28:3-6). After these duties were performed, the High Priest would commence the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, as prescribed in our text:70

(1) Aaron was to take off his normal priestly garments, wash, and then put on the special garments which were prescribed for the sacrifices which took him into the holy of holies (v. 4; cf. Exod. 28; 39).

(2) Aaron secured the necessary sacrificial animals: a bull for his own sin offering and two male goats for the people’s sin offering; two rams, one for Aaron’s and the other for the people’s burnt offering (vv. 3, 5).

(3) Aaron slaughtered the bull for his own sin offering (vv. 6, 11).

(4) Before entering into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull, Aaron had to create a “cloud” of incense in the Holy of Holies, covering the mercy seat, to “veil” the glory of God so that he could enter in (vv. 12-13). The best approximation to this in my experience is what a bee-keeper does, smoking the hive of the bees, before he begins to remove the honey. In the case of Aaron, he was to offer only the prescribed incense so as to create an obscuring veil of smoke, thus dimming the glory of God’s presence and sparing his life.

(5) Aaron then took some of the blood of the bull and sprinkled it on the mercy seat seven times (v. 14).

(6) Lots were then cast for the two goats, to determine which would be slaughtered and which would be driven away (vv. 7-8).

(7) The goat for slaughter, the goat of the people’s sin offering, was sacrificed, and its blood was taken into the Holy of Holies and applied to the mercy seat, as the bull’s blood had been (v. 15).

(8) Cleansing was then made for the holy place (v. 16), seemingly by the sprinkling of the blood of both the bull and the goat. The atonement of the holy place is done alone, without anyone present to help, or to watch (v. 17).

(9) Next, outside the tent, Aaron was to make atonement for the altar of burnt offering,71 using, it would seem, the blood of both the bull and the goat (vv. 18-19).

(10) Now the second goat, the one which was kept alive, had the sins of the nation symbolically laid on its head, and was driven from the camp to a desolate place, from which it must never return (vv. 20-22).

(11) Aaron then entered the tent of meeting, removed his linen garments, washed, and put on his normal priestly garments

(12) The burnt offerings of rams, one for Aaron and his family and the other for the people, was now offered (v. 24)

(13) The earlier sacrifices of the bull and the goat were completed. The fat of the sin offering was burned on the altar (v. 25), and the remains of the bull and the goat were taken outside the camp, where they were burned (v. 27).

(14) Those who had been rendered unclean by handling the animals on which the sins of Aaron or the people were laid were to wash themselves and then return to camp (vv. 26, 28).

The People’s Role in the Day of Atonement
(Leviticus 16:29-31)

The people were not to be passive in the Day of Atonement, although they (and those dwelling in their midst) were to observe a Sabbath rest. They were commanded to remember this ordinance as a permanent statute, by “humbling their souls” (v. 29).

Observations Concerning the Day of Atonement

There are several features of the Day of Atonement which are worthy of our attention, which prepare us to consider the meaning of this text. Let us briefly consider each of these.

(1) God’s instructions to Aaron concerning the offerings of the Day of Atonement begins with a reminder of the death of his two sons, as recorded in chapter 10. This serves as a chronological clue, indicating that the commandments given here must have come shortly after the death of Aaron’s sons. There is also the logical connection. Aaron’s sons died while in the tabernacle, specifically while they were burning incense. In the course of Aaron’s duties on the Day of Atonement, he too will offer incense. This note thus serves to underscore the importance of Aaron’s very meticulous obedience to these instructions.

(2) The priestly garb which Aaron was to wear on this one occasion was very different from that which he normally wore in the course of his duties.

Beautiful colored materials, intricate embroidery, gold and jewelry made him look like a king. On the day of atonement he looked more like a slave. His outfit consisted of four simple garments in white linen, even plainer than the vestments of the ordinary priest (Exod. 39:27-29) … On this one day the high priest enters the ‘other world,’ into the very presence of God. He must therefore dress as befits the occasion. Among his fellow men his dignity as the great mediator between man and God is unsurpassed, and his splendid clothes draw attention to the glory of his office. But in the presence of God even the high priest is stripped of all honor: he becomes simply the servant of the King of kings, whose true status is portrayed in the simplicity of his dress. Ezekiel (9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7) and Daniel (10:5; 12:6-7) describe angels as dressed in linen, while Rev. 19:8 portrays the saints in heaven as wearing similar clothes.72

In the course of his daily sacrifices, Aaron, the High Priest, represented God, and thus his garments were of great beauty and splendor. But when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in performing the atoning ritual of the Day of Atonement, he went before God in simplicity and humility. One cannot help but think of the 13th chapter of John’s Gospel, where our Lord took off His garments, and stripped down to the garb of a slave, so as to cleanse His disciples. On both these occasions (John 13 and the Day of Atonement) there is a symbolic representation of the kenosis, the setting aside of our Lord’s glory and splendor, so that the work of atonement could be accomplished (cf. Phil. 2:5-8).

(3) The ceremony of Aaron’s offering the bull for his sins and his family (especially among whom were the priests) is similar to that described in 4:3-12, but is also different. In both offerings, a bull is sacrificed, and in the same way. In chapter 4, the blood of the bull is sprinkled only on the horns of the altar of incense, but in chapter 16 the blood is also sprinkled on the mercy seat itself. The offering of the Day of Atonement is more extensive than the normal offering of the priest.

(4) The ceremony of offering the bull in chapter 16 is also similar to, yet different from, the offering of the bull which was a part of the ordination of Aaron and his sons. In this case, too, the offering on the Day of Atonement was similar to the former offering, but was greater in that there was an entrance into the Holy of Holies.

(5) The sin offering for the people is both unique and compound. With the exception of the two birds (Lev. 14:3-9, 49-53), there is no other sacrifice quite like this, which involves both a dying and a living animal. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the term “Azazel,”73 associated with the goat which lives, but there is no totally satisfactory answer, and the discussion is hardly needed to understand the ritual.74

As a rule I think that most of us are inclined to look at the slaughtered goat as paying for the sins of the people, while the living goat lives, as though it symbolizes the forgiveness of the people. This is not the case, however. The goat which was “the LORD’s” was sacrificed for the sins of the people, like the bull, and the blood was applied in the same ways. The fate of the goat which lived (Azazel) is, in my opinion, worse than that of the one which is slain. On this goat, the sins of the people are placed, and then it is handed over to an Israelite (Azazel?), whose task it is to drive the goat into the wilderness, so that it will never return.

Can you imagine the impact on the people if the goat somehow found his way back to the camp? This thought must have haunted the one in whose charge the living goat was placed. I am sure that he was most diligent to take the goat far away. Jewish tradition has it that the goat was led to a high cliff, and then pushed backward, over the precipice. The possibility of these goats returning to the camp is just one more indication that this Day of Atonement was not permanent,75 and that there was a tentativeness about what was accomplished on this day. To have killed this second goat, as the Jews may later on have done, would have made the people feel much more secure about this sacrifice. To leave the goat living, roaming about the wilderness, must have caused some uneasiness and insecurity.

(6) The Day of Atonement is the cleansing of a place and of a people. I have always had a certain mental picture of the Day of Atonement, and I have just now discovered how partial and incomplete it was. I thought that the sole purpose of this annual sacrifice was to cleanse the people from their sins. I have always visualized individual Israelites waiting anxiously outside the tent, wondering if Aaron would return, if the sacrifice he offered would be accepted, and if penalty for my sins of the past year would be delayed yet longer. This is one of the things which the Day of Atonement accomplished for the people. God said, “For it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you shall be clean from all your sins before the LORD” (Lev. 16:30).

Even more emphatic in this chapter is the fact that the Day of Atonement was provided by God to cleanse His holy dwelling place, the Tabernacle, and the holy things associated with it.76 That for which atonement is made is that with which God came in contact, that which had become defiled over the past year, due to the sins of the people and their priests: “And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions, in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities” (Lev. 16:16).

So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, and make atonement for the holy sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly (Lev. 16:32-33).

The issue at stake is whether or not God will continue to abide within the camp, in the midst of His people. The uncleanness of the people contaminated the dwelling place of God, and the Day of Atonement was provided to remove these sins. The most dreaded evil for Israel was the absence of God’s presence in the midst of the people. This is that for which Moses eloquently and passionately pleaded, after the apostasy of the nation, when they worshipped the golden calf (Exod. 33-34). God promised to dwell with His people, and the Tabernacle, along with the priestly system and the offerings was the provision for Him to do so. Their highest use was seen on the Day of Atonement.

Note that there were two kinds of impurity atoned for on the Day of Atonement: “And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions, in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities” (Lev. 16:16).

The first “impurity” was that with which contaminated every Israelite by virtue of being a child of Adam and living in a fallen and corrupted world. Thus, God spoke of the “impurities of the sons of Israel.” In addition He referred to “their transgressions, in regard to all their sins.” This was the impurity resulting from disobedience to the commandments of God—personal sin. The Day of Atonement cleansed from both kinds of impurity.

(7) The Day of Atonement foreshadowed and anticipated a greater, permanent cleansing of God’s people and of His dwelling place, which was to be accomplished by a better priest, who offered a better sacrifice. I believe, for example, that both Israel’s goats for her sin offering symbolize the death of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, in the years to come. The dying goat signifies the death which Christ died, as did the other sacrificial animals. The goat which is driven away from the camp, into the wilderness, never to return, symbolizes the even greater agony of our Lord, His separation from the Father, due to the fact that the sins of all men were borne by Him. This is the agony which caused Him to agonize in the Garden of Gethsemane. This is the one Old Testament sacrifice which reflects one of the most gruesome aspects of our Lord’s atoning work as our substitute.

The New Testament, particularly the Book of Hebrews, stresses the superiority of the death of our Lord, in contrast to the Old Testament sacrifices, of which those of the Day of Atonement are most prominent. Our text clearly indicates the superiority of the person of Christ to Aaron. Aaron was a sinner, if we had not already figured this out (cf. Exod. 32). Our Lord, Christ, was (and is ) sinless. He did not need to make an offering for Himself. As the Scriptures put it,

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever (Heb. 7:26-28).

Further, Aaron died, but Christ lives forever (Heb. 7:15-25). Christ is vastly superior to Aaron, and to all the high priests of Israel.

The place of Christ’s ministry is also superior to the place of Aaron’s ministry. Aaron ministered in a small earthly sanctuary, entering into the Holy of Holies but once a year. The people could never enter into this privileged place. Christ “tabernacled” among us in His flesh, during His earthly ministry (cf. John 1:14; Heb. 3:14; 10:5, 11). And after He offered Himself once for all, He entered into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-2; 9:1-10).

The sacrifice of Christ was superior to those offered by Aaron. Aaron and all the other priests could but offer the blood of bulls and goats, but Christ offered His own precious blood:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:11-12, cf. also vv. 13-14).

The superiority of Christ’s one offering to that of Aaron’s many offerings is also seen in the fact that the results of Christ’s sacrifice are greater. The best that one could hope for with the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement was that the impurity of sin would be put off for another year. Christ’s death put away sin altogether:

For all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed (Rom. 3:23-25).

Aaron’s offerings could only produce forbearance; Christ’s offering brought forgiveness.

The last aspect of the superiority of Christ’s atonement to Aaron’s (which we shall consider here) is that Christ’s sacrifice brought better access to God. Aaron himself could only “draw near” to God, that is to the Holy of Holies, but once a year. The people could not come this near ever. But when our Lord was crucified and His blood was shed for the sins of the world, the veil which formerly kept men apart from God was torn asunder, signifying that every believer has full and unlimited access to God. Thus, the writer to the Hebrews can say,

Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:19-22).

(8) Just as the Israelite awaited that which the Day of Atonement anticipated, so the Christian awaits that which the atonement of Christ has accomplished.

In the laws of clean and unclean, we saw how the fall of man in the Garden of Eden brought suffering and adversity to the Israelites. Israelite women, for example, were afflicted with 40 or 80 days of separation and ceremonial uncleanness for having a child (see Leviticus 12).

Romans chapter 8 deals with the spiritual life of the believer and describes the present difficulties and adversities of life. In the development of Paul’s argument in the book, the atonement of Christ has won forgiveness of sins and justification for the one who believes (Romans 1-5). It has also accomplished the sanctification of the believer (chapters 6-8). Nevertheless, the lot of the Christian is present difficulty (cf. 5:3-5; 7:14-25; 8:18-39).

Nevertheless, there are a number of schools of thought which do not take the teaching of Romans (especially chapter 8) seriously enough. These various schools of thought have one error in common: they suppose that since the death of Christ has accomplished many wonderful things, the full realization of His victory in every area of life can be claimed and experienced now.

For example, some say that the death of Christ made physical healing a possession for all to claim.77 This simply is not true. It flies in the face of biblical revelation and of practical experience. Satan was defeated on the cross of Christ (John 12:31; 16:11), and yet he is still very much alive and at work, resisting the work and the people of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 6:11-12; Rev. 12:9). It is not until the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ that Satan will finally be put out of circulation forever (cf. Rev. 20).

So, too, the believer is saved and sanctified through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, but the suffering, sickness and struggles resulting from sin will not be eliminated until Christ’s return. Thus, Romans 7 describes the struggles of a Christian and chapter 8, which speaks of our victory in Christ, also speaks of our present frustration, along with all of creation (cf. Rom. 8:18-25).

The Holy Spirit does not miraculously deliver us from these “groanings,” but intercedes for us in order to bring us through them safely (Rom. 8:26-27). Knowing that God is both good and sovereign, Paul assures us that God is able to use even the present evils of this world to bring us to the perfection which only heaven will bring (Rom. 8:28-30), thus none of those destructive and damaging present evils can separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:31-39).

(9) The Day of Atonement was a time for dealing with unknown sins, for which no offering had been made in the past year.78 The text does not specifically state this, but the inference of the text is that there were so many sins which might go unnoticed, that these, had they been neglected beyond the year, would have produced intolerable contamination. It was not those sins for which atonement had already been made that the Day of Atonement was given for, but for those which had not been recognized, and for which a sacrifice had not been offered.

Remember, too, that the sacrificial system was provided to atone for unintentional sins, not intentional sins. The offerings of chapters 4-6 were those which were made for sins unintentionally committed (cp. 4:13, 22, 27; 5:15, 18). Willful sins could not be atoned for by these sacrifices, no was there any sacrifice for them (Num. 15:27-31). The sacrificial system God established assumed that some sins which were not recognized as such at the time they were committed would come to the attention of the individual at a later time (Lev. 4:13-14, 27-28; 5:2-5). I believe that the Day of Atonement is based on the assumption that some sins never come to the attention of the sinner.

This matter of unknown sin was one that concerned godly Israelites. David prayed, “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults” (Ps. 19:12). Knowing this led him to pray elsewhere, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way” (Ps. 139:23-24).

Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, was also the author of this psalm, in which he prayed, “Thou hast placed our iniquities before Thee, Our secret sins in the light of Thy presence” (Ps. 90:8).

Unknown sins are hidden sins, those transgressions which we, in our fallen state, are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge. Proverbs has much to say about the unseen evils in our lives:

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death (Prov. 14:12).

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (Prov. 12:15).

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the Lord weighs the motives (Prov. 16:2).

These passages tell us that fallen man is not capable of seeing many of his own sins. Thus, a godly man must seek the knowledge of his sin from God and from the wise counsel of others.

New Testament Christians are not as concerned about unknown sins as they should be. Some seem to think that “ignorance is bliss.” It is not true. I am convinced that it is often our unconscious sins which are the most damaging to ourselves and to others. These sins are not so deeply hidden that they cannot be discovered. Indeed, these sins, while unknown to the sinner, are blatantly obvious to those who are close to him (or her). Marriage has been designed, in part I believe, so that we cannot say there was no way of being informed of our sins. Our mates know our sins all too well.

The wonder of this matter is that often our “secret” or “unknown” sins are often sanctified by us by the use of spiritual terminology and biblical texts. Let me briefly mention how this can work, and then leave the reader to ponder the implications. A man who is domineering and dictatorial may very well justify this sin in his life as a real strength. He may see this as “taking a stand for the truth or for what is right.” He might justify domineering over his wife as “assuming his biblical place of headship.” Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The wife, on the other hand, may have learned early in life that the way to please her father was to totally bend to his every whim. She would do nothing to offend or to lose his approval. Then, when she marries, she continues the same kind of blind conformity. And she commends herself for her “submission.” The evil here is not in being “submissive,” but in the woman’s self-seeking desire for approval, at any cost. She sacrifices her convictions and her unique contribution in the name of submission. True submission is seeking the best interest of the other, rather than our own interest. Some seek self-interest by domineering, while others seek it by “door-matting.” In either case it is evil, by whatever label we name it.

The Day of Atonement was a time for each Israelite to reflect on his own sinfulness, and to respond appropriately with mourning and repentance. I urge you to follow the example of the saints of the Bible, especially the psalmists, and to make your unknown sins a matter of priority. These are very likely sins which greatly hinder our fellowship with God and men.

(10) The Day of Atonement was a time for the priest to confess before God the sins of the nation. I have wondered to myself how long Aaron’s confession for the people’s sins, briefly mentioned in verse 21, actually took. One could imagine him confessing for hours. No doubt the confessions of Moses (Exod. 32-34), Ezra (Ezra 9), and Daniel (Dan. 9), among others, provide us with an idea of what the high priest’s prayer might have included.

Since we who are New Testament believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9), we need to make intercession for our nation as well (cf. 1 Tim. 2). How, then, should we pray? What should we confess? These are not easy matters, for we are a part of the evil fabric of our country. We find it difficult to stand back from our culture and see its sins. Many times our national sins are concealed by government or the press. It is good to confess those obvious sins, such as the legalization of abortion, but we need to become much more sensitive to the more subtle (unknown?) forms of sin as well.

Doing this will have great personal benefits. You see, the evils of our nation are those practices and pressures which constitute our “world” (as in, the “world,” the “flesh,” and the devil). To become sensitive to the evils of our age is to become sensitive to the evils which press upon us and tempt us.

As I conclude this message, I want to urge you to act upon the truths of which you have been convicted by the Holy Spirit. In particular, I would encourage you to read through the Book of Hebrews in the next day or two, seeking to see those ways in which Christ’s death surpassed the sacrifices and ministry of the Aaronic priesthood.

Furthermore, I want to urge you to take that first step of application which the writer to the Hebrews urges his readers: “Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith …” (Heb. 10:22a). It may be that you need to draw near in personal faith and commitment. In other words, it may be that you need to be born again, to be saved. Have you had a day of atonement in your life, when you repented of your sins and trusted in the sacrifice of Christ? You need but one such day to be saved, but you must have one. Let Leviticus chapter 16 be the point in your life when you come to experience God’s atonement in Christ.

For those of you who are saved I must admit that I have no idea of what “drawing near” may mean for you. I am convinced, however, that every one of us has many ways in which we need to continue to draw near. I urge you to meditate upon the Book of Hebrews, and to pray the prayers of the psalmists concerning hidden sins. I encourage you to ask God to show you what drawing near means for you, today.


68 This is the structure as outlined by Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 228. As a result of my study of this chapter, I have come to break the chapter up somewhat differently: I. Introduction—Requirements: Verses 1-5; A. Caution required, vv. 1-2; B. Materials required—animals and clothing, vv. 3-5. II. Survey of the Sin Offerings: Verses 6-10; A. Aaron’s sin offering, v. 7; B. Israel’s sin offering, vv. 8-10. III. Detailed Description of the Day of Atonement Rituals: Verses 11-28; A. Aaron’s role, vv. 11-25; B. The role of others, vv. 26-31; 1. Those who have had contact with the sacrificial animals, vv. 26-28; 2. The people of Israel as a congregation, vv. 29-31. IV. Provisions for the Perpetuation of the Day of Atonement: Verses 32-34.

69 The rituals outlined in verses 6-10 are reiterated in greater detail in verses 11-22, with the exception of the process of casting lots for the goats, which is only mentioned in verses 7 & 8. I believe that the omission of this process in verses 11-22 is significant. Some of those who insist that there is a mere duplication of material press the matter to demonstrate their hypothesis that there are multiple authors of the Pentateuch. The one author of this book, Moses, did not feel that it was necessary to repeat the casting of lots for the goat in verses 11-22 because he had already sufficiently covered the subject in verses 6-10.

70 The exact order of events is not certain in some cases, but this is at least the general order of the ritual.

71 There is a difference of opinion at to whether the “altar” in verse 18 is the altar of incense inside the veil or the altar of burnt offering outside. Noordtzij argues forcefully for the latter: “(1) The term ‘altar’ in verse 20 must clearly refer to the altar of burnt offering, yet it would have no previous reference apart from verses 18 and 19. (2) Verses 20 and 33 speak of atonement for the ‘Holy Place,’ the ‘Tent of Meeting,’ and the ‘altar.’ Since the ‘altar of incense’ is a part of the ‘Tent of Meeting’ there is no need to specify it, while there would be a need to specify the altar of burnt offering, outside the tent.” A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, 1982, pp. 167-168.

72 Wenham, p. 230. Bush adds, “There were eight different garments belonging to the altar of the high priest, four of which, called by the Jews ‘the white garments,’ and made wholly of linen, are here mentioned as to be worn on this day. The remaining four which are mentioned Ex. 28.4, were called ‘the golden garments,’ from there being a mixture of gold in them. Inasmuch as the day of atonement was a day of sorrow, humiliation, and repentance, the high priest was not to be clad in his rich pontifical robes, but in the simple sacerdotal vestments which were thought to be more appropriate to this occasion.” George Bush, Leviticus (Minneapolis, Klock and Klock Publishers [reprint], 1981), pp. 144-145.

73 The difficulty of this term is reflected by the variety of ways it is translated: “The translation of this word [Azazel] has varied considerably, and includes such renderings as ‘that shall be sent out’ (Wycliffe), ‘for discharge’ (Knox), ‘Azazel’ (RSV), and ‘for the Precipice’ (NEB). The idea of ‘precipice’ seems to have been derived from Talmudic tradition, where … was translated by ‘steep mountain.’ The allusion appears to have been to the precipitous slope or rock in the wilderness from which in the post-exilic period the goat was hurled to death.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 170.

74 Bush goes into a lengthy discussion on the various explanations for the meaning of Azazel, associated with the scapegoat. He surveys and critiques these views and concludes with his own. In short, these are: (1) The name of the place the goat was led. (2) The name of the goat itself. (3) The one goat symbolized Christ’s death, the other His resurrection. (4) The scapegoat is offered to Satan or demons, as Christ allegedly was. Bush’s view, which I find hard to grasp, is that the second goat typifies Israel, who, due to their disobedience and rejection of Christ, had their sins heaped upon themselves. Cf. Bush, pp. 145-158.

75 Harrison states, “In view of this injunction [Day of Atonement to be a permanent statute, v. 34] it is curious that no specific reference to the day of atonement occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament, despite the periodic occurrence of certain significant events in the seventh month (cf. I Ki. 8:2, 65-66; Ezr. 3:1-6; Ne. 8:17-18).” Harrison, p. 175.

76 Wenham goes so far as to say that the main purpose of the day of atonement was not to cleanse the people, but to cleanse the holy place: “The main purpose of the day of atonement ceremonies is to cleanse the sanctuary from the pollutions introduced into it by the unclean worshippers (cf. 16:16, 19). … The aim of these rituals is to make possible God’s continued presence among his people.” Wenham, p. 228. Wenham also says that the purpose of the day of atonement was “… to prevent Aaron, in theory the holiest man in Israel, suffering sudden death when he enters the tabernacle (vv. 2, 13).” Wenham, p. 236.

77 Many of the Bible scholars with whom I am familiar would choose to argue this matter on the grounds of what is meant by the expression, “by His scourging we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). I would differ. I would grant that whether the text proves it or not, the death of Christ remedies all of the consequences of the fall (cf. Rom. 5), which includes sickness. The issue is not whether or not there is physical healing in the atonement, but rather when we can expect the full manifestation of healing. In my understanding of Romans 8 and the rest of Scripture, we cannot expect (and certainly cannot demand) the full realization of any aspect of Christ’s work (salvation, sanctification, healing, etc.) until He comes again, destroys and renews the earth, finally and fully limits Satan, and transforms our physical bodies.

78 Bush writes, “The idea of the institution seems to have been, that inasmuch as the incidental and occasional sin-offerings had, from their very nature, left much sin for which no expiation had been made, there should be a day in which all omissions of this sort should be supplied, by one general expiation, so that at the end of the year no sin or pollution might remain for which the blood of atonement had not been shed.” Bush, p. 164.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

11. The Preciousness of Blood (Leviticus 17)

Introduction

Down through the centuries, men have sought to identify and then to acquire what is precious. Many are those who have been mistaken in what they have valued most highly. When an error is made here, the tragedy is great. Some have valued things too highly. Some have treasured things, only to have them stolen, or to see them slowly deteriorate through natural processes. Some have erred in attributing value to what others value, only to discover that values change. Money has always been valued, but look at what Confederate Money is worth today!

Today, gold and silver are considered one of the precious commodities that can be accumulated and that will assure one of having something of worth in the future. Think of what would happen to the value of gold if a process was discovered which would enable men to make gold as reasonably and in as great a quantity as nylon or plastic. Let’s face it, there are not very many things which we can call precious, with any certainty that their value will endure.

The things which we can be assured are precious are those things which God has declared to be so. What He values as precious we should value as well. Leviticus chapter 17 clearly identifies one of the few precious commodities of this world—blood. While blood has been implied to be of great value previously in history, here it is directly stated. The value of blood results in several exacting requirements. These requirements are set out for the Israelites in chapter 17 as well. The purpose of our study will be to identify the reason for the value of blood, and then to seek to discover how the preciousness of blood relates to the New Testament Christian.

A Preview of Leviticus 17

Leviticus 17 is a transitional chapter.79 On the one hand, it concludes the previous 16 chapters, which have focused on the sacrificial process by applying the principle of the preciousness of blood to the daily practices of the Israelites. On the other hand, it introduces the following chapters, which deal with the practice of holiness in the everyday life of the Israelites.80 If the first 16 chapters of Leviticus were addressed primarily to the priests of Israel, this chapter is addressed principally to the people of Israel. If the previous chapters deals with the sacred—the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and the priests—this chapter deals with the secular, the normal course of life of the Israelite.

After a characteristic introduction in verses 1 and 2,81 the chapter itself divides into four sections:

(1) Regulations concerning the slaughter of sacrificial animals, vv. 3-7.

(2) Regulations concerning other sacrifices, vv. 8-9.

(3) Regulations concerning the eating of blood, vv. 10-13.

(4) Regulations concerning one who eats an animal that has died or been killed by another animal, vv. 14-16.

The structure of Leviticus is, then, not unlike that of the New Testament epistles. Both begin with principles and precepts, followed by instruction which is very practical in describing the ways in which divine revelation is to become real and relevant in the daily lives of God’s people.

Our approach will be to briefly describe the nature and purpose of the regulations outlined by these four sections of the chapter. We will then seek to identify the most striking features of this chapter. Next, we will attempt to show the ramifications of these regulations in the lives of the Israelites. Finally, we shall seek to derive the principles which underlie these regulations, their relationship to New Testament revelation and their relevance to men and women today.

The Slaughter of Sacrificial Animals
(17:3-7)

In these verses only “sacrificial animals” are in view, those animals which an Israelite could offer to God as a sacrifice: “an ox, or a lamb, or a goat” (v. 3). In offering one of these animals in one of the sacrifices prescribed earlier in the Book of Leviticus, these animals would have been slaughtered82 only at the tent of meeting. The regulation of verses 3-7 presupposes that an Israelite would be tempted to slaughter one of his animals for non-sacrificial purposes, most likely to kill the animal for its meat. Any slaughter which was not sacrificial was considered a danger, for the blood might well have been improperly disposed of. Thus, this regulation forbade the Israelite to slaughter one of his “sacrificial animals” in any other way than in accordance with the ritual prescribed for one of the sacrifices (cf. chaps. 1-7, 16). Since it appears that the purpose for a non-sacrificial slaughter was to obtain meat for eating, the fellowship offering is the only one considered in these verses.83

You will remember that in the fellowship offering, regulations for which are found in chapter 3 and 7 (cf. also 19:5-8), the animal’s blood was sprinkled around the altar, its fat was burned on the altar of burnt offering, the breast and right thigh were given to the priest, and the rest was eaten by the offerer and his guests. The command given in Leviticus 17:3-7 had some immediate and evident implications:

(1) No Israelite could eat the meat of one of his flock or herd unless he first offered it as a sacrifice.

(2) Sacrificial animals could only be killed according to the sacrificial rituals prescribed previously in Leviticus.

(3) This assured that the priests would be provided for.

The primary concern behind this regulation is not to see to it that the priests were kept busy or even fed. Neither was the great danger that the Israelite might slaughter his cattle in some irreligious way. The great danger was that the Israelite would slaughter his beast in a way that would be an act of pagan sacrifice and worship:

“The reason is so that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they were sacrificing in the open field, that they may bring them in to the LORD, at the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD. … And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons84 with which they play the harlot” (Lev. 17:5, 7a, emphasis mine).

You can see by the expressions (“which they were sacrificing,” “no longer,” “they play”) which I highlighted in the text above, that the danger of worshipping goat-demons was not hypothetical, but actual. The purpose of this regulation was not prevention, but cure. Pagan sacrifice which involved the worship of “goat-demons” was something which the Israelites had learned in Egypt and were persisting to practice in the wilderness. The commandment contained in verses 3-7 was thus intended to bring a particular false practice to a halt. The more we learn of this people, the more we realize how much idolatry and false worship they had learned in Egypt and brought with them into the wilderness. Thus, Joshua, the successor to Moses, would have to command the next generation of Israelites: “Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD” (Josh. 24:14; cf. also Amos 5:25-26).

Apparently the people of that day had a “killing ritual” which they employed in slaughtering their beasts, and this ritual was, in reality, pagan. The slaughtering of an animal by an Israelite was thus destined to be an act of worship, either of God or of a “goat-demon.” There was no purely “secular” slaughter, but only a sacred ritual, of one kind or the other. God’s command in verses 3-7 instructed the Israelites to exchange their heathen practices for those which worshipped Him. This commandment was one that had very practical and pressing reasons behind it. This regulation would later be modified due the new circumstances of the Israelites once in the land of promise.85

The Offering of All Other Sacrifices
(17:8-9)

The previous command specifically related to the “fellowship (peace) offering,” for this was the only offering which enabled the offerer to partake of the meat of his sacrifice. What of sacrifices other than the “fellowship” offering? The regulation of verses 8 and 9 plugs any “loophole” which might be abused by some. No other offering or sacrifice could be made which is not made at the tent of meeting. This assures that the priests will offer the people’s sacrifices according to God’s instructions, already laid down in previous chapters. In the light of the Israelites’ pagan sacrificial practices, no sacrificial act was left to occur outside the camp, away from the scrutinizing eye of the priests.

The Consumption of Blood
(17:10-13)

The previous regulations had to do with the place and with the ritual by which the blood of a sacrificial animal was shed and then disposed of. The regulation of verses 10-13 seeks to prevent another way in which blood was misused in the ancient Near East—by eating it.

The regulation of verses 10-13 forbids both the Israelite and the alien to eat the blood of any animal (not just the sacrificial animals dealt with above). The reasons for this prohibition are given as well: (1) “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” and (2) the function of shed blood is divinely appointed for the atonement of man (v. 11).86 Thus, anyone who eats the blood of an animal will be “cut off” from his people, an expression which, at best, refers to one’s expulsion from the nation, and, at worst, execution, either by the hand of man or by a direct act of God.87 This command includes the blood of wild game, as well as of domestic animals (v. 13). It makes sense that the blood of wild animals would be singled out here, since the previous regulations have required the animals from the Israelites’ flocks or herds to be offered at the tent of meeting, where the blood would have been disposed of by the priest. The blood of the wild animal must be poured out on the ground and covered, buried, if you would.88 Here (v. 13), as above (v. 10), the alien and sojourner must abide by God’s command not to eat blood.

Animals Not Slain by Human Hands
(17:14-17)

The previous regulations have pertained to either domestic or wild game, which the Israelite kills. What about those animals which have died naturally (that is, by some kind of accident) or have been killed by another animal? In this case, the blood of the victim would not and could not have been poured out, as God had instructed above. The principle of not eating the blood of an animal, because its life is in its blood, is first reiterated in verse 14, along with a repetition of the consequences for the violator.

In verse 15 it is made clear that such an animal, which has died apart from the hand of man, may be eaten, but since the blood could not be poured out as per the instructions given, the individual who thus eats of this animal’s flesh will be unclean, and must therefore wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening time he will be clean. This is essentially a repetition of what God had previously said in Leviticus:

‘Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening. He, too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening’ (Lev. 11:39-40).

The priests, however, could not eat such meat (Lev. 22:8). For any of the people to disobey this command to be washed caused one to “bear his guilt” (v. 16; cf. 5:1; 7:18), an expression which gives a rather vague pronouncement of guilt and consequence. It does seem to suggest that the consequences will come as a matter of course or nature, rather than by the hand of men.

As I understand it, both from chapter 11 and from chapter 17, the Israelite is not forbidden to eat the meat of an animal which has died, but neither is he encouraged to do so, especially since it will render those who touch and/or eat this meat unclean.

Overall Impressions From This Passage

As I have reflected on the chapter as a whole, two impressions predominate. The first is that this is a very bloody chapter. The one topic which overshadows the chapter is the proper practice of the Israelites as pertains to the handling of blood. The blood of the sacrificial animals (vv. 3-7) must be sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering by the priest. The blood (implied) of all other sacrifices must not be poured out anywhere other than the altar (vv. 8-9). The blood of no animal can be eaten (vv. 10-13), and since the blood of an animal not slaughtered by man is not poured out properly, eating the meat of this animal makes the person unclean and requires washing (vv. 14-16).

The second impression is that penalties prescribed are “tough.” Any violation of these regulations brings very severe consequences. With the exception of the last section (vv. 14-16), which is a kind of “misdemeanor” offense, the rest of the violations are “felonies,” indeed, one might call them capital offenses. Think through the chapter with me and see what I mean. The transgression in most of these violations is identified as “bloodguiltiness”89 (cf. v. 4). This is the expression which is used of murder. Thus, the consequences for such a violation can be expected to be serious. Failing to slaughter a domestic “sacrificial” animal as a fellowship offering at the tent of meeting brought the sentence of being “cut off” from his people (vv. 3-7), as did offering a sacrifice anywhere other than at the tent of meeting (vv. 8-9) or eating blood (vv. 10-13). Being “cut off” may very well have meant death.

As if matters could not get worse, there is something about the punishment which is even more frightening. The violation of some of these “blood” regulations brings the direct involvement of God in the matter: “‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people’” (Lev. 17:10). It is bad enough to think of suffering some natural consequences for sin. It is even worse to have to face your countrymen. But when God promises to “set His face against” the violator so as to personally “cut him off,” that is a most sobering thought.

The impact of these regulations on the Israelites has been grasped by a Jewish lawyer, who is cited by Wenham:

The threat of being “cut off” by the hand of God, in His own time, hovers over the offender constantly and inescapably; he is not unlike the patient who is told by his doctors that his disease is incurable and that he might die any day. However merciful, because of its vagueness and lack of immediacy, this threat of punishment may seem to modern criminals, in ancient times its psychological effect must have been devastating. The wrath of the omnipotent and omniscient God being directed particularly at yourself of all people, and being certain to strike at you with unforeseeable force and intensity any day of the year and any minute of the hour, was a load too heavy for a believer to bear.90

Practical Ramifications for the Israelite

While I don’t think that this lawyer caught the major thrust of these regulations, he surely did grasp some of their impact. But what was the impact of these regulations intended to be? What was God trying to accomplish in the lives of His people by their obedience to these regulations?

Negatively, they must have created a sense of ominous danger, for a failure here could well be fatal. Keeping these regulations (and who would dare to violate them?) would, of necessity, keep the Israelite from offering pagan sacrifices. It would also greatly restrict the Israelite’s social intercourse with the Canaanites, who did not observe such scruples regarding blood.

We can continue to see this “separating” dimension to the blood regulations even to this day. These regulations are the basis for the Jews’ practice of eating only Kosher foods,91 that is meat which is killed in such a way as to comply with the blood-draining requirements of the Law. Because of “kosher” foods, the Jews are set apart from other peoples and their social interaction is restricted. One of the intimacies of the ancient world (and even of our own) is the intimacy of sharing a meal. Thus, the blood regulations kept the Israelites apart from their contemporaries.

The greatest significance of these blood regulations was in their declaration of the preciousness of blood, due to the interrelationship between life and blood, and consequently the preparation of the Israelites for the atoning work of Messiah in a day yet to come. It is only in the light of the death of Christ that the significance of these blood regulations can really be grasped.

Conclusion

I believe that this chapter underscores several principles which are vital to the spiritual life of every man, woman, and child. Let us prayerfully consider each of these principles and the practical way in which they should intersect our lives.

(1) The principle of progressive revelation. The principle of progressive revelation is simply this: God has chosen to reveal His truths to mankind sequentially. Thus, the great doctrines of the faith are generally introduced early in the Old Testament, later developed more fully by the prophets, and then by our Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry, and finally seen in their fullest form in the New Testament, in the light of the interpretation and teaching of the apostles.

In Leviticus chapter 17 the principle of progressive revelation is very clearly demonstrated in several ways. First, it can be seen in the progressive way in which God revealed the sins of the Israelites to them. Only at this point has God exposed the pagan dimensions of the sacrifices which the Israelites had been offering all along in the open field (cf. vv. 5-7). God did not reveal this sin until He had the solution for it, a sacrificial system which He had designed.

Second, we can see the principle of progressive revelation at work in the way God has progressively revealed the preciousness of blood in His plan of redemption. Early in Genesis, God took the shed blood of Abel seriously (Gen. 4), and later, after the flood, God gave more exacting commands regarding blood-shedding (Gen. 9:1-6). In the life of these Israelites camped at the base of Mt. Sinai, God used the shed blood of the Passover lamb to distinguish His people from the Egyptians, who were visited by the death angel (Exod. 12). Now, in Leviticus, Israel’s conduct with regard to handling blood is even more carefully prescribed, with very serious consequences for any violation.

While the importance of shed blood was once only to be learned by inference, now the principle of the preciousness of blood is stated more clearly than ever before (cf. Lev. 17:11, 14). The Old Testament will continue to clarify and expand on the value of shed blood for atonement (cf. Isa. 53), and in the New Testament the matter will come into full focus, in the light of the atonement which God has provided for man in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. As Peter put it, “Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). Here, Peter does not compare the precious blood of Christ to gold or silver; he contrasts it with these supposedly “precious” metals. He places gold and silver in the category of “perishable things,” which infers to us that the blood of Christ is imperishable, and thus of eternal value. We know, of course, that this is the case, for in heaven it will be the shed blood of the Lamb of God which is still valued for saving sinners:

… Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood (Rev. 1:5).

And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came, and He took it out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:6-9).

A matter as important as the atoning work of Christ was so vital, so important, so precious, that God long beforehand began to prepare men for its coming to pass. Thus we find the preciousness of blood and the principle of atonement revealed very early in the Pentateuch, and then clarified throughout the remainder of biblical revelation.

This leads me to a very important application: The principle of progressive revelation provides us with a vital clue to the importance of any teaching.

Because the atoning work of Christ was so important, so precious, God began to reveal the underlying principles very early in time. I believe that the same thing can be said for any doctrine that is truly vital, truly important, truly precious.

I would hope that you could readily and enthusiastically agree with this principle that important doctrines should have a long history of being progressively revealed. And yet the practice of many violates this principle. Think about it for a moment. What characterizes those truths about which some become most enthusiastic, and which they are so eager to proclaim to others? Let me suggest a few of the characteristics of revelation which is eagerly sought and taught:

(a) That truth which is new and novel, which does not have a long track record. Often these truths are packaged and sold under the guise that “God has, in these last days, revealed some new and wonderful truths.” Rather than feeling the need to apologize for this novelty, these false teachers look down upon those in the past as less enlightened than they. This excuses their teaching from having to conform either to biblical revelation or from the church’s understanding of it through the history of the church. In the Book of Acts we see this desire for “newness” in the philosophers of Athens (Acts. 17:19-21).

(b) That truth which is obscure, which is not clearly taught, and thus not recognized and accepted by most evangelical Christians. Rather than having to explain the fact that few accept their teaching, the false teachers look down upon those who haven’t “seen the truth” as unspiritual and less enlightened. In the days of the New Testament churches, this took the form of gnosticism. Also in Paul’s letters to Timothy there was the warning against speculative teaching.

(c) That truth which conforms to one’s evil lifestyle, and which enables the “believer” to follow his own appetites and evil desires. Strangely enough, the “new doctrines” which are seen by the spiritual elite and missed by the masses, are those truths which justify the sins of its followers. Paul warns of those who will have itching ears, who will gather people who preach to their preferences (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Peter likewise warns of those who teach in a way that enables and encourages men to indulge in the flesh (cf. 2 Pet. 2:18-19).

Let us learn from the principle of progressive revelation that those truths which are vital and most valuable are those which have been taught in greater and greater clarity throughout the entire Bible. Let those matters which are scarcely mentioned not be major concerns or undue subjects for our curiosity.

In addition, the principle of progressive revelation provides us with the key to quickly discerning one’s orthodoxy: ONE OF THE BEST TESTS OF ORTHODOXY IS TO DETERMINE WHAT VALUE ONE PLACES ON THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.

The doctrine of the preciousness of shed blood develops in its full bloom in the New Testament by declaring that the most precious substance of all is the shed blood of Christ. Thus, anyone who denies the preciousness of the blood is not true to the faith of the Bible, and thus denies saving faith as well. We do not need to know everything which a certain sect teaches (although they are eager to teach us), we only need to know what they make of Christ’s blood. Is it alone what atones for our sins? Here is one of the touchstones for orthodoxy. This question may not flush out all heretics, but it will expose most of them, if answered honestly.

(2) The preciousness of blood in God’s sight. The Israelite of old learned from Leviticus, as nowhere else up to that point in time, the preciousness of blood to God. How much greater value does blood take on for the New Testament saint, whose blessings are all a result of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. As Harrison summarizes the matter,

The blood is the life of the flesh (Lev. 17:11), and it is through the atoning blood of Christ that the believer receives redemption (I Pet. 1:18-19), forgiveness (Eph. 1:7), justification (Rom. 5:9), spiritual peace (Col. 1:20), and sanctification (Heb. 13:12).92

Blood is not precious in its own right, but because it is equated with life. The principle conveyed first in Leviticus 17 is that “the life is in the blood.” Pressing this matter further, then, we can safely conclude that God values life as precious. Blood is the instrument through which atonement is made, which spares the life of the sinner. Life is thus precious to God, as well it can be for it was God who created all life (Gen. 1-2).

If blood (and, as we have seen, life) is precious, then there are several areas of application. The first application is that God values all life. Let the abortionist take note! Let those who talk about “quality of life” beware. God is the giver of life; Satan, through sin, seeks to destroy it. Let us prove to be on God’s side by seeking to save life, rather than to destroy it.

Pressing the fact that God values all life to its personal level, we can say with great conviction, God values your life. God values your life much more highly than you do. The measure of the value which God has placed on your life is the price which He was willing to pay to save it: the precious blood of His only Son, Jesus Christ. According to this standard, God has placed infinite value on your life. May you and I value our life in the light of the value God has ascribed to it.

Further, knowing the value which God has assigned to life enables us to better grasp the evil of sin, which seeks to destroy life by producing death. Sin can only be appraised in the light of its ultimate result—death, and death can only be evaluated in the light of its opposite —life. How ugly sin is in the light of the value of the life which it seeks to destroy.

(3) If we truly treasure the blood of Christ, we will not defile it. The preciousness of the blood of Christ is a very pertinent factor in the life of the Christian. Peter maintains that the preciousness of the blood is to be the Christian’s motivation for purity—for avoiding profaning the price of our redemption. In other words, to resist the goal for which the blood of Christ was shed is to profane the price which was paid to realize this goal: purity and holiness. Put differently, the degree to which the blood of Christ is precious is also the measure of the penalty for profaning it.

The regulations which God gave to the Israelites in chapter 17 of the Book of Leviticus were intended to prevent the profaning the blood of living creatures. It should be granted, then, that what is precious should not be profaned. Are there ways in which the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is profaned? I believe so.

First, the believer profanes the blood of Christ by persisting in the very sins from which the precious blood was intended to cleanse us. Listen to these most sobering words from the Book of Hebrews:

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? … It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:29, 31).

A second way in which the Christian can profane the precious blood of Christ is by a disregard for the Lord’s Table, or by misconduct in the remembrance of the Lord’s death. You will recall that in the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, the misconduct of the Corinthian saints was described. The result was that some were judged by sickness and some by death (1 Cor. 11:30). The reason given by Paul was that the saints did not “judge the body rightly” (v. 29). A part of this was surely that the blood, as symbolized in the wine (of which some drank too much, v. 21), was disregarded and thus profaned.

Not only is misconduct at the Lord’s Table profaning the blood of Christ, but also absence from the Lord’s Table. There are many who view communion as a ritual at best to be endured, and then only occasionally. The New Testament saints remembered the Lord daily (Acts 2:42, 46), and later it was weekly (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11, cf. 16:2). Those who consistently fail to commemorate the Lord’s death not only disobey the command of our Lord (cf. Luke 22:19-20), but they profane the blood He has shed by valuing it so little that they fail to commemorate His death as He has instructed us. Forget your anniversary and you get a taste of what such neglect conveys to your loved one. Neglect the Lord’s Table, in the light of what we have learned of the blood, and profane His blood.

There is essentially but one way in which non-Christians profane the blood of Jesus Christ, and that is by esteeming it of so little worth that they seek acceptance with God on the basis of their own works, in place of the atonement, in which Christ shed His own blood. Imagine standing before the judgment seat of God (the Great White Throne) and having God ask you but one question, the answer to which determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or in hell. The question, I assure you, will be this, “WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE SHED BLOOD OF MY SON?”

God cares nothing for what you have to offer, but only for what He Himself has offered you, His only begotten Son: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). How dare any man think he could offer God anything for his own redemption, when God has paid the price in full, as the cost of the blood of His Son.

If you have never claimed the blood of Christ for your own salvation, as payment for your sins, I urge you to do so now. If you would hesitate, let me leave you with this solemn thought. Every man will have to give an account for the blood of Christ. Those who accept it as God’s atoning gift will spend all eternity giving praise to God and to the Lamb for that blood. And those who reject it will have these words with which to identify, the words of those who, at the trial of our Lord, called forth to Pilate as they rejected Him as their Messiah, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). These words will haunt ever unbeliever for all eternity, for those who reject the blood of Christ as their atonement, will find it to be their accuser.

(4) The value which we place on the blood of Christ is not proven as much by what we profess, as by what we practice. As I have been meditating on the practical implications of the preciousness of the blood of Christ, it occurred to me that the Israelites’ practice was to prove their regard for blood. Their obedience to the regulations of Leviticus 17 was evidence that they, along with God, found blood to be precious.

The same is true for us. It is not enough to assent to the preciousness of the blood of Christ as a fact. It is not even enough to believe in the blood of Christ for one’s salvation. There must be some practical way in which we prove our regard for Christ’s blood by the way we act. This is not a particularly biblical pattern, but I can say from a few years of observation that people who find something precious tend to act the same way. Let me characterize the actions of one who has found something precious, and see if this describes your life as a result of finding Christ’s blood precious.

First, when a person finds something which he values as precious he will give all that he has to acquire it. The parable of the “pearl of great price” (Matt. 13:45-46) is but one illustration of this. If the blood of Christ is truly precious, we do not have to bribe men with false promises to convince them to accept it, nor do we have to minimize the cost. To put it in other words, to the degree that we dilute the gospel message (which has as its central theme the blood of Christ), we betray our own devaluation of His blood and we suggest to the lost that it is not worth a man’s all.

Second, when we value something as precious, we can’t get enough of it. A person who values a certain kind of car as precious will get as many of them as he can. The one who values gold will also get all of it he can get his hands on. So, too, with the blood of Christ. We will not only claim it once for our salvation, but we will claim it on our every approach to God. We will never tire of talking of it, meditating on it, or speaking of it to others. The Lord’s Table will never be a burden, but a delight, if we truly find His blood precious. I find that when I acquire something I value greatly, I keep going out (usually it is in my garage) to look at it. So we should see the blood in the Bible, from cover to cover, and never tire of looking for it and at it again.

Third, when a person finds something that is precious to him he seeks to share it with others. One who has a very rare coin, or jewel, or automobile will not try to give it away, but he will seek to share its beauty with others. That is, he will seek to show it off to others. Now my analogy breaks down here because the things which we value most on earth are rare. Thus, one is not about to give away something which is in short supply and which cannot be replaced. But the blood of Christ is very different. The blood is infinitely precious, but it is also infinitely available. Therefore you can give it away to as many as will receive it and not have your own supply of it diminished. What I am trying to say here is that we would seek to bring others to Christ through the blood if we really valued the blood ourselves. Our estimation of the preciousness of Christ’s blood is the measure of our evangelistic zeal.

Fourth, when we truly find something precious we seek to guard it from damage or defilement. The things which are precious to us we lock up, we put bars around, and we buy alarm systems to protect. If we truly find the blood of Christ precious, we will do our best to keep from profaning it ourselves, or to keep others from profaning it. This relates, once again, to the way in which we remember the Lord’s Table and the way in which we live out our lives in personal holiness.

(5) The shedding of blood is the standard by which love is measured. There remains but one thing more to say, and that is that the measure of true love is ultimately one’s willingness to shed his blood for another. Our Lord taught that no one has greater love than the one who will lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). The death of Christ went one step beyond this, for He died for us while we were His enemies (Rom. 5:6-8). If we truly love others, we will shed our blood for them. If we truly love God, we will be willing to shed our blood for Him. It is against this principle that the words of the writer to the Hebrews come on us with stinging force. He is writing to those who would forsake their faith because of some opposition, and he concludes, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). Any struggle with sin which does not go this far betrays a lack of love.

May the blood of Christ be more precious to you now than it has ever been before.


79 “I prefer to view ch. 17 as a hinge linking the two halves of the book: chs. 1-16 containing the ritual regulations for public life and worship, and chs. 18-25 regulating the personal and private affairs of individuals.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 241.

80 “Unlike the regulations in the preceding chapters, this section says very little about the role of the priests. It concentrates on the mistakes a layman is apt to make: he may be tempted to kill animals outside the tabernacle (vv. 3-7) or forget to drain out the blood before eating the meat (vv. 10ff.). In this respect these laws have more in common with those that follow in chs. 18-26, which are designed to promote the holiness of all Israel.” Ibid., p. 240.

81 “Chapter 17 is systematically arranged. It begins with an introductory formula typical of Leviticus (vv. 1-2; cf. 1:1; 4:1; 6:1; 7:28; 11:1; 15:1; 16:1-2; 18:1-2; 19:1-2). Four paragraphs follow, dealing with sacrifice and the consumption of meat. Each paragraph begins in similar fashion: ‘If any Israelite or resident alien who dwells among them’ (vv. 3, 8, 10, 13), continues with a definition of the sin (vv. 3-4, 8-9, 10, 13-14), prescribes the punishment of ‘cutting off’ for disobedience (vv. 4, 9, 10, 14), and generally closes by giving an additional reason for obeying the law (vv. 5-7, 11-12, 14).” Ibid.

82 “The word ‘kills’ may cover slaughter for nonsacrificial purposes (e.g., Gen. 37:31; 1 Sam. 14:32), though it is most commonly used for the ritual slaughter in sacrifice (cf. Lev. 1:5, 11, etc.).” Ibid., p. 241.

83 There is disagreement among scholars as to what is forbidden in verses 3-7. Some think that God has only forbidden sacrifice, particularly the fellowship or peace offering, to take place outside the camp. Others believe that all slaughter is forbidden. This is, to some degree, a result of the ambiguity of the term “slaughter” (cf. fn. 4 above), which can mean either “sacrifice” or simply “to slaughter” (kill). I am inclined to think that all slaughter is forbidden, and not just sacrifice. This best explains why only the peace (fellowship) offering is in view in verses 3-7 (because this was the only offering which left meat for the offerer to eat), while all other sacrifice is covered in verses 8-9.

84 “Both the thing and the name were derived from the Egyptians, who worshipped goats as gods (Josephus c. Ap. 2,7), particularly Pan, who was represented in the form of a goat, a personification of the male and fertilizing principle in nature, whom they called Mendes and reckoned among the eight leading gods, and to whom they had built a splendid and celebrated temple in Thmuis, the capital of the Mendesian Nomos in Lower Egypt, and erected statues in the temples in all directions (cf. Herod. 2, 42, 46; Strabo, xvii. 802; Diod Sic. i. 18).” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 409.

85 “This law could be effective only when eating meat was a rare luxury, and when everyone lived close to the sanctuary as during the wilderness wanderings. After the settlement it was no longer feasible to insist that all slaughtering be restricted to the tabernacle. It would have compelled those who lived a long way from the sanctuary to become vegetarians. Deut. 12:20ff. therefore allows them to slaughter and eat sheep and oxen without going through the sacrificial procedures laid down in Leviticus, though the passage still insists that the regulations about blood must be observed (Deut. 12:23ff.; cf. Lev. 17:10ff.).” Wenham, p. 243.

86 “Of the seven prohibitions in the Pentateuch against eating blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:15-16, 23-24; 15:23), this one (Lev. 17:10-14) is the clearest and provides the underlying rationale.” F. Duane Lindsey, “Leviticus,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), p. 199.

“The first reason simply forms the foundation for the second: God appointed the blood for the altar, as containing the soul of the animal, to be the medium of expiation for the souls of men, and therefore prohibited its being used as food. ‘For the blood it expiates by virtue of the soul,’ not ‘the soul’ itself. … Accordingly, it was not the blood as such, but the blood as the vehicle of the soul, which possessed expiatory virtue; because the animal soul was offered to God upon the altar as a substitute for the human soul. Hence every bleeding sacrifice had an expiatory force, though without being an expiatory sacrifice in the strict sense of the word.” Keil and Delitzsch, II, p. 410.

87 “In other words, this offense [bloodguiltiness due to killing a sacrificial animal apart from ritual sacrifice] is as serious as murder. He has shed blood, consequently he will be punished by God directly. This is the traditional understanding of the phrase ‘to be cut off,’ and it does seem to fit the different contexts in which it is found (e.g., Exod. 30:33; Lev. 7:20ff.; 20:17ff.).” Wenham, p. 241.

“Other interpretations have been suggested. One is that it is a demand for the death penalty to be imposed by human agency following conviction in the courts. But though death does seem to be envisaged by the phrase, it is unlikely that judicial execution is intended, because many of the crimes to which this penalty is attached are secret sins which would be difficult to prosecute in the court (e.g., Exod. 30:38; Lev. 7:20-21; Num. 15:30-31). Moreover, God sometimes threatens to cut people off himself. Such a threat would be unnecessary if capital punishment were mandatory (17:10; 20:3ff.).

“Another possibility is that ‘being cut off from his people’ means being expelled from the nation. Support for this idea can be found in the Laws of Hammurabi, par. 154, which provides for banishment in a case akin to Leviticus (20:17). But the same objections apply to this as to the previous interpretation, namely, the difficulty of prosecution in many cases and the fact that God exacts the penalty in others.

“… It appears, therefore, that this phrase may not only refer to premature death at the hand of God, but hint at judgment in the life to come. Offenders will be cut off from their people forever.” Wenham, p. 242.

88 “In Deut. xii 16 and 24, where the command to slay all the domestic animals at the tabernacle as slain-offerings is repealed, this is extended to such domestic animals as were slaughtered for food; their blood also was not to be eaten, but to be poured upon the earth ‘like water,’ … like water which is poured upon the earth, sucked in by it, and thus given back to the womb of the earth, from which God had caused the animals to come forth at their creation (Gen. i. 24).” Keil and Delitzsch, II, p. 410.

89 “Bloodguilt was a legal term which was normally used in the Old Testament with reference to manslaughter or murder.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 178.

90 H. H. Cohn, Israel Law Review 5 (1970), p. 72, as cited by Wenham, p. 242.

91 “Any animal meant for human consumption had to be killed in such a way that all the blood was either drained or washed from its body, a principle that results in what the Jews call kosher meat.” Harrison, p. 181.

92 Harrison, p. 176.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

12. Obedience—The Obligation of Being Owned (Leviticus 18:1-5)

Introduction

To an American in the 20th century, slavery is but a bad memory, an evil which pricks the conscience of society. There are still many of the scars left from the time when slavery was practiced, but the evil itself is something largely recorded in the history books. Such is not the case in other parts of the world, and it surely was not so in the ancient Near East at the time Moses wrote the Book of Leviticus.

As we approach our text and the subject of slavery we must recognize that we do so with a bias. Unlike the peoples of the ancient world, to whom slavery was a fact of life, a condition which could be either good or bad, depending upon the master, we can think of slavery only in negative terms. We think of the evils of slavery in our own country in days gone by, or in terms of the oppression of people in South Africa, evils which I do not wish to minimize or to condone. But because of the abuses of slavery we have come to look upon slavery as a categorical evil, one that can never be good or beneficial to the slave.

It is this bias which must be set aside if we are to appreciate what is being taught in the latter portion of the Book of Leviticus. The laws which the Israelites are given in chapters 18-20 (and the following chapters as well) are those which are legitimate and compulsory because the Israelites are God’s slaves and He is their new master. Such a condition cannot be viewed as evil, but as holy, righteous and good. Such a state cannot be wrong, and thus we must view it differently from most of the slavery which has been practiced (or imposed) in history.

The Israelites had been the slaves of Pharaoh. We know this all too well from the early chapters of Exodus. Some might think that when the Israelites passed through the Red Sea and the Egyptians passed under it, that slavery was ended once for all for the people of God. Such was not the case at all. The exodus freed the Israelites from bondage to Egypt, but it also brought them under the yoke of their God, who had delivered them.

As God’s slaves, the Israelites were not free to live where they wished, nor to live as they liked. These people were now to live under a new order. That order was spelled out by the terms of the covenant which God, Israel’s new King, made with them. We call it the Mosaic Covenant. The Ten Commandments, along with the rest of the Law, is a part of that covenant. The priestly system, outlined in the early chapters of Leviticus, is also a part of the Mosaic Covenant. And now, the judgments and statutes93 which God is about to lay down through Moses, are the expression of the dictates of a sovereign over his subjects.

The preamble to the latter half of the Book of Leviticus is vitally important to the Israelites because it deals with their motivation for obeying the laws which God is going to lay down in the following chapters. I would suggest that motivation is the most important factor involved in obedience. We may learn methods which help us to obey, but apart from a will to obey they are worthless.

Motives are critically important in our own lives, thousands of years removed from the days of Moses and the people whom he led. We are inclined to think, at times, that evangelism does not occur because people have not been taught how to evangelize. We suppose that marriages are in deep trouble because they have not been taught proper techniques for dealing with marriage problems. Methods and techniques have their place, but the real reason why we disobey God, why we fail to evangelize, why we do not relate to our mates and to our children as we should is because we do not want to do so. The old saying, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” is largely true. Thus, one of the most important factors in godly living is godly motives. Leviticus 18:1-5 provides the people of Israel with the proper motivation for obeying God’s laws. These motives, as we shall see, are also found in the New Testament, and thus they apply to us as well. Let us listen well to the voice of God in this text, for these are words of great import to our spiritual lives.

Let us bear in mind that as we come to this 18th chapter of Leviticus we are beginning a new division of the book. Chapters 1-17 have largely applied to the priests, while chapters 18 and following are directed more toward the people. Chapters 1-17 pertained more to ceremonial or ritual righteousness; chapters 18 and following pertain to practical righteousness. In particular, chapters 18-20, which we will study as a unit, pertain to righteousness in the home (chapter 18), and in the community (chapters 19). Chapter 20 deals with “capital offenses.”94

The Preamble

Scholars have recently recognized that the form of the Mosaic Covenant is similar to the form of those covenants made in the ancient Near East in the days of the Moses. This is especially clear in Exodus and Deuteronomy. It is also apparent here in chapter 18:

In chapter 18 the preamble is I am the Lord your God (2), while the historical prologue is the phrase Egypt, where you dwelt (3). The basic stipulation is covered by the injunction do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them (4), while the detailed stipulations comprise the material in verses 6 to 23. The blessings occur in a shortened form in verse 5, a man shall live, while the curses are found in verses 24 to 30. This latter situation is typical of Hittite vassal treaties, where the curses always greatly outnumber the blessings.95

Verses 1-5 thus serve as the preamble to the stipulations, the regulations which are to follow. In this message I wish to focus on the message of the preamble, for it is the basis for the laws which are to be given and of God’s demand that they be kept. In verses 1-5 one phrase is repeated three times: “I am the LORD (your God).” The importance of this statement can hardly be overemphasized. It provides us with a vital clue to the structure of this paragraph. Three crucial statements are made, each of which is concluded with the statement, “I am the LORD (your God).”

The message of these verses can best be viewed as having three principle statements. The first is the premise (v. 2), the basis which God declares for what He will demand. The second is the practical outworking of the premise stated both negatively: “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes” (18:3), and positively: “You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them” (18:4). The third states the benefits of obedience, a promise of God’s blessing: “‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them’” (18:5).

The Premise: “I am the LORD”
(18:1-2)

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God.’”

The expression, “I am the LORD your God,” is the fundamental truth on which the following verses, and on which the following chapters must stand. The critical question for us, then, is to determine precisely what God meant by this expression.

When God had led the Israelites out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, and to Mt. Sinai, He made a covenant with His people. The Ten Commandments, a vital part of that covenant, are first recorded in Exodus chapter 20. In the introduction of the covenant, God spoke these familiar words: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod. 20:2).

When the Mosaic Covenant was reiterated to the next generation virtually the same words were employed in the introduction (cf. Deut. 5:6).

In Leviticus, the same expression is found, particularly in close proximity to divine regulations. Thus, in chapter 11, it is found in conjunction with the laws concerning the clean and the unclean (Lev. 11:44). When the stipulations of the covenant are spelled out in more precise form, the same words are found in the introduction (Lev. 18:1-5), no less than three times. The expression in either its long (e.g. 18:2, 4) or its short form (18:5) will be found frequently in chapters 18-20 (18:2, 4, 5-6, 30; 19:3-4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37; 20:7, 24) and later (21:12; 22:2-3, 8, 30-31, 33; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 38; 26:1, 2, 13, 44).

From the many uses of the expression, “I am the LORD (your God),” we can discern several facets to its intended meaning:

First, the expression is intended to recall the deliverance of Israel from her bondage in Egypt. The expression, “I am the LORD your God” is sometimes followed by a further statement, “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (cf. Exod. 20:2). Israel’s deliverance is thus one thought which is brought to remembrance by this expression.

Second, the expression is one that declares God’s sovereignty, particularly focused upon His sovereignty over His people. The exodus showed God to be superior to the gods of Egypt, and to be sovereign over the forces of nature. Israel’s God is a sovereign God. The God of Israel is not only viewed as sovereign over His people, but over the Egyptians (including Pharaoh) and nature. You will recall that when Moses delivered this message from God, “Let My people go, that they may serve Me,” Pharaoh’s response was, in effect, “Say’s who?” Pharaoh thought of himself as sovereign. Why, then, should he obey Israel’s God. The account of the ten plagues is God’s answer. And the passing through the Red Sea also demonstrated God’s power (sovereignty) over nature (which can also be seen in the plagues). The exodus thus proved God’s sovereignty.

Third, the exodus event made God Israel’s King. God was the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the exodus, but after this event He became Israel’s king. He became king when He liberated His people and led them from Egypt toward Canaan. He became King of Israel when He gave the people the constitution, the Mosaic Covenant. The “Song of the Sea,” recorded in Exodus 15, is the song which the Israelites sang to God in praise after the incident at the Red Sea. The inference of this song is that God has been installed as their king (cf. v. 18). The exodus made God King of His people.

Fourth, the expression is also a claim of divine ownership. Just as the Israelites were the slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt,96 now they are God’s slaves. Later in the Book of Leviticus, God told Moses, “‘For the sons of Israel are My servants; they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God’” (Lev. 25:55; cf. also v. 42).

To draw all of these various factors together into one central thought we can conclude that the expression, “I am the LORD your God,” teaches the principle of possession. To put the matter pointedly, God has the right to rule over His people. If God has the right to rule then He also has the right to make the rules. So it is that this statement, “I am the LORD your God,” precedes the regulations which God gave His people.

The Practical Outworking of God’s Rules
(18:3-4)

God has the right to rule, and thus the right to make the rules. These rules will be spelled out in great detail in the verses and chapters which will follow, but for now the essence of what God commands is summarized, both negatively and positively in verses 3 and 4. Let us briefly consider both the negative and the positive implications of God’s sovereign ownership of His people, Israel.

Negatively, the Israelites are to avoid the ways (statutes) of the Egyptians, among whom they have lived, and the Canaanites, whose land they are about to possess:97 “‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes’” (Lev. 18:3).

The prohibition here includes Israel’s past, in the land of Egypt, and her future, in the land of Canaan. Broadly speaking, I think that two major areas are in view in this prohibition.

First, God’s prohibition includes not only the lifestyle of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, it also includes their laws. God told the Israelites not to walk in their “statutes” (v. 3). As I understand what God is saying, the ungodly lifestyle of the heathen often is reflected in ungodly legislation. Thus, for example, in Daniel’s day, as in Esther’s, the laws of the heathen clearly contradicted God’s laws. The Israelites were not to live according to the pagan lifestyles or the pagan legislation of the Egyptians or the Canaanites.

Second (and, I think, primarily), this prohibition involves the lifestyles of the Egyptians and the Canaanites. The terms “statutes” and “judgments” have a very formal sound to our ears, but that is not necessarily the sense in which they are used here. God prohibits “walking in the statutes” of the heathen, but He also prohibits “doing what is done” in Egypt and Canaan. In the Book of Ezekiel, reference is made to Leviticus 18:5 (Ezek. 20:11). Later on in the same chapter Ezekiel wrote, “And I said to their children in the wilderness, ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, or keep their ordinances, or defile yourselves with their idols. I am the LORD your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My ordinances, and observe them’” (Ezek. 20:18-19, emphasis mine). Here it would seem that the ordinances and statutes which the Israelites followed in the wilderness were simply their own ways, their traditional, sinful way of living, which was enforced by culture than by actual written law. While there were undoubtedly some laws of these nations which were evil, there were also many aspects of the Egyptian and Canaanite cultures which were evil as well. These will be seen by the kinds of evil which were forbidden in the next chapters of Leviticus. Included are the areas of marriage, sex, family practices, religion, social concern and ethics.

While the form of the covenant which God made with the Israelites was very similar to that of other kings in the ancient Near East, the substance of the stipulations of these covenants differed radically. God’s laws sometimes parallel those of the secular and pagan societies around them, but very frequently they surpass them in the high moral standards they uphold and require of God’s people.

Positively, the Israelites were to live in accordance with God’s statutes: “‘You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God’” (Lev. 18:4). The laws which God is about to lay down—or should we say the laws which God is going to further clarify and apply—are to be lived by. The God who owns Israel and thus has the right to rule now commands His people to live by His commandments as opposed to the culture of the heathen.

Blessings for Keeping God’s Rules
(18:5)

The final “I am the LORD” comes at the end of verse 5, which contains a brief promise of the blessings which accompany living according to God’s laws: “‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD’” (Lev. 18:5). In concise terms God promised that obedience to His judgments and statutes caused a man to “live.” But what does it mean to “live”?

(1) To live means the preservation of one’s life, and the avoidance of death. Frequently, God’s commands have been accompanied with the warning, “lest you die” (cf. Exod. 28:35, 43; 30:20, 21; Lev. 8:35; 10:6, 7, 9; 15:31; 16:2, 13). To obey God’s laws kept one from incurring guilt and the death penalty of divine judgment.

(2) To live is to be the recipient of divine blessings.98 You will remember that the form of these verses follows that of the near eastern suzerainty-vassal treaties. We know from the form of these treaties that we can expect verse 5 to summarize the blessings of keeping this covenant. Thus, to live is not merely to survive, as suggested above, but to live in the blessings of God, with whom this treaty has been made.

One of the clearest definitions of “life” as it is used in Leviticus 18:5 is found in the Book of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy the Mosaic Covenant is reiterated to the second generation of Israelites. In chapter 28 the “blessings and cursings” are outlined in detail. If the Israelites keep the law of God, they will be greatly blessed in the land (28:1-14); if they disobey and disregard the law, they will be greatly cursed (28:15-68). Then, in chapter 30, God spoke these words:

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I commanded you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it” (Deut. 30:15-16, emphasis mine).

“Life,” then, in this context is synonymous with God’s blessings in the land, and “death,” with the adversity which comes from God, including expulsion from the land.

The final paragraph in Leviticus chapter 18 (vv. 24-30) tends to support this conclusion. It stresses the fact that the sins of the Canaanites defiled the land and led to their expulsion. It also warns the Israelites that if they fail to live according to God’s laws they, too, will defile the land and thus be expelled from it. It is not until the conclusion of Leviticus that a clear statement of the blessings of obeying God’s laws are spelled out in greater detail:

‘If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time. You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land’ (Lev. 26:3-5, emphasis mine).

The promise of God’s blessing for obedience continues through verse 13, and then the promises of God’s cursing are detailed as the consequence for disobeying God’s laws (vv. 14-39). To “live,” then, means to enjoy the covenant blessings of God, and to “die” means to suffer the curses of the covenant which come upon God’s people as the consequence of their disobedience.

Leviticus 18:5 in the New Testament

Since Leviticus 18:5 is cited several times (Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) in the New Testament, it is necessary for us to pause to reflect on the meaning of this verse as it is used in the Old Testament and in the New. It is my understanding that the New Testament writers who cited this verse did so out of a clear understanding of its original meaning, as well as its perversion by legalistic Judaizers.

We have already established that when God promised the Israelites they would “live” by keeping the statutes and judgments of the law, He referred to those blessings of prosperity in the land of promise, not the blessing of eternal life. The law was never given as a means to achieving eternal life. It was a temporary provision given to a sinful people to enable a holy God to dwell in their midst, and for them to dwell in the land of promise. The blessings which the law promised (prosperity in the land of promise) were bestowed upon those who obeyed all the law. The blessings of salvation are promised elsewhere, and not on the basis of works (obedience to the law), but on the basis of faith.

So it was that Abraham was called a believer before the law was ever given, and before he did any works. He did nothing but believe in the promises of God. This is the account given to us in Genesis chapter 15, and it is the point which Paul presses home in Romans chapter 4, proving that salvation has always been by faith, apart from the works of law-keeping. In Habakkuk 2:4 the principle of faith is once again reiterated. Thus salvation has always been on the basis of faith, not obedience to the law. “Life,” that is God’s blessings on His people in the land of Canaan, is the result of law-keeping.

When Paul cited Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 he was not using the verse as God had meant it to be understood (that physical blessing in the land of promise was attained by law-keeping), but as the Judaizers whom he was refuting would interpret it. They taught that law-keeping was the way men were justified in the Old Testament, and now in the new age as well. Thus, the Gentile converts had to become Jewish proselytes and observe the Old Testament laws and their traditions (additions to the law) to boot. Paul referred to Leviticus 18:5 with this backdrop in view. If, as the Judaizers taught, men could be justified by works, then according to this interpretation of the law, men must keep all the law. The Judaizers thus understood “live” as justification, not as earthly blessings. Herein was their fundamental error, and Paul pressed this erroneous interpretation to its illogical and tragic conclusion: such a view demands that men must keep all the law if they are to live, or else the law serves to condemn, rather than to save.99

God has introduced the regulations which are to follow by (1) establishing His right to rule, and thus to make the rules; (2) spelling out in broad terms, negatively and positively, what these rules require; and, (3) promising to bless His people when they faithfully live by His rules.

Implications for the Israelites

From these first five verses of Leviticus chapter 18 the Israelites are provided with a strong sense of motivation for obedience. From these words, God’s people should take the commandments which will follow most seriously. God is their sovereign owner, their King, and thus He has the right to rule and to make the rules. If they fail to keep these commandments they will face His discipline; if they obey they will experience His blessings. If they obey, they will avoid the ways of the Canaanites and the Egyptians and will follow the ways God has prescribed.

Implications for the Contemporary Christian

The Principle and Practice of Slavery

One would suppose that the demands of God pertaining to Israel’s obedience would have little to do with the New Testament saint. Especially this might seem to be the case when we read Paul’s arguments in his epistles, especially that of Galatians chapter 3. It is true that we are not the nation Israel, nor is the Mosaic Covenant binding on us. Nevertheless, the principles found in this text in Leviticus are almost identical with those found in the New Testament, based upon the work of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant which He has inaugurated. Consider the principles of the New Testament which parallel those which we have seen in our study of our text in Leviticus.

If one were to boil down the message of verses 1-5 it is simply this: The Israelites were God’s slaves, and thus were obligated to obey. The “slavery” of the Israelites was based upon the sovereignty of God, and on God’s deliverance of this people from their bondage to Egypt.

The New Testament teaches us that those who are truly born again have ceased to be the slaves of sin and Satan and become slaves of righteousness, slaves of God:

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18).

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Thus we find that the Christian is a slave of Jesus Christ. No one sensed or expressed this more frequently than the apostle Paul (cf. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Gal. 1:10).

We might be inclined to question our status as slaves on the basis of our Lord’s words to His disciples:

“You are My friends, if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves; for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you … This I command you, that you love one another” (John 15:14-15, 17).

Has our Lord not indicated that the role of servant is extinct, and that now His followers are only His friends? Then Paul was sadly mistaken in referring to himself as Christ’s slave, as well as all saints. Notice that our Lord is still giving commands in the context of John chapter 15 (v. 17). This is what masters do to their slaves. The fact is that our Lord is simply indicating a change in the kind of slavery which the Christian enters into as a result of trusting in Him as Savior and Lord.

There are two ways in which our “slavery” to God differs from that of the Old Testament saint. First, we are slaves of a vastly greater privilege. While slaves normally are not privy to the intimate plans of their master, the disciples of our Lord are. Normally slaves are told what to do, but are never told what their master is doing, or why. In boot camp, new recruits are taught that they are the slaves of their superior officers. They are told to dig holes, and then to fill them, and they are not told why (indeed, there is no real reason, other than to teach obedience).

Up to this point in our Lord’s ministry, He had not fully disclosed to His disciples what He was doing. Now, He will disclose His most intimate plans and purposes to them. In this sense they are His friends, more than they are slaves. This does not mean that we are not slaves in any sense, however.

Second, the slavery of the New Testament saint to the Lord is voluntary, it is a bondage of love: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

There is a greater sense of compulsion in Leviticus than there is here. What I mean to say is that obedience in Leviticus comes from the top down, it is demanded. In the gospels, obedience is the response of love and gratitude to the grace of God: “I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God …” (Rom. 12:1). I do not mean to press this distinction too far, however, for the Israelites were to serve and obey God out of love and gratitude as well.

The Old Testament provides us with a picture of the “love slave,” which beautifully portrays the kind of slavery into which the Christian should voluntarily place himself. The slave who could have been freed, but chose to become a permanent slave had his ear pierced with an awl by his master (Exod. 21:5-6; Deut. 15:16-17). In this sense every Christian should have “pierced ears,” figuratively speaking.

Slavery is not a very popular subject amongst many contemporary Christians because it is contrary to the spirit of our age. Think about it for a moment. In the many different representations of what it means to be born again and to be converted, how many of these clearly portray God as the Sovereign Master of the Universe, to which the Christian is to submit, Whom he or she is to serve as a slave? Not many, I can assure you. More often, Jesus Christ is presented as the servant of men, the one who has come to make people feel better about themselves, to give them eternal life, and to answer their every prayer, more like a magic genie than a sovereign master.

The real issue here is that of authority—to be specific, God’s authority to rule His people. The reason why such emphasis is placed on the authority of God is because fallen man rebels against authority, especially God’s authority. God created Satan with great beauty and authority, but it was not enough for him, he wanted more, he wanted to be greater than God (cf. Isa. 14:13). Adam and Eve were created with great honor and authority, and yet they rebelled against God’s authority. Both rebelled against God’s rules and ate the forbidden fruit, hoping to be “like God,” as Satan had falsely promised (Gen. 3:5).

All through the Scriptures man has resisted God’s constituted authority. The Israelites rebelled against Moses and Aaron. Some of the people rebelled against David. Later, they rebelled against the prophets. Is it any wonder that the Jewish religious leaders, once they understood that the Lord Jesus was not going to follow their leadership, began to challenge His authority with the question, “By what authority …?” (e.g. Matt. 21:23). And when things began to get completely out of hand, they arrested Him and brought charges against Him. When they were forced to do so, these leaders said to Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

The awesome fact is that God has given Jesus Christ ultimate and final authority. In the great day of judgment which lies ahead, all men must fall before Him and acknowledge His authority:

“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left” (Matt. 25:31-33).

Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

Which will you be, my friend, one of the sheep or one of the goats? Will you be one who falls before the Lord as King as a willing worshipper, or will you fall as a subdued enemy, reluctantly acknowledging His authority and power? You must decide to accept Him as Savior and Lord now, and if you do not, you will remain a slave of sin and of Satan. If you have made excuses for not trusting in Christ as your Savior and Lord, my guess is that you have not admitted the real reason to yourself. It is not because there is a lack of evidence, but because of your rebellion against His authority.

If the Bible tells us anything, it is the Jesus Christ has the right to reign over men, and that someday He will reign over all men. Some will be His worshippers, while the rest will be His enemies, His defeated foes. I urge you to submit to His authority, and to trust in His shed blood for your forgiveness. Take Him as your Savior and your King. He has the right to rule.

Most of my readers will have already trusted in Jesus Christ as their Savior. I would hope that you will also submit to Him as Lord. But what does this mean in very practical terms? This is a very profitable topic on which to meditate, but let me help begin the process by suggesting several ways in which we may express the kingship, the lordship of Jesus Christ:

(1) Those who have submitted to Christ as Lord will see that the slave-master relationship is appropriate in the light of who God is and who we are. They will understand that it is appropriate for the saint to view himself as God’s slave, and to view God as his master. This is but one practical application of the doctrines of the sovereignty of God and the depravity of men, of the infinity of God and of the finiteness of man.

(2) Second, those who have submitted to Christ as the Lord and King will pray for His kingdom to come to earth, as the Book of Revelation describes it in its full and final form. Our Lord taught His disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).

The Book of Revelation speaks much of the actual coming of this kingdom in days to come. The saints should be looking for this kingdom, and most of all for their King. In the meantime, the Lord’s slave will be seeking to extend His kingdom among men.

(3) Third, the Lord’s slave will not be as interested in his own concerns as with those of his Master. The parables which our Lord taught in the gospels teach the Lord’s slaves that they must be faithful to do their duty, even in His absence. They teach that obedience is to be expected, and that personal rewards should not be our primary concern: “So you too, when you do all things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’” (Luke 17:10).

(4) Fourth, the slave should be marked by his or her obedience to the Master.

(5) Fifth, the slave will find his identity in his master, and will look to Him for provision, protection, and praise.

Slavery and Baptism

We have shown that the same principles which were taught in Leviticus 18:1-5 are renewed in the New Testament. Just as Israel’s deliverance from Egypt constituted them God’s slaves, so our redemption from sin constitutes us God’s slaves. In both the Old Testament and the New the radical change from slavery to an evil master to that of bondage to God is signaled by baptism. In 1 Corinthians chapter 10 Paul speaks of the Israelites being “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). In Romans chapter 6, Paul speaks of baptism (I take it to be Spirit baptism, symbolized in water baptism) as that dividing line which signifies a radical break with the bondage of the past and an identification with and bondage to Christ.

It interesting to observe the significance of baptism in many parts of the world, if not in America. In some parts of the world it is not one’s accepting of Christ which alienates unbelieving parents and family, but baptism. This is because of what baptism implies. A parent can tolerate a child who professes faith in Christ. That, after all, is but a matter of the mind. But when the new believer takes that step of water baptism there is a commitment to make a clear break with the world and to continue to follow and obey Christ as one’s master. Thus, while a profession of faith is tolerated, baptism is vehemently opposed by unbelieving friends and family.

The baptism of a new believer is the testimony that the individual has died to sin in the death of Christ, and that he or she has also been raised to a new kind of life. Thus, at least in the ancient church, the old clothes were removed and new clothing was put on, symbolizing the change of lifestyle which our text in Leviticus requires, as well as the teaching of the New Testament.

As we conclude our service today, we are going to appropriately do so with the baptism of two believers, both of whom wish to give testimony to their faith in Christ, who died, was buried, and in three days was raised from the dead for their salvation. In addition they are giving testimony to their intention to live as slaves of Jesus Christ, leaving behind their old ways and living in obedience to the Word of God.

May I ask you if you have trusted Jesus Christ as your Savior? If so, have you also submitted to Him as your Lord, the one who has the right to make the rules and to expect you to keep them? This is not to obtain your salvation, but to express it in very practical ways. And, may I ask, have you taken that first step of obedience and been baptized?


93 Of the terms “statutes” and “ordinances” (“judgments,” NASB) Harrison writes, “The word huqqim (‘statutes’) comes from a root ‘to engrave,’ thus describing permanent behavioral rules prescribed by authority and recorded for the instruction and guidance of the individual or society. An ordinance (Heb. mispat) was a judicial decision arrived at by properly constituted authority or on the basis of tradition, which would serve as a precedent for the future guidance of judges under specific circumstances.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 184-185.

94 “Hertz argues that the order of the laws in chs. 18-20 is significant. These chapters set out ‘the foundation principles of social morality. The first place among these is given to the institution of marriage … the cornerstone of all human society. … Any violation of the sacred character of marriage is deemed a heinous offence, calling down the punishment of Heaven both upon the offender and the society that condones the offence.’” J. H. Hertz, Leviticus (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs) (London: Oxford UP, 1932), p. 172, as quoted by Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 250.

95 Harrison, p. 184.

96 It is interesting to read the account of Genesis 47:13-19 in relationship to the matter of the king owning the people. After the Egyptians ran out of “trading stock” to exchange for wheat, they said to Joseph, “Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we and our land will be slaves to Pharaoh. So give us seed, that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate” (Gen. 47:19). My point is simply that God prepared the way so that even the Egyptians were viewed as the property of Pharaoh. If this were so with the Egyptians, how much more so did Pharaoh think he possessed the Israelites, who were slaves? Thus, having been the possession of Pharaoh, the Israelites should not be shocked to learn they now belonged to God.

97 Note that here there is a forward look, not dealing so much with the immediate situation of the Israelites, but with their entrance into Canaan.

98 This seems to be the view of most commentators. Harrison, for example, writes, “The kind of life which the law brought would be one of divine blessing and material prosperity, consonant with the covenantal promises, but contingent always upon implicit obedience to the will of God.” Harrison, p. 185.

With this Wenham agrees: “For the OT writers life means primarily physical life. But it is clear that in this and similar passages more than mere existence is being promised. What is envisaged is a happy life in which man enjoys God’s bounty of health, children, friends, and prosperity. Keeping the law is the path to divine blessing, to a happy and fulfilled life in the present (Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 28:1-14).” Wenham, p. 253.

99 Wenham writes: “This is not to say that the Christian accepts the interpretation placed on v. 5, ‘if a man does them, he will enjoy life through them,’ by some of Paul’s Pharisaic opponents. They argued that this showed that keeping the law brought man into a right relationship with God (Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5). Paul argued that keeping the law is the fruit of justification rather than the means of justification. His exegesis is more faithful to the original setting of Lev. 18:5. The law was given to the covenant people after their redemption from Egypt (v. 3), not as a moral hurdle they had to clear if they wished to be saved.” Wenham, pp. 260-261.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

13. The Boundaries of Godly Sexuality (Leviticus 18:6-29)

Structure of the Text100

Leviticus 18:6-29 has a very simple structure and message. Its intent is to define the boundaries of godly human sexual relationships. There are three of them, which I call the inner, middle, and outer boundaries of godly sexuality. Verses 6 through 18 define the “inner boundary,” prohibiting sexual relationships with close relatives. Verses 19 and 20 define the “middle boundary,” which limits sexual relations within marriage and prohibits them outside marriage. Verses 21 through 23 define the “outer boundary” of unnatural sexual relations. Verses 24 through 29 tell us about God’s judgment upon a nation that crosses these boundaries. They clearly tell us that God’s judgment for sexual sin applies to all nations, not just the covenant nation of Israel.

Cultural Background

When I started my study of this chapter, I read it not as an ancient Israelite, but as a man whose sight is distorted by the sexual revolution. Our nation, and perhaps the world, implicitly separates sexual intercourse from marriage. Diverse cultural voices tell us that sex is a drive similar to hunger and that it is almost impossible to control. The cultural message penetrates our lives in subtle ways and affects our view of life and the Scriptures. Take the movie, “Spies Like Us,” for example. At the end of the movie, the two heroes, two attractive Russian women, an older Russian man and woman, and two other Russian men have inadvertently launched a missile that will start World War III and end the world. Knowing their imminent doom, each hero enters a tent with one of the two attractive women, the older man and woman go to another tent, and the two men go to a third. This scene asserts an answer to the question, “What is the most important thing you can do when the world is about to end?”

We can better understand Leviticus 18 by understanding what the ancient Israelite view of sexual intercourse was under Torah.

First, in ancient Israel, sexual intercourse was marriage. Exodus 22:16, 17 reads: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”

This verse implicitly tells us that ancient Israel had no concept of pre-marital sex. Having sexual intercourse with a virgin was an act of marriage, unless her father intervened. In other words, sexual intercourse was marriage. Another example is Genesis 24, which tells about the day Isaac’s bride, Rebekah, came to him. Genesis 24:67 reads: “Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

In an uncomplicated way, Isaac married Rebekah by publicly entering a tent to have intercourse with her. This points out once more that in ancient Israel sexual intercourse was marriage. Furthermore, notice that Isaac had no knowledge of what Rebekah looked like or what kind of person she was prior to this event. Obviously, ancient Israel had no concept of making sure that two people were compatible. Rather, they understood that compatibility was something two people made for themselves.

Second, men in Israel practiced, and the Torah regulated, polygamy and concubinage (female slaves with whom the master will have sexual intercourse). This meant that family make-up could be very complex. Leviticus 18 contains the laws that define the most liberal position society may maintain regarding sexuality and remain an intact society.

From the beginning, sexual intercourse meant becoming “one flesh.” “One flesh” is not an emotional attachment between a man and woman. It is an unavoidable consequence of a man and woman joining physically. The Law and the New Testament affirm this. That “one flesh” has no special eternal significance is clear from the answer that Jesus gave to a question posed by the Sadducees about seven brothers who eventually shared the same wife. In heaven, there is no marriage or sex.101

So, if “one flesh” is not an emotional bonding and has no significance to our life in heaven, what does it mean in this life right now? The answer is simple. The Lord makes no distinction between sexual intercourse and a relationship for life. Look at three key texts concerning this.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16).

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is acting as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith (Malachi 2:13-16).

The first passage is a prohibition of divorce based on the “one flesh” principle.

The second passage affirms that the sexual union produces “one flesh” no matter who or why. If you think “one flesh” only happens at the consummation of a marriage, this passage shows that the act of a man and woman joining physically causes the Lord to recognize that union as “one flesh.” “One flesh” is an obligation before God to be joined for life, commencing with sexual intercourse. The obligation is there whether we fulfill it or not, whether we are able to fulfill it or not, whether we are fulfilled by it or not.

The third passage tells us that God made a man and a woman “one flesh” because he “was seeking godly offspring.” As I shall show, when society denies the principle of “one flesh,” children are no longer safe.

The Inner Boundary of Godly Sexuality

By understanding the close association between sexual intercourse and marriage, the diverse and complex family make-ups, and the principle of “one flesh,” we can better understand Leviticus 18. The first section prohibits sexual intercourse with “close relatives.” The modern word for this is incest. The second section warns the Israelites of the consequences of disobeying these prohibitions.

A question that one might ask is whether the first section discusses incest in the modern secretive oppressive sense, or does it tell an Israelite who they cannot marry? I believe the answer is both. I am going to defer discussing abusive forms of incest until later and discuss the question of marriage. Given the liberal marriage relationships in ancient Israel, if your father dies or divorces your mother and she is alone, can you, her son, marry her? If you have received her into your home for support and protection, are sexual relations with her appropriate as with your wives and concubines? Given the broad scope of sexual relationships within the family in Israel, this is not an unnatural question for an Israelite to ask. In fact, different ancient cultures gave different answers to questions like these. The Persians, for example, encouraged unions with mothers, daughters, and sisters as having special merit in the eyes of the gods.102 The answer for Israel, however, was “No!”

What follows is a table that I created to help you understand the relationships the Lord makes off limits to family members. It includes the verse, a modern wording for the relationship described in Leviticus, and the penalty for violating the command, as found later in Leviticus 20.

Verse

Relationship

Penalty

7

Mother and son

Death, 20:11

8

Step-mother and son

Death, 20:11

9

Brother and sister
Brother and maternal half-sister

Cut off, 20:17

10

Father and granddaughter

Burned, 20:14

11

Brother and paternal half-sister

Cut off, 20:17

12

Nephew and aunt (father’s sister)

Barrenness, 20:20

13

Nephew and aunt (mother’s sister)

Barrenness, 20:20

14

Nephew and aunt (wife of father’s brother)

Barrenness, 20:20

15

Father and daughter-in-law

Death, 20:12

16

Brother and sister-in-law

Barrenness, 20:21

17

Father and step-daughter
Father and step-granddaughter
Husband and mother-in-law

Burned, 20:14

18

Husband and sister-in-law

None

Compare the first prohibition, verse 7 (mother and son), with the last prohibition, verse 18 (husband and sister-in-law). A mother and son relationship is much closer emotionally and physically than a husband and sister-in-law. There was no closer verifiable blood relationship in the ancient world than a mother and the children she bore. In the context of “close relative,” mother and son have the closest possible relationship; a husband and his wife’s sister have the least. Notice, then, that as you go down the list, the relationships become less and less close.

Why is this list different from similar lists in other ancient cultures? I submit to you that this list of prohibitions is a logical extension of becoming “one flesh” through sexual intercourse. For example, verse 18 prohibits a man from marrying his sister-in-law. There is no genetic reason for this (I am assuming a culture permitting multiple wives). But if Fred is “one flesh” with Amy, Ava is as good as a blood sister. Here then is how the “one flesh” principle applies through the list of prohibitions:

(1) Verse 7 says you cannot marry your own mother. This restriction continues to be obvious even in our own day.

(2) Verse 8 says you cannot marry your father’s wife. For this verse to say anything different than verse 7, it must mean a wife other than your mother. It is worth asking, “Since, there is no genetic closeness between a stepmother and stepson, why is this relationship second only to a natural mother and her son?” It is because your father is one flesh with your mother and his other wives, and you are to honor him by honoring them.

(3) Verse 9 says you cannot marry your own sister or half-sister born to your mother. To discriminate between verse 9, “father’s daughter or mother’s daughter,” and verse 11, “daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father,” means verse 9 applies to sisters related to you through your mother, and verse 11 applies to sisters related to you only through your father. I would suggest that this is so because of the certainty of blood relatedness through the mother. With the father, this is not always the case.

(4) Verse 10 says you cannot marry your granddaughter. This question could legitimately arise if your son and his wife were killed and you began caring for their children.

(5) Verses 12 through 14 deal with the three ways a woman can be your aunt. The principle of “one flesh” applies to verse 14, which refers to an aunt who becomes “one flesh” with your father’s brother.

(6) Verse 15 deals with a father and daughter-in-law. This is the inverse of verse 8 which prohibits the son from marrying his stepmother. It is not as serious in terms of “close relative” because the commandment to honor your father and mother does not apply, but clearly the notion of “one flesh” applies. Until the son marries a girl, it would be possible for the father to marry her. Once the son has married her, the two are one flesh.

(7) Verse 16 also stems from the principle of one flesh—you cannot marry your brother’s wife. There is an important exception to this stated in Deuteronomy 25:5, 6: “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry the name of the dead brother so that his name shall not be blotted out from Israel.” This is called Levirate marriage and was an important institution.

(8) Verse 17 says you cannot marry a girl and her mother. If you marry a woman who has children by a previous marriage, you may not marry her daughter or her granddaughter. By becoming “one flesh” with your wife her children and children’s children become your own.

(9) Verse 18 says you cannot marry your wife’s sister while your wife is still alive. This “close relative” relationship is at the fringe of the inner boundary and has more to do with the feelings of the two sisters who must compete for the attention of the same husband. The kind of distress that can occur is illustrated by the competition between Leah and Rachel, who were sisters married to the patriarch Jacob.

I want to pause here before continuing on, in order to present some other observations and some reflections. First, the “close relative” laws here are the most detailed and severely punished of all similar laws in ancient times. This is significant because, a nation’s laws will protect what its people consider important. The law of the Lord tells us, by its exactness and severity, what He considers most important, and from this section we must conclude that the Lord values the family and the “one flesh” principle very highly.

Second, nowhere in the Bible is compatibility ever a criterion for a relationship. This is somewhat off the main subject of the text, but it is illustrated by the fact, mentioned earlier, that Israel had no such thing as premarital sex. Once you had sexual relations with someone, he or she became your spouse. In the illustration of Isaac and Rebekah, Abraham sent his servant off to find a wife for Isaac. Isaac had no choice in the matter. He was expected to marry Rebekah and live with her and love her. The brother who must marry his dead brother’s wife and the wife who must marry her dead husband’s brother also illustrate it. This was an obligation that they were to fulfill whether they liked each other or not. The Lord expects us to get along with each other, and to compensate in love for differences and conflicts.

Third, I have emphasized how these laws relate to the question, “Who can I marry?” in order to show how the “one flesh” principle applies. I have already mentioned that these laws also pertain to more secretive violations, but I will defer this once more until later.

The Middle Boundary of Godly Sexuality

Verses 19 and 20 limit when you may have sexual intercourse with your wife, and they also prohibit adultery. I refer to these laws as the “Middle Boundary of Godly Sexuality.”

Verse 19 prohibits having intercourse with your wife during the uncleanness of her monthly period. All discharges from the body are considered ceremonially unclean, and the woman’s monthly flow is no exception. Obedience to this law relates specifically to holy living within the Mosaic covenant. There are two ways a man can violate this: one is accidentally in which case he is unclean for seven days as is the woman, and the other is the deliberate act of sexual intercourse during her period, and this is to be punished by death. The issue here is fundamentally one of holiness. The Lord has said the woman is ceremonially unclean and to purposely come in contact with an unclean woman was to violate the holiness of God. Therefore, it was strictly forbidden.

Verse 20 prohibits having intercourse with your neighbor’s wife and is an important transitional verse, because a change in a person’s concept of sexuality must occur before he can imagine and commit adultery. The change is this: adultery denies the concept of “one flesh.” It is failing to recognize that the person you are committing adultery with is “one flesh” with another person. Adultery divorces sexual intercourse from marriage and elevates it to an independent status. It focuses on sexual fulfillment as a goal rather than a byproduct of a relationship. It is important to also note that children, produced by an adulterous union, are quite frankly a grievous nuisance.

Verse 20 is transitional. If a society has established the inner, middle, and outer boundaries of godly sexuality, it is this portion of the middle boundary that collapses first in society. Once the middle boundary has collapsed, the outer and inner boundaries collapse soon afterward. I bring this up now before I discuss the outer boundary, because the outer boundary is best understood from the viewpoint of the collapse of the middle boundary and its effect on society and the land.

The Outer Boundary of Godly Sexuality

At one point in our nation’s history the three boundaries of godly sexuality were firmly established from a cultural viewpoint. I understand, of course, that individuals within that culture may have disregarded them, but both our laws and popular consensus supported them. This included a family based on the Judeo/Christian affirmation of one husband, one wife. This was even higher than the Jewish marriage because it included one wife. The ancient practice of polygamy was abandoned through the teaching of Jesus and the effective ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men.

Towards the beginning of the century our nation, following the lead of Europe, adopted the doctrines of higher criticism that began to tear away at the Bible. Science embraced the theory of evolution and turned away from God. The church, caught by surprise, retreated and disconnected itself from our culture. It was no longer an active force. People were set free from God, and shortly thereafter, sexual intercourse was set free from marriage. Sex became autonomous and recreational. Somewhere, someone got the idea that romantic attraction was the proper foundation for a lasting relationship and sold it to us. The movie entertainers and artists, the purveyors of this message, were the first to suffer a string of divorces and remarriages, but we ignored the evidence, and we accepted the lie. The middle boundary began to collapse.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s marked the near total destruction of the middle boundary of godly sexuality. Sex became completely autonomous. People began to live together without long-term commitment. Masters and Johnson studied human sexual response using the real thing as well as some artificial machines to let them observe what otherwise could not be observed. Marriages began to fail by the score. Unwed teenagers became pregnant. Children became a nuisance. Then The Joy of Sex appeared in the bookstores. Sex became so explicit, so open, such a good seller of merchandise, that society maintained a constant low-level state of sexual arousal. The outer and inner boundaries began to fall.

As the middle boundary crumbled, grandfathers, fathers, uncles, and brothers sexually molested family members. I do not know a single person who is not personally aware of an incident. Putting a stop to this, however, is very difficult. Once sex is set autonomous, the wheels begin to move and it’s hard to stop the wheel.

Outer Boundary Stage 1—The killing of unwanted children

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:21).

In the middle of Leviticus 18 is a verse that is seemingly out of place. What could this possibly have to do in the context of unlawful sexual unions? I think this is the first phase of the destruction of the outer boundary of godly sexuality. It means that children are no longer safe when the middle boundary falls.

In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision. It is the modern equivalent of ancient child sacrifice, but don’t take my word for it. Hear it, instead, from someone who views it from a pro-abortion position. The following is a quote from a 1984 science magazine article entitled, “Infanticide” by Barbara Burke,

Among some animals, then, infant killing appears to be a natural practice. Could it be natural for humans, too—a trait inherited from our primate ancestors? When we hear that some mother has killed her own baby, we are horrified and assume she must be deranged. Some killers, of course, are sick. … But human infanticide is too widespread historically and geographically to be explained away just as a pathology or the peculiarity of some aberrant culture. Charles Darwin noted in The Descent of Man that infanticide has been “probably the most important of all” checks on population growth throughout most of human history.

… This may seem a cruel and inefficient method of family planning, but in cultures without effective contraceptives, where childbirth is safer than primitive abortions, it may appear to parents to be the only way to keep family size in line with family resources.103

I do not believe there is much difference between offering children to Molech and offering them up to abortion. For different reasons and different conclusions, Barbara Burke does not believe there is much difference either.

Outer Boundary Stage 2—Homosexuality

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

Following the book The Joy of Sex came The Joy of Gay Sex and The Joy of Lesbian Sex. As the outer boundary began to crumble with the destruction of children, as sex became autonomous, sexual experience between members of the same sex was an unavoidable next step. Here is why: if your sexual goal is pleasure independent of marriage, and your sexual freedom comes from denying its wrongness, there is no foundation left to judge an alternate practice. Consequently, many homosexuals are begging for us to be compassionate and accepting. What follows is an extended quote from Dr. Edward W. Bauman, a prominent Methodist television minister,

I was prepared for trouble, but the intensity of the storm took me completely by surprise. The whole thing started when I presented a television program and preached a sermon on “The Gay Life” as part of a series on Love and Marriage. I must confess to some negative feelings about homosexuality and it wasn’t difficult to find excuses for turning my attention to other things. As the time for the TV taping approached, however, I began to prepare, working hard to make up for lost time. The preparation included covering the books on a long reading list and talking with numerous individuals—straights and gays, medical doctors and psychiatrists, ministers and members of their congregation, men and women, young and old, Christians and Jews. A lot of time was spent getting “into” the Biblical passages on this subject. I prayed and meditated, and began to share some of my ideas with other members of the Christian community. Then I presented the TV program and preached the sermon, suggesting among other things that we need to express compassion and acceptance toward the homosexuals among us.

The intensity of the anger I encountered almost swept me off my feet! The deep primal feelings many of us have on the subject have been so repressed that when we are confronted with them, they break out like a pent up storm.104

The “deep primal feelings” Dr. Bauman is talking about is part of the outer boundary. We must remember that once upon a time our culture had deep primal feelings concerning adultery, premarital sex, divorce, and abortion too. One by one we have gotten rid of them, but I believe it’s time to get our “deep primal feelings” back.105

Outer Boundary Stage 3—Bestiality

“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion” (Leviticus 18:23).

This verse marks the current line in our culture today. We are not there yet in a widespread way, although bestiality occurs frequently in pornographic books. If our nation accepts homosexuality as it has accepted adultery and abortion, bestiality will be next. Perhaps it will have mythic overtones, such as Zeus in the form of a bull.

God’s Coming Judgment

“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled;106 so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:24-29).

This should be sobering to a lust-filled society. This is not Israel violating its covenant with God. This is God looking at Gentile Canaan, seeing how it has defiled the land and is casting Gentile Canaan out. This is a universal principle, not a covenant principle. God judges all nations alike.

Acts 15:23-29 contains the text of the letter from the Church in Jerusalem to the Gentile believers accepting them into the church without binding them to Jewish Law. Verse 29 reads: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” God is against sexual immorality, and His condemnation is universal.

As we read Romans 1:18f. think of the progression we have seen in Leviticus 18 from the crumbling of the middle boundary of godly sexuality, through the crumbling of the inner and outer walls.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.107

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.108

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

May God have mercy on us. This passage in Romans follows the same course as the passage in Leviticus does—line by line practically. Once homosexuality is accepted, it seems all kinds of wickedness can be expected to break out. Quite frankly, I believe the Lord has given us as a nation over to our sinful desires.

The Christian and the Church’s Response

The spread of adultery, pre-marital and casual sex, abortion and homosexuality is the result of our nation turning from the Lord. He has given us as a nation over to the sinful desires of our hearts. It is very hard for us as individuals and as a church to remain pure in such a society, as the problems in the Corinthian church demonstrate. It is hard, but not impossible. I do not know if we can turn our country around or not. I know many who are working on many fronts to do just that, and we are beginning to see some battles won in the areas of pornography and parent’s rights.

We must examine our own attitudes toward sexuality. How closely do we associate sexual union with becoming “one flesh?” Is it to the degree that we have seen in Israel? If not, can we change?

We are confronted by spiritual warfare on three fronts in the area of sexuality. First, there is our flesh, which is all too willing to have autonomous sex that is released from association with marriage. When a hedonistic philosophy comes around our flesh begins to leap up and say, “go for it!” Second, there is Satan, who through humanism and other philosophies promotes an intellectual system antagonistic to God’s righteousness. Humanism tells us that autonomous sex is okay. It tells us that homosexual sex is okay. It tells us that killing our children is okay. This is the work of Satan through humanist leaders in our country. Third, there is the world, which is the alliance of Satan and corporate flesh which either ignores or directly confronts the church to maintain societies’ perversions.

If you are losing the battle with your flesh, whether it craves heterosexual or homosexual experiences outside the three boundaries of godly sexuality, you can overcome through living by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). This section of Galatians contains much more for you to meditate upon and ponder. You are not promised liberation from the flesh’s desire, but you are promised that the Spirit will provide you with self-control. Another key aspect of living by the Spirit is love for the brethren, the kind of love that considers all others more important than one’s self.

Against Satan, we have the truth of the Scriptures and the gospel. If we are faithful and true to our message, we will be heard. The message must be presented in all forms: books, music, painting, dance, and the performing arts. Let us instill godliness in our children and encourage their interests in journalism, politics, the arts, and science. By participating in the full spectrum of culture, we can push back the hold humanism has on it.

Against the world, we need a pure and obedient church. We must build strong families based on the principle of “one flesh.” We must learn to have strong marriages regardless of who the partners are, or who they have become over the years. People may be compatible when they first marry, but over the years, they change. Our need to obey the Lord does not change. Our requirement to learn to be compatible with anybody doesn’t change because this is what it fundamentally gets down to. We can learn to be compatible with a person.

I hear about the peer pressure our children are under. Is it wise for us to put our children in circumstances where we ourselves could not stand? We will neither purify ourselves, or the church, or the nation without cost. It will cost us time, money, inconvenience, effort, pain, or worse, but a pure church will stand up before a perverted world. I guarantee it.

Given the fact that the boundaries have crumbled in our culture, it is likely that this message has deeply disturbed some of you. Many of you have past experiences. To you I say this: Look at the love with which Jesus favored the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). Look at how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery (John 8). Remember how He turned His back to the dinner host and his guests to affirm a prostitute who honored Him by anointing His feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7). Let your past be past. Receive His love and His words, “Go and sin no more.” But also, through Him and His grace and love, let your sense of shame fall away. You are clean and pure, because He has cleansed you.


100 This message was preached by Don Curtis, an excellent student of the Scriptures, teacher, and good friend. Don graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1974 with a degree in Philosophy. He has since become a Senior Computer Programmer with the IBM Corporation. For a number of years, Don and his family attended Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, until his job took him to Atlanta, Georgia. Partly from Bob Deffinbaugh’s influence, biblical studies and teaching have become a passion in his Christian life. Don is currently an elder and teacher at Cobb Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Kennesaw, GA.

101 I discussed this issue with a person who valued sexual encounters so highly that (s)he found it inconceivable to imagine heaven without sex, especially if we are clothed in a resurrection “body.”

102 R. K. Harrison, Tyndale Commentary: Leviticus, 1980 Intervarsity Press, p. 194.

103 Barbara Burke, “Infanticide,” Science 84, May 1984, pp. 29, 30.

104 Dr. Edward W. Bauman, Reflections on the Gay Life, 1977, 1979 United Methodist Board of Global Ministries.

105 It is interesting to see how Barbara Burke, on the one hand, uses evolution to excuse parent’s violent behavior against their children. Dr. Bauman, on the other hand, sees “deep primal feelings” as something we must obviously overcome. It seems to me that “deep primal feelings” would also be an evolutionary left over. Such dichotomies are typical of humanistic thinking in “evolutionary” terms; evolution is always adapted to justify a preconceived moral position.

106 As I typed this I remembered the blood of Abel crying from the ground. Is our country defiled from the millions of aborted babies?

107 This marks the fall of the middle boundary.

108 This marks the fall of the outer boundary.

http://feeds.bible.org/donald_curtis/misc/curtis_godlysexuality.mp3
Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

14. How to Spell 'Holy' (Leviticus 19:1-37)

Introduction

Leviticus chapter 19 provides us with an exposition on the practice of holiness. The holiness of God is thus revealed in relationship to the redemption of Israel out of Egypt. Consequently, it is not until after the exodus that God calls upon His people to live holy lives. The Mosaic Covenant is established so that Israel would be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6). While there are hints at how holiness is to be practiced by the people of God earlier in the Pentateuch, it is in the 19th chapter of the Book of Leviticus that holiness is defined in great detail.

Leviticus 19 is a crucial chapter for Christians (as well as the ancient Israelites) for a variety of reasons. First, it is important because of the distorted perceptions of holiness. Holiness is a term which is used more than it is understood. It is one thing for holiness not to be understood; it is even worse that it is misunderstood. There are many misconceptions in Christian circles as to what holiness really is. In the King James Version of the Bible, the terms “holy” and “holiness” do not occur until the Book of Exodus.

Second, Leviticus 19 is vitally important because of the desperate need for the practice of holiness. As badly as holiness is misunderstood by Christians, it is practiced even more pathetically. Holy living is something which is not characteristic of the last days (cf. 2 Tim. 3), and it surely is not characteristic of Christianity in our own days as well.

Third, many sincere Christians have gone astray seeking an unholy holiness. Many Christians who have been sidetracked into one of the cults have pursued a false conception of holiness. People generally do not join a cult in order to forsake holiness, but to attain it.

Fourth, Leviticus 19 is important to us because of the prominence of its teaching in the New Testament. Both our Lord (Matt. 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27) and the apostles (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:16) make a great deal of the two great commandments which are given here: “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2b). “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18b).

We must approach this chapter with these things in mind, because there are several factors which might incline us to hastily conclude that this chapter is irrelevant to 20th century Christians. In the first place there are some commands given here which are difficult to understand, even as they relate to the Israelite. Secondly, there are some commands which are clearly inapplicable to New Testament saints. Thirdly, this chapter appears not to have any real structure, and thus to deal with a wide variety of areas of the Israelites’ lives in a kind of miscellaneous category.109

The chapter does, however, have a clear structure, which is indicated by the recurring phrase (in one form or another), “I am the LORD.” Wenham110 outlines the structure in this way:

1-2a

Introduction

2b-10

Religious Duties

2b

Be holy

3

Honor parents and sabbath

4

No idolatry

5-10

Sacrifices and food

11-18

Good Neighborliness

11-12

Honesty

13-14

No exploitation

15-16

Justice in court

17-18

Love your neighbor

19-37

Miscellaneous Duties

19-25

No mixed breeding

26-28

No pagan practices

29-30

No sacred prostitution

31

No necromancy

32

Respect the old

33-34

Love the alien

35-36

Fair trading

37

Closing exhortation

Our approach to this chapter will be to briefly overview the entire chapter, noting the characteristics of the commands contained here. Then we will concentrate on the two primary commands of the chapter, which are both reiterated and reinforced in the New Testament (19:2, 18). Finally, we will consider some of the distortions and abuses of holiness in ancient Israel, in Israel in New Testament times, and in the subsequent history of church.

Overview:
Characteristics of the Commandments

We do not have the time to consider the commandments of chapter 19 in detail, but we do need to pause long enough to get a sense of some of the characteristics of these commands.

(1) First, the chapter contains commands which are old and those which are new. The ten commandments, which have been previously laid down by God, are reiterated here.111 In verses 3 and 4, for example, the commandments to honor mother and father, to keep the sabbath, and to keep from idols are a repetition of some of the ten commandments. In verses 5-8 of Leviticus 19, we have a repetition of the ceremonial law pertaining to the peace offering, as prescribed earlier in the Book of Leviticus. There is also the “new” revelation pertaining to not harvesting the corners of the fields (19:9-11). This is appropriate here because the Israelites are now looking forward to entrance into the promised land.

The principle of progressive revelation can thus be seen to be at work in Leviticus chapter 19. Previous commands are repeated, but often in a way that gives a deeper insight into their application. New commands are also given in the light of changing circumstances.

(2) Second, the chapter contains commandments which vary in their relevance and application to New Testament Christians. Some of the commandments contained in this chapter appear112 to have no relevance to the contemporary Christian at all. For example, since we do not have slavery, the commandment pertaining to the punishment of a man who sleeps with a slave girl seems not to apply to contemporary American Christians. So, too with the command prohibiting the eating of the fruit of trees which the Israelites plant, until the fifth year (vv. 23-25). Again, the prohibition of mixing cattle, crops, or kinds of material (v. 19) do not seem to apply.

On the other hand, there are many commandments contained in chapter 19 which directly apply to the contemporary Christian. The commands to reverence mother and father (v. 3), to avoid idols (v. 4), and not to steal, deal falsely, or lie (v. 11) are all applicable to us.

Finally, there are commands which may not directly apply, but the principle can be applied in a slightly different practice that is prescribed. While we do not farm, and thus the command not to harvest the corners of the field does not apply directly, there is the underlying principle of showing compassion for the poor, and of making provision for their needs. Thus, many churches (ours included) will offer work (for pay) to those in need and who are willing to work. Keeping just weights and balances doesn’t directly apply, but we should apply the principle of a fair price for a fair product. Thus, we should not attempt to sell a car or a product for more than it is worth.

Observing that the commands of chapter 19 have different levels of applicability to the contemporary Christian is of great benefit to the student of the Old Testament scriptures, for it suggests a vitally important principle of interpretations when dealing with the Old Testament: WHEN INTERPRETING THE OLD TESTAMENT, DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACCEPT, REJECT, OR REVISE THE TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT?

Years ago, one of my Old Testament teachers in seminary suggested this guideline, and it has been of great value. In Leviticus chapter 19 we find commands which fit into each of these categories. Some are carried directly over into the New Testament; others are modified in practice, but based upon the same principle; and others seem to be totally unnecessary. It is by a careful comparison of the Old Testament texts to the teaching of the New Testament that these decisions can be reached.

The Two Primary Commands

Our passage contains two primary commands (Lev. 19:2, 18), both of which are taken up in the New Testament. It is essential that we understand these commands if we are to fathom the force of this text. We can do this by focusing our attention on two matters: (1) the necessity of holiness, and (2) the nature of holiness.

The Necessity of Holiness

The necessity of holiness is found in the first primary commandment: “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Note the following factors relative to this command.

(1) The necessity of holiness is seen by the fact that the entire nation of Israelites is commanded to be holy. Thus, holiness is not an option, but an imperative.

(2) The command also provides a motivation for holiness. Certainly, the fact that God commands His people to be holy should serve to motivate them, but this is not my point here. In the King James Version of the Bible the terms “holy” and “holiness” do not occur until the Book of Exodus. The holiness of God is manifested in the deliverance of His people from Egypt, and by the manifestation of His glory from Mt. Sinai. Thus, the people should have been motivated to live a life of holiness, based on their gratitude for the redemption God had accomplished.

(3) There is also a provision for the holiness which God required of His people. The law which was given as a part of the Mosaic Covenant was God’s standard of holiness, and obedience to this law was the means to holiness. God did not command His people to be holy without telling them how to be holy.

(4) Finally, God Himself provided the pattern for holiness. God is holy, which is the basis for Israel’s holiness. The holiness of God is thus the pattern for Israel’s holiness. Israel was not only to be holy because God is holy; they were to be holy as (like) God is holy. The actions which God required were those which He had already performed on behalf of His people.

The Nature of Holiness

We have seen that holiness is a necessity for the people of God, but it remains for us to discern the nature of this holiness. Just what was the holiness, which God required, to be like?

(1) Holiness involved obedience to the commandments of God. God did not leave His people in the dark as to what holiness consisted of. The bottom line was that holiness consisted of obedience to the laws of God, obedience to His commandments.

(2) Holiness involved sacrifice, in that it is costly. Holiness entails sacrifice. Of course, holiness required sacrifices—those outlined in the early chapters of Leviticus. But more than this, every act of obedience to the commandments of God was a sacrificial act. Obedience to God’s commandments was costly. Not cutting the corners of one’s fields cut into one’s “profit margin,” as did selling with honest weights and measures. Abstaining from eating the fruit from one’s trees for five years and observing the sabbath days was also costly. Holiness was a sacrifice.

(3) Holiness was more than a matter of observing religious rituals—it was intensely practical piety, involving a wide variety of actions as a part of one’s everyday life. True, holiness involved those special ceremonies and special holy days and going to that special place, the tabernacle, where rites were performed by a special priestly class. But chapter 19 describes a very practical, everyday, kind of holiness, of honoring parents, of honesty and kindness and compassion and justice.

(4) Holiness is the imitation of God. In the ultimate sense, living a holy life is the imitation of God, who alone is holy. Thus, when our Lord came to the earth and lived “under the law,” fully keeping the law, He manifested the holiness of God to men.

(5) Holiness was here to be revealed positively, rather than negatively. If you and I were honest, I believe that we would have to admit that we think of the holiness of God in rather negative terms. God’s holiness, for example, is thought of in terms of His hatred of sin and of His judgment of sinners. This, of course, is one dimension of God’s holiness, but it is not the dimension in focus in Leviticus 19. God’s holiness was manifested by His compassion on the Israelites when they were afflicted in Egypt, and when He delivered them from their bondage. So, too, holiness is to be manifested by the people of God by their kindness, grace, and compassion on others, especially the needy and the afflicted.

If the negative aspects of God’s holiness were in view here we should be reading of God’s command to slay all of the Canaanites, including their children, but this is not the focus of the holiness which is here required.

The positive and negative dimensions of God’s holiness can be seen in the two comings of Christ. In His first coming (His incarnation, ministry on earth, death, burial, and resurrection), our Lord did not come to judge men, but to grant them forgiveness (cf. John 3:17). Thus, He could tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to go and sin no more (John 8:11). In His second (and still future) coming our Lord will overthrow His enemies and judge the wicked. It will be a bloody occasion from the reports in the Book of Revelation. Yet in both comings the holiness of God is revealed in the person and work of Christ. Thus, holiness has both negative and positive manifestations. We, unfortunately, have focused more on the former than the latter.

(6) Finally (and, most emphatically in Leviticus 19), holiness is practiced by loving one’s neighbor as one’s self (v. 18). There are, as I have suggested, two primary commands in chapter 19: (1) the command to be holy, and (2) to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. There is a direct relationship between these two commands as I understand the chapter. The holiness of God is demonstrated by His people as they love their neighbor. The term “neighbor,” as others have pointed out,113 has a wide range of meaning in this chapter:

  • One’s neighbor is one’s fellow-countryman (v. 11, 17)
  • One’s neighbor is alien, foreigner (v. 10, 32-33, 34)
  • One’s neighbor is those who are weak and vulnerable (v. 10, 14)
  • One’s neighbor is one’s enemy (v. 17-18)

It is not that holiness is manifested only by one’s loving one’s neighbor, but it is here emphasized that holiness must include an active love for one’s neighbor. Thus, just as God’s holiness is seen in His love for Israel in the Old Testament, and for the world in its weakness and need in the New, so God’s people must demonstrate God’s holiness as they show love for their neighbors, especially those in need.

Holiness in the New Testament

As I pointed out at the beginning of this message, the New Testament takes up both commands found in Leviticus 19. Our Lord, referring to the command of Leviticus 19:2, said, “Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). While the term “perfect” is exchanged for the word “holy,” the text He is referring to is obviously our text. Incidentally, the term “perfect” is not a bad definition of “holy,” either.

Other commands from Leviticus 19 are also taken up by our Lord as well. The second primary command of Leviticus 19 required that God’s people love their neighbor as themselves. In the context of chapter 19 it becomes clear that the Israelites’ enemies were included in the broad category of “neighbor.” So, too, loving one’s enemy is taught by our Lord in Matthew 5:48: “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44).

In Leviticus 19:17 the people of God were taught: “You shall not hate your fellow-countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.” So also, in the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:21-26 and 18:15-17 the individual who has been wronged must seek to bring reconciliation (and thus to restore love and harmony) with his neighbor.

The Lord Jesus taught that the command to love one’s neighbor as himself summarized half of the law (cf. Matt. 22:39-40). With this Paul agreed (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14). The apostle Peter also referred to Leviticus 19:2 as the foundation for his call to holy living: “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,114 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet. 1:14-16).

Perversions of Holiness

It should stand to reason that Satan would want to deceive men with regard to the true nature of holiness. The scriptures, along with the history of the church, have recorded a number of ways in which holiness has been distorted. Consider the following misconceptions and distortions.

(1) Stained Glass Holiness. Stained glass holiness is the view that restricts holiness to the realm of the ceremonial. It is “Sunday go to meeting holiness.” Ceremonial holiness thinks of holiness only in terms of special days, of special “holy” places, and of special “holy” activities. It tends to divorce righteousness in everyday living from religious activities and ceremonies.

This error occurred very early in the history of Israel, and has persisted through the centuries. It is condemned by the prophets of Israel. For example, the prophet Amos wrote,

“Therefore, because you impose heavy rent on the poor And exact a tribute of grain from them, Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone, Yet you will not live in them; You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine. For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great, You who distress the righteous and accept bribes, And turn aside the poor in the gate. … I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:11-12, 21-24).

The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day fell into the same error. They were meticulous about ceremonial holiness, and yet they did not love their neighbors. They did not preserve justice and they did not protect the widows and orphans. They had the appearance of ceremonial righteousness, but they lacked practical holiness: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation” (Matt. 23:14).

A classic illustration of the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees can be seen in the events surrounding the cross of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees rejected the Holy One of Israel as one who was unholy, deserving of death. They instigated His death and pressured the Roman authorities to crucify Him. And yet they were meticulous to preserve holiness in the ceremonial details: “The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away” (John 19:31).

It is little wonder that our Lord said to the people concerning the holiness of these “ceremonial saints”: “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). We, too, need to beware of this false holiness, which is meticulous about religious rituals—public prayers, teaching, worship—but do little or nothing in the realm of a practical demonstration of loving our neighbors.

(2) Positional Holiness. Positional holiness is that holiness which is supposed to accompany a certain office or position. For example, the Jews of Jesus’ day would have assumed that a priest (and especially the high priest) was holy. Today, some people assume that because a person is an elder, or a preacher, or a priest, he is holy. This is not necessarily the case at all. In fact, we should be reminded that such positions are strategic targets for Satan’s agents:

But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of sight. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (2 Cor. 11:12-15; cf. also 2 Pet. 2).

The scribes and Pharisees did not even recognize the “Holy One of Israel,” but rather rejected and crucified Him. They assumed, though, that they had to be holy, because of their positions. It is obvious that positions of power and prestige were utmost in the minds of these unholy men:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi” (Matt. 23:1-7).

In spite of the fact that these men held positions of power and honor, they did not do the things of which the Law spoke. Jesus thus affirmed the teaching of Leviticus, that the practice of holiness involved loving one’s neighbor and doing what the Law commanded. The scribes and Pharisees sat in “the chair of Moses” but they did not do the deeds of the Law. They were not holy.

The disciples of our Lord fell into the trap of equating position and office with piety (holiness). I think this is one of the reasons why they were so concerned with who would be the greatest in the kingdom (Mark 9:33-35). It also helps to explain why the mother of James and John wanted her sons to sit on the right and left hand of the Lord (Matt. 20:20-21).

Before we begin to feel a bit too smug on this point, why is it that contemporary Christianity thinks that it is more spiritual for a person to be in “full-time Christian service” than to be “merely a layman”? The same false perception of holiness underlies the inordinate desire for professional ministry, in many cases. Holiness has nothing to do with one’s occupation (unless, of course, it is intrinsically an immoral task), but rather with one’s obedience to the commands of God in daily living.

By both His teaching and His example, Jesus dealt a death blow to this false conception of holiness. He taught His disciples that status was not the goal of the Christian, but rather service: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Matt. 20:25-27).

His own example speaks louder than anything else. He who had all the position and status and power, He who had all of the visible glory of heaven, set it aside, and took upon Himself human flesh, so that He could suffer and die to save His creatures (Phil. 2:5-8). This act was symbolized by the washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13), and was to be an example they were to follow.

(3) Equating Holiness With the Miraculous. Here is one of the most subtle and dangerous errors of all—assuming that wherever miracles are performed, God must be present and the person must be holy. There are two tests of a true prophet laid down in the Old Testament, which ought not to be forgotten by the New Testament saint. The first is that of an evidence of divine power:

“‘But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:20-22).

Contrary to popular opinion, this text does not teach what some have assumed. It does not teach us that any prophet whose words come true is a true prophet. It teaches that any prophet whose words do not come true is a false prophet. The absence of the miraculous element is proof of a false prophet, but the presence of the miraculous is not necessarily proof of being a true prophet. This is clearly seen in an earlier text:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him” (Deut. 13:1-4).

Here it is recognized that false prophets will manifest miraculous power. The “acid test” of a true prophet is not the presence of miracles, but his adherence to the Word of God.

The Lord’s words in the New Testament seem to go even farther:

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits … So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Therefore every one who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock” (Matt. 7:15-16a, 20-24).

False prophets will be known by their fruits. Their fruits do not include miracles, which they may well perform (prophesy, exorcisms, miracles), but are the keeping of our Lord’s words, which in the context of the Sermon on the Mount are the heart of the Old Testament Law. These “miracle-workers” are said to practice lawlessness. Those who are wise, Jesus taught, will, unlike the false prophets, hear His words and act on them.

Here is one of the great dangers of all time. Some Christians are remarkably gullible, and will eagerly follow any person who appears to be holy, as demonstrated (they think) by having miraculous power. The fruits by which we are to determine one’s holiness are the fruits of keeping our Lord’s commands, not those of signs and wonders, which Satan is also able to produce (cf. Rev. 13:13). Power is not synonymous with piety. Even Christians, who have miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, may exercise these from carnal motives and for carnal purposes. In his first epistle to the Corinthians the apostle Paul tries to show that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s power through gifted people is not proof of their piety. Those who seemed to have the most spectacular gifts (and thus the largest following) were not the most spiritual.

(4) Isolational Holiness. Over the centuries, men have tended to equate holiness with separation. One’s holiness could be measured in terms of the distance between the “saint” and the “sinner.” No wonder the “holy” scribes and Pharisees were shocked by the fact that Jesus spent time with “sinners” rather than with them: “And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, ‘Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?’” (Mark 2:16). Jesus answer was that He came to save sinners. He who was holy was not defiled by being in the presence of sinners. It was His intrinsic holiness and the holiness of His actions which proved Him to be the Holy One of Israel.

Christians down through the centuries have been tempted to be sanctified by physical separation from “sinners,” forgetting that the “world” is only one source of corruption, while the “flesh” and the devil are also sources of contamination and temptation. Thus there have been the cave dwellers, the hermits, and the monks, who have sought spirituality (holiness) by separation. Jesus, however, taught that holiness needed to be manifested and multiplied by penetration, not isolation:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing any more, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:13-17).

Jesus taught the principle of penetration, which is precisely what He practiced. Holiness was incarnated in Christ, and was evidenced by His fulfillment of the Law. So it must be in His followers. There is a kind of “separation” being practiced by Christians today which has a form of godliness, but which denies God’s power to sanctify in the presence of sinners, who will not see the holiness of God or be saved apart from a demonstration of it in their world.

(5) Holiness by Redefinition. The scribes and Pharisees were ingenious at getting around the Word of God. Thus, they re-defined the Law to conform to their own sinfulness. If holiness was manifested by loving one’s neighbor, they re-defined “neighbor” to be their friends and fellow-countrymen.

When a pagan asked for a statement of Israel’s law in its shortest form, Hillel, the contemporary of Jesus, expressed this as ‘whatever is hateful to you, do not do this unto your countryman,’ and he added that ‘this is the whole law; all else is merely interpretation. There remains an enormous difference between this saying of Hillel and God’s demand, however. Furthermore, in Jesus’ requirement a person’s neighbor is not limited to members of his own people (Luke 10:29-37), and pre-Christian Judaism was never able to ascend to this thought. 115

The hypocrisy of Judaism is seen in Luke chapter 10, where our Lord has summarized the teaching of the Old Testament law: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). To this, the Israelite lawyer sought to defend himself by responding, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29).

Here was the rub. To the scribes and Pharisees, their neighbor was their friend, their fellow-Israelite. Our Lord’s response to this, the story of the Good Samaritan, showed that one’s neighbor included those in need, even those of another nation. This interpretation precisely conforms to the teaching of Leviticus 19.

In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord exposed this error, very early (it would seem) in His ministry:

“You have heard that it was said,116 ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:43-48).

It seems to me that we have tended to this same error, in a variety of ways. One is that we seem to be placing more emphasis on “fellowship” than we are on evangelism. We are spending more time with other Christians in church than we are “in the streets” with the lost. We are spending more money on church buildings, staff, and programs than we are on helping the poor. In essence, our spirituality is more self-centered (self in the sense of Christian-oriented) than sinner-oriented.

There is an even more deadly evil in our age, however, one that has been the dubious distinction of our generation to contrive. While the Jews redefined but one term, “neighbor,” we have redefined the entire command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I say this to our great shame.

Our age is extremely self-centered. Rather than having a heart for others—our “neighbors,” we have become preoccupied with ourselves, with our “self-image.” The new evil of our day is having a “poor self-concept.” This has been cited as the cause for nearly every sin. Thus, we are being told (even from the pulpit), “We cannot love God, nor can we love men, until we first love ourselves.” This concept fits perfectly into the sinful, selfish, self-oriented spirit of our age. It sanctifies many evils. It directly ignores biblical theology and our Lord’s teaching. It flies in the face of the teaching of Leviticus 19. It comes from the pit of hell. God spare us from this kind of redefinition. God enable us to lay down our lives for others, to place the interests of others above ourselves (Phil. 2).

Herein is true holiness, obeying the commands of God by loving our neighbor as ourselves. May God grant us to do this.


109 “However manifold the commandments, which are grouped together rather according to a loose association of ideas than according to any logical arrangement, they are all linked together by the common purpose expressed in ver. 2 in the words, ‘Ye shall be holy, for I am holy, Jehovah your God.’” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 418.

“This chapter covers such a variety of topics that the modern reader finds difficulty in seeing any rhyme or reason in its organization. But once it is recognized that ‘I am the Lord (your God)’ marks the end of a paragraph, its structure becomes much clearer.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 263.

110 Wenham, pp. 263-264.

111 In a footnote, Wenham lists the repetitions of the Decalogue: “Verse 4, cf. Exod. 20:3-6; v. 12, cf. Exod. 20:7; vv. 3, 30, cf. Exod. 20:8-12; v. 16, cf. Exod. 20:13; vv. 20-22, 29, cf. Exod. 20:14; vv. 11, 13, cf. Exod. 20:15; vv. 15-16, cf. Exod. 20:16; vv. 17-18, cf. Exod. 20:17.” Wenham, p. 264, fn. 1.

112 I must express a note of caution here because there is always the danger of calling a commandment “irrelevant” which, in the light of further study and reflection, may prove to be otherwise. For example, I would have been inclined to think that the command, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut. 25:4), irrelevant, except for the fact that Paul applies the underlying principle of this command to the payment of those who preach (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1-14).

113 Wenham writes, “Different words for ‘neighbor’ are used within this section, so that v. 18 forms a literary as well as a theological climax to the whole passage. (1) Fellow citizen—I am the Lord (vv. 11-12); (2) neighbor—I am the Lord (vv. 13-14); (3) Fellow citizen, people, neighbor (vv. 15-16); (4) Brother, fellow citizen, people neighbor—I am the Lord (vv. 17-18). Wenham, p. 267.

114 Notice the similarity of this exhortation from the pen of Peter to that of God in the first five verses of Leviticus chapter 19. Indeed, I am increasingly impressed with the degree to which Peter has borrowed from the terminology and theology of Leviticus in his epistle. Thus, Peter buttressed his call to holy living on the fact that his readers, like the Israelites of old, had been called to be a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5). There are many parallels between Peter’s exhortations in his epistle and God’s commands in Leviticus.

115 A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), pp. 199-200.

116 I have pointed this out elsewhere, but I must reiterate that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus proclaimed and defended the teaching of the Old Testament Law. He did not give another Law, as some suggest. The expression, “You have heard that it was said,” refers to the interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees, not to the actual teaching of the Old Testament. Jesus sought to restore the true teaching of the Old Testament, not to throw it out and replace it. He came, as He said, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

Passage: 

15. Capital Crimes (Leviticus 20)

Introduction

One sure way to start an argument is to introduce a very controversial topic into the conversation. One such topic is that of capital punishment. Since capital punishment is the central theme of Leviticus chapter 20, it may appear that we are approaching a very sensitive subject. Actually, I do not believe that our text has very much to say regarding the contemporary debate over capital punishment. In fact, I want to settle this issue before we even begin to study our text. I do not think that Leviticus chapter 20 was recorded to convince 20th century Christians of the need for capital punishment any more than I believe that the primary purpose of Genesis 1 and 2 is to refute the relatively recent theory of evolution.

It should be clear at the outset that the Old Testament in general, and our text in particular, requires capital punishment in a number of instances. The issue, however, is whether or not the capital punishment of Leviticus can be viewed as timeless and universal, so that what God commanded Israel to observe is also binding on those who lived in later dispensations. Some would dogmatically maintain that Old Testament texts such as ours do make capital punishment a mandate. Let us beware in being too dogmatic on the basis of our text, however, since it “proves” far more than we would wish. Are we willing to insist on capital punishment for every offense which is listed here? We may insist that God’s word requires the life of the murderer, but do we also insist that the one who has sexual relations with his wife during her monthly period also has to die for such a sin?

The New Testament does seem to suggest that even heathen governments have the right to execute criminals. In John 19:11 our Lord implied that Pilate had the legal right to take human life in the form of capital punishment. So, too, the apostle Paul seems to say that government may “bear the sword” so as to be able to pronounce and execute the death sentence (Rom. 13:4). Following the three-fold question which I raised last week (Does the New Testament accept, reject, or revise a particular teaching or command of the Old Testament?), I would say that the New Testament “modifies” the teaching which we find in texts such as Leviticus chapter 20.

The principle issue addressed by Leviticus 20 is not whether or not governments should execute men for their crimes, but whether or not God does so. And if He does, as both the Old and New Testaments demonstrate, then we had best devote our attention to discovering the reasons why He does so. We should identify those reasons so that we can avoid committing any of these “capital crimes.” This will be the principle aim of our study.

The Approach of This Message

Our approach in this lesson will be to begin by making some general, overall observations about chapter 20. Then I will attempt to surface some of the “tensions of the text” which present the contemporary Christian (and the Old Testament saint as well) with some difficulties, but also point the way to the interpretation of the passage. Next I will seek to resolve these tensions or problems by finding an explanation for them in the Old Testament. Finally, looking through the filter of the revelation of the New Testament, we will seek to discover how the principles underlying God’s determination of what constitutes a capital crime apply to your life and mine.

The Context of Leviticus 20

Chapter 20 falls into the broader context of chapters 18-20, which stress the practical outworkings of holiness in the everyday life of the Israelite. Chapter 18 has focused primarily on the family . Chapter 19 approaches holiness from the standpoint of one’s neighbor, and here God requires that His holiness be reflected by His people loving their neighbor. Chapter 20 follows up the teaching of the previous two chapters by prescribing the punishment for the capital crimes forbidden which have been outlined there. The serious nature of the punishment of these crimes serves to strongly underscore the importance of obeying the commands found in these chapters.

Structure of Chapter 20

The structure of the chapter can be seen as outlined below:

  • Prohibition: Molech and Mediums (vv. 1-6)
  • Exhortation to be holy: Obey God’s Statutes (vv. 7-8)
  • Prohibition: Sins against the Family (vv. 9-21)
  • Exhortation to holiness: Keep God’s Ordinances (vv. 22-26)
  • Prohibition of Mediums: Must be executed (v. 27)

Observations of Leviticus 20

The general tone of the chapter, along with some of the “tensions,” becomes evident in the following observations:

(1) The chapter prescribes capital punishment117 for some of the sins forbidden in chapters 18 & 19.118

(2) There is a co-participation between God and His people Israel in condemning and executing those who are guilty of these capital crimes. Men must cooperate with God in judging the wicked or they become accessories to the crime (vv. 4-5).

(3) Not all capital crimes are listed here, but only selected capital crimes. In particular, those capital crimes are listed which have been forbidden in the immediately preceding context.

(4) The capital crimes mentioned here are not those which we would have expected, those which governments generally condemn, such as “murder,” “kidnapping,” and “rape.”

(5) The capital crimes of this chapter are not those which are universal, applicable in all dispensations, and would thus be directly applicable to or binding upon the 20th Century Christian.

(6) Quite frankly, some of these capital crimes are offenses which we might doubt as worthy of the death penalty. For example, one finds it difficult to conceive of a man having sexual relations with his wife during her monthly period as being a crime on a par with murder, adultery, or incest.

The ‘Tensions of the Text’

These general observations present the thoughtful reader with some perplexing questions, which I call the “tensions of the text.” These are troubling questions which occur to the reader as a result of grasping what is being said in the text. Such tensions are critical to good study and interpretation of the Bible, for I believe they are the means of finding the heart of the issue being taught, or what I call the “punch of the passage.” Let us consider the tensions which the above observations pose for the reader.

(1) Why is it that some seemingly minor offenses are considered capital crimes in Leviticus 20? Why, for example, should one be executed for having sexual relations with his wife, during her monthly period? Today, this is viewed as simply a matter of personal preference and nothing more. Having sex with another man’s wife we can more readily accept as a capital crime, but having sex with one’s own wife at a certain time of the month seems excessively severe.

(2) Why are the capital crimes listed in Leviticus 20 “odd-ball” capital crimes? The offenses listed here are those which, at least to the 20th century reader, seem off-beat and unusual. We would have expected this list of capital crimes to be quite different. Murder, kidnapping, and rape are the kinds of sins which nearly every government condemns and severely punishes. But the sins listed in chapter 20 are not of this type.

(3) The bottom line is this: why does what God calls worthy of death differ from our expectations of what He should have listed?

The solution to our dilemma, to these “tensions in our text,” is to discern those principles on which these particular capital crimes are selected, rather than others. We must, in other words, discern the divine reasoning and rational behind the crimes which are called capital. Here is the key to the correct interpretation of our passage, and the key to understanding its relevance to us.

The ‘Punch of the Passage’

Before attempting to answer the questions raised by our text, we must begin by establishing a fundamental premise: CAPITAL CRIMES REFLECT A GIVEN SYSTEM OF VALUES.

Acts which are called capital crimes are those which are considered most evil, and thus reflect the value system of the one (or ones) making the laws. Since capital punishment is the most serious penalty men can execute, those crimes which are capital crimes are those acts which are viewed as the ultimate evil.

Let me illustrate. In our country, it is possible, even likely, that a man might spend more time in prison for stealing than for murder or rape. This suggests that our society has become materialistic, and that those who take away our goods will be severely punished because we value things so highly.

This can be illustrated in another way. Think of the “crimes” for which our society is willing to put a person to death. While capital punishment for crimes such as murder and kidnapping is widely opposed by many, we will put the elderly to death for the crime of becoming a burden on us, for being a nuisance. The child that is born with a serious defect may be starved to death or have surgery which is necessary to preserve its life withheld so that the parents won’t be burdened with an “inferior” child. And, to cap it all off, we pronounce an infant in the womb worthy of death (and thus let the abortionist kill it) because it interferes with the freedom and pleasure of the parents. Our society has surely turned God’s values upside-down. The innocent are put to death because they violate our autonomy, our freedom, our pleasure. Our values become evident by those whom we sentence to death.

The only conclusion which we can reach from these illustrations is that our society worships money, freedom, and pleasure. These are the gods of 20th century America.

So, too, the capital crimes of Leviticus chapter 20 reflect God’s system of values. If it happens that we are troubled by what God has condemned as worthy of death, then we must recognize that our value system must be “out of sync” with God’s. What, then, are God’s values, which are the basis for His choice of capital crimes?

God’s Values, as Seen in Leviticus 20

There are several principles evident in our text which explain why the crimes listed are capital offenses, worthy of death. Let us consider these principles very carefully.

The first tension raised by our text was the fact that capital punishment seems to be prescribed for offenses which are not all that serious. The solution to this dilemma is to be found in our first principle. PRINCIPLE ONE: GOD VIEWS EVERY SIN AS A CAPITAL CRIME, WORTHY OF DEATH.

Let’s face it, you and I would not have deemed a man worthy of death for having sex with his wife during her monthly period. Our society views this totally as a matter of preference. This offense, which is but a misdemeanor in our minds, was a felony to God, a capital crime, deserving the death penalty. Our problem is solved when we come to view sin as a horrid crime against a holy God. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, does this seem such a heinous crime that it necessitated not only the death of these two persons, but also the death of all their offspring?

In the midst of our consternation that God would condemn a person to death for what we would call a minor offense, let us not forget that the Bible portrays every sin as worthy of death. The wages of sin, we are told, is death (Rom. 6:23). There is no such thing as a small sin in God’s sight.

Society finds it necessary to categorize evils, and rightly so. It classifies crimes in relation to the harm which is done to society. Stealing a piece of fruit from a grocery store is therefore not viewed as being as socially destructive as killing the grocer would be. Thus, society categorizes sins as felonies and misdemeanors, as being in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree. It fines men for the commission of certain crimes, imprisons men for others, and executes some for still others.

God views sin differently. God looks upon sin not only in terms of the action and its consequences, but also in terms of the attitude which is evidenced. At the bottom line, sin is an act of rebellion against God. It matters little what form our rebellion takes, for any act of rebellion against the sovereign God is worthy of death. Why should we be surprised, then, when God prescribes the death penalty for any sin, even one which we view as minimal? We ought rather to ponder the grace of God in not striking every one of us dead for our endless succession of acts of rebellion against Him.

The fact that all sins are capital crimes has a number of significant implications. Let us consider some of them.

(1) Since all sins are capital sins, worthy of death, all men desperately need to experience God’s provision for sinners—forgiveness through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross, bearing the (capital) punishment which we deserve.

We may deceive ourselves into thinking that God will accept us into His heaven because we are less sinful than others, but God views any sin as worthy of the death penalty. Thus, regardless of how society stratifies the sins we commit, God hates all sin and must, in His holiness, punish them. Some seem to find comfort in the fact that Jesus refused to condemn men in His first coming, even refusing to take part in the execution of the woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8). This is because His first coming was not to condemn men, but to save them: “For God did not send the son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:17-18).

Let us not be lulled into a false sense of security, however, for while Christ’s first coming was not to pronounce God’s sentence on men, His second coming is. A reading of the 19th chapter of the Book of Revelation makes this painfully and dramatically clear. Let us be warned that all sin is worthy of death, that Jesus Christ has borne the death penalty in our place, but all those who reject Him now as Savior will face Him later as judge and executioner. If the ultimate penalty is eternal death—hell—then the ultimate crime is to reject Christ, who came to bear the penalty of sin and to break the power of death. Let us not reject Him who alone saves.

(2) The fact that all sins are capital crimes means that no sinner should feel more righteous than another. There is no room for self-righteousness if God views all sins as capital offenses. The scribes and Pharisees looked down their noses at the “sinners,” who were guilty of those offenses which the religious leaders had considered greater than their own. If we are not guilty of one form of sin, we are surely guilty of another, and seen from God’s point of view, the kind of sin of which we are guilty matters little. Thus, no sinner should feel more righteous than another. As James has put the matter, to be found guilty of offense at one point is to fall short in all points (cf. James 2:1-13, esp. v. 10).

Our second tension of this text concerned the fact that the capital offenses listed in Leviticus were not those commonly defined by society. In other words, the capital crimes of Leviticus were “oddball” crimes, rather than the typical crimes which governments almost universally condemn. This tension is solved by PRINCIPLE TWO: GOD’S LAW REFUSED TO DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SINS AND CRIMES.

As a rule, governments do not concern themselves with moral matters, sins, but rather with social evils, crimes. As a friend of mine once put it: “There are a lot of crimes which aren’t sins, and there are a lot of sins which aren’t crimes.”

Those acts which God identified as capital crimes in Leviticus chapter 20 could also be called sins, for in the Law of Moses and in the Old Testament order sins were crimes. This is not universally true among nations however. Usually governments distinguish between crimes and sins. Governments don’t bother themselves with sins (that is, those acts which are against God) but with crimes (offenses against men).

The capital crimes listed in Leviticus 20 are those sins which the Canaanites would not have considered crimes at all. Thus, the Israelites would have been especially tempted to do the things penalized by death in our text.

The issue here is the difference between legality, or between crime (that which men declare to be a punishable social evil) and sin (that which God declares to be evil, and thus worthy of death). God is especially emphasizing the punishment for those sins (acts contrary to His law, as given at Mt. Sinai) which were not crimes (according to Egyptian or Canaanite law). God’s people are especially vulnerable to sins which are not crimes, for two reasons. First, the sins which are not crimes are acts which our culture will encourage us to commit. Secondly, the sins which are not crimes do not seem to have immediate (and dire) consequences. And so we are more naturally inclined to follow the speed limit than we are to shun covetousness.

In 1973 the Supreme Court overruled a law which declared abortion to be a crime. Before 1973, some women had abortions anyway, and became guilty of both a sin and a crime. After 1973 however, countless more women have had an abortion, largely because what was once both a sin and a crime is now no longer a crime. When God made certain sins crimes as well, the Israelites were strongly motivated to obey God’s laws and to avoid sin.

This lifestyle which is distinct from that of the surrounding nations is emphasized in chapters 18 and 20:

  • Don’t do as Egyptians did or Canaanites do (18:1-5)
  • Defilement will lead to expulsion from land (18:24-30)
  • General encouragement to obey (20:7-8)
  • More specific encouragement, with reference to evils of the land and to being expelled from land for sin (20:22-26)

Usually sins and crimes are not always synonymous. This was not true in Israel’s theocracy, but it is generally true, especially when that government is essentially godless and pagan. In such cases, government too often declares the practice of righteousness to be a crime, as when Darius was deceived into declaring prayer to be unlawful (Daniel 6) or when the Jews declared witnessing in the name of Jesus to be against the law (Acts 5). In such cases, God’s people must be righteous even when it is illegal to do so.

Recognizing the difference between sins and crimes is vital to godly living in America. In past years, America’s laws reflected Christian morality, thus homosexuality was a crime and divorce was not easily obtained. Now, however, we live in a post-Christian day. The fact that professing Christians are now getting divorced almost as often as unbelievers is not to be credited so much to a declining morality as to a changing legality. I am not convinced that Christians of a bygone day stayed together out of obedience to God so much as out of respect for the law.

Today, Christians must wake up to the fact that living a godly life requires much more than being a law-abiding citizen. If the Christian is to be distinct as one who belongs to God—as the Old and New Testaments both require (cf. Matt. 5:43-48; 1 Peter 2, 4), then we must live according to a much higher standard than the laws of our land. At times, we must even violate them, if obedience to God requires it. The American way of life is not a high enough standard for Christians. Let us live higher than the law demands, for avoiding sin requires this. The law can define what is crime, but God defines what is sin.

Our third tension in the text of Leviticus chapter 20 had to do with God’s basis for identifying certain acts as capital crimes. This tension is resolved by PRINCIPLE THREE: THE CAPITAL CRIMES OF LEVITICUS 20 ARE VIOLATIONS OF GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL.

The crimes in Leviticus for which death is prescribed are all crimes against God’s covenant given Israel from Mt. Sinai. The purpose of the covenant, God continually emphasized, was to set Israel apart from the surrounding nations, to distinguish them by means of holiness, as His people (cf. Exod. 19:5-6). The Mosaic Covenant was the definition of the holiness which God required in order for Him to dwell among this people and for them to be His holy nation. Thus, to violate that covenant was to seek to thwart the purposes of God for His people. The crimes which God punished by death were those against His covenant.

No wonder the sins which God defined as capital crimes were not declared crimes by the Canaanites. These were the very things which the Canaanites practiced and promoted, and for doing so they were thrust out of the land (cf. Lev. 18:1-5, 24-30; 20:22-26).

The crimes which are declared worthy of death in Leviticus 20 are those acts which God called sin previously, and which His covenant clearly prohibited. The reason why any violation of His covenant was a capital offense was that this was God’s expressed will, the basis for His blessing or discipline, the standard for holiness. Whether or not the act appeared to have great social significance, it had great spiritual significance: it would defile the land and God’s sanctuary, thus either causing Him to depart or to drive the nation Israel from the land.

Capital Punishment in the New Testament

Our study of capital punishment in Leviticus inevitably leads us to the New Testament, from which we derive our fourth principle. In the New Testament God is seen to exercise capital punishment on those who disregard His new covenant.

This same principles which we have found in Leviticus chapter 20 are found demonstrated in the New Testament, where God is shown to exercise capital punishment in several instances. When I speak of “capital punishment” here I am referring to direct interventions of God which resulted in the death of individuals. In this sense, God “cut off” these offenders.

Ananias and Sapphira were “cut off” for lying to the Holy Spirit regarding their gift (Acts 5:1-11). The Galatian legalists who perverted the gospel were pronounced “accursed” by the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:6-9). While they were not put to death, they were pronounced worthy of death. The saints in Corinth who inappropriately observed the Lord’s Table suffered sickness and death for their disregard (1 Cor. 11:17-34). So, too, the one who would willfully disregard rebuke and persist in his sin was turned over to Satan, which, apart from repentance, would have led to his death (1 Cor. 5:1-5). In addition, note how strongly Paul reacted to the conduct of Peter when he fell in with the separatism of the Judaizers, based upon the inconsistency of this act with the gospel (Gal. 2).

I contend, therefore, that God looks upon disregard for the New Covenant as an even more serious offense than disregard for the Old. This is precisely the point of the writer to the Hebrews:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:26-31).

If it is a most serious offense—can I say a capital offense—to disregard and disdain the covenant of God, whether the Mosaic or the New Covenant, then what are some of the ways which men are in danger of doing so? Let me conclude by suggesting some very practical dangers.

Twentieth Century Dangers

(1) The danger of rejecting Christ, through whose shed blood the New Covenant has been established. There is one danger which is common to all men, and it is by far the most dangerous. It is the danger of rejecting Christ, who is the means and the mediator of the New Covenant. He died, bearing the penalty of death which we should have borne. If we reject Christ, we have committed the ultimate sin, for which the ultimate penalty—eternal death—is justly appropriate. Do not reject Christ and thus disdain the New Covenant which God has made with men through Him.

(2) Christians disdain and disregard the New Covenant when they persist in sin. This is precisely what the writer to the Hebrews is warning his readers about. Cheap grace sees the shed blood of Christ as a license to sin. Christ died so that men may cease from sin. To persist in sin is, in the words of the biblical text, to “trample underfoot the Son of God,” and to regard “as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (Heb. 10:29). The punishment for such disregard is rightly most severe.

(3) Christians disdain and disobey the New Covenant when they refuse to initiate or participate in the discipline of a wayward saint. As I understand the matter, church discipline is the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament capital punishment. In this case, the Christian initiates discipline by rebuking the guilty party. If, after carrying out the entire process of rebuke (cf. Matt. 18; Gal. 6; 1 Cor. 5) the sinning saint refuses to repent, then the church must “cut off” fellowship. Unless repentance results, the process may well end in the death of the individual, in Paul’s words, “the destruction of his flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5). The sinning saint does not lose his salvation (“that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” (1 Cor. 5:5), but he may well lose his life. Just as the Old Testament Israelite disregarded God’s covenant by failing to take action against the sinner (Lev. 20:4-5), so the New Testament saint does likewise when he or she refuses to exercise church discipline.

(4) We disregard God’s covenant when we disdain or disregard the New Testament “sign of the covenant”—the Lord’s Table (cf. Luke 22:14-23; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). The sign of the Old Covenant was the keeping of the Sabbath. The violation of this observance was penalized by death. I am amazed at how easily Christians find it acceptable to fail to observe the Lord’s Table, the sign of the New Covenant. How can we honor the covenant without observing the sign of the covenant? How can a man love his wife and have no desire to enter into sexual union (the sign of his covenant) with her? We disregard the New Covenant by abstaining from a remembrance of the Lord’s Table. The immediately preceding context of Hebrews chapter 10 exhorts the Christian not to “forsake our own assembling together” (Heb. 10:25).

Furthermore, we disregard the New Covenant when we observe the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner.” The 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians tells us that some were sick and some died because of the drunken and disorderly conduct of those who did observe the Lord’s Table, but in an inappropriate way.

(5) We disregard the New Covenant when we pervert the terms of the covenant—when we distort the gospel. The legalists on the one hand (cf. Gal. 1:6-8) and the libertines on the other (cf. Rom. 6:1; 1 Cor. 8-10; 1 Pet. 2:16; 2 Pet. 2), distort the gospel, thus disdaining the covenant as God has established it. Such are those who are in great danger of divine judgment.

(6) We disregard the New Covenant when we fail to live a life on a higher standard than that of our society. Repeatedly in the Scriptures we find that God expects the Christian to live according to a higher standard than those around them (cf. Lev. 18:1-5, 24-30; 20:22-26; Matt. 5:43-48; 1 Pet. 2:11-25; 4). We must live distinct lives to be “salt” and “light” in our world, and may very well suffer persecution for so doing (Matt. 5:10-16; cf. 1 Pet. 4).

We disregard the New Covenant when we refuse to mortify (“put to death”) the flesh. God has, in Christ, condemned sin in the flesh. We are to mortify our members, to put sin to death in our lives. This is the outcome of the work of Christ, and of walking in His Spirit (cf. Rom. 6-8). To fail to mortify the flesh is to chose to follow Satan and to pursue sin to its logical and ultimate outcome—death (cf. Rom. 8:5-8).

Let us learn to shun those things which God has proclaimed worthy of death, and live in obedience to Him, honoring His covenant with us.


117 It is not universally agreed that every crime listed in chapter 20 is a capital offense. Some, for example, tend to take the expression ‘to cut off’ (e.g. Lev. 20:5) to mean excommunication or expulsion. Wenham mentions this as a possibility, but nevertheless leans toward the view that it means an early, untimely, death, at the hand of God:

“The law refers a number of times to God cutting off an offender, or the guilty person being cut off from among his people (e.g., Exod. 12:15, 19; Lev. 7:20-21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5-6, 17-18; Numb. 15:30-31). It is a punishment generally reserved for religious and sexual offenses. Since some of these offenses may also attract the death penalty, ‘cutting off’ could conceivably be an alternative way of describing capital punishment (e.g., Lev. 20:6 and 27). However, since cutting off is contrasted with judicial execution in Lev. 20:2ff. (the man who escapes stoning must still face the possibility of being cut off), something different must be meant. For one case of incest Babylonian law demands expulsion from the community, where as biblical law speaks of the guilty man being ‘cut off’ (LH 154; cf. Lev. 20:17-18). It could be argued that ‘cutting off’ means excommunication from the covenant community. But this treatment is reserved for the unclean rather than for criminals (Lev. 13:45-46; Num. 5:1-4). It seems best, therefore, to retain the traditional interpretation of ‘cutting off’: it is a threat of direct punishment by God usually in the form of premature death. Insofar as many of the offenses punishable by ‘cutting off’ would easily escape human detection, a threat of divine judgment would have been the main deterrent to committing them.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 285-286

It might be argued that the expressions “they shall bear their guilt” (Lev. 20:19) and “they shall be childless” (20:21) may refer to something less than the death penalty. The context militates against this. For example, it is clearly stated that a man who marries a woman and her mother are to be “burned with fire” (v. 14), so the man who commits adultery and uncovers his brother’s nakedness by taking his brother’s wife surely must die also, even though the text says “they shall be childless” (v. 21). From verse 20, it is made clear that to be childless is to die childless.

118 “Most of the subjects dealt with in this chapter have already been discussed earlier in chs. 18 and 19 (cf. 20:2-5//18:21; 20:6,27//19:31; 20:9//19:3; 20:10-21//18:6-20, 22-23). The exhortations to holiness (vv. 7-8, 22-26) are similar to those found in 11:44-45; 18:2-5, 24-30; 19:36-37.” Wenham, p. 277.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

16. Holiness: The False and the True (Leviticus 21 and 22)

Introduction

I have a confession to make. I almost skipped over Leviticus 21 and 22, thinking that there wasn’t much of importance to the 20th century Christian. Was I ever wrong!

It would be easy to come to the hasty conclusion that these two chapters are irrelevant and hardly worth our time. After all, this is the Old Testament, and we are New Testament saints. This is the Book of Leviticus, and these chapters pertain to the Aaronic priesthood. Furthermore, these chapters deal with ceremonial defilements, which do not carry over into the New Testament. Now if the defilements were sins such as murder, lying, idolatry, that might be another matter … And so our text may seem about as relevant as a speed limit for a horse and buggy on Central Expressway.

There are three compelling reasons for the relevance of these two chapters and for our study of them in this lesson. First, an understanding of Leviticus 21 and 22 will greatly enhance our understanding of the New Testament.

As a public school teacher, and now as one who teaches seminars in prisons, I have found that I can better understand the particular individual I am working with by learning something of his or her background. Attitudes and behavior which are beyond my comprehension often “fit” when I discover the kind of childhood the individual has had and some of the experiences and turning points which have shaped the person’s outlook.

The same can be said for the scribes and Pharisees in the New Testament. From the moment our Lord began His public ministry, He was adamantly opposed by a very powerful, hostile group of Jewish religious leaders—the scribes and Pharisees. Among their number were the priests. Indeed, the priests were instrumental in the crucifixion of our Lord: “Now when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death; and they bound Him, and led Him away, and delivered Him up to Pilate the governor” (Matt. 27:1-2).

The fundamental difference which quickly arose between our Lord and the scribes and Pharisees was the definition of holiness. The scribes and Pharisees had a distorted perception of the Old Testament definition of holiness, which to them was attained by human effort, by avoiding external ceremonial defilement and by observing the prescribed rituals of the Law of Moses. Thus, they concluded that Jesus, who mingled with sinners, who touched lepers, and who challenged their interpretation of the Law, could only be a sinner, operating in the power of Beelzebub. Ultimately, playing their version of holiness and their interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures to their ultimate conclusion, they found Him worthy of death.

This opposition to our Lord did not end with His death, burial, and resurrection. It persisted on, attacking the church, both from without and from within. The Book of Acts records a number of these attacks. The epistles, such as the Book of Galatians, show that the problem was a persistent one, one which the apostles took most seriously.

We will not understand the scribes and Pharisees and their thinking and actions apart from getting a grasp of their background. Much of this background, in my opinion, is to be found in Leviticus 21 and 22. I have to admit I have never really had any empathy for the legalistic scribes and Pharisees until now. I could never really understand where their legalism originated. It was not until I had to personally struggle with the meaning and application of Leviticus 21 and 22 that I gained an appreciation for the trap into which the scribes and Pharisees had fallen, one which could easily happen in one’s study of this passage. I now believe that their error, as seen in the New Testament, originates in our very text, as much or more than any other Old Testament passage.

If we are to understand the opposition of Judaism to our Lord and to His church we must understand how and why the Jewish religious leaders failed to interpret and apply our text correctly. In our study of Leviticus 21 and 22 we shall seek to find the roots of the error of Jesus’ opponents, the scribes and Pharisees.

Second, our study will provide us with instruction concerning the proper interpretation and application of the Old Testament. The New Testament provides us with a clear picture of the erroneous interpretation and application of the Old Testament Law by the scribes and Pharisees.

This morning, when I first came to the church, I went into the men’s room to wash my hands. I discovered to my dismay (after my hands were dripping wet) that the hand towel dispenser was not working properly, so I opened it and placed a new roll of paper in it. On the inside of the cover were two pictures. One was a picture of the “right” way to load the dispenser. Along side was another picture, of the “wrong” way to load it. By viewing the right way alongside the wrong, one could learn how paper should be loaded.

So, too, the New Testament gives us two clear pictures of the interpretation and application of the Old Testament Law—the “wrong” way of the scribes and Pharisees, and the “right” way of our Lord and His apostles. Thus, by comparing and contrasting the false with the true interpretation of the Old Testament Law, we learn a valuable lesson in hermeneutics, the science of biblical interpretation. This is especially helpful when dealing with Old Testament passages, such as our text in Leviticus, which are some of the most difficult texts to interpret and apply for the New Testament Christian.

And so it is that our study will greatly enhance our understanding of the New Testament, as well as to provide us with a model for Old Testament study. But there is yet another benefit of our study in this lesson.

Third, our study of Leviticus 21 and 22 exposes an error which is just as prevalent in the church today as it was in our Lord’s day. The error of the scribes and Pharisees has been perpetuated and even refined over the period of the church’s history from our Lord’s day until the present. Essentially this error has to do with a false perception of holiness. Countless Christians have been led astray into various cults, all of which promise a higher level of holiness than the saint had previously experienced.

The titles of some of the best works on perversions of the spiritual life are evidence of this fact. Dr. Ironside’s excellent little book, Holiness, the False and the True,119 is one example. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Ironside, not only for the title of this lesson, but also for his insight into the perverted versions of holiness offered by the cults. Bussell’s excellent recent book, Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians,120 is another example. Both these books warn the reader that the cults offer the unsuspecting saint a counterfeit holiness, a “holiness” which can often greatly resemble that of the scribes and Pharisees.

And so our study of these two chapters in Leviticus can be of great value to us, in enriching our understanding the New Testament, in providing a model for Old Testament interpretation, and in exposing error which is prevalent in our day. Let us listen well to God’s words in these two chapters.

Our Approach

Our approach in this lesson will be somewhat different from the norm. We will begin by viewing the text in Leviticus through the blinded eyes of the “priests” of Jesus’ day, and then by discerning from our Lord’s teaching what the error of His opponents was. Next, we shall seek to determine how they arrived at their erroneous view from Leviticus 21 and 22. We shall then attempt to see how they went wrong in their interpretation and application of the Law, and finally what Leviticus actually was intended to teach. In conclusion, we shall seek to apply what we have learned to our own lives.

The Structure of Leviticus 21 and 22

Chapters 21 and 22 divide into six sections, with each chapter having three sections. Each section is marked off by the statement, in slightly modified forms, “I am the LORD, who sanctifies you” (21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32). This expression occurs elsewhere only in Leviticus 20:8. The sections and their major topics are as follows:

  • How the priests are to avoid being profaned (21:1-9)
  • How the high priest avoids being profaned (21:10-15)
  • Physical imperfections that profane priests (21:16-24)
  • Defilement and the eating of priest’s food (22:1-9)
  • Those who are entitled to eat the priest’s food (22:10-16)
  • Acceptable offerings (22:17-33)

Observation of Leviticus 21 and 22

While we cannot and will not be able to delve into these two chapters in detail, we must make several overall observations, which are essential to understanding both the correct and the incorrect interpretations of these chapters.

(1) These chapters are addressed to the Aaronic priests (cf. 21:1; 22:1-2) and to the high priest (21:10-15). Chapters 17-20 were addressed to the Israelites in general (including the priests as well, cf. 17:2), defining how holiness was to be practiced in the everyday activities of life. Chapters 21 and 22 return to the priests in particular. Chapters 23 and following will once again be more general.

Since this text was addressed to the priests of Israel, the priests of Jesus’ day would have understood its teaching to apply directly to them. It was their misunderstanding of this text, and their misapplication of it which resulted in their immediate and intense opposition to our Lord, His teaching, and His practice. If the scribes and Pharisees viewed any Old Testament text as “theirs” it was the passage we are studying, for God clearly indicates that it is written to and for the sons of Aaron, the priests of Israel.

(2) These chapters require a higher standard of separation from defilement for the priests. If there is a high standard for the priests (21:1-9), there is an even higher standard for the high priest (21:10-15). The higher the office, the higher the standard. This can be seen in several areas, but let us focus on two examples.

God established a higher standard of separation from defilement for the priests pertaining to death. All Israelites were forbidden to make any baldness on their heads or to shave off the edges of their beards, or to cut their flesh as a sign of mourning (cp. Lev. 19:27; 21:1-5, 10-12; Deut. 14:1). Normally, it would be a near relative who would bury one who died. Naturally, in making physical contact with the dead body, the Israelite would be ceremonially defiled and would have to go through a cleansing process. The priests, however, could only bury their near blood relatives (21:1-4). The high priest could not even leave the tabernacle to participate in mourning, nor was he allowed to have a part in burying even his near relatives (21:10-12).

God also established a higher standard for the priests in the matter of marriage. An ordinary Israelite had greater freedom in his choice of a wife than the priests, who could marry a widow, but not a divorcee (21:7). The high priest could marry only a virgin of his own people (21:13-15).

(3) The nature of the defilement is not that of immoral behavior or of specific sin, but of external ceremonial defilement. The defilement which must be avoided by the priests is not what we would have expected: lying, stealing, idolatry, or murder. Rather, the defilement involves such things as contact with the dead, other forms of ceremonial uncleanness, contamination by marriage, and having some physical defect—all matters which are not what we would call sin. Ceremonial defilement is allowed for the priests, under certain circumstances (cf. 21:2-3), but in every case of forbidden defilement, it is not a matter of sin, but of ceremonial contamination. This fact is a significant element in the error of the scribes and Pharisees.

The Error of the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ Day

I am going to isolate three forms of error of which the scribes and Pharisees are guilty, as exposed by our Lord in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. Let us briefly consider each of these.

Error 1: Elitism

The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day had a distinctly “holier than thou” attitude. The viewed themselves as a spiritual elite, and they looked down upon the masses as inferior. This is particularly evident in two passages:

And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get’” (Luke 18:9-11).

And some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him. The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” The officers answered, “Never did a man speak the way this man speaks.” The Pharisees therefore answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you? No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? But this multitude which does not know the Law is accursed” (John 7:44-49).

While our Lord was amazingly gentle to those who knew and admitted that they were sinners (such as the “woman at the well” in John 4 and the “woman taken in adultery” in John 8), He was vehement in His attack upon the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. The attack began openly with the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). At the outset of the sermon, Jesus pronounced those to be blessed were the opposite of the scribes and Pharisees—the poor, the meek, those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness (Matt. 5:3-9). He also warned the people that their righteousness would have to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees if they would enter into the kingdom of heaven (5:20). And then He set out to show that the interpretation of the Old Testament Law of the scribes and Pharisees was wrong (“You have heard … but I say,” 5:21ff.). When Jesus finished this sermon, the people got the idea. They recognized that “… He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:29).

Thus, the Sermon on the Mount stripped the scribes and Pharisees of their authority in the eyes of the people. It is no wonder that they persistently challenged our Lord’s authority to do and teach as He did (cf. Matt. 21:23).

When Jesus differed in His interpretation from the traditional view held by the scribes and Pharisees, He would respond in a way that highlighted their ignorance. “Have you not read …?” He would ask (cf. Matt. 19:4), suggesting that a simple reading of the Old Testament (on which they thought themselves to be experts) would have shown them to be wrong. And then, He added that the kingdom of God belonged to little children, rather than to the wise (Matt. 19:4, cf. 11:25). His final confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees was so scathing that it precipitated (not by accident) His betrayal, arrest, and crucifixion (Matt. 23).

Where did the scribes and Pharisees go wrong in their interpretation of the Old Testament, which led them to look upon themselves as a spiritual elite? I believe that their error stems from a wrong interpretation of Leviticus 21 and 22. They correctly saw these two chapters were addressed to the priests, not the people. They were also correct in concluding that there was a higher standard of separation required of them. And from this they concluded that they were therefore holier than the laity, the spiritual elite of Israel.

The premises were correct, but the conclusion was wrong. Paul would have characteristically have responded, “God forbid” (cf. Rom. 6:2, 15). Higher standards do not necessarily assure “holier” people. To assume, as these religious leaders did, that one’s position proves his piety is false. Satan delights to place his servants in places of religious position and prominence (cf. Matt. 7:15; 2 Cor. 11:13-14). Look at Judas, or the high priests of the day, who rejected God’s Messiah and had Him put to death as a criminal.

What, then, was Leviticus 21 and 22 intended to teach, if it did not teach that the priests were to be holier than the laymen? I believe that it taught that greater position and privilege brings higher responsibility. In the teaching of our Lord, “To whom much is given, much is required” (cf. Luke 12:48). A greater degree of separation from ceremonial defilement does not make the person holier, however. Note the words of the apostle Paul in reference to this same issue:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Col. 2:20-23).

There was no basis for a descendant of Aaron to assume that his position as a priest proved him to be holier than others, although it did require him to be more careful not to become ceremonially defiled. God has sovereignly chosen Aaron to be Israel’s high priest, and his descendants to be priests. A look at Aaron’s life and ministry quickly shows that neither he (remember he led in the worship of the golden calf, Exod. 32), nor his sons (remember the death of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10), were more holy.

To measure personal holiness in terms of ceremonial and ritual purity is a mistake. The holiness of God is to be manifested through obedience to God’s commands and by loving one’s neighbor as oneself. Remember, too, that even though a priest was ceremonially pure, he still could only approach God by means of the shed blood of an innocent and perfect sacrificial animal.

The priests were those who offered the sacrifices of the people, and thus a higher standard of conduct was essential to assure that the offerings which they sacrificed were acceptable to God (Lev. 21:6). In addition, the priests were also leaders in Israel. It is my observation that leaders, in the Old Testament and the New (cf. 1 Tim. 3), are required to live according to a higher standard, and for good reason. Leaders are to exemplify God’s ideals for character and conduct, not the minimum standard. To allow leaders to live according to the lowest standard, rather than according to the ideal, would be to encourage the people to live the same way, rather than to challenge them to the highest level of conduct.

The scribes and Pharisees were wrong to view themselves as the spiritual elite. If anything, the higher standards God requires for leaders should cause one to be even more sensitive to impurity and contamination in his or her life, and thus to be humbled by a position of leadership. Humility, not pride, is the mark of God’s leaders. Leviticus was written to assure a greater sensitivity toward corruption on the part of the priests, not to create a sense of pride, as though they were better because God required more of them.

Error 2: Externalism (Ceremonialism)

We noted previously that the things which contaminated the priests and thus which were to be avoided, were not flaws of character, or even of conduct (sins, such as lying, idolatry, murder, stealing), but were ceremonial defilements, such as contact with the dead, marriage to one who was not a virgin, or having some physical defect. In other words, it would be easy to falsely equate piety (holiness) with ritual cleanness.

This connection should not have been made so simplistically by the scribes and Pharisees, but the gospel accounts inform us that this is what happened. The scribes and Pharisees thought that holiness was primarily a matter of external, ceremonial cleanness. Thus, for the scribes and Pharisees holiness was largely a matter of keeping one’s distance from defilement, and especially from “sinners.” These sinners just happened to be those whom they loathed anyway, so it was an easy thing to be “pure.”

Ceremonial washings were a fetish to the scribes and Pharisees, and they could not fathom how Jesus and His disciples could eat with “unwashed hands” (cf. Mark 7:1ff.). Worse yet, they were repulsed by the fact that Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:15-16). When Jesus healed those who were “defiled” by leprosy, He touched them (cf. Matt. 8:1-3), an incomprehensible act to the meticulous scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus finally had to confront the issue directly. He did so by teaching that defilement does not come from without (the external), but from within (the heart):

“Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man … That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts and fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, sensuality, envy, slander, price and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:14b-15, 20-23).

Jesus persistently held to this view of defilement. He taught this, not as a new revelation, something distinct and different from the Law of Moses, but as being taught by the Law. So, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus pressed beyond the external evil condemned by the Law to the inner evil, the evil attitudes which led to the evil actions. Murder, He taught, was caused by hate, and thus the Law required that men deal with hatred (Matt. 5:21ff.). Adultery was caused by lust, and thus the Law taught that men must deal (drastically, cf. Mark 9:43ff.) with the sin at its roots, at its source. Again and again the inner is emphasized as primary and the outer as secondary (cf. Matt. 15:16-20; 23:25-28). Both must be attended to (Matt. 23:23), but inner impurity is always presented as the cause of outer defilement (the effect).

But does our Lord’s teaching square with the instructions given to the priests in Leviticus 21 and 22? Our Lord taught that the emphasis should be inward and not outward, and that this was the teaching of the Law as well, but does our text in Leviticus teach this truth? I believe that it does, although this is not immediately apparent. Let me explain how and why this is so.

We must begin by recognizing that we are able to grasp abstract truths only in terms of the concrete. Thus, we make models of the atom, so that people can grasp what an atom is like. We describe the moon as being round, and rough on the outside, like an orange. Paul referred to the Old Testament Law as a schoolmaster, which prepared us for the New Covenant and the coming of Christ (Gal. 3:24). Elsewhere the Law is described in terms of “elementary principles,” to which Christ died (cf. Col. 2:20). There is no question that Leviticus focuses on the external, ceremonial defilements. This was done so that the people of God could first understand defilement concretely, and then begin to grasp the more abstract concept of sin.

The problem with the interpretation and application of Leviticus (and the whole Law) by the scribes and Pharisees was that they did not go far enough with what was taught. They wrongly concluded that the essence of holiness was the avoidance of ceremonial defilement, rather than to see that it began with it.

We must be reminded again of the concept of progressive revelation, and how it relates to the interpretation of Leviticus. Leviticus begins by defining defilement in very concrete terms, but as the Old Testament revelation unfolds, the prophets emphatically teach that God is not nearly as interested in the external ceremonial acts of men as He is in the attitudes of their hearts and the resulting righteousness that should produce love for one’s neighbor, especially the oppressed and the weak:

For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings (Hos. 6:6).

“I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:21-24).

The psalmists understood the need to see beyond the ceremonial and the external in the Law. Thus we read, “Oh how I love Thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97). Seeing beyond the ceremonial and the external required the Spirit’s illumination, and thus the psalmist prayed, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law” (Ps. 119:18).

Thus, finding God’s wisdom in the Law required much more than a casual or cursory reading, it required diligent study: “If you seek her as silver, And search for her as hidden treasures; Then you will discern the fear of the LORD, And discover the knowledge of God” (Prov. 2:4-5).

Paul’s use of the Old Testament Law further illustrates how one should go from the concrete, literal, words of the text to the spiritual principles which are taught. In seeking to demonstrate that those who labor in the gospel should be financially supported, Paul turned to this text from the Book of Deuteronomy: “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut. 25:4, as cited in 1 Cor. 9:9). Taken literally this command pertains only to farmers and their oxen. But Paul correctly understood this command to teach a principle, which extended beyond the Old Testament dispensation into the New, and beyond farmers and oxen to people and preachers (actually apostles). Thus, Paul wrote, “God is not concerned about oxen, is He?” (1 Cor. 9:9) God does care about oxen, but Paul’s question (which presupposes a negative response) indicates that the primary reason for this command is not for the benefit of oxen, but for the benefit of people.

And so we see that we must search for meaning in the Old Testament Law which goes beyond the ceremonial, beyond the external and the literal to the heart of the matter. This is precisely where the scribes and Pharisees went wrong. They did not take the Law far enough. They stopped at the level of what was concrete, and did not press on to the abstract. They stopped at the external, without exploring the internal—the issues of the heart. God wrote the Law to deal with men on both levels, but primarily on the internal, rather than on the external. The scribes and Pharisees strained the “gnats” (the external outworkings of the Law), but they swallowed the “camels” (the internal implications of the Law), for which our Lord rebuked them. Neither “gnats” nor “camels” should be neglected (Matt. 23:23-24).

Error 3: Legalism (Works Righteousness)

One might conclude, as the scribes and Pharisees did, that if one was able to avoid the defilements defined in chapters 21 and 22 that he would be holy. Having come to this false conclusion, one would then be able to reason, as the scribes and Pharisees, that it was his works that made him righteous. It is this attitude which our Lord said characterized His opponents, the scribes and Pharisees. Consider these words once again:

And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get’” (Luke 18:9-11, emphasis mine).

This parable was spoken by our Lord to condemn those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. The scribes and Pharisees were wrong on two counts. First, they were wrong in thinking that they were righteous (cp. Matt. 5:20; 7:15). Secondly, they were wrong in attributing righteousness to their own efforts. It is self-righteousness that leads to pride, and the scribes and Pharisees had a double portion of both.

Where did they justify their conclusion on the basis of Leviticus 21 and 22? By thinking that since avoiding defilement (their own works) they made themselves holy. Thus, their righteousness was the results of their obedience to these commands in Leviticus.

How did they go wrong here? What did God intend to teach the priests by giving them the commandments pertaining to outward corruption and defilement in chapters 21 and 22? Now is the time to note the phrase which is the key to the entire passage, both structurally and interpretively: “I am the LORD, who sanctifies you.”

Who is it that sanctifies the priests, who makes them holy? God said six times that He did. He set Israel apart from the nations, and He set the priests apart from the people. The Israelites did not sanctify themselves by leaving Egypt, God released them while they, at best, stood by passively, and, at worst, drug their feet, rebelling and complaining.

God commanded the priests to avoid outward defilement because they were already holy, by God’s sanctification. They were to avoid the things prohibited because these things would make them unclean, not because avoiding them would make them clean. There is a world of difference between avoiding something to keep yourself from defilement and avoiding something to make yourself holy.

Here is a key to the error of the scribes and Pharisees. They confused the cause with the effect. The cause is the holiness, the sanctification, which God has already accomplished (which is primarily inner—a matter of the heart). The effect is separation of the priests from that which defiles, so as not to contaminate and defile that which God has sanctified. This explains why our Lord persisted, in His earthly teaching, to carefully distinguish between cause and effect. Salvation—making men clean—is our Lord’s work alone. Keeping ourselves pure is our duty (enabled by the Holy Spirit), so that we do not defile what God has cleansed. We ought to keep ourselves clean, but we can never make ourselves clean. We seek to stay clean (effect) because God has made us clean (cause). The priests should avoid defilement (effect) because God had already set them apart (cause).

This is no new revelation, something never made known in the Old Testament. It is precisely that which was taught by the prophet Haggai:

On the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to Haggai the prophet saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Ask now the priests for a ruling: If a man carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will it become holy?’” And the priests answered and said, “No.” Then Haggai said, “If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?” And the priests answered and said, “It will become unclean” (Haggai 2:10-13).

The point which is made here is that holiness is not contagious, it cannot be transmitted by contact with holy things. Defilement, however, is contagious, it can be transmitted by contact with what is unholy.

The scribes and Pharisees seemed to think that they “caught” holiness by their official duties, which put them in contact with “holy” things. Defilement can be caught, and thus God warned the priests about coming into contact with the unholy. Holiness, however, only comes from God.

Conclusion

What is it, then, that God wanted to teach the priests in these two chapters? First, He wanted them to know that He is the One who makes men holy, who sets them apart. It was not that the sons of Aaron were better or more worthy than the other Israelites, or that they “tried harder.” It was simply that God sovereignly chose to set them apart from others, to perform a special task. Second, He wanted them to know that in order to perform their task they had to remain undefiled, and thus they had to avoid those defilements which others might have been free to contact. God did have a higher standard for His priests, because they had a sacred task—that of making offerings for the people, because they had a higher privilege, and with it came a higher responsibility.

Where did the scribes and Pharisees go wrong? I think they erred in several critical areas. First and foremost, the scribes and Pharisees did not handle (interpret and apply) the Scriptures properly. They did not carry them far enough. They stopped at the apparent, but did not press on to the intended meaning and practice. They interpreted the Scriptures in terms of what they wanted to believe and in terms of the way they wished to live. They did not conform their lives to the Word of God, but conformed the Word of God to their lives. They turned the sacred text into a pretext. They interpreted the Scriptures in such a way as to always “fulfill” them, to live by their demands, rather than to be persistently reminded of their own sinfulness, and their need for a sacrifice. Rather than seeing holiness as God’s work, they saw it as man’s work, and thus they became proud and independent, rather than humble and dependent upon God. They did not feel that they needed, nor did they seek, mercy, but they felt they deserved God’s blessings. Rather than viewing their position as a privilege, they saw it as a right. Rather than seeing their ministry as a service, they saw it as a right to have status.

These errors are not confined to ancient Israel, or to the first century, they are just as prevalent and popular today. We, like the scribes and Pharisees, are not inclined to take the Scriptures as far as God intended us to. We wish to stop at the point of studying them for information, for the formulation or proof-texting of theological systems. We want to feel holy, without acknowledging that holiness comes only from God. We want to avoid those defilements which we find distasteful anyway. We want to keep the Scriptures carefully compartmentalized, rather than to allow them to convict us in every corner of our lives. We want to use the Scriptures to elevate ourselves above our peers. May God grant us to understand and to apply the principles of Leviticus and the Law as our Lord taught us to do, for His sake.

And for those who may never have been “made holy” by a personal experience of salvation, let me remind you of several important truths from our text. First, just as our text has required both the priests and the sacrifices to be perfect (and the high priest especially so), our Lord Jesus Christ was both the perfect high priest and the perfect sacrifice. His priestly offering of Himself has, once for all, made holy all those who trust in His work on their behalf. The Book of Hebrews strongly emphasizes this truth.

Second, just as only those who are members of the priest’s family can partake of the benefits of his priestly ministry (22:10-16), so only those who are members of the family of God can partake of the blessings of Christ’s priestly ministry. If you have not become a member of His family, do so today. Acknowledge your sin, and your unrighteousness. Trust in His shed blood for the payment for your sins. And then you may enjoy the fruits of His ministry—forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and fellowship with Him for all eternity.


119 H. A. Ironside, Holiness: The False and the True (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1912). This book is in its 24th printing.

120 Harold Bussell, Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983).

Passage: 

17. The Lord’s Appointed Times (Leviticus 23)

Introduction121

“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord’s appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations—My appointed times are these:’” (Leviticus 23:2).

The Lord’s appointed times are festivals and holy days that commemorate significant times and events in Israel’s history. I had the unique privilege of attending Beth Hallel, a Messianic Jewish congregation, from 1988 through 1994. During these six years I joined with my Messianic Jewish friends in celebrating these holidays. They were a rich experience. In the fall of 1992, I was teaching through the Book of Revelation. As I heard the shofars blowing in the synagogue, I began thinking of the seven trumpet judgments. I asked myself what the association might be between these shofars and the trumpets in Revelation. This paper, in part, is what I discovered.

How do you learn best? Do you prefer to hear a lecture or read a book? Do you get more out of a documentary movie or studying the printed page? Can you learn about something abstractly, or do you need hands-on experience? As with many other things, the Lord has given each of us different learning styles. Therefore, it should not surprise us that the Lord communicates His truth in diverse ways. This is, at its core, what Leviticus 23 and related scriptures have to tell us. We not only have His written word, but we have commemorative holy days to transmit truth to the young and the old, the literate and the illiterate alike. The holy days tell and show the great truths of God’s salvation, His love, and His plans. They contain things to hear, see, taste, build, and do, and they appeal to everybody. They are “holy days,” but that really means that they are holidays.

The celebrations are fun, mostly, but they also teach us about eternal things. From a New Testament perspective, these holidays take on a meaning much richer than the Old Testament saints could have dreamed of. As Paul wrote to the Colossian church:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

These holidays look back, in time, to miracles that God performed for the world and for the Israelites. They also look forward, in time, to the work of Jesus Christ. Occurring during the spring and fall harvests, they speak of God’s continuous provisions. Together they promise God’s eternal care for His people.

This paper tells the story of these events on three levels. The first level discusses how the holidays have been celebrated through the centuries. The second level discusses the sensory elements and how they teach the truth in non-verbal ways. The third level discusses how Jesus Christ fulfilled or will fulfill the substance of each celebration.

The Jewish Calendar

Having invited you to the fun, I must ask you to pause to consider the calendar through which these celebrations flow. This is because the Jewish Calendar is very different from ours. There is no January or February to be found. Instead, the Bible refers to “the first month,” “the seventh month,” or names like Abib and Ethanim. There is no quick way to say that, for a particular year, the 15th of Abib occurs on the 6th of April. Also, most of you know that October is in the fall, but do you know what season Ethanim occupies? Do you know that the Bible has another name for the month of Abib? I hope that you find this section useful for this and other studies that you do.

As I have already stated, the Lord’s “appointed times” occur through the year. The Jews, because they celebrate them every year, can and do anticipate each one in its season. They are a part of their culture. A Jew knows that the Feast of Tabernacles occurs in the fall as readily as we know that Easter occurs in the spring. The placement of these festivals through the year has prophetic significance. To be specific, Jesus’ death and resurrection are the substance of the spring holidays. His return and the establishment of His kingdom are the substance of the fall holidays. In between, there is the summer season of church history.

Our calendar, known officially as the Gregorian Calendar, is based on the relative motion of the sun through the heavens. For this reason, it is sometimes called a solar calendar. It takes 365.2524 days to complete the year. To keep the start of spring from shifting into February and then January, we insert a leap day every four years. This keeps the calendar and the seasons together. Consequently, the vernal and autumnal equinoxes always occur in March and September respectively.122

The Jewish Calendar, however, is based on the relative motion of both the moon and the sun. It is, therefore, called a luni-solar calendar. Since it is based on the moon, the first of every month coincides with a new moon and the fifteenth of every month coincides with a full moon. In other words, each month is defined by the phases of the moon. The Jewish Calendar keeps the months and their respective seasons together by the insertion of leap months. This means that most years have twelve months, but some have thirteen. The whole system has a nineteen-year cycle. It is more accurate than our solar calendar, but it’s more difficult to follow. The Jewish calendar does not mark the first day of spring, summer, fall, or winter. The primary markers in the Jewish Calendar are the holidays.

The modern Jewish Calendar has its secular and religious forms. The secular calendar begins with the month of Ethanim. The religious calendar begins with the month of Abib. The Bible consistently uses the religious form; i.e., the first month is always Abib. Ethanim and Abib are ancient Canaanite names for the first and seventh months respectively. However, beginning with the Babylonian exile, the Jews began using the Babylonian names for the months. Consequently, the post-exilic Biblical authors, Nehemiah and the author of Esther, used the Babylonian names. Today’s Jewish Calendar also uses the Babylonian names.

The following table presents these essential ideas:

Religious Month

Canaanite Name

Babylonian Name

Gregorian Placement

Leviticus 23 Holiday

First

Abib

Nisan

March or April

Passover; Feast of Unleavened Bread; Wave Offering of First Fruits

Second

Ziv

Iyyar

April or May

Third

Sivan123

May or June

Pentecost

Fourth

Tammuz

June or July

Fifth

Ab

July or August

Sixth

Elul

August or September

Seventh

Ethanim

Tishri

September or October

Trumpets; Day of Atonement; Feast of Tabernacles

Eighth

Bul

Cheshvan

October or November

Ninth

Chislev

November or December

Tenth

Tebeth

December or January

Eleventh

Shebat

January or February

Twelfth

Adar

February or March

Thirteenth

Adar II

March

This is the leap month

Although these technical details may sound dry, they have important implications in certain passages of scripture. For example, Passover begins on the fourteenth day of the month of Abib. Since the months, in the Jewish Calendar, follow the phases of the moon, we know that this must be a full moon. The darkness that fell over the earth when Jesus was crucified could not, therefore, have been an eclipse of the sun. It had to be, therefore, of supernatural origin.

The important thing for us to note for this study of Leviticus 23 is that the first month, Abib, occurs sometime during March or April and the seventh month, Ethanim, occurs sometime during September or October. To get back to the study at hand, Leviticus 23 tells us first about a weekly celebration, the Sabbath. It then describes several spring celebrations (Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Wave Offering of First Fruits, and Pentecost). It then moves on to describe several fall celebrations (Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles).

The Weekly Holy Day

Sabbath (Shabbat124)

“For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3).

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:1-3).

Sabbath means “rest.” The Sabbath celebration, spoken of in Leviticus 23, has its roots in the very creation of the world. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. That is, he separated it from the others in kind and character. He made it holy. Because He rested after six days of labor, He enjoins His people to do likewise. Thus, the Sabbath becomes a weekly reminder that God is the creator of all things. Whenever I read of God resting on the seventh day, I imagine Him reflecting on and enjoying the work that He had done. Obviously, this is an anthropomorphic sentiment, but it helps me understand the intended purpose of this day. As it was for God, so it can be for our children and for us. It is a day of rest from the fast pace of the week. It is a day to reflect on God and His creation. It is a day to reflect on the week’s activities. It is a day to worship and express thanks. It is a day to do good to our neighbors.

The Jewish Sabbath liturgy invokes images of not only the creation, but also the moment by moment sustaining of it by God’s almighty hand. As Colossians says, “in Him all things hold together.”

Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who at your word brings on the evening twilight, with wisdom opens the gates of the heavens, and with understanding changes time and varies the seasons, and arranges the stars in their watches in the sky, according to your will. You create day and night; you roll away the light from before the darkness, and the darkness from before the light; you make the day to pass and the night to approach, and divide the day from the night. The Lord of hosts is your name; a God living and enduring continually. May you reign over us for ever and ever. Blessed are you, O Lord, who brings on the evening twilight.125

Common Christian culture, until recent times, observed Sunday as a special day. It, too, was to be different from other days. Given the Sabbath’s roots in the creation rather than the Law, this seems appropriate. The day of rest was always intended to bless mankind, and, according to Isaiah, the Sabbath will continue, for all mankind, into the New Heavens and the New Earth:

Isaiah 66:22-23 “For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me,” declares the Lord, “So your offspring and your name will endure. And it shall be from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord.

For Christians, the Sabbath also speaks of our future rest in the Lord:

Hebrews 4:9-11 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

What continues to wreck the concept of Sabbath is legalism. Time and again it infiltrates the practice of a weekly rest and turns it into dull affair. God set aside a day for us to rest, to enjoy Him and His creation, and to do good deeds to others. Without such an appointed time, we would work seven days a week 365 days a year. If we did not set aside the time, we could let our relationship with God slip away. Unfortunately, the legalists cannot be comfortable until “work” is defined in detail. By the time they are done, the blessing and joy are gone. The day starts to speak of the sternness of God, rather than His loving-kindness. It loses sight of its roots in creation, rest, and fellowship with God. Instead, it becomes one more illustration of His awesome commands and our responsibility to obey them at all costs. It was true in Jesus’ day and it has often been true in Church practice. I am reminded of the story told by Laura Ingalls Wilder in her series Little House on the Prairie.

When Grandpa was a little boy, Laura, Sunday did not begin on Sunday morning, as it does now. It began at sundown on Saturday night.126 Then everyone stopped every kind of work or play.

Supper was solemn. After supper, Grandpa’s father read aloud a chapter of the Bible, while everyone sat straight and still in his chair. Then they all knelt down, and their father said a long prayer. When he said, ‘Amen.’ They got up from their knees and each took a candle and went to bed. They must go straight to bed, with no playing, laughing or even talking.

Sunday morning they ate a cold breakfast, because nothing could be cooked on Sunday. Then they all dressed in their best clothes and walked to church. They walked, because hitching up the horses was work, and no work could be done on Sunday.

They must walk slowly and solemnly looking straight ahead. They must not joke or laugh, or even smile. Grandpa and his two brothers walked ahead, and their father and mother walked behind them.

In church, Grandpa and his brothers must sit perfectly still for two long hours and listen to the sermon. They dared not fidget on the hard bench. They dared not swing their feet. They dared not even turn their heads to look at the windows or the walls or the ceiling of the church. They must sit perfectly motionless and never for one instant take their eyes from the preacher.

When church was over, they walked slowly home. They might talk on the way, but they must not talk loudly and they must never laugh or smile. At home they ate a cold dinner, which had been cooked the day before. Then all the long afternoon they must sit in a row on a bench and study their catechism, until at last the sun went down and Sunday was over.127

This same attitude was present in Jesus’ day. A distorted view of the Sabbath, held firmly by the Jewish leadership, inhibited them from recognizing Him as the Messiah. Sabbath controversies occupy all four of the gospels. In each, the controversy hinges on Jesus’ practice of healing on the Sabbath. To the Jewish leadership, healing was work and should not take place on the Sabbath. Besides, the joy expressed by those Jesus healed “disrupted” the sanctity of the Sabbath. Then, as in Laura’s day, the observance of the Sabbath was strictly constrained by tradition. Jesus’ comments about the Sabbath speak more of blessing and service than cold soup.

“But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:6-8).

“How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12).

Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

But the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, “There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:14-16).

So, it is okay to show compassion on the Sabbath rather than rest. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Even those who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath attended to the comfort of their own animals on that day. They just could not extend the concept to people. At creation, God rested and enjoyed the work of His hands. He gave mankind a day for rest and fellowship. He gave mankind a day when it was possible to do good deeds, because during the rest of the week finding the time to do such things is harder. It should reflect love and joy. It should take on the characteristics of a holiday.

To close this section, I want to relate the story of someone whose life showed a balanced concept of the Sabbath for the Christian. That man was Eric Liddel. The movie, Chariots of Fire, told the story about his giving up an Olympic medal opportunity, because a qualifying heat, for his race, was to be run on Sunday. At that time, Eric Liddel rightly chose God’s glory over his own. Less known is an incident that occurred shortly before he died, of a brain tumor, in a Japanese internment camp during WWII. The camp conditions were crowded and the young children were constantly at loose ends. There simply was nothing to do. Eric Liddel organized soccer games for the young people. Guess what? They played on Sunday! Perhaps he had a change of theology, but I think that he found the balance between two scriptures. The first, Isaiah 58:13, tells us to “turn your foot from doing your own pleasure on My holy day.” The second, Matthew 12:12, says, “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

The Spring Holy Days

Passover (Pesach)

“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover” (Leviticus 23:5).

Now the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household. Now if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his neighbor nearest to his house are to take one according to the number of persons in them; according to what each man should eat, you are to divide the lamb. Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight. Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails. And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire. Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste—it is the Lord’s Passover. For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance’” (Exodus 12:1-14).

The first month is Abib. In Hebrew, “abib” means green. It suggests the singular expression of spring: the re-greening, or re-birth, of the earth. For Israel, Passover means their birth as a nation. For this reason, although Leviticus gives only a few words to this holy day, Passover is the king of them all. It is by reason of Passover that Abib marks the beginning of the sacred Jewish Calendar. As the Lord told Moses, “This month … is to be the first month of the year to you.” This is fitting, because Passover marks the beginning of the nation of Israel. When Moses commanded the congregation of Israel concerning this first Passover, they were still the slaves of the Egyptians. The day following this Passover meal, they were free.

The story’s elements are familiar: The Lord’s call to Moses from out of the burning bush; Moses before Pharaoh crying, “Let my people go”; the ten plagues; and the parting of the sea. Passover is the holiday for remembering these things. The Jewish celebration combines sights, words, songs, and tastes to communicate the story. The telling of the story surrounds a festive meal and contains these basic elements:

      Four Cups of Wine

Although not mentioned in Exodus 12, the Passover in modern times and the time of Jesus included drinking four cups of wine. These cups stand for the four-fold deliverance spoken by God in Exodus.

“Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians’” (Exodus 6:6, 7).

The first cup speaks of our “being brought out.” The second speaks of our “deliverance from bondage.” The third speaks of our “redemption.” The fourth speaks of our “belonging.” The Gospel of Luke records the use of the first and third cups during the Last Supper:

And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood (Luke 22:15-20).

I understand this as meaning that Jesus did not inaugurate something new when He established communion, but rather identified and extended an existing tradition to communicate truth about Himself. The cup immediately after the meal was the “cup of redemption.” To Jesus and to us, it symbolizes the new covenant and our redemption, by His blood, from slavery to sin.

      Unleavened Bread

In the Exodus story, there was no time to let the bread rise before the Israelites had to leave Egypt. Unleavened bread represents the speed of their salvation. It also speaks of sinlessness. I will have more to say about this in the next section, which is about the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

One interesting practice during the Passover celebration is the breaking of one of three pieces of unleavened bread. The first half is used immediately, but the second is wrapped in a cloth and hidden until after the meal. This is the bread that Jesus broke during the Last Supper. It speaks of His sinless perfection. The second piece wrapped, hidden, and resurrected speaks of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection.

      Bitter Herbs

Tasting the bitter herbs, i.e. horseradish, is an experience to bring tears to the eyes and a dramatic reminder of the bitterness of slavery. It was eaten on the broken unleavened bread, so it can also speak of the bitter tears of Jesus in Gethsemane and the bitterness of His coming death for mankind’s sin.

      Lamb

Since the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, the Jews do not eat roasted lamb during Passover. Instead they commemorate the lamb with the roasted shank-bone of a lamb. The lamb represents protection against the last plague that befell the Egyptians. It seems that the Angel of Death would also have slain the first born of the Israelites, were it not for the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts. On seeing the blood, the Angel of Death passed over the house. From this the celebration gets its name.

      Other Things

There are other elements in the Passover celebration. There is a mixture of apples, wine, nuts, and honey called “Charoseth.” The apples are grated and left exposed to turn brown. Consequently the mixture looks a little bit like the mud the Israelites used to make bricks.

There is some green vegetable like parsley or celery to speak of spring and hope. There is salt water to represent tears. There are 10 drops of wine dripped from the second cup to represent the 10 plagues on the Egyptians. The 10 drops lower the volume of wine in the cups and indicate that the suffering of the Egyptians reduces our joy.

      Multi-Sensory Learning

Sweet, bitter, and salty tastes for the mouth; dripped wine; broken bread; and so forth are devices to teach the deliverance of God in a unique way. As I said before, it appeals to all ages.

      Jesus and Passover

During the Last Supper, Jesus appropriated elements of the Jewish Passover. That is, He endowed them with new meaning, and that meaning was tied to Himself. Instead of having meaning restricted to God’s past redemption, these elements now symbolize the redemption of Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” by His death at Calvary. At Passover, the Old and New Covenants meet. He is the lamb without defect. He is the broken bread. He is the cup of Redemption. As He said in Luke, He will not partake of Passover again, until He can share it with us in the coming Kingdom. The hand of God delivered from slavery in the past. On the cross, He delivered us from slavery to sin.

The early church clearly identified Jesus with Passover. Paul says,

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).

Leaven represents sin. Allowing sin in our lives and the church has a corrupting influence. But we are unleavened, because Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. Thus we see that Jesus completes the promise of Passover.

Note the suggestion in Paul’s words, “Let us celebrate the feast.” This implies that the early Christians celebrated Passover for some time. Some would argue that Paul is simply referring to Communion. That ignores Paul’s Jewish upbringing. Does not Exodus 12:14 call Passover “a feast?” Why would Paul use the term “feast” and intend an ambiguous reading of it? Along these lines note also Acts 20:6, “We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread.” The least that can be said is that the early church marked a Jewish Calendar. In any case, the observance of Passover is today growing among the churches. This is a good thing. It is a celebration of the salvation of God from slavery in Egypt and slavery to sin. To the young ones in our families, it provides an opportunity to present the gospel to our children at a very early age.

Feast of Unleavened Bread

“Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work. But for seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the Lord. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work” (Leviticus 23:6-8).

“Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day you shall have a holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you. You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land. You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread” (Exodus 12:15-20).

“You shall tell your son on that day, saying, ‘It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ And it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth; for with a powerful hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8, 9).

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is an extension of Passover. The celebration is simple. Before it begins, you pass through your entire house to clear out all leavening agents and foods made with leaven. Leavening agents are things like yeast, baking powder, baking soda, and sour dough. Leaven makes bread and rolls rise and become soft and fluffy.

For centuries the Jews have made a special event in the evening of this day. Crumbs of bread and other things are planted throughout the house. In the evening, the father leads the children through the house with a feather and dish to search for the last traces of leaven. When they find them, the father swishes them into the dish with the feather. After all remaining traces are swept away, they are taken outside and burned.

For the next seven days, all food is unleavened, but the recipes are incredibly creative. Whipped egg whites can add sponginess to cake recipes. Unleavened flour is made into “matzo balls” and used in soups. Nevertheless, for seven days the diet reminds the household and the children that God delivered the Israelites from slavery.

Unleavened bread relates two aspects of God’s deliverance. The first is the simple fact that the Israelites left Egypt in such a hurry that they did not have time to let their bread rise. The second is that the first several days saw them hurrying away, so that there still was not enough time to let bread rise. There would be no safety until there was enough distance between them and those who would come after them. Then they came to the Red Sea. In this sense the Feast of Unleavened Bread marks the very first stage of the journey. It was a time of hurry and danger, and then the trap.

We know, of course, that the Lord parted the Red Sea so that the Israelites could cross over. When Pharaoh’s armies followed, the sea came together again and destroyed them. This celebration is an effective reminder of God’s faithfulness. Exodus 13:8 says, “You shall tell you son on that day …” The Bible anticipates that children will ask what the change of diet is about. When they do, you can tell them the whole story. Besides, young children get to pretend what it must have been like, at least as far as food goes, to live during those first days after leaving Egypt.

Given that leaven also symbolizes sin, this feast is an object lesson in righteousness. As the family cleans the house and searches for all leaven, they play out the process of sanctification. It is a reminder of God’s righteousness. For those of us who are Christians, this Feast of Unleavened Bread reminds us of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit as He searches out and frees us from the sin that inhabits our house. As Psalm 139 says,

Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; and see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way (Psalm 139:23-24).

Wave Offering of First Fruits

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and reap its harvest, then you shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Now on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb one year old without defect for a burnt offering to the Lord. Its grain offering shall then be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering by fire to the Lord for a soothing aroma, with its drink offering, a fourth of a hin of wine. Until this same day, until you have brought in the offering of your God, you shall eat neither bread nor roasted grain nor new growth. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places’” (Leviticus 23:9-14).

One of the days during the Feast of Unleavened Bread will be a Sabbath. The day following this Sabbath is the celebration of First Fruits128. On this day, the first sheaf of harvested barley is brought to the Lord and waved before Him. The grain is then left for the priest and for the poor. This is an act of thanksgiving for the Lord’s provision and bounty. No one is to eat from the new harvest until the wave offering is made.

There is no direct Jewish Celebration of this today. However, given its placement between Passover and Pentecost and its emphasis on the Lord’s provision, I see it as a reminder of the manna in the desert, which began shortly after the crossing of the Red Sea.

In terms of Christianity, it is worth noting that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred the day following the Sabbath. His resurrection corresponds to this wave offering. He is, Himself, a first fruits offering. As Paul says,

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death (1 Corinthians 15:20-26).

Jesus’ resurrection is the assurance of our resurrection. It is the promise that we will not see eternal death, but share in eternal life. When He rose from the dead, we became able to share in the new harvest, which I believe is the Holy Spirit.

First Fruits is such a simple holiday, and, yet, it has such significant meaning to us in the Church. Passover is our redemption, Unleavened Bread is our sanctification, First Fruits is our promise of eternal life and resurrection.

I have a personal First Fruits story to tell. I have for years looked upon the Old Testament as containing principles of righteousness living. This is not to be confused with legalism. It should rather be viewed as an attempt to view the Law as Paul did (see 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:18, and 1 Timothy 1:8). Anyway, I began meditating about the First Fruits offering and how someone who is not a farmer might participate. In my heart, I committed to a special practice to celebrate the event whenever I got a raise. The gross net increase of the first paycheck containing the raise would be a First Fruits offering to the Lord. This was not to gain approval or special status. It was simply to say thanks and acknowledge that He provides for me every day.

Following this heart commitment, not a month went by before my manager at IBM came to me and said, “I am giving you a raise. It is early and out of grid.” The translation of these words are, “IBM policy says it’s too early to give you a raise, but I am giving you one anyway. IBM says that your next raise should not be more than such-and-such, but I am giving you more than that.” At the time this occurred, my wife and I had custody of my three nieces. IBM benefits did not cover them. My manager had worked out the raise to help our situation.

Pentecost (Shavuot)

‘You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete Sabbaths129. You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord. You shall bring in from your dwelling places two loaves of bread for a wave offering made of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of a fine flour, baked with leaven as first fruits to the Lord. Along with the bread you shall present seven one year old male lambs without defect, and a bull of the herd and two rams; they are to be a burnt offering to the Lord, with their grain offering and their drink offerings, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord. You shall also offer one male goat for a sin offering and two male lambs one-year-old for a sacrifice of peace offerings. The priest shall then wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering with two lambs before the Lord; they are to be holy to the Lord for the priest. On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be a perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations. When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the Lord your God’ (Leviticus 23:15-22).

In the third month after the sons of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that very day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. When they set out from Rephidim, they came to the wilderness of Sinai and camped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped in front of the mountain (Exodus 19:1, 2).

Pentecost gets its name from the counting of fifty days from the Sabbath following Passover. This places the holiday in the third month (Sivan) of the Jewish Calendar. It coincides with the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai, which is what the holiday celebrates. The most unique aspect of this celebration in the temple was the waving of two leavened loaves of bread before the Lord. This was the only leavened offering made in the temple! These loaves, like the earlier wave offering, are also declared to be a First Fruits offering. Perhaps the loaves were to look like the two tablets of the Law.

The Jewish celebration of Pentecost often begins by staying up all night to read Torah. They emphasize the Ten Commandments. In this way they remember the events that took place at Mount Sinai. Also, because of its association with the spring harvest, the Jews will read the Book of Ruth. And because Mount Sinai also looks forward to the time when Israel would enter the “land flowing with milk and honey,” the foods of Pentecost are rich with milk, cream, and honey. This is the season for the cheese blintzes and apples dipped in honey. I should add that the honey also speaks of the sweetness of God’s word.

Pentecost completes the Exodus story. Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread tell of the escape from Egypt. The First Fruits speaks of manna and God’s provision in the desert. Pentecost speaks of the giving of the Law, which is some respects became the Constitution for Israel, the nation.

In Christianity, Pentecost marks the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1). Perhaps Paul was even thinking of the wave offering of the two loaves when he wrote,

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Romans 8:19-23).

Today’s Messianic Jews130 have an interesting view of the two leavened loaves of bread offered in the temple during Pentecost. Since leaven is a symbol for sin, why is this offering different from all other grain offerings by specifying the inclusion of leaven? It is this: Because of the atonement brought about by Jesus, the Holy Spirit can indwell us and we are able to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace.” Though we still contain leaven, we can get help in time of need. They see in the loaves the Jewish and Gentile believers offered before the Lord as first fruits of what is to come. The Church is not complete without the Jews and the Gentiles. I find the argument compelling. To me, it is just one more example of the prophetic core in the appointed times. In this light, the practice of reading Ruth also foreshadowed the unity of the Jewish and Gentile believers.

Jesus and the Spring Holy Days

The flow of Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Pentecost mark the timings of two stories of real history. The first story is that of deliverance from slavery in Egypt and the giving of Law. The second story is that of deliverance from slavery to sin and the giving of the Holy Spirit. Two stories with different emphasis and meanings. It should be noted, however, that there is no hint that the older meanings were either discarded or demeaned. In fact, the older meanings are essential to the new meanings. In any case, the following table succinctly shows the relationships:


Old Covenant (Shadow)


New covenant (Substance)

Passover

Moses the mediator
Lamb’s blood
Unleavened Bread
Wine

Jesus the mediator
Messiah’s blood
His body
His blood

Feast of Unleavened Bread

Removing leaven
Redemption from slavery in Egypt

Sanctification
Redemption from slavery to sin

Wave Offering of First Fruits

Waving of the sheaf
Manna

Jesus’ resurrection
Bread of life

Pentecost

Fire on the mountain
Giving of the Law
Law written on stone
Two leavened loaves
Birth of a nation

Fire on the believers
Giving of the Holy Spirit
Law written in the heart
Jews and Gentiles
Birth of the Church

The Fall Holy Days

Feast of Trumpets (Yom Teruah; Rosh Hashannah)

Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘In the seventh month on the first of the month you shall have a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall not do any laborious work, but you shall present an offering by fire to the Lord’” (Leviticus 23:23-25).

Leviticus 23:23 begins with the words “Again the Lord spoke to Moses …” and, therefore, indicates the start of a new section. Following this verse are the commands concerning the holidays of the fall season.

The first of these occurs on the first day of the seventh month of the religious calendar. To the ancient Hebrew authors this was the month of Ethanim. In the modern calendar, the month is called Tishri. The holy day is designated as “a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets.” The phrase “blowing of trumpets” translates the Hebrew word “teruah.” The word is loosely like the English word “fanfare.” Like “fanfare,” “teruah” has an association with the sound of a trumpet, but really means those things for which we might sound a trumpet: to alert, to call to battle, to announce the arrival of a king, etc. In the case of this holiday, the trumpets announce the coming of the holidays to follow. The holidays that follow, therefore, are incredibly important. Perhaps, it is better to say that you did not want to be found unprepared when their day arrived. As the Boy Scouts say, “Be prepared!”

The Jews begin blowing ram’s horns (shofars) in their synagogues in the sixth month (Elul) and continue up to the Day of Atonement. The trumpets remind the people that the Day of Atonement is approaching. It is a time to reflect on the year and the state of your character and your relationship to God. Then, on the first day of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah), there is a special service that features an elaborate ceremony of trumpet blowing.

The trumpets remind the Jews of at least eight things131:

    1. To prepare for the coming Day of Atonement by examining the life you have lived this past year.

    2. To celebrate the creation with God as its King. This is because, according to Jewish tradition, creation began on the first day of the seventh month.

    3. To remember that the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai with the loud blast of a shofar (Exodus 19:16-19).

    4. To imagine the sound of the heavenly shepherd recalling those who have strayed from Israel’s fold.

    5. To rejoice in freedom from slavery. In the past, slaves were freed at the blast of a shofar.

    6. To rejoice in restoration. Property was returned at the blast of the shofar at the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:9).

    7. To remember Abraham’s obedience when he offered his son Isaac. When Abraham sacrificed Isaac, a ram was caught in the thicket by its horns.

    8. To look forward to the coming of Messiah’s kingdom, which the blast of the shofar will bring in.

As the spring holy days spoke of the first coming of Messiah, so we can begin to see that the fall holidays speak of His return. This is seen by the consistent imagery of trumpets in the New Testament.

And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other (Matthew 24:31).

… in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:52).

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them (Revelation 8:6).

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts (Revelation 9:20, 21).

The first three verses above have direct correspondence to the final trumpet sounded on the eve of the Day of Atonement. The next two (Revelation 8:6 and 9:20, 21) have clear association with the trumpets announcing the coming of the Day. Like the trumpets that announce the Lord as King over His creation, so trumpets announce the coming of Messiah as King. Like the trumpets that announce the Jubilee Year and freedom to slaves, so trumpets announce the translation of our corruptible flesh into incorruptible new bodies. As the trumpets sounded before the Day of Atonement call the Jews to repentance, so these trumpets call all of mankind to repent before the terrible Day of the Lord. The seven trumpets in Revelation, like the shofars that sound in the synagogues, are a call to the earth to repent. Consequently, we have the significance of Revelation 9:20, 21: The trumpets have sounded and the world has not repented. The Bowl Judgments, containing the Wrath of God, may now be poured on the earth.

In short, the trumpets announce the coming of the King. As such, they call for the people of God to prepare their hearts for His coming. As Jesus has said, He wants to come and find us at our posts. For the lost, the trumpets call for repentance. Failing repentance, the trumpets announce the coming Judgment of God. Consequently, the next holy day will be, for each person, either a Day of Atonement or the Day of Judgment.

Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the Lord. You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a Day of Atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the Lord your God. If there is any person who will not humble himself on this same day, he shall be cut off from his people. As for any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no work at all. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. It is to be a Sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:26-32).

“He shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting. Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the Lord fell, and make it a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. … for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It is to be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may humble your souls; it is a permanent statute. So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did (Leviticus 16:7-10; 30-34).

The Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur, represents the day when the priest puts on special clothes and makes offerings to atone, or cleanse, the holy sanctuary, the temple, and the altar. He then makes atonement for the priests and the people. The day is solemn and serious. It is a day of complete rest and fasting with a goal of humbling the soul. As a holy day, it serves to remind us of the gravity and offense of sin. The eve of the Day of Atonement begins with the blast of a shofar. Afterwards, the shofars are silent until next year.

Yom Kippur begins in the evening of the ninth day of the seventh month. In modern Judaism there is an important liturgical chant sung on this evening. It is called Kol Nidre, which in Hebrew means “All Vows.” It is a rescinding of vows: a cleansing of vows that were made, but remain unfulfilled and un-fulfillable. Kol Nidre originated in seventh century Spain, where Jews were tortured or burned unless they bound themselves, by oath, to cease from Jewish religious expression. Those Jews, whose constitutions could not rise to suffering an excruciating and fearful death, renounced their Judaism. When better days came along, the Kol Nidre was created to absolve them of their rash vows and re-open full fellowship in the community. To me it catches the spirit of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. It is the full expression of forgiveness to one who forsook the community, but later came to his senses.

If Kol Nidre is the open door to renewed fellowship for the repentant apostate, those who treat the day lightly stand in the path of destruction. As the Lord says, “As for any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people.” Those who would work on the day when sin is to be confronted, fail to understand the seriousness of sin. It is to say, by my actions, that sin is not a problem for me.

Before the destruction of the temple, the atonement of the people involved two goats. By casting lots the priest chose between the goats. One was chosen for the Lord (hwhyl, l’yhvw) the other was chosen for Azazel (lzazul, l’azazel) (usually translated as scapegoat). The priest transferred the sins of the people onto the scapegoat and then it was driven into the wilderness. The first goat paid the penalty of the people’s sin, the second took the sin away. The ancient Jews considered the two goats to be two halves of a single sacrifice. Therefore, they would select two goats that very closely resembled each other.

The reference to Azazel only appears in Leviticus 16. It appears no where else in the scriptures. Although it is typically translated as “scapegoat,” the actual language suggests a being for which this goat is chosen. As one goat is chosen “for (to) the Lord,” so the other is chosen “for (to) Azazel.” Who or what is Azazel?

There is only one extra-biblical reference to him: the Book of Enoch. It identifies him as one of the angels (as hinted by Genesis 6) who corrupted the earth. An intriguing connection to the Day of Atonement occurs in Enoch chapter 10.

“And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there forever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire.’”

How reliable might this reference be? This is a hard question. The Book of Enoch does not have the antiquity it claims, but it is still thousands of years closer to the meaning of Azazel than we have anywhere else. The fact that Jude quotes from it (Jude 14, 15), at least, attests to its cultural pertinence. On the other hand, the Septuagint translation of Azazel, avpopompaiw| (“a carrying away”), is closer to the spirit of a “scapegoat.”

Nevertheless, the Enoch picture is intriguing. The goat “for (to) Azazel” is sent to the domain of Azazel in the wilderness. We have a picture of Israel’s sins taken away and cast into the abyss to await the final judgment.

Although the Day of Atonement is about the payment and removal of the sins of the nation for a year, it also looks forward to the day of Israel’s salvation. Note the thematic connections in the following verses.

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen (Revelation 1:7).

“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10).

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13, 14).

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other (Matthew 24:30, 31).

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS” (Romans 11:25-27).

First, Revelation 1:7 links two Old Testament Messianic prophecies: Zechariah 12:10 and Daniel 7:13, 14. That is, the day the Lord returns is the day that Israel receives “the Spirit of grace and supplication” and finds national salvation. Second, Matthew links these events to the blowing of a great trumpet (or shofar) that begins the Day of Atonement. Third, it is the day to which Paul, in Romans 11:25-27, looked ahead. As the goat chosen for Azazel takes away the sin from Israel, so according to Paul the coming of the Lord will take away the sins of Israel. The meaning of all this is that the future fulfillment of the Day of Atonement is the second coming of Jesus Christ on the earth and the salvation of Israel.

Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth)

Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘On the fifteenth of this seventh month is the Feast of Booths for seven days to the Lord. On the first day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work of any kind. For seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the Lord. On the eighth day you shall have a holy convocation and present an offering by fire to the Lord; it is an assembly. You shall do no laborious work. These are the appointed times of the Lord which you shall proclaim as holy convocations, to present offerings by fire to the Lord—burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each day’s matter on its own day—besides those of the Sabbaths of the Lord, and besides your gifts and besides all your vows and freewill offerings, which you give to the Lord. On exactly the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the crops of the land, you shall celebrate the feast of the Lord for seven days, with a rest on the first day and a rest on the eighth day. Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the foliage of beautiful trees, palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days. You shall thus celebrate it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month. You shall live in booths for seven days; all the native-born in Israel shall live in booths, so that your generations may know that I had the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God’” (Leviticus 23:33-43).

Five days after the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Booths (or Tabernacles) begins. The principle element of this celebration is “living in booths” for a week. The actual practice among the Jews consists of building a “hut” in the backyard or on the porch. They make the hut by tying branches together, because it is not to be nailed or constructed in any way that suggests permanence. In fact, the properly made hut will leak. This virtue permits the occupants to see the stars. Although the Jews do not actually live in these things, they will share meals in them and sometimes spend at least one night camping out. I know of a Jewish family that sometimes takes a backpacking trip during this time.

I like to call the Feast of Tabernacles, “The holiday of the manifest presence of God.” Here is why. Leviticus says, “Israel shall live in booths, so that your generations may know that the sons of Israel lived in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt.” The hut lets children pretend to be Israelites in the wilderness. So, what was it like in those days? The twelve tribes had their camps on the north, south, east, and west. In the center stood the tabernacle. Over the tabernacle appeared the manifested presence of the Lord.

The Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst? I will smite them with pestilence and dispossess them, and I will make you into a nation greater and mightier than they.

But Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for by Your strength You brought up this people from their midst, and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, O Lord, are in the midst of this people, for You, O Lord, are seen eye to eye, while Your cloud stands over them; and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if You slay this people as one man, then the nations who have heard of Your fame will say, ‘Because the Lord could not bring this people into the land which He promised them by oath, therefore He slaughtered them in the wilderness.’ But now, I pray, let the power of the Lord be great, just as You have declared, ‘The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.’ Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your lovingkindness, just as You also have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”

So the Lord said, “I have pardoned them according to your word; but indeed, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord” (Numbers 14:11-21).

What an incredible sight to see everyday. “They have heard that You, O Lord, are in the midst of this people, for You, O Lord, are seen eye to eye, while Your cloud stands over them; and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.” When the Lord wanted them to move, the pillars moved. When the Lord wanted them to stay, the pillars stayed. This is the tale parents can tell their children during the dinner meal in the hut. When the sky gets dark and you can gaze at the stars, the parents can tell their children how the universe manifests the presence of God. It is a good time to read Psalm 19.

The Feast of Tabernacles also looks ahead to the Messianic Kingdom. It looks ahead to the time when the presence of God, through the reign of His son, is as manifest on the earth as it was in the days of the wilderness travels. In fact, according to Zechariah, the Feast of Tabernacles will be an international celebration during the Kingdom.

And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. … Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths (Zechariah 14:9, 16-19).

It should be clear, by now, how the fall holidays of Leviticus track the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The blowing of trumpets speak of the warnings and shaking on the earth to call all mankind to repent. The Day of Atonement speaks of the day that Jesus will physically return and the day that Israel as a nation will find salvation. The Feast of Tabernacles speaks of the Millennial Kingdom.


Old Covenant (Shadow)


New Covenant (Substance)

Blowing of Trumpets

Trumpets announce the coming Day of Atonement.

A series of plagues announce the coming Day of the Lord.

Day of Atonement

Annual atonement and removal of sin from Israel.

The return of Jesus Christ and the salvation of Israel.

Feast of Tabernacles

Remembering the wilderness travels with the presence of God in the camp.

The reign of Jesus Christ over the Kingdom of Israel.

Conclusion

Should the Church of Jesus Christ celebrate these things? Four times in Leviticus 23 we are told, “It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.” Of course, the command is addressed to the Jews. On the other hand, these appointed times testify over and over again about the past and future work of our Lord. Should we not make room for the principal ones like Passover, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles? These speak of three major doctrines of our faith: the Death of Jesus for our sins, His return, and His coming Kingdom. Think how clearly these holidays speak of these truths, because they are free from the secular clamor that surrounds Christmas and Easter. Besides, as I said above, the Feast of Tabernacles appears to be the big international holiday of the Millennial Kingdom.

Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths (Zechariah 14:16).

We can share the Passover meal with family and friends and celebrate Jesus Christ as our Passover Lamb. We can fast for the Day of Atonement to humble ourselves before God and reflect on His return, and pray that we be found at our posts. We can build our huts during the Feast of Tabernacles and look ahead to the coming Kingdom. In this way, our children can begin learning important truths at very early ages, free from the confusing signals of secular culture.

With the tastes of Passover, the waving of the sheaf during First Fruits, the waving of two leaven loaves on Pentecost, the sound of trumpets, the fasting on the Day of Atonement, and the huts of the Feast of Tabernacles, the story of God’s deliverance and salvation is told without words. The events stimulate the questions of the very young and provide mental pictures of sublime concepts. These days speak of past and future deliverance. They are historical and prophetical at the same time. How great is our God who can so engineer time and history to use the same holidays twice!


121 This message was preached by Don Curtis ( email) an excellent student of the Scriptures, teacher, and good friend. Don graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1974 with a degree in Philosophy. He has since become a Senior Computer Programmer with the IBM Corporation. For a number of years, Don and his family attended Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, until his job took him to Atlanta, Georgia. Partly from Bob Deffinbaugh’s influence, biblical studies and teaching have become a passion in his Christian life. Don is currently an elder and teacher at Cobb Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Kennesaw, GA.

122 Our calendar is known as the Gregorian Calendar because of the reforms Pope Gregory instituted. In particular, he mandated a 10 day correction in 1582 AD, which meant that October 4th was followed by October 15th that year. Since then, the century years, like 1600, 1700, etc., are not leap years unless they are evenly divisible by 400. Thus 1900 is not a leap year, but 2000 is.

123 The Jewish Calendar has preserved the Babylonian names for the months. The Bible records four of the Canaanite names, the other eight Canaanite names are lost. Of the Babylonian names, the Bible only refers to Nisan.

124 The title for each section includes the Christian and (Jewish) name for the holiday.

125 Hertz, Joseph The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (Revised Edition), Copyright 1948, 1975 Ruth Hecht, Bloch Publishing Company, p. 365.

126 This is an interesting historical note that shows the degree to which Christianity, in the past, understood the Biblical notion of time. As Genesis says, “there was evening and there was morning, one day.” The Jews still reckon the days in their calendar as beginning at sundown. This was why, when Jesus was crucified, that it was so important to have the executed criminals dead and off their crosses before sundown.

127 Wilder, Laura Ingalls Little House in the Big Woods, Harper Trophy (1971 edition) pp. 87-89

128 Although the text in Leviticus 23 does not make this timing explicitly clear, it can be determined implicitly from the calculation for the date of Pentecost in Leviticus 23:15, 16.

129 Several Greek manuscripts of Luke 6:1 contain the phrase “sabbatw| deuteroprwtw|” or “second first sabbath.” Most translations, including the NASB and NET bypass the strange phrasing and simply say “a certain Sabbath” or simply “a Sabbath.” From the perspective of Leviticus 23, it would be better to translate Luke 6:1 as “On the Sabbath following the second Passover of Jesus ministry …” To put this another way, the Jews counted Sabbaths following Passover leading to Pentecost. First Sabbath is the first following Passover; Second Sabbath is the second following Passover; and so forth up to the Seventh Sabbath. By saying “second first Sabbath,” Luke, being closer to the Jewish roots of Christianity, is pinpointing the start of the second year of Jesus’ ministry.

130 For those who may not be aware of this contemporary move of God, Messianic Jews are Jews who believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. They fully affirm salvation by faith alone. What makes them distinct is that they maintain their Jewish identity. Texts that point to the legitimacy of what they are doing include Romans 1:16, Romans 9–11, Acts 21:17-25.

131 A fuller description can be found in The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Joseph H. Hertz Copyright 1948, 1975 Ruth Hecht pp. 864, 865

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

18. The Lamp, the Loaves, and the Loudmouth (Leviticus 24)

Introduction

Several years ago, I was taking our children to school when I saw a policeman pull a mother over right beside the school. Even though I had seen what she had done, I couldn’t figure out what she had done wrong. I was, however, about to find out, for the officer obliged my curiosity for pulling me over right behind her. I learned I was charged with the same offense—making an illegal U-turn. I was distressed because I could not figure out how my left hand turn could be considered an illegal U-turn. To satisfy my sense of fair play, I sat at that same spot the next day, only to discover that many of the drivers did exactly the same thing the lady and I had done, and obviously not in any way knowing that they were breaking the law.

That was enough. I was going to fight this injustice in court. To my advantage, before my court hearing a “No Left Turn” sign was placed along with the “No U-turn” sign (wrongly placed in the intersection). When my time came in court I protested that the offense was wrongly defined and that the sign was misplaced. The judge listened to my objections and then asked if there were any others in court with the same charge against them. I learned that I was not alone in my indignation. At least ten other people raised their hands. The judge threw all of their tickets out of court. I had won. No, we had won.

My case was not monumental, but it was important. First, it demonstrated that we are very likely to disobey laws which we don’t understand, and which appear not to relate to us and our situation. The others and myself who made this “left hand turn” did not think of it as a U-turn, and thus did not think we were breaking the law. Second, the decision which the judge rendered had a much wider application than just my case, for his ruling found everyone else who was charged with the same offense not guilty as well. One court decision can have very broad ramifications.

The lessons which I learned in my brief encounter with the law can also be learned from the Law of Moses, as it is clarified in the 24th chapter of the Book of Leviticus. Here, we find the case of a man who had blasphemed, using the name of the God of Israel. The Israelites were not quite sure how God’s law against blasphemy applied to this man, and so they asked for a ruling, which God gave through Moses. In clarifying the law as it applied to this man’s offense, Israel was taught how the law applied to them personally. In addition, God’s people were taught some important principles which applied to a much wider range of offenses.

The Tension of the Text

I will not tell you (again) that this chapter is so critical that it is the key to understanding the entire New Testament. But I will tell you that the chapter is both important and relevant to New Testament saints. It is so because the principles which underlie this chapter are those which apply to New Testament Christians.

The structure of our chapter is almost immediately apparent. There are three distinct sections:

  • The lampstand (vv. 1-4)
  • The showbread (vv. 5-9)
  • The blasphemer (vv. 10-23)

I have chosen a title for this message which summarizes these three sections. The title is The Lamp, the Loaves, and the Loudmouth.

If the structure of this chapter is clear, the logic of it is not. The scholars struggle to explain what relationship these three sections of chapter 24 have to each other, and also how chapter 24 fits into the larger section of chapters 23-25.

“It is unclear to me what considerations could have induced the compiler to insert this material between the regulations for the annual feast (cf. 23) and those for the sabbatical year and Year of Jubilee (ch. 25).”132 “Commentators have been unable to discern any obvious connection between the material in this chapter and what precedes and follows it.”133

Our goal will be to find the common denominator, the textual glue which binds these three paragraphs together. I assure you, there is one, and I feel that our study of the text will make this clear. The principle is one which has a number of applications to contemporary Christianity, so bear with me as we work our way up to exposing the central thrust of our text.

Our approach in this lesson will be to look at each of the three segments of chapter 24 individually. I am going to deal first with the lamp (vv. 1-4) and then the loaves (vv. 5-9). Since these two sections are related, I will pause at the end of verse 9 to make some preliminary observations. Then I will press on to verses 10-23, which deal with the blasphemer. After making some observations about this portion of the text, I will seek to show the connection between all three segments of the chapter. We will then trace the common principle of our passage through the New Testament, and then seek to explore its implications and applications to our own lives.

“Give Me Oil in My Lamp”
(24:1-4)

The golden lampstand has already appeared in the Pentateuch several times (Exod. 25:31-40; 27:20-21; 37:17-24; 40:25-26), and it will occur again (cf. Num. 8:1-4; 1 Sam. 3:3). It was placed in the holy place to provide light in the darkness of the tabernacle. Even in the daytime, the many layered covering of the tent would keep out light, so that the light of this lamp was required. The emphasis of these verses in Leviticus 24 is that the light must be kept burning at all times. Something like the flame burning at President Kennedy’s graveside, the flames in this lamp must never go out. The key term in verses 1-4 is “continually,” found three times (vv. 2, 3, 4).

Virtually the entire nation played a role in this task of keeping the golden lamp burning. (Thus, I have used the heading, “Give Me Oil in My Lamp,” probably the only biblical support for the popular camp chorus.) The Israelites were to provide a constant supply of beaten olive oil, which was to be brought to Moses (v. 2). Aaron was given the task of keeping the lamp(s)134 burning, especially during the night hours (“from evening till morning,” v. 3). This was to be done perpetually, and thus this task would be inherited by the sons of Aaron (vv. 3-4).

The reason for the continual, careful, tending of this lamp can be found by thinking of the role which this lamp played inside the tabernacle. It supplied virtually all the light within the tabernacle. Without this light, Aaron and the priests could not see sufficiently to carry out their tasks. Worse yet, they might make some mistake in the darkness (for example, stumble into the holy of holies!) which could prove fatal. Such a small thing as this lamp was vital to the tremendously important sacrificial process, some of which took place inside the tabernacle.

Israel’s Weekly Bread
(24:5-9)

In the royal palace in London (so I am told) there is a ceremony known as the “changing of the guard.” This ceremony is one which attracts a great deal of attention, especially among the tourists. In ancient Israel, there was a weekly ceremony of the “changing of the loaves.” It took place once a week on the Sabbath. Twelve large loaves135 (each loaf took about 6 1/2 pounds of flour) were baked, and on the Sabbath these were exchanged, replacing the old loaves with the new, which were arranged136 on the golden table.137 This “week old” bread was part of the “holy food” eaten by the priests. While the term “continually” occurs only once (v. 8), it is clear that this exchange of loaves is to happen regularly, consistently, and without any interruption. It, like the tending of the lamp, is a matter of meticulous care.

There are at least two reasons why the continual changing of the loaves was important. First, these loaves were a part of the sacrificial offerings. Only a part of the loaves was offered, and this portion, which would be offered up by fire, would be accompanied by frankincense (v. 7). To fail to provide these loaves would hinder the sacrificial process, which was symbolic of an “everlasting covenant” (v. 8). Thus, these loaves were vitally important because of what they symbolized. Secondly, these loaves (or, more accurately, what remained of them) were a part of the food which sustained and nourished the priests (v. 9). To fail to provide for the priesthood would be to hinder the priestly process. Thus, the loaves were always to be on hand.

A Lesson From the Lamp and the Loaves

These first two paragraphs have several things in common. Both deal with matters pertaining to the tabernacle and the priestly ministry related to it. Both the lampstand and the table are made of gold. Both were placed in the holy place inside the tabernacle. Both were matters of regular maintenance, one was daily (the lamp), the other weekly (the loaves). In both cases, the entire congregation are involved in one way or another. The people had to provide both oil for the lamp and flour for the loaves.

The importance of maintaining the light in the lamp and the loaves on the table underscores a very important principle, one which is found in both the Old and the New Testaments: SPIRITUAL MINISTRY REQUIRES PHYSICAL SUPPORT.

I may as well begin by confessing that we have a management area (overseen by one of our elders) which is labeled “physical support.” Thus, the precise terminology which I have employed here may differ somewhat from that which you can relate to. Regardless of the terminology, spiritual ministry and physical ministry are very much inter-twined. Some people look down on ministry which is “merely physical,” thinking that this is a kind of “second class service.” Our text shows such thinking to be false. You cannot separate physical ministry and spiritual ministry. In the Old and New Testaments spiritual ministry involved physical ministry. After all, our Lord’s spiritual ministry involved not only teaching, but healing the sick, raising the dead, and feeding the hungry.

The “spiritual” ministry of sacrifice which took place outside and inside the tabernacle required many “physical” facilities. There was the brazen altar, where the sacrifices were offered up in fire. There was the tabernacle, along with the golden table and lampstand. There was the ark and the veil. Apart from the construction and maintenance of these physical facilities, God could not have dwelt in the midst of His people, and the sins of the people could not have been atoned for by the sacrifices which were offered. The maintenance of the lamp and the loaves was so vital that it necessitated the involvement of both Moses, Aaron, and his sons.

Spiritual ministry requires physical support. Spiritual ministry is not divorced from the physical realm, but is, in some ways, dependent upon it. If this building is not properly heated or cooled, our ministry is greatly hindered. Several years ago, we had a problem with our gas line, and thus we had no heat, in the coldest part of the winter. We learned that it is very difficult to worship while your teeth are chattering. If there is no electricity, the PA system fails, and there is too little light to see very well. If the roof leaks and the floor is wet, someone could easily slip and fall.

Our church has a bulletin which must be put together and printed every week. We have tape recordings which are made weekly as well, and passed out to those Sunday School teachers who are not able to sit in on the teaching service. We have a wonderful library, containing both books and video tapes. Worship today, while it may differ from Israel’s worship, still requires certain physical facilities, and these, I believe should be meticulously maintained, with the recognition that spiritual ministry requires physical facilities, and suffers when these facilities are not properly maintained.

The Loudmouth
(24:10-23)

When we come to the third, and by far largest, section of chapter 24, we find a very different situation. It is this difference which causes many to question the continuity of the segments which make up this chapter. The first two paragraphs had to do with the tabernacle, and the maintenance of two physical elements pertaining to priestly ministry and Israel’s worship. Here, we are dealing with an individual who blasphemes, using the name of God, which ultimately results in action being taken “outside the camp,” with the execution of a blasphemer.

A young man, whose father was an Egyptian and whose mother was an Israelite, became involved in a disagreement which led to blows. We are not told who started the fight, nor who won. Sometime during the exchange of blows the young half-Israelite uttered the name of God as a curse138 against his foe. There is an obvious note of disdain for this half-breed boy. His father’s name is not given, nor is his lineage given. The mother’s name is given, however, along with the information about her lineage. Since Israel was to remain racially pure, and not to intermarry with the heathen, the product of this mixed marriage is not presented in a favorable light.

There is no question about the fact that blasphemy was already forbidden. The prohibitions which the Israelites have already been given are:

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain” (Exod. 20:7).

“And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 21:17).

“You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Exod. 22:28).

It appears as though this was the first violation of the law prohibiting blasphemy. Thus, there would be some questions about this case which would not be raised later. The first is this: what is the penalty for blasphemy, and how is it to be carried out? Although blasphemy was prohibited by the law, it was not clear who (it seems as though God had indicated He would punish the one who blasphemed in Exod. 20:7) would carry out the sentence, what the punishment would be, and how it would be carried out (there were several ways to execute a person, none of which have yet been specified). Secondly, since the guilty party was not a full-blooded Israelite, did the law apply to him in the same way it did to an Israelite? Blasphemy was not surprising from the lips of a heathen, and the Israelites may have been more inclined to view this young man as a heathen than as an Israelite (could this have contributed to the fight?).

The exceptional nature of this crime required a word of clarification, as it did in these other cases:

  • What about those not able to observe Passover? (Num. 9:6-14)
  • What about the man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath? (Num. 15:32-36)
  • What about daughters and the inheritance of their father? (Num. 27:1-11)

The situation in each of these cases is not all that different from what happens in law enforcement today. When a law is passed, a judicial ruling is required to clarify the interpretation and application of that law. When Congress passes a law, the courts, by means of specific decisions, spell out the interpretation and application of that law. Whether or not we agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the infamous case of Roe versus Wade this decision rendered many state laws prohibiting abortions unconstitutional and invalid, thus legalizing the millions of abortions which have resulted since that decision. Judicial decisions clarify the meaning and application of the law. The decision from God given here clarified the law pertaining to blasphemy.

God gave a specific answer to these questions, and then followed up with some principles of punishment which apply much more generally. The specific answer was that this young man must be stoned to death. All of the witnesses—those who overheard the blasphemy—were to lay their hands on the head of the one who was to be put to death.139 In this act I understand the witnesses to be identifying themselves in a special way with his death (cf. Deut. 13:9; 17:7). After all, it was their action and their testimony which led to the execution. The stoning of this blasphemer was to be carried out by every Israelite. How easy it would be in our time to hire a few gravel trucks to come and bury the sinner in several hundred yards of rock. Every Israelite had to take up a stone and cast it at the guilty party, or at least on the rock pile under which he was buried. If there were 2 million Israelites, then I would imagine that there were 2 million stones on that first stone heap. Thus, every Israelite identified with God and His law in the execution of the blasphemer.

Principles of Justice

In addition to the specific revelation concerning the fate of the blasphemer, God laid down two general principles of punishment, which were evident in this case, but which also were to govern punishment in a much broader class of offenses:140

(1) The punishment shall be equal to the crime. Punishment should always be meted out in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. This, incidentally, is one of the primary senses of the word justice. The standard, “an eye for an eye,” expresses this principle. In the ancient Near East, such was not always the case.

Throughout the ancient Orient the death penalty was imposed for a wider variety of crimes than currently in western society. This applies to the OT as much as the Mesopotamian systems, but whereas the laws of Hammurabi regard property offenses and similar crimes as capital, the OT does not. In its eyes, sins against the family and religion are the most serious, and hence often attract the death penalty, whereas economic matters are treated more lightly.141

Inequity in the punishment of offenders can be found later in the history of mankind, as well as in our own day:

“In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.”142 “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”143

(2) Punishment shall be equally administered, regardless of the race, social, or economic status of the person. A part of the problem with this specific instance of blasphemy was the fact that the offense was committed by a man who was only part Israelite. The question which needed to be answered was this: “Does the law apply differently to a native Israelite than to an alien?” The answer is clearly stated: “No!” In verses 15, 16, and 22 it is clearly stated that whether the guilty party was an alien or an Israelite, the penalty was the same.

The principle of equality in punishment was consistently taught in the Old Testament.144 In Deuteronomy 17:2 and 7 the principle of equality in punishment was applied to men and women. It is most clearly taught in the Book of Numbers:

‘All who are native shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the LORD. And if an alien sojourns with you, or one who may be among you throughout your generations, and he wishes to make an offering by fire, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, just as you do, so he shall do. As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD. There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you’ (Numbers 15:13-16; cf. also Deut. 29:10-13; 31:11-12).

The reason for Israel’s hesitation and for their question pertaining to equality in punishment was rooted in the fact that some of the surrounding nations did apply penalties in accordance with racial and social distinctions.

The unjust administration of “justice” is just as much a problem today as it was in ancient Israel:

Just as the poor and minorities are over-represented among victims, so our prisons are disproportionately filled with them. One author wrote about this inequity in a book with a title which summarizes the problem: The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.145

And while there have been important reforms in sentencing procedures, evidence remains that the death penalty still is applied in a racially discriminatory way. A recent study found that the death sentence is most often imposed when a black person kills a white person. Whites who kill whites are sentenced to death one-third less often, and only a small fraction of people (black or white) who kill blacks are given the death sentence.146

It is my opinion that our government would do a much better job of dealing with crime if it were to take these two simple principles of justice more seriously, to the point of implementing them practically and consistently.

There is no government on the face of the earth which does “justice” to these two principles. Interestingly enough, however, the New Testament applies these Old Testament principles to the practice of church discipline. Just as the witnessing parties in Israel were to initiate and carry through the process of justice (even to laying their hands on the head of the victim and then casting the first stone), so the person who sees a brother “overtaken in a fault” is to take the initiative, even to the point of carrying through with the process (cf. Matt. 18:15-20; Gal. 6:1-2). If the guilty party refuses to repent, then the entire church is to “put the offender out,” in a way not unlike the Israelites took the offender “outside the camp” (cf. Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5). As I understand the Scriptures, if the New Testament rebel refuses to repent, the death penalty may be executed by God, perhaps using Satan as an instrument of punishment (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:30; 1 Tim. 1:20; James 5:14-16).

The Peril of Profanity

If our text teaches us anything, it teaches us the peril of profanity. Blasphemy is taken most seriously in the Bible. If the punishment is to be equal to the crime, then blasphemy is a most serious offense. There are two questions which we must ask ourselves. The first is this: What is blasphemy? In brief, we can say, blasphemy is, by word or deed, the defamation of God’s character and glory.

The second question follows: How is it that men can blaspheme God? The Bible informs us that there are a number of ways in which we can blaspheme. Among these are:

  • Willful disobedience—Num. 15:30
  • Rejecting God’s Word—2 Ki. 18:17-25 (cf. Isa. 37:1-7, 23)
  • Acting treacherously against God—Ezek. 20:27; cf. 36:20-32
  • Failing to give God the glory He deserves—Rom. 1:18ff.; Rev. 16:9, 11
  • Rejection of the gospel—Acts 13:45; 1 Tim. 1:13

Blasphemy is defaming God’s name, and God’s character and reputation are reflected by His name(s). God’s restoration of Israel (Ezek. 36:20-32), as well as His salvation of the Gentiles (Eph. 1, cf. vv. 6, 12, 14) is for the praise of His glory, for the honoring of His name. Thus, to defame God’s name is to rebel against His character and His purposes.

Those who blaspheme the name of God today minimize the seriousness of their words by sheepish excuses or apologies like, “Excuse my French.” Perhaps the most awesome reality for those who blaspheme is this statement by the apostle Paul, who himself was once a blasphemer (1 Tim. 1:13):

Therefore God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

Those who take the name of the Lord in vain, who blaspheme His name, will someday have to kneel before Him and, as it were, eat their words, acknowledging His lordship, His holiness, His majesty. What an awful thing for one to do who has not received Him as Savior and Lord. For those who have trusted in Him, the name of God is the object of our praise, which will be our eternal occupation in heaven (cf. Rev. 4 and 5).

The Cohesive Principle of This Passage

In the introduction to this message I said that I would attempt to identify the “common denominator” of this chapter, that truth or principle which underlies its unity and central thrust. It is time for us to determine what this principle is.

We must begin by looking at the book as a whole and specifically at the larger segment of which chapter 24 is a part. The larger segment is chapters 23-25, which deal with religious rituals of various kinds. One can easily see that the book as a whole is dealing with religious rituals, in which the levitical priests play a key role. Thus, chapter 24 must have something to do with religious ritual.

In verses 1-4 of chapter 24 the central thrust is summarized by the word “continually” (vv. 2, 3, 4). The flame of the lamp(s) must be kept burning continually. In verses 5-9, it is the bread which must be continually kept on the golden table, freshly baked and changed every week. This, too, was to be continually (v. 8) done. We can say that the first 9 verses were concerned with the ritual of maintaining the lamp and the loaves. They were both to be tended regularly, ritually, without interruption.

Justice, too, was to become a matter of ritual, which is the underlying point of verses 10-33. I mean by this that the decision which God gave, along with the governing principles, was given to the Israelites so that justice would be carried out consistently, the same way each time, without variation, without deviation, without cessation.

In all three sections of chapter 24 the element of continuity, of rigorous ritual is present. I would like to suggest that in the Old Testament, righteousness was to be viewed (not entirely, but importantly) in terms of rituals. The sacrifices were religious rituals, to be carried out at specified times, and in very precisely defined ways. Deviation from these rituals has already (chapter 10) resulted in the death of Nadab and Abihu. Defilement was ritually pronounced and ritually cleansed. Now, the lamp and the loaves are to be ritually replenished. Justice is to be so uniformly administered that it is, in a sense, a ritual.

Admittedly, ritual can become meaningless activity, activity carried on apart from a right heart or mind: “The Lord said, ‘Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote’” (Isa. 29:13).

Nevertheless, there are righteous rituals and unrighteous rituals. By “ritual” I mean that kind of activity which is habitual, which is consistent, which has a certain predictability. For example, Daniel had a daily ritual of prayer, so that even his enemies know when he would be at prayer in his room (cf. Dan. 6:5-11). The Book of Proverbs is based upon the fact that people’s actions can be predicted on the basis of their character. The wise will act in a certain way, while the sluggard will act in another (predictable) way. Our character results in certain habits or rituals and these rituals reveal our character. Thus, the “way” of an individual is, to some degree, his ritual behavior.

While the Lord rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their ritualism (cf. Matt. 23), it is apparent that He Himself had certain characteristic patterns of behavior: “And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read” (Luke 4:16). Going to the synagogue on the Sabbath was a ritual with Jesus, as was teaching (Mark 10:1), and prayer (Luke 22:39). Paul had his rituals, too (Acts 17:2).

Godly rituals are merely habits of righteous conduct, a pattern of piety. It is amazing to me that Christians could question the value of righteous rituals. We adamantly resist the theory of evolution because it maintains that all of creation is the product of time and chance, insisting that what we see is the result of a divine plan and of the creative process of God. Why, then, do we think that godliness will somehow evolve, by chance, rather than by design and by a process and a routine?

It is my contention that much of what is involved in our sanctification has to do with putting off the rituals, the habit patterns of the flesh, and putting on the rituals of righteousness. Almost every evil entails a ritual. As I learned from my diet program (I call it my “fat class”), there is a ritual to overeating. There is also a ritual to alcoholism, to drug abuse, and to violence (e.g. child and wife beatings).

Just as there are rituals involved in sin, so there are rituals involved in righteousness. Thus, we must seek to develop habits, consistent patterns of godly conduct which become a way of life. Righteous is not something which should happen but once in a while, a kind of “freak of our spiritual nature,” but rather should be striven for as a regular course of life. While this will not be an unbroken pattern, it should be one which reflects some degree of regularity.

I have observed those who are skilled at what they do and every such person has some kind of ritual associated with his skill. The finish carpenter has a certain way of doing his work which is consistent. The surgeon, likewise, follows certain procedures meticulously. Every skilled worker I know of employs rituals in the way he or she does their work. Why should we who name the name of Christ think that God’s work needs to be done thoughtlessly, spontaneously, and with no consistency?

The rituals which we should strive to develop should surely be in the area of Bible study, prayer, giving, and ministry. The exceptions to our rituals should be few and far between. This, I believe, is the evidence of the work of God’s Spirit, who produces discipline in our lives rather than disorder.

Gordon MacDonald, in his excellent book, Ordering Your Private World, has much to say about personal discipline, but this one story will serve to illustrate his point, and that of our text:

I carry with me the memory of a time when my missiology professor at Seminary, Dr. Raymond Buker, approached me at the end of a special convocation where I had read a paper on some moral issue that was burning in the hearts of the student generation of that day. I had cut two of his classes that day to prepare the paper, and it had not gone unnoticed.

“Gordon,” he said, “the paper you read tonight was a good one, but it wasn’t a great one. Would you like to know why?”

I wasn’t sure I really wanted to know because I anticipated a bit of humiliation coming my way, but I swallowed hard and told Dr. Buker that I would like to hear his analysis.

“The paper wasn’t a great one,” he said as he thumped his finger on my chest, “because you sacrificed the routine to write it.”

In pain I learned one of the most important lessons I ever needed to learn. Because my time as a Christian leader is generally my own to use as I please, it would be very easy to avoid routine, unspectacular duties, and give myself only to the exciting things that come along. But most of life is lived in the routine, and Buker was right: the man or woman who learns to make peace with routine responsibilities and obligations will make the greatest contributions in the long run.147

May God give you and me the grace to develop righteous rituals in our lives, to develop and maintain routines which become habits of holiness, so that we may more faithfully serve Him.


132 A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 242.

133 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 308.

134 The change in the text from “lamp” (v. 2) and “lamps” (v. 4) can be explained by the fact that the one lampstand had 7 lamps. It was a lamp made up of seven lamps: “As the relief on the triumphal arch of Emperor Titus in Rome indicates, the lampstand with its seven arms gave the impression of a stylized almond tree with seven branches, and it has now become a symbol of Judaism.” Noordtzij, p. 242.

135 Whereas the golden table for the bread of the Presence is described in Exodus 25:23-30 (see also Exod. 37:10-16), the present passage deals with the bread itself. The Hebrew expression for this bread literally means “bread of the face” (viz. of the Lord). The Chronicler refers to this as “layer-bread” (ma` reket, NIV, “bread set out on the table,” 1 Chron. 9:32; 23:29; Neh. 10:33 [MT 10:34], Numbers 4:7 designates it tamid bread” (cf. KJV; RSV; NIV; “bread that is continually there”), and in 1 Samuel 21:6 it is called “consecrated bread.” Noordtzij, p. 243.

136 “The bread was placed on a fairly small low table covered in gold plate (see Exod. 25:23-30//37:10-16). Along with the bread, various small dishes had to be placed on the table. Josephus says the loaves of bread were piled up (Antiquities 3:6:6). Despite the usual English translation, this seems the only way that twelve huge loaves could have been arranged on a table of this size (3’ x 1’6” = 90 x 45 cm).” Wenham, p. 310.

137 For texts which deal with the golden table and the loaves placed on it, cf. Exod. 25:30; 1 Sam. 21:4-7 (cf. also Mark 2:26); 1 Chron. 9:32; 23:29; Neh. 10:33.

138 Noordtzij comments, “Actually, the word blaspheme does not accurately represent the meaning of the Hebrew text. The author here uses two verbs, the first (naqab), which the NIV translates as ‘blaspheme,’ literally meaning ‘to pierce,’ with the intent of debilitating a person. The second term, rendered as ‘curse (cf. KJV, RV; NIV has ‘with a curse’), actually means to declare someone to be ‘contentless’ or without significance, and thus to deny that he has any power. In this connection, it is necessary to remember that, for the ancient Near Eastern mind, there existed a close connection between a nation (and each of its members) and its god. The strength of a nation derived from its god, and the attempt to weaken the god by the pronouncement of specific magical formulas resulted in the simultaneous weakening of the people (cf. Balaam’s oracles concerning Israel). The transgressor spoken of in these verses attempts to take such action against his adversary. He ‘pierces’ the Lord’s name and declares Him to be without content or significance, thereby intended to render the Israelite man powerless. It should be noted here that to the ancient Near Eastern mind (this same idea also appears elsewhere), the spoken word, and to an even greater degree the magical formula, were effective in and of themselves provided they were uttered in the correct manner. The guilty person here therefore did not pronounce a curse in our sense of the word, but rather attacked the Lord’s holy nature and declared this to be without content or significance.” Noordtzij, p. 245.

He further comments: “As a final observation, it may be noted that this pericope provoked a peculiar reaction on the part of the Jews. On the one hand, this incident induced them to forbid the utterance of the name of the Lord (Yahweh) and to declare it taboo, and they thus replaced it with ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ when Scripture was read in the synagogue (see discussion on 1:1).

“On the other hand, they interpreted verses 15-16 to mean (Sanhedrin 56) that although it was in general forbidden to pronounce one of the Lord’s names (e.g., ‘Lord’ or ‘God’) in a curse, the death penalty was to be enacted only when a person used the name ‘Yahweh’ in this manner. The rabbis punished the maledictory utterance of such descriptive names with scourging or banishment, but similar use of the name ‘Yahweh’ was subject to the death sentence. For Judaism, ‘Yahweh’ was nothing less than the Name (hassem, or in its Aramaic form, sema’), and because of this, the original reading in verse 11, sem yhwh (“the name of the LORD”), was altered to hassem (‘the Name’) in transcription, while in verse 16b the proper name yhwh was merely dropped after sem. It would seem proper to me to restore the original text in both instances.” Noordtzij, p. 247.

139 Noordtzij has a strange explanation of the meaning of the act of the witnesses who lay their hands on the head of the one who is to be stoned: “All who had heard the blasphemous utterance were first to place their hands on the head of the condemned man (v. 13), and in accordance with the instruction given in Deuteronomy 17:7, these witnesses were then to begin the stoning. The laying on of hands here is usually regarded as a pronouncement of guilt, but this view seems to me incorrect. Through their hearing of the curse, the witnesses had been infected by the potent magical words, and they had thus in a certain sense come to share the guilt. The imposition of hands then served to transfer their guilt to the blasphemer, just as the sinner transferred his guilt to the sacrificial animal by means of the s’mika(h) (see discussion of 1:4) and Aaron transferred the sins of the people to the goat for Azazel (16:21-22).” Noordtzij, p. 245.

140 “This incident of blasphemy provided an occasion to spell out some of the cardinal principles of biblical law in a short digression, vv. 16-22. These verses are carefully arranged in a concentric pattern called a palistrophe.

      A resident alien and native Israelite (v. 16)

        B take a man’s life (v. 17)

          C take an animal’s life (v. 18)

            D whatever he did, must be done to him (v. 19)

            D’ whatever …, must be done to him (v. 20)

          C’ kill an animal (v. 21a)

        B’ kill a man (v. 21b)

      A’ resident alien and Israelite (v. 22)

The symmetry and balance of this structure reinforces the points made explicitly in the text, namely, that in these cases the same penalty must be applied to both resident alien and native Israelite (vv. 16, 22) and that in all cases the punishment must match the offense: If a man injures his fellow citizen, whatever he did must be done to him (v. 19).” Wenham, pp. 311, 312.

141 Ibid., p. 311. Wenham further writes, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 20)—this is one of three passages in the OT setting out the so-called lex talionis (cf. Exod. 21:23-25; Deut. 19:21), a fundamental principle of biblical and Near Eastern law, namely, that punishment must be proportionate to the offense. Retribution is a principal goal of the penal system in the Bible.

“It seems likely that this phrase eye for eye, etc. was just a formula. In most cases in Israel it was not applied literally. It meant that compensation appropriate to the loss incurred must be paid out. Thus if a slave lost an eye, he was given his freedom (Exod. 21:26). The man who killed an ox had to pay its owner enough for him to buy another (Lev. 24:18). Only in the case of premeditated murder was such compensation forbidden (Num. 35:16ff.). Then the principle of life for life must be literally enforced, because man is made in the image of God (Gen. 9:5-6).” Wenham, p. 312.

142 Daniel W. Van Ness, Crime and Its Victims (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), p. 91.

143 Ibid., p. 156. Van Ness goes on to spell out the negative impact the inequity between the crime and its punishment has upon the offender: “The extent to which prisoners feel that they themselves are victims is remarkable. They believe that the criminal justice system did not work for them the way it is supposed to, that the things they experience in prison are far worse than they deserve for breaking the law. And most of all, they are acutely aware that the punishment they are being given has nothing to do with the crime they committed. They know that being in prison does not address the harm caused their victims.

“Their prison experience is not forcing them to accept responsibility for what they have done. Instead, it is motivating them to fight the system that they believe is treating them unjustly. Chief Justice Warren Burger has described it this way: ‘So we see a paradox, even while we struggle toward correction, education and rehabilitation of the offender, our system encourages prisoners to continue warfare with society. The result is that whatever may have been the defendant’s hostility toward the police, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the judge and jurors, and the public defender who failed to win his case, those hostilities are kept alive. How much chance do you think there is of changing or rehabilitating a person who is encouraged to keep up years of constant warfare with society?’” Van Ness, p. 57.

144 Consider the following passages, which require that the law be applied to the Israelite and the alien in exactly the same way: Exod. 12:19-20, 49; 20:10; 22:21; 23:12; Lev. 16:29; 17:12, 15; 18:26; 19:33-34; 25:35; Num. 9:14; 15:14, 29, 30; 19:10; 22:10-12; 23:22; Deut. 1:16; 5:14; 16:11, 14; 26:11. In very few places is the treatment of the stranger or alien distinguished from that of the native Israelite (cf. Exod. 12:43, 48; Deut. 14:21, 29; 17:15; 23:20).

145 Van Ness, p. 43.

146 Ibid., p. 189.

147 Gordon MacDonald, Ordering Your Private World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), pp. 115-116.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

19. Super-Sabbath: Israel's Land and Its Lord (Leviticus 25:1-34)

Introduction

When we began our study of the Book of Leviticus (which we never thought would be so extensive), I referred to the book as a “liver and onions” book, one that was good for you, but wasn’t very enjoyable. Well, I’ve changed my mind. This book is “steak and ale,” a real feast. Through the weeks of my study I have grown to love this book. Far from being dull and irrelevant, it is a book which conveys the character and the heart of God. The 25th chapter of Leviticus especially reveals the grace of God and His compassion for the poor and the oppressed. The Sabbath year and the Super-Sabbath, the year of Jubilee, are one of God’s gracious provisions for His people, especially the poor.

It is not just the “spirit” of the chapter which is relevant to the 20th century Christian. The content of the chapter deals with one of the most pressing problems our world is facing—that of the equitable distribution of property among the population of the world. Communism is dead wrong in its theology (atheism—religion is the opiate of the people), in its solutions and methodology (revolution), but it has certainly grasped the fact that the dispossessed peoples of the earth have a great desire to own a portion of land. The peoples of the world care little for the philosophy of communism, but they are very much attracted by its offer of property for those who have none.

It is not just communism, per se, which addresses this problem of the possession of the land. A more religious revolutionary approach is to be found in the “liberation theology”148 of our day. Indeed, such “theologians” capitalize on biblical books like Exodus and Leviticus to validate their erroneous views.

Furthermore, our study of God’s laws and God’s land will enable us to understand why the Jews feels so strongly about the possession of Palestine. The centuries old struggle between the Arabs and the Jews is essentially one over the possession of the holy land. Some of the reasons for this struggle will become evident in our study.

Finally, the year of Jubilee is one of the beautiful prototypes of the redemption which will be achieved in the person of Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah. This great event is described and defined almost entirely in Leviticus chapter 25, with only incidental references being found in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 36:4. If we would understand the concept of Jubilee, we must learn it here.

Overview of the Chapter

The entire chapter deals with the sabbath year and the super-sabbath, the year of Jubilee, which comes every 50th year. The two events are very much inter-related, and are thus both dealt with at the same time. The sabbath year has already been dealt with previously, but from a different perspective.149 The observance of the sabbath and the super-sabbath as defined here focuses primarily on the land and on the people. Verses 1-34 lay down God’s law pertaining to the land, while verses 35-55 prescribe the application of the sabbath to the people.

The Approach of This Lesson

In this lesson we will direct our attention to the first matter, the laws and the land of God. We will begin by reviewing what has already been written in the Pentateuch, in preparation for the instruction of this chapter. Then we will briefly survey what practices were a part of the observance of the sabbath and the super-sabbath. We will next turn to the application of the legislation of this chapter in the history of Israel. Turning to the New Testament, we will consider the impact of our Lord’s teaching pertaining to Himself and to the land of promise. Finally, we will consider the application of the “laws of the land” by the New Testament church, which includes the 20th Christian as well.

Pentateuchal Preparations for the Laws of the Land

It is my contention that the land of Canaan, the promised land of Israel, was consistently viewed in the Old Testament as the place of God’s presence and of His blessing. This begins at the very outset of divine revelation in the Book of Genesis, chapters 2 and 3. The Garden of Eden was, as it were, a kind of farm—at least an orchard. God placed Adam and Eve there, to keep the garden, and to enjoy its blessings. These blessings included fellowship with God, who came to walk with them in the garden (3:8), and the blessing of everlasting life, the result of eating from the fruit of the tree of life (3:22). To enjoy these blessings, all this couple had to do was to keep one commandment, to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). When they disobeyed and ate of this fruit, they were expelled from the garden (in general), and kept from eating of the tree of life (in particular, 3:22-24). The parallels between the Garden of Eden and the promised land of Canaan, the land of “milk and honey,” are not difficult to grasp. For now, let us simply observe that the earth was created with a special place for man, where God’s presence and His blessings were available. To enjoy these blessings, man had to obey God’s commands. To be expelled from this place was to be deprived of these blessings.

Abraham came to grasp the fact that the promised land was the place of God’s special blessing too. God called Abram to leave his land and to go to the place He would show him. The Abrahamic Covenant consisted of three particular promises: a land, a seed, and a blessing (cf. Gen. 12:1-3). These three promises were rightly understood to be somehow bound together, inseparable. During Abraham’s life, he built altars and called on the name of the Lord only in the land of promise. At his death, Abraham’s last two recorded acts had to do with the land. In chapter 23, Abraham purchased a family burial site in the land of promise. In chapter 24, Abraham gave solemn instructions to his servant concerning how he was to procure a wife for his son, Isaac. His most stern warning to his servant was that not under any circumstance was he to take Isaac out of the land (24:5-8). Abraham had learned that the blessings of the covenant God had made with him were inseparable from dwelling in the land. Even though his descendants might be removed from this land for a number of years, God would bring them back to it to experience the fulfillment of His promises (cf. 15:13-16).

Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, learned that this land of promise was a very special place, the place of God’s presence and blessing. Because of his deception and deceit, Jacob was forced to flee from the promised land, to live in the very place which Abraham warned his servant not to take Isaac. Nevertheless, God appeared to Jacob before he had left the land of promise:

And he had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12).

In this vision, God reiterated His covenant, which He had made with Abraham and Isaac. He promised to be with Jacob wherever he went, and to bring him, once again, to this land, where He would bless him. Jacob’s response to this dream is very significant: “Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ‘Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.’ And he was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven’” (Gen. 28:16-17).

Jacob’s dream convinced him that this land was special. It was the dwelling place of God, the place of God’s special blessing. And, more than this, it was the “gate of heaven.” No wonder the land of promise was so important to the Israelite! And no wonder that Joseph, Jacob’s son, would instruct his sons to bury his bones in that promised land, rather than in Egypt (Gen. 50:24-25).

In the Book of Exodus we see this same emphasis being revealed to Moses and the people of Israel. When God called Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt He promised, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain” (Exod. 3:12).

In Leviticus chapter 26, God promises to bless His people in their land. He will give rains in their season and crops in abundance if they obey His commandments. If they disobey, He will drive them out of their land, and they will experience cursing, not blessing. Being in the land is essential, for it is the place of God’s special blessing.

Later, in the Book of Deuteronomy, the land of promise is referred to as the place of rest:

“You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes; for you have not as yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which the LORD your God is giving you. When you cross the Jordan and live in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to inherit, and He gives you rest from all your enemies around you so that you live in security, then it shall come about that the place in which the LORD your God shall choose for His name to dwell, there you shall bring all that I command you …” (Deut. 12:8-11a).

However, since the people will not obey God, God’s words of warning (cursing) in the last part of Deuteronomy speak of the judgment of God in terms of having no rest, outside of the land of promise:

“Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. And among those nations you shall find no rest, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul. So your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall be in dread night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life” (Deut. 28:64-66).150

The story of Ruth is especially interesting in relationship to finding “rest” or God’s blessings in the land of promise. Naomi encouraged both of her daughters-in-law to return to their own land and to their homes (her mother’s house), where they might find “rest” (1:8-9). Ruth declined however, determining to find her rest with Naomi, in her land, and by the hand of her God (1:16-18). This Moabite woman looked for God’s blessing only in the land of promise, with His people.

The Practical Outworkings
of the Sabbath Year and the Super-Sabbath

According to the instructions God gave in Leviticus 25 the observance of the Sabbath year involved several things. First, the land must lie fallow and given its rest (v. 2). The seventh year, crops could not be planted, and those crops which were permanent (e.g. grapes, olive trees) were not to be pruned or cared for as they were the other six years (v. 3). The annual crops would re-seed themselves and thus there would be grain, and the perennial plants would continue to bear fruit. No harvests were allowed during the sabbath year (v. 5). By this, I understand that the crops were not to be harvested for sale. This did not prohibit the people from eating the crops, however. In fact, all the people, especially the poor (and even the animals) could eat in the fields (vv. 6-7). Rather than having the corners of the fields in which to glean, the poor could eat from any portion of the field.

Elsewhere the Israelites were instructed to forgive debts which were owed them and unpaid by their Israelite brethren (Deut. 15:1ff.). Also in Deuteronomy 31 we learn that the sabbath year was to begin at the Feast of Booths (31:10) and that the law was read at this time as well (31:13).

There was a great deal of faith required of the Israelites to follow these commandments pertaining to the sabbath year. After all, letting the fields lie fallow for a whole year seemed like a waste, and put the Israelite in the position of having to trust God for his daily bread. In verses 18-22 of Leviticus 25 God assumed that some would have their doubts about the sabbath year observance, and thus He assured the Israelites of His provision. In addition, let it be kept in mind that in Exodus chapter 16 God instituted the sabbath day observance with regard to the gathering of the manna. For some time, then, the people had been experiencing God’s faithfulness in this matter. God gave the people a small test of faith before He gave a larger one. Israel was thus prepared for what God commanded here.

The super-sabbath was similar to, but not identical with, the sabbath year. The year of Jubilee commenced with the sounding of the ram’s horn on the annual day of atonement151 (on the tenth day of the seventh month). It would seem that the land had to lie fallow for 2 years since the year of Jubilee was the 50th year, following on the heels of the 7th (49th) year. Some have questioned this, suggesting that the sabbath year and the Jubilee were observed simultaneously152. These discussions are hypothetical and conjectural. The bottom line is that God is able to provide for a one or a two year period.

On the sabbath year the all debts were canceled, but in the year of Jubilee the Israelite who has sold himself to another is released, and the land which has been leased (since it cannot be sold, v. 23) to another is restored to its original owner. Only houses which were in walled cities were exempt, and after a redemption period of one year, it became the permanent possession of its purchaser.

Parenthetically, one can imagine that the aggressive promoter types would have been inclined to buy such houses (in walled cities) since they were one of the few properties which could be accumulated permanently. I think that the “widows houses” which the scribes and Pharisees were accused of devouring (Matt. 23:14), were those houses in walled cities. Where would a widow wish to live out her last days, if not in the security of a walled city? And who would an unscrupulous Pharisee find an easier prey than a helpless widow? The letter of the law was meticulously observed, but the spirit was greatly violated, and thus the stern rebuke of our Lord.

There is an interesting and very obvious contrast between loans which were made to a needy Israelite and the lease of an Israelite’s land, until the year of Jubilee. Loans were to be made without any consideration of how many years were left to repay the loan (Deut. 15:7-11). Leases, however, must be made by calculating the number of years remaining until the Jubilee (Lev. 25:14-16; cf. 26-28). The difference is not so much that between the sabbath year and the year of Jubilee, but between a loan and a lease. One is an act of generosity, which is considered more as a gift than a loan, while the other is a business arrangement, which is therefore very carefully governed so that a fair deal is struck. This is important since people are often taken advantage of in times of dire financial need.

The Purpose of the Sabbath and Super-Sabbath

Several purposes are evident in the commandments given here regarding the observance of the sabbath and super-sabbath.

(1) The sabbath and super-sabbath were a reminder of the fact that God owned the land. There is a folk song that goes something like this, “This land is my land, this land is your land …” This is a song which the Israelite could not sing. God clearly stated that the land was His, and that the Israelites were His tenants (v. 23). The Israelites would need a very practical and pointed demonstration of this from time to time, and the sabbath regulations did this beautifully. Let’s face it, the things we own we attempt to maintain, and we attempt to restrict their use. If the Israelite really owned the land, he would feel obliged to maintain his fields, and he would be inclined to post “No Trespassing” signs, keeping out others, especially strangers. God’s regulations forcefully underscored the fact that the Israelites did not own the land because they were prohibited from maintaining the land for one year out of every seven, and they were also instructed to allow their neighbors to come onto their land and to partake of their crops. The poor and the aliens were included here (cf. vv. 5-6). Those who own something feel free to use it when and how they like. The land could not be used other than in the ways God prescribed. Thus, the sabbath and Jubilee regulations proved the land was God’s.

(2) It made it possible for the people of Israel to become the recipients of divine blessing. Remember that a large part of the blessings which God promised His people consisted of the rain and the crops which God would give His people. To be a recipient of God’s blessing, one must have his own land by which means he will be benefited.

(3) The commands related to the observance of the sabbath and Jubilee years were tests of the Israelite’s faith and obedience, and the basis for God’s blessings or discipline.

(4) The regulations regarding the use of the land were a provision for the poor, providing them with food in times of need and with the possibility of a new beginning.

(5) The “laws of the land” were designed to hinder materialism and to keep in check those who would try to accumulate vast land holdings, at the expense of others. If these land laws were followed, there would be little incentive for one to lease the land of another, since the land would ultimately be returned to its owner, and since the price of the lease was directly tied to the value of its crops. There were no speculation land deals in that day, not if God’s laws were obeyed.

The Practice of the
Sabbath and Super-Sabbath Years in Israel

There are two very different incidents recorded in the Old Testament which show us how these “laws of the land” were either ignored or implemented by God’s people. First we turn to the account of Ahab’s “acquisition” of the vineyard belonging to Naboth, recorded in 1 Kings chapter 21. Ahab was Israel’s king, who had plenty of his own land, but there was this nice little vineyard, very near his palace … When approached by Ahab, Naboth refused to sell, not merely out of stubbornness or possessiveness, but knowing that God had intended the land to remain in the hands of those families and tribes to which it was first given: “The Lord forbid me that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Ki. 21:3).

In obedience to the intent and stated purposes of the “laws of the land,” Naboth could not sell his land without disobeying God. What Naboth knew well, Ahab was either ignorant of or it didn’t matter. Ahab was nevertheless ready to give up, but was depressed over his frustrated efforts. Jezebel handled the matter for him in a way that grossly violated the “laws of the land,” but in the pretext of keeping the Mosaic laws. The one way that the king could keep the property of an Israelite was to find him guilty of a capital offense, like blasphemy (which, you will recall, is dealt with in Leviticus chapter 24). A banquet is arranged, Naboth is invited, and two false witnesses are employed to bring the charge of blasphemy against Naboth, who is executed with a hypocritical sense of indignation and divine duty. God was not mocked, however, for Ahab “bought the farm” in more than one sense. His sin cost him his dynasty (cf. 1 Ki. 21:20-22; 22).

The contrast between Ahab and Boaz is a beautiful one. Ahab and Jezebel abused the law, using it as a pretext for doing good (punishing a blasphemer) when it was an instrument for doing evil (taking a man’s property and his children’s inheritance). Naomi was the widow of an Israelite who, due to a famine, had to sell (lease) his property and to move outside the land (Ruth 1:1-5). When Naomi returned to her land, Ruth went with her, seeking rest in Israel from Naomi’s God (1:15-18). Ruth quickly learned about the rights of the poor and went to the fields to glean (2:1ff.). In the providence of God, she happened upon the farm of Boaz, and also providentially God brought Ruth to his attention. Boaz went far beyond the requirement of the “laws of the land” and fed Ruth at his table, looking after her protection and welfare, and providing her with more of his produce than the bare minimum requirements (cf. 2:8-9, 14-16). Here is the law at its best, not viewed as a standard too high to strive for, but as a minimum to be surpassed. The kindly intent of God in giving the “laws of the land” is seen in the practice of this godly man, Boaz.

Beyond these two accounts we have little information concerning the observance of the sabbath and super-sabbath. Roland de Vaux writes, “The sabbatical year is therefore an ancient institution, but it is hard to say how faithfully the Israelites observed it. Positive evidence is rare and late, and comes from periods of national and religious fervour.”153

Of the year of Jubilee, de Vaux writes,

There is no evidence that the law was ever in fact applied. … The Law of Jubilee thus appears to set out an ideal of justice and social equality which was never realized. It is difficult to say when it was thought out. … But we must note that nowhere outside the Bible is the fiftieth year marked by a redistribution of the land or a remission of debts and of persons taken as sureties; nor is there any evidence whatever of such a general liberation, at any time whatever.154

We do now have evidences that, in general, God’s commandments were not kept, thus bringing about the expulsion of God’s people from His promised land and from His blessings. A disregard for the sabbath is seen in the Book of Amos, which is the basis for the divine judgment of God:

Hear this, you who trample the needy, to do away with the humble of the land, saying, “When will the new moon be over, So that we may buy grain, And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market, To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger, And to cheat with dishonest scales, So as to buy the helpless for money And the needy for a pair of sandals, And that we may sell the refuse of the wheat?” (Amos 8:4-6, cf. vv. 7ff.).

Isaiah, too, condemned Israel’s failure to care for the poor, which was a central purpose for the giving of the “laws of the land.” Isaiah spoke of Israel’s obedience to these laws as the basis for restoration and blessing:

“Is this not the fast which I chose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then your light will break out like the dawn, And your recovery will speedily spring forth; And your righteousness will go before you; The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; You will cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, If you give yourself to the hungry, And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your light will rise in darkness, And your gloom will become like midday. And the LORD will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail. And those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You will raise up the age-old foundations; And you will be called the repairer of the breach, The restorer of the streets in which to dwell” (Isa. 58:6-12).

Because Israel failed to obey God’s laws of the land, Israel and Judah were sent into captivity:

And those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete (2 Chron. 36:20-21).

The prophets spoke much of Israel’s restoration. Through Jeremiah God promised restoration, based upon Israel’s keeping of the sabbath day (Jer. 17:24-27). But even when the captives were loosed and God’s people returned to the land of promise, observance of God’s “laws of the land” was imperfect (cf. Neh. 5). The later prophets thus speak of a great and future day of restoration, which will be fulfilled only in the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of His kingdom. The “laws of the land” are very much in view in these promises. Ezekiel, for example, speaks of the restoration of Israel and its implications:

‘Thus says the Lord God, “If the prince gives a gift out of his inheritance to many of his sons, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance. But if he gives a gift from his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his until the year of liberty; then it shall return to the prince. His inheritance shall be only his sons’; it shall belong to them. And the prince shall not take from the people’s inheritance, thrusting them out of their possession; he shall give his sons inheritance from his own possession so that My people shall not be scattered, anyone from his possession”’ (Ezek. 46:16-18).

“So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. And it will come about that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel” (Ezek. 47:21-22).

This latter prophecy is significant in that it foresees and foretells of the inclusion of the Gentiles (aliens) in the coming kingdom, which Messiah will establish.

Likewise, Micah foretold the day of Israel’s restoration in the land:

And each of them will sit under his vine And under his fig tree, With no one to make them afraid, For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. … “In that day,” declares the LORD, “I will assemble the lame, And gather the outcasts, Even those whom I have afflicted. I will make the lame a remnant, And the outcasts a strong nation, And the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion From now on and forever” (Micah 4:4, 6-7).

One of the most significant prophecies of Israel’s restoration, couched in Jubilee terminology, is found in the Book of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives, And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD” (Isa. 61:1-2a).

It will be this text which our Lord reads in the synagogue of His home town, Nazareth, as recorded in the 4th chapter of Luke’s gospel. Before we turn to the teaching of our Lord and the land of Israel, let us take a moment to pause and reflect on the meaning of the land to the Israelite of old.

The land of Israel was, to the Jew, the place of God’s presence and of His blessing. To be in the land was to be in the place of blessing, and to be outside of the land was to be apart from the place of blessing.

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that the godly Jew saw some magical power inherent and active in the land of promise. Ultimately it was God who was the source of blessing. Thus, we read in the Psalms that God is the saint’s dwelling place, the place of security, safety, and blessing:

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the LORD, ‘My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!’ (Ps. 91:1-2).

Preserve me, O God, for I take refuge in Thee. I said to the LORD, “Thou art my LORD; I have no good besides Thee. … The LORD is the portion of my inheritance and my cup; Thou dost support my lot” (Ps. 16:1-2, 5).

“I love Thee, O LORD, my strength.” The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (Ps. 18:1-2; cf. Ps. 27, 31).

Asaph summed up the fact that God is the saint’s true reward, who is always present, and who is one’s true good, even when he is afflicted and the wicked momentarily prosper:

Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. … But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord God my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works (Ps. 73:25-26, 28).

The writer of the Book of Hebrews sums up the view of the godly Old Testament saint with regard to the land, and its relationship to their faith:

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Heb. 11:13-16).

And so it was that the godly Israelites of the Old Testament dispensation were eagerly waiting for the coming of Messiah, in whom their hope rested. The heavenly country was that which He would bring to pass. The Messiah’s arrival and message was not welcomed by all, however.

The “Laws of the Land” and the Messiah

The year of Jubilee, to a large degree, was an ideal, one not realized by the nation Israel in the Old Testament dispensation. This does not mean that these laws, found in Leviticus 25 (and elsewhere) were of no value, however. In the first place, these laws revealed the compassionate heart of God toward the poor and the downtrodden. In the second place, it revealed how far short the nation Israel fell from living up to the standards which God had set. Thirdly, the ideals established by the “laws of the land” prepared the way for the Messiah who was to come, and through whom both men and the land would be brought to full restoration (cf. Rom. 8:18-25).

It is not surprising, then, that when our Lord appeared as Israel’s Messiah, He spoke of Himself and His ministry in “jubilee” terms and imagery. In the fourth chapter of Luke’s gospel our Lord read from Isaiah 61:1-2a in the synagogue and said that these words had been fulfilled in the hearing of His audience (Luke 4:21). I believe that our Lord was claiming to be the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, as well as to being the antitype of the year of jubilee. Wenham agrees when he writes,

In Isa. 61:1, from which Jesus was quoting, the word used for “release” … is the same as that found in Lev. 25:10. It seems quite likely, therefore, that the prophetic description of the “acceptable year of the Lord’ was partly inspired by the idea of the jubilee year. The messianic age brings liberty to the oppressed and release to the captives.

This age was inaugurated with Christ’s first coming (Luke 4:21). It will be completed by his second coming (Jas. 5:1-8; cf. Luke 16:19-31). The jubilee, then, not only looks back to God’s first redemption of his people from Egypt (Lev. 25:38, 55), but forward to the “restitution of all things,” “for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (Acts 3:31; 2 Pet. 3:13).155

This is but the beginning, however. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus’ beatitudes, such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” convey the concept of jubilee. Who were more blessed than the poor and oppressed, for whom jubilee was to provide deliverance and a new beginning.

It is striking to observe that in the gospels Jesus used much of the symbolism and terminology which was related to the land, as viewed by the Old Testament, to refer to Himself and to the blessings which He had come to bring. The text in Genesis 28, where Jacob’s ladder was described, seems to be referred to when Jesus said to Nathaniel, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (John 1:51).

If Jesus was claiming to be “Jacob’s ladder,” as I believe He was, then He is saying that while the land of Israel was once the special place of God’s presence, and the mediating point between heaven and earth (in Jacob’s words, “the gate of heaven,” Gen. 28:17), then Jesus has now assumed this role. He is the place where God abides in a special way, and He is the gate to heaven. To put the matter in words which our Lord Himself spoke,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep … I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:7, 9).

“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

If the Lord Jesus was Jacob’s ladder, He was also the “water of life.” In the Old Testament, God promised water for the land of promise:

The afflicted and needy are seeking water, but there is none, And their tongue is parched with thirst; I, the LORD, will answer them Myself, As the God of Israel I will not forsake them. I will open rivers on the bare heights, And springs in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water, And the dry land fountains of water (Isa. 41:17-18; cf. Lev. 26:4; Deut. 11:10-12).

Later on, God Himself was spoken of in terms of water:

As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for Thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; When shall I come and appear before God? (Ps. 42:1-2; cf. Ps. 63:1).

“For the people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns, That can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13).

When our Lord speaks of Himself in terms of water, I believe that He is referring to Himself in terms of those blessings (in the land) with which the godly Israelite was most familiar. Think of these words in this light:

“If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:10).

Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:37-38).

How shocking it must have been to an Israelite, one who would scarcely consider giving up his farm, to hear these words of Jesus, which pronounce a blessing on those who give up farms: “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, shall receive many times as much, and shall inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:29).

Farms were the means by which God’s blessing was poured out on His people in the Old Testament. Farms were not to be given up, but were to be kept as in inheritance. Jesus pronounces a blessing on those who do give up farms, and speaks of one’s inheritance as “eternal life.” What has changed here? Why has the Old Testament emphasis on the land been so radically reversed?

The reason is that the Lord Jesus Christ has come; Israel’s Messiah has come. The special place of God’s dwelling is now Christ Himself, not a land, not a temple, not a tabernacle (although the terms tabernacle and temple are referred to by our Lord, cf. John 1:14; 2:19). The evidence, in my opinion, is more than abundant proof of this.

In the Old Testament, especially in the Book of Deuteronomy, Israel’s blessings were spoken of as “rest,” while her cursings were spoken of in terms of “no rest.” Rest was to be given in the land, while no rest was to be experienced outside the land. In the light of the relationship of “rest” to the “land,” think of the claim which our Lord was making when He said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). The Jews were in the land of promise, but they did not have rest. Jesus offered them rest, in Himself, not in the land. Rest is now something which is found in Christ, not in a physical location.

So, too, worship is something which is no longer to be limited to a certain place, to the land of Israel, to designated places of worship in the promised land, to the tabernacle or the temple. When Jesus was talking to the “woman at the well” in John chapter 4, she raised a very tender point of dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans, a dispute over which mountain was the place where God was to be worshipped (cf. John 4:20). Jesus’ answer to this woman was that worship is no longer a matter of place, but of a person. The worship of the Father is to be done through, by means of, the Son.

It is therefore not the place—the holy land of Israel—which is so important in the New Testament, but the person of Christ.156 God dwells in Him, and it is in Him that we are saved, secure, and blessed. Thus, men can forsake their farms and follow Him without losing God’s blessing. In fact, not to follow Christ is to lose one’s blessing. That is why we find in the newly founded church, as described in the early chapters of the Book of Acts, that when a believer was in need, people sold their possessions (including their property) to meet these needs. Barnabas was just one notable example of this kind of generosity:

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need. And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-37).

If the Old Testament saint looked on the land of Canaan as the special place of God’s presence and His blessing, the New Testament teaches emphatically that the dwelling place of God and the place of security, peace, and prosperity is none other than Jesus Christ. If the Old Testament saint delighted to be in the land, the New Testament saint delights in being “in Christ.”

The great dangers of which the New Testament saint is warned are those which tend to draw him away from the centrality of being in Christ. The early chapters of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, all focus on the centrality of Christ.

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me (Gal. 2:20).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3).

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broken down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:13-22).

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Phil. 1:21).

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Col. 1:19-20).

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col. 2:8-12).

The great danger of the Christian life is to be drawn away from Christ, from seeing in Him all the fullness, the sufficiency, the power and blessings of God. It is for this very reason that our Lord spoke to His disciples about the importance of abiding in Him: “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5).

Abiding in Christ is to abide in God and to experience the peace and prosperity (fruit) which God gives through Him. The results of abiding in Christ are remarkably similar to those of trusting in God in the Old Testament, as outlined by our Lord in John 15: keeping His commandments (15:10) and loving one another (15:12). Loving God and loving men, is both an Old and a New Testament obligation.

Conclusion

I wish to make three points of application as I conclude. First, let me remind you of the great continuity between the Old Testament revelation and the New. Those of us who are dispensationalists (I still include myself in this camp)157 sometimes tend to look at the New Testament only in terms of its contrasts and “newness,” without acknowledging sufficiently its continuity, its “sameness.” Let us be careful to look for the continuity of teaching and application between the two testaments.

Let me attempt to illustrate my point by talking about one of my favorite subjects for a moment—computers. I happen to have had one of the first IBM personal computers. Since the purchase of this first computer, IBM has come out with several later versions, which are faster and more powerful. Naturally, I look at these with eager interest, even desire. But my point is that while the heart of the computer, the microprocessor (an Intel 8088), has changed (I like the 80386!), essentially the design of these different processors is so similar that the same software can be run on all machines. The Old Testament revelation is like that. It is definitely surpassed by the New, but there is still a compatibility, a sameness. Sometimes in our efforts to stress the “betterness” of the New, we imply a “badness” about the Old. This is not true, and it inclines us to miss much of the blessing which could be gained from a study and meditation of the Old Testament.

Second, if the place of God’s blessing is now a person, and this person is Jesus Christ, then you will only be blessed in Him. In other words, you have little right to ask God for His blessings if you are not in His Son. The message of the gospel is that forgiveness of sins and eternal life are the result of being “in Christ,” that is by receiving Him as your Savior, your sin-bearer, your righteousness, and your eternal life. If you are not “in Him,” I urge you to trust in Him today, to be “born again” (cf. John chapter 3).

Finally, for Christians, we should be reminded that our source of blessing and security is Christ and Christ alone. Satan would like nothing more than to distract and divert you from who and what you are “in Him” to virtually anything else. If you do not sense the nearness of God and His blessings, it may be because you have been seduced by someone or something other than Christ. The words of our Lord are clear, blessing and fruitfulness come from abiding in Him, the One in whom the presence of God has been manifested, the One in whom all blessings are found.


148 Kaiser writes, “The tragic near-sightedness of ‘liberation theology,’ which loves to focus on the Exodus and laws like Leviticus 25, is that it overlooks the redemptive themes of the Lamb’s blood, the atonement, and the conditions of the covenant and thus it is left with merely a humanistic leftover from the passage.” Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1983), p. 219.

149 Cf. Noordtzij observes, “There was more than one side to the sabbatical year. In Exodus 23:10-11 it is regarded from a social and humanitarian perspective, since the sabbath rest of the land here formed the occasion for poor persons, and also animals, to freely partake of its produce. Leviticus 25:1-7 in contrast, although it does not disregard social and humanitarian concerns (vv. 6-7), draws attention primarily to the land’s right to have a ‘sabbath of rest’ (v. 4) every seventh year, a rest which, like that of the Sabbath day (23:3, 38), was dedicated to the Lord. The land is therefore in a certain sense personified here; it had been granted its own rights by its divine owner, and the Israelites were required to respect these. The previously held view that it was economic considerations that induced the lawgiver to direct that the land be left fallow every seventh year is therefore incorrect. Unlike elsewhere in the ancient Near Eastern world, the primary concern here is not the simple fact that the land was left fallow, but rather the inclusion of this agricultural practice within the overall framework of the sabbath idea. This notion of a sabbath rest for everyone and everything is a religious conception that is met with only in Israel. The verses under discussion therefore expressly direct that, although a person could farm his land for six successive years in order to satisfy his needs, he was to grant it a ‘sabbath of rest’ (or ‘time of complete rest,’ v. 6; the same expression, sabbath sabbaton, is used in 23:3, 32) in the seventh year and content himself with whatever grew of itself in his fields and vineyards. The produce of that year is referred to literally as the ‘sabbath of the land’ (v. 6; see KJV and RSV), and everyone, from the owner to the animals, was allowed to partake of this freely. No one could make any special claim to what grew during this sabbath year. For this reason, there is also no mention of harvest, it being merely stated that the produce of the land could be eaten (v. 7). The fact that Exodus 23:10-11 explicitly mentions the rights of the needy, while Leviticus 25:6-7 does not, may not be taken to indicate any essential difference between these two passages, for if the latter takes note even of the needs of animals, it could not deny those of the poor.” A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), pp. 249-250.

150 Cf. also Dt. 3:20; 25:19; Josh. 1:13, 15.

151 “The blowing of trumpets, or blast of the far-sounding horn (shophar, see at chap. xxiii. 24), was the signal of the descent of the Lord upon Sinai, to raise Israel to be His people, to receive them into His covenant, to unite them to Himself, and bless them through His covenant of grace (Ex. xix. 13,16,19, xx. 18). Just as the people were to come up to the mountain at the sounding of … the shopar, to commemorate its union with the Lord, so at the expiration of the seventh sabbatical year the trumpet-blast was to announce to the covenant nation the gracious presence of its God, and the coming of the year which was to bring “liberty throughout the land to all that dwelt therein” (ver. 10),—deliverance from bondage (vers. 40 sqq.), return to their property and family (vers. 10,13), and release from the bitter labour of cultivating the land (vers. 11,12). This year of grace was proclaimed and began with the day of atonement of every seventh sabbatical year, to show that it was only with the full forgiveness of sins that the blessed liberty of the children of God could possibly commence.” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 458.

152 “It is generally thought that this is the year following the seventh sabbath year, i.e., the fiftieth year by our figures. This would mean, however, that the end of every seventh sabbath of years, Israel would have two successive years of a special character—the sabbatical year, and then the Year of Jubilee—and it is highly unlikely that this could have been the case. Such a position overlooks the fact that verse 8, unlike 23:15, does not state that the counting was to begin after a particular date. In 23:15, the counting began “from the day after the Sabbath,” whereas 25:8 only commanded Israel to “count off seven sabbaths of years.” This therefore means that the sabbatical year on which the counting began was the first of the fifty years spoken of (vv. 10-11), and the seventh sabbatical year would then be the fiftieth year counted. In conformity to this, verses 11-12 clearly describe the Year of Jubilee as a sabbath year.” Noordtzij, p. 251.

Keil and Delitzsch challenge this view, however: “It is quite evident from vers. 21 and 22, according to which the sixth year was to produce enough for three years, and the sowing for the ninth was to take place in the eighth, that not only the year of jubilee, but the sabbatical year also, commenced in the autumn, when they first began to sow for the coming year; so that the sowing was suspended from the autumn of the sixth year till the autumn of the seventh, and even till the autumn of the eighth, whenever the jubilee year came round, in which case both sowing and reaping were omitted for two years in succession, and consequently the produce of the sixth year, which was harvested in the seventh month of that year, must have sufficed for three years, not merely till the sowing in the autumn of the eighth or fiftieth year, but till the harvest of the ninth or fifty-first year, as the Talmud and Rabbins of every age have understood the law.” Keil and Delitzsch, II, pp. 460-461.

153 Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), vol. 1, p. 175.

154 Ibid., pp. 175-176.

155 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 324.

156 Christ took the place of land, as the place and means of divine presence and blessing. He also took the place of the people, who were unable to earn or obtain the blessings. Israel must identify with Christ as the True Israel. Thus, the one who is in Christ is the true Israelite. Cf. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 3:9, 27-29; 6:16; Phil. 3:3.

157 For any who may be wondering if I have taken a kind of Amillennial position here, I have not. I believe that God is still going to literally fulfill His promises to Israel and to give this land to His people. At this point in time, however, I do not think that the issue of the land is the crucial one for Israel, but rather it is the person of Christ, who is Israel’s Messiah, and in whom every true Israelite is found.

Passage: 

20. Taking Interest in Your Neighbor (Leviticus 25:35-55)

Introduction

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, precipitating war with the United States, a group of foreigners was stranded in China, which was under Japanese control. Eventually, the Japanese interned these foreigners “for their safety and comfort” in the badly run down remains of a Presbyterian mission station in the northern Chinese province of Shantung. At this encampment there were 1450 persons, of various nationalities and of virtually every age and social level. Two hundred of the interned residents were Americans.

As time went on, shortages grew worse and rations diminished. The result was a great concern for the future. Also, winters were bitterly cold and as clothing wore out there was concern about warm clothing as well. On a bitterly cold January day, the gates to the camp opened and let in donkey carts, loaded with care packages from the American Red Cross. Each package was about three feet long, a foot wide, and 18 inches high. The parcels included, among other things, cigarettes, butter, Spam or Prem, cheese, chocolate, sugar, coffee and dried fruit.

Eventually it was learned that there were 1550 of these packages. Since there were 1450 residents, this would seem to have meant that each person would receive at least one parcel. So it would seem. The problem was that a few Americans protested that since these parcels had come from the American Red Cross, only the Americans should get the packages, something over seven parcels each. The author of the book, Shantung Compound, Langdon Gilkey, tells us that he and others were certain that the protest was held only by a small minority. Further inquiry proved otherwise. For the most lofty sounding reasons, most Americans felt that the packages belonged to them, and not to the rest of the camp. As you could expect, this proved to be the cause of much dissention and strife in the camp.

Gilkey found this incident to be explained only by the biblical doctrine of “the fall of man” and of “original sin.” He concludes that this incident reveals the very general tendency of Americans not to share their wealth with the impoverished people of the world. He writes,

Had this food simply been used for the good of the whole community, it would have been an unmitigated blessing in the life of every one of us. But the moment it threatened to become the hoarded property of a select few, it became at once destructive rather than creative, dividing us from one another and destroying every vestige of communal unity and morale.

I realized that this was no mere matter of angry words and irate looks. It was just the kind of issue which men were willing to fight over. Seeing the guards now patrolling the streets, I was glad they were there. Had there been no Japanese guns guaranteeing order in the camp, we might easily have faced real civil strife. Thus might our community have destroyed itself over this issue.

I suddenly saw, as never so clearly before, the really dynamic factors in social conflict: how wealth compounded with greed and injustice leads inevitably to strife, and how such strife can threaten to kill the social organism. Correspondingly, it became evident that the only answer was not less wealth or material goods, but the development of moral character that might lead to sharing and so provide the sole foundation for social peace. It is the moral and immoral use of wealth, not its mere accumulation, it seemed to me, that determines whether it will play a creative or destructive role in any society.158

In our culture, selfishness has become a way of life. The needs and weaknesses of others is viewed as an opportunity for the strong to get stronger, at the expense of the weak. Criminals prey upon the weak. It is the elderly whose social security checks are stolen, because they are too weak to fight back, and too frightened to inform the police. It is the runaway children or the illegal aliens who are victimized, because they either cannot or will not cry for help. The con artist takes advantage of the gullibility of the naive.

It is not just the criminal who takes advantage of the weak, however. Capitalism can easily be corrupted to “capitalize” on the weaknesses of others. Ideally, capitalism causes everyone to benefit when money and man hours are invested in such a way as to produce something. At its worst, capitalism can be abused so that the rich use their power to gain further wealth at the expense of the poor. The poor are those who are charged usurious interest. The businesses which are failing and the economic disaster which many individuals are facing causes some to “lick their lips” as they use “vulture funds” to gain at the expense of another. The difference between this and crime is that one activity is legal and the other is not; both prey upon the weak.

On a personal level, we are often tempted and fail in the same way. Let’s face it, most of us like to get a good deal, and the best deals seem to come up when we find ourselves in a position of advantage, while at the same time the other party is at a disadvantage. The advertisements which get our attention are those which hint that the seller is in distress. “Fire sale,” “lost our lease,” “going out of business,” and “getting a divorce” are just a few of the captions which quickly get our attention. The distress of another is not seen as a chance to serve, and certainly not as a chance to give, but rather as our “golden opportunity” to get ahead.

If you are honest enough to admit that you are especially attracted to opportunities arising from the distress of others, than you are ready to listen to the Word of God as it addresses this issue. Leviticus chapter 25 deals with the poverty of God’s people, the Israelites, and with the responsibility of fellow-Israelites to come to the aid of the distressed. While this is an Old Testament text, the principles which we will find here are relevant to the 20th century Christian. They are principles which we can see being taught and practiced in the New Testament. Let us listen carefully to what God has to tell us about “taking interest in our neighbor.”

An Overview of the Text

There are three levels of poverty which are dealt with in the last half of Leviticus chapter 25. The three sections of this passage deal with each level of poverty, prescribe certain obligations with regard to the poor, inform the reader of God’s purpose for requiring these obligations, and give a reason which should motivate the Israelite to obey. We can summarize the last part of chapter 25 in this way:


Verses:


35-38


39-46


47-55

Problem:

Cash flow shortage

Poverty

Dire Poverty

Solution:

Loan

Slave of Israelite

Slave of Stranger

Conditions/
Obligations:

No interest to be charged

No harsh treatment

A day laborer
Released (Jubilee)

Right of Redemption

Not deal harshly
Release (Jubilee)

Goal/Purpose:

So he can dwell in the land

So he can dwell in the land

So he can dwell in the land (implied)

Motivation:

God’s deliverance from Egypt

They are God’s servants

They are God’s servants

Our Approach

We will begin by making some observations about each of the three types of poverty, and the duties of God’s people with regard to each. Then we will make some overall observations about the text as a whole. We will take note of later revelation given in the Book of Deuteronomy, and then consider the application of God’s commands by His people throughout the history of Israel. After this, we will look at the teaching and practice of the New Testament, and then seek to discern the eternal principles and their application to 20th century Christianity.

Temporary Poverty and Its Obligations
(25:35-38)

The first type of poverty, addressed in verses 35-38, is a temporary and less serious one. Today we would call this a “cash flow problem.” In farming terms, it would be the result of a bad year, or at least of a bad crop. The Israelite is short of funds and may not have the means to provide for his family, to “tide them over” until the next crop can be harvested. Also, he may not have the means to purchase seed so that he can sow his fields. A pound of prevention will enable this farmer to handle his short-term problem, as well as to become prosperous again in the future.

What is needed, then, is enough food and provisions to get by until the next crop or the next season, and perhaps the capital to plant the next season’s crop. God’s solution is a “no-interest loan.” This solves the present shortfall, provides for future income, and does so in a way that does not penalize the individual.

An interest bearing loan is considerably undesirable, and for good reason. First, it is not good for the recipient of the loan. To charge him interest159 in his hour of need is to further handicap him. It tends to create a greater gap between the needy and the affluent, between the poor and the rich. Interest, in such a case, tends to promote and perpetuate poverty, not solve it. Secondly, loaning money at interest is not good for the lender, either. Loaning money to a brother in distress is not showing him compassion, but is taking advantage of his weakness and vulnerability. It is not an act of charity, but a business activity. And, the lender does not manifest the grace of God, of which he is the recipient. For these reasons, interest cannot be charged on a loan made to a brother in distress.

There are other factors which assure that this no-interest loan is an act of charity, rather than a business loan. Elsewhere (cf. Deut. 15:1-2), God instructed the Israelites that they must cancel all unpaid debts on the seventh year. Further, when loaning a brother money, no consideration was to be made as to how soon the cancellation year was (Deut. 15:9-10). Thus, not only was the generous Israelite not able to make money on the loan, he was not even assured that he would be paid back. This kind of loan was an act of charity, not a business venture.

For these reasons, the temporarily distressed Israelite brother should be aided toward recovery and the possession of his land by being given a no-interest loan, which enables him to get back on his feet, and avoids placing him in greater bondage.

On Being Your Brother’s (Slave) Keeper
(25:39-46)

The next two categories of poverty are much more serious and long-term. Rather than the temporary “cash flow” problem of the first category, this is a matter of real financial disaster. To put the matter in farming terms, if the first category is the result of a bad crop, the second two categories are the result of several disastrous years. The result was that the debtor would be forced to sell himself, either to a fellow-Israelite (vv. 39-46) or to a stranger (vv. 47-55).

We see a few instances in the Old Testament where this kind of slavery occurred or was threatened. One is found in the Book of 2 Kings, where we read, “Now a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets cried out to Elisha, ‘Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD; and the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves’” (2 Ki. 4:1). This sad story ends well, for Elisha had the woman and her sons gather vessels, into which he had her pour from her little jar of oil. These filled containers of oil paid her debt and provided means for income(cf. vv. 2-7).

In verses 39-46, God gave instructions to the Israelites as to how they should deal with an Israelite brother who became their slave due to dire poverty. It would seem that this man had no relatives who were willing to redeem him, since redemption by a family member is not mentioned. After all, if his family would have come to his rescue, his slavery would not have been necessary.

God’s instruction to the Israelite who would have attained such a “slave” was that his brother should not be treated as a slave. The assumption is that a slave would be dealt with more severely than a hired employee. Other texts bear this out. For example, we read: “A slave will not be instructed by words alone; For though he understands, there will be no response” (Prov. 29:19). The Israelites of Moses’ day did not need to be told how a slave was (mis)treated, they had ample experience at the hand of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who were harsh taskmasters (cf. Exod. 1:8-14).

Instead, the Hebrew “slave” was to be treated with the dignity and respect of a “hired man,” who could have left his employment if he were not treated with dignity and fairness. Other biblical texts make it clear that this included being paid at the end of each day (Deut. 24:15). That kindness was to be genuine, full-measured, and continual is evidenced by the fact that provisions were made for the slave to continue as such for his lifetime (Exod. 21:5-6; Deut. 15:16-17).

When the year of Jubilee arrived (or, more commonly, the sabbath year, cf. Exod. 21:2-4), the slave was to be released, so that he could return to the property of his forefathers (Lev. 25:41). The reason for this is that the Israelites (including the distressed one who became the slave of his brother) became God’s servants (slaves) at the exodus, and no slave160 can have two masters. Revering God required obedience to this command (Lev. 25:43).

To further clarify the commandment of verses 39-43, God indicated that this did not prohibit slavery altogether (vv. 44-46). An Israelite could not be made a slave since he already was God’s slave (vv. 39-43), but since non-Israelites were not God’s slaves, they could become the possession of the Israelites. Later on, in Deuteronomy, God will specifically say that even non-Israelite slaves cannot be harshly161 treated (Deut. 24:14-15).

Treatment of Israelite Slaves by Strangers
(25:47-55)

These are interesting verses because they assume that a foreigner who is sojourning among them could prosper, just as they assume that an Israelite living in the land can become impoverished. This certainly informs us that the sojourner was given considerable freedom and opportunity in the land of Israel. For those of us who live in the United States this may not seem so unusual, but in other parts of the world and in other periods of history it is far from the norm. How many Israelites prospered in Egypt, for example, after the time of Joseph?

To my knowledge, this is the only place where the possibility of an Israelite becoming the slave of a sojourner is mentioned. While a fellow Israelite did not redeem this slave, the nation is responsible to see to it that their brother is dealt with as God’s servant. He is not to be dealt with harshly (v. 53), and in the year of Jubilee he is to be released (v. 54). Beyond this, he has the guarantee of the right of redemption at any time, either by a relative or by himself (vv. 47-52). The basis for this command is the same as it was in the previous circumstance (vv. 42-43): the sons of Israel became God’s servants, and thus they cannot become the slave of any man (v. 55).

Overall Observations

When we look at this section as a whole we note several observations. First, we find that there is great continuity in the teaching of Leviticus and that of Exodus and Deuteronomy. All three books (of Moses) deal with the subject of the Israelite overtaken by poverty. There is further development and clarification, just as we would expect, consistent with the concept of progressive revelation.

Second, Israel is to show compassion to the poor and the oppressed in order to imitate God. The instructions given to the Israelites concerning the poor among them is to assure that God’s people imitate Him, both in attitude and action. God had mercy on His people, who were impoverished, enslaved, and not living in the land which was promised them. The Israelites were thus to show mercy on their brethren, seek to deliver them from their bondage and poverty, and to bring them back to their own land. Each instance of mercy shown to an impoverished Israelite was a reenactment, on a small scale, of the exodus.

It is interesting to note that the basis for obedience shifts somewhat. In Exodus and Leviticus, the strongest incentive for obeying God’s instructions concerning the poor is the kindness and grace of God in delivering His oppressed people, who were slaves of Pharaoh (cf. Lev. 25:38, 42, 55). In Deuteronomy, the emphasis shifts, and (especially to be noted in Deut. 15) the basis for obedience is the blessing of God in the land (cf. Dt. 15:4, 6, 10, 14). Both “because” God has blessed His people and “in order to be blessed” in the future, Israel should show kindness to their poor brethren. I believe that we can safely say that God always seeks to motivate His people on the basis of their own experience of His grace, not just that of their predecessors.

Third, the poor who are primarily in view here are Israelites. The law of Moses contains provisions for the poor in general, including the alien and the sojourner (cf. Lev. 25:6), but the Israelite is primarily in view in our text. The Israelites have a primary obligation to their brethren, who are distressed by poverty.

Fourth, the poverty of a fellow Israelite is presented as something which is to be expected, even though God had promised to prosper His people. No legislation is needed concerning the treatment of the poor unless it is certain that there will be poor. Leviticus 25 implies that there will be those with short-term and longer-term poverty, which will result in Israelites borrowing from their neighbors, and in selling themselves as servants, both to fellow-Israelites and to strangers.

This becomes very clear in Deuteronomy chapter 15. This statement may initially seem to indicate otherwise:

“However, there shall be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today. For the LORD your God shall bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you” (Deut. 15:4-6, emphasis mine).

We must not jump to any hasty conclusions before we read the entire text, in which we find the following statements:

If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD you God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks” (Deut. 15:7-8).

“You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying. ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land’” (Deut. 15:10-11, emphasis mine).

From the entire text of Deuteronomy chapter 15 we can draw the following conclusions:

  • There will always be poor among God’s people in the land (v. 11).
  • God blesses His people so that they can help the poor (v. 10).
  • Verse 4 is a command to care for the poor, not a promise that there will be no poor. There are to “be no poor” in the sense that the Israelites refuse to allow their impoverished brethren to live in poverty.

Fifth, while sin and sluggardliness is elsewhere identified as one cause of poverty, this is not viewed as the cause of poverty here. Nowhere in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy is a brother Israelite’s poverty viewed as the result of his sin or laziness. Certainly this was a factor, which is plainly dealt with in the Old Testament (cf. Prov. 24:30-34), but it is not stated here. I emphasize this point because sin and laziness is often the first thing we think of when we hear of the distress of a fellow believer. This provides us with a ready excuse for not helping the needy, while feeling smug for doing so. “After all,” we reason, “if a man won’t work, neither should he eat.” This, of course, is true, but it is not the case here. The law gives the Israelite the benefit of the doubt.

Sixth, grace is both the motive and the manifestation when it comes to the care of the poor in the Pentateuch. I must stress this because some wrongly view grace as a New Covenant principle, and think of the Old Testament law as being opposed to grace. The grace of God in delivering the Israelites from bondage and in blessing them in the land of Canaan is the basis for the grace which the Israelites show to the poor.

Seventh, one of the reasons why the poor must be generously helped is to enable him to be able to dwell with his fellow-Israelites. It is certainly viewed as important that each Israelite dwell in the land of promise, on his own inheritance (cf. Lev. 25:41), yet it is emphasized that the Israelite should dwell “with you” (Lev. 25:35, 36).

Care of the Poor in Israel’s History

The care of the poor as required by God in the Pentateuch is unfortunately a high, but unrealized, ideal in Israel’s history. The story of Boaz and Ruth is by far the exception, giving a glimmer of hope, but mostly serving as a prototype of the coming Messiah. It is apparent that the biblical ideal was seldom practiced. It was the exception rather than the rule.

Standards of house-building have led archeologists to conclude that early Israel was a relatively egalitarian society, but that by the later monarchy period the gap between rich and poor had widened. “The rich houses are bigger and better built and in a different quarter from that where the poor houses are huddled together.”162

Thus, the prophets are frequently found condemning the way in which the Israelites not only failed to help the poor, but actually took advantage of their poverty to gain at the expense of the poor:

‘At the end of seven years each of you shall set free his Hebrew brother, who has been sold to you and has served you six years, you shall send him out free from you; but your forefathers did not obey Me, or incline their ear to Me. Although recently you had turned and done what is right in My sight, each man proclaiming release to his neighbor, and you had made a covenant before Me in the house which is called by My name. Yet you turned and profaned My name, and each man took back his male servant and each man his female servant, whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your male servants and female servants.’ Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming release each man to his brother, and each man to his neighbor. Behold, I am proclaiming a release to you,’ declares the LORD, ‘to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you a terror to all the kingdoms of the earth’ (Jer. 34:14-17).

“In you they have taken bribes to shed blood; you have taken interest and profits, and you have injured your neighbors for gain by oppression, and you have forgotten Me,” declares the Lord GOD. “Behold, then, I smite My hand at your dishonest gain which you have acquired and at the bloodshed which is among you” (Ezek. 22:12-13).

Even after returning to the land of promise after their captivity the people of God failed miserably to live up to the standards of the law concerning the compassion which was to be shown to them in their distress.

Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish brothers. For there were those who said, “We, our sons and our daughters, are many; therefore let us get grain that we may eat and live.” And there were others who said, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our houses that we might get grain because of the famine.” Also there were those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king’s tax on our fields and our vineyards. And now our flesh is like the flesh of our brothers, our children like their children. Yet behold, we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters are forced into bondage already, and we are helpless because our fields and vineyards belong to others” (Neh. 5:1-5).

Only after a strong rebuke and exhortation from Nehemiah did the nobles and the rulers of the Israelites, who were the offenders, agree to live according to the requirements laid down by the law (Neh. 5:6-14).

Throughout Israel’s history, by ignoring God’s law, the rich became richer and the poor, poorer. It was the Messiah, the “Good Shepherd,” who was coming who would live up to the law and would deliver the poor.

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and severity you have dominated them.”’” … For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down in good grazing ground, and they will feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord GOD. “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment” (Ezek. 34:1-4, 11-16).

The Messiah and the Deliverance of the Poor

How significant it must have been to the Israelites of Jesus’ day when He presented Himself to the nation as the “Good Shepherd” as recorded in the 10th chapter of John’s gospel. In the context of the prophecy of Ezekiel chapter 34, the “Good Shepherd” was opposed to the “shepherds of Israel,” who oppressed the poor, who dominated and slaughtered the flock, rather than to look after them, especially the weak and the afflicted. When Jesus introduced Himself by reading from Isaiah chapter 61 (Luke 4:16-21), He was using the terminology of the year of jubilee. No wonder He could also say to the people, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).

While the scribes and Pharisees “devour widows’ houses” (Matt. 23:14), oppressing the poor, Jesus came with the good news that He had come to deliver the poor, to usher in the kingdom of God. Little wonder that it was the poor who gladly received the Lord Jesus, while the rich and influential were mainly jealous of Him. The ideal of the Old Testament law was finally and fully realized in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

When the Lord Jesus sat at the table with “tax-gatherers and sinners,” the Pharisees were deeply offended. They asked His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with the tax-gatherers and sinners?” (Matt. 9:11). Jesus’ response was not surprising, in the light of the Old Testament law and the prophets: “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are ill. But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:12b-13).

This same response is found again in Matthew’s gospel, and I think that it provides us with great insight into the heart of the law. This time the Pharisees are offended by the fact that our Lord’s disciples have picked heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1). The Pharisees objected. This, to them, was a violation of the Sabbath law.

We know that in reality it only violated their interpretation of the law, but Jesus did not quibble over interpretation, per se. Jesus first responded by reminding His critics that David and his men partook of the showbread, and then reminded them that the priests in the temple technically break the law by working. Then, in verse 7 Jesus refers once again to Hosea’s words, “I desire compassion, and not sacrifice.” It is my contention that Jesus is telling His critics that God’s principle concern is mercy and compassion, and that whenever technically complying with the letter of the law prohibits showing compassion, the letter of the law must be overruled by the primary purpose of the law, and that is to promote mercy and compassion.

Thus we see that mercy and compassion are a very high priority to God. In fact, we can see that it was the mercy and compassion of God which sent the Savior to the earth in human flesh, to die in the sinner’s place, so that a redemption far greater than that of Israel from Egyptian bondage might be achieved. The coming of the Christ can largely be summed up by these two terms, mercy and compassion. That which God required of the Old Testament saint toward their brethren, Jesus Christ accomplished, once for all, for His brethren. “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17).

The Christian Interpretation
and Contemporary Application of Leviticus 25

When we seek to interpret and apply the 25th chapter of Leviticus to 20th century Christianity, we must reckon with the many differences between the Israelite of Moses’ day and the contemporary Christian. Think, for a moment, of some of the differences:

(1) Israel was a theocracy, where God ruled over His people, either directly or through a king. We live in a day when government is that of men, very often unbelieving men (cf. Rom. 13:1ff.).

(2) The Israelite lived under the Old Covenant, we live under the New Covenant.

(3) The Israelites lived, by and large, in the land of promise, and their economy was primarily an agricultural one. In our day, few are farmers, and we live in an urban, industrial environment. By helping a needy Israelite to stay on his land or to return to it, he was able to work the land and to prosper. Helping an individual to recover from a condition of need to one of prosperity is not so easily accomplished today.

(4) Israel’s society was a stable one; ours is high mobile. An Israelite knew his neighbors, and thus was able to respond quickly and knowledgeably to his needs. In our society, people drive into the church parking lot and ask for help whom we have never seen before, and who we will likely not see again. It is very difficult to determine genuine needs from the many “sob stories” which are a way of life for the slothful, who live off of the sentimentality of Christians.

We must therefore be careful not to attempt to practice in a wholesale fashion these commands which are given to the Israelite. On the other hand, there are striking similarities in the principles which underlie the Old Testament commands and those which we find taught and practiced in the New Testament. Let me conclude this message by highlighting some of the most critical timeless principles which underlie both the law and the New Testament teachings and practices.

(1) The duty of God’s people is to imitate God, so as to manifest His character to men by our actions. One of the principle motives given for the care of the poor in our text (and elsewhere) is that showing mercy to an Israelite brother who is poor imitates God, who had compassion on the Israelites in their distress while in Egypt as the slaves of Pharaoh.

Our Lord, as we have already seen above, showed mercy toward the poor. Christians are to be imitators of our Lord, and thus we, too, must have compassion on the poor. We are to begin with the attitude of our Lord Himself, the attitude of a servant, which places the interest of others above self-interest:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:3-8).

In encouraging the Macedonian Christians to fulfill that which they had committed to do, Paul used our Lord’s example as a motivation for giving to the poor:

I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 8:8-9).

The practice of the early church and the precepts laid down by our Lord’s apostles make this abundantly clear:

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles’ feet … (Acts 4:34-35a; cf. 6:1-7).

And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren, living in Judea (Acts 11:28-29).

“In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35).

… contributing to the needs of the saints … (Rom. 12:13a).

And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing we were eager to do (Gal. 2:9-10).

Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need (Eph. 4:28).

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed (1 Tim. 6:17-19).

And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Heb. 13:16).

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well … If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? (James 2:5-8, 15-16).

We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:16-18).

It is readily apparent that the collection which was taken in the early church was not primarily for the pastor’s salary, nor for the physical facilities of the church, nor for the program of the church, but for the care of the poor. Also, the poor “brethren” included those of another race and culture, and of another country. Today, on the other hand, we find it hard to help the poor among us, whom we can see, and we hardly think of helping our brothers and sisters in the third world who are “dirt poor.” We have much improvement to make in the care of the poor.

The New Testament does not restrict our obligation to merely the sharing of money or material goods. Those who are “strong” are repeatedly instructed to help the “weak”:

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.” (Rom. 15:1-3).

And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men (1 Thes. 5:14).

In addition to viewing “giving” as the imitation of Christ, we should, I believe, include as well the matter of “forgiving,” which I think is often more difficult. Old Testament charity often involved the forgiving of debts, but charity (especially, but not exclusively in the New Testament) includes forgiving other “debts,” which are referred to in our Lord’s prayer, “‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors’” (Matt. 6:12).

One can hardly avoid the obligation which we have to imitate God by caring for the poor and helping the weak. Nevertheless, what is so clear in principle is very rare in practice. Satan has devised a number of hindrances, which greatly reduce our desire and our ability to help the weak. First, most of us, who are incredibly wealthy by the standards of the third world, are so indebted that we have little or no cash with which we can minister to others. Installment buying and credit has virtually paralyzed most Christians so far as helping the poor is concerned.

Second, many Christians have concerned themselves with “having their own needs met” that they have little or no time to minister to others. Before many Christians feel ready and able to minister to the needs of others, they feel that all of their emotional, physical, and spiritual needs must be met. I believe that we are to minister to others, and in so doing find that our own needs are met. You remember, for example, the story of the widow whose oil and flour were almost gone. She was to first serve Elijah, and then she found sufficient food for herself and her son as well (1 Ki. 17:8-16).

(2) The duty of the Christian is to love his neighbor as himself, and thus to minister to him in time of need. Not only are we instructed to meet the needs of the weak because in so doing we are imitating God and obeying His commandments; we are also to help our poor brethren because they are our brothers. In Old Testament terms, we are our brother’s keeper. In the New Testament, the word “fellowship” (and its related terms) sums up the obligation which the saints have toward one another.163

(3) The key to obeying our obligation to God and to our neighbor by ministering out of our strength to the weakness of others is to be properly motivated. Proper motivation is probably the most important single factor in our obedience to God. It is my experience that those who sincerely desire to obey God and to help others in need will find a way of doing so. Look, for example, at the Macedonians, who gave out of their poverty, not out of wealth (cf. 2 Cor. 8:1-5). On the other hand, those who are selfish will find a way not to share, even though they have an abundance.

Returning for a moment to the book, Shantung Province, Langdon Gilkey came to the painful conclusion that selfish people will contrive compelling reasons for seeking to promote their self-interest, even at the expense of others:

My ideas as to what people were like and as to what motivated their actions were undergoing a radical revision. People generally—and I knew I could not exclude myself—seemed to be much less rational and much more selfish than I had ever guessed, not at all the ‘nice fold’ I had always thought them to be. They did not decide to do things because it would be reasonable and moral to act in that way; but because that course of action suited their self-interest. Afterward, they would find rational and moral reasons for what they had already determined to do.164

No wonder our Lord speaks so often about our motivation.

There are several critical elements which should create and facilitate a motivation to minister to the needs of others. The first element is that of gratitude to God for His great mercy and compassion on us. If we have experienced the saving grace of God we have much to be grateful for, and gratitude begets generosity. Secondly, we need the attitude of a servant, the attitude of Christ, which puts the needs of others ahead of our own. It enables us to serve others, rather than to take advantage of them. Finally, we must be motivated by faith. Obedience to God required faith of the Israelite. From a business point of view, the Israelite was foolish to loan to the poor with no interest and with no assurance of being fully repaid. The Israelite’s obedience rested squarely on his faith in God, who promised to prosper him for his obedience, and also to enable him to give to those in need. These same elements of motivation must be ours if we are to obey God in fulfilling our obligation to the weak.

May I ask you, my friend, how is your heart with regard to the poor and to the weak? Do you see such people as a stepping stone, as a ready opportunity to get ahead, or as an opportunity to serve and to obey? These matters about which Leviticus 25 speaks are pertinent and they are contrary to our instincts and inclinations. May God enable us to obey them.

(4) Finally, redemption is the goal of charity. Ministering to the needs of the poor Israelite was seeking the best interest of the individual in need. In a physical sense, it was redemptive, it delivered him from bondage and got him back on his feet. It was intended to free him from debt, from slavery, and to return him to possess his property and to prosper on it.

This is, of course, a prototype of the redemption which was to be achieved by Messiah, Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the year of Jubilee. It is, in the final analysis, our ultimate goal as well. While we must be concerned with the poverty of our brother, we must be even more intent upon the spiritual deliverance of men and women from their debt of sin and from their bondage to Satan. The goal of New Testament ministry is redemptive, just as was the goal of helping the poor in the Old Testament.


158 Langdon Gilkey, Shantung Compound (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 105-106. I highly recommend reading this book. Chapters 5 (“A Place of One’s Own”) and 6 (“A Mixed Blessing”) are especially pertinent to our study in the Book of Leviticus.

159 Walter Kaiser informs us that according to some scholars one of the two Hebrew terms used for interest seems to be related to a word meaning “bite”: “Hence, scholars … urgue that … refers to those loans that had the interest ‘bitten off’ or deducted before the loan was made, thus a debtor might get only 80 shekels on a 100 shekel loan as parallels in Alalakh or Nuzi tablets show.” After pointing out some of the problems with such views, he concludes, “For our purposes, it is only significant to note that both words are dealing with some type of compensation for a loan, and that neither word can be shown to mean an exorbitant or excessive increase beyond some commonly received fixed rate.” Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1983), pp. 214-215.

160 “Verse 42 states the reason for these requirements with unmistakable clarity. Every Israelite was the Lord’s ebed and could therefore never become the ebed of a fellow Israelite, since the latter was himself an ebed of the Lord. In this verse, the first occurrence of ebed is translated as “servant” and the second as “slave” (but cf. NEB), but this is done only because the notion of being the Lord’s “slave” is somewhat offensive to our way of thinking. For us, God is “our Father,” whereas for Israel He was “the Lord” (adon). Since the Israelite was a slave only in name, he could not be treated as a slave and ruled over “ruthlessly” (vv. 43, 46) as the Egyptians had done (Exod. 1:13-14). The fear of God at all times had to restrain a master from dealing with his Israelite servant in this fashion.” A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 259.

161 “These laws are designed to make the slavery as humane as possible. Do not boss him around harshly (vv. 43, 46, 53). Boss around (lit. “rule”; see Ps. 72:8) sometimes has a bad sense (e.g. Neh. 9:28). Harshness characterized slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1:13-14).” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 322.

162 Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), vol. 1, p. 71, as quoted by Wenham, p. 317.

163 Wright deals with the matter of fellowship and its relationship to Leviticus most extensively: “Now this oneness of believers in Christ and their shared experience of Christ through the Holy Spirit is no mere abstract ‘spiritual’ concept. On the contrary, it has far-reaching practical implications in both the social and economic realms. Both realms are included in the New Testament understanding and practice of ‘fellowship,’ and both have deep roots in the soil of Old Testament land ethics.

Fellowship is the usual translation of the Greek koinonia, which is itself part of a rich complex of words. A study of the root koinon in the New Testament reveals that a substantial number of the occurrences of words formed or compounded from it either signify, or are in contexts which relate to, actual social and economic relationships between Christians. They denote a practical, often costly, sharing, which is a far cry from that watery ‘togetherness’ which commonly passes as ‘fellowship.’

“Some examples will make the point. The first consequences of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was a new community who, in ‘devoting themselves to … the fellowship’ (te koinonia), shared everything in common (Acts 2:42, 44) and ensured that nobody was in need (Acts 4:34). In Romans 12:13, believers are urged to share hospitality with the saints (koinonountes). In 1 Timothy 6:18, the rich are to be commanded to be ‘generous’ (koinonikous). The same duty is laid on all Christians in Hebrews 13:16. Paul refers to his financial collection among the Greek churches for the aid of the Judaean Christians as ‘an act of fellowship’ (koinonian tina, Rom. 15:26), which he justifies on the grounds that if the Gentiles have shared (ekoinonesan) spiritual blessings from the Jews, they owe it to them to share material blessings (v. 27). The same reciprocal principle applies in the relationship between the teacher and the taught in Galatians 6:6 (koinoneito). Indeed, in commending the Corinthians for their eagerness to share in the financial koinonia collection (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13), Paul describes it as proof of their obedience to the gospel, implying that such concrete economic evidence of fellowship was of the essence of a genuine Christian profession.

“…The extent of this kind of language in the New Testament understanding of fellowship leads me to the view that it has deep roots in the socio-economic ethics of the Old Testament. There are so many similarities which show that the experience of fellowship, in its full, rich, ‘concrete,’ New Testament sense, fulfils analogous theological and ethical functions for the Christian as the possession of land did for Old Testament Israelites. Both must be seen as part of the purpose and pattern of redemption, not just as accidental or incidental to it. The explicit purpose of the exodus was the enjoyment of the rich blessing of God in his ‘good land’; the goal of redemption through Christ is ‘sincere love for your brothers’ (1 Pet. 1:22), with all its practical implications. Both are linked to the status of sonship and the related themes of inheritance and promise. Both thereby constitute a proof of an authentic relationship with God as part of his redeemed community. For fellowship, like the land, has its limits; so that the person who departs permanently from it or refuses to accept it shows that he has no real part in God’s people (cf. Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Jn. 2:19).

“Above all, both are shared experiences: the land, by the nature of the Israelite economic system as we have outlined it; fellowship, by very definition of the word koinonia. This gives to both that deeply practical mutual responsibility that pervades both Old and New Testament ethics. There is the same concern for the poor and needy (cf. 1 Jn. 3:17), the same ideal of equality among God’s people, both economically (cf. 2 Cor. 8:13-15 with its Old Testament allusion) and socially (cf. Jas. 2:1-7). There is even the same prophetic indignation at those whose sin deprives or defrauds fellow members of God’s people of their rightful share in what God has given for the enjoyment of all his people. The Old Testament prophets condemned the unjust oppressors who drove fellow Israelites off their land; compare with that Jesus’ strictures on those who refuse to forgive a brother (Mt. 18:21-35), Paul’s horror at the factionalism and lack of love at Corinth and the priority he gives in his various lists of sins to those that harm the fellowship (e.g., Eph. 4:25ff.; Phil. 2:1-4, 14; Col. 3:8ff.), and John’s refusal to accept the man who hates his brother as a child of God at all (1 Jn. 2:9-11; 4:7ff.).” Christopher J. H. Wright, An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), pp. 97-99.

164 Gilkey, pp. 89-90; cf. also pp. 108-109. Gilkey’s chapters, “A Place of One’s Own,” and “A Mixed Blessing,” provide great insight into the selfishness and fallenness of men, and illustrate that self-interest can always fabricate compelling logical, moral, and even biblical reasons for getting ahead at the expense of others.

Passage: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

21. A Welcome Warning (Leviticus 26)

Introduction

We are constantly being warned. We have yellow flashing lights to warn us that we are in a school zone, and buzzing radar detectors, to tell us that a radar trap is nearby. A yellow light warns us that a red light is soon to follow. As a rule, yellow lights warn us about what is soon to happen, while red lights tell us it has happened. The flashing red lights on the dash of our cars inform us of an engine malfunction, or that an emergency vehicle is nearby, or that we are about to be cited by a policeman for violating the law.

And then there are the verbal and non-verbal warnings. Various forms of body language serve as a warning. A stern look on the face of the school teacher warns us that we had better not press our luck any further. Many warnings are spoken. Some are amusing; others pathetic and even disgusting. A frustrated mother “warns” her child that any more fussing and whining will result in a spanking. The child knows it is only a threat, so long as it doesn’t precipitate an explosion by making mom mad, or by embarrassing her too much at a time.

We are so accustomed to warnings, and so used to them proving to be groundless, that we have learned to take them in our stride—indeed, to ignore them. Leviticus 26 is one of the clearest words of warning in the Pentateuch. It is reiterated more emphatically later on in the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy. The Israelites did not heed this warning and they paid a severe penalty for doing so.

We may think that the warning found here is one that we can easily ignore. After all, we are not Israel; we do not live in the land of Canaan; and we don’t live under the Mosaic Covenant, but under the New Covenant. So then, why not simply pass by this passage, tipping our mental hats, if need be, but not getting too serious about it?

There are several reasons why this passage is vital to New Testament Christians. Quite frankly, I have agonized about a different way of saying something that you have gotten too used to hearing over the past few weeks: “This text is absolutely crucial to us …” Nevertheless, it is true. The warnings of the 26th chapter of Leviticus are vital to the New Testament Christian, just as they were to the Israelite of Moses’ day. Consider the following reasons for the importance and relevance of our text.

First, this text is the key to understanding the history of Israel. The warnings of Leviticus are an outline of Israel’s history. The consequences for sin of which our text warns are precisely those which the nation Israel experienced for her disregard of the covenant which she made with God on Mt. Sinai.

Second, Leviticus 26 is also the key to understanding the message of the prophets of Israel. The outline of the prophets of Israel seems to be taken from our text. Also, the promises of Israel’s future deliverance and restoration are rooted in the blessings and cursings of the Pentateuch.

Third, the principle underlying the promises of blessing and cursing is just as valid in our dispensation as it was in the days of Moses.

Fourth, the passage we are studying contains a great deal of instruction for parents, and for all who are required to discipline others. The principles underlying this passage, which have to do with divine discipline and human obedience, are both relevant and practical.

Fifth, this chapter does not just contain words of warning, but also some of the greatest words of hope found in the Bible. Thus, this is a text which positively encourages and motivates obedience. The more I read this chapter, the more I fall in love with it, and the deeper my sense of the hope and love which permeate it.165

There are a number of passages which are parallel to our text, in form and substance. Exodus 23:22-33 is the first instance of the promise of blessings and cursings, based upon Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Covenant. Later, in Deuteronomy chapter 28, the blessings and cursings are repeated, in even greater detail, for that second generation of Israelites, who were about to possess the land of Canaan. Joshua 24:20 is a very brief summation of the warnings of our chapter, and the writings of the prophets reveal some direct dependence on our text (cf. Isa. 49:1ff.; Ezek. 34:25-30; 37:21-28).

These Warnings and the Culture of That Day

In form, and to some degree in content, this list of “blessings and cursings” is similar to those found at the end of other covenants of Moses’ day, made between the king (the suzerain) and his subjects (vassals).166 There are, however, some significant differences.167 I believe that it is in the unique aspects of these “blessings and cursings” that we will find the most insight and relevance for our lives.

The Structure of Our Text168

Overall, one can quickly see that Leviticus 26 has three major divisions: (1) a description of the blessings which God will pour out on His people for keeping His covenant (vv. 1-13); and (2) a description of the dire consequences—cursings—which will accompany Israel’s disobedience of the Mosaic covenant (vv. 14-39). Finally there is the concluding section (vv. 40-45), in which God reassures His people of His unfailing love. Here, there is the assurance of Israel’s ultimate restoration and blessing, based upon God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham and upon Israel’s repentance.

The expression, “I am the Lord (your God),” is the structural key, which marks out each section at its conclusion (cf. vv. 13, 44, 45). The blessings are introduced by the expression, “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments …” The cursings are initially introduced by the statement, “But if you do not obey Me … ,” and are then followed up by a statement concerning Israel’s failure or refusal to repent when God’s discipline is imposed (vv. 18, 21, 23, 27), with the added warning of being punished “seven times”169 for her disobedience (vv. 18, 24, 28).

The chapter may thus be outlined as follows:

  • Preface—Summary of the Mosaic Covenant (vv. 1-2)
  • Promised blessings for keeping the Mosaic Covenant (vv. 3-13)
  • Promised penalties for disobeying the Mosaic Covenant (vv. 14-39)
  • Promised fulfillment of Abrahamic Covenant (vv. 40-45)
  • Conclusion—Summary (v. 46)

Our Approach in This Lesson

Once again, we will not be able to analyze each verse in detail. We will begin with an overview of the three major sections of the chapter, identifying the major features of each. We will then seek to identify the principles which underlie the passage, along with their abiding application to saints through the ages. Finally, we will focus on the principle thrust of the text for saints in this age, along with some of the perversions of its teachings.

Divine Blessing: Its Causes and Characteristics
(26:1-13)

The divine blessings outlined in verses 4-13 are the result of keeping the conditions set down in verses 1-3. In its broadest definition, God’s blessings on Israel are conditioned by Israel’s keeping of the Mosaic Covenant: “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you …” (Lev. 26:3-4a).

Verses 1 and 2 speak of this obedience as manifesting itself in both positive and negative ways. Negatively, the Israelites must keep themselves from the idols and the idolatry of their heathen predecessors: “‘You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God’” (Lev. 26:1).

Such idols would lead to false worship, worship directed to false deities, rather than toward the God who had saved them from bondage in Egypt.

Positively stated, the Israelites should give heed to God’s sabbaths and His sanctuary: ‘“You shall keep My sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary; I am the LORD’” (Lev. 26:2). God’s people must not only abstain from making and worshipping idols, they must actively observe God’s sabbaths and revere His sanctuary. We know, of course, that other actions are required of God’s people, but this is the heart of the covenant, and is thus emphasized.170

The blessings which God promised Israel are directly related to her possession of the land of Canaan. They are largely, but not altogether, physical and material. They can be summed up in three categories: (1) PEACE; (2) PROSPERITY; (3) THE PRESENCE OF GOD.

Peace can be seen in several areas. First, there is peace from Israel’s enemies. It does not mean that there won’t be any war,171 but rather that God will grant Israel victory over her foes, and that they will not live in constant fear of attack or of defeat. There will also be peace with respect to the wild animals which could endanger the Israelites. There is a deep sense of security promised for those who keep God’s covenant.

Prosperity is principally material. Agriculturally, the Israelites will prosper because God will give them the needed rains, at the proper time, which will make their harvests bountiful.172 Also, God will give great fertility to the Israelites and to their cattle, which will cause them to prosper greatly. It should be recalled, at this point, that the religions of Canaan and the ancient Near East had fertility as a central focus. Many of the pagan gods were fertility gods. God promised prosperity and fertility, but it would come when Israel worshipped Him and avoided idolatry and heathen worship. Implied by its removal in the cursing section (v. 16) is the prosperity of good health, which enables one to enjoy the “good life.”

Finally, Israel was blessed by the presence of God in their midst. Israel was His people, and He had promised to dwell in their midst: “‘Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people’” (Lev. 26:11-12).

One of the great issues at stake as an aftermath of Israel’s “fall” in the worship of the golden calf (Exod. 32) was whether or not God would be present with His people (cf. Exod. 33:3, 14-16; 34:9). God’s covenant with Israel promised His presence, but only of His people kept His statutes and ordinances (cf. Exod. 34:10ff.). The tabernacle and the sacrificial system was one of the prerequisites for God’s presence, and thus it is easy to see why the Israelites must “reverence His sanctuary” (Lev. 26:2).

It is my opinion that this last category of blessing, the presence of God, is the ultimate blessing, and that it is also the basis for the other blessings. God’s presence assures Israel of prosperity and peace, as His absence will bring poverty and peril. The ultimate joy of heaven is the presence of God (1 Thes. 5:17; John 14:3), just as hell is banishment from God’s presence (2 Thes. 1:9). Thus, one can truly feel blessed, even in the midst of tribulation and persecution, knowing that God is with them in their distress (cf. Ps. 73:21-28; Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5, 6). In God’s “absence” or removal, man brings many of the evils which Leviticus 26 describes on himself, as is the case in the progressive judgment of Romans chapter 1.

These three categories of blessing are promised to God’s people, if they but obey His commandments and keep His covenant: peace, prosperity, and God’s presence. We shall also see that these are the areas in which God’s discipline will come as a result of Israel’s disobedience and disregard for His covenant. Let us look, then, to the “cursings” of our text, which outline the consequences of disobedience.

The Consequences of Israel’s Disobedience

The “cursings” of this chapter are virtually a reversal of the promised blessings. While the cursings are presented differently, we can summarize them in terms of these same three categories:

(1) FROM PROSPERITY TO POVERTY
(2) FROM PEACE TO PERIL;
(3) FROM GOD’S PRESENCE TO HIS ABSENCE173

Instead of prosperity, disobedience will bring poverty. Initially, Israel’s crops will be consumed by raiding enemies (26:16). If Israel’s disobedience persists, as it surely will, the rains will cease, Israel’s crops will fail, and thus a famine will result (26:26). It is not stated but is likely implied that fertility will also cease.174 Not only will new life be limited by infertility, but men will be killed by hostile animals (26:22). Pestilence will kill many (26:21, 25), and eventually this people will turn against one another, resorting to cannibalism (26:29).

Instead of peace and security, disobedience will bring about insecurity, peril, and fear. Initially, Israel will suffer from the raiding attacks of some of their neighbors, who will steal their crops (26:16). Then, Israel will be defeated by her enemies and delivered into their hands, so that they are ruled by them (26:17, 25). Finally, the Israelites will be driven from the land and will live, dispersed and scattered, in the land of their conquerors (26:31-32, 36, 38). The remnant who remain in the land will suffer as much as those who are taken away (26:39). The peace and security which they could have known is traded for insecurity, fear, and constant apprehension (26:36-37).

In place of the presence of God in the midst of His people, Israel will experience a growing separation from Him. He will first set His face against His people (v. 17). Then, because His people have been hostile against Him (26:21, 23), He will become their enemy (26:24, 28). He will drive them from His sanctuary (which they have not reverenced) to the land of their enemies, far from His (perceived) presence. In their absence, the land will enjoy the sabbaths which the Israelites never observed (26:34-35).

Characteristics of the Chapter

This text provides us with a pattern and principles for discipline. Note the following characteristics of the promises of blessing and cursing which can be identified from a study of Leviticus chapter 26.

(1) The rules which God has laid down for Israel, as well as the results of obedience or disobedience, are clearly defined. The law has not only been clearly stated, it has been reiterated, illustrated, and expanded. No one could ever consider excusing their disobedience by the claim that they didn’t know what was expected of them, or that they were ignorant of the consequences of their actions.

(2) God’s standards for Israel’s conduct and the consequences for obedience or disobedience are given well in advance of punishment or blessing. As parents, it is easy to react to wrong doing, rather than to seek to prevent it. The 26th chapter of Leviticus is primarily preventative. In a different way, the Book of Proverbs attempts to accomplish the same end—the avoidance of evil by giving ample warning in advance, as well as to spell out the incentives for obeying the commandments of God. Thus, the “father” warns his “son” of the evils which lie just down the path of life, and gives his words of wisdom as to how the wise son should respond to the tests and temptations of life.

(3) The motivation of Leviticus 26 is both negative and positive. While the warnings are more emphatic and extensive than the promises of God’s blessing,175 both rewards and punishments are spelled out in this text. Israel has good reason to obey (the blessings of verses 1-13), further motivated by the painful consequences of disobedience (the cursings of verses 14-39). The purpose of this chapter is to motivate Israel to keep God’s covenant, and the best motivation, as is illustrated here, is both positive (blessings/rewards) and negative (cursings/discipline).

(4) The purpose is always positive, as is the motivation of the God who prescribes these blessings and cursings. Throughout this chapter, as gruesome as some of the warnings are, the benevolence of God is underscored. First, God’s response to Israel’s sins is to discipline176 His people, to bring them to repentance. At every stage of increasing penalty, it is due to the fact that the Israelites have not repented and turned from their disobedience (cf. vv. 18, 21, 23, 27). And, in the final outcome, God assures Israel that He will restore them, not based on their obedience to the Mosaic Covenant, but on the basis of His faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 40-45). Israel is always assured of God’s love and of His good intentions and purposes for His people.

(5) The consequences of Israel’s disobedience are sequentially and more progressively painful. This progression of painfulness can be seen in two ways in this chapter. First, it can be seen in the sequence of penalties outlined:

  • First stage (vv. 14-17)
  • Second stage (vv. 18-20)
  • Third stage (vv. 21-22)
  • Fourth stage (vv. 23-26)
  • Fifth stage (vv. 27-33)
  • Results of this last stage (vv. 34-39)
  • Land gets sabbaths (vv. 34-35)
  • People fear, flee, perish (vv. 36-39)

Also, when one considers the three areas of blessing and cursing, peace, prosperity, and the presence of God, the punishment for Israel’s disobedience and rebellion gets progressively worse. The repeated expression, “seven times” (vv. 18, 21, 24, 28) further emphasizes this progression. Note the intensification of divine discipline in the three areas of blessing or cursing:

  • Prosperity:
  • Crops stolen
  • No rain, crops fail, famine
  • Cattle die by wild beasts
  • Health progressively fails, finally death for many (cannibalism)
  • Peace:
  • Israel first attacked, raided by enemies
  • Then ruled by enemies
  • Then scattered to live in enemy’s land
  • Presence of God:
  • God with them
  • God sets face against them
  • God “abandons” them—expels from His land, His dwelling place

(6) Finally, God dealt with Israel’s sin and with her repentance at its roots, at the level of motivation. Israel’s disobedience is seen to be the result of her abhorrence of God’s laws (v. 15). God reaffirms His love for Israel, which is intended to encourage and stimulate Israel’s love for Him. God assures Israel of her ultimate hope, which encourages repentance and obedience. It is not mere mechanical compliance which God desires of His people, but obedience, rooted in love.

Principles of Discipline

Before pressing on, let me pause to suggest how the characteristics of this chapter apply to the problems of parenting (as well as to teachers and others who are responsible for the discipline of others). Consider the following guidelines for discipline, based upon the blessings and cursings of Leviticus 26.

(1) Make sure that rules and their consequences are clearly communicated. Before one can require a certain kind of conduct, the rules must be clearly communicated. In order to motivate men to observe this standard, the rewards for obedience and the penalties for disobedience must also be clearly stated. This must be done well in advance of the time when obedience or disobedience is dealt with. Many of us who are parents do not declare the rules until unsatisfactory conduct has occurred. Individuals can only be held accountable for what they know, and thus the Israelites were completely accountable. God’s rules were clearly spelled out, repeated, restated, clarified, and illustrated. Truly the Israelites were “without excuse.” We would be well advised to be as clear in our expectations.

(2) Don’t make threats, but promises. Don’t promise consequences which you cannot (or won’t) produce. Once we have prescribed the standards for conduct which we require and our response to obedience or disobedience to these requirements, we are obligated to follow through, to keep our word regarding our requirements. Just as the Mosaic Covenant stipulated a certain conduct on the part of the Israelites, it promised a certain conduct on God’s part. There was never any doubt about how God would respond to Israel’s actions, only a question of timing. The rules are no better than the consistency with which they are enforced. If we can’t be counted on to punish misconduct, how can we be counted on to reward right conduct?

(3) Have a sequence of dire consequences, which get progressively worse, and which come at specified points of disobedience. The problem with most of us (parents) is that we threaten our children with the worst possible punishment (spanking?) for any number of offenses, from spilling their milk (normally a childish mistake) to rebellion. We must save our biggest “stick” for the worst offense, and must think of a sequence of unpleasant consequences for the progression of offenses which fall short of the worst. As a school teacher, I learned that I needed a large bag of “tricks” (punishments), which would be appropriate for a wide range of offenses, and also for a wide range of personalities. The cursings and blessings reflect such a broad range of penalties.

(4) Make sure that your rules include both positive and negative consequences, to that the child is doubly motivated to obey. Most of our children feel that we as parents only say “no” and that there are few rewards to obedience (other than the absence of punishment). Good discipline gives positive incentives (rewards) along with negative ones (punishment). I believe that the Bible does this, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. The Christian looks for rewards for obedience, even as he does penalties for disobedience.

(5) Whenever you are involved in the process of discipline (from the giving of the rules to the enforcement of them), always assure of your love, encourage repentance, and give hope for restoration. Some children lose heart, feeling that there is no chance of pleasing their parents. They feel that the rules are an expression of hostility toward them, rather than of love. When such an attitude is caught (whether intended or not), the child has little or no motivation for obedience or repentance. No matter what the child does, let them know there is hope, and that you will continue to be faithful to love them and to stand by the rules (both the promise of blessing and of discipline).

Blessings and Cursings in the History of Israel

The blessings and cursings of Leviticus 26 (as well as Deuteronomy 28) play a significant role in the history of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament. First and foremost, the historical books of Joshua and Judges dramatically testify to the fact that God does keep His promises. While the Book of Joshua does record some failures on Israel’s part (e.g. Achan, Joshua 7), the book as a whole describes God’s faithfulness in blessing His people as they obey His commandments (both those of the Law and those given by Joshua). The Book of Judges, on the other hand, forcefully conveys the fact that God disciplines His people when they disregard and disobey His commandments. The many “cycles” of obedience, blessing, victory, apathy, disobedience, defeat, reiterate the absolute accuracy of God’s promises and warnings in Leviticus 26.

In Asaph’s recounting of the history of Israel in Psalm 78 (especially verses 54-64), the disobedience of Israel led to the consequences, the cursings of Leviticus 26. So, too, in the psalms, the psalmists’ prayers for deliverance from their enemies revealed an intimate knowledge of the blessings and cursings attached to the Law, and thus shaped their prayers (cf. Psalms 71 and 72 for example).

The prophets explained the defeat and disasters of Israel’s history as the fulfillment of God’s warnings concerning disobedience to His commandments. They also promised a future deliverance, which was virtually a reversal of the cursings of our text. Note the parallels of this prophecy of Ezekiel to the blessings and cursings of our text:

“And I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate harmful beasts from the land, so that they may live securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the places around My hill a blessing. And I will cause showers to come down in their season; they will be showers of blessing. Also the tree of the field will yield its fruit, and the earth will yield its increase, and they will be secure on their land. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bars of their yoke and have delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them. And they will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely, and no one will make them afraid. And I will establish for them a renowned planting place, and they will not again be victims of famine in the land, and they will not endure the insults of the nations any more. Then they will know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are My people,” declares the Lord GOD (Ezek. 34:25-30; cf. also 37:22-38).

It was recognized in the Old Testament that no Israelite could keep God’s commandments perfectly, and that the future deliverance of Israel would be the work of God Himself through the coming of His Messiah. Thus, Isaiah spoke of the Deliverer, whom God had appointed to save His people:

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you people from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me, And He has also made Me a select arrow; He has hidden Me in His quiver. And He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.” … He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” … Thus says the LORD, “In a favorable time I have answered You, And in a day of salvation I have helped You; And I will keep You and give You for a covenant of the people, To restore the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages; Saying to those who are bound, ‘Go forth,’ To those who are in darkness, ‘Show yourselves.’ Along the roads they will feed, And their pasture will be on all bare heights. They will not hunger or thirst, Neither will the scorching heat or sun strike them down; For He who has compassion on them will lead them, And will guide them to springs of water. And I will make all My mountains a road, And My highways will be raised up” (Isa. 49:1-3, 6, 8-11).

It is wholly consistent with the Old Testament, then, that John the Baptist should introduce the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, in Old Testament terms that were employed in reference to Israel’s Deliverer. It is also to be expected that our Lord would introduce Himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s Deliverer:

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are donwtrodden, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” And He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:16-21).

As the verses immediately following in the text of Isaiah (61, vv. 4ff.) indicate, this prophecy is one pertaining to Israel’s restoration, from the deliverance from her cursing to the experience of her blessing. This, our Lord announced, was to be fulfilled in His person and work. Jesus was not accepted as God’s Messiah by Israel’s religious leaders, and thus He was crucified as a criminal, thus bearing the sins of men, and thus also fulfilling other prophecies concerning His (first) coming, prophecies such as those found in Isaiah 52:13–53:12.

Knowing of His rejection and crucifixion, Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24 and 25 were once again warnings of future judgment, along the same lines as that given in Leviticus 26. It will not be until the ultimate and final judgment of Israel, as is graphically described in the Book of Revelation, that Israel would be saved.

But of this salvation, there was no doubt. Just as God assured Israel of her ultimate repentance and deliverance, so the apostle Paul assured his readers of the restoration of blessings to His people, Israel:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” “This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Rom. 11:25-32).

The promises of cursing, but also of ultimate restoration and blessing which we have been studying in Leviticus 26, are the basis for Israel’s future hope, and for Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11. Israel has a great future. The Great Tribulation, which is described most fully in the Book of Revelation, will be required to turn Israel from her sins, but she will turn and repent, and she will be restored.

Thus, Leviticus 26 was intended to be a word of warning and of hope to the Israelites of old, and it will continue to be this until Israel is restored. But there are also very important applications of this text to contemporary Christians. It is the apostle Paul who points his readers to the undergirding principles of this passage and applies it to Christians. And he does this in the Book of Galatians, a book written to correct the errors of legalism, based upon an inaccurate interpretation and application of the Law of Moses. Paul writes,

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed … What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:15-19).

Paul corrects those Judaizers who taught that justification and sanctification were produced by works, by men’s efforts to keep the Law. He shows that the Abrahamic Covenant is the primary covenant, that covenant which is not dependent upon men’s obedience, but only on God’s faithfulness to His word. The Mosaic Covenant, Paul taught, was secondary, a temporary, provisional arrangement, which in no way set aside the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus, the Judaizers, who placed their emphasis on man’s obedience to the Mosaic Covenant, were wrong. Salvation and sanctification is the work of God, based upon His covenant with Abraham.

While Paul does not directly refer to Leviticus chapter 26, I believe that this text clearly teaches this same principle (of the priority of the Abrahamic Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant), and that Paul based his teaching upon it. Leviticus 26 promised blessing for keeping the Mosaic Covenant, and cursing for disobedience. The very fact that the cursing section is much more detailed than the blessing section suggests that Israel will not keep the covenant. The progressive disciplinary sequence in the chapter indicates that Israel will persist in her disobedience and rebellion. The concluding paragraph, that which assures Israel of her future restoration, is based upon God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham, not Israel’s faithfulness to her covenant with God, the Mosaic Covenant. Paul simply underscores a truth which was taught in the Law itself, a truth taught in Leviticus 26.

Second, Paul taught that there was a principle underlying Leviticus 26 which is just as applicable to Christians as it was to the Israelites of old:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith (Gal. 6:7-10).

Leviticus 26 promised blessing for the keeping of God’s Law, and cursing for disobedience. The underlying principle is that our actions have consequences. Our obedience to God’s commands bring blessing, and our disobedience brings discipline. Paul spoke of this as “sowing” and “reaping” and he stressed that sowing evil results in discipline, while sowing righteousness brings blessing. Our actions are either the sowing of evil or the sowing of righteousness, and thus they will produce either blessing or cursing. It does matter what we do or do not do.

Let me focus on the application of this principle in the most important act we will ever make, that of responding to God’s offer of forgiveness and salvation in the person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ. History has made it painfully clear that men will never be able to attain God’s blessings by means of law-keeping. The apostle Paul put it this way:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith (Rom. 3:19-25a).

The Law could only prove all men to be sinners, worthy of divine punishment. The Law proved that all men are sinners and need to be saved, but cannot do so themselves. The Law prepares men for Christ, who came to save sinners. He perfectly fulfilled the Law, keeping its every command. He also died to the Law, bearing the sins of the world, and meeting the demand of the Law that the one who sins must die.

God has thus made provision for man’s salvation and blessing through the coming, life, death, burial, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. The benefits, the blessings of Christ’s death, are available to every sinner, and yet God has required that those who will be restored must do so by repentance, by acknowledging their sin and by accepting God’s provision for forgiveness. Salvation is for all who will repent and believe. Salvation is for all who will “call on the name of the Lord.” There is nothing more important than your response to God’s offer of salvation in the person of His Son. To receive Him is to receive forgiveness, eternal life and the blessings of God. To reject Him is to remain in your sins and to bear the consequence of eternal separation from Him and from His blessings.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life (1 John 5:9-12).

How will you respond to God’s offer of salvation. To repent, to acknowledge your sin, and to look to Jesus Christ for salvation, for forgiveness, and for eternal life, is to receive the eternal blessings of God. To refrain from doing so is to continue to experience divine condemnation. If the Old Testament teaches us anything from its account of the history of Israel it is this: that God keeps His promises, as outlined in Leviticus 26. Those who obey are blessed, and those who rebel are cursed. May you be among the blessed, because you have turned to the Son of God and trusted Him for forgiveness, restoration, and blessing.

For those who are Christians, those who have already trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, I remind you of Paul’s words that we sow what we reap. Our obedience brings blessing and our rebellion brings discipline. Let us seek, by His grace, to obey.

Perversions of This Passage

As I conclude, let me simply mention some of the ways in which this passage has been perverted, misinterpreted and misapplied, by some in our own day. I will not describe these positions in detail, nor will I refute them, but simply name them, so that the reader can ponder them in relationship to our text and our teaching.

(1) The legalists, who still teach that God blesses or curses the Christian, on the basis of his keeping (perfectly) the Law of Moses. Milton Green is but one who does so in our time and in our city. He says that if we fail to “keep the covenant” God will curse us, usually by some kind of demonic attack or possession. On the other hand, he says, if we perfectly keep the covenant, God will enable us to perform all the miracles and wonders which our Lord did, and more.

The errors here are many, but the worst is the failure to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic, and between salvation and sanctification achieved by our Lord alone, and that which is allegedly achieved by men keeping the Law.

(2) The prosperity themes of our day. The “gospel of the good life” looks upon a text like ours and says, “If we but do the right things, we will prosper.” There is, of course, an element of truth here, but they generally see prosperity in material terms, and they see it happening immediately, rather than having any delays. They also equate human suffering, trials and testings with disobedience. If you’re not prospering, you must be sinning. Thus we have Job’s friends revisited.

There is also the view that the prosperity which the United States has experienced is due to the piety of its people. The flip side is for us to look down upon impoverished nations, such as India, and to feel that their poverty is the direct result of wrong belief and impiety. We give ourselves too much credit if we think this way.

One error is in equating the Christian with the Israelite. We do not live under the Mosaic Covenant, nor do we possess the land of Canaan. Thus, our blessings are going to differ somewhat from those of the Israelite. Our blessings may not be immediate. As a matter of fact, neither were the blessings of the faithful Israelite. Hebrews 11 focuses on the faith of these saints and on the fact that they died without having received the promises of God. These saints also suffered greatly for their faith, experiencing deprivation, denial, and death for their faith in God. Psalm 73 is but one illustration of the fact that the righteous may not immediately prosper, while the wicked may. The gospel of the good life has to be very selective about its Old Testament texts, for this version of Christianity is very selective in what it chooses to believe. Incidentally, God often delays His judgment, as well as His blessings. This is longsuffering, intended to encourage repentance (cf. 2 Pet. 2, 3).

(3) The positive mental attitude school of Christian thought. This school of thought, which has its origins in pagan thinking, would have us believe that thinking only positive thoughts, thoughts of success and prosperity, will assure us of experiencing success and prosperity. Moses must have been mistaken, then, to have introduced such “negative” thinking into the Old Testament. The Bible has much to say which falls into the negative category of warning, and yet this is intended to play a very positive role in the life of the saint, warning him to abstain from evil.

(4) The view that the grace which is manifested in the New Covenant sets aside all judgment, and thus the need to be concerned about avoiding sin. The underlying assumption is that the goodness and grace of God results only in blessing, and never in discipline. The goodness and grace of God are constantly emphasized in our text and in the Old Testament, and yet His goodness requires God to discipline His wayward children. Christian liberty and the grace of God are never to be used as a pretext, an occasion for sin (cf. Rom. 6:1ff.; 1 Pet. 2:16).

Addendum A
Blessings and Cursings in Leviticus 26


BLESSINGS OF VERSES 1-13


CURSES OF VERSES 14-39

God Confirms Covenant (9)

God’s Vengeance For Covenant (25)

God’s Presence

God’s “Absence”

God turns toward His people (9)

God set’s His face against them (17)

God will dwell among them (11)

God sends them into captivity (38-39)

God walks among them (12)

God becomes their adversary (33)

Peace

Peril

Security (5)

Soul pines away/sudden terror (16)

Peace of mind (6)

Terror, fear, panic (36-37)

Beasts won’t harm them (6)

Beasts destroy and decimate (22)

Prevail over their enemies (7-8)

Attacked by enemies—raids (16)
Struck down by enemies (17)
Ruled by enemies (17)
Flee, but none pursue (17)
Delivered into enemy hands (25)
Scattered among nations (33)
Destroy themselves—cannibalism (29)

Prosperity

Poverty

God gives rains in season (4)

God withholds the rains (19)

Crops will grow abundantly (4-5)
Old grain cleared out for new (10)

Crops don’t grow (20)
Enemies raid and steal crops (16)
Famine—lack of bread (26)
Land is desolate (32)

Israelites fruitful and increase (9)

Consumption, fever, waste away (16)
Wild animals decimate (22)
Pestilence in cities kills (25)
Israelites kill and eat their own (29)

Addendum B
Israel’s Judgments


BLESSINGS

Lev. 26:1-13


WARNING OF JUDGMENT
Lev. 26:14-39


JUDGMENT
EXPERIENCED


FUTURE
DELIVERANCE

 

GENERAL WARNINGS
vv. 14-17

Physical, emotional anguish
Crops stolen by enemies
Defeat by enemies


Judg. 6:3-4, 11


Isa. 11:10

 

DROUGHT & POOR HARVESTS
vv. 18-20

Break pride
No rain
Crop failure

Isa. 2:11-17; 5:15-16;
1 Ki. 17:1-2; cf. 18:2

 
 

WILD ANIMALS ATTACK
vv. 21-22

People and cattle
Stricken by beasts

Ezek. 5:17; 14:15, 21; 1 Ki. 13:24; 20:36; Jer. 5:6*;
cf. 2 Ki. 2:24; 2 Ki. 17:25-26* (*Samaritans)

Isa. 11:6-9

 

RAVAGES OF WAR
vv. 23-26

A sword
Pestilence in cities
Delivered into hands of enemies
Famine—no bread

Judg. 2:11-15;
2 Ki. 17:7ff.;
1 Sam 10:5ff.; Isa 3:1; Jer. 24:8-10; Ezek 4:16; 5:16; 14:13

Isa. 11:14; 13:1-22;

14:1-2; 24-27

 

WAR AND EXILE
vv. 27-33

Cannibalism
Destroy high places
Cities & Sanctuaries destroyed
Land made desolate
People scattered/dispersion

2 Ki. 6:26-30; Lam. 2:20;
2 Ki. 23 (esp. v. 20);
Isa. 63:18; Jer. 44:2, 6, 22;
Jer. 12:1; 33:10;
Ezek. 12:15

Isa. 19:5-10

Isa. 11:11-12

 

RESULTS OF EXILE
vv. 34-39

Land has sabbaths
Those left behind victims, rot away

Jer. 50:34;
Ezek. 33:10

Isa. 19:1-4


165 I like Wenham’s title for this chapter: “Exhortation to Obey the Law: Blessing and Cursing.” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 324.

Noordtzij seems to share my enthusiasm and appreciation for this chapter. He writes: “Leviticus 26 is one of the most moving chapters, not only in the Book of Leviticus and the Pentateuch as a whole, but in the entire Old Testament revelation. In looking toward the future, the Lord laments the fact that He soon might be compelled to chastise His people. If they, in utter ungratefulness, should sinfully reject the love that He had shown to them, He would have no choice but to cause them to feel the destructive weight of His divine indignation, even as this love continued to reach out to them. As a single, poignant lament of divine love, the chapter also contains a warning and a prayer that the Israelites would not have to undergo such punishment.” A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. by Raymond Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 262.

166 Wenham writes, “Lists of blessings and cursings were a common practice in the ancient Near East in the suzeranty-vassel treaties.” Wenham, p. 327.

167 “There is nevertheless an important and significant difference in outlook. Whereas the biblical texts are straightforward promises about how God will respond to his people’s behavior, in blessings on the obedient and judgment on the careless, the nonbiblical texts are prayers to the gods to act.” Ibid., p. 327.

168 “Internally, the chapter is quite clearly structured. Phrases that were keys to the division of the material in previous chapters reappear in this one, ‘I am the Lord (your God)’ (vv. 1, 2, 13, 44, 45). As in ch. 19 we have a double formula at the beginning and end of the chapter. … The curses are further divided into six subsections by the introductory clauses, ‘If you will not listen to me (vv. 14, 18, 21, 23, 27), I shall punish you (seven times for your sins)’ (vv. 16, 18, 21, 24, 28). Verse 40 states the converse and offers a promise of restoration when the people repent.” Ibid., pp. 327-328.

“Using the last criterion as our guide the blessings fall into three groups each beginning with ‘I shall give’ … The blessings are then divided as follows: 4-5 the gift of rain and good harvests; 6-10 the gift of peace, no wild animals, defeats, or famine; 11-13 the gift of God’s presence. Though the blessings do not exactly match the curses in length or number, the subject matter of both is similar and there are a number of clear echoes of the blessings in the curses.” Ibid., p. 328.

169 Wenham writes, “Seven seems to be a round number for repeated punishments (cf. Ps. 79:12; Prov. 24:16; Isa. 4:1). It is an appropriate and evocative number in view of the importance of the seventh in Israelite religion, and it serves as a reminder that these punishments are for breach of the heart of this religion, the covenant (cf. v. 25). The book of Revelation portrays a series of sevenfold judgments overtaking the world in the last days (Rev. 5-16).” Wenham, p. 331.

“This ‘seven’ is not to be understood in an arithmetic sense, for as the Semitic number of totality (cf. Deut. 28:7, 25; Ps. 79:12), it rather indicates punishment in full measure.” Noordtzij, p. 267.

170 Wenham cites Bonar, who has written, “‘All declension and decay may be said to be begun wherever we see these two ordinances despised—the sabbath and the sanctuary. They are the outward fence around the inward love commanded by v. 1.’” Bonar, p. 473, as cited by Wenham, p. 329.

171 “Although Canaan was constantly coveted by the inhabitants of the desert, since its rich agricultural land provided what they could not obtain in the steppe (e.g., Judges 6), and it sometimes became the battlefield of nations—the armies of Egypt and Mesopotamia met there more than once—the promise is given that there would be no enemies in the land.” Noordtzij, p. 265.

172 “Gentle early rains would fall in October and November and make the land ready for plowing and sowing; strong winter storms would come from mid-December to mid-March in order to saturate the ground, filling the wells and making the springs overflow; and the later rains of April would cause the ears of grain and the fruit to swell and enable the fields to endure the heat of summer. The granting of the necessary rain at the proper time would allow the land to produce to its fullest capacity and yield an abundant harvest (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Hos. 6:3), whereas a failure of the rains meant famine and misery. If Israel obeyed the Lord’s commands, the grain would be so plentiful (cf. Amos 9:13) that the threshing and harvest of April and May, the proverbial time of rejoicing (e.g., Ps. 4:7; Isa. 9:3), would continue until the grape harvest in August and September, when the joyful Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (Deut. 16:13-14; Judg. 21:19-21; 1 Kings 8:2; 12:32); and the grape harvest would likewise continue until the time of planting that began after the early rains. The people would then also live in the land ‘in safety’ (literally, ‘in confidence,’ cf. 25:19), without anxiety about the satisfaction of their daily needs.” Ibid., p. 264.

173 The brief chart in Addendum A helps to see how the blessings of verses 1-13 are reversed to cursings in verses 14-39. The chart in Addendum B plays out the cursings in Israel’s history, from their realization to their removal.

174 The matter of fertility is clearly addressed in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 28. In verse 4, fertility is promised, while in verse 18 it is taken away.

175 I have a theory about the difference between the length of the blessing section, as compared with the cursings. First, the cursings are more certain than the blessings. That is, Israel’s experience will be more that of cursing than of blessing. Second, we tend to ponder, visualize, and meditate more upon blessings than upon cursings. Thus, the Israelites could be counted on to “fill in the blanks” of what wasn’t said of God’s blessings, but God made certain that He “filled in the blanks” of the cursings, in graphic detail. Finally, the righteous would not look at the chapter in terms of its warnings as much as its blessings. As the Scriptures teach, “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). One can see this in the Psalmist’s attitude toward God’s law. While it warns him (Ps. 19:11), much more is made of its blessings (cf. vv. 7-10).

176 “These judgments are described as discipline. Throughout the Bible divine discipline is referred to: God punishes his people not merely because they deserve it, but because he loves them and wants to correct their foolish ways (Deut. 8:5; Jer. 30:11; 31:18; Ps. 38:2 [Eng. 1]; 94:12; Prov. 3:11-12; Heb. 12:5-11). Amos laments that, despite judgments of famine and drought, disease and defeat, ‘yet you did not return to me’ (Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11).” Wenham, pp. 330-331.

Passage: 

22. The Value of a Vow (Leviticus 27)

Introduction

As you know, this past week was election time. One of the headlines in the paper this week caught my attention. It said something like this, “Clements will keep vows.” The gist of the article was that governor-elect Clements will keep his campaign promises. We all know that many “vows” are made by candidates, and that few are kept. Mr. Clements, we have been assured, will keep his vows.

What a sad reality this headline reveals. It informs us that most vows are not intended to be kept by the one making them, nor are they expected to be kept by those who hear him. In such a time when even vows are not taken seriously we should find it very easy to identify with the Israelite of old, who was not expected by God to keep his promise.

While the term “vow” was used in this week’s newspaper article of the campaign promises which Mr. Clements made before the election, we need not think of vows in such a formal way. In the New Testament our Lord taught that every commitment, every promise, was to be as binding as a vow. In this case, the instructions which we find in Leviticus pertaining to vows have relevance to the commitments which we make, and, to be pointedly honest, we are not known for keeping our commitments.

What this week’s newspaper headlines suggest—that vows and promises are not to be taken seriously—can be verified in most of our experiences. How many promises or commitments have been made to you, either by a parent, or a friend, or a business associate, which have been forgotten or ignored? To be even more pointed, how many times can you recall making a commitment which you later regretted? You may have mentally suppressed your commitment, or you may even have willfully violated it. This lesson may indicate what you need to do about your hasty commitment. For those who will be tempted to make a hasty commitment in the future, this lesson should serve as a warning. The subject matter is, indeed, most relevant, for costly commitments are often hastily made and shamelessly broken, today, as they were centuries ago. Let us learn from Leviticus how to be careful about our commitments.

Tensions of the Text

The first “tension of the text” is a logical one. If vows should not be broken, why does God make provisions for vows to be reversed, and for the goods offered to God to be redeemed? I believe that we will find the resolution to this perplexing question as we look carefully at the text and its teaching.

There is yet another “tension in this text.” This chapter is the final chapter of the Book of Leviticus, and thus it serves as the conclusion of the book. Why would God conclude the Book of Leviticus with regulations which deal with vowed offerings?177 In what way does this subject serve to appropriately and meaningfully bring the book to a close? This problem, too, will be resolved by a consideration of the chapter.

The Approach of This Lesson

In this lesson we will begin by surveying some of the specifics of the chapter, and then proceed to make some observations and generalizations about the chapter as a whole. We will then press beyond the chapter to compare its teaching with the rest of the Old Testament. Next, we will seek to learn how the Israelites’ practice conformed to the principles and precepts God laid down concerning vows. Then we shall look at the New Testament, to see how its teaching adopts or amends the teaching of the Old Testament. Finally, we will identify those principles which are both permanent and pertinent, and suggest some of their practical applications for New Testament Christians.

The Structure of Leviticus 27

The key to the structure of chapter 27 is to be found by the categories of things which are vowed as offerings to God:

  • Vows of people—vv. 1-8
  • Vows of animals—vv. 9-13
  • Vowed houses—vv. 14-15
  • Vowed inheritance (family land) vv. 16-21
  • Vowed (non-family) land—vv. 22-25
  • Illicit vows—vv. 26-33
  • Conclusion—v. 34

In a very systematic and thorough fashion, the chapter deals with the various kinds of things which men may promise to dedicate to God. Regulations appropriate to each are then specified.

The Definition of a Vow

Simply viewed, offering a vow178 is practicing a kind of “credit card” act of worship. It is a promise to worship God with a certain offering in the future, motivated by gratitude for God’s grace in the life of the offerer. The reason for the delay in making the offering was that the offerer was not able, at that moment to make the offering. The vow was made, promising to offer something to God if God would intervene on behalf of the individual, making the offering possible. In many instances, the vow was made in a time of great danger or need. The Rabbis believed that the gifts which were vowed in Leviticus 27 were to be used for the maintenance of the Temple.179

Numerous examples of vows similar to those of Leviticus 27 can be found in the Bible. Jacob vowed to pay a tithe if God would bless and keep him (Gen. 28:20-22). The Nazarite vow is defined in Numbers chapter 6 and Samson (Judg. 13) is the most famous Old Testament example. When the Israelites fought the Canaanite king of Arad, they vowed to utterly destroy their cities if God gave them victory (Num. 21:1-3). The most tragic vow is that of Jephthah, who vowed to offer to God the first thing to come from his tent to greet him, which proved to be his only daughter (Judges 11:29-40). Hannah vowed that if God gave her a son she would give him to the Lord all his life (1 Sam. 1:10-11). Jonah’s vow was made from the belly of the great fish that had swallowed him (Jonah 2:9). Vows were also made by the heathen (Jonah 1:16). In the New Testament, we find that Paul continued to make vows and fulfill them (Acts 18:18; cf. 21:23).

The vows of Leviticus chapter 27 were voluntary promises to offer a particular gift180 to God. Specifically in mind in our text are those vows which God knew men did not wish to keep. God anticipates that the vows which are made at one moment in time may be regretted later, and thus the offerer will attempt, in one way or another, to renege on them, to replace one offering for another, or to somehow reduce what was offered.

Specific Regulations for Particular Gifts

Time will not permit a detailed analysis of each section of the chapter, but it is important to get a feel of some of the particular regulations which are laid down in this chapter. We will therefore briefly survey each section of the text.

The Gift of Persons (vv. 1-8)

Persons and well as property could be devoted to God, thus the first section of the chapter deals with the various categories of persons who might be vowed as an offering to God. It is assumed that these persons would either serve in ministry related to the tabernacle, or would at least serve the priests (working the fields which might be dedicated?). Some commentators assume that the persons dedicated would not be given, but rather their worth would be donated as cash. I do not see it this way. I understand that the value of such persons is to be determined by the category into which they fall, corresponding to their age and sex. Their worth seems to be their “market value,” what the person would bring in the market place. There is therefore no demeaning of women here, or of the young or elderly, but only a recognition of what value this person had in the market place.

While a 20% penalty is paid by those who would redeem various other possessions devoted to God, no such penalty is named here. The value that is set on each person seems to be the price which would have to be paid to redeem that person. The price was high enough that no additional penalty needed to be assessed.181 There is a gracious provision here, for if a person was overtaken by poverty, the priests could determine a lower redemption price (27:8).

The Gift of Animals (vv. 9-13)

Verses 9-13 lay down regulations regarding the gift of animals, both the clean animals, which could be offered to God (vv. 9-10), and the unclean (vv. 11-13), which could be used by the priests or sold. No animal which could be an offering could be redeemed, nor could it be exchanged for another. I can imagine a man changing his mind and wanting to offer a less valuable animal in place of the more desirable one. To preclude this from happening, if a substitution were made, both animals are now holy, and will be used for sacrifices. To put the matter in more contemporary terms, if a man vowed to give God his Rolls Royce, and then attempted to substitute a Mercedes Benz in its place, both automobiles would become God’s.

Unclean animals, animals which could not be offered as a sacrifice, could be redeemed. The value of the animal would be set by the priest, and a 20% penalty would be added if the offerer wished to buy this animal back.

The Gift of a House (vv. 14-15)

It is not stated as such, but the house which is given here may be that which is not a part of the family estate, but another piece of property, which would not revert to the owner in the year of jubilee.182 The value of the house would be established by the priest, and the house may be redeemed by the payment of that value, plus a 20% penalty.

The Gift of Fields of One’s Family Inheritance (vv. 16-21)

One might also dedicate a portion of his family inheritance, that property which would revert to the owner or his heirs in the year of jubilee. The value of this property was to be determined by the amount of seed it took to plant the field. To redeem the field, the donor would be required to pay 50 shekels of silver for every homer of barley seed required for planting. It would seem that this was 50 shekels for the 50 years till jubilee, and thus one shekel per year, per homer of barley seed used.183 The number of years remaining till jubilee would determine the value of the gift, as well as the price required to redeem it (plus the 20% penalty fee, v. 19). If the man who dedicated this field attempts to negate his vow by selling this property to another (apparently without the knowledge of the purchaser), the property would then revert to the Lord in the jubilee, and not to the original owner who devoted it to God by a vow. The property would then become the possession of the priest.

The Gift of Purchased Fields (vv. 22-25)

A man might purchase the fields of a fellow-Israelite and then devote these to God as an offering. If so, the priest would determine the value of this property, taking into account the number of years till the jubilee. It seems that payment of the cash value of the property was to be made in advance in this case (“on that day,” v. 23). When the year of jubilee arrived, the land would revert to its original owner and not to the donor (v. 24).

The monetary standard when establishing the value of property was the “shekel of the sanctuary” (v. 25; cf. Exod. 30:13; Num. 3:47; 18:16). No doubt some devious Israelite may have tried to pay off his debt to the Lord according to some other monetary standard, which was of a lesser value. The shekel was to be twenty gerahs. No room for monetary manipulation here.

Prohibited Gifts (vv. 26-34)

Not only might some be tempted to pay their obligation to the Lord with money of a lesser value, but some would even be so bold as to devote something to God by a vow which was already His. These prohibited gifts are enumerated in the final verses of the chapter.

The first born among the animals already belonged to God (cf. Exod. 13:2), and thus could not be vowed to Him as a dedicated gift (vv. 26-27). Any unclean first-born animal could be redeemed by paying its value, plus 20%.

Any “proscribed thing,”184 that which was already devoted to the Lord, could not be vowed as a gift to the Lord, nor could it be redeemed (vv. 28-29). The person who was under the ban could not be redeemed, but must be put to death.

The tithes which already belonged to the Lord could not be dedicated to the Lord as a vow, either (vv. 30-33). If a man wished to redeem any of his produce from the land, he would have to pay the 20% penalty. The tithe of the flock, however, could not be redeemed, and the selection of the tenth animal must not in any way be manipulated. To attempt to exchange an animal in place of the 10th animal constituted both animals to be an offering to the Lord.

Overall Observations of Leviticus 27

(1) The entire chapter deals with those gifts which men have voluntarily purposed and promised to dedicate to God. It is very clear in this chapter and from the context of Leviticus as a whole that the offerings which are vowed here are purely voluntary. The vow-gifts are always set apart from the gifts which the Israelites were obligated to give their God.

(2) The concern of the chapter is not to instruct the Israelites that they should make such vows, or how they should make them. Not in Leviticus, nor elsewhere in the Bible, do we find any detailed instructions concerning the making of such vows (other than the exhortation to make all vows cautiously and thoughtfully and then to keep them). This seems to be because vow-making was so common in the ancient Near East that this was unnecessary.

(3) The thrust of the chapter is regarding if and how the Israelites can break their vows. The regulations found in Leviticus 27 are those required by the breaking of vows. The values of each offering were precisely determined and the penalties for redeeming the offering were given so that an Israelite would know if he could renege on his vow and, if so, how he was to go about it (primarily this involved how much he was to pay in penalties).

(4) The regulations of this chapter taught the Israelite that it is a costly matter to break one’s vow. In some instances, what was vowed could not be redeemed, and when it could be redeemed, the offerer would do so at a high price. In instances where the Israelite would try to illegitimately avoid the penalty by substituting offerings, he would lose not only his offering, but the substitute as well. One might be able to reverse his vow, but it wouldn’t be done cheaply.

(5) The underlying assumption is that man is a fallen creature, whose commitments will cool and whose religious zeal will wane. The regulations of Leviticus 27 assume that the Israelite who has vowed to make a certain freewill offering to God will very likely cool in his enthusiasm and will therefore attempt to break his vow or to lower the price or the quality of his offering. None of the regulations of chapter 27 would have been necessary if it were not for the fall of man and for his sin, which dampened his enthusiasm, minimized his generosity, and hindered his worship.

Vows in the Old Testament

There are many Old Testament texts dealing with vows. The instruction of these texts concerning vows can largely be summed up in two statements, which are referred to by our Lord, “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’”(Matt. 5:33).

I understand the “false vow” to be a vow which would not, in the final analysis, be kept. It may have been a vow made sincerely at the time, but then was forgotten, regretted, or for some reason not fulfilled. It may even have been a vow which was never intended to be kept, even when it was made. In addition to warning against the making of false vows, the Old Testament was understood to teach that a vow which was made should be kept. These words, repeated by our Lord, were merely a repetition of what the Old Testament had taught:

“When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised” (Deut. 23:21-23).

It is a snare for a man to say rashly, “It is holy!” And after the vows to make inquiry (Prov. 20:25).

When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it, for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God (Ecc. 5:4-7).

The Unique Contribution of Leviticus 27

While the teaching of Leviticus is consistent with that of the Old Testament as a whole, it makes some unique contributions. There are three principle lessons to be learned from the legislation of Leviticus 27, which set this chapter apart in its emphasis and methods. Let us consider each of these.

Leviticus 27 teaches men to be cautious about the vows they make, but in a different way than elsewhere. There are three principle ways in which the people of God are cautioned about making vows hastily, and without due consideration. First, there is the method of teaching. In the Law there are clear statements of warning and instruction about hasty vows, as we see above. Second, one can use examples and illustrations to teach. The Old Testament gives us several examples of men who made foolish vows, the most notable example being Jephthah, who vowed so generally that his daughter became the offering to the Lord (Judg. 11:29-40). Thirdly, you can teach men to do what is right by making disobedience painful and costly. In Leviticus 27 the Israelites are taught the folly of hasty commitments by specifying that some vows cannot be reversed, and that in those cases which can be redemption of that which was vowed will be costly. This third method, the method of Leviticus 27, we might call “economic sanctions.”

Our government has learned that the most powerful and persuasive means of modifying the conduct of other nations is that of economic sanctions. Men may not respond to logic and reasoning, or even take heed to the fate of others, who have made similar mistakes. But they can be expected to take heart when they are hit hard in the pocket book or in the bank account.

This can be seen in the enforcement of traffic laws. Everyone agrees in principle that a school zone is one place which requires a reduction in speed. We hardly need to be taught the reasons for such laws. We may be shown gruesome pictures of the failure of men to heed such laws. But the most powerful incentive for us to keep these laws is knowing that it will cost us a bundle if we don’t.

This is precisely the contribution of the regulations of Leviticus 27. Elsewhere men are taught that they need not make vows, and that when they do, these should be made very thoughtfully, and that all vows ought then to be kept. Accounts such as the story of Jephthah’s vow serve as an example of the consequences which others have paid for foolish vows. But our text informs men of the price which they must pay for making vows they don’t keep. In the final analysis, the economic sanctions prescribed here speak most loudly.

In most legal transactions we are warned that we should “read the fine print” so that we know what we are agreeing to. In Leviticus 27 the “fine print” is printed in capital letters, boldfaced, and underscored, so that we cannot fail to understand the penalty for breaking our vows.

Furthermore, Leviticus 27 concludes the entire book by focusing the Israelites’ attention on the highest form of worship which men can experience. Earlier chapters of Leviticus have largely dealt with compulsory offerings and obedience. The final chapter of the book deals with that which is purely voluntary. While the first obedience is that of duty, the second is that of delight.

The voluntary act of worshipping God by means of vows is the highest form of Old Testament worship. The legislation of this chapter assumes that men will, out of gratitude to God for His mercy and grace, make offerings which were the Israelites’ response to love, not to Law. How appropriate for the Book of Leviticus to end on a note of love, rather than of law, on a note of delight, rather than duty.

When our Lord instructed those who were forced to go one mile to go two instead (Matt. 5:41), He was suggesting that there is no virtue in going only the one mile. After all, they were being “forced” to go that one mile. There is less virtue in doing what one must than there is of doing what is purely volitional and voluntary. So, too, in speaking of one’s response to the cruelty of a harsh master, Peter tells his readers: “For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God” (1 Pet. 2:20). The voluntary vow-offerings which are dealt with in Leviticus 27 are of this “higher level” kind of conduct, which pleases God. What better way to end Leviticus than with the ideal form of worship?

The teaching of Leviticus 27 is closely related to that of chapter 26. I have just begun to appreciate the close proximity of our text to the “blessings and cursings” of chapter 26. The blessings and cursings are God’s promises, either of prosperity or of poverty, of blessing or discipline. It is not hard to understand why chapter 27 deals with man’s vows, man’s promises. God’s people, Israel, were to imitate God, to represent Him on the earth. When God’s people failed to keep their vows they not only sinned by disobeying His regulations concerning vows, they also caused men to become doubtful of all promises. Just as the newspaper headline of this week expressed surprise that any politician would keep his vows, so Israel’s disregard of her vows caused men to doubt all commitments, even God’s. For the Israelites to take their vows lightly was to negate the impact which God’s promises of blessing or cursing was intended to have as an incentive to faithfulness and obedience to God’s word. The promises of God are the basis for our faith and obedience. God will keep His commitments, and thus we should act accordingly.

Finally, this text reminds the reader of the fallenness of man. The depravity of man is assumed, and is the underlying reason for all of the legislation of chapter 27. We could go further and say that it is the sinfulness of man which is the underlying reason for all of the regulations of the Book of Leviticus. The reason why God was separated from man and could only be approached through the shed blood of a sacrifice was that man was contaminated by sin.

Even in engaging in the highest form of human activity—worship—man’s sin had to be taken into consideration. In a moment of despair or desperate straits, the Israelite called to God for deliverance and promised to make a certain offering to Him if He answered his prayers. Yet even when God marvelously intervened and answered this prayer the one who made his vow often had second thoughts. Sin contaminates and corrupts worship, just as it does all else, and Leviticus makes provision for this reality.

Putting Israel’s Promises Into Practice

Having gained a sense of what one’s vow could be from the Law of Moses, we do find a number of instances in which the vows of individuals were kept, with generosity and gratitude. One of the most beautiful accounts of a vow kept is found in 1 Samuel chapter 1, where Hannah vowed that if God were give her a son, she would dedicate him for temple service all his life. Hannah kept her vow, though it must have broken this mother’s heart to leave this child at the temple, to be raised by someone else.

The psalms provide us with numerous examples of the praise and thanksgiving which accompanied the offerings of those who had vowed to worship God if He would hear their petitions:

Thy vows are binding upon me, O God; I will render thank offerings to Thee. For Thou hast delivered my soul from death, Indeed my feet from stumbling, So that I may walk before God In the light of the living (Ps. 56:12-13).

I shall come into Thy house with burnt offerings; I shall pay Thee my vows, Which my lips uttered And my mouth spoke when I was in distress. I shall offer to Thee burnt offerings of fat beasts, With the smoke of rams; I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats (Ps. 66:13-15; cf. also Ps. 22:25; 50:14; 61:5, 8; 65:1; 76:11; 116:14, 18; 132:1-5).

Sad to say, however, that these instances of those who kept their vows were not typical of the Israelites. In the Book of Leviticus God had commanded that only perfect specimens be offered to Him as a special vow (Lev. 22:21).185 Yet the prophet Malachi had to rebuke the people of God for offering their defective animals to Him: “‘But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?’ says the LORD of hosts” (Mal. 1:8). While Malachi is not speaking only of special votive offerings, surely these would have been included in his rebuke. The nation had come to resent their offerings, rather than to rejoice in them. This was an evidence of their hardness of hearts which would require divine discipline. The ideal worship which we find discussed in Leviticus 27 was seldom practiced; instead, the corruptions which our text sought to prevent had become the rule of the day. If worship was ever to reach God’s ideal, something would have to happen to make it possible.

Vows in the New Testament

The first statement concerning vows in the New Testament, to which we have already referred, came from the lips of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were, told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:33-35).

The first thing we should note is the fact that the statement which our Lord refers accurately conveys the teaching of the Old Testament. The problem is not with the statement, but what was made of it in application. The Judaism of Jesus’ day had come to view this teaching as meaning that the only statements a man would make which he had to keep was his vows. In other words, in practice Judaism thought that only one’s vows must be true and fulfilled, but that falsehood in any other context was legitimate. A vow therefore became a very separate category of affirmation, an oath which must be kept.

Matters were even worse, for later in Matthew we find that there were certain oaths which were thought not to be binding, while only very technically worded oaths were binding: “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated’” (Matt. 23:16). And so we see that a legalistic view of vows meant that very few vows were actually kept, or even intended to be kept. This was far from the intent of the Law.

Jesus broadened the requirement of truthfulness to every affirmation, to every commitment which men might make: “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’” (Matt. 5:37). In other words, the Law called upon men to be truthful in every statement, in every affirmation, not just with regard to oaths or vows. Thus, we can say that every commitment, every promise is as good as a vow, and should be spoken with all due consideration, with truthfulness, and then should be kept.

I believe that it is for this reason that the New Testament hardly speaks of vows, but says a great deal about our affirmations and commitments.

In Mark 7:9-13 our Lord condemned the Pharisees and the scribes for the misuse of the vow, which used the “corban” to avoid their responsibilities. Thus, by dedicating their goods to God, they avoided meeting their obligations to the parents. This would have been an especially tempting evil for the priests, for the vowed gifts were both appraised by the priests and used by them. When a priest vowed something to God as a “corban” gift, he got the use of that gift, yet it was technically his, so he could not give of it to his parents.

It would work something like this. If I purchased a new 80386 Compaq computer and my parents wanted to use it some for keeping their financial records or for writing letters, I would solve the problem of sharing with them by giving it to the church. The computer would then be “God’s computer.” When my parents asked if they could use it, I could piously respond, “Oh, I can’t let you do that, it is holy, only to be used by God’s priest.” Thus, the computer is restricted to my use only, and my obligation to help my parents is nullified. Sin always finds a convenient and pious-sounding way to use what is good to accomplish what is evil (cf. Rom. 7).

In the gospel of Luke (14:28-33) our Lord instructed men to “count the cost” before they made the commitment to a given course of action. Because of this, Jesus did not readily accept volunteers to be His disciples, but He spelled out the cost of discipleship and urged them to think about it before promising to follow Him (cf. Luke 9:57-62).

In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians he emphasized the importance of speaking the truth (Eph. 4:15, 25). In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul encouraged the Corinthian saints to follow through with the gift which they had previously committed to send to Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor. 9:5, 7). He granted that those whose means had changed for the worse since their commitment need not feel guilty about giving less than they committed (2 Cor. 8:12). The important thing was for people to keep their promise, to give what they had committed, and to do so cheerfully and gratefully (9:7).

In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul encouraged women not to make a hasty commitment to remain single, but rather to remarry, lest at some later time they might meet “Mr. Wonderful” and be tempted to violate their vow (1 Tim. 5:11-15).

James warned of presuming on the future and of putting off the good which could be done today until later. We cannot be presumptuous of what the future will hold, nor dare we delay in meeting the needs of others today when we have the means to do so (James 4:13-17).

In the final chapter of his epistle, James concludes, “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; so that you may not fall under judgment” (Jas. 5:12).

The teaching of the Old Testament is thus carried through in the New, with added emphasis that every commitment must be carried through, just as the vow should be.

Conclusion

There are several important principles which surface in the light of our study of the final chapter of Leviticus.

(1) Even when men are carrying out their highest calling—the worship of God—their sin hinders and contaminates their deeds. I fear that there are many Christians who suppose that when someone is involved in what may be viewed as “spiritual ministry” they are somehow exempt from temptation and sin. Leviticus chapter 27 should teach us otherwise.

This is not merely an Old Testament phenomenon. In the New Testament Book of Acts we find Ananias and Sapphira trying to reduce their gift, while at the same time representing their offering as the total sum of the proceeds of the sale of their property (Acts 5:1ff.) In 1 Corinthians 11 we see that the saints were drunk and disorderly during the celebration of the Lord’s Table. In Philippians chapter 1 we are told of those who were preaching the gospel out of impure motives. In the New Testament and the Old, man’s sin is ever before him. No activity is ever free from the corrupting influence of sin. Let us constantly be on guard when we worship God (as well as at all other times) that we are realistic about our fallenness and being “prone to wander.”

(2) We are reminded by our study of the “Second Law of Spiritual Thermodynamics.” By this I am referring to the tendency of the saint to “cool” in his spiritual fervor. In most cases when vows are made, I suspect that the individual is sincere and intends to keep that vow. Our text reminds us that regardless of our initial motivation and intentions, time does not work in our favor, but against us. Thus, after the passing of time, we can think of many reasons why our vow was excessive, and we will soon be looking for a way out of keeping our promise.

There are many people who have faced crises and who have, at that time, made commitments to God about serving Him in the future, only to forget them or to renege on them. Our passage reminds us that it is easy to fail to follow through with our commitments. Let us not think that making a dramatic commitment, one grand vow, at one moment in time will solve our problems once and for all. The reality of life is that our enthusiasm will wane, and that our commitments will have to be kept when our emotions are less intense than they once were. Thus, discipline and diligence are required to keep our commitments.

(3) The vows which we make can be evil. Mainly we have considered vows with the assumption that they were, in the beginning, righteous. Such vows become sinful when they are not kept. But there are other vows which are evil from the very beginning. The illicit use of the “corban” is but one example of the corrupt use of a vow. But there are many other vows which are evil at the outset. I am aware of a number of instances in which an individual has vowed not to ever do a certain thing again. This very Sunday, one of the members of our church confessed publicly that he vowed never again to speak publicly before other Christians. This vow was the result of a past disaster in his life, and the vow was a means of protecting him from future pain. Those who have been hurt by those close to them have vowed never to let anyone get close to them again. On and on it goes.

Is it possible the you have made such a vow, my friend? That you, at some point in your life, determined never to do a certain thing again, something which you know to be worthy of doing, something you know God’s word commands you to do? Such evil vows must be confessed as sin and put away. Vows can be the root of many evils.

(4) Vows can prove to be a very beneficial and significant turning point in the lives of people. Very often our obedience to God’s word drowns in the sea of our good intentions. We plan to walk more closely with God; we hope to be a better husband, wife, father, or mother, but we just never quite get from the wishing stage to the commitment stage. Vows can be a very significant benefit to our spiritual walk by defining what we intend (by God’s grace) to do, and how we will seek to glorify God.

I believe that the Book of Daniel instructs us in the positive role which a vow may play in the life of a saint. The decision of Daniel and his three friends not to eat of the things from the king’s table which were polluted by idol worship was, in effect, a vow. This vow caused Daniel to determine a specific course of action, and to diligently abide by that commitment. I believe that Daniel was thereby a clean vessel, fit for God’s use. I also believe that Daniel understood that only God could enable him to keep his vow, which may be the reason why he refused to cease praying in the way he was accustomed to.

(5) This text should also warn the Christian not to encourage others to make vows hastily, which they will later regret or be inclined to forsake. Many of the fund-raising techniques, used by Christians and non-Christians alike, are inducements to make financial commitments without adequate thought or prayer, which are later regretted. If God’s people are not to make hasty vows, then God’s people should not encourage others to make such vows either.

Unfortunately this same principle applies to our methods of evangelism. Why is it that we feel people must be encouraged to make an immediate commitment to Christ, without thinking this decision through? Are we afraid that they won’t trust Christ apart from our pressure to do so? Are we afraid that if they think it through thoroughly they will decide against Christ? Remember that conversion is the work of the Spirit of God, who convicts and converts men (cf. John 16:8-11). Our Lord never pressured anyone to make a quick decision to trust and to follow Him. He always encouraged would-be disciples to “count the cost.” Let us imitate our Lord in doing likewise.

As we close this message, let me ask you if there are some vows in your life which should have been made, and which need to be reversed. I believe that God will gladly release you from an evil vow, although it may cost you something to do so. After all, it cost the Israelite to be released from his vow!

Now, may I ask you to consider whether or not there are vows which you have made which you have not kept, but you need to fulfill. If God brings some promises you have made to your mind, I urge you to do what God has commanded, to fulfill your promise, lest it be sin.

Finally, I urge you to consider whether or not there are vows which you ought to make. Vows which are based upon your gratitude toward God and your desire to worship and serve Him. Vows which are dependent upon God to enable you to perform. Vows which you will, by God’s grace, keep. The first such vow is a decision, a commitment to trust in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation, and to become His disciple. May God touch your heart so that you will make and keep this and other vows, to His glory and for your good.


177 Many seem to view chapter 27 as an appendix, which is just sort of attached, but of no great value. Bamberger seems to come to this conclusion: “In general, it appears that this chapter is a collection of old materials, which with some later additions, was appended to the Book of Leviticus after the latter was virtually completed, and that the tochechah was intended as the original ending of the book.” Bernard J. Bamberger, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979), III, p. 307.

Conservative scholars do not really have a very good explanation, although they avoid the error of attributing this chapter to a later writer, which is then appended to the book. The best (although not very satisfying) explanation from a conservative which I have seen is that expressed by Harrison: “Leviticus began with regulations concerning sanctuary offerings, and it is appropriate that it should conclude on the same theme.” R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), p. 235.

178 Keil and Delitzsch define the term vow in this way: “… a vow was a promise made by any one to dedicate and give his own person, or a portion of his property, to the Lord for averting some danger and distress, or for bringing to his possession some desired earthly good.—Besides ordinary vowing or promising to give, there was also vowing away, or the vow of renunciation, as is evident from Num. xxx. This chapter before us treats only of ordinary vowing, …” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968 [reprint]), II, p. 480.

179 “According to the halachah, then, vowed sums, as well as the consecrated items discussed below, were applied to the maintenance of the Temple.” Bamberger, III, p. 306.

180 Bamberger notes the different kinds of gifts dealt with in Leviticus 27: “Three types of gifts are treated: (1) the money equivalent of a person, erech, erkecha; (2) the dedication of cattle or real property, hekdesh [1]—such a gift being subject to redemption if the donor pays its value plus 20 per cent; (3) the irreversible gift, cherem.” Bamberger, III, p. 305.

181 “To free themselves from the vow, they had instead to pay to the sanctuary the price they would have commanded in the slave market. Fifty shekels was a reasonable price for a male adult slave (v. 3; cf. 2 K. 15:20). Twenty shekels was paid for a boy (v. 5; cf. Gen. 37:2, 28). Women generally fetched less than men in the market, so if they vowed themselves to God they had to pay less: 50-67 percent of the male rate according to vv. 4-7. That children are included in this table suggests that a man might vow his family as well as his own person to God.

“These figures are very large. The average wage of a worker in biblical times was about one shekel per month. It is little wonder that few could afford the valuations set out here (v. 8).” Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 338.

182 “It seems likely that the houses referred to here are town houses, which did not count as part of a family’s estate and therefore could be bought and sold freely (cf. 25:29ff.).” Ibid., p. 339.

183 “In Mesopotamia the standard price of barley was a shekel per homer, so that the annual valuation of one shekel per year for a field of one homer seems quite appropriate here. The value of the field was thus equal to the value of the crops it would produce until the jubilee.” Ibid., p. 340.

184 “The third section (verses 28-30) employs the noun cherem and related verb forms. These words indicate something forbidden and inviolable. The Arabic word from which our English “harem” is derived is related to the Hebrew cherem. A slightly different form of the Arabic term is used for certain holy areas, in Mecca and elsewhere, from which non-Moslems are barred.

“In the Bible, cherem appears most often in the context of war. It means the extermination of defeated enemies. As regards booty, cherem requires that the spoil must either be destroyed or put into a sacred treasury (Exod. 22:19; Num. 21:2f. with footnotes; Deut. 2:34f.; and elsewhere). If anyone appropriates an object that has been declared cherem he himself becomes cherem and must be put to death (Deut. 7:25f.; Josh. 7:1ff.) The present Torah translation renders the root most often by ‘proscribe,’ a term, derived from Roman practice, which comes fairly close to the meaning of the Hebrew. Sometimes the root is translated ‘doom,’ as in Deuteronomy 2:34.” Bamberger, III, p. 306.

185 “When the shepherd was ‘rodding’ his sheep, he used it to hold the animals back at the door of the sheepfold while he inspected each one of them for injury or damage. The newly born ones would be examined similarly for imperfections. This section prohibits the owners of flocks and herds from engaging in an arbitrary or haphazard selection of animals to be offered to God. …” Harrison, p. 238.

Passage: