Chap. vii. 1-10. The Law of the Trespass-offering embraces first of all the regulations as to the ceremonial connected with the presentation. — Ver. 2. The slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood were the same as in the case of the burnt-offering (chap. i. 5); and therefore, no doubt, the signification was the same. — Vers. 3-5. The fat portions only were to be burned upon the altar, viz. the same as in the sin and peaceofferings (see chap. iv. 8 and iii. 9); but the flesh was to be eaten by the priests, as in the sin-offering (chap. vi. 22), masmuch as there was the same law in this respect for both the sinoffering and trespass-offering; and theso parts of the sacrificial service must therefore have had the same meaning, every trespass being a sin (see chap. vi. 26). — Certain analogous instructions respecting the burnt-offering and meat-offering are appended in vers. 8-10 by way of supplement, as they ought properly to have been given in chap, vi., in the laws relating to the sacrifices in question. — Ver. 8. In the case of the burnt-offering, the skin of the animal was to fall to the lot of the officiating priest, viz. as payment for his services, jnbn is construed absolutely: " as for the priest, who offereth — the shin of the burnt-offering which he offereth shall belong to the priest^* (for " to him''''). This was probably the case also with the trespassofferings and sin-offerings of the laity; whereas the skin of the peace-offerings belonged to the owner of the animal (see Afishnah, Sebach. 12, 3). — In vers. 9, 10, the following law is laid down with reference to the meat-offering, that everything baked in the oven, and everything prepared in a pot or pan, was to belong to the priest, who burned a portion of it upon the altar; and that everything mixed with oil and everything dry was to belong to all the sons of Aaron, i.e. to all the priests, to one as much as another, so that they were all to receive an equal share. The reason for this distinction is not very clear. That all the meatofferings described in chap. ii. should fall to the sons of Aaron {i.e. to the priests), with the exception of that portion which was burned upon the altar as an azcarah, followed from the fact that they were most holy (see at'chap. ii. 3). As the meat-offerings, which consisted of pastry, and were offered in the form of prepared food (ver. 9), are the same as those described in chap. ii. 4-8, it is evident that by those mentioned in ver. 10 we are to understand the kinds described in chap. ii. 1-3 and 14-16, and by the " dry," primarily the ''vp y^^, which consisted of dried grains, to w^iich oil was to be added (jnj chap. ii. 15), though not poured upon it, as in the case of the offering of flour (chap. ii. 1), and probably also in that of the sin-offerings and jealousyofferings (chap. V. 11, and Num. v. 15), which consisted simply of flour (without oil). The reason therefore why those which consisted of cake and pastry fell to the lot of the officiating priest, and those which consisted of flour mixed with oil, of dry corn, or of simple flour, were divided among all the priests, was probably simply this, that the former were for the most part offered only under special circumstances, and then merely in small quantities, whereas the latter were the ordinary forms in which the meat-offerings were presented, and amounted to more than the officiating priests could possibly consume, or dispose of by themselves.
Vers. 11-36. The Law of the Peace-offeriis^gs, " which he shall offer to Jehovah^'' (the subject is to be supplied from the verb), contains instructions, (1) as to the bloodless accompaniment to these sacrifices (vers. 12-14), (2) as to the eating of the flesh of the sacrifices (vers. 15-21), with the prohibition against eating fat and blood (vers. 22-27), and (3) as to Jehovah's share of these sacriflces (vers. 28-36). — In vers. 12 and 16 three classes of shelamim are mentioned, which differ according to their occasion and design, viz. whether they were brought 7riSTr\'7Vy upon the ground of praise, i.e, to praise God for blessings received or desired, or as vow-offerings, or tJiirdly, as freewillofferings (ver. 16). To (lit. upon, in addition to) the sacrifice of thanksgiving (ver. 12, "sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peaceofferings," vers. 13 and 15) they were to present ^'unleavened cakes kneaded with oily and flat cakes anointed with oil (see at chap. ii. 4), and roasted fine flour (see vi. 14) mixed as cakes with oilj^ i.e. cakes made of fine flour roasted with oil, and thoroughly kneaded with oil (on the construction, see Ges. § 139, 2; JEwald § 284 a). This last kind of cakes kneaded with oil is also called oil-bread-cake (" a cake of oiled bread," chap. viii. 26; Ex. xxix. 23), or " cake unleavened, kneaded with oil " (Ex. xxix. 2), and probably differed from the former simply in the fact that it was more thoroughly saturated with oil, inasmuch as it was not only made of flour that had been mixed with oil in the kneading, but the flour itself was first of all roasted in oil, and then the dough was moistened still further with oil in the process of kneading. — Vers. 13, 14. This sacrificial gift the offerer was to present upon, or along with, cakes of leavened bread (round, leavened bread-cakes), and to offer " thereof one out of the whole oblationy* namely, one cake of each of the three kinds mentioned in ver. 12, as a heave-offering for Jehovah, which was to fall to the priest who sprinkled the blood of the peace-offering. According to chap. ii. 9, an azcarah of the unleavened pastry was burned upon the altar, although this is not specially mentioned here any more than at vers. 9 and 10; whereas none of the leavened breadcake was placed upon the altar (chap. ii. 12), but it was simply used as bread for the sacrificial meal. There is nothing here to suggest an allusion to the custom of offering unleavened sacrificial cakes upon a plate of leavened dough, as J. D. Michaelis, Winer, and others suppose. — Vers. 15-18. The flesh of the praise-offering was to be eaten on the day of presentation, and none of it was to be left till the next morning (cf. chap. xxii. 29, 30); but that of the vow and freewill-offerings might be eaten on both the first and second days. Whatever remained after that was to be burnt on the third day, i.e. to be destroyed by burning. If any was eaten on the third day, it was not well-j)leasing (p)n\ ^' good pleasure," see chap. i. 4), and was " not reckoned to the offerer," sc. as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God; it was "an abomination.''^ ^^23^ an abomination, is only applied to the flesh of the sacrifices (chap. xix. 7; Ezek. iv. 14; Isa. Ixv. 4), and signifies properly a stench; — compare the talmudic word <3S foetidum reddere. Whoever ate thereof would bear his sin (see chap. v. 1). " The soul that eateth " is not to be restricted, as Knohel supposes, to the other participators in the sacrificial meal, but applies to the offerer also, in fact to every one who partook of such flesh. The burning on the third day was commanded, not to compel the offerer to invite the poor to share in the meal {Theodoret, Clericusj etc.), but to guard against the danger of a desecration of the meal. The sacrificial flesh was holy (Ex. xxix. 34); and in chap. xix. 8, where this command is repeated,^ eating it on the third day is called a profanation of that which was holy to Jehovah, and ordered to be punished with extermination. It became a desecration of what was holy, through the fact that in warm countries, if flesh is not most carefully preserved by artificial means, it begins to putref}^, or becomes offensive (^^2S) on the third day. But to eat flesh that was putrid or stinking, would be like eating unclean carrion, or the n?a:D with which putrid flesh is associated in Ezek. iv. 14. It was for this reason that burning was commanded, as Philo (de vict p. 842) and Maimonides {More Nehoch iii. 46) admit; though the former also associates with this the purpose mentioned above, which we decidedly reject (cf. Outram I.e. p. 185 seq., and Bcihr, ii. pp. 375-6).
Vers. 19-21. In the same way all sacrificial flesh that had come into contact with what was unclean, and been defiled in consequence, was to be burned and not eaten. Ver. 19b, which is not found in the Septuagint and Vulgate, reads thus: " and as
' There is no foundation for KnoheVs assertion, that in chap. xix. 5 sqq. another early lawgiver introduces a milder regulation with regard to the thank-offering, and allows all the thank-offerings to be eaten on the second day. For chap. xix. 5 sqq. does not profess to lay down a universal rule with regard to all th6 thank-offerings, but presupposes our law, and simply enforces its regulations with regard to the vow and freewill-offerings, and threatens transgressors with severe punishment.
for the fieshj every clean person shall eat flesh^^ i.e, take part in the sacrificial meal. — Ver. 20. On the other hand, " the soul which eats flesh of the peace-offering ^ and his uncleanness is upon him (for "whilst uncleanness is upon him;" the suffix is to be understood as referring to t^s: construed as a masculine, see chap. ii. 1), " shall be cut off'^ (see Gen. xvii. 14). This was to be done, whether the uncleanness arose from contact with an unclean object (any unclean thing), or from the uncleanness of man (cf. chap. 12-15), or from an unclean beast (see at chap, xi. 4-8), or from any other unclean abomination. Y?.^-j abomination, includes the unclean fishes, birds, and smaller animals, to which this expression is applied in chap. xi. 10-42 (cf. Ezek. viii. 10, and Isa. Ixvi. 17). Moreover contact with animals that were pronounced unclean so far as eating was concerned, did not produce uncleanness so long as they were alive, or if they had been put to death by man; but contact with animals that had died a natural death, whether they belonged to the edible animals or not, that is to say, with carrion (see at chap. xi. 8).
There is appended to these regulations, as being substantially connected with them, the prohibition of fat and blood as articles of food (vers. 22-27). By " the fat of ox, or of sheep, or of goat^^ Le. the three kinds of animals used in sacrifice, or " the fat of the beast of which men offer a firing to Jehovah " (ver. 25), we are to understand only those portions of fat which are mentioned in chap. iii. 3, 4, 9; not fat which grows in with the flesh, nor the fat portions of other animals, which were clean but not allowed as sacrifices, such as the stag, the antelope, and other kinds of game. — Ver. 24. The fat of cattle that had fallen (n733)j or been torn to pieces (viz. by beasts of prey), was not to l)e eaten, because it was unclean and defiled the eater (chap, xvii. 15, xxii. 8); but it might be applied " to all kinds of uses" Le. to the common purposes of ordinary life. Knobel observes on this, that " in the case of oxen, sheep, and goats slain in the regular way, this was evidently not allowable. But the law does not say what was to be done with the fat of these animals." Certainly it does not disertis verbis; but indirectly it does so clearly enough. According to chap. xvii. 3 sqq., during the journey through the desert any one who wanted to slaughter an ox, sheep, or goat was to bring the animal to the tabernacle as a sacrificial gift, that the blood might be sprinkled against tlic altar, and the fat burned upon it. By this regulation every ordinary slaughtering was raised into a sacrifice, and the law determined what was to be done with the fat. Now if afterwards, when the people dwelt in Canaan, cattle were allowed to be slaughtered in any place, and the only prohibition repeated was that against eating blood (Deut. xii. 15, 16, 21 sqq.), whilst the law against eating fat was not renewed; it follow^s as a matter of course, that when the custom of slaughtering at the tabernacle was restricted to actual sacrifices, the prohibition against eating the fat portions came to an end, so far as those animals were concerned which were slain for consumption and not as sacrifices. The reason for prohibiting fat from being eaten was simply this, that so long as every slaughtering was a sacrifice, the fat portions, which were to be handed over to Jehovah and burned upon the altar, were not to be devoted to earthly purposes, because they were gifts sanctified to God. The eating of the fat, therefore, was neither prohibited on sanitary or social grounds, viz. because fat was injurious to health, as Maimonides and other Rabbins maintain, nor for the purpose of promoting the cultivation of olives, as Michaelis supposes, nor to prevent its being put into the unclean mouth of man, as Knohel imagines; but as being an illegal appropriation of what was sanctified to God, a wicked invasion of the rights of Jehovah, which was to be punished with extermination according to the analogy of Num. xv. 30, 31. The prohibition of blood in vers. 26, 27, extends to birds and cattle; fishes not being mentioned, because the little blood which they possess is not generally eaten. This prohibition Israel was to observe in all its dwelling-places (Ex. xii. 20, cf. chap. x. 23), not only so long as all the slaughterings had the character of sacrifices, but for all ages, because the blood was regarded as the soul of the animal, which God had sanctified as the medium of atonement for the soul of man (chap, xvii. 11), whereby the blood acquired a much higher degree of holiness than the fat.
Vers. 28-36. Jeliovdlis share of the peace-offerings. — Ver. 29. The offerer of the sacrifice was to bring his gift (corhan) to Jehovah, i.e. to bring to the altar the portion which belonged to Jehovah. — Vers. 30, 31. Ilis hands were to bring the firiji^^s of Jehovah, i.e. the portions to be burned upon the altar (chap. i. 9), viz. ^' the fat (the fat portions, chap. iii. 3, 4) with the breasty^ — the former to be burned upon the altar, the latter " to wave as a wave-offering before Jehovah^ nTn, to (tttjOvviov (LXX.), i.e..) according to Pollux, rcov crrrjOcop to fiecrov, pectusculum or pectus (Vulg. cf. chap. ix. 20, 21, x. 15), signifies the breastj the breast-piece of the sacrificial animals,^ the brisket, which consists for the most part of cartilaginous fat in the case of oxen, sheep, and goats, and is one of the most savoury parts; so that at the family festivities of the ancients, according to Athen. Delpnos. ii. 70, ix. 10, arrjOvvoa iraykonv apvlwv were dainty bits. The breast-piece was presented to the Lord as a wave-offering (tenuphah), and transferred by Him to Aaron and his sons (the priests). T]^W, from ^^J, ^''^n, to swing, to move to and fro (see Ex. xxxv. 22), is the name applied to a ceremony peculiar to the peace-offerings and the consecration-offerings: the priest laid the object to be waved upon the hands of the offerer, and then placed his own hands underneath, and moved the hands of the offerer backwards and forwards in a horizontal direction, to indicate by the movement forwards, i.e. in the direction towards the altar, the presentation of the sacrifice, or the symbolical transference of it to God, and by the movement backwards, the reception of it back again, as a present which God handed over to His servants the priests.^ In the peaceofferings the waving was performed with the breast-piece, which was called the " wave-breast^^ in consequence (ver. 34, chap. x. 14, 15; Num. vi. 20, xviii. 18; Ex. xxix. 27). At the consecration of the priests it was performed with the fat portions, the right leg, and with some cakes, as well as with the breast of the fill-offering (chap. viii. 25-29; Ex. xxix. 22-26). The ceremony of waving was also carried out with the sheaf of first-
^ The etymology of the word is obscure. According to Winer, Gesenius^ and others, it signifies adspectui patens; whilst Meier and Kndbel regard it as meaning literaDy the division, or middle-piece; and Dietrich attributes to it the fundamental signification, '' to be moved," viz. the breast, as being the part moved by the heart.
2 In the Talmud (cf. Gemar. Kiddush 36, 2, Gem. Succa 37, 2, and Tosaphta Menach. 7, 17), which Maimonides and Rashi follow, tenuphah is correctly interpreted ducehat et reducebat; but some of the later Kabbins (vid. Outram ut sup.) make it out to have been a movement in the direction of the four quarters of the heavens, and Witsius and others find an allusion in this to the omnipresence of God, — an allusion which is quite out of character with the occasion.
fruits at the feast of Passover; with the loaves of the firstfruits, and thank-offering lambs, at tlie feast of Pentecost (chap, xxiii. 11, 20); with tlie shoulder and meat-offering of the Nazarite (Num. vi. 20); with the trespass-offering of the leper (chap. xiv. 12, 24); with the jealousy-offering (Num. v. 25); and lastly with the Levites, at their consecration (Num. viii. 11 sqq.). In the case of all these sacrifices, the object waved, after it had been offered symbolically to the Lord by means of the waving, became the property of the priests. But of the lambs, which were waved at the feast of Pentecost before they were slaughtered, and of the lamb which was brought as a trespass-offering by the leper, the blood and fat were given up to the altar-fire; of the jealousy-offering, only an azcarah; and of the fill-offering, for special reasons, the fat portions and leg, as well as the cakes. Even the Levites were given by Jehovah to the priests to be their own (Num. viii. 19). The waving^ therefore, had nothing in common with the porricere of the Romans, as the portions of the sacrifices which were called porricice were precisely those which were not only given up to the gods, but burned upon the altars. In addition to the wave-breast, which the Lord gave up to His servants as their share of the peace-offerings, the officiating priest was also to receive for his portion the right leg as a terumah, or heave-offering, or lifting off. pi^ is the thigh in the case of a man (Isa. xlvii. 2; Song of Sol. v. 15), and therefore in the case of an animal it is not the fore -leg, or shoulder (fipa'^icov, armus), which is called V\T, or the arm (Num. vi. 19; Deut. xviii. 3), but the hind-leg, or rather the upper part of it or ham, which is mentioned in 1 Sam. ix. 24 as a peculiarly choice portion (^Knohel). As a portion lifted off from the sacrificial gifts, it is often called " the heave-leg^^ (ver. 34, chap. x. 14, 15; Num. vi. 20; Ex. xxix. 27), because it was lifted or heaved off from the sacrificial animal, as a gift of honour for the officiating priest, but without being waved like the breast-piece, — though the more general phrase, ^' to wave a wave-offering before Jehovah" (chap. x. 15), includes the offering of the heaveleg (see my Archceologie i. pp. 244-5). — Ver. 34. The wavebreast and heave-leg Jehovah had taken of the children of Israel, from off the sacrifices of their peace-offerings: i.e. had imposed it upon them as tribute, and had given them to Aaron and his sons, i.e. to the priests, ^- as a statute for ever," — in other words, as a right which they could claim of the Israelites for all ages (cf. Ex. xxvii. 21). — With vers. 35, 36, the instructions concerning the peace-offerings are brought to a close. " This (the wavebreast and heave-leg) is the share of Aaron and his sons from the firings of Jehovah in the day (i.e, which Jehovah assigned to them in the day) when He caused them to draw near to become priests to Jehovahj^ i,e.j according to the explanation in ver. 36, " in the day of their anointing^ The word nn^ in ver. 35, like nriK^ in Num. xviii. 8, signifies not " anointing^^ but share, portio, literally a measuring off, as in Aramaean and Arabic, from riK^p to stroke the hand over anything, to measure, or measure off.
The fulness with which every point in the sacrificial meal is laid down, helps to confirm the significance of the peace-offerings, as already implied in the name HIT sacrificial slaughtering, slainoffering, viz. as indicating that they were intended for, and culminated in a liturgical meal. By placing his hand upon the head of the animal, which had been brought to the altar of Jehovah for the purpose, the offerer signified that with this gift, which served to nourish and strengthen his own life, he gave up the substance of his life to the Lord, that he might thereby be strengthened both body and soul for a holy walk and conversation. To this end he slaughtered the victim and had the blood sprinkled by the priest against the altar, and the fat portions burned upon it, that in these altar-gifts his soul and his inner man might be grounded afresh in the gracious fellowship of the Lord. He then handed over the breast-piece by the process of waving, also the right leg, and a sacrificial cake of each kind, as a heave-offering from the whole to the Lord, who transferred these portions to the priests as His servants, that they might take part as His representatives in the sacrificial meal. In consequence of this participation of the priests, the feast, which the offerer of the sacrifice prepared for himself and his family from the rest of the flesh, became a holy covenant meal, a meal of love and joy, which represented domestic fellowship with the Lord, and thus shadowed forth, on the one hand, rejoicing before the Lord (Deut. xii. 12, 18), and on the other, the blessedness of eating and drinking in the kingdom of God (Luke xiv. 15, xxii. 30). Through the fact that one portion was given up to the Lord, the earthly food was sanctified as a symbol of the true spiritual food, with which the Lord satisfies and refreshes the citizens of His kingdom. This religions aspect of the sacrificial meal will explain the instructions given, viz. that not only the flesh itself, but those who took part in the meal, were all to be clean, and that whatever remained of the flesh was to be burned, on the second or third day respectively, that it might not pass into a state of decomposition. The burning took place a day earlier in the case of the praise-offering than in that of the vow and freewill-offerings, of which the offerer was allowed a longer enjoyment, because they were the products of his own spontaneity, which covered any defect that might attach to the gift itself.
With vers. 37 and 38 the whole of the sacrificial law (chap, i.-vii.) is brought to a close. Among the sacrifices appointed, the fill-off'ering (D"'^?OT^) is also mentioned here; though it is not first instituted in these chapters, but in Ex. xxix. 19, 20 (vers. 22, 26, 27, 31). The name may be explained from the phrase to ''fill the handj^ which is not used in the sense of instalHng a man, or giving him authority, like 1^3 jrij " commit into his hand" in Isa. xxii. 21 (Kiiobel), but was applied primarily to the ceremony of consecrating the priests, as described in chap. viii. 25 sqq., and was restricted to the idea of investiture with the priesthood (cf. chap. viii. 33, xvi. 32; Ex. xxviii. 41, xxix. 9, 29, 33, 35; Num. iii. 3; Judg. xvii. 5, 12). This gave rise to the expression "to fill the hand for Jehovah," i.e. to provide something to offer to Jehovah (1 Chron. xxix. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 31, cf. Ex. xxxii. 29). Hence D'^^^p denotes the filling of the hand with sacrificial gifts to be offered to Jehovah, and was used primarily of the particular sacrifice through which the priests were symbolically invested at their consecration with the gifts they were to offer, and were empowered, by virtue of this investiture, to officiate at the sacrifices; and secondly y in a less restricted sense, of priestly consecration generally (chap. viii. 33, "the days of your consecration"). The allusion to the place in ver. 38, viz. " in the wilderness of Sinai,^^ points on the one hand back to Ex. xix. 1, and on the other hand forward to Num. xxvi. 63, 64, and xxxvi. 13, "m the plains of Moah^^ (cf. Num. i. 1, 19, etc.).
The sacrificial law, therefore, with the five species of Sacrifices which it enjoins, embraces every aspect in which Israel was to manifest its true relation to the Lord its God. Whilst the sanctification of the whole man in self-surrender to the Lord was shadowed forth in the burnt-offerings, the fruits of this sanctification in the meat-offerings, and the blessedness of the possession and enjoyment of saving grace in the peace-offerings, the expiatory sacrifices furnished the means of removing the barrier which sins and trespasses had set up between the sinner and the holy God, and procured the forgiveness of sin and guilt, so that the sinner could attain once more to the unrestricted enjoyment of the covenant grace. For, provided-only that the people of God drew near to their God with sacrificial gifts, in obedience to Plis commandments and in firm reliance upon His word, which had connected the forgiveness of sin, strength for sanctification, and the peace of fellowship with Him, with these manifestations of their piety, the offerers would receive in truth the blessings promised them by the Lord. Nevertheless these sacrifices could not make those who drew near to God with them and in them " perfect as pertaining to the conscience " (Heb. ix. 9, X. 1), because the blood of bulls and of goats could not possibly take away sin (Heb. x. 4). The forgiveness of sin which the atoning sacrifices procured, was only a irdpeacf; of past sins through the forbearance of God (Rom. iii. 25y 26), in anticipation of the true sacrifice of Christ, of which the animal sacrifices were only a type, and by which the justice of God is satisfied, and the way opened for the full forgiveness of sin and complete reconciliation with God. So also the sanctification and fellowship set forth by the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, were simply a sanctification of the fellowship already established by the covenant of the law between Israel and its covenant God, which pointed forward to the true sanctification and blessedness that grow out of the righteousness of faith, and expand through the operation of the Holy Spirit into the true righteousness and blessedness of the divine peace of reconciliation. The effect of the sacrifices was in harmony with the nature of the old covenant. The fellowship with Gody established by this covenant, was simply a faint copy of that ti'ue and living fellowship with God, which consists in God*s dwelling in our hearts through His Spirit, transforming our spirit, soul, and body more and more into His own image and His divine nature, and making us partakers of the glory and blessedness of His divine life. However intimately the infinite and holy God connected Himself with His people in the earthly sanctuary of the tabernacle and the altar of burnt-offering, yet so long as this sanctuary stood, the God who was enthroned in the most holy place was separated by the veil from His people, who could only appear before Him in the fore-court, as a proof that the sin which separates unholy man from the holy God had not yet been taken out of the way. Just as the old covenant generally was not intended to secure redemption from sin, but the law was designed to produce the knowledge of sin; so the desire for reconciliation with God was not to be truly satisfied by its sacrificial ordinances, but a desire was to be awakened for that true sacrifice which cleanses from all sins, and the way to be prepared for the appearing of the Son of God, who would exalt the shadows of the Mosaic sacrifices into a substantial reality by giving up His own life as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and thus through the one offering of His own holy body would perfect all the manifold sacrifices of the Old Testament economy.
To the law of sacrifice there is appended first of all an account of the fulfilment of the divine command to sanctify Aaron and his sons as priests, which Moses had received upon the mount along with the laws concerning the erection of the sanctuary of the tabernacle (Ex. xxviii. and xxix.). This command could not properly be carried out till after the appointment and regulation of the institution of sacrifice, because most of the laws of sacrifice had some bearing upon this act. The sanctification of the persons, whom God had called to be His priests, consisted in a solemn consecration of these persons to their office by investiture, anointing, and sacrifice (chap, viii.), — their solemn entrance upon their office by sacrifices for themselves and the people (chap, ix.), — the sanctification of their priesthood by the judgment of God upon the eldest sons of Aaron, when about to offer strange fire, — and certain instructions, occasioned by this occurrence, concerning the conduct of the priests in the performance of their service (chap. x.).
Sanctuary (cf. Ex. xxix. 1—37). — The consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests was carried out by Moses according to the instructions in Ex. xxix. 1-36, xl. 12-15; and the anointing of the tabernacle, with the altar and its furniture, as prescribed in Ex. xxix. 37, xxx. 26-29, and xl. 9-11, was connected with it (vers. 10, 11). — Vers. 1-5 contain an account of the preparations for this holy act, the performance of which was enjoined upon Moses by Jehovah after the publication of the laws of sacrifice (ver. 1). Moses brought the persons to be consecrated, the official costume that had been made for them (Ex. xxviii.), the anointing oil (Ex. xxx. 23 sqq.), and the requisite sacrificial offerings (Ex. xxix. 1-3), to the door of the tabernacle (i.e. into the court, near the altar of burnt-offering), and then gathered " the whole congregation" — that is to say, the nation in the persons of its elders — there also (see my Archdologie ii. p. 221). '^.^he definite article before the objects enumerated in ver. 2 may 1 'O explained on the ground that they had all been previously { nd more minutely described. The " basket of the unleavenecC^ contained, according to Ex. xxix. 2, 3, (1) unleavened bread, which is called n?n in ver. 26, Le» round flat bread-cakes, and UTp "123 (loaf of bread) in Ex. xxix. 23, and was baked for the purpose of the consecration (see at vers. 31, 32); (2) unleavened oil-cakes; and (3) unleavened flat cakes covered with oil (see at chap. ii. 4 and vii. 12). — Yer. 5. When the congregation was assembled, Moses said, " This is the word which Jehovah com manded you to doV His meaning was, the substance or essential part of the instructions in Ex. xxviii. 1 and xxix. 1—37, which he had published to the assembled congregation before the commencement of the act of consecration, and which are not repeated here as being already known from those chapters. The congregation had been summoned to perform this act, because Aaron and his sons were to be consecrated as priests for them, as standing mediators between them and the Lord. — Vers. 6-9. After this the act of consecration commenced. It consisted of two parts: first, the consecration of the persons themselves to the office of the priesthood, by washing, clothing, and anointing (vers. 6—13); and secondly, the sacrificial rites, by which the persons appointed to the priestly office were inducted into the functions and prerogatives of priests (vers. 16-36).
*^ l^foses brought Auroii and his sons, and washed them with water;" i.e. directed them to wash themselves, no doubt all over, and not merely their hands and feet. This cleansing from bodily uncleanness was a symbol of the putting away of the filth of sin; the washing of the body, therefore, was a symbol of spiritual cleansing, without which no one could draw near to God, and least of all those who were to perform the duties of reconciliation. — Vers. 7-9. Then followed the clothing of Aaron. Moses put upon him the body-coat (Ex. xxviii. 39) and girdle (Ex. xxviii. 39 and xxxix. 22), then clothed him with the me'il (Ex. xxviii. 31-35) and ephod (Ex. xxviii. 6-14), and the choshen with the Urim and Thummim (Ex. xxviii. 15-30), and put the cap (Ex. xxviii. 39) upon his head, with the golden diadem over his forehead (Ex. xxviii. 36-38). This investiture, regarded as the putting on of an important official dress, was a symbol of his endowment with the character required for the discharge of the duties of his office, the official costume being the outward sign of installation in the office which he was to fill. — Vers. 10-12. According to the directions in Ex. xxx. 26-30 (cf. chap. xl. 9- 11), the anointing was performed first of all upon " the tabernacle and everything in it,^ i.e. the ark of the covenant, the altar of incense, the candlestick, and table of shew-bread, and their furniture; and then upon the altar of burnt-offering and its furniture, and upon the laver and Its pedestal; and after this, upon Aaron himself, by the pouring of the holy oil upon his head. This was followed by the robing and anointing of Aaron's sons, the former only of which is recorded in ver. 13 (according to Ex. xxviii. 40), the anointing not being expressly mentioned, although it had not only been commanded, in Ex. xxviii. 41 and xl. 15, but the performance of it is taken for granted in chap. vii. 36, x. 7, and Num. iii. 3. According to the Jewish tradition, the anointing of Aaron (the high priest) was different from that of the sons of Aaron (the ordinary priests), the oil being poured upon the head of the former, whilst it was merely smeared with the finger upon the forehead in the case of the latter (cf. Relandi Antiqq. ss. ii. 1, 5, and 7, and Selden, de succ. in pontif. ii. 2). There appears to be some foundation for this, as a distinction is assumed between the anointing of the high priest and that of the ordinary priests, not only in the expression, " he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head" (ver. 12, cf. Ex. xxix. 7; Ps. cxxxiii. 2), which is applied to Aaron only, hut also in chap. xxi. 10, 12; although the further statement of the later Talmudists and Rabbins, that Aaron was also marked upon the forehead with the sign of a Hebrew 2 (the initial letter of P^), has no support in the law (vid. Selden, ii. 9; Vitringaj observv, ss. ii. c. 15, 9). — On the mode in which the tabernacle and its furniture wei'e anointed, all that is stated is, that the altar of burnt-offering was anointed by being sprinkled seven times with the anointing oil; from which we may safely conclude, that the other portions and vessels of the sanctuary were anointed in the same way, but that the sprinkling was not performed more than once in their case. The reason why the altar was sprinkled seven times with the holy anointing oil, is to be sought for in its signification as the place of worship. The anointing, both of the sacred things and also of the priests, is called t^'ilP " to sanctify," m vers. 10-12, as well as in Ex. xl. 9-11 and 13; and in Ex. xl. 10 the following stipulation is added with regard to the altar of burnt-offering: " and it shall be most holy^^ — a stipulation which is not extended to the dwelling and its furniture, although those portions of the sanctuary were most holy also, that the altar of burnt-offering, which was the holiest object in the court by virtue of its appointment as the place of expiation, might be specially guarded from being touched by unholy hands (see at Ex. xl. 16). To impress upon it this highest grade of holiness, it was sprinkled seven times with anointing oil; and in the number seveii, the covenant number, the seal of the holiness of the covenant of reconciliation, to which it was to be subservient, was impressed upon it. To sanctify is not merely to separate to holy purposes, but to endow or fill with the powers of the sanctifying Spirit of God. Oil was a fitting symbol of the Spirit, or spiritual principle of life, by virtue of its power to sustain and fortify the vital energy; and the anointing oil, which was prepared according to divine instructions, was therefore a symbol of the Spirit of God, as the principle of spiritual life which proceeds from God and fills the natural being of the creature with the powers of divine life. The anointing with oil, tlierefore, was a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God (1 Sam. x. 1, 6, xvi. 13, 14; Isa. Ixi. 1) for the duties of the office to which a person was consecrated. The holy vessels also were not only consecrated, through the anointing, for the holy purposes to which they were to be devoted {Knohel)^ but were also furnished in a symbolical sense with powers of the divine Spirit, which were to pass from them to the people who came to the sanctuary. The anointing was not only to sanctify the priests as organs and mediators of the Spirit of God, but the vessels of the sanctuary also, as channels and vessels of the blessings of grace and salvation, which Got as the Holy One would bestow upon His people, through the service of His priests, and in the holy vessels appointed by Him. On these grounds the consecration of the holy things was associated with the consecration of the priests. The notion that even vessels, and in fact inanimate things in general, can be endowed with divine and spiritual powers, was very widely spread in antiquity. We meet with it in the anointing of memorial stones (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14), and it occurs again in the instructions concerning the expiation of the sanctuary on the annual day of atonement (chap. xvi.). It contains more truth than some modern views of the universe, which refuse to admit that any influence is exerted by the divine Spirit except upon animated beings, and thus leave a hopeless abyss between spirit and matter. According to Ex. xxix. 9, the clothing and anointing of Aaron and his sons were to be " a priesthood to them for a perpetual statute" i.e. to secure the priesthood to them for al ages; for the same thought is expressed thus in Ex. xl. 15: " their anointing shall surely he an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." When the Talmudists refer these words to the sons of Aaron or the ordinary priests, to the exclusion of Aaron or the high priest, this is opposed to the distinct context, according to which the sons of Aaron were to be anointed like their father Aaron. The utter want of foundation for the rabbinical assumption, that the anointing of the sons of Aaron, performed by Moses, availed not only for themselves, but for their successors also, and therefore for the priests of every age, is also the more indisputable, because the Talmudists themselves infer from chap. vi. 15 (cf. Ex. xxix. 29), where the installation of Aaron's successor in his office is expressly designated an anointing, the necessity for every successor of Aaron in the high-priesthood to be anointed. The meaning of the w^ords in question is no doubt the following: the anointing of Aaron and his sons was to stand as a perpetual statute for the priesthood, and to guarantee it to the sons of Aaron for all time; it being assumed as self-evident, according to chap. vi. 15, that as every fresh generation entered upon office, the anointing would be repeated or renewed.
Vers. 14-32. The sacrificial ceremony with which the consecration was concluded, consisted of a threefold sacrifice, the materials for which were not supplied by the persons about to be installed, but were no doubt provided by Moses at the expense of the congregation, for which the priesthood was instituted. Moses officiated as the mediator of the covenant, through whose service Aaron and his sons were to be consecrated as priests of Jehovah, and performed every part of the sacrificial rite, — the slaughtering, sprinkling of the blood, and burning of the altar gifts, — just as the priests afterwards did at the public daily and festal sacrifices, the persons to be consecrated simply laying their hands upon the sacrificial animals, to set them apart as their representatives. — Vers. 14-17. The first sacrifice was a sin-offering, for which a young ox was taken (Ex. xxix. 1), as in the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the whole congregation (chap. iv. 3, 14); the highest kind of sacrificial animal, which corresponded to the position to be occupied by the priests in the IsraeHtish kingdom of God, as the iKKoyrj of the covenant nation. Moses put some of the blood with his finger upon the horns of the altar of b unit-offering^ and poured the rest at the foot of the altar. The fat portions (see chap. iii. 3, 4) he burned upon the altar; but the flesh of the ox, as well as the hide and dung, he burned outside the camp. According to the general rule of the sin-offerings, whose flesh was burnt outside the camp, the blood was brought into the sanctuary itself (chap. vi. 23); but here it was only put upon the altar of burnt-offering to make this sin-offering a consecration-sacrifice. Moses was to take the blood to "purify (^i?>01) and sanctify the altar^ to expiate itP As the altar had been sanctified immediately before by the anointing with holy oil (ver. 11), the object of the cleansing or sanctification of it through the blood of the sacrifice cannot have been to purify it a second time from uncleanness, that still adhered to it, or was inherent in it; but just as the purification or expiation of the vessels of worship generally applied only to the sins of the nation, by which these vessels had been defiled (chap. xvi. 16, 19), so here the purification of the altar with the blood of the sin-offering, upon which the priests had laid their hands, had reference simply to pollutions, with which the priests defiled the altar when officiating at it, through the uncleanness of their sinful nature. As the priests could not be installed in the functions of the priesthood, notwithstanding the holiness communicated to them through the anointing, without a sin-offering to awaken the consciousness in both themselves and the nation that the sinfulness which lay at the root of human nature was not removed by the anointing, but only covered in the presence of the holy God, and that sin still clung to man, and polluted all his doings and designs; so the altar, upon which they were henceforth to offer sacrifices, still required to be purified through the blood of the bullock, that had been slaughtered as a sinoffering for the expiation of their sins, to sanctify it for the service of the priests, i.e, to cover up the sins by which they would defile it when performing their service. For this sanctification the blood of the sin-offering, that had been slaughtered for them, was taken, to indicate the fellowship which was henceforth to exist between them and the altar, and to impress upon them the fact, that the blood, by which they were purified, was also to serve as the means of purifying the altar from the sins attaching to their service. Although none of the blood of this sin-offering was carried into the holy place, because only the anointed priests were to be thereby inducted into the fellowship of the altar, the flesh of the animal could only be burnt outside the camp, because the sacrifice served to purify the priesthood (see chap. iv. 11, 12). For the rest, the remarks made on p. 306 are also applicable to the symbolical meaning of this sacrifice.^ — Vers. 18-21. The sin-offering, through which the priests and the altar had been expiated, and every disturbance of the fellowship existino; between the holv God and His servants at the altar, in consequence of the sin of those who were to be consecrated, had been taken away, was followed by a burnt-offering, consisting of a ram, which was offered according to the ordinary ritual of the burnt-offering (chap. i. 3-9), and served to set forth the priests, who had appointed it as their substitute through the laying on of hands, as a living, holy, and well-pleasing sacrifice to the Lord, and to sanctify them to the Lord with all the faculties of both body and soul.
Vers. 22-29. This was followed by the presentation of a peaceoffering, which also consisted of a ram, called '^ the ram of the
Jilling^^ or " of the jUl-offering^^ from the peculiar ceremony performed with the flesh, by which this sacrifice became a consecration-offering, inducting the persons consecrated into the possession and enjoyment of the privileges of the priesthood. A ram was offered as a peace-offering, by the nation as a whole (chap. ix. 4, 18), the tribe-princes (Num. vii. 17 sqq.), and a Nazarite (Num. vi. 14, 17), who also occupied a higher position in the congregation (Amos ii. 11, 12); but it was never brought by a private Israelite for a peace-offering. The offering described here differed from the rest of the peace-offerings, first of all, in the ceremony performed with the blood (vers. 23 and 24, cf. Ex. xxLx. 20, 21). Before sprinkling the blood upon the altar, Moses put some of it upon the tip of the right ear, upon the right thumb, and upon the great toe of the right foot of Aaron and his sons. Thus he touched the extreme points, which represented the whole, of the ear, hand, and foot on the right, or more important and principal side: the ear^ because the priest was always to hearken to the word and commandment of God; the hand^ because he was to discharge the priestly functions properly; and the foot^ because he was to walk correctly in the sanctuary. Through this manipulation the three organs employed in the priestly service were placed, by means of their tips, en rapport with the sacrificial blood; whilst through the subsequent sprinkling of the blood upon the altar they were introduced symbolically within the sphere of the divine grace, by virtue of the sacrificial blood, which represented the soul as the principle of life, and covered it in the presence of the holiness of God, to be sanctified by that grace to the rendering of willing and righteous service to the Lord. The sanctification was at length completed by Moses' taking some of the anointing oil and some of the blood upon the altar, and sprinkling Aaron and his sons, and also their clothes; that is to say, by his sprinkling the persons themselves, as bearers of the priesthood, and their clothes, as the insignia of the priesthood, with a mixture of holy anointing oil and sacrificial blood taken from the altar (ver. 30). The blood taken from the altar shadowed forth the soul as united with God through the medium of the atonement, and filled with powers of grace. The holy anointing oil was a symbol of the Spirit of God. Consequently, through this sprinkling the priests were endowed, both soul and spirit, with the higher powers of the divine life. The sprinkling.
however, was performed, not upon the persons alone, but also upon their official dress. For it had reference to the priests, not in their personal or individual relation to the Lord, but in their official position, and with regard to their official work in the congregation of the Lord.^
In addition to this, the following appointment is contained in Ex. xxix. 29, 30: "The holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him," i.e. pass to his successors in the high-priesthood, " to anoint them therein and fill their hands therein. Seven days shall the priest of his sons in his stead put them on (dt^^np^. with the suffix D— as in Gen. xix. 19), who shall go into the tabernacle to serve in the sanctuary." Accordingly, at Aaron's death his successor Eleazar was dressed in his robes (Num. xx. 26-28). It by no means follows from this, that a formal priestly consecration was repeated solely in the case of the high priest as the head of the priesthood, and that with the common priests the first anointing by Moses sufficed for all time. We have already observed at p. 337 that this is not involved in Ex. xl. 15; and the fact that it is only the official costume of the high priest which is expressly said to have passed to his successor, may be explained on the simple ground, that as his dress was only worn when he was discharging certain special functions before Jehovah, it would not be worn out so soon as the dress of the ordinary priests, which was worn in the daily service, and therefore would hardly last long enough to be handed down from father to son.^
The ceremony performed with the flesh of this sacrifice w^as also peculiarly significant (vers. 25-29). Moses took the fat portions, which were separated from the flesh in the case
^ In the instructions in Ex. xxix. 21 this ceremony is connected with the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar; but here, on the contrary, it is mentioned after the burning of the flesh. Whether because it was not performed till after this, or because it is merely recorded here in a supplementary form, it is difficult to decide. The latter is the more probable, because the blood upon the altar would soon run off; so that if Moses wanted to take any of it off, it could not be long delayed.
2 It no more follows from the omission of express instructions concerning the repetition of the ceremony in the case of every priest who had to be consecrated, that the future priests were not invested, anointed, and in all respects formally consecrated, than the fact that the anointing is not mentioned in ver. 13 proves that the priests were not anointed at all of the ordinary peace-offerings and burned upon the altar, and the right leg, which was usually assigned to the officiating priest, and then laid by the pieces of flesh (or upon them) another cake of each of the three kinds of pastry, which fell to the portion of the priest in other cases, as a heave-offering for Jehovah, and put all this into the hands of Aaron and his sons, and waved it as a wave-offering for Jehovah, after which he took it from their hands and burned it upon the altar, " as a filling (D''S?p) for a savour of satisfaction^ as a firing for Jehovahr These last words, which are attached to the preceding without a conjunction, and, as the DH and i^^n show, form independent clauses {lit. ''filling are they... a firing is it for Jehovah^^), contain the reason for this unusual proceeding, so that Luther^ s explanation is quite correct, " for it is a fill-offering," etc. The ceremony of handing the portions mentioned to Aaron and his sons denoted the filling of their hands with the sacrificial gifts, which they were afterwards to offer to the Lord in the case of the peace-offerings, viz. the fat portions as a firing upon the altar, the right leg along with the bread-cake as a wave-offering, which the Lord then relinquished to them as His own servants. The filling of their hands with these sacrificial gifts, from which the offering received the name of fill-offering, signified on the one hand the communication of the right belonging to the priest to offer the fat portions to the Lord upon the altar, and on the other hand the enfeoffment of the priests with gifts, which they were to receive in future for their service. This symbolical signification of the act in question serves to explain the circumstance, that both the fat portions, which were to be burned upon the altar, and also the right leg with the bread-cakes which formed the priests' share of the peace-offerings, were merely placed in the priests' hands in this instance, and presented symbolically to the Lord by waving, and then burned by Moses upon the altar. For Aaron and his sons were not only to be enfeoffed with what they were to burn unto the Lord, but also with what they would receive for their service. And as even the latter was a prerogative bestowed upon them by the Lord, it was right that at their consecration they should offer it symbolically to the Lord by waving, and actually by burning upon the altar. But as the right leg was devoted to another purpose in this case, Moses received the breast-piece, which was presented to the Lord by waving (ver. 29), and which afterwards fell to the lot of the priests, as his portion for the sacrificial meal, which formed the conclusion of this dedicatory offering, as it did of all the peaceofferings. In Ex. xxix. 27, 28, we also find the command, that the wave-breast of the ram of the fiU-offerinrr and the heave-leo* which had been lifted off, should afterwards belong to Aaron and his sons on the part of tlie children of Israel, as a perpetual statute, i.e. as a law for all time; and the following reason is assigned: "/or it is a heave-offering (terumah, a lifting off), and shall he a heave-offering on the pai^t of the children of Israel of their peace-off^erings^ their heave-offering for Jehovah,^ i.e. which they were to give to the Lord from their peace-offerings for the good of His servants. The application of the word terumah to both kinds of offering, the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder, may be explained on the simple ground, that the gift to be waved had to be lifted off from the sacrificial animal before the wavino* could be performed. — Vers. 31, 32. For the sacrificial meal, the priests were to boil the flesh in front of the door of the tabernacle, or, according to Ex. xxix. 31, " at the holy place/' i.e. in the court, and eat it with the bread in the fill-offering basket; and no stranger {i.e. layman or non-priest) was to take part in the meal, because the flesh and bread were holy (Ex. xxix. 33), that is to say, had served to make atonement for the priests, to fill their hands and sanctify them. Atoning virtue is attributed to this sacrifice in the same sense as to the burnt-offering in chap, i. 4. Whatever was left of the flesh and bread until the following day, that is to say, was not eaten on the day of sacrifice, was to be burned with fire, for the reason explained at chap. vii. 17. The exclusion of laymen from participating in this sacrificial meal is to be accounted for in the same way as the prohibition of unleavened bread, which was offered and eaten in the case of the ordinary peace-offerings atlong with the unleavened sacrificial cakes (see at chap. vii. 13). The meal brought the consecration of the priests to a close, as Aaron and his sons were thereby received into that special, priestly covenant with the Lord, the blessings and privileges of which were to be enjoyed by the consecrated priests alone. At this meal the priests were not allowed to eat leavened bread, any more than the nation generally at the feast of Passover (Ex. xii. 8 sqq.).
last seven days, during which time the persons to be consecrated were not to go away from the door of the tabernacle, but to remain there day and night, and watch the watch of the Lord that they might not die. '^For the Lord will Jill your hand seven days. As they have done on this (the first) day^ so has Jehovah commanded to do to make atonement for you ^^ (ver. 34). That is to say, the rite of consecration which has been performed upon you to-day, Jehovah has commanded to be performed or repeated for seven days. These words clearly imply that the whole ceremony, in all its details, was to be repeated for seven days; and in Ex. xxix. 36, 37, besides the filling of the hands which was to be continued seven days, and which presupposes the daily repetition of the consecration-offering, the preparation of the sin-offering for reconciliation and the expiation or purification and anointing of the altar are expressly commanded for each of the seven days. This repetition of the act of consecration is to be regarded as intensifying the consecration itself; and the limitation of it to seven days is to be accounted for from the signification and holiness of the number seven as the sign of the completion of the works of God. The commandment not to leave the court of the tabernacle during the whole seven days, is of course not to be understood literally (as it is by some of the Rabbins), as meaning that the persons to be consecrated were not even to go away from the spot for the necessities of nature (cf. Lund. jiid. Heiligth. p. 448); but when taken in connection with the clause which follows, " and keep the charge of the Lord^'' it can only be understood as signifying that during these days they were not to leave the sanctuary to attend to any earthly avocation whatever, but uninterruptedly to observe the charge of the Lord, i.e. the consecration commanded by the Lord. ^inDTO l^K^, lit. to watch the watch of a person or thing, i.e. to attend to them, to do whatever was required for noticing or attending to them (cf. Gen. xxvi. 5, and Hengstenherg^ Christology).
Chap. ix. Entrance of Aaeon and his Sons upon their Office. — Vers. 1-7. On the eighth day, i.e. on the day after the seven days' consecration, Aaron and his sons entered upon their duties with a solemn sacrifice for themselves and the nation, to which the Lord had made Himself known by a special revela- tlon of Ills glory, to bear solemn witness before the whole nation that their service at the altar was acceptable to Ilini, and to impress the divine seal of confirmation upon the consecration they had received. To this end Aaron and his sons were to bring to the front of the tabernacle a young calf as a sin-offering for themselves, and a ram for a burnt-offering; and the people were to bring through their elders a he-goat for a sin-offering, a yearling calf and yearling sheep for a burnt-offering, and an ox and ram for a peace-offering, together with a meat-offering of meal mixed with oil; and the congregation (in the persons of its elders) was to stand there before Jehovah, i.e. to assemble together at the sanctuary for the solemn transaction (vers. 1-5). If, according to this, even after the manifold expiation and consecration, which Aaron had received through Moses during the seven days, he had still to enter upon his service with a sinoffering and burnt-offering, this fact clearly showed that the offerings of the law could not ensure perfection (Heb. x. 1 sqq.). It is true that on this occasion a young calf w^as sufficient for a sin-offering for the priests, not a mature ox as in chap. viii. 14 and iv. 3; and so also for the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the people smaller sacrifices sufficed, either smaller in kind or fewer in number than at the leading feafets (Num. xxviii. 11 sqq.). Nevertheless, not one of the three sacrifices could be omitted; and if no special peace-offering was required of Aaron, this may be accounted for from the fact, that the whole of the sacrificial ceremony terminated with a national peace-offering, in which the priests took part, uniting in this instance with the rest of the nation in the celebration of a common sacrificial meal, to make known their oneness with them. — Vers. 6, 7. After everything had been prepared for the solemn ceremony, Moses made known to the assembled people what Jehovah had commanded them to do in order that His glory might appear (see at Ex. xvi. 10). Aaron was to offer the sacrifices that had been brought for the reconciliation of himself and the nation.
Vers. 8-21. Accordingly, he offered first of all the sinoffering and burnt-offering for himself, and then (vers. 15—21) the offerings of the people. The sin-offering always went first, because it served to remove the estrangement of man from the holy God arising from sin, by means of the expiation of the sinner, and to clear away the hindrances to his approach to
God. Then followed the burnt-offering, as an expression of the complete surrender of the person expiated to the Lord; and lastly the peace-offering, on the one hand as the utterance of thanksgiving for mercy received, and prayer for its further continuance, and on the other hand, as a seal of covenant fellowship with the Lord in the sacrificial meal. But when Moses says in ver. 7, that Aaron is to make atonement for himself and the nation with his sin-offering and burnt-offering, the atoning virtue which Aaron's sacrifice was to have for the nation also, referred not to sins which the people had committed, but to the guilt which the high priest, as the head of the whole congregation, liad brought upon the nation by his sin (chap. iv. 3). Li offering the sacrifices, Aaron was supported by his sons, w^ho handed him the blood to sprinkle, and the sacrificial portions to burn upon the altar. The same course was adopted with Aaron's sin-offering (vers. 8-11) as Moses had pursued with the sinoffering at the consecration of the priests (chap. viii. 14-17). The blood was not taken into the sanctuary, but only applied to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering; because the object was not to expiate some particular sin of Aaron's, but to take away the sin which might make his service on behalf of the congreiration displeasing to God; and the communion of the congregation with the Lord was carried on at the altar of burntofferinxr. The flesh and skin of the animal were burnt outside the camp, as in the case of all the sin-offerings for the priesthood (chap. iv. 11, 12). — Vers. 12-14. The burnt-offering was presented according to the general rule (chap. i. 3-9), as in chap. viii. 18—21. ^''■^P'? (ver. 12): to cause to attain; here, and in ver. 18, to present, hand over. "J^QO^rj according to its pieces, into which the burnt-offering was divided (chap. i. 6), and which they offered to Aaron one by one. No meat-offering was connected with Aaron's burnt-offerings, partly because the law contained in Num. xv. 2 sqq. had not yet been given, but more especially because Aaron had to bring the special meat-offering commanded in chap. vi. 13, and had offered this in connection with the morning burnt-offering mentioned in ver. 17; though this offering, as being a constant one, and not connected with the offerings especially belonging to the consecration of the priests, is not expressly mentioned. — Vers. 15 sqq. Of the sacrifices of the nation, Aaron presented the sin-offering in the same manner as the first, Le. the one offered for himself (vers. 8 sqq.). The blood of this sin-offering, which was presented for the congregation, was not brought into the holy place according to the rule laid down in chap. iv. 16 sqq., but only applied to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering; for the same reason as in the previous case (vers. 8 sqq.), viz. because the object was not to expiate any particular sin, or the sins of the congregation that had been committed in the course of time and remained unatoned for, but simply to place the sacrificial service of the congregation in its proper relation to the Lord. Aaron was reproved by Moses, however, for having burned the flesh (chap. X. 16 sqq.), but was able to justify it (see at chap. x. 16-20). The sin-offering (ver. 16) was also offered " according to the right" (as in chap. v. 10). Then followed the meat-offering (ver. 17), of which Aaron burned a handful upon the altar (according to the rule in chap. ii. 1, 2). He offered this in addition to the morning burnt-offering (Ex. xxix. 39), to which a meat-offering also belonged (Ex. xxix. 40), and with which, according to chap. vi. 12 sqq., the special meat-offering of the priests was associated. Last of all (vers. 18—21) there followed the peace-offering, which was also carried out according to the general rule. In nDDDHj " the covering'^ (ver. 19), the two fat portions mentioned in chap. iii. 3 are included. The fat portions were laid upon the breast-pieces by the sons of Aaron, and then handed by them to Aaron, the fat to be burned upon the altar, the breast to be waved along with the right leg, according to the instructions in chap. vii. 30—36. The meat-offering of pastry, which belonged to the peace-offering according to chap, vii. 12, 13, is not specially mentioned.
Vers. 22-24. When the sacrificial ceremony was over, Aaron blessed the people from the altar with uplifted hands (cf. Num. vi. 22 sqq.), and then came down: 5c. from the bank surrounding the altar, upon w^hich he had stood while offering the sacrifice (see at Ex. xxvii. 4, 5). — ^Ver. 23. After this Moses went with him into the tabernacle, to introduce him into the sanctuary, in which he was henceforth to serve the Lord, and to present him to the Lord: not to offer incense, which would undoubtedly have been mentioned; nor yet for the special purpose of praying for the manifestation of the glory of Jehovah, although there can be no doubt that they offered prayer in the sanctuary, and prayed for the blessing of the Lord for the right discharge of the office entrusted to them In a manner well-pleasing to Him. On coming out again they united in bestowing that blessing upon the people which they had solicited for them in the sanctuary. " Then the glory of Jehovah appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before the face of Jehovah and consumed the burnt-offering and fat portions upon the altar ^ (i.e. the sin and peace-offerings, not the thank-offerings merely, as Knobel supposes, according to his mistaken theory). The appearance of the glory of Jehovah Is probably to be regarded in this Instance, and also In Num. xvl. 19, xvii. 7, and xx. 6, as the sudden flash of a miraculous light, which proceeded from the cloud that covered the tabernacle, probably also from the cloud In the most holy place, or as a sudden though very momentary change of the cloud, which enveloped the glory of the Lord, Into a bright light, from which the fire proceeded in this instance In the form of lightning, and consumed the sacrifices upon the altar. The fire issued " from before the face of tlehovah," Le, from the visible manifestation of Jehovah. It did not come down from heaven, like the fire of Jehovah, which consumed the sacrifices of David and Solomon (1 Chron. xxl. 26; 2 Chron. vli. 1).
The Rabbins believe that this divine fire was miraculously sustained upon the altar until the building of Solomon's temple, at the dedication of which it fell from heaven afresh, and then continued until the restoration of the temple-worship under Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiil. 16; cf. Buxtorf exercitatt, ad histor. ignis sacri, c. 2); and the majority of them maintain still further, that It continued side by side with the ordinary altar-fire, which was kindled by the priests (chap. I. 7), and, according to chap. vi. 6, kept constantly burning by them. The earlier Christian expositors are for the most part of opinion, that the heavenly fire, which proceeded miraculously from God and burned the first sacrifices of Aaron, was afterwards maintained by the priests by natural means (see J, Marckii sylloge diss, philol. theol. ex. vl. ad Lev. vl. 13). But there Is no foundation In the Scriptures for either of these views. There Is not a syllable about any miraculous preservation of the heavenly fire by the side of the fire which the priests kept burning by natural means. And even the modified opinion of the Christian theologians, that the heavenly fire was preserved by natural means, rests upon the assumption, which there Is iiothlni^ to justify, tliat the sacrifices offered by Aaron were first burned by the fire which issued from Jehovah, and therefore that the statements in the text, with reference to the burning of the fat portions and burnt-offerings, or causing them to ascend In smoke (vers. 10, 13, 17, and 20), are to be regarded as anticipations {per anticipationem accipienda, C* a Lap.), i.e. are to be understood as simply meaning, that when Aaron officiated at the different sacrifices, lie merely laid upon the altar the pieces intended for it, but wltliout setting them on fire. The fallacy of this is proved, not only by the verb "^"'PP'?, but by the fact implied in ver. 17, that the offering of these sacrifices, with which Aaron entered upon his office, was preceded by the daily morning burnt-offering, and consequently that at the time when Aaron began to carry out the special sacrifices of this day there was fire already burning upon the altar, and in fact a continual fire, that was never to be allowed to go out (chap. vi. 6). Even, therefore, if we left out of view the fire of the daily mornlni:^ and eveninrr sacrifice, which had been offered from the first day on which the tabernacle was erected (Ex. xl. 29), there were sacrifices presented every day during the seven days of the consecration of the priests (chap, viii.); and according to chap. i. 7, Closes must necessarily have prepared the fire for these. If it had been the intention of God, therefore, to originate the altarfire by supernatural means, this would no doubt have taken place immediately after the erection of the tabernacle, or at least at the consecration of the altar, which was connectea with that of the priests, and immediately after it had been anointed (chap, viii. 11). But as God did not do this, the burning of the altarsacrifices by a fire which proceeded from Jehovah, as related in this verse, cannot have been intended to give a sanction to the altar-fire as having proceeded from God Himself, which w^as to be kept constantly burning, either by miraculous preservation, or by being fed in a natural way. The legends of the heathen, therefore, about altar-fires which had been kindled by the gods themselves present no analogy to the fact before us (cf. Serv. ad ^n. xii. 200; Solin. v. 23; Pausan. v. 27, 3; Bochart, Hieroz, lib. ii. c. 35, pp. 378 sqq.; Dougtoei analect. ss. pp. 79 sqq.).
The miracle recorded in this verse did not consist in the fact that the sacrificial offerings placed upon the altar were burned by fire which proceeded from Jehovah, but in the fact that the sacrificeSj which were already on fire, were suddenly consumed by it. For although the verb ^3Kn admits of both meanings, setting on fire and burning up (see Judg. vi. 21, and 1 Kings xviii. 38), the word literally denotes consuming or burning up, and must be taken in the stricter and more literal sense in the case before us, inasmuch as there was already fire upon the altar when the sacrifices were placed upon it. God caused this miracle, not to generate a supernatural altar-fire, but ut ordinem sacerdotalem legis veteris a se institutum et suas de sacrificio leges hoc miraculo confirmaret et quasi ohsignaret (^C. a Lap,)j or to express it more briefly, to give a divine consecration to the altar, or sacrificial service of Aaron and his sons, through which a way was to be opened for the people to His throne of grace, and whereby, moreover, the altar-fire was consecrated eo ipso into a divine, i.e, divinely appointed, means of reconciliation to the community. The whole nation rejoiced at this glorious manifestation of the satisfaction of God with this the first sacrifice of the consecrated priests, and fell down upon their faces to give thanks to the Lord for His mercy.
Chap. X. The Sanctification of the Priesthood by BOTH THE Act and Word of God. — Vers. 1-3. The Lord had only just confirmed and sanctified the sacrificial service of Aaron and his sons by a miracle, w^hen He was obliged to sanctify Himself by a judgment upon Nadab and Abihu, the eldest sons of Aaron (Ex. vi. 23), on account of their abusing the office they had received, and to vindicate Himself before the congregation, as one who would not suffer His commandments to be broken with impunity. — Yer. 1. Nadab and Abihu took their censers (machtah, Ex. xxv. 38), and having put fire in them, placed incense thereon, and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. It is not very clear what the offence of which they were guilty actually was. The majority of expositors suppose the sin to have consisted in the fact, that they did not take the fire for the incense from the altar-fire. But this had not yet been commanded by God; and in fact it is never commanded at all, except with regard to the incense-offering, with which the high priest entered the most holy place on the day of atonement (chap. xvi. 12), though we may certainly infer from this, that it was also the rule for the dally incense-offering. By the fire which they offered before Jehovah, we are no doubt to understand the firing of the incense-offerinf]j. Tliis miMit be called '^ stran<re fire " if it was not offered in the manner prescribed in the law, just as in Ex. XXX. 9 incense not prepared according to the direction of God is called "strange incense." The supposition that they presented an incense-offering that was not commanded in the law, and apart from the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, and that this constituted their sin, is supported by the time at which their illegal act took place. It is perfectly obvious from vers. 12 sqq. and 16 sqq. that it occurred in the interval between the sacrificial transaction in chap. ix. and the sacrificial meal which followed it, and therefore upon the day of their inauguration. For in ver. 12 Moses commands Aaron and his remaining sons Eleazar and Ithamar to eat the meat-offering that was left from the firings of Jehovah, and inquires in ver. 16 for the goat of the sin-offering, which the priests were to have eaten in a holy place. KnobeVs opinion is not an improbable one, therefore, that Nadab and Abihu intended to accompany the shouts of the people with an incense-offering to the praise and glory of God, and presented an incense-offering not only at an iniproper time, but not prepared from the altar-fire, and committed such a sin by this will-worship, that they were smitten by the fire which came forth from Jehovah, even before th^ir entrance into the holy place, and so died " before Jeliovahr The expression " before Jehovah " is applied to the presence of God, both in the dwelling (viz. the holy place and the holy of holies, e.g» chap. iv. 6, 7, xvi. 13) and also in the court {e.g» chap. i. 5, etc.). It is in the latter sense that it is to be taken here, as is evident from ver. 4, where the persons slain are said to have lain " before the sanctuary of the dwelling," i.e. in the court of the tabernacle. The fire of the holy God (Ex. xix. 18), which had just sanctified the service of Aaron as well-pleasing to God, brought destruction upon his two eldest sons, because they had not sanctified Jehovah In their hearts, but had taken upon themselves a self-willed service; just as the same gospel is to one a savour of life unto life, and to another a savour of death unto death (2 Cor. ii. 16). — In ver. 3 Moses explains this judgment to Aaron: " This is it that Jehovah spake, saying, I ivill sanctify Myself in him that is nigh to Me, and will glorify Myself in the face of all the peopled 'i??^ is unquestionably to be taken in the same sense as in Ex. xiv. 4, 17; consequently ^^^ is to be taken in a reflective and not in a passive sense, as in Ezek. xxxviii. 16. The imperfects are used as aorists, in the sense of what God does at all times. But these words of Moses are no " reproof to Aaron, who had not restrained the untimely zeal of his sons " (Knohel)^ nor a reproach which made Aaron responsible for the conduct of his sons, but a simple explanation of the judgment of God, which should be taken to heart by every one, and involved an admonition to all who heard it, not to Aaron only but to the whole nation, to sanctify God continually in the proper way. Moreover Jehovah had not communicated to Moses by revelation the words which he spoke here, but had made the fact known by the position assigned to Aaron and his sons through their election to the priesthood. By this act Jehovah had brought them near to Himself (Num. xvi. 5), made them "'^'liP = "^^"^V ^''?'^i? '^ persons standing near to Jehovah^"* (Ezek. xlii. 13, xliii. 19), and sanctified them to Himself by anointing (chap. viii. 10, 12; Ex. xxix. 1, 44, xl. 13, 15), that they might sanctify Him in their office and life. If they neglected thi? sanctlficatlon. He sanctified Himself in them by a penal judgment (Ezek. xxxvIII. 16), and thereby glorified Himself as the Holy One, who is not to be mocked. "And Aaron held his peace J^ He was obliged to acknowledge the righteousness of the holy God.
Vers. 4-7. Moses then commanded Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel Aaron's paternal uncle, Aaron's cousins therefore, to carry their brethren (relations) who had been slain from before the sanctuary out of the camp, and, as must naturally be supplied, to bury them there. The expression, " before the sanctuary" (equivalent to " before the tabernacle of the congregation" in chap. ix. 5), shows that they had been slain in front of the entrance to the holy place. They were carried out in their priests' body-coats, since they had also been defiled by the judgment. It follows from this, too, that the fire of Jehovah had not burned them up, but had simply killed them as with a fl?sh of lightning. — Vers. 6 sqq. Moses prohibited Aarftn and his remaining sons from showing any sign of mourning on account of this fatal calamity. " Uncover not your heads j"* i.e. do not go about with your hair dishevelled, or flowing free and in disorder (chap. xlll. 45). t^N'i jns does not signify merely uncovering the head by taking off the head-band (LXX., Vulg.y Kimclii, etc.), or by shaving off the hair (Ges. and others; see on the otlier hand Knohel on cliap. xxi. 10), but is to bo taken in a similar sense to iC'Nl "lyc' V}^, the free growth of the hair, not cut short witli scissors (Num. vi. 5; Ezek. xHv. 20). It is derived from y"]3, to let loose from anything (Prov. i. 25, iv. 5, etc.), to let a peoj)le loose, equivalent to giving them the reins (Ex. xxxii. 25), and signifies solvere criiies, capellos, to leave the hair in disorder, which certainly implies the laying aside of the head-dress in the case of the priest, though without consistinfj in this alone. On this siOT of mourninfr amonir the Roman and other nations, see 31. Geier de Ehraiorwnx luctu viii. 2. The Jews observe the same custom still, and in times of deep mourning neither wash themselves, nor cut their hair, nor pare their nails (see Buxtorf, Si/nog. jud. p. 706). They were also not to rend their clothes, i.e. not to make a rent in the clothes in front of the breast, — a very natural expression of grief, by which the sorrow of the heart w^as to be laid bare, and one which was not only common among the Israelites (Gen. xxxvii. 29, xliv. 13; 2 Sam. i. 11, iii. 31, xiii. 31), but was very widely spread, among the other nations of antiquity (cf. Geier I.e. xxii. 9). D*]S, to rend, occurs, in addition to this passage, in chap. xiii. 45, xxi. 10; in other places VIP, to tear in pieces, is used. Aaron and his sons were to abstain from these expressions of sorrow, " lest they should die and wrath come upon all the people," Accordingly, we are not to seek the reason for this prohibition merely in the fact, that they would defile themselves by contact with the corpses, a reason which afterwards led to this prohibition being raised into a general law for the high priest (chap. xxi. 10, 11). The reason w^as simply this, that any manifestation of grief on account of the death that had occurred, would have indicated dissatisfaction with the judgment of God; and Aaron and his sons would thereby not only have fallen into mortal sin themselves, but have brought down upon the congregation the wTath of God, which fell upon it through every act of sin committed by the high priest in his official position (chap, iv. 3). " Your brethren^ (namely) the whole house of Israel^ may bewail this burning''^ (the burning of the wrath of Jehovah). Mourning was permitted to the nation, as an expression of sorrow on account of the calamity which had befallen the whole nation in the consecrated priests. For the nation generally did not stand in snch close fellowship with Jehovah as the priests, who had been consecrated by anointing. — Ver. 7. The latter were not to go away from the door (the entrance or court of the tabernacle), sc. to take part in the burial of the dead, lest they should die, for the anointing oil of Jehovah was upon them. The anointing oil was the symbol of the Spirit of God, which is a Spirit of life, and therefore has nothing in common with death, but rather conquers death, and sin, which is the source of death (cf. chap. xxi. 12).
YerSi 8-11. Jehovah still further commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink wine and strong drink when they entered the tabernacle to perform service there, on pain of death, as a perpetual statute for their generations (Ex. xii. 17), that they might be able to distinguish between the holy and common, the clean and unclean, and also to instruct the children of Israel in all the laws which God had spoken to them through Moses (1... 1, vers. 10 and 11, et.,. et, both... and also). Shecar was an intoxicating drink made of barley and dates or honey. ^'^, prof anus, common, is a wider or more comprehensive notion than 5<pp, unclean. Everything was common (profane) which was not fitted for the sanctuary, even what was allowable for daily use and enjoyment, and therefore was to be regarded as clean. The motive for laying down on this particular occasion a prohibition which was to hold good for all time, seems to lie in the event recorded in ver. 1, although we can hardly infer from this, as some commentators have done, that Nadab and Abihu offered the unlawful incense-offering in a state of intoxication. The connection between their act and this prohibition consisted simply in the rashness, which had lost the clear and calm reflection that is indispensable to right action.
Vers. 12-20. After the directions occasioned by this judgment of God, Moses reminded Aaron and his sons of the general laws concerning the consumption of the priests' portions of the sacrifices, and their relation to the existing circumstances: first of all (vers. 12, 13), of the law relating to the eating of the meat-offering, which belonged to the priests after the azcarah had been lifted off (chap. ii. 3, vi. 9-11), and then (vers. 14, 15) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg (chap. vii.
32—34). By the minchah in ver. 12 we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation (chap. ix. 4 and 7); and by the D''^i< in vers. 12 and 15, those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, atid peaceoffering of the nation wliich were burned upon the altar (chap. ix. 13, 17, and 20). lie then looked for " the he-goat of the binoffering,^^ — i.e. the flesh of the goat which had been brought for a sin-offering (cliap. ix. 15), and which was to have been eaten by the j)riests in the holy place along with the sin-offerings, whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary (cliap. vi. 19, 22); — " a»J, behold, it was burned^^ 01^? Z perf, Fual). Moses was angry at this, and reproved Eleazar and Ithamar, who liad attended to tlie burning: " Wherefore have ye not eaten the sinoffering in a lioly placeV^ he said; ''for it is most holy, and He (Jehovah) liath given it you to hear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for it before Jehovah^^ as its blood had not been brought into the holy place (fc^n^n construed as a passive with an accusative, as in Gen. iv. 18, etc.). " To bear the iniquity^^ does not signify here, as in chap. v. 1, to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Ex. xxviii. 38, to take the sin of another upon one's self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expiation for it. As, according to Ex. xxviii. 38, the high priest w^as to appear before the Lord with the diadem upon his forehead, as the symbol of the holiness of his office, to cancel, as the mediator of the nation and by virtue of his official holiness, the sin which adhered to the holy gifts of the nation (see the note on this passage), so here it is stated with regard to the official eating of the most holy flesh of the sin-offering, which had been enjoined upon the priests, that they were thereby to bear the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for it. This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eating, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin, wdiereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness and sanctifying power belonging to their office, and not merely declared it removed, as Oehler explains the words {Flerzog's Cycl. x. p. 649). Ex. xxviii. 38 is decisive in opposition to the declarator}^ view, which does not embrace the meaning of the words, and is not applicable to the passage at all. " Incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se reclplebant" {Deyling ohservv. ss. L 45, 2).^ — Vers. 19, 20. Aaron excused his sons, however, by saying, " Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering, and this has happened to me," i.e. the calamity recorded in vers. 1 sqq. has befallen me (^5"iiJ = nnj^^ as in Gen. xlii. 4); " and if I had eaten the sin-off'ering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing to Jehovah V^ '1J1 '•rii'^t^l is a conditional clause, as in Gen. xxxiii.
13, cf. Ewald, § 357. Moses rested satisfied with this answer. Aaron acknowledged that the flesh of the sin-offering ought to have been eaten by the priest in this instance (according to chap. vi. 19), and simply adduced, as the reason why tliis had not been done, the calamity which had befallen his two eldest sons. And this might really be a sufficient reason, as regarded both himself and liis remaining sons, why the eating of the sinoffering should be omitted. For the judgment in question was so solemn a warning, as to the sin which still adhered to them even after the presentation of their sin-offering, that they might properly feel " that they had not so strong and overpowering a holiness as was required for eating the general sin-offering" {M. Baumgarten). This is the correct view, though others find the reason in their grief at the death of their sons or brethren, which rendered it impossible to observe a joj^ous sacrificial meal. But this is not for a moment to be thought of, simply because the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering was not a joyous meal at all (see at chap. vi. 19).^
^ C. a Lapide has given this correct interpretation of the passage: " ui scilicet cum hostiis populi pro peccato simul etiam populi peccata in vos quasi recipiatis^ ut ilia expietis.''^ There is no foundation for the objection offered by Oehler^ that the actual removal of guilt and the atonement itself were effected by the offering of the blood. For it by no means follows from Lev. xvii. 11, that the blood, as the soul of the sacrificial animal, covered or expiated the soul of the sinner, and that the removal and extinction of the sin had already taken place with the covering of the soul before the holy God, which involved the forgiveness of the sin and the reception of the sinner to mercy.
^ Upon this mistaken view of the excuse furnished by Aaron, Kndbel has founded his assertion, that " this section did not emanate from the Elohist, because he could not have written in this way," an assertion which falls to the ground when the words are correctly explained.
The regulation of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions. For example, although sin has its origin and proper seat in the soul, it pervades the whole body as the organ of the soul, and shatters the life of the body, even to its complete dissolution in death and decomposition; whilst its effects have spread from man to the whole of the earthly creation, inasmuch as not only did man draw nature with him into the service of sin, in consequence of the dominion over it which was given him by God, but God Himself, according to a holy law of His wise and equitable government, made the irrational creature subject to "vanity" and " corruption" on account of the sin of man (Rom. viii. 20, 21), so that not only did the field bring forth thorns and thistles, and the earth produce injurious and poisonous plants (see at Gen. iii. 18), but the animal kingdom in many of its forms and creatures bears the image of sin and death, and is constantly reminding man of the evil fruit of his fall from God. It is in this penetration of sin into the material creation that we may find the explanation of the fact, that from the very earliest times men have neither used every kind of herb nor every kind of animal as food; but that, whilst they have, as it were, instinctively avoided certain plants as injurious to health or destructive to life, they have also had a horror naturalis, i.e. an inexplicable disgust, at many of the animals, and have avoided their flesh as unclean. A similar horror must have been produced upon man from the very first, before his heart was altogether hardened, by death as the wages of sin, or rather by the effects of death, viz. the decomposition of the body; and different diseases and states of the body, that were connected with symptoms of corruption and decomposition, may also have been regarded as rendering unclean. Hence in all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find that contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain jbodily conditions and diseases that are associated with the decomposition, pointing out most minutely the unclean objects and various defilements within these spheres, and prescribing the means for avoiding or removing them.
The Instructions In the chapter before us, concerning the clean and unclean animals, are introduced in the first place as laws of food (ver. 2); but they pass beyond these bounds by prohibiting at the same time all contact with animal carrion (vers. 8, 11, 24 sqq.), and show thereby that they are connected in principle and object with the subsequent laws of purification (chap, xii.-xv.), to which they are to be regarded as a preparatory introduction.
Vers. 1-8. The laws which follow were given to Moses and Aaron (ver. 1, chap. xlli. 1, xv. 1), as Aaron had been sanctified through the anointing to expiate the sins and unclean nesses of the children of Israel. — ^Yers. 2~8 (cf. Deut. xiv. 4-8). Of the larger quadrupeds,.which are divided in Gen. i. 24, 25 into beasts of the earth (living wild) and tame cattle, only the cattle (behemah) are mentioned here, as denoting the larger land animals, some of which were reared by man as domesticated animals, and others used as food. Of these the Israelites miorht eat " whatsoever parteth tJie hoof and is cloven-footed, and chetveth the cud among the cattle" nb"iQ yo^ ^J:!?^, literally " tearing (having) a rent in the hoofs," according to Deut. xiv. 5 into " two claws/' i.e. w^th a hoof completely severed in two. nnaj rumination, fjbfjpv/a(T/jL6<; (LXX.), from "Hj (cf. "12^ ver. 7), to draw (Hab. i. 15), to draw to and fro; hence to bring up the food again, to ruminate, nnii npyo is connected with the preceding words with vav cop. to indicate the close connection of the two regulations, viz. that there was to be the perfectly cloven foot as well as the rumination (cf. vers. 4 sqq.). These marks are com bined in the oxen, sheep, and goats, and also in the stag and gazelle. The latter are expressly mentioned in Deut. xiv. 4, 5, where — in addition to tlie common stag Q)^) and gazelle (^^V> BopKcif;, LXX.), or dorcas-antelope, which is most frequently met with in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, of the size of a roebuck, with a reddish brown back and white body, horns sixteen inches long, and fine dark eyes, and the flesh of which, according to Avicenna, is the best of all the wild game — the following live are also selected, viz.: (1) "^^^n^, not l3ov/3a\o<;, the buffalo (LXX., and LiUhe)'), but Damhlrsch, a stag which is still much more common in Asia than in Europe and Palestine (see v, Schubert, R. iii. p. 118); (2) ip^?, probably, according to the Chaldee, Si/riac, etc., the Capricorn [Steinhock), which is very common in Palestine, not Tpay6\a(j)o<; (LXX., Vulg.), the buck-stag (Bockhirsch), an animal lately discovered in Nubia (cf. Leyrer in IJerzog s Cycl. vi. p. 143); (3) f^n, according to the LXX. and Vulg. irvpapyo^, a kind of antelope resembling the stag, which is met with in Africa (Herod. 4, 192), — according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the buffalo-antelope, — according to the Samar. and Arabic, the mountain-stag; (4) it^^, according to the Chaldee the wild ox, which is also met with in Egypt and Arabia, probably the oryx (LXX., Vulg.), a species of antelope as large as a stag; and (5) "i^.T, according to the LXX. and most of the ancient versions, the giraffe, but this is only found in the deserts of Africa, and would hardly be met with even in Egypt, — it is more probably caprece sylvestris species, according to the Chaldee. — Vers. 4, 5. Any animal which was w^anting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel, whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax {Klippdachs) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs. It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnceus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart, Oedmann, and others, the shaphan is the jerboa, and according to the Pabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney. But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern
Arabia (Jiyrax Syriacus\ an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Ps. civ. 18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro v. xxx. 26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.^ — Yer. 7. The swine has cloven hoofs, but does not ruminate; and many of the tribes of antiquity abstained from eating it, partly on account of its uncleanliness, and partly from fear of skin-diseases. — Yer. 8. " Of their Jiesh shall ye not eat (i.e. not slay these animals as food), and their carcase (animals that had died) shall ye not touchr The latter applied to the clean or edible animals also, when they had died a natural death (ver. 39).
Yers. 9-12 (cf. Deut. xiv. 9 and 10). Of water animalsy everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided wuth abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc., forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui squamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin, h, n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome (Lane, Manners and Customs).
Yers. 13-19 (cf. Deut. xiv. 11-18). Of birds, twenty varieties are prohibited, including the hat, but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives of Western Asia.^ The list commences with the eagle,
2 The list is " hardly intended to be exhaustive, but simply mentions those which were eaten by others, and in relation to which, therefore, it was necessary that the Israelites should receive a special prohibition against eating them " (Knobel). Hence in Deuteronomy Moses added the ntr\ and as the king of the birds. Nesher embraces all the species of eagles proper. The idea that the eagle will not touch carrion is erroneous. According to the testimony of Arabian writers (Damiri in Bocharty ii. p. 577), and several naturalists who have travelled (e.g, ForskaL I.e. p. 12, and Sectzen, I, p. 379), they will eat carrion if it is still fresh and not decomposed; so that the eating of carrion could very properly be attributed to them in such passages as Job xxxix. 30, Prov. xxx. 17, and Matt. xxiv. 28. But the bald-headedness mentioned in Micah i. 16 applies, not to the true eagle, but to the carrion-kite, which is reckoned, however, among the different species of eagles, as well as the bearded or golden vulture. The next in the list is peref^, from paras ^=parai>h to break, ossif vagus, i.e. either the bearded or golden vulture, gypaetos harbatus, or more probably, as Schultz supposes, the sea-eagle, which may have been the species intended in the ypvyjr = ypyTraleTO^; of the LXX. and gryphus of the Vulgate, and to which the ancients seem sometimes to have applied the name ossifraga (LucreL v. 1079). By the next, n^^^ry, we are very probably to understand the bearded or golden vulture. For this word is no doubt connected with the Arabic word for beard, and therefore points to the golden vulture, which has a tuft of hair or feathers on the lower beak, and which might very well be associated with the eagles so far as the size is concerned, having wings that measure 10 feet from tip to tip. As it really belongs to the family of vultures, it forms a very fitting link of transition to the other species of vulture and falcon (ver. 14). nxT (^Deut. n^'n^ according to a change which is by no means rare when the aleph stands between two vowels: cf. i^^in in 1 Sam. xxi. 8, xxii. 9, and ^.''H in 1 Sam. xxii. 18, 22), from ^^{•^ to fly, is either the Mte, or the glede, which is very common in Palestine (v. Schubert, Reise iii. p. 120), and lives on carrion. It is a gregarious bird (cf. Isa. xxxiv. 15), which other birds of prey are not, and is used by many different tribes as food [Oedmann, iii. p. 120). The conjecture that the black glede-kite is meant, — a bird which is particularly common in the East, — and that the name is derived from ^^^'^ to be dark, is overthrown by the use of the word •^^'''P? in Deuter- enumerated twenty-one varieties; and no doubt, under other circumstances, he could have made the list still longer. In Deut. xiv. 11 lia^' is used, as synonymous with Fjiy in ver. 20.
oriomy, which shows that Hi^l is intended to denote the whole genus. n*S, which is referred to in Job xxviii. 7 as sharpsighted, is either the falcon, several species of which are natives of Syria and Arabia, and which is noted for its keen sight and the rapidity of its flight, or according to the Vulgate^ ScJiultz, etc., vultuvj the true vulture (the LXX. have Iktlv, the kite, here, and 7/5i;i/r, the griffin, in Deut. and Job), of which there are three species in Palestine {Lynch, p. 229). In Deut. xiv. 13 ^^^^ is also mentioned, from nxn to see. Judging from the name, it was a keen-sighted bird, either a falcon or another species of vulture (Vidg. ixioii). — Yer. 15. ''Every raven after Jtis^ kindj^ i.e. the whole genus of ravens, with the rest of the raven-like birds, such as crows, jackdaws, and jays, which are all of them natives of Syria and Palestine. The omission of i before HS^ which 'is found in several MSS. and editions, is probably to be regarded as the true reading, as it is not wanting before any of the other names. — Yer. 16. ^'^V^J] ^?, i.e. either daughter of screaming (Bochart), or daughter of greediness {Gesenius, etc.), is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 13, etc.), or as the mournful screamer (Micah i. 8; Job xxxix. 39), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally. It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka {Seetzen and Burckhardt), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia (Dlod. Sic. 3, 27; Straho, xvi. 772) and Numidia {Leo Afric. p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also (Seetzen, iii. p. 20; Burckhardt, p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. DDnn^ according to Bocharty Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the LXX., Vulg., and others, it is the owl {Oedmann, iii. pp. 45 sqq.); but this is mentioned later under another name. According to Saad, Ar, Erp, it is the swallow; but this is called D''p in Jer. viii. 7. Knohel supposes it to be the cuckoo, which is met with in Palestine {Seetzen, 1, p. 78), and derives the name from DDn^ violenter egit, supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for tlie purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest (Aristot. hist. an. 6, 7; 0, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). ^n^* is the \dpo<;y or sleyider gull, according to tlie LXX. and Vulg. Knohel follows the Arabic, liowever, and supposes it to be a species of haicJc, wliich is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc.; but this is certainly included in the genus }*p. Y}, from)*V^ to fly, is the haicky which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job xxxix. 26). It stands in fact, as 'J'^.p^P? sliows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the lepa^, accipiter, of which the ancients enumerate many different species. DID, which is mentioned in Ps. cii. 7 as dwelling in ruins, is an oivl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the scj^eech-oiolj which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screechotvl, which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury, "n^*^, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the LXX. KarappuKTrj^; in the Targ. and Sy7\ ^}'}'^ vj^, extraliens pisces. It is not the gull, however {larus catarractes), which plunges v/ith violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican, to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water. The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ^^'^T. ' from n^J to snort, according to Isa. xxxiv. 11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu, which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhiipnhu. nOK^'pn^ which occurs again in ver. 30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri, a bird resembling the uhu, but smaller. Jonathan calls it uthija = a)T09, a night-owL The primary meaning of the word D^J is essentially the same as that of ^^^, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the stria; otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix Jlammeay a native of Syria,