THE PEACE OFFERING
Lev 3:1-17; Lev 7:11-34; Lev 19:5-8; Lev 22:21-25
IN chapter 3 is given, though not with completeness, the law of
the peace offering. The alternative rendering of this term, "thank
offering" (marg. R.V), precisely expresses only one variety of the
peace offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any one
word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception
of this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the
familiar term which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be
made clear in the. sequel, it was the main object of this offering,
as consisting of a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial
meal, to express the conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship
with God as secured by the shedding of atoning blood.
Like the burnt offering and the meal offering, the peace offering
had come down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not
explicitly named, in Gen 31:54, on the occasion of the covenant
between Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of
their covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exo 18:12, where "Jethro
took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came and all
the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before
God." Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the burnt
offering, confined to the line of Abraham’s seed. Indeed, scarcely
any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been more
universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially connected
with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of this
sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are {Exo 32:6}
how the people, having made the golden calf, worshipped it with
peace offerings, and "sat down to eat and to drink" at the
sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace offering;
while in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as
common among the idolaters of Corinth.
It hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such
facts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than
in the general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen
nations. Rather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the
expression on the part of man of a sense of need and want,
especially, in this case, of friendship and fellowship with God;
and, seeing that the conception of a sacrifice culminating in a
feast was, in truth, most happily adapted to symbolise this idea,
surely it were nothing strange that God should base the ordinances
of His own worship upon such universal conceptions and customs,
correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might directly or
indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to speak, is
thus already found existing, whether in letters or in symbols, why
should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar symbolism, which,
because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for that reason, far
less likely to be understood?
The plan of chapter 3 is very simple; and there is little in its
phraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the
offering of peace offerings, first, from the herd (Lev 3:1-5); then,
from the flock, whether of the sheep (Lev 3:6-11) or of the goats
(Lev 3:12-16). After each of these three sections it is formally
declared of each offering that it is "a sweet savour," "an offering
made by fire," or "the food of the offering made by fire unto the
Lord." The chapter then closes with a prohibition, specially
occasioned by the directions for this sacrifice, of all use by
Israel of fat or blood as food.
The regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the
offering differ from those for the burnt offering in allowing a
greater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a
male; though recorded instances of the observance of the peace
offering indicate that the male was even here preferred when
obtainable. The offering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however,
mentioned as permissible, as in the case of the burnt offering. But
this is no exception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since
these were excluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial
meal, for which, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient.
Ordinarily, the victim must be without blemish; and yet, even in
this matter, a larger liberty was allowed {Lev 22:23} in the case of
those which were termed "freewill offerings," where it was permitted
to offer even a bullock or a lamb which might have "some part
superfluous or lacking." The latitude of choice thus allowed finds
its sufficient explanation in the fact that while the idea of
representation and expiation had a place in the peace offering as in
all bloody offerings, yet this was subordinate to the chief intent
of the sacrifice, which was to represent the victim as food given by
God to Israel in the sacrificial meal. It is to be observed that
only such defects are therefore allowed in the victim as could not
possibly affect its value as food. And so even already, in these
regulations as to the selection of the victim, we have a hint that
we have now to do with a type, in which the dominant thought is not
so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our representative, as Christ the
Lamb of God, the food of the soul, through participation in which we
have fellowship with God.
As before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in
all, six, each of which, in the peace offering, has its proper
place. Of these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the
laying on of the hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling
of the blood, are precisely the same as in the burnt offering, and
have the same symbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt
offering and the peace offering, the innocent victim typified the
Lamb of God, presented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as
an atonement for sin through substitutionary death: and the
sprinkling of the blood upon the altar signifies in this, as in the
other, the application of that blood Godward by the Divine Priest
acting in our behalf, and thereby procuring for us remission of sin,
redemption through the blood of the slain Lamb.
In the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial
meal, the peace offering stands in strong contrast with the burnt
offering. In the burnt offering all was burned upon the altar; in
the peace offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed
directions which are given in the case of each class of victims are
intended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal
in which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for
each, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim,
the particular is added, according to King James’s version, "the
whole rump"; but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected
this translation, giving it correctly as "the fat tail entire." The
change is an instructive one, as it points to the idea which
determined this selection of all the fat for the offering by fire.
For the reference is to a special breed of sheep which is still
found in Palestine, Arabia, and North Africa. With these, the tail
grows to an immense size, sometimes weighing fifteen pounds or more,
and consists almost entirely of a rich substance, in character
between fat and marrow. By the Orientals in the regions where this
variety of sheep is found it is still esteemed as the most valuable
part of the animal for food. And thus, just as in the meal offering
the Israelite was required to bring out of all his grain the best,
and of his meal the finest, so in the peace offering he is required
to bring the fat, and in the case of the sheep this fat tail, as the
best and richest parts, to be burnt upon the altar to Jehovah. And
the burning, as in the whole burnt sacrifice, was, so to speak, the
visible Divine appropriation of that which was placed upon the
altar, the best of the offering, as appointed to be "the food of
God." If the symbolism, at first thought, perplex any, we have but
to remember how frequently in Scripture "fat" and "fatness" are used
as the symbol of that which is richest and best; as, e.g., where the
Psalmist says, "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness
of Thy house"; and Isaiah, "Come unto Me, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness." Thus when, in the peace offering, of which the
larger part was intended for food, it is ordered that the fat should
be given to God in the fire of the altar, the same lesson is taught
as in the meal offering, namely, God is ever to be served first and
with the best that we have. "All the fat is the Lord’s."
In the burnt offering, the burning ended the ceremonial: in the
nature of the case, since all was to be burnt, the object of the
sacrifice was attained when the burning was completed. But in the
case of the peace offering, to the burning of the fat upon the altar
now followed the culminating act of the ritual, in the eating of the
sacrifice. In this, however, we must distinguish from the eating by
the offerer and his household, the eating by the priests; of which
only the first-named properly belonged to the ceremonial of the
sacrifice. The assignment of certain parts of the sacrifice to he
eaten by the priests has the same meaning as in the meal offering.
These portions were regarded in the law as given, not by the offerer,
but by God, to His servants the priests; that they might eat them,
not as a ceremonial act, but as their appointed sustenance from His
table whom they served. To this we shall return in a subsequent
chapter, and therefore need not dwell upon it here.
This eating of the sacrifice by the priests has thus not yet taken
us beyond the conception of the meal offering, with a part of which
they, in like manner, by God’s arrangement, were fed. Quite
different, however, is the sacrificial eating by the offerer which
follows. He had brought the appointed victim; it had been slain in
his behalf; the blood had been sprinkled for atonement on the altar;
the fat had been taken off and burned upon the altar; the thigh and
breast had been given back by God to the officiating priest; and
now, last of all, the offerer himself receives back from God, as it
were, the remainder of the flesh of the victim, that he himself
might eat it before Jehovah. The chapter before us gives no
directions as to this sacrificial eating; these are given in Deu
12:6-7; Deu 12:17-18, to which passage, in order to the full
understanding of that which is most distinctive in the peace
offering, we must refer. In the two verses last named, we have a
regulation which covers, not only the peace offerings, but with them
all other sacrificial eatings, thus: "Thou mayest not eat within thy
gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of the oil, or the
firstlings of thy herd, or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which
thou vowest, nor thy free will offerings, nor the heave offering of
thy hand: but thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the
place which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy
daughter, and thy man servant, and thy maid servant, and the Levite
that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy
God in all that thou puttest thy hand unto."
In these directions are three particulars; the offerings were to be
eaten, by the offerer, not at his own home, but before Jehovah at
the central sanctuary; he was to include in this sacrificial feast
all the members of his family, and any Levite that might be stopping
with him; and he was to make the feast an occasion of holy joy
before the Lord in the labour of his hands. What was now the special
significance of all this? As this was the special characteristic of
the peace offering, the answer to this question will point us to its
true significance, both for Israel in the first place, and then for
us as well, as a type of Him who was to come.
It is not hard to perceive the significance of a feast as a symbol.
It is a natural and suitable expression of friendship and
fellowship. He who gives the feast thereby shows to the guests his
friendship toward them, in inviting them to partake of the food of
his house. And if, in any case, there has been an interruption or
breach of friendship, such an invitation to a feast, and association
in it of the formerly alienated parties, is a declaration on the
part of him who gives the feast, as also of those who accept his
invitation, that the breach is healed, and that where there was
enmity, is now peace.
So natural is this symbolism that, as above remarked, it has been a
custom very widely spread among heathen peoples to observe
sacrificial feasts, very like to this peace offering of the Hebrews,
wherein a victim is first offered to some deity, and its flesh then
eaten by the offerer and his friends. Of such sacrificial feasts we
read in ancient Babylonia and Assyria, in Persia, and, in modern
times, among the Arabs, Hindoos, and Chinese, and various native
races of the American continent: always having the same symbolic
intent and meaning-namely, an expression of desire after friendship
and intercommunion with the deity thus worshipped. The existence of
this custom in Old Testament days is recognised in Isa 65:11 (R.V),
where God charges the idolatrous Israelites with preparing "a table
for the god Fortune," and filling up "mingled wine unto (the
goddess) Destiny"-certain Babylonian deities; and in the New
Testament, as already remarked, the Apostle Paul refers to the same
custom among the idolatrous Greeks of Corinth.
And because this symbolic meaning of a feast is as suitable and
natural as it is universal, we find that in the symbolism of Holy
Scripture, eating and drinking, and especially the feast, has been
appropriated by the Holy Spirit to express precisely the same ideas
of reconciliation, friendship, and intercommunion between the giver
of the feast and the guest, as in all the great heathen religions.
We meet this thought, for instance, in Psa 23:5 : "Thou preparest a
table before me in the presence of my enemies"; Psa 36:8, where it
is said of God’s people: "They shall be abundantly satisfied with
the fatness of Thy house"; and again, in the grand prophecy in
Isaiah 25, of the final redemption of all the long-estranged
nations, we read that when God shall destroy in Mount Zion "the veil
that is spread over all nations, and swallow up death forever," then
"the Lord of hosts shall make unto all peoples a feast of fat
things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow,
of wines on the lees well refined." And in the New Testament, the
symbolism is taken up again, and used repeatedly by our Lord, as,
for example, in the parables of the Great Supper {Luk 14:15-24} and
the Prodigal Son, {Luk 15:23} the Marriage of the King’s Son, {Mat
22:1-14} concerning the blessings of redemption; and also in that
ordinance of the Holy Supper which He has appointed to be a
continual reminder of our relation to Himself, and means for the
communication of His grace, through our symbolic eating therein of
the flesh of the slain Lamb of God.
Thus, nothing in the Levitical symbolism is better certified to us
than the meaning of the feast of the peace offering. Employing a
symbol already familiar to the world for centuries, God ordained
this eating of the peace offering in Israel, to be the symbolic
expression of peace and fellowship with Himself. In Israel it was to
be eaten "before the Lord," and, as well it might be, "with
rejoicing."
But, just at this point, the question has been raised: How are we to
conceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace offering? Was it a
feast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast
given by God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast, who
was represented as host, and who as guest? Among other nations than
the Hebrews, it was the thought in such cases that the feast was
given by the worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an
Assyrian inscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at
Nineveh, says: "I filled with beauties the great palace of my
empire, and I called it ‘the Palace which rivals the World.’ Ashur,
Ishtar of Nineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted
within it. Victims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before
them, and I caused them to receive my gifts."
But here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive
contrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast
and the same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In
the heathen sacrificial feasts, it is man who feasts God; in the
peace offering of Leviticus, it is God who feasts man. Some have
indeed denied that this is the conception of the peace offering, but
most strangely. It is true that the offerer, in the first instance,
had brought the victim; but it seems to be forgotten by such, that
prior to the feasting he had already given the victim to God, to be
offered in expiation for sin. From that time the victim was no
longer, any part of it, his own property, but God’s. God having
received the offering, now directs what use shall be made of it; a
part shall be burned upon the altar; another part He gives to the
priests, His servants; with the remaining part He now feasts the
worshipper.
And as if to make this clearer yet, while Esar-haddon, for example,
gives his feast to the gods, not in their temples, but in his own
palace, as himself the host and giver of the feast, the Israelite,
on the contrary, -that he might not, like the heathen, complacently
imagine himself to be feasting God, -is directed to eat the peace
offering, not at his own house, but at God’s house. In this way God
was set forth as the host, the One who gave the feast, to whose
house the Israelite was invited, at whose table he was to eat.
Profoundly suggestive and instructive is this contrast between the
heathen custom in this offering, and the Levitical ordinance. For do
we not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all
of man’s religion and the Gospel of God? Man’s idea always is, until
taught better by God, "I will be religious and make God my friend,
by doing something, giving something for God." God, on the contrary,
teaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact
reverse; that we become truly religious by taking, first of all,
with thankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of
friendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen
rituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also, in both, a desire
for its removal, and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former,
man ever seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by
something that he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and
thus God shall be well pleased. But God’s way is the opposite! The
sacrificial feast at which man shall have fellowship with God is
provided not by man for God, but by God for man, and is to be eaten,
not in our house, but spiritually partaken in the presence of the
invisible God.
We can now perceive the teaching of the peace offering for Israel.
In Israel, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after
fellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace offering
taught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be
realised. The first thing was for him to bring and present a
divinely-appointed victim; and then, the laying of the hand upon his
head with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the
sprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to
God in the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol
expiation had been thus made for the Israelite’s sin, there could be
no feast which should speak of friendship and fellowship with God.
But this being first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness
and restoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast
in His own house.
What a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when
once pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a
dear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his
house, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are
troubled, and perhaps seek out one who is our friend’s friend and
also our friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to
reconcile to us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we
anxiously await his return; but or ever he has come back again,
comes an invitation from him who was estranged, just in the old
loving way, asking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one
of us would understand this; we should be sure at once that the
mediator had healed the breach, that we were forgiven, and were
welcome as of old to all that our friend’s friendship had to give.
But God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord
Jesus, His beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator;
and He has healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in
offering His own body as a sacrifice, He has ascended into heaven,
there to appear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet
returned. But meantime the message comes down from Him to all who
are hungering after peace with God: "The feast is made; and ye all
are invited; come! all things are now ready!" And this is the
message of the Gospel. It is the peace offering translated into
words. Can we hesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent
in our acceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we
are to eat "with rejoicing."
And now we may well observe another circumstance of profound typical
significance. When the Israelite came to God’s house to eat before
Jehovah, he was fed there with the flesh of the slain victim. The
flesh of that very victim whose blood had been given for him on the
altar, now becomes his food to sustain the life thus redeemed.
Whether the Israelite saw into the full meaning of this, we may
easily doubt; but it leads us on now to consider, in the clearer
light of the New Testament, the deepest significance of the peace
offering and its ritual, as typical of our Lord and our relation to
Him.
That the victim of the peace offering, as of all the bloody
offerings, was intended to typify Christ, and that the death of that
victim, in the peace offering, as in all the bloody offerings,
foreshadowed the death of Christ for our sins, -this needs no
further proof. And so, again, as the burning of the whole burnt
offering represented Christ as accepted for us in virtue of His
perfect consecration to the Father, so the peace offering, in that
the fat is burned, represents Christ as accepted for us, in that He
gave to God in our behalf the very best He had to offer. For in that
incomparable sacrifice we are to think not only of the completeness
of Christ’s consecration for us, but also of the supreme excellence
of that which He offered unto God for us. All that was best in Him,
reason, affection, and will, as well as the members of His holy
body, -nay, the Godhead as well as the Manhood, in the holy mystery
of the Trinity and the Incarnation, He offered for us unto the
Father.
This, however, has taken us as yet but little beyond the meaning of
the burnt offering. The closing act of the ritual, the sacrificial
eating, however, reaches in its typical significance far beyond this
or any of the bloody offerings.
First, in that he who had laid his hand upon the victim, and for
whom the blood had been sprinkled, is now invited by God to feast in
His house, upon food given by himself, the food of the sacrifice,
which is called in the ritual "the bread of God." the eating of the
peace offering symbolically teaches us that if we have indeed
presented the Lamb of God as our peace, not only has the Priest
sprinkled for us the blood, so that our sin is pardoned, but, in
token of friendship now restored, God invites the penitent believer
to sit down at His own table, -in a word, to joyful fellowship with
Himself! Which means, if our weak faith but take it in, that the
Almighty and Most Holy God now invites us to fellowship in all the
riches of His Godhead; places all that He has at the service of the
believing sinner, redeemed by the blood of the slain Lamb. The
prodigal has returned; the Father will now feast him with the best
that He has. Fellowship with God through reconciliation by the blood
of the slain Lamb, -this then is the first thing shadowed forth in
this part of the ritual of the peace offering. It is a sufficiently
wonderful thought, but there is truth yet more wonderful veiled
under this symbolism.
For when we ask, what then was the bread or food of God of which He
invited him to partake who brought the peace offering, and learn
that it was the flesh of the slain victim; here we meet a thought
which goes far beyond atonement by the shedding of blood. The same
victim whose blood was shed and sprinkled in atonement for sin is
now given by God to be the redeemed Israelite’s food, by which his
life shall be sustained! Surely we cannot mistake the meaning of
this. For the victim of the altar and the food of the table are one
and the same. Even so He who offered Himself for our sins on
Calvary, is now given by God to be the food of the believer; who now
thus lives by "eating the flesh" of the slain Lamb of God. Does this
imagery, at first thought, seem strange and unnatural? So did it
also seem strange to the Jews, when in reply to our Lord’s teaching
they wonderingly asked, {Joh 6:52} "How can this man give us His
flesh to eat?" And yet so Christ and when He had first declared
Himself to the Jews as the Antitype of the manna, the true Bread
sent down from heaven, He then went on to say, in words which far
transcended the meaning of that type, {Joh 6:51} "The bread which I
wilt give is My flesh, for the life of the world." How the light
begins now to flash back from the Gospel to the Levitical law, and
from this, again, back to the Gospel! In the one we read, "Ye shall
eat the flesh of your peace offerings before the Lord with joy"; in
the other, the word of the Lord Jesus concerning Himself: {Joh 6:33;
Joh 6:55; Joh 6:57} "The bread of God is that which cometh down out
of heaven, and giveth life unto the world My flesh is meat indeed,
and My blood is drink indeed As the living Father sent Me, and I
live because of the Father, so he that eateth Me, he also shall live
because of Me." And now the Shekinah light of the ancient tent of
meeting begins to illumine even the sacramental table, and as we
listen to the words of Jesus, "Take, eat! this is My body which was
broken for you," we are reminded of the feast of the peace
offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the flesh of the
sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.
Let us hold fast then to this deepest thought of the peace offering,
a truth too little understood even by many true believers. The very
Christ who died for our sins, if we have by faith accepted His
atonement and have been for His sake forgiven, is now given us by
God for the sustenance of our purchased life. Let us make use of
Him, daily feeding upon Him, that so we may live and grow unto the
life eternal!
But there is yet one thought more concerning this matter, which the
peace offering, as far as was possible, shadowed forth. Although
Christ becomes the bread of God for us only through His offering of
Himself first for our sins, as our atonement, yet this is something
quite distinct from atonement. Christ became our sacrifice once for
all; the atonement is wholly a fact of the past. But Christ is now
still, and will ever continue to be unto all His people, the bread
or food of God, by eating whom they live. He was the propitiation,
as the slain victim; but, in virtue of that, He is now become the
flesh of the peace offering. Hence He must be this, not as dead, but
as living, in the present resurrection life of His glorified
humanity. Here evidently is a fact which could not be directly
symbolised in the peace offering without a miracle ever repeated.
For Israel ate of the victim, not as living, but as dead. It could
not be otherwise. And yet there is a regulation of the ritual {Lev
7:15-18; Lev 19:6; Lev 19:7} which suggests this phase of truth as
clearly as possible without a miracle. It was ordered that none of
the flesh of the peace offering should be allowed to remain beyond
the third day; if any then was left uneaten, it was to be burned
with fire. The reason for this lies upon the surface. It was
doubtless that there might be no possible beginning of decay; and
thus it was secured that the flesh of the victim with which God fed
the accepted Israelite should be the flesh of a victim that was not
to see corruption. But does not this at once remind us how it was
written of the Antitype, "Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy One to see
corruption"? while, moreover, the extreme limit of time allowed
further reminds us how it was precisely on the third day that Christ
rose from the dead in the incorruptible life of the resurrection,
that so He might through all time continue to be the living bread of
His people.
And thus this special regulation points us not indistinctly toward
the New Testament truth that Christ is now unto us the bread of God,
not merely as the One who died, but as the One who, living again,
was not allowed to see corruption. For so the Apostle argues, {Rom
5:11} that "being justified by faith," and so having "peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ," our peace offering, having been thus
"reconciled by His death, we shall now be saved by His life." And
thus, as we appropriate Christ crucified as our atonement, so by a
like faith we are to appropriate Christ risen as our life, to be for
us as the flesh of the peace offering, our nourishment and strength
by which we live.
THE PROHIBITION OF FAT
AND BLOOD
Lev 3:16-17; Lev 7:22-27; Lev 17:10-16
And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of
the offering made by fire, for a sweet savour: all the fat is the
Lord’s. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations
in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood. And
the Lord spake unto Moses, saving, Speak unto the children of
Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. And
the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is
torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in
no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of
which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the
soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall
eat no man net of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any
of your dwellings. Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul
shall be cut off from his people And whatsoever man there be of the
house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that
eateth any manner of blood; I will set My face against that soul
that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For
the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood
that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto
the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither
shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And
whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast
or fowl that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and
cover it with dust. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood
thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:
for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it
shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which dieth of
itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be homeborn or a
stranger, he shall, wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water,
and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. But if he
wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then "he shall bear his
iniquity."
The chapter concerning the peace offering ends (Lev 3:16-17) with
these words: "All the fat is the Lord’s. It shall be a perpetual
statute for you throughout your generations, that ye shall eat
neither fat nor blood."
To this prohibition so much importance was attached that in the
supplemental "law of the peace offering" {Lev 7:22-27} it is
repeated with added explanation and solemn warning, thus: "And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel,
saying. Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of
goat. And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of
that which is torn with beasts, may be used for any other service:
but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of
the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the
Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of
beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it be that eateth any
blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people."
From which it appears that this prohibition of the eating of fat
referred only to the fat of such beasts as were used for sacrifice.
With these, however, the law was absolute, whether the animal was
presented for sacrifice, or only slain for food. It held good with
regard to these animals, even when, because of the manner of their
death, they could not be used for sacrifice. In such cases, though
the fat might be used for other purposes, still it must not be used
for food.
The prohibition of the blood as food appears from Lev 17:10 to have
been absolutely universal; it is said, "Whatsoever man there be of
the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them,
that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that
soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
The reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood, whether in
the case of the sacrificial feasts of the peace offerings or on
other occasions, is given, {Lev 17:11-12} in these words: "For the
life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon
the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that
maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall
any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood."
And the prohibition is then extended to include not only the blood
of animals which were used upon the altar, but also such as were
taken in hunting, thus (Lev 17:13): "And whatsoever man there be of
the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them,
which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he
shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust," as
something of peculiar sanctity; and then the reason previously given
is repeated with emphasis (Lev 17:14): "For as to the life of all
flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore
I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no
manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof;
whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."
And since, when an animal died from natural causes, or through being
torn of a beast, the blood would be drawn from the flesh either not
at all or but imperfectly, as further guarding against the
possibility of eating blood, it is ordered (Lev 17:15-16) that he
who does this shall be held unclean: "Every soul that eateth that
which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he
be home born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe
himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if he wash them
not nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity."
These passages explicitly state the reason for the prohibition by
God of the use of blood for food to be the fact that, as the vehicle
of the life, it has been appointed by Him as the means of expiation
for sin upon the altar. And the reason for the prohibition of the
fat is similar; namely, its appropriation for God upon the altar, as
in the peace offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings;
"all the fat is the Lord’s."
Thus the Israelite, by these two prohibitions, was to be continually
reminded, so often as he partook of his daily food, of two things:
by the one, of atonement by the blood as the only ground of
acceptance; and by the other, of God’s claim on the man redeemed by
the blood, for the consecration of his best. Not only so, but by the
frequent repetition, and still more by the heavy penalty attached to
the violation of these laws, he was reminded of the exceeding
importance that these two things had in the mind of God. If he eat
the blood of any animal claimed by God for the altar, he should be
cut off from his people; that is, outlawed, and cut off from all
covenant privilege as a citizen of the kingdom of God in Israel. And
even though the blood were that of the beast taken in the chase,
still ceremonial purification was required as the condition of
resuming his covenant position.
Nothing, doubtless, seems to most Christians of our day more remote
from practical religion than these regulations touching the fat and
the blood which are brought before us with such fulness in the law
of the peace offering and elsewhere. And yet nothing is of more
present day importance in this law than the principles which
underlie these regulations. For as with type, so with antitype. No
less essential to the admission of the sinful man into that blessed
fellowship with a reconciled God, which the peace offering typified,
is the recognition of the supreme sanctity of the precious
sacrificial blood of the Lamb of God; no less essential to the life
of happy communion with God, is the ready consecration of the best
fruit of our life to Him.
Surely, both of these, and especially the first, are truths for our
time. For no observing man can fail to recognise the very ominous
fact that a constantly increasing number, even of professed
preachers of the Gospel, in so many words refuse to recognise the
place which propitiatory blood has in the Gospel of Christ, and to
admit its preeminent sanctity as consisting in this, that it was
given on the altar to make atonement for our souls. Nor has the
present generation outgrown the need of the other reminder touching
the consecration of the best to the Lord. How many there are,
comfortable, easy-going Christians, whose principle-if one might
speak in the idiom of the Mosaic law-would rather seem to be, ever
to give the lean to God, and keep the fat, the best fruit of their
life and activity, for themselves! Such need to be most urgently and
solemnly reminded that in spirit the warning against the eating of
the blood and the fat is in full force. It was written of such as
should break this law, "that soul shall be cut off from his people."
And so in the Epistle to the Hebrews {Heb 10:26-29} we find one of
its most solemn warnings directed to those who "count this blood of
the covenant," the blood of Christ, "an unholy (i.e., common)
thing"; as exposed by this, their undervaluation of the sanctity of
the blood, to a "sorer punishment" than overtook him that "set at
naught Moses’ law," even the retribution of Him who said, "Vengeance
is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
And so in this law of the peace offerings, which ordains the
conditions of the holy feast of fellowship with a reconciled God, we
find these two things made fundamental in the symbolism: full
recognition of the sanctity of the blood as that which atones for
the soul; and the full consecration of the redeemed and pardoned
soul to the Lord. So was it in the symbol; and so shall it be when
the sacrificial feast shall at last receive its most complete
fulfilment in the communion of the redeemed with Christ in glory.
There will be no differences of opinion then and there, either as to
the transcendent value of that precious blood which made atonement,
or as to the full consecration which such a redemption requires from
the redeemed.
|