THE PRIESTS’ PORTIONS
Lev 6:16-18; Lev 7:6-10; Lev 7:14; Lev 7:31-36
AFTER the law of the guilt offering follows a section {Lev
6:8-30; Lev 7:1-38} with regard to the offerings previously treated,
but addressed especially to the priests, as the foregoing were
specially directed to the people. Much of the contents of this
section has already passed before us, in anticipation of its order
in the book, as this has seemed necessary in order to a complete
exposition of the several offerings. An important part of the
section, however, relating to the portion of the offerings which was
appointed for the priests, has been passed by until now, and must
claim our brief attention.
In the verses indicated above, it is ordered that of the meal
offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings, all that was
not burnt, as also the wave breast and the heave shoulder of the
peace offerings, should be for Aaron and his sons. In particular, it
is directed that the priest’s portion of the sin offering and the
guilt offering shall be eaten by "the priest that maketh atonement
therewith"; {Lev 7:7} and that of the meal offerings prepared in the
oven, the frying pan, or the baking pan, all that is not burned upon
the altar, according to the law of chapter 2, shall be eaten by "the
priest that offereth it"; and that of every meal offering mingled
with oil, or dry, the same part "shall all the sons of Aaron have,
one as well as another". {Lev 7:9-10} Of the burnt offering, all the
flesh being burned, the hide alone fell to the officiating priest as
his perquisite. {Lev 7:8}
These regulations are explained in the concluding verses of the
section Lev 7:35-36 as follows, "This is the anointing portion of
Aaron, and the anointing portion of his sons, out of the offerings
of the Lord made by fire, in the day when he presented them to
minister unto the Lord in the priest’s office; which the Lord
commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day
that he anointed them. It is a due forever throughout their
generations."
Hence, it is plain that this use which was to be made of certain
parts of certain offerings does not touch the question of the
consecration of the whole to God. The whole of each offering is none
the less wholly accepted and appropriated by God, that He designates
a part of it to the maintenance of the priesthood. That even as thus
used by the priest it is used by him as something belonging to God,
is indicated by the phrase used, "it is most"; {Lev 6:17} expressive
words, which in the law of the offerings always have a technical
use, as denoting those things of which only the sons of Aaron might
partake, and that only in the holy place. In the case of the meal
offering, its peculiarly sacred character as belonging, the whole of
it, exclusively to God, is further marked by the additional
injunctions that it, should be eaten without leaven in a holy place;
{Lev 6:16} and that whosoever touched these offerings should be;
{Lev 6:18} that is, he should be as a man separated to God, under
all the restrictions (doubtless, without the privileges), which
belonged to the priesthood, as men set apart for God’s service. In
the eating of their portion of the various offerings by the priests,
we are to recognise no official act: we simply see the servants of
God supported by the bread of His table.
This last thought, which is absent in the case of no one of the
offerings, is brought out with special clearness and fulness in the
ceremonial connected with the peace offerings. {Lev 7:28-34} In this
case, certain parts, the right thigh (or shoulder?) and the breast,
are set apart as the due of the priest. The selection of these is
determined by the principle which marks all the Levitical
legislation: God and those who represent Him are to be honoured by
the consecration of the best of everything. In the animals used upon
the altar, these were regarded as the choice parts, and are indeed
referred to as such in other Scriptures. But, in order that neither
the priest nor the people may imagine that the priest receives these
as a man from his fellowmen, but may understand that they are given
to God, and that it is from God that the priest now receives them,
as His servant, fed from His table; to this end, certain ceremonies
were ordained to be used with these parts; the breast was to be
"heaved," the thigh was to be "waved," before the Lord. What was the
meaning of these actions?
The breast was to be "heaved"; that is, elevated heavenward. The
symbolic meaning of this act can scarcely be missed. By it, the
priest acknowledged his dependence upon God for the supply of this
sacrificial food, and, again, by this act consecrated it anew to Him
as the One that sitteth in the heavens.
But God is not only the One that "sitteth in the heavens"; He is the
God who has condescended also to dwell among men, and especially in
the tent of meeting in the midst of Israel. And thus, as by the
elevation of the breast heavenward, God, the Giver, was recognised
as the One enthroned in heaven, so by the "waving" of the thigh,
which, as the rabbis tell us, was a movement backward and forward,
to and from the altar, He was recognised also as Jehovah, who had
condescended from heaven to dwell in the midst of His people. Like
the "heaving," so the "waving," then, was an act of acknowledgment
and consecration to God; the former, to God, as in heaven, the God
of creation; the other, to God, as the God of the altar, the God of
redemption. And that this is the true significance of these acts is
illustrated by the fact that in the Pentateuch, in the account of
the gold and silver brought by the people for the preparation of the
tabernacle, {Exo 35:22} the same word is used to describe the
presentation of these offerings which is here used of the wave
offering.
And so in the peace offering the principle is amply illustrated upon
which the priests received their dues. The worshippers bring their
offerings, and present them, not to the priest, but through him to
God; who, then, having used such parts as He will in the service of
the sanctuary, gives again such parts of them as He pleases to the
priests.
The lesson of these arrangements lies immediately before us. They
were intended to teach Israel, and, according to the New Testament,
are also designed to teach us, that it is the will of God that those
who give up secular occupations to devote themselves to the ministry
of His house should be supported by the freewill offerings of God’s
people. Very strange indeed it is to hear a few small sects in our
day denying this. For the Apostle Paul argues at length to this
effect, and calls the attention of the Corinthians {1Co 9:13-14} to
the fact that the principle expressed in this ordinance of the law
of Moses has not been set aside, but holds good in this
dispensation. "Know ye not that they which wait upon the altar have
their portion with the altar? Even so did the Lord ordain that they
which proclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel." The principle
plainly covers the case of all such as give up secular callings to
devote themselves to the ministry of the Word, whether to proclaim
the Gospel in any of the great mission fields, or to exercise the
pastorate of the local church. Such are ever to be supported out of
the consecrated offerings of God’s people. To point in disparagement
of modern "hireling" ministers and missionaries, as some have done,
to the case of Paul, who laboured with his own hands, that he might
not be chargeable to those to whom he ministered, is singularly
inapt, seeing that in the chapter above referred to he expressly
vindicates his right to receive of the Corinthians his support, and
in this Second Epistle to them even seems to express a doubt {2Co
12:13} whether in refusing, as he did, to receive support from them,
he had not done them a "wrong," making them thus "inferior to the
rest of the churches," from whom, in fact, he did receive such
material aid. {Php 4:10; Php 4:16} And if ever claims of this kind
upon our benevolence and liberality seem to be heavy, and if to
nature the burden is sometimes irksome, we shall do well to remember
that the requirement is not of man, and not of the Church, but of
God. It comes to us with the double authority of the Old and New
Testament, of the Law and the Gospel. And it will certainly help us
all to give to these ends the more gladly, if we keep that in mind
which the Levitical law so carefully kept before Israel, that the
giving was to be regarded by them as not to the priesthood, but to
the Lord, and that in our giving outwardly to support the ministry
of God’s Word, we give, really, to the Lord Himself. And it stands
written: {Mat 10:42} "Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of
these little ones a cup of cold water only he shall in no wise lose
his reward."
THE SANCTITY OF THE SIN
OFFERING
Lev 6:24-30
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and to
his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: in the place
where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed
before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for
sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of
the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall
be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any
garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy
place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken:
and if it be sodden in a brasen vessel, it shall be scoured, and
rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it
is most holy. And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is
brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy
place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire."
Lev 6:24-30 we have a section which is supplemental to the law of
the sin offering, in which, with some repetition of the laws
previously given, are added certain special regulations, in fuller
exposition of the peculiar sanctity attaching to this offering. As
in the case of other offerings called "most holy," it is ordered
that only the males among the priests shall eat of it; among whom,
the officiating priest takes the precedence. Further, it is declared
that everything that touches the offering shall be regarded as
"holy," that is, as invested with the sanctity attaching to every
person or thing specially devoted to the Lord.
Then by way of application of this principle to two of the most
common cases in which it could apply, it is ordered, first (Lev
6:27), with regard to any garment which should be sprinkled with the
blood, "thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy
place"; that so by no chance should the least of the blood which had
been shed for the remission of sin, come into contact with anything
unclean and unholy. And then, again, inasmuch as the flesh which
should be eaten by the priest must needs be cooked, and the vessel
used by this contact became holy, it is commanded (Lev 6:28) that,
if a brazen vessel, "it shall be scoured" and "then rinsed with
water"; that in no case should a vessel in which might remain the
least of the sacrificial flesh, be used for any profane purpose, and
so the holy flesh be defiled. And because when an (unglazed) earthen
vessel was used, even such scouring and rinsing could not so cleanse
it, but that something of the juices of the holy flesh should be
absorbed into its substance, therefore, in order to preclude the
possibility of its ever being used for any common purpose it is
directed (Lev 6:28) that it shall be broken.
By such regulations as these, it is plain that even in those days of
little light the thoughtful Israelite would be impressed with the
feeling that in the expiation of sin he came into a peculiarly near
and solemn relation to the holiness of God, even though he might not
be able to formulate his thought more exactly. In modern times,
however, strange to say, these very regulations with regard to the
sin offering, when it has been taken as typical of Christ, have been
used as an argument against the New Testament teaching as to the
expiatory nature of His death as a true satisfaction to the holy
justice of God for the sins of men. For it is argued, that if Christ
was really, in a legal sense, regarded as a sinner, because standing
in the sinner’s place, to receive in His person the wrath of God
against the sinner’s sin, it could not have been ordered that the
blood and the flesh of the typical offering should be thus regarded
as of peculiar and preeminent holiness. Rather, we are told, should
we, for example, have read in the ritual, "No one, and, least of
all, the priests, shall eat of it; for it is most unclean." An
extraordinary argument and conclusion! For surely it is an utter
misapprehension both of the so-called "orthodox" view of the
atonement, and of the New Testament teaching on the subject, to
represent it as involving the suggestion that Christ, when for us
"made sin," and suffering as our substitute, thereby must have been
for the time Himself unclean. Surely, according to the constant use
of the word, in imputation of sin, of any sin, to anyone, there is
no conveyance of character; it is only implied that such person is,
for whatsoever reason, justly or unjustly, treated as if he were
guilty of that sin which is imputed to him. Imputing falsehood to a
man who is truth itself, does not make him a liar, though it does
involve treating him as if he were. Just so it is in this case.
There is, then, in these regulations which emphasise the peculiar
holiness of the sin offering, nothing which is inconsistent with the
strictest juridical view of the great atonement which in type it
represented. On the contrary, one can hardly think of anything which
should more effectively represent the great truth of the in
comparable holiness of the victim of Calvary, than just this
strenuous insistence that the blood and the flesh of the typical
victim should be treated as of the most peculiar sanctity. If, when
we see the victim of the sin offering slain and its blood presented
before God, we behold a vivid representation of Christ, the Lamb of
God, "made sin in our behalf"; so when, in these regulations, we see
how the flesh and blood of the offered victim is treated as of the
most preeminent sanctity, we are as impressively reminded how it is
written {2Co 5:21} that it was "Him who knew no sin," that God "made
to be sin on our behalf." Thus does the type, in order that nothing
might be wanting in this law of the offering, insist in every
possible way on the holiness of the great Victim who became the
Antitype; and most of all in the sin offering, because in this,
where, not consecration of the person or the works, or the
impartation and fellowship of the life of Christ, but expiation, was
the central idea of the sacrifice, there was a special need for
emphasising, in an exceptional way, this thought; that the Victim
who bore our sins, although visibly laden with the curse of God, was
none the less all the time Himself "most holy"; so that in that
unfathomable mystery of Calvary, never was He more truly and really
the well-beloved Son of the Father than when He cried out in the
extremity of His anguish as "made sin for us," "My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken Me?"
How wonderfully adapted in all its details was this law of the sin
offering, not only for the education of Israel, but, if we will
meditate upon these things, also for our own! How the truths which
underlie this law should humble us, even in proportion as they exalt
to the uttermost the ineffable majesty of the holiness of God! And,
if we will but yield to their teachings, how mightily should they
constrain us, in grateful recognition of the love of the Holy One
who was "made sin in our behalf," and of the love of the Father who
sent Him for this end, to accept Him as our Sin offering, set forth
in the consummation of the ages, "to put away sin by the sacrifice
of Himself." No more are offered the sin offerings of the law of
Moses:
"But Christ, the heavenly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name,
And richer blood, than they."
If, then, the law of the Levitical sin offering abides in force no
longer, this is not because God has changed, or because the truths
which it set. forth concerning sin, and expiation, and pardon, are
obsolete, but only because the great Sin offering which the ancient
sacrifice typified, has now appeared. God hath "taken away the
first, that He may establish the second". {Heb 10:9} We have thus to
do with the same God as the Israelite. Now, as then, He takes
account of all our sins, even of sins committed "unwittingly"; He
reckons guilt with the same absolute impartiality and justice as
then; He pardons sin, as then, only when the sinner who seeks
pardon, presents a sin offering. But He has now Himself provided the
Lamb for this offering, and now in infinite love invites us all,
without distinction, with whatsoever sins we may be burdened, to
make free use of the all-sufficient and most efficient blood of His
well-beloved Son. Shall we risk neglecting this Divine provision,
and undertake to deal with God by and by, in the great day of
iudgment, on our own merits, without a sacrifice for sin? God
forbid! Rather let us go on to say in the words of that old hymn:
"My faith would lay her hand
On that dear Head of Thine,
While like a penitent I stand,
And there confess my sin."
THANK OFFERINGS, VOWS,
AND FREEWILL OFFERINGS
Lev 7:11-21
"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which
one shall offer unto the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving
then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened
cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and
cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked. With cakes of leavened
bread he shall offer his oblation with the sacrifice of his peace
offerings for thanksgiving. And of it he shall offer one out of each
oblation for a heave offering unto the Lord; it shall be the
priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the
flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall
be eaten on the day of his oblation; he shall not leave any of it
until the morning. But if the sacrifice of his oblation be a vow, or
a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth
his sacrifice: and on the morrow that which remaineth of it shall be
eaten: but that which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice on the
third day shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the
sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten on the third day, it shall
not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth
it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall
bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing
shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the
flesh, everyone that is clean shall eat thereof: but the soul that
eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that
pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul
shall be cut off from his people. And when anyone shall touch any
unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any
unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace
offerings, that soul shall be cut off from his people."
According to this supplemental section on the law of the peace
offerings, these were of three kinds; namely, "sacrifices of
thanksgiving," "vows," and "freewill offerings." The first were
offered in token of gratitude for mercies received; as in Psa
116:16-17, where we read: "Thou hast loosed my bonds; I will offer
to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving." The second, like these, were
offered also in grateful return for prayer answered and mercy
received, but with the difference that they were promised before,
upon the condition of the prayer for mercy being granted. Lastly,
the freewill offerings were those which had no special occasion, but
were merely the spontaneous expression of the love of the offerer to
God, and his desire to live in friendship and fellowship with Him.
It is apparently these freewill offerings that we are to recognise
in the many instances recorded where the peace offering was
presented in connection with supplication for special help and
favour from God; as e.g., when {Jdg 20:26} Israel supplicated mercy
from God after their disastrous defeat in the civil war with the
tribe of Benjamin; and when David entreated the Lord {2Sa 24:25} for
the staying of the plague in Israel.
With not only the thank offering, but all peace offerings, as is
clear from Num 15:2-4, a full meal offering, consisting of three
kinds of unleavened cakes, was to be offered, of each of which, one
was to be presented as a heave offering, with the heave shoulder of
the sacrifice, to the Lord. {Lev 7:12} For the sacrificial feast, in
which the offerer, his family, and friends were to partake, he was
also to bring cakes of leavened bread, which, however, though eaten
before God by the offerer, might not be presented unto God for a
heave offering, nor come upon the altar (Lev 7:13).
From what we have already seen, the spiritual meaning of this will
be clear. Thus in symbol the Israelite offered unto God, with his
life, the fruit of the labour of his hands, in gratitude to Him, and
expressed his happy consciousness of friendship and fellowship with
God through atonement, by feasting before Him. The leavened bread is
offered simply, as Bahr suggests, as the usual accompaniment to a
feast; though regard is still had to the fact, never once forgotten
in Holy Scripture, that leaven is nevertheless an element and symbol
of corruption; so that however the reconciled Israelite may eat his
leavened bread before God, yet it cannot be allowed to come upon the
altar of the Most Holy One.
Two slight differences appear in the ritual for the different kinds
of peace offerings. First, in the case of the freewill offering, a
single exception is allowed to the general rule that the victim must
be without blemish, in the permission to offer what, otherwise
perfect, might have "anything superfluous or lacking" in its parts;
{Lev 22:23} a circumstance which could not affect its fitness as the
symbol of spiritual food. For a vow (and, we may infer, for a thank
offering also) such a be victim, however, could not offered;
evidently because it would seem peculiarly unsuitable, where the
object of the offering was to make in some sense a return for the
always perfect and most gracious gifts of God, that anything else
than the absolutely perfect should be offered. In the case of the
thank offering, again, an exception is made to the general
regulation permitting the eating of the offering on the first and
second days, requiring that all be eaten on the day that it is
presented, or else be burnt with fire. {Lev 7:15} We need seek for
no spiritual meaning in this. A sufficient reason for this special
restriction in this case is probably to be found in the
consideration that as this was the most common variety of the
offering, there was the most danger that the flesh, by some
oversight, might be kept too long. The flesh of the victim offered
to God, the type of the Victim of Calvary, must on no account be
allowed to see corruption; and to this end every needed precaution
must be taken, that by no chance it shall remain unconsumed on the
third day.
It is easy to connect the special characteristics of these several
varieties of the peace offering with the great Antitype. So may we
use Him as our thank offering; for what more fitting as an
expression of gratitude and love to God for mercies received, than
renewed and special fellowship with Him through feeding upon Christ
as the slain Lamb? So also we may thus use Christ in our vows; as
when, supplicating mercy, we promise and engage that if our prayer
be heard we will renewedly consecrate our service to the Lord, as in
the meal offering, and anew enter into life-giving fellowship with
Him through feeding by faith on the flesh of the Lord. And it is
beautifully hinted in the permission of the use of leaven in this
feast of the peace offering, that while the work of the believer, as
presented to God in grateful acknowledgment of His mercies, is ever
affected with the taint of his native corruption, so that it cannot
come upon the altar where satisfaction is made for sin, yet God is
graciously pleased, for the sake of the great Sacrifice, to accept
such imperfect service offered to Him, and make it in turn a
blessing to us, as we offer it in His presence, rejoicing in the
work of our hands before Him.
But there was one condition without which the Israelite could not
have communion with God in the peace offering. He must be clean!
even as the flesh of the peace offering must be clean also. There
must be in him nothing which should interrupt covenant fellowship
with God; as nothing in the type which should make it an unfit
symbol of the Antitype. For it was ordered, {Lev 7:19-21} as regards
every possible occasion of uncleanness, thus: "The flesh that
toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt
with fire. As for the flesh, everyone that is clean shall eat
thereof; but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of
peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness
upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people. And when
anyone shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an
unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of
the sacrifice of peace offerings, that soul shall be cut off from
his people."
In such cases, he must first go and purify himself, as provided in
the law; and then, and then only, presume to come to eat before the
Lord. And so Israel was ever impressively reminded that he who would
have fellowship with God, and eat in happy fellowship with Him at
His table, must keep himself pure. So by the spirit of these
commands are we no less warned that we take not encouragement from
God’s grace, in providing for us the flesh of the Lamb as our food,
to be careless in walk and life. If we will use Christ as our peace
offering, we must keep ourselves "unspotted from the world"; must
hate "even the garment spotted by the flesh," remembering ever that
it is written in the New Testament, {1Pe 1:15-16} with direct
reference to the typical law of Leviticus: "As He which called you
is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because
it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy."
|