This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. Leviticus 17:2-16 Laws for holy living J. A. Seiss, D. D. From chap. Leviticus 17. to chap. Leviticus 23, everything relates to the duties, qualities, and associations of individuals in private life. This fact, coming as it does right after the great Day of Atonement, is very suggestive. It indicates that God contemplates much more respecting us than the mere pardon of our sins; that justification is not the whole intent of the Saviour's redemptive services; and that there is to be a personal righteousness and purification which rests upon our own exertions. "In Him was life," and His "life is the light of men." Without some degree of conformity to Him, our religion is but a shadow and a name. For so it is written, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Let me invite attention, then, more specifically to the means and elements of a good and holy life, as they are shadowed forth in the chapters before us. I. The principal, and, perhaps, the only permanent provision contained in this chapter, is THAT WHICH RESPECTS THE MANNER OF TREATING BLOOD. NO matter how or from what animal it came, it was always to be looked upon with consideration. The use of blood was not forbidden because it was unclean, but because it was sacred. It represents life. It is that by which life was redeemed. Now, it is easy to see how a law of this sort would work to solemnise, restrain, and soften the heart of a conscientious Jew. It would keep the solemn atonement before him whithersoever he went. The very huntsman would be met by it in the deep recesses of the forest. And if we desire to learn what constitutes the deepest essence of a Christian life, we here have it most beautifully typified. We must keep in view the blood of atonement. It is our clear and continual recognition of what Jesus has done for us that weakens temptation, disposes to duty, and prompts to the deeds of righteousness. I remember to have met with an affecting little incident in Roman history connected with the death of Manlius Capitolinus, a renowned consul and general, who was once proudly hailed as the saviour of Rome. It happened one night when the Gauls threatened to overwhelm the Capitol, that he bravely took his stand upon the wall where they came on with their attack, and there fought singly and alone until he had repelled them, and so saved the city from destruction. It so occurred that this distinguished man was afterwards accused of some great public fault, and put upon trial for his life. But just as the judges were about to pass sentence upon him, he looked up at the walls of the Capitol, which towered in view, and with tears in his eyes pointed to where he had fought for his accusers, and perilled his life for their safety. The people remembered the heroic achievement, and wept. No one had the heart to say aught against him, and the judges were compelled to forbear. Again he was tried, and with the same result. Nor could he be convicted until his trial was removed to some low and distant point, from which the Capitol was invisible. And so, while Calvary is in full view, in vain will earth and hell seek to bring the Christian into condemnation. One serious look at the Cross, and at the love which there, unaided and alone, when all was dark and lost, interposed for our salvation, is enough to break the power of passion at once, and to strike dead every guilty proceeding. II. Passing to chap. Leviticus 18., we find sundry laws, but all bearing upon two general points. The first RELATES TO THE CUSTOMS OF THE EGYPTIANS, FROM AMONG WHOM THE JEWS CAME, AND OF THE CANAANITES, WHOSE LAND THEY WERE TO INHERIT. Israel was to be a holy nation, and therefore was not to follow the ways of the unclean. The greatest danger of a purified man arises from his old habits and associations. It is not easy to turn a stream quite out of the channel in which it has been flowing for ages. It is a mighty work to revolutionise a character which has been forming for years, or to tear quite away from a long-continued routine which includes all our recollections of infancy, and in which our life took its chief attractions. The sow that has been washed, still has strong affections for the mire. The second grand element of a good Christian life, therefore, is a complete and thorough reformation with regard to old habits. If we have been in close intimacy with the vile, we must withdraw from their communion, and keep aloof from their wicked ways. If we have been giving way to bad passions, we must cut ourselves off from the occasions of our transgressions, and beware of putting ourselves into circumstances which invite temptation. III. The other specifications of chap. 18. all RELATE TO SEXUAL PURITY. They typically refer to the necessity of a proper government of the affections. We may love, but we must love virtuously. We may cherish the most tender regards, but they must not rest upon criminal hopes. Our warmest feelings may be enlisted and indulged, but we must be cautious that they do not betray us into sin and shame. Even the secret thought of unchasteness, the hidden incontinent wish, the impure desire, the cherished hope of unclean gratifications, must be spurned and crucified as criminal before God, and crushed as an enemy to the peace and good of society. The heart must be kept with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. It is God who saith, "Defile not yourselves in any of these things." IV. We come now to chap. Leviticus 19. Here WE HAVE QUITE A LIST OF MORAL PRECEPTS, SETTING FORTH AN EXTENSIVE CODE OF CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS. The provisions of the preceding chapter were negative; these are mostly positive. In the one God shows us how we are to "cease to do evil"; in the other He instructs us how to "do well." V. A remark or two, now, upon chap. Leviticus 20. We have been contemplating the laws of holy living. In this chapter WE HAVE GOD'S THREATENINGS AGAINST THOSE WHO VIOLATE THEM. It is a chapter of penalties. God is not only our adviser, but our Lord and Judge. His commands are not only gracious counsels, but authoritative laws. The gospel is indeed glad tidings — glad tidings of great joy. It is a call of mercy from the heavens to the suffering and the lost. But it is a call to holiness. And whilst it is a glorious savour of life unto life to them that yield to it, and walk in its light, it is a fearful savour of death unto death to those who despise or disobey it. ( J. A. Seiss, D. D. ) Various regulations in chaps, 17.-22 J. M. Gibson, D. D. First, in regard to those passages which caution the people against vices of special enormity, we must remember that they were about to be settled in dangerous proximity to peoples who were thoroughly corrupted by these very vices, and therefore the cautions were not by any means unnecessary. Accustomed as most of us are to the pure air of Christian society, in which, notwithstanding all the selfishness and sin that still abound, vices such as these are "not so much as named," and the very possibility of them seems out of the question, it is difficult for us to imagine how different was the condition of society before these purifying influences were brought to bear on it, which issued from Mount Sinai first, and afterwards from Gennesaret's shore and "the place called Calvary." And when we find such warnings in the Book of Leviticus, we ought in the first place to feel humbled by the thought of the fearful lengths to which sin unrestrained by Divine grace will carry its wretched victim; and, in the second place, to lift up our hearts in gratitude to God, that in these latter days, though evil still abounds, we are nevertheless protected from such outrages to our moral and spiritual nature as those to which even the chosen people were exposed in the ancient times. On the other hand, it is pleasant to find in these chapters the evidence that the Mosaic Law came in many respects nearer to the morality of the New Testament than most people are willing to admit (see Leviticus 19:9, 10, 32-34 ). Finally, it is interesting to notice in these regulations, and throughout the entire law, the care which is taken to keep religion and morality closely wedded and welded together. "I am the Lord your God" is continually put forth, not as a creed article, but as an unanswerable argument for strictest obedience and the most scrupulous integrity. The relations of privilege which the people enjoyed are continually set forth as increasing their responsibility. "To whom much is given, of them much shall be required," is a principle taken for granted all through. ( J. M. Gibson, D. D. ) Before The grand principle of right action S. H. Kellogg, D. D. The principle which underlies this stringent law, as also the reason which is given for it, is of constant application in modern life. There was nothing wrong in itself in slaying an animal in one place more than another. It was abstractedly possible — as, likely enough, many an Israelite may have said to himself — that a man could just as really "eat unto the Lord" if he slaughtered and ate his animal in the field, as anywhere else. Nevertheless this was forbidden under the heaviest penalties. It teaches us that he who will be holy must not only abstain from that which is in itself always wrong, but must carefully keep himself from doing even lawful or necessary things in such a way, or under such associations and circumstances, as may outwardly compromise his Christian standing, or which may be proved by experience to have an almost unavoidable tendency toward sin. The laxity in such matters which prevails in the so-called "Christian world" argues little for the tone of spiritual life in our day in those who indulge in it, or allow it, or apologise for it. it may be true enough, in a sense, that, as many say, there is no harm in this or that. Perhaps not; but what if experience have shown that, though in itself not sinful, a certain association or amusement almost always tends to worldliness, which is a form of idolatry? Or — to use the apostle's illustration — what if one be seen, though with no intention of wrong, "sitting at meat in an idol's temple," and he whose conscience is weak be thereby emboldened to do what to him is sin? There is only one safe principle, now as in the days of Moses: everything must be brought "before the Lord" — used as from Him and for Him, and therefore used under such limitations and restrictions as His wise and holy law imposes. Only so shall we be safe; only so abide in living fellowship with God. ( S. H. Kellogg, D. D. ) Peace-offerings unto the Lord Dedication of food to God S. H. Kellogg. D. D. Very beautiful and instructive was the direction that the Israelite, in the cases specified, should make his daily food a peace-offering. This involved a dedication of the daily food to the Lord; and in his receiving it back again then from the hand of God, the truth was visibly represented that our daily food is from God; while also, in the sacrificial acts which preceded the eating, the Israelite was continually reminded that it was upon the ground of an accepted atonement that even these everyday mercies were received. Such also should be, in spirit, the often neglected prayer before each of our daily meals. It should be ever offered with the remembrance of the precious blood which has purchased for us even the most common mercies; and should thus sincerely recognise What, in the confusing complexity of the second causes through which we receive our daily food, we so easily forget that the Lord's Prayer is not a mere form of words when we say, "Give us this day our daily bread"; but that working behind, and in, and with, all these second causes, is the kindly providence of God, who, opening His hand, supplies the want of every living thing. And so, eating in grateful, loving fellowship with our Heavenly Father that which His bounty gives us, to His glory, every meal shall become, as it were, a sacramental remembrance of the Lord. We may have wondered at what we have read of the worldwide custom of the Mohammedan, who, whenever the knife of slaughter is lifted against a beast for food, utters his "Bism Allah" ("In the name of the most merciful God"); and not otherwise will regard his food as being made halal or "lawful"; and no doubt in all this, as in many a Christian's prayer, there may often be little heart. But the thought in this ceremony is even this of Leviticus, and we do well to make it our own, eating even our daily food "in the name of the most merciful God," and with uplifting of the heart in thankful worship toward Him. ( S. H. Kellogg. D. D. ) For the life of the flesh is in the blood. The Scriptural doctrine of blood G. D. Boardman, D. D. "Blood" is one of the characteristic, regent words of Scripture, occurring in it more than four hundred times. A word so recurrent must mean something fundamental. In fact, it is the blood of Christ which is the basis of Christianity, the very pivot of the Christian religion. I. First of all, let us ponder what in light of modern physiology is certainly a remarkable Scripture. Moses, in forbidding the eating of blood, assigns for his prohibition the following reason: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (ver. 11). 1. The fact asserted: "The life (soul) of the flesh is in the blood."(1) This is, in fact, one of the instinctive beliefs of humanity; and instinct is often prophetic, holding latent history. How thoroughly the idea that blood is the seat of life has taken possession of the race is evident from such instinctive idioms as these: "shedder of blood," "man of blood," "imbrue in blood," "bloody-minded," "blood-thirsty," "avenger of blood," "blood-guiltiness," "cold-blooded," "prince of the blood royal," "blooded-stock," "blood-relation," "next of blood," "consanguinity," "sanguine of success," "sanguine temperament," &c., &c. So that marvellous diviner and formulator of human instincts, Shakespeare — the word "blood" occurs seven hundred and thirty-one times in his plays — for example: — "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red." ("Macbeth," II:2.) Again — "Sluic'd out his innocent soul through streams of blood: Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries, Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth, To me, for justice and rough chastisement." ("King Richard II.," I:1.) So England's poet-laureate— "Defects of doubt, and taints of blood." ("In Memoriam," 53.) Again "Through all the years of April blood." ("In Memoriam," 108.) So Virgil — "His purple life (purpuream animam) he poureth forth." ("AEneid," 9:349.) So Homer, and very frequently, thus — "The soul comes floating in a tide of gore." ("Iliad," 4:537.) Again— "He sobs his soul out in the gush of blood." ("Iliad," 16:419.) Once more— "And the soul issued in the purple flood." ("Iliad," 16:624.) So the Scriptural writers; for example: "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the ground"; "Earth, cover not thou my blood"; "Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God"; "Precious shall their blood be in His sight"; "All the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachariah the son of Barachiah"; "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" The blood being thus instinctively conceived as the seat of life, and so the representative of the soul or person, no wonder that blood has ever been regarded as a sacred thing. Here is the secret of the Mosaic prohibition to eat blood, a prohibition frequently repeated, and in vers. 10-14 with solemn minuteness of detail. The blood being regarded as the symbol and home of the personality, to eat it was to be guilty of sacrilegious cannibalism. Here is the key to that chivalrous, pathetic incident in David's life: "Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this; is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?" ( 2 Samuel 23:15-17 ). But the Divine prohibition was not peculiar to the Jews. A millennium before Moses, when the new stock of humanity, just escaped the Deluge, was still young, God commanded Noah, saying, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you .... But flesh with the life (soul) thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat" ( Genesis 9:1-4 ). As the prohibition antedated the Mosaic Dispensation, so it postdated it. A score of years after Christ was crucified, a controversy arose in the Church at Antioch respecting the subjection of Gentile converts to circumcision and the Mosaic institutions generally ( Acts 15:1-35 ). So much for the instinctive belief that the life, or soul, of the flesh is in the blood.(2) And modern science remarkably confirms this instinctive belief. The blood, in respect to its composition, consists of two principal parts: a liquid plasma, and countless microscopic corpuscles, or blood-discs, floating in it, by far the larger part of which are red, and the rest colourless. The office of the colourless corpuscles, called "Leucocytes," is not yet distinctly understood. This thing, however, must be said about them, When blood is taken from the living system, these leucocytes, or white corpuscles, if kept at something like their normal temperature, present for some time remarkable life-like phenomena; they protrude and retract numerous arms or processes, and even move about from place to place, as though things of life; in fact, so much do the motions of these corpuscles resemble the protean changes in figure and motions of the microscopic Rhizopod called "Amoeba," that they have received the name, amoeboid movements. The red corpuscles constitute nearly one half of the mass of the blood, tinging it so thoroughly as to give it its red colour. The office of these red globules, or blood discs, is, in the main, to serve as carriers of oxygen. To use the words of Prof. Flint, the red corpuscles "are respiratory organs; taking up the greater part of the oxygen which is absorbed by the blood in its passage through the lungs, and conveying it to the tissues, where it is given up, and its place supplied by carbonic acid." One more remark must be made about these red blood discs. Although the diagnosis of blood stains is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable us in all cases to discriminate with absolute certainty between the blood corpuscles of man and those of all mammals, yet it is far enough advanced to enable the microscopical expert to pronounce, in certain cases, with accuracy on the character of blood stains in murder trials; thus converting these tiny globules, having a diameter of only 1/3200 of an inch, into solemn, resistless witnesses. The melancholy Dane is right: "Murder, though it have no tongue, will speak, With most miraculous organ." ("Hamlet," II:2.) Ay, "blood will tell." Thus the blood is in an eminent sense the seat and organ of life. The language of Hervey, the demonstrator at least, if not the discoverer, of the circulation of the blood, is striking: The blood is the "primigenial and principal part, because that in it and from it the fountain of motion and pulsation is derived; also because the animal heat or vital spirit is first radicated and implanted, and the soul takes up her mansion in it The blood is the genital part, the fountain of life, primum vivens, ultimum moriens ." It is a solemn thing to observe the rhythmical systole and diastole of the heart, especially as recorded by that delicate instrument, the sphygmograph. The blood is a very river of life, the arterial and venous systems of circulation constituting an intricate network of canals, making the body a corporeal Amsterdam or human Venice. Each corpuscle is a barge, moving with various rates of speed in different parts of the body, toiling through the capillaries at the rate of two inches a minute, rushing through the arteries at the rate of from twelve to twenty feet a second, ceaselessly carrying on the organic functions of the body by perpetually exchanging freight, depositing at the depot of this and that tissue oxygen, and taking up carbonic acid. What money is to society, that blood is to the bodily system; it is the means of exchange, or the circulating medium. The scientific accuracy of the assertion, "the life of the flesh is in the blood," is strikingly shown in such facts as blood-letting, strangling, fainting, pyoemia , or blood-poisoning, and especially transfusion — a sometimes beneficent surgical operation, in which blood from a strong and healthy person, or from one of the lower animals, is injected into the veins of a feeble or anaemic patient. The life or soul of the flesh is in the blood. Thus the Bible of Scripture and the Bible of Nature is one; Scripture announcing a truth, Nature echoing it. 2. The rite appointed: "And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls."(1) "I have given it to you upon the altar." Blood is emphatically the characteristic thing in the Levitical ritual, the very basis of the old sacrificial economy. Particularly is this true of the eminently sacred rites of the paschal lamb, the sin-offering, the day of atonement, and the mercy-seat; all the significance of these elaborate ceremonies turned on the element of blood. Indeed, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, summing up the Old Covenant in respect to ritual, expressly says, "Almost all things are by the law purified with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission" ( Hebrews 9:22 ). The Old Testament is in very truth a scarlet dispensation.(2) "To atone for your souls." To atone; literally, to cover, hide, shelter. But in what sense to atone? Certainly not in the heathen sense of placating as with presents, or expiating as by offering a quid pro quo; but in the gracious sense of reconciling by sacrificial, vicarious interception. 3. The reason assigned: "For it is the blood that maketh atonement" — i.e ., by the life thereof, in virtue" of the soul in it.(1) "It is the blood that maketh an atonement." It atones not, of course, absolutely; for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away the consciousness of sins. But the blood atones, so to speak, constructively, pictorially, prophetically.(2) "For the life (or soul) of the flesh is in the blood." And this on the principle that the blood, as being the seat of the life, is the representative of the person. Life for life, soul for soul; this is the meaning of the old sacrificial ritual. And it is all based on the admitted physiological principle — the life of the flesh is in the blood. II. And now we have the key to the Scriptural doctrine of blood. 1. The blood of Jesus Christ it is which is the antitype or fulfilment of the blood of the Levitical victims. To prove this forms a great part of the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Take chap. 9., verses Hebrews 9:13, 14, as a typical specimen of the argument. 2. The blood of Jesus Christ is the antitypal, real atonement for our souls on the same principle which held under the Old Dispensation — the principle of vicarious representation. That is to say, Christ's blood, as being the vehicle and representative of His own personality, was vicariously shed; and in this way He became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. This, then, is the Scriptural doctrine of blood. It is based on the ancient Mosaic affirmation and on the modern scientific observation — "The life of the flesh is in the blood." How significant now the New Testament allusions to the efficacy of Christ's blood. For example: "Purchased with His own blood"; "Set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood"; "Justified by His blood"; "Redemption through His blood"; "Made peace through the blood of His Cross"; "Boldness to enter into the holiest through the blood of Jesus"; "The blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel"; "The blood of the everlasting Covenant"; "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin"; "Washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," &c. Thus blood is the scarlet thread winding through both the Covenants, their crimson rubric. This, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter — blood is the natural, physiological basis of the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement. "Science" inexorably holds us to "orthodoxy" in the prime, pivotal article of the Christian religion. ( G. D. Boardman, D. D. ) Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh. Restrictions respecting the use of blood S. H. Kellogg, D. D. — The moral and spiritual purpose of this law concerning the use of blood was apparently twofold. In the first place, it was intended to educate the people to a reverence for life, and purify them from that tendency to bloodthirstiness which has so often distinguished heathen nations, and especially those with whom Israel was to be brought in closest contact. But, secondly, and chiefly, it was intended everywhere and always to keep before the mind the sacredness of the blood as being the appointed means for the expiation of sin, given by God upon the altar to make atonement for the soul of the sinner, "by reason of the life" or soul with which it stood in such immediate relation. Not only were they, therefore, to abstain from the blood of such animals as could be offered on the altar, but even from that of those which could not be offered. Thus the blood was to remind them, every time they ate flesh, of the very solemn truth that without shedding of blood there was no remission of sin. The Israelite must never forget this, even in the heat and excitement of the chase; he must pause and carefully drain the blood from the creature he had slain, and reverently cover it with dust: a symbolic act which should ever put him in mind of the Divine ordinance — that the blood, the life, of a guiltless victim must be given in order to the forgiveness of sin. A lesson lies here for us regarding the sacredness of all that is associated with sacred things. All that is connected with God, and with His worship, especially all that is connected with His revelation of Himself for our salvation, is to be treated with the most profound reverence. ( S. H. Kellogg, D. D. ).

Benson Commentary Leviticus 17:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Leviticus 17:2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them; This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Leviticus 17:3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, Leviticus 17:3 . That killeth — Not for common use, for such beasts might be killed by any person or in any place, ( Deuteronomy 12:5-14 ; Deuteronomy 12:26-27 ,) but for sacrifice, as the sense is limited, Leviticus 17:5 , where the reason of the injunction is given. It is true, some suppose that the Israelites were forbidden by this law, while they were in the wilderness, to kill, even for food, any of the animals that were wont to be sacrificed, elsewhere than in the door of the tabernacle, where the blood and the fat were to be offered to God upon the altar, and the flesh returned to the offerer to be eaten as a peace-offering according to the law. And the statute is so worded in Leviticus 17:3-4 , as to favour this opinion. The learned Dr. Cudworth understands if in this sense, and thinks that while they had their tabernacle so near them, in the midst of their camp, they ate no flesh but what had first been offered to God; but that when they were about to enter Canaan, this constitution was altered, and they were allowed to kill their beasts of the flock and herd at home, as well as the roe-buck and the hart, ( Deuteronomy 12:21 ,) only that thrice a year they were to see God at his tabernacle, and to eat and drink before him. It is indeed probable, that in the wilderness they did not eat much flesh but that of their peace- offerings, preserving what cattle they had for breed, against they came to Canaan. And yet it is hard to construe into a mere temporary law, what is expressly said to be a statute for ever, Leviticus 17:7 . And, therefore, it seems rather to forbid only the killing beasts for sacrifice anywhere but at God’s altar. They must not offer a sacrifice as they had done in the open field, ( Leviticus 17:5 ,) no, not to the true God; but their sacrifices must be brought to the priest, to be offered on the altar o f the Lord. And the mighty solemnity they had lately seen of consecrating both the priests and the altar, would serve for a good reason why they should confine themselves to both these which God had so signally appointed and owned. Leviticus 17:4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: Leviticus 17:4 . The tabernacle — This was appointed in opposition to the heathens, who sacrificed in all places; to cut off occasions of idolatry; to prevent the people’s usurpation of the priest’s office, and to signify that God would accept of no sacrifices but through Christ and in the church; of both which the tabernacle was a type. But though men were tied to this law, God was free to dispense with his own law, which he did sometimes to the prophets, as 1 Samuel 7:9 ; 1 Samuel 11:15 . He hath shed blood — He shall be punished as a murderer. The reason is, because he shed that blood, which, though not man’s blood, yet was precious, being sacred and appropriated to God, and typically the price by which men’s lives were ransomed. Leviticus 17:5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD. Leviticus 17:5 . They offer — The Israelites, before the building of the tabernacle, did so, from which they are now restrained. Peace-offerings — He does not name these exclusively from others, as appears from the reason of the law, and from Leviticus 17:8-9 , but because in these the temptation was more common in regard of their frequency, and more powerful, because part of these belonged to the offerers, and the pretence was more plausible, because their sanctity was of a lower degree than that of others, these being only called holy, and allowed in part to the people, whereas the others are called most holy, and were wholly appropriated either to God, or to the priests. Leviticus 17:6 And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD. Leviticus 17:6 . Upon the altar — This verse contains a reason of the foregoing law, because of God’s propriety in the blood and fat, wherewith also God was well pleased, and the people reconciled. And these two parts only are mentioned, as the most eminent and peculiar, though other parts also were reserved for God. Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 . Unto devils — So they did, not directly or intentionally, but by construction and consequence, because the devil is the author of idolatry, and is eminently served and honoured by it. And as the Egyptians were notorious for their idolatry, so the Israelites were infected with their leaven, Joshua 24:14 ; Ezekiel 20:7 ; Ezekiel 23:2-3 . And some of them continued to practise the same in the wilderness, Amos 5:25-26 , compared with Deuteronomy 12:8 . The Hebrew word which we render devils, ??????? , segnirim, properly signifies goats, from their rough and shaggy hair, and hence denotes those idols, probably deified dead men, who were worshipped under the symbol of goats. It is the same word that we translate satyrs, Isaiah 13:21 . What gives light to so obscure a passage is what we read in Maimonides, that the Zabian idolaters worshipped demons under the figure of goats, imagining them to appear in that form, whence they called them by the name here mentioned, segnirim, or goats; and that this custom being general in Moses’s time, gave occasion to this precept. After whom they have gone a whoring — Idolatry, especially in God’s people, is commonly termed whoredom in Scripture, because it is a violation of that covenant by which they were peculiarly betrothed or married to God. And here the phrase has a peculiar propriety, and denotes their having worshipped those goats, or goat-like demons, with rites horribly impure, after the manner of the idolatrous pagans. Leviticus 17:8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, Leviticus 17:9 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people. Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. Leviticus 17:10 . I will set my face — I will be an enemy to him, and execute vengeance upon him immediately; because such persons probably would do this in private, so that the magistrate could not know nor punish it. Write that man undone, for ever undone, against whom God sets his face. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:11 . Is in the blood — Depends upon the blood, is preserved and nourished by it. The blood maketh atonement — Typically, and in respect of the blood of Christ which it represented, and by which the atonement is really made. So the reason is double. 1st, Because this was eating the ransom of their own lives, which in construction was the destroying themselves. 2d, Because it was ingratitude and irreverence toward that sacred blood of Christ, which they ought to have had in continual veneration. Leviticus 17:12 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. Leviticus 17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for 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. Leviticus 17:15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself , or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. Leviticus 17:15 . That eateth — Through ignorance or inadvertency; for if it was done knowingly, it was more severely punished. A stranger — Who is a proselyte to the Jewish religion: other strangers were allowed to eat such things, ( Deuteronomy 14:21 ,) out of which the blood was either not drawn at all, or not regularly. Leviticus 17:16 But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity. Leviticus 17:16 . His iniquity — The punishment of it, and therefore must offer a sacrifice for it. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 17:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, HOLINESS IN EATING Leviticus 17:1-16 WITH this chapter begins another subdivision of the law. Hitherto we have had before us only sacrificial worship and matters of merely ceremonial law. The law of holy living contained in the following chapters (17-22), on the other hand, has to do for the most part with matters rather ethical than ceremonial, and consists chiefly of precepts designed to regulate morally the ordinary engagements and relationships of everyday life. The fundamental thought of the four chapters is that which is expressed, e.g. , in Leviticus 18:3 : Israel, redeemed by Jehovah, is called to be a holy people; and this holiness is to be manifested in a total separation from the ways of the heathen. This principle is enforced by various specific commands and prohibitions, which naturally have particular regard to the special conditions under which Israel was placed, as a holy nation consecrated to Jehovah, the one, true God, but living in the midst of nations of idolaters. The whole of chapter 17, with the exception of Leviticus 16:8-9 , has to do with the application of this law of holy living to the use even of lawful food. At first thought, the injunctions of the chapter might seem to belong rather to ceremonial than to moral law; but closer observation will show that all the injunctions here given have direct reference to the avoidance of idolatry, especially as connected with the preparation and use of food. It was not enough that the true Israelite should abstain from food prohibited by God, as in chapter 12; he must also use that which was permitted in a way well pleasing to God, carefully shunning even the appearance of any complicity with surrounding idolatry, or fellowship with the heathen in their unholy fashions and customs. Even so for the Christian: it is not enough that he abstain from what is expressly forbidden; even in his use of lawful food, he must so use it that it shall be to him a means of grace, in helping him to maintain an uninterrupted walk with God. In Leviticus 17:1-7 is given the law to regulate the use of such clean animals for food as could be offered to God in sacrifice; in Leviticus 17:10-16 , of such as, although permitted for food, were not allowed for sacrifice. The directions regarding the first class may be summed up in this: all such animals were to be treated as peace offerings. No private person in Israel was to slaughter any such animal anywhere in the camp or out of it, except at the door of the tent of meeting. Thither they were to be brought "unto the priest," and offered for peace offerings ( Leviticus 17:5 ); the blood must be sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering; the fat parts burnt "for a sweet savour unto the Lord" ( Leviticus 17:6 ); and then only the priest having first taken his appointed portions, the remainder might now be eaten by the Israelite, as given back to him by God, in peaceful fellowship with Him. The law could not have been burdensome, as some might hastily imagine. Even when obtainable, meat was probably not used as food by them so freely as with us; and in the wilderness the lack of flesh, it will be remembered, was so great as to have occasioned at one time a rebellion among the people, who fretfully complained: {Num 11:4} "Who shall give us flesh to eat?" Even the uncritical reader must be able to see how manifest is the Mosaic date of this part of Leviticus. The terms of this law suppose a camp life; indeed, the camp is explicitly named ( Leviticus 17:3 ). That which was enjoined was quite practicable under the conditions of life in the wilderness, when, at the best, flesh was scarce, and the people dwelt compactly together; but would have been utterly inapplicable and impracticable at a later date, after they were settled throughout the land of Canaan, when to have slaughtered all beasts used for food at the central sanctuary would have been impossible. Hence we find that, as we should expect, the modified law of Deuteronomy, {Deu 12:15-16; Deu 12:20-24} assuming the previous existence of this earlier law, explicitly repeals it. To suppose that forgers of a later day, as, for instance, of the time of Josiah, or after the Babylonian exile, should have needlessly invented a law of this kind, is a hypothesis which is rightly characterised by Dillmann as "simply absurd." This regulation for the wilderness days is said ( Leviticus 17:5 , Leviticus 17:7 ) to have been made "to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field unto the Lord, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings unto the Lord And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after whom they go a whoring," There can be no doubt that in the last sentence, "he-goats," as in the Revised Version, instead of "devils," as in the Authorised, is the right rendering. The worship referred to was still in existence in the days of the monarchy; for it is included in the charges against "Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin," {2Ch 11:15} that "he appointed him priests; for the he-goats, and for the calves which he had made." Nor can here we agree with Dillmann that in this worship of he-goats here referred to, there is "no occasion to think of the goat worship of Egypt." For inasmuch as we know that the worship of the sacred bull and that of the he-goat prevailed in Egypt in those days, and inasmuch as in Ezekiel 20:6-7 ; Ezekiel 20:15-18 , repeated reference is made to Israel’s having worshipped "the idols of Egypt," one can hardly avoid combining these two facts, and thus connecting the goat worship to which allusion is here made, with that which prevailed at Mendes, in Lower Egypt. This cult at that place was accompanied with nameless revolting rites, such as give special significance to the description of this worship ( Leviticus 17:7 ) as "a whoring" after the goats; and abundantly explain and justify the severity of the penalty attached to the violation of this law ( Leviticus 17:4 ) in cutting off the offender from this people; all the more when we observe the fearful persistency of this horrible goat worship in Israel, breaking out anew, as just remarked, some five hundred years later, in the reign of Jeroboam. The words imply that the ordinary slaughter of animals for food was often connected with some idolatrous ceremony related to this goat worship. What precisely it may have been, we know not; but of such customs, connecting the preparation of the daily food with idolatry, we have abundant illustration in the usages of the ancient Persians, the Hindoos, and the heathen Arabs of the days before Mohammed. The law was thus intended to cut out this everyday idolatry by the root. With these "field devils," as Luther renders the word, the holy people of the Lord were to have nothing to do. Very naturally, the requirement to present all slaughtered animals as peace offerings to Jehovah gives occasion to turn aside for a little from the matter of food, which is the chief subject of the chapter, in order to extend this principle beyond animals slaughtered for food, and insist particularly that all burnt offerings and sacrifices of every kind should be sacrificed at the door of the tent of meeting, and nowhere else. This law, we are told ( Leviticus 17:8 ), was to be applied, not only to the Israelites themselves, but also to "strangers" among them; such as, e.g. , were the Gibeonites. No idolatry, nor anything likely to be associated with it, was to be tolerated from anyone in the holy camp. The principle which underlies this stringent law, as also the reason which is given for it, is of constant application in modern life. There was nothing wrong in itself in slaying an animal in one place more than another. It was abstractly possible-as, likely enough, many an Israelite may have said to himself-that a man could just as really "eat unto the Lord" if he slaughtered and ate his animal in the field, as anywhere else. Nevertheless this was forbidden under the heaviest penalties. It teaches us that he who will be holy must not only abstain from that which is in itself always wrong, but must carefully keep himself from doing even lawful or necessary things in such a way, or under such associations and circumstances, as may outwardly compromise his Christian standing, or which may be proved by experience to have an almost unavoidable tendency toward sin. The laxity in such matters which prevails in the so-called "Christian world" argues little for the tone of spiritual life in our day in those who indulge in it, or allow it, or apologise for it. It may be true enough, in a sense, that as many say, there is no harm in this or that. Perhaps not; but what if experience have shown that, though in itself not sinful, a certain association or amusement almost always tends to worldliness, which is a form of idolatry? Or-to use the apostle’s illustration-what if one be seen, though with no intention of wrong, "sitting at meat in an idol’s temple," and he whose conscience is weak be thereby emboldened to do what to him is sin? There is only one safe principle, now as in the days of Moses: everything must be brought "before the Lord"; used as from Him and for Him, and therefore used under such limitations and restrictions as His wise and holy law imposes. Only so shall we be safe; only so abide in living fellowship with God. Very beautiful and instructive, again, was the direction that the Israelite, in the cases specified, should make his daily food a peace offering. This involved a dedication of the daily food to the Lord; and in his receiving it back again then from the hand of God, the truth was visibly represented that our daily food is from God; while also, in the sacrificial acts which preceded the eating, the Israelite was continually reminded that it was upon the ground of an accepted atonement that even these everyday mercies were received. Such also should be, in spirit, the often neglected prayer before each of our daily meals. It should be ever offered with the remembrance of the precious blood which has purchased for us even the most common mercies; and should thus sincerely recognise what, in the confusing complexity of the second causes through which we receive our daily food, we so easily forget: that the Lord’s prayer is not a mere form of words when we say, "Give us this day our daily bread"; but that working behind, and in, and with, all these second causes, is the kindly Providence of God, who, opening His hand, supplies the want of every living thing. And so, eating in grateful, loving fellowship with our Heavenly Father that which His bounty gives us, to His glory, every meal shall become, as it were, a sacramental remembrance of the Lord. We may have wondered at what we have read of the world wide custom of the Mohammedan, who, whenever the knife of slaughter is lifted against a beast for food, utters his " Bism allah ," "In the name of the most merciful God"; and not otherwise will regard his food as being made halal, or "lawful"; and, no doubt, in all this, as in many a Christian’s prayer, there may often be little heart. But the thought in this ceremony is even this of Leviticus, and we do well to make it our own, eating even our daily food "in the name of the most merciful God," and with uplifting of the heart in thankful worship toward Him. But there were many beasts which, although they might not be offered to the Lord in sacrifice, were yet "clean," and permitted to the Israelites as food. Such, in particular, were clean animals that are taken in the hunt or chase. In Leviticus 17:10-16 the law is given for the use of these. It is prefaced by a very full and explicit prohibition of the eating of blood; for while, as regards the animals to be offered to the Lord, provision was made with respect to the blood, that it was to be sprinkled around the altar, there was the danger that in other cases, where this was not permissible, the blood might be used for food. Hence the prohibition against eating "any manner of blood," on a twofold ground: first ( Leviticus 17:11 , Leviticus 17:14 ), that the life of the flesh is the blood; and second ( Leviticus 17:11 ), that, for this reason, God had chosen the blood to be the symbol of life substituted for the life of the guilty in atoning sacrifice: "I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." Hence, in order that this relation of the blood to the forgiveness of sins might be constantly kept before the mind, it was ordained that never should the Israelite eat of flesh except the blood should first have been carefully drained out. And it was to be treated with reverence, as having thus a certain sanctity; when the beast was taken in hunting, the Israelite must ( Leviticus 17:13 ) "pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust";-an act by which the blood, the life, was symbolically returned to Him who in the beginning said, {Gen 1:24} "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind." And because, in the case of "that which dieth of itself," or is "torn of beasts," the blood would not be thus carefully drained off, all such animals ( Leviticus 17:15 ) are prohibited as food. It is profoundly instructive to observe that here, again, we come upon declarations and a command, the deep truth and fitness of which is only becoming clear now after three thousand years. For, as the result of our modern discoveries with regard to the constitution of the blood, and the exact nature of its functions, we in this day are able to say that it is not far from a scientific statement of the facts, when we read ( Leviticus 17:14 ), "As to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof." For it is in just this respect that the blood is most distinct from all other parts of the body; that, whereas it conveys and mediates nourishment to all, it is itself nourished by none; but by its myriad cells brought immediately in contact with the digested food, directly and immediately assimilates it to itself. We are compelled to say that as regards the physical life of man-which alone is signified by the original term here-it is certainly true of the blood, as of no other part of the organism, that "the life of all flesh is the blood thereof." And while it is true that, according to the text, a spiritual and moral reason is given for the prohibition of the use of blood as food, yet it is well worth noting that, as has been already remarked in another connection, the prohibition, as we are now beginning to see, had also a hygienic reason. For Dr. de Mussy, in his paper before the French Academy of Medicine already referred to, calls attention to the fact that, not only did the Mosaic laws exclude from the Hebrew dietary animals "particularly liable to parasites"; but also that "it is in the blood," so rigidly prohibited by Moses as food, "that the germs or spores of infections disease circulate." Surely no one need fear, with some expositors, lest this recognition of a sanitary intent in these laws shall hinder the recognition of their moral and spiritual purport, which in this chapter is so expressly taught. Rather should this cause us the more to wonder and admire the unity which thus appears between the demands and necessities of the physical and the moral and spiritual life; and, in the discovery of the marvellous adaptation of these ancient laws to the needs of both, to find a new confirmation of our faith in God and in His revealed Word. For thus do they appear to be laws so far beyond the wisdom of that time, and so surely beneficent in their working, that in view of this it should be easy to believe that it must indeed have been the Lord God, the Maker and Preserver of all flesh, who spake all these laws unto His servant Moses. The moral and spiritual purpose of this law concerning the use of blood was apparently twofold. In the first place, it was intended to educate the people to a reverence for life, and purify them from that tendency to bloodthirstiness which has so often distinguished heathen nations, and especially those with whom Israel was to be brought in closest contact. But secondly, and chiefly, it was intended, as in the former part of the chapter, everywhere and always to keep before the mind the sacredness of the blood as being the appointed means for the expiation of sin; given by God upon the altar to make atonement for the soul of the sinner, "by reason of the life" or soul with which it stood in such immediate relation. Not only were they therefore to abstain from the blood of such animals as could be offered on the altar, but even from that of those which could not be offered. Thus the blood was to remind them, every time that they ate flesh, of the very solemn truth that without shedding of blood there was no remission of sin. The Israelite must never forget this; even in the heat and excitement of the chase, he must pause and carefully drain the blood from the creature he had slain, and reverently cover it with dust; -a symbolic act which should ever put him in mind of the Divine ordinance that the blood, the life, of a guiltless victim must be given, in order to the forgiveness of sin. A lesson lies here for us regarding the sacredness of all that is associated with sacred things. All that is connected with God, and with His worship, especially all that is connected with His revelation of Himself for our salvation, is to be treated with the most profound reverence. Even though the blood of the deer killed in the chase could not be used in sacrifice, yet, because it was blood, was in its essential nature like unto that which was so used, therefore it must be treated with a certain respect, and be always covered with earth. It is the fashion of our age-and one which is increasing in an alarming degree-to speak lightly of things which are closely connected with the revelation and worship of the holy God. Against everything of this kind the spirit of this law warns us. Nothing which is associated in any way with what is sacred is to be spoken of or treated irreverently, lest we thus come to think lightly of the sacred things themselves. This irreverent treatment of holy things is a crying evil in many parts of the English-speaking world, as also in continental Christendom. We need to beware of it. After irreverence, too often, by no obscure law, comes open denial of the Holy One and of His Holy Son, our Lord and Saviour. The blood of Christ, which represented that holy life which was given on the cross for our sins, is holy-an infinitely holy thing! And what is God’s estimate of its sanctity we may perhaps learn-looking through the symbol to that which was symbolised-from this law; which required that all blood, because outwardly resembling the holy blood of sacrifice, and, like it, the seat and vehicle of life, should be treated with most careful reverence. And it is safe to say that just those most need the lesson taught by this command who find it the hardest to appreciate it, and to whom its injunctions still seem regulations puerile and unworthy, according to their fancy, of the dignity and majesty of God. Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. THE PROHIBITION OF FAT AND BLOOD Leviticus 3:16-17 ; Leviticus 7:22-27 ; Leviticus 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 ( Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 ( Leviticus 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 ( Leviticus 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 ( Leviticus 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. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.