Holy Bible

If the priest buy any soul... and he that is born. Leviticus 22:11 Bought, or born Strangers, sojourners, and servants upon hire were not to eat of holy things. It is so in spiritual matters still. But two classes were free at the sacred table — those who were bought with the priest's money, and those who were born into the priest's house. I. BOUGHT. Our great High Priest has bought with a price all those who put their trust in Him. They are His absolute property. Not for what they are in themselves, but for their Owner's sake they are admitted into the same privileges which He Himself enjoys, and they shall "eat of His meat." He has meat to eat which worldlings know not of. "Because ye belong to Christ," therefore shall ye share with your Lord. II. BORN. This is an equally sure way to privilege; if born in the Priest's house we take our place with the rest of the family. Regeneration makes us fellow-heirs, and of the same body; and, therefore, the peace, the joy, the glory, which the Father has given to Christ, Christ has given to us. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) It shall be perfect to be accepted. Leviticus 22:21 A plain man's sermon 1. The ceremonial law, as ordained by the hand of Moses and Aaron, called the worshippers of God to great carefulness before Him. Before their minds that solemn truth was ever made visible, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." Nothing might be done thoughtlessly. Of every ceremony it might be said, "It must be perfect to be accepted." God must have the minds and thoughts of men, or He counts that they are no worshippers. We need to think a great deal more about how we come before the Most High; and if we thought more and prayed more, we should become more certain of our inability to do anything as we ought to do it, and we should be driven to a more entire dependence upon the Spirit of God in every act of worship. This in itself would be a great blessing. 2. The ceremonial law also engendered in men who did think a great respect for the holiness of God. They could not help seeing that God required everything in His service to be of the very best. They must have felt that sin was not a trifle, but a thing for which there must be life given and blood shed before it could be removed; and that life and blood must be the life and blood of a perfect and unblemished offering. 3. Under the Jewish ceremonial law, one of the most prominent thoughts, next to a great respect for the holiness of God, would be a deep regard for the law of God. Everywhere that the Israelite went he was surrounded by law. If men do not understand the law, they will not feel that they are sinners; and if they are not consciously sinners, they will never value the sin-offering. I. First, then, THE RULE OF OUR TEXT, "IT SHALL BE PERFECT TO BE ACCEPTED," MAY BE USED TO SHUT OUT ALL THOSE FAULTY OFFERINGS WHEREON SO MANY PLACE THEIR CONFIDENCE. 1. It most effectually judges and casts forth all self-righteousness, although this is the great deceit wherewith thousands are buoyed up with false hopes. "It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." If you can come up to this rule you shall be saved by your righteousness; but if you cannot reach you must fail of acceptance. 2. Why, look, ye that hope to be saved by your own doings, your nature at the very first is tainted! There is evil in your heart from the very beginning, so that you are not perfect and are not without blemish. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. 3. Look again, for I feel sure that there must have been a blemish somewhere as matter of fact. As yet you are not conscious of a blemish; and possibly there is some justification for this unconsciousness. Looking upon you, I feel inclined to love you, as Jesus loved that young man who could say of the commandments, "All these have I kept from my youth up." But I must beg you to answer this question — Has there not been a blemish in your motives? What have you been doing all these good things for? "Why, that I might be saved!" Precisely so. Therefore selfishness has been the motive which has ruled your life. Moreover, it is not only your nature and your motive which are imperfect. You certainly must have erred somewhere or other, in some act of your life. The Scripture also is dead against you when it says, "There is none righteous; no, not one." 4. Methinks if I could read all hearts, there is not one here, however self-righteous he may be, who would not have to confess distinct acts of sin. I know how some of you have lived. You were amiable girls and excellent young women, and have grown up to be careful, loving wives; and therefore you say, "I never did anybody any harm; surely I may be accepted." I wish that there were more like you. I am not condemning you; far from it; but I know that your tendency is to think that because of all this you must in yourselves be accepted of God. Give me your hand, and let me say to you, with tears, "It is not so, my sister; it is not so, my brother. It must be perfect to be accepted; there must be no blemish in it." This is a death-blow for your self-confidence; for there was a time, some day or other in your life, in which you did wrong. What I have you no hasty temper? Have no quick words escaped you which you would wish to recall? What! have you never murmured against God, or complained of His providence? Have you never been slothful when you ought to have been diligent? Can you say that your heart has never desired evil — never imagined impurity? Have you never gone to live in an old house which looked like new? You had fresh paint, and varnish, and paper in superabundance; and you thought yourself dwelling in one of the sweetest of places, till one day it happened that a board was taken up, and you saw under the floor. What a gathering of every foul thing! You could not have lived in that house at peace for a minute had you known what had been covered up. Rottenness had been hidden, decay had been doctored, death had been decorated. That is just like our humanity. When lusts are quiet, they are all there. The best man in this place, who is not a believer in Christ, would go mad if he were to see himself as God sees him. 5. This text makes a clean sweep of all other kinds of human confidences. Some are deceived in this sort: "Well," they say, "I do not trust in my works; but I am a religious person, and I attend the sacrament, and I go to my place of worship pretty regularly. I feel that I must certainly be right. I have faith in Jesus Christ and in myself." In various ways men thus compose an image whose feet are part of iron and part of clay. II. As this rule shuts out all other confidences, so THIS RULE SHUTS US UP TO THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. Oh, if I had the tongues of men and of angels, I could never fitly tell you of Him who offered Himself without spot unto God, for He is absolutely perfect; there is no blemish in Him! 1. He is perfect in His nature as God and man. There was not the possibility of sinning about the Saviour — no tendency that way, no desire that way. Nothing that could be construed into evil ever came upon His character. 2. As He was perfect in His nature, so was He in His motive. What brought Him from above but love to God and man? You can find no trace of ambition in Christ Jesus. In Him there is no thought of self. 3. As His nature was perfect, so was His spirit. He was never sinfully angry, nor harsh, nor untrue, nor idle. The air of His soul was the atmosphere of heaven rather than of earth. 4. Look at His life of obedience, and see how perfect that was. Which commandment did He ever break? Which duty of relationship did He ever forget? He honoured the law of God and loved the souls of men. 5. Look at the perfection of His sacrifice. He gave His body to be tortured, and His mind to be crushed and broken, even unto the death-agony. He gave Himself for us a perfect sacrifice. All that the law could ask was in Him. III. Listen, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that know the Lord! You are saved. You have not, therefore, to bring any sacrifice by way of a sin-offering, but you have to bring SACRIFICES OF THANKSGIVING. It is your reasonable service that you offer your bodies a living sacrifice unto God. If you do this you cannot bring an absolutely perfect sacrifice, but you must labour to let it be perfect in what is often the Biblical sense of perfection. You must take care that what you bring is not blind, for the blind were not to be offered. You must serve God with a single eye to the glory of God. And as it must not be blind, so it must not be broken. Whenever we serve God, we must do it with the whole of our being, for if we try to serve God with a bit of our nature, and leave the rest unconsecrated, we shall not be accepted. Next, they were not to bring a maimed sacrifice: that is, one without its limbs. Some people give grudgingly, that is to say, they come up to the collection-box with a limp. Many serve Christ with a broken arm. The holy work is done, but it is painfully and slowly done. Among the heathen, I believe, they never offered in sacrifice to the gods a calf that had to be carried. The reason was that they considered that the sacrifice ought to be willing to be offered, "and so it must be able to walk up to the altar. Notice in the Old Testament, though there were many creatures, both birds and beasts, that were offered to God, they never offered any fish on the holy altar. The reason probably is that a fish could not come there alive. Its life would be spent before it came to the altar, and therefore it could not render a life unto God. Take care that you bring your bodies a living sacrifice. We must not bring Him the mere chrysalis of a man, out of which the life has gone; but we must bring before Him our living, unmaimed selves if we would be acceptable before Him. It is then added, "or having a wen." It does not look as though it would hurt the sacrifice much to have a wen; yet there must not be a wen, or spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Above all, avoid that big wen of pride. The sacrifice was not to be scabbed, or to have the scurvy. That is to say, it was to be without any sort of outward fault. I have heard men say, "It is true I did not do that thing well, but my heart was right." That may be, but you must try and make the whole matter as good as it can be. What a deal of scabbed service our Lord gets! Men try to be benevolent to their fellow-creatures with an irritable temper. Certain people try to serve God, and write stinging letters to promote brotherly love, and dogmatical epistles in favour of large-mindedness. Too many render to the Lord hurried, thoughtless worship; and many more give for offerings their smallest coins and such things as they will never miss. God has many a scurvy sheep brought before Him. The best of the best should be given to the Best of the best. Would God that the best of our lives, the best hours of the morning, the best skill of our hands, the best thoughts of our minds, the very cream of our being, were given to our God! ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) Offerings to be without blemish 1. This law was, then, necessary for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary and of the God that was there worshipped. 2. This law made all the legal sacrifices the fitter to be types of Christ, the great Sacrifice, from which all those derived their virtue. 3. It is an instruction to us to offer to God the best we have in our spiritual sacrifices. If our devotions be ignorant, and cold, and trifling, and full of distractions, we offer the blind, and the lame, and the sick for sacrifice. But cursed be the deceiver that doth so, for while he thinks to put a cheat upon God, he puts a damning cheat upon his own soul. ( Matthew Henry, D. D. . ) Blemishes in our sacrifices Anon. All religious service is of the nature of sacrifice. I. Read this requirement of perfect sacrifices, and by it let us test our regard for the SABBATH SERVICES. God has once, at least, read us a very solemn lesson of the manner in which He regards lost Sabbaths. Seventy Sabbatical years the Jews allowed to drop out of their calendar. Seventy years were spent by them in captivity. A fearful presage to us of what might be the national judgment if, as a Church and people, we went on to blot out from amongst us our day of rest. Every one will agree that if the Sabbath be obligatory, then it is assuredly obligatory thus far — 1. That there be regular attendance upon public service. 2. Of the other hours of the day, that a part be spent in private devotional exercises, a part in religious reading; that a higher and more sacred tone of conversation be maintained; that some work of piety and love be performed. II. By this test let us judge our SANCTUARY WORSHIP. Examine ourselves in the house of God. Difficulty of keeping the mind collected and devout results from want of due preparation. 1. Something may be said respecting the posture of body we assume in the sanctuary. Position of body reacts upon the mind. Indolence is associated with, and leads to, irreverence. Kneeling is required equally by the dignity of God and the weakness of our nature. 2. So with the voice. Difficult to overestimate how much is lost — (a) to the beauty of our services; (b) to the glory of God; (c) to our own souls, by the silence so many of us maintain, both in the responses and in the service of song.But there are more serious "blemishes" in our sanctuary sacrifices than these. Where is — (1) The constant mental effort essential to true worship and proper in the presence of God? (2) The self-distrust due from such sinful creatures as we? (3) The self-discipline to bring ourselves into responsiveness to God's Spirit? (4) The inward up-looking for Divine light and grace? (5) The frequent reminding our selves of what. we .are and. what God is? (6) The simple spirit of self-application? (7) The faith to give wings to prayer?Well might St. James say, "Ye have not because ye ask not, or ask amiss." "Blemish on sacrifice" drives the flame down again. III. By this test let us examine our observance of THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. A word in solemn affection to some. You never attend the sacrament to celebrate the Lord's death at all. Others, if at all, so irregularly as almost to turn the attendance into a mockery. 1. Happy for us that we can turn from all our poor "blemished" sacrifices to that pure and perfect sacrifice of Christ, which has been offered "without blemish and without spot" for us. 2. Only let us never forget that he who would safely trust in the power of that "Sacrifice" for his salvation must take the spotlessness of that Sacrifice for his daily pattern. ( Anon. ) Giving the worst to God Sharpened Arrows. A pastor went one day to call on a member of his church, who was a farmer. During the conversation the work of Christian benevolences was touched upon, and the farmer proudly alluded to the fact that out of his few acres of ground he always set aside one acre to the Lord's use. The pastor, hoping to here get the material for an illustration in his own work, asked the farmer brother, "Which acre do you set aside?" This was a question that came very unexpectedly, but the farmer was honest enough to tell the truth, and replied, "When it is a dry season, I select one up there," pointing to a field on the hillside; "and when it is a wet season, I choose one down there," pointing to a field of very low land which lay at the foot of the hill. I give this illustration, not on account of its rarity, but because it is a true picture of thousands of professed Christians, who give to God's service that part of their time and means that is left after first satisfying their own personal selfish ends. ( Sharpened Arrows. ) God ought to have the best Christian Age. One cold morning a little ragged, woeful-looking child came in at our back door, begging for food. "Please, ma'am, mend the children most starved. Only a bit o' bread." "Have you no father or mother, child?" asked I. "Yes'm," and a look of shame and despair mantled his hollow cheeks. "Don't they work and earn money?" "Yes'm, little; but they most allus spend it afore they gets home, at the 'Horn o' Plenty.' "Immediately my heart became adamant. The miserable, drunken brutes, thought I, I'll not feed their children. Then I remembered there is a very stale loaf of bread in the cupboard, scarcely fit for toast. I gave that to the child, very glad to dispose of it. He grabbed it eagerly, with a clutch that reminded one of the grasp of the drowning, when they would fain save themselves. Little Gracie, our six-year-old darling, had been a silent spectator; but after the boy departed, she came to me with deep inquiry depicted upon her spiritual countenance, saying, "Mamma, if Jesus Christ had come and said He was starving to death, would you have given Him that awful dry loaf of bread?" "Why, child," said I, "why do you ask such a question ?" "Why, when we give to the poor, ought we not to think that we are really giving to Jesus Himself? I thought He said so when here upon the earth." "Well, Gracie," said I, kissing her sweet, troubled face, "I think you are right, and I will remember your lesson next time. Yes, Gracie, we, whom the Lord hath blessed in our 'granary and our store,' would soon relieve suffering humanity if we gave our alms as if we really were giving to the 'Blessed Redeemer.' We are too prone to forget this truth." "The very best that we have in the house isn't too good for Him, is it, mamma?" asked she. "No, no, my precious child," replied I, clasping her to my heart and thinking, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength and wisdom." ( Christian Age. ) Worthless offerings J. Tinling. — A missionary in China, describing in the Sunday at Home , the sacrifices which are offered to Confucius at the usual and autumnal equinoxes, says, "We looked at the victims, and they were diseased, scraggy brutes, worthless offerings. Oh, the mockery and the utter insincerity and indifference of the Chinese mind to all sense of honour I My friend explained the matter to me; he said they were allowed so much by the Treasury for this purpose, and the cheaper they could get the animals the more they could pocket." ( J. Tinling. ) I am the Lord. Leviticus 22:31-33 Five motives to obedience A. A. Bonar. Five motives are strewn on their path to constrain them to close obedience. 1. "I am the Lord." This is authority employed. 2. "I will be hallowed among the children of Israel." This is His holiness, and His desire to diffuse awe of His holy name. 3. "I am the Lord which hallow you." Here is an appeal to their privileges as Israelites. Do you not feel that you actually are set apart for Me? 4. "I am the Lord which brought you out of Egypt." Here is His claim as Redeemer, who paid the price and set free the captives. Is there gratitude in your souls? Is there sense of thankfulness for favour done? 5. "Your God" — as well as your Lord: His claim as Father, Shepherd, King, and whatever else there is that is tender in relationship, or beneficial in office, or sweet in character — all is summed up in "your God"! Who is like "our God"? "Who would not fear Thee?" ( Jeremiah 10:7 ). ( A. A. Bonar. ) Unquestioning obedience peremptorily enforced F. W. Brown. I. WHAT JEHOVAH WAS IN ISRAEL. "I am the Lord." II. WHAT JEHOVAH WAS TO ISRAEL. "Your God." III. WHAT JEHOVAH HAD DONE FOR ISRAEL. "That brought you out of the land of Egypt." IV. WHAT JEHOVAH WOULD DO WITH ISRAEL. "I am the Lord which hallow you." Ceremonially and symbolically priests and people were made holy by — 1. The rights they observed. 2. The sacrifices they offered. 3. The manifested presence of the Lord. ( F. W. Brown. ).

Benson Commentary Leviticus 22:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Leviticus 22:1 . The foregoing rules relate to the personal qualifications of priests: here follow several cautions relating to the privileges which they and their families had of eating their share of the sacrifices, from Leviticus 22:1 to Leviticus 22:17 , which cautions served to remind them of that reverence and moral purity wherewith their worship ought to be paid to God. Leviticus 22:2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD. Leviticus 22:2 . That they separate themselves — When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from Leviticus 22:3-4 . From the holy things — This is the first caution. No priest, or other person, was to presume to eat any part of a consecrated victim, while he was under any degree of legal uncleanness. Neither were they, in that state, to eat of the first-fruits, which were also consecrated to God, Numbers 18:12 . But they might eat of the tithes, which were allowed for their constant maintenance. That they profane not what they — The children of Israel; hallow — It ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people hallowed. Leviticus 22:3 Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD. Leviticus 22:3 . Goeth unto the holy things — To eat them, or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people — having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest. Cut off — From my ordinances by excommunication: he shall be excluded both from the administration and from the participation of them. Le Clerc takes it for cutting off by death. Leviticus 22:4 What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him; Leviticus 22:5 Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath; Leviticus 22:6 The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water. Leviticus 22:7 And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. Leviticus 22:7 . His food — His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added, to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, because his necessity craved some mitigation: though otherwise the priests, being more sacred persons, deserved a greater punishment. Leviticus 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts , he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD. Leviticus 22:9 They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them. Leviticus 22:9 . Lest they bear sin — Incur guilt and punishment. For it — For the neglect or violation of it. Leviticus 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. Leviticus 22:10 . There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing — By holy thing here is meant, that portion of the sacrifices which belonged to the priests. And by stranger is not meant one of another nation, in distinction from a native Jew, but one who was not of the priest’s own family, whether Jew, or Gentile proselyte. A sojourner — One that came to his house, and abode there for a season, and ate at his table, was not to eat of it. There is one exception, however, to this rule, in the next verse. Leviticus 22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat. Leviticus 22:11 . If the priest buy any soul — Either one of the Jewish nation, obliged, through poverty, to sell himself, ( Leviticus 25:39 ,) or of another nation, (v. 44, 45,) who being proselyted to the Jewish religion, became part of the priest’s family, and so was permitted to eat of his consecrated meat. Leviticus 22:12 If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. Leviticus 22:12 . If the priest’s daughter be married to a stranger — To one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest’s wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the wife passeth into the name, state, and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated. Leviticus 22:13 But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof. Leviticus 22:14 And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing. Leviticus 22:14 . The fifth part unto it — Over and above the principal, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Leviticus 5:15 . And shall give unto the priest the holy thing — That is, the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or to offer to God, as the nature of the thing was. Leviticus 22:15 And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD; Leviticus 22:15 . They — The people; shall not profane them, by eating them: or the priests shall not profane them, that is, suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment. Leviticus 22:16 Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I the LORD do sanctify them. Leviticus 22:16 . They — That is, the priests; shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause) suffer them — That is, the people; to bear the iniquity of trespass — That is, the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made. Leviticus 22:17 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Leviticus 22:17-18 . The Lord spake unto Moses — The following laws relate to the qualifications required in any offering made either by the Israelites or proselytes. For such proselytes as had renounced idolatry, and were proselytes of the gate, termed, Leviticus 22:18 , strangers in Israel — Though not circumcised, and obliged to keep the whole law of Moses, were yet permitted, in testimony of their worshipping the true God, to offer free- will-offerings at the Jewish altar, as well as proselytes to the whole Mosaic system, termed proselytes of righteousness. Leviticus 22:18 Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Leviticus 22:19 Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. Leviticus 22:19 . Ye shall offer it at your own will — This is better rendered by the Seventy, the Arabic, and other versions, In order to its being accepted ye shall offer a male. And so we render the same word ????? , leratson, in the next verse. Males were required in burnt-offerings: but females were accepted in peace-offerings and sin-offerings. Leviticus 22:20 But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. Leviticus 22:21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Leviticus 22:21 . To accomplish a vow — It was not unusual with them to make such a vow when they undertook a journey, went to sea, were sick, or in any danger. It shall be perfect — That sacrifice was accounted perfect which wanted none of its parts, nor had any defect in any of them; so that perfect here is the same as without blemish, Leviticus 22:19 . The design of this law was still to remind them that they ought to offer to God the most excellent of every thing in its kind, and to guard the worship of God from falling into contempt, as it might have done, had they been allowed to offer to their Maker what men despised, Malachi 1:8 . It served also to keep up a due distinction between things sacred and things common, for these same animals which were unfit to be offered to God might be used for common food. Leviticus 22:22 Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD. Leviticus 22:23 Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. Leviticus 22:23 . That mayest thou offer — The Hebrew here will bear a different translation, which, indeed, seems necessary to reconcile this with the twenty-first verse, namely, Shouldest thou offer it for a free-will-offering or for a vow, it would not be accepted. Leviticus 22:24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land. Leviticus 22:25 Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you. Leviticus 22:25 . Neither from a stranger’s hand — From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites. The bread of your God — That is, the sacrifices. Leviticus 22:26 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Leviticus 22:27 When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD. Leviticus 22:28 And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day. Leviticus 22:28 . The cow or ewe , and her young, in one day — This Maimonides considers as a precaution of humanity, lest the dam should be brought to the altar while she is yet mourning the loss of her young, slain perhaps before her eyes. And, indeed, there is a degree of cruelty in the very idea of imbruing the hand in the blood of both parent and offspring at the same time. Therefore Jonathan, in his paraphrase, considers this as a symbolical precept, to teach the Israelites to be merciful, as their Father in heaven is merciful. Leviticus 22:29 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will. Leviticus 22:30 On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD. Leviticus 22:31 Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD. Leviticus 22:32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you, Leviticus 22:32 . I will be hallowed — Or, sanctified, either by you, in keeping my holy commands, or upon you, in executing my holy and righteous judgments. I will manifest myself to be a holy God, that will not bear the transgression of my laws. I am the Lord who hallow you — Who have separated you to myself as a special people. Leviticus 22:33 That brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 22:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS Leviticus 21:1-24 ; Leviticus 22:1-33 THE conception of Israel as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, was concretely represented in a threefold division of the people, -the congregation, the priesthood, and the high priest. This corresponded to the threefold division of the tabernacle into the outer court, the holy place, and the holy of holies, each in succession more sacred than the place preceding. So while all Israel was called to be a priestly nation, holy to Jehovah in life and service, this sanctity was to be represented in degrees successively higher in each of these three divisions of the people, culminating in the person of the high priest, who, in token of this fact, wore upon his forehead the inscription, "HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH." Up to this point the law of holiness has dealt only with such obligations as bore upon all the priestly nation alike; in these two chapters we now have the special requirements of this law in its yet higher demands upon, first, the priests, and, secondly, the high priest. Abolished as to the letter, this part of the law still holds good as to the principle which it expresses, namely that special spiritual privilege and honour places him to whom it is given under special obligations to holiness of life. As contrasted with the world without, it is not then enough that Christians should be equally correct and moral in life with the best men of the world; though too many seem to be living under that impression. They must be more than this; they must be holy: God will wink at things in others which He will not deal lightly with in them. And, so, again, within the Church, those who occupy various positions of dignity as teachers and rulers of God’s flock are just in that degree laid under the more stringent obligation to holiness of life and walk. This most momentous lesson confronts us at the very opening of this new section of the law, addressed specifically to "the priests, the sons of Aaron." How much it is needed is sufficiently and most sadly evident from the condition of baptized Christendom today. Who is there that will heed it? Priestly holiness was to be manifested, first ( Leviticus 21:1-15 ), in regard to earthly relations of kindred and friendship. This is illustrated under three particulars, namely, in mourning for the dead ( Leviticus 21:1-6 ), in marriage ( Leviticus 21:7-8 ), and ( Leviticus 21:9 ) in the maintenance of purity in the priest’s family. With regard to the first point, it is ordered that there shall be no defilement for the dead, except in the case of the priest’s own family, -father, mother, brother, unmarried sister, son, or daughter. That is, with the exception of these cases, the priest, though he may mourn in his heart, is to take no part in any of those last offices which others render to the dead. This were "to profane himself." And while the above exceptions are allowed in the case of members of his immediate household, even in these cases he is specially charged ( Leviticus 21:5 ) to remember, what was indeed elsewhere forbidden to every Israelite, that such excessive demonstrations of grief as shaving the head, cutting the flesh, etc., were most unseemly in a priest. These restrictions are expressly based upon the fact that he is "a chief man among his people," that he is holy unto God, appointed to offer "the bread of God, the offerings made by fire." And inasmuch as the high priest, in the highest degree of all, represents the priestly idea, and is thus admitted into a peculiar and exclusive intimacy of relation with God, having on him "the crown of the anointing oil of his God," and having been consecrated to put on the "garments for glory and for beauty," worn by none other in Israel, with him the prohibition of all public acts of mourning is made absolute ( Leviticus 21:10-12 ). He may not defile himself, for instance, by even entering the house where lies the dead body of a father or a mother! These regulations, at first thought, to many will seem hard and unnatural. Yet this law of holiness elsewhere magnifies and guards with most jealous care the family relation, and commands that even the neighbour we shall love as ourselves. Hence it is certain that these regulations cannot have been intended to condemn the natural feelings of grief at the loss of friends, but only to place them under certain restrictions. They were given, not to depreciate the earthly relationships of friendship and kindred, but only to magnify the more the dignity and significance of the priestly relation to God, as far transcending even the most sacred relations of earth. As priest, the son of Aaron was the servant of the Eternal God, of God the Holy and the Living One, appointed to mediate from Him the grace of pardon and life to those condemned to die. Hence he must never forget this himself, nor allow others to forget it. Hence he must maintain a special, visible separation from death, as everywhere the sign of the presence and operation of sin and unholiness; and while he is not forbidden to mourn, he must mourn with a visible moderation; the more so that if his priesthood had any significance, it meant that death for the believing and obedient Israelite was death in hope. And then, besides all this, God had declared that He Himself would be the portion and inheritance of the priests. For the priest therefore to mourn, as if in losing even those nearest and dearest on earth he had lost all, were in outward appearance to fail in witness to the faithfulness of God to His promises, and His all-sufficiency as his portion. Standing here, will we but listen, we can now hear the echo of this same law of priestly holiness from the New Testament, in such words as these, addressed to the whole priesthood of believers: "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me"; "Let those that have wives be as though they had none, and those that weep as though they wept not"; "Concerning them that fall asleep sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." As Christians we are not forbidden to mourn; but because a royal priesthood to the God of life, who raised up the Lord Jesus, and ourselves looking also for the resurrection, ever with moderation and self-restraint. Extravagant demonstrations of sorrow, whether in dress or in prolonged separation from the sanctuary and active service of God, as the manner of many is, are all as contrary to the New Testament law of holiness as to that of the Old. When bereaved, we are to call to mind the blessed fact of our priestly relation to God, and in this we shall find a restraint and a remedy for excessive and despairing grief. We are to remember that the law for the High Priest is the law for all His priestly house; like Him, they must all be perfected for the priesthood by sufferings; so that, in that they themselves suffer, being tried, they may be able the better to succour others that are tried in like manner. {2Co 1:4 Heb 2:18} We are also to remember that as priests to God, this God of eternal life and love is Himself our satisfying portion, and with holy care take heed that by no immoderate display of grief we even seem before men to traduce His faithfulness and belie to unbelievers His glorious all-sufficiency. The holiness of the priesthood was also to be represented visibly in the marriage relation. A priest must marry no woman to whose fair fame attaches the slightest possibility of suspicion, -no harlot, or fallen woman, or a woman divorced ( Leviticus 21:7 ); such an alliance were manifestly most unseemly in one "holy to his God." As in the former instance, the high priest is still further restricted; he may not marry a widow, but only "a virgin of his own people" ( Leviticus 21:14 ); for virginity is always in Holy Scripture the peculiar type of holiness. As a reason it is added that this were to "profane his seed among his people"; that is, it would be inevitable that by neglect of this care the people would come to regard his seed with a diminished reverence as the separated priests of the holy God. From observing the practice of many who profess to be Christians, one would naturally infer that they can never have suspected that there was anything in this part of the law which concerns the New Testament priesthood of believers. How often we see a young man or a young woman professing to be a disciple of Christ, a member of Christ’s royal priesthood, entering into marriage alliance with a confessed unbeliever in Him. And yet the law is laid down as explicitly in the New Testament as in the Old, {1Co 7:39} that marriage shall be only "in the Lord"; so that one principle rules in both dispensations. The priestly line must, as far as possible, be kept pure; the holy man must have a holy wife. Many, indeed, feel this deeply and marry accordingly; but the apparent thoughtlessness on the matter of many more is truly astonishing, and almost incomprehensible. And the household of the priest were to remember the holy standing of their father. The sin of the child of a priest was to be punished more severely than that of the children of others; a single illustration is given ( Leviticus 21:9 ): "The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, shall be burnt with fire." And the severity of the penalty is justified by this, that by her sin "she profaneth her father." From which it appears that, as a principle of the Divine judgment, if the children of believers sin, their guilt will be judged more heavy than that of others: and that justly, because to their sin this is added, over like sin of others, that they thereby cast dishonour on their believing parents, and in them soil and defame the honor of God. How little is this remembered by many in these days of increasing insubordination even in Christian families! The priestly holiness was to be manifested, in the second place, in physical, bodily perfection. It is written ( Leviticus 21:17 ): "Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God." And then follows ( Leviticus 21:18-20 ) a list of various cases in illustration of this law, with the proviso ( Leviticus 21:21-23 ) that while such a person might not perform any priestly function, he should not be debarred from the use of the priestly portion, whether of things "holy" or "most holy," as his daily food. The material and bodily is ever the type and symbol of the spiritual; hence, in this case, the spiritual purity and perfection required of him who would draw near to God in the priests’ office must be visibly signified by his physical perfection; else the sanctity of the tabernacle were profaned. Moreover, the reverence due from the people toward Jehovah’s sanctuary could not well be maintained where a dwarf, for instance, or a humpback, were ministering at the altar. And yet the Lord has for such a heart of kindness; in kindly compassion He will not exclude them from His table. Like Mephibosheth at the table of David, the deformed priest may still eat at the table of God. There is a thought here which bears on the administration of the affairs of God’s house even now. We are reminded that there are those who, while undoubtedly members of the universal Christian priesthood, and thus lawfully entitled to come to the table of the Lord, may yet be properly regarded as disabled and debarred by various circumstances, for which, in many cases, they may not be responsible, from any eminent position in the Church. In the almost unrestrained insistence of many in this day for "equality," there are indications not a few of a contempt for the holy offices ordained by Christ for His Church, which would admit an equal right on the part of almost any who may desire it, to be allowed to minister in the Church in holy things. But as there were dwarfed and blinded sons of Aaron, so are there not a few Christians who-evidently, at least to all but themselves - are spiritually dwarfs or deformed; subject to ineradicable and obtrusive constitutional infirmities, such as utterly disqualify, and should preclude, them from holding any office in the holy Church of Christ. The presence of such in her ministry can only now, as of old, profane the sanctuaries of the Lord. The next section of the law of holiness for the priests {Lev 22:1-16} requires that the priests, as holy unto Jehovah, treat with most careful reverence all those holy things which are their lawful portion. If, in any way, any priest have incurred ceremonial defilement, -as, for instance, by an issue, or by the dead, -he is not to eat until he is clean ( Leviticus 21:2-7 ). On no account must he defile himself by eating of that which is unclean, such as that which has died of itself, or has been torn by beasts ( Leviticus 21:8 ), which indeed was forbidden even to the ordinary Israelite. Furthermore, the priests are charged that they preserve the sanctity of God’s house by carefully excluding all from participation in the priests’ portion who are not of the priestly order. The stranger or sojourner in the priest’s house, or a hired servant, must not be fed from this "bread of God"; not even a daughter, when, having married, she has left the father’s home to form a family of her own, can be allowed to partake of it ( Leviticus 21:12 ). If, however ( Leviticus 21:13 ), she be parted from her husband by death or divorce, and have no child, and return to her father’s house, she then becomes again a member of the priestly family, and resumes the privileges of her virginity. All this may seem, at first, remote from any present use; and yet it takes little thought to see that, in principle, the New Testament law of holiness requires, under a changed form, even the same reverent use of God’s gifts, and especially of the holy Supper of the Lord, from every member of the Christian priesthood. It is true that in some parts of the Church a superstitious dread is felt with regard to approach to the Lord’s Table, as if only the conscious attainment of a very high degree of holiness could warrant one in coming. But, however such a feeling is to be deprecated, it is certain that it is a less serious wrong, and argues not so ill as to the spiritual condition of a man as the easy carelessness with which multitudes partake of the Lord’s Supper, nothing disturbed, apparently, by the recollection that they are living in the habitual practice of known sin, unconfessed, unforsaken, and therefore unforgiven. As it was forbidden to the priest to eat of those holy things which were his rightful portion, with his defilement or uncleanness on him, till he should first be cleansed, no less is it now a violation of the law of holiness for the Christian to come to the Holy Supper having on his conscience unconfessed and unforgiven sin. No less truly than the violation of this ancient law is this a profanation, and who so desecrates the holy food must bear his sin. And as the sons of Aaron were charged by this law of holiness that they guard the holy things from the participation of any who were not of the priestly house, so also is the obligation on every member of the New Testament Church, and especially on those who are in official charge of her holy sacraments, that they be careful to debar from such participation the unholy and profane. It is true that it is possible to go to an extreme in this matter which is unwarranted by the Word of God. Although participation in the Holy Supper is of right only for the regenerate, it does not follow, as in some sections of the Church has been imagined, that the Church is therefore required to satisfy herself as to the undoubted regeneration of those who may apply for membership and fellowship in this privilege. So to read the heart as to be able to decide authoritatively on the regeneration of every applicant for Church membership is beyond the power of any but the Omniscient Lord, and is not required in the Word. The Apostles received and baptised men upon their credible profession of faith and repentance, and entered into no inquisitorial cross-examination as to the details of the religious experience of the candidate. None the less, however, the law of holiness requires that the Church, under this limitation, shall to the uttermost of her power be careful that no one unconverted and profane shall sit at the Holy Table of the Lord. She may admit upon profession of faith and repentance, but she certainly is bound to see to it that such profession shall be credible; that is, such as may be reasonably believed to be sincere and genuine. She is bound, therefore, to satisfy herself in such cases, so far as possible to man, that the life of the applicant, at least externally, witnesses to the genuineness of the profession. If we are to beware of imposing false tests of Christian character, as some have done, for instance, in the use or disuse of things indifferent, we are, on the other hand, to see to it that we do apply such tests as the Word warrants, and firmly exclude all such as insist upon practices which are demonstrably, in themselves always wrong, according to the law of God. No man who has any just apprehension of Scriptural truth can well doubt that we have here a lesson which is of the highest present day importance. When one goes out into the world and observes the practices in which many whom we meet at the Lord’s Table habitually indulge, whether in business or in society, -the crookedness in commercial dealings and sharp dealing in trade, the utter dissipation in amusement, of many Church members, -a spiritual man cannot but ask, Where is the discipline of the Lord’s house? Surely, this law of holiness applies to a multitude of such cases; and it must be said that when such eat of the holy things, they "profane them"; and those who, in responsible charge of the Lord’s Table, are careless in this matter, "cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, when they eat their holy things" ( Leviticus 21:16 ). That word of the Lord Jesus certainly applies in this case: {Mat 18:7} "It must needs be that occasions of stumbling come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!" The last section of the law concerning priestly holiness {Lev 22:17-33} requires the maintenance of jealous care in the enforcement of the law of offerings. Inasmuch as, in the nature of the case, while it rested with the sons of Aaron to enforce this law, the obligation concerned every offerer, this section ( Leviticus 22:17-25 ) is addressed also ( Leviticus 22:18 ) "unto all the children of Israel." The first requirement concerned the perfection of the offering; it must be ( Leviticus 22:19-20 ) "without blemish." Only one qualification is allowed to this law, namely, in the case of the free-will offering ( Leviticus 22:23 ), in which a victim was allowed which, otherwise perfect, had something "superfluous or lacking in his parts." Even this relaxation of the law was not allowed in the case of an offering brought in payment of a vow; hence Malachi, {Mal 1:14} in allusion to this law, sharply denounces the man who "voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing." Leviticus 22:25 provides that this law shall be enforced in the case of the foreigner, who may wish to present an offering to Jehovah, no less than with the Israelite. A third requirement ( Leviticus 22:27 ) sets a minimum limit to the age of a sacrificial victim; it must not be less than eight days old. The reason of this law, apart from any mystic or symbolic meaning, is probably grounded in considerations of humanity, requiring the avoidance of giving unnecessary suffering to the dam. A similar intention is probably to be recognised in the additional law ( Leviticus 22:28 ) that the cow, or ewe, and its young should not both be killed in one day; though it must be confessed that the matter is somewhat obscure. Finally, the law closes ( Leviticus 22:29-30 ) with the repetition of the command {Lev 7:15} requiring that the flesh of the sacrifice of thanksgiving be eaten on the same day in which it is offered. The slightest possibility of beginning corruption is to be precluded in such cases with peculiar strictness. This closing section of the law of holiness, which so insists that the regulations of God’s law in regard to sacrifice shall be scrupulously observed, in its inner principle forbids all departures in matter of worship from any express Divine appointment or command. We fully recognise the fact that, as compared with the old dispensation, the New Testament allows in the conduct and order of worship a far larger liberty than then. But, in our age, the tendency, alike in politics and in religion, is to the con-. founding of liberty and license. Yet they are not the same, but are most sharply contrasted. Liberty is freedom of action within the bounds of Divine law; license recognises no limitation to human action, apart from enforced necessity, -no law save man’s own will and pleasure. It is therefore essential lawlessness, and therefore is sin in its most perfect and consummate expression. But there is law in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Because the New Testament lays down but few laws concerning the order of Divine worship, it does not follow that these few are of no consequence, and that men may worship in all respects just as they choose and equally please God. To illustrate this matter: It does not follow, because the New Testament allows large liberty as regards the details of worship, that therefore we may look upon the use of images or pictures in connection with worship as a matter of indifference. If told that these are merely used as an aid to devotion, -the very argument which in all ages has been used by all idolaters, -we reply that, be that as it may, it is an aid which is expressly prohibited under the heaviest penal sanctions in both Testaments. We may take another present day illustration, which, especially in the American Church, is of special pertinence. One would say that it should be self-evident that no ordinance of the Church should be more jealously guarded from human alteration or modification than the most sacred institution of the sacramental Supper. Surely it should be allowed that the Lord alone should have the right to designate the symbols of His own death in this most holy ordinance. That He chose and appointed for this purpose bread and wine, even the fermented juice of the grape, has been affirmed by the practically unanimous consensus of Christendom for almost nineteen hundred years; and it is not too much to say that this understanding of the Scripture record is sustained by the no less unanimous judgment of truly authoritative scholarship even today. Neither can it be denied that Christ ordained this use of wine in the Holy Supper with the most perfect knowledge of the terrible evils connected with its abuse in all ages. All this being so, how can it but contravene this principle of the law of holiness, which insists upon the exact observance of the appointments which the Lord has made for His own worship, when men, in the imagined interest of "moral reform," presume to attempt improvements in this holy ordinance of the Lord, and substitute for the wine which He chose to make the symbol of His precious blood, something else, of different properties, for the use of which the whole New Testament affords no warrant? We speak with full knowledge of the various plausible arguments which are pressed as reasons why the Church should authorise this nineteenth-century innovation. No doubt, in many cases, the change is urged through a misapprehension as to the historical facts, which, however astonishing to scholars, is at least real and sincere. But whenever any, admitting the facts as to the original appointment, yet seriously propose, as so often of late years, to improve on the Lord’s arrangements for His own Table, we are bold to insist that the principle which underlies this part of the priestly law of holiness applies in full force in this case, and cannot therefore be rightly set aside. Strange, indeed, it is that men should unthinkingly hope to advance morality by ignoring the primal principle of all holiness, that Christ, the Son of God, is absolute and supreme Lord over all His people, and especially in all that pertains to the ordering of His own house! We have in these days great need to beseech the Lord that He may deliver us, in all things, from that malign epidemic of religious lawlessness which is one of the plagues of our age; and raise up a generation who shall so understand their priestly calling as Christians, that, no less in all that pertains to the offices of public worship, than in their lives as individuals they shall take heed, above all things, to walk according to the principles of this law of priestly holiness. For, repealed although it be as to the outward form of the letter, yet in the nature of the case, as to its spirit and intention, it abides, and must abide, in force unto the end. And the great argument also, with which, after the constant manner of this law, this section closes, is also, as to its spirit, valid still, and even of greater force in its New Testament form than of old. For we may now justly read it in this wise: "Ye shall not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among My people: I am the Lord that hallow you, that have redeemed you by the cross, to be your God." Leviticus 22:21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. elete_me Leviticus 7:11-34 THE PEACE OFFERING Leviticus 3:1-17 ; Leviticus 7:11-34 ; Leviticus 19:5-8 ; Leviticus 22:21-25 IN chapter 3 is given, though not with completeness, the law of the peace offering. The alternative rendering of this term, "thank offering" (marg. R.V), precisely expresses only one variety of the peace offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any one word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception of this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the familiar term which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be made clear in the. sequel, it was the main object of this offering, as consisting of a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial meal, to express the conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship with God as secured by the shedding of atoning blood. Like the burnt offering and the meal offering, the peace offering had come down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not explicitly named, in Genesis 31:54 , on the occasion of the covenant between Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of their covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exodus 18:12 , where "Jethro took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God." Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the burnt offering, confined to the line of Abraham’s seed. Indeed, scarcely any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been more universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially connected with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of this sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are {Exo 32:6} how the people, having made the golden calf, worshipped it with peace offerings, and "sat down to eat and to drink" at the sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace offering; while in 1 Corinthians 10:1-33 , Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as common among the idolaters of Corinth. It hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such facts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than in the general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen nations. Rather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the expression on the part of man of a sense of need and want, especially, in this case, of friendship and fellowship with God; and, seeing that the conception of a sacrifice culminating in a feast was, in truth, most happily adapted to symbolise this idea, surely it were nothing strange that God should base the ordinances of His own worship upon such universal conceptions and customs, correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might directly or indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to speak, is thus already found existing, whether in letters or in symbols, why should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar symbolism, which, because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for that reason, far less likely to be understood? The plan of chapter 3 is very simple; and there is little in its phraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the offering of peace offerings, first, from the herd ( Leviticus 3:1-5 ); then, from the flock, whether of the sheep ( Leviticus 3:6-11 ) or of the goats ( Leviticus 3:12-16 ). After each of these three sections it is formally declared of each offering that it is "a sweet savour," "an offering made by fire," or "the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord." The chapter then closes with a prohibition, specially occasioned by the directions for this sacrifice, of all use by Israel of fat or blood as food. The regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the offering differ from those for the burnt offering in allowing a greater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a male; though recorded instances of the observance of the peace offering indicate that the male was even here preferred when obtainable. The offering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however, mentioned as permissible, as in the case of the burnt offering. But this is no exception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since these were excluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial meal, for which, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient. Ordinarily, the victim must be without blemish; and yet, even in this matter, a larger liberty was allowed {Lev 22:23} in the case of those which were termed "freewill offerings," where it was permitted to offer even a bullock or a lamb which might have "some part superfluous or lacking." The latitude of choice thus allowed finds its sufficient explanation in the fact that while the idea of representation and expiation had a place in the peace offering as in all bloody offerings, yet this was subordinate to the chief intent of the sacrifice, which was to represent the victim as food given by God to Israel in the sacrificial meal. It is to be observed that only such defects are therefore allowed in the victim as could not possibly affect its value as food. And so even already, in these regulations as to the selection of the victim, we have a hint that we have now to do with a type, in which the dominant thought is not so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our representative, as Christ the Lamb of God, the food of the soul, through participation in which we have fellowship with God. As before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in all, six, each of which, in the peace offering, has its proper place. Of these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the laying on of the hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood, are precisely the same as in the burnt offering, and have the same symbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt offering and the peace offering, the innocent victim typified the Lamb of God, presented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as an atonement for sin through substitutionary death: and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar signifies in this, as in the other, the application of that blood Godward by the Divine Priest acting in our behalf, and thereby procuring for us remission of sin, redemption through the blood of the slain Lamb. In the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial meal, the peace offering stands in strong contrast with the burnt offering. In the burnt offering all was burned upon the altar; in the peace offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed directions which are given in the case of each class of victims are intended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal in which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for each, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim, the particular is added, according to King James’s version, "the whole rump"; but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected t