§ b 1:1–17 The Holocaust and its Ritual—The first kind of sacrifice is the holocaust or whole burnt-offering (see § 183a). The victim could be of the bovine or ovine species, provided it was male and without blemish. Other domestic animals and wild animals could not be offered. For a list of disqualifying physical defects of the victims, see Lev 22:17–25; cf. also Deut 15:21, 22; 17:1; Mal 1:8. The offerer led the victim to the entrance of the tabernacle and there laid his hands on the head of the victim thus symbolically identifying himself with it and signifying his adoration, gratitude, etc., which made the sacrifice acceptable to God (4). The opinion held by St Thomas (1, 2, q. 102, a. 3 ad 5), Médebielle, 142, and others that the imposition of hands represented symbolically the transference of the offerer’s sins to the victim which consequently incurred the death penalty (penal substitution), is less probable. Expiation was common to all forms of sacrifice (Lev 17:11), though it was more strongly felt in connexion with sin-offerings. § c After the imposition of hands the offerer himself slays the victim, skins it, cuts it into pieces, cleans the entrails and the legs, and hands it over to the priests who place it over the wood burning upon the altar after having poured the blood round over the altar. The victim is burnt entirely, except the hide which is assigned to the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). The sacrificial burning is expressed in Heb. by the verb hiqṭîr which, used in a liturgical sense, means ‘to burn the victim in such a way as to make it exhale an odour of incense’ (C. Lattey, The Book of Malachy, in W1853V, xx f.). God’s acceptance of the sacrifice is expressed anthropomorphically by the sweet agreeable odour rising up from the burnt victim; cf. Gen 8:21. The expression ‘a sweet savour’, originally ‘a soothing odour’, has become a technical term denoting the divine pleasure or the divine acceptance.
If the victim is a sheep or goat the ritual is the same as for oxen, except that the northern side is chosen (11) for greater convenience. Of birds only turtle-doves and pigeons could be offered. The ritual, naturally, is slightly different. 15. ‘The priest shall offer it at the altar, wring off its head and burn it upon the altar.’ 17. ‘He shall break the pinions thereof without dividing it (into parts) and shall burn it upon the altar.’ The Levitical law allowed the offering of birds only in cases of poverty; cf. 5:7–10; 12:6–8. Even a small offering is accepted by God when it comes from a sincere heart.
§ d 2:1–16 Bloodless Offerings and their Ritual—These were brought as an accompaniment to animal sacrifice, cf. 8:26–28; 9:17; 23:13, 18; Num 6:15; 28:5; etc. They consisted of fine flour and oil prepared in different ways, and frankincense put on, but not mixed with, them. A portion of the offering and all the incense was burnt on the altar. This portion was called ‘the memorial’ (2) because with its sweet odour it reminded God of the offerer. The rest which, after having been presented to God, had become most sacred, fell to the officiating priest. The sacredness of these offerings made it unlawful for laymen to partake of them (6:14–18). It is not without significance that bread was the commonest material of bloodless offerings in the Hebrew ritual. Oil and salt were used as ingredients in the sacrificial offering, while wine was generally offered with an animal sacrifice or bread (Os 9:4). No other meal offerings were brought on the altar. The typical relation of the sacrificial meal of the OT to. the Eucharistic meal of the New Law is obvious.
It was forbidden to make an offering of leavened e bread or of honey on the altar. Fermentation was associated with corruption and putrefaction, and honey is liable to ferment. In the NT leaven is the symbol of evil (Mt 16:6–12; Mk 8:15; Lk 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6–8; Gal 5:9). Leavened bread and honey could be presented to God only as offerings of firstfruits and, in the case of leavened bread, as a part of the sacrificial meal, but were never burnt on the altar, cf. 7:13; 23:17; 2 Par 31:5. Salt was an indispensable ingredient in all sacrificial offerings. It had a twofold use: it rendered the sacrificial meal, as any ordinary meal, more palatable, and it symbolized the inviolability of God’s covenant with his people, hence the expression ‘a covenant of salt’ to designate a permanent and inviolable bond, cf. 2 Par 13:5 and Num 18:19. The origin of the expression goes back to the nomadic custom which regarded those who have partaken of the same meal or taken salt together as united by a bond (W. R. Smith, 270 f).
§ f Cereal-offerings could be made not only as an accompaniment to an animal offering but also as an offering of firstfruits. This was their ritual. The ears of the new corn were dried at the fire and rubbed till the grain was separated from the husks. The grain was then ground and sifted, oil was poured upon it and frankincense added. The ‘memorial’ was burnt upon the altar and the rest was eaten by the priests. Though the law here mentions only the firstfruits of corn, in Num 18:13 and Neh 10:37 it covers all the land produce. In the latter cases the ritual was different.
§ g 3:1–17 The Peace-offering and its Ritual—Of all forms of sacrifice this bears the closest analogy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Its distinguishing feature was the sacrificial meal of which both the priest and the offerer partook after a portion of the victim had been burnt on the altar (Lev 7:11–21).
The victim could be of the ox, sheep or goat kind, male or female, but without blemish. The first part of the ceremonial is similar to that of the holocaust. The following fatty parts were burnt upon the altar: the fat covering the entrails and the fat connected therewith, the two kidneys, and the fat connected therewith near the loins, the caul of the liver detached from above the kidneys, and the whole tail if the victim was a sheep. These were burnt not as a separate holocaust, as V1854g seems to imply (5), but with and upon the perpetual holocaust (6:12). The reason for the burning of these parts was either that they were regarded as a special delicacy and therefore to be reserved to God, or because the intestines, especially the kidneys and the liver, were considered by the Hebrews as the seat of life and emotion and therefore to be reserved to God like the blood. The first opinion is preferable. The Heb. ḥēleḇ ‘fat’ is used not infrequently to designate the choicest part of the products of the land (Gen 45:18; Num 18:12, 29; Deut 32:14; etc.). Moreover although the kidneys and the liver are sometimes considered as the seats of emotion (Job 19:27; Ps 15:7; 72:21; Lam 2:11; cf. P. Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en Hébreu et en Akkadien [Paris, 1923] 128–33), these internal organs become the symbol of an insensible and unresponsive heart when they are represented as enveloped by fat (Ps 16:10; 118:70). When the fat parts had been consumed on the altar, the rest was eaten by the priest and the offerer (7:11–33).
§ h 4:1–6:7 Expiatory Sacrifices and their Ritual—Sins are either expiable or inexpiable. Expiable sins are those committed through human frailty or through ignorance or inadvertence; these are atoned for by a sin-offering if they are sins of human frailty, and by a trespass-offering if they are sins of ignorance; cf. P. P. Saydon, Sin-offering and trespass-offering, CB1855Q, (1946) 393–8. Inexpiable sins are punishable by death or excommunication (Lev 7:25; 17:9, 10; 19:8; 20:3; etc.). See also § 183c.
§ 185a 4:1–12 Expiatory Offerings for the High-Priest—If the high-priest commits a sin through ignorance involving the whole people in his sin (A. Vaccari, Il Pentateuco, 153), he shall bring a young bull to the Lord for the expiation of his sin and slay it at the entrance of the tabernacle. The characteristic features of the ritual of this sacrifice are the disposal of the blood and the consumption by fire of the victim outside the camp. Since blood was regarded as the seat of life (Lev 17:11), the sprinkling of blood towards the veil, which concealed the inaccessible throne of God, and the smearing of the horns of the altar were a symbolical representation of the sinner crying before God for mercy and forgiveness and for the re-establishment of friendly relations with him. No part of the flesh could be eaten either by the priest or by the people, everyone being ceremonially unclean (2). Nor could the victim be burnt on the altar because it was not a holocaust. St Paul draws a parallel between the victim of the expiatory offering burnt outside the camp and Christ who suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem (Heb 13:12).
§ b 13–21 Expiatory Offering for the Community—13 f. are, for syntactical reasons, translated thus: ‘If the whole community of Israel sins through ignorance by doing something which the Lord commanded not to be done, and the thing is concealed from the eyes of the assembly, they are guilty; and when the sin becomes known to them, the assembly shall bring.…’ This is a material transgression of the law which must be expiated when it becomes known to the offender. The only difference in ritual from that described in 3–12 is that the rite of the imposition of hands is performed by the elders as representatives of the people. The identity of the ritual is a clear indication that the sin of the high-priest and that of the community were considered to be of equal gravity. 20b. ‘And the priest will expiate for them.’ Some sort of prayer may have formed part of the expiatory ritual.
§ c 22–26 Expiatory Offering for a Ruler—22 is translated on the same syntactical lines as 13 f.: ‘If a prince sins by inadvertently doing something which the Lord, his God, commanded not to be done, he will incur guilt, and when he comes to know his sin, he shall bring.…’ The sin of a chief of a tribe being considered to be of a lesser gravity than that of the whole people the expiation is obviously simpler. The victim is a he-goat without blemish. The ritual is like that in 13–21. But no blood is brought inside the sanctuary. The fat is burnt on the altar, and what remains of the victim is eaten by the priests (6:25 f.).
§ d 27–35 Expiatory Offering for an ordinary Israelite—27 is also translated according to the same syntactical rules implied in 13, 22: ‘If a man of the land sins inadvertently by doing something that the Lord commanded not to be done, he will incur guilt, and when he comes to know his sin, he shall offer.…’ The victim is either a she-goat or a ewe-lamb. The ritual is the same as that described in 24–26.
§ e 5:1–13 Expiatory Sacrifices for Special Sins—This section specifies some particular offences for which an expiation is required. In ch 4 the expiation is considered in relation to the social condition of the offender; in 5:1–6:7 it is considered in relation to the offence. It is possible that all the sins enumerated in this section are sins of ignorance, though this is not expressly stated for all.
The first case (1) is that of a person who, having heard the curse uttered on an unknown offender, fails to reveal what he knows (cf. Humm. 383 who cites Jg 17:2 and Prov 29:24). He is guilty because he hinders the execution of justice. But as such reticence is generally due either to fear of vengeance or to an imperfect sense of duty, his sin is practically comparable to an unintentional sin.
The second case (2, 3) is that of a person who inadvertently touches the dead body of an unclean animal or an unclean person or something which man has rendered unclean. In all these cases such a person is really unclean. On unclean animals, see Lev 11 and on human uncleanness Lev 12–15.
The third case (4) is that of a person who swears rashly. A rash oath is a sin and needs expiation.
§ f When a person, who has committed any one of the sins mentioned above, becomes conscious of his sin, he must first confess his sin (5). Then he shall bring for his sin-offering a lamb or a goat as in the cases contemplated in 4:27–35. The ritual is the same as in similar expiatory sacrifices. If, however, the offender is not able to provide either a lamb or a goat, he shall offer two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a holocaust. But if he cannot provide even two turtle-doves or two pigeons, he shall bring as a sin-offering the tenth part of an ephah (1856c 7 pints; see § 82j and A.R.S. Kennedy, HD1857B, art. Weights and Measures, IV, 912) of fine flour without oil and frankincense which were excluded from all sin-offerings (Num 5:15). The ritual is that prescribed in 2:2, 3. A characteristic feature of the ritual of these expiatory sacrifices is the confession of the offender’s sin accompanying the rite of imposition of hands. The confession of sins is expressly prescribed in this case (cf. Num 5:7) and in the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:21), but very probably it was a feature common to all expiatory sacrifices; cf. F. Zorell in V1858D 1 (1921) 35.
§ g 5:14–6:7 Expiatory Sacrifices for Sins of Fraud against God and Man—When a person unlawfully retains or withholds what is due to God or to man, he shall offer an expiatory sacrifice, make good the damage caused to God or man and moreover pay a fine amounting to one-fifth of the value of the property unlawfully retained or withheld.
First case, 15–16. A person who inadvertently fails to present such things as are claimed by Yahweh, such as tithes and firstfruits, shall offer a ram without blemish worth as many shekels (15) as the priest considers due by the standard shekel of the sanctuary (= 2s 9d, cf. A. R. S. Kennedy, HD1859B, art. Money, III, 421–23). He shall also restore in full God’s property and an additional fifth part of its value. These payments were made to the priests, God’s representatives. On tithes and firstfruits, see Lev 27:30–33; Num 15:16–21; 18:8–24; 28:26; Deut 14:22–29; 15:19–23; 26:1–15.
Second case, 17–19. It does not appear to what particular case of fraud this article of law refers. Humm. (p 387), following St Augustine, believes that the offences referred to in 17 are those made against the temple, the priests and the holy vessels, for which no restitution was required. One fails to see the reason for this distinction. A. Vaccari, 156, distinguishes between sins of omission (15) and sins of commission (17). But in this case the offering of a ram would hardly be enough. It is probable that 17–19 do not refer to any particular case, but contain a general statement which receives further determination in the cases contemplated in 6:1–7.
Third case 6:1–7. If a person withholds a deposit or a pledge or extorts something by force, or finds a thing that has been lost and denies it, and swears falsely that he has committed none of these acts of injustice, he has incurred guilt and shall give back in full to its rightful owner the thing itself together with one fifth of its value. And for his expiation he shall bring a ram without blemish of a certain value.
§ 186a 6:8–7:38 Supplementary Regulations concerning the Various Sacrifices.
8–13 The holocaust—Apart from private holocausts and those offered publicly on festivals, the law prescribed that two holocausts should be offered daily, one in the morning and the other in the evening (Ex 29:38–42; Num 28:3–8). It is the daily evening holocaust that the law refers to in 6:9. It was offered ‘between the two evenings’ (Num 28:4), that is, according to later Jewish practice, between the afternoon and the evening (Jos. Ant1860.1861 14, 4, 3 ‘about the ninth hour’, i.e. 3 pm; cf. also Edershei1862m, 116). This holocaust is to be kept burning on a slow fire all night. As many sacrifices were offered during the day, the law, by this prescription of a night-long sacrifice, provided that there should not be a single moment in which a sacrifice was not offered to God, foreshadowing in this manner the sacrifice of the New Law which is offered at all times in all parts of the world. The fire on the altar must never be allowed to go out, and the priests must take care to put on fresh wood every morning. According to 9:24 this perpetual fire had a miraculous origin. It signifies God’s perpetual presence among his people and has its Christian counterpart in the oil lamp continually burning in our Churches before the Blessed Sacrament.
§ b 14–18 Meal Offerings—Cf. ch 2. They are presented through the ministry of the priests but not necessarily on their own account. The ritual is that prescribed in ch 2. They must be eaten in the tabernacle and cannot be taken away. As holiness is considered to be communicable through contact, any person or thing that touches the sacred oblations becomes holy and must have the holiness washed out by means of certain ablutions before returning to the ordinary business of life (cf. M.-J. Lagrange, 149; W. R. Smith, 446). Only the male descendants of Aaron could eat of them.
§ c 19–23 The High-Priest’s Oblation—According to later Jewish practice the high-priest, at his own expense, offered an oblation twice a day. It was made of flour mingled with oil and gently baked by the fire; he brought the half of it to the fire in the morning, and the other half at night (Jos. Ant1863.1864 3, 10, 7). The words ‘in the day of their anointing’ (20) very probably must be taken in the sense of ‘On that day and onwards’. For a similar meaning of the expression ‘in the day of’, cf. 7:35. Vaccari, 157, restricts the meaning of the word ‘perpetual’ (Heb. tāmîḏ) to the seven days of the priestly ordination ceremony (Ex 29:35; Lev 8:33). But the word tāmîḏ is a technical term denoting the daily perpetual sacrifice. As this oblation was made by the high-priest, it could not be consumed either by himself or the priests, who were inferior to him, and therefore it had to be entirely burnt.
§ d 24–30 The Sin-offering—It was a most holy offering and was therefore to be eaten in a holy place, i.e. in the court of the tabernacle. The officiating priest naturally called other priests to share in the sacred meal, as is implied in 29, because it was impossible that any one man could consume such a quantity of meat in one meal. Its holiness could be communicated through contact; see § 186b. The regulation concerning the sacred meal did not apply to the cases when blood was brought inside the sanctuary (4:1–21) and to the expiatory sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.
§ e 7:1–7 The Trespass-offering—There is a close similarity between the ritual of the sin-offering and that of the trespass-offering. The words ‘the same shall be the law of both these sacrifices’ (7) must be restricted to the concluding part of the verse, that is, in both sacrifices what remains of the victim belongs to the officiating priest.
§ f 8–10 Priests’ Dues from Other Offerings—The skin of the burnt-offering belonged to the ministrant. In the Carthaginian table of sacrificial fees the skin is also assigned to the priest (G. A. Cooke, A Text-book of North Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903, 123), but at Marseilles it went to the offerer (Cooke, 112). As regards the meal-offerings a distinction is made between cooked offerings, as those mentioned in 2:4–10, and uncooked offerings, whether mingled with oil or dry, as those specified in 2:14–17 and 5:11. The former went to the officiating priest, the latter were divided between all the sons of Aaron in equal portions. The reason for this different assignment was that the uncooked offerings were usually so abundant that they could not be consumed by one man (Crampon, 367).
§ g 11–21 The Peace-offering—The Levitical liturgy distinguishes three kinds of peace-offerings, or rather three reasons for which peace-offerings are brought: (i) thank-offerings or ‘sacrifices of praise’ (Ps 49:14, 23; Ps 106:22); (ii) vow-offerings made in fulfilment of a vow (Ps 60:9; 65:13, 14); (iii) free-will offerings (Ps 53:8). There are some slight differences in the ritual of these various offerings. If it is a thank-offering, the offerer is to bring, besides the victim (omitted by V1865g), unleavened cakes mingled with oil, unleavened wafers smeared with oil and fine flour well mixed and made into cakes mingled with oil. He shall also bring leavened bread which, however, is not presented on the altar (2:11), but is simply handed over to the priest and is intended for the sacrificial meal. The offerer presents one of each kind of cakes as a contribution (14) to Yahweh which goes to the priest who pours the blood of the victim. The remaining cakes go to the offerer. After the sacrifice has been offered, that is, after the portions reserved to the Lord have been burnt on the altar and the priest has taken his share of the flesh and the cakes, the offerer together with his relatives and friends sits at meal in the neighbourhood of the sanctuary. The whole of the flesh must be consumed on that day. In the case of vow-and free-will offerings the flesh may be eaten also on the following day. Only one day was allowed for the consumption of the thank-offering probably because the occasion being certainly a happy one, the offerer had to invite a number of guests such as would consume the whole of the flesh in one day and at the same time add to the festive character of the sacred meal. § h But vow-and free-will offerings were more of a private matter; there was no special reason for rejoicing and the flesh therefore could be consumed by fewer guests and in a longer time. But in no case was it permissible to eat the flesh on the third day. If any flesh was left over after the second day, it was to be burnt. Any eating on the third day rendered the sacrifice unacceptable, and in the case of a vow-offering the offerer would have to offer another sacrifice. Sacrificial meat could not be eaten after the second day because after the second day the flesh begins to go bad and becomes unfit for consumption. Such is the sanctity of the sacrificial meat that if it is brought into contact with anything that is unclean, it cannot be eaten but must be burnt; and if it is eaten by an unclean person, that person shall be cut off from his people. The expression ‘to be cut off from one’s people’, used in a religious sense, is a technical expression for excommunication or exclusion from all the privileges and blessings granted by God to the Israelites. But in some cases the death penalty is meant.
§ i 22–27 The Use of the Fat and Blood of Animals—This is an abridged repetition, with some new details, of the regulations in ch 3 concerning the use of fat and blood. In ch 3 it is laid down that specified fatty parts of the peace-offering are to be burnt upon the altar; here it is forbidden to eat these parts, whether the animal (ox, sheep or goat) is killed as a sacrifice or for human consumption. They must always be brought before the Lord. In the case of other animals killed for human consumption it is not said what use the Israelites could make of the fat. As the Levitical legislator is concerned solely with the sacred offerings, this omission is easily accounted for. In the case of an animal, ox, sheep or goat, which dies of itself or is torn by some beast, it was allowed to make use of the fat but not to eat it. The prohibition of blood is more general. It extends to quadrupeds and fowls, and no distinction is made whether they are killed as sacrifice or for human consumption, or whether they die a natural death or are torn by a beast. Any person who transgresses either of these laws shall be excommunicated; cf. 21. See also Lev 17:10–14.
§ j 28–34 The Priests’ share of the Peace-offering—It has been said above (12–14) that a portion of the oblation accompanying the peace-offering went to the priest. Now the law specifies which parts of the peace-offering itself fell to the priest. 29–32. ‘He who offers to the Lord his peace-offering, shall bring an offering of his sacrifice to the Lord. His own hands shall bring the fire-offering of the Lord; he shall bring the fat with the breast—the breast to be waved before the Lord. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons. And you shall give the right thigh of your peace-offerings as a contribution to the priest.’ These verses supplement the ritual prescribed in ch 3. After having slain the victim, the offerer takes the fat and the breast upon his hands and carries them before the Lord, that is, to the altar. There the priest takes the fat to burn on the altar. Whether some ritual was prescribed for the presentation of the fat is not apparent, but in 8:26 f. the fat is said to be waved before the Lord.
§ k The rite of waving, which is certainly prescribed for the breast of the victim, consisted in swinging the offering towards the altar and back again with the hands of the offerer resting upon the hands of the priest. The forward motion was a symbolical declaration that those portions were given to God, while the backward motion signified that the gift was returned by God and assigned to his representative, the priest. This ceremony was so characteristic of certain offerings that the word tenûp̱āh ‘waving’ became a liturgical term denoting a wave-offering in general, or, in particular, the breast of the wave-offering (10:15). Another due of the priests was the right thigh of the victim, Heb. terûmāh ‘a lifting up’, hence what is separated from the rest and raised up as a contribution. Probably the terûmāh was a liturgical rite with a religious significance analogous to that of the waving rite. Compare the analogous rite of the Offertory in the Mass.
§ l Although the Levitical law expressly assigned to the priests the breast and the right thigh of all peace-offerings, usage may have varied from time to time. The Deuteronomic law gives the priest ‘the shoulder, the two cheeks and the stomach’ (18:3). From 1 Kg 2:13 ff. it appears that priests claimed more than the shoulder and the right thigh.
§ m 35–36 Conclusion—This is the conclusion of the section 6:8–7:34 dealing with the priestly dues. The Heb. word for ‘anointing’ in 35 (A1866V and R1867V anointing-portion) should very probably be rendered ‘fixed or measured portion’, the Heb. word mišḥāh, which literally means ‘anointing’, being probably related to Assyrian mašāḥu ‘to measure’, mašîḥu ‘specific measure’ of grain, dates, etc. (Muss-Arnolt, A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language.) The word occurs again with the same meaning in Num 18:8. For D1868V ‘in the ceremonies’ read with Heb. ‘from the fire-offering’. This right the priests begin to enjoy from the day of their priestly ordination, and they will continue to enjoy it for ever as the Lord has commanded; see chh 8–10.
§ n 37–38 General Conclusion—These verses are very probably a general conclusion of the whole section dealing with sacrifice (chh 1–7), though the order in which the various sacrifices are enumerated in 37, holocaust, oblation, sin-offering, trespass-offering, consecration-offering and peace-offerings agrees with 6:8–7:34 more than with chh 1–6.
§ 187a 2 Institution of the Aaronic Priesthood (chh 8–10)—It is difficult to establish the chronological sequence of this section and the law of sacrifice (chh 1–7). The two are interrelated. The sacrificial legislation requires the priestly service and, on the other hand, the institution of the priesthood presupposes the existence of an organic body of sacrificial laws. The Israelites, even before the Sinaitic legislation, had their own sacrificial system (Ex 3:12, 18; 5:1, 3; etc.) which was further developed when the priesthood became a permanent institution.
§ b 8:1–36 The Consecration of Aaron and his Sons—The instructions given in Ex 29 are here carried into effect. As the account of the consecration agrees almost verbally with Ex 29, we shall limit ourselves to a brief exposition of the ceremony referring the reader to the commentary on Exodus for a fuller explanation.
§ c 1–4 Introduction = Ex 29:1–3—Moses, accompanied by the congregation of Israel, leads Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tabernacle carrying with him the sacred vestments, the anointing oil, the young bull for the sin-offering, the two rams and the basket of unleavened bread. The anointing oil is not mentioned in Ex 29:1–3 but in 7. The congregation has no part in Ex 29.
§ d 5–6 The Washing = Ex 29:4—Bodily cleanliness as a sign of internal purity is an indispensable condition before approaching the altar.
§ e 7–9 The Vesting = Ex 29:5, 6—The Urim and Thummim, D1869V ‘Doctrine and Truth’, are not mentioned in Ex 29:5, 6 but in Ex 28:30.
§ f 10–12 The Anointing of the Tabernacle and Aaron—The anointing of the tabernacle and the sacred vessels is prescribed in Ex 30:26–28 and 40:9–11, but not in Ex 29. There is hardly any reason for rejecting 10b, 11 as an interpolation. The anointing of the tabernacle and that of Aaron are probably independent of each other and may have been prescribed on different occasions, but in point of fact they can hardly be separated as we cannot conceive of a consecrated tabernacle without consecrated priests and vice versa. For 12 cf. Ex 29:7.
§ g 13 The Vesting of Aaron’s Sons=Ex 29:8, 9.
§ h 14–17 The Sin-offering=Ex 29:10–14—The ritual is that prescribed in Lev 4:4–12, with the omission of the sprinkling of blood against the veil and the smearing of the horns of the altar of incense. In 15b it is expressly stated that the smearing of the horns of the altar of holocausts with blood had the effect of purifying, literally ‘removing the sin from’, the altar and sanctifying it. This sin-offering, unlike that of Lev 4:1–12, is not intended to expiate any particular sin or sins of Aaron’s, but only as an indispensable requisite of holiness demanded of all the ministers of the altar.
§ i 18–21 The Holocaust=Ex 29:15–18—The ritual is that prescribed in Lev 1:10–13. After having purified and sanctified himself by the sin-offering, Aaron devotes himself entirely to God’s service offering a holocaust.
§ j 22–32 The Ram of Consecration=Ex 29:19–34—This sacrifice is called ‘the consecration sacrifice’ (22, 28, 29) on account of the occasion on which it was offered. The Heb. word for consecration here is millûʾîm, which is derived from the verb millēʾ ‘to fill’, which gave rise to the expression millēʾ yāḏ lit1870. ‘to fill the hand’ and as a liturgical expression ‘to confer the power, to institute to a priestly office’ hence ‘to consecrate’. Therefore millûʾîm is ‘institution to the priesthood, consecration’. But the fundamental idea conveyed by the word is the conferment of a certain power; cf. P. Joüon in B1871i (1922) 64–6. Though the occasion of the sacrifice gives it a special character, certain features, such as the apportionment of the priestly dues, make it resemble a peace-offering.
§ k When Moses, who on that occasion held the office of the officiating high-priest, had slain the second ram, he smeared with its blood the tip of Aaron’s right ear, the thumb of his right hand and the great toe of his right foot, afterwards applying the blood to Aaron’s sons in the same manner. The smearing of these organs with blood signified that ‘the ear must be attentive to the commands of God, the hand ready to do his will, the foot prepared to walk in his ways’, Chapman-Streane, 48. Then Moses poured the rest of the blood round over the altar and took the fat, the right thigh, one unleavened cake, one cake of oiled bread and one wafer, putting the cakes upon the meat and placing everything on the hands of Aaron and his sons and then waving them before the Lord. Afterwards Moses took back all these things and burnt them on the altar, upon the burning holocaust as a sweet odour to the Lord. Then he waved the breast before the Lord and appropriated it as his priestly due. According to Lev 7:32 the right thigh too is reserved to the officiating priest, but Moses’ portion was the breast only, the reason probably being that when priests were numerous it was but natural that they should have a more substantial share of the sacrifice, but when Moses alone could partake of the sacred meal a smaller portion may have been considered sufficient. § l The sacrifice being over, Moses sprinkled Aaron and his sons and their garments with oil and blood. The sprinkling with oil, though in strict conformity with the injunctions of Ex 29:21, raises some difficulties. There is no apparent reason why Aaron should be sprinkled with oil after having been anointed (12), nor is it clear whether there was only one sprinkling with blood and oil mingled together, or two separate sprinklings. The difficulty would disappear if we removed from the text of Ex 29:21 and Lev 8:30 the words ‘the anointing oil’ as an interpolation, but the excision is hardly justified.
Aaron and his sons having thus received investiture as God’s ministers, it was natural that they should rejoice before the Lord. Accordingly Moses ordered them to cook what remained of the second ram and to eat it together with the remaining bread.
§ m 33–36 Duration of the Consecration Ceremony—Cf. Ex 29:35–37. The ceremony described above was to be repeated for seven consecutive days. During this time they were to abide at the entrance of the tabernacle performing the special service prescribed to them. It was only after seven days of uninterrupted preparations in the seclusion of the tabernacle that the priests were entirely purified and became fit to perform their priestly duties.
§ n 9:1–24 The Inauguration of Aaron’s Priestly Service—The day after the seven days’ consecratory ceremonies Aaron assisted by his sons solemnly offered his first sacrifices. From this time onward Moses no longer exercises any priestly function, all ecclesiastical powers being concentrated in Aaron and his successors. Aaron first offered his own expiatory sacrifice with the ritual prescribed in 4:4–12, with the exception of the imposition of hands and the sprinkling of the blood against the veil. It must be remarked that Aaron had not yet been solemnly introduced into the inner sanctuary. After the holocaust, offered with the same ritual as in 1:10–13, there followed the sacrifices of the people. Aaron brought first the he-goat (15), ‘and offered it as sin-offering, as the first one’. The oblation was burnt upon the altar (17), ‘besides the morning holocaust’. The last words are an allusion either to the holocaust which had been burnt that very morning or to the daily perpetual holocaust (Ex 29:38–42; Num 28:3–8). In the latter case either the words are a later gloss or the account was written when the morning sacrifice had become a regular feature of the divine service.
§ o God’s acceptance of the first sacrifices was manifested by a heavenly sign. Aaron, having performed all the sacrificial service, lifted up his hands and blessed the people, probably in the manner prescribed in Num 6:22–26, descended from the altar and went into the tabernacle with Moses. Probably Moses by introducing Aaron into the inner sanctuary, but not into the Holy of Holies, vested him with further priestly rights. This ceremony may be compared with the solemn entry of a new bishop into his Cathedral Church and his enthronement. It is not excluded that Moses and Aaron in the tabernacle prayed God that he might manifest his glory to the people. When they came out, they blessed the people and the glory of the Lord appeared in the sight of all in the form of a fire consuming all the offerings upon the altar. For a similar manifestation of God’s acceptance of a sacrifice cf. Jg 6:21; 3 kg 18:38; 1 Par 21:26; 2 Par 7:1. As Aaron had already set fire to the several offerings, it is probable that the heavenly fire only accelerated the consumption of the victims.
§ 188a 10:1–7 The First Priestly Transgression and its Punishment—It is not clear what the sin of Aaron’s sons was. It was certainly irreverence connected with fire and incense-offering. It is commonly held that Nadab and Abiu made use of fire that was not taken from the altar. But the expression ‘a strange fire’ probably means a fire-offering made against the regulations, therefore an irregular fire-offering, a fire-offering made not in the manner that was commanded. The irregularity may have been in the quality of the fire, the composition of the incense (Ex 30:9), the time and place of the offering. In any case it was irreverence which could not be left unpunished. The punishment was fatal. A fire like a flash of lightning struck them dead. for similar punishments cf. Num 11:1; 16:35; 4 Kg 1:12. The death penalty may have appeared disproportionate to the fault, but Moses justified the severity of the punishment on the ground of God’s sanctity. God being holy, those who approach him must be holy. Any unholiness in his ministers would be reflected upon him and must therefore be punished with due severity in the presence of all the people. Moses here quoted God’s words, but we cannot say on what occasion God pronounced them. The dead bodies of Nadab and Abiu were instantly removed and buried outside the camp. Aaron and his surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, were strictly forbidden to show any sign of mourning, which, however, was allowed to other relatives and the whole people. The reason for this prohibition is given in Num 19:11–22. Later legislation was less strict as it permitted the priests, but not the high-priest, to mourn for their closest relatives; cf. 21:1–6, 10–12.
§ b 8–11 The Priests forbidden to drink Wine—The close connexion between this prohibition and the episode of Nadab and Abiu gave rise to the tradition that drunkenness during the divine service was the sin of the two priests. The priests, the only persons who could approach God and who were the recognized teachers in Israel, had to be perfectly sober both out of due reverence and in order that they might be able to discriminate between what was holy and what was not holy, between what was clean and what was unclean, and to teach the people all the laws given by God to Moses.
§ c 12–15 The Portions reserved to the Priests—This passage is supplementary to the narrative relating the offering of Aaron’s first sacrifice (ch 9). Aaron and his sons are commanded to eat the unleavened cakes left over from the oblation, and the breast and the right thigh of the peace-offerings. These oblations being most holy must be eaten in a holy place, beside the altar, while the other portions were to be eaten in a clean place. Only the sons of Aaron had a right to a portion of the oblation (6:18), his daughters being allowed to share in the peace-offerings only. For the persons who were entitled to a share in the priestly portions, see 22:11–13.
§ d 16–20 The Sin-offering not eaten by the Priests—Besides his own sin-offering (9:8), Aaron offered also a he-goat as a sin-offering for the people (9:15). The first was entirely burnt as prescribed (4:4–12), of the other a portion was to be eaten by the priest (6:26). Contrary to the prescriptions of 6:26 the sin-offering of the people was completely burnt. Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar and rebuked them because they had not eaten the holy place. He put forward two reasons: (i) God has given you a portion of the sin-offerings that you might, by eating it, expiate the sins of the people. The eating is a complementary part of the whole sacrificial ritual which is acceptable to God only if the several constituent actions are properly performed. (ii) No blood was brought into the sanctuary, a portion of the victim was therefore to be reserved to the priest (6:26). Aaron answers for his sons as the only person responsible. He justifies his action by expressing his doubts about God’s acceptance of his partaking of the sin-offering. His sons’ sin-offering and their holocaust could not avert the calamity which had befallen him. How could he therefore hope that his eating the victim would propitiate God? D1872V gives another meaning: ‘How could I eat … having a sorrowful heart?’ But the words ‘having a sorrowful heart’ are not in Heb.
§ 189a B. Laws of Purification and Atonement (chh 11–16).
1 Uncleanness and its Removal (chh 11–15)—In the Levitical legislation uncleanness denotes the state of a person who, on account of certain actions not necessarily sinful, cannot approach God. Both this person and the cause of his condition are said to be unclean. Uncleanness is generally external, not necessarily involving any transgression of the moral law, and therefore its removal too was an external ceremony reinstating the unclean person in his former condition. The study of anthropology has shown that the distinction between cleanness and uncleanness and the religious notions underlying the distinction are very widespread and far older than the Hebrew people. Some of these ideas and practices were taken over by the nomadic Israelites and were later sanctioned by God in so far as they were not inconsistent with monotheistic belief and as a means to train the Israelites to higher standards of moral cleanness. The moral and religious motive of the cleanness-laws is clearly stated in 11:44: ‘Be holy because I am holy.’ On the subject of Cleanness and Uncleanness, see M.-J. Lagrange, 141–57; W. R. Smith, 446–56.
§ b 11:1–47 Clean and Unclean Food—The distinction between clean and unclean animals is based on sanitary grounds, on a sense of natural aversion and, to some extent, on religious considerations, certain animals having idolatrous and superstititious associations. A parallel list of unclean animals is given in Deut 14:3–20. For a comparison, see Driver, Deuteronomy, in IC1873C, 156–9.
§ c 1–8 Beasts=Deut 14:3–8—The criterion whereby animals are judged ‘clean’ is that they must ‘have the hoof divided and chew the cud’. According to this criterion the camel is pronounced unclean because it camel is pronounced unclean because it chews the cud but has not the hoof divided. For the same reason the rock-badger (D1874V cherogrillus) and the hare are unclean because they do not divide the hoof although they move the jaws like ruminants. The pig is unclean for the opposite reason. The swine was forbidden food to the Semites and an abomination to the Jews (2 Mac 6:18 f.). Uncleanness, like holiness, could be transmitted by contact, and an unclean could be transmitted by contact, and an unclean person had to be temporarily separated from all social intercourse until he was purified. Contact with a living unclean animal was not forbidden, otherwise the Israelites would have been deprived of their ordinary means of conveyance, the camel and the ass.
§ d 9–12 Fishes=Deut 14:11–18—The criterion of cleanness for aquatic animals is that they must have ‘fins and scales’. No application of this general principle to particular cases is made either in Lev or in Deut.
§ e 13–19 Birds = Deut 14:9 f.—The principle underlying the classification of these birds as unclean is that they are mostly birds of prey feeding on carrion. some of the birds enumerated are of doubtful identification.
§ f 20–23 Winged Insects=Deut 14:19, 20—All flying insects having four feet are classed with unclean animals except those that have two posterior legs of greater strength and length for leaping, such as certain kinds of locusts which may be eaten; cf. Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6.
§ g 24–28 Uncleanness by Contact—As uncleanness is communicable by contact, whoever carries or touches, even inadvertently, the carcass of an unclean animal defiles himself and remains defiled till the evening. Contact with a dead unclean animal was believed to be dangerous whereas contact with a living unclean animal was not; cf. § 189c.
§ h 29–38 Uncleanness caused by Reptiles, etc.—The uncleanness produced by reptiles is restricted to contact with their corpses as they were never used as food. Three ways of dealing with such uncleanness are here indicated. (i) The uncleanness adheres to the surface and can be washed away by water (32). (ii) The uncleanness penetrates into the thing itself which must therefore be destroyed (33–35). (iii) The uncleanness cannot be removed and may therefore be disregarded (36, 37).
§ i 39, 40 Contact with the Corpse of a Clean Animal—This rule is meant to supplement the law concerning the contact with dead animals (24–28). By ‘dead animal’ is meant an animal which dies a natural death.
§ j 41–47 Conclusion—This is a regulation supplementary to 29–31 and the conclusion of the whole section on the prohibition of unclean food. The ultimate reason why the Israelites must guard themselves against any uncleanness is the Lord’s holiness and his relation to the Israelites. Yahweh is the God of the Israelites, and the Israelites are his people. Fellowship with God implies a certain likeness to him, or imitation of his perfections. The Israelites must be holy because their God is holy. This is a fundamental principle of Christian life enunciated in almost the same terms by Jesus Christ: ‘Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Mt 5:48).
§ k 12:1–8 Purification after Childbirth—The origin of life, which could not be explained naturally, was attributed by all primitive peoples to mysterious powers acting on woman. Generation was therefore always looked upon with superstititious awe, and women after childbirth were tabooed all the world over (cf. 1875*J.C. Frazer, Taboo and the Perils of the Soul, 191418763 [The Golden Bough, III] 147 ff.; also Humm., 435). But the Levitical law has also a religious significance. God is the source of life, and a holocaust is accordingly offered him in recognition of the origin of a new life from him. The sin-offering (6, 8) does not imply that childbirth or conjugal intercourse were considered morally sinful. The only inference is that the mother after childbirth is ceremonially unclean, and atonement has to be made by a sin-offering (Humm., 437). Sin-offerings were also prescribed for other ceremonial uncleannesses; cf. 14:19, 22; 15:15, 30.
§ l 1–4 The Birth of a Male—If a woman gives birth to a male, she is unclean for seven days, as in her courses, and is therefore subject to the restrictions specified in 15:19–24. For the next thirty-three days she continues to purify herself, the only restriction being abstention from holy things and the sanctuary. The number thirty-three has no other value but that of a remainder of forty after subtracting seven. Seven and forty are two symbolical round numbers indicating two stages in the period of recovery from childbirth.
§ m 5 The Birth of a Female—In this case the two periods of seven and thirty-three are doubled. The reason may be either the popular belief that the birth of a girl is physiologically more dangerous for her mother and therefore requires a longer period of convalescence, or the opinion that, as woman was the first to bring sin into the world, the birth of a female should impose on her mother a longer seclusion (Humm., 436; Crampon, 385).
§ n 6–8 The Purification—At the end of the purification period the mother had to bring a lamb in its first year for a holocaust and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering. If she was poor, the law allowed her to bring two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for the holocaust and the other for the sin-offering. The Virgin Mary offered the sacrifice allowed to a poor woman (Lk 2:24).
§ 190a 13–14 Leprosy—Leprosy was a fairly common disease in ancient times. References to it occur in both the OT and the NT, cf. Ex 4:6; Num 12:10; 2 Kg 3:29; 4 Kg 5:1, 27; 7:3; 15:5; Mt 10:8; 11:5; Lk 7:22; etc. But it is doubtful whether the Heb. word ṣāra‘aṯ, LX1877X λέπρα, and V1878g lepra denote always what is now known as leprosy, or are also applied to other skin diseases. In ch 13 various forms are described. The Hebrews always regarded leprosy as a contagious disease and perhaps as a punishment by God, and this explains both the isolation of the diseased and the necessity of ceremonial purification. On leprosy, see 1879*A. R. Bennett, Diseases of the Bible (1887), 15–53; HD1880B, II, 95–9: DB1881V, IV, 175–87.
§ b 13:2–8 First Form of Leprosy—Its symptoms are subcutaneous nodules, scabby patches on the skin, white shining spots. When these symptoms become visible the person affected must be brought before the priest who has to decide on the nature of the disease. If the priest observes that the hair in the affected part has turned white and the swelling has a depressed centre thus appearing deeper than the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean because it is leprosy. If these two distinctive marks are not present, the man is to be secluded for seven days and then examined again. If the disease has not spread, he is to be isolated for another week. If after the second week the symptoms have not spread, and on the contrary the white spots have faded, it is no leprosy, it is only scab or psoriasis, and the priest shall pronounce him clean. As a precautionary measure the man will have to wash his clothes. If however after being declared clean, the symptoms recur with increased intensity, he must appear again before the priest who shall pronounce him unclean.
§ c 9–17 Second Form—Its symptoms are a white tumour on the skin and the hair turned white, with raw flesh in the tumour or ulceration. This is a case of an inveterate leprosy, and the priest shall pronounce the person affected unclean without further examination. If there is only a white efflorescence covering the skin from head to foot, it is not leprosy but some form of psoriasis or scaly cutaneous disease which is neither contagious nor incurable, and the priest shall therefore pronounce him clean. But if there is an ulceration (‘raw flesh’), which must be distinguished from a temporary sore, it is a cast of leprosy, and the person affected must be declared unclean.
§ d 18–28 Third Form—This form of skin disease is characterized by white or reddish elevated patches with central depressions and hair turned white breaking out on the scar of a healed boil. It is a case of leprosy, and the person affected is unclean. But if the eruption is not deep-seated and the surrounding hair has not turned white, if the scar is dim-coloured, the suspected person shall be secluded for seven days, and if the symptoms do not spread, he shall be declared clean. If they spread, it is leprosy and he is unclean. The case of an eruption on the scar of a healed burn is treated in a similar manner.
§ e 29–37 Leprosy in the Hair—This is a skin disease affecting the hairy scalp and characterized by thin yellow hair. It is a contagious disease, and the person affected is unclean. Suspicious cases are to be reexamined after a week’s quarantine. The patient must shave the hair of his head except that on the affected part. If the disease spreads, he is unclean; otherwise, and especially if there is black hair, he must be declared clean.
§ f 38–39 White Spots on the Skin—The disease described here is a form of eczematous, cutaneous affection distinguished by spots of a dull white colour. It is not contagious and produces no uncleanness.
§ g 40–43 Baldness—Baldness is not infectious and produces no uncleanness except when it is complicated by the usual leprous symptoms. Such complicated cases are to be treated as the other cases of leprosy.
§ h 44–46 Seclusion of Lepers—A person pronounced unclean is excluded from the community. He must have his garments rent or open in front, his head unbound and the hair let loose, and the upper lip covered as in mourning, and must warn passers-by not to approach; cf. 4 Kg 7:3; Lk 17:12.
§ i 47–59 Leprosy in Garments—What is meant by this form of leprosy is not clear. The opinion that leprous garments are those worn by lepers is not probable. It is commonly believed that the word ‘leprosy’ is applied to certain greenish and reddish spots in garments caused by mildew on account of their similarity to the leprous symptoms and of their corrosive action and insanitary effects. The treatment is more or less the same as in the case of leprosy in man including isolation of the infected garment, washing and in some cases destruction.
§ j 14:1–32 The Purification of the Leper—Although true leprosy is an incurable disease and no purification will therefore be required, some of the varieties described in ch 13 can be cured. When a diseased person is cured, he must be formally readmitted into the community according to a prescribed ritual. The cleansing ceremony consists of two parts, the removal of the uncleanness (2–9) and the readmission to the community, and consequently to fellowship with God (10–20). When the leper is definitely cured he is brought before the priest. The priest goes to meet him outside the camp and on seeing that he is really healed orders two ‘clean’ live birds, a piece of cedar wood, a scarlet band and a bunch of hyssop to be brought to him. One of the birds is killed over an earthen vessel filled with water from a spring. Then the other bird is dipped in the water mixed with blood together with the cedar wood to which the bunch of hyssop had been tied with the scarlet band. The priest sprinkles the leper seven times with blood and water, pronounces him clean and sets the bird free.
§ k The symbolism of this ceremony is obvious. The sprinkling cleanses; the blood, and the water from a spring, not from a cistern, symbolize the new life which is being imparted to a person hitherto regarded as dead; the setting of the bird free represents release from confinement and reinstatement in civil rights; the cedar is noted for its soundness and medicinal powers; the hyssop, not the hyssopus officinalis L. which does not grow in Palestine, but the caper (capparis spinosa L.) or a kind of marjoram (origanum marjorama L.) was selected for its cleansing properties; the scarlet colour of the band represents the blood of a new life.
§ l When the first purificatory rite has been completed, the person to be cleansed washes his clothes, shaves all his hair and washes himself. He is then admitted into the camp, but must remain for seven days outside his dwelling. On the seventh day he repeats the same ablutions and thus the cleansing process is complete. The next day he shall bring his offerings consisting of two he-lambs, one ewe-lamb in its first year, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil and one log (D1882V sextary) of oil. The first lamb is to be offered as a trespass-offering. The reason for such an offering is that the uncleanness of the leper is considered as an involuntary guilt which has to be atoned for as a sin of ignorance or inadvertence; cf. Saydon, CB1883Q 8 (1946) 307.
§ m The guilt is of a lesser gravity in comparison with those specified in 5:14–6:7, and this is the reason why a lamb and not a ram is offered. The ritual of the sacrifice is substantially identical with that of other trespass-offerings, but is accompanied by additional ceremonies which give the sacrifice its distinguishing feature. The priest, not the offerer as in 7:29–34, waves the lamb together with the log of oil. It may be however that the waving ceremony is performed by the offerer himself assisted by the priest; see note to 7:28–34. The lamb is then slain in the court of the sanctuary as the holocaust and the sin-offering. The smearing of the leper with blood has the same symbolical significance as in the consecration of priests (8:23), the purification of a leper being regarded as a reconsecration to the Lord’s service. The priest next takes the log (1884c one pint) of oil pouring some of it on the palm of his left hand and with the forefinger of his right hand sprinkles it seven times before the Lord, and anoints the blood-smeared parts of the leper. The rest of the oil is poured over the leper’s head. Finally the priest offers the sin-offering and the holocaust according to the prescribed ritual, and the leper is declared clean and free to re-enter his house and to partake of the sacred offerings.
If the leper is poor and cannot provide all these offerings, he shall bring one lamb for the trespass-offering with one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, tempered with oil, one log of oil, and two turtle-doves or two pigeons. The ritual is that prescribed for similar cases.
§ n 33–53 Leprosy in Houses—Certain greenish and reddish patches in the inner walls of a house are called leprosy on account of their similarity to macular leprosy. Their natural cause is damp or decay, but they are represented as a plague inflicted by God. The infected house is examined by the priest who is to order the necessary repairs or its destruction or declare it clean according to the nature and gravity of the infection. It is a sanitary regulation with a religious significance.
§ o 33–42, 46–48 First Case—When the symptoms first become visible, the owner of the house must inform the priest who will inspect the house after all the furniture has been removed. After seven days the priest inspects the house again, and if the spots have spread, the infected stones shall be removed and replaced by new ones, and the inner walls scraped and plastered again. If the infection is thus arrested, the house is clean, (48).
§ p 43–45 Second Case—If after these repairs the discoloured spots reappear, the house shall be demolished.
§ q 49–53 Purification—The rite of purification is similar to that prescribed for the leper (3–7). The setting of the bird free lends support to the opinion that this rite expresses symbolically the carrying away of the uncleanness by the fleeing bird (W. R. Smith, 422).
§ 191a 15:1–33 Sexual Uncleanness and its Purification—Although hygienic considerations and the practice of many ancient peoples may lie at the root of these regulations, it cannot be reasonably doubted that their informing principle is eminently moral and religious. The immediate reason for such purifications is not the sinful character of the actions nor the pathological affections specified in this chapter, but the holiness of God which excludes from his service anything that offends decency.
§ b 1–18 Uncleanness in Men—This is produced: (i) by abnormal seminal emission (2–3); (ii) by a normal emission as in the case of a nocturnal accident (16) [Deut 23:10]; (iii) by lawful sexual intercourse (18).
§ c 19–30 Uncleanness in Women—This is produced: (i) by normal periodical discharges. A woman during her courses is unclean and communicates her uncleanness by contact. The apparent contradiction between 24 and 20:18 is readily removed by supposing that the former deals with lawful conjugal relations and the latter with unlawful sexual relations during the prohibited time. V1885g omits 23 (Heb) which reads thus: ‘If it is the bed or anything on which she sits, he who touches it becomes unclean until the evening’. (ii) By abnormal discharges, that is, those occurring outside the ordinary course or lasting longer than usual. Purification is required on account of God’s presence among his people. The tabernacle is his dwelling-place and anyone approaching the tabernacle with an uncleanness upon him defiles God’s dwelling and deserves punishment.
§ d 2 Ritual of the Day of Atonement (ch 16)—This day holds a prominent place in the Jewish calendar. Both its ritual and its religious significance mark it off from all other festival days and give it a special character which has earned for it, in later Judaism, the name Yoma ‘the Day’, or Yoma Rabba ‘the Great Day’. As regards its religious significance suffice it to remark that the public and solemn expiatory sacrifice is offered by, and for, the whole people collectively. The Israelites are considered as one moral person asking forgiveness for all past offences. And Yahweh thus propitiated continues to look upon his people favourably, although he may be wrathful with individual persons for their private unexpiated sins. Additional regulations are laid down in 23:26–32 and Num 29:7–11. On the ritual and meaning of the festival see Médebielle, 89–114, and art. Expiation in DB1886V (S), especially the bibliography 259–62. The literary problems are discussed by S. Landersdorfer, Studien zum bibl. Versöhnungstag, Münster, 1924.
§ e 16:1 Historical Introduction—The institution is connected with the death of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abiu. But it is difficult to see what this connexion really implies. I may be simply a chronological indication having no logical bearing on the narrative. Some non-Catholic critics believe that ch 16 deals ‘in reality with two subjects, viz. (1) the conditions under which the high-priest might enter the Holy of Holies (see 2), and (2) an atoning ceremony, to be enacted once annually, on behalf of the nation’ (cf. Driver, LO1887T, 47), and that the two ceremonials were imperfectly combined together when the entry into the Most Holy Place came gradually to be restricted to the single annual Day of Atonement. Some Catholic interpreters admit a development in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Landersdorfer, 84; Heinisch, 77–79; Clamer, 122). Without denying the possibility of such development we prefer to consider that the entry into the Holy of Holies and the atoning ceremony were two complementary parts of a single institution. Now considering the close relation between these two actions and the expiatory virtue connected with the blood ritual performed within the Holy of Holies, one can easily understand why the legislator has combined together two apparently distinct ceremonials beginning with the more important one, namely, the entry into the Holy of Holies.
§ f 2–28 The Ritual—The high-priest is forbidden to enter freely at any time into the inner part of the sanctuary within the veil (Ex 26:31–33) lest he should die. It was only on the annual recurrence of this occasion that he was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies; cf. the symbolical interpretation in Heb 9:6–12. Supplementing the biblical narrative by later traditions recorded in the Mishnah (tr. Yoma, English trans. by H. Danby) we can easily reconstruct the whole ceremony. After having offered the daily morning holocaust the high-priest put on the linen garments (4), laid his hands on the head of the young bull brought for his sin-offering and confessed his sins. Two buck-goats were then presented (5), one for a sin-offering on behalf of the people, the other for the atoning ceremony. Two lots bearing the inscriptions ‘For Yahweh’ and ‘For Azazel’ respectively were placed in a casket. The high-priest then shook the casket, drew the two lots, and bound a scarlet thread of wool on the head of the goat for Azazel and another thread about the throat of the goat for Yahweh. The true meaning of the word Azazel, which occurs nowhere else in the OT, is doubtful. Early Jewish tradition identified it with one of the fallen angels (cf. CA1888P II, 191 ff.). Christian writers protest against this interpretation on the ground that what has been presented to the Lord cannot belong to anyone else (see Humm., 461). LX1889X and V1890g break the word up into two parts, ‘ēz ‘goat’ and ’āzal ‘to go away’ and translate [Χἰμαρος] ἀποπομπαῖος, ‘caper emissarius’, whence D1891V ‘emissary goat’ and A1892V ‘[e]scapegoat’. But whatever the etymology, the symbolical meaning is clear; see further on.
§ g After the designation of the two goats (11), the high-priest killed the young bull of his sin-offering for himself and for his family. What follows is the most solemn part of the ceremony and one of its most distinctive features. 12–14. The high-priest took the censer filled with burning coals from the altar and put a handful of frankincense in a cup and went into the sanctuary within the veil. There he burned the incense thus raising a cloud of smoke that concealed the majesty of God from human sight, ‘for man shall not see the Lord and live’ (Ex 33:20). Then after a short prayer-outside the veil he returned (within the veil with a bowl of the slaughtered animal’s blood and sprinkled it upon the propitiatory and in front of it once upwards and seven times downwards. This blood ritual is the essential part of the whole service. Blood has certainly a special expiatory virtue which becomes still greater when it is brought before the presence of God.
§ h 15. He then killed the goat set apart for Yahweh, brought the blood within the veil and sprinkled it as before. He again sprinkled first the blood of the young bull and afterwards the blood of the goat on the veil outside the Holy of Holies. 18–19. After these sprinklings the high-priest mixed the blood of the two animals and smeared the horns of the altar of incense and sprinkled the altar seven times, pouring out what was left of the blood at the base of the altar of holocaust. These blood aspersions had the effect of cleansing the sanctuary, the tabernacle and the altar from the defilement of the priests and the people. The sins of the people, their ceremonial uncleannesses, the transgressions of the priests themselves were considered as contaminating God’s dwelling-place among his people and thus rendering the sacrificial worship unacceptable. A purification was necessary that would restore the temple to its sanctity and secure the forgiveness of sins and fellowship with God.
§ i After the expiatory and purificatory rites the forgiveness and complete destruction of sins was represented dramatically by a characteristic ceremonial. While the scapegoat stood before the people, the high-priest laid his hands on its head and confessed the sins of the people, thus laying them symbolically upon the goat. Then a man appointed for the purpose took the sin-laden goat to an uninhabited place in the wilderness and there let it go, or, according to the Mishnah, pushed it over the rocks from the top of a mountain. There is a similar symbolism in the purification of the leper (14:7). See the spiritual application to Christ made by St Paul in Heb 9.
§ j While the emissary goat was being taken into the wilderness, the high-priest put off his linen garments and arrayed himself in pontifical robes after having washed himself again. He then advanced to the altar and burned his holocaust and that of the people. No sacred meal followed, the young bull and the goat for the sin-offering being completely burnt outside the camp as their blood had been brought into the Holy of Holies (6:30). The man who led the scapegoat into the desert had to wash himself and his clothes, probably because the goat laden with sins was regarded as unclean and producing uncleanness by contact. For a complete description of the ceremonial at the time of Christ see A. Edershei1893m, 263–88.
§ k 29–34 Additional Ordinances and Annual Celebration—The ceremonial described above was instituted as an annual festival to be celebrated on the tenth day of Tishri, the seventh month (= Sept.–Oct.). The reason for this date is not stated. The two numbers ten and seven had a certain sanctity attached to them (1894*E. König in HD1895B, III, 565). Besides attending the service in the temple the Israelites and all resident foreigners had to ‘afflict themselves’ and ‘to abstain from work’. The expression ‘to afflict oneself’ used in a liturgical sense, means ‘to fast’ (Is 58:3–5). This is the only occasion for which fasting is prescribed, although fasting is a very ancient custom and is frequently referred to in the OT; cf. 1 Kg 14:24; 2 Kg 1:12; 12:16; Jer 36:6, 9; etc. An allusion to the fasting of the Day of Atonement is made in Ac 27:9. Abstention from work is not restricted to any particular kind of work. The prohibition is general, ‘thou shalt do no work’ (cf. 23:28–30), and is emphatically expressed in 31 by the alliterative assonant expression šabbaṯ šabbāṯôn ‘absolute rest’.
§ 192a C. The Law of Holiness (chh 17–26).
17:1–16 Regulations concerning the Slaying of Animals for Food and for Sacrifice—These regulations are a fitting introduction to the collection of the laws of holiness. The underlying principle of the whole collection is that the people must be holy because their God is holy. Now the basis and root of holiness is the recognition and exclusive worship of the one true God, and therefore the avoidance of all practices that may lead to idolatry.
§ b 3–7 The Slaughter of Animals fit for Sacrifice—If an Israelite wished to kill any such animal for domestic use, he had to bring it to the priest and present it before the Lord at the entrance of the tabernacle with certain religious rites. Private slaughter was therefore forbidden. This may point to a time when all slaughter of domestic animals was connected with sacrifice. Lagrange, 254, remarks that with the Arabs every immolation was in some way a sacrifice. The reason was that blood, considered as the source of life and as possessing a special atoning efficacy (11), belonged to God alone. Man therefore had no right over blood and consequently animal bloodshed was a crime, punishable by civil excommunication. The animal therefore must be killed at the tabernacle, the blood poured out at the base of the altar and the fat portions burnt on the altar. Another reason for the prohibition of domestic slaughter of animals was the danger of idolatrous and superstitious practices. If the Israelites had been allowed to kill their animals anywhere, they would hardly have resisted the inclination to offer sacrifices to the desert gods in the shape of goats (now called ‘satyrs’, D1896V ‘devils’) whom they worshipped so often. Idolatrous worship, generally involving prostitution, is called in the OT ‘fornication’; cf. Ex 34:15, 16; Deut 31:16; Jg 2:17; 8:27, 33; etc. This was a temporary regulation meant for the time of the desert wanderings. When the people settled down in Canaan, it became impracticable and had to be modified, making the killing of an animal at home permissible (Deut 12:15). The words ‘an ordinance for ever’ mean as long as possible and necessary.
§ c 8–9 The Place of the Sacrifice—All sacrifices, whether holocausts or otherwise, must be made in the tabernacle, and transgressions are punishable by excommunication. This law, unlike the preceding one, binds resident foreigners also and was never abrogated nor modified, but was further developed in Deut 12:5–14.
§ d 10–12 The Use of Blood—The prohibition to eat flesh with blood goes back to Noe’s time (Gen 9:4), and is based on primitive physiological conceptions and on religious grounds. Blood is the seat of life, and as such is best suited for expiation. The relation between expiation and the blood or life of an animal is commonly explained by the substitution theory according to which the blood of an animal is accepted by God as a substitute for man’s life. There is a penal substitution and a substitution which we may call simply symbolical. The supporters of the penal substitution theory explain the expiatory virtue of blood by the supposition that the animal is killed instead of the death-deserving sinner, and the blood of an animal is accepted by God for the blood of man (see Médebielle, 114–65, and more recently in DB1897V (S) art. Expiation). According to the non-penal or symbolical substitution theory the victim stands before God not as a substitute of a death-deserving man but as a concrete expression of the offerer’s internal sentiments of repentance, love, adoration, etc., and the victim’s blood or life is accepted by God as the expression of these sentiments. It is in view of these internal sentiments transferred symbolically to the victim by the imposition of hands that the blood or life becomes an efficacious means of reestablishing normal relations between God and man; see A. Metzinger, Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestamentliche Opfer in B1898i (1940) 159–87, esp. 176 f., 247–72, 353–77. The latter theory seems to me preferable because it can be applied to all forms of sacrifice; but it is by no means excluded that in particular cases an offerer may have expressed by his sacrifice and especially by the imposition of hands his sense of death-guiltiness which he transferred to the victim.
§ e It should be remarked, however, that the theory of penal substitution has no support in 11 which in M1899T reads thus: ‘Because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you (to be brought) upon the altar that you may make atonement (by it) for your lives, because the blood makes atonement by means of the life (which is in it)’. LX1900X has wrongly translated the phrase ‘by means of the life’ as ‘instead of life’, i.e. ‘of your lives’. The offering of blood, therefore, represents the offering of life, and the offering of an animal’s life symbolizes the offering of man’s life. In this sense we may say that the blood of an animal is a substitute for human life.
§ f 13–14 Animals Caught by Hunting—A beast or a fowl that can be eaten but cannot be offered to the Lord, is not brought to the tabernacle, but its blood must be poured out and covered with dust before the flesh is eaten. But in no case is flesh to be eaten with blood.
§ g 15–16 The Eating of Dead Animals—Anyone eating of an animal which dies a natural death or has been torn by a beast becomes unclean and must wash himself and his clothes. As regards the blood, the disposition of 13, 14 must be applied. This law binds both the Israelite and the resident foreigner, but according to Deut 14:21 these foreigners are allowed to eat of an animal which dies a natural death.