Leviticus 17
OGCLeviticus 17:1-9
**II. CONTINUANCE IN COMMUNION WITH GOD 17:1-26:46 A. HOLINESS ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE 17:120:27
- HOLINESS IN REGARD TO FOOD 17:1-16 a. EVERY MEAL A SACRIFICE 17:1-9 TEXT 17:1-9**
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2
Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them: This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded, saying,
3
What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp,
4
and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto Jehovah before the tabernacle of Jehovah: blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:
5
to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them unto Jehovah, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace-offerings unto Jehovah.
6
And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a sweet savor unto Jehovah.
7
And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
8
And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice,
9
and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it unto Jehovah; that man shall be cut off from his people.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 17:1-9
Moses is instructed to include many more in his instructions from God than usual. Why?
What a very severe penalty for only killing an animal in the wrong place! Is this all that is involved?
God solved the problem of idolatry and harlotry in one action. Explain that action.
Why specify a peace offering? Why not a burnt offering or a sin offering? Surely a trespass offering would have been appropriate.
Are we to understand from Leviticus 17:7 that every meal of beef, lamb or goat was first slain at the temple throughout the history of Israel? Discuss.
Was it reasonable to ask strangers and sojourners to also observe this law?
This chapter begins the second section of the book. It is not the same as the first. What is the difference?
PARAPHRASE 17:1-9
The Lord gave to Moses these additional instructions for Aaron and the priests and for all the people of Israel: Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, lamb, or goat anywhere except at the Tabernacle is guilty of murder and shall be excommunicated from his nation. The purpose of this law is to stop the people of Israel from sacrificing in the open fields, and to cause them to bring their sacrifices to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle, and to burn the fat as a savor the Lord will appreciate and enjoy. For in this way the priest will be able to sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tabernacle, and to burn the fat as a savor the Lord will appreciate and enjoyinstead of the people’s sacrificing to evil spirits out in the fields. This shall be a permanent law for you, from generation to generation. I repeat: Anyone, whether an Israelite or a foreigner living among you who offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice anywhere other than at the entrance of the Tabernacle, where it will be sacrificed to the Lord, shall be excommunicated.
COMMENT 17:1-9
Leviticus 17:1-5 We begin in these verses the second major section of the Book of Leviticus. All the previous Chapter s discussed the public or national sacrifices made by the priests on behalf of the peopleor attendant matters. In Chapter s 17 to 26 we will consider the daily life of these children of Jacob. Perhaps it is because of the personal content of what follows that as God spoke to Moses He included not only Aaron but all the children of Israel. The problem of these verses does not appear until Leviticus 17:5. Sad and strange as it may seem the worship of idols and immorality was so widespread that God had to claim possession of the meat used for daily food. The reason being that if He didn-’t claim it, it would be offered to the demon gods in the open fields. The three potential sacrificial animals, i.e.: ox, lamb or goat, must not be killed in the open field or even in the outer court of the tabernacle, but only at the door of the tent of meeting on the north side of the altar of burnt offering. Even if such animals were going to be used for the common meal they must first be offered as a sacrifice to God. Under penalty of death this commandment must be kept. When God can control our diet under penalty of death He is going to have a large claim on our lives.
Leviticus 17:6-9 The use of the little phrase no more offer their sacrifices to goat-like gods or demons in Leviticus 17:7 indicates the already serious nature of their sin. How difficult it is for us to understand the faithlessness of these people. These animal deities were obvious carry-overs from Egypt. Had they not yet learned the emptiness and meaninglessness of these gods? When sex orgies are associated with the worship of such deities such strong desires would not be easy to ignore. Even if many did not associate the miraculous with their worship they would be drawn to the shrine to meet the prostitute or to become one. We do wonder about the demons or supposed demons involved. What or who were they? Ginsburg supplies quite a study on this subject. He says:
The word (seirim) here translated devils, literally denotes hairy or shaggy goats, and then goat-like deities, or demons. The Egyptians, and other nations of antiquity, worshipped goats as gods. Not only was there a celebrated temple in Thmuis, the captial of the Mendesian Nomos in Lower Egypt, dedicated to the goat-image Pan, whom they called Mendes, and worshipped as the oracle, and as the fertilizing principle in nature, but they erected statues of him everywhere. Hence the Pan, Silenus, satyrs, fauns, and the woodland gods among the Greeks and Romans; and hence, too, the goat-like form of the devil, with a tail, horns, and cloven feet, which obtain in medieval Christianity, and which may still be seen in some European cities. The terror which the devil, appearing in this Pan-like form, created among those who were thought to have seen him, has given rise to our expression panic. This is the form of idolatrous worship which the Jews brought with them from Egypt, and to which reference is continually made. (See Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:7; Ezekiel 23:3, etc.; and especially 2 Chronicles 11:15.) The expression and they shall no more offer shows that the Israelites were hitherto in the habit of first dedicating their ordinary food to these deities; whilst the words gone a whoring indicate the orgies connected with this form of idol worship. It has been urged that the demand to offer up, in so confined a space as the entrance of the sanctuary, the domestic animals intended for the daily consumption of more than 600,000 people, imposed a task upon the people which it was impossible for them to carry out. Hence it has been urged that the injunction here (Leviticus 17:2-7) must refer to sacrifices. But this difficulty arises from importing our modern notions into the ancient mode of living. The ancient Israelites, like the modern Orientals, especially the nomadic tribes, ate very little flesh meat apart from the seasons of sacrifice, which were the occasions of feasting. Besides, those who urge this difficulty ignore the fact that the injunction before us is restricted to the three kinds of animals; that none of the wild clean guadrupeds, as stags, roes, etc., nor any of the feathered tribes, as pigeons, turtle-doves, etc., which formed an essential part of the daily diet, is here included; and that even the three kinds of sacrificial quadrupeds only come within this restriction when they are qualified by age, which was within two years, and by physical condition, which demanded that it should have no external defect.
FACT QUESTIONS 17:1-9
What is the one distinctive difference in the two major divisions of Leviticus?
Why was it necessary to make every meal an act of worship?
Why hadn-’t Israel yet learned that an idol is nothing?
There was a strong attraction to idol worship. What was it?
Pan was worshipped as a god. Discuss how and why.
How answer the objection that 600,000 people could not bring their sacrifices to the door of the tent of meeting?
Leviticus 17:10-14
PROHIBITION OF BLOOD IN THE PEOPLE’S DIET 17:10-14 TEXT 17:10-14
10
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.
12
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who taketh in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14
For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 17:10-14
Compare Ezekiel 33:25 and show how it relates to this section.
Just what is involved in the atonement for our souls found in the blood? Cf. Romans 3:24-26.
Does this regulation still stand for today? i.e. eating blood?
What else would a hunter do but pour out the blood of a deer or antelope? Why cover it with dust?
God really must have meant this regulation, i.e. judging from the times it is repeated. Is this a fair conclusion?
PARAPHRASE 17:10-14
And I will turn My face against anyone, whether an Israelite or a foreigner living among you, who eats blood in any form. I will excommunicate him from his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given you the blood to sprinkle upon the altar as an atonement for your souls; it is the blood that makes atonement, because it is the life. That is the reasoning behind My decree to the people of Israel, that neither they, nor any foreigner living among them, may eat blood. Anyone, whether an Israelite or a foreigner living among you, who goes hunting and kills an animal or bird of a kind permitted for food, must pour out the blood and cover it with dust, for the blood is the life. That is why I told the people of Israel never to eat it, for the life of every bird and animal is its blood. Therefore, anyone who eats blood must be excommunicated.
COMMENT 17:10-14
Leviticus 17:10-14 This is the third time we have read of the prohibition of the eating of blood. In the other two references it is associated with the fat which belongs to God (Cf. Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26). Since Israel was held responsible for those under their roofs (at least temporarily) even strangers, visitors or sojourners are involved in this regulation. It is a serious matter to have the face of God set against us. What is the cause? Why such a stringent punishment? It is because what is represented and contained in the bloodboth of man and of animals. The life or soul is in the bloodboth of man and of beast. God is making a substitutethe life or soul of the animal for the life or soul of the man. To disregard or treat lightly this important entity is to call common what God has called sacred. Perhaps a study of the triune nature of man will help in our understanding of the biblical fact that the blood is the carrier of the self-conscious portion of man’s nature:
(1)
BODY:
Made of dust, corruptible and subject to decay. Man’s body is mortal or deathable. It is to return to the dust. It is the outer man. The tabernacle in which we live for this brief sojourn called life. This is the outward house of the spirit and the soul.
(2)
SOUL:
Man’s self-consciousness. It is formed in or by the unity of the spirit and the body. This is man’s individuality, i.e., what makes him different from every other person. Our parents provide our body. God provides the spirit. When the two (body and spirit) unite, the result is you. A living life unique and wondrously made. You are one of a kind.
(3)
SPIRIT:
Our parents produced our bodies but God is the Father of the spirits of all flesh. As our bodies partake of the physical likeness and image of our parents, so our spirits partake of the likeness or image of God. We are His offspring (Acts 17:28). All the capacities of man are capacities of His spirit since God is alive in the same sense we are, and has given us of Himself.
The crucial decision is whom will ye serve, your spirit or your soul? i.e. will you decide to worship God or mammon? You are God related thru your spirit and this-world related thru your soul. Will you be soulish or spiritual?
The strangers are also prohibited eating blood because they have submitted to the law of the land, and because their eating it would not only infringe the law which they have voluntarily adopted, but would lessen the horror with which such indulgence was regarded by the Jews. (Cf. Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25)
FACT QUESTIONS 17:10-14
Blood is usually associated with what other portion of the animal? Why?
Was it reasonable to ask strangers to submit to the laws of Israel? Discuss.
Define the triune nature of man and show how the soul or the blood is involved.
Leviticus 17:15-16
PROHIBITION OF EATING ANIMALS NOT KILLED BY MAN 17:15-16 TEXT 17:15-16
15
And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a sojourner, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.
16
But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 17:15-16
It is just as important to wash and bathe as it is to not eat. Why?
What is meant by bearing his own iniquity?
PARAPHRASE 17:15-16
And anyonenative born or foreignerwho eats the dead body of an animal that dies of itself, or is torn by wild animals, must wash his clothes and bathe himself and be defiled until evening; after that he shall be declared cleansed. But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe, he shall suffer the consequence.
COMMENT 17:15-16
Leviticus 17:15-16 Every possible circumstance in which man would be tempted to eat blood is covered. Supposing we find an animal in the forest who has just been killed by another animal? or has strangled itself? Since the blood has coagulated in its veins and arteries it is unclean and must not be eaten. Such a carcass could be and should be given to the dogs (Cf. Exodus 22:31). God is very serious about this regulation as can be observed in the following examples: 1 Samuel 14:32-35; Ezekiel 4:14.
We would imagine that the stranger here mentioned could have been in reference to the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt and joined the Jewish community. The comment of Ginsburg is instructive inasmuch as much of his comments are based upon an extensive use of the documents used in the Temple service at the time of our Lord. He says: If he (i.e. the stranger) ate any of it unwittingly, he had not only to wash his garments, but immerse his whole body in water, and be excluded from the sanctuary till sundown. If he neglects those acts of purification, and enters the sanctuary in a defiled state, or partakes of the sacrificial meal, he is to incur the penalty of excision for the former act, and to be beaten with stripes for the latter, according to the interpretation of this law given in the time of Christ.
FACT QUESTIONS 17:15-16
Eating of blood was a very serious offense. Cite examples to prove this point.
Who was the stranger in the camp of Israel?
Was immersion practiced in the time of Leviticus? Discuss.