Leviticus 17
PATfollows, (Hcb. vii. 26.) is holy, harmless, tindefiled, separate from sinners. r it, as it is required in other places of this book), and not kept together in a vessel, or a hole in the ground, as the manner of the ancient idolatry was, when they offered their sacrifices in the field, and sat about this blood, and feasted upon the flesh of their sacrifice. So Maimonides saith the custom of the Zabii was, (More Xevochim. par. iii. cap. And burn the fat.] So the manner was in all sacrifices: which is said also to be for a sweet savour unto the Lord, (see i. 8, 9. iii. 3. 5. iv. 35, &c.) there appear; but not in cities or habitable places, (See Mr. Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 4. p. 201.) If a man, therefore, saw his neighbour kill a beast, and neglect to cover its blood with dust, he was bound to go and do it himself; because God speaks here unto the children of Israel, L e. to all of them, (ver. 12.) as R, Levi Barzelonita glosses, Proecept, clxxxv. And the forenamed MS., mentioned by AVagenseil, saith, they covered the blood with this form of benediction; " Blessed be the Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath sanctified us with his precepts, and commanded us to cover blood." Which shews they thought. this a precept of great weight.
Leviticus 17:1
JjlND the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. After he had ordered the great anniversary sacrifice, in the foregoing chapter, he gives some directions about other sacrifices, for which there would be occasion every day.
Leviticus 17:2
Speak unto Aaron and his sons, and all the children of Israel. Who were all concerned in what follows; and Iherefore this command is directed to the whole house of Israel, (ver. 3.) to whom this was delivered, it is likely, by their elders: or else Moses himself went from tribe to tribe, and spake to their several families. And say unto them, This is the thing which the Lordhath commanded.] Enjoined by a special law. Vcr. 3. Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat.] viz. For a sacrifice or offering, (as it follows ver. 4.) these being the only creatures of the herd and the flock that were permitted to be brought to God’s altar. There are those, indeed, who think Moses speaks of killing these creatures for common use; which it was lawful for them to do any where, after they came to the land of Canaan, (Deut. xii. 15.) but now they were not to kill them for their food, unless they brought them to the door of the tabernacle, and there first sacrificed some part of them to the Lord, before they tasted of them themselves. By which their sacrificing to demons was prevented, (to which they were prone, ver. 7.) and they also constantly feasted with God while they dwelt in the wilderness. But this is better founded upon Deut. xii. 20, 21. where it is supposed that they had thus done, while they remained in the wilderness; and were so near to the house of God, that they might easily bring thither every beast they killed for ordinary use. But they were dispensed withal as to this, when they came into Canaan, and could not possibly, when they had a mind to eat flesh, go so far as to the tabernacle or temple, which was many miles from some of them. Instead whereof, they were bound to come at the three great festivals, and appear before God at his house, wheresoever they dwelt. In the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp.] This seems to shew that he doth not speak of killing these beasts, ad usum vescendi, as St. Austin’s words are, for the use of eating (for that they did not do out of the: camp, but in their tents), but de sacrificiis, he speaks concerning sacrifices. For he prohibits (as he goes on) private sacrifices, lest every man should take upon him to bo a priest, &c.‘Ver 4. And he bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord.] In ancient time every man had performed the office of a priest in his own family: but now that liberty is taken away, because tbey had abused it to idolatry: and every man was bound to bring his sacrifice to the house of God, where none but the sons of Aaron could officiate, and had the most sacred obligations on them to offer only to the Lord. The very heathens themselves, in future times, found it necessary to enact the very same; as appears by Plato in the latter end of his tenth book of Laws, where he hath these memorable words: v Ecrrw vofiog oSc roTc %V)iwa<n Ktifisvog a-irXijg, hpa jutjSc tig ev iSiatg olKiatg Ikt/jctS’w. Let this be a law imposed absolutely upon all, that ho man whatsoever have a sacred place in private hottses; but when he hath a mind to offer sacrifice, let him go to the public temples, and deliver his sacrifice to the priests, whether men or women, dig ayvda tovtwv Imfiekiig, whose business it is to take care that these things be performed in a holy manner. By which it appears, that these were two established principles of religion in wise men’s minds, to sacrifice publicly, and to bring their sacrifices to the priests, who were to take care to offer them purely. Unto which Moses adds one thing more, that their public sacrifices should be offered only at one place: which was a most efficacious preservative from all strange worship; nothing being done but under the eye of the ministers of religion, and the governors of the people. Insomuch that St. Chrysostom (as our learned Dr. Spencer observes, lib. i. do Bit. et Le£. Hebr. lib. i. cap. 4. sect. 1.) calls Jerusalem,. which was afterwards established to be this place, KaOairep nva <rvv$E(Tfiov Xarptiag, a kind of bond or knot, whereby the whole nation was tied to the Judaical religion. Before the tabernacle of the Lord.] Before the Divine Majesty, which dwelt in the tabernacle; round about which they all inhabited, and were so near it while they travelled in the wilderness, that, as there was no trouble’ in bringing all their sacrifices thither, so they knew certainly whither to go. And thus the Hebrew doctors observe it was when they came into Canaan; where, while the tabernacle was fixed in Shiloh, none might sacrifice anywhere else: but when it wandered uncertainly (after Shiloh was destroyed), being sometimes in Mispeh, sometimes at Gilgal, and at Nob, and Gibcon, and the house of Obed Edom, they fancy it was lawful to sacrifice in other places. For so uigiiizea oy Microsoft ® [CHAP, XVII. we find Samuel did, 1 Sam. vii. 9. ix. 13. (where he sacrificed in a high place), xi. 15. xvi. 2. and David, 2 Sam. xxiv. 18. and Elias, 1 Kings xviii. 23. But these may bo thought extraordinary acts, done by an immediate warrant.from God; for none of theso persons wero priests, but prophets guided by Divine inspirations. (See Dr. Outram Jib. i. De Sacrific. cap. 2.) Blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood.] He was to bo punished as a murderer; that is, die for it. For to have blood imputed to a man, in the Hebrew phrase, or to be guilty of blood, is to be liablo to have his blood shed, or to lose his life. Which, as of old it was the punishment of every one who killed another man, (Gen. ix. (J.) so here he is condemned to dio who sacrificed any where but at the tabernacle. And that man shall be cut off from among his people.] This, not another punishment (unless we supposo it relates to his posterity), and therefore the first word should be translated, not and, but for. And the meaning either is, that the magistrate should pass the sentence of death upon him, or God would destroy him himself. The latter sense is most probable, because he threatens (ver. 10.) to execute vengeance with his own hand, upon him that was guilty of eating blood. It is thought, indeed, by some, that cutting off doth not signify death; but, as in other places of this book, cutting off is so evidently joined with death, that so little cannot bo meant by it, as depriving such persons of the privileges of God’s people, (for instance, when any offered his children to Moloch, xx. 2 — 5. or did not afflict his soul on the day of atonement, xxiii. 29, 30.) so here in this place it most certainly signifies the putting him that was guilty of this crime to death; because he was to be punished as a murderer. AVhich severe penalty was enacted in this case, to preserve the Israelites from idolatry. For if they had been permitted to offer sacrifice where they pleased, they might easily have forsaken God by altering the rites which he had ordained; nay, by offering to strange gods: particularly to the demons, which, in those days, frequented the fields, and endeavoured to persuade the ignorant that they were gods, as seems to be intimated in the next verse and ver. 7..
Leviticus 17:5
To the end. Or, for this cause; i. e. to avoid that heavy punishment beforementioned. That the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices.] Or, sliall bring: as the Vulgar Latin translates it (regarding the senso more than the words), " Ideo sacerdoti offerre debent," &c. Therefore; they ought to bring to the priest their sacrifices, &c. Wliichthey offer in the open field.] Where the pagans erected their altars, to procure fruitfulness to their.fields. Insomuch that Libanius saith (in his oration vntp hpwv), that the temples, or holy places, were the very soul or life of the fields: ^P^x*) Y^p, w jSaanXev, roig aypoic to. Upa. And that in them lay the hope of the husbandmen: tcalroig ywpyovm iy avrolg ai IXniSze- How old this idolatry was, we cannot certainly tell; but it continued a long time among the Israelites, as we learn from the prophet Jeremiah, xiij. 27. and Hosea xv. 11. where he saith, " Their altars were as l^eaps in the furrows of the field:" that is, there wero abundance of them, notwithstanding this early prohibition given by Moses. And among tho gentiles, Festus tells us they offered sacrifices to the terrestrial gods, in terra, upon the very ground (according to the Hebrew phrase here, on the face of the field), but to the infernal gods, in terra effossa, in holes or pits digged in the earth; and to the celestial, in (edificiis a terra exaltatis, in buildings exalted above the earth; I e. upon altars: which had their name from hence, ab altitudine, from their height, as both he and Servius also tell us. And every one knows that they delighted to set them in high places, on the tops of mountains and hills; especially where there were groves and shady trees, under which they set them, even in valleys, and in the highways, fields, and meadow’s. For they were so fond of them, that those who were against erecting of temples to their gods (as Zcno was), yet never sacrificed without altars, which they set in the open air, to signify they believed he whom they worshipped could not be circumscribed. Even that they may bring them unto the Lord.] Or, they shall bring them even unto tlte Lord: who had settled his habitation at the tabernacle, and would be worshipped no where else with sacrifices. Unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priests.] Here seems to be another reason why they were not permitted to offer in the field; because God would have none but the priests (men* appointed by himself to attend for this purpose at his house) to offer sacrifices to him, according to tho rites he had prescribed. And offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord.] Upon these words Nachmanides grounds the forenamed opinion, that whilst the Jews continued in the wilderness, they ate no meat at their own private tables, but what had been first offered to God at the tabernacle. Behold, saith he, God commanded tJiat all which the Israelites did eat should be peace-offerings. Which was afterwards altered when they came to Canaan, and lived remote from the house of God. And such a custom “prevailed among the gentiles, who would not sit down to eat at their tables till they had offered bread and wine unto their gods. Thus it was among the Chaldees, as appears from Dan. i. 8. But then they had many altars every where, even in their own private houses. Whereas here in the wilderness there was but one altar, which could not contain all the fat that was to be burnt on it every day, if we suppose the Israelites to havo commonly killed beasts for their own eating. It seems to be the truer opinion, that they seldom or never did that while they were in the wilderness; but all the beasts they killed were for sacrifice, of which Moses here speaks. So R. Levi Barzelonita, (Prsecept. clxxxvii.) and other Jewish doctors; they are here forbidden to offer a sacrifice to God any where without the tabernacle. He mentions indeed only peace-offerings; but the reason is, because they were most common; being offered not only for all the mercies they had received, but for all they desired to obtain from God; as Abarbinel observes upon the seventh chapter of this book, where the several sorts of them are mentioned. Men were more forward also to bring these’ offerings than any other, because they were to have their share of them, and feast upon them. Ver. G. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle.] This depends upon the foregoing command of offering all their sacrifices at the tabernacle; that so the blood might be sprinkled upon the altar (and poured out at the bottom of
Leviticus 17:7
And they shall no more. It seems by this they had been guilty oi other idolatrous practices, besides that of worshipping the golden calf, (Exod. xxxii.) And so much is expressed Deut. xxxii. 17. And it was a sin of which their fathers had been long guilty, especially in Egypt, (Josh. xxiv. 14. Ezek. xx. 7. xxiii. 2, 3.) which they had not left, but continued in the wilderness, (Amos v. 25.) Offer their sacrifices unto devils.] These words shew the reason, \yhy God commands them, under such a heavy penalty, to offer only in one place at the tabernacle; because, while they sacrificed in the open fields, they had been in danger to be seduced by demons, w T ho were wont to frequent those places (especially in deserts), and present themselves to ignorant people as if they were gods, and entice their devotion towards them. Which tlemons; or evil spirits, appeared, it is likely, in the form of goats; and therefore are here called seirim, which properly signifies goats. And hath made some imagine, that they really sacrificed to these creatures, as some of the Egyptians did, who held goats be bo sacred animals. So Diodorus tells us, (lib. ii.) Tdv & rpdyov aw&iuxrav, &c. they deified a goat; upon the same account that the Greeks worshipped Priapus. Herodotus, in his Euterpe, cap. 4G. saith the same of the Mendesii,who, he saith, worshipped the males more than the females. And many other authors mentioned by Bochartus (inhisHicrozoicon, par. i. lib. ii.cap. 53.) report the same. But I question whether the Egyptians were guilty of such idolatry in the days of Moses. Xfor is there more truth in their opinion, who think the Israelites now worshipped images in this form of goats. Which the LXX. seem to have thought, when they translated it rolg fiaraloig, to vain things, as idols are called in Scripture. And yet this very word, seirim, is by the Greek translators rendered Aaifi6via, Isa. xiii. 21. which we here follow; only instead of demons translating it devils: whom the ancient Zabii worshipped, they appearing tp them in the form of goats; and this custom was universally spread (as Maimonides thinks) in Moses’s time, which was the cause of this precept, (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 46.) And, indeed, nothing is more common in the writings of the ancient heathen, than the mention of fauns and satyrs, $nd aegipanes, whose shape below was that of a goat. And to this day, in the solemn conventions of witches, the chief devil that presides in their assemblies, is said, by all that have examined such matters, to have the form of a goat. And our famous countryman, Alexander Hales, in his discourse upon the scape-goat, (which is in his Summa, par. iii. q. 55.) derives the reason of it from the frequent appearance of demons in this shape in the wilderness; as Mr. Selden observes in his Prolegomena to his book De Diis Syris. They that would see more of these seirim, may consult I. G. Vossius, lib. i. de Orig. ct Progr. Idolcap. 8. and Bochartus’s Hicrozoicon, par. ii. lib. vi. cap. 7. There is one, indeed, (Anton. Van Dale) who hath lately endeavoured to explode all these fancies, as he esteems them, of demons: which he would have to be the mere invention of the ancient Chaldeans; and from them derived to other nations. But he will never be able to make any wise man believe, that the world was so sottish as to worship the images of goats (which he takes to be meant by seirim), if there had not been an appearance of something in that shape which they accounted Divine. After whom they have gone a whoring.’] L e. With whom they have committed idolatry. For this sin was justly called by the name of whoredom, ever after they were solemnly contracted and espoused to God, to be his peculiar people. (Exod. xix. 5.) Which is the reason that he is said so often to be a jealous God, (particularly Exod. xx. 5.) highly incensed, that is, at their worshipping other gods besides him. For this and such-like words are never used but concerning idolatry; which Ezekfel describes as the foulest whoredom, (xvi. 22.) and particularly mentions this whoredom with the Egyptians, ver. 2G. and the Assyrians, ver. 28, &c. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout all generations.] These words seem to me to determine the sense of the foregoing precept, to which they relate, (from ver. 2, &c.) not to be, that all the meat they killed for their own tables should be peace-offerings; for that, all confess, was not a statute for ever (if it were one at all) throughout all generations; but only while they were in the wilderness,
Leviticus 17:8
And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you. These words also shew he speaks in the foregoing of hringing all sacrifices whatsoever to the tabernacle; the same law which was 1 given before to the Israelites, being now extended to all strangers that sojourned among them. By whom he means all such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion. So the LXX. here translate it; and they add the very same words to ver. 3. where the house of Israel is only mentioned in the original Hebrew. The only question is, what sort of proselytes are here intended 1 And I take it he speaks of the proselytes of righteousness (as the Jews call them), who were circumcised, and thereby embraced the whole religion of Moses. And this, I find, is the general opinion: though some few learned men contend, that any stranger, who had renounced idolatry (whom they called a proselyte of tJie gate), might bring his sacrifices to the altar. Which one can hardly allow, (though asserted by so great a man afc Grotius, lib. i. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 16.) because he speaks of the same strangers here, which are mentioned ver. 10. where all such strangers are forbidden to eat blood. Which plainly belongs to such strangers as were become Jews by circumcision: for other strangers might eat it, as appears from Deut. xiv. 21. where the Israelites are allowed to sell what died of itself to a stranger, that he might eat it if he pleased: and such creatures had their blood in them. That offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice.] L e. Any other sacrifice besides burnt-offerings, viz. sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, or peace-offerings. None of which were accepted, but from such as were admitted into the Jewish rouigitized by Microsoft® [ciiai*. xvir. ligion: (hough the pious gentiles, the Jews say, might bring burnt-offerings. Vcr. 9. And bringeth it not to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord.] As he ordered their peace-offerings to be, vcr. 4, 5. Shall be cut off from among his people-] This demonstrates, that the foregoing precept and this belong to the same matter; being enforced with the same penalty, (vcr. 4.) And it also shews, that the strangers bcforcmcntioncd, signify such gentiles as were circumcised: for otherwise they were not of the body of the people of Israel, from which they are threatened to be cut off, if they did not observe this law.
Leviticus 17:10
And what man soever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you. Sec ver. 8. That eateth any manner of blood.] This is forbidden before, iii. 17. and repeated again, vii. 26. (see both those places), where it is explained what blood he means; either of birds or beasts. Nothing is said of fishes, because they were not offered at the altar, and have little blood in them: hor is there any direction given any where how they should be killed. It is said, indeed, in this place, that they should not eat any manner of blood; but the meaning seems to be, neither of blood offered at the altar, nor of beasts killed for their own use: or else it is to be limited as before, to the blood of beasts and birds, (ver. 13.) for fishes were not at all considered. And here the reason is added why they should not eat blood (which was not mentioned in the forenamed places), because it was the life of the beast, and was therefore reserved to make atonement for their souls. I will even set my face against that soul, &c] That is, be extremely angry with him, and severely punish him, by cutting him off (as it here follows) from the body of the nation. Maimonidcs observes in the forcnamed place, (More Nevo’ch. par. iii. cap. 46.) that this is the same expression which is used against him that offered his children to Moloch, xx. 3. and that this phrase is never used in Scripture concerning any other sin, but only these two, idolatry and eating blood. For the eating of blood gave occasion (he shews) to one kind of idolatry, in the worshipping of demons: whose food the ancient idolaters imagined the blood was; by eating of which their worshippers had communion with them. (See Psal. xvi. 4. and Grotius there.) Vcr. 11. For the life of Hue flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls, &c] Some think here arc two distinct reasons against eating of blood: but the words, as they Ho in the Hebrew, may avcII be translated, Because the life of the flesh (Of any beast, that is) is in the blood, therefore I have given it to you (or, appointed it for you) upon the altar, to make an atonement, &e. Which is as much as to say, the life of the beast lying in the blood, I have ordained it to expiate your sins, that by its death, in your stead, your life may be preserved: and, therefore, I require you not to eat that which is appointed for so holy an end. For it would have been very unseemly if they had vulgarly used that to which they owed the favour of God and their very lives. ^Nothing could bo more rational than this precept, viz. that a thing so sacred, as to be peculiarly appointed for them upon the altar, should not lose that honour and esteem that.was due to it. As the blood would have done, if it had been allowed to be commonly eaten; for that is very contemptible which goes into <he draught (as our Saviour speaks), and at last becomes ordure. For it is the blood that viaketh an atonement for the soul.] The blood, that is, of the sacrifices, which by God’s appointment are offered to expiate your sins; that is, to preserve you from perishing. For to make an atonement, and to be a ransom, arc the very same thing; as appears from Exod. xxx. 12. compared with vcr. 15, 10. And to be a ransom, is to deliver from death, as appears from the words in that place — they shall every man give a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague among them. For the sins of the sacrificcr being laid upon the beast which he offered, by imposition of his hand on its head, and confessing them there,’ they were taken away by the blood of that beast, unto which they were translated. And that not merely by the obedience of him that offered the sacrifice (which the followers of Socinus say God accepted), but by the blood of the sacrifice itself, as these words expressly declare, which was offered in his stead. Thus* Thcodoret upon these words; God commanded the soul of the irrational creature, with its blood, avri rfjc <n*c, &c. to be offered, instead of thy rational and immortal soul. And thus the Jews themselves understand it; particularly Aben Ezra, upon these wwds, saith, the soul, instead of the soul; i. e. the soul of the beast was offered instead of the soul of the man. And R. Solomon Jarchi to the same purpose; one soul comes, and makes expiation for another soul. And Maimonides more largely; I have spared the soul of the man, and given this blood upon the altar; that the soul of the beast may make expiation for the soul of the man. And so Abarbinel, and many more, which maybe seen in Dr. Outranks most learned book De Sacrificiis, lib. i. cap. 22. n. 11.
Leviticus 17:12
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojowneth among you eat blood. What other reason soever there was before for not eating blood, (sec Gen. ix. 4.) this is the reason why God forbade it to the children of Israel; and to all that joined themselves unto thcir^religion.
Leviticus 17:13
And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten.’) Though no other beasts or fowls be mentioned but those that were taken in hunting (that being a very common thing in those days), yet the precept extends to all those that were bred at home, and were allowed by the law for their food. So a MS. author, mentioned by J. Wagcnseil, in his annotations upon Sota, cap. 2. excerpt. Gemara, n. 6. where he puts abundance of cases upon this subject. lie shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.] Though it was not the blood of a sacrifice offered at the altar, but of a beast or bird killed for their own use, they might not eat it, but bury it in the ground; lest any beast should lick it up, as it is commonly interpreted. Maimonides hath found a deeper reason for this, which is, that nobody might meet and feast about it. By which means Moses broke their society and fellowship with demons; who, in those 4imes, were thought to feed upon the blood, in a bowl or hole, whilst their worshippers sat about it eating of the flesh. So he writes in the place often beforementioned, (More Ncvoch. par. iii. cap. 46.) And this was the more necessary while they remained in the wilderness, because demons were wont to haunt such places, and
Leviticus 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh, &c. Whether of beasts or fowl beforementioned: and therefore prohibited to be eaten by them (as was before observed), because it was offered to God, and accepted by him for their life, when they had forfeited it by their sins, TJierefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh.’] See ver, 12, where the same thing is said, but. not so fully as here: for he only saith in that verse, No soul of you shall eat blood; but in this, Ye shall eat tlte blood of no manner of flesh. For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof] This is so often repeated (no less than three times in this verse), the more to deter them from eating blood: which was the life of the beast, and therefore offered to God, as the Lord and Giver of life; and consequently belonged to nobody else.,
Leviticus 17:15
And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself. And consequently had the blood remaining in it; as all things, also, which were not rightly killed had (the Hebrews think), and therefore here forbidden. Or that which was torn with beasts.] Which was nothing else (as Maimonides speaks) but the beginning to be a dead carcass, (More Nevochim, par, iii. cap. 48.) Whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger.] By a stranger, is meant one that had embraced the Jewish religion: for other gentiles might eat such things. Nay, the Israelites themselves (as Maimonides observes), when they went to war, and entered the countries of the gentiles, and subdued them, might eat that which died of itself, or was torn of beasts; nay, swine’s flesh, and such-like food, when they were hungry, and could find no other meat. (See Schickardi Mishpat Hamelek, cap. 5. Theor. 18,) lie shall both wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in toater, &c] When he had eaten these things unwittingly, and came to know it, he was thus to purify himself. If he did it knowingly, it was a high crime against an express law, repeated more fully Peut. xiv, 21. and punished, as some think, with death. But I suppose they mean he was obnoxious to the Divine displeasure, and in danger to be cut off by him, if he did not offer a sacrifice to expiate his offence: which seems, to be allowed in such cases, as it was for greater offences, (vi. 1, 2, &c.) And the Jewish doctors say, he who violated this law, was only to be beaten: for cutting off, either by the hand of God, or the court of judgment, was not threatened to sins of so light a nature as this. So Maimonides observes in his More ]N T cvoch. par, iii. cap. 41, Ver. 1G. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity.] Be liable to be punished by God, for the neglect of the means of his purification. And if while he continued thus unclean, he adventured to eat of the peace-offerings, he was in danger to be cut off from Ms people, (vii, 20.)
And lie shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, &c. In tiiis verse he only sums up the whole duty of the day; in which a general atonement was made, for all things, and for all persons. The only thing to be observed is, that the expiation of the sanctuary, the tabernacle, and the altar, preceded the expiation of the piiests and of the people, who were to be expiated by the sacrifices offered there. But the expiation of the high-priest himself, who was to make the expiation of the sanctuary, preceded all the rest; as is apparent from ver. 11. Vcr. 34. And this shall be an everlasting statute.’] The repetition of this the third time^ (see ver. 29. 31.) shews of how great importance it was,, that this annual solemnity should be observed. Unto you.] The high-priests (beforementioned), of whom he speaks in the plural number, becausenone of them could continue always, (as I have observed ver. 32.) but enjoyed the office successively, upon the death of their predecessors. To make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.] This is only a repetition of what was said ver 30. that it should be incumbent on the highpriest, by a perpetual obligation, to make an atonement for the people’s sins on this day; as it was incumbent on the people (ver. 29.) to afflict their souls upon this day. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.] The service of this day was immediately performed by Aaron, according to the forenamed order.