Among all the laws of the Levitical priesthood concerning sacrifices, there is hardly one more striking in all the particulars of it: as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ; and yet there is not one so generally little understood, or attended to. I beg the reader’s attention to it as a subject highly interesting. He will find the account of it set forth at large, Num. xix. from the first verse to the tenth. Moses was commanded to speak unto the children of Israel to bring a red heifer without spot, wherein was no blemish, and upon which nevercame yoke. Eleazer the priest was to bring her forth without the camp, and one was to slay her before his face. Eleazer was then to take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times. One was then to burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, all was to be burnt. Then the priest was to take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. Then the priest was to wash hisclothes, and to bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he was to come into the camp, and be unclean until the even. And he that burned the heifer was to wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And a man that was clean was to gather the ashes of the heifer and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, to be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin. And this was to be both to the children of Israel, and thestranger that sojourned among them, for a statute for ever. Such are the interesting particulars in the Lord’s appointment of the sacrifice of the red heifer. I would now beg to call the reader’s attention to the service itself, in order to remark the prominent features of the ordinance, as typical of the person and offering of the Lord Jesus Christ,
And first, the heifer was to be red. A most un likely thing to obtain, as if to prefigure the singularity of the person of Jesus; for none but the Lord Christ could be suited for our salvation: and the personal fitness of Jesus, in the singularity of his person and character, is that which endears him so highly to his people. Perhaps the reader may not know, or if he doth, he may not immediately re collect, that Adam was called Adam, or Adamah, on account of the red earth or dust from whence he was taken. Pure virgin earth isnaturally red. Now the Lord Jesus is also called the last Adam. (1Cor. xv. 45.) And it is said of him, with peculiar reference to his human nature, that "forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." (Heb. 2: 14.) And hence the church sings of him in the joy of her heart, "My beloved (said she) is white and ruddy, the chiefest among, ten thousand. (Song v. 10.)
Secondly, this red heifer was to be without spot, and wherein there was no blemish. What could more strikingly depicture the features of him "who with out spot offered himself to God!" He was indeed, as the Holy Ghost hath drawn him, "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." (Heb. 7: 26.) We are told that the Jews were so very tenacious that this heifer should be exactly corresponding to the ordinance in those particulars, that if the animal had but a spot of different colour fromthe red, yea, but in a single hair, it was rejected. Surely nothing could be more in reference to the "lamb of God who was without blemish and without spot." (1 Pet. i. 19.) Thirdly, that particularity of the red heifer in the Jewish church, that it should be one upon which there never came yoke, is of all others the most striking, as typical of Christ; and the more so, be cause, among all the sacrifices under the law, it is the only one we ever meet with of such an appoint ment. There was no yoke, no obligation, upon Christ, buthis own freewill, for which he became a sacrifice for his people. For although he glorified not himself to be either an high priest, or sacrifice, uncalled and unsent of God, yet equally certain it is, that without his own voluntary offering he could not have suited the purpose of our redemption. Hence he saith himself, (John x. 17, 18.) Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power totake it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
Fourthly, the heifer, to signify uncleanness, was "slain without the camp." And Jesus, that he "might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate, " The apostle makes a most beautiful persuasive and unanswerable appeal to the church, in this view of Jesus, when he saith, "Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach;" (Heb. 13. 12, 13.) Fifthly, when the heifer had been slain, the blood was to be sprinkled directly before the tabernacle seven times. And it forms an express doctrine of the cross, the blood of sprinkling. As the tabernacle represented the whole church of Jesus, so all his people are supposed to be brought under the cleansing by the blood of Christ. Believers are said to have received the atonement. (Rom. v. 11.) Hence Paul, speaking of the privilege of the church, saith, "Ye are come to the blood of sprinkling." The blood of the heifer shed was not sufficient; it must be sprinkled. The blood of Christ is not only shed, but sprinkled, speaking peace from God to the sinner, and speakingofcovenant faithfulness to God, in the infinite fulness of Christ’s merits. Seven times performing the sprinkling of the blood of the heifer may probably mean, as Scripture numbers sometimes do, an indefinite number for a definite, by way of shewing the importance of it. The number seven is certainly used in Scripture with peculiar honour. The seven days of creation, the seventh day for the Sabbath, the seven times seven for the Sabbatical or Jubilee year, and the seventh day becoming an emblem of the everlastingSabbath of heaven; all these are very high evidences of the peculiar honour conferred on the number. But no special reason other wise that I know of is given in the word of God for the consecration of seven to sacred things. Sixthly, the heifer was to be wholly burnt, no part nor portion exempted. So Christ is a whole Sa viour. They that are looking to him for salvation must wholly look. "Is Christ divided?" saith the apostle. The completeness of acceptance in Jesus renders it essentially necessary that his people shouldlook only to him, for the everlasting acceptance of their persons in him. "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 2: 21.)
Seventhly, the whole congregation are said to be alike interested in this heifer, both in providing it, and in the enjoyment of the privileges of it. So the Lord Jesus is said "to have given himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2: 6.) And as we do not read in any other part of this ordinance being appointed to be observed but once, so nothing could more blessedly point out the everlasting efficacy of that "one offering of the body of Jesus Christ once offered, whereby he hath perfected for ever them that aresanctified." (Heb. x. 14.)
The Jews have a tradition, that this one heifer, with the ashes of the water of purification, lasted for near a thousand years, until the time of the captivity. But of this we have no Scriptural authority. It is sufficient for Christians to behold Christ both preached to the ear, and set forth to the eye, in type and figure, under the law. And it is doubly blessed, under the gospel, to behold the whole fulfilled in the person, blood, and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord give his people grace, while beholding the law as having"ashadow of good things to come, " to know that Christ is the substance, and that Christ is indeed "the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth!"
See HEIFER, RED.
By: Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein
—Biblical Data:
According to Yhwh's instructions to Moses and Aaron the Israelites prepared for sacrifice a red heifer which was free from blemish and which had not yet been broken to the yoke. It was slain outside the camp, in the presence of Eleazar, representing the high priest; Eleazar dipped his fingers in the blood and sprinkled it seven times in the direction of the tabernacle; then the carcass was burned in his presence—hide, flesh, and blood. The priest himself took cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet, and cast them upon the pyre. Another man, ceremonially clean, then gathered up the ashes of the consumed heifer and stored them in a clean place outside the camp, that they might be used in preparing water of purification. The priest, the man who attended to the burning of the heifer, and the one who gathered the ashes had to wash themselves and their clothes; they remained ceremonially unclean until sunset.
The ashes were dissolved in fresh water, which was sprinkled on those who were contaminated by coming in contact with a dead body or in proximity to the dead. The one so contaminated remained unclean for seven days; he was sprinkled with the water on the third and seventh days, and at sunset of the last day was clean again. The sprinkling was done by one who was clean, and who, after the sprinkling, washed himself and his clothes and remained unclean until sunset. All who touched the water or the unclean person were likewise unclean until sunset. The one who neglected to observe this law was deprived of religious privileges, for he defiled the sanctuary of Yhwh (Num. xix. 1-22). Spoils of war consisting of metal vessels were to be purified by fire and finally cleansed by the water of purification (Num. xxxi. 21-24).
—Rabbinical View: See Parah.
—Critical View:
Modern critics declare that Num. xix. is composed of two sections—1-13 and 14-22. Wellhausen and Kuenen think that the second section is an appendix giving precise instructions regarding the application of the regulation to particular cases; but according to the editors of the "Oxford Hexateuch" (1900) the second section is derived from a body of priestly torot or decisions. Other critics, however, are of the opinion that the more elaborate and peculiar title of the first section—"Ḥuḳḳat ha-Torah"—as well as other indications, suggests rather that this section is the later of the two and belongs to the secondary strata of the Priestly Code (P). The connection of this chapter with the preceding one is explained by Ibn Ezra: both contain "a perpetual statute" for the priests (Num. xix. 21). The connection with the following chapter is thus explained by Josephus: Moses instituted the rite of the red heifer on the death of Miriam (Num. xx. 1), the ashes of the first sacrifice being used to purify the people at the expiration of thirty days of mourning ("Ant." iv. 4, § 6).
The sacrifice of the red heifer should be compared with that of the scapegoat, similarly sacrificed outside the camp by one who must purify himself before returning to it. The bullock as the sin-offering of the high priest and the goat as the sin-offering of the people were likewise burned outside the camp—hide, flesh, and dung (Lev. xvi. 26-27). The redheifer sacrifice is similar to the heifer sacrifice offered for the purpose of purifying the land from the defilement attending an untraced murder, a heifer "which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke" (Deut. xxi. 3). In both cases the heifer was chosen as being a more suggestive offering in a rite associated with death. This view is supported by Bähr, Kurtz, Keil, Edersheim, and others. The Jewish exegetes point, in addition, to the uncultivated "rough valley" and the wilderness as suggestive of the check to human multiplication caused by natural death and by manslaughter.
The performance of the rite at a distance from the tabernacle excluded therefrom the high priest, who could not leave the sanctuary; hence he was represented at the ceremony by a substitute. The term "me niddah" (A. V. "water of separation"; R. V. "water of impurity"), rendered by the Septuagint as
The "cedar-wood" thrown on the fire was probably a piece of fragrant wood of Juniperus Phœnicea or Juniperus Oxycedrus (Löw, "Aramäische Pflanzennamen," p. 57). The explanation may be found in the belief of primitive times, when fragrant woods, such as juniper and cypress and the aromatic plants of the mint family, were supposed to act as a protection against the harmful unseen powers that were thought to be the cause of death. Even in comparatively recent times, in the United States, a juniper-tree planted before a house was regarded as a preventive of the plague.
The essential part of the rite, it is claimed, is of extreme antiquity. Robertson Smith points out that "primarily, purification means the application to the person of some medium which removes ataboo, and enables a person to mingle freely in the ordinary life of his fellows." The best medium is water, but for serious cases of uncleanness the addition of ashes is necessary (Bähr, "Symbolik," ii. 495). The symbolical significance of the rite has been interpreted as follows: The majestic cedar of Lebanon represents pride, and hyssop represents humility; uncleanness and sin and sin and death are associated ideas; the ceremony, therefore, is a powerful object-lesson, teaching the eternal truth that a holy God can be served only by a holy people.
The early Jewish conception was that the sacrifice of the red heifer was an expiatory rite to atone for the sin of the golden calf. The color of the heifer, as well as the scarlet thrown upon the fire, represents sin (comp. "your sins be as scarlet"; Isa. i. 18).
Bibliography:
Bähr, Symbolik, i. 493-512;
Maimonides, Morch, iii. 47;
Nowack, Hebräische Archäologie, ii. 288;
Edersheim, The Temple, p. 304;
Kent, The Messages of the Bible, p. 347, New York, 1902;
Hastings, Dict. Bible.
RED HEIFER.—The ashes of a ‘red heifer’—more correctly a red cow—added to ‘running water,’ formed the most powerful means known to the Hebrews of removing the defilement produced by contact with a dead body. The method of preparing the ashes and the regulations for the application of the ‘water of impurity’ (see below) are the subject of a special section of the Priests’ Code (Num 19:1-22). It will be advisable to summarize the contents of the chapter, in the first place, and thereafter to inquire into the significance of the rite in the light of recent anthropological research.
1. The chapter above cited consists of two parts; the first part, Num 19:1-13, gives instructions for the preparation of the ashes, and (Num 19:11-13) for the removal by their means of the defilement contracted by actual contact with the dead body. The second part, Num 19:14-22, is an expansion of Num 19:12 f., extending the application of ‘the water of impurity’ to uncleanness arising from a variety of sources connected with death.
The animal whose ashes acquired this special virtue had to be of the female sex, of a red, or rather reddish-brown, colour, physically without blemish, and one that had never borne the yoke. The duty of superintending the burning, which took place ‘without the camp,’ was entrusted to a deputy of the high priest. The actual burning, however, was carried through by a lay assistant, which fact, taken along with the detail (Num 19:5) that every particle of the animal, including the blood, was burned, shows that we have not to do here with a ritual sacrifice, as might be inferred from the EV
A third person—the priest and his assistant having themselves Become ‘unclean’ through contact with these sacred things (see below)—now gathered the ashes and laid them up ‘without the camp in a clean place,’ to be used as occasion required. The special name given to the mixture of ‘running water’ (Num 8:17, lit. ‘living water,’ i.e. water from a spring, not a cistern) and the ashes is properly ‘water of impurity’ (Num 8:9; Num 8:13; Num 8:20-21—so RVm
2. The clue to the significance of the rite above described is found in the primitive conception of uncleanness, as this has been disclosed by modern anthropological research (see Clean and Unclean). In all primitive societies a dead body in particular is regarded as not only unclean in itself, but as capable of infecting with uncleanness all who come in contact with it or are even in proximity to it. The Semites shared these ideas with primitive communities in every part of the world. Hence, although the literary formulation of the rite of the Red Heifer in Num 19:1-22 may be late, the ideas and practices thereof are certainly older than the Hebrews themselves.
While the central idea of the rite—the efficacy of ashes as a cathartic, due probably to their connexion with fire (cf. Num 31:23, and Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, 101 n.
The value of the chapter for the student of Hebrew ritual lies in the illustration it affords of the primitive conceptions of uncleanness, especially of the uncleanness of the dead, and of the ‘contagiousness of holiness,’ the nature of which has been so clearly expounded by Robertson Smith (see RS
There are no inventions in ritual, it has been said, only survivals, and in the rite under review we have one of the most interesting of these survivals. The remarks made in a previous article (Atonement [Day of]) are equally applicable to the present case. As re-interpreted by the compilers of the Priests’ Code, the rite conveys, in striking symbolism, the eternal truth that purity and holiness are the essential characteristics of the people of God.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
See HEIFER, RED.
A red heifer is a young cow with a reddish-brown coat. In the Old Testament, its ashes were mixed with water and used to cleanse people who had become ritually unclean through contact with a dead body (Numbers 19:1–10).
See also Animals.
Aquifer Open Bible Dictionary © 2026 Mission Mutual, an adaptation of the Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary © 2023 Tyndale House Publishers. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.