Leviticus interpretation of the bible. Commentaries on the Bible. Hagar's Arrogance and Sarah's Complaint Against Her

It is obvious that the book of Leviticus, like Genesis and Exodus, has its own characteristics. Its characteristic feature is that from the very beginning it represents a revelation of what God saw in Jesus Christ our Lord, and conveys the symbolic image that grace gave to him and the work he accomplished for souls, for the people and their lands. It is the most complete guide to action for the clergy, for it explains in great detail the performance by the Levites of various rites concerning the Lord Jesus. For this very reason we may consider as appropriate those motives and circumstances which are stated at the outset. “And the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting.” There is not here the rich variety of facts that is found in the book of Genesis, and there is not the special purpose of revealing the essence of the atonement or the laws of Moses, to which the people were subjected because of their own ignorance and ignorance of God, as we see in the book of Exodus. Access to God is described here as a characteristic feature; not to God, who acts mercifully with people in the name of their salvation, but to Christ as a means of bringing the people associated with him closer to God, supporting them on earth and warning them about the consequences of moving away from him. This is wonderfully designed to influence the soul of the believer and make him better acquainted with the God revealed in the Lord Jesus.

Therefore the Spirit of God begins, not with the sinner and his shortcomings, but with Christ, and in the opening symbols gives a wonderful analysis of his atoning work and sacrifice. There is nothing new in this, but still it does not hurt to remind about it. And since He begins with Christ, He first of all expresses the highest thought about the death of our Lord in atonement for sin - about the burnt offering. It is from this point of view that his sacrifice can be considered as exclusively divine - it is from this point of view that believers are inclined, to their great danger, not to attach much importance, if not to say - to completely forget about it. There is no child of God who does not consider necessary the sacrifice for sin that Christ made for him, but too many stumble on this. As a rule, people really feel his mercy; but since we are now considering the sacrifice of Christ in its entirety, it will hardly seem excessive to censure the usual tendency, when considering the sacrifice of Christ, to think of nothing more than its adaptation to our needs. It is doubtless for this reason that many souls are unable to appreciate the boundless mercy which was shown them in their state of sinfulness, but which might have raised them to a state in which they would have benefited from something incomparably superior to themselves.

Therefore, here we begin with the symbol of the burnt offering - the sweet aroma of Christ to God - offered for us, but not limited to the circle of human thoughts, not merely an adaptation to our needs. I can well admit that the man who views Christ apart from his own needs and sins is only a theorist about a single reality. We have every reason to doubt the faith of that soul that claims to be awakened from the sleep of death, but is only concerned to see the deep truth of the burnt offering in the death of Jesus. Can we not fear that such a soul is deceiving itself? For, communicating with a sinner, God begins with what he is. After all, we, as sinners, are guilty. Undoubtedly, God reveals himself to man in his mind and heart. but indeed He saves him through his conscience; and if one is not disposed to have his conscience examined—in other words, to begin precisely with the fact that he is but a miserable sinner before the face of God—he will sooner or later have to return to it again. Happy is he who voluntarily begins from where God begins. Happy is he who manages to avoid the painful elimination, as well as the humiliation, when, having advanced for some time in the knowledge of Christ and his mercy, a person is forced to return back, surveying his true condition before the face of God; when he is forced to find out what he himself means; and this may happen years after he has received the wonderful name of the Lord.

So, in the book of Leviticus, the Spirit of God shows us the essential truth that, whatever the divine way of communicating with each person individually, God sees Christ before Him. No doubt He thinks of His people as a whole, but, above all, He cannot fail to notice His own glory, established in Christ.

First of all, we find ourselves faced with a whole burning sacrifice or burnt offering (chapter 1). We must understand that very characteristic of the Lord when He “offered himself blameless to God by the Holy Spirit.” This is a burnt offering. If anywhere it can be said that God was glorified in him, it is here. Apart from this, nowhere in Scripture does it say that God, as such, was glorified in the Son of man when Christ gave himself to death. Father was glorified in him in every step of his life; yet our Lord Jesus refrained from asserting that God was glorified in him until that fateful night when Judas went out to deliver the Lord into the hands of his murderers (John 13). He “humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross.”

This principle is beautifully stated in chapter 10 of John's gospel. Surely the Lord laid down his life for the sheep; but the believer who sees nothing more than this in the death of Christ still has much to learn. In all likelihood, he did not think much about God and his anointed one. A person detects the same shortcomings in himself and others. It's good that he starts with this, but why should he stop there? Our Lord Jesus himself reveals the whole truth of this matter, saying: “I am the good shepherd; and I know Mine, and Mine know Me. As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and these I must bring, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd.” After these words we come to what conveys the special meaning of this burnt offering as a complete and voluntary surrender to death. “Therefore the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life in order to take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but I myself give it. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.” The only man who has the right to life - to all happiness and glory as a man living on earth - is at the same time the only one who has the right to lay down his life according to his own will. And He does not simply lay it down for the sheep, but He lays down life Himself; and yet He could say, “I have received this commandment from My Father.” She was in his heart, and he submitted to her, completely trusting God. And in this way He glorified God in the very matter of death, and, as we know, this was a consequence of sin - our sin.

Thus, Christ glorified his God and Father in a world where his enemy ruled. This was the fullest proof that He could commit His whole self to the one who sent Him, and He did so. He glorified God within himself; and if the Son of man glorified him, we should not be surprised that God also glorified him in himself, nor that He immediately glorified him. And God did this, taking Christ into heaven, where he sat down at his right hand. Of course, this does not indicate the burnt offering, but its consequences for the one who became this sacrifice. This burnt offering demonstrates the absolute devotion of the Lord Jesus, who accepted an atoning death for the glory of God the Father. It may well be assumed that there is nothing here that would seem to emphasize the blessing of man. If there were no sin, there could be no burnt offering, and nothing would represent complete surrender to God, even to the point of death. But the manifestation of sin in all its disgusting essence and its destruction in the face of God had to be expressed by another sacrifice, and even in contrast to the class of victims.

The main idea here is that everything rises as a fragrance pleasing to God, who is glorified through it. This is why the burnt offering described in this chapter, as well as what is called the grain offering and the peace offering, do not imply coercion. These sacrifices are in no way extorted from Israel. Therefore, as we see from the words of our blessed Lord, no one took his life - He laid it down himself. “When any of you wants to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, then, if from livestock, you offer your sacrifice from large and small livestock. If his sacrifice be a burnt offering of herds, he shall offer it a male, without blemish; let him bring her to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, that he may find favor with the Lord,” that is, there was no coercion.

This is all the more worth pointing out, because starting from Chapter 4 we find completely different statements. We are faced with a sacrifice of a different nature than we currently assume. It is written that “if any soul sins by mistake against any of the commandments of the Lord... then for his sin... let him present... to the Lord as a sacrifice...” This was an unconditional requirement. The Israelis could not act on their own here. There was no freedom of action here. Israeli had to offer a sacrifice for sin; and accordingly it was defined in all respects. A person did not have the right to choose a sacrifice for himself. If it was a ruler, he had to offer one sin offering; if it was one of the people, then he was ordered to offer another sacrifice for sin. In both cases, the order came first, and then the meaning of what was to be offered to God for sin.

But all the previous sacrifices described in chapters 1-3 - the burnt offering, the grain offering and the peace offering - depended entirely on the choice of the person making such sacrifices, that is, the question remained open and, in general, the means of carrying out the sacrifice were discussed. God did not want to make a burden out of something that should have brought joy. What might otherwise be treasured, what was at least valuable to the Lord, was an expression of love for him. How fully Jesus corresponded to this, how He surpassed all that any symbol could express! We are well aware of this. He gave myself.

He who wished to make a sacrifice brought for the burnt offering, which ascended to God, the best of the animals according to his desire and means, from large or small cattle, from turtle doves or from young pigeons. Of the more noble animals (that is, large and small livestock), males without blemish were sacrificed, on whose head the person offering the sacrifice laid his hand. It would be a mistake to assume that this action involves or is always accompanied by the recognition of sin. It also often symbolized blessing or public veneration. And even if we look at it as just related to sacrifices, there are completely different meanings in the burnt offering and in the sin offering. Transfer was observed in both; but in the first case, the one who offered the sacrifice received blessing through it; in the second case he confessed his sin through her. The sweet aroma of the burnt offering represented the one who offered it. The animal was slaughtered before God. The priests sprinkled blood on all sides of the altar. The skin of the victim itself, if it was a calf, was removed; both the calf and small livestock (sheep or goats) were cut into pieces. These parts, the head and the fat, were laid out in order on wood, which was burned on the fire on the altar; the victim's entrails and legs were washed in water; and then the priest burned everything on the altar: “this is a burnt offering... pleasing to the Lord.” Everything remained open; and if the sacrifice was in any way contaminated, its parts, internal or external, were washed with water, and this aptly symbolized the saint of God.

Let me draw your attention to one more fact in passing. There is not only a tendency to confuse different things, but also to consider the sacrifice of Christ as made solely for our sins, for our shortcomings before God. In these various forms of burnt offering, however, there seems to me to be a hint of the same tendency; for as we gradually descend lower, it becomes evident that this sacrifice approaches in some small degree what would be more appropriate to a sin offering. “If he offers a burnt offering to the Lord from birds, he must offer his sacrifice from turtledoves or from young pigeons; the priest will bring her to the altar, and twist her head, and burn her on the altar, and drain the blood against the wall of the altar; he will take away her crop with its feathers and throw it near the altar.” In this case, unlike the first, the entire animal will be dedicated to God. In other words, the less faith (which, as I assume, is meant by a decrease in the value of the sacrifice made), the more the given sacrifice approaches the concept of being unworthy of being a sacrifice and is thrown away, but what is intended for God rises to it.

Leviticus 2

The grain offering contains another idea. We are not talking about atonement here. Indeed, this was the best food consecrated to God - grains of wheat with oil and salt, as we will see later. But this sacrifice, offered in memory of God and “with all Lebanon,” was food only for the priests; neither the sacrificer nor his friends were supposed to eat it. It should be remembered here that the English word “meat” (“meat” or verbal “food”) may give the wrong impression. Perhaps the word “minchah” is no longer used in this sense, and this translation seems somewhat inaccurate, since it implies and emphasizes that this victim never lived the life of an animal. Therefore, it is clear that the burnt offering and the grain offering present a clear contrast. The very essence of the burnt offering is the complete dedication of life to God. An ordinary person is not capable of this, but a divine person is capable; This is Jesus, and his self-sacrifice in death on the cross is priceless. In the grain offering, the Lord is seen, first of all, as a man living on earth. Therefore, what is meant here is not death, but a life dedicated to God, and this is the main meaning of the grain offering.

Therefore, if “any soul would bring a grain offering to the Lord, let him bring flour of fine flour, and pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it.” The grain offering is a beautiful symbol of Christ as a man in this world. His humanity is personified by the wheat flour, and the oil poured into it symbolizes the power of the Holy Spirit (which He himself talks about in Scripture). Lebanon is always accompanied by a pleasant fragrance, constantly ascending to God. All this was brought to the priests, one of whom took a full handful of it - “and he will bring it to the sons of Aaron, the priests, and take a full handful of flour with oil and all the frankincense, and the priest will burn it as a memorial on the altar; it is a sacrifice, an aroma pleasing to the Lord; and the remainder of the grain offering for Aaron and his sons.” Here we see another noticeable difference. The whole burnt offering was given to God, only the obscene part was thrown away; but everything needed was intended only for God. This was not the case with the grain offering. Part of it went to the priests - to Aaron and his sons.

Thus, here we see dedication not so much in death as in life - the saint is completely dedicated to God, in him (in the saint) every thought and every feeling is formed by the power of the Holy Spirit; this was fully manifested in Jesus, the man who lived on earth: in all his words and actions. Not only God receives his share from the grain offering, but we also have the right to partake of it. Aaron and his sons represent the Lord Jesus and those whom He made priests; for He “loved us and washed us from our sins in His blood” and made us not only kings, but also “priests to God.” After all, it is clear that in Christ and Christians we see the prototype of Aaron and his sons. We have now gained the right to rejoice that Jesus was here on earth (to have what Jesus was on earth); and, undoubtedly, it would be a great and irreparable loss to the soul if any Christian were to say or think that he has nothing to do with such an image of Christ - for he has to do with the death of the blessed Lord, but belongs to him no special part in him, who lived for God here on earth. Of course, we should be outraged if someone neglects (or ignores) the significance of Christ's suffering, but we should also beware of a different kind of error. Why such limitation? Why such negligence? You, who through grace have become priests to God, must at least appreciate what is so clearly intended to be your portion and proper food. Isn’t what we just talked about the harmful influence of unbelief, when a soul that has become a little higher in the sense of sins, after all, hardly feels the sins? God gives us fellowship with Himself in Christ - in all that He is.

The first offering is a sacrifice, the components of which represent Christ as a living man, speak of his essence, which lies in the power of the Holy Spirit, in whom every virtue is dedicated to God, in whom there is not a single deviation or defect (vv. 1-3).

The second part of the chapter (vv. 4-10) explains the difference between mixing with oil and anointing with it, which is holy in nature and powerful for service. So there are different forms that need to be mentioned here. In the first case, “if you offer a grain offering from something baked in the oven” and then - “a grain offering from a frying pan.” In the second case, the offering should have been divided into pieces, and then oil should have been poured into it, as before it should have been prepared from flour mixed with oil. Therefore, besides the fact that everything was planned by the Spirit, Jesus knew down to the smallest detail the test that lay ahead of him; and his sufferings, which He accepted with submission, most clearly indicate the power of the Spirit in every sudden pain, when He, like no one else, knew rejection, abandonment, betrayal, denial, not to mention the shame of the cross. The collapse of all hopes and prospects that befell him at the end only revealed his spiritual perfection even more fully. Surely this offering has its significance, for there is nothing in Scripture that does not have significance. It is not for us to overstep our authority and presume to judge it, but we can at least strive to understand what God has written.

For I consider this because in the first part we see simply a symbolic expression of the essence of our Lord Jesus as a man; and in the second part of the chapter, the sacrifice of grain offering from baked in the oven, from the frying pan and from the pot symbolizes the Lord as a person subject to various cruel trials. The furnace indicates a test that makes it virtually impossible for a person to witness. The stove does not symbolize open manifestation to the same extent as the frying pan. If the frying pan signifies that which has been revealed to others, which is its meaning here, then the pot is only another expression of the same principle, the difference being only in the intensity of the manifestation (I am not aware of any cases where anyone, with sufficient reason, translated the word “cauldron” as “boiling cauldron”. Undoubtedly, among the poor, the same utensils could serve different purposes. Apparently, the word “cauldron” signified a large pot or cauldron. If boiling is meant here, we must first have raw foodstuffs (v. 1-3), symbolizing Christ in his essence as consecrated to God and thoroughly tried by fire; then (v. 4-7) three kinds are presented sacrifice, when the sacrifice is prepared - baked, roasted or boiled, which symbolizes our blessed Lord as a true man here on earth, tried, as we see, in every possible way, but in all cases a fragrance pleasing to God). So we see the secret test, the open test, and we see it revealed to the end - in various forms the Lord Jesus is tested, He is tested in every possible way. Fire always symbolizes the test of the law; and it is not out of place to say that the Lord Jesus was tested in any case. What is the result? His greatness was always evident in everything. He was perfection, and only perfection was found in him.

There is one more point that it would be useful to note: the Spirit of God specifically notes that the grain offering is “a great holy thing among the sacrifices of the Lord.” There is another sacrifice that is spoken of as a great shrine. This wonderful phrase spoken by the Spirit of God is used in two out of four cases. It is used not only when talking about the grain offering, symbolizing the life of Christ in the form of a man on earth, in which man dared to see some kind of vice; but in the sin offering the same expression is found - in the very case in which a person might suspect, as elsewhere, an attack on the perfection of the glory of the Lord. On the one hand, He really was a man, but on the other hand, He really bore our sins on Himself. Nothing, therefore, can surpass the true concern of the Holy Spirit for the glory of Christ. For in the sacrifice for sin, in which a person might in some degree see the humiliation of Christ, the Holy Spirit seeks first of all to say that this sacrifice is “greatly holy.” And again, if a person implies some stain in the humanity of the Lord, then the Spirit, always jealously guarding his glory, declares that this is a “great shrine.” If the golden tablet on the forehead of the high priest demonstrated holiness before God, then the seal “great shrine”, placed by God precisely where man allowed himself to make assumptions about the dishonor of Christ as a man and as a sacrifice for our sins, means no less.

Again, before we look any further at the grain offering, we notice other features (v. 11). Leaven was completely excluded from it - a familiar image of sin in us. After all, there was no sin in the Lord. He is “who knew no sin.” It was also forbidden to add honey to it. Honey means something pleasant and not harmful, but it should not be sacrificed to God. In this regard there can be no better proof than the way the Lord behaved towards his mother; for it is not in vain that Scripture testifies that she did cry out to our Lord, but her request was not granted. He came to fulfill the will of the one who sent him and complete his work. As a child, He lived in submission to Joseph and Mary; but when He became a servant of God, if He answered the prayers of his mother, for him it would be something like mixing a grain offering with honey. What a foresight and reproach to man for his empty superstition, which manifests itself in making Mary the main means of access to God through her influence on his Son! He was perfection. He did not come to satisfy even the best intentions of human nature. He came to do the will of God. And He fulfilled it. And the sacrifice or grain offering speaks of this. There was the anointing of the Spirit, not yeast, and the salt of the covenant of God (v. 13), not honey. But leaven and honey were not completely excluded; as we learn, there were offerings of the firstfruits of honey, and even of bread baked sour as the firstfruits (though in this case, as an addition to the sin offering, Lev. 23), but these offerings were not allowed to be burned, since they were not in themselves a pleasant aroma (v. 12).

The firstfruits grain offering described in verses 14-16, which represents Christ, must be distinguished from that which represents the Christian congregation. In chapter 23 of the book of Leviticus we learn that first after the Passover, following the Sabbath, a wave sheaf is brought, and this is not a sin offering - on the day of the sheaf offering, a burnt offering is offered, a grain offering and a drink offering are made; and then, at the end of Pentecost, the two wave offerings should again be brought, but not burned, but with them prepared “from the herd of goats, one goat for a sin offering” and at the same time make other sacrifices. Why might this be needed now? In Lev. 2, 14-16, however, in contrast to verse 13, Christ is shown in the form of fruits from the first soft ears of corn, dried in the fire - ripe crushed grains. Oil and frankincense were added to them, and the priest burned this sacrifice in memory and for fragrance.

Leviticus 3

The expression “peaceful sacrifice” (chapter 3) may be misunderstood. This expression, as used in the authorized translation, does not quite accurately convey the true meaning of this sacrifice - at least it seems to me. What is actually implied here is a celebration or sacrifice from the community. We are talking not just about the word, but about the truth that lies in it. It does not in any way mean a means of bringing about peace between the sinner and God, although in the plural the word may mean something pertaining to peace in which fellowship and thanksgiving are the chief importance. The basis of peace, which lies for us in the blood shed on the cross (this idea is easily suggested by the usual translation), is something to be warned against; it's just misleading. Apparently, this refers to a festive sacrifice. The sacrifice is not completely given to God (Christ gives himself completely to God right up to his death); not only God has his part, but also the priests (Christ giving himself while alive). Christ, rather, was the means and the goal of communion. Therefore, it rightly follows these two sacrifices, which are a savor “pleasing to the Lord,” that is, the burnt offering and the grain offering; she approaches them in what also signifies the death of Christ; it resembles, but at the same time, surpasses the sacrifices that preceded it in that it represents part for God and part for man. It surpasses them in that it unites everything and bears the impression of the unity of God with the priests, with the one making this sacrifice and his family. We do not need to talk about it in more detail ahead of time, since this is discussed in detail in the law on the peace offering, which we just mentioned.

It will be enough to say a few words about this victim himself. The cattle sacrifice did not have to be male. Here we should not look for the most perfect image of Christ, as in the burnt offering. The festive sacrifice comes closer to man and his possession of a portion in Christ. But still the sacrifice had to be without blemish; and here, as always, only the priests sprinkled blood on the altar, although anyone could slaughter the victim. We find, as it is especially emphasized here, that the fat and entrails of the animal are sacrificed to God - “the fat that covers the entrails, and all the fat that is on the entrails.” Certain passages speak of this more clearly, for example, “this is the food of the fire, a sacrifice to the Lord”; “And the priest shall burn them on the altar: this is the food of the fire, a sweet aroma (to the Lord); all the fat is unto the Lord.” The fat and blood were intended exclusively for God in this sacrifice, which, moreover, allows and indicates the fellowship of others with him. So what does this mean? And why is it so emphasized that fat is sacrificed? For I don’t need to talk about blood again. Where there is some kind of disease or some kind of deficiency, fat first of all makes it possible to identify them. Where the normal state is completely disrupted, the forces of evil are revealed through the state of fatness. Where everything is in order, fat shows that everything is perfectly in accordance with the normal state: on the one hand, fat is a sign of prosperity in righteousness; and on the other hand, it reveals self-righteous evil in sinners. Consequently, in the description of the Israelites as a proud and self-willed people, we recognize how Moses used this very image to indicate their strength in sin. They became fat and dissatisfied. It was the sin of the unbridled will and its manifestations, and it brought upon the people of Israel the severe sentence of judgment. There was manifested in our blessed Lord that power which was constantly at work, remaining submissive to his Father, submissive with joy in his soul - "for I always do that which pleases Him."

After all, it is in this that we see our fellowship in Christ himself, whose feelings of devotion and self-sacrifice were given to God; This is the essence and basis of the fellowship for which the Father suffered so much, and this is the joy that we should enjoy. The fat and blood are “bread” for him, as the prophet says - the blood that Aaron’s sons sprinkled on the altar from all sides, and the fat with its entrails, carefully burned on it. “All the fat belongs to the Lord. This is a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwellings; You shall not eat any fat or any blood.” But, being his demand, a peace offering (In the sin offering and trespass offering (which are discussed in chapters 4-7) we see another side of the truth; in them the man (“soul”) and the nature of his offense are clearly revealed. Now this is not the truth that Christ dedicated ourselves in death and life to God; it does not have the character of a sacrament, which is the sacrifice of thanksgiving and the peace offering, offered in praise, oath or good will. Here we are presented with a sacrifice in atonement for someone's sin, a sacrifice as if replacing the sinner. Various rules for bringing it are defined) Moreover, it was offered for the sake of communion in joy, and not at all for the sake of atonement for sin. It had the character of a communion. It was not intended exclusively for Aaron and his sons as a grain offering, but was brought for the general joy of all who partook of it - God, the priests, the one offering it and his guests. The portion for God was to be burned on the altar along with the burnt offering; thus, a connection with God was revealed on the occasion of the joy and deepest manifestation of Christ's submission until his death.

Leviticus 4

In the event that “the anointed priest sins” (vv. 3-12), for he is spoken of first of all, then “let him present a bull from the herd, without blemish, to the Lord as a sin offering, and bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle.” assemble before the Lord, and lay his hands on the head of the bull, and kill the bull before the Lord; And the anointed priest shall take the blood of the bull, and bring it into the tabernacle of meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it with the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.” He must place some of the blood on the horns of the altar of incense. It is interesting to note that there is no promise of redemption for the high priest, nor is there a promise of forgiveness, as we see in all other cases. Is this a coincidence? Or is this part of God's greater purpose in Scripture?

We see essentially the same thing in the case when the entire community of Israel sinned (vv. 13-20). In this case also the calf was to be slain, and the elders were to do the same as in the previous case the anointed priest. The blood was sprinkled in exactly the same way, and some of it was placed on the horns of the altar, and the rest of the blood was poured at the foot of the altar. All the fat of the sacrifice was burned on the altar of burnt offering, and the remainder of the sacrifice was carried out and burned outside the camp, as in the previous case.

When it comes to a boss who has sinned, there was a slightly different procedure. He had to offer not a bull, but a goat for his sin; and the priest was to place the blood of the sacrifice on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and not on the horns of the golden altar.

If one of the common people sinned, then a goat without blemish was sacrificed for sin, the blood of which was placed on the same copper altar. In neither of the last two cases was the body of the victim burned outside the camp.

Obviously, there were different degrees of transgression. Why is that? There is a serious principle behind this. The severity of the sin depends on the position of the one who commits it. It is not that a man is inclined to settle matters, although his conscience feels the truth of this. How often a person would willingly hide his wrongdoing if he could! The same could be unfair to the poor, the despised, the lonely. The lives of such people at least seem to have little meaning. This is not how God believes, this is not how his saints should think about people and evaluate them. And further evidence of this is the last case that is of interest: for the common people it was permitted to sacrifice a goat instead of a male goat (vv. 32-35); this sacrifice is spoken of with equal care.

When an anointed priest sinned, the consequences of his sin were equal to the sin committed by the entire community. When one of the princely family sinned, it was a different matter, although the demands for sacrifice were more serious than if one of the common people sinned. In other words, the relationship of the person who sinned determines the relative degree of sin, although there was nothing that would leave this sin unnoticed. On the other hand, our blessed Lord satisfies each and everyone, since He Himself is the true priest, the only one who does not have to offer any sacrifice, and therefore can Himself be a sacrifice for all, for everyone. This is the main truth, at least as far as sacrifice is concerned. The offense was identified, recognized and convicted. The Lord Jesus in this case becomes the sin offering of the one who was guilty of sin; and when any of the people sinned, the blood was placed on the brass altar, since this was necessary for the sinful person’s access to God. But when the anointed priest sinned, or the whole community was guilty of sin, the sacrifice was performed in a much more serious manner. Accordingly, the blood was carried into the sanctuary and placed on the horns of the golden altar.

Leviticus 5

There is a significant difference in subsequent victims. It would seem that the sin offering has more to do with the flesh (although this could be proven through some individual sin) and that the trespass offering has more to do with what has involved the offender in sin or wrongdoing against his neighbor and requires the correction of the wrongdoing, as well as admitting guilt by making a sacrifice (although this may be a desecration of the holy of holies of God or a sin against God). Now I am not encouraging you to debate this issue; however, the two things can be confused, and this seems to be the point made at the beginning of chapter 5 (vv. 1-13). There is nothing more amazing than the accuracy of God's Word if we humbly accept it and are sincerely imbued with it. Moreover, it should be noted that in all separate cases of sin offerings, the priest not only places a little blood on the altar (of gold or brass, as the occasion requires), but also pours out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar of burnt offerings. This blood was supposed to replace the life of a sinner and therefore was poured out where God, thanks to Christ, who ascended from the earth and approached him, meets a person with love, but justly condemning him. In this case, as in the requirements for the offering of a peace offering (chapter 3, 9.10), the fat is taken, especially covering the entrails, kidneys, and also the omentum on the liver, and all this is burned on the altar, while the whole calf, its skin, meat, head, legs, entrails and uncleanness were to be taken outside the camp and burned in a clean place as a sign of God’s vengeance on the sinner - at least where the blood was sprinkled before God, in front of the veil of the sanctuary (cf. ch. 4, 7-12. 17-21). (Obviously, it would be timely to give here an example of how Bishop Colenzo criticizes a passage from the book of Leviticus (chap. 4, 11. 12) in his “Notes” (vol. 1, ch. 6; meaning the fourth edition, modified in 1863.) Referring to this passage, he ventures to insert (“priest”) after “let” and before “bring out.” He explains it this way: “In this case, the waste of the sin offering was to be carried out by Aaron himself or one of his sons to a distance of six miles (!); and a similar difficulty was encountered in any of the above-mentioned rites. In essence, we must imagine what the priest himself endured, although we can assume that with the help of others, - from St. Paul to the outskirts of the metropolis, skin and meat, and head, and legs, and entrails and uncleanness, and even a whole calf; and the people had to take out their waste in the same way and bring a day's supply of water and fuel after they had found the last and cut the wood.” So, even in our language, it would be unacceptable for a person who is clearly honest and truthful to dwell on the words “let him endure,” expressing the need for the priest to personally perform this work, without casting a shadow of doubt or ridiculing what is written in the Bible. What can be said about one who, clearly occupying the position of the chief servant of Christ, does this with the Holy Scriptures? But this is far from enough to seriously accuse him, for even a beginner in learning the Hebrew language knows that verbs allow a change in their form, which gives them a causal connotation. This is the case here too. This verb usually means “to go out”; in Hiphil it means “to make one go out,” which leaves open the question of who is doing the action. If, unfortunately, gross errors in the interpretation of Scripture are made with the best and pious intentions, then how can such ignorance be explained in this case? If it were a hostile pagan who thus defamed God and his Word, then one can understand what is above human reason is often revealed in precisely this way; but what can we say about someone who comes to us like this, not just in sheep’s clothing, but in the clothing of a shepherd?) In the case of individual Israelites, whether a leader or a person from the people of the land, the blood of the sacrifice was not sprinkled on the place in front of the veil of the sanctuary and the body of the victim was not burned outside the camp, but the blood of the victim was placed by the priest on the horns of the brass (not gold) altar. In cases of transfer (see Lev. 5:1-13) the sacrifice can apparently be called both a trespass offering and a sin offering (cf. vv. 6, 7 and 9, 11, 12); and yet a small connecting passage opens this part. In the previous class, sin was considered as such, when the conscience was unclean from the very beginning; in the next transitional class, sin is considered from the point of view of its consequences, and what is important is what in the previous class, with rare exceptions, was not given importance. But here we are faced with an incomparably greater question, and it deserves attention all the more since we are talking about sin. When a sin was discovered, the person guilty of it confessed by sacrificing a sheep or goat; if he was unable to do this, then he offered two eagles or two young doves as a sin offering, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering; (I am aware of the confidences of Dr. Davidson and Dr. Fairbairn on this subject. The question is whether they have good reason for it. The first of them (in “Introduction to the Old Testament,” p. 267) says: “ Anyone wishing to confirm the distinctive features of these two types of sacrifices should carefully read Lev. sin offering. He must be especially careful not to mistake the passage Lev. 5, 5, 6 and mistake the offering therein for a trespass offering, since it refers only to a sin offering. This passage says that if anyone one of the people is guilty of the sins indicated in verses 1-4 (chapter 5), then he must confess that he has sinned and offer his guilt offering, with his duty, due y about compensation for sins, or simply sacrifice. This word has the same meaning in Lev. 5, 15; Num. 5, 7. Nothing cannot be more incorrect than a statement like Kitto's, that the same sacrifices, replacing each other, are called first sin offerings, sometimes guilt victims in Lev. 5, 6-9. The word “asham” has three meanings, namely, vina, as in Gen. 26; debt, what is necessary for me to take responsibility for myself; and a sacrifice for certain sins, that is, a sacrifice for sins. Therefore the termdoes not correspond to a guilt offering wherever it appears, but has a broader meaning. Those cases where sacrifices of two kinds were offered cannot really be considered the same; The rituals themselves during these sacrifices were not similar.”

Dr. F. does note that the passage ending in verse 13 was added to the end of chapter 5 without including the words “and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.” But does he not go too far in saying that this was done to give a special character to certain cases in which it should have been presented, and to take care to remove it? Isn't it clear that chapter 6 describes a clear case of sin in error, but against some of God's commandments, by doing something that should not be done? and that the passage Lev. 5:1-13 is an interpolation that speaks of defilement, and is it inserted by God rather than by human consciousness? These cases - refusal to testify to a curse (v. 1), ritual impurity (vv. 2, 3) and violation of an unreasonable oath (v. 4) - are stipulated in a special way, which we do not see in more serious sacrifices, which were also of a general nature. . Therefore, more precisely, we see a variety of sacrifices that differ both from the ordinary sin offering and from the formal trespass offering, when separated. True, in these additional cases it is said “sin offering” (chap. 5, 6-9, 11, 12); but I do not think that it is correct to say that the term “trade offering” found in verse 6 (ch. 5) is simply the result of a mistranslation, or that the same expression is originally given in verse 7. For although the word “ asham ” does not always specifically mean a guilt offering, but is also used in a more general sense, sometimes meaning guilt and punishment for it; and yet this can hardly be allowed without reason, where we have the name of certain victims. It is clear to me, however, that the word is not used in exactly the same sense in Lev. 5, 6. 7, “for his sin”, standing in the first case, and not in the subsequent one, which shows the whole difference and justifies, I think, the authorized translation. The generally accepted translation of the text is not clear in itself; The Septuagint and Targum of Onkelos seem to be in favor of Dr. F. and therefore probably in favor of Luther. Thus, ancient and modern views differ, and this issue is clearly not so easy to resolve. This word may be used in a general sense rather than in a more specific sense.) if he could not bring these either, he was to bring his tenth of an ephah of fine flour for sin, but he was not to pour oil into it or put frankincense on it, for this is a sin offering. The priest took a full handful of it as a memorial and burned it on the altar in atonement for the sin that was to be forgiven, and the remainder of this sacrifice belonged to the priest, like the grain offering. And again, what sympathy for the poor in divine matters! And at the same time, what a wonderful concern for holiness, and not only where the conscience immediately recognizes the sin committed, but also where it is not recognized until the consequences of neglecting certain rituals related to the preservation of the purity of the law of Moses are revealed . When sin was thus discovered, confession had to be made and a sin offering offered in order that the sinner might be forgiven. On the other hand, God would not allow circumstances to prevent even the weakest from calmly atone for their sins or deprive them of the obligation to confess. The sin offering of wheat flour is precisely the exception that proves this prescription, since it clearly recognized the poverty of the sacrificer and was a merciful permission to replace the blood sacrifice that was otherwise necessary. The soul may feel the need to atone for its sin and look to Christ, who bore our sins, without fully realizing the meaning of his blood and death; so will the grace of God be shut out from the results of his work only because of unfavorable circumstances that prevent a deeper knowledge? Of course I don't think so.

In chapter 5, verse 14, God again speaks to Moses with his word, as at the beginning of chapter six. Both passages (chap. 5, 14-19 and 6, 1-7) are united by the general principle of retribution or restoration and the general name of the guilt offering, which was necessarily a ram, whose blood was sprinkled on the altar from all sides, but not poured out at the foot of the altar , as was done in the case of the sin offering. The proper trespass offerings or trespass offerings are divided into two types: first, offenses against those consecrated to God (perhaps firstfruits, church tithes, and so on) or offenses against the commandments of God, after this is brought to light; secondly, the crimes that God considers committed before him, although not as blasphemous or violating the law as the previous ones, but if actions are committed aimed at deceiving a person and violence against him. In all such cases, except for the offering of a ram as a guilt offering and the payment of the full value of the stolen goods or for the damage caused, the offender was to add to it a fifth part, according to the estimate of Moses, and give it either to the priest as a sacrifice of the first kind, or to the one to whom it was given. belongs as a second class victim.

Leviticus 6

Next follow the various laws regarding sacrifices (chap. 6-7). As before, the burnt offering is spoken of first. Here it will be interesting to know that the fire on the altar should burn without going out. Nothing can be more expressive than this repeated decree. The fire should burn all night and not go out. It is night that, in relation to the world, is not for those who are children of the day, in a certain moral sense, in any case. But this fire never goes out, nor does it go out when God awakens his people and other nations. And how glad it is to know that that sacrifice, once made, was the cause that all who submitted to his righteousness would be desired by God! Everything was burned entirely in dedication to God, nothing was eaten by man.

Then it comes to the law of the grain offering or the sacrifice of food, from which we learn something that is especially mentioned, namely, that Aaron and his sons should eat a portion of it. “It must be eaten unleavened in a holy place.” Those who eat of Christ and are priests to God through faith consecrate themselves, like Him, in life to God and better understand what is poorly consistent with all this. This offering was to be eaten unleavened (which emphasized the absolute non-involvement in all evil in nature), and, moreover, in a holy place. I do not know a more terrible desecration than the way in which people who do not believe in Christ, who do not feel any sins or shortcomings behind them, who do not care about the glory of God, act panegyrically (excessively praise) when they undertake to judge the life of Christ and speak out there and here about his superiority (perfections). Doesn't this mean eating a grain offering in this world, and even with leaven? (That is, not in a holy place and not unleavened).

At the end of the sixth chapter the law of the sin offering is given; and at the beginning of the seventh chapter it speaks of the guilt offering. The priests had to eat it, like the grain offering, in a holy place: in the first case it meant participation in the grace of the Lord as a person, in the latter - communication with him on behalf of the sinner.

Leviticus 7

However, as we will see, it is very surprising and very characteristic that the sacrifice of gratitude or the peace offering is spoken of much later and only after these two sacrifices. Thus, the law of the peace offering comes last in the list of laws, although it preceded the sin offering and the trespass offering. Can there be any doubt that all this is done deliberately, and that the Spirit of God here gives the very last place to the sacrifice, which represents Christ in the fellowship, when it comes to the law concerning its use? For there is nothing more sublime among sacrifices than this sacrifice when it comes to their use. When we look to Christ, the order of divine communications can be in any order; when we look at ourselves, whatever may be the application of them to the sinner, the peace offering is the last, if we are going to consider it as something actually symbolizing the state of our soul. The fellowship indicated by the peace offering is most suited to the condition of our souls, that we may turn to God in praise and thanksgiving. There were two main types of such sacrifice. The meat of the peace offering of gratitude should be eaten on the day of its offering, leaving nothing left until the morning. But if a sacrifice is made out of vow or out of zeal, then what is left of it can be eaten the next day. We continually find that this remains true for us today. There are two different criteria in the worship of God; both are valid, but in no way have the same power. We see that souls are completely happy in the sense of what the Lord has done for them, and they are eager to thank him for it. All this is truly beautiful and fair in its time. Gratitude can be very simple and yet express true worship of God. However, this lacks reinforcing power. In the vow we see more: here we are talking not simply about what was done for us and what we ourselves received, but the soul can perfectly enjoy what Christ himself is before God. And this always remains. There is no change in this.

Leviticus 8

In Chapter 8 we learn more about priestly ordination; for now the sacrifices were made according to their laws, and in due order we come to the people who, if not to offer these sacrifices, were certainly to act for the people in the sanctuary. What had been stated as an official commandment in Exodus 28-29 now came to fruition in relation to Aaron's family. “Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the robe and the anointing oil, and the bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread, and gather the whole congregation to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Moses did as the Lord commanded him.” And Moses brings Aaron and his sons and washes them with water. Any attempt to see in this act something symbolizing Christ is doomed to failure. Of course, Aaron and his sons had to be washed with water. Christ did not need this, because He came to cleanse others. No matter how Aaron was washed, Christ was incomparably purer than him. The perfect integrity of Christ as a man undoubtedly made him perfectly suitable for the priesthood. At the same time, we must always remember that there is something in the priesthood of Christ that cannot be conveyed by any symbol, and of which much is said in the book of Hebrews. The personal basis of Christ's priesthood is that He is the Son of God. Others were simply sons of men; and in this case one of them was appointed priest. And this is not the basis for priesthood that Christ had. Undoubtedly, He must inevitably have been a man, but the fact that He was the Son of God confirmed His special character as a priest. And therefore the name assigned to him in the second Psalm is not without reason used by the Holy Spirit in the same fifth chapter of Hebrews, in order to contrast him with Aaron and his sons. Accordingly, they, knowing the essence of man, shared the feelings of sinful people, because they themselves were sinful people. But the Son of Man was completely different. Being incomparably higher than man, He could completely give up His soul for him. He was absolutely above the state in which man found himself because of his fall, and not simply because he was a saint, but because he was the Son of God. For this very reason, He was completely free to grasp the needs of others in His heart, which He did. This is not at all at odds with the obvious authenticity of his suffering. He could endure a lot because he was a saint. Therefore, his suffering was significantly different from the kind of punishment that, alas, falls upon us for our sins. There was never anything in Jesus but suffering in the name of mercy and truth, with the exception of his suffering for sin on the cross, but this was entirely our sin - not his.

In this case, Aaron's act of washing could only represent a weak representation of Jesus in his inherent perfect integrity. A tunic with a belt, an outer robe, and an ephod were placed on Aaron; he was girded with the belt of the ephod. Moses put the breastplate on him, and put the Urim and Thummim on the breastplate, and put the miter on his head, and on the front of the miter he placed the polished tablet, the diadem of the sanctuary, as the Lord commanded Moses. And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and consecrated it; and he sprinkled it upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its utensils, and the laver and its base, to consecrate them. And he poured the anointing oil on Aaron’s head.” Notice that no blood was shed here, which is very surprising. Though a sinful man, like the priests his sons, yet (not to present such a striking contrast to him whom he in any degree personified) Aaron was anointed with oil before he was sprinkled with blood. It is also worthy of notice that the tabernacle and all that was in it were anointed with oil (v. 10), and the altar and all its utensils, the laver and its foot were anointed before the blood was sprinkled upon it all. The meaning of this is clear and important when applied to the power of the Spirit, in which Christ lays claim to heaven and the whole universe, especially when we notice that the altar is cleansed with blood, but no anointing with oil follows.

Following this (v. 13) we learn that the sons of Aaron were brought; they too were dressed in priestly robes, but were not anointed. Moses “brought the bull for a sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull for the sin.” Verily, Aaron was a sinner; but an exception was made for him - Aaron was anointed with oil before the sin offering was slain, and before he was sprinkled with blood. Despite this, when the sin offering was slain, Aaron and his sons together laid their hands on the head of the sin offering; and Moses took the blood and put it on the horns of the altar to cleanse it, and poured the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar. After the sin offering was burned outside the camp, we learn that another ram of consecration was brought in to prove the special devotion of the priests to God. Moses placed the blood from the last ram on the edge of the right ear of Aaron and each of his sons, as well as on the thumbs of the right hand and right foot of Aaron and his sons. But we must remember that in the book of Hebrews, as here, in similar moments, however striking, there is always a lack of the full expression of the glory of Christ. They were only reflections, and not the image itself, as we are told. The anointing oil is not lacking, any more than the grain offering and the peace offering are lacking - Christ in all his approval.

Leviticus 9

Chapter 9 tells the story of the eighth day, when Aaron and his sons were to become fully ordained priests, and how “the glory of the Lord” was revealed to all the people. After all the sacrifices had been made in turn, an extremely astonishing spectacle took place. “And Aaron lifted up his hands to the people, and blessed them, and went down, having made the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offering.” The eighth day confirms the time of the glory of the resurrection. After which we read: “And Moses and Aaron entered into the tabernacle of meeting, and went out and blessed the people. And the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.”

The significance of this cannot be doubted. First of all, the high priest himself acts, giving a blessing at the end of the consecration and in accordance with the effectiveness of all sacrifices. Moses and Aaron then enter the Tent of Meeting. The combination of directing authority and priestly ministry fully personifies Christ. Now Christ acts simply as a priest; He will soon reign and at the same time remain a priest. As a sign of this, Moses and Aaron enter the tabernacle together and bless the congregation, and the glory of the Lord appears to all the people. This is clearly a preview of the day of the Lord, when the Lord Jesus will appear to everyone in his glory and occupy his priestly throne. Our lot is special and different from the lot of the Israelites, as symbolically as can be represented in Leviticus 16; but I won’t talk about this prematurely.

Leviticus 10

The next (tenth) chapter speaks of one humiliating fact - the absolute insignificance of man in this new relationship, given by the blessing to which he was called. “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense in it, and brought strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them; and fire came out from the Lord and burned them, and they died before the Lord.” Thus ended the initiation. It is unlikely that they actually managed to prove themselves to be true priests of God when two of them were so disgraced that the fire of divine condemnation destroyed them, instead of expressing their consent to the world to accept the sacrifices. “And Moses said to Aaron: This is what the Lord spoke about when he said: Among those who draw near to Me I will be sanctified, and I will be glorified before all the people.”

Can you always detect this difference between what is of God and what is of man? Human religion instinctively seeks justification for its ritualism, but takes every opportunity to allow certain indulgences and rights for those who practice it. The true God does not so strongly maintain in anyone the urgent need of his own nature as in those who are closest to Him and whom He loves so much. There is no soul or conscience, reborn by God, that would not feel the justice and necessity of what should be. Undoubtedly, the flesh shies away from such quests, but Christianity means such condemnation and is based on it, and not on indulgence, not on the flesh; is the gospel of Christ, and the Christian is proud of it along with the Apostle Paul. There is nothing morally like crucifixion for God; but God created this for our benefit, as well as for his own glorification. There can be no greater dishonor for him and nothing less beneficial for us than the spread of wickedness - the sale of indulgences; and yet this is essentially what every religion under the sun has done, notwithstanding what has been revealed about God. Even in its simplest form of divine revelation, when it came to teaching the first man, but not yet the second, we see how mercilessly the ways of man were condemned, and much more mercilessly where all sin was visible and fully manifested, be it on the cross itself or through the power of the Spirit of God in the minds of believers. But we immediately see how God expressed his indignation with all severity at the liberties that these two, who occupied a high position among the priests, took that day: He was so indignant that people could have noticed, not without ridicule, that the whole building had collapsed even before how its walls were built. But the mediator between them and God could not prevent this accident and interpreted this punishment as a sacred warning. “Moses said to Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not uncover your heads or tear your clothes, lest you die and bring wrath upon all the congregation; but your brothers, even the whole house of Israel, may weep for those who are burned, whom the Lord has burned.” He felt that these two had not become close enough to God to mourn them sincerely, much less allow a carnal feeling of emotion in worshiping him. This was prohibited from now on. Priests were forbidden to show outward signs of grief for the dead. This case was certainly not an easy one, and it completely tested the accepted principle. But as we come into closer contact with this, we realize that those who are so close to God should not become agitated. “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Thou shalt not drink wine or strong drink, neither thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye enter into the tabernacle of meeting, lest thou die. This is an everlasting decree throughout your generations.” Undoubtedly, this had practical significance. Drinking alcohol could make it difficult to see the difference between holy and unclean. But the most important thing, first of all, is that in such a state a person cannot stand before the face of God; Moreover, in such a state it is impossible to provide priestly help to a confused and surrounded by evil person.

Subsequently, the other sons of Aaron also made a mistake, since they burned a goat for a sin offering, for which Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar. So the fall was complete. Two of them paid for their crime with their lives; the other two were pardoned only because Aaron interceded on their behalf.

Leviticus 11

The next chapter (11) deals in detail with the distinction between pure and unclean, but here a wealth of minute detail is no more necessary than in the previous review. The point here is not to present information about what is useful and what is useless; What is primarily important here is the moral result. The Lord wanted the Israelites to trust him and have faith in the choice He made for them as a special and dedicated people. Undoubtedly, He chose what was useful, and, moreover, what was best; and its limitations did not exclude the insight of him who created all living things, calling his people to submit to his just authority in anticipation of the heavenly family, who would comprehend his intentions by the help of the Spirit.

Perhaps at this time it will be sufficient to note that the main efforts were the following: the animals that could be eaten from the livestock on the earth had to at least be clean and have a firm gait, and, in addition, be digestible. If any of the animals did not meet at least one of these conditions, then it was not suitable for food for the Israelites (vv. 2,3). Therefore, a camel, a jerboa (or hyrax), a hare and a pig that did not meet one or another condition could not be eaten and their carcasses could not be touched, otherwise you would be defiled (vv. 4-8). Therefore, if we consider that this is in fact sufficient to reveal the meaning of what has been said, let us imagine some person who once comprehended the truth, but is not aware of his daily actions - all this will not bring him any benefit; or let's take a person who always does well, but his actions are in no way the result of knowledge of the truth - in this case too everything is useless. For what can be right unless it is the result of a revelation of truth that has penetrated into the soul and become part of a vital system through our soul's reception of the Spirit? Only then will our actions be decisive, conscious, free and full of holiness; such as are pleasing to God. But it is evident that both of these points, and not only one of the two, are absolutely necessary, and both of them are the result of the saving influence of the Spirit on our conscience. It is terrible if we deceive ourselves in one way or another. Let no one ever flatter himself with the hope of being a Christian in what men call the court of mercy. Let us keep our souls open to the knowledge of the Word through the Holy Spirit, and let us listen patiently to words of exhortation. Others will look for the final fruit day by day in our actions and feelings. But only where both of these characteristics are combined can we communicate as God requires. Apparently the symbolic injunction to eat only clean animals is a lesson for us.

An Israelite was not to eat any animal he came across. What was figurative was somehow forbidden; and what was in accordance with the divine prescription was permitted by law. Thus, animals that live in water, without feathers and scales, winged, walking on four legs, crows and night predators among birds; carnivores, of course, were an exception; but divine wisdom symbolically included something else among these exceptions. Anyone who touched the carcasses of these animals became unclean, even if the corpse was touched by clothing or utensils, etc. (vv. 9-35). Only the source of water or the well that contained the water remained pure and was not defiled by contact with corpses (v. 36); so also the seed that was sown was not defiled (v. 37). The power and life of the Spirit cannot be desecrated. All reptiles (snakes, lizards) that do not fly or jump were considered unclean. God commanded all this to His people, whom He called to be holy, for He is holy.

Leviticus 12

In chapter 12 another remarkable symbol appears, namely, that condition in which men and women fall into sin. Every child of Adam suffers from the defilement of sinful flesh. If we are talking about a male child, then, as we are told, the result of defilement is one; if a female child is born, the defilement will be even greater. God will never forget how sin came into this world. His righteousness takes full account of man's first temptation. It is therefore quite striking that the apostle Paul even turns to this case for practical guidance when deciding whether a woman should teach in the church. Surely our thoughts should be shaped by the Word of God. All this is about government on earth, not in heaven, and not about eternity.

Leviticus 13

Chapter 13 treats in great detail leprosy, a common defilement of man, disgracing even the head and beard, and manifesting itself in various forms. Here we have the most characteristic image of sin, manifested in this contagious and incurable disease. There could be other diseases that resemble leprosy in their external signs, but in fact have only suspicious symptoms. An important decree followed from this: a person had no right to judge his own sin. The Law of Moses required that an Israelite present his wealth to another person who was a spiritual director, that is, a member of the priesthood. He was given the right of access to God, and therefore he must have had a wonderful sense to discern where there is good and where sin, according to the criteria of the sanctuary. Being such, he was not influenced by popular judgments, generally known thoughts, or what is commonly called popular opinion - one of the most harmful sources of perversion of holy moral judgment among the children of God.

A leper, whether he is actually a leper or only appears to be ill by external signs, whatever it may be, submits himself to the judgment of the priest. Part of the body appears affected; it can only be a tumor on the body, some random illness (sin). On the other hand, a very insignificant symptom at first glance, just a white spot with white hair on it or an ulcer on the skin, can turn out to be real leprosy. The priest is very strict about this. If the symptoms worsen and the ulcer becomes deeper, the priest declares the person unclean. If the priest doubts, the suspect is detained for several days, and then the priest examines him again. If there are dangerous symptoms, they will appear; if no living flesh is visible, there are no new symptoms of a progressive disease, but, on the contrary, the ulcer is less noticeable, then the person has hope, and if after another week of confinement there are still no progressive symptoms and the ulcer continues to heal, then the priest declares the suspect to be leprous clean. If the hair on the ulcer turns white, the ulcer on the skin deepens and the lichen spreads across the skin, then the person is unclean. Leprosy ulcers can appear on an abscess or burn. Here nothing can be insignificant, nothing can be neglected, nothing can be left unobserved, so as not to allow evil to spread unhindered. After a certain time, the priest examines the suspect again. He still suspects illness under what appears to be a depression in the skin. If it is a clear case of leprosy, he immediately announces it; if he is still not sure, he must wait some more time.

The ulcer could be not only on the body, but also on the head or beard; if the ulcer was on the skin and the hair on it was yellowish and thin, then the priest was forced to conclude that it was leprosy; but if the ulcer on the skin was not deep, he must wait to see if it spreads and deepens; then, if it did not change, he had to wait again; if even then the ulcer did not spread over the skin and did not deepen into it, then the priest could declare the person clean. The remaining cases have also been extremely carefully examined, and I have no doubt that every slightest change was fully covered in the prescription, but the proof of this would distract us from the question I am considering.

The result observed in one case (vv. 12, 13) is truly amazing - when leprosy completely covers the patient from head to toe. To an unclean eye this may seem the worst of all, for the leprosy came out completely and covered the entire body of the patient. But only in this case did the priest have grounds to declare the patient clean! Yes, when the sinner has come to the worst and realized it, he is forgiven. It was a sin, unable to spread further, it was recognized and recognized. The patient no longer intends to assert his own righteousness, but places himself in the hands of the fair judgment of God, and he is justified through faith. God gave the priest the right to declare clean what is clearly unclean. Those who know such a God become bold in faith. Faith in him was what suited this hopeless case; this was the only opportunity for God to assert his supremacy here. We must trust him that this is always how it should be. When you see a person who is well aware of his sin and yet submits to God, you can be sure that he will receive blessing and complete forgiveness. If a person seeks to hide his sin, keep silent about it and justify himself instead of admitting all his sins, no matter how monstrous they may be, this only hinders the perception of the grace of God and instills uncertainty. Such aspirations only signify vain hopes, denying the extent of human fall and cutting off all paths to acquiring divine grace. At least he who alone could cure lepers exhorted them not to hide any sign of the disease (vv. 45, 46).

The case where leprosy affected clothing does not need to be considered in detail. It refers to leprosy that occurs under certain circumstances and is not very common in nature. This is stated in verses 47-59.

Leviticus 14

Chapter 14 contains wonderful instructions for confirming the healing of a leper. This does not say that leprosy can be cured. Everything here depends only on God. No ceremony, no rite can truly heal - only divine power, directly or through an intermediary, can do this. Suppose that somehow the leper is healed, but the sores remain, and now this person needs to be cleansed. This purification ceremony is discussed at the beginning of the chapter. In a special way, in two birds, she symbolizes Christ, who died and rose again. After the blood of the slaughtered bird was mixed with living water (symbolizing the action of the Holy Spirit on a person) and the priest sprinkled it seven times on the person being cleansed from leprosy, he was declared clean. A living bird was dipped in slaughtered blood and released into the field (a symbol of the resurrection of Christ), and the one being cleansed began to wash his clothes, cut his hair and wash his body, and after seven days he became clean. Until then he was not clean, although he was no longer outside the camp.

On the eighth day we see something clearly symbolizing Christ in all his mercy and all the effectiveness of his work before God, work for the good of man, so that the soul could feel the state of blessing into which it was led. There is often a danger that we are satisfied with the first part without taking into account the other. Oh, how we rob our souls by this meagerness in the face of God's generous mercy! The end of this chapter speaks of leprosy affecting the home, which clearly represents the sin of the whole community, and each individual case is dealt with here (vv. 54-57).

Leviticus 15

Chapter 15 describes cases of the depravity of the flesh in relation to the manifest weakness of man born in sin. If we discover such terrible, but truly inherent vices of man, then let us rejoice that God, and only God alone, brings in this same book as a contrast everything that so brightly and fully personifies the sacrifice of Christ in all its diversity and perfection ! After such an introduction, we can calmly bear the following depressing picture of man in all his disgustingness: a man stricken with leprosy; leprosy in his character; leprosy in his environment, with its preceding uncleanliness and subsequent desecration of everything. And yet “mercy prevails over judgment.” However, we discover that it is not just mercy, but God working in power, and He keeps us in union with Him (while we still act foolishly and sin) rather than forcing us to wait for the moment when we will be in heaven. What a joy to know him here on earth! I hope to dwell a little on what this side of his mercy reveals to us as we move on to the next part of the book of Leviticus.

Introduction.

The book of Leviticus was the first book to be studied by Jewish children. But it is often one of the last books studied by Christians. Meanwhile, there are about 40 references to it in the New Testament, and a book of this kind should be considered important and significant.

Apart from the significance that the sacrifices described therein have for us as types, the book of Leviticus contains many revelations regarding the character of God, His holiness and mercy. In addition, this book is rich in lessons about holy living, the kind God wants to see in His people. Many New Testament texts, including some verses that are key to understanding Hebrews, cannot be properly appreciated without a clear understanding of the relevant passages in Leviticus.

The title of the book comes from the Greek "Leuitikon", which was used by the translators of the Septuagint as the title of this book because it deals with priestly ceremonies and institutions. This may seem a little strange because the Levites themselves are mentioned only once in the book (25:32).

But since the priests along the line of Aaron came from the tribe of Levi, and the system of sacrifices carried out by them is usually spoken of as “Levitical,” then the corresponding title of the book seems justified. It is taken from the so-called Latin Vulgate, i.e. the generally accepted Latin text of the Bible. The Hebrew title of the book is simply “And the Lord called” (the book begins with these words).

Author.

Although it is impossible to confidently conclude from the text of the book who its author was, it is clearly Moses for several reasons: 1) Because what is said in the book was revealed to Moses at Sinai (7:37-38; 26: 46; 27:34) and brought to the attention of the people through him (1:1; 4:1; 6:1,8,19,24; 7:22,8:1, etc.), seems most likely, that he was also the person who recorded these Divine revelations. 2) The Book of Leviticus is a logical continuation of Exodus (commentary on Lev. 1:1), in relation to which the authorship of Moses is clearly established (Exod. 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27-28; compare Deut. 31: 9.24). 3) That Moses was the author of Leviticus is confirmed by the Lord Jesus when He refers to the law of leprosy (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; compare Lev. 14:2-32). Apparently this book was written by Moses shortly after the writing of Exodus, in the 2nd half of the 15th century BC.

Historically, Leviticus is a continuation of the Exodus because the sacrificial system of the Levites arose from the divine revelation given to Israel through Moses and corresponded to part of the duties imposed on the Jews by the Sinai covenant.

The book begins with the words: “And the Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting.” Thus, the laws contained in the book of Leviticus historically follow the story of the construction of the tabernacle (Exodus 25-40) and precede the next historically significant story - the numbering of the tribes of Israel, which was carried out before their departure from Sinai (Num. 1 -4). Digressions and insertions include the story of the ordination of priests (Lev. 8-10) and a short episode recounted in 24:10-13.

Theologically, the Levitical sacrificial system was instituted for a people redeemed from Egypt and brought into a special covenant relationship with their God. Thus the sacrifices performed in Israel were not some human attempt to gain favor from a hostile Deity, but were a response to that Lord who, on His initiative, invited Israel to enter into a covenant with Him.

However, whenever this communion with the Lord was broken, either with one person or with the people as a whole, by reason of sin or pollution, ethical or ceremonial, the communion was always renewed on the basis of the covenant through sacrifice. Moreover, the nature of the victim each time depended exactly on the circumstances and nature of the violation.

This principle of approaching God through making sacrifices to Him did not, of course, exclude the so-called sacrifices of dedication on the part of society as a whole, not related to one sin or another. However, initiatory sacrifices were apparently an exception to the rule.

The book also includes many rules and regulations regarding daily life and the observance of sanctity, both ethical and ceremonial.

Leviticus is a book of holiness (“separation”; compare 20:26). While significant emphasis is placed on the observance of ceremonial holiness, in the name of which people, animals or objects are “set apart”, set apart for God, so as not to serve worldly purposes and not to be subject to cultic desecration. Holiness of this kind ultimately only symbolizes and serves as the basis for ethical holiness (11:44; 19:2). God Himself is separated from everything that is sinful, from everything worldly (i.e., holy in moral holiness) and exalted above all of His creation (i.e., He is holy in terms of His greatness). And so, having entered into the midst of His people Israel (26:11-12), He demanded that they too be holy (20:22-26).

The structure of the book matches its theme. Chapters 1-16 deal primarily with the worship of a holy God, while chapters 17-27 deal primarily with the daily “walk” of holiness before God and others.

The meaning of the Old Testament sacrifice. According to the law, sacrifice was the only comprehensive means given by God to the Jews to enable them to maintain a harmonious relationship with Him. It is noteworthy that the revelation regarding the sacrificial system given through Moses was not accompanied by a revelation about any symbolic meaning of the sacrifice. It did, however, clearly set forth the principle of purification through substitutionary sacrifice (commentary on 1:4; 17:11).

Another important factor is to distinguish between two types of relationships that an Israelite had or could have with God: a) he could have a relationship with Him as a member of a theocratic people (compare Ex. 19-20) and b) he had (or could have) a relationship with God as one who has experienced personal regeneration and has been justified by faith.

Although ideally these two types of relationships should have accompanied each other, in fact there were few true believers among the people of Israel throughout their history (except perhaps for a short time immediately after the exodus from Egypt); a significant part of the people observed only formal veneration of the Lord, without having real faith in Him.

Adhering to the traditional view that sacrifices only “covered” sin, one cannot properly evaluate the authenticity of the forgiveness that was granted by God (Lev. 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7) . Such atonement through sacrifice, which simply “covered” sin, as if not removing it, does not find confirmation in the etymology of the word “atonement” as it sounds in Hebrew (commentary on 1:4). Rather, atonement through sacrifice involved the actual removal of guilt and release from punishment for a specific sin or sins.

The scope of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (chapter 16 commentary) expanded the scope of this principle (the principle of substitutionary sacrifice) to include “all the people” (verse 33) and “all their iniquities” (verse 22), that is, there was a “purification of the children of Israel from all their sins" (verse 34). The complete forgiveness of the Israelites for their iniquities of the past year is described as cleansing from sin (verse 30).

However, Levitical sacrifices (as well as sacrifices made from the heart in pre-Levitical times) were subject to a number of restrictions.

First, they were limited in terms of their moral effectiveness. Since formal rites could never satisfy God, those who wished to offer a sacrifice truly pleasing to Him must offer it out of sincere faith and in obedience to God's revealed will (26:14-45; note especially verse 31; Ps. 39:6-8; 50:16-17; Prov. 21:27; Amos 5:21-24; Heb. 10:5-10; 11:4,6).

Sacrifices that were not offered in faith may have been justified from time to time from the point of view of ritual purification and civil requirements (for example, from the point of view of the concept of reparation, which was associated with the sacrifice of propitiation), but they could not be pleasing to God because reduced to a simple formality.

It should be noted that the object of faith was not associated either with the symbolic meaning of the sacrifices made, or with thoughts of the coming Redeemer. This object was God Himself. Of course, faith grew and deepened as the Old Testament revelations regarding the coming Lamb of God as the final “Sacrifice of Propitiation” became more and more revealed (Is. 53:10).

Secondly, apart from perhaps the ritual performed on the Day of Atonement, the sacrifices made corresponded only to certain types and cases of personal sins. In the theological, biblical, sense, they did not free us from the nature of sin or from the sin imputed to Adam. Nor did they save us from the consequences of willfully sinful acts that were committed as a sign of demonstrative disobedience to God (compare Num. 15:30-31 and the interpretation on Lev. 4:1-2). Thus, the Levitical sacrifice was not some kind of complete and final means of cleansing from all types of sin.

She mainly removed sins committed out of ignorance, accident, negligence and oversight; In addition, she cleared cases of ritual violations of petty crimes against property. Sins that were not removed by individual sacrifice were acts that expressed demonstrative disobedience to the Lord and His commands, that is, deliberate violations of the Ten Commandments (with the exception of minor violations of the 8th and 9th commandments), deliberate neglect of ritual regulations, and other violations of the covenant between Israel and the Lord. Sins of this kind could be immediately forgiven on the basis of unconditional mercy, in response to faith and sincere repentance (compare Ps. 32:50). The alternative was for those who had sinned to wait for the annual Day of Atonement.

Thirdly, the sole purpose of the sacrifices was to preserve the covenant with the redeemed people, as if to renew the covenant again and again. Levitical sacrifices were an integral part of the worship of the redeemed people, bound in a covenant relationship with their God.

When in Egypt they killed the Passover lambs and smeared their blood on the doorposts, it was an outward means of expressing their inherent faith both for the society as a whole and for the greater part of the individuals who composed it; this outward manifestation thus “signaled” the revival of each of the Israelites individually and their justification. The sacrificial system that arose on this basis was theoretically associated with the special character of the worship of God among the Jews and with the renewal of the covenant relationship that bound them to God - and not with the salvation provided from the beginning of the world.

In other words, it is comparable to the experiences and experiences of the New Testament believer as described in 1 John. 1:9, and is not comparable to what we read in John. 3:16. However, it is obvious that as the new generation of Israelites reached the age when the youth were to be numbered, it became necessary for them to somehow express their faith - in order to achieve regeneration and be justified; without this they could not worship God in a manner acceptable to Him and maintain a proper relationship with Him.

Such an opportunity presented itself to them on a number of occasions, including the annual celebrations of Easter, where traditional explanations accompanied memories of it. This could also have happened when the young Israelites made their first sacrifices for sin, if they correctly understood what they were doing and truly believed in their forgiving God.

The forgiveness granted was quite real, although temporary (in the sense that for each newly committed sin a new sacrifice was required). Thus, although God accepted sacrifices to remove guilt in each individual case of sin, the temporary suspension of His wrath did not result in a permanent cleansing of the human conscience (Heb. 10:2).

Fifth, the effectiveness of the sacrifice did not derive from any property of the sacrificial animal or from anything inherent in the sacrificial ritual. God guaranteed redemption through the future offering of an “all-sufficient” (exhaustive) sacrifice through the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross. The death of Christ was the “sacrifice of atonement,” with which God fully paid for forgiveness, the effect of which extended to those sins that were committed before the cross (Rom. 3:25).

In other words, the Levitical sacrifices seemed to acquire legal force in the eyes of God only on the basis of the death of Christ. The only truly sufficient Sacrifice for all the sin of the world was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; compare 1 Pet. 1:19-20). The effectiveness of the Levitical sacrifices thus appears to be derivative.

It is in this sense that the author of Hebrews states: “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4). Nevertheless, the benefits that the Old Testament believers received from Levitical sacrifices were no less real than the clothes worn by the credit card holder, our contemporary, who has not yet paid for these clothes in full.

To summarize, we repeat that the Levitical sacrifices were effective both in the sense of restoring the relationship of the Jews with God on the basis of the covenant, and (when the sacrifice was made in faith) in the sense of actual forgiveness of certain private sins. However, this effectiveness was derivative in nature and needed to gain legal force through one comprehensive sacrifice, which Christ performed on the cross.

Although sacrifices were limited in scope and purpose, their spiritual value was determined, in part, by their moralizing character. Through them Israel received lessons in how to properly approach a holy God.

"First of all, sin had to be dealt with; an appropriate offering (for sin or guilt) had to be made. This was closely connected with the burnt offering, which immediately followed the offering; the burnt offering was accompanied by grain offerings (as is recorded in many cases), and so in this way the petitioner(s) fulfilled their obligation (2 Chron. 29:31), thereby gaining the right to participate in the last act of the liturgy.

In the final phase, burnt offerings (additional) and peace offerings were offered, the burnt offerings including both the voluntary gifts of individuals and the offerings corresponding to the seasons, which symbolized the constant and devoted service of God on the part of the people as a whole; it was based on a communal experience in which the Lord, the priest and the ordinary Israelite who turned to God ... all received their share" (from the article "Sacrifice", written by A. F. Rainey)

Briefly setting out the meaning of the ritual act from a theological point of view (on this subject, comments on various types of offerings in Lev. 1-7), we can note the following: when an Israelite worshiping God laid his hand on a sacrificial animal, he identified himself with it, made it his substitute . If this was done in faith, there was a symbolic transfer of sin, a legally justifiable transfer of human guilt onto the sacrificial animal.

God would then accept the slaughter of that animal (symbolized by its burning on the altar) as a ransom for a specific sin (or for the sins of the previous year if the ceremony took place on the Day of Atonement). As a result of this, turning His wrath away from the sinner and ultimately turning it towards Christ crucified on the cross. Thus God granted true forgiveness to the sinner who sacrificed to Him in faith.

Book outline:

I. Approaching God through Sacrifice (Chapters 1-16)

A. Laws concerning sacrifices (chapters 1-7)

1. General rules of sacrifice for the people (1:1 - 6:7)

2. Additional rules of sacrifice for priests (6:8 - 7:38)

B. Establishment of the Priesthood and Sacrificial System (chapters 8-10)

1. Dedication of Aaron and his sons (chapter 8)

2. The Beginning of the Public Sacrificial System (Chapter 9)

3. Consequences of Departure from Priestly Ceremonial (Chapter 10)

B. Laws Concerning Impurity (Chapters 11-15)

1. Laws on food, clean and unclean animals (Chapter 11)

2. Law on Maternity Women (Chapter 12)

3. Laws regarding patients with skin diseases and “ulcers” (chapters 13-14)

4. Law on Impurity Related to Human Excretion (Chapter 15)

D. The Law of the Day of Atonement (Chapter 16)

1. Introduction (16:1-2)

2. Preparing the high priest for the ceremonies; preparing animals for them (16:3-5)

3. Brief description of the ceremonies (16:6-10)

4. Detailed description of the ceremonies (16:11-28)

5. Establishment of the Day of Atonement (atonement) as an annual ceremony (16:29-34)

II. Keeping God Holy by Separation (Chapters 17-27) A. Laws Concerning Sacrifice and the Eating of Sacrificial Meat (Chapter 17)

1. Introduction (17:1-2)

2. The requirement to slaughter domestic animals at the tabernacle (17:3-7)

3. The requirement to offer sacrifices at the entrance to the tabernacle (17:8-9)

5. Application of the above rules to game (17:13-16)

B. Laws Concerning Covenant Moral Conduct and Rejection of Pagan Practices (Chapters 18-20)

1. Limitations in the field of relations between the sexes (Chapter 18)

2. Laws that provided for holiness in practice, before God and people (chapter 19)

3. Death Penalty Laws (Chapter 20)

B. Laws concerning the holiness of priests and sacrifices (chapters 21-22)

1. Personal restrictions imposed on priests by their ministry (chapter 21)

2. Rules regarding sacred offerings (chapter 22)

D. Laws on the Holy Feasts of the Lord (Chapter 23)

1. Introductory Command (23:1-4)

2. Spring holidays (23:5-22) 3. Autumn holidays (23:23-43)

4. Summing up (23:44) D. Rules ceremonial and moral (chapter 24)

1. Daily and weekly services in the tabernacle of meeting (24:1-9)

2. The incident of blasphemy and God's law given in connection with it (24:10-23)

E. Special Years Laws (Chapter 25)

1. Sabbath year (25:1-7)

2. Year of Jubilee (25:8-55)

G. Blessings for Obedience and Punishments for Disobedience within the Covenant (chapter 26)

2. Blessings for obedience (26:3-13)

3. Punishments for disobedience (26:14-45)

4. Final conclusion (26:46)

H. The Law of Vows, Gifts and Tithes (Chapter 27)

1. Vows regarding people and animals (27:1-13)

2. Dedication of houses and lands (27:14-25)

3. Other rules and gifts (27:26-33)

4. Conclusion (27:34)

1–9. The burnt offering and its ritual; offering of cattle. 10–18. Offering of small livestock.

. And the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting, saying:

After the construction of the tabernacle, the Lord, fulfilling His promise to Moses to reveal His will to him and to manifest His presence over the ark of the covenant and its lid (kapporeth, Greek ἱλαστήριον - the throne of propitiation, mercy), gives His commands no longer from Mount Sinai, as before (), and from the tabernacle, from the ark of the covenant - especially since almost all of the provisions of the book of Leviticus are connected with the sanctuary, and some of its departments are specifically assigned to the servants of the sanctuary (for example). However, the general purpose of the laws of the book of Leviticus and the book itself in general is for “the sons of Israel” (), as those called to priestly holiness (). Everything contained in the book. Levite, Moses received the commandments and laws of Jehovah, standing, probably, in the second part of the tabernacle, before the veil in the Holy of Holies, where only the high priest could enter (; ; ).

. declare to the children of Israel and say to them: Whenever one of you wants to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, then, if from livestock, you offer your sacrifice from large and small livestock.

. If his sacrifice be a burnt offering of herds, he shall offer it a male, without blemish; let him bring her to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, that he may find favor with the Lord;

This is where the exposition of the laws on victims begins. The purpose and meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices. Theodoret, like other church teachers, defines it as follows: “that which does not need anything, I think, will not be much contradicted by those who are little understood. And that such sacrifices were also displeasing to Him, He revealed this through many prophets. But since the Israelites, having lived for a long time in Egypt, learned to make sacrifices to idols; then he allowed sacrifices in order to rid them of superstition. For the Israelites rejoiced in sacrifices (;), rejoiced in the blood of victims; therefore, he allowed them, satisfying such a wish. In addition to this, God controlled through this and other protective medicine for the Israelites, because he commanded them to sacrifice what the Egyptians idolized - from four-legged animals: a calf, a goat and a sheep, and from birds: a turtle dove and pigeon chicks" (answer to the question. 1 on Leviticus). But, in addition to these negative motives, the Old Testament sacrifice, without a doubt, had a positive side, embodying the idea of ​​serving God, of course, in relation to the spiritual state of Old Testament humanity and in relation to the future world-redemptive sacrifice of Christ the Savior. The victim's common name is Hebrew. qorban, Greek δῶρον, gift (cf. κορβαν ὃ έστιν δῶρον ); Aquila, Symmachus: προσφορὰ; Vulg.: hostia, oblatiö the idea of ​​a gift, devoting oneself and one’s property to God is fundamental to the biblical concept of sacrifice. R. Abarbanal pointed out the dual meaning of the term “korban” according to its word production (from the Hebrew qarab, bring, bring closer): the sacrifice is called korban: 1) because it is brought to the altar, and 2) because it produces a great rapprochement between sacrificer and God. The burnt offering referred to in , is a private sacrifice, offered according to the voluntary vow or intention of individuals; Meanwhile, the sacrifices of sin (), guilt () and purification (chap.) were strictly defined in well-known cases specified by law. The burnt offering, being an expression of man's complete dedication of his personality to God, was also the most important among all types of sacrifice. The material used for blood sacrifices was generally cattle and small animals - sheep and goats; for the burnt offering it must be male, while in the sacrifices of gratitude () and sin () in other cases female animals were also allowed. In addition, two breeds of birds were sacrificed in burnt offerings and in other cases: turtle doves and pigeons; their gender was considered indifferent. Heb. the name of the burnt offering: olah – ascending, i.e. completely offered up on the altar; ischscheh – burning, burned (mostly); calif - whole, perfect (i.e. burning), cf. ; , : ὁλοκαύτωμα , Vulg.: holocaustum - a sacrifice in which the entire sacrificial animal is burned. The latter in every sacrifice must be “without blemish”, tamim, LXX: ἄμωμον, i.e.: not have a single defect from those indicated in (), - since only a completely healthy, viable and completely clean (an animal is carefully washed) the sacrificial animal could symbolize the strength and vitality of the sacrificial surrender of oneself to God on the part of the sacrificer; a worthless animal was an intolerable insult to the majesty of Jehovah, the theocratic king of Israel, cf. Instead of the favor of Jehovah, a sacrifice made of worthless material would bring a curse on the one bringing it (). After bringing the sacrifice, the owner of the animal brought it to the entrance of the tabernacle of meeting (cf.), i.e., to the courtyard where the altar of burnt offerings was located.Further, the sacrifice of herds and flocks consisted of the following acts.

. and lay his hand on his head victims burnt offerings - and he will receive favor, for the atonement of his sins;

After the sacrificer had expressed his need, desire or duty to make a sacrifice to Jehovah by bringing the animal to the sanctuary, he performed laying on of hands(semichah) - he put both hands on the head of the sacrificial animal and (according to legend) pressed them with the head of the victim, who at that time stood tied to the northern side of the altar (), where the victim was slaughtered. The donor could not transfer the right to lay hands on anyone; only when making a sacrifice for the deceased, this rite was performed by his heir (Mishna, Menachot 9:8, calls women, children, the blind, the deaf and idiots incompetent for the laying on of hands). If the sacrifice was made from the whole society, then the hands of the elders were laid on (). The meaning of the laying on of hands does not lie in the transfer of sins and responsibility to the sacrificial animal (according to the theory of satisfactio vicaria) - only the sacrifice of sin had such a special meaning, in which the laying on of hands, according to legend, was combined with the confession of sins on the part of those offering the sacrifice, but in the tradition of the sacrificer himself and his spiritual mood as a sacrifice to God: a moment of extreme tension of faith and devotion to God on the part of the Old Testament man, who was waiting for a sacrificial “covering”, propitiation (lekapper alav). By blessed Theodoret, “it would not be strange to say that those who offer themselves to God compare themselves to various kinds of dumb animals sacrificed” (question 1).

. and he shall kill the bull before the Lord; The sons of Aaron, the priests, will bring the blood and sprinkle the blood on all sides on the altar, which is at the entrance of the tabernacle of meeting;

And peel off the skin victims burnt offering and cut her into pieces;

The next act, also performed by the sacrificer, was the slaughter (schechitah), which followed immediately after the utterance of the last word of confession. The Levites could help the donor in this, as this especially happened during the gathering of many victims, on holidays (cf.), when priests also participated in the slaughter. The place of slaughter was usually the northern side of the altar of burnt offerings - not due to the beliefs of the ancients in the dwelling of the Divine in the north (Ewald), but as the only free, unoccupied side, and also, perhaps, due to the symbolic meaning of the north - synonymous with darkness, cold and death (Tolyukk) . About the type and method of slaughter in the Bible. the text does not say, except for the slaughter of birds; detailed and precise legalizations of the tradition regarding this boil down to ensuring that the least amount of suffering is caused to the animal: the cut is made with a large sharp knife, which cuts both the food and windpipe at once, and so that the blood flows out quickly and is not lost. The symbolic meaning of the act of slaughter lay in the ideas: 1) death is a rent of sin () and 2) without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (;), ideas that permeated everything (; ; etc.) and foreshadowed the Sacrifice of the Cross. The slaughter was the last act of the offerer; Now the priest began to act. Substituting a large bowl (with 2 handles), the priest collected the blood flowing from the wound of the animal into it and sprinkled blood (zeriqah) on all sides of the altar, according to legend: first on the north-eastern corner of the altar, and sprinkled two sides of the altar, northern and eastern, then to the southwest, and the southern and western sides were sprinkled. By sprinkling of blood, however, we mean any use of sacrificial blood, varying in the type of victims and in the degree of intensity of the propitiatory moment (the sides of the altar of burnt offerings were sprinkled, or only its horns, or the horns of the incense altar and the place opposite the veil in the sanctuary, or, finally, the Ark of the Covenant in Holy of Holies). The remainder of the blood was poured out at the foot of the altar. Here, in Solomon's Temple, two sewers were built, through which the blood flowed into the Kidron stream (from where it was taken for field fertilization). The Jewish tradition considered sprinkling as the “radix et principium” of the sacrifice, and a sacrifice in which the sprinkling was performed by a layman was considered invalid (Mishna, Zebachim 2:7). The cleansing power of blood and its sprinkling is connected with the biblical view that blood is the seat of the soul and life of an animal, and its sacrificial shedding has atoning power for the sins of people (), of course, due to the transformative meaning of the Old Testament sacrifice in relation to the atoning death of Christ (cf. . ).

. The sons of Aaron, the priests, will put fire on the altar and lay wood on the fire;

. And the sons of Aaron the priests will lay out the parts, the head and the fat, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar;

And the insides victims And he will wash her feet with water, and the priest will burn everything on the altar: This

After removing the skin from the animal (), which always belonged to the serving priest (), who usually performed the skinning (), and cutting into separate parts, the latter were folded in a certain order (according to tradition, the hind parts are at the bottom, and the head is on top), all the meat was sprinkled with salt (; ;), according to legend, certainly “Sodom salt,” that is, taken from the Dead Sea, a fire was lit on the altar and the entire sacrifice was burned (hiqtir, ). Heb. Ch. hiqtir (from qatar) is used exclusively of “burning incense,” “lighting lamps” in the temple and “burning a sacrifice on the altar,” and, unlike Ch. saraph - to burn, to incinerate (for example, sacrifices not on the altar of the temple, but outside the camp, - ; etc.), means the ascent of mountains, the raising to God of the “own essence” (Kurtz) of the victim, as “a fragrance pleasing to Jehovah.” More specifically, since the material gift of the donor symbolized his spiritual mood, the act of burning meant the sacrificer’s surrender of himself to God, on the other hand, the acceptance of the sacrifice by Jehovah (cf.), which in certain cases was marked by the deliberate, miraculous sending of fire from heaven by Jehovah himself (; ; ).

. If his burnt offering [to the Lord] be of flocks, sheep, or goats, he shall offer it as a male, without blemish, [and shall lay his hand on its head,]

. and he shall slaughter it before the Lord on the north side of the altar, and the sons of Aaron the priests shall sprinkle its blood on all sides of the altar;

. and cut her into pieces, separating her head and her fat, and the priest shall lay them out on the wood that is on the fire on the altar,

. And he will wash the entrails and the feet with water, and the priest will bring everything and burn it on the altar: This burnt offering, sacrifice, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

Art. they talk about the sacrifice of small livestock, which was no different from the sacrifice of large livestock. For both large and small livestock, there were age restrictions regarding sacrifice. Young animals must have been at least 8 days old (cf.); in one case (under Samuel, -) the bringing of a lamb from the breasts (teleh-chalaph) is specifically mentioned. The maximum age in the biblical text is not defined. Small livestock were usually brought at the age of one year (), a 7-year-old calf was brought, as a symbol of the 7-year Midianite yoke. In Art. 11 directly indicates the place of slaughter of the victims, the animal - the northern side of the altar - the side, as we have already mentioned, is the only free one: at the eastern side (from the entrance) ashes and ash fell, and here, probably, stood the celebrant - the priest, facing the sanctuary - to the west, which, as a sacred place, could not serve as a place for the slaughter of an animal: on the south side a ladder was placed to climb to the altar. Regarding other sacrifices - sin and guilt - it is deliberately prescribed to perform the slaughter of victims, an animal “where the sacrifice is ala there is a burnt offering" (). The biblical text does not say this about the peace offering, and tradition considered it permissible to offer, at least from private individuals, peace offerings in every place of the temple courtyard (Mishnah, Zebah 5:5).

. If he brings a burnt offering to the Lord from birds, let him offer his sacrifice from turtledoves, or from young pigeons;

. the priest will bring her to the altar, and twist her head, and burn her on the altar, and drain the blood against the wall of the altar;

. he will take away her crop with its feathers and throw it near the altar on the east side, where the ashes are;

. And he will break her in her wings, without separating them, and the priest will burn her on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire: this is a burnt offering, a sacrifice, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

Following the descending degree of value of sacrificial materials, the legislator now specifies the ritual of offering burnt offerings from birds, namely turtle doves (in adulthood) and doves (young); both of them were found in abundance in ancient Palestine, especially at certain times of the year ( ) the head of a bird, without completely separating the head from the body, but only opening the wound to receive blood, which immediately poured out to the foot of the altar, and then, having separated and thrown away the waste, he burned the whole bird, and its ashes were poured to the eastern side of the altar (cf. ). : being the most important of the sacrifices, expressing the idea of ​​complete and perfect service to Jehovah, the burnt offering was therefore in the primary sense of “a fragrance pleasing to the Lord.”

SOURCE SELECTION

Comments by Lopukhin A.P. to the Old Testament / Leviticus / Chapter 16

1-2 This chapter forms the center of the entire book of Leviticus on those extremely important religious ideas that are expressed in the institution of the day of atonement, since here are: a) the fact of the universal and varied sinfulness and uncleanness before God of even the chosen people; b) the need to periodically clean them; c) means for this: nationwide repentance and contrition for sins with a certain sacrificial ritual. Not technically named in Lev Chapter 16, this day is given in two other places in the book. Lev, 23:27 and 25:19, named after Heb. jom hakkippurim, according to LXX: ἡμέρα ἐξιλασμου̃, day of purification or propitiation, Vulgate: dies expiationum. In Josephus (Ant. Jude XIV, 4-3 and XVI, 4) and Philo (Opera II, p. 206, ed. Mangey), it is called a day of fasting or a feast of fasting (ἡ τη̃ς νηστείας ἡμέρα or νηστείος ἡμ έρα). In Talmudic literature, the usual name for the day of purification is joma (the day par excellence; an entire tr. of the 2nd volume of the Talmud, dedicated to the regulations on the day of purification, called Yoma), or joma rabbah (great day). On this day, the greatest in terms of the importance of sacrifices, which took place on the 10th day of the month Tisri (Lev 23:27; 25:9; cf. Num 29:7), all mystical cleansing rites in the tabernacle or temple were performed exclusively by one high priest. He, as well as the priests, is instilled first of all with the deepest reverence for the sanctuary, due to which the high priest himself could enter the inner part of the Old Testament sanctuary only once a year. The laws on the day of atonement are historically associated with the tragic incident of the sudden death of Aaron’s sons - Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2), but logically they quite naturally join the laws of clean and unclean (Lev 11-15). The curtain, parocheth, through which the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies only on the day of atonement, this so-called second (Heb. 9:8) curtain (Ex. 24:31-32-36), different from the first, separating the sanctuary and the courtyard. “Lid”, Slavic: “purification”, Hebrew: kapporeth, LXX: ἱλαστηρίου, Vulgate: propitiatorium, - probably a plate on the Ark of the Covenant, symbolizing the throne of Jehovah, where He deigned to appear in the “cloud”. This cloud (v. 2) is identified by some commentators (Rosenmüller) with the “cloud of incense,” v. 13. But Jewish tradition identified this cloud of the holy of holies with that wonderful cloud that showed the Jews the way in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21) and then covered the tabernacle when it was built (Exodus 11:34-38; Num 9:15-23 ). And blessedly To Theodoret (question 21 on Lev), God revealed himself in the tabernacle “in a luminous cloud.”

3-4 Jewish tradition speaks in detail about the preparation of the high priest for entering the Holy of Holies and performing rituals for purification, such as: the 7-day separation of the high priest from his family and staying in a special room at the temple, about the appointment of a deputy (sagan) for him in case his desecration or death, about his exercises in performing the rituals of the day, about the vigil on the eve of it, about his oath to perform the rituals exactly, etc. (mentioned tr. Yoma, see Russian translation by Pereferkovich: Talmud. Mishnah and Tosefta. Vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 318-353). Most of these details are of later origin, but some features of the ritual, preserved only in legend, are of ancient origin.

3 Only sacrifices made by the high priest for himself and the priesthood from his own wealth are mentioned (a bull for sins and a ram for a burnt offering); sacrifices from the people are not mentioned.

5 Tradition complements the biblical text, testifying that in the morning the high priest performed the usual daily sacrifice in his usual golden vestment; Actually, on the day of purification, the high priest performed the appointed sacrifices in special white and linen clothes, almost identical to the priestly ones, with the exception of the turban. The fact that the clothes were not gold, as usual, but linen, meant humility and repentance of the high priest. and the people. The white color of the vestment could express the purity and innocence to which the people of God were called upon to cleanse them from the sins of a whole year. Before vesting, on the day of purification, the high priest washed his entire body with water every time (according to tradition, only 5 times).

5-6 2 goats were chosen as a sacrifice for the sins of the people on the day of atonement (Hebrew sair, different from the usual name goat attud, can mean a goat of a special breed or an old, shaggy one). According to tradition, both goats had to be the same age and the same species.

7-8 The symbolism of the 2 goats has long been compared with the symbolism of the two birds for the cleansing of the leper (14:1-8). As in the latter case, both the slaughtered and the living birds - both expressed the idea of ​​​​the complete cleansing of the recovered one, so 2 goats - slaughtered, and the other released into the desert - signified the complete removal of sins and iniquities from the society of the Lord. To determine which goat should be sacrificed, the high priest cast lots: on one piece of parchment it was written: lajhovah - for the Lord, on the other la azazel - for Azazel (Russian translation: for the release, Slavic: “for the release”, Vulgate: capro emissario ). In the understanding of the last word, translations and interpreters differ extremely. Known ch. arr. 4 groups of interpretations: 1) Azazel means a place (a mountain in the desert or a desert in general) where the scapegoat was sent (some targums, Midrash, individual rabbis, from the new ones, for example, Bochart, Rosenmuller); 2) the scapegoat himself, as being sent into the desert (LXX: ἀποπομπαι̃ος, Vulgate: caper emissarius; Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Blessed Theodoret, Luther, Hoffmann, Shegg, etc.); 3) - abstractly: “absolution” (LXX: εἰς ἀποπομπήν, Russian-Slavic). But all these interpretations are strongly opposed by what is contained in Art. 8 the opposition of Jehovah is la azazel, therefore the latter must be a personal being and, moreover, a source of sin. Therefore 4) both in antiquity (Origen. Against Celsus VI, 43), and especially in modern times, Azazel is understood in the sense of a personal being - the devil or the demonic world (Ewald, Hengstenberg, Keil, Kurtz, Ehler, Bodissin, Dillman, Schulz, Strack and many others), and due to the artificiality of the three previously mentioned interpretations, the last interpretation is the most likely. Of course, sending the goat to Azazel was not an act of sacrifice to him, which is directly excluded by the whole meaning of the law of Moses, but a symbolic return of the entire body of Israel to the original source of sin - in the form of a goat, on whose head the high priest laid the sins of the people (vv. 21-22). The Book of Enoch speaks of Azazel as one of the princes of demons.

9-10 Both over the bull for his own sin, and over each of the goats for the sin of the people, the high priest, according to tradition, read the following confession: “O Jehovah! I have committed lawlessness, transgressed and sinned before You, me and my house. O Jehovah, forgive the iniquities and crimes and sins that I have sinned against You, I and my house, as it is written in the law of Moses Your servant (Lev. 16:30): For this day they will cleanse you, to make you clean from all sins. "... (Ioma III, 8). According to tradition, on the day of purification the high priest mentioned the name of Jehovah 10 times: 6 times over the calf, Zraza over the goat, and 1 time during the casting of lots (Yoma. Tosefta II, 2).

11-14 Now the preparatory actions for the cleansing ritual were completed and the cleansing itself began, and first of all, the sins of the high priest and his house were cleansed, that is, not only his fleshly family, but also the priesthood in general (v. 33). The calf brought earlier (vv. 3:6) was slain, and its blood, brought into the Holy of Holies, purified the high priest and his house. But before bringing the blood into the Holy of Holies, the high priest had to secure his entrance there: by incense in front of the capporet. He was given a ladle into which he collected incense for smoking, and a golden censer with a long handle (different in both material and design from the one usually used), which he filled with burning coals from the altar of burnt offerings; Having the censer in his right hand and incense in his left, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, here he placed the censer between the poles of the Ark of the Covenant and poured incense onto the fire - the whole house (“holy of holies”) was filled with a cloud of smoke, “so that he would not die” ( Art. 33). Then, leaving the incense in the Holy of Holies, the high priest, always facing the ark (and then with a backward movement), left from here. Arriving at the sanctuary, he read a prayer here - short, so as not to disturb the people (Ioma V, 1). The essence of this prayer (its text is attributed to the high priest Simon II the Righteous, died about 200 BC) was a request that in the coming year Israel would not suffer captivity or any other need. Arriving in the courtyard, the high priest took the blood of the calf (probably in the palm of his left hand), from the hands of the priest, who, from the moment the calf was slaughtered, stirred it in a vessel so that it would not thicken (Ioma V, 3), and went to the Holy of Holies, stood as before place and here he sprinkled blood (in this way, “as if he was beating someone,” waving his hand) once on the front of the lid of the ark and 7 times in front of the ark on the ground, accurately counting each time (ibid). By blessed Theodoret, “since life revolves in 7 days, and every day we sin in more or less, then sprinkles equal to the days were brought for the sins committed in them” (question 32 on Lev).

15 Having cleansed himself and his house, the high priest could now make a cleansing for all the people. Returning to the courtyard of the temple, he (after the aforementioned confession of sins) killed a goat, took the blood into a vessel and for the 3rd time entered the Holy of Holies and with the blood of the goat - for the sin of the people - did the same as with the blood of the bull for his sin, that is, he sprinkled it on the clothes on the front side of the ark and 7 times on the ground in front of the ark (Ioma V, 4).

16-20 Not only the priests and the people needed cleansing, but also the holy things that they touched and desecrated - the “sanctuary” (= holy of holies), the tabernacle of meeting (sanctuary) and the altar (of burnt offerings, and together the whole courtyard), v. 20. The cleansing of the Holy of Holies was already accomplished by sprinkling before the Ark of the Covenant, first with the blood of a bull (v. 14), then with the blood of a goat (v. 16). In the same order, the cleansing of the sanctuary was carried out - by sprinkling one and the other blood before the (outer) veil and on the horns of the altar of incense (v. 18, fn. Ex. 30:10), after which the blood of the bull and the goat was mixed, and with it he was cleansed (through sevenfold sprinkling) the altar of burnt offerings, probably all the sacred vessels in general (v. 19; cf. Ioma V, 4, 5, 6). During all the sacred ceremonies in the tabernacle, there could not be a single person in it, not even a priest: only the high priest stood before Jehovah with incense and blood (v. 17).

20-22 After the cleansing of the tabernacle, the high priest had to perform the rite of scapegoating the living goat (marked by a scarlet ribbon tied to its horns - Ioma IV, 2). He laid both hands on the goat’s head (and, according to legend, he pressed hard on the goat’s head) and confessed all the sins of Israel over it (in the form mentioned, preserved by tradition), and the priests and people standing in the courtyard, hearing the name of God, fell on their faces , crying: “Blessed be the glorious name of His kingdom forever and ever” (Ioma VI, 2). Then the goat, burdened with sins, was sent with a “special man” (usually not an Israelite) into the desert, where it was cast into the abyss (Ioma VI, 6). At the same time, according to legend, the scarlet ribbon hung at the gates of the temple changed into white (Ioma VI, 8) - as a sign of the forgiveness that followed from Jehovah, in accordance with the words of the prophet (Isaiah 1:18): “if your sins are like scarlet, like I will whiten the snow." Thus, the 2 goats of the day of atonement expressed 2 moments of the same idea of ​​​​freeing the people from sins: the cleansing of sins (sprinkling the blood of the first goat) and the removal of sins (sending out the scapegoat).

23-25 ​​Now, starting to burn the victims, the high priest again washed his whole body with water (in the courtyard of the tabernacle), changed clothes (in the gallery of the tabernacle or temple) into his usual solemn sacred clothes and first burned burnt offerings for himself and the people (2 rams), and then the fat of those animals (the bull and the goat) for sin, whose blood was brought into the Holy of Holies.

26-28 The meat of the sin victims, according to the rule, 6:30, was burned outside the camp. Both the one who burned this meat and the one who took away the goat, although they were not considered defiled (then both could not enter the camp until evening), but, upon contact with sin-cleansing objects, they still had to wash their clothes.

29-31 An indication of the general nature and meaning of the day of purification: this is also fasting (“humble” your souls: ch. anah is a technical term for the spiritual-physical exercises of fasting, Ex 58: 3,5,10; hence in later Judaism taannith, fasting - the name of an entire treatise in the 2nd volume of the Talmud), and the greatest peace. “Moses called this day the Sabbath of Sabbaths, as the Holy of Holies is called, because this holiday is much more honorable than the Sabbath, and he called fasting the conquest of the soul” (Blessed Theodoret, question 22 on Lev). The exceptional fast of this unique day in the Old Testament can be equated to the fast of Great Heel.

32-34 The essence and meaning of the day of atonement is briefly and generally repeated, and it is deliberately noted that all sacred rites for cleansing should be performed only by the high priest who was in the priesthood of the day of atonement, especially in the entry 30 into the Holy of Holies, a type of the eternal, divine High Priest - Christ, Who , “having once endured saving suffering, he ascended to heaven, having found eternal redemption” (Blessed Theodoret; cf. Heb. 9:7,11,12).

It tells about the religious side of the people of Israel. Consists of 27 chapters.

Historians claim that the date of writing of the book varies from 1440 to 1400. BC.

Purpose of writing:

Based on the fact that the Israelites were in Egypt captivity for 400 years , their awareness of God was distorted by the influence of the polytheistic, pagan Egyptians.

The purpose of Leviticus is to provide instructions and laws to guide sinners, but which will redeem them by being in relationship with the Most High. Leviticus emphasizes the need for personal holiness, integrity in response to the holiness of God.

Sin must be atoned for through the offering of a proper sacrifice ( chapters 8–10 ).

Other topics covered in the book relate to diet (clean and unclean foods), childbirth, and diseases, which were carefully controlled (chapters 11–15).

Chapter 16 describes the Day of Atonement, when the annual sacrifice was made for the sins of the entire people. In addition, God's people were to monitor their personal, moral and social lives, which were very different from the pagan rituals of the time surrounding them (chapters 17–22) .

Key Verses:

Leviticus 1:4 : “Let him lay his hand on the head of the bull, so that this sacrifice may be acceptable, so that the atonement of the sacrificer may be accomplished.”

Leviticus 17:11 : “For the life of a living being is in its blood. I have appointed you to offer blood on the altar, that you may make your atonement; this blood is life, it brings redemption.”

Leviticus 19:18 : “Do not take revenge on your fellow tribesman, do not harbor anger against him. Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."

Brief summary:

Chapters 1–7 describe the sacrifices required for both the laity and the priesthood. Chapters 8–10 describe the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests. Chapters 11–16 contain regulations regarding various types of uncleanness. The last 10 chapters are God's guiding principles for His people concerning practical holiness.

In the worship of Jehovah God, various festivals were established, designed and practiced in accordance with God's laws.

Blessing or cursing was to accompany keeping or disregarding God's commandments (chapter 26). The promises of the Lord are discussed in chapter 27.

The main theme of Leviticus is holiness . God's requirements for the holiness of His people were based on His own holy nature. The corresponding theme is redemption. Holiness must be preserved before God and can only be achieved through proper atonement.

Practical use:

God takes His holiness very seriously, so we should do the same.

The trend in the postmodern church is to create God in our image, giving Him attributes we would like Him to have instead of those described in His Word. The complete holiness of God, His singular greatness, and His "impregnable light" ( are foreign concepts to many Christians.

We are called to walk in the light and remove darkness from our lives so that we can be acceptable in His sight.

Thank God that because of Jesus' death for us, we are no longer required to make animal sacrifices.

The essence the book of Leviticus is replacement . The death of animals replaced the punishment of sinners. In the same way, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross replaced the punishment for our sins. Now we can stand before God without fear because He sees righteousness in us.

1. Part 3
2. Part 4
3. . Part 5
4. . Part 6
5. . Part 7
6. Part 8
7. Part 9
8. . Part 10.