Leviticus 6

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

The division of the subject of the trespass offering made at this point by the unwise arrangement of the chapters in the Authorized Version is very much to be regretted. The Jews, who, with a few variations, have adopted the modern chapters and verses, have here very wisely retained their ancient division of the sections of the law by extending chapter 5 to Leviticus 6:7, the end of the trespass offering. We perceive that the recent revisers of our English Bible have so far corrected the arrangement of this chapter as, by a marginal note, to intimate the true ending of the chapter: so conforming it to the division of the Hebrew Bible.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Modern scepticism finds a difficulty in that portion of the ritual of the altar which requires that the priest should eat in the sanctuary those sacrifices pronounced “most holy.” They were of eight kinds: 1.) The flesh of the sin offering for private individuals and princes. Leviticus 6:25; Leviticus 26:2.) The flesh of the trespass offering. Leviticus 7:1 to Leviticus 6:3.) The peace offering of the whole congregation. Leviticus 23:19; Leviticus 20:4.) The remainder of the sheaf. Leviticus 23:10. Leviticus 23:5.) The remnant of the meat offering. Leviticus 6:16. Leviticus 6:6.) The two loaves. Leviticus 23:17. Leviticus 23:7.) The show-bread. Leviticus 24:9. Leviticus 24:8.) The log of oil offered by the leper. Leviticus 14:10. There were at least fifteen other sources of revenue; some to be eaten by the priest’s family and others which might be sold. The chief difficulty arises from the offerings to be eaten by the males only while they were very few in number, Aaron, his two sons, three in all, as Colenso assumes. The following considerations may throw some light upon this subject: 1.) In the natural order of events Aaron, the older brother of Moses, would have had grandsons when he was approaching ninety years. These, though not consecrated priests, were permitted to eat the most holy things. Leviticus 7:6. Leviticus 7:2.) The sacrifices were probably very infrequent till after the conquest of Canaan. Some writers infer from Amos 5:25-26, the omission of all legal sacrifices in the wilderness. 3.) There is positive proof that the Levites, numbering more than eight thousand, (Numbers 4:48,) did eat of the fire-sacrifices, by some broad construction of the law. Joshua 13:14. Possibly the tasting of each sacrifice by the priest, and its assignment to the Levites on guard about the tabernacle, was a constructive priestly eating of the offerings. 4.) It seems to have been overlooked by all the objectors that “the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank,” (Genesis 32:32,) and that the modern Jews not knowing what sinew this was, nor even which thigh was dislocated, judge it obligatory upon them to abstain from both the hind-quarters, the largest portion of the animal. It is reasonable to suppose that the modern Israelites are copying the practice of their fathers in the days of Moses, which, by virtue of its traditional authority, did not need to be enforced by a positive statute.

These suggestions, while they do not entirely remove all objections, very much alleviate the difficulties of this subject.

(2.) A careful study of the law of sacrifices, in which provisions so ample are made for those who minister about holy things, would enforce upon the Christian Church the duty of affording an adequate support to the Gospel ministry, in accordance with St. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9:7-14, showing that in this particular Judaism was an exemplar to Christianity.