Leviticus 22:33

33. That brought you out of… Egypt The interposition of Jehovah as the emancipator of Israel from the burdens and bonds of Pharaoh was a weighty reason for holiness of life. Moral obligations are impressively seen when the relations out of which they spring are exhibited to the mind. The deliverance of the justified soul from the guilt of sin affords a strong motive for “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Israel was not commanded to be holy till the yoke of Egypt was broken.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Since this chapter contains the last directions respecting sacrifices found in this book, it is appropriate to append some general remarks, showing first the difference between Hebrew and pagan sacrifices, and secondly, the significance of the Hebrew sacrifices. 1.) There is no mention of any thing preceding the slaying of the animal, except that it be of a proper age and without blemish. It was not brought decked with garlands, nor sprinkled with barley-cakes and salt, nor was wine poured upon its horns, nor was a lock of hair taken from its forehead to be cast into the fire on the altar. 2.) Nothing is said about inspecting the entrails for ascertaining the future, which was a principal object in all heathen sacrifices. 3.) All the altar-ritual is dignified, impressive, and worthy of its divine origin; indicating the sinfulness of man, the holiness of God, and the necessity of an atonement to bring man into harmony with his Maker, and to raise him to that spiritual excellence and happiness for which he was created. These sacrifices and oblations were admirably adapted to enlighten the minds of the Jews and to prepare them to appreciate “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” In respect to all that relates to the expiation of sin, the words of Jerome are not too strong, “Almost every syllable in this book breathes a spiritual sacrament.” The best comment on the Levitical sacrifices is the epistle to the Hebrews 4:0.) The scriptural conception of the effect of sacrifices upon the object of worship is totally different from that of any pagan cultus. The Homeric gods smell the savour of the burning hecatombs, and are pleased and placated. True that at a later date Jehovah declares that he has no pleasure in burnt offerings, (Psalms 51:16,) but that was because of the insincerity and wickedness of the offerers. Says Epiphanius: “The people sacrificed, not because God would be pleased with the act, but because such an inveterate habit of sacrificing had been acquired in Egypt, and Jehovah, by temporary indulgence, would allure them away from idolatrous worship.” Chrysostom gives the following statement of the origin of Hebrew sacrifices: “God, in his care for the salvation of men, allowed such forms to be used in his own worship as had been employed in the worship of idols; those only which were of a positively sinful character being excluded. It was intended by this to lead men by a gradual progress to a purer and less carnal form of worship.” Says Theophylact: “God allowed them to sacrifice to himself, lest, if they were forbidden to do so, they should sacrifice to idols.” Thus also Justin Martyr and Tertullian. For strictures on Baehr, see Numbers 15:0, concluding note. 5.) Much objection has been made to the similarity of the Levitical ritual to that of the Egyptians, as if it was derogatory to Jehovah to employ any thing used by them. “It is altogether a natural supposition that a man like Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and whose task it was to digest a religious system for a people who, like the Israelites, had lived for centuries in Egypt, would adopt spontaneously a form of language by which those whom he wished to instruct could be reached most readily and effectively. Nor is it at all strange that he should not only use the same form of language in general, but should, besides, when trying to express, as he must often have had occasion to do, the same ideas, have had recourse to the same symbols as were employed by the Egyptians. There is nothing, necessarily, any more objectionable in this than there is in printing the Scriptures by the use of the same press and types as are employed in printing the vilest books.” Bib. Sacra.

(2.) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICES.

1 . ) THE VICARIOUS THEORY. The Mosaic sacrifices typify Christ’s death, and have exclusive reference to God. They were not designed merely to express the feelings of the worshippers, but to affect the mind of Jehovah, being vicarious punishments, and intended to accomplish the same purposes that real punishments have in view. Outram.

2 . ) THEORY OF RESTORED FELLOWSHIP. The blood of the offered animal is its life, which is offered on the altar in the place of the life of the worshipper, not as an expiation for sin, but as a surrender of selfishness, the principle of sin, thus removing sin and restoring fellowship with God. Bahr. “One (way set before the Jews) was the way of sacrifice, by which expiation and atonement were to be made; and which was to be a type and sign of the slaying and offering up of the carnal will, the carnal nature, to God.” Archdeacon Hare.

3 . ) FEDERAL THEORY. Sacrifices are not expiations but federal rites, or festive observances, shared in at once by Jehovah and by men in token of friendship, either such as had never been broken or such as had been restored. Dr. Sykes.

4 . ) GIFT THEORY. It becomes those who, like men, have received many and great benefits from their Creator, to present him some of his own gifts in return, as an expression of gratitude and acknowledgment of dependence. Thus pious men endeavour to recommend themselves to the offended Deity. Portall and Taylor.

5 . ) UNITARIAN THEORY. Sacrifices owe their efficacy to the purity of the feeling which they represent, and not to any element of expiation. The faith required was not a faith in God, nor in any future Redeemer, but simply faith in himself his distinct recognition of his own inward rectitude. F.D. Maurice.

6 . ) THE EVANGELICAL THEORY extends the vicarious theory of Outram, and makes the sacrifice satisfactory to the justice of God as a moral Governor, and to all moral intelligences, and influential with man; thus removing all barriers God-ward and man-ward which were obstructing reconciliation.

(3.) In explanation of the variety of sacrifices, we quote from Jukes: “The fact is, that our perceptions do not grasp realities, but forms. If, therefore, what is seen is to be described, we must have many representations even of the same object; and this not only because it may be viewed on different sides, but because the amount of what is seen, even on the same side, will depend on the light and capacity of the beholder. He who made us knew this and provided for it. Hence in type and figure we have view after view of Him who was to come, not only because his offices and perfections were many, but also because we were weak and needed such a revelation. Thus in the single relation of offering, Christ is seen as burnt offering, peace offering, and sin offering, each but a different view of the same offering. In the self-same act of dying on the cross, our Lord was at the same moment a sweet-savour offering, willingly offering to God a perfect obedience, and also a sin offering, penally bearing the judgment due to sin, and as such made a curse for us.”

(4.) In the nature and order of the three great feasts we have emblems of the three stages of salvation. The feast of unleavened bread prefigures the forgiveness of sins through “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” The feast of weeks, the end of the grain harvest, fifty days after the Passover, symbolizes Christ as the source of spiritual life through the Pentecostal gift in consequence of the atonement. The feast of tabernacles is typical of the repose, the gladness, the gratitude, and the enjoyment of souls still dwelling on earth, entirely sanctified and filled with the Spirit, but it more especially foreshadows the realization of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places after the harvest of the earth has been completed.