Leviticus         Should be read in relation to the book of Hebrews

                       

4

 

v.2 “unintentional”

            It seems unfair at first sight that God would be so harsh as to judge people on sins they did not realize they committed.  The explanation is a little further on in v. 14 that sacrifices must occur on the realization of their sin.  If all the Israelites were to sacrifice for every little wrong they thought they might have committed, the priests would have been swamped.

Under the law, however, ignorance provides no excuse and we today, no matter how perfect we think we are (that being a sin itself), have sinned and are sinners just as Adam and Eve were and deserve death and separation from God

 

Mackintosh wrote:

“God knew what was needed in order that man might be in His presence without a single misgiving, and He has made ample provision for it in the cross…. all is known to Him.  Hence there could be doubt, apprehension and misgiving. All these things are divinely met by the fact that sin has been atoned for, not according to our ignorance, but according to God’s knowledge.  How can a man deal with what he doesn’t know about?  Man’s ignorance of sin proves his incapability to put it away.  If you don’t know about it what can you do about it?  Nothing, you are powerless.  It affects our peace with God, a barrier to worship, communion, witness and so on.  All rests upon the settled peace and that is the peace of a purged conscience which in turn is on perfect remission of all sins.”

 

David always had a heart to be searched and sin to be revealed (Psalms 139) and was aware of hidden faults (Psalms 19:12-13).

 

He cried, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do!”

 

vs.  3 – 7 and 13-14 “priest vs. community”

            The seriousness of the high priest’s sin is shown here as it required an offering of a bull for its forgiveness, which is the same as required if the community sins.  This, in a way, makes sense as the high priest represented the whole community before God.  This paved the way for Jesus, who as a high priest for us, paid the greatest price for our own salvation.  This was the same in rites and ceremony.  The sins of the High Priest brings guilt on the whole community.

 

4 – 6

 

“sin vs guilt offerings”

            Although the two offerings were very similar on the whole, the main difference between them is whom the offerings were actually for.  The sin offering differed between different classes and it was atonement to God (4:3,13,22,27), whereas the guilt offering made atonement not only to God, but man also (5:16; 6:4-5).

There are two aspects of Christ here and both speak of perfection.  Firstly, the burnt offering was the meeting of divine affections, the preciousness of sacrifice, the bearer of sin. “Lo I come to do thy will O God.”  The burnt offering was a voluntary, free will offering, “The cup, shall I not drink it?”  The sin offering was meeting the depths of human need, the hatefulness of sin.  “Father if this would be possible, take this cup from me…”  The agony of imputed sin.  We see Christ’s words in reference to the cup are not contrary, but in harmony when you realize both the aspects of His person and work here on the cross.  The sons of Aaron are introduced in the burnt offering, but not in the sin offering.

There are several contrasts such as the laying on of hands, in one case was an identification, and the other was a transferal of sin (2 Corinthains 5:21).  One was looked at through the medium of the offering, and the other the sin was judged. One was flayed, and one not; one cut to pieces, and one not; one was burnt on the altar, and the other outside the camp (Hebrews 13). Different things were done with the fat and the flesh. Everything was significant.

           

6

 

vs. 18+27 “holiness”

            In the NIV these verses suggest that “whatever touches them will become holy.”  This meaning is a little construed as it confirms in the footnotes.  What seems to be the case here is that whatever touches them must be holy as God commanded in Exodus 29:37.

 

8

 

vs. 23-24 “the right side”

            Mention of this act is found in the Exodus section (29:20).  Its purpose was to sanctify everything that the priests touched.  The right side always seems to be the side of power.  Benjamin (the tribe of) was generally considered weak, not just due to their small size, but also being left handed (Judges 3:12 – 20 esp. verses 15 and 21). God uses the weak and foolish things…. also 20:16.

God speaks often of His right hand, always in a context of power and authority (Isaiah 41:10 – my righteous right hand), and Christ to whom has been given all power and authority now sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven.

 

9

 

v. 7 “the priest’s sacrifice”

            Shown here is the necessity of the priest to sacrifice for his own wrongdoing.  This demonstrated that the priests were not above the people in that they, too, sinned.  This need became apparent, therefore, for a Great High Priest, which was Christ, who needed only one sacrifice to save all who believed (Hebrews 7:26-27). 

 

Aaron is anointed alone first, prior to the shedding of blood which is a type of Christ who was offered alone upon the cross.  There was no union with His people until death and resurrection was complete.  Aarons’ sons were anointed after the shedding of blood signifying the identification of Christ and His people (Hebrews 2).  Following are similarities between Aaron as a type of Christ and Christ Himself:

1)                  Aaron was robed and anointed alone - Christ sanctified and sent into the world and anointed by the Holy Spirit.

2)                  Presentation and acceptance of sacrifice - type of the cross and application to all united with Him.

3)                  Israel brought into full enjoyment of the results of accomplished atonement.

 

 

vs. 23-24 “acceptance”

            God appeared to the people to demonstrate His acceptance (the turning away of His wrath by the consummation of the sacrifice. God enters into a covenant and communion with His people) to the sacrifices and the manner in which they had been carried out.  Whether His appearance was similar to the events in Exodus 19:16-22 or from the pillar of cloud (Exodus 16:10) isn’t clear and isn’t too important.  What is important is that God consumed the offerings and from that time on, the fire was never to die (Leviticus 6:13). 

 

10

 

vs. 1-7 “examples”

            The first thing that must be discussed is the term “unauthorized fire”.  It is thought that instead of using fire taken from the alter as commanded, the two sons of Aaron became careless and used ordinary fire for the sacrifices.  As a result, God killed them.  Although the NIV states that God consumed them, this is a somewhat misleading verb as they were still whole as seen in v. 5.

One thing that is clear is that this happened in the tabernacle.  Hebrews 8: 1 – 5 also makes it clear that this was a pattern, a shadow of things to come (Christ Himself).  Sin is to be taken seriously and so are types (e.g. Moses and the rock in Numbers 20).  Everything from the materials to the measurements in the tabernacle represents Christ and His life, death and His work on earth.  To abuse this is to destroy the pattern of things to come and thus at the outset God had to show them this was serious, and as ever the punishment for sin is death.  As with Ananias and Sapphira and separation in Acts 5 it purged the church and no man dared to join it unless they were serious about separation to God (and many did).  God will be glorified and we do well to learn not just from this example, but also by Aaron’s response to it whereby he held his peace and acceptance of God’s judgment.

 

vs.  9-10 “the holy and the common”

It seems odd that suddenly God adds another law to the priest’s daily living as seen in v. 8.  It is widely thought, therefore, that the cause of Nadab and Abihu’s sin was drunkenness.  As a result, God decreed that priests could no longer consume any fermented drink so that this occurrence would never happen again.  There is a lesson in this as well for us found in v. 10.  As ambassadors of Christ, it is our charge to distinguish ourselves from everyone else.  In the situation here, the distinguishing factor was alcohol and I am in no way condemning the consumption of alcohol, but it’s worth questioning our actions in regards to their being common or holy.  We need to be discerning and have right judgment and cannot be if controlled by wine and not the Spirit of God. (Hebrews 5:12 and Ephesians 5:18)

They needed to forgo drink for two reasons; one to be sober and sober minded, but the other was they were responsible to teach the people.  They minister in a Holy place.

 

vs. 16-20 “Aaron’s acceptance”

            There are two laws concerning the remains of the sin offering.  If the blood of this sacrifice was brought into the Holy Place, it was to be burnt (Leviticus 4:16-17), but if this was not done then the priests could eat it (Leviticus 6:26). 

            Moses enquires of Aaron’s sons why they did not eat the remains and it is Aaron who replies. He states that he did not eat the sacrifice because it would not have been done in the spirit of the law.  Because Aaron was in mourning, he could not eat the remains with rejoicing and thanksgiving, as it should be done. (Deuteronomy 12:7; 26:14; Hosea 9:4).  Aaron and his sons, however, were not supposed to be mourning as that was left to the nation. They were to continue in their service for the Lord.  Moses accepts it, but that does not mean this was their best.  We can miss out on God’s best for us.

            Some think that Aaron recognized he was also a sinner and maybe even was responsible or felt responsibility in some way for what happened to his sons but we don’t know the full story.

 

16

 

vs. 8+20-22 “the scapegoat”

            A scapegoat as we now know it, is someone who takes the blame for something that they didn’t do.  In this Biblical sense, the scapegoat took the blame for all of Israel’s sins for that year.  This day of Atonement is also similar to Christ’s own day of Atonement where he took all the blame for our sins past, present and future.  The presence of two goats – one to live and the other to be sacrificed – demonstrated that Christ not only died, but also lived to save us all.

            The goat as a burnt offering is the foundation of the Glory of God; therefore God’s Glory is first and our salvation second.  The Glory of God is paramount in life or death. We are perfectly forgiven as God is perfectly glorified.  In John 1:29 and in 1 John 2:2 Jesus is referred to as the one who has perfectly glorified God with respect to sin + the world. He is seen as the great antitype of the goat on which the lot fell.

 

18       

 

v. 18 “a rival wife”

            There are two ways that the word ‘sister’ can be understood here.  The first would be a direct translation meaning exactly sister.  The second would be the indirect version where ‘sister’ implies not just sisters but other women in general.  An example of a similar situation can be found in Exodus 32:27-29.  So in a sense this would suggest that it was wrong to put one woman against another.  The second also makes sense as it clearly states in vs. 9, 11, and 16 that sexual relations inside the family were strictly forbidden. 

            Note also at the end of the verse that this doesn’t apply if the man’s wife is dead.

           

19

 

v. 23 “curbing the appetite”

            This rule may seem somewhat strange, but actually allowing the tree to grow without eating its fruits enabled it to grow faster and made the fruits themselves more wholesome.  It also taught the Israelites to bridle their appetites and to be patient. 

           

20

 

vs. 7-8 “be holy”

            This phrase keeps repeating itself throughout this book and seems to be the key in what God was trying to do with all the laws He set out.  Although God wanted the Israelites to be different (vs. 22-24), as we all know this did not last and they fell into the trap of following the nations rituals and beliefs that were around them.  Matthew 5:48 states that they were to be a people set apart for God.  It is He who sanctifies.

 

23

 

v. 16 “Pentecost”

            Pentecost got its name from this festival as Pentecost is translated ‘fifty days’ and is also called the feast of the harvest, the solemnizing of their completion of the corn harvest.  Note that the Passover represents the death of Christ; the Sheaf of the First fruits the resurrection and Pentecost the giving of the Spirit.  The Death and resurrection had to be accomplished before the church could be formed.

 

24

 

vs. 10-23 “eye for an eye”

            Jesus in Matthew 5:38 comments on this passage in that there were those who were using this law to take out personal vengeance and a spirit of retaliation. This passage was designed to limit punishment and ensure that everyone whether Israelite or foreigner, rich or poor, young or old received the same punishment.  We are now under the grace of the gospel whereby we forgive as we are forgiven.

 

25

 

vs. 3-6 “the crop cycle”

            Here we see God using a law honoring Him also carrying practical use.  Letting the field lie fallow on the 7^th year was attributed to the industrial revolution but here we see God implementing an agricultural technique as a law.

 

vs. 10-13 “the year of Jubilee”

            This law was designed to ensure that land property remained in the respective clans thus stopping one family or individual from outstripping everyone else of their inheritance.  The land belongs to the Lord as opposed to the individual and so reverts to the family appointed by Him as their inheritance.  In a way, therefore, the land was leased according to the years left before the Jubilee. 

(It would make economical sense, therefore, to buy fields with one or two years left as God promises threefold gain vs. 20-22)

 

27

 

vs. 1-33 “dedication”

            If something or someone was vowed to God, it was given for use by the Levites.  This could either be people (who were valued according to their age – Samuel for example), animals or land and housing.