The Pulpit Commentary — Leviticus — Section 200

minister of God under the New Testament, many others when he says that, by eating see 1 Tim. iii. 2, 8; v. 23. The spiritual the flesh of the offering, the priests •• in a emotion, which, in the service of God, shows deep mystery neutralized, through the holi- itself in pouring out the feelings in "psalms ness vested in them by their consecration, and hymns and spiritual songs," is con- the sin which the offerer had laid upon the trasted, in Eph. v. 18, 19, with the physical victim and upon them " (' Principles of excitement caused by wine, the former being Divine Service,' pt. ii.). Oehler, on the commended and the latter forbidden. other hand (Herzog's ' Cyclop.,' x.), main- Ver. 11.-The.t ye may teaoh the ohildren tains that the priests did no more by this of Israel This shows tho.t one part of the act than declare the removal of the sin priest's office was teaching the Law (cf. already taken away; with which accords Deut. uiv. 8; Mai. ii. 7). Philo's explanation (' De Viet.,' 13, quoted Vers. 12-20.-Moses takes care that the by Edersheim, • Temple Service,' eh. vi.) remaining part of the ritual of the day that the object of the sacrificial meal shall be carried out in spite of the terrible WBS to carry assnmnce of acceptance interruption that has occurred. Under his to the offerer, " since God would neTe:r instructions, Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamsr have allowed his servants to partake of eat the remainder of the meat offering (eh. it had there not been a complete removal ix. 17), in the court of the tabernacle, and and forgetting of the sin atoned for." reserve the wave breast and heave shoulder Neither of these explanations seems to to eat in a olean plaoe, that is, not neces- be altogether satisfactory. The former at- sarily within the court; but he finds that the tributes more meaning to tlle expression ·c sin offerings eh. ix. 15), which ought to be bear the iniquity than it appears to have eaten by the priests, had been burnt. The elsewhere; e.g. Exod. xxviii. 38 and Numb. rule we.s that, when the blood WBS presented xviii. 1, where Ao.ron is said to bear the ini- in the tabernacle, the flesh we.s burned ; quity of the holy thing, and of the eanctuary ; when it we.s not, the flesh was eaten by the and Ezek. iv. 4---6, where the prophet priests. In the present case, the blood had is said to bear the iniquity of lsre.el and not been brought within the holy place, and Judah. The latter interpretation appeo.rs yet the flesh had been burned instead of too much to evacuate the meaning of the being eaten. Moses W'&I angry with Eleuar words. It is quite certain that the part and Ithama.r, and demanded an explanation. of the oeremony by which the atonement Aaron's plea of defence we.s twofold. 1. His was wrought (if it was wrought by any aons had fulfilled aright the ritual of their one po.rt) wns the offering of the blood own sin offering and burnt offering, that for the covering of the offerer's sins, but is, the offerings made for the priests, and it yet this action of the priests in eating the had been rather his duty than theirs to see flesh of the victim was in some way also that the ritual of the sin offering of the connected with the atonement, not only with congregation had been properly carried out. the assurance of its having been wrouiht; 2. The stnte of distress in which he wBS, but in what way this was effected we are and the near esoope that he had had from not told, and cannot pronounce. The words oeremonial defilement, and the sense of bear the iniquity a.re equivalent to making ein brought home to him by his children's atonement for by taking the sin in some death, had made him unfit and unable to sense upon themselves (cf. Isa. lili. I 1, "He est the sin offering of the people, e.s he shall bear their iniquities," and John i. 29, should have done under other circumsto.nces. "Behold the Lamb of God, that ta.keth away With this plea Moses wu content. It was [or benreth] the sin of tho world"). Accord- true that the letter of the Law had been ingly, Bishop Patrick comments: "The very broken, but there we.s a sufficient cause for ea.ting of the people's ain offering argued it (see Hos. vi 6; Mo.tt. xii. 7). It appeo.rs the sins of the people were, in ,oms ,ort, from hence that the expiation wrought by laid upon the priests, to be taken away by the sin offering we.s not complete until the them. From whence the sacrifice of Christ whole ceremony we.a accomplished, the lo.at may be explained, who is said to bear our act of which was the eating of the flesh by iniquity (as the priest is here snid to do), all the priests in one class of sin offering, our sins being laid on him, who took upon and the burning the flesh outside the ce.mp him to make an expio.tion for them by the in the other. It he.s been questioned, what sacrifice of himself. For the priest, hereby is the full meaning of the expression, eating of the sin offering, receiving the God hath given it you-the filll!h of the sin guilt upon himself, may well be thought to offering-to bear the iniquity of the oon- prefigure One who should be both Priest and gregation, to me.ke atonement for them Sacrifice for sin; which was BCCOmplished before the Lord. Archdeacon Freeman ex. in Christ" (on Lev. x. 17), preBSes the view of A Lapide, Keil, nnd LEVITICUS, II 162 THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. [oH. L 8-20.