The laws enumerated in Leviticus were all
given by the Lord from Mount Sinai. This
is plainly stated four times. At the end
of chapter vii., where the five great offerings are detailed,
we read:--
“This is the law of the burnt offering, of
the meat offering, of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of
the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offering; which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount
Sinai, in the day that He commanded the children of Israel to offer their
oblations unto the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai” (Lev. vii. 37, 38).
Again at the beginning of chapters xxv. and end of
xxvii. we read:--
“And the Lord spake unto Moses in Mount
Sinai.”
“These are the commandments, which the
Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai.”
Throughout the book there are indications
that Israel are living in camp. Both the
incidents that break into the narrative, namely, that of Nadab, and that of the
blasphemer (chapters x. & xxiv.), speak of the camp, and their very
introduction indicates that the actual giving of the law was in progress.
The time occupied in the giving of the law
in Leviticus is just one month. This is
discovered by referring to the following:--
“And it came to pass in the first month in
the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared
up” (Exod. xi. 17).
“And the Lord spake unto Moses in the
wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of
the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of
Egypt” (Numb. i. 1).
Under the shadow of the law and its
threatenings, therefore, was given this gracious typical provision for
sin. The laws of Leviticus come with the
same divine authority as the ten commandments of Exodus xx.
The book of Leviticus contains
more of the spoken words of God than any other, and while we do not intend by
this statement to imply that it is more inspired than the rest of Scripture,
nevertheless, the fact should give pause to any waverer who listens to the
critic who relegates the whole to later times, and speaks of it as a pious
forgery. Leviticus, moreover, is quoted
in forty places in the N.T. and these quotations are not confined to one
section, but are found in the four Gospels, the Acts,
Hebrews, Peter, James,
Jude, Revelation, I & II Corinthians, Galatians,
Romans, Ephesians and
Colossians.
The fundamental basis of the book is holiness,
and it is no exaggeration to say that holiness is implied in every law, every
ordinance and every offering. Qadosh,
“holy”, and its variants occur over one hundred times, variously
translated, “holy”, “hallow”,
“sanctify”, and “sanctuary”.
Closely allied with this holiness are the various laws and ceremonies
that deal with uncleanness and purification.
Redemption from sin is not in view in these. The great central offering for sin is seen in
the institution of the day of atonement.
Uncleanness.
As one patiently seeks out the varied laws
that deal with uncleanness in Leviticus, and as the scriptural emphasis upon
the many and varied causes of contamination begin to be translated by the
Spirit into their spiritual equivalents, one feels like Isaiah who, in the
presence of the Lord, cried, “Woe is me, for i am undone, because i am a man of
unclean lips”, and more than ever are we thankful for that precious blood “that
cleanseth us from all sin”. In this book
we discover that even the natural workings of the body may nevertheless be
unclean, and we learn that, irrespective of any fault of our own, there are
many outside sources of defilement that may render us unclean. There is one case, where the near relation of
the dead is definitely permitted to make himself unclean out of love and
devotion, but, though permitted, this uncleanness is nevertheless not allowed
to pass; it must be removed, as must all
other (See Lev. xxi. 1-4).
In Leviticus, cleanness is used as a
synonym for holiness, and to know this is a valuable help in the understanding
of the will of God concerning our sanctification:--
“Put difference between holy and unholy,
and between unclean and clean” (Lev. x. 10).
In
Leviticus xi. we have the law
regulating the matter of clean and unclean beasts that might or might not be
eaten by an Israelite:--
“These are the beasts which ye shall eat
among all the beasts that are on the earth . . . . . and in the waters.”
A long list is given of prohibited beast,
fish, fowl and creeping thing, and then come the concluding words:--
“Ye shall not make yourselves abominable
with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean
with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
For I am the Lord your God; ye
shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any
manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of
the land of Egypt to be your God: ye
shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. xi. 43-45).
Profaneness.
Another opposite to holiness, in
Leviticus, is profanity.
“They shall be holy unto their God, and
not profane the name of their God” (Lev. xxi. 6, 7).
“He shall not go in unto the vail, nor
come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that
he profane not
My sanctuaries: for I the
Lord do sanctify
them” (Lev. xxi. 23).
“If a man eat of the holy thing
unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereto . . . . . they shall not
profane the holy thing” (Lev. xxii. 14, 15).
“Neither shall ye profane My holy
name; but I will be hallowed among the
children of Israel; I am the Lord which
allow you” (Lev. xxii. 32).
The word translated “profane” is chalal,
and means “to penetrate”, and so, in its more intensive forms, it means
ruthlessly to violate all sacred bounds, brazenly to enter holy ground. The adjective chol is rendered
“unholy” in Lev.x.10, where it is placed in contrast with “holy”
and “clean”:--
“That ye may put a difference between holy
and unholy: and between unclean and
clean.”
The idea of being “common” in opposition
to “sacred” can be seen in Ezek.xlviii.12-15, where chol is translated
“profane”:--
“This oblation of the land . . . . . a
thing most holy . . . . . and the five thousand that are left in the breadth .
. . . . shall be a profane place for the city.”
That this “profane” place simply means,
the place for the common people is seen by the concluding words of the verse,
“for dwelling, and for suburbs”.
Blemish.
Not only are uncleanness and profaneness
placed in contrast with holiness, but, in the setting aside from holy service
all that are physically blemished, another aspect is typified.
“Speak unto Aaron, saying, whoever he be
of thy seed in their generation that hath any blemish, let him not approach to
offer the bread of his God . . . . . he hath a blemish; that he profane not My sanctuaries” (Lev.
xxi. 17-23).
What is true of the priest is also true of
the offering:--
“Whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye
not offer; for it shall not be acceptable
for you . . . . . it shall be perfect to be accepted: there shall be no blemish therein” (Lev.
xxii. 18-25).
How these types force us to the blessed
realization of the fulness of the Lord Jesus Christ! Both as Offering and High Priest He was “without
blemish and without spot”, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners”,
and can we not see in Eph. i. 4-6 the close connection between holiness, and
acceptance in the Perfect One?
“That we should be holy and
without blame . . . . . accepted in the Beloved.”
Holiness
and sin.
The removal of defilement in order to
attain to holiness is set forth in a great variety of ways in Leviticus. We have rinsing in water, washing in water,
sprinkling with blood, anointing with oil, and the making of atonement, in
order to cleanse. Some of these
different processes we must consider, but the only aspect we propose to notice
before closing this article is a special word translated “cleanse” which shows
the intimate connection between unholiness and sin:--
“And he shall take to
cleanse the house . . . . .” (Lev. xiv. 49).
“And he shall cleanse the
house with the blood of the bird . . . . .” (Lev.xiv.52).
“And Moses took the blood .
. . . . and purified the altar” (Lev. viii. 15).
These words “cleanse” and “purify” are the
piel form of the verb chata, “to sin”, and there can be no true
holiness that is not intimately connected with the sacrifice of Christ. True, we read of the sanctification of the Spirit,
and the sanctifying by the Word, but this is subsequent to, and based
upon, the sanctification which is by His blood. This we shall see more clearly in the passage
we hope to consider in our next article.
Thou
shalt put a
difference.
When Israel were redeemed out of Egypt, we
read that the Lord “put a difference” between Israel and the Egyptians (Exod.
xi. 7), and where, in Exod.viii.23, we read, “I will put a division
between My people and thy people”, the margin reads, “(Heb.) a
redemption”, for “a division”. What,
therefore, is holiness or sanctification but redemption carried to its logical
conclusion? The teaching of Leviticus is
expressed in the words of Lev. x. 10:--
“And that ye may put a difference between
holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.”
This putting a difference between
righteousness and unrighteousness, between light and darkness, Christ and
Belial, believer and infidel, is summed up in
II Cor. vii. 1, as “perfecting
holiness in the fear of God”, and separation from evil unto God, perceiving,
and acting out the difference that grace has made, is the essence of true
sanctification. While the law made
nothing perfect, and Levitical cleansings and offerings failed to touch the
conscience, they foreshadowed the great work of Christ, “the very image”, and
are a preservative against that emotional and fleshly “holiness” that passes,
with some, for the real thing. “True
holiness” is ours in Christ (Eph. iv. 24).
No comments:
Post a Comment