The Proper Handling of Blood Sacrifices for Atonement

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 17:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to Aaron, to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘This is the thing which the LORD has commanded, saying:'"

In the last chapter and post, the Lord gave Moses instructions for the day of atonement that Moses passed on to Aaron.  The Lord now continued telling Moses what to tell Aaron, his sons, and all the children of Israel.

(3) "'Whatever man of the house of Israel who kills an ox or lamb or goat in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp, (4) And does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.'"

"Whatever" man, whether high or low, rich or poor, young or old, any man who killed an ox or lamb or goat either inside or outside the camp, indicating anywhere, and did not bring it to the door of the tabernacle to offer an offering to the Lord, the scripture appears to say that that person would be guilty of bloodshed or murder.  That person had shed blood and was to be cut off from his people.  There's a lot packed into that sentence, and some discrepancy among scholars as to what it exactly means.  If taken at face value, scripture says that if anyone (of the house of Israel) killed an ox, lamb, or goat (specifically just those?) anywhere, and did not bring it....  Perhaps it was just these domesticated animals that the people were bringing with them and preserving and enlarging their herds while they were in the wilderness that were never to be killed except as an offering to the Lord.  A later scripture in Numbers spoken by Moses when the people murmured about having to eat manna all the time seems to suggest that indeed the people were to keep and enlarge their herds and not eat them:  "Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them?" (Numbers 11:22a).  The people would have received meat sparingly from the flesh of their peace offerings that was returned back to them after the blood and fat were offered to God upon the altar.  But to kill one of these animals and not offer it to the Lord at the tabernacle was considered an act of lawless bloodshed and that person was to be cut off from his people, either by excommunication or perhaps even death.  Perhaps this was because at this time in the wilderness the shed blood of a beast was to be seen as symbolic of the shed blood of Christ and was precious and sacred to God.  Later in Deuteronomy when they were entering the holy land, it appears that the Lord removed this restriction and they were allowed to kill and eat of their herds and of the roebuck and the hart (deer), but they were still not allowed to eat the blood for that was considered the life (Deut. 12:20-24).

(5) "'To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to the priest, and offer them as peace offerings to the LORD.'"

I believe what is meant is that the people used to offer their sacrifices in the open field before the tabernacle was built, but now were required to bring them to the door of the tabernacle to the priest.

(6) "'And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet aroma to the LORD.'"

Now the sacrifices must be brought to the door of the tabernacle where the priest would sprinkle the blood on the altar and burn the fat to the Lord which was pleasing to Him and thus reconciled the people to Him.

(7) "'And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to devils after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.'"

The people of Israel were no longer to offer sacrifices to devils.  Perhaps some of that happened when they sacrificed in the open fields.  The original word that is translated as "devils" was "saiyr" and literally meant "shaggy goat" or "satyr" which represented either the object of pagan worship, like goats that were worshiped in Egypt, where the people may have picked up some of the practices, or it may have referred to the demon gods themselves, like Pan and the goat of Mendes.  The people had "gone a whoring" after these devils which was a phrase that meant practicing idolatry in that they committed adultery by also worshiping idols instead of only their one true God.  In some cases it had a literal meaning in that public prostitution was a big part of pagan worship.  This was to be a statute forever, which must refer only to the part of the scripture above that referred to no more sacrifices to devils, as the prohibition against killing animals anywhere and not bringing them to the door of the tabernacle, was later lifted.  However, there also seems to be a statute forever regarding eating the blood or life of an animal, so that could also be meant.

This law against the slaughter of animals except to the Lord may have been made to discourage the practices of idolatry, but as Albert Barnes wrote in his Notes on the Bible, it also "bore witness to the sanctity of life: it served to remind the people of the solemnity of the grant of the lives of all inferior creatures made to Noah (Gen. 9:2-3); it purged and directed toward Yahweh the feelings in respect to animal food which seem to be common to man’s nature; and it connected a habit of thanksgiving with the maintenance of our human life by means of daily food (1 Tim. 4:3-5). Having acknowledged that the animal belonged to Yahweh the devout Hebrew received back its flesh as Yahweh’s gift."

(8) "And you shall say to them, 'Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, (9) And does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from among his people.'"

Furthermore, Moses was to say to Aaron, his sons, and all the children of Israel (v. 2 above) that any man of the house of Israel, as well as any stranger who dwelt among Israel, who offered a burnt offering or sacrifice and did not bring it to the door of the tabernacle was to be cut off from the people.

(10) "‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any manner of blood, I will even set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.'"

Any man of the house of Israel, as well as the strangers that dwelt among the Israelites...  These strangers must be understood to be those who lived among the children of Israel and ones who embraced and submitted to the Jewish religion, for later scriptures speak of giving meat that cannot be eaten by a child of Israel to the strangers in the gate (Deut. 14:21), differentiating the stranger in the gate from the one who dwelt among them.  The children of Israel and all who dwelt among them were not to eat any manner of blood.  The Lord went as far as to say He would set His face against the person who ate blood; He would be as an enemy to such a person and would cut him off from among his people, which in this case surely meant death when the Lord's face was against him.

(11) "‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’"

The reason for the Lord's prohibition against eating blood was that life of the flesh was in its blood.  It was a gift from a merciful God that that blood would make atonement for their souls when offered on the altar.  It was symbolic of THE blood that made atonement for the soul, specifically the blood of Jesus Christ.

(12) “Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’"

Having given the reason for the prohibition against eating blood, the Lord again reiterated His command that no one among the Israelites, including the stranger that dwelt among the Israelites, was to eat any manner of blood.

(13) "'And whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall even pour out its blood and cover it with dust.'"

Furthermore, any person or stranger among the children of Israel, who hunted and caught an animal or bird that was lawful to be eaten, even that animal's blood was to be poured out and then covered with dust, that it might not be eaten by another person or beast that might not have the same regard for blood.

(14) "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’"

Continuing His directions for how to handle the blood of an animal or bird that was hunted and caught, the Lord again reiterated the reason was because the blood was the life of all flesh, and again stated that whoever ate the blood of an animal would be cut off.

(15) “And every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts, whether he is one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean."

Every person among the children of Israel, including the stranger that dwelt among them, who ate of an animal that had died naturally or had been torn by beasts (but not killed by the person himself), must wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and would be considered unclean until the evening.  I imagine the reasoning was that it could not be guaranteed that the animal's blood was not still within it.  Note that killing an animal and knowingly eating its blood carried a much heavier penalty than eating found animal flesh that probably did have its blood still in it.  The person who did the latter was still considered unclean, but once he washed himself and his clothes and waited until evening, he would once again be considered clean.

(16) “But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his iniquity.”

However, if the person who ate the flesh of an animal that had died naturally or had been killed by a wild animal, did not afterward wash himself and his clothes, then his guilt remained with him and he would have to suffer the punishment of it, either by the hand of God or by the people's law.

After the law regarding atonement that was given in the last chapter and post, you might say that this chapter dealt with prohibitions or qualifications for the proper handling of the objects of that atonement. All sacrifices had to be brought to the door of the tabernacle and there must be no sacrificing to devils, and no blood must be eaten.  Failure to adhere to these provisions brought the penalty of being cut off from their people, which in some cases surely meant death.  Once again it should be noted that these sacrifices for atonement were symbolic of the one true atoning sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ.  Therefore God would have His people have reverence and respect for the life-giving blood of animals that was given by Him for atonement for their sins.